MWC Expansion
by utesfan100 on Oct 22, 2008 2:55 PM MDT
Email
PrintWith utefans.net sporting recent threads discussing the merits of Tulsa joining the MWC, combined with Thompson showing a thaw on the MWC cold sholder to the topic (The radio broadcast is confirmed here), one is left wondering if an announcement may be pending the end of the year.
The standard line has been that expansion only makes sense if it brings more bowls or a BCS Automatic Qualifications. The MWC already has an agreement with Boise State's bowl and Fresno State and Tulsa do not bring bowl games of their own. Hawaii is the only other team with BCS credentials.
Does adding any one of these teams get us a BCS automatic qualification? The BCS reevaluates is automatic qualifications every year based on the previous 4 years. It uses number of top 25 teams each year, the highest ranked team each year, and some measure of the conferences as a whole using the 6 BCS computers. This is written up here, the first site to suggest Tulsa three weeks ago.
I think Boise State is ready to join next year. Fresno State and Tulsa could be ready by 2010. The BCS waits a year befor teams numbers count for the new conference. 4 top 25 teams this year, one in the top 15, maybe top 6, would put the MWC numbers in a good spot for BCS Automatic Qualification discussions for 2011 and 2012, 2010 if Tulsa and Fresno State can come on board next year.
Consider this division lineup:
MWC West:
MWC East:
This conference could maintain an average of 3 top 25 teams each year and one in the top 15. It would also be much more resilient to PAC 10 expansion than the current alignment, as Hawaii and Nevada make good alternates for any MWC West teams that choose to defect.
I see no reason not to expand.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like the idea of expansion
I’m not sold on Tulsa though. They have been good the last three years, but they do not have a long winning tradition. Also, they have a tiny student body – wikipedia lists it at 4,165. I’m not sure they have a solid foundation to compete year in and year out.
The divisions as you have them would be a bit unbalanced. TCU would dominate the East division. Meanwhile BSU, BYU, and Utah would bruise each other in the West division.
Hopefully though, the MWC can find a way to become a BCS conference.
Maybe
North/South?
Not sure how else you’d do it.
I’d try to figure it out, but I have to go right now.
Maybe later.
The PAC 10 will expand.
They will take 2 of Hawaii, BYU, Utah, Boise State, Fresno State.
Say the MWC loses BYU and Utah. right now they would be in a world of hurt, with the WAC even looking stronger and able to take TCU and the other top teams. By expanding now they would be the definitive leader, even with those loses.
If BYU and Utah are replaced with Hawaii and Nevada the divisions would be balanced better.
North/South
it’d end up…
North: Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, Utah, Boise State, BYU
South: TCU, New Mexico, Tulsa, UNLV, San Diego State, Fresno State
Utah, BYU & Boise State (and Air Force) on one side; TCU, Tulsa & Fresno State on the other.
Expansion
MWC is fine the way it is, maybe Boise State or Fresno. The MWC needs to conitune to establish itself as a premiere division and get an automatic BCS bid before they think about growing. They are much more competitive this year than the Big East or ACC.
Remember the MWC grew out of the old WAC when the top teams left because the WAC had to many teams and the bigger schools were getting lost in the mix and records diluted. Recall the Holiday Bowls and the domination of BYU back in the day.
After the Southwest Conference folded when Texas, Texas AM , Tech Tech and Baylor defected to the Big 12 (Big 8 before they arrived), TCU was left looking for a conference along with SMU, Houston, Rice. First stop Conf USA, but the they were raided and Louisville and Cincinnati left for the Big East just when the Conf USA was getting good. TCU left to join the more competitive WAC but then BYU and all the big schools left to form the MWC. It was only after TCU was one of the top WAC teams that the MWC invited them in.
As a TCU fan I hope they MWC is home for a while and that with enough exposure by BYU, Utah and TCU in the top 25 rankings the MWC will get the automatic bid they deserve. Once that happens the football will only get better because then the MWC will be able to better compete for top athletes since the schools will have a legitimate chance to play for a national championship and not have to get screwed by the pools and computer rankings.
3 good teams is not going to cut it.
We need to have three team in the top 13 consistently. This means having teams that can step up when one of the three leaders are down. Adding Boise State, Fresno State and Tulsa would do this.
We are not creating a 16 team monstrosity, but a 12 team arrangement that is used by more conferences than any other model. Displacedute’s model below is used by both the SEC and ACC (though not the Big 10). It also allows us to take Nevada instead of Tulsa.
TCU needs a travel partner to restore symmetry to basketball scheduling. Tulsa, Houston, UTEP and SMU are great options for that. Tulsa has out performed all of those options over the last 5 years, and certainly this year.
The MWC needs to expand sooner rather than later. Boise State this year and Fresno State and Tulsa/Nevada the year after is a good time line for me.
12-team conference
I am not sold on the Tulsa idea either, but it’s doable. Maybe Houston or another texas school.
And you don’t do the split north/south or east/west. You do something like the ACC, where it’s not geographical. You could call them “north/south” but if the additions are Fresno/Boise and a Texas team or Tulsa then the split should look like this:
Division 1:
One of the Utah teams
CSU
TCU
UNLV
Wyoming
Fresno
Division 2:
The other Utah team
Air Force
The new texas team or Tulsa
Boise
New Mexico
SDSU
That leaves two good teams (Utah/BYU and TCU/Boise) in both divisions, plus a couple of contenders (CSU, AF, UNM, Fresno) on both sides, while giving both sides a california game (SDSU or Fresno) and a texas-area game (TCU or Tulsa/Texas school).
And I can hear the objection now: “What about the rivalries?” That is handled like in the Big 10. Everyone gets one dedicated rival from the other division, that you play every year. Then you play 5 in-division games and 2-out-of-division games.
I would make the rivalries as follows:
Utah/BYU
CSU/AF
UNLV/SDSU
Fresno/Boise
TCU/New texas school/Tulsa
Wyoming/New Mexico
Okay, so wyoming and new mexico get screwed, but everyone else is set. And if you put Wyoming in the same division as CSU then they’ll get to play their real rivalry every year anyway.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
The Big West
Id’ rather just have one pretty good conference called the Big West with:
Utah
Boise State
BYU
TCU
Fresno State
Air Force
New Mexico
UNLV
than we could face the Big East in out of conference games
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Urban Meyer
"Wow. Wow. Wow."
- Daryl Johnston after Utah took a 21-0 lead on Alabama in the 2009 Sugar Bowl
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
