boise

[Purple Geezer]

The best thing about Boise State coming into the MWC is that it will leave TCU with only 3 non-conference games, and one of those will always be SMU. Thus, only 2, which means we won't be fooling around with any more Texas States or Tennessee Techs starting in 2011.

One hopes the league's schedule brains will be smart enough NOT to send Boise here in 2011---when our stadium will be under renovation and capable of seating only 17 people---outside of the six rich-guy suites.

 

[Trelvis]

You would think, but as someone else on here pointed out I think, GP really likes playing the Texas States of the world so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they continued doing that even though everyone else hates it.

I think its risky though. If the conference and SMU are down in the same year, you would need some other solid teams on the schedule to make up for it and Texas State isnt going to do that.

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(Purple Geezer @ Jun 3 2010, 10:27 AM) [snapback]567672[/snapback]
The best thing about Boise State coming into the MWC is that it will leave TCU with only 3 non-conference games, and one of those will always be SMU. Thus, only 2, which means we won't be fooling around with any more Texas States or Tennessee Techs starting in 2011.

One hopes the league's schedule brains will be smart enough NOT to send Boise here in 2011---when our stadium will be under renovation and capable of seating only 17 people---outside of the six rich-guy suites.



I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. it's not a given that they'll go to a 9 game conference schedule. And I'd bet you that there would continue to be one body bag game a year on the schedule regardless.



And with Boise, Utah, AND BYU on the list, SOMEBODY'S going to be coming here in 2011.

 

[713frog]

is the welcome mat blue?

 

[Trelvis]

QUOTE(The Main @ Jun 3 2010, 03:37 PM) [snapback]567685[/snapback]
is the welcome mat blue?

 

[713frog]

QUOTE(Trelvis @ Jun 3 2010, 10:52 AM) [snapback]567700[/snapback]

of course!

 

[halfwaytoheaven]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 3 2010, 10:35 AM) [snapback]567682[/snapback]
I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself. it's not a given that they'll go to a 9 game conference schedule. And I'd bet you that there would continue to be one body bag game a year on the schedule regardless.
And with Boise, Utah, AND BYU on the list, SOMEBODY'S going to be coming here in 2011.


I imagine Air Force at least wouldn't be in favor of that. Between nine conference games and the two service academy games, that would only leave them with one open spot every year. Plus, more conference games could make it harder to get as many teams into bowls - with 10 teams, we would want at least five going every year, hopefully six or seven. And then there's the issue of the unbalanced schedule - nobody likes that.

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(halfwaytoheaven @ Jun 3 2010, 11:07 AM) [snapback]567715[/snapback]
I imagine Air Force at least wouldn't be in favor of that. Between nine conference games and the two service academy games, that would only leave them with one open spot every year. Plus, more conference games could make it harder to get as many teams into bowls - with 10 teams, we would want at least five going every year, hopefully six or seven. And then there's the issue of the unbalanced schedule - nobody likes that.



The scheduling is the one legitimate fly in the ointment with inviting Boise. There is no perfect solution - if it goes to nine, half the teams each year are going to have 5 road games. Stay at 8, and every year somebody's going to be POd that they didn't get to play [fill in the blank]. But if the Pac 10, Big 10 and SEC were able to deal with it all those years, I think the MWC will be able to, as well.

 

[halfwaytoheaven]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 3 2010, 11:11 AM) [snapback]567718[/snapback]
The scheduling is the one legitimate fly in the ointment with inviting Boise. There is no perfect solution - if it goes to nine, half the teams each year are going to have 5 road games. Stay at 8, and every year somebody's going to be POd that they didn't get to play [fill in the blank]. But if the Pac 10, Big 10 and SEC were able to deal with it all those years, I think the MWC will be able to, as well.


If you give everyone a protected rivalry or two, I don't think they'll mind. Boise's a big enough draw that it wouldn't hurt most schools to have them come to town instead of BYU/Utah/TCU. Fans will show up to see the Broncos play.

As for the effect on the standings, sticking with eight games gives you a shot at having two teams go undefeated in conference, which isn't a bad thing, particularly when it comes to bowl selection.

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

Really think we'll stay at 8 conference games. First, it allows more nonconference games for teams like Air Force and TCU that want flexibility for the nonconference schedule. Second, and perhaps more importnatly, is it provides even home and home scheduling. Unbalanced schedules is a big advantage in the conference race. Finally, if the 10 teams for a championship game goes through, there is no way any two teams go through the year undefeated.

I agree with RSF- I think we see the Texas States on the schedule even if there is only 3 nonconference games, at least some years.

 

[713frog]

maybe we can trade with the WAC? we'll get boise and we can hand them sdsu + cash considerations? :blink:

 

[ms19]

I hope we play everyone every year. Here is what the 2011 and 2012 schedules "could" look something like:

2011
vs SMU
@baylor
vs Texas Tech
@wyoming
vs Colorado State
@byu
vs UNLV
@afa
vs Utah
@sdsu
vs New Mexico
@boise state

@smu
vs Virginia
vs OU
vs Wyoming
@csu
vs BYU
@unlv
vs AFA
@utah
vs SDSU
@NM
vs Boise State

Hard to not like this!

 

[YA]

QUOTE(The Main @ Jun 3 2010, 11:26 AM) [snapback]567729[/snapback]
maybe we can trade with the WAC? we'll get boise and we can hand them sdsu + cash considerations? :blink:

That new coach of theirs will get them off the mat. Same with the UNLV coach. Both are proven winners and it will be better for SDSU this year and UNLV by next year.

On UNM, I am not sold on that coach and his ability.

 

[713frog]

QUOTE(YA @ Jun 3 2010, 11:43 AM) [snapback]567734[/snapback]
On UNM, I am not sold on that coach and his ability.



i'm sold on his ability to kick some ( I'm an uneducated idiot that uses profanity)

 

[West Coast Johnny]

QUOTE(Purple Geezer @ Jun 3 2010, 08:27 AM) [snapback]567672[/snapback]
The best thing about Boise State coming into the MWC is that it will leave TCU with only 3 non-conference games, and one of those will always be SMU. Thus, only 2, which means we won't be fooling around with any more Texas States or Tennessee Techs starting in 2011.

One hopes the league's schedule brains will be smart enough NOT to send Boise here in 2011---when our stadium will be under renovation and capable of seating only 17 people---outside of the six rich-guy suites.


Losing a non-conference game is a bad thing, not a good. I hope the league stays with a 8 game schedule.

 

[desmith03]

QUOTE(halfwaytoheaven @ Jun 3 2010, 11:25 AM) [snapback]567726[/snapback]
If you give everyone a protected rivalry or two, I don't think they'll mind. Boise's a big enough draw that it wouldn't hurt most schools to have them come to town instead of BYU/Utah/TCU. Fans will show up to see the Broncos play.

As for the effect on the standings, sticking with eight games gives you a shot at having two teams go undefeated in conference, which isn't a bad thing, particularly when it comes to bowl selection.



But then how would you decide who gets the auto-bid? h34r:

 

[general125]

Would it be such a bad thing to drop the SMU series or not renew the agreement when it runs out?

I understand the hate, I feel the hate, but SMU is still irrelevant.

 

[drmac1000]

QUOTE(Trelvis @ Jun 3 2010, 10:33 AM) [snapback]567681[/snapback]
You would think, but as someone else on here pointed out I think, GP really likes playing the Texas States of the world so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they continued doing that even though everyone else hates it.

I think its risky though. If the conference and SMU are down in the same year, you would need some other solid teams on the schedule to make up for it and Texas State isnt going to do that.


Always thought the AD handled the scheduling,not the HC?I'm sure the AD gets the HC input/opinion regarding scheduling,but isn't the final decision up to Del Conte and not Patterson regarding future scheduling?I am in the group that would love to get rid of the "one softball" game each year.

 

[Trelvis]

QUOTE(Purple1983 @ Jun 3 2010, 09:15 PM) [snapback]567946[/snapback]
Always thought the AD handled the scheduling,not the HC?I'm sure the AD gets the HC input/opinion regarding scheduling,but isn't the final decision up to Del Conte and not Patterson regarding future scheduling?I am in the group that would love to get rid of the "one softball" game each year.



I was always under the impression that it was GP's ideas to play Texas State, Tennessee Tech, and Devry because he wanted and easy game...

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

QUOTE(Trelvis @ Jun 3 2010, 04:21 PM) [snapback]567955[/snapback]
I was always under the impression that it was GP's ideas to play Texas State, Tennessee Tech, and Devry because he wanted and easy game...

The games are definitely GP driven. He likes a chance to rest/ develop depth in the nonconference season. Heck, he was leaning toward two in 2009 before the Clemson thing worked out.

One of the things he's earned is controlling the schedule. Obviously the Asst AD does the negotiating, deals, but we don't schedule anything without his approval. Anyone with a problem with the FCS games needs to talk to GP.