USA Today: Boise State could get invitation to join the Mountain West next month

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(TCU2002 @ May 18 2010, 10:22 AM) [snapback]561054[/snapback]
Stupid reason.

We were within 1 second and a missed FG of <likely> playing in the national championship game in 2009 without Boise in the MWC.

Why add them for anything less than a guaranteed auto-bid. So we can "sack up" and have to wade through a tougher schedule each year (including, let's face it, a probable loss in Boise each year we play them up there)?

That's stupid bravado, not strategic thinking.



No....strategic thinking is understanding that the conference's primary problem right now is depth. Adding another good team helps with that.

 

[TCU2002]

QUOTE(RSF @ May 18 2010, 11:31 AM) [snapback]561066[/snapback]
No....strategic thinking is understanding that the conference's primary problem right now is depth. Adding another good team helps with that.


How did the MWC's depth hurt TCU this year?

If Boise had been an MWC member this year, would it have improved our bowl outcome? We would have jumped UT or Alabama and played in the NC game?

I don't think so.

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(TCU2002 @ May 18 2010, 10:36 AM) [snapback]561073[/snapback]
How did the MWC's depth hurt TCU this year?

If Boise had been an MWC member this year, would it have improved our bowl outcome? We would have jumped UT or Alabama and played in the NC game?

I don't think so.


Well, we're not talking about TCU, and we're not talking about last year, we're talking about the whole conference and we're talking about the future. A deeper conference benefits us all in the long run.

 

[SparkysDad]

QUOTE(TCUTalor @ May 18 2010, 09:15 AM) [snapback]561050[/snapback]
The blue turf is really my only beef with this. I hate it. No visiting teams ever win there, and I hate the thought of my team being penciled in for a loss there every other year.

Smurf turf: -1 point
All other reasons to add BSU: +enough to get an invite


Man, I'm a BSU fan and I wish I had your confidence!

I'm guessing that the Boise State coaches and players won't be pencilling in a "loss every other year" for TCU whether it's on The Blue or not!

 

[talor]

QUOTE(SparkysDad @ May 18 2010, 11:04 AM) [snapback]561096[/snapback]
Man, I'm a BSU fan and I wish I had your confidence!

I'm guessing that the Boise State coaches and players won't be pencilling in a "loss every other year" for TCU whether it's on The Blue or not!


Well all of the visiting players get sick and vomit from the nausea inducing blue on blue action :biggrin:

 

[SparkysDad]

QUOTE(TCUTalor @ May 18 2010, 10:08 AM) [snapback]561100[/snapback]
Well all of the visiting players get sick and vomit from the nausea inducing blue on blue action :biggrin:



IIRC that was a problem on the green turf in Glendale, no? :wink:

 

[talor]

QUOTE(SparkysDad @ May 18 2010, 11:10 AM) [snapback]561104[/snapback]
IIRC that was a problem on the green turf in Glendale, no? :wink:


You are correct. They had been watching too much film!

 

[Houston Frog]

QUOTE(TCU2002 @ May 18 2010, 10:36 AM) [snapback]561073[/snapback]
How did the MWC's depth hurt TCU this year?

If Boise had been an MWC member this year, would it have improved our bowl outcome? We would have jumped UT or Alabama and played in the NC game?

I don't think so.


1.) You can't base your entire decision on one year's results. Just because having Boise in our conference last year might not have helped us get into the national championship game, doesn't mean that we shouldn't add them

2.) Had UT lost to Nebraska, it's very possible that Cincy would have gotten in to the championship game ahead of TCU because they had a stronger strength of schedule than us. Personally, I think we would have eeked in ahead of them, but it would have been close. Had we played and beat Boise last year instead of Virginia or TxSt, we would have definitely gotten the nod over Cincy.

3.) There are all kinds of scenarios where our entrance into the Championship game could depend on our SOS. What if Bama had lost to Auburn and then beat Florida in the SEC Championship Game? With last year's SOS, Bama probably still gets in ahead of TCU, but if we had beaten Boise in addition to Clemson, BYU, and Utah, then we have a much better resume and our chances of getting in over a one-loss SEC team go up dramatically. The same thing can be said in other years about a one-loss Big 10, PAC 10 or Big XII team). I'd prefer to set our conference up so that we don't have to hope we go undefeated in the exact same year that the unthinkable happens and there aren't only two-loss teams from the AQ conferences. If we really are Nat'l Title worthy, we shouldn't worry about having to beat Boise. If we're the best team in the country, four tough games a year shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

[Froglaw]

LET IT BE WRITTEN.

"If Boise State joins the MWC, then the MWC championship in football will mean at least 3 wins over ranked conference opponents. That means a higher ranking at BCS time. Which means a NC is in play any time a MWC school runs the table. With BSU, TCU would not need an autobid to win a third NC in football."

Downside. MWC Champion might have two losses at the end of the season. Conference and a non-conference. Then the autobid does come into play.

 

[halfwaytoheaven]

QUOTE(TCU2002 @ May 18 2010, 09:05 AM) [snapback]561006[/snapback]
7) More teams in MWC = more mouths to feed with conference revenue


To me, this is the most critical issue. Adding a team means we have to split up our TV and bowl revenue another way. Boise is a team that's likely to make some bowl just about every year, so the real question is how they affect our TV deal. Do they help us negotiate a better deal that will make up for the extra split? That's a question I'm not in a position to answer, but if expansion does come up at the conference meeting, I guarantee TV revenue will be the main focus of the discussion.

I don't worry about the BCS auto-bid too much. Even if the conference stays intact and manages to meet all of the criteria, I'm not counting on the BCS to live up to their word - they'll find some way to wiggle out of it. And the BCS formula shouldn't dictate who is in our conference. We'll add, or not add, whomever we want - BCS be damned.

Personally, I want to add Boise to the conference because I want to see TCU play them every year. We already have a pretty good rivalry going in spite of only meeting three times, I look forward to the Frogs ending that ridiculous home conference winning streak they have going, and Boise coming to town will bring the Frog fans out in droves every other year. Sure, they probably won't stay at the level they're at now forever, but who can guarantee they will? And they've made facilities improvements (or planned improvements) that show a real commitment to the program. Most notably, it looks like they're going to build a new track and field facility and get rid of that ridiculous track around their football field - to me, that's more bush league than the blue turf.

 

[McFroggin]

Boise football makes sense to add to the MWC.

I still think we need to push BSU to improve elsewhere when they join the MWC though.

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(McFroggin @ May 18 2010, 12:09 PM) [snapback]561163[/snapback]
I still think we need to push BSU to improve elsewhere when they join the MWC though.


It's a myth that Boise's athletic program is football, and nothing else. Their basketball is in the same state ours is. they don't have baseball, but we don't have softball. And their non-revenue sports are pretty solid, too.

 

[KillerFrog InD KitchenSink]

QUOTE(RSF @ May 18 2010, 12:19 PM) [snapback]561176[/snapback]
It's a myth that Boise's athletic program is football, and nothing else. Their basketball is in the same state ours is. they don't have baseball, but we don't have softball. And their non-revenue sports are pretty solid, too.

Yeah they were 49th in last year's director's cup standings, only behind us and BYU in the non-Aq world.

 

[SparkysDad]

QUOTE(McFroggin @ May 18 2010, 11:09 AM) [snapback]561163[/snapback]
Boise football makes sense to add to the MWC.

I still think we need to push BSU to improve elsewhere when they join the MWC though.



We're workin' on getting better in basketball (finally!) Got rid of our old coach and hired Gonzaga assistant Leon Rice. Not to get too far ahead of myself, but he immediately landed a very solid staff of assistants. BSU couldn't get much worse than the past year in roundball, both record-wise and in attendance!

Baseball with Title IX might be a stretch, but if it were a demand to get the invite, batter up!

 

[HoustonHornedFrog]

QUOTE(Froglaw @ May 18 2010, 11:43 AM) [snapback]561130[/snapback]
LET IT BE WRITTEN.

"If Boise State joins the MWC, then the MWC championship in football will mean at least 3 wins over ranked conference opponents. That means a higher ranking at BCS time. Which means a NC is in play any time a MWC school runs the table. With BSU, TCU would not need an autobid to win a third NC in football."

Downside. MWC Champion might have two losses at the end of the season. Conference and a non-conference. Then the autobid does come into play.


Unfortunatelly, if the MWC goes to a ten team round robin format this would probably not be the case. Look at last year for instance. Utah finished the regular season 9-3 and ranked no. 23 in the BCS rankings. If they had another loss to Boise, they probably would not have been ranked in the final BCS top 25.

Most years the result would likely be the same. While it might increase your chances of having 3 teams in the top 25 because there is room for one of the top teams to have an off year and still have 3 make the top 25, there are likely to be few years when they all 4 make it since it means there will collectively be 3 more losses among the 4 teams.

 

[McFroggin]

QUOTE(RSF @ May 18 2010, 11:19 AM) [snapback]561176[/snapback]
It's a myth that Boise's athletic program is football, and nothing else. Their basketball is in the same state ours is. they don't have baseball, but we don't have softball. And their non-revenue sports are pretty solid, too.



TCU is Top 10 in football and baseball. Our women's b-ball team goes to March Madness yearly. Our women's rifle team is the national champions. I'm probably missing more.

BSU has Top 10 football. What else do they bring?

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(McFroggin @ May 18 2010, 03:01 PM) [snapback]561268[/snapback]
TCU is Top 10 in football and baseball. Our women's b-ball team goes to March Madness yearly. Our women's rifle team is the national champions. I'm probably missing more.

BSU has Top 10 football. What else do they bring?



As Killer said, BSU was 49th in the national Director's Cup standings last year...only BYU and TCU from the MWC finished ahead of them. The previous year they were 3rd behind BYU and TCU as well.

 

[TCUFrogs]

Don't do it.

 

[froginaustin]

QUOTE(Houston Frog @ May 18 2010, 08:31 AM) [snapback]561024[/snapback]
Please explain yourself on the part of your post I put in bold. How will adding a team who has finished at the top of the rankings almost every year move BCS access further out of reach?


I don't believe the system will permit 2 MWC teams in BCS games. Also, adding Boise increases the chances that no one will run the table in the conference, Boise and TCU included.

QUOTE
And how are you saying that Boise won't help us with the published AQ formula?


#3. Boise may change the number, but not enough to put the conference over the edge.
#2. We are there without Boise, assuming that the top 4 don't knock each other out of the rankings.
#1. We are there without Boise, and we can't assume that having Boise in-conference will not result in a change, downward, of everyone's rankings because of more losses-- football is a zero sum game; there will be more losses in a 10-team league than a 9-team league (if we play a round robin).

QUOTE
Have you not read the formula? They will be a huge help in the AQ formula. It is based on three things....

1.) Number of ranked teams to end the season (Boise increases our total by 33%)
2.) Highest ranked BCS team at the end of the year (Boise helps us in this one as well)
3.) Average computer rankings of all of your teams (Boise helps us in this one)

Yes, I read it.

I suppose that it's pointless to argue how it will actually work (i.e., who might understand what s/he has read) because it's vague enough that outsiders have to rely on dumb luck to stumble upon the interpretation of the formula that the big boys will actually use. I'm not optimistic that "they" will interpret these factors in a way that helps the MWC.

 

[froginaustin]

QUOTE(Limey Frog @ May 18 2010, 08:35 AM) [snapback]561025[/snapback]
As I said in a comment yesterday, Boise won't "dilute conference income" but will surely add to it. . . ..


That's a reasonable supposition, but business decisions of this magnitude are not made on supposition (by the prudent). If Boise is invited to become the 10th league member, I will take it on faith that the Deciders have hard numbers that I doubt you have now, and know for a fact and are not guessing that Boise will increase league income.

QUOTE
What are the chances that a 1-loss MWC champion in a league including Boise doesn't finish in the Top 16 on any given year?

Probably about the same that a 1-loss MWC9 champion will finish in the Top 16.