USA Today: Boise State could get invitation to join the Mountain West next month
- Thread starter TopFrog
- Start date
KillerFrog InD KitchenSink
Active Member
QUOTE(froginaustin @ May 18 2010, 03:46 PM) [snapback]561311[/snapback]
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.
It also increases the chance of another "good win" in the eyes of voters and the computers. This could especially be helpful if we are vying for the championship game. I think we're past the point that the MWC champ has to be undefeated to make the BCS, anyway. An 11-1 MWC team in a league with BYU, TCU, Boise and Utah will be set.
QUOTE
#3. Boise may change the number, but not enough to put the conference over the edge.
No, but they are two more years left and the gap between the 6th conference would be half as far to bridge. Even if we don't get there, having another top team enhances our argument when we apply for a waiver.
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.
It also increases the chance of another "good win" in the eyes of voters and the computers. This could especially be helpful if we are vying for the championship game. I think we're past the point that the MWC champ has to be undefeated to make the BCS, anyway. An 11-1 MWC team in a league with BYU, TCU, Boise and Utah will be set.
QUOTE
#3. Boise may change the number, but not enough to put the conference over the edge.
No, but they are two more years left and the gap between the 6th conference would be half as far to bridge. Even if we don't get there, having another top team enhances our argument when we apply for a waiver.
froginaustin
Active Member
It's too bad that we don't know what sort of BCS we will have, out into the reasonably near-term future. If we did, then it would be easier to plan a conference, tailored to qualifying for the top bowls.
But we have no idea what the BCS or the autobid leagues will look like when the TV contracts run their course or conferences reshuffle. So saying Boise will or will not be an advantage as a conference-mate is a guess for anyone that doesn't read tea leaves.
And if TCU or anyone else really wants to play Boise, schedule them OOC. TCU may have trouble getting autobid schools to schedule us, but I don't think Boise would flatly refuse. Then if playing Boise during the regular season turns out to be a disadvantage, they can be left off the schedule easier than they could be disassociated from a conference.
But we have no idea what the BCS or the autobid leagues will look like when the TV contracts run their course or conferences reshuffle. So saying Boise will or will not be an advantage as a conference-mate is a guess for anyone that doesn't read tea leaves.
And if TCU or anyone else really wants to play Boise, schedule them OOC. TCU may have trouble getting autobid schools to schedule us, but I don't think Boise would flatly refuse. Then if playing Boise during the regular season turns out to be a disadvantage, they can be left off the schedule easier than they could be disassociated from a conference.
Houston Frog
New Member
QUOTE(froginaustin @ May 18 2010, 04:57 PM) [snapback]561335[/snapback]
But we have no idea what the BCS or the autobid leagues will look like when the TV contracts run their course or conferences reshuffle. So saying Boise will or will not be an advantage as a conference-mate is a guess for anyone that doesn't read tea leaves.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, so I hope you don't take anything I've been saying today as disrespectful... but I can't think of one potential conference realignment scenario where Boise being in the MWC hurts TCU or the MWC, and I can think of multiple scenarios where it helps us.
After reading peoples' posts all day, I still don't see any good reason at all for not inviting them. The peoples' reasons who are against it basically boil down to three things...
1.) They're scared to lose to them
2.) They don't like their blue field
3.) They don't like em
Every other reason I've seen is just an excuse people are using because of one of the above three real reasons.
But we have no idea what the BCS or the autobid leagues will look like when the TV contracts run their course or conferences reshuffle. So saying Boise will or will not be an advantage as a conference-mate is a guess for anyone that doesn't read tea leaves.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, so I hope you don't take anything I've been saying today as disrespectful... but I can't think of one potential conference realignment scenario where Boise being in the MWC hurts TCU or the MWC, and I can think of multiple scenarios where it helps us.
After reading peoples' posts all day, I still don't see any good reason at all for not inviting them. The peoples' reasons who are against it basically boil down to three things...
1.) They're scared to lose to them
2.) They don't like their blue field
3.) They don't like em
Every other reason I've seen is just an excuse people are using because of one of the above three real reasons.
OmniscienceFrog
Full Member
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!
Rest assured that not all TCU fans are that wussified, and welcome the challenge.
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!
Rest assured that not all TCU fans are that wussified, and welcome the challenge.
OmniscienceFrog
Full Member
QUOTE(Houston Frog @ May 18 2010, 06:37 PM) [snapback]561361[/snapback]
After reading peoples' posts all day, I still don't see any good reason at all for not inviting them. The peoples' reasons who are against it basically boil down to three things...
1.) They're scared to lose to them
2.) They don't like their blue field
3.) They don't like em
Every other reason I've seen is just an excuse people are using because of one of the above three real reasons.
That pretty much spells it out.
After reading peoples' posts all day, I still don't see any good reason at all for not inviting them. The peoples' reasons who are against it basically boil down to three things...
1.) They're scared to lose to them
2.) They don't like their blue field
3.) They don't like em
Every other reason I've seen is just an excuse people are using because of one of the above three real reasons.
That pretty much spells it out.
TCUFrogs
New Member
TCU played in a BCS bowl in the current MWC.
They came within a few seconds of possibly playing for the NC.
So, TCU has already accomplished in the current MWC everything except an automatic bid to get the same shot at the title game the other BCS auto-qual do.
TCU did and can again get into a BCS bowl game. The next thing TCU needs is an automatic bid, in the MWC or another.
Anything else is just fluff.
They came within a few seconds of possibly playing for the NC.
So, TCU has already accomplished in the current MWC everything except an automatic bid to get the same shot at the title game the other BCS auto-qual do.
TCU did and can again get into a BCS bowl game. The next thing TCU needs is an automatic bid, in the MWC or another.
Anything else is just fluff.
toadallytexan
ToadallyTexan
QUOTE(RSF @ May 18 2010, 09:16 AM) [snapback]561012[/snapback]
Not for most of the conference.
So? Neither does CSU or Wyoming. Let's get one thing straight - baseball is NOT a determining factor for anything.
They rank better in the MWC overall than everybody except us and BYU.
You could say that about a lot of schools. Including us.
So let's just go back to CUSA then if that's going to be our attitude.
You know how much? $130,000 a year per team - and that assuming the TV deal couldn't be renegotiated.
We need any help we can get in that regard.
BFD.
It gets us a HELL of a lot closer, if not over the top. And guess what? 2010 Boise will be playing in the WAC, but those numbers could be counting for the MWC.
I agree..and would add ...it means one more meaningful conference game. Wouldn't you rather go to ACS to watch Our Heros play the Broncos than Sam Houston State, S.F. Austin, or whatever FCS team is slated this year? Bes
Beides the way the other leagues are trying to stigmatize the MWC w/ super conference vs all others, BSU adds some penache to our group, it's a clean program, their coach seems as astute as he is loyal, it now has national recognition, and it's just gutless to bemoan tough conference games.
Good grief! We need national perception as a tough bunch to go against -- particularly now. We nearly went to a BCS bowl with one defeat until the Thurs in Provo...so undefeated is not a real barrier. Besides football is the sport that rules in this state, and to dis a program (which well could end up NC this year) for only having good football teams. Seems downright un-Texan...you sure you don't also put beans in your chilli?
Not for most of the conference.
So? Neither does CSU or Wyoming. Let's get one thing straight - baseball is NOT a determining factor for anything.
They rank better in the MWC overall than everybody except us and BYU.
You could say that about a lot of schools. Including us.
So let's just go back to CUSA then if that's going to be our attitude.
You know how much? $130,000 a year per team - and that assuming the TV deal couldn't be renegotiated.
We need any help we can get in that regard.
BFD.
It gets us a HELL of a lot closer, if not over the top. And guess what? 2010 Boise will be playing in the WAC, but those numbers could be counting for the MWC.
I agree..and would add ...it means one more meaningful conference game. Wouldn't you rather go to ACS to watch Our Heros play the Broncos than Sam Houston State, S.F. Austin, or whatever FCS team is slated this year? Bes
Beides the way the other leagues are trying to stigmatize the MWC w/ super conference vs all others, BSU adds some penache to our group, it's a clean program, their coach seems as astute as he is loyal, it now has national recognition, and it's just gutless to bemoan tough conference games.
Good grief! We need national perception as a tough bunch to go against -- particularly now. We nearly went to a BCS bowl with one defeat until the Thurs in Provo...so undefeated is not a real barrier. Besides football is the sport that rules in this state, and to dis a program (which well could end up NC this year) for only having good football teams. Seems downright un-Texan...you sure you don't also put beans in your chilli?
froginaustin
Active Member
QUOTE(Houston Frog @ May 18 2010, 05:37 PM) [snapback]561361[/snapback]
I'm not trying to be a jerk, so I hope you don't take anything I've been saying today as disrespectful... but I can't think of one potential conference realignment scenario where Boise being in the MWC hurts TCU or the MWC, and I can think of multiple scenarios where it helps us.
After reading peoples' posts all day, I still don't see any good reason at all for not inviting them. The peoples' reasons who are against it basically boil down to three things...
1.) They're scared to lose to them
2.) They don't like their blue field
3.) They don't like em
Every other reason I've seen is just an excuse people are using because of one of the above three real reasons.
I don't mean to be rude, either, and I hope that I am not taken as such. Certainly I don't feel disrespected.
I think that there are serious concerns with moving Boise into the conference. Maybe specific concerns are outweighed by advantages, maybe not. And maybe some concerns reflect my personality. That is, they may not be shared by others on this board, at least (not counting BSU visitors, who most certainly are unconcerned with the negatives of inviting their program to the MWC).
1. Scheduling. I think a PAC10-type round robin sux, because conference play being a zero sum game. The conference WILL end up with more losses playing 9 conference games. The PAC can afford this, sort of, because they have an autobid. But I haven't noticed a second PAC school in a BCS bowl game in awhile. Maybe that's because their conference is too weak to support a second bid, or maybe it's because the PAC is perceived as too weak because of an SOS lowered by extra losses by conference mates. One "fix" for this problem is to skip a conference team every year. But unless the Billy Goats will agree to a system that does not build in an advantage for them (and they have indicated in the past, that they will insist on playing each other every year), then this possible fix won't work. Of course if Boise is added as a 9th team instead of at 10th, then I would forget this concern.
2. Income dilution. There has been lots and lots of speculation on this possible problem. Unless the decision-makers have information-- not extrapolations or speculations-- that show the TV contracts will be renegotiated and other revenue sources re-jiggered, to reflect a 10-team league. Then this should be a real problem. I can't take seriously the "it will only cost a little" or "Boise will increase the conference total" if those arguments are based on supposition or bald imagination. Once again, Boise as a 9th member makes this problem go away, as would making suitable contractual provisions that would prevent income dilution for the 9.
3. Travel headaches, for non-revenue sports and for TCU fans. Boise, Idaho, is an expensive and inconvenient airplane ride away. No other school in the MWC really is, not even Laramie (weather permitting). This has the possibility (probability) of making non-revenue sports even more expensive. And I hate to see our traveling fan base limited by airline connections, hotel-room availability, and the expense of traveling to a relatively remote airport.
4. BCS bowl game invitations. Having Boise in-conference, in a non-autobid conference, probably reduces the chances of 2 conference schools getting an invitation to BCS bowl games. Granted that an undefeated MWC team would look better having played the other 3 top MWC schools, but the school with 1 (or more) losses, in today's climate, would IMHO be passed over for an also-ran from one of today's autobid conference. The fix here is an understanding that the MWC10 is autobid, while the MWC9 isn't. Personally, I would trade an autobid (not to mention the better $$ that the autobid conferences get) for a tougher road to 2 at-large bids, but we have no indication that this fix is a possibility.
5. Academics. This is not a vanity argument as I see it. By example, I hear rumors that Fresno was eliminated from consideration for an invitation to what became the original MWC8 in part because of shenanigans in admitting athletes, and keeping them in school. Having academically unqualified players can be quite an advantage, an unfair competitive advantage if the rest of the competition excludes those that aren't academically qualified and can't/won't pass courses legitimately. If the professional educators that run MWC schools think that Boise won't have an unfair advantage in admitted/retaining athletes on academic grounds, then this argument goes away.
6. Boise in an MWC12. See considerations #1, #2 and #3, plus several other considerations that I will spare the board because, if I can read tea leaves, a 12-member conference is not being seriously considered, pending any membership moves by nearby (and distant :biggrin: ) conferences.
I think that there are distinct disadvantages for the MWC9 and for TCU in particular in going to a 10-member conference (and even more so, a 12-member conference) in the college football world of today. I realize that 1 announcement from the B10 (or other "power conferences", I suppose) could change everything, but unless and until that happens (or truly credible information that it will happen leaks), I say 9 is fine.
And in the groundless speculation mode, I suspect that if TCU wants to beef up its schedule by playing Boise, that can be done OOC.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, so I hope you don't take anything I've been saying today as disrespectful... but I can't think of one potential conference realignment scenario where Boise being in the MWC hurts TCU or the MWC, and I can think of multiple scenarios where it helps us.
After reading peoples' posts all day, I still don't see any good reason at all for not inviting them. The peoples' reasons who are against it basically boil down to three things...
1.) They're scared to lose to them
2.) They don't like their blue field
3.) They don't like em
Every other reason I've seen is just an excuse people are using because of one of the above three real reasons.
I don't mean to be rude, either, and I hope that I am not taken as such. Certainly I don't feel disrespected.
I think that there are serious concerns with moving Boise into the conference. Maybe specific concerns are outweighed by advantages, maybe not. And maybe some concerns reflect my personality. That is, they may not be shared by others on this board, at least (not counting BSU visitors, who most certainly are unconcerned with the negatives of inviting their program to the MWC).
1. Scheduling. I think a PAC10-type round robin sux, because conference play being a zero sum game. The conference WILL end up with more losses playing 9 conference games. The PAC can afford this, sort of, because they have an autobid. But I haven't noticed a second PAC school in a BCS bowl game in awhile. Maybe that's because their conference is too weak to support a second bid, or maybe it's because the PAC is perceived as too weak because of an SOS lowered by extra losses by conference mates. One "fix" for this problem is to skip a conference team every year. But unless the Billy Goats will agree to a system that does not build in an advantage for them (and they have indicated in the past, that they will insist on playing each other every year), then this possible fix won't work. Of course if Boise is added as a 9th team instead of at 10th, then I would forget this concern.
2. Income dilution. There has been lots and lots of speculation on this possible problem. Unless the decision-makers have information-- not extrapolations or speculations-- that show the TV contracts will be renegotiated and other revenue sources re-jiggered, to reflect a 10-team league. Then this should be a real problem. I can't take seriously the "it will only cost a little" or "Boise will increase the conference total" if those arguments are based on supposition or bald imagination. Once again, Boise as a 9th member makes this problem go away, as would making suitable contractual provisions that would prevent income dilution for the 9.
3. Travel headaches, for non-revenue sports and for TCU fans. Boise, Idaho, is an expensive and inconvenient airplane ride away. No other school in the MWC really is, not even Laramie (weather permitting). This has the possibility (probability) of making non-revenue sports even more expensive. And I hate to see our traveling fan base limited by airline connections, hotel-room availability, and the expense of traveling to a relatively remote airport.
4. BCS bowl game invitations. Having Boise in-conference, in a non-autobid conference, probably reduces the chances of 2 conference schools getting an invitation to BCS bowl games. Granted that an undefeated MWC team would look better having played the other 3 top MWC schools, but the school with 1 (or more) losses, in today's climate, would IMHO be passed over for an also-ran from one of today's autobid conference. The fix here is an understanding that the MWC10 is autobid, while the MWC9 isn't. Personally, I would trade an autobid (not to mention the better $$ that the autobid conferences get) for a tougher road to 2 at-large bids, but we have no indication that this fix is a possibility.
5. Academics. This is not a vanity argument as I see it. By example, I hear rumors that Fresno was eliminated from consideration for an invitation to what became the original MWC8 in part because of shenanigans in admitting athletes, and keeping them in school. Having academically unqualified players can be quite an advantage, an unfair competitive advantage if the rest of the competition excludes those that aren't academically qualified and can't/won't pass courses legitimately. If the professional educators that run MWC schools think that Boise won't have an unfair advantage in admitted/retaining athletes on academic grounds, then this argument goes away.
6. Boise in an MWC12. See considerations #1, #2 and #3, plus several other considerations that I will spare the board because, if I can read tea leaves, a 12-member conference is not being seriously considered, pending any membership moves by nearby (and distant :biggrin: ) conferences.
I think that there are distinct disadvantages for the MWC9 and for TCU in particular in going to a 10-member conference (and even more so, a 12-member conference) in the college football world of today. I realize that 1 announcement from the B10 (or other "power conferences", I suppose) could change everything, but unless and until that happens (or truly credible information that it will happen leaks), I say 9 is fine.
And in the groundless speculation mode, I suspect that if TCU wants to beef up its schedule by playing Boise, that can be done OOC.
KillerFrog InD KitchenSink
Active Member
QUOTE(froginaustin @ May 19 2010, 11:28 AM) [snapback]561603[/snapback]
I don't mean to be rude, either, and I hope that I am not taken as such. Certainly I don't feel disrespected.
I think that there are serious concerns with moving Boise into the conference. Maybe specific concerns are outweighed by advantages, maybe not. And maybe some concerns reflect my personality. That is, they may not be shared by others on this board, at least (not counting BSU visitors, who most certainly are unconcerned with the negatives of inviting their program to the MWC).
1. Scheduling. I think a PAC10-type round robin sux, because conference play being a zero sum game. The conference WILL end up with more losses playing 9 conference games. The PAC can afford this, sort of, because they have an autobid. But I haven't noticed a second PAC school in a BCS bowl game in awhile. Maybe that's because their conference is too weak to support a second bid, or maybe it's because the PAC is perceived as too weak because of an SOS lowered by extra losses by conference mates. One "fix" for this problem is to skip a conference team every year. But unless the Billy Goats will agree to a system that does not build in an advantage for them (and they have indicated in the past, that they will insist on playing each other every year), then this possible fix won't work. Of course if Boise is added as a 9th team instead of at 10th, then I would forget this concern.
2. Income dilution. There has been lots and lots of speculation on this possible problem. Unless the decision-makers have information-- not extrapolations or speculations-- that show the TV contracts will be renegotiated and other revenue sources re-jiggered, to reflect a 10-team league. Then this should be a real problem. I can't take seriously the "it will only cost a little" or "Boise will increase the conference total" if those arguments are based on supposition or bald imagination. Once again, Boise as a 9th member makes this problem go away, as would making suitable contractual provisions that would prevent income dilution for the 9.
3. Travel headaches, for non-revenue sports and for TCU fans. Boise, Idaho, is an expensive and inconvenient airplane ride away. No other school in the MWC really is, not even Laramie (weather permitting). This has the possibility (probability) of making non-revenue sports even more expensive. And I hate to see our traveling fan base limited by airline connections, hotel-room availability, and the expense of traveling to a relatively remote airport.
4. BCS bowl game invitations. Having Boise in-conference, in a non-autobid conference, probably reduces the chances of 2 conference schools getting an invitation to BCS bowl games. Granted that an undefeated MWC team would look better having played the other 3 top MWC schools, but the school with 1 (or more) losses, in today's climate, would IMHO be passed over for an also-ran from one of today's autobid conference. The fix here is an understanding that the MWC10 is autobid, while the MWC9 isn't. Personally, I would trade an autobid (not to mention the better $$ that the autobid conferences get) for a tougher road to 2 at-large bids, but we have no indication that this fix is a possibility.
5. Academics. This is not a vanity argument as I see it. By example, I hear rumors that Fresno was eliminated from consideration for an invitation to what became the original MWC8 in part because of shenanigans in admitting athletes, and keeping them in school. Having academically unqualified players can be quite an advantage, an unfair competitive advantage if the rest of the competition excludes those that aren't academically qualified and can't/won't pass courses legitimately. If the professional educators that run MWC schools think that Boise won't have an unfair advantage in admitted/retaining athletes on academic grounds, then this argument goes away.
6. Boise in an MWC12. See considerations #1, #2 and #3, plus several other considerations that I will spare the board because, if I can read tea leaves, a 12-member conference is not being seriously considered, pending any membership moves by nearby (and distant :biggrin: ) conferences.
I think that there are distinct disadvantages for the MWC9 and for TCU in particular in going to a 10-member conference (and even more so, a 12-member conference) in the college football world of today. I realize that 1 announcement from the B10 (or other "power conferences", I suppose) could change everything, but unless and until that happens (or truly credible information that it will happen leaks), I say 9 is fine.
And in the groundless speculation mode, I suspect that if TCU wants to beef up its schedule by playing Boise, that can be done OOC.
I think this is a good post, outlining the concerns.
1. May not be a concern if they do an 8 game schedule, perhaps with one rivalry game you always play. Pretty hard for anyone to tilt that to much to an advantage.
2. Splitting the pie more is a concern, but it is at worst only aabout a 10% decrease of an already pretty small number. And if the 10 game championship game goes through, that make it up right there. Even if it doesn't, Boise will add value next time the contract is negotiated. Obviously this is an area no one knows the exact numbers, but it can't be that big of a hit.
3. This is a concern for TCU, no doubt.
4. I really don't understand this thinking. The MWC stock has risen to the point that a one loss team will have a pretty darn good shot at a BCS bowl. Heck, we would have been in with 2 losses 2 years ago if Boise and Utah weren't ahead of us. I think two MWC teams in the BCS will be a stretch no matter what, but is probably an even better chance with Boise, since there are more quality wins to go round in a season.
5. Really not an issue for the MWC, IMO. They'd of course have to follow the conference's academic guidelines.
I don't mean to be rude, either, and I hope that I am not taken as such. Certainly I don't feel disrespected.
I think that there are serious concerns with moving Boise into the conference. Maybe specific concerns are outweighed by advantages, maybe not. And maybe some concerns reflect my personality. That is, they may not be shared by others on this board, at least (not counting BSU visitors, who most certainly are unconcerned with the negatives of inviting their program to the MWC).
1. Scheduling. I think a PAC10-type round robin sux, because conference play being a zero sum game. The conference WILL end up with more losses playing 9 conference games. The PAC can afford this, sort of, because they have an autobid. But I haven't noticed a second PAC school in a BCS bowl game in awhile. Maybe that's because their conference is too weak to support a second bid, or maybe it's because the PAC is perceived as too weak because of an SOS lowered by extra losses by conference mates. One "fix" for this problem is to skip a conference team every year. But unless the Billy Goats will agree to a system that does not build in an advantage for them (and they have indicated in the past, that they will insist on playing each other every year), then this possible fix won't work. Of course if Boise is added as a 9th team instead of at 10th, then I would forget this concern.
2. Income dilution. There has been lots and lots of speculation on this possible problem. Unless the decision-makers have information-- not extrapolations or speculations-- that show the TV contracts will be renegotiated and other revenue sources re-jiggered, to reflect a 10-team league. Then this should be a real problem. I can't take seriously the "it will only cost a little" or "Boise will increase the conference total" if those arguments are based on supposition or bald imagination. Once again, Boise as a 9th member makes this problem go away, as would making suitable contractual provisions that would prevent income dilution for the 9.
3. Travel headaches, for non-revenue sports and for TCU fans. Boise, Idaho, is an expensive and inconvenient airplane ride away. No other school in the MWC really is, not even Laramie (weather permitting). This has the possibility (probability) of making non-revenue sports even more expensive. And I hate to see our traveling fan base limited by airline connections, hotel-room availability, and the expense of traveling to a relatively remote airport.
4. BCS bowl game invitations. Having Boise in-conference, in a non-autobid conference, probably reduces the chances of 2 conference schools getting an invitation to BCS bowl games. Granted that an undefeated MWC team would look better having played the other 3 top MWC schools, but the school with 1 (or more) losses, in today's climate, would IMHO be passed over for an also-ran from one of today's autobid conference. The fix here is an understanding that the MWC10 is autobid, while the MWC9 isn't. Personally, I would trade an autobid (not to mention the better $$ that the autobid conferences get) for a tougher road to 2 at-large bids, but we have no indication that this fix is a possibility.
5. Academics. This is not a vanity argument as I see it. By example, I hear rumors that Fresno was eliminated from consideration for an invitation to what became the original MWC8 in part because of shenanigans in admitting athletes, and keeping them in school. Having academically unqualified players can be quite an advantage, an unfair competitive advantage if the rest of the competition excludes those that aren't academically qualified and can't/won't pass courses legitimately. If the professional educators that run MWC schools think that Boise won't have an unfair advantage in admitted/retaining athletes on academic grounds, then this argument goes away.
6. Boise in an MWC12. See considerations #1, #2 and #3, plus several other considerations that I will spare the board because, if I can read tea leaves, a 12-member conference is not being seriously considered, pending any membership moves by nearby (and distant :biggrin: ) conferences.
I think that there are distinct disadvantages for the MWC9 and for TCU in particular in going to a 10-member conference (and even more so, a 12-member conference) in the college football world of today. I realize that 1 announcement from the B10 (or other "power conferences", I suppose) could change everything, but unless and until that happens (or truly credible information that it will happen leaks), I say 9 is fine.
And in the groundless speculation mode, I suspect that if TCU wants to beef up its schedule by playing Boise, that can be done OOC.
I think this is a good post, outlining the concerns.
1. May not be a concern if they do an 8 game schedule, perhaps with one rivalry game you always play. Pretty hard for anyone to tilt that to much to an advantage.
2. Splitting the pie more is a concern, but it is at worst only aabout a 10% decrease of an already pretty small number. And if the 10 game championship game goes through, that make it up right there. Even if it doesn't, Boise will add value next time the contract is negotiated. Obviously this is an area no one knows the exact numbers, but it can't be that big of a hit.
3. This is a concern for TCU, no doubt.
4. I really don't understand this thinking. The MWC stock has risen to the point that a one loss team will have a pretty darn good shot at a BCS bowl. Heck, we would have been in with 2 losses 2 years ago if Boise and Utah weren't ahead of us. I think two MWC teams in the BCS will be a stretch no matter what, but is probably an even better chance with Boise, since there are more quality wins to go round in a season.
5. Really not an issue for the MWC, IMO. They'd of course have to follow the conference's academic guidelines.
YA
Active Member
BTW--Laramie airport only flies puddle jumpers. It is not a fun trip. At least Boise has JETS flying into the place from Vegas, Phoenix, SoCal, Salt Lake, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis and Denver.
Here are the daily direct flights
Chicago
United -2
Denver
United-6
Frontier-2
Southwest-1
Las Vegas
Southwest- 2
Los Angeles
Horizon-2
United-2
Minneapolis
Delta-2
Oakland
Southwest-2
Phoenix
US Airways- 2
Portland
Horizon-2
Southwest-4
Reno
Southwest-3
Salt Lake City
Delta-8
Southwest-3
San Francisco
United-4
San Jose
Horizon- 1
Seattle
Horizon-6
Southwest-2
Spokane
Southwest-3
Here are the daily direct flights
Chicago
United -2
Denver
United-6
Frontier-2
Southwest-1
Las Vegas
Southwest- 2
Los Angeles
Horizon-2
United-2
Minneapolis
Delta-2
Oakland
Southwest-2
Phoenix
US Airways- 2
Portland
Horizon-2
Southwest-4
Reno
Southwest-3
Salt Lake City
Delta-8
Southwest-3
San Francisco
United-4
San Jose
Horizon- 1
Seattle
Horizon-6
Southwest-2
Spokane
Southwest-3
JimSwinkLives!
Active Member
Kudos to all of the well thought-out posts regarding the Boise issue, some really good food for thought here.
What this will all boil down to is the nine presidents/chancellors determining which outweighs the other: the plusses or minuses. They will also take into consideration Thompson's recommendation, but ultimately the nine will go with what they believe is the best option for the conference. FWIW, I believe its far more likely than not that they will invite Boise.
What this will all boil down to is the nine presidents/chancellors determining which outweighs the other: the plusses or minuses. They will also take into consideration Thompson's recommendation, but ultimately the nine will go with what they believe is the best option for the conference. FWIW, I believe its far more likely than not that they will invite Boise.
QUOTE(HoustonHornedFrog @ May 18 2010, 02:27 PM) [snapback]561255[/snapback]
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.
Going forward, this could definitely be the case. As far as the BCS review cycle, however, the addition of Boise State to the MWC by 2011 will add their stats to ours from the last two (?) years. This would provide a significant boost to criteria 1 & 2, which would strengthen the waiver case when the MWC isn't able to meet the 3rd (top-to-bottom strength).
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.
Going forward, this could definitely be the case. As far as the BCS review cycle, however, the addition of Boise State to the MWC by 2011 will add their stats to ours from the last two (?) years. This would provide a significant boost to criteria 1 & 2, which would strengthen the waiver case when the MWC isn't able to meet the 3rd (top-to-bottom strength).
froginaustin
Active Member
QUOTE(YA @ May 19 2010, 11:00 AM) [snapback]561620[/snapback]
BTW--Laramie airport only flies puddle jumpers. It is not a fun trip. . . ..
I was assuming that most people would fly to Denver or Colo Springs (or maybe Jackson? another expensive airline destination, usually), and drive to Laramie.
BTW--Laramie airport only flies puddle jumpers. It is not a fun trip. . . ..
I was assuming that most people would fly to Denver or Colo Springs (or maybe Jackson? another expensive airline destination, usually), and drive to Laramie.
YA
Active Member
QUOTE(froginaustin @ May 19 2010, 02:09 PM) [snapback]561659[/snapback]
I was assuming that most people would fly to Denver or Colo Springs (or maybe Jackson? another expensive airline destination, usually), and drive to Laramie.
I made the trip last year and got into Laramie with 30 minutes to spare before the game. The airport is less than 10 minutes from the stadium.
I was assuming that most people would fly to Denver or Colo Springs (or maybe Jackson? another expensive airline destination, usually), and drive to Laramie.
I made the trip last year and got into Laramie with 30 minutes to spare before the game. The airport is less than 10 minutes from the stadium.
