Recent article out of WAC country regarding BSU stadium improvements that add luxury suites and bring stadium capacity to about 32,000.
It is no secret that BSU wants a MWC invite.
However,is a 32,000 seat stadium too small for a MWC school?
Link at http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081017/COLUMNISTS06/810170358/1142/sportsfront

BSU stadium followup.
Wikipedia article (scroll down)indicating that BSU has some general future stadium expansion plan to eventually increase seating capacity to about 50,000.
If BSU can build and consistently fill a 50,000 seat stadium in the future they should at least deserve a MWC if not a Pac 10 invite.
Link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronco_Stadium

More Bronco Stadium information.
Article regarding possible future phased in Bronco stadium expansion.The next phase may be filling in south endzone with about 5500 seats sometime within the next 5 years.
Will a 37,500 seat stadium be enough to get a MWC invite or will it wait until after more expansion phases have been completed?
Also,will current economic conditions put these expansion plans on hold?
Link at http://www.idahostatesman.com/boisestatefootball/story/447114.html

Davids,the 2006 article you posted doesn't say anything about the NCAA booting Baylor out of D-1a for attendance problems.
The reason is simple,Baylor's attendance is well over the 15,000 per game minimum.
As I previously posted,according to the NCAA site;38,899 in 2005,37,080 in 2006,34,378 in 2007,and 32,036 thru 10-19-08 this season.
You can continue to look for evidence of a NCAA attendance violation by Baylor if you want but you would just be wasting your time.
It still looks like you were wrong.

Thanks
Freaked

Davids,you still have not provided any evidence to back up your previous claim that Baylor was in present danger of being booted out of D-1a for attendance problems.If anything your posted article from 2006 indicated that Baylor was not involved in that problem.
I have previously posted Baylor attendance numbers back to 2003 that show attendance well above the current 15,000 minimum.

Even if Baylor had poor attendance prior to 2003 how would that cause the NCAA to punish Baylor NOW?That doesn't make any sense.

BTW, I went back and checked old Baylor attendance numbers from 1998-2002.
I am showing a per game average as follows;
1998-33,697,
1999-29,169,
2000-28,910,
2001-30,601,
2002-28,018.

Well Davids,it looks like you are still wrong.

Thanks
Freaked

Article out of Nevada suggesting that the MWC and the WAC should merge into a 16 school super conference and receive a BCS autobid.Link at http://www.rgj.com/article/20081026/SPORTS06/810260350/1018/SPORTS

Won't happen. MWC schools would do anything to avoid another 16 team alignment like the old WAC. If you play a school only once every 4 years, what's the sense of being in the same conference?

Agree, 16 teams is too unwieldy for fb. The MWC could add up to three and hold at 12. That's the minimum needed for a conference championship game and to organize into divisions. At least a limit of 12 would allow playing all the other conference opponents within a decent period of time.

The WAC conference should not be gutted out of existence. There is a place for it. Maybe Idaho is overreaching and LA Tech needs to be elsewhere. Hawaii will be a travel factor no matter what conference they are a member.

LA Tech needs a bridge school or two in Texas, maybe another such as Arkansas State, to make it contiguous and more geographically plausible. That suggests reconfigurations and divisional play. Without engagement of the Sunbelt and/or Conference USA, LA Tech is kind of stuck for now. LA Tech in the same conference with LA-Monroe and La-L would be quite "MACish" and too tight for some.

Louisiana Tech has been actively campaigning for inclusion in C-USA for years. When TCU vacated a spot by jumping to the MWC, they tried to seize the opportunity to grab that spot, but instead UTEP snagged it and left the WAC for C-USA. La Tech belongs in a south-eastern conference. They view themselves as too elite for the Sun-Belt, and keep holding out for C-USA.

UTEP is way out there in West Texas in the Mountain Time Zone, and would fit nicely in the MWC. El Paso is not far from Las Cruces, NM (home of New Mexico State). But UTEP wants to avoid legitimizing them, as they think they might then be competing for the same recruits. I think they might be attracted to the MWC, if they saw that as a path to the BCS.

TCU was unhappy when C-USA added so many Texas schools from the WAC (including nearby SMU), and jumped to the MWC perhaps thinking that the MWC would be elevated to having their champ gain an Automatic Qualifier to the BCS (and the $17 mill per confrence that comes with that). It didn't happen, although it may down the road. Don't know if TCU considers the move a mistake or not. If C-USA split, and C-USA west expanded into a new "Southwest Conference", would that attract TCU ? Might come down to travel costs and conference "profile" (BCS recognition, etc.)

The BCS never kicked out the WAC / MWC. They were never in it. The BCS was built up from a Bowl Alliance with the SEC, B-XII, BE, ACC, and Notre Dame (and Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls). Later the B-10 / PAC-10 and Rose Bowl were drawn in. Now there are 4 at-large spots (theoretically availble to anybody good enough = undefeated, ranked fairly high, if not in a BCS conference). So C-USA/MWC/WAC/MAC/Sun-Belt/Indy schools can get in via that route (as Utah, Boise St. and Hawaii have the last few years).

Don't hold your breath waiting for a MAC or Sun Belt school to make it. Based on their schedules, the computer segment of the BCS poll would never admit them. That's why Ball St isn't being discussed this year.

Nobody said that the current situation is fair. Most people (including myself and I would say the vast majority of posters here) see all these inequities with the BCS.

But bear in mind the BCS has a relatively brief history. Before the BCS (or Bowl Alliance that preceded it), EVERYTHING was driven by polls. It was highly unlikely that the #1 and #2 would meet, since their conferences were typically locked into deals with different bowls.

PAC and Big-!0 - Rose,
WAC - Fiesta,
Big 8/12 - Orange,
SEC - Sugar,
SWC - Cotton,
Eastern Independents (usually Penn State would go to Orange, Sugar, Cotton)
Notre Dame (would not go to a bowl before early 1970s, went to Cotton a lot)
ACC - generally not highly rated in football before FSU came aboard - Peach

Arguments abounded. People had issue with the polls. Bowl match-ups were often lousy.
Big Ten #2 and lower from the Big Ten could not go ANYWHERE. There was an exclusive spot for the champ in the Rose Bowl. PERIOD. And often the Big Ten "champ" was not the best team in the Big Ten. If there was a tie, the team to have gone the longest without an appearance got the slot.
When PSU was independent, Paterno had back-to-back undefeated untied teams in 1968-69 and 1969-70 IIRC, both won the Orange Bowl. With the pollsters always having a bias that East Coast football stank (at times it did OTHER than PSU), Penn State got no consideration.
It's happened 4 times to Penn State during the Paterno era, most recently in 1994 right after they joined the Big Ten and CLOBBERED everyone in sight with Kerry Collins, Ki-jana Carter, Kyle Brady, Joe Jurivicious, etc., scoring 50 points a game. Nebraska did roughly the same thing and they were locked into separate bowls. A potential for a great game was missed. So we argue....


At least now there is a system to pair #1 and #2. However, how we arrive at #1 and #2 (polls) still stinks. Probably the ONLY way to arrive at a championship that everyone can agree on (in my opinion) is to include everybody and anybody with any claim, and decide it on the field.

I think 16 teams (if the NCAA runs this, bylaws state there MUST be at least 8 at-large berths). So say the champ of the top 7 conferences gets in, and any other undefeated champ is GUARANTEED an at-large, regrdless of rank. Most of the at-large slots would go to the "power conferences" and that is OK, however the key is to NOT DISCLUDE any undefeated team. So if Boise St. (WAC), Utah (MWC), Ball State (MAC), Tulsa (C-USA) all "run the table" they get in.

Then it's all decided on the field, using a seeded bracket. If you lose to anyone, you are out, no complaining, any losing means that you are not the best team.

Nah.....

Blog article out of Idaho discussing possible MWC expansion at http://www.obnug.com/2008/10/obnug-roundtable-mountain-west-expansion

Blog article out of Idaho discussing BSU to MWC speculation along with comments by MWC Commish regarding this issue at http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2008/11/11/bmurphy/boise_state_mountain_west

Article out of Arizona suggesting that the top schools in the MWC and the WAC merge to obtain a BCS autobid at http://www.yumasun.com/sports/bcs_46046___article.html/conferences_little.html

The problem is finding a consistent balance. You can't assume all these program will always be good with a merge. What is Pat Hill leaves and Fresno sticks? Who knows is hawaii will ever be that good again with June gone.

If the MWC wants to expand and adds a team like BSU or Fresno, great. But I think a better move by the MWC and WAC would be to team up with the rest of the exclude conferences and push congress to make a change. Nothing drastic. Just something fair. There's no reason why the BCS shouldnt' be a set system by the numbers. If you are going to use them for 1 vs 2 then use them for 8 through 10 as well. Boise St. deserves on of the bids going to the Big East or ACC. Furthermore, if you play by the numbers for 1 vs 2, then a #7 Texas tech team shouldn't be left out just because Texas and OU are ranked higher.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.