NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:17 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:32 am 
MWC 12

All old rivals still play each other. Let that be clear. even though there is a switch in DIVISION for some they will always , ALWAYS, always, play each other EVERY YEAR.

1. why add Fresno State?
They are very good. They feature one of the top established non-BCS traditional football powers, the rank of TUC, Colorado State, Marshall, Southern Miss., Louisville, BYU, and Utah. They are a fearful giant killer and beat the BCS giants on a regular basis. (beat 2 Pac-10 bowl teams in 2003 alone) They have been to 5 post-season bowl games over the last 5 years. They are located in the center of California market, which is also the hotbed of football recruits (top 3 football recruiting state, California, Texas and Florida). They bring the Silicon Valley bowl which pays for their inclusion.

2. why add Hawaii?
Hawaii will be very enticing for the 2 programs that get a lot of players from there- Utah and BYU. Hawaii is coveted by ESPN (=air time/$) for obvious reasons and is a selling point for a conference that has them. They bring the Hawaii bowl which pays for their inclusion.

3. a toss-up between Nevada and Boise
why add boise? Though with a low athletic budget, Boise features an up and coming football program. They are good in the recent years. Now they are getting some exposures over the years statewide in attendance. They bring the humanitarian bowl which pays for their inclusion.

MWC- Pacific Division
BYU
UTAH
FRESNO STATE
HAWAII
SDSU
UNLV

MWC- Mountain Division
COLORADO STATE
AFA
TCU
NEW MEXICO
WYOMING
BOISE

BYU and UTAH plays
their division with 5 games. Plus MAINTAINS OLD RIVALRIES with CSU, UTAH, WYOMING, UNM. That¡¦s 9 conference games in a typical 11 game season (every few years it would be 12 game season). but wait; No sweat though- they will have 2 non conference games only once every 3 years. 2 of every 3 years they will have 3+ non conf. games. Reason is 1) AT Hawaii doesn¡¦t count as a game used up 2)every few years there are more Saturdays= more games.

BTW, every 6 years there would be 4 non conference games (extra Saturdays and at Hawaii)

so, in a 6 year span:

1 year with 4 non conf. games
3 years with 3 non conf. games and
2 years with 2 non conf games.
4+3+3+3+2+2=17 non conf games divided by 6 years = about 3 non conf. games per year. That's exactly what any other 12 team division normally gets on an 11 game schedule.

As a last appetizer to my thesis, we could, if necessary, work it that Utah and BYU play at Hawaii 2 of every 3 years. That would create, 2 in every 3 years, an 8 game conferece slate. every 3rd year would be an extra saturday for possibly more non conference games= 19 non conf. games/6 years= over 3 non conf games /year.

BYU plays utah, hawaii, fresno, unlv, sdsu (div) plus unm csu afa wyoming. The hawaii game doesnt count either every year of 2 of eevry 3 years (AT hawaii). thats 8 conf games and 3 or 4 non conf. games
~same for utah~

That is the hardest hurdle for this MWC 12 plan. And, as demonstrated, it can easily work well.

Fresno plays their 5 game division plus 3 games in the mountain division for 8 game conf. total.

Hawaii plays 5 division games (depending on the above utah/byu scenarios)and fills their 8 game conf. cap by playing the remainder against mountain division teams.

UNLV and sdsu play their division (5 games) and the 2 or 3 "old" rivalries with mountain west teams in a roatation manner (at least every other year, maybe 2 of 3 years).

For the mountain diivision its simpler

UNM plays 5 game division utah, byu, and then sdsu or unlv in either a every other year or maybe both in the same year depending on hawaiis "invisible game" role. Looks good on the easy 8 game cap and maintaining the strong, popular, old rivalries.

CSU, Wyomintg, AFA the same.

TCU/Boise 5 game division plus
3 in the pacific division

thats the 1st draft. everything takes ironing out. even the shirt youre wearing-

oops made you look- lucky there was no hand to flick your face..


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:02 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:06 pm
Posts: 9
I agree COMPLETELY ;D
The Mountain West has only ONE shot at getting the next BCS bid and thats bringing THE TOP Mid/Major 12 Team scenerio to the table. Better than the Big East and Better than C-USA. I think the additions of Fresno St., Hawaii, and Boise St. can and will do it for them. But the BIG question is WILL they do it? Likely not, but if they covet that last BCS spot they should.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2663
Location: Phoenix Arizona
I totally disagree with this theory. The math just does not add up. The MWC has as much chance of reaching the BCS with 9.

Hawaii, Fresno, and Boise may be good, however, none of the three are close to BCS status at this point.

I just dont get the idea that everyone thinks that 12 teams autmatically make a conference better. If you are starting with a BCS core of 9 or 10 and expand, then yes the expansion makes sense.

The MWC is bringing in TCU which has much more potential than any of the other three schools and will keep the conference at a balance of 8 round robin football games and SOS which will continue to be part of the computer rankings making up one third of the BCS rankings. The MWC should be able to keep SOS higher with the current 9 teams.

As for the coaches and AP polls, will expanding to 12 have any influence on the voting. A big yes if 12 MWC conference BCS candidate lost in the championship game. The drop would be like a rock in those polls.

The MWC is best to remain at 9 until either the conference makes a BCS game or the BCS is replaced with a playoff. Until then, you have 9 versis 12 mouths to feed and a better chance of getting an at large BCS bid.




Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:50 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2663
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Joedadi, you make some very interesting points.

As for the BE and 9 football teams, I think the BE football teams have always wanted 9.

Prior to BC leaving, the BE was considering taking South Florida as football only member to keep the Big East Florida exposure and to reach a balanced football schedule with 9 teams.

Once BC decided to leave and South Florida got an all sports bid which maintained the Florida Big East exposure, the conference did not have as pressing need to get to 9.

Since the Big East is moving alway from football only members, thank goodness, there are other methods to reach 9 football members.

Villanova upgrade is one option and the other is gasp board members, Notre Dame. Everyone including some Notre Dame fans have the school already booked for the Big 10.

Notre Dame may pay close attention to its sister school of BC and see what type of reaction BC has as membership in the ACC. If BC bombs as predicted by playing in much difficult ACC football league, Notre Dame may have second thoughts on joining the Big 10.

For the immidate future, both the BE at 8 and MWC at 9 are ideal situations for both these conferences in football membership size.

I do think the MWC is poised to become the 7th automatic BCS conference if the certain scenerios come to pass.

Likewise agreed that the MWC has its own tv geographic footprint that is growing with population.

All the MWC needs to do is get its first BCS at large bid and the framework for BCS inclusion will be established.




Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:43 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811

Quote:

Notre Dame may pay close attention to its sister school of BC and see what type of reaction BC has as membership in the ACC. If BC bombs as predicted by playing in much difficult ACC football league, Notre Dame may have second thoughts on joining the Big 10.


HUGE difference in scenarios. Notre Dame would be joing a conference where they are in the exact center of the regional footprint. They'd have in state partners Indiana and Purdue...they'd have northern neighbors Michigan and MSU...tey'd have OSU. Football aside, they'd had less travel for all sports and would have a huge increase in road attendance for all their other sports. Add to the fact that they have alumni in all these same areas as the existing Big Ten schools.

BC has no regional presence in the ACC. Fans need to travel to Maryland for it's closest rival. And it's not aqs if there are alot of BC alumni, mostly catholics, in ACC country. BC was brought in becasue it is in Boston, a strong market, has good academics and has a fan base. But that fan base might take a dip with absolutely no regional rivalry.

You know that the ACC really wished that Temple or Rutgers had stronger football programs and fan bases becasue they would have loved to add a top market like NY/NJ or Philly. But niehter school has had any success and it's not like the league was going to just make a move like such in an attempt to create a following and fan base.

I wonder if the ACC even gave thought to Penn St.? The way everything played out, it seemed like they were dead set on Miami, which they should have been. And Miami wanted BC and Syracuse. The AC saw benefits in adding the Boston market and in Syracuse it would add a NY based school which does get alot of coverage in New York City. But when Miami showed their cards and the league knew they'd except, the whole UVA situation started with the pressure to include Virginia Tech. A few vote changes later, BC and Syracuse are out and Virginia Tech is in.

Had the ACC not collectively been caught so off gaurd with the last second voting position changes, they might have had some time to consider all options. But they had to react and when VPI was included and it opened up 1 spot, they looked at only 2 schools: BC and Notre Dame. Notre Dame rejected them, so BC it was...since the ACc already knew they would join, and had numerous on-campus vists by ACC officials. Has more itme been put into the decision, I think that Penn St. could have been courted and might have accepted. Travel wouldn't be to drastic. You'd have UVA, VPI and Maryland all managable trips. Academics would remain solid as well. And you add a program that has alot of recognition in the northeast markets...more than BC does.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2663
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Quinn, agree on Notre Dame benefits with Big 10, however, these same benefits could also occur in a 9 team Big East football league and Notre Dame would continue to play close by conference rivals Marquette and Depaul.

If the ACC had persued Penn State, the Big 10 would have probably countered with going after Maryland and the whole ACC expansion may have failed.

The Big 10 is much better fit for Penn State with larger TV markets and better overall attendance than the expanded ACC.

Prior to Big 10 membership, Penn State would probably have been the top pick for ACC expansion.

Penn State would be foolish to leave the Big 10 for the ACC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:32 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:


I agree. Bringing just TCU into the Mountain West is the best move. The MWC on paper deserves a BCS automatic bid with its own geographical footprint. They haven't put out the quality teams at the top to really deserve the BCS. If the BCS was around in the 80's, the WAC would of played its way into an automatic bid, with teams like BYU and Air Force finishing high. The problem the MWC faces now is that you can't build a BCS caliber program without being in a BCS conference. It effects your recruiting so negatively by not having that BCS berth.

Unfortunetly, TCU will just have to use the new BCS access rules to somehow convince recruits that they are in contention for the BCS every year despite being in a conference without an automatic bid. And you can be in BCS contention every year if you can keep winning 10 games a season.

Swinging the value of 9 teams around to the Big East, I'm suprised the Big East didn't try to offer East Carolina Football Only. ECU would of jumped on the opportunity. Between Memphis, ECU, and Marshall, ECU gives the most benefit to the Big East in recruiting. ECU brings you a presence the Carolinas, and the Tidewater area of Virginia. ECU is a recruiting bridge to South Florida.

I also think Delaware could do well in the Big East and would be a nice fit with ECU, Army, Navy in a 12 team Big East down the road. Delaware draws a strong 20k as a 1-AA school and could easily do 30k in a BCS conference right off the bat. Delaware is a natural rival for Rutgers, ECU, and Navy. UD from its location can recruit New Jersey, Eastern PA, Maryland, and even Virginia. Its a highly respected academic school too. They should have a place in the Big East.

Many have suggested UMass in the Big E for Football, but I don't think its a good idea. UMass doesn't have the fan support, and being so close to UConn would cut into recruiting for the Huskies in Football. New England just can't support More than 2 BCS schools in talent.


Joedadi, yours is a provacative post. I agree with you about TCU & the Mountain West. Nice points.

I disagree with you about ECU. Although North Carolina & Virginia are larger states, their combined populations are less than that of New York, Texas, or Florida & together they now have more BCS members than any of those states. With 4 BCS members, North Carolina is really saturated. I can't see ECU being able to beat the competition for recruits in either Morth Carolina or the Tidewater area & I can't see them brining TV time to the Big East in those states.

Your point about Delaware is an interesting one. For all the reasons you stated, Delaware may some day be a member of the Big East if the conference splits. A year ago, the conference was desperate to maintain its BCS bid. The conference's credibility would have suffered badly if they had added a I-AA team - even one as successful as Delaware. With their continued membership in the BCS for the present, they still are not in a position to add any teams. As long as they remain a 16-team hybrid, they will not add any new members IMHO. I also believe that they are done with the idea of part-time "associate" members like Temple. They need a group of teams that are committed to the conference & who know that the conference is committed to them.

The conference has agreed to stay together for 5 years & to then evaluate its status. That 5 years also gives Big East wannabes the opportunity to upgrade their programs & to make the case that they belong. If Delaware, UMass, or Temple do that successfully & IF the Big East decides to split, any of them could be included in a new all-sports conference. There is no reason that UMass can't accomplish this IF they make the proper commitment. New England has a population of almost 14 million people & only 2 BCS schools. At least as important is the fact that New York is right next door with 19 million people & only 1 BCS school. New Jersey is also close by with 8.5 million people & only 1 BCS program. If anything this region is badly underpopulated with BCS schools - 4 in a region of over 40 million people! You make a good case that the Mountain West deserves a BCS spot with schools representing states with tiny populations - except California (& now Texas). Certainly BCS-caliber schools can be found & their programs developed as well in such a populous region.

Your point about lack of fan support at UMass is well taken - in the current state of the UMass program. Build it & they will come. UMass is no different than UConn - except that it is the state university in a state twice the size of Connecticut. UConn is where it is because boosters organized back in the mid-80s & made a commitment to building a big time basketball program. This is before they hired either Jim Calhoun or Lew Perkins. The boosters recruited other like-minded alumni & Corporations. They developed a vision & made a commitment to provide resources. The next step in their plan was to find the right coach, which they did. Lew Perkins then led them through te same process to make a commitment to football. UConn football will be successful because the infrastructure is there & the fans will be there. If UMass makes the same commitment, it can achieve the same success. Nature abhors a vacuum & there is a vacuum in the Northeast. Yes, Northeasterners love their pro sports, but now that pro sports have expanded into all corners of the country all schools now have this competition. Even in the Northeast, Penn State has been enormously successful despite rabid Eagles fans in Philly & rabid Steelers fans in pittsburgh. Maryland has been successful despite rabid Redskins fans in DC & rabid Colts & then Ravens fans in Baltimore.


Last edited by friarfan on Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group