West
Nevada
Fresno St.
San Diego St.
UNLV
Utah
BYU

East
Boise St.
Air Force
Colorado St.
New Mexico
Wyoming
New Mexico St.

From yungwun (moved into this thread):


How does adding schools that it essentially left behind five years ago (Fresno State, Hawaii, Texas Christian) or relatively new members of I-A (Boise State 1996, Nevada 1992) supposed to make the Mountain West Conference more attractive to the BCS? Please don't tell me it is because the BCS absolutely "needs" a sixth conference to replace the BIG EAST.

TCU used to compete in a BCS-level conference (SWC) and had only two bowl appearances during its last thirty years in that conference (1966-1995).

Hawaii is only five years removed from the "dirty dozen" season of 1998 (0-12) and its travel issues will always burden any conference of which it is a member.

Boise State has one win against a BCS-level team in its history, which was last year's Humanitarian Bowl win against Iowa State (incidentally enough that game was played on its home field).

While conceding that Fresno State was more or less the "BYU of the Big West" during its stay there, and that it has had some impressive wins over BCS-level teams in recent years, its annual level of play is not impressive enough that it should warrant BCS inclusion for any conference of which it is a member.

Suffice it to say that very few "dominant" mid-major conference teams have finished undefeated in recent years, much less finished undefeated in the conference. Membership of individual schools in a preexisting BCS conference (e.g. BYU to Big XII) is one thing. Meriting the MWC on an equal footing with the SEC for BCS consideration is something else entirely, and I simply don't see how cherry-picking schools from conferences such as C-USA or the WAC is supposed to enhance that image in the eyes of the Big 5/Big 6 conferences.

_________________


@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.

Geography, location and less travel.Besides that i can't think of any other reason too.But i doubt TCU will go to the MWC conference.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

Reading this old thread on a slow newsday. Lot of wisdom in old threads...

Then I studied one of cybercats maps to look at MWC again...

Based on some of ts2's skepticism as to where media coverage is for MWC (remember the rocks and antelopes?) I read Denver Post sports page for a few days....

Here are some conclusions on MWC futures:

1) Colorado media presence is impressive and important. The MWC coverage in Denver is superb--Air Force, CSU, get regular feature stories, as many as BigXII Colorado. Even Wyoming just accross the border gets some Denver media presence--there is even a link to the Wyoming U webb site on the Denver Post sports page!

2) California media presence is important. For now that occurs only in San Diego, but as I looked at the map I proved myself wrong--why it didn't dawn on me before. Las Vegas is just a California suburb--half the people there are California transplants--and it is Californians' most frequent travel stop.. So MWC already has two essentially California media markets, and would do well to add not only the western portion San Diego up to UNLV, but into the key central valleys with Fresno State...

3) I remember several times reading that the MWC commissioner indicated they preferred just two timezones. This leads us back to the quandary of whether Hawaii ought to be included. Despite the commisioner's remarks, they may possibly rethink this, if they look at the same attendance stats GunnerFan provided. This also would give the MWC three possible bowl tie-in locations (Hawaii, San Diego, Vegas)--a warm weather slant in football is an advantage.

I'm now thinking Fresno/Hawaii for teams nine and ten...
I think Wyoming will stay in for now, based on heritage and their common presence within driving distance of CSU and AirForce on the eastern side of the Rockies...

:D

Good points, Javaman. I think that the MWC should take Fresno St. and Boise St., and not Hawaii. Boise St. may have more of a future. Hawaii is just good because of their good coach and the travel costs will be too much. Boise St. is a rising school.
8-)

Good points, Javaman. I think that the MWC should take Fresno St. and Boise St., and not Hawaii. Boise St. may have more of a future. Hawaii is just good because of their good coach and the travel costs will be too much. Boise St. is a rising school.
8-)

Good points, Javaman. I think that the MWC should take Fresno St. and Boise St., and not Hawaii. Boise St. may have more of a future. Hawaii is just good because of their good coach and the travel costs will be too much. Boise St. is a rising school.
8-)

Ooops, that was an accident. :(

Thanks Gator Guy... Boise was my opinion too until recently, and perhaps it will still come out that way--there is some nice symmetry to three schools on the east side of the Rockies (CSU, AF, WY) three on the west side (UT, BYU, BOISE)..

BTW, if you become a member, you are able to delete posts! (smile)

;)

The MWC needs to make a move sooner than the Big East. They need to go ahead and invite Fresno St., Boise St., UTEP and Nevada these teams fit the perfect Mountain/ old WAC conference rivals.

Hawaii doesn't belong in this conference they would fit more of a PAC 10 school. Thou the problem with that is that its late in the day when Hawaii comes on T.V. so they lose the east coast fans because its so late.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

Agreed that Hawaii is a far better fit for the Pac 10 than the MWC. It fits with the Pac 10 as a flagship state university, its academics are at least on a par with the Arizona States and Oregon States of the Pac 10, and the team draws well enough to have the resources to compete in a BCS conference. Also, travel to and from the Pac 10 sites is less difficult that trips to and from the interior west.

Adding Hawaii would make the Pac 10 an 11-team conference, the same number as in its partner the Big 10. There's something to be said for symmetry.

The MWC should add Fresno State and Boise State, two programs that get very good support from their communities, and have played highly competitive football. I think they would have a good argument for BCS inclusion, as they would give the BCS a firm majority in Division I-A affairs, and extend the reach of the BCS to many states which do not already have a representative.

I wouldn't split the MWC into divisions or go for a championship game. That's because the BCS might require the MWC and (an ND-less) Big East, as the two less powerful conferences in the setup, to take part in a BCS play-in game.

Your 100 percent correct michaelr Hawaii belongs in the Pac-10. As for MWC Fresno St. and Boise St. do belong.
Also Nevada is a Perfect Fit and So is UTEP because they were a orginal member and plus they are still within the same time zone.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

UTEP was not a charter member of the Western Athletic Conference. They were admitted several years later, along with Colorado State. Additionally, they recently lost at home to I-AA Cal Poly-SLO 34-13.

I thought they were original member well they are having a bad year or two. Anyway they have more right to be in the MWC then UNLV which was in the Big West in the early 90's.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

After reading some of the posts again I'm back in the Fresno/Boise camp. It occurred to me that Boise is within driving distance of the two Utah schools, that those two schools have the largest stadium attendances, that Idaho is about 50% Mormon, and that all those Utah folks would be glad to drive three hours to a game in Boise involving Utah or BYU, and visa versa, and visit all their relatives at the same time..

Sometimes practicality wins out I guess, but it does make good sense

:D