What is the MWC waiting for?
The Boise State bowl showing monday night was terrific.
If the MWC waits on expansion much longer they may not have any takers from the WAC.

I agree completely. BSU ASAP - then maybe Fresno & UTEP/Houston

All I can figure is that the MWC doesn't want to appear to anxious....
Clearly BSU will finish with a top 10 ranking, and by getting them to join the MWC, that will help their statistical criteria (since they can count BSU's 2006 season in the WAC as performance by an MWC member retor-actively, like the BE did with Louisville's showing in 2003-04 while they were still in CUSA).

I agree a 12 team conference with BSU / Fresno St. / UTEP would look attractive. The caveat is that if the conference winds up with a few tough teams at the top, you can end up with fratracide, like you have in the SEC (and actually happened in the BE this year, with Louisville, Rutgers, and WVU knoocking each other off).

I think June 30th is the expansion deadline (with regard to filing changes with the NCAA), so look for the MWC to make a move between now and then.

NOW - Suppose you are the WAC commissioner and want to play defense ! IS the MWC truly more appealing ? The WAC teams got the payout from the BCS this year. If money and security aside, BSU would be just as comfortable in the WAC, would the WAC commissioner make a run at the westernmost MWC schools, namely San Diego State and UNLV ?

Rather than sit back and get picked apart, maybe the WAC should go on offense, or they could find themselves at a critically small size and begging Big Sky teams to move up ASAP.
Does the MWC really have the upper hand ? They have bigger TV markets, no question. But the MWC has not been terribly successful with their BCS and TV endeavors... hardly moreso than the WAC.

I will be surprised if nothing happens over the next few months...

The screwy thing... Boise State can certainly say they'll get more ESPN exposure in the WAC than in the Mountain West.

Thus the question often pondered on WAC (but not MWC) boards. Is the exposure at a higher level more valuable than the CSTV money? Witness recruiting at present.

Boise State officials, in the past, have made it clear that the Mountain West is the goal. I wonder if anything's changed.

********************************

I consider it very wise to have left Boise during the Fiesta Bowl, hanging out in Oregon. I didn't get the constant slaughter of bowl coverage. Well, I get back and it's still a constant slaughter. At least it's earned.

The WAC should do all they can to become the superior conference. As of now they have the better tv deal, now they should go after san diego state and unlv. Also UC Davis would be a good expansion candidate. La Tech should try to find a home in C-USA.

I think the goal of the MWC is to get an autobid to the bcs and boise would defenitely help their cause. I see an invitation coming, but the question is whether boise will accept it.

Since it's a 4-year review (2004-07), Louisville's 2003 season doesn't count, but 2004 does.




How do they get out of the one-year notification requirement? I don't think that BSU can make a move until 2008 at the earliest.




Excellent points about the TV stuff. When all is said & done, that is the biggest hurdle for these mountain conferences. The schools that have exclusivity in their states (Utah/BYU, UNLV, UNM, Wyo) are working with a combined population base in the 4 states smaller than New York City alone. Not the NYC metro area - just the city itself. They draw a lot of fans to their stadiums, but they don't enhance the BCS TV exposure. TCU & San Diego State help as would the addition of Fresno State, but they still play in the shadows of the Big XII & the Pac Ten respectively.

For the same reason (TV), the Big East has remained attractive to the BCS because they have exclusivity in 4 states (NY, NJ, CT, WV) with a population of 33 million. For all of their other problems, these demographics don't change.

I think that the quality of the Mountain West teams would have to overwhelm the BCS for them to get an automatic bid. Since it's a top to bottom review, the BCS will not only be looking at the success of Utah, TCU, & potentially BSU, but they will also be looking at UNLV, CSU, & SDSU, which were all among the bottom 20 in IA this year. The addition of Fresno State would bring the 10 million person market of the valley, but it will also bring a program that has fallen on hard times & is no longer near the program it was a few years ago.

Even an enhanced Mountain West will be a hard sell since the BCS can now legitimately point to the fact that teams from conferences without an automatic bid now will be selected to a BCS bowl if they're good enough. They can point to BSU & Utah in the past 3 years as exhibits one & two.

This is an excellent point that always seems to get lost - any conference can sport a single team that goes undefeated in a given year, but it's the top-to-bottom performance of the conference overall that ought to be the key factor in determining whether its champion ought to receive an automatic BCS bid. In my opinion, only basing a BCS review on the final rankings of the conference champions over a period of time without looking at the strength of the entire conference overall is a terrible and inaccurate method.

There is enough talent and markets in the west to create another bcs conference, but I doubt it will ever happen.

I took a look at the criteria for getting an autobid http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility and my conclusion is that if the MWC dropped UNLV and added Boise St. for the 2007 football season, the MWC could very likely qualify for an automatic BCS bid in 2008 and 2009. Here's why.

The formula used will use the 2007 conference lineup and look at results for the 2004 through 2007 seasons. The 3 mathmatical formula will be 1) ranking of the highest ranked team each year, 2) the final regular season computer rankings of all conference teams, and 3) the number of teams in the top 25 each year.

Adding Boise St. means that for criteria one, the MWC would have a top 12 team in each of 2004, 2005, and 2006. Using the Power Rankings from http://realtimerpi.com , adding Boise St. and dropping UNLV would move the MWC ahead of the SEC and Big Ten for 2004, ahead of the Big East for 2005, and within a fraction of a point of the ACC for 2006. Finally, Boise St. would add an additional top 25 team for 2004 and 2006. In regards to overall ranking using these criteria, the MWC would likely come in 7th among conferences, but would also likely be extremely close to the Big East and to the ACC and would easily distance itself from C-USA and the WAC.

Obviously, changing conference lineups on 8 months notice would be close to impossible - but here's an idea. Trade UNLV to the WAC for Boise St. in football for the 2007 season, have each assume the other's conference schedules. Keep UNLV in and add Boise St. for other sports. Commit to readmitting UNLV for football once the WAC scheduling can be straightened out.

Here is the full text of the BCS rule:

Conference Automatic Qualification in Future

Mathematical standards of performance will be applied to determine the number of conferences whose champions will automatically qualify for a BCS game after the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons. The champions of no fewer than five conferences and no more than seven conferences will have annual automatic berths in the BCS bowl games.

The standards will be based on results from the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 regular seasons, using institutions that are members of the conferences during the 2007 season.

The data will include the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.

Conference agreements with bowls will continue. The Pac-10 and Big Ten champions will host the Rose Bowl if their teams are not in the BCS national championship game. Likewise, the Southeastern Conference champion will host the Sugar Bowl, ACC champion will host the Orange Bowl and Big 12 champion will host the Fiesta Bowl.

The MWC doesn't dare drop UNLV. We've already discussed the apparent rule held by most conferences that members just aren't tossed out. In the case of Las Vegas, they'll take their bowl game with them, and that's usually where the MWC sends their #1 team these days.

In amongst all the noise in Boise since the Fiesta Bowl, there's a lot of rumors (virtually all unfounded, from what I can gather) that the Mountain West will invite BSU. I can certainly see the temptation opening up. The media close to the program are doing nothing to downsize the rumors; there's been some jabs at Las Cruces and Logan and some other burgs from said media folk lately that have other WAC fans upset. I think the Mountain West sits back and says "do it again," knowing that doing it again is about three times the task, and knowing that the Mountain West has a higher interest in TV sets than they do quality wins right now.

Boise State is proof that WAC team is just as capable of reaching the BCS at large as a MWC team.

Unless the BCS were to grant MWC an up front automatic bid based on Boise State as a member there does not appear to be much benefit of membership in the MWC verses the WAC. Its not like the MWC has some fantastic TV network or gains regular multiple NCAA basketball bids.

The WAC and MWC have to be careful and ovoid the issues that occurred with the ACC raided the Big East.

At the moment the Big East has become as stronger football conference over the perceived to be stronger on paper expanded ACC.

What happens if Boise State bolts and either Fresno State or San Jose State step up and gain a future at large BCS bid.

The MWC expansion accomplishment would result in revenue sharing by 9 members as apposed to 8 and not gain the BCS bid in the process.

The same principal was used for argument in the ACC that expansion would bring in regular multiple BCS bids with expansion.

For now, MWC automatic BCS membership and ACC multiple BCS bids do not look promising.

Expansion should be the right reasons such as the then Pac 8 expanded to the Pac 10. There were huge market gains in this transaction. Arizona was projected and has become the fastest growing state in the union.

I am guessing that if ACC had a view into the future during expansion talks, the conference would have remained at 9 or possible only expanded to 10 teams with Miami.

The bottom line is 9 teams work great for both basketball and football for round robin scheduling and 10th member would need to bring a lot to the table to be considered.

Expanding to 12 must bring the impossible as we again can look to the ACC as an example.

Expanding on promises did not work the last time a conference tried to get more out of the BCS.

The ACC should have taken either BC and Syracuse (my preference and the original intention) - or Va Tech and West Va. I know the Gov of Va put the pressure on, but it's too bad both BC and Syracuse were left without a natural rival.

Well, who knows what the future holds. If the ACC were told they would get a richer Tv contract per team by adding two more, I wouldn't rule it out. A 14 team ACC adding a Syracuse, Kentucky, Louisville, South Carolina, Georgia, florida, Rutgers, Pitt, Penn St. , WVU, etc...who knows.

_________________


@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.

I agree with Lash. Following his reasoning, Rutgers should have been the #1 target for ACC expansion. This would have created a nice rivalry with Maryland, which is otherwise out on an island in the ACC - especially since the addition of Virginia Tech. They had their hearts set on Miami & the politicians insited on VA Tech. Rutgers would have been a better geographic fit than BC & would have brought a better market.

I don't see how Syracuse is left without a natural rival. UConn is closer to Syracuse than Boston. UConn & Syracuse have been the top two hoops programs in the Big East for the past dozen years or so & have developed an intense rivalry. If they can develop their football programs, they will have a rivalry there too. It's hard to have good rivalries with bad teams.

Boise State to MWC:

I thought I read somewhere that the loophole for using previous BCS rankings was going to be closed?

The MWC has better candidates to upgrade to a 10 or 12 team conference than the BE - IMO.

SU-UConn:
I'm not sure if SU will ever see UConn as a rival in FB. The other FB schools that have a long history with SU (Pitt and WVu) just don't see SU as their rival and would consider SU maybe 4th in their list. This is why BC was a natural rival for SU because of their history, both were privates, and the lack of any closer 'rivals' for them (RU was terrible, Army hasn't been good in a while, and UConn wasn't 1A).