MWC exp.

[Nacho]

From WAC board. I don't know if this is true:

<A HREF="http://www.owlzone.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config2.pl?read=56131" TARGET=_blank>http://www.owlzone.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config2.pl?read=56131</A>

[Water Pony]

Nacho:

Thanks for the re-introduction to conference alignment and the resulting speculations. Since, an initial move by BE will be the likely trigger, Conference USA could end up being a fatality, if MWC moves quicker.

That said, a TCU to MWC is hard to get your arms around. Frogs would have no natural or geographic rivalries to help with FB attendance. My wish and hope is that whether we move or not (WAC-East, etc.), the arms race in athletics can only be moderated for Mid-Majors and private schools by pursuing a model with a least four schools in a region supporting each other, while encouraging rivalries and holding costs down.

If Conf. USA doesn't expand into the SW, then TCU, SMU, Rice, etc. need each other despite inflated aspirations by any party when it is based on their individual circumstances in 2003, not long term prospects. Let's get rational.

Having said that, I not optimistic that such self-interest will be understood or pursued.

As for us, I still feel we will be one of those teams who "exceeds expectations" this year. That will be gain us more than wishful thinking. Let's do it the hard way, and "earn it"! Go Ponies! Beat Tech!

[This message has been edited by Water Pony (edited 08-26-2003).]

[Water Pony]

From the "careful what you wish for" category, here is a point of view suggesting the non-BCS schools not push the BCS too far. Your reaction?:

<A HREF="http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=1618822" TARGET=_blank>http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=1618822</A>

[Nacho]

Piece of crap article by a BCS lackey.

I would love to see Tulane play Tenn in a playoff game.

It's all about MONEY. The BCS has it and wants to keep it. That simple. Sue their arses off!

[abezontar]

The second article sounds as though he is calling all the non-BCS schools a bunch of babies, as though we just aren't good enough to compete. While SMU might not be able to compete right now, there are schools that can....are they a bunch of cry babies for being just as good but not getting a legitimate shot?

[Nacho]

Scroll to the bottom and see what Bennett says:

<A HREF="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/college/2065784" TARGET=_blank>http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/college/2065784</A>

[PK]

I believe it is called the "Golden Rule"...they who have the gold...rule.

If the BCS crowd does break away, whatever it is they create will become more like a football version of minor league baseball and less like college football. Payrolls will become the norm and the associated college campuses will just be a quaint facade.

Long live the student athlete!!!

[Charleston Pony]

While I favor everyone having a shot at the national title, let's be realistic here. The only way the current non-BCS schools deserve to participate in a 16 team playoff is consolidation of the non-BCS group into much larger regional conferences of what amounts to "2nd tier" schools. Does anyone think a SunBelt champion UNT or WAC champion Boise St deserves to be in a playoff at a BCS conference runner up's expense?

I agree the participants need to be deserving. The problem is, just as it is in bball, the so called "mid-majors" can't earn an RPI high enough to qualify under today's rules. I've heard talk of a 5th game and a possibility the non-BCS programs could qualify anyone finishing in the top 20...a much more realistic scenario. That would give anyone from the WAC who runs the table in conference play and beats some BCS programs in the non-conference a chance to participate.

I agree with a lot of what the writer says. The bottom line is this is $$$ driven and TV writes the checks. His Middle Tenn comment is dead on. If SMU was strong enough to go 12-0 with the schedule we are playing this year, we would deserve a spot at the BCS table. Let's say Fresno pulled the unimagineable and beat Tenn, OU, Oregon St & Colorado St but lost one of their WAC games to finish 11-1. Depending on how those non-conference opponents fard in their conference schedule, Fresno would arguably be deserving if they were clearly the best of the "mid-majors".

And the debate rages on!

[PK]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Charleston Pony:
<B> Does anyone think a SunBelt champion UNT or WAC champion Boise St deserves to be in a playoff at a BCS conference runner up's expense?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes if they have a good record like 11-0 or 10-1. Why should a BcS team with a 8-3 or 7-4 record have an advantage? Probably three of their wins were over Sunbelt, C-USA or WAC teams anyway.

[Southland]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nacho:
<B>From WAC board. I don't know if this is true:

<A HREF="http://www.owlzone.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config2.pl?read=56131" TARGET=_blank>http://www.owlzone.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config2.pl?read=56131</A></B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the MWC website, in the "ask the commish" section...
===========
Corwin Hudson
Utica, Michigan

With the current situation of Miami actually going to the ACC does this put any added pressure on the MWC to expand more quickly? As a BYU graduate I ask how would expansion affect the historic rivalries? I also would comment that something needs to be done to put the MWC in a better position before all the money is divided among all the new super conferences.

"Not necessarily. Our timeline has been to study expansion this fall, but if further conference movement prevails, we may need to speed up the timeline. Since we are committed to a maximum of eight conference football games, any more than nine members would mean divisional play and that didn't work to well in the 16-team WAC."

-Craig Thompson, MWC Commissioner
==============

Clearly, his answer solves a lot of the MWC riddle, and disproves the "TCU is going to be invited this month" theory.

My guess would be that the true candidates for expansion are Boise, Fresno and TCU. Travel was one of the many concerns raised when the infamous WAC fax came in.

My money is on Boise, who brings a January bowl game, is located in the region, and who regularly hosts NCAA Tournament games.

[Charleston Pony]

UNT would have to go 12-0 this year to deserve a shot. That would mean they beat OU and Arkansas, along with Baylor, Air Force and the rest of the SunBelt (so what?). If they went 11-1, they would not be more deserving than a Georgia or Florida or K State or Texas or Michigan or Miami team that goes 11-1 or even 11-2 (losing their league championship game) playng a much tougher schedule. The FACT is that the top 2-3 teams in each of the BCS conferences are generally stronger than the champions of the non-BCS conferences. Look at Boise last year. They crushed the WAC, but got blown out by a 9-5 Arkansas team.

Consolidate the MAC, CUSA, SBC, WAC & MWC into 3-4 conferences and eliminate the I-A pretenders from that group and I will support the argument that every conference champ should participate in a 16 team playoff. From last year's group, either Boise or CSU would have represented the west, TCU the southwest, etc... I think 9-10 conferences would be about right. Allow the ACC and Big 10 to have 11 teams and the PAC 10 to remain at 10, but the Big East and others would have to have at least 12-14 members and a championship game to qualify.

[Greenwich Pony]

Hmm. The BCS schools leaving to form their own conference. It could happen. I can't say that I'd be broken up about the NCAA crumbling, especially with the leadership they have shown over the past decade or so. However, It isn't in the BCS school's interest. If they have to play each other exclusively, then teams that right now win 6-7 even 8 games become below .500 teams. Their alumni will be cheesed off, and interest from those schools would fall off. The NFL product (which fields 32 teams) is stronger, and that is what they would directly compete against it, say nothing for completing against the NBA in basketball as well. It may hang on for a few years, but it wouldn't last for too long. Finally, a breach would be an admission that this is all about money; football money in particular (afterall the basketball system in inclusive of over 400 D-1 programs). If that's the case, Uncle Sugar may become very interested in the tax implications and a university's 501(c)3 status. There is no problem with a university running a for-profit subentity- many schools do it to captialize on R&D, but financially it wouldn't make sense, since the tax rate would cut into profits and players might actually have to be paid- perhaps at market rates, would have unionization rights and other benefits that these schools don't pay at present. Also sovereign immunity within states that offer professional franchises could also be impacted- Nebraska and OU might be okay, but the Texas and California schools would be placed squarely behind the 8-ball.

The NCAA remainder might actually not be hurt as much. They could claim that they are the "true college product" with the tradition that college football relies upon to sell it; more regional interest for schools that are presently overshadowed by semi-pro programs. While yes, many of the BCS schools have huge alumni bases, but more people have gone to smaller colleges, and would perhaps have their interest rekindled by seeing their alma mater on TV.

No way the BCS schools bolt- they have way too much to loose, while the non-BCS have far less at stake at this point.