Quantcast
Sports

Mike Sorensen: MWC expand? Get rid of deadweight

Comments

Return To Article
  • Frozen Chosen
    Nov. 15, 2009 9:20 p.m.

    That works for me. The only potential change I would make to your suggestion is to keep Colorado State. They have a good chance of being a solid football program once again and there are a lot of TV sets in Colorado. I don't think too many tears would be shed for New Mexico and Wyoming. They can join the WAC where they belong.

    Going to 12 teams would be a mistake - look at what happened to the WAC.

  • soakblue
    Nov. 15, 2009 9:20 p.m.

    Sorenson, they tried this in the 1990s with the mega-WAC expansion. It was a bust! More does not equal better. Indeed, less is actually more. Every league needs bottom feeders; New Mexico, Wyoming, and UNLV perform those roles well, while at the same time beating the occasional BCS team (Arizona, Tennessee, and ASU in the past couple years). I think the status quo is the best course!

  • Are You Nuts?
    Nov. 15, 2009 9:27 p.m.

    What about loyalty and committment? The schools that broke away from the WAC to form the MWC have - for the most part - a long history together. They have been together since the old Skyline Conference days. Plus they committed significant money to create the TV network that they own part of.

    Perhaps most important is that sports programs are cyclical. Not always up, not always down. Remember not too long ago SDSU was in the top tier of the WAC in football.

    Boise State is a glorified DIA school in everything but football. How long do you think they will be a football powerhouse? (Until their coach leaves for a bigger paycheck!)

    The MWC is doing the correct thing. Require the weak sisters to get better. That is happening right now - note SDSU in recent weeks. Show some class and some loyalty by requiring the other teams to improve - but don't kick them out. If they don't cut it after a few more years, then other options may be worth considering.

    But amongst quality people, loyalty is important and these schools have plenty of history together to justify the loyalty.

  • The Truth
    Nov. 15, 2009 9:30 p.m.

    Why add Sand Diego or UNLV? If you are adding programs becase they have been good in basketball, then add USU. They have won the WAC bb title two years now and are picked to win it a third time. With the addition of Gary Anderson and the facility improvements I expect their football to be much better than SDSU and UNLV and at least on par with Nevada.

  • USU?!?
    Nov. 15, 2009 9:45 p.m.

    USU? Nice, can I stop laughing yet? They would definatly add some respect to the MWC, while we're at it could we please add Weber St? Coach Mac could help legitimize our conference too! Maybe Dixie and Snow just for the travel consderations, you know during the BBall season. Thanks for that, I feel much better now!

  • Agreed
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:04 p.m.

    I agree with the truth.. Utah state should be in the talk of MWC expansion. I'm biased cuz I'm from Utah and some schools around the conference might not agree but they would be better than the bottom of the existing MWC.
    Personally I think the expansion would be better than contraction to eight teams. Football conference championship games bring in BIG money! And thats what most of the BCS talk is about..some respect, but mostly money..

  • the truth about expansion
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:09 p.m.

    Expanding is good. I love when people go back to wac expansion. Smu,rice, la tech, san jose, not the best teams to add. Boise,Nevada,Fresno, are good teams to strengthen your conference.

  • Not Again
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:10 p.m.

    Several reasons why this shouldn't, or couldn't work.

    Conferences are not just for athletics. Part of the reason BYU will never be in the PAC 10 is due to the perception of the PAC 10 president's/schools of BYU's academics as clearly inferior to the PAC 10. In the same vein, BSU aka "Boise school of welding and truck driving" (yes, that's right, a good share of the students at BSU are enrolled in technology/technical programs.) It is highly unlikely the vaunted MWC presidents would consider affiating themselves academically with Boise State Technical College.

    In addition, adding the teams you're talking about would not work for the same reason the WAC16 did not work. Adding Houston would not add anything to the scenario as far as Texas exposure. Boise is in Idaho, and there's less people in the entire state than there is in the Salt Lake Valley.

    Advertisers want bigger markets than what you're adding. Advertisers get nothing by adding the MWC (the area already gets ESPN, so the MTN continues to be an anchor) BCS is about ad dollars, not competition. Look at the BCS map.

  • My vote
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:12 p.m.

    The obvious one is Boise State. Then I would add SMU which is a real rivalry for TCU and it helps solidify the Dallas-Fort Worth market. My third team to level it out at 12 would be Fresno State.

    Neveda doesn't bring anything to Mountain West table. It is a very small market. Houston is geographically too far away.

    So the East would be TCU, SMU, New Mexico, Air Force, Colorado State, and Wyoming.

    The West would be Boise, Utah, BYU, UNLV, SDSU and Fresno. I would hold the championship game in Las Vegas.

  • ben
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:17 p.m.

    Just to get this straight, your brilliant idea is to drop one of the only four teams to have won a titles. Don't you think it is a bit hasty to drop Colorado State. They did win a bowl game last year. Utah and BYU also had some mediocre season before regaining form

    MWC Titles TCU-2 (including this year) CSU-3 BYU-4 Utah-4 Only four teams have won the title, and the knock on the league is that it is top heavy.

  • D Mack
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:36 p.m.

    I agree with the release of UNM to another conference. UNM in the WAC would give them confidence at playing college sports (they lost to their guaranteed-win NMSU this year). Their football program is in total chaos and will need time to correct. A switch with BSU and/or Fresno St with UNM and/or Wyoming would be a move in the right direction.

  • CSU
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:42 p.m.

    The MWC was born at CSU. They are better than half the teams overall in all sports you want to keep or add to the conference. The MWC will do nothing without the approval of CSU>

  • Re: USU?!?
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:45 p.m.

    He's talking about basketball, maybe you didn't pick up on that. Also, he's saying that the football program is looking up and will quite possibly be better than SDSU and UNLV soon, and I don't see that being too far fetched.

  • SDCougar
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:47 p.m.

    Now will you be my friend, BCS??? Listen closely, Sorenson:

    IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY; NOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE TEAMS IN THE CONFERENCE!!!

    The BCS was invented to shut-out half the Division 1A schools in the country from the big money bowl games. You can juggle the non-BCS conferences all you want to and the BCS will still not cut you a piece of the action. They don't care about quality. Most BCS schools are the same caliber as non-BCS schools. They want to keep the money, publicity, money, glory, money, and highly rated recruits in a select few conferences. So, don't tax your brain with new combinations of non-BCS teams. The BCS conferences will never willingly relinquish all of their benefits. Why should they?

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 15, 2009 10:57 p.m.

    Athletic directors don't care about the programs' academics, only athletics. Plus, BYU's academics are better than Arizona's and Washington State's. The reason BYU will never be in the PAC 10 is because of Sunday play.

  • yo adrian
    Nov. 15, 2009 11:03 p.m.

    I like the 8 team new Mountain west

  • I remember Mike
    Nov. 15, 2009 11:07 p.m.

    He is the one who declared last years Utah football team the best ever out of the State of Utah. There was even a time, sir, that USU had some very good seasons.

    That is why he is willing to dump Wyoming and CSU, two teams that have historically done well, but not in the past ten years, which I guessing, is longer that Mr. Sorensen has been following college sports.

    The conference has a problem right now with parity, but so does about every other conference. You don't fine tune it every 10 years.

    Since you are obviously a Ute homer with Robinson, I have a suggestion about how to spend your time right now. Just sit back, drink your red koolaid, and be prepared to explain away utah's 3rd place finish in football, and bottom of the conference finish in basketball. Let the university President's do their job, and do what is best for the conference.

  • Silly Quote
    Nov. 15, 2009 11:14 p.m.

    Mike Sorenson writes: "As good as it sounds, it would be hard to do. How do you tell three of your fellow conference members to take a hike?"

    Obvious answer: YOU DON'T. Conference associations are about LOTS more than football and men's basketball, though they are the most visible and apparently all Sorenson's thought about.

    But what about other sports? Colorado State's got strong programs in women's basketball and volleyball--giving them the boot makes the MWC weaker in those sports. And that's not to mention academic similarities, which also figure heavily into the university presidents' decisions.

    Universities generally don't throw out the conference baby with the bathwater just to make themselves look better in football. And if they did, there would be sour grapes at best--and potential legal action at worst. If Sorenson doesn't realize that by now, he needs to inform himself. Expansion is an infinitely better option for the MWC than expulsion.

  • Expansion is Better...
    Nov. 15, 2009 11:24 p.m.

    ... but not TOO much expansion. That was the problem with the 16-team WAC--way too big and way too weak. If the MWC expands, the number of teams is CAPPED FIRMLY at 12. If it works for the Big 12 and SEC, it could well work for the Mountain West--IF IT ISN'T OVERDONE. The 16-team WAC way overdid it. Keep it at 12, MAX.

    My recommendation for adds: Boise State, Utah State (serious--football's a joke FOR NOW, but basketball and some other sports aren't), and Nevada. But others can and will argue with those last two--so let's hear it.

  • DFW Cougar
    Nov. 15, 2009 11:26 p.m.

    No way should we add SMU to the MWC. They would bring absolutely nothing to this conference. TCU doesn't need a rivalry team in the MWC - they already have very strong rivalries with Utah and BYU. You need to know something about the DFW market. Adding SMU to solidify the DFW market is like adding a couple of buckets of water to raise the level of the Great Salt Lake. Adding SMU to the MWC would do less than nothing for the MWC.

  • Keep Dreaming
    Nov. 15, 2009 11:31 p.m.

    To all you dreamers out there who think this would be a great idea, haven't you heard the news... The UTES are going to the Pac-10 in two years along with Colorado and chances are that BYU will go to the Big 10. So all you BSU and TCU and CSU and SDSU, etc..., fans you can piddle around with the MWC while us Utes will continue to roll! Go Utes I can't wait to see teams like USC, UCLA, Cal, Oregon, etc., at Rice Eccles. Zoobies you better get your season tickets now at Rice Eccles because you get to see some real football, not just "execution"

  • CSU
    Nov. 15, 2009 11:32 p.m.

    You could easily take out BYU or Utah or TCU if you take out CSU based on the last 15 years football record and conference titles won. Plus CSU is among the best academically in the MWC. It would not be a good idea to add Nevada or Boise. They would diminish the prestige of the MWC.

  • Dumb and dumber
    Nov. 15, 2009 11:42 p.m.

    Once again, a clueless article about conference realignment that only addresses football issues.

    The MWC doesn't need Boise State to become an AQ BCS school.

    With TCU already a lock to play in a BCS game this season, the MWC only needs to qualify one more team for a BCS berth in either 2010 or 2011 in order to cement an automatic berth in the BCS starting in 2012.

    The MWC becoming an AQ conference would almost make the WAC an AQ conference, since the only thing the WAC would have to do to get an automatic bid would be to have one team finish in the top 12 and have that team be ranked higher than the C-USA winner, which would be the only other conference that the WAC would have to compete against.

  • Makes too much sense
    Nov. 15, 2009 11:45 p.m.

    So the presidents would never do it. But I totally agree.

  • ITcouldbe
    Nov. 16, 2009 12:22 a.m.

    I don't see the schools presidents voting to get rid of WYM or NM, even though like you said it would be the perfect escenario, plus adding BSU, Houston and perhaps Fresno State. adding USU would be ridiculous, so don't even joke about it. We need Houston though, because is a big city and a potencial Bowl ot to mention a good recruiting place. But I think leaving the conference and creating a new one with the teams that you mention would be even a better idea so we can get rid of the stupid MTN network deal at the same time.

  • Boise St
    Nov. 16, 2009 12:37 a.m.

    Boise State wouldnt go for it because they might have to play a decent team more than once a season. It would shake their fans out of the fantasy they are in that they are a legitimate team.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 16, 2009 12:43 a.m.

    anyone even commenting on this is ridiculous...

  • Searce
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:28 a.m.

    RE: Keep Dreaming

    "IN your dreams". Utah will not be invited to join the PAC, nor will BYU be invited to join the Big Ten.

  • Utah State?
    Nov. 16, 2009 3:55 a.m.

    How many coaches has USU gone through in the last 25 years? How many times have we heard "things are looking up in Logan?"

    I would love to see the Aggies become consistently a good program in football, but the smart money is to bet against them. Unless a high school athlete has some regional (a Cache Valley resident) or familial loyalty to USU, if Utah and BYU want him also, the Aggies immediately become his third choice among Utah schools.

    Whether it makes sense to fans or not, academic reputation and emphasis do factor in forming a college athletic conference. Also, other sports not mentioned above need to be considered as well.

    As much as I respect BSU football (they are 5-0 against Utah and BYU in the past 15 years, by the way), I am not sure they are the first team to consider in a potential MWC expansion. I like Fresno State better - more television sets, better recruiting ground, and a better overall athletic program.

    MWC fans need to realize that even if we expand, that doesn't guarantee an automatic BCS bid. The BCS conferences don't want to share the huge BCS payouts!

  • Utah Man
    Nov. 16, 2009 4:09 a.m.

    I don't think the MWC should do anything to change for the BCS which is just a corrupt money grabbing institution that was allowed to grab way too much power. They already know that the MWC is more legit than the ACC and Big Least but they don't want THAT headache. When Utah busted in '04 they gave them an insignicant Pitt team that would prove nothing if Utah won. When the Utes were back in '08 they thought they would shut the National talk about the Conf. by putting the undefeated Utes against 'bama believing 'bama would destroy the formerly undefeated proving they did not belong. That backfired. Now they have a problem with TCU. They have had their favorites @ 1, 2 and 3 all season saying to the nation once again that it's going to be an SEC - Big 12 NC. They know TCU would destroy Texas, with Florida and Alabama not fairing too well either. So they'll say things like "strength of schedule" etc. I wish the outside conferences would put together a playoff against their conf. champs and have the NC game in Vegas. Proclaiming NC playoffs would kill the BCS.

  • Fun to talk about
    Nov. 16, 2009 4:45 a.m.

    But absolutely ridiculous. What should they do? Creat a NEW conference? Maybe call it the NSC, Never Satisfied Conference, or maybe the GIAG, the Grass is Always Greener Conference. Try creating a network for the GIAG, or the GAG conf.

    And what makes you think that BSU would WANT to join the MWC? They are doing just fine in my eyes, undefeated year after year. Sure, maybe they didn't get into the BCS last year, but it will happen. Better to be a big fish in a little pond, than a medium-sized fish in a we're never happy so we are making a new conference...pond.

    I think the MWC is doing just fine, the schools are improving and the more we change it, the worse off it will be. Now it's even, 8 league games. What if there's 9? Does one team not play another, then there will be injustice because two undefeated teams in a conference that didn't play, and no champ. game.

    Just leave it how it is, it will only grow and get better!

  • What's up?
    Nov. 16, 2009 5:56 a.m.

    What makes the most since is that Utah joins the PAC 10, at that point things might be up for grabs with what happens.

  • Football Fan
    Nov. 16, 2009 6:24 a.m.

    'Just a note for "Not Again". BSU does NOT have the driving, technical programs you refer to. Those programs are part of the College of Western Idaho, not BSU. BSU's mission is that of an "emerging metropolitan research university of distinction."

    Second, BSU does have a national following, not just Idaho. Games are regularly telecast throughout the northwest on the Bronco network. In addition, ESPN telecasts many of the games. This year, ESPN is telecasting seven games.

  • Dr. J.
    Nov. 16, 2009 6:34 a.m.

    I like an 8 team MWC. I think Wyo and CSU would fare better in the WAC or Summitt league.

    But with TCU, BYU and UU struggling to get quality non-conference games, what makes you think that they'll be able to schedule one more each season? Chances are they they'll then be left to scheduling CSU or Wyo or Eastern Washington anyway. And sorry, better rankings require playing better teams from other sections of the country.

  • SDSU
    Nov. 16, 2009 6:34 a.m.

    Has terrible terrible attendance in football. There is some talk of cutting the program. I hope they do. Then add boise. Leave it a nine team league.

  • MarkS
    Nov. 16, 2009 6:48 a.m.

    I expect professional sports writers from the local market to get their MWC facts straight, and Sorenson is a major fail. For example, he talks about CSU last being dominant in football in the 90's. Mike, CSU won the MWC outright in football in 2000 and 2002.

    And why does he not know that the league cannot "kick out" members? Teams can only withdraw and form their own new league, as the MWC eight did when they withdrew from the WAC.

  • PAC-10
    Nov. 16, 2009 7:11 a.m.

    Sunday play is not the only reason for BYU not being invited to join the PAC-10. Remember, it's not the ADs who make decisions regarding conference membership; it's the university presidents. From an academic standpoint (and the PAC-10 is particularly proud of its academic strength), BYU is lacking in research funding and at least a perception of a lack of academic freedom.

  • LookingAtJokers
    Nov. 16, 2009 7:21 a.m.

    Boise State's engineering program is in the top ten in the nation. Not exactly "Boise State Technical Collegeā€ I don't believe any of the colleges at any of the MWC universities are ranking in the top ten of anything. And I believe if you check your facts you will see that Boise State has a winning record over MWC schools. But why look at facts.?

  • GET REAL
    Nov. 16, 2009 7:21 a.m.

    Another article written for suckers who actually believe this could happen. Utah is not going to the pac 10 and boise is not coming to the mwc!
    GET REAL PEOPLE!

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 16, 2009 7:28 a.m.

    Would never happen, and would still be a mediocre conference.

  • Re: What's up
    Nov. 16, 2009 7:33 a.m.

    Yeah like the PAC 10 wants a school that loses to IDAHO and the Baptists in bb and hands out 55 to TCU! Get a life!

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 16, 2009 7:35 a.m.

    Mike, Mike. "UNLV and SDSU have the potential to be good programs."?? Are you serious? UNLV has had a decent football program since, oh, what, the 1970s with Ron Meyer? UNLV is a gambling town, not a football town, and Las Vegas is a pro sports town, not a college town. They've brought in great coaches who cannot create a "program" and win any games. It will never change.

    And SDSU is not much different. Occasionally they put together a good team but a "program?" not even. They can't get any fans out, they can't recruit, they can't compete with the Pac-10, and are always a bottom dweller in the MWC. To be honest, neither UNLV or SDSU will ever be any good in football.

  • RE: Re: Whats up 7:33
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:12 a.m.

    Don't be bitter!

    Someday your cougars may get to play in a BCS game and then you can say "me too, me too".

    This year its TCU's turn and perhaps even next year also. BYU justs needs to execute at an even higher level apparently. Utah just needs to get a little more experience at some positions. Oh and both teams need more speed, although Utah seems to be faster than BYU, oh wait, most every team is faster than BYU.

    The MWC biggest concern is what happens when TCU leaves for a AQ conference. That will only leave Utah and BYU to carry the conference torch. That a depressing thought for many.

    Oh well.

  • BYU Grad, 1993
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:29 a.m.

    I think Tulsa would be a good fit. Their basketball program has won more NCAA Tourny games than any other MWC team besides Utah. Tulsa's football team would also compete well. Just my 2 cents.

  • Reality
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:32 a.m.

    I would like to see the MWC become stronger in basketball. Boise wouldn't add anything to the MWC basketball program. Tulsa would add strength to the MWC program.

    Also, we haven't we dumped Wyoming a long time ago? Wyoming is terrible in everything.

  • Dutchman
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:35 a.m.

    Mike, I like your analysis and agree with you for the most part. I don't know if BYU and Utah have the stomach right now to add another team to the conference that can beat them up as TCU did this year. If they do have the stomach for expansion then going to 12 teams makes sense with the teams you mentioned. I would bring in Houston over Tulsa because of the Texas connection and the fact that Houston is the fourth largest city in the nation. Your assertion that some teams should be booted from the Conference falls a bit flat. Would the PAC-10 boot Arizona and Cal because Arizona has never been to the Rose Bowl and Cal has not been in 50 years? Certainly not.

  • Isn't
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:36 a.m.

    that how the Mountain worst conf got started in the first place... By taking the "best" teams from the WAC like Wyoming, SDSU, NMU, and UNLV??? hahahahaha

  • Logical
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:51 a.m.

    What is it with the dillusional obsession for Boise? They would bring absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing, to your new conference. Do you honestly think they would go undefeated in football, or even lose just one game, year after year if they played a legitimate schedule? They would lose at least two if they played TCU, Utah and BYU every year. And, if they played a reasonable non-conference schedule (four games) they could lose at least two of those. Now, what happens to the recruiting when you aren't the perennial conference champion anymore? Out the window, maybe?
    How many athletes from southwest Idaho are making an impact in the MWC? Not many!! So would adding Boise do anything to conference exposure or recuiting? Not a chance. And, we haven't even talked about other sports. Do they even participate in other sports? When was the last time they won the conference (WAC) in basketball, track, (mens or womens) baseball, softball?? If you think a team that dominates a bad conference in one sport makes them an asset to a well rounded, well respected conference you're, well, dillusional.

  • Wishful Thinking
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:56 a.m.

    Let's invite Kansas to boost the MWC basetball program and let's invite Florida to boost the MWC football program.

    We should also invite Notre Dame, Texas and Kentucky. If we did all of this the MWC would be a GREAT conference.

  • BCS inevitable
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:02 a.m.

    The MWC will be a BCS conference in several years whether they expand or not. Why would TCU leave a conference where they are extremely competitive for a conference where they are an annual also ran?

  • @LookingAtJokers
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:15 a.m.

    Better get your facts straight. BYU's accounting program is in the national top 10. BSU will/can not be invited to join the MWC. Get over it and think about something else.

  • Re: Pac 10
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:17 a.m.

    It isn't just Sunday play that would keep BYU out of the PAC 10. We have to be honest with ourselves. We have no medical school, lack 10s of millions of dollars in research money and need 50-60 more PhD. granting programs to be on the same academic level as most PAC 10 schools.

    The U of U fits the bill academically. They have a medical school, one of 10 comprehensive cancer centers in the US, a huge research infrastructure/funding, many PhD. granting programs and a healthy relationship with industry (Research Park).

    Not to worry though, they won't be invited to the PAC 10 either. BYU and Utah will be in the MWC for the foreseeable future.

  • Re: Logical
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:22 a.m.

    Logically speaking- do you understand where the MWC stands nationally? It's not a powerhouse conference! You need to step out of your box and quite listening to the Utah media once in a while. News flash- the MWC is not, I repeat, not the glory of college sports. It's not respected! It's barely acknowledged! Wake up and smell the roses!!!

  • Let's get to the point
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:24 a.m.

    that the MWC is an automatic qualifying conference. Then nobody has to worry about being undefeated, etc. The conference champ goes every year no matter what. What if UNM takes out TCU? No BCS.

    Crazy.

  • Wyoming, SDSU, NMU, and UNLV
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:27 a.m.

    have all had very good basketball teams in the past and Wyoming and CSU, have had stronger football programs than Utah in the very recent past.

    Creating a whole new conference, which is what it would take to do what Sorensen is proposing, is a clueless, knee-jerk reaction that could easily backfire and still wouldn't guarantee the new conference a BCS bid.

    The MWC is already positioned to get a BCS bid on a regular basis and is on track to become an AQ conference by 2012.

  • True Blue
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:28 a.m.

    BCS inevitable | 9:02 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009 wrote:

    "The MWC will be a BCS conference in several years whether they expand or not. Why would TCU leave a conference where they are extremely competitive for a conference where they are an annual also ran?"

    If TCU was invited by the BIG 12 they would leave the MWC tomorrow. Here's why: MWC teams receive about 1.2 million per year for revenue sharing from t.v. revenues, NCAA Tourny appearances and bowl games. BIG 12 teams receive around 30 to 50 million dollars per team from revenue sharing. A team would have to be crazy to refuse an additional 50 million dollars per year. No team from the MWC would EVER refuse an invitation to the BIG 12.

  • UNLV
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:33 a.m.

    We are the only school in the MWC That wins big games in basketball. If it were not for us, basketball would be banned in the MWC. Basketball is a big revenue sport.

  • REALITY CHECK
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:34 a.m.

    THE BCS will never make the MWC and Automatic qualifying conference. The system already works. It's more fun waiting for a David from the non-qualifying schools to take on a BCS Goliath.

    Do you realize the net recruiting loss that would happen in the BCS conferences if another conference were added to the mix?

    You don't have to go to one of the six PAC-10 schools currently ranked lower for undergraduate academics than BYU, just to play in the BCS. You don't have to go to Baylor or Iowas State when you can go to Utah. You can have your BCS cake and still attend a great service academy.

    MARK MY WORDS. There will be no effort to add another conference to the BCS. It defeats the purpose of the cartel.

  • Big 12
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:34 a.m.

    BYU would be a better fit in the Big 12 anyway, which is what would happen if Utah and Colorado moved to the Pac 10.

    The Pac 10 isn't going to expand unless it's to 12 teams, so it'll either be Utah and BYU, or Utah and Colorado.

    Academically, many of BYU's undergraduate programs are far ahead of Washington State, Oregon State and even, the University of Utah.

  • Fred
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:44 a.m.

    Dear Looking at Jokers,

    Please check the national rankings for undergraduate Business programs where BYU is ranked within the top 5 in one ranking and in the top 10 in others. Also, check out the consistently highly rated Accounting program - typically top 5.

  • Mike
    Nov. 16, 2009 9:53 a.m.

    UNLV? Are you serious? SDSU also? Sorensen you are nuts. UNLV only has a basketball team. And the only reason they ever make it to the NCAA tournament is because the MWC tournament is held on UNLV's home floor. Otherwise, they wouldn't get a sniff. As for football, not a chance with either school.

    Keep the MWC like it is and work to improve the lower rung programs (everyone from Utah on down).

  • K. Smith
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:07 a.m.

    Utah should join the PAC 10. They are better in every way than all of the MWC schools and deserve to be in a league where they can play better schools in football and basketball and all other sports. Their association with poor schools hurts their image and standing in the country.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:09 a.m.

    What if Boise St played TCU for a conference championship. It would be better than Texas playing anyone for the Big 12 title.
    Teams do not want to play the MWC elite. Texas Tech just backed out with TCU. TCU has SMU and Baylor so far. Not that exciting.
    Utah still has Pitt for the next 2.
    Just add Boise and it will add one more good game rather than play a weak team from the Wac or Big 12 ETC....

  • Truth
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:13 a.m.

    Utah goes to the PAC 10 and even maybe Boise St as well.
    TCU goes to the Big 12 when they loose a school to the Big 10. No one know what the Big East will do to get to 12 football schools so in the end the WAC and the MWC will merge without LA Tech, Hawaii, Utah, BSU, TCU, and if BYU were really smart indepenent in Football only. that would leave a 12 team league without any value.

  • Sports Fan
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:52 a.m.

    This kind of article might sell papers but does anyone really believe that the BCS rich leagues will give money to the population bankrupt intermountain west? Really! If you do then all of the New MWC Schools will need to build and sell out football 90K stadiums every weekend to keep pace with the BCS leagues.

    The BCS leagues look at the MWC and the WAC just like we look at the Summit League.

  • Cosmo
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:04 a.m.

    Truth | 10:13 a.m. Nov. 16, 2009,

    Are you serious? You really think that a BIG 12 team would "lose" one of their teams to the Big 10? The Big 10 schools only get about half of what a BIG 12 receives from revenue sharing. Why would any team join another conference and lose 25 million per year? It makes no sense.

  • Football Guru
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:05 a.m.

    If BYU is every going to have a serious chance of being invited to the BIG 12, then BYU must expand their stadium to hold around 90 to 95 thousand fans.

  • Heretic
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:06 a.m.

    Boise to the MWC and Utah back to the WAC as punishment for getting thrashed by TCU and most likely by BYU. The Utes would dominate the men's synchronized whining championships.

  • Silent Lurker
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:13 a.m.

    Wow! There sure are some strong feelings about this.

  • Pac-10 Fan
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:14 a.m.

    Conference realignment often comes up in Pac-10 circles as well. The general consensus is that the league will not expand. Utah and Colorado are the obvious choices because of media market size and academics, however we like our true round robin scheduling and larger shares of the bowl & ncaa tourney money with the league at the current 10 teams.

  • Get rid of the Wyoming
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:15 a.m.

    We definitely need to get rid of Wyoming. If we are going to have a cellar dweller in the MWC, trade San Jose State for Wyoming, bigger school, plus much bigger population base. Of course add Houston and Boise, etc.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:35 a.m.

    The wac will be better in basketball than the mwc this year guaranteed. we can look at head to head when the year ends. idaho got us off to a good start now usu will dominate on salt lake on wednesday.

  • Floyd Johnson
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:41 a.m.

    A 12 team conference would be a mistake.

    Boise has had a very respectable football program over the last five years. I do not think that they will be as competitve five years from now. Bringing Boise into the MWC may be a short term asset, but would (I believe) be a long term liability. The best solution is for BYU, Utah, and TCU to play them out of conference over the next few years.

    Just reviewed BCS standings. The computers have a very poor opinion of BYU right now. I'm very interested to see what happens in the top six BCS spots over the next few weeks. How would the system handle 4 undefeated teams?

  • Bad Idea
    Nov. 16, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    Bringing in Houston and Boise State? Bad idea for a conference and bad for both schools. Here is what would logically happen. Houston would place about 4th or 5th in the conference, they are in a larger city so the league might get a little more TV coverage if they would stop signing stupid TV deals. Houston really does nothing for the conference. SMU would be a better choice because they are the historical rival of TCU. Boise State, if Boise State doesn't go undefeated every year in football, they are a non story in a small tv market. If they finish 3rd or 4th in the MWC, they are not worth adding. The WAC vs. the MWC is a good story for the west. If the WAC is gutted again, the MWC will not get any better. Playing good football will improve the conference. TCU is doing its part this year. If BYU would have beaten Florida State and if Utah had beaten Oregon. It would be hard to keep TCU out of a National Championship conversation. BYU, Utah just need to remain relevant, It would help if CSU came on again.

  • BSU Facts
    Nov. 16, 2009 12:20 p.m.

    Responding to Logical. BSU has won 20 WAC championships in all sports not including football or wrestling since joining the WAC in 2001. The wrestling program is part of the PAC-10.

  • Bigg Blue
    Nov. 16, 2009 12:26 p.m.

    Well, if you are only going to keep Vegas and San Diego because of location and that they are nice basketball schools, then why not Utah State for the same reason...close travel and the fact they are good if not the best basketball school in the intermountain west. It would be a closer commute for the schools afterall and their fans who can't see their favorite teams without a 6-12 hour drive or a costly plane ride.

  • Batman
    Nov. 16, 2009 12:48 p.m.

    I agree completely with cutting the dead wood and replacing them with better wood.

    WY should absolutely drop and compete with Montana in the lower division. I think they would be pretty good there. NM isn't getting better anytime soon.

  • Bubba
    Nov. 16, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    What about other sports like swimming, golf or cross country?
    I think the MWC would also have to take into account other sports besides football and men's basketball. If not they could have a title IX case on their hands. However, money is the language of the business now so they'll probably do that first.
    Also, Colorado isn't that bad. They have some real potential. They even beat Colorado this year! I think they should stay.

  • Playoff
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:05 p.m.

    We don't need changes to our conference membership. We need the NCAA to man up and implement a PLAYOFF SYSTEM!!!

  • MWC would be credible IF
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:08 p.m.

    BYU won it's out of conference games in football and basketball (NCAA tourney) - seriously, as much as we cougar fans want to think we're a big horse, we're one of the arguments against sports writers giving the MWC great credence. We stink out of conference. (83 grad, living in TX and the eastern US since then...) Figure out a way to add BSU and lose a weak sister team, and you're on your way to a HUGE bump in recognition. Actually I think it more likely we'll have a playoff system in some limited form come in 3-5 years...

  • CSU
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:09 p.m.

    Yes, the MTN West does have top 10 academic programs. CSU Vet Med school now and for many years ranked 2nd best in the country next to Cornell. Some say CSU VM department is actually better than Cornell's program. East Coast bias in voting.

  • Matt
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:11 p.m.

    Add 3 schools make it 12 if anything. Getting a Championship game would help the conference. With ESPN covering the Mountain West the last few weeks is helping. Drop the Mountain hook back up with ESPN or make the Mountain affiliated with ESPN get back on the right network. Add Boise Hawaii and Fresno State. Get the Championship game. The MWC will never get into the BCS but this will certainly help when one of the schools has one loss to be considered still a top player. Rather than schools in the MWC schedule lousy teams from Big confrences or other mid majors just to go undefeated to try to get in seems pointless. Since everyone in Utah thinks its all about UofU just remember the U hasnt always had a stellar program through the years and they have alot of down years to go with the 2 good years. The other 8 schools in the MWC are just as good if not better then Utah in a lot of aspects sorry Ute fans.

  • 4th place
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:22 p.m.

    If the MWC adds Boise State that will push BYU from a perennial third place finisher to 4th place behind TCU, Utah, Boise State and probably out of any bowl contention. Bronco is content with finishing third every year because he still gets to go to a bowl but I think finishing 4th would probably cause some re-evaluation.... which just might be a good thing???

  • SPEED TEAMS
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:23 p.m.

    BYU is usually at a disadvantage playing schools with far more team speed.

    Why would BYU want to play a Houston, SMU or Tulsa Non-BCS schools), when they can NOT SHOW UP and still beat San Diego St., UNLV and New Mexico (Non-BCS schools)?

    Drop Wyoming. (I'd rather lose and live in Provo than win and live in Laramie). Drop CSU.

    Give the Wyoming game slot to USU.

    The exception to the speed problem would be to add Fresno St. (their reputation is no worse than UNLV or SMU for that matter). BYU would be taking a major chance playing a Non-BCS speed team like FSU. However, adding a FSU would make more sense than adding another team from Texas or Oklahoma.

    The MWC becomes an eight team conference. UTAH, BYU, AIR FORCE, NEW MEXICO, UNLV, SAN DIEGO ST., FRESNO ST. AND TCU.

    Up-side:

    The MWC drops two non-revenue producing teams.

    The MWC picks up a warm weather school.

    One less team to share already meager revenue.

    Down-side:

    Schools would need to replace the CSU or Wyoming games on their schedules.

    The problem ($) of saying good-bye to CSU and WYOMING.

  • Will TCU bolt?
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:23 p.m.

    All well and good to talk of a more competitive conference, but what motive does TCU have to stay, particularly considering its geographical distance from the mountains?

  • re: Will TCU bolt?
    Nov. 16, 2009 1:53 p.m.

    to where?

    Big 12 - not unless the Big 12 kicks Baylor out
    C-USA - lol
    SEC - double lol
    WAC - triple lol
    PAC 10 - no chance
    ACC, Big East - you're kidding, right
    Sunbelt - closer geographically, but why???
    MAC - be my guest

  • Much Ado About Nothing
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:08 p.m.

    Mike Sorenson assumes a lot will change in the college football landscape to make any of this happen. THE REALITY: NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE WILL CHANGE IN THE MWC, WAC, AND BCS ANYTIME SOON.

    That's right. The BCS is having its cake and eating it, too; the system's set up just right for money-sharing. No Utes to the Pac-10, though they'd fully deserve each and every 4-8/3-9 season! Likewise for BYU and TCU to the Big Ten/Big 12--say goodbye to 10-win seasons, too. TCU could get offers to move out, sure, but they'd fall back into mediocrity. They haven't established themselves for long.

    Throwing out existing MWC members is legally troublesome, and any additions would have to truly add something immediate. But Boise State seems to be enjoying the WAC just fine, thanks, and no other WAC team really adds much across the board. It'd make more sense to try to steal ASU from the Pac-10 or Colorado from the Big 12!

    So don't kid yourselves, people. This is much ado about nothing.

  • KISS
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:12 p.m.

    Here is an idea:

    1. Keep the MWC as it is
    2. Add stronger teams to your schedules throughout the MWC
    3. WIN those tougher games against stronger teams
    4. STOP choking and being flakey and unpredictable (like BYU)

    I think that is a recipe for success in the MWC! Look into it!

  • Why would BSU join?
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:15 p.m.

    They already have an almost guaranteed path to a BCS bowl every year, and little or no competition to get in the way.

    Sounds like a sweet deal.

  • re: 4th place
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:23 p.m.

    under Kyle and Bronco

    BYU
    2005 5-3 - 2nd
    2006 8-0 - 1st
    2007 8-0 - 1st
    2008 6-2 - 3rd
    2009 5-1 - ?? projected 2nd

    Utah
    2005 4-4 - tie 4th
    2006 5-3 - tie 3rd
    2007 5-3 - tie 3rd
    2008 8-0 - 1st
    2009 5-1 - ?? projected 3rd

    If the MWC adds Boise State, that would push one team from a perennial third place finisher to 4th place, but that team would be Utah.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:33 p.m.

    this is the dumbest article written in a long time.

    why not expand by adding USC, Stanford and UCLA. After all, that is as likley to happen as kicking out the bad and adding the good

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:34 p.m.

    Let's invite Florida, Texas, Kansas, Alabama and Kentucky to join the MWC. This is a great idea.

  • Don
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:42 p.m.

    A lot of good ideas. But, why not keep the same teams we have and add. Houston(4 th Largest City in the Country, Fresno State(Million plus city in the California market with a good athletic program, BSU and one other quality school program. Then do two divisions with a playoff. However rotating the game would be better for all involved because all teams would have a chance to host, not just UNLV like in basketball. Just think, BYU and UTAH playing in markets with faster kids and stronger football and basketball programs in highschool such as Houston and Fresno. And a wider breathe of States covered to increase the chance to enhanse TV coverage. Oh well just another of a hundred ideas! Then again who wantes to play in a conference with no BCS eligibility no maytter how the teams play, and a top bowl game right back in Las Vegas!

  • BYU fan in Boise
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:48 p.m.

    What about luring Fresno State along with BSU? They seem to have a bit of a rivalry going with BSU within the WAC.

  • Re:LookingatJokers
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:54 p.m.

    Hey smart guy, non of the MWC schools are ranked in the top ten of anything? I believe the AFA was rated #4 nationally this year, ahead of most Ivy-league schools, and far far above that of Boise State, improve your standards and maybe the MWC might consider you some day... but probably not

  • re:re:4th place
    Nov. 16, 2009 2:55 p.m.

    2008 BYU finished third and Bronco was content with that. In 2009 BYU will once again finish third after losing to Utah (and possibly Air Force). Looking ahead do you honestly ever see BYU finishing above TCU or Utah? Both TCU and Utah have turned the corner and BYU is stuck in neutral.2010 the Y plays BOTH Utah and TCU on the road so you can most certainly add another 3rd place finish for Y in 2010.

    anyway, my point was TCU and Utah both have better programs than the Y (both have broken the BCS barrier) and Boise State also has broken the BCS barrier. BYU is still content with the Vegas Bowl as the pinnacle of its yearly aspirations.

  • re:Truth
    Nov. 16, 2009 3:05 p.m.

    Great logic. I can see the Utes as a .300 PAC 10 team, and selling a consistent 10,000 tickets to every game, making the PAC 10 the big bucks...

    Oh, and then there is Utah Basketball. How many seats will they fill when they can't beat the vandals or SW Baptist preseason, and then don't win a game the rest of the season...


    I'm guessing there is a hotline from Dr. Hill's office to the Pac 10 commish if dr. Hill ever decideds to make the move.

    Nice shot in the dark there babe...

  • UNLV
    Nov. 16, 2009 3:18 p.m.

    There are so many teams knocking down the MWC doors to get in (rolling eyes) Mike you do live in a fantasy world.

  • Also....
    Nov. 16, 2009 3:22 p.m.

    One thing to remember about this change is that it won't happen for a while. Scheduling will be a dramatic change. For one, BYU and Utah have games with Boise st. for 4 years. That means if they move conferences then they would have to find more teams to fill in.

  • IdahoAggie
    Nov. 16, 2009 3:27 p.m.

    If Utah State is to ever become truely competative with schools in the MWC they would have to became a member of that conference. That well never happen because Utah and BYU don't want to share recruits with Utah State. As long as a recruit has the chose to go to the MWC or the WAC he's probable going to take the MWC. This is the same reason BYU and Utah eliminated the Aggies when they formed the WAC to begin with and nothing has changed. This not to say the Aggies don't get go recruits, they do, just not as many as BYU and Utah. If these three schools were in the same conference the recuit quality would even out over time.

  • Fresno Fan
    Nov. 16, 2009 3:45 p.m.

    Boise St and Fresno St should be in the MWC. They bring the most to the to the table.

  • RE: NOT AGAIN 10:10 PM
    Nov. 16, 2009 3:54 p.m.

    When I read comments like yours I really have to ask where you get your information. The answer may be out of your own ineptness.

  • Just because you believe it...
    Nov. 16, 2009 3:57 p.m.

    that doesn't make it true.

    For all you Cougar fans that insist that BYU's football program is so much better than Utah's, what is your proof? Of course, if you go back into the 70s-80s, then I will concede that the Cougars are better. But in the last fifteen years, it's just not true.

    Since 1999 (the founding of the MWC):

    Utah's record is 93-38, winning 71% of the time. BYU's is 86-48, for a 64% winning percentage.

    Both teams have won or shared 4 conference championships.

    Utah is 6-4 against BYU.

    Utah is 8-0 in bowl games, including 2 BCS wins. BYU is 2-4 in bowl games, with no BCS bowl invites.

    Both Utah and BYU fans should think twice about declaring superiority over Boise State. Utah is 0-3, and BYU is 0-2 against the Broncos in the recent past. The Cougars have NEVER beaten Boise. Plus, for Cougar fans to dismiss BSU's accomplishments since they joined the WAC is hypocritical. It is very reminiscent of BYU's glory years in the WAC.

  • re: Just because...
    Nov. 16, 2009 4:13 p.m.

    You failed to mention a couple of important facts in your comparison:

    Top 25 finishes
    BYU - 4 (including the last 3)
    Utah - 3

    10+ win seasons
    BYU - 4
    Utah - 3 (including the last 3)

    Even in their best decade ever, Utah still couldn't match BYU in Top 25 finishes.

  • tcuyoda
    Nov. 16, 2009 4:23 p.m.

    Wait a minute. Actually this is a good thread in spite of the article that got it started.

    In response to the comment about TCU leaving...there has been for the past 10 years 3 scenarios. One is to replace Baylor. Another is that Missouri will go the Big 10 to become #12 so the Big 10 can have a playoff. The third is that Colorado would go to the PAC10. In the last 2 cases, TCU would go into the Big 12. Who knows?

    The 5 non-AQ conferences and its 54 teams should go on strike against the 66 teams6conferenceAQ's. Let them beat up themselves and see how the computers rank 8-4, 9-3 teams. They would have to play D-3 Little sisters of the poor and see how their fans like shelling out $400 for season tickets for that. If non-AQ's won't stop playing, then make the AQ's pay $1million a game. That is what TCU got from Clemson...a bigger payout than the Poinsietta Bowl.

    If SDSU,CSU, UNLV, WY would play lesser teams until they bulk up, it would help us all.

  • Re: re: Just because...
    Nov. 16, 2009 4:49 p.m.

    You are right, those are valid facts - I just ran up against my 200 word limit.

    But since you went there, how about losing seasons in the MWC era?

    Utah - 2, BYU - 3.

    In the MWC era, seasons of winning less that 50% of their games?

    Utah - 2, BYU - 5.

    I agree with your "top 25 finishes" count, according to the AP poll, but do you really want to go there? BYU's finishes were 25,19, 19, 25, while Utah's were 21, 5, 2. Don't you think having two top 5 finishes is more impressive than a fourth 19th or lower finish?



  • Bluepigskin
    Nov. 16, 2009 5:37 p.m.

    Football isn't the only reason for expanding a conference. What does Boise bring besides football - NOTHING. Nothing in the women's programs at all and nothing in the other men's programs. So, why invite another weak sister to the dance. Boise State will not be a quality MWC member so forget expansion!

  • 9 team MTN. WEST
    Nov. 16, 2009 5:38 p.m.

    9 teams so 4 home conference games, 4 away each year.

    Boise State, Utah, BYU, UNLV, San Diego State, Air Force, TCU, SMU, Colorado State.

    It would be smart to have SDSU and UNLV. Warm climates lead to better recruitting. UNLV and SDSU would also compete with the PAC 10 as well in recruting. Having TCU, SMU, C-State and Air Force would compete with the BIG 12. This would work.

  • Top 25
    Nov. 16, 2009 5:40 p.m.

    If finishing in the Top 25 and having a 10+ season is a ho-hum accomplishment, why hasn't Utah been able to do that more than 4 times in their entire history.

    Granted, BYU has had 3 losing seasons in the MWC, but everyone who has followed BYU football knows that was an anomoloy during the disastrous Crowton years. You have to go all the back to the 60s to find that last time BYU had a similar stretch.

    On the other hand, BYU has finished in the Top 25 in half the polls since the late 70s, including the last three seasons; something Utah has never come close to accomplishing.

  • Jimmy
    Nov. 16, 2009 5:42 p.m.

    It'll never happen. Think about something else. Next subject please.

  • Nate
    Nov. 16, 2009 5:47 p.m.

    After watching BYU this weekend, I don't think we should be talking about kicking any team out of the MWC or thinking about the BCS ever. BYU couldn't even look half way decent against a bad 0-9 NM team. Maybe Montana should join the MWC and BYU go to the Big Sky. Then Bronco really could win a NC, but at the Div.1-AA level.

  • MWC is a JOKE
    Nov. 16, 2009 6:00 p.m.

    I love how instead of improving its own teams, the MWC is always focused on which conference they can raid next in order to improve. The MWC forms out of an elitist attitude behind closed bathroom stalls in an airport and now wants to invite some of the very teams it deemed inferior? As much as the MWC won't admit it, the poor sisters of the WAC have grown into an equal power and it kills the two Utah Universities that drive the MWC to know that.

    I agree with those that believe the conference should focus on demanding more out of UNLV, UNM, SDSU, WYO, and CSU. UNLV and SDSU seem to get passes year in and year out due to being in populated cities. Is that really valid? I guess it may be when you are stuck with something like the MTN. It's too bad because there are plenty of examples of good FB programs in small markets. As far as academics, BSU and Fresno St. are nothing more than glorified JC's that happen to have good FB teams.

  • Re: 9 team MTN. WEST
    Nov. 16, 2009 7:23 p.m.

    Boise doesn't really bring anything to the table. What do they have besides a football team? Their other sports teams are average, their academics are below average, and they have a small population base. The MWC would do better to go after either Fresno State or Houston.

  • Jeremy Brown
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:23 p.m.

    All this MWC joining the BCS talk is garbage. The BCS will never add another conference. All that does is take money away from the other six conferences and it doesn't solve the anti-trust issues of the BCS. So adding a seventh BCS conference only costs them money and does not gain anything for the other six BCS conferences.

    You're dreaming. Forget it.

  • uncle george
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:41 p.m.

    replace wyo with boise. wyo brings absolutely nothing to the table. wyo has won virtually no mwc championships in any sport; no population; no tv; nada

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:45 p.m.

    At the rate they're going this year, USC will be available at the end of this season for the MWC to pick up. Let's add them instead of BSU.

  • Andrew
    Nov. 16, 2009 8:56 p.m.

    What amazes me is that none of these "smart" sports writers fail to see how bad constant conferenceshuffling is. BYU, Utah, Boise State, TCU (and all the other MWC/WAC/CUSA schools) have been playing musical conferences over the last 15-20 years. And in the end none of them are in a much difference place than they were 20 years ago. The other thing that everyone fails to realize is that what makes the SEC, Big-12, Big Ten, PAC-10 so good is the fact they are long time regional rivals, which has built long-term fan interest and support. The MWC and WAC schools are constantly shuffling to try and find some mythical "sweet spot". Not going to happen.

  • Howie
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:22 p.m.

    Let's dump Wyoming, New Mexico and Colo St.....what type of dumb idea is that? Boise St is a johnny come lately to D-I and besides their football team-- what would they offer the MWC. BSU will eventually slow down in football and then all you will have is the New Mexico of the North. Sportswriters are too close to the issue sometimes.

  • TCU- join the WAC!
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:23 p.m.



    TCU should leave for the WAC.

    TCU, Boise, Nevada and Fresno State would create a very strong top 4 in the WAC. Two top 10's with Nevada and Fresno always at the 7 -9 win level.
    Hawaii can be in the mix as well. Two (2) WAC teams have had BCS invites, with only one MWC team- Utah.

    WAC attendance is up 7% in 2008 while the Mountain is down 4%.

    TCU- leave the Mountain and give the WAC the spark it needs to become the best in the west.

  • Couple of points
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:31 p.m.

    On Academics, BYU fan can argue all it wants about how awesome their undergraduate programs are, BUT, the PAC 10 (and most of academia) consider the graduate/professional programs of a school as the true measure of the school. And before y'all bring up your Law & MBA programs, realize that the UofU system is what they are looking at where you have highly developed research-base, PhD granting research programs, not just a few niche programs like at the Y.
    BYU is an excellent prep school for graduate school as noted by the outstanding rates of acceptance of Y grads into graduate/professional programs. But, an institutions academic prestige is not based on its undergraduate students, but on the research it produces, which the Y lacks. (Also that pesky academic freedom issue).

    As far as adding Fresno & Houston to get credit for their TV markets as the key to improving the MWC position, think back to the WAC 16 debacle. NO ONE in Texas cares about Houston (Texas, A&M, & Tech, but not Houston). And Fresno, NO ONE cares (they already have UCLA, USC, CAL & Stanford). Picking up the 4th or 5th option won't help the MWC

  • Seattleview
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:48 p.m.

    I have been advocating exchanging Wyoming for Boise State for some time now. I would not want to drop Colorado State. They are a good travel team for Air Force.

    If we have to go to 10 teams I am undecided between Nevada or do they replace UNLV (basketball is the one sport they do well and then our conference tournament is not on a members home floor), or do we add a Houston or Fresno State).

    I would hope this change would come with an automatic BCS bid. However, that might have to come later.

  • Seattleview
    Nov. 16, 2009 10:52 p.m.


    Second thoughts:

    Exchange Wyoming and New Mexico for Boise State and Houston or ?. Keep league at 8 schools.

    TCU might leave to join a conference closer for their fans to attend. However, I dont want to see that. I dont like them thinking they are too dominant for MWC in football. Many teams go through a 2 year conference title run. They may not be any adifferent.

  • oregon reader
    Nov. 16, 2009 11:57 p.m.

    The whole idea that academic superiority even factoring into an athletic conference grouping is ridiculous! Just what does everyone think the "A" in all these conferences stands for? Athletic -- not academic! Sports are sports! The PAC-10 presidents should get over feeling academically superior to other schools when there is discussion about whether or not to invite a certain school to that "athletic" conference since they would be competing on the field, court, etc.

  • WAC 2 - MWC - 1
    Nov. 17, 2009 12:31 a.m.

    Funny- Fox sports top 25 power rankings Week 11.

    #4 TCU

    #9 Boise State

    #25 Nevada
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, it might be the WAC, but YEEEEEEESH. Want numbers? Over the last seven games, Nevada has rushed for 559 yards, 345, 313, 484, 312, 517 and 461 and has now scored 40 rushing touchdowns on the year with 15 in the last two weeks.


    No BYU
    No Utah

    C'mon TCU- Join the big boys in the WAC!

  • re: Frozen Chosen
    Nov. 17, 2009 7:22 a.m.

    "Going to 12 teams would be a mistake - look at what happened to the WAC."

    The WAC went to 16 teams with 4 pods that rotated from division to division. This upset many of the schools that may have had to gone 4 or more years at times without playing natural long term rivals. Add that most people are admiring the 8 team BigLeast for having 5 non-conference games to schedule cup cakes and pad their football records and you can likely see how 7 division games and 1 or 2 cross over division games makes a 16 team conference hard in football.

    In a 12 team conference with 2 divisions you play 5 divisional games and 2 cross over games which still only has you playing 7 games in conference (like the BigLeast) then you get to add a conference championship game as well. 12 is proven to work - 16 was crazy!!

  • ITrustNo1
    Nov. 17, 2009 7:55 a.m.

    How about this configuration?

    North: BYU-Utah, BSU-Utah State, Air Force-CSU
    South: TCU-Houston, SDS-Fresno State, UNLV-Nevada

    You are only losing Wyoming & New Mexico and have added: Houston, BSU, Utah State & Fresno State.
    Great travel partners and there are three teams in each bracket that are very good and three teams in each bracket that are improving rapidly.

  • re: K. Smith@10:07
    Nov. 17, 2009 8:46 a.m.

    "Utah should join the PAC 10. They are better in every way than all of the MWC schools"

    MWC has men championships in the following: Basketball Regular Season (RS); Basketball Tourny; Baseball RS; Baseball Tourny; Cross Country; Golf; Swimming & Diving RS; Swimming & Diving Tourny; Tennis RS; Tennis Tourny; Track & Field (Outdoors); Indoor Track

    BYU=51
    UNLV=17
    SDSU=16
    Utah=14
    TCU=13 - only been in the conf 4 full years
    NM=12
    CSU=6
    AF=2
    WYO=2

    MWC has women's championships in the following: Basketball RS; Basketball Tourny; Softball RS; Softball Tourny; Soccer RS; Soccer Tourny; Volleyball RS; Volleyball Tourny; Cross Country; Golf; Swimming & Diving RS; Swimming & Diving Tourny; Tennis RS; Tennis Tourny; Track & Field (Outdoors); Indoor Track

    BYU=65
    Utah=25
    CSU=17
    UNLV=14
    NM=14
    SDSU=9
    TCU=7
    AF=0
    WYO=0

    Combined men/women

    BYU=116
    Utah=39
    UNLV=31
    NM=26
    SDSU=25
    CSU=23
    TCU=20
    AF=2
    WYO=2

    Mr Smith I think you are blinded...

  • re: KSmit (cont)
    Nov. 17, 2009 8:59 a.m.

    The only thing Utah is at the top of for men's are tied with other schools

    Football: Utah/BYU=4
    Basketball RS: Utah/BYU=5
    Basketball Tourny: Utah/UNLV=3

    Add to those 1 baseball tourny and 1 tennis RS and that is all you've won titles for men in the ten years of the MWC.

  • Nancy
    Nov. 17, 2009 9:30 a.m.

    It is kinda funny how Utah and BYU whine and complain so much about the BCS being unfair to them. They scream bloody murder that the BCS is leaving out the smaller schools less wealthy schools from the big boys. Typical hypocrits. They do the exact same thing to USU. Personally, I think BYU and UTAH get what they deserve from the BCS.

  • My Two Cents
    Nov. 17, 2009 9:38 a.m.

    The poster at 4:49, attempting to defend Utah, writes: "Don't you think having two top 5 finishes is more impressive than a fourth 19th or lower finish?"

    Not when your team regularly finishes 8-4 or 7-5 in years other than 2004 and 2008 and more often out of the national rankings than in. Undeniable: BYU has had trouble in "big games" the past 15 years, while the U has had several signature wins. However, I'd rather finish 19th and lower several times than not finish in the Top 25 at all half the time.

    Another fact: BYU and the U are good--not great--teams. The Cougars have a legendary past and are playing OK with lots of room for improvement; the Utes since Urban are contenders rather than pretenders. BUT NEITHER HAS REALLY PROVEN ANYTHING YET.

    Sadly, a few obnoxious fans from both sides talk a lot bigger than their team actually deserves. But at least BYU fans aren't imagining an invitation from the Pac-10! Maybe both the U and BYU should aim to play and beat Boise State first?

  • BSU
    Nov. 17, 2009 9:58 a.m.

    While I agree that the market/location of BSU doesn't do a lot for the MWC I can not understand people who don't think they offer anything else.

    Well sorry I can understand them - they only see their own school in one or two sports themselves so it is hard for them to see the whole picture.

    BSU is competitive in many sports. Consider the MWC list of men's sports that BSU competes in and how BSU finished in the WAC last year.

    Football - 1st
    Basketball - 3rd
    Cross Country - 2nd
    Golf - 8th
    Tennis - 1st
    Track & Field (outdoor) - 5th

    They play in a 9 team conference and placed in/above the middle of the pack in all but 1.

    Reminder Utah also competes in only 6 men's MWC sports.

    Also BSU competes in the Pac10 in wrestling and has won the last 2 championships in that sport.

    So tell me again how BSU isn't worthy of the MWC and Utah is to good for the MWC. BSU already does compete with the Pac10 in one sport.

    I'd love to have wrestling added as a MWC sport.

  • Utah is better than BYU
    Nov. 17, 2009 10:03 a.m.

    Utah has most certainly passed BYU in football. Two BCS bowl wins is all the proof needed. The U is nationally known and respected and the Y isn't. TCU will break in to the BCS this year and Boise State already has with their win over Oklahoma. When talking about national respect as a football program, its ALL about the BCS - Utah has it and BYU doesn't.

  • Hm, Nancy...
    Nov. 17, 2009 10:06 a.m.

    ... Utah State would have something to complain about if it were in the same league academically and athletically as BYU and Utah. It isn't--so it doesn't. It's as simple as that.

    Conference alignments are about academics *and* athletics. If Utah State improves in both areas, it'll have a case. And don't get me wrong--I'm not mocking and I'd actually like to see it happen. (No so-called hypocrisy about it!) But until there's improvement in both those areas, USU really is a better fit for the WAC.

  • Don't be haters
    Nov. 17, 2009 10:25 a.m.

    Ok, to all of you who keep putting down USU, give me a break! You talk about other things to take into consideration besides just football - well how about this: Since being in the WAC, USU has had conference championships two consecutive years in mens basketball, FIVE consecutive years in mens cross country, two consecutive years in mens track, three years in womens cross country, one year in womens soccer, and one year in gymnastics. That's only within the past few years - they've had other championships while they were in the Big West conference as well (I know, it was a weak conference, but you still have to take their history into consideration). As far as football is concerned, they could easily be 6-4 right now, which isn't great but is still bowl eligible. Mark my words, the football program will improve.

    Lastly, academically they are just as good as any school in the MWC, and better than some of them. USU has many nationally ranked programs, including Science and Engineering, Agriculture, Natural Resources, Education, Interior Design, and Landscape Architecture to name a few. In overall value, USU could fit into the MWC.

  • Idahoan
    Nov. 17, 2009 10:46 a.m.

    Somebody on here mentioned how the AQ schools have tens of millions to share with tv contracts, NCAA appearances, BCS games, and whatever else. Why are some schools in those conferences struggling financially in their athletics? One PAC-10 school, I'm thinking Washington, over the summer dropped the swimming program. How can they have such riches and yet struggle so much? Maybe they need to learn how to live on less, ie less BCS money and the like. Then the playing field might be more level for non-AQ schools.

    Yes BSU doesn't have the driving school anymore. It went to a new community college. However, BSU did have a driving school.

  • Anonymous
    Nov. 17, 2009 2:20 p.m.

    re: Anonymous | 10:57 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009

    //The reason BYU will never be in the PAC 10 is because of Sunday play//

    I've heard; The PAC10 does not want another private school in their ranks (USC & Stanford are enough).

    MWC should dump SDS and add Boise, Fresno, & SMU.

  • Frank Burns
    Nov. 17, 2009 3:05 p.m.

    @ WAC 2 - MWC - 1 | 12:31 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009

    The BCS poll is the only rankings that matter.

  • PAC 10
    Nov. 18, 2009 9:23 a.m.

    .. will not add Utah without BYU. They last added UofA and ASU from Arizona, giving them two team from Arizona, two from Oregon, and two from Washington, along with four from California. Where does "Keep Dreaming" get Colorado? Last time I checked they were in the Big 12, a BCS conference. Why would they want to move and why would the PAC 10 want them? TVs? sorry, Denver ain't that big and have you ever tried to fly into Denver in the fall? Try telling USC to take a bus to Colorado...

    Nope, the PAC 10 would be wise to take Utah and BYU. It would silence Hatch and it would give UofA and ASU their old rivals to the north back. They would then have two conferences: USC, UCLA, UofA, ASU, BYU, and Utah in one and Cal, Stanford, Oregon, OSU, Washington, and WSU in the other.

    Utah would then get the BCS money you cry so much about, but unfortunately you would be a perennial 6-6 team (counting wins against Weber and USU every year).

    ASU was WAC champs every year and look what happened to them in the PAC!

  • Re:Utah is better than BY
    Nov. 18, 2009 10:15 a.m.

    "Utah has most certainly passed BYU in football. Two BCS bowl wins is all the proof needed. The U is nationally known and respected and the Y isn't."
    Funny guy... but what exactly are you basing this on? In the past poll BYU barely beat UNM and yet they moved up from 22 to 19 in the AP Top 25. How does this equate when seen through your red-tinted sunglasses? If they had sooo little respect they would have dropped off the radar for barely beating the Lobos.

    BYU is a known commodity, having been ranked in the final top 25 rankings 16 times since 1977, that is 16 of 32 years, 50% of the time. Let's look at Utah now. First entry 1994, then 2003, 2004, and 2008. Hmmmm, so few we can list them. Does that make you a powerhouse, nationally known team, I don't think so. Year in and year out BYU is up there. And if you don't want to go so far back, BYU was in the final BCS rankings 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Utah has been in 2003, 2004, 2008.

    Eat your words!

  • Bias
    Nov. 19, 2009 10:54 a.m.

    Step aside from the bias. I've lived back east and can tell you that BYU is much more well known than University of Utah. Utah has had RECENT success, but BYU has had steady and consistent success to go along with Hall of Fame quarterbacks, Heisman winners, and a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP. It takes more than TWO successful seasons to overshadow such a storied program.

  • Come on you guys
    Nov. 19, 2009 6:25 p.m.

    Wake up a look outside the Utah Bubble.
    The PAC-10 doesn't want or need Utah or BYU. All the PAC-10 teams have been powerhouses in the past and most will return to power or have already returned to power. If either went to the PAC-10, they would both be bottom dwellers!!!!!!
    If BSU came to the MWC it would be a TCU/BSU battle every year until BYU or Utah got a decent coach. But that would be a 1-2 year deal because the coach would leave for a better school.
    TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK!!!!

  • Dreamer
    March 16, 2010 3:38 p.m.

    Go to a 12 team conference by adding Nevada, Fresno State, UTEP, and Houston. Drop Wyoming. This conference would be better for creating natural rivals. This would be a solid football conference and very good basketball league. Travel would be minimal with an East and West division split like this

    West division
    SDSU
    Fresno State
    UNLV
    Nevada
    BYU
    Utah

    East division
    Houston
    TCU
    Colorado State
    Air Force
    UTEP
    New Mexico