Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Unless the Justice Department all of the sudden decides to enforce antitrust laws, the only way to break the BCS stronghold is to do like TCU, Utah, BYU, and Boise - win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win again. And, then do the same again the next season, and the season after that, and the season after that, and the season after that, and....

Posted

Unless the Justice Department all of the sudden decides to enforce antitrust laws, the only way to break the BCS stronghold is to do like TCU, Utah, BYU, and Boise - win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win and win again. And, then do the same again the next season, and the season after that, and the season after that, and the season after that, and....

But how much winning would be needed and for how long?

Posted

The MWC banking their future on teams leaving the conf is not a wise decision. Even more so, to give the MWC a BCS bowl berth based on teams no longer in the conf does not make a bit of sense. All this would do is create a Florida State of the old ACC in the MWC.

I guess if it passed Boise will be in a BCS bowl every year from here on out.

Posted

But how much winning would be needed and for how long?

Long enough to where that University gets invited to join the club (Utah and TCU have achieved this mark. BYU also, but they chose to go another direction).

You know, like the old sayin:

If you can't beat 'em, draft 'em.

  • Downvote 1
Posted

This is all about money. Don't expect the MWC to be included in the club. 1/6th is more than 1/7th, and even Tech graduates can figure that out. Without meeting all qualifications, the MWC will be left out of the club.

Posted

This is all about money. Don't expect the MWC to be included in the club. 1/6th is more than 1/7th, and even Tech graduates can figure that out. Without meeting all qualifications, the MWC will be left out of the club.

Normally, I would agree with you--and I might still--but I think this has legs because of the fact that the MWC's success has been so much better than either the ACC or the Big East over the last few years and the antitrust lawsuit could get more legs. Losing TCU and Utah hurts, but replacing with Boise State alleviates alot of that pain, and I think that most people realize that gaining Hawaii, Fresno State, and Nevada covers the loss of BYU. I don't think the MWC will drop off that much, if at all, and I think this will be the big boys way of saying, yes, we are open to new members, especially if it is just for two years. As another poster mentioned, Boise will probabaly dominate anyway, so they most likely would get one of the BCS spots anyhow.

The best scenario, by far, for our university's athletic program, is for this to play out and then they add 2 more teams to get to 12. Of course, all those CUSA teams that swear that they love their current travel and rivals will change their tune in a second to get BCS money, so that could derail our chances to get that MWC invite. But then that could open up a potential CUSA spot and...you can see where this goes (offseason topic #1 rehashed). Knowing our luck, though, this will play out this way and Houston and UTEP will go west, SMU will stay in CUSA, and then CUSA will add MTSU and one of the Florida schools, leaving us in a watered-down SBC. That would be the worst-case senario for our athletic department.

Posted

This is all about money. Don't expect the MWC to be included in the club. 1/6th is more than 1/7th, and even Tech graduates can figure that out. Without meeting all qualifications, the MWC will be left out of the club.

Which "Tech"? I can think of several where your supposition would be "iffy"! An "Ag" or two, too.

Posted

The OP link doesn't go anywhere that remotely discusses the MWC. What is the gist of the story?

UNder their college football section, they have an article about the MWC's success over the last 6 years and how they are up for possible AQ inclusion if they pass three criteria. 2 of the 3 are already passed, but #3 looks difficult based on the low rankings of the bottom of the conference. The author's suggestion is let them be AQ becasue it is for two years and you can re-assess who belongs again when the BCS contract expires in 2015 and will avoid any antitrust lawsuits. Looks very plausible from lots of vantage points.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.