Boise State in the MWC?
So everyone is talking about Boise’s big win over Oklahoma last night. It once again shows the mess that is the BCS and why we need a playoff. It also shows just how little respect conferences like the WAC and the MWC get. Clearly Boise State should have had an opportunity to play for the #1 spot. At least in my opinion. Now talk is going around that the only way to beat the BCS or at least compete with the Pac-10 is to allow Boise State to enter the MWC. That would give the MWC four reasonably good teams with BYU, Boise State, Utah and TCU. Now that BYU seems to be recovering their mojo and one hopes that next year Utah will play to their potential we can hope for some big non-conference wins. Adding Boise State would just make that even better.
So should they do it? I think yes, although it probably would never happen. Frankly the PAC-10 is never going to let in any MWC team and certainly not Boise State. And I just doubt that the BCS is going to significantly change since it is all about money and TV ratings.
What’s your thoughts?
Assuming that BSU will perpetually remain a football powerhouse would be like those in the early 90s who assumed UNLV would always be a hoops powerhouse I think. There are no guarantees at all on that.
Of course if the BCS cartel actually told the MWC it could get in by adding BSU then it would be a no-brainer. But that would mean the BCS schools would have to share the money and prestige of their lame little club and none of those other conferences want that. So I think the best thing is to wait it out and let the corrupt BCS implode on its own. A playoff will happen — eventually. This post-season exhibition game (aka bowl) system is too much of a joke to last much longer — especially when it is ticking off its own members every year.
Comment by Geoff J — January 2, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
I think you add three teams to get to 12, and then get a conference championship. Maybe BSU, UTEP, and Fresno St. Maybe Hawaii. Would it be enough to get a BCS berth? Probably not.
Comment by Tim J. — January 2, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Yeah, I don’t think the BCS would want to share. However if we were better than the Pac-10 consistently then that would put us in a pretty good position. However even the Pac-10 complains mightily about the BCS. (Remember a few years back when they threatened to pull out of the BCS?)
Everyone complains about the lack of a playoff scheme of course. But will things change? I’d like to say Boise State contributes to that. However realistic you need a horrible travesty to really change things. And this year just wasn’t good enough.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 2, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
Boise State rocks – I think the Smurf turf should get them extra points. (Sorry for being obnoxious, but does anyone else see the absurdity of discussing BSU’s standing in the rankings following a discussion of the execution of Saddam Hussein? And that I’m more interested in reading about Boise State…)
Comment by ECS — January 2, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
ECS–You’re also an Aggie fan too though aren’t you? If so, then we can understand your being so obnoxious.
Comment by Guy Murray — January 2, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Clark: However realistic you need a horrible travesty to really change things. And this year just wasn’t good enough.
I disagree. I don’t think it will take a single catastrophic travesty — rather it will take a gradual process with more and more people getting fed up with a completely broken system. This year helped that process quite a bit I think. The clamor for a playoff is getting louder and louder and is coming from more and more people of real influence.
Comment by Geoff J — January 2, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
There needs to be a playoff. There is a playoff in every other sport.
BSU and Utah in 2004 show that a good team is a good team no matter the conference.
I would say a 12 team or 16 team field would do the job.
When is the last time anybody saw a Statue of Liberty play? That was amazing.
Comment by bbell — January 2, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
LOL, Guy. I’m not much of a “fan”, I’m afraid. I’d much rather play football than watch it on TV. But I do know enough to agree with Geoff J. and everyone else that national playoffs for college football are looong overdue. But then would the bowl games still have the same significance (and commercial draw)? Maybe that’s the point. . .
Comment by ECS — January 2, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
ECS,
A playoff doesn’t mean the end of bowl games. If there were a 32 team playoff (I know, everybody proposes 16 teams) then there would be 31 games. Each could be a bowl game of sorts. They could have silly names and feature the sponsor’s logo prominently.
I hope that Urban and crew win and that several sports writers vote for Boise State as #1.
Comment by a random John — January 2, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
I can’t tell if you’re serious, but aren’t there NCAA restrictions on airtime and advertising/sponsorship for playoff games that would hinder the broadcast and commercial sponsorship for playoff “bowl” games?
Comment by ECS — January 2, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
BSU has a good program and is moving up in the football world. But I am not sure if there success justifies a WAC/ MWC BCS membership. Time will tell if they can keep that success up year after year. BSU deserved a BSC bowl and they got it. But as for playing OSU in the national Championship- a bit of a stretch. As for a playoff, I think if a playoff is needed then it should be a small 8-team play-off max. Any more then that and you have teams playing a playoff system that is almost as long as the regular season. I do not know about you but here in the Big-10 we have a lot of tradition in the regular season and rivalries that I would not want cut for a playoff. Plus the physical wear on the players (remember they are not professional.) Plus that would create a large amount of traveling for traveling fans, week after week. The traveling cost could put attendance down.
Comment by adam — January 2, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Pete Fiutak came up with this grouping in answer to a reader’s inquiry for a fanatasy new BCS conference from currently non-BCS teams:
East: East Carolina, Marshall, Houston, Navy, Southern Miss, Toledo
West: Boise State, BYU, Fresno State, Hawaii, TCU, Utah
My personal choice would be BYU & Utah –> PAC-12, especially since I saw a Cougar fan reply to a Duck fan that we would do just fine in the PAC, especially with how we’d recruit with the Rose, not Las Vegas, Bowl waiting for the league champ.
Comment by manaen — January 2, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
I think the Pac-10 has academic snobbery that makes them anti-BYU. Utah would fit well there. But neither Boise State nor BYU would just because of the weak graduate and research programs. Yes, I know it has nothing to do with football. But it is important to the powers that be.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 2, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
I hate, hate, hate Boise State but I grudgingly admit the win against Oklahoma was cool.
I don’t think an admittance into the MWC will change the status of the MWC however. I think its going to take at least 5 years of team(s) in the conference to consistently rank in the top 25 for the status of the MWC to change significantly.
Comment by Sherpa — January 3, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Oh, and I’m support of a playoff system. I’ve heard all of the protests against a playoff tournament, and think they are weak. Frank DeFord had a great “article” about it on npr this fall.
Comment by Sherpa — January 3, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
I think we need at least 3 teams in the top 25 at the end of the year for a few years for a change to happen. However having Boise St would help achieve that.
The reality is that it probably won’t happen although I heard on the radio that the President of Boise St was all for it.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 3, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
This is just minor league football.
Comment by queuno — January 5, 2007 @ 9:13 pm