Joe Dimino:

>> Really, why not? Seems to me like the conference would rather send a 12-1
team to represent them as opposed to an 8-5 team. <<

A conference is a collection of schools. The "have nots" who might only get a
BCS bid once in a lifetime won't vote to possibly have it taken away. What works
for Texas, Florida, and Alabama doesn't work for most of the  Big 12 or SEC

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

If you remember, last time the automatic bids came up, there was talk that the
Big East might lose their automatic bid.  I think it is far more likely that the
MWC would get an automatic bid than the Big East lose theirs.  I don't think
they will lose the bid, but it will be difficult not to give one to the MWC when
it comes up.

Basically, the NCAA is going to have 2 options.  Give the MWC an automatic bid
or start a playoff.

You're correct however.  It was poorly worded.

JM
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Trader Kevin
   To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:04 AM
   Subject: Re: [collegebcs] Seventh BCS conference forming?



   John Martin:

   >> The Big East is going to have a heck of a time in 2014 maintaining its
automatic bid if the MWC isn't given the same privledge. <<

   On what basis is the Big East in danger of being booted from the BCS? They are
3-2 in BCS bowls since the defections and are 12-4 in bowls over the past three
seasons.

   Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Really, why not? Seems to me like the conference would rather send a 12-1
team to represent them as opposed to an 8-5 team. I think they are just
'forced' to send the Championship game winner.

To me, bowls are national, conference championships are just that,
conference championships, only loosely related to the national scene.

It's a very simple rule that gets the best teams into the best bowls.

If the conference champ is also top 15, then they go to the BCS. If not the
best ranked team in the conference goes, as long as they are top 15.

And if a conference has no top 15 teams, they lose their bid that year.

To me, this is a merit based system, that rewards the best teams, and gets
the fans the best games.

I would also add that ANY conference champ that finished top 15 would get an
auto-bid. So Boise and TCU would both go, under the current rankings.

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...> wrote:

>
>
> Joe Dimino:
>
>
> >> I don't think it's a tough sell at all. Who would the Fiesta rather have
> a 7-5 'conference champ' like K State or an 11-1 runner up like Texas. <<
>
> Conferences determine their BCS representative. You'll never convince them
> that the conference champ might be excluded.
>
>
> Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
>
>
>



--
--Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

And it also gives the bowls some flexibility, as they would generally have 6
or 7 (rarely 8) autobids, and then they'd get to choose the best 2-4
'travel' teams from among the other top 7-9 teams.

I really don't see who loses here, other than an 8-5 type team that is
fortunate enough to luck box their way into winning a conference
championship game.

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Joe Dimino <joedimino@...> wrote:

> Really, why not? Seems to me like the conference would rather send a 12-1
> team to represent them as opposed to an 8-5 team. I think they are just
> 'forced' to send the Championship game winner.
>
> To me, bowls are national, conference championships are just that,
> conference championships, only loosely related to the national scene.
>
> It's a very simple rule that gets the best teams into the best bowls.
>
> If the conference champ is also top 15, then they go to the BCS. If not the
> best ranked team in the conference goes, as long as they are top 15.
>
> And if a conference has no top 15 teams, they lose their bid that year.
>
> To me, this is a merit based system, that rewards the best teams, and gets
> the fans the best games.
>
> I would also add that ANY conference champ that finished top 15 would get
> an auto-bid. So Boise and TCU would both go, under the current rankings.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Joe Dimino:
>>
>>
>> >> I don't think it's a tough sell at all. Who would the Fiesta rather
>> have a 7-5 'conference champ' like K State or an 11-1 runner up like Texas.
>> <<
>>
>> Conferences determine their BCS representative. You'll never convince them
>> that the conference champ might be excluded.
>>
>>
>> Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --Joe
>



--
--Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michigan must beat Ohio State next Saturday to...

--Become bowl eligible
--Avoid their first last-place finish since 1962
--Avoid a second consecutive losing season

Regarding the latter, I found this information at M Go Blog...

Since 1900 (but not including this year), 46 coaches have begun their tenure
with Big Ten teams with two losing seasons. Of those 46 coaches:

--Just five (10.9%) won at least one Big Ten Championship
--Just four (8.7%) finished their tenure with a winning record
--Two (4.3%) won at least one Big Ten Championship AND finished with a winning
record
--None won national titles

The one current coach who turned it around was Iowa's Kirk Ferentz.

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

Joe Dimino:

>> I don't think it's a tough sell at all. Who would the Fiesta rather have a
7-5 'conference champ' like K State or an 11-1 runner up like  Texas. <<

Conferences determine their BCS representative. You'll never convince them that
the conference champ might be excluded.

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

I don't think it's a tough sell at all.

Who would the Fiesta rather have a 7-5 'conference champ' like K State or an
11-1 runner up like  Texas.

That's an easy sell.

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...> wrote:

>
>
> Joe Dimino:
>
>
> >> Wow, I remember that Oregon team being pretty bad (by Rose Bowl
> standards anyway) Weren't they 7-4?
>
> No, they won their last six to finish the regular season 9-3...
>
> http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Oregon.htm#1994
>
>
> >> If a league is going to risk having a terrible team win their title
> game, then they can also risk their automatic bid in the process. <<
>
> Good luck selling that.
>
>
> Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
>
>
>



--
--Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joe Dimino:

>> Wow, I remember that Oregon team being pretty bad (by Rose Bowl standards
anyway) Weren't they 7-4?

No, they won their last six to finish the regular season 9-3...

http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Oregon.htm#1994

>> If a league is going to risk having a terrible team win their title game,
then they can also risk their automatic bid in the process. <<

Good luck selling that.

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

Finished 9-4, man, I'm a mess :-)

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Joe Dimino <joedimino@...> wrote:

> I looked and saw Oregon was 9-3 and finished 7-4, forgot to remove that
> line from my post.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Joe Dimino <joedimino@...> wrote:
>
>> Wow, I remember that Oregon team being pretty bad (by Rose Bowl standards
>> anyway) Weren't they 7-4?. But the point still holds, just a bad example.
>>
>> And yes, if a league is going to risk having a terrible team win their
>> title game, then they can also risk their automatic bid in the process. I
>> don't care if KState wins the title game, I don't want to see them in a BCS
>> bowl. If the loser is qualified (by being in the top 15) then they can still
>> go.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> James:
>>>
>>>
>>> >> "Automatic qualifiers" are the bane of sports that have 32 (D3
>>> football) or 64 (hoops and baseball) -team tournaments. <<
>>>
>>> Completely disagree. I'd much rather see a small conference champ in
>>> March Madness than a team that finished 8-8 in a "power conference."
>>>
>>> As for D-III football, there isn't enough intersectional play to NOT have
>>> automatic bids. Here are the first-round upsets form last year's D-III
>>> playoffs, all hosted by the higher-seeded team...
>>>
>>> #7 over #2
>>> #5 over #4
>>> #6 over #3
>>> #7 over #2
>>> #7 over #4
>>> #7 over #4
>>> #3 over #2
>>>
>>> Hard to make a case that there are a lot of undeserving teams in the
>>> tournament when all four #7 seeds won!
>>>
>>>
>>> Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --Joe
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --Joe
>



--
--Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wow, I remember that Oregon team being pretty bad (by Rose Bowl standards
anyway) Weren't they 7-4?. But the point still holds, just a bad example.

And yes, if a league is going to risk having a terrible team win their title
game, then they can also risk their automatic bid in the process. I don't
care if KState wins the title game, I don't want to see them in a BCS bowl.
If the loser is qualified (by being in the top 15) then they can still go.

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...> wrote:

>
>
> James:
>
>
> >> "Automatic qualifiers" are the bane of sports that have 32 (D3 football)
> or 64 (hoops and baseball) -team tournaments. <<
>
> Completely disagree. I'd much rather see a small conference champ in March
> Madness than a team that finished 8-8 in a "power conference."
>
> As for D-III football, there isn't enough intersectional play to NOT have
> automatic bids. Here are the first-round upsets form last year's D-III
> playoffs, all hosted by the higher-seeded team...
>
> #7 over #2
> #5 over #4
> #6 over #3
> #7 over #2
> #7 over #4
> #7 over #4
> #3 over #2
>
> Hard to make a case that there are a lot of undeserving teams in the
> tournament when all four #7 seeds won!
>
>
> Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
>
>
>



--
--Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I looked and saw Oregon was 9-3 and finished 7-4, forgot to remove that line
from my post.

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Joe Dimino <joedimino@...> wrote:

> Wow, I remember that Oregon team being pretty bad (by Rose Bowl standards
> anyway) Weren't they 7-4?. But the point still holds, just a bad example.
>
> And yes, if a league is going to risk having a terrible team win their
> title game, then they can also risk their automatic bid in the process. I
> don't care if KState wins the title game, I don't want to see them in a BCS
> bowl. If the loser is qualified (by being in the top 15) then they can still
> go.
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> James:
>>
>>
>> >> "Automatic qualifiers" are the bane of sports that have 32 (D3
>> football) or 64 (hoops and baseball) -team tournaments. <<
>>
>> Completely disagree. I'd much rather see a small conference champ in March
>> Madness than a team that finished 8-8 in a "power conference."
>>
>> As for D-III football, there isn't enough intersectional play to NOT have
>> automatic bids. Here are the first-round upsets form last year's D-III
>> playoffs, all hosted by the higher-seeded team...
>>
>> #7 over #2
>> #5 over #4
>> #6 over #3
>> #7 over #2
>> #7 over #4
>> #7 over #4
>> #3 over #2
>>
>> Hard to make a case that there are a lot of undeserving teams in the
>> tournament when all four #7 seeds won!
>>
>>
>> Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --Joe
>



--
--Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

James:

>> "Automatic qualifiers" are the bane of sports that have 32 (D3 football) or
64 (hoops and baseball) -team tournaments. <<

Completely disagree. I'd much rather see a small conference champ in March
Madness than a team that finished 8-8 in a "power conference."

As for D-III football, there isn't enough intersectional play to NOT have
automatic bids. Here are the first-round upsets form last year's D-III playoffs,
all hosted by the higher-seeded team...

#7 over #2
#5 over #4
#6 over #3
#7 over #2
#7 over #4
#7 over #4
#3 over #2

Hard to make a case that there are a lot of undeserving teams in the tournament
when all four #7 seeds won!

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

Joe Dimino:

>> I would love to see a rule that you can't get a BCS bid, period if you aren't
top 15 in the final BCS standings. I'm thinking of teams like Oregon in 1994,
for example. <<

That's an flawed example, as Oregon was ranked 12th in the final regular-season
poll of 1994...

http://www.appollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?appollid=752

Moreover, imagine a big upset in a conference championship game. (Perhaps a
5-loss Kansas State over Texas this year.) If you're going to keep out K-State,
you can't very well include the Longhorns.

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

I definitely don't agree that automatic qualifiers are the bane of sports.

Automatic qualifiers are what give the NCAA tournament it's charm, and are a
huge part of it's popularity. More people watch the first weekend than the
second. It's all about how you market it.

I do agree that it wouldn't necessarily translate to BCS bowls, but if the
Big Ten and Pac 10 and Big 12 and SEC can get an automatic qualfier when
they don't deserve one, I don't see why the other top leagues (ACC/Big
East/newMWC if it happens) shouldn't get the same consideration.

I would love to see a rule that you can't get a BCS bid, period if you
aren't top 15 in the final BCS standings. I'm thinking of teams like Oregon
in 1994, for example. But I don't think the Big East and newMWC should be
singled out there. Have it apply to all leagues.

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:48 AM, James <sebaseballjpk@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com <collegebcs%40yahoogroups.com>, Joe
> Dimino <joedimino@...> wrote:
> >
> > I see what you are saying, bit did the big east have a big bowl
> > contract before the bcs?
>
> At the time the current coalition was formed, the BEast had a
> semi-arrangement with the Orange Bowl (back then the ACC/BE arrangement with
> the OB was basically assuming it could get FSU or Miami if it wanted to,
> preferably both!)
>
> My point, though, is that the Bowls are more than equal partnets in the BCS
> coalition. They will not want anything that further reduces their
> flexibility to get matchups they want.
>
> I'd say although neither is likely, it is moreso that the Big East looses
> its autobid (and Trader, not because they don't deserve it) than it is
> another conference gets one.
>
> And I think it would be bad for the sport. "Automatic qualifiers" are the
> bane of sports that have 32 (D3 football) or 64 (hoops and baseball) -team
> tournaments. If the (possibly expanded) MW has BCS-calibre teams, they'll
> get a BCS game under the current rules, and if they don't having an AQ slot
> anyway will just be a disaster for fans and the bowls.
>
>
>



--
--Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Joe Dimino <joedimino@...> wrote:
>
> I see what you are saying, bit did the big east have a big bowl
> contract before the bcs?

At the time the current coalition was formed, the BEast had a semi-arrangement
with the Orange Bowl (back then the ACC/BE arrangement with the OB was basically
assuming it could get FSU or Miami if it wanted to, preferably both!)

My point, though, is that the Bowls are more than equal partnets in the BCS
coalition. They will not want anything that further reduces their flexibility to
get matchups they want.

I'd say although neither is likely, it is moreso that the Big East looses its
autobid (and Trader, not because they don't deserve it) than it is another
conference gets one.

And I think it would be bad for the sport. "Automatic qualifiers" are the bane
of sports that have 32 (D3 football) or 64 (hoops and baseball) -team
tournaments. If the (possibly expanded) MW has BCS-calibre teams, they'll get a
BCS game under the current rules, and if they don't having an AQ slot anyway
will just be a disaster for fans and the bowls.

John Martin:

>> The Big East is going to have a heck of a time in 2014 maintaining its
automatic bid if the MWC isn't given the same privledge. <<

On what basis is the Big East in danger of being booted from the BCS? They are
3-2 in BCS bowls since the defections and are 12-4 in bowls over the past three
seasons.

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

No they did not.  From what I can tell, Miami joined the conference beginning in
the 1991-1992 season, the first year of the BCS in its original format.  This
was the beginning of the conference in football as far as I can tell and Miami
and Virginia Tech went on to win 11 or the first 13 championships.  The Big East
is going to have a heck of a time in 2014 maintaining its automatic bid if the
MWC isn't given the same privledge.

John Martin
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Joe Dimino
   To: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
   Cc: collegebcs@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:13 AM
   Subject: Re: [collegebcs] Re: Seventh BCS conference forming?



   I see what you are saying, bit did the big east have a big bowl
   contract before the bcs?

   Sent from my iPhone

   On Nov 13, 2009, at 9:26 PM, "James" <sebaseballjpk@...>
   wrote:

   >
   >
   > --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...>
   > wrote:
   >
   > > I just looked at Sagarin. As things stand, the MWC is 8th behind
   > the six BCS conferences plus the I-A Independents. Adding the three
   > teams mentioned would move them up one spot, above the I-A
   > Independents, but still below the Big Ten. Their new Central Mean
   > would be 72.39 and new Simple Average would be 72.29.
   >
   > What whomever's behind the rumour doesn't realize is that the main
   > criterion for being an AQ conference is to have a contract with one
   > of the BCS bowls (or have had one and be grandfathered in). The MWC
   > can add the Patriots or Cowboys to their league, and still wouldn't
   > have one of those bowls beating down the door to sign 'em up.
   >
   >

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I see what you are saying, bit did the big east have a big bowl
contract before the bcs?

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 13, 2009, at 9:26 PM, "James" <sebaseballjpk@...>
wrote:

>
>
> --- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I just looked at Sagarin. As things stand, the MWC is 8th behind
> the six BCS conferences plus the I-A Independents. Adding the three
> teams mentioned would move them up one spot, above the I-A
> Independents, but still below the Big Ten. Their new Central Mean
> would be 72.39 and new Simple Average would be 72.29.
>
> What whomever's behind the rumour doesn't realize is that the main
> criterion for being an AQ conference is to have a contract with one
> of the BCS bowls (or have had one and be grandfathered in). The MWC
> can add the Patriots or Cowboys to their league, and still wouldn't
> have one of those bowls beating down the door to sign 'em up.
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In collegebcs@yahoogroups.com, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...> wrote:

> I just looked at Sagarin. As things stand, the MWC is 8th behind the six BCS
conferences plus the I-A Independents. Adding the three teams mentioned would
move them up one spot, above the I-A Independents, but still below the Big Ten.
Their new Central Mean would be 72.39 and new Simple Average would be 72.29.

What whomever's behind the rumour doesn't realize is that the main criterion for
being an AQ conference is to have a contract with one of the BCS bowls (or have
had one and be grandfathered in). The MWC can add the Patriots or Cowboys to
their league, and still wouldn't have one of those bowls beating down the door
to sign 'em up.

I wonder if this Letter from Senator Hatch to President Obama has anything to do
with the rumor about MWC expansion. The source for that rumor was said to be in
Washington, D.C. ...

-Marc


Hatch asks Obama to launch investigation into BCS
Oct. 21, 2009
CBSSports.com wire reports

WASHINGTON -- A senator whose undefeated home state school was bypassed for the
college football national championship last season urged President Barack Obama
on Wednesday to ask the Justice Department to investigate the Bowl Championship
Series, citing Obama's own concerns about the way the top team is crowned in
building a case for action.

"Mr. President, as you have publicly stated on multiple occasions, the BCS
system is in dire need of reform," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a 10-page
letter to Obama calling for an antitrust probe of the BCS. The Associated Press
obtained a copy of the letter.

Shortly after his election last year, Obama said he was going to "to throw my
weight around a little bit" to nudge college football toward a playoff system.

Obama and Hatch are among the many critics of how the BCS -- a complex system of
computer rankings and polls that often draws criticism -- determines its
national champion.

Hatch, who held a hearing on the BCS in July, told Obama that a "strong case"
can be made that the BCS violates antitrust laws.

Under the BCS system, some athletic conferences get automatic bids to
participate in top-tier bowl games while others don't, and the automatic bid
conferences also get far more of the revenue. Hatch's home state school, the
University of Utah, is from the Mountain West Conference, which does not get an
automatic bid. The school qualified for a bid last season but was bypassed for
the national championship despite going undefeated.
The system "has been designed to limit the number of teams from non-privileged
conferences that will play in BCS games," Hatch wrote.

Hatch said the BCS arrangement likely violates the Sherman Antitrust Act
because, he argued, it constitutes a "contract, combination in the form of trust
or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce," quoting from
the law.

He said the system "artificially limits the number of nationally-relevant bowl
games to five. The result is reduced access to revenues and visibility which
creates disadvantages to schools in the non-privileged conferences."

Hatch is the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust,
competition policy and consumer rights.

The senator said the hundreds of millions of dollars generated by college
football "are hardly trivial sums," given that many schools use such revenue to
fund things like other athletic programs.

The Justice Department said it would review the letter and respond as
appropriate. The White House declined to comment.

The chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, Harvey Perlman, said,
"Like a majority of presidents, commissioners, athletics directors and coaches,
we stand behind the BCS as the best way to identify a national champion."

Perlman, who is chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, noted that 120
schools compete through the season for the opportunity to play in four major
bowls and the national championship game.

"No effort should be made to take away some of the best traditions of college
football, which include the bowl games," he said. "Most importantly, our
attorneys have done exhaustive reviews over the years, and we are confident that
the BCS is in full compliance with the laws of the nation."

Alan G. Fishel, an attorney for the Mountain West Conference and Boise State
University, backed Hatch's effort.

"If the government can look at the concentration of money in railroads,
telecommunications and software developers, then why not the big business of
college sports in America?" he said.

Hatch's letter comes a few days after the BCS released its first standings of
the year. And on Monday, a group of college football fans launched the Playoff
PAC, with the hope of electing more lawmakers who will pressure the BCS to
switch to a playoff system.

Several lawmakers have introduced bills this year aimed at forcing a playoff
system, but none of the bills has advanced.

_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: Unclutter your desktop.
http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9690331&ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL\
_WIN_evergreen:112009

This would be a dream come true for Bronco fans, and it makes a ton of sense,
which is why it probably isn't true.  I've inlcuded the best report on the rumor
that I have found so far, for reference.

-Marc



Rumor: Mountain West Conference To Expand To 12, Receive BCS Auto Bid
by Brian Nelson
The Bleacher Report

The latest rumor coming out of Washington DC is that the MWC has invited Boise
State, Fresno State, and Nevada to join the nine team MWC.
I will reiterate: it's just a rumor. But given the growing number of rumblings,
and the pragmatism surrounding this concept, it seems to have legs. At least at
face value.
The only reason the MWC would ever expand is if they were somehow guaranteed an
automatic seat at the BCS table.
So if there is any truth to this rumor, it is fair to assume that there is some
degree of cooperation from the BCS.
At a cursory glance, this makes perfect sense. A beefed up MWC with four
football powerhouses (all of whom have reached a top five ranking within the
last 12 months), a 3-0 BCS Bowl record and now a conference championship game,
would more than qualify the MWC 12 as a legit BCS conference.
So the practicality of it alone lends credence to the idea. Plus, a careful
evaluation of the players involved might imply something may be in the works.
ESPN itself, the network who covers the BCS Bowl games and who dominates college
football coverage, has shown a highly uncharacteristic interest in the MWC of
late.
In fact, this week Kirk Herbstreit, Lee Corso, and College GameDay will be
headed to Fort Worth to cover Utah-TCU on Saturday. This is now the third
College Game Day visit to a MWC school in the last five weeks.
Congress itself has seemed relatively quiet of late despite the fact that TCU
can arguably boast an undefeated record with a tougher SOS and a stronger resume
than No. 3 Texas at this point.
Especially if the Frogs top Utah on Saturday.

Validity to the Speculation: Why it Makes Sense
I've heard from fairly reliable resources that the MWC was planning to announce
the addition of Boise State after the season.
Last year at this time, the folks from Boise State were particularly vocal about
gaining MWC admission. That talk has been hard to find of late, which leads to
the conclusion that they've been adopted into the fold.
Utah AD Chris Hill, a very well-connected and widely respected (he hired Rick
Majerus, Urban Meyer, and Kyle Whittingham) figure in the MWC has been
atypically open about his willingness to take the Broncos in.
It's not a common thing for an AD to come out and say that.
The Broncos would be bringing a lot to the table. Their brand recognition and
reputation alone will help further the MWC cause. Nevada and Fresno State would
seem an upgrade to the middle tier.
While Boise has historically been weak in other athletic departments, Nevada and
Fresno State seem much more established in the other venues. Fresno State is
fresh off its 2008 College World Series National Championship .
Nevada was the WAC basketball regular season champions from 2004 through 2008,
reaching a top 10 ranking in 2007 and finishing the season with a 28-4 record.
The MWC would also be gaining decently sized Reno, Boise, and Fresno markets.
Markets that expand MWC coverage but also boast some of the faster growing areas
in the country.
The league would likely be divided geographically. My guess is they'd go from
West to East.
With San Diego State, Fresno State, Nevada, UNLV, Boise State, and Wyoming
making up the western component.
And Utah, BYU, Colorado State, TCU, Air Force, and New Mexico shoring up the
East.
This way, teams would have logical travel partners and natural rivalries (with a
few exceptions).
The East would seem football heavy while the West would be stronger on the
basketball court.
The concept also makes perfect sense from a legal perspective. The MWC and its
famed plight for congressional support would be satisfied. Senator Hatch can
rest easy and focus on resolving other ills of society knowing that his teams
would have a much greater shot at a National Championship under this model.
As we speak, this conference alone would boast two top six teams, three top 15
teams, and four ranked teams. That's more ranked teams than the SEC. Twice as
many as the Big 12. And more combined BCS Bowl victories than the entire ACC
since 1998. Or the Big Ten since 2004.
The conference championship at this point would feature the TCU-Utah winner
against Boise State. That's as compelling, if not more, than any other
conference championship outside of Atlanta.
Certainly more exciting and more meaningful than anything seen in the Big 12
Title game since 2003.
As an MWC fan, I'd support this without hesitation. I think the BCS would be
reluctantly supportive but take comfort knowing the anti-trust suits would be
put to bed.
Granted, it's all speculation at this point, but if this did all come to
fruition, here's my first guess at the top three winners and the top three
losers.

Winners
Boise State: The Broncos are on par to complete their fourth undefeated season
and possibly their third without a BCS invite. This conference allows them to
dramatically improve their schedule and actually have their BCS fate determined
on the field.
Nevada, Fresno State: A move to a BCS conference would be a huge upgrade to both
of these programs.
MWC : Without question, the MWC will enlarge its TV market by expanding into
three new coverage areas that also have to be some of the fastest growing
markets in the country. Not to mention the guaranteed BCS paycheck that probably
wouldn't have to be split with the other non-AQ conferences anymore.

Losers
Pac-10: The Pac has been crying for national attention as the lone horse out
west. Despite the Pac's phenomenal season this year, having another BCS
conference out west means more competition for recruits, votes, and tv coverage.
It also dims the chance of having another second BCS berth. (The Pac-10 hasn't
had a second berth since 2002.)
Plus, if USC returns to dominant form, it would be markedly easier for teams
like Utah, TCU, and BYU to get to the BCS than for most of the Pac-10 teams.
Perhaps some western recruits might take note.
Big Ten: While the Big Ten has shown signs of weakness of late, it has managed
to sneak in a second BCS berth year in, year out. Adding a seventh BCS
conference would almost assuredly take that away.
Dan Hawkins: Left a great gig at Boise State to join a BCS conference in
Colorado. Hawkins and the Buffaloes have struggled while the Broncos haven't
skipped a beat.

http://tinyurl.com/ykbkftc
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/

Joe Dimino

>> I realize my ratings aren't the be all end all, but just to give it an
objective look-see.. <<

I just looked at Sagarin. As things stand, the MWC is 8th behind the six BCS
conferences plus the I-A Independents. Adding the three teams mentioned would
move them up one spot, above the I-A Independents, but still below the Big Ten.
Their new Central Mean would be 72.39 and new Simple Average would be 72.29.

BTW, what happened to New Mexico? They came into the season with a respectable
58-53 record this decade. They are currently 0-9 and ranked in the 164th by
Sagarin. (There are only 120 I-A teams!)

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

I realize my ratings aren't the be all end all, but just to give it an
objective look-see . . .

Right now, without realignment, I have (covering all of I-A, plus I-AA above
the Sun Belt):

   Conference WASEAN  SEC 0.716  ACC 0.682  BigEast 0.675  Big12 0.667  Pac10
0.651  Big10 0.614  MWC 0.563  I-A-Ind 0.560  WAC 0.532  Colonial* 0.522
CUSA 0.498  MAC 0.479  MVC* 0.461  Ivy 0.457  GreatWest 0.443  SunBelt 0.440
Now, if I take those three and put them in the MWC, I get this:

   Division Conference WASEAN  I-A-BCS SEC 0.716  I-A-BCS ACC 0.682  I-A-BCS
BigEast 0.675  I-A-BCS Big12 0.667  I-A-BCS Pac10 0.651  I-A-BCS Big10 0.614
I-A MWC 0.601  I-A I-A-Ind 0.560  I-AA Colonial* 0.522  I-A CUSA 0.498  I-A
MAC 0.479  I-AA MVC* 0.461  I-AA Ivy 0.457  I-AA GreatWest 0.443  I-A
SunBelt 0.440  I-A WAC 0.440
That move would be devestating for the WAC.

Maybe they could steal Houston, UTEP and Tulsa from CUSA? Or Troy and the
Louisiana dashes from the Sun Belt to give LA Tech someone nearby to play?

IMO, that would make the MWC good enough to get an automatic BCS bid. In
time those teams would become better TV draws and travel better as the
programs built up.

Was Florida State a big deal before the 1980s? Or Miami? or Virginia Tech
before about 1993? Give these teams success on the big stage, and they'll
step into the role just like everyone else has since Yale and Princeton
dominated.



On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Jeff Imes <jeff.imes@...> wrote:

>
>
> It probably allows them to make the BCS argument, especially given the top
> teams, but I think they'd still be quite a bit under the BCS conferences in
> overall strength.
>
> It would also leave the WAC rather thin. Wonder if that would cause them to
> start looking at wooing Sun Belt teams. Lots of trickle down effects.
>
> --Jeff
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Trader Kevin
<cbot_kevin@...<cbot_kevin%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > There's a rumor that Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada have been
> > invited to join the 9-team Mountain West Conference. Such a move would
> > virtually guarantee us a seventh BCS conference.
> >
> > Again, just a rumor, but it makes sense.
> >
> > Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
--Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It probably allows them to make the BCS argument, especially given the top
teams, but I think they'd still be quite a bit under the BCS conferences in
overall strength.

It would also leave the WAC rather thin.  Wonder if that would cause them to
start looking at wooing Sun Belt teams.  Lots of trickle down effects.

--Jeff


On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...> wrote:

>
>
> There's a rumor that Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada have been
> invited to join the 9-team Mountain West Conference. Such a move would
> virtually guarantee us a seventh BCS conference.
>
> Again, just a rumor, but it makes sense.
>
> Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would like to see that . . . both the merge and the BCSization of it.

Would the WAC just dissolve? Would it raid the Sun Belt or CUSA?

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Trader Kevin <cbot_kevin@...> wrote:

>
>
> There's a rumor that Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada have been
> invited to join the 9-team Mountain West Conference. Such a move would
> virtually guarantee us a seventh BCS conference.
>
> Again, just a rumor, but it makes sense.
>
> Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin
>
>
>



--
--Joe


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There's a rumor that Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada have been invited to
join the 9-team Mountain West Conference. Such a move would virtually guarantee
us a seventh BCS conference.

Again, just a rumor, but it makes sense.

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

Rajy Abulhosn:

>> Playing the dangerous, "what if" game--if somehow Texas loses & both TCU and
Cincinatti win out, my understanding is that Cincinatti will pass TCU in the
computer portion of the BCS standings. <<

Very likely. TCU closes with Utah (BCS #16) at home, at Wyoming (4-5), and home
against New Mexico (0-9).

Cincinnati has West Virginia (BCS #25) at home, Illinois (3-6) at home, and at
Pitt (BCS #12).

Cincy's schedule remaining significantly tougher than TCU's.

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin

Playing the dangerous, "what if" game -- if somehow Texas loses & both TCU and
Cincinatti win out, my understanding is that Cincinatti will pass TCU in the
computer portion of the BCS standings.
 
First question -- is this correct?
 
If Cincinatti does pass TCU in the computers and if TCU remains ahead of
Cincinatti in the polls, is there any way to figure out about how many points
ahead TCU will have to be in order to overcome the difference in the computer
rankings? With the polls weighted 2/3rds, aer we talking a couple of points
here? Or will TCU need to be well clear of Cincinatti in the polls? Could there
be a situation where the polls go (1) SEC champ (2) TCU (3) Cincinatti, but
Cincinatti gets into the BCS championship game?
 
I guess the above is then question #2. And of course this means that Texas has
lost and the Florida/Alabama loser has been dropped below #3 as well.
 
Thanks
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is a huge blow to Lane Kiffen's first recruiting class, which was ranked
10th nationally. Janzen Jackson was a 5-star defensive back and Nu'Keese
Richardson was a 4-star wide receiver...

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT)--Three Tennessee football players are now facing charges
of armed robbery.

A member of the UT Sports Information Department confirmed to us that Nu'Keese
Richardson, Janzen Jackson, and Michael Edwards were arrested about 2:00 o'clock
Thursday morning.

The incident happened at the Pilot convenience store on Cumberland Avenue.

Police say the men were armed with a small semi automatic pellet gun and robbed
a person in the parking lot.

Police arrested them a few minutes later.

http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/69841967.html

Here are the uniforms Ohio State will wear at Michigan next Saturday...

http://tinyurl.com/yf3lynk

Penn State Proud, Trader Kevin