Saturday, June 12, 2010
Boise State and the Mountain West
I have been known to write all sorts of things about one of my favorite sports, college football, here on this blog. But I generally only do so during the September-to-January timeframe. But this is no ordinary June in the world of college football. The paradigm has been blasted this week, with all sorts of conference realignment going on. Colorado signed up with the Pac-10, which is reported to have an invitation out to Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, which would make it a superconference, probably known as the Pac-16. Nebraska has left the Big 12 for the Big Ten (as of this moment, due to Colorado and Nebraska's defections, the Big 12 has ten members, and the Big Ten has 12 members!). The SEC may be courting A&M. The Big 12 may stay intact and invite a Mountain West school or two (or not) to stay in business. If (as looks more likely) the Big 12 falls apart, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Missouri (who thought they were going to be invited to the Big Ten, but apparently aren't), and Baylor will be left hanging, and may be snatched up by the MWC, the Big East, or C-USA. The Big Ten also has its eyes on Notre Dame (as always), Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers, among possible others. The SEC may raid the ACC and/or the Big East to get to 16 teams to compete with the new Pac-16 and a 16-team version of the Big Ten. It's all a little crazy right now, and frankly, it's exciting for a fan of the sport like me.
But I want to talk specifically about one conference realignment move that was made yesterday afternoon: Boise State accepted an invitation to join the Mountain West Conference.
I see why both sides did it: The MWC is trying to position itself to become a BCS conference - to join the cartel, in other words. By adding BSU, they get credit for their great accomplishments the last couple of years in the formula that will be used in 2012 to reevaluate which conferences get to be part of the cartel. Boise is doing it because they want to be part of the cartel too, and the MWC is a better ticket to do that than the WAC. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That's the philosophy of both the MWC and Boise State, and they are more likely to join 'em if they join forces with each other than they were alone. So that's why they did it.
But I don't like the move for five reasons.
1) First and foremost it decimates the WAC. There aren't any other good teams in the WAC (Fresno State and Hawaii are the next-best), so the gap between the haves and the have-nots - especially if BSU and the MWC succeed in joining the haves - just got a lot wider. Never again will there be two simultaneous BCS-busters like there were this past year, because all the legitimate candidates will be in the same conference (until that conference joins the cartel, anyway, then there won't be any legitimate candidates). These mega-conferences that appear to be forming are ominously leading up to some sort of playoff scenario (good) where the champions of the mega-conferences get in, and the little guys left behind, like the WAC, will be completely shut out (very bad). The discrimination inherent in the BCS system will only get worse. Maybe if the Big 12 leftovers get snatched up by C-USA, that conference can remain viable. Otherwise, goodbye WAC, C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. See you in the FCS (the former Division I-AA).
2) As a BYU fan, I don't want to have to play Boise every year. They're too good. I like to cheer for Boise, and I like to cheer for BYU. I don't like it when two teams I like have to play each other.
3) The MWC was the perfect size: 9 teams. That way, you play 8 conference games and 4 non-conference games. You play every team in your conference every year. Now we're either going to have to scrap one non-conference game (which I'm not interested in doing - it's fun to have games against Florida State and Oklahoma, as BYU did last year, and we've got this silly little thing where we have to play stupid ol' Utah State every year so that takes up one non-conference game each year) or else you miss playing one team from your conference. I don't know if I could handle a BYU season where we don't play our longtime conference rivals like Colorado State, Air Force, or New Mexico. And if this affects the BYU-Utah game, all heck will break loose in the state of Utah (it won't - they'll make sure that game gets played every year, but is that fair to, say, TCU, whose main rival, SMU, is not in the conference, or to San Diego State, about whom no one gives two hoots, rival-wise?).
4) I don't think it really will help Boise State as much as they think it will. They've been doing just fine in the WAC. In fact, you could argue that no team in the country has benefitted more from the evil BCS system than Boise State. They just keep tromping through the weak WAC and winning the occasional BCS game. They've gone from obscure nobodies to a national power in just a few years thanks to the weakness of the WAC and the evils of the BCS. Not a bad life. Now they're going to lose a game or two a year to BYU, TCU, and/or Utah, and we'll see how they like it then.
5) If the MWC joins the cartel, as the Boise State move is intended to help it do, how can I rail against the cartel when my favorite team is IN the cartel? Is it a morally correct move for a religious school like BYU to be part of such an evil system? Lotsa conscience searching if that happens.
But I want to talk specifically about one conference realignment move that was made yesterday afternoon: Boise State accepted an invitation to join the Mountain West Conference.
I see why both sides did it: The MWC is trying to position itself to become a BCS conference - to join the cartel, in other words. By adding BSU, they get credit for their great accomplishments the last couple of years in the formula that will be used in 2012 to reevaluate which conferences get to be part of the cartel. Boise is doing it because they want to be part of the cartel too, and the MWC is a better ticket to do that than the WAC. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That's the philosophy of both the MWC and Boise State, and they are more likely to join 'em if they join forces with each other than they were alone. So that's why they did it.
But I don't like the move for five reasons.
1) First and foremost it decimates the WAC. There aren't any other good teams in the WAC (Fresno State and Hawaii are the next-best), so the gap between the haves and the have-nots - especially if BSU and the MWC succeed in joining the haves - just got a lot wider. Never again will there be two simultaneous BCS-busters like there were this past year, because all the legitimate candidates will be in the same conference (until that conference joins the cartel, anyway, then there won't be any legitimate candidates). These mega-conferences that appear to be forming are ominously leading up to some sort of playoff scenario (good) where the champions of the mega-conferences get in, and the little guys left behind, like the WAC, will be completely shut out (very bad). The discrimination inherent in the BCS system will only get worse. Maybe if the Big 12 leftovers get snatched up by C-USA, that conference can remain viable. Otherwise, goodbye WAC, C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. See you in the FCS (the former Division I-AA).
2) As a BYU fan, I don't want to have to play Boise every year. They're too good. I like to cheer for Boise, and I like to cheer for BYU. I don't like it when two teams I like have to play each other.
3) The MWC was the perfect size: 9 teams. That way, you play 8 conference games and 4 non-conference games. You play every team in your conference every year. Now we're either going to have to scrap one non-conference game (which I'm not interested in doing - it's fun to have games against Florida State and Oklahoma, as BYU did last year, and we've got this silly little thing where we have to play stupid ol' Utah State every year so that takes up one non-conference game each year) or else you miss playing one team from your conference. I don't know if I could handle a BYU season where we don't play our longtime conference rivals like Colorado State, Air Force, or New Mexico. And if this affects the BYU-Utah game, all heck will break loose in the state of Utah (it won't - they'll make sure that game gets played every year, but is that fair to, say, TCU, whose main rival, SMU, is not in the conference, or to San Diego State, about whom no one gives two hoots, rival-wise?).
4) I don't think it really will help Boise State as much as they think it will. They've been doing just fine in the WAC. In fact, you could argue that no team in the country has benefitted more from the evil BCS system than Boise State. They just keep tromping through the weak WAC and winning the occasional BCS game. They've gone from obscure nobodies to a national power in just a few years thanks to the weakness of the WAC and the evils of the BCS. Not a bad life. Now they're going to lose a game or two a year to BYU, TCU, and/or Utah, and we'll see how they like it then.
5) If the MWC joins the cartel, as the Boise State move is intended to help it do, how can I rail against the cartel when my favorite team is IN the cartel? Is it a morally correct move for a religious school like BYU to be part of such an evil system? Lotsa conscience searching if that happens.
Comments: Post a Comment
