1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

MWC to Gain Provisional AQ Status?

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by CsquaredCC, Jun 2, 2011.

  1. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74
    Rumors are growing that even with the loss of the Big 3 (TCU, Utah and BYU) the MWC may be granted provisional auto qualifiying status to the BCS for the 2012 and 2013 seasons: http://www.lvrj.com/sports/mountain-west-gaining-ground-for-bcs-waiver-122766663.html

    Currently the MWC has reached two of the three criteria for BCS inclusion, which allows them to appeal for the classification. Given how political it seems to be getting it sounds like the BCS may grant the appeal. If the MWC were fortunate enough to achieve that classification, I think you would see the MWC try to move in nab Houston and SMU or approach BYU about coming back into the fold in an attempt to maintain that status. With the Big East also sniffing around some of the same C-USA programs that conference looks like it could be in the same situation the MWC was last summer. Either way it looks to me like another round of expansion is about ready to kick off.
     
  2. NashBuff

    NashBuff CSU Knob-Slobberer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    57
    I'd put the MWC champ in the Fiesta Bowl if that was the case. The Big 12 champ should get the Cotton Bowl if it is a BCS bowl.
     
  3. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74
    Fiesta Bowl tie-in would certainly make the most sense.
     
  4. Quattro

    Quattro Banned BANNED Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2010
    Messages:
    26,503
    Likes Received:
    761
    :rofl:

    Who wants to see some sub-par team get their ass kicked by a real BCS team?
     
  5. NashBuff

    NashBuff CSU Knob-Slobberer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    57
    The MWC teams did very well in their BCS games: Utah beat 'Bama & overrated Pitt and TCU beat Wisconsin. Plus they add Boise State who beat OU and TCU in that regard. Only downside is Hawaii when they played Georgia in their BCS bowl game but that goes to show you that the MWC has done a decent job in their BCS bowl games.
     
  6. Quattro

    Quattro Banned BANNED Club Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2010
    Messages:
    26,503
    Likes Received:
    761
    Utah - Pac 12
    TCU - Big East
    BYU - Not going to happen
    BSU - Only team that stands a chance

    Having the MWC become an AQ conference would be 5 times worse than the UCONN v OU Fiesta Bowl last year.
     
  7. HotRack

    HotRack Rez BubbleHead Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,031
    Likes Received:
    467
    Nope - it wil be Boise playing anyway, and they've shown pretty well in recent years in the BCS. No way any other team in the MWC beats out Boise for the title - EVAR. And I f***ing hate Boise St. Thought it was awesome that they left the WAC and ended right back in it again when Utah/BYU left followed by Nevada and Fresno tagging along - plus the remainder of the MWC leftovers are about equal to the Utah States/Idahos of the world.

    Will be interesting to see what happens to the BCS if prov status is granted though...
     
  8. sliderNcider

    sliderNcider MacLovin Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    17,262
    Likes Received:
    1,804
    TCU and Utah are no longer in the MWC so that doesn't really count now. Boise St is really the only great team
     
  9. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74
    If the MWC is granted provisional status, the best move for the conference would be to expand to twelve, add a championship game, and try to get back into the Texas market with Houston and SMU. C-USA looks like it could be in big trouble right now IMO, especially with the Big East poking around UCF and ECU. It certainly is a long shot, but given the MWC's geographic location, the conference might be able to become a permenent part of the BCS structure.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
  10. Jens1893

    Jens1893 Moderator Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    33,921
    Likes Received:
    3,258
    I would have seen a point in doing this if they had held on to Utah, BYU and TCU ... but they are losing 3 and only gaining one.
     
  11. fatbuff

    fatbuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,680
    Likes Received:
    674
    Dead man walking.
     
  12. JimmyBuff

    JimmyBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    16,901
    Likes Received:
    227
    still think it was a mistake for TCU to leave the MWC especially if this happens.
     
  13. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74
    It will make sense if the Big East is successful in locking up a mega-television deal. The MWC still will not be able to negotiate those type of payouts for its members regardless of status.
     
  14. NashBuff

    NashBuff CSU Knob-Slobberer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,909
    Likes Received:
    57
    The Big East was granted the same exception that the MWC would get in order to keep its AQ status so the MWC would most likely get that AQ status.
     
  15. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74
    The Big East's 2008 excemption is one of the driving factors right now. It is going difficult for the BCS to argue against MWC inclusion when it has already set the precedent that an exemption is proper even when one of its three qualifying categories have not been strictly met. Throw in the fact that you have the DOJ already sniffing around and I think the BCS may just decide that keeping the MWC out is not worth the political fight.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
  16. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,458
    Likes Received:
    4,463
    Larry Scott disapproves.
     
  17. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74
    Certainly not what Scott had in mind if this comes to pass although I am sure he has planned for this very possibility.
     
  18. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,458
    Likes Received:
    4,463
    You do not want to oppose the great and powerful Larry Scott.
     
  19. Darth Snow

    Darth Snow Hawaiian Buffalo Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    56,896
    Likes Received:
    4,914
    This aint no thang. Give them a couple years of sucking and they will lose it.
     
  20. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,489
    Likes Received:
    605
    Cotton Bowl is not a BCS bowl. The Big 12 is not going to give up the Fiesta Bowl... it is one of the better BCS bowls. MWC will be like the Big East with no tie in.

    All BCS conferences except the Big East have contracts for their champions to participate in specific BCS bowl games. Unless their champion is involved in the BCS National Championship game, the conference tie-ins are:

    • Rose Bowl - Big Ten champion vs. Pac-10 champion
    • Fiesta Bowl - Big 12 champion
    • Orange Bowl - ACC champion
    • Sugar Bowl - SEC champion
    The Big East champion takes one of the remaining spots.
     
  21. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74
    I think there is a scenerio developing right now where the MWC does not lose it. However, I think alot of it depends on C-USA. If the MWC is granted provisional status - it will do everything in is power to kill off C-USA. The Big East is also looking at expansion candidates from that conference.

    IF C-USA ceases to be a viable non-aq conference and IF the MWC gains BCS status - the political pressure on the BCS will subside a bit. Alot of ifs, but the MWC has always been at the heart of this debate. It may be worth it for the BCS to bring the MWC in to the fold and save on years of expenses litigating the matter before the courts and congress.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
  22. GoBeers

    GoBeers Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ugh. The real problem I have with the MWC AQ status is what happens if another non AQ team runs the table and now there are less spots for BCS teams. There have been quite a few crappy BCS bowls, but the non BCS bowls have been really diluted to the point that there seem to never be good games. BCS games at least are inter-regional match-ups.And for the near future, the Pac 12 is locked into some pretty crappy match-ups against the Big 12 in its upper tier bowls - getting a 2nd team into a BCS game is a great way to get a p12 team in a nationally relevant match-up and one more AQ hurts that chance.

    How about making the MWC a 'partial' AQ? They play a BCS play in game on the same weekend in December that the CCG games are played. Would pit them against the highest rated non AQ school. And make it so it's not a permanent deal - if the MWC starts to suck, boot them. Could work even better if someone raids C-USA to get them down to 10 teams.

    I'm very leery of a system that would give conferences like the MWC equal status in the BCS in case the chance at an 8 team playoff comes around. Big East is pretty bad, but the other 5 BCS conferences need to have some kind of edge in getting bids to an 8 team playoff, or it's not happening.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
  23. TimmyDUBs

    TimmyDUBs Dirty haole Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,565
    Likes Received:
    948
    Mixed feelings.

    I have a hard time believing that the 'Big' East is any better from top to bottom (UConn wins it?!?) Some years I'd say the ACC doesn't seem to different from top to bottom. One might argue that during down years the Big 12 compared pretty evenly with a solid MWC year. The main point is that the bottom of the conference is horrendous, but the top is pretty good. I wonder if that could change a bit with them gaining this status, and if that may hurt CU's recruiting if the conference is perceived as "equal," and validates CSU, Air Force and Wyoming.

    But at the same time it could mess the BCS up even more as it gets watered down and you get a great team playing a weak one. I'm all about the playoffs, so I think this could be a slippery slope step int hat direction...
     
  24. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74

    I think you would see a slight uptick on the in-state recruiting front for CSU. However, not even a BCS designation is going to overcome the advantages CU has in that department. Air Force is rarely in the running for the players CU is after.

    The biggest difference would be the recruiting channels in California, where SDSU and Fresno State could start to make real in-roads on some of those four star kids that get passed over by the USCs and UCLAs, etc. I think CU, Arizona, ASU and Utah would be fighting a little harder for those types of kids.
     
  25. SINKRATZ

    SINKRATZ Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    5,175
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    I don't know, to me there's a big difference between giving an exemption to an existing BCS member who previously met all the criteria for inclusion (Big East), and giving it to a non-member who has never met all the criteria and are only this close in large part because of schools that are no longer members of the conference (MWC).

    Let's face it, the MWC conference wasn't strong enough to qualify before, and their conference just got significantly weaker from top to bottom with the defections of TCU, Utah, and BYU. Even with Boise now a member, I say thanks but no thanks.
     
  26. dio

    dio Admin Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    30,108
    Likes Received:
    2,544
    Yeah - I don't know why the conference would get any sort of AQ status, even provisional. They just got a helluva lot weaker, not stronger.
     
  27. Tractor

    Tractor Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,899
    Likes Received:
    307
    I guess that's better than getting straight up denied, but I'd say that's still a long ways from "MWC to Gain Provisional AQ Status"

    If it did happen, it would go a long ways in extending the ROCKY MOUNTAIN SHOWDOWN at INVESCO. It could benefit both schools, help CSU build it's foundation and make the annual game more important in Colorado. I personally feel CU would do fine without CSU, so I for one oppose this.

    The MWC still has to perform extremely well top to bottom this year (probably even more so this year to demonstrate it's ability to maintain without the state of Utah) to get any consideration. Let's just do our part and stomp CSU into the ground this fall :thumbsup:
     
  28. ScottyBuff

    ScottyBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,619
    Likes Received:
    91
    The Big East "exemption" was NOT the same thing as the MWC seeking an application to the Presidential Oversight Committee.

    The Big East was granted the right to continue as a current BCS member due to their loss of Miami, VT, and BC and replacing with Louisville, Cincy, and South Florida. At that time the criteria for conference AQ status was not public, objective, or a formal one that was discussed.

    Because of the MWC's push for BCS status, and probably in a CYA move, the BCS adopted the now published guidelines (which are not the whole process as publicly acknowledge by MWC Comish Craig Thompson) so that the public would not think they were "playing favorites". This began with the 2008-2011 period that we are now in. Applying for an exemption is a NEW thing, so it cannot be confused with the Big East scenario.

    The Big East also falls under the same criteria now, in maintaining their AQ status, so it is "fair" and the BE does NOT need an exception to retain it, from what I understand.

    The Sporting News article that really is driving this "momentum" is silly because they interviewed a couple of Athletic Directors.


    But these are the people that will make the decision on the MWC application...
    The Presidential Oversight Committee is (with my opinion on how they vote):
    · Chairman, Graham Spanier - President, The Pennsylvania State University (NO)
    · Victor Boschini - Chancellor, Texas Christian University (NO)
    · Scott Cowen - President, Tulane University (YES)
    · Rev. John Jenkins - President, University of Notre Dame (NO)
    · Mark A. Nordenberg - Chancellor, University of Pittsburgh (NO)
    · John G. Peters - President, Northern Illinois University (YES)
    · Bill Powers - President, University of Texas (NO)
    · Gary Ransdell - President, Western Kentucky University (YES)
    · Robert Shelton - President, University of Arizona (NO)
    · Charles W. Steger - President, Virginia Tech University (NO)
    · John Welty - President, Fresno State University (YES)
    · Robert Witt - President, University of Alabama (NO)

    That is an 8-4 vote, IMO, against granting an exception.

    And anyone that thinks gaining AQ status for the MWC will be helped by expanding to 12 teams is not understanding of the criteria. Conferences actually get PUNISHED in the standards for having more members.

    Conference membership | Adjustment
    12 or more member | no adjustment
    10 or 11 members | points increased by 12.5 percent
    9 or fewer members | points increased by 25 percent
    The details that have been released by the BCS are here.

    If Houston, UTEP, SMU, or any other team being discussed doesn't move the calculations more than 25 percent ABOVE the conference's current rankings then they are dead weight. The BCS places NO importance on having a conference championship game, it is beyond silly how that get lumps into the conversation all the time. Why would a 9-member conference just gaining an additional $18-25 million per year wish to then divide the pot up by 12? A MWC CCG could not generate enough revenue to offset that loss per school.

    Look, I really would have been in favor of the MWC gaining AQ status in they had at least kept TCU and BYU and added Boise, Fresno, and Hawaii. But the current format, while better than the WAC, still is not good enough top-to-bottom from a program perspective to be included in the mix. If Nevada were to win the conference, would they be able to sell 25,000 tickets to the Fiesta or Orange Bowls? Yes Utah, BYU, and TCU had the fanbase; but outside of Boise and Fresno I'm not sure any of them do. And make no mistake that is what the discussion will be from the bowl games. This isn't about "who's the best" on the field and if they can compete between the hashes.

    AQ status is a two-way street; you get access, but you better deliver the butts-in-the-seats and on the sets. The BCS already has granted access to the best non-AQ teams on a year-by-year basis (Utah X 2, TCU, Boise X 2, Hawaii) so if Fresno were to go 12-0 they would get their chance most likely to play as an at-large team. The AQ status wouldn't change that, but it would grant a 9-3 San Diego State team a place in the BCS bowls if they were conference champion; not sure how that helps college football or the BCS. If it doesn't help them, why would they do it?
     

Share This Page