CBS sports buys CSTV...does BSU consider MWC now?

Here is my reply to all of the Rhetoric:

1.) nonbcs--you insist that the fiesta bowl game will be forgotten, yet at least once a week you yourself post about it ya yutz.

2.) Mrs sooner, you continue to dazzle us with your witty insight, please continue we are waiting breathlessly.

3.) Believe it or not, the WAC has been and will continue to be good for BSU, we have great TV coverage, a few good competetors (HI, fresno, and reno) and yes we do have our, what did you call it, bottom feeders, (and who doesn't  want to see Moscow go away) but in the end Tim is right we would just be taking a lateral step.  And when we start playing BYU again here shortly, I think the Broncos will show all of us just why we don't need or want the MWC.  I can't remember somebody remind when the last time BSU lost to one of the MWC superstars was? I mean seriously, common!

4.) GO BRONCOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nonstop, what you still can't quite grasp is that it won't be forgotten by me, but if boise will fail to make a splash in the next few years, i think the overwhelming majority of fans outside the state of idaho will think that boise st was lucky to win that game against a team that has been known to choke... in fact, i think the majority of football fans think so already...

i really don't care what you think of me or my posts, but i will once again state that i like boise st, i think broncos are a good football team and i hope that more bcs bowls and an invite to the ncg await them in the future.  however, i am not shy at pointing to things that i don't like (your annual ooc, the fact that the team is allowed to wear blue uniforms on the blue field so when i watch the highlights on tv, i can't see anything, and their horrific record versus bcs teams)

just because i like a team doesn't mean that i can't criticise it, and if you would actually read all my posts, you would know that i give plenty of credit to boise st for the accomplishments so far... however, you go on proclaiming your superior intelligence, and calling me a homosexual and an anti-american... by all means... i find it all rather amusing... 

nonstopblue...   The MWC may be a lateral move (that's debateable), but it's definitely a better fit geographically for Boise.  The yearly regional matchups would be great.  The only drawback in my mind would be losing a couple of rivalries we've developed in the WAC.  Mostly Fresno!

So, this has been one of those interesting posts that started off pretty good, but deteriorated quickly. No problem. This is the norm and no "reply comment" needed. We all know what those will be.

Not that it will ever happen, but there needs to be a merger between the WAC and MWC into a new conference in which the top teams from both (and a couple lessers) make up a..... oh, lets say MWAC (Mountain West Athletic Conference). This way, with the "built in" competition level, the sports channels will be coming to us. Period.

How's this for thought?

Here's my line up... in alpha order....

Air Force, Boise State, BYU, Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, TCU, Utah

What do you, our panel of experts,  think? Would it be viable to go to 10 and have a "conference playoff" game for revenue purposes, like the BCS conferences? A two division format would leave room for scheduling tougher opponents. Four games would be required within the division, three more within the conference and the other four open to OOC.

You need twelve teams before you can split into divisions and have a championship game.

And your WAC bias is showing.  Excuse me, but wasn't Nevada destroyed by New Mexico in the bowl game?   You would also include UNLV, if for nothing else than that they are a traditional basketball power.  Also, perfect rivalry with Nevada.   However, we don't want Hawai'i.  We left them behind in the WAC for numerous reasons. 

Not to be too MWC homerish, but you keep all nine current MWC teams and add Boise, Fresno, and Nevada and there's your twelve.  SDSU brings a large market and recruiting base.  CSU, though down right now, has traditionally held their own.  Wyoming and BYU go way back, and though they're never going to amount to much, they're like family.  Meaning, we're always going to look out for them.  They hate our living daylights probably more than Utah does, but they're still family.

So in alphebetical order:  AFA, BSU, BYU, CSU, FSU, Nevada, SDSU, TCU, UNLV, UNM, Utah, and Wyoming.

Like I said, Wyoming is family.  So, if you would like any other WAC team to join the fictitious new conference, you'll have to make a case for them over one of the other 11 teams.

Since we're getting into this (once again), I'll go ahead and throw my 2 cents worth in the pot.

For the most part, I agree with USC.  Gotta have 12 teams, then a conference championship would be doable.  The teams I would include would also have a natural rival within their division.

North Division

• Air Force and Colorado St.
• Boise St and Wyoming
• Byu and Utah

South Division

• Fresno and San Diego St
• Nevada and UNLV
• New Mexico and New Mexico St.

I left off TCU cause they will eventually bolt for a conference that is better suited for them.  Most likely a BCS conference.  That left an opening in the South Division which I would fill with a school that produces great teams - just not in football (NMSU).

I feel bad for Hawaii, really, but they'll always be that red-headed step child that no one wants - mostly because of their location and the cost and inconvenience associated with travel.

By the way...   This year, in my "Fictional" conference, Fresno would win the South and BYU would win the North, creating a great conference championship game, with the winner of that going to a BCS Bowl.

I like your teams, and I agree with you on TCU most likely eventually bolting (though they're a great team to have while they stay), but we may need to tweak the divisions.  BYU, BSU, and Utah have all proven they can sustain good football teams.  CSU has done so in the past, and I believe will get back there again.  That's potentially your four best teams in the same division.  Meanwhile, in the south division, only Fresno has somewhat sustained decent football teams over the years.  But Fresno isn't as good as they like to believe themselves to be.  In 16 years of WAC football, they have never won an outright WAC title, and have never finished with fewer than 2 losses in conference. 

I actually wouldn't mind seeing BYU and Utah in different divisions.  We could do like the SEC does where every team has a permanent opponent from the other division, which would keep the BYU Utah rivalry intact.  Never mind.  As that game is always the last of the regular season (barring wild fires in San Diego), you wouldn't want the two teams to potentially play the rivalry game one week, and meet in the conference title game the next.  It wouldn't be fair to either team.

At any rate, we'd still need to tweak the divisions to somehow even out the competition.

USC...  Actually, I agree with you on tweaking the divisions because of the lopsided nature of the split.   But I wasn't sure how to make the split work any other way.  Plus, as players cycle through, other teams in the South Division could rise and shine!

Also, I didn't take into account on the split how the SEC does their split.  That could be an interesting alternative.  And while it could happen where you have two teams meeting last week in the regular season and the next week in the Conference Championship, I don't think it would happen very often.  It's an interesting alternative to the North South split.

Well, the SEC truly is split East and West, but every team has a permanent opposite division opponent.  We play Arkansas every year; Florida/LSU; Georgia/Auburn; etc.  With that in mind, I'm envisioning a super rivalry weekend for our fictitious confernce.  First, we split up all the rivals you listed and put them in separate divisions:

The Best Division

• BYU
• Colorado St
• Nevada
• New Mexico
• SDSU
• Wyoming

The Lesser Division

• AFA
• Boise
• Fresno
• New Mexico St
• UNLV
• Utah

I've got the four schools that have been the most consistant evenly distributed.  I put Fresno in your division so that you guys could continue the rivalry you've started in the WAC.  I put Nevada in our division to split up the WAC guys, but I had to give you guys NMST as I didn't want them and Wyoming, the other team with the greatest potential to be a forever bottom feeder, in the same division. 

And for the last game of the year, everyone plays their cross-divisional permanent rival.  It's Benson, right, who's the WAC commish?  We'll make him the commish of our fictitious conference, as he'll know how to properly hype such a super weekend, and the MWC will finally be rid of the guy who signed the worst TV package in history and can't even get his conference's biggest rivalry game consistantly nationally televised.

We'll have to think of better names for the divisions, as I have a hunch you're not going to accept the ones I came up with.  But they're not geographic divisions, so East/West/North/South won't work.  We can stick with my names for the time being, though.

I like the split  -  having Fresno, Boise and Utah in the same division rocks!  And I like the concept of a "Super Rivalry" weekend!  That totally works for me.  .......  Benson is the WAC commish, and to be fair he's done a pretty decent job.  I have no complaints.  But maybe we can get Delany to hire on with this new conference!  LOL.

Yep, you're right about the Division Titles.  Best and Lesser just don't work, unless of course you flip 'em.  .......  How about the Mountain West Division and Western Athletic Division (to coincide with the combining of the two conferences).  But then the question is what to name the conference?