Could Boise State Actually Join the MWC?

Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:18 pm

Take it for what it is worth. This is written by the same lady who wrote a glowing article about Christensen (while also taking some shots at the departed staff) that caused such a controversy earlier this year.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/ncfnation/0- ... -West.html

Wed Jul 29, 2009 1:19 pm

Didn't Boise write a letter to the MWC presidents a year or two ago and only one responded, the president from Utah?

Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:48 pm

Nobody wants 'em, they're too damn good. Wanna bring in a great new school to the conference then look at Montana.

Serious.

Wed Jul 29, 2009 4:27 pm

If by adding Boise State the BCS said, "Yes MWC you are now an automatic qualifier for a BCS bowl game", I would say lets get after it. As of right now, that would probably not happen. Boise State does not have nearly the academic credentials that the schools of the MWC have. Do we really want to water down our stellar academic reputation with the hope of someday gaining AQ status? Adding Boise State would not be a good addition unless it came with guaranteed AQ status ASAP.

-rev

Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:03 pm

WyoRev wrote:If by adding Boise State the BCS said, "Yes MWC you are now an automatic qualifier for a BCS bowl game", I would say lets get after it. As of right now, that would probably not happen. Boise State does not have nearly the academic credentials that the schools of the MWC have. Do we really want to water down our stellar academic reputation with the hope of someday gaining AQ status? Adding Boise State would not be a good addition unless it came with guaranteed AQ status ASAP.

-rev

We're talking football here sonny, wtf does that have to do with academic credentials? If every college program cared about nothing but academics, there would be no BCS.

Boise State, based on their last eight or so years, would dominate in our conference. That would indeed elevate the status of the conference in the eyes of this ridiculous BCS set-up, and they really don't GAF about anything else but money, not really academics.

Wed Jul 29, 2009 8:48 pm

I am tired of hearing of this topic. Nothing makes me more annoyed then this topic. The point is mute. This will not happen unless bcs is involved so we all have a chance at the megabucks. The bcs doesn't want to share so it will not happen. The MWC was formed to bring all of the old buddies back to one nice group that would be affordable and keep the rivaliers going. TCU had no home. They needed a group to play with and they had a lot to offer in several sports that made them competitive. So, it was smart to bring TCU in to our fold. They have lived up to their name and have competed well after adjusting to our richly diverse conference.

That was luck that a conference disolved and a good school was hanging. That is not the case with BSU. It is king of its conference. Not abandoned. They want our share of the loot and not to contribute to it as they have no way to do that in a way that would benefit all of the MWC members. Not everyone in the conference is into football. It is all about the money! TCU brought in several different sports that would generate revenue. Yet again another reason not to add a poser.

For the sake of argument why add one more when we would have to add others to balance. The MWC would be like the WAC (with the better MWC teams though) and more schools to feed. Plus why do that when are a power conference now. Why share the money with more schools. That doesn't make sense.

But BSU is so powereful! It crush all! Right... Sorry the smurfs would be severly beaten and would make a lower crappy bowl maybe. Being king of a not so tough WAC does nothing for them when they take on several good teams. It makes it a little more difficult to win when you don't have time to prepare. It isn't fun to lose. Not to mention didn't TCU beat them? I guess maybe we already have our one good team we wanted.

BSU is wrong for the conference in so many ways...

I will give that football is a strong point. Smurfs can play pigskin but so can our current members and our top 3 can beat them. So what. TCU has a long standing of strong football just not in the last ooh 8 years. Will their gritty image last long enough to make a tradition and is that something we want?

Do they even play other sports or do they just find random people and put them out there?

BSU has recently changed from a trucker school to a football school. That is impressive. That is a selling point that will drive any conference wild!

No one likes them. Wyoming doesn't like CSU but that is a bitter rivalier. We still want to beat on each other to show the other one we are better then them. (Wyoming is always better even if we don't win!) BSU is like a snot nose kid that is always trying to say he is good and he always wins. He can't spell anything or do math but he can play baseball and football decent but no other sports. Who is to say BSU has already peaked out.

This is the most I have ever spoke of TCU but they are the real deal and it was an "experiment" that went well. BSU is not that caliber of school.

A flash in the pan with no diversify.

We should talk more poke football. That is more pleasant and full of hope.

Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:55 am

pokerupfront wrote:Nobody wants 'em, they're too damn good. Wanna bring in a great new school to the conference then look at Montana.

Serious.

Why Montana? What does Montana bring to the plate versus BSU?

Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:01 pm

big z wrote:
pokerupfront wrote:Nobody wants 'em, they're too damn good. Wanna bring in a great new school to the conference then look at Montana.

Serious.
Why Montana? What does Montana bring to the plate versus BSU?

BSU used to play in the same conference as Montana. And Montana usually won.

Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:44 pm

Willie wrote:
big z wrote:
pokerupfront wrote:Nobody wants 'em, they're too damn good. Wanna bring in a great new school to the conference then look at Montana.

Serious.
Why Montana? What does Montana bring to the plate versus BSU?
BSU used to play in the same conference as Montana. And Montana usually won.

How would Montana fair against them now? Probably not that well, and if BSU is added that's a great thing. We need the best competition in the conference and if that creates a top heavy conference of Utah, TCU, BSU and the whY so be it.

Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:42 pm

I'm not sure they would be in the top 4. BSU has made a killing on crushing the weaker WAC teams and only needing to gear up for a couple teams that even have a chance of beating them. If they were in the MWC last year I think they would have finished 5th behind Utah, TCU, BYU, AFA, and could have lost to UNLV. They have good recruits, but they are kids thinking they are going to a program that will win all season against lesser opponents and only need to pull out the tricks, gadgets, and new schemes once or twice a year.

I think it would be horrible for them. Once they start losing 3,4,5 games a year the recruits would start looking elsewhere, maybe to Fresno or Hawaii who would now be the team that only plays a couple tough games a year.

Their undefeated season they came to Laramie and barely squeaked out a win against us and we didn't get a bowl game that year. I'd predict 5th in our league, they are not used to having to be up 5,6,7 times a year against good teams.

I love MWC football, and think BSU would make it better, but I also think it would be bad for them because they wouldn't have the same success they have in the WAC. I just don't see it happening unless someone else jumps ship first like Utah or BYU to the Pac-10, or TCU to the Big-10.