+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: WACbbs (/forum-376.html)
+--- Thread: ESPN needs to just do only college sports. (/thread-26884.html)
Pages: 1 2
ESPN needs to just do only college sports. - aggiefansince83 - 06-29-2006 08:00 PM
Seriously because they suck at everything else. I need to go on a little rant.
ESPN is pretty bad at coverage of other things besides college sports. They did a good job with the softball tournament and college world series. They were fun to watch.
However pro sports is where they suck at. I'll start with baseball. ESPN thinks only 4 teams exist. The Red Sox, Yankees, and whoever is playing the Red Sox and Yankees.
Yesterday afternoon the Yankees were playing the Braves, last night the Red Sox were playing the Mets. I turned on ESPN just now and guess what was on? Yes, the Red Sox again.
ESPN is always hyping up the Red Sox and Yankees as some special intense rivalry. It is not a real rivalry when one player can go play for the other team right away like Johnny Damon. A real rivalry is like Michigan and Ohio State, Alabama and Auburn, etc. There is no rivalries in pro sports because there are no loyalties.
For example I like the Diamondbacks. I watch them on FSN Arizona because it is part of the cable package down here. However if I moved away to like Houston or something like that then I would become an Astros fan.
So for ESPN it is nothing but non stop Red Sox and Yankees games with maybe a Orioles or Cardinals or Indians game thrown in once in a great while. When I went to the Cal game last year I programmed the VCR to record the game because I wanted to watch it later. I obviously couldn't see it live on tv because I was at the game.
So when I get back from the game I wanted to watch the tape. A baseball game cut off the first few minutes of the NMSU vs. Cal game. And who was playing? The freaking Yankees of course. ESPN's baseball coverage sucks. I read on the CUSA board they had like 4 "experts" analyze Roger Clemens pitch a meaningless game in single A. Lame. lol
I didn't watch much of the NBA playoffs because I don't like the NBA but I did watch a few games. The games on TNT were much better done than the ones on ESPN.
ESPN doesn't know hockey exists. You are better off watching Hockey on OLN or on your regional FSN channel.
As for the NFL you are better off watching your team on either CBS or Fox. Sunday night football on NBC will be better. I have a feeling ESPN will suck at presenting Monday night football.
And ESPN sucks at the World Cup too. ABC is pretty good but for the games that are not on ABC I just watch them on Univision instead of ESPN.
When watching a game with Mexico I believe I started watching it on Univision. The national anthem was playing and you could see the players standing in line holding hands and singing together in unity. The fans were singing too and there were little kids around and signs that said "A time to make friends." Very good coverage of a very cool moment before the game.
I flipped to ESPN to see what they were saying since I don't know much spanish and you know what ESPN was showing at the same time? A freaking Geico commercial with a talking lizard. Lame.
So my conclusion? ESPN should just go college sports only. They show a wide variety of great teams and games all year on many days. I like to get out of class and watch a game on a weeknight. Instead of ESPNU make that ESPN3.
With 3 networks dedicated to college sports they could also show some sports that don't get much airtime like college volleyball and baseball and softball. Ah hell when there is time available show a few NCAA track meets and stuff as well as tennis and gymnastics.
During the summer when no college sports are on they could show re runs of the best games of the past year so us college sports fans can get our fix during these long summer months.
Just leave pro sports to network tv and TNT and other networks because ESPN sucks at it.
ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPN3 all dedicated to college sports?
Like those guys say, Brilliant! :drinky2:
- jediwarrior - 06-29-2006 08:30 PM
You go aggiefansince83. ;-)
I don't know if I'm crazy about the ESPNU name change though , I kinda like "the U".
...and the "U" ....says it all.
If ESPNU is an autonomous organization, I'm sure they want to distinguish why they're different.
I've really gained a whole new respect for those guys. With 3 BCS conferences already under contract, you gotta like what they're doing...and where they're going.
- mattsarz - 06-29-2006 08:34 PM
I'm not going to pick apart your basic premise that ESPN isn't good at pro sports, lets say that ESPN is good at no sports at all because they've slowly stopped being a sports network and become more of an entertainment network with shows on poker, dominoes, entertainment and movie productions.
As for the comments about MLB, I'll preface this by saying I'm a Yankees fan. I moved from Buffalo, NY to Cleveland, OH four years ago and you couldn't make me root for the Indians. I'll gladly buy MLB Extra Innings because I want to watch my team. I do agree though that ESPN sacrifices covering other teams in exchange for the ratings that the larger market teams bring in (and if you think Red Sox-Yankees started yesterday, Bucky Dent, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams would sorely disagree). FOX isn't any different either when it comes to MLB. They are airing a Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers or Mets game just about every week, its just not national like ESPN.
Your point about players changing teams in the pros isn't valid when colleges graduate and recruit new players every year. The fans make those rivalries in college and the pros as much as the players do.
ESPN doesn't have hockey anymore, so they don't care about it. They cared even less about NASCAR from the time they lost it in the mid-90s until they announced late last year that they would have Nextel Cup races back on the network.
To go with a college sports example, ESPN only cares about Big 12 and PAC-10 football because its something the mothership (ABC) carries. You don't really hear much or see many PAC-10 basketball highlights on ESPN because they don't carry those games. I know you guys have your hate for the MWC. Look how irrelevant TCU's season was to the network. See how relevant the conference is now to the network except for the brief moments when a top non-conference game comes to town (Notre Dame at Air Force for example).
If you really believe the World Cup is better on ABC, I don't know what to say. Its the same production crew, same announcers, same everything except for the ABC logo being stuck on it instead of ESPN.
ESPN and ABC have both been showing the national anthems as well for the most recent WC games. So someone took a cue to start showing them.
ESPN is the 800 lb gorilla when it comes to pro and college sports. There's no way getting around them. They will do sports on their terms because people will simply have nowhere else to go to watch them.
And if you think ESPNU is truly autonomous, I can only shake my head. They are airing U.S. national team rugby right now and have been airing World Cup replay matches as well. Not exactly college sports.
- jediwarrior - 06-30-2006 01:48 AM
Mattsarz - You make some interesting points.
I don't think anybody is surprised that ESPN no longer acknowledges the existence of the MWC...much less TCU.
It's up to CSTV to blow their horn now.
They've parted ways...and both have moved on.
Before the MWC even exited the building....ESPN was drawing up a contract with the Pac-10 for football.
...and for Big Monday basketball, the WAC filled Monday hoops slots while the MWC was still here. ...and not only does ESPN now have the WAC. They have Gonzaga...
...arguably the best basketball school in the Western Region. And I have to believe that they are one of the top 7 basketball programs in the country.
...so I don't expect ESPN to ever look back. There's no need to.
- Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 07-03-2006 08:30 PM
jediwarrior Wrote:Mattsarz - You make some interesting points.First, ESPN Regional owns three of our four bowl games (FW, Las Vegas, Albuquerque), and all four are on ESPN channels. Its not like ESPN is rooting the MWC to fail our something- that would not be real smart business. I think they'll take the same attitude they always have toward any of their non-BCS programming- that is if you aren't ranked or have something stellar about your team, you're basically ignored except during the telecast. From experience and being disappointed in the past, the amount of pub for an ESPN weeknight game amounts to a handful of promos on Monday and tuesday night, and a single Dan Patrick lead in- I don't think I ever remember a "flavor" story on sportscenter or anything to really sell the upcoming game. And maybe one highlight on sportscenter, if it isn't baseball playoff season. To be real, that 3 hours on ESPN or ESPN2 is worth a ton, but if you expect anything more or to be "promoted", you'll be disappointed. And to their credit, I think they make an an effort not to "whore" themselves too much to their programming. So if there is something noteworthy a MWC team does (like a TCU upset of OU or a Utahesque BCS run), it will get coverage on ESPN. If not, it won't. But that will be the same for any non-BCS league (or for any BCS team not doing something noteworthy, for that matter).
I don't think anybody is surprised that ESPN no longer acknowledges the existence of the MWC...much less TCU.
...so I don't expect ESPN to ever look back. There's no need to.
Re - ejmpalle - 07-03-2006 10:28 PM
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:jediwarrior Wrote:Mattsarz - You make some interesting points.First, ESPN Regional owns three of our four bowl games (FW, Las Vegas, Albuquerque), and all four are on ESPN channels. Its not like ESPN is rooting the MWC to fail our something- that would not be real smart business. I think they'll take the same attitude they always have toward any of their non-BCS programming- that is if you aren't ranked or have something stellar about your team, you're basically ignored except during the telecast. From experience and being disappointed in the past, the amount of pub for an ESPN weeknight game amounts to a handful of promos on Monday and tuesday night, and a single Dan Patrick lead in- I don't think I ever remember a "flavor" story on sportscenter or anything to really sell the upcoming game. And maybe one highlight on sportscenter, if it isn't baseball playoff season. To be real, that 3 hours on ESPN or ESPN2 is worth a ton, but if you expect anything more or to be "promoted", you'll be disappointed. And to their credit, I think they make an an effort not to "whore" themselves too much to their programming. So if there is something noteworthy a MWC team does (like a TCU upset of OU or a Utahesque BCS run), it will get coverage on ESPN. If not, it won't. But that will be the same for any non-BCS league (or for any BCS team not doing something noteworthy, for that matter).
I don't think anybody is surprised that ESPN no longer acknowledges the existence of the MWC...much less TCU.
...so I don't expect ESPN to ever look back. There's no need to.
Yes and no. The MWC is going to have those bowl games broadcasted, that is set in stone. However, even if the MWC has a team that is ranked and they're playing a high profile game, they're not going to be on ESPN, unless ESPN buys the rights from CSTV, which I think is VERY unlikely, given the way CSTV has been behaving. Where the WAC will likely have such a game be broadcasted, given the WAC's relationship with ESPN.
You are correct about the MWC getting pub when they win a big game, but the WAC has a better shot at that kind of pub from ESPN, since ESPN doesn't have to worry about buying rights to the highlights from CSTV.
Re: Re - mattsarz - 07-03-2006 10:48 PM
ejmpalle Wrote:You are correct about the MWC getting pub when they win a big game, but the WAC has a better shot at that kind of pub from ESPN, since ESPN doesn't have to worry about buying rights to the highlights from CSTV.
Highlights aren't purchased from networks, although there is an understanding that you must give proper credit when using them and you must have the right to use them from the originating network. When ESPN started out they didn't have rights to use highlights from CBS, particularly for the NFL. They aired them without CBS's consent and got into hot water with the NFL before ESPN was given proper access.
ESPN already grants CSTV use of their highlights, so it would be silly for CSTV not to grant ESPN access to their highlights. How much they use of CSTV's highlights from C-USA or the MWC is another story.
Re: Re - Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 07-04-2006 08:16 AM
ejmpalle Wrote:However, even if the MWC has a team that is ranked and they're playing a high profile game, they're not going to be on ESPN, unless ESPN buys the rights from CSTV, which I think is VERY unlikely, given the way CSTV has been behaving. Where the WAC will likely have such a game be broadcasted, given the WAC's relationship with ESPN.To be clear, I wasn't suggesting a big upset would be on ESPN, only the highlights or as part of a college gameday discussion.
You are correct about the MWC getting pub when they win a big game, but the WAC has a better shot at that kind of pub from ESPN, since ESPN doesn't have to worry about buying rights to the highlights from CSTV.
- Yoda - 07-04-2006 11:30 AM
We haven't really begun to see how ESPN will treat the MWC in this, the CSTV era.
The own several of their bowl games. Will they lobby to replace the MWC teams when the agreements are renewed? Certainly, CSTV's reach is so small that, if they did, they could probably boot the MWC schools out of at least some of their own bowl games.
Will they show MWC highlights -- or perhaps just pretend that the conference no longer exists? Or rather than functionally boycott the MWC highlights, only show a half, or a third or a quarter of the highlights that they showed in years past?
To what extent will they show the MWC's OOC away games on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU -- games to which they own the rights? I don't know that this is indicative, but they've always shown Colorado State and Fresno State games in the past but, this season, that is probably the most attractive Fresno State game that will not be on ESPN. Is that because there are better matchups that day, because CSU has been down the past few years or because they would prefer to highlight games / promote teams from their own conferences? I haven't counted them up but I wonder how many MWC OOC games will be on ESPN this year vs. last year.
FKS, you said, "Its not like ESPN is rooting the for MWC to fail or something- that would not be real smart business". Explain to me why that wouldn't be "real smart business". I can tell you this, I highlight my products -- not my customer's products -- to my clients and, in my business, that is "real smart business". Why would it be any different for ESPN?
Personally, I don't think that ESPN will be all that blatant about it, because I doubt that they can be. Anti-trust issues aside, there are competing business needs. The bowl in Albuquerque, for example, includes a MWC opponent. But was that because they wanted to show the MWC or was it to keep CSTV out of the bowl broadcasting business? I'd guess the latter. As such, they could keep showing all the MWC bowls.
I have no idea how this will all turn out but the manner in which ESPN treats the MWC will be extremely interesting to watch.
Yoda out...
- mattsarz - 07-04-2006 01:38 PM
I don't think you'll see much, if any, MWC coverage on ESPN. ESPN, outside of the seasons that USC, Oklahoma and Texas have had lately, barely covers the Big 12 and PAC-10 because they are part of a competing network. PAC-10 coverage may improve because of the mini-contract with ESPN.
Let's be realistic since the WAC itself was off of ESPN for a few years after the split. How well was the WAC covered on ESPN from 1999-2001? Positively? Treated as non-existant? I'm asking because I don't know.
Currently, here's the number of OOC games for the MWC that are being shown on other sports networks
FSN 2 (Utah-UCLA, TCU-Baylor)
TBS 1 (BYU-Arizona)
ESPN Networks 3 (Air Force-Army, BYU-Boston College, TCU-Army)
ESPN Syndication 1 (SDSU-Wisconsin)
A couple other games (Air Force-Tennessee, CSU-Fresno St.) could be picked up for regional TV.
- Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 07-04-2006 10:14 PM
My main point is that outside of the three hours of the game itself (the importance of which is not in questiojn), ESPN does very little in "promoting" its non-BCS holdings (or for that matter anybody not in the top 25 or with a stellar player). From experience the times TCU has gotten significant play on sportscenter or ESPN gameday have been in 2000 when we had a BCS run and a Heisman candidate in LT (which by the way was when the WAC was with FSN), in 2003 when we had our BCS run, and in 2005 when we beat OU and were ranked in the top 25 the latter half of the year (and that was in the last year of the MWC contract). In each of those situations the attention was related to our performance on the field and not the TV contracts that were signed. And with the CUSA ESPN contract, our marketing deal with ESPN regional and with the FW Bowl, you would think if there was any non-BCS team ESPN would have tried to promote a little more it would have been TCU. So while clearly the MWC won't be given any favors by ESPN, if a MWC does something notable, we'll be covered. If not, we won't. But that's true for any non-BCS team and really for any school.
- Yoda - 07-04-2006 10:22 PM
You may be right, FKS. Certainly they won't ignore ranked MWC teams -- they can't do that without looking like they are being punitive. But if mattsarz is correct, then you've only got three OOC away-games on ESPN this season. I'll bet you had more than that last season -- although I am not sure how to find out.
I still think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Nobody has ever dumped ESPN before and I don't think that ESPN ever considered Fox to be anywhere near the competitor that CSTV could become.
Yoda out...
- blueidaho - 07-05-2006 02:18 AM
Take a look at the dates for the bowls that are on ESPN:
PS Bowl - MWC vs at large - Dec 19
LV Bowl - MWC vs PAC-10 - Dec 21
NM Bowl - MWC vs WAC - Dec 23
FW Bowl - MWC vs CUSA or PAC 10 - Dec 23
Hawaii Bowl - WAC vs CUSA or PAC 10 - Dec 24
Motor City Bowl - Big 10 vs MAC - Dec 26
Liberty Bowl - CUSA vs SEC - Dec 30
MPC Bowl - WAC vs ACC - Dec 31
International - BE vs MAC - Jan 6
The earlier bowls are seen as small time and Dec 23 is the latest date for a MWC bowl. Meanwhile the WAC, MAC, and CUSA all have two bowls on ESPN later than Dec 23. That should say something about where ESPN puts the MWC in the pecking order.
- Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 07-05-2006 11:49 AM
blueidaho Wrote:Take a look at the dates for the bowls that are on ESPN:OK, its a little silly to make a big distinction between the 23rd and 24th. Also, the Las Vegas Bowl, our bowl most likely for New Years week wants a pre Christmas date because that is when it is slower there. Furthermore, you'll notice that all of the ESPN owned bowls are pre-Christmas- that's obviously when they wanted the programming. So I think its the wrong conclusion to look at the bowl lineup and conclude ESPN somehow has it out for the MWC. There are a lot more logical reasons for when bowl games end up than contractual spite.
PS Bowl - MWC vs at large - Dec 19
LV Bowl - MWC vs PAC-10 - Dec 21
NM Bowl - MWC vs WAC - Dec 23
FW Bowl - MWC vs CUSA or PAC 10 - Dec 23
Hawaii Bowl - WAC vs CUSA or PAC 10 - Dec 24
Motor City Bowl - Big 10 vs MAC - Dec 26
Liberty Bowl - CUSA vs SEC - Dec 30
MPC Bowl - WAC vs ACC - Dec 31
International - BE vs MAC - Jan 6
The earlier bowls are seen as small time and Dec 23 is the latest date for a MWC bowl. Meanwhile the WAC, MAC, and CUSA all have two bowls on ESPN later than Dec 23. That should say something about where ESPN puts the MWC in the pecking order.
- blueidaho - 07-05-2006 03:19 PM
The distinction is not between the 23rd and 24th of December. The distinction is between "bowl dates for the MWC" as a group and bowl dates for the WAC, MAC, and CUSA as groups.
I don't know which bowls ESPN owns and which ones it just has broadcast rights for, but I know that the MPC bowl chooses the date and time based on what options ESPN gives them. The best option they gave this year was prime time on New Years eve, and there is a big distinction between Dec 31 and Dec 23.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that ESPN does in fact determine the times and dates of bowls that they air.
- Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 07-06-2006 08:54 AM
blueidaho Wrote:The distinction is not between the 23rd and 24th of December. The distinction is between "bowl dates for the MWC" as a group and bowl dates for the WAC, MAC, and CUSA as groups.I guess I don't agree with your premise that you can look at the chronological dates of bowl games and somehow see into the minds of the ESPN execs. If so, the newly accredited International bowl on Jan 6th would be highest on the ESPN bowl preference list, and that obviously isn't that case. Variables that make some time/ day slots more attractive to bowls/ ESPN than later slots:
I don't know which bowls ESPN owns and which ones it just has broadcast rights for, but I know that the MPC bowl chooses the date and time based on what options ESPN gives them. The best option they gave this year was prime time on New Years eve, and there is a big distinction between Dec 31 and Dec 23.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that ESPN does in fact determine the times and dates of bowls that they air.
1 - Bowl preferences for dates. Some bowls want earlier dates either because there are multiple bowls in the same city (New Orleans, Poinsettia) or because there are other conflicts/ busy times later (Las Vegas).
2 - Competing programming. Especially going up against the NFL. There's a reason all of the traditional Dec 31st games are on Dec 30th this year. On Dec 31st, the MPC computers bowl will go up against Sunday night football on NBC (the last game of the regular season). That is an undesirable situation in general terms.
3 - ESPN vs ESPN2- in general a game on ESPN is more desirable than a game on ESPN2, and a bowl or ESPN may select an earlier date to avoid ESPN2.
4 - Time of the day. In general prime time games are more desirable.
There are obviously a lot of variables that go into those decisions of when bowl games are shown, and I don't think you can simply look at the chronological order and determine which bowls (and transitively which conferences) ESPN likes the least. There isn't a causal relationship.
- blueidaho - 07-07-2006 06:04 AM
Quote:I guess I don't agree with your premise that you can look at the chronological dates of bowl games and somehow see into the minds of the ESPN execs.Okay frog, that wasn't a premise and no I don't see into the minds of ESPN execs. I just look at the lousy bowl schedule the MWC has and offer a possible explanation as to why.
Quote:Variables that make some time/ day slots more attractive to bowls/ ESPN than later slots:Umm, okay. You've shown that date isn't the only factor in determining how attractive a bowl slot is. Thats true, but I do find it ironic that a MWC fan would stand on the premises that a particular TV network can add value to a game or make it either more or less attractive, or that "competing programming" can create an "undesirable situation".
1 - Bowl preferences for dates. Some bowls want earlier dates either because there are multiple bowls in the same city (New Orleans, Poinsettia) or because there are other conflicts/ busy times later (Las Vegas).
2 - Competing programming. Especially going up against the NFL. There's a reason all of the traditional Dec 31st games are on Dec 30th this year. On Dec 31st, the MPC computers bowl will go up against Sunday night football on NBC (the last game of the regular season). That is an undesirable situation in general terms.
3 - ESPN vs ESPN2- in general a game on ESPN is more desirable than a game on ESPN2, and a bowl or ESPN may select an earlier date to avoid ESPN2.
4 - Time of the day. In general prime time games are more desirable.
Still, the later games are seen as bigger in general and get more viewers in general. That holds for mid-majors as well. I've seen the tv ratings for the bowl games and for the MWC they are low.
So tell me, do MWC bowls have a lack of interest because they have early dates or do they have early dates because of a lack of interest?
Bowl games - donkeyrider - 07-07-2006 01:53 PM
Pre-Christmas bowl games do not have the viewers as the post-Christmas games and we all know the reasons...Shopping, parties and travel being the big ones. A lot of people take off work the week after Christmas and the parties are pretty much over until New Year's evening and that is when most people think the bowl season begins. Just about everyone has New Years day off and it is the best viewer day. Walmart employees get screwed on every day.
So, the bottom feeders of the bowl season are before Christmas. The earlier the worse for viewership. ESPN does have a big say in the bowl time with both time of day and date.
- Frog in the Kitchen Sink - 07-07-2006 02:17 PM
blueidaho Wrote:I've seen them, too and don't see your conclusion. In fact I've argued before on other boards that there's a reason ESPN keeps backing minor bowls, because no matter who plays in them, BCs, non-BCS, WAC, CUSA, MWC, etc, they all get similar ratings- around a 2.0-2.5 rating. The exceptions are the games on ESPN2, games late at night (the old Silicon bowl got terrible ratings b/c it started a 10:30 eastern on FSN) or games with big conflicts. Check out the ratings and correct for game time, channel, and conflicts and you'll see what I mean:Quote:I guess I don't agree with your premise that you can look at the chronological dates of bowl games and somehow see into the minds of the ESPN execs.Okay frog, that wasn't a premise and no I don't see into the minds of ESPN execs. I just look at the lousy bowl schedule the MWC has and offer a possible explanation as to why.
Quote:Variables that make some time/ day slots more attractive to bowls/ ESPN than later slots:Umm, okay. You've shown that date isn't the only factor in determining how attractive a bowl slot is. Thats true, but I do find it ironic that a MWC fan would stand on the premises that a particular TV network can add value to a game or make it either more or less attractive, or that "competing programming" can create an "undesirable situation".
1 - Bowl preferences for dates. Some bowls want earlier dates either because there are multiple bowls in the same city (New Orleans, Poinsettia) or because there are other conflicts/ busy times later (Las Vegas).
2 - Competing programming. Especially going up against the NFL. There's a reason all of the traditional Dec 31st games are on Dec 30th this year. On Dec 31st, the MPC computers bowl will go up against Sunday night football on NBC (the last game of the regular season). That is an undesirable situation in general terms.
3 - ESPN vs ESPN2- in general a game on ESPN is more desirable than a game on ESPN2, and a bowl or ESPN may select an earlier date to avoid ESPN2.
4 - Time of the day. In general prime time games are more desirable.
Still, the later games are seen as bigger in general and get more viewers in general. That holds for mid-majors as well. I've seen the tv ratings for the bowl games and for the MWC they are low.
So tell me, do MWC bowls have a lack of interest because they have early dates or do they have early dates because of a lack of interest?
http://www.bcsfootball.org/index2.cfm?page=tvratings05
- blueidaho - 07-07-2006 06:01 PM
Quote:no matter who plays in them, BCs, non-BCS, WAC, CUSA, MWC, etc, they all get similar ratings- around a 2.0-2.5 rating. The exceptions are
The MWC must have more than their share of exceptions because this is what I come up with for average bowl ratings:
WAC 2.61
CUSA 2.28
MAC 2.08
MWC 1.9
Liberty
Fresno State-Tulsa
3.31
Las Vegas
California-Brigham Young
2.40
MPC Computers
Boston College-Boise State
2.33
Fort Worth
Kansas-Houston
2.28
Hawaii
Central Florida-Nevada
2.20
Motor City
Memphis-Akron
2.17
Emerald
Utah-Georgia Tech
2.16
Houston
Texas Christian-Iowa State
2.15
GMAC
Toledo-UTEP
1.98
New Orleans
Southern Miss-Arkansas State
1.71
Poinsettia
Colorado State-Navy
0.89