I am only asking the WAC, MAC, and Big East boards since they actually have people on here.

Here are a few guidelines:

1 - I would also like to ask that MWC and C-USA fans to please not vote on any of the boards for this question.

2 - Also, if you hate the MWC or C-USA and think that I should not have posted on your board, then please simply don't vote or post anything.

The only reason that I am asking this question is to find out who is held in higher regard on a more national scale, because MWC fans are obviously going to think that they are better, and C-USA fans are going to think that they are better.

Which conference would you consider better?
C-USA or the MWC

Tough call, but I would consider the MWC a slightly superior conference at this point in time. Utah, TCU, and BYU will all field excellent teams next year, while C-USA lacks any team that looks like they can have a breakout year.

That said, C-USA is closing the gap between those two conferences.

uconnbaseball Wrote:Tough call, but I would consider the MWC a slightly superior conference at this point in time. Utah, TCU, and BYU will all field excellent teams next year, while C-USA lacks any team that looks like they can have a breakout year.

That said, C-USA is closing the gap between those two conferences.

I like the Cusa schools more than I like the MWC schools with the exception of BYU. But I think the MWC is a better fb conference than cusa. Uf USM could get back to their normal level along with ECU, Cusa could actually get really close to the MWC level of play on the gridiron. The biggest problem with Cusa is that they have several pretty good teams at the top, but the bottom 4 or 5 teams are just terrible. The MWC never has more than 1 or 2 really bad teams at the bottom.

I'll abstain until they start playing each other. Any other answer is strictly subjective, and as such is irrelevant.

cuseroc Wrote:

uconnbaseball Wrote:Tough call, but I would consider the MWC a slightly superior conference at this point in time. Utah, TCU, and BYU will all field excellent teams next year, while C-USA lacks any team that looks like they can have a breakout year.

That said, C-USA is closing the gap between those two conferences.

I like the Cusa schools more than I like the MWC schools with the exception of BYU. But I think the MWC is a better fb conference than cusa. Uf USM could get back to their normal level along with ECU, Cusa could actually get really close to the MWC level of play on the gridiron. The biggest problem with Cusa is that they have several pretty good teams at the top, but the bottom 4 or 5 teams are just terrible. The MWC never has more than 1 or 2 really bad teams at the bottom.

Agreed 100%. C-USA may actually more of those "pretty good" teams than the MWC does, but the MWC has at least two really solid teams in BYU and Utah, whiel C-USA has zero. Also, as you pointed out, the only real dregs in the MWC are Colorado State and UNLV. C-USA has several struggling programs.

I believe the MWC is stronger in football with BYU, Utah, and TCU while CUSA is stroner in basketball with Memphis, Houston and UAB. And CUSA is definely th best basketball conference. However, So. Miss, Houston, UTEP, CFL, and ECU have good football programs with Memphis, Tulsa and Marshall, improving fast. So overall, CUSA has the depth while the MWC is a three pony football conference.

I think C-USA is, and here's why. Even though C-USA had a down year and MWC had a good year C-USA was mentioned and MWC wasn't so much. If C-USA had two teams that had seasons like BYU and TCU have had in the past, or finished the season with two ranked teams like the MWC did a few years ago, C-USA would get MAJOR national publicity and respect. The MWC has had that and they're STILL not getting much respect.

bitcruncher Wrote:I'll abstain until they start playing each other. Any other answer is strictly subjective, and as such is irrelevant.

They have played each other. Until the last few years the C-USA and MWC champions used to play each other in the Liberty Bowl. In the past 2 years SMU has beaten eventual MWC champions TCU and Tulsa beat eventual MWC BYU this past season.

CatsClaw Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:I'll abstain until they start playing each other. Any other answer is strictly subjective, and as such is irrelevant.

They have played each other. Until the last few years the C-USA and MWC champions used to play each other in the Liberty Bowl. In the past 2 years SMU has beaten eventual MWC champions TCU and Tulsa beat eventual MWC BYU this past season.

A couple of games do not determine which is the better conference. It only determines which is better among those teams at that particular time. Any statistical analysis lends itself to larger numerical determinations. Statistical analysis doesn't apply to a handful of games.

I think MWC is better, only because the bottom of C-USA is so horrid.
The top teams of the MWC are a little better than C-USA.

The MWC has really hurt itself by becoming essentially invisible on a national scale. That said, the MWC top to bottom is still better than CUSA. It's hard to compare the 2 leagues because of the difference in membership numbers, but the CUSA has some teams at the bottom that are just putrid. If they can turn themselves around, then CUSA can make strides.

Mountain West.

Way to follow directions UTEPDallas
and
Uconnbaseball voted for C-USA but said MWC in the thread, so which one is it

uconnbaseball Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:

uconnbaseball Wrote:Tough call, but I would consider the MWC a slightly superior conference at this point in time. Utah, TCU, and BYU will all field excellent teams next year, while C-USA lacks any team that looks like they can have a breakout year.

That said, C-USA is closing the gap between those two conferences.

I like the Cusa schools more than I like the MWC schools with the exception of BYU. But I think the MWC is a better fb conference than cusa. Uf USM could get back to their normal level along with ECU, Cusa could actually get really close to the MWC level of play on the gridiron. The biggest problem with Cusa is that they have several pretty good teams at the top, but the bottom 4 or 5 teams are just terrible. The MWC never has more than 1 or 2 really bad teams at the bottom.

Agreed 100%. C-USA may actually more of those "pretty good" teams than the MWC does, but the MWC has at least two really solid teams in BYU and Utah, whiel C-USA has zero. Also, as you pointed out, the only real dregs in the MWC are Colorado State and UNLV. C-USA has several struggling programs.

Colorado State for a long time was no dreg under Sonny Lubick. One year they were in the preseason top 15. They had built the Ram program to the point of forcing Colorado State to play them every year.

UNLV blows in football but is great in basketball. Sounds like Duke without the academic reputation.

I'd probably give the edge right now to the MWC--not as many really bad teams. That said nothing is static--CUSA could be better in 2-3 years. CUSA has several programs capable of being fixtures in the top 25-35 in FB and BB. I'm really just basing this on FB and BB.

If you put C-USA's top four basketball programs in the MWC, memphis would win but the rest would finish in the second half. If you put the four top B-ball schools from the MWC in C-USA they would probably all finish in the top half of the conference. If you did the same with football I think the MWC would fair better as well. Now if you took the bottom four teams from each conference in each sport and put them in a conference...that might tell the real story. Don't know enough about the conferences to make that comparrison.

I like both conferences, however I think the MWC has the edge over Cusa right now in FB. They have sent a team to a BCS Bowl and have won. Memphis BB is offset by Utah BB. If the FB side of the MWC expands with Boise who has won a BCS Bowl for 10 teams, or goes to 12 teams with Boise, and a combination of Fresno and / or one or two Texas schools (Houston, Texas El Paso, or SMU (June Jones brings them back) from Cusa then the MWC conference will definately be better then Cusa FB wise. They will have two BCS bowl winners then plus a National Champion in Brigham Young. Cusa could actually be in trouble then if the BE picks off an eastern school for their ninth FB team whether it is for all sports or for FB only. If the BE picks off Memphis Cusa will have two malcontents stranded too far away in ECU and Marshall and they will be looking else where too if the holes are not filled in with teams closer to them in the east to ease travel cost concerns.

I would say the Mountain West is better. The MWC has a better football corp with Utah, BYU, TCU and Air Force. In basketball I would say the two leagues are about even with a slight edge going to CUSA because they have Memphis.

The MWC is postioned to be stronger long term because many of those schools have historically been together and they have enough room to add Boise St and anyother football power that emerges. CUSA is too far flung geographically. It is not hard to imagine some of the CUSA-east schools trying to get there own league started rather then pay the travels bills for the olympic sports to go to Texas every yr.

Also, the MWC has BYU. I don't know of any non BCS schools that can match BYUs fan base and football success over the last 30 yrs. If there is one school that is not in the BCS but should be...its BYU

Jackson

Overall looking at football and basketball I think CUSA is better. But the single best football team with the best program/best tradition is BYU. How many schools in these conferences actually have a national championship in football? (BYU 1984 vs Michigan) Memphis obviously takes it for basketball.