Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
Author Message
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,907
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #1
What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
Why did it take the MWC so long to add Boise St?

Seriously, Utah was one there way out by the time Boise was invited (I think they were signing the divorce papers). BYU and the TCU soon followed.

Imagine if those 4 had spent the 2000s together: the winner of 2009 TCU vs Boise might have had a legit shot at the BCS Title Game.
11-18-2020 09:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,970
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 263
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #2
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
The Mountain West was built from the ashes of the WAC 16 and they were naturally skeptical of over-expanding in those early years. Taking TCU wasn’t some on a whim decision. Plus, Boise State wasn’t going anywhere so they had luxury of time to see if they kept up the consistency.
(This post was last modified: 11-18-2020 09:21 PM by esayem.)
11-18-2020 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,426
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #3
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
Boise St was in heavy consideration when TCU was added back in 2005.

A the time the MWC leadership felt their brand was still green. Also the MWC was pushing for criteria to make itself a BCS conference and was more focused on joining the club.

Even TCU was a dubious addition at the time. TCU was added only because they brought a 8th FB game to even out schedules and located in DFW for TV.

Boise wasn't admitted that many years later, 2010 as they were on deck to provide the final piece to make the MWC a BCS conference (which didn't happen because the BCS was dissolved).
11-18-2020 09:42 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,426
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #4
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-18-2020 09:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Mountain West was built from the ashes of the WAC 16 and they were naturally skeptical of over-expanding in those early years. Taking TCU wasn’t some on a whim decision. Plus, Boise State wasn’t going anywhere so they had luxury of time to see if they kept up the consistency.

It was formed to make a run at the BCS, CUSA for the same purposes.
11-18-2020 09:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 6,868
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 487
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #5
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-18-2020 09:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Mountain West was built from the ashes of the WAC 16 and they were naturally skeptical of over-expanding in those early years. Taking TCU wasn’t some on a whim decision. Plus, Boise State wasn’t going anywhere so they had luxury of time to see if they kept up the consistency.

It was formed to make a run at the BCS, CUSA for the same purposes.

Even the Big East was almost left out of the BCS. And the Big East had indisputably better performance than the MWC in most years, even if Boise had been added.

There's a couple years where adding Boise would have given the MWC an argument to being as good as the Big East, but it wasn't clear-cut.

Records vs FBS schools, plus final rankings in AP Polls:

2005:
Big East 14-16, #5, #19 in final AP poll, 3 teams ranked during season
MWC 14-17, #11 in final AP poll, 1 team ranked during season
Boise 1-3, unranked in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 15-20

2006:
Big East 31-8, #6, #10, #12 in final AP poll, 3 teams ranked during season
MWC 15-19, #16, #22 in final AP Poll, 2 teams ranked during season
Boise 4-0, #5 in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 17-19

2007
Big East 25-13, #6 & #17 in final AP poll, 6 teams ranked during season
MWC 19-17, #14 in final AP poll, 2 teams ranked during season
Boise 2-2, unranked in final AP poll
MWC + Boise 20-18

2008
Big East 26-14, #17 & #23 in final AP Poll, 5 teams ranked during season
MWC 22-13, #2, #7, #25 in final AP Poll, 3 teams ranked during season
Boise 3-1, #11 in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 24-13

2009
Big East 26-10, #8, #15, #25 in final AP poll, 5 teams ranked during season
MWC 19-16, #6, #12, #18, 3 teams ranked during season
Boise 5-0, #4 in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 23-15
11-18-2020 11:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,426
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #6
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-18-2020 11:38 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Mountain West was built from the ashes of the WAC 16 and they were naturally skeptical of over-expanding in those early years. Taking TCU wasn’t some on a whim decision. Plus, Boise State wasn’t going anywhere so they had luxury of time to see if they kept up the consistency.

It was formed to make a run at the BCS, CUSA for the same purposes.

Even the Big East was almost left out of the BCS. And the Big East had indisputably better performance than the MWC in most years, even if Boise had been added.

There's a couple years where adding Boise would have given the MWC an argument to being as good as the Big East, but it wasn't clear-cut.

Records vs FBS schools, plus final rankings in AP Polls:

2005:
Big East 14-16, #5, #19 in final AP poll, 3 teams ranked during season
MWC 14-17, #11 in final AP poll, 1 team ranked during season
Boise 1-3, unranked in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 15-20

2006:
Big East 31-8, #6, #10, #12 in final AP poll, 3 teams ranked during season
MWC 15-19, #16, #22 in final AP Poll, 2 teams ranked during season
Boise 4-0, #5 in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 17-19

2007
Big East 25-13, #6 & #17 in final AP poll, 6 teams ranked during season
MWC 19-17, #14 in final AP poll, 2 teams ranked during season
Boise 2-2, unranked in final AP poll
MWC + Boise 20-18

2008
Big East 26-14, #17 & #23 in final AP Poll, 5 teams ranked during season
MWC 22-13, #2, #7, #25 in final AP Poll, 3 teams ranked during season
Boise 3-1, #11 in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 24-13

2009
Big East 26-10, #8, #15, #25 in final AP poll, 5 teams ranked during season
MWC 19-16, #6, #12, #18, 3 teams ranked during season
Boise 5-0, #4 in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 23-15

It was more about standard deviation of performance from the average BCS conference more so than comparing what the MWC did just to the Big East, which BTW wasn't always the 6th rated BCS conference.

The PAC and ACC were also down in those years. Wake Forest was able to win the ACC one year even it was so down.
11-19-2020 12:34 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,970
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 263
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #7
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-18-2020 09:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Mountain West was built from the ashes of the WAC 16 and they were naturally skeptical of over-expanding in those early years. Taking TCU wasn’t some on a whim decision. Plus, Boise State wasn’t going anywhere so they had luxury of time to see if they kept up the consistency.

It was formed to make a run at the BCS, CUSA for the same purposes.

No it wasn’t. The Mountain West was formed because of certain schools displeasure with the WAC 16 and lost rivalries. The WAC 16 actually had a Cotton Bowl bid for a few years, so the idea there was closer to the BCS than the MWC.

C-USA was formed as an all-sports conference before the BCS existed.
11-19-2020 08:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,613
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #8
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-18-2020 09:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Why did it take the MWC so long to add Boise St?

Seriously, Utah was one there way out by the time Boise was invited (I think they were signing the divorce papers). BYU and the TCU soon followed.

Imagine if those 4 had spent the 2000s together: the winner of 2009 TCU vs Boise might have had a legit shot at the BCS Title Game.

It's an interesting hypothetical - where would the MWC and AAC be today if the MWC had added Boise State, Fresno State and Houston well before PAC 10 expansion and the Big East collapse?

It wouldn't have kept Utah or TCU in the MWC...and I think BYU also leaves because of the horrible Mtn. TV deal and poor commissioner leadership. BUT, I think there's a decent chance that the Big East/AAC keeps attracts BYU and Air Force and keeps Boise and SDSU. That likely means that Tulsa and ECU are left out. But, I'm a little fuzzy on the Big East/AAC expansion timeline.
11-19-2020 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,935
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 180
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #9
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
Academics. That’s why.

Once it was imminent Utah was leaving, Boise got the invitation.
11-19-2020 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,767
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1628
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #10
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-19-2020 02:25 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Academics. That’s why.

Once it was imminent Utah was leaving, Boise got the invitation.

Whatever the reason, it was a big mistake.
11-19-2020 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,970
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 263
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #11
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
Apparently, the MWC had expansion models going up to 12 back in 2004. Hawaii and Fresno State were also on the shortlist.
11-19-2020 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,907
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #12
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-19-2020 10:40 PM)esayem Wrote:  Apparently, the MWC had expansion models going up to 12 back in 2004. Hawaii and Fresno State were also on the shortlist.

Had they brought on Boise St, Fresno St, and Nevada before schools started leaving that would have been a pretty awesome league:

North: Boise St, AFA, Colorado St, Wyoming, Utah, BYU
South: TCU, UNM, UNLV, Nevada, Fresno St, San Diego St

I wonder though, if the MWC left the WAC be from 2005-2010 out of snobbery or if they genuinely felt bad about wrecking the conference.
11-19-2020 11:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,935
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 180
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #13
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-19-2020 02:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 02:25 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Academics. That’s why.

Once it was imminent Utah was leaving, Boise got the invitation.

Whatever the reason, it was a big mistake.

I used to be a regular on the MWC board back then and I remember thread after thread about Boise State. The main objection was academics which we all know was not a factor when the MWC knew Utah to the Pac-10 was imminent. The same excuse was used against Fresno State. Hawaii was not heavily discussed except for their 2007 BCS run in which MWC fans made fun of their soft schedule and the loss to Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. They were not a serious candidate due to their geographic location. I don’t really remember Nevada being discussed (same applies to San Jose State), Utah State was seen as redundant in a state dominated by BYU and Utah....and UTEP was rarely discussed except for Mike Price’s first three seasons and for getting out of the WAC. By 2009-10, Houston was seen as a more logical choice for expansion than Boise State. I don’t know if the MWC made inquiries about membership to Houston and viceversa.

Utah and BYU were against expansion. They were the decision makers in the MWC. They wanted TCU and they got it. Another thing is before the realignment madness of 2010, the MWC believed they were about to meet the criteria to become the 7th BCS AQ conference. Boise State conveniently was added to replace Utah’s BCS numbers and surprisingly academics was not an issue anymore.
11-20-2020 12:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,935
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 180
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #14
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-19-2020 11:31 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 10:40 PM)esayem Wrote:  Apparently, the MWC had expansion models going up to 12 back in 2004. Hawaii and Fresno State were also on the shortlist.

Had they brought on Boise St, Fresno St, and Nevada before schools started leaving that would have been a pretty awesome league:

North: Boise St, AFA, Colorado St, Wyoming, Utah, BYU
South: TCU, UNM, UNLV, Nevada, Fresno St, San Diego St

I wonder though, if the MWC left the WAC be from 2005-2010 out of snobbery or if they genuinely felt bad about wrecking the conference.

It was a combination of both.

The MWC had no intentions in raiding the WAC. Each had 9 teams. Both conferences scheduled OOC games against each other in FB and BB. They were confident they were about to meet the criteria to become the 7th AQ league and commanded enough respect in the media to get three Utah, BYU and TCU ranked most of the time. Even the bottom was somewhat respectful. Wyoming beat Tennessee and UNLV beat Arizona State in one season. So for those purposes alone, they didn’t need to raid the WAC and I truly believe that was not their intention had Utah stayed.

Sure Boise State was making a lot of noise but they saw Boise as a paper tiger that got easy wins in the WAC. What they never accepted is that Boise had an undefeated record versus the then MWC (like 12-0 or something) and they (fans on the MWC board) started taking Boise seriously after the WAC champ Boise State beat the MWC champ TCU in the Fiesta Bowl. Less than 6 months later, Utah was invited to the Pac-10. Other than Boise which they knew could help them in BCS numbers, they looked down on Fresno State (academics), Nevada, Utah State and NMSU (market saturation), Idaho and SJSU (bad facilities), Hawaii and Louisiana Tech (geographic outliers). Another thing they looked down on the WAC was playing on ESPN on weeknights while the MWC had games on Saturdays (on channels nobody watched since they were not part of ESPN back then).
11-20-2020 01:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,426
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #15
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-19-2020 08:26 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Mountain West was built from the ashes of the WAC 16 and they were naturally skeptical of over-expanding in those early years. Taking TCU wasn’t some on a whim decision. Plus, Boise State wasn’t going anywhere so they had luxury of time to see if they kept up the consistency.

It was formed to make a run at the BCS, CUSA for the same purposes.

No it wasn’t. The Mountain West was formed because of certain schools displeasure with the WAC 16 and lost rivalries. The WAC 16 actually had a Cotton Bowl bid for a few years, so the idea there was closer to the BCS than the MWC.

C-USA was formed as an all-sports conference before the BCS existed.

The MWC rivalries were a secondary reason. As were academics.

Think about realignment from 1989-1990. There was the proposed metro conference. The biggest players Penn State (B1G) and Florida St (ACC) got into established conferences. That left those remaining scrambling to put together Big East FB.

If you couldn't get into BE FB then it was CUSA for you, a league designed on the BE hybrid model with non-FB schools. It was regarded as a NCAA equity conference from day 1 (meaning the equivalent of P5 in the voting rights of today) and the goal was to follow in the footsteps of the BE and become a Bowl Alliance/BCS conference.

The WAC had the Cotton Bowl for a few year but by the time of the MWC split in 1999 had lost it. Therefore the MWC was created to restore, rivalries, academics and most importantly create a membership configuration with a better shot at becoming a BCS conference.

The BCS door closed for CUSA the day Louisville, UC and USF announced leaving for the BE (2003). For the MWC they had a shot all the way up until 2010 when realignment plucked Utah and BYU plus the change to the new system, the CFP. Today both have bloated lineups that include members like Utah St and North Texas which nobody in the 90's thought would ever get in.
11-20-2020 08:14 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,970
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 263
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #16
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-20-2020 12:43 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 02:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 02:25 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Academics. That’s why.

Once it was imminent Utah was leaving, Boise got the invitation.

Whatever the reason, it was a big mistake.

I used to be a regular on the MWC board back then and I remember thread after thread about Boise State. The main objection was academics which we all know was not a factor when the MWC knew Utah to the Pac-10 was imminent. The same excuse was used against Fresno State. Hawaii was not heavily discussed except for their 2007 BCS run in which MWC fans made fun of their soft schedule and the loss to Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. They were not a serious candidate due to their geographic location. I don’t really remember Nevada being discussed (same applies to San Jose State), Utah State was seen as redundant in a state dominated by BYU and Utah....and UTEP was rarely discussed except for Mike Price’s first three seasons and for getting out of the WAC. By 2009-10, Houston was seen as a more logical choice for expansion than Boise State. I don’t know if the MWC made inquiries about membership to Houston and viceversa.

Utah and BYU were against expansion. They were the decision makers in the MWC. They wanted TCU and they got it. Another thing is before the realignment madness of 2010, the MWC believed they were about to meet the criteria to become the 7th BCS AQ conference. Boise State conveniently was added to replace Utah’s BCS numbers and surprisingly academics was not an issue anymore.

Hawaii was the most vocal about joining the WAC from the day the MWC started. The MWC did contact Hawaii in 2004, I read it last night. As we know, the MWC opted for the cautious and methodical expansion approach. Something they probably should have done some six years later as well.
11-20-2020 08:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 6,970
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 263
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #17
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-20-2020 08:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 08:26 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Mountain West was built from the ashes of the WAC 16 and they were naturally skeptical of over-expanding in those early years. Taking TCU wasn’t some on a whim decision. Plus, Boise State wasn’t going anywhere so they had luxury of time to see if they kept up the consistency.

It was formed to make a run at the BCS, CUSA for the same purposes.

No it wasn’t. The Mountain West was formed because of certain schools displeasure with the WAC 16 and lost rivalries. The WAC 16 actually had a Cotton Bowl bid for a few years, so the idea there was closer to the BCS than the MWC.

C-USA was formed as an all-sports conference before the BCS existed.

The MWC rivalries were a secondary reason. As were academics.

Think about realignment from 1989-1990. There was the proposed metro conference. The biggest players Penn State (B1G) and Florida St (ACC) got into established conferences. That left those remaining scrambling to put together Big East FB.

If you couldn't get into BE FB then it was CUSA for you, a league designed on the BE hybrid model with non-FB schools. It was regarded as a NCAA equity conference from day 1 (meaning the equivalent of P5 in the voting rights of today) and the goal was to follow in the footsteps of the BE and become a Bowl Alliance/BCS conference.

The WAC had the Cotton Bowl for a few year but by the time of the MWC split in 1999 had lost it. Therefore the MWC was created to restore, rivalries, academics and most importantly create a membership configuration with a better shot at becoming a BCS conference.

The BCS door closed for CUSA the day Louisville, UC and USF announced leaving for the BE (2003). For the MWC they had a shot all the way up until 2010 when realignment plucked Utah and BYU plus the change to the new system, the CFP. Today both have bloated lineups that include members like Utah St and North Texas which nobody in the 90's thought would ever get in.

The Southwest Conference was still alive and kicking at that time, and they were looking for replacements. There were many meetings involving schools like Tulane, Memphis, Louisville, and others. So no, C-USA was not the only option. C-USA was actually a merger between the Great Midwest and the Metro that left out Dayton, VaTech (because they weren’t bringing football), and VCU. The Great Midwest and Metro were both basketball conferences and the non-football programs within those conferences had power, so it was as much of a basketball conference as it was designed to help the football independents that were members. It was designed to help scheduling and get a bowl bid, because like I said, the BCS didn’t exist.

The WAC 16 was a failed experiment and the schools that broke off wanted to restore some semblance of their old league.
11-20-2020 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,426
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #18
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-20-2020 08:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(11-20-2020 08:14 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-19-2020 08:26 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Mountain West was built from the ashes of the WAC 16 and they were naturally skeptical of over-expanding in those early years. Taking TCU wasn’t some on a whim decision. Plus, Boise State wasn’t going anywhere so they had luxury of time to see if they kept up the consistency.

It was formed to make a run at the BCS, CUSA for the same purposes.

No it wasn’t. The Mountain West was formed because of certain schools displeasure with the WAC 16 and lost rivalries. The WAC 16 actually had a Cotton Bowl bid for a few years, so the idea there was closer to the BCS than the MWC.

C-USA was formed as an all-sports conference before the BCS existed.

The MWC rivalries were a secondary reason. As were academics.

Think about realignment from 1989-1990. There was the proposed metro conference. The biggest players Penn State (B1G) and Florida St (ACC) got into established conferences. That left those remaining scrambling to put together Big East FB.

If you couldn't get into BE FB then it was CUSA for you, a league designed on the BE hybrid model with non-FB schools. It was regarded as a NCAA equity conference from day 1 (meaning the equivalent of P5 in the voting rights of today) and the goal was to follow in the footsteps of the BE and become a Bowl Alliance/BCS conference.

The WAC had the Cotton Bowl for a few year but by the time of the MWC split in 1999 had lost it. Therefore the MWC was created to restore, rivalries, academics and most importantly create a membership configuration with a better shot at becoming a BCS conference.

The BCS door closed for CUSA the day Louisville, UC and USF announced leaving for the BE (2003). For the MWC they had a shot all the way up until 2010 when realignment plucked Utah and BYU plus the change to the new system, the CFP. Today both have bloated lineups that include members like Utah St and North Texas which nobody in the 90's thought would ever get in.

The Southwest Conference was still alive and kicking at that time, and they were looking for replacements. There were many meetings involving schools like Tulane, Memphis, Louisville, and others. So no, C-USA was not the only option. C-USA was actually a merger between the Great Midwest and the Metro that left out Dayton, VaTech (because they weren’t bringing football), and VCU. The Great Midwest and Metro were both basketball conferences and the non-football programs within those conferences had power, so it was as much of a basketball conference as it was designed to help the football independents that were members. It was designed to help scheduling and get a bowl bid, because like I said, the BCS didn’t exist.

The WAC 16 was a failed experiment and the schools that broke off wanted to restore some semblance of their old league.

The Great Midwest merger, those are other details about the conditions at the time but the end goal was to create something like the BE had.

The WAC-16 added SMU to help cement the Cotton Bowl but then it wasn't picked up with the first BCS contract in 1996 so that plot failed. I'm sure the failure of the WAC-16 to become a proper member of the BCS had a lot to do with the split and if they did the MWC would have never formed.

As to the Southwest conference rebuild, obviously that one never got of the table.
11-20-2020 09:01 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,767
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1628
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #19
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
(11-19-2020 12:34 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 11:38 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:43 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(11-18-2020 09:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Mountain West was built from the ashes of the WAC 16 and they were naturally skeptical of over-expanding in those early years. Taking TCU wasn’t some on a whim decision. Plus, Boise State wasn’t going anywhere so they had luxury of time to see if they kept up the consistency.

It was formed to make a run at the BCS, CUSA for the same purposes.

Even the Big East was almost left out of the BCS. And the Big East had indisputably better performance than the MWC in most years, even if Boise had been added.

There's a couple years where adding Boise would have given the MWC an argument to being as good as the Big East, but it wasn't clear-cut.

Records vs FBS schools, plus final rankings in AP Polls:

2005:
Big East 14-16, #5, #19 in final AP poll, 3 teams ranked during season
MWC 14-17, #11 in final AP poll, 1 team ranked during season
Boise 1-3, unranked in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 15-20

2006:
Big East 31-8, #6, #10, #12 in final AP poll, 3 teams ranked during season
MWC 15-19, #16, #22 in final AP Poll, 2 teams ranked during season
Boise 4-0, #5 in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 17-19

2007
Big East 25-13, #6 & #17 in final AP poll, 6 teams ranked during season
MWC 19-17, #14 in final AP poll, 2 teams ranked during season
Boise 2-2, unranked in final AP poll
MWC + Boise 20-18

2008
Big East 26-14, #17 & #23 in final AP Poll, 5 teams ranked during season
MWC 22-13, #2, #7, #25 in final AP Poll, 3 teams ranked during season
Boise 3-1, #11 in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 24-13

2009
Big East 26-10, #8, #15, #25 in final AP poll, 5 teams ranked during season
MWC 19-16, #6, #12, #18, 3 teams ranked during season
Boise 5-0, #4 in final AP Poll
MWC + Boise 23-15

It was more about standard deviation of performance from the average BCS conference more so than comparing what the MWC did just to the Big East, which BTW wasn't always the 6th rated BCS conference.

The PAC and ACC were also down in those years. Wake Forest was able to win the ACC one year even it was so down.

In the latter years of the BCS, the Big 10 was the bottom rated conference. The MWC beat them on every metric but the overall average computer ranking. The bottom of the MWC was bad. Boise would have helped in every metric.
11-20-2020 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,426
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #20
RE: What took the MWC so long to add Boise St?
The bottom of the MWC was very bad as you approached 2010. I noted that quite a few times that the MWC appeared to be hollowed out sans Utah, BYU, TCU and AF.

What was happening was the best recruits regionally were going to Utah and BYU. TCU of course has its DFW recruiting base and AF has the cultural advantage as a service academy.

When the MWC was first cut out of the WAC-16 though it was solid 8 teams in FB, with maybe UNLV the only annual weak link. The MWC had a TV package with ABC regional so to joe average viewer they looked the part of a major conference.

It needed a little while for inequities of the BCS to settle in and tilt all the recruiting toward the power conferences which also hurt the bottom of the MWC.

Boise St in the WAC was just doing with Utah/BYU were doing in the MWC winning all the regional recruiting battles. Then with an ESPN TV deal that allowed for growing that brand further. Its much easier to grow a brand in the West with the limited amount of high quality recruits and schools competing for them.

The MAC has not been able to do the same with a FB program because with a greater regional recruiting base in the Midwest the talent tends to spread around more. Also a Florida pipeline is a game changer in the east and there are too many G5 schools trying to vie for that pipeline.
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2020 10:33 AM by Kit-Cat.)
11-20-2020 10:32 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.