I attended the home opener for Real Salt Lake last Saturday. Dave Checketts, who grew up in the same neighborhood as my mom, has done a wonderful job at building a culture around the team, which is one key to success in Soccer. Portland and Seattle, IMHO, however have done the best job at this. Where Los Angeles and New York have followed the traditional American path to success at the pro level and that is spend a lot more money than everyone else. It was noted in ESPN this week that RSL has spend about 12% on payroll than the New York Red Bulls and Los Angleles Galaxy combined.
If RSL can succeed as a small market franchise in probably the 6th most popular sport in the United States (behind American Football, Baseball, Basketball, Hockey and NASCAR), then there his hope that Soccer can succeed in America. There are plenty of entertainment dollars to go around with fewer and fewer people buying into the crap that Hollywood turns out every year.
MLS will likely expand to 20 teams in 2013. Then there will be no more expansion. Why? Most of the soccer leagues in the worlds are maxed at 18 to 20 teams. Of course, here in the US, there are a lot more people, where the NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB are at or over 30 teams. Shouldn't there be 30 teams in Major League Soccer?
The answer is in scheduling. For the first time ever, MLS is having an unbalanced schedule. That is kind of tricky when the power in the league is unbalanced and they award a trophy for the team with the best record. If Kansas City finishes with the best overall record, that may not mean that they are the best overall teams in Major League Soccer when the schedule is unbalanced. That is why there is a playoff to determine the champion.
Now that US Soccer is becoming popular, it may be time to follow the traditional path the other sports established, the formation of a second league. In baseball, the National League was organized in 1876. It became popular and a rival American Association was formed in 1882. It disbanded in 1891, but was followed by the American League in 1901. There have been two baseball leagues ever since.
The National Football League was founded in 1920. When some cities could not get expansion franchises, the American Football League was founded in 1960. The two leagues merged in 1970, but still form the American and National Conferences to keep scheduling even.
The National Basketball Association was born in 1946. When cities who demanded franchises could not get them, the American Basketball Association was born in 1967. It was not as successful as the other American Leagues, but the San Antonio Spurs, New Jersey Nets, Denver Nuggets and Indiana Pacers were absorbed by the NBA.
There are many cities jostling for the 20th MLS franchise, but the favorite to be awarded the 20th team is the resurrected New York Cosmos. There should be an official announcement sometime later this year, if rumors are to be believed. Then it will become very costly to get a new MLS franchise. If the pattern holds true, some of the jilted cities will come together and form a rival league.
The way the unbalanced schedule works in MLS is that each team plays every team in it's own conference 3 times and every team in the opposite conference once. Because there is one extra team in the East, some Eastern Conference foes will play each other twice, instead of three times. This year there are 34 games on the schedule for each team. Soon, there will be 37. In the EPL, there is a 38 game schedule with 20 teams. In addition to these 37 games, many MLS franchises are involved in international play. Later this season, RSL will be involved in the US Open Cup and their second CONCACAF Champions league. That will add at least 7 more games to the RSL schedule this year. If RSL makes it to the championship of both MLS and the US Open Cup, they will play 37+4 (US Open Cup) + 6 (CONCACAF Champions League) + 5 or 6 MLS Cup games for 53 matches. But some of the top clubs in Europe do the same. MLS teams that are not involved in CONCACAF Champions League can be involved in international friendlies. As one can see, the MLS season is packed full. There is not much room for a league larger than 20 teams.
Here is a solution for MLS...form a second league...your own sanctioned American Soccer League...although other blogs are calling this idea MLS2. (I use ASL to follow the tradition of Baseball, Football and Basketball.) While MLS now has most of their teams in Soccer Specific Stadia, the ASL can play in NFL and NCAA football stadia to begin with. But there would be less pressure, at first, to move to a SSS. The ASL can participate in the US Open Cup and when their attendance and quality of talent rival the MLS, they can play the MLS cup in a "Soccer Super Bowl."
Perhaps they can begin with just six new cities, while two current MLS franchises that are struggling for fans right now can be relegated into the new league...those two clubs would be Chivas USA and the New England Revolution, leaving MLS at 18. Each MLS club would have 4 games against teams from the ASL. The math shows that each ASL team gets 9 games against MLS clubs. There will be no expansion draft, but ASL clubs can sign MLS free agents.
ASL Western Division
Chivas USA
Phoenix
Las Vegas
San Diego
ASL Eastern Division
New England Revolution
Cleveland
Detroit
Minneapolis
Other potential ASL cities
Atlanta, GA
Charlotte, NC
Richmond, VA
Syracuse/Rochester, NY
Buffalo, NY
Miami, FL
Tampa, FL
Orlando, FL
Birmingham, AL
New Orleans, LA
San Antonio, TX
Austin, TX
Tulsa, OK
Albuquerque, NM
Omaha, NE
Edmonton, AB
Boise, ID
Calgary, AB
Madison, WI
St. Louis, MO
Cincinnati, OH
Indianapolis, IN
Louisville, KY
Raleigh, NC
Memphis, TN
Nashville, TN
2nd Chicago Franchise
2nd Bay-Area Franchise
Pittsburgh, PA
Cleveland, OH
Jacksonville, FL
Columbia, SC
Oklahoma City, OK
Winnipeg, MB
Ottawa, ON
Quebec, PQ
Hamilton, ON
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Basketball Post-Season
Four of Utah's men's college basketball teams will be in the post-season, although two of the three must be disappointed with the results.
BYU made it to the NCAA tournament, but will play in the 1st 4 on Tuesday evening against Iona. BYU was one of the last 4 at-large teams in the tournament. They dropped to a 14th seed. There are several reasons why the Cougars did not get a better seed. One which the NCAA usually points two when asking about why the Cougars seem to be consistently seeded lower than they deserve is the no-Sunday rule. For the past several tournaments, the committee has been firm that no-Sunday play usually limits the Cougars to just one region every year. But there are other factors that mitigate these circumstances.
First, BYU does not have a good tournament record. As Greg Wrubbell, the voice of the Cougars tweeted either yesterday or today; BYU has the third worst NCAA tournament record among teams that have been to the big dance more than 20 times. (One of the two teams with a worse record is a rival...guess who?) They have rarely made it out of the first round. This year, BYU also had a pair of bad losses, while their big wins were not that impressive. The worst losses for the Cougars this year was a road loss to the worse than usual Utah State Aggies and a home loss to Loyala Marymount. Finally, BYU's non-conference record was less impressive than usual.
A third-place finish in the WCC is nothing to sneeze at. BYU lost Jimmer, who was the entire team last year, to the NBA. Dave Rose has loses a pair of fine senior forwards to graduation this year, Noah Hartsock and Brandon Davies will move on. A pair we will likely not see in the NBA. There is a lot of good young talent in Provo and a trip beyond the NCAA play-in round will be valuable experience for the young Cougars.
Weber State will play Utah Valley in the collegeinsider.com tournament, which is the College Basketball equivalent to the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl. Many thought that Damien Lillard, who some project could be a late NBA lottery pick in the upcoming draft, deserved to be in the NIT. But let's examine this for a moment.
First, the Big Sky Conference, outside of Weber State and Montana was a very weak conference in 2011-12. The 3rd place team in the BCS finished 17-15, just 2 games over .500. Weber State had 5 chances to make a big impression in the season, but lost by double digits each time. They had big losses to Saint Mary's, BYU, California, and twice to Montana. They have Lillard, but no one else has been able to come through when the game is on the line. In looking over the field, WSU has the strongest record in the field.
Utah Valley plays in the Big West Conference. This is the best that the Wolverines can hope for until they are a member of a conference with an automatic NCAA bid. Often these secondary tournaments see upsets from teams that were expecting better. I would not be surprised if Valley wins in Ogden on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, I hope that if Lillard declares for the NBA draft, he will not hire and agent and return to WSU next season if his workout reviews are not favorable. Hopefully, Tresnak and the others will be better, especially at the defensive end.
Also in the CIT is Utah State, who will host CS Bakersfield on Wednesday. Expect that if the Aggies win, the second round game will feature USU taking on the winner of the WSU/UVU game. The Aggies had a worse than usual season this year, but Stew's Crew could use some post-season success to build on. USU is one of the few teams who has a worse post-season record than BYU.
As for my bracket, I usually do not fill one out. The NCAA has a history of upsets, and my guesses are as good as any. I do not have office buddies to compare them with as I work at home. But I will say that I was impressed with the way Missouri, the #2 seed in the west, finished the season. They are my pick to win it all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention Jeff Judkins and the BYU women's team. I am interested to find out where they end up.
BYU made it to the NCAA tournament, but will play in the 1st 4 on Tuesday evening against Iona. BYU was one of the last 4 at-large teams in the tournament. They dropped to a 14th seed. There are several reasons why the Cougars did not get a better seed. One which the NCAA usually points two when asking about why the Cougars seem to be consistently seeded lower than they deserve is the no-Sunday rule. For the past several tournaments, the committee has been firm that no-Sunday play usually limits the Cougars to just one region every year. But there are other factors that mitigate these circumstances.
First, BYU does not have a good tournament record. As Greg Wrubbell, the voice of the Cougars tweeted either yesterday or today; BYU has the third worst NCAA tournament record among teams that have been to the big dance more than 20 times. (One of the two teams with a worse record is a rival...guess who?) They have rarely made it out of the first round. This year, BYU also had a pair of bad losses, while their big wins were not that impressive. The worst losses for the Cougars this year was a road loss to the worse than usual Utah State Aggies and a home loss to Loyala Marymount. Finally, BYU's non-conference record was less impressive than usual.
A third-place finish in the WCC is nothing to sneeze at. BYU lost Jimmer, who was the entire team last year, to the NBA. Dave Rose has loses a pair of fine senior forwards to graduation this year, Noah Hartsock and Brandon Davies will move on. A pair we will likely not see in the NBA. There is a lot of good young talent in Provo and a trip beyond the NCAA play-in round will be valuable experience for the young Cougars.
Weber State will play Utah Valley in the collegeinsider.com tournament, which is the College Basketball equivalent to the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl. Many thought that Damien Lillard, who some project could be a late NBA lottery pick in the upcoming draft, deserved to be in the NIT. But let's examine this for a moment.
First, the Big Sky Conference, outside of Weber State and Montana was a very weak conference in 2011-12. The 3rd place team in the BCS finished 17-15, just 2 games over .500. Weber State had 5 chances to make a big impression in the season, but lost by double digits each time. They had big losses to Saint Mary's, BYU, California, and twice to Montana. They have Lillard, but no one else has been able to come through when the game is on the line. In looking over the field, WSU has the strongest record in the field.
Utah Valley plays in the Big West Conference. This is the best that the Wolverines can hope for until they are a member of a conference with an automatic NCAA bid. Often these secondary tournaments see upsets from teams that were expecting better. I would not be surprised if Valley wins in Ogden on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, I hope that if Lillard declares for the NBA draft, he will not hire and agent and return to WSU next season if his workout reviews are not favorable. Hopefully, Tresnak and the others will be better, especially at the defensive end.
Also in the CIT is Utah State, who will host CS Bakersfield on Wednesday. Expect that if the Aggies win, the second round game will feature USU taking on the winner of the WSU/UVU game. The Aggies had a worse than usual season this year, but Stew's Crew could use some post-season success to build on. USU is one of the few teams who has a worse post-season record than BYU.
As for my bracket, I usually do not fill one out. The NCAA has a history of upsets, and my guesses are as good as any. I do not have office buddies to compare them with as I work at home. But I will say that I was impressed with the way Missouri, the #2 seed in the west, finished the season. They are my pick to win it all.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention Jeff Judkins and the BYU women's team. I am interested to find out where they end up.
Monday, March 5, 2012
A plan to save the WAC?
This is the first response of mine to the following report...
3 plans to save the WAC...Plan C...Big Sky Merger.
This plan is to save the WAC by a merger with the Big Sky Conference under the Big Sky banner. In a nutshell, here is the plan.
1. Assumes that Utah State will leave the WAC for the hyper-conference which I have dubbed MWCUSA.
2. Utah Valley is given a conditional invite...provided begin football in 2 years. Obviously, they will not be competitive in 2 years...gives some of the better Big Sky programs another team to beat up on and have a chance at bowl eligibility early on.
3. The Big Sky would merge with the WAC and have two divisions for football, sans Cal Poly and UC Davis. One for the FBS teams and one for the FCS teams.
The divisions would probably look like so at first...
FBS division...playing for a bowl game invite...
San Jose State
Idaho
New Mexico State
Texas State
UTSA
La Tech
Montana*
Eastern Washington*
Weber State*
FCS Division...playing for an NCAA FCS playoff invite
Northern Arizona
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Idaho State
Montana State
Utah Valley
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
Portland State
It would then be understood that the FCS schools would build toward an FBS jump at any time...as there is no time limit to execute the move.
*Based upon market size, number of sports sponsored, attendance, facilities and student body.
The problem with this proposal is that there are at least three schools, Idaho State, Southern Utah and North Dakota that will never be able to make the jump to the FBS. At this point, you eventually need to decide on a size limit...perhaps 16 teams in 2 FCS divisions before the FCS division is spun off into a new conference.
Then what would you have?
FBS Big Sky
Western Division
San Jose State
Idaho
Montana
Eastern Washington
Montana
Montana State
Sacramento State
Portland State
Eastern Division
New Mexico State
Louisiana Tech
Texas State
UTSA
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Sacramento State
Utah Valley
Weber State
And then you are left with
FCS Big Sky
Idaho State
Southern Utah
North Dakota
And then, you would need to add...assuming that these DII schools want to be part of the madness.
Central Washington
Dixie State
Adams State
Chadron State
Nebraska Kearney
Pittsburgh State
Why it will not work? It spreads the conference expansion insanity down to Division II.
It is not bad for the Big Sky and WAC to merge, but leave enough schools at the FCS level to keep the Big Sky what it is...one of the better FCS-level conferences in the nation.
3 plans to save the WAC...Plan C...Big Sky Merger.
This plan is to save the WAC by a merger with the Big Sky Conference under the Big Sky banner. In a nutshell, here is the plan.
1. Assumes that Utah State will leave the WAC for the hyper-conference which I have dubbed MWCUSA.
2. Utah Valley is given a conditional invite...provided begin football in 2 years. Obviously, they will not be competitive in 2 years...gives some of the better Big Sky programs another team to beat up on and have a chance at bowl eligibility early on.
3. The Big Sky would merge with the WAC and have two divisions for football, sans Cal Poly and UC Davis. One for the FBS teams and one for the FCS teams.
The divisions would probably look like so at first...
FBS division...playing for a bowl game invite...
San Jose State
Idaho
New Mexico State
Texas State
UTSA
La Tech
Montana*
Eastern Washington*
Weber State*
FCS Division...playing for an NCAA FCS playoff invite
Northern Arizona
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Idaho State
Montana State
Utah Valley
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
Portland State
It would then be understood that the FCS schools would build toward an FBS jump at any time...as there is no time limit to execute the move.
*Based upon market size, number of sports sponsored, attendance, facilities and student body.
The problem with this proposal is that there are at least three schools, Idaho State, Southern Utah and North Dakota that will never be able to make the jump to the FBS. At this point, you eventually need to decide on a size limit...perhaps 16 teams in 2 FCS divisions before the FCS division is spun off into a new conference.
Then what would you have?
FBS Big Sky
Western Division
San Jose State
Idaho
Montana
Eastern Washington
Montana
Montana State
Sacramento State
Portland State
Eastern Division
New Mexico State
Louisiana Tech
Texas State
UTSA
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Sacramento State
Utah Valley
Weber State
And then you are left with
FCS Big Sky
Idaho State
Southern Utah
North Dakota
And then, you would need to add...assuming that these DII schools want to be part of the madness.
Central Washington
Dixie State
Adams State
Chadron State
Nebraska Kearney
Pittsburgh State
Why it will not work? It spreads the conference expansion insanity down to Division II.
It is not bad for the Big Sky and WAC to merge, but leave enough schools at the FCS level to keep the Big Sky what it is...one of the better FCS-level conferences in the nation.
Utah State 2012 Schedule Finalized.
The Aggies kick of their 2012 schedule with a pair of home games against in-state opponents. They conclude their November schedule by playing on the road at the defending WAC champion, Louisiana Tech and a home game against the Idaho Vandals. Other highlights are visits to Wisconsin and BYU.
August 30 (Thursday)--Southern Utah
September 7 (Friday)--Utah
September 15--@ Wisconsin
September 22--@ Colorado State
September 29--UNLV
October 5--@ BYU
October 13--@ San Jose State*
October 20--New Mexico State*
October 27--@ Texas San Antonio*
November 3--Texas State*
November 17--@ Louisiana Tech*
November 24--Idaho*
* Western Athletic Conference game
August 30 (Thursday)--Southern Utah
September 7 (Friday)--Utah
September 15--@ Wisconsin
September 22--@ Colorado State
September 29--UNLV
October 5--@ BYU
October 13--@ San Jose State*
October 20--New Mexico State*
October 27--@ Texas San Antonio*
November 3--Texas State*
November 17--@ Louisiana Tech*
November 24--Idaho*
* Western Athletic Conference game
Monday, February 27, 2012
The Future of Idaho in the FBS...
I have the following comment from an anonymous commenter that I wish to explore further...
Idaho won't be demoted...that's just a foolish thought. Until the Board of Regents begin discussing it, keyboard warriors sound ignorant speculating that it might actually happen. Deal in facts, not fantasies.
So, here are the facts.
1. The MWC and Conference USA are going to merge in 2013. This creates a 16-team conference.
2. Based on comments by the President of UTEP, the conference wishes to expand to 24-schools. The target list includes current WAC members Utah State and New Mexico State.
That is all that we know, and the rest is indeed pure speculation.
What people at Idaho should focus on is what moves will San Jose State, Utah State and New Mexico State now make. But if Utah State, San Jose State and New Mexico State move to the new hyper-conference and Idaho get's left out, then what?
-Maybe the WAC survives as a football conference by getting Sam Houston State, Lamar and Stephen F Austin. Then you have a 7-member conference where the closest competitor to Idaho is in Central Texas.
-Or Idaho joins the Sun Belt Conference, again, where the nearest competitor, in the best case scenario, is in North Texas.
-Or Idaho joins BYU in independence.
-Or Idaho relegate itself back to then FBS where the Big Sky Conference would welcome them back.
Which of these scenarios is the best for Idaho?
It is my hot fingered opinion that Idaho has two options that are in it's best interest. If Idaho is to remain in the FBS, they need to be with nearby schools. It will be extremely difficult for Idaho to get November crowds with games against Texas State and Lamar. The school will get better crowds in November if the competition is Montana and Eastern Washington than they will if the competition is from Texas. Second, there will be little or no TV money for a conference that includes Idaho, Texas State, UTSA, Lamar, SHSU, SFA and La Tech. Therefore, if Idaho can not be in the same conference as Utah State and San Jose State, they will be better off in the Big Sky Conference. People at Idaho do not need a meeting of the Board of Regents to tell them that.
The absolute best-case scenario for Idaho is that the WAC survives with Utah State and San Jose State in tow and that they can convince Montana, Eastern Washington and a pair of other Big Sky programs to make the jump to the FBS.
Idaho's per-game home attendance:
2011--11,980
2010--12,730
2009--12,546
Current 3-year running average---12,419
It will take 2-3 years to bring the football program into compliance and get the average attendance above 15,000. The listed capacity of the Kibbie Dome is 18,000.
Two other facts to consider.
The NCAA has not yet demoted a school due to attendance issues. Idaho's issues with attendance are not unique.
Even though the Board of Regents has not yet considered Idaho's classification, we do not know what athletic director Rob Spear and President Duane Nellis are working on behind the scenes.
Idaho won't be demoted...that's just a foolish thought. Until the Board of Regents begin discussing it, keyboard warriors sound ignorant speculating that it might actually happen. Deal in facts, not fantasies.
So, here are the facts.
1. The MWC and Conference USA are going to merge in 2013. This creates a 16-team conference.
2. Based on comments by the President of UTEP, the conference wishes to expand to 24-schools. The target list includes current WAC members Utah State and New Mexico State.
That is all that we know, and the rest is indeed pure speculation.
What people at Idaho should focus on is what moves will San Jose State, Utah State and New Mexico State now make. But if Utah State, San Jose State and New Mexico State move to the new hyper-conference and Idaho get's left out, then what?
-Maybe the WAC survives as a football conference by getting Sam Houston State, Lamar and Stephen F Austin. Then you have a 7-member conference where the closest competitor to Idaho is in Central Texas.
-Or Idaho joins the Sun Belt Conference, again, where the nearest competitor, in the best case scenario, is in North Texas.
-Or Idaho joins BYU in independence.
-Or Idaho relegate itself back to then FBS where the Big Sky Conference would welcome them back.
Which of these scenarios is the best for Idaho?
It is my hot fingered opinion that Idaho has two options that are in it's best interest. If Idaho is to remain in the FBS, they need to be with nearby schools. It will be extremely difficult for Idaho to get November crowds with games against Texas State and Lamar. The school will get better crowds in November if the competition is Montana and Eastern Washington than they will if the competition is from Texas. Second, there will be little or no TV money for a conference that includes Idaho, Texas State, UTSA, Lamar, SHSU, SFA and La Tech. Therefore, if Idaho can not be in the same conference as Utah State and San Jose State, they will be better off in the Big Sky Conference. People at Idaho do not need a meeting of the Board of Regents to tell them that.
The absolute best-case scenario for Idaho is that the WAC survives with Utah State and San Jose State in tow and that they can convince Montana, Eastern Washington and a pair of other Big Sky programs to make the jump to the FBS.
Idaho's per-game home attendance:
2011--11,980
2010--12,730
2009--12,546
Current 3-year running average---12,419
It will take 2-3 years to bring the football program into compliance and get the average attendance above 15,000. The listed capacity of the Kibbie Dome is 18,000.
Two other facts to consider.
The NCAA has not yet demoted a school due to attendance issues. Idaho's issues with attendance are not unique.
Even though the Board of Regents has not yet considered Idaho's classification, we do not know what athletic director Rob Spear and President Duane Nellis are working on behind the scenes.
Monday, February 20, 2012
The future of the new MWCUSA Conference
I have read through several stories about the new conference that is coming out of the merger of the Mountain West Conference and Conference USA. I will dub this new conference MWCUSA until they choose a new name.
One pundit has commented that this conference may grow to 24 members, the original vision when the Mountain West and Conference USA first announced their championship alliance last fall. A merger of two different 12-team conferences which would meet in a championship game a week after the traditional conference championship weekend with the winner getting a BCS bowl. This concept is not likely to happen now, at least in this form, with Boise State, Houston and SMU out of the picture, but at least the structure would be in place should Utah State eventually become the next Boise State.
The questions are; how do you get there, what will it look like once it is finished and how will the schedule work out in the end?
At present, the MWC has 7 full-time members and 1 football-only member and Conference USA has 8 full-time members remaining. Those members are: Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno State, Nevada, UNLV, Hawaii (Football-only), New Mexico and Wyoming from the MWC. Conference USA brings in Alabama Birmingham, East Carolina, Marshall, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, Southern Mississippi and UTEP. Together that is 16 super-conference members. They would need 8 more to get to 24. Who could those 8 schools be?
The first option would be the raid the WAC. The WAC recently lost commissioner Karl Benson to the Sun Belt Conference. They have been reeling for 2 years and are easy pickings right now. The first choice would be to simply invite the 7 remaining WAC football members to the conference, at least in football. That would be a very easy thing to do. In football, the WAC is left with Louisiana Tech, Idaho, New Mexico State, Texas State, Texas San Antonio, San Jose State and Utah State. But do they really want to do that? If you are serious about a 24 member conference you take on San Jose State, Utah State and Louisiana Tech, but the other 4 remaining WAC football members have a lot of questions that may hurt the credibility of a conference not exactly on the cusp of national credibility.
Do you really build credibility with Idaho, who has the smallest football facility in the Football Bowl Subdivision, whose attendance numbers have them flirting with relegation to the FCS and who plays in the shadow of a PAC-12 school who does not exaclty cast a large shadow? If you use these reasons to say no to Idaho, how does one justify keeping UAB? There are only two differences between UAB and Idaho. First, Idaho has a stellar academic profile, even if they are not an academically elite college. While I am certain that many graduates do not remain in the Palouse, you could find them all over the larger cities of the Pacific Northwest. The other difference is that UAB plays in a large stadium that is mostly empty, where the same crowd would make the Kibbie Dome more than half-full. A typical Idaho home game at least looks good on TV. Therefore, I think that Idaho is in as well. But the divisions might work out better if Idaho is not invited...see below.
New Mexico State does not have the academic reputation that Idaho has, nor does it have a stellar football record. Since joining the Major College Division in 1959--which is now the FBS, NMSU has earned 3 conference championships...including sharing the 1976 Missouri Valley Conference Championship (which at that time was a D-IA conference) with a 4-6-1 record. They have not been to a bowl game since 1960. And they have had 7 winning seasons. In 1960, they went 11-0 including a Sun Bowl Victory over Utah State. That earned them their only top-20 finish in history. There are only 5 schools in history that have a lower overall winning percentage than NMSU. But one of them is current CUSA member UTEP. Some of the others near NMSU at the bottom include Rice, UNLV, New Mexico and Colorado State. So the MWCUSA can not really justify saying no to NMSU. But Rice, UNLV, and the others have all had winning seasons and bowls games in their recent history. The Aggies do not add much, but they really can't make the conference much worse. The only reason to reject NSMU is that they are no really outside the footprint of the Sun Belt Conference. They will have a place to go, where Idaho's only choice if rejected will be to return to the FCS and the Big Sky Conference. But one of the problems this super conference will have is establishing rivlaries, and NMSU has natural rivals in New Mexico and UTEP. I think that they will be in the 24-school MWCUSA.
UTSA and Texas State are new. TSU will play their first official FBS games this season, and UTSA in 2013. MWCUSA can shun these guys because the Sun Belt Conference will be able to snatch them up. Up to 5 of the 8 needed to bring MWCUSA will come from the WAC, the 3/4 will come for the Sun Belt and the Sun Belt will be able to take on the reject. MWCUSA will likely also bring on North Texas, Middle Tennessee and choose between Arkansas State, Troy, FIU, FAU, La-Laf and La Monroe to fill out. There will be room in the Sun Belt for the remaining WAC programs.
Except for Louisiana Tech and New Mexico State, the WAC invitees will be football-only and the WAC will continue as a basketball league. I also believe that the charter will be written so that the 24 team conference will compete as two separate leagues in all other sports.
Here is how I think the divisions will line up.
Pacific Division
Hawaii (Football Only--other sports Big West)
Idaho (Football Only--other sports WAC)
Fresno State
Nevada
UNLV
San Jose State (Football Only--other sports WAC)
Mountain Division
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico
New Mexico State
Utah State (Football Only--Other sports WAC)
Wyoming
(The above 8 full sports members will continue to compete as the Mountain West Conference under a new charter in the other sports.)
Southwest Division
Louisiana Tech
North Texas
Rice
Tulsa
Tulane
UTEP
Atlantic Division
Alabama Birmingham
East Carolina
Middle Tennessee
Marshall
Southern Mississippi
Troy
How the schedule will work? 9 conference games. Five against teams in the same division. 1 against a designated rival in the other division...such as New Mexico State/UTEP, Utah State/Idaho or Tulane/USM. And one game against a team from each of the other divisions on a rotational basis.
The winners of the Pacific and Mountain divisions would play each other in a semi-final as well as the winners of the Southwest and Atlantic divisions. The championship would be played during Army/Navy week. But the bowls that the semifinalist would play in would need to be after Christmas.
Further note about Idaho. If they are not invited, Utah State can move to the Pacific Division and UTEP to the Mountain Division. Arkansas State would be invited to fill out the Southwest Division. This may provide a more natural divisional alignment, keeping all of the teams west of the Continental Divide in the same division and allowing UTEP to be in the same division and New Mexico and New Mexico State.
The WAC would be left with the following non-football league:
CS Bakersfield (New)
Denver
Idaho
San Jose State
Seattle
Texas Arlington
Texas Pan American (New--Currently a non-football program of the FCS Southland Conference.)
Utah Valley (New)
Utah State
If Idaho does not get an invite to the new league, they could join the Big Sky Conference. Unsure if they would put all sports in the BSC or only football.
My question for Utah State, San Jose State and Louisiana Tech fans is this. Do you want to be a part of this conference, or would you rather remain in the WAC. Leave the floundering WAC for a crazy idea that could fail? That is your choice.
One pundit has commented that this conference may grow to 24 members, the original vision when the Mountain West and Conference USA first announced their championship alliance last fall. A merger of two different 12-team conferences which would meet in a championship game a week after the traditional conference championship weekend with the winner getting a BCS bowl. This concept is not likely to happen now, at least in this form, with Boise State, Houston and SMU out of the picture, but at least the structure would be in place should Utah State eventually become the next Boise State.
The questions are; how do you get there, what will it look like once it is finished and how will the schedule work out in the end?
At present, the MWC has 7 full-time members and 1 football-only member and Conference USA has 8 full-time members remaining. Those members are: Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno State, Nevada, UNLV, Hawaii (Football-only), New Mexico and Wyoming from the MWC. Conference USA brings in Alabama Birmingham, East Carolina, Marshall, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, Southern Mississippi and UTEP. Together that is 16 super-conference members. They would need 8 more to get to 24. Who could those 8 schools be?
The first option would be the raid the WAC. The WAC recently lost commissioner Karl Benson to the Sun Belt Conference. They have been reeling for 2 years and are easy pickings right now. The first choice would be to simply invite the 7 remaining WAC football members to the conference, at least in football. That would be a very easy thing to do. In football, the WAC is left with Louisiana Tech, Idaho, New Mexico State, Texas State, Texas San Antonio, San Jose State and Utah State. But do they really want to do that? If you are serious about a 24 member conference you take on San Jose State, Utah State and Louisiana Tech, but the other 4 remaining WAC football members have a lot of questions that may hurt the credibility of a conference not exactly on the cusp of national credibility.
Do you really build credibility with Idaho, who has the smallest football facility in the Football Bowl Subdivision, whose attendance numbers have them flirting with relegation to the FCS and who plays in the shadow of a PAC-12 school who does not exaclty cast a large shadow? If you use these reasons to say no to Idaho, how does one justify keeping UAB? There are only two differences between UAB and Idaho. First, Idaho has a stellar academic profile, even if they are not an academically elite college. While I am certain that many graduates do not remain in the Palouse, you could find them all over the larger cities of the Pacific Northwest. The other difference is that UAB plays in a large stadium that is mostly empty, where the same crowd would make the Kibbie Dome more than half-full. A typical Idaho home game at least looks good on TV. Therefore, I think that Idaho is in as well. But the divisions might work out better if Idaho is not invited...see below.
New Mexico State does not have the academic reputation that Idaho has, nor does it have a stellar football record. Since joining the Major College Division in 1959--which is now the FBS, NMSU has earned 3 conference championships...including sharing the 1976 Missouri Valley Conference Championship (which at that time was a D-IA conference) with a 4-6-1 record. They have not been to a bowl game since 1960. And they have had 7 winning seasons. In 1960, they went 11-0 including a Sun Bowl Victory over Utah State. That earned them their only top-20 finish in history. There are only 5 schools in history that have a lower overall winning percentage than NMSU. But one of them is current CUSA member UTEP. Some of the others near NMSU at the bottom include Rice, UNLV, New Mexico and Colorado State. So the MWCUSA can not really justify saying no to NMSU. But Rice, UNLV, and the others have all had winning seasons and bowls games in their recent history. The Aggies do not add much, but they really can't make the conference much worse. The only reason to reject NSMU is that they are no really outside the footprint of the Sun Belt Conference. They will have a place to go, where Idaho's only choice if rejected will be to return to the FCS and the Big Sky Conference. But one of the problems this super conference will have is establishing rivlaries, and NMSU has natural rivals in New Mexico and UTEP. I think that they will be in the 24-school MWCUSA.
UTSA and Texas State are new. TSU will play their first official FBS games this season, and UTSA in 2013. MWCUSA can shun these guys because the Sun Belt Conference will be able to snatch them up. Up to 5 of the 8 needed to bring MWCUSA will come from the WAC, the 3/4 will come for the Sun Belt and the Sun Belt will be able to take on the reject. MWCUSA will likely also bring on North Texas, Middle Tennessee and choose between Arkansas State, Troy, FIU, FAU, La-Laf and La Monroe to fill out. There will be room in the Sun Belt for the remaining WAC programs.
Except for Louisiana Tech and New Mexico State, the WAC invitees will be football-only and the WAC will continue as a basketball league. I also believe that the charter will be written so that the 24 team conference will compete as two separate leagues in all other sports.
Here is how I think the divisions will line up.
Pacific Division
Hawaii (Football Only--other sports Big West)
Idaho (Football Only--other sports WAC)
Fresno State
Nevada
UNLV
San Jose State (Football Only--other sports WAC)
Mountain Division
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico
New Mexico State
Utah State (Football Only--Other sports WAC)
Wyoming
(The above 8 full sports members will continue to compete as the Mountain West Conference under a new charter in the other sports.)
Southwest Division
Louisiana Tech
North Texas
Rice
Tulsa
Tulane
UTEP
Atlantic Division
Alabama Birmingham
East Carolina
Middle Tennessee
Marshall
Southern Mississippi
Troy
How the schedule will work? 9 conference games. Five against teams in the same division. 1 against a designated rival in the other division...such as New Mexico State/UTEP, Utah State/Idaho or Tulane/USM. And one game against a team from each of the other divisions on a rotational basis.
The winners of the Pacific and Mountain divisions would play each other in a semi-final as well as the winners of the Southwest and Atlantic divisions. The championship would be played during Army/Navy week. But the bowls that the semifinalist would play in would need to be after Christmas.
Further note about Idaho. If they are not invited, Utah State can move to the Pacific Division and UTEP to the Mountain Division. Arkansas State would be invited to fill out the Southwest Division. This may provide a more natural divisional alignment, keeping all of the teams west of the Continental Divide in the same division and allowing UTEP to be in the same division and New Mexico and New Mexico State.
The WAC would be left with the following non-football league:
CS Bakersfield (New)
Denver
Idaho
San Jose State
Seattle
Texas Arlington
Texas Pan American (New--Currently a non-football program of the FCS Southland Conference.)
Utah Valley (New)
Utah State
If Idaho does not get an invite to the new league, they could join the Big Sky Conference. Unsure if they would put all sports in the BSC or only football.
My question for Utah State, San Jose State and Louisiana Tech fans is this. Do you want to be a part of this conference, or would you rather remain in the WAC. Leave the floundering WAC for a crazy idea that could fail? That is your choice.
Monday, February 13, 2012
It's Official...The MWC and C-USA are merging.
I do not believe for a moment that Louisiana Tech and Utah State fans are happy about the news, but it appears that greener pastures may have to wait. C-USA and the MWC are merging. Now, fans may not be happy in Logan and Rushton, but the reality is that they may be better of remaining in the WAC.
The new MWC/C-USA conference is eerily similar to the 16-member WAC which existed from 1996 to 1999 and ended with the formation of the MWC. A four members of this new conference were part of the "Breakaway 8" so why go through the madness again? Here are the similarities.
1. Mixture of public and private schools. Tulsa and Rice are still private schools. The old WAC also had BYU, TCU and SMU.
2. Wide geographical footprint. The old WAC spanned from Honolulu to Houston. The new conference, Honolulu to Houston to Morgantown, WV.
3. Loss of Rivals? Well, that's not the fault of those left to form the new conference. Those rivalries, Boise State/Fresno State, Boise State/Nevada, Houston/Rice, were lost when those teams left for the Big East.
4. Fan interest? We'll see if people really show up when Nevada and Marshall meet, that could be an intriguing match-up. But I don't know how many people will get excited when Wyoming and UAB get together.
Now, five months ago I would not have predicted that the WAC would outlast the Mountain West Conference. But it is now happening. We'll see if the new conference will expand to 16 and add Utah State and Louisiana Tech. It may also be possible that Hawaii will return their football program to the more travel-friendly WAC.
The new MWC/C-USA conference is eerily similar to the 16-member WAC which existed from 1996 to 1999 and ended with the formation of the MWC. A four members of this new conference were part of the "Breakaway 8" so why go through the madness again? Here are the similarities.
1. Mixture of public and private schools. Tulsa and Rice are still private schools. The old WAC also had BYU, TCU and SMU.
2. Wide geographical footprint. The old WAC spanned from Honolulu to Houston. The new conference, Honolulu to Houston to Morgantown, WV.
3. Loss of Rivals? Well, that's not the fault of those left to form the new conference. Those rivalries, Boise State/Fresno State, Boise State/Nevada, Houston/Rice, were lost when those teams left for the Big East.
4. Fan interest? We'll see if people really show up when Nevada and Marshall meet, that could be an intriguing match-up. But I don't know how many people will get excited when Wyoming and UAB get together.
Now, five months ago I would not have predicted that the WAC would outlast the Mountain West Conference. But it is now happening. We'll see if the new conference will expand to 16 and add Utah State and Louisiana Tech. It may also be possible that Hawaii will return their football program to the more travel-friendly WAC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)