One person's attempt at being objective on a subject he is very passionate about. If you like this blog, please do two things. First, tell all of your friends. Second, visit a sponsor. In addition, I will link to your site if you link to mine.
Should the Mountain West Conference Expand and who should the ask? Commissioner Thompson said that it was not in the immediate future and seemed to indicate that expansion would need to lead the an automatic BCS bid.
IMHO, It would also need to lead to a lucrative deal for the conference championship game. Whether the conference stays at 9 teams or expands to 12, the only thing that MWC teams can do right now is to keep winning. The problem with the MWC at this time is perception on a national scale. That these teams would not compete well in a bigger conference. Part is this is not the fault of BYU, Utah or TCU.
Since the PAC-10 added Arizona State, the Sun Devils have won 3 conference championships in football. While Arizona has yet to win their fist conference championship in football in the PAC-10. Except for the Arizona Wildcat basketball success under Lute Olsen, many consider the Arizona Schools in the PAC-10 a failure. Regardless of your opinion, it's hard to argue with the logic. ASU won 6 WAC championships in the 70s. And then in 30 years in the PAC-10 they have won only 3. Any wonder why people say the MWC can not compete? Blame Arizona and Arizona State!
If the conference can keep winning and keep breaking into the BCS, and keep winning once they get there, they may need to expand to seal the deal.
I am not on the Boise State in the MWC bandwagon. I think that Fresno State is a better choice. Fresno State is more well rounded both academically and athletically than Boise State. Sure, the blue turf monsters are good in football...and tennis. But Fresno is good in Football and Baseball and a few other sports. They have a good enough academic reputation. BSU is where BYU once was in the 60s...not the 80s. In four years, my mind might be changed. But today, I vote for Fresno.
Many people have stated that if the Utah State Aggies can not maintain a 15,000 seat average and are demoted by the NCAA, they would end up in the Big Sky Conference. Geographically, the Logan campus is a good fit, but otherwise not so fast. Here are some other considerations.
1. Conference size. Currently the Big Sky Conference sits at 9 members. For football, this is the perfect size. Why? The football bowl subdivision has a 12 games season and will allow an extra game for a conference championship game. In the Football Championship Subdivision, there are playoffs, so the season remains fixed at 11 regular season games. If a conference has a championship game, they have to sacrifice a regular season game.
A nine-team conference gives you 8 conference games with four at home and four on the road. Three non-conference games. One is usually a money game on the road against a FBS school. One at home, often against a DII team. One on the road. When you add a 10th conference team in the FBS you either sacrifice not playing one team in the conference for the season or you divide into divisions. Dividing into divisions would require each team in the conference to play just 10 games, as the NCAA does not allow for an extra game for a conference championship at this level. Not something that administrators would want.
Also, a conference championship game in the FCS is not the cash cow it is for the FBS. It is just another game. There is no sponsorship and no TV. The Big Sky conference usually gets two teams into the FCS playoffs as they are one of the power conferences. A championship game may cost the Big Sky that extra team.
2. The Big Sky conference is one of the few conferences in the FBS where every member participates in every sport. WAC commissioner Karl Benson has indicated that for the WAC having someone exempt from playing football is a possibility. The Big Sky is may not be open to having a football only member. It was tried in the past with Cal Poly, and it was not a good fit and did not last very long. The Big Sky has also kicked non-football schools like Cal St Northridge and Gonzaga to the curb.
3. The Big Sky conference is not a big money conference. The schools in the FBS rely on gate and alumni donations to make money. Even though USU is not getting a lot of people at their home stadium, there is a big chunk of TV money and sponsorship money that will dry up with the demotion.
True, the WAC is not a big money conference when compared to the big six. But there is more money in the WAC than in the Big Sky. With WAC money, Northern Arizona and Eastern Washington will have no conversations about dropping football like there are now.
4. Expectations. People should not expect Utah State to suddenly be successful against Big Sky competition. Expect that some of their athletes will be like Riley and transfer to other schools with exposure. Yes, they would win some games, but don't expect them to be another Montana.
5. Fans and facilities. In the Big Sky, Romney Stadium would be the largest. It would also be empty. Don't expect that fans will return to the Aggies after the demotion. Fan disillusionment will likely increase, especially if sub-par performance continues.
Utah State, if dropped from the FBS, may be better off just dropping football. The scenario that I see putting the Aggies into the Big Sky would be if someone left and made room for them. Sacramento State or Portland State moves up or Eastern Washington or Northern Arizona drops out. The Big Sky conference is the most stable athletic conference in the West behind the PAC-10. Better not to mess that up.
