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.
Monday, February 27, 2012
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.
BYU's 2012 Schedule is Complete
Here is BYU's final 2012 schedule.
S1 Washington State
S8 Weber State
S15 @ Utah
S22 @ Boise State
S29 Hawaii
O5 (F) Utah State
O13 Oregon State
O20 @ Notre Dame
O27 @ Ga Tech
N3 Open
N10 Idaho
N17 @ San Jose State
N24 @ New Mexico State
Impression, the schedule is intimidating enough, but one loss will end chances of getting into the BCS. Therefore, BYU's season could be all-but-decided before the Aggies come to Provo. Here is ranking the opponents from strongest to weakest.
Certain Losses:
1. @ Ga Tech
2. @ Notre Dame
Likely Losses, but winnable games:
3. @ Utah
4. @ Boise State
Tough games, but likely wins:
5. Utah State
6. Oregon State
Probable wins:
7. Washington State
Almost certain wins:
8. @ San Jose State
9. @ New Mexico State
10. Hawaii
11. Idaho
12. Weber State
Worst case scenario 5-7
Best case scenario 10-2
Most likely scenario 8-4
S1 Washington State
S8 Weber State
S15 @ Utah
S22 @ Boise State
S29 Hawaii
O5 (F) Utah State
O13 Oregon State
O20 @ Notre Dame
O27 @ Ga Tech
N3 Open
N10 Idaho
N17 @ San Jose State
N24 @ New Mexico State
Impression, the schedule is intimidating enough, but one loss will end chances of getting into the BCS. Therefore, BYU's season could be all-but-decided before the Aggies come to Provo. Here is ranking the opponents from strongest to weakest.
Certain Losses:
1. @ Ga Tech
2. @ Notre Dame
Likely Losses, but winnable games:
3. @ Utah
4. @ Boise State
Tough games, but likely wins:
5. Utah State
6. Oregon State
Probable wins:
7. Washington State
Almost certain wins:
8. @ San Jose State
9. @ New Mexico State
10. Hawaii
11. Idaho
12. Weber State
Worst case scenario 5-7
Best case scenario 10-2
Most likely scenario 8-4
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Saving the WAC--Misery Loves Company.
The news is not good for C-USA. They have now lost Memphis for the 2013-14 academic year. This puts this conference down to 8 schools.
The news is also not good for the WAC. It is almost certain that Louisiana Tech will be leaving. With the probable, inevitable loss of Utah State to the MWC, the WAC will become a non-football league in 2013.
The only thing that can bear off this inevitability is a full, all-sports merger between the two conferences. That merger would create a 16-team (in football) conference that would stretch from Honolulu to Appalachia. I suspect that even in the pending era of super conferences, this prospect will be difficult for some to swallow. Especially at Hawaii, where new head football coach, Norm Chow, was the top assistant at BYU when the 16-team WAC imploded.
The WAC-CUSA merger would be like the old 16-team WAC in so many ways. A mix of private and public schools, a wide geography and the potential loss of some rivalries. Lack of fan interest. It would be very difficult to pull together. I think it would be unwise and too much has been lost to hope it will result in BCS access.
Let me stress, this is an alternative the the MWC/C-USA merger.
Therefore, if the WAC is finished, why not make it a mercy killing and at least have the MWC and C-USA pick from the remaining WAC football schools. At a minimum this is what I envision.
1. The MWC is at 8 schools. Add 4 to go to 12. Add Utah State, San Jose State, New Mexico State and UTEP and divide into divisions.
West Division
Hawaii
San Jose State
Fresno State
Nevada
UNLV
Utah State
East Division
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico
New Mexico State
UTEP
Wyoming
2. C-USA would need to add 5 to go to 12, (if UTEP goes to the MWC). Those 5 could be Texas State, UTSA, Louisiana Tech, North Texas and Middle Tennessee.
West Division
Tulsa
Rice
Texas State
UTSA
North Texas
Louisiana Tech
East Division
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
UAB
East Carolina
Southern Mississippi
Tulane
3. Idaho should return to the FCS and the Big Sky Conference. They can keep their basketball programs in the WAC.
4. The WAC adds CS Bakersfield, Utah Valley and Texas Pan American to join Idaho, Boise State, Seattle, Denver and UT Arlington to continue life as a basketball-only conference.
The powers that be probably do not read this blog. But this change makes sense to me.
The news is also not good for the WAC. It is almost certain that Louisiana Tech will be leaving. With the probable, inevitable loss of Utah State to the MWC, the WAC will become a non-football league in 2013.
The only thing that can bear off this inevitability is a full, all-sports merger between the two conferences. That merger would create a 16-team (in football) conference that would stretch from Honolulu to Appalachia. I suspect that even in the pending era of super conferences, this prospect will be difficult for some to swallow. Especially at Hawaii, where new head football coach, Norm Chow, was the top assistant at BYU when the 16-team WAC imploded.
The WAC-CUSA merger would be like the old 16-team WAC in so many ways. A mix of private and public schools, a wide geography and the potential loss of some rivalries. Lack of fan interest. It would be very difficult to pull together. I think it would be unwise and too much has been lost to hope it will result in BCS access.
Let me stress, this is an alternative the the MWC/C-USA merger.
Therefore, if the WAC is finished, why not make it a mercy killing and at least have the MWC and C-USA pick from the remaining WAC football schools. At a minimum this is what I envision.
1. The MWC is at 8 schools. Add 4 to go to 12. Add Utah State, San Jose State, New Mexico State and UTEP and divide into divisions.
West Division
Hawaii
San Jose State
Fresno State
Nevada
UNLV
Utah State
East Division
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico
New Mexico State
UTEP
Wyoming
2. C-USA would need to add 5 to go to 12, (if UTEP goes to the MWC). Those 5 could be Texas State, UTSA, Louisiana Tech, North Texas and Middle Tennessee.
West Division
Tulsa
Rice
Texas State
UTSA
North Texas
Louisiana Tech
East Division
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
UAB
East Carolina
Southern Mississippi
Tulane
3. Idaho should return to the FCS and the Big Sky Conference. They can keep their basketball programs in the WAC.
4. The WAC adds CS Bakersfield, Utah Valley and Texas Pan American to join Idaho, Boise State, Seattle, Denver and UT Arlington to continue life as a basketball-only conference.
The powers that be probably do not read this blog. But this change makes sense to me.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Super Bowl History...Quarterbacks.
Super Bowls where both the starting quarterbacks were Hall-of-Fame players. Only 17 Super Bowl games have featured a Hall-of-Fame quarterback on both teams. As you can see, many of the games involving both hall of fame quarterbacks were duds, but others were classics.
Super Bowl I--Bart Starr, Green Bay vs Len Dawson, Kansas City
Super Bowl VI--Bob Griese, Miami vs Roger Staubach, Dallas
Super Bowl VIII--Bob Griese, Miami vs Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota
Super Bowl IX--Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh vs Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota
Super Bowl X--Roger Staubach, Dallas vs Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh
Super Bowl XIII--Roger Staubach, Dallas vs Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh
Super Bowl XIX--Dan Marino, Miami vs Joe Montana, San Francisco
Super Bowl XXIV--Joe Montana, San Francisco vs John Elway, Denver
Super Bowl XXVII--Troy Aikman, Dallas vs Jim Kelly, Buffalo
Super Bowl XXVIII--Troy Aikman, Dallas vs Jim Kelly, Buffalo
Super Bowl XXXII--John Elway, Denver vs Brett Favre, Green Bay*
Super Bowl XXXVI--Kurt Warner, St. Louis* vs Tom Brady, New England*
Super Bowl XLII--Eli Manning, New York* vs Tom Brady, New England*
Super Bowl XLIII--Ben Roethlesburger, Pittsburgh* vs Kurt Warner, Arizona*
Super Bowl XLIV--Peyton Manning, Indianapolis* vs Drew Brees, New Orleans*
Super Bowl XLV--Ben Roethlesburger, Pittsburgh* vs Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay*
Super Bowl XLVI--Eli Manning, New York* vs Tom Brady, New England*
*Possible future Hall-of-Fame players...Brett Farvre, Ben Roethlesburger, Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers.
Most other Super Bowls where one of the two starting quarterbacks is a Hall-of-Fame player. Most of the time, the hall-of-fame QB ended up on top. In fact, the only hall-of-famers on this list who lost were named either Tarkenton or Elway. The latter, however, redeemed his legacy late in his career.
Super Bowl II--Bart Starr, Green Bay (Daryle Lamonica, Oakland)
Super Bowl III--Joe Namath, New York. (Note, Johnny Unitas played in this game, but Earl Morrall was the starter for Baltimore.)
Super Bowl IV--Len Dawson, Kansas City (Joe Kapp, Minnesota)
Super Bowl V--Johnny Unitas, Baltimore (Craig Morton, Dallas)
Super Bowl VII--Bob Griese, Miami (Billy Kilmer, Washington)
Super Bowl XI--Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota (One of the few games where a hall-of-fame QB loses to a non-hall-of-fame QB, in this case it was Ken Stabler of Oakland).
Super Bowl XII--Roger Staubach, Dallas (Craig Morton, Denver)
Super Bowl XIV--Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh (Vince Farragamo, Los Angeles)
Super Bowl IX--Joe Montana, San Francisco (Ken Anderson, Cincinnati)
Super Bowl XXI--John Elway, Denver (Another SB loss by the Hall-of-Famer, this time it was Phil Simms of New York)
Super Bowl XXII--John Elway, Denver (Yet another loss to Doug Williams of Washington)
Super Bowl XXIII--Joe Montana, San Francisco (Boomer Esiason, Cincinnati)
Super Bowl XXV--Jim Kelly, Buffalo (Close loss to Jeff Hostettler or New York)
Super Bowl XXVI--Jim Kelly, Buffalo (Not-so-close loss to Mark Rypien of Washington)
Super Bowl XXIX--Steve Young, San Francisco (Stan Humphries, San Diego)
Super Bowl XXX--Troy Aikman, Dallas (Neil O'Donnell, Pittsburgh)
Super Bowl XXXI--Brett Favre, Green Bay* (Drew Bledsoe, New England)
Super Bowl XXXIII--John Elway, Denver (Elway's last game, Super Bowl MVP) (Chris Chandler, Atlanta)
Super Bowl XXXIV--Kurt Warner, St. Louis* (Steve McNair, Tennessee)
Super Bowl XXXVIII--Tom Brady, New England* (Jake Dellhome, Carolina)
Super Bowl XXXVIX--Tom Brady, New England* (Some will argue that Donavan McNabb, Philadelphia will also be in the Hall-of-Fame.)
Super Bowl XL--Ben Roethlesburger, Pittsburgh* (Matt Hasselback, Seattle)
Super Bowl XLI--Peyton Manning, Indianapolis* (Rex Grossman, Chicago)
Super Bowls where neither starting quarterback is in the NFL Hall of Fame
Super Bowl XV--Jim Plunkett, Oakland vs Ron Jaworski, Philadelphia
Super Bowl XVII--Joe Thiesman, Washington vs David Woodley, Miami
Super Bowl XVIII-Joe Thiesman, Washington vs Jim Plunkett, Los Angeles Raiders
Super Bowl XX--Jim McMahon, Chicago vs Tony Eason, New England
Super Bowl XXXV--Trent Dilfer, Baltimore vs Kerry Collins, New York
Super Bowl XXXVII--Rich Gannon, Oakland vs Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay
As you can see from this list, there are many quarterbacks who have started twice in the Super Bowl and are not in the Hall of Fame (Jim Plunkett, Craig Morton, Joe Thiesman), but no one has started 3 times in the Super Bowl and not made it. Therefore, I am confident that Ben Roethlesburger and Kurt Warner will be in the Hall of Fame.
Super Bowl I--Bart Starr, Green Bay vs Len Dawson, Kansas City
Super Bowl VI--Bob Griese, Miami vs Roger Staubach, Dallas
Super Bowl VIII--Bob Griese, Miami vs Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota
Super Bowl IX--Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh vs Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota
Super Bowl X--Roger Staubach, Dallas vs Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh
Super Bowl XIII--Roger Staubach, Dallas vs Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh
Super Bowl XIX--Dan Marino, Miami vs Joe Montana, San Francisco
Super Bowl XXIV--Joe Montana, San Francisco vs John Elway, Denver
Super Bowl XXVII--Troy Aikman, Dallas vs Jim Kelly, Buffalo
Super Bowl XXVIII--Troy Aikman, Dallas vs Jim Kelly, Buffalo
Super Bowl XXXII--John Elway, Denver vs Brett Favre, Green Bay*
Super Bowl XXXVI--Kurt Warner, St. Louis* vs Tom Brady, New England*
Super Bowl XLII--Eli Manning, New York* vs Tom Brady, New England*
Super Bowl XLIII--Ben Roethlesburger, Pittsburgh* vs Kurt Warner, Arizona*
Super Bowl XLIV--Peyton Manning, Indianapolis* vs Drew Brees, New Orleans*
Super Bowl XLV--Ben Roethlesburger, Pittsburgh* vs Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay*
Super Bowl XLVI--Eli Manning, New York* vs Tom Brady, New England*
*Possible future Hall-of-Fame players...Brett Farvre, Ben Roethlesburger, Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers.
Most other Super Bowls where one of the two starting quarterbacks is a Hall-of-Fame player. Most of the time, the hall-of-fame QB ended up on top. In fact, the only hall-of-famers on this list who lost were named either Tarkenton or Elway. The latter, however, redeemed his legacy late in his career.
Super Bowl II--Bart Starr, Green Bay (Daryle Lamonica, Oakland)
Super Bowl III--Joe Namath, New York. (Note, Johnny Unitas played in this game, but Earl Morrall was the starter for Baltimore.)
Super Bowl IV--Len Dawson, Kansas City (Joe Kapp, Minnesota)
Super Bowl V--Johnny Unitas, Baltimore (Craig Morton, Dallas)
Super Bowl VII--Bob Griese, Miami (Billy Kilmer, Washington)
Super Bowl XI--Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota (One of the few games where a hall-of-fame QB loses to a non-hall-of-fame QB, in this case it was Ken Stabler of Oakland).
Super Bowl XII--Roger Staubach, Dallas (Craig Morton, Denver)
Super Bowl XIV--Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh (Vince Farragamo, Los Angeles)
Super Bowl IX--Joe Montana, San Francisco (Ken Anderson, Cincinnati)
Super Bowl XXI--John Elway, Denver (Another SB loss by the Hall-of-Famer, this time it was Phil Simms of New York)
Super Bowl XXII--John Elway, Denver (Yet another loss to Doug Williams of Washington)
Super Bowl XXIII--Joe Montana, San Francisco (Boomer Esiason, Cincinnati)
Super Bowl XXV--Jim Kelly, Buffalo (Close loss to Jeff Hostettler or New York)
Super Bowl XXVI--Jim Kelly, Buffalo (Not-so-close loss to Mark Rypien of Washington)
Super Bowl XXIX--Steve Young, San Francisco (Stan Humphries, San Diego)
Super Bowl XXX--Troy Aikman, Dallas (Neil O'Donnell, Pittsburgh)
Super Bowl XXXI--Brett Favre, Green Bay* (Drew Bledsoe, New England)
Super Bowl XXXIII--John Elway, Denver (Elway's last game, Super Bowl MVP) (Chris Chandler, Atlanta)
Super Bowl XXXIV--Kurt Warner, St. Louis* (Steve McNair, Tennessee)
Super Bowl XXXVIII--Tom Brady, New England* (Jake Dellhome, Carolina)
Super Bowl XXXVIX--Tom Brady, New England* (Some will argue that Donavan McNabb, Philadelphia will also be in the Hall-of-Fame.)
Super Bowl XL--Ben Roethlesburger, Pittsburgh* (Matt Hasselback, Seattle)
Super Bowl XLI--Peyton Manning, Indianapolis* (Rex Grossman, Chicago)
Super Bowls where neither starting quarterback is in the NFL Hall of Fame
Super Bowl XV--Jim Plunkett, Oakland vs Ron Jaworski, Philadelphia
Super Bowl XVII--Joe Thiesman, Washington vs David Woodley, Miami
Super Bowl XVIII-Joe Thiesman, Washington vs Jim Plunkett, Los Angeles Raiders
Super Bowl XX--Jim McMahon, Chicago vs Tony Eason, New England
Super Bowl XXXV--Trent Dilfer, Baltimore vs Kerry Collins, New York
Super Bowl XXXVII--Rich Gannon, Oakland vs Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay
As you can see from this list, there are many quarterbacks who have started twice in the Super Bowl and are not in the Hall of Fame (Jim Plunkett, Craig Morton, Joe Thiesman), but no one has started 3 times in the Super Bowl and not made it. Therefore, I am confident that Ben Roethlesburger and Kurt Warner will be in the Hall of Fame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)