Neverending Mountain West region college football thread

[Wasatch_One]

I actually see SDSU and Wyoming making some strides to improve. I like Hoke and Christensen as head coaches.

New Mexico has taken a few steps back and I dont see Locksley lasting very long there given his already rough transition (on and off the field.)

Sanford will be fired after this season at UNLV so hopefully they can bring in someone decent for once.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by SLCforme

BSU has publicly stated that they want to join the MWC and the MWC has done nothing about it. Thompson stated at the time that he wanted to focus on the teams already in the conference (how he could do anything about them is a mystery to me) and not worry about expansion for a while. So he effectively said "sorry BSU, we don't want you, at least not now". That was a jackass move in my opinion. One thing he said that is true is that one has to look all all sport that a school takes part in and not just football, as well as facilities and fan base, etc. But I think BSU compares well to most other MWC schools in most other criteria as well, so I wish they would be allowed to join.

I vaguely remember this comment from Thompson, who is as big of a douche bag as there is. I think Boise, if they played in the MWC, would make more strides in other sports because their recruiting base expands. The WAC is a decent basketball conference, but they are generally smaller markets than even in the MWC. That hurts recruiting. At least the MWC gets a direct piece of some larger markets: Denver, San Diego, Dallas.

I really think there is an elitist attitude about creating a conference that has four of the top non AQ football teams: TCU, Utah, BSU and BYU. The MWC commissioner does not want BSU to join because lets face it, it would be pretty rare that a team would run the table with three of those teams on their schedule. Which ironically, will happen for BYU and Utah beginning in 2011 when they both have BSU on their schedule. But those four teams aligned would create a pretty strong football conference, even with the bottom dwellers SDSU, UNLV etc. If a one loss non AQ school can get into a BCS bowl game then I almost gaurantee the MWC would solicit BSU to join. I think ideally the BCS should approach the MWC about adding Boise St. and in return grant them an automatic bid beginning in 2013 or whenever the reevaluation time comes up. The AQ schools are pretty much conceeding that a non AQ team will be in a BCS game every year at this point anyway.

[wrendog]

If BSU helps the MWC get an auto bid, they will be invited yesterday. Until then, it won't happen. Not because there isn't interest, but because financially, it doesn't make sense yet. Market isn't huge (yes, bigger than some in the conference, but not big enough to expand to) and a 10 team conference can be a nightmare to schedule and teams could lose an out of conference game. BSU will be added in due time, I guarantee it.

[East2Westback]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

I actually see SDSU and Wyoming making some strides to improve. I like Hoke and Christensen as head coaches.

New Mexico has taken a few steps back and I dont see Locksley lasting very long there given his already rough transition (on and off the field.)

Sanford will be fired after this season at UNLV so hopefully they can bring in someone decent for once.

Every team that is not named Utah, TCU, Air Force or BY High...are basically really, really excellent DII teams.

Yeah, I know that they have DIA talent but basically they roll over and play dead. Not good.

I would love to know the strides that Wyoming and SDSU have made. SDSU should be a killing team. They cannot even recruit their own back yard.

[cololi]

But yet Wyoming can go on the road and beat Tennessee. Or UNLV can beat AZ State. You are right, they are not worthy of being an FBS team. Every conference has crappy teams. Look at Washington State, Iowa State, vanderbilt, Duke, the list goes on and on. The bottom teams suck no matter what conference they are in.

[East2Westback]

Originally Posted by cololi

But yet Wyoming can go on the road and beat Tennessee. Or UNLV can beat AZ State. You are right, they are not worthy of being an FBS team. Every conference has crappy teams. Look at Washington State, Iowa State, vanderbilt, Duke, the list goes on and on. The bottom teams suck no matter what conference they are in.

The difference is that Vandy would be one of the better teams. WSU is in a slump not a permenant doggieness.

Iowa State has proven they can be very good.

Duke is a team that is climbing back but their basketball WAY, WAY, WAY outweighs what they lack in football.

However, none of that matters because every team that you mention plays stupidly more potent schedules than any MWC team has to play.

I like how Utah, TCU, BY High and AF represent at a higher level and they schedule and beat very good teams consistantly.

Defending Wyoming, SDSU, UNM and the rest of the dogs carries no weight.

They are always mediocre. Can they step up to a higher level? Please show me proof and not beating a down Tennessee to prove it.

You guys are dreaming if you think that a) we should not ditch this dog conference, b) get some really competitive teams in the conference or c) just care about the Utes and a few others who are the only teams that ever made being in the MWC something to be proud about.

There is something about coming to grips with the truth. The truth is spelled out every year in exactly the same way with the same teams...positive or negative...it is always the same teams that really step up.

Hey, I have an idea...use the 1960 something Wyoming in the Sugar Bowl.

Go Utes!!!

[cololi]

Nah, I'd refer to Wyoming's 2004 bowl victory over UCLA. We aren't talking basketball, so whatever Duke does on the court is irrelevant to what they do in football. The MWC has teams that suck at football but accel at other sports. Seriously, comparing the bottom dwellers is lame. Every conference has a team with losing records. I am not saying that the bottom of the MWC or WAC are the same as the bottom of the ACC or SEC or any other conference. But the evidence is there that they can at least compete when they do play. There will always be discrepencies between conferences. Does it really matter if there are perennial losers or teams that are mostly losers but put together a good season every 5-10 years like WSU? I think the MWC gets much more respect because the top of the conference is consistent and strong than it would if it was constantly revolving with different teams.

It is a huge disadvantage to be a non AQ school. That goes without saying. The biggest disadvantage is money and athletic budgets. You want to know why SDSU has had such a huge issue since the days of Marshall Falk? It has nothing to do with quality of players and everything to do with their operating budget. They have poor facilities, which makes it insanely difficult to recruit. The athletic dept carries a huge debt, so much so that it is bringing down other academic budgets. The biggest drain is playing at Qualcom. It costs a ton of money to operate that stadium and when it has 15,000 people in it, it is an overall drain. Of course it is a chicken and an egg type of thing, if they start winning, they start getting more fans. But, They routinely put players in the NFL. I think in the early part of this decade they had more NFL players than any other MWC team but had the third worst overall record. the issue obviously isn't talent.

[Wasatch_One]

Former MWC players currently in the NFL

SDSU - 16
Utah - 16
BYU - 13
TCU - 12
CSU - 9
New Mexico - 7
Wyoming - 4
UNLV - 4
Air Force - none (?)

WAC
Boise St - 9

http://espn.go.com/nfl/college

[East2Westback]

Originally Posted by cololi

Nah, I'd refer to Wyoming's 2004 bowl victory over UCLA. We aren't talking basketball, so whatever Duke does on the court is irrelevant to what they do in football. The MWC has teams that suck at football but accel at other sports. Seriously, comparing the bottom dwellers is lame. Every conference has a team with losing records. I am not saying that the bottom of the MWC or WAC are the same as the bottom of the ACC or SEC or any other conference. But the evidence is there that they can at least compete when they do play. There will always be discrepencies between conferences. Does it really matter if there are perennial losers or teams that are mostly losers but put together a good season every 5-10 years like WSU? I think the MWC gets much more respect because the top of the conference is consistent and strong than it would if it was constantly revolving with different teams.

It is a huge disadvantage to be a non AQ school. That goes without saying. The biggest disadvantage is money and athletic budgets. You want to know why SDSU has had such a huge issue since the days of Marshall Falk? It has nothing to do with quality of players and everything to do with their operating budget. They have poor facilities, which makes it insanely difficult to recruit. The athletic dept carries a huge debt, so much so that it is bringing down other academic budgets. The biggest drain is playing at Qualcom. It costs a ton of money to operate that stadium and when it has 15,000 people in it, it is an overall drain. Of course it is a chicken and an egg type of thing, if they start winning, they start getting more fans. But, They routinely put players in the NFL. I think in the early part of this decade they had more NFL players than any other MWC team but had the third worst overall record. the issue obviously isn't talent.

You just proved my point... They cannot recruit...their facilities are too expensive...they only average 15,000...This is total small time... DII scools average more.

Wyoming beating UCLA is no longer a big deal. Not only that, the game you mention is 5 F'ing yeas ago and it was not a big deal then.

I am sorry, there is no way you can protect the dogs of the MWC. I am surprised...really surprised that anyone defends the boat anchors of the conference.

Would I like all of them to step up and play like teams that represent nationally? Absolutely! Do they? They are door mats.

The Wyoming beating Tennessee in their most down year does not mean squat!

What is everyone defending? The Utes have totally seperated. What is this the Mountain area lovefest even if teams suck?

Wow, the only area that does not relegate the dogs to DII and move on.

That said, at least 3 teams...CSU, SDSU and UNLV could actually do something but they have had a decade to do it.

What is every one defending? You can also get off the WASU exampe. They were good and because of where they are they have all the opportunities and fan base to be so again. Wyoming etc forget it.

[East2Westback]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

Former MWC players currently in the NFL

SDSU - 16
Utah - 16
BYU - 13
TCU - 12
CSU - 9
New Mexico - 7
Wyoming - 4
UNLV - 4
Air Force - none (?)

WAC
Boise St - 9

http://espn.go.com/nfl/college

Former NFL players...hmmm...there is no question that there are stud players.

We are not in the NFL...we are here to show terrific NCAA DI football.

Man, Grambling State has a ton of NFL players...get a clue!

[Ronald-Dregan]

I don't think you read his post right. The info clearly stats CURRENT NFL players formally from MWC. Just saying.

[Wasatch_One]

That list is not former NFL players, it is current NFL players that have played in the MWC.

I am proving Cololi's point. SDSU is getting the athletes, they just need good coaching to pull it together, however, a good coach these days costs.

[East2Westback]

What Duke does in basketball outweighs everything but an NC in football...oh yeah the Blue Devils get NC's in hoops every few years. That pays the way.

I am sorry, a 5 year old win over an a slightly above average UCLA team does not really qualify as to the direction that the really good MWC schools are moving.

When you say "Does it really matter if there are perennial losers or teams that are mostly losers but put together a good season every 5-10 years like WSU?" Uhhh...yeah when basically WSU can be good and the majority of the conference are damn good.

Let me know when UNLV is good...SDSU pulls its head out of its a.. Wyoming actually starts winning...hell, when any of the lowest 5 teams actually does anything. Basically Utah, BY High, TCU and Air Force represent.

Originally Posted by cololi

Nah, I'd refer to Wyoming's 2004 bowl victory over UCLA. We aren't talking basketball, so whatever Duke does on the court is irrelevant to what they do in football. The MWC has teams that suck at football but accel at other sports. Seriously, comparing the bottom dwellers is lame. Every conference has a team with losing records. I am not saying that the bottom of the MWC or WAC are the same as the bottom of the ACC or SEC or any other conference. But the evidence is there that they can at least compete when they do play. There will always be discrepencies between conferences. Does it really matter if there are perennial losers or teams that are mostly losers but put together a good season every 5-10 years like WSU? I think the MWC gets much more respect because the top of the conference is consistent and strong than it would if it was constantly revolving with different teams.

It is a huge disadvantage to be a non AQ school. That goes without saying. The biggest disadvantage is money and athletic budgets. You want to know why SDSU has had such a huge issue since the days of Marshall Falk? It has nothing to do with quality of players and everything to do with their operating budget. They have poor facilities, which makes it insanely difficult to recruit. The athletic dept carries a huge debt, so much so that it is bringing down other academic budgets. The biggest drain is playing at Qualcom. It costs a ton of money to operate that stadium and when it has 15,000 people in it, it is an overall drain. Of course it is a chicken and an egg type of thing, if they start winning, they start getting more fans. But, They routinely put players in the NFL. I think in the early part of this decade they had more NFL players than any other MWC team but had the third worst overall record. the issue obviously isn't talent.

[Wasatch_One]

Originally Posted by East2Westback

What Duke does in basketball outweighs everything but an NC in football...oh yeah the Blue Devils get NC's in hoops every few years. That pays the way.

I am sorry, a 5 year old win over an a slightly above average UCLA team does not really qualify as to the direction that the really good MWC schools are moving.

When you say "Does it really matter if there are perennial losers or teams that are mostly losers but put together a good season every 5-10 years like WSU?" Uhhh...yeah when basically WSU can be good and the majority of the conference are damn good.

Let me know when UNLV is good...SDSU pulls its head out of its a.. Wyoming actually starts winning...hell, when any of the lowest 5 teams actually does anything. Basically Utah, BY High, TCU and Air Force represent.

Utah just barely slipped out a win vs. Wyoming at Rice Eccles...

[East2Westback]

Originally Posted by Wasatch_One

Utah just barely slipped out a win vs. Wyoming at Rice Eccles...

Seriously any team in the DIA can play a close game against most teams. That is not the point. Uh...I am pretty sure that winning games is the main point. Teams like Utah, BY High and TCU especially do it in more than a big way.

Playing and winning is what makes teams separate. Playing a close game every so often is no longer the point. The season that SDSU, Wyoming, CSU, UNM (10years???what?) etc represent in a big way then I will not feel the have's and have not's.

The thing is that CSU is really close but never quite there. AF is a total plus. SDSU is in absolutely the right area to excel, UNM..what happened? I mean I can see one F up but multiple F ups is hard to believe.

Until then 4 teams in the MWC carry the entire weight of raising the quality of football. 4 out of 9 is not a good ratio.

[Wasatch_One]

All I have been saying is that SDSU and Wyoming are improving... I never said they were good... yet.

Given that both programs were practically winless last year, the turn around with both of their new coaches has been impressive.

I agree, SDSU SHOULD be one of the better teams given their recruiting pool. Wyoming, well... not so much, however, they seem to be doing something right in ol Laramie this year. I wouldnt be surprised if Wyoming ends 6-6.

[TonyAnderson]

Boise State playing tonight here in Logan against USU. What's interesting, is if Utah State wins, they lose money, because there will be no BCS for the WAC. I'll use that as the excuse if they do lose.

[wrendog]

Cougs win!!!!!!!! That was a great game. I'm glad I got a ticket!

Great season for both teams.

[ski_steve]

Congrats, It was a mostly good game, Wynn did get nervous at the end. Too bad some cant take a humbling loss, or win in this matter...

Max Hall post game interview:
"I don't like Utah. In fact, I hate them — I hate everything about them. I hate their program, I hate their fans. I hate everything. So it feels good to send those guys home. They didn't deserve it." said Hall.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...the-state.html

Wasn't it just last week the players of both teams said they wanted a "nicer rivalry?"

[TonyAnderson]

I'm not a BYU or Ute fan, but from some comments I've heard Hall make, he sounds like a real jerk.