Neverending Mountain West region college football thread

[Cirrus]

No offense, but as a CU fan I'm much happier with how things turned out.

But that would be a decent league, if it had to happen ;-)

[BoiseAirport]

Or perhaps, if Texas became independent and the Big 12 broke up last year:

1. Oklahoma
2. Oklahoma State
3. Colorado
4. Boise State (Imagine a BSU-Oklahoma yearly rivalry game, woot!)
5. TCU
6. Fresno State
-----------------
7. Nebraska
8. Iowa State
9. Kansas
10. Kansas State
11. Utah
12. BYU

Now THAT would be my perfect scenario.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by BoiseAirport

1. Oklahoma
2. Oklahoma State
3. Colorado
4. Boise State (Imagine a BSU-Oklahoma yearly rivalry game, woot!)
5. TCU
6. Fresno State

Or,

1. Arizona
2. Arizona State
3. UCLA
4. USC
5. Colorado
6. Utah

Yeah... I am still happier with how things turned out for CU too.

Your second scenario there... you would've kept much of the Big 12, but you would've separated Nebraska from Colorado and Oklahoma? What's that about? No love for old rivalries? (or just not familiar with them?)

Your first one..

1. Utah
2. BYU
3. Hawaii
4. Colorado
5. Colorado State
6. Air Force

Not bad, I could've lived with that. I do miss Hawaii... SoCal and Arizona will work, though.

[BoiseAirport]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Your second scenario there... you would've kept much of the Big 12, but you would've separated Nebraska from Colorado and Oklahoma? What's that about? No love for old rivalries? (or just not familiar with them?)

I tried to keep as many rivalries intact as I could, but more importantly I wanted to maintain a roughly equal competitive balance. I was afraid if I grouped Nebraska with Colorado and Oklahoma, it may become a little lopsided, though I suppose I could flip TCU or Boise State with Nebraska. Of course, it's me posting this, so I'm thinking about what I'd like to see not just as a cool conference, but also what would be cool for Boise State. I wanna see a yearly BSU-Oklahoma and a yearly BSU-TCU rivarly, so that would be my and only my perfect scenario.

[bunt_q]

Say what you will about the bowls. One need look no further than the money-driven nonsense that is the NCAA basketball tourney selection to see that a playoff would be no better at all... Doesn't matter who wins on the field if they don't let you play. Not hard for me to imagine the likes of a Virginia Commonwealth or UAB slipping into a football tourney for undisclosed reasons... No thanks, leave me the bowls.

[Brainpathology]

What I took this weekend to mean is that there is no reason whatever (unless you have a relative in college sports) to pay attention to any of it. Because you're absolutely right... be a fan of football, basketball, hockey, lacross, nerf golf, badmitton etc and the NCAA will find a way to screw you out of something your kids have worked their asses off for during the season. Look no further than the bowls, the brackets, anything you want.

College sports = rubbish in general. If the kids play because they love it or because it's a free college education (and by free I mean risking injury to help the NCAA make billions of course) then great for them. Will I watch CC, CU, UCLA or (g*d help me ugh) UCF when they do well and get into their respective tournaments from time to time (when the pros aren't playing, or spring training isn't being shown on TV, or I don't have a hangnail to pick at instead). Of course... but will I really care about them or ever donate a penny to any program during my career. Nope.

[BoiseAirport]

This was the first season I really got into College Basketball. I do have to admit, after reviewing both seasons, my playoff views have greatly changed since last year.

Here's how I'd structure the post-season, if I had total control:

Six-team playoff.
1 and 2 having first round byes. 3 vs. 6 on 3's home field. And 4 vs. 5 on 4's home field. So for instance:

First week:
#1 Auburn - bye
#2 Oregon - bye
#6 Ohio State at #3 TCU
#5 Stanford at #4 Wisconsin

Add a new post season poll ranking playoff teams. Say Stanford and TCU win:

#4 Stanford at #1 Auburn
#3 TCU at #2 Oregon

Winner of those two games advances to the national championship. Maybe... MAYBE... have the losers in the playoff play against each other in the next stages of the playoff. but maybe not...

Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Stanford, Wisconsin (or Oklahoma), Ohio State... those six last season could all have been legitimite national title contenders. The lower 2 have a much harder time advancing ahead on, meaning each individual ranking all still matter greatly, and there's still huge incentive to win every single game, and root for the other winners to lose so your team can get a better spot in the playoff.

Keep bowl format, but make some adjustments.

A lot of people think there are too many bowls. I disagree, I think they're great most importantly for the student-athletes, who should come first, but I also think some adjustments should be made.

Elite bowl games:

Rose Bowl
Fiesta Bowl
Sugar Bowl
Orange Bowl
Cotton Bowl
Maybe 1 or 2 more bowls, maybe not.

The rest would be as they are, but would be treated less like a reward and more like an extension of the regular season. Also, for the majority of the bowls, with a few exceptions (such as, perhaps, the Rose Bowl), I would end the conference tie-ins. There are so many post-season matchups that I would absolutely love to see, that weren't possible due to conference tie-ins. Maybe instead of conference vs. conference, the bowls should be, say, #10 vs. #11, #12 vs. #13, #14 vs. #15, etc. all the way through the top 25, and the rest are just whoever accepts the invites.

I dunno, I hope I made myself clear, but that's how I'd do it. For me, that's the best way of not only determining a unanimous national champion (not too unaminous, as there could be fun debates regarding who should've made the six-team playoff, and how the bowl teams were played), but also keeping the regular season as interesting

[Stenar]

U. will bond to pay for athletic center

Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51...donor.html.csp





The State Board of Regents signed off Friday on the University of Utah’s proposal to sell $20 million in bonds to finance the expansion of its Dee Glen Smith Athletic Center.

The U. had already won approval for the donor-funded project, but the school’s upcoming admission to the Pac 10 athletic conference created a need to expedite construction. The project is needed for sports medicine, training and dining facilities, according to the Regents’ resolution.

A donor stepped forward to cover the interest costs and officials hope more donors will be found to retire the debt. If insufficient donations surface, the bond will be covered by broadcast revenues that are expected to roll in once the Ute football teams start competing on a nationally televised stage, officials said.

—Brian Maffly

[bunt_q]

Cool. Feed them Utes well before the Buffs beat them.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Cool. Feed them Utes well before the Buffs beat them.

HAHA! Good luck with that.

[SLC Projects]

After last season's embarrassing letdown the Utes have alot of work to do if they want to be one of the best in the PAC-12. One of the top things they need to work on..............score more then just 3 freaking points per game.

But that was last season........moving on to a new and hopefully better season.

[Cirrus]

I don't think the Utes were any better than the Buffs last season, and I don't think they'll be any better next season either. However, I do think Utah will probably have a better first season in the Pac than CU, mainly be because their schedule is still about a million times easier.

Let's compare:

Utah's schedule:
Montana State
at USC
at BYU
Washington
Arizona State
at Pittsburgh
at California
Oregon State
at Arizona
UCLA
at Washington State
Colorado

Are you kidding? You completely skip Oregon and Stanford, the league's two best teams. Then you get Washington (3rd last year) and Oregon State (5th last year) at home. Utah only has 3 games against teams that finished in the top half of the Pac10 last year, and only one of them (USC) is away. Oh, and you get CU in Utah.

Utah was given the easiest Pac schedule possible, to ease them in to their first year.

Colorado's schedule:
at Hawaii
California (non-league game)
Colorado State
at Ohio State
Washington State
at Stanford
at Washington
Oregon
at Arizona State
USC
Arizona
at UCLA
at Utah

Oregon and Stanford both on the schedule, plus USC and Washington. And we travel to Utah. And instead of traveling to Pittsburgh to play the third best team in the Big East, we're going to Columbus to play Ohio State.

I'm not complaining, mind you. CU has a long and proud tradition of playing one of the country's hardest schedules year-in and year-out, and Utah deserves credit for pulling itself up to the big leagues. I'm simply pointing out that even if CU and Utah field teams next year that are exactly the same quality, CU will almost certainly finish with at least 3 more losses than Utah.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't think the Utes were any better than the Buffs last season, and I don't think they'll be any better next season either. However, I do think Utah will probably have a better first season in the Pac than CU, mainly be because their schedule is still about a million times easier.

Let's compare:

Utah's schedule:
Montana State
at USC
at BYU
Washington
Arizona State
at Pittsburgh
at California
Oregon State
at Arizona
UCLA
at Washington State
Colorado

Are you kidding? You completely skip Oregon and Stanford, the league's two best teams. Then you get Washington (3rd last year) and Oregon State (5th last year) at home. Utah only has 3 games against teams that finished in the top half of the Pac10 last year, and only one of them (USC) is away. Oh, and you get CU in Utah.

Utah was given the easiest Pac schedule possible, to ease them in to their first year.

Colorado's schedule:
at Hawaii
California (non-league game)
Colorado State
at Ohio State
Washington State
at Stanford
at Washington
Oregon
at Arizona State
USC
Arizona
at UCLA
at Utah

Oregon and Stanford both on the schedule, plus USC and Washington. And we travel to Utah. And instead of traveling to Pittsburgh to play the third best team in the Big East, we're going to Columbus to play Ohio State.

I'm not complaining, mind you. CU has a long and proud tradition of playing one of the country's hardest schedules year-in and year-out, and Utah deserves credit for pulling itself up to the big leagues. I'm simply pointing out that even if CU and Utah field teams next year that are exactly the same quality, CU will almost certainly finish with at least 3 more losses than Utah.

Going to Hawaii in September is no cakewalk either.

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by wrendog

That's a solid league. Too bad it wasn't able to happen.

Yeah, do not go to a very exciting conference with a history and future or join a group of teams that are either OK teams or teams that know they have been playing in a better conference for years.

Hilarious!

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

Yeah, do not go to a very exciting conference with a history and future or join a group of teams that are either OK teams or teams that know they have been playing in a better conference for years.

Hilarious!

??? What are you talking about? It would have been a solid league. As a BYU fan, I wish it would have happened. I don't begrudge Utah for going to the PAC 12. They absolutely should have done that.

[NYC Rick]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't think the Utes were any better than the Buffs last season, and I don't think they'll be any better next season either. However, I do think Utah will probably have a better first season in the Pac than CU, mainly be because their schedule is still about a million times easier.

Let's compare:

Utah's schedule:
Montana State
at USC
at BYU
Washington
Arizona State
at Pittsburgh
at California
Oregon State
at Arizona
UCLA
at Washington State
Colorado

Are you kidding? You completely skip Oregon and Stanford, the league's two best teams. Then you get Washington (3rd last year) and Oregon State (5th last year) at home. Utah only has 3 games against teams that finished in the top half of the Pac10 last year, and only one of them (USC) is away. Oh, and you get CU in Utah.

Utah was given the easiest Pac schedule possible, to ease them in to their first year.

Colorado's schedule:
at Hawaii
California (non-league game)
Colorado State
at Ohio State
Washington State
at Stanford
at Washington
Oregon
at Arizona State
USC
Arizona
at UCLA
at Utah

Oregon and Stanford both on the schedule, plus USC and Washington. And we travel to Utah. And instead of traveling to Pittsburgh to play the third best team in the Big East, we're going to Columbus to play Ohio State.

I'm not complaining, mind you. CU has a long and proud tradition of playing one of the country's hardest schedules year-in and year-out, and Utah deserves credit for pulling itself up to the big leagues. I'm simply pointing out that even if CU and Utah field teams next year that are exactly the same quality, CU will almost certainly finish with at least 3 more losses than Utah.

Colorado has not played well for years...it does not mean that could not kick a$$. Hawkins was a joke. CU hired him. Seriously, when was the last time they were good? 96?

Utah has been in 2 BCS bowl games in 6 years. Killing Pitt and pretty much taking Alabama apart. Now CU has done what?

It is not about CU or Utah it is about how these teams will grow. Utah has been on a higher plain than CU for years. That does not mean it will not switch. However, Utah is much more ready to take the PAC on.

In truth no one knows what to expect. F off!

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by wrendog

??? What are you talking about? It would have been a solid league. As a BYU fan, I wish it would have happened. I don't begrudge Utah for going to the PAC 12. They absolutely should have done that.

I pretty much agree with Rick. I wouldn't care to see Utah play those teams. Now if only we could drop BYU from our schedule.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I pretty much agree with Rick. I wouldn't care to see Utah play those teams. Now if only we could drop BYU from our schedule.

It's like you and Rick aren't reading a word I said. Oh well. Go Cougs!

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

Colorado has not played well for years...Seriously, when was the last time they were good? 96?

They went to a BCS bowl in 2001 and won the Big 12 north 4 times from 2001 to 2005. It is only since 2006 that they have been bad. But you're right, they have been bad in recent years.

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

Utah has been in 2 BCS bowl games in 6 years.

You may have noticed that I said "last season". I didn't say "three seasons ago" or "six seasons ago". Please check your calendar to refresh your memory about what "last season" means, then check Utah's results from last season to refresh your memory about what kind of team they fielded.

Utah's results from 2008 are as irrelevant to a discussion about the 2010 season as are CU's results from 2001.

Originally Posted by NYC Rick

F off!

If you tell me or anyone else to F off again - for any reason whatsoever - I will ban you. That is not an acceptable way to take part in discussion at SkyscraperPage.

Notice how my name is a different color? It means I'm a mod. Disagree with me all you want, but if I see you telling anyone to F off again you will be done here.

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If you tell me or anyone else to F off again - for any reason whatsoever - I will ban you. That is not an acceptable way to take part in discussion at SkyscraperPage.

Quoted for truth.