jaga97 wrote:

I don't mind the idea of Boise State in the MWC. Adding Fresno State and Nevada does nothing for the conference. If Boise State has been kicking the crap out of them, imagine what would happen to them in the MWC. Nevada is chicken to play us and wants no part of a better conference. I have respect for Fresno State and hope we play them in our out of conference schedule in the future.

I like your enthusiasm, but in reality, it wasn't that Nevada was "chicken to play us". It was the same issue we came up when we dropped LSU a few years back. We looked at our schedule and realized that we had been over-opitimistic in scheduling and had to dumb down the schedule a bit. So if you argue that Nevada was chicken to play us, the same can be said of BYU toward LSU and I don't believe that was the case as much as not wanting an additional loss when we already had a decent schedule.

My whole feeling on the subject about Boise is that I'd like to see them in a conference with BYU. I think they are more of a natural rival than any other MWC team other than Utah because of their proximation to Utah and the fact that there is a decent LDS population in that area.

I don't see a need to add another team to the MWC though because I don't think they would, bottom line, add money to the coffers. Maybe, but probably not. I just wish we could trash the whole BCS concept because in reality, we match up well all across the board with the schools of the MWC and in reality, if we are doing it right, because of BYU's LDS connection, we should always be on the top of the league. If we go to a BCS conference, which I still would do in a heart beat, I don't think we would ever be a perennial champion like we can in the MWC. We'd be a team that probably would always qualify for a bowl game and occasionally have a year that could produce a championship, but we'd never be dominant like we have been lately in the MWC and the way we were in the WAC.

It's an interesting thought if life would be better coming in 2-4 about 80-90% of the time in the Pac-10 or Big 12 as opposed to being 1st 80-90% of the time in the MWC. I think most of us are sold on the idea that it would be better in a higher level conference just because of the prestige of it, but I don't remember it being fun when BYU suddenly was not on top of the MWC as they had been the first year and all those years in the WAC.

I mean, do you really think that Arizona, if they were still in the WAC, or they had come with us to the MWC, that they wouldn't have been in a bowl game every year over this last decade? They would have been competing for the championship most years and probably would have qualified every single year. Is it better that they are in the Pac-10 and have been to very few bowl games over the last decade?

It will be interesting to see if Boise State can maintain the success they have had over the last decade. It really has been incredible and I'm not sure if I can actually put a finger on what makes them stand out above all the other schools their size in the west.

Mars wrote:

This year, they won the WAC in BOTH Men's and Women's Basketball.

I agree with your overall point, but will quibble with men's basketball. They beat us, so maybe that's enough said, but with their loss last night, and the games coming up Saturday, they are likely to be in a four-way tie for the best record in the conference, with USU, NMSU, and Nevada, and won't be the one seed for the WAC tournament. Sort of a weak way to 'win' the WAC, particularly since every other team in the conference has a losing record.

One other thing, competitively it makes sense for BSU to be part of the MWC, but I still havent' gotten over the way they kept pouring it on in their win at LES. I know, it was two coaches ago and several years, get over it, but I haven't yet and have something in the pit of my stomach that says payback, don't let them in.

I really don't get how BSU is a natural rival for BYU. BSU has been a D1 program only since they joined the WAC. Before that, they were another Weber State, only more successful. I'd say Weber, UVSC, and SUU are more natural rivals to BYU than Boise St. Utah St. has a much better relationship with BYU than BSU ever will. Further, BSU actually has stronger rivalries with Oregon St. and Oregon because of proximity.

Wyoming, love em or hate em, has been a long time rival of BYU going back 70+ years. I ain't a Wyoming fan, but I am not ready to cut them loose just because they've not been as competitive the past few years as they have been at times in the past.

BSU doesn't add anything to the MWC that the MWC doesn't already have. BSU is a weak state college academically and is weaker in other sports than the average MWC school. The fact they dominate the WAC speaks more for the WAC than it does for BSU. I admire that BSU is trying to improve their program any way possible and in time, they will likely be part of the MWC. At that time, however, the MWC will either have become a BCS conference or BYU will have moved on to another BCS conference.

Until the BCS tells the MWC to add BSU to gain entry as a BCS conference, there is no reason to add BSU to the MWC. Further, with the 4 game series BYU and BSU signed to play each other in the next 4 years, BYU gets to prove once and for all that they are the King of the Mountain among the MWC and WAC teams.

CougarPeasant wrote:

I really don't get how BSU is a natural rival for BYU. BSU has been a D1 program only since they joined the WAC. Before that, they were another Weber State, only more successful. I'd say Weber, UVSC, and SUU are more natural rivals to BYU than Boise St. Utah St. has a much better relationship with BYU than BSU ever will. Further, BSU actually has stronger rivalries with Oregon St. and Oregon because of proximity.

Wyoming, love em or hate em, has been a long time rival of BYU going back 70+ years. I ain't a Wyoming fan, but I am not ready to cut them loose just because they've not been as competitive the past few years as they have been at times in the past.

BSU doesn't add anything to the MWC that the MWC doesn't already have. BSU is a weak state college academically and is weaker in other sports than the average MWC school. The fact they dominate the WAC speaks more for the WAC than it does for BSU. I admire that BSU is trying to improve their program any way possible and in time, they will likely be part of the MWC. At that time, however, the MWC will either have become a BCS conference or BYU will have moved on to another BCS conference.

Until the BCS tells the MWC to add BSU to gain entry as a BCS conference, there is no reason to add BSU to the MWC. Further, with the 4 game series BYU and BSU signed to play each other in the next 4 years, BYU gets to prove once and for all that they are the King of the Mountain among the MWC and WAC teams.

UVSC is a rival school because they keep stealing all the hot chicks that don't quite have the GPAs to make it into the Y anymore

CougarPeasant wrote:

I really don't get how BSU is a natural rival for BYU.

Next state over....want to beat us because we're BYU....has a lot of LDS people there and about that are LDS and don't like BYU because either their kid didn't get in or they don't like BYU because they are BYU (something that happens a lot in different parts of Utah).

Rivalries seem to exist most according to proximity (Utah/BYU, NC/NCS, Duke/NC, OSU/Michigan, OSU/ORE, WA/WSU, TX/OU, OSU/OU, etc.). Usually schools in states next to you geographically end up being rivals, howbeit on a lower tier because most schools have one MAJOR rival.

I have two BSU alums in my department in SLC that hate BYU and love to see us play them. Having been up there to a game, it feels like a rivalry of a lower tier (Wyoming or USU caliber).

Just my opinion