August 16, 2008

Should the MWC expand?

This thread considers he benefit for the MWC should it choose to expand. The expansion considered involves three teams, Boise State, Fresno State and Houston. This would give the MWC TV markets in Houston and a larger fan base in California.

Why these teams:
Boise State has the inside track on any MWC expansion and owns the Idaho market.

While San Diego is significantly larger than Fresno, the Bulldogs carry a greater percent of their market and have a greater name nationally than SDSU. The argument is stronger with regards to San Jose State.

This would give six teams in the western division, Boise State, BYU, Fresno State, SDSU, UNLV and Utah. To be geographically aligned they would need another team for the eastern division. Tulsa and Houston both are good options but Houston brings more TV dollars. The eastern division would be Air Force, CSU, Houston, New Mexico, TCU and Wyoming.

While the scale may be tipped towards the western division at this time these things tend to balance out with time. Also remember the PAC 10 could expand and weaken the western division. Replacing BYU and Utah with Nevada and San Jose State balances these divisions nicely.

Why it makes sense:
12 teams for a championship game while expanding the California and Texas markets definitely show the money is there. A contract with CBS for the championship game would benefit the conference more than holding it on the mtn., like they do with the Holy War. The conference could easily pick up 2 bowl slots that followed the teams to their new conference.

The best reason to expand is that it could break the BCS glass ceiling. The MWC and to a lesser degree the WAC have recently challenged the BCS conferences while the ACC and to a lesser degree the Big East have recently struggled in the BCS. Adding these three teams could tip the scales for the MWC. By expanding preemptively the MWC could increase its chances of becoming a BCS conference before it is forced to respond to an expansion by the PAC 10.

Three benchmarks will be used here to measure the strength of these conferences. The first is the number of ten win teams in these conferences for the last three years. The second is the record of each conference against 10 win teams from other conferences for the last three years. The third is performance in BCS bowls of the teams each conference would have in this scenario. I use three years to avoid charges of homer bias by excluding Utah’s 2004 season.

10 win teams in the last three years:
ACC: 6 (BC, VT; WF, BC, VT; VT)
Big East: 6 (WV, Cincinnati; Louisville, Rutgers, WV; WV)
Expanded MWC: 7 (Boise State, BYU; Boise State, BYU, Houston, TCU; TCU )

Expanding this to 9 wins would give the ACC a slight lead. In this benchmark the expanded MWC is comparable to both the ACC and Big East.

Record against 10 win teams from other conferences:
ACC: 4-18
2006: BC vs Central Michigan, BC vs BYU, Miami (FL) vs Houston
2007: Virginia Tech vs West Virginia

Big East: 4-8
2007: USF vs UCF, WV vs Oklahoma
2006: Louisville vs Wake Forest
2005: WV vs Georgia

Expanded MWC: 3-20
2006: Boise State vs Oregon State, Boise State vs Hawaii, Boise State vs Oklahoma

When looking at games against top teams over the last three years the Big East is clearly the best of these three conferences. The ACC has a slight lead on the expanded MWC. It was an eye opener for me to see how the MWC has not played as well against top teams as I had thought. They need to play top BCS teams, not the middle of the pack to improve this benchmark. Boise State and Fresno State are already doing this.

All time BCS Performance:
Current ACC: 4-10 (2-4)
Current Big East: 3-3
Expanded MWC: 2-0

To catch up with the current ACC the expanded MWC would need to win 2 of its next 12 BCS games. At least one of the ACC's BCS games featured a game with two of its current members. FSU beat VT in the championship game. Removing this game one could argue the expanded MWC would need to win one out of four National Championship games to be as impressive as the ACC and win one of its next 10 BCS games.

The expanded MWC would need to win one of the next four to equal the Big East's performance. Any appearance in the championship game would be a level the Big East has not reached since the ACC expanded. Of note is Louisville's BCS win their first year in the Big East.

Bases on results of teams that actually have made it to the BCS the expanded MWC results are likely to be significantly better than both the ACC and Big East if the Expanded MWC were given an equal number of games.

Conclusion:
The benchmarks used demonstrate that expanding the MWC by adding Boise State, Fresno State and Houston would produce a conference very close in performance to the current level of both the ACC and Big East. Added TV markets, a championship game and increased bowl presence make such an expansion a lucrative proposition to the conference.

A natural conference division, using the Rocky Mountains, exists that maintains the best rivalry games. A back up plan exist for an eventual PAC 10 expansion, replacing the defectors with San Jose State and Nevada.

Indeed, if the expanded MWC became a BCS conference, would a spot as low man on the totem poll in the PAC 10 be as appealing to teams that are already the cream of the crop in a BCS member MWC?

So I ask, should the MWC expand?

Posted by Ben Prather

Comments:

Should the MWC expand?
This thread considers he benefit for the MWC should it choose to expand. The expansion considered involves three teams, Boise State, Fresno State and Houston. This would give the MWC TV markets in Houston and a larger fan base in California. Why these teams: Boise State has the inside track on any MWC expansion and owns the Idaho market. While San Diego is significantly larger than Fresno, the Bulldogs carry a greater percent of their market and have a greater name nationally than SDSU. The argument is stronger with regards to San Jose State. This would give six teams in the western division, Boise State, BYU, Fresno State, SDSU, UNLV and Utah. To be geographically aligned they would need another team for the eastern division. Tulsa and Houston both are good options but Houston brings more TV dollars. The eastern division would be Air Force, CSU, Houston, New Mexico, TCU and Wyoming. While the scale may be tipped towards the western division at this time these things tend to balance out with time. Also remember the PAC 10 could expand and weaken the western division. Replacing BYU and Utah with Nevada and San Jose State balances these divisions nicely. Why it makes sense: 12 teams for a championship game while expanding the California and Texas markets definitely show the money is there. A contract with CBS for the championship game would benefit the conference more than holding it on the mtn., like they do with the Holy War. The conference could easily pick up 2 bowl slots that followed the teams to their new conference. The best reason to expand is that it could break the BCS glass ceiling. The MWC and to a lesser degree the WAC have recently challenged the BCS conferences while the ACC and to a lesser degree the Big East have recently struggled in the BCS. Adding these three teams could tip the scales for the MWC. By expanding preemptively the MWC could increase its chances of becoming a BCS conference before it is forced to respond to an expansion by the PAC 10. Three benchmarks will be used here to measure the strength of these conferences. The first is the number of ten win teams in these conferences for the last three years. The second is the record of each conference against 10 win teams from other conferences for the last three years. The third is performance in BCS bowls of the teams each conference would have in this scenario. I use three years to avoid charges of homer bias by excluding Utah’s 2004 season. 10 win teams in the last three years: ACC: 6 (BC, VT; WF, BC, VT; VT) Big East: 6 (WV, Cincinnati; Louisville, Rutgers, WV; WV) Expanded MWC: 7 (Boise State, BYU; Boise State, BYU, Houston, TCU; TCU ) Expanding this to 9 wins would give the ACC a slight lead. In this benchmark the expanded MWC is comparable to both the ACC and Big East. Record against 10 win teams from other conferences: ACC: 4-18 2006: BC vs Central Michigan, BC vs BYU, Miami (FL) vs Houston 2007: Virginia Tech vs West Virginia Big East: 4-8 2007: USF vs UCF, WV vs Oklahoma 2006: Louisville vs Wake Forest 2005: WV vs Georgia Expanded MWC: 3-20 2006: Boise State vs Oregon State, Boise State vs Hawaii, Boise State vs Oklahoma When looking at games against top teams over the last three years the Big East is clearly the best of these three conferences. The ACC has a slight lead on the expanded MWC. It was an eye opener for me to see how the MWC has not played as well against top teams as I had thought. They need to play top BCS teams, not the middle of the pack to improve this benchmark. Boise State and Fresno State are already doing this. All time BCS Performance: Current ACC: 4-10 (2-4) Current Big East: 3-3 Expanded MWC: 2-0 To catch up with the current ACC the expanded MWC would need to win 2 of its next 12 BCS games. At least one of the ACC's BCS games featured a game with two of its current members. FSU beat VT in the championship game. Removing this game one could argue the expanded MWC would need to win one out of four National Championship games to be as impressive as the ACC and win one of its next 10 BCS games. The expanded MWC would need to win one of the next four to equal the Big East's performance. Any appearance in the championship game would be a level the Big East has not reached since the ACC expanded. Of note is Louisville's BCS win their first year in the Big East. Bases on results of teams that actually have made it to the BCS the expanded MWC results are likely to be significantly better than both the ACC and Big East if the Expanded MWC were given an equal number of games. Conclusion: The benchmarks used demonstrate that expanding the MWC by adding Boise State, Fresno State and Houston would produce a conference very close in performance to the current level of both the ACC and Big East. Added TV markets, a championship game and increased bowl presence make such an expansion a lucrative proposition to the conference. A natural conference division, using the Rocky Mountains, exists that maintains the best rivalry games. A back up plan exist for an eventual PAC 10 expansion, replacing the defectors with San Jose State and Nevada. Indeed, if the expanded MWC became a BCS conference, would a spot as low man on the totem poll in the PAC 10 be as appealing to teams that are already the cream of the crop in a BCS member MWC? So I ask, should the MWC expand?