Okay, who are we kidding. The bottom of both leagues is terrible.

by rjohnson_jl on May 17, 2010 1:31 PM PDT

The Orlando Sentinel is ranking the 2010 FBS football teams from 120-1. In the bottom 15, only SJSU (114) has appeared so far for the WAC.

Neither of the Moustached teams are there yet from the WAC (NM State for their Mascot, and the Vandals for Robb Akey. Come to think of it, have you ever seen those two together at the same time...hmmm.... I'm just saying) The "milk the cow cheer" folks aren't there yet either. (Dumbest cheer ever....)

Anyway, WSU is representin' the PAC-10 solidly at 112. Vandals new slogan: "We own the Palouse!!!"

3 MWC teams are already in.

No. 110 UNLV

No. 109 New Mexico

No. 108 Colorado State

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2010/05/college-football-2010-rankings-no-106-ball-st.html

This isn't good for BSU's rumored nuptials with the Mountain West. Now, I fully expect New Mexico State, Idaho and Utah State will be appearing soon, but if they are in the 80's or even 90's, the bottom of the MWC looks pretty poor in comparison right now. Utes and Cougars may have their faith tested. Not that faith. Their faith that the MWC is far superior to the WAC.

I'm not saying BSU shouldn't jump if offered, but Broncos may get just as tired of UNLV, New Mexico and CSU as they are right now of NMSU, USU and SJSU. Broncos are tired of the Vandals as well, but that is just on general attitude and suckiness. The Harvard of the Palouse may have a problem with me making up words such as "suckiness", but it's my post, I can make up words if I want. See any Munson post on OBNUG for authority on that proposition.

If the Big 3 all stay, it's a good deal, even with the crappy TV contract, but if Broncos are left with the little 6, or even the little 6 plus 1 or 2, it's going to be a big letdown for Broncos.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | Add comment | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The Orlando Sentinel doesn't watch these teams and follow them

They have no right to rank Colorado State or UNLV in the 100s

UNLV is going all the way this year!

by rebelfan1 on May 17, 2010 5:43 PM PDT reply actions

agreed

I did a post on this Sunday and it is a shame that they have 3 sun belt teams and 3 MWC teams so far. Yes, New Mexico should be down there and I could argue CSU because of their 9 game losing streak. I would be fine with 80’s to 90’s for both. They are writing that to keep their content fresh.

That site is one of my favorites for College football but the early rankings are off. Also, if the bottom is so bad then how come the avg computer rankings which is used for the BCS has a huge disparity between the two leagues?

Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!

by Jeremy Mauss on May 17, 2010 6:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Because the top of the MWC has three teams

the Top of the WAC has 1 (2 when HI snuck in to the BCS).

The way I figure the MWC has 3 top 40 teams (UU, BYU, TCU) 5 41-90 teams (AF, WY, UNLV, CSU, SDSU) and 1 91-120 team (UNM). BYU and AF could both find themselves in either class but I split them based on how I think it will shake out.

The Wac has 2 top 40 teams (BSU, UNR), 3 41-90 teams (ID, FSU, HI) and 4 91-120 teams (LAT, NMSU, USU, SJSU). Although FSU could go either way, but they had some big losses so I’m knocking them down a grade.

I gave the bottom of the MWC a bit of extra credit because SDSU, CSU and UNLV should improve from last year. However all of them could all find themselves in the 91-120 range by December. The difference is not quite as big as you guys here would like to believe, but it’s certainly not as small as the WAC fans would like to believe. If you guys want to hang your hats on the BCS averages, than you can have it both ways and bitch about how the rankings are skewed to keep the MWC out.

by B Money on May 18, 2010 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions

CSU and SDSU have to be below 90.

UNM might have been the worst team in the country last year. The MWC at the top is significantly stronger. The bottom five in both leagues are not good, and we can’t pretend they are.

If any of the big 3 leave, or even 2 of the 3, BSU isn’t much better off, and is miles away from AQ status.

by rjohnson_jl on May 19, 2010 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions

But they're hundreds of miles away if they stay in the WAC...

and besides you, I’m the biggest WAC supporter on this site.

by B Money on May 19, 2010 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions

USU aggies come through at no. 105.

Good for them.

by rjohnson_jl on May 20, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions

high quality team

Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!

by Jeremy Mauss on May 20, 2010 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions

BCS Computer average

The only ranking that really matters.

Here are the results over 2008 and 2009.

WAC Boise St. 7
MWC TCU 7.83
MWC Utah 14.33
MWC BYU 16.75
MWC Air Force 49.25
WAC Nevada 54.83
WAC Fresno St. 54.83
WAC Hawaii 71.5
WAC LA Tech 78.75
MWC UNLV 80.25
MWC Wyoming 80.25
MWC CSU 81.58
WAC Idaho 91.92
WAC San Jose St. 93.17
WAC Utah St. 94.58
MWC New Mexico 100.17
MWC SDSU 102.67
WAC New Mexico St. 109.67

If you look as the bottom two teams from each conference it is close. With the bottom any other number the MWC leads fairly significantly in the average.

BCS Evolution -- Punctuating the Equilibrium - twitter

by utesfan100 on May 19, 2010 1:24 PM PDT reply actions

Actually, no.... the MWC does not lead significantly in the average of the bottom dwellers.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

The bottom five average for the WAC=93.62. Admittedly dreadful.

Bottom five average for the MWC= 88.98. Almost equally dreadful.

I would bet that 2009 bottom five averages for the WAC would be somewhat better, because Idaho was significantly better, and CSU was terrible last year. Idaho beat 2 MWC teams last year.

The last 2 years have been relatively bad years for Fresno. My point is that if the big 3 remain intact, BSU is significantly better off in the MWC. If 2 or 3 of the Big 3 leave though, BSU is only marginally better off, but they do scrape off the travel to La Tech and Hawaii, cutting travel costs.

They also don’t have to play the Vandals every year as a conference game and try to convince themselves that it is a big game.

by rjohnson_jl on May 19, 2010 2:17 PM PDT reply actions

Idaho

would not be considered at the bottom since they were good last year. Traditionally yes, but last year no.

Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!

by Jeremy Mauss on May 19, 2010 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Don't they get an extra home game if they travel to HI

I thought that was the NCAA’s way of cutting travel costs.

by B Money on May 19, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions

yes

anytime you play at Hawaii you have the option to play an extra home game to recoup costs

Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!

by Jeremy Mauss on May 19, 2010 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions

How many times do I have to show that it is very unlikely in this round of expansion for the MWC Big 3 to leave.

I’ve now left this sort of comment on 5 posts.

The Pac-10’s Commissioner Larry Scott has already said that the Pac-10 will have evaluated its expansion options by the end of the calender year… if the Pac-10 expands past September 1st, then the stats for whoever in the MWC choose stay in the MWC for the BCS evaluation period.

The Pac-10 also is in negotiations with the Big 12 in order to combine TV Deals. If that happens, all expansion ideas for the Pac-10 will be done with, period. Another thing that should keep the Pac-10 from expanding is the rule of a unanimous vote in order to expand… that means that if there is just one no vote from any school, then the Pac-10 does not expand.

Jeremy did a post a few months ago about the Pac-10 attemepting to change an NCAA Bylaw that forced a conference to have 12 teams and 2 divisions in order to have a championship game. If that is changed, then there would be no point in expanding, only more hands in the pot.

The Pac-10 should not expand and ruin the MWC unless all of that fails somehow before September 1st.

The Big 10 has already confirmed that their timeline for expansion is still 12-18 months. That obviously means that no trickle down effect will take an MWC team before September 1st either.

The Big 10 and Pac-10 have a very slight chance of expanding before September 1st.

The fact is, the MWC should be in good shape to not have some of the big 3 missing when the BCS Evaluation period ends. That means that Boise St. should realize that the chances that they will be in a better conference than the WAC if they accept.

Now i do agree with you that the MWC is only marginally ahead… in bottom dwellers! NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE BOTTOM DWELLERS. They care about the top of the league, in which there is no question that the MWC is better. Not to mention that even if BSU went to a stripped down MWC with maybe only one or two ranked opponents in conference, it is still more than what they would get in the WAC. Plus we had 5 teams go to bowl games last year and UNLV almost made it 6, how many teams did the WAC send? 4. Overall, the MWC is a better conference. At the top, the MWC is a better conference. At the bottom, the MWC is a better conference (slightly but they are better). It would not make sense for Boise State to stay in the WAC because they are afraid that they will be in a stripped down MWC that is better then the current WAC.

UNLV is going all the way this year!

by rebelfan1 on May 20, 2010 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Rebelfan1-

I have been dreaming about MWC membership since 2004, at least. My family members are all from MWC areas. My in-laws are all Utes and Cougars, and I grew up in Wyoming and my dad still lives there. I am really tired of the La Tech trips, of the New Mexico State and San Jose State ineptitude, and of having to be in the same conference with Vandals who are delusional and petty.

You have to admit, the TV contract is a pretty big deal. BSU will be on ESPN at least 6 times this year. They might put the OSU game on the ABC Saturday game of the week, at least in a regional format. If not, it will be a featured ESPN game.

The Mtn. has improved access a little bit, but against Wyoming 3 or 4 years ago, we didn’t know if the game was even available at a Sports bar until about 2 days before the game. That leaves an impression. It was completely unavailable on cable, dish or directtv.

I hope you are right and they will all stay. I hope you that the presidents will give an invite next month. If they don’t do it now, then a part of me can’t help but hope that the MWC gets cannibalized, and the WAC is trying to consider which teams from the leftover MWC they invite in to make a 12 team league. Karl Benson gets his ultimate revenge.

“Yes, SDSU, New Mexico and UNLV, we will consider you for membership. You will only get half revenue for five years. Oh, you don’t want to do that? Ok, Wyoming, CSU and Air Force, how about the same deal? Oh, neither one of you want to do that? OK, have fun with Montana (maybe), Portland State and Cal State Northridge.”

I am obviously biased and interested, but I really hope the MWC does it now, or I don’t think it will probably ever happen. I think the best of what’s left of the MWC will be having to make a decision on whether they can come back to the WAC.

I have posted before that if BSU could come in, and if the big 3 all stay, and if the bottom of the conference would man up, I think it is possible over a period of years for the MWC to be vying for a second BCS slot, with an undefeated team on one side, and a one loss to a tough team member on the other side. That would be awesome.

Cross your fingers for early June.

by rjohnson_jl on May 20, 2010 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Good

I got that wrong impression from that comment above.

UNLV is going all the way this year!

by rebelfan1 on May 20, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Excellent

The only reason I think BSU would not get invite is if Thompson feels the MWC can get in the BCS without them. I think that is a mistake, because the MWC needs to be proactive in case the Pac-10 wants Utah or if the Big XII gets raided and they need a few more teams and take a few from the MWC. Boise would bring in more money expand The Mtn access more through Idaho. It is a small growth but any growth is good.

The argument about the bottom of the league is accurate SO WHAT. However, if the MWC gets BCS status a ton of money would come their way and recruiting would improve over night, and UNLV or San Diego State could be like Cincinnati who left the CUSA for the Big East and look what they are doing now in just a few years.

Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!

by Jeremy Mauss on May 20, 2010 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions

La Tech 101, Wyoming 100

Well, at least misery loves company.

by rjohnson_jl on May 24, 2010 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions

That is outrageous that they put Wyoming at 100.

They return almost everyone on offense, including last year’s very impressive freshman QB and its not like they were horrible… They went to and won the New Mexico Bowl in stunning fashion.

This just goes to show that the Orlando Sentinel has no right to talk about Western Colleges.

UNLV is going all the way this year!

by rebelfan1 on May 25, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions

The MWC has several teams with over 220 returning starts.

Obviously, to get 22 players to 220 starts requires an average of 10 starts per starter. Now, several of these teams are replacing big pieces (Utah with 5 players to the NFL), but the returning starters for these 5 teams indicate a good chance of success for each of them:

1. UNLV:
Offense: 154
Defense: 180
TOTAL: 334

2. SDSU:
Offense: 183
Defense: 140
TOTAL: 323

3. TCU:
Offense: 185
Defense: 117
TOTAL: 302

4. Wyoming:
Offense: 131
Defense: 144
TOTAL: 275

5. Utah:
Offense: 144
Defense: 78
TOTAL: 222

I think UNLV should be much improved with new coaching, a better D, and some very good offensive talent (especially Payne). Wyoming should be better than last year, but their record might not show it (OOC includes Boise, Texas and Toledo along with SUU), TCU should be terrifyingly good, and I think Hoke has SDSU on the way to a bowl game (they should be 3-1 OOC winning against USU, NMSU, and Nicholls State, but losing to Missouri). Utah loses a lot of defense, but defense is rarely the problem at Utah.

CSU (218) and AF (216) are right near the line, so they might be okay:

5. CSU:
Offense: 90
Defense: 128
TOTAL: 218

6. AF:
Offense: 84 (all skill players, no line)
Defense: 132
TOTAL: 216

The last 2 teams have more to be concerned about:

BYU:
Offense: 105 (almost all line, plus Jacobson)
Defense: 70
TOTAL: 175

UNM:
Offense: 104
Defense: 61
TOTAL: 165

UNM really can’t get much worse, so I expect they’ll go 2-12 or 1-11 again. BYU might be in line to have their 4-year streak of double-digit wins broken this year, as they have no offensive talent returning to run or throw behind their very good OL, and their defense should take a big step backward. Losing Harvey was a big blow.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on May 25, 2010 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Wow

I didn’t know that UNLV’s returning starters have the most combined starts in the league. Doesn’t that make UNLV the most experienced team in the conference? If that is so, that is going to be key with Wisconsin and @West Virginia on the OOC schedule. This is another reason why I’m predicting UNLV to go to a bowl game this season (not a big one, probably one of the lower bowls).

UNLV is going all the way this year!

by rebelfan1 on May 25, 2010 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes, rebelfan1.

In fact, 334/22 players is an average of 15 starts per player. UNLV has a lot of experience this year, and I think Wisconsin could be upset. WV might be too talented, we’ll see, but Wisconsin is an average big 10 team and if Hauck has done his job, UNLV should be at least competitive in that game, plus UNM, CSU and BYU. Still not sure it’s 7 wins, but anything more than 4 is a step in the right direction.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on May 25, 2010 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Where did you get those stats?

How many starts does BSU have, with 21 of 22 starters back, and many of them that have played for 2 or 3 years already?

Sometimes returning players are a blessing, and sometimes they are not. If they can’t play, they can’t play. Experience is good, if coupled with talent.

by rjohnson_jl on May 25, 2010 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions

I have no idea about Boise

the MWC stats come from MWCboard.com. There is a poster there who goes through every roster for returning starters and the number of starts.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on May 26, 2010 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Philsteele.com

I think in his blog section has the returning starters per team.

Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!

by Jeremy Mauss on May 26, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions

I wouldn't trust Phil

He only counts last year’s starters, not total starts (except for OL). My numbers are solid, but if you want to know Boise’s numbers you’ll have to go through ncaa.org and count starts.

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on May 26, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions

AGREED

I know Wyoming is not GREAT but they won a bowl game and look to be better with Christensen getting his guys in his offense, plus the players were still learning the offense last year with a true frosh. I could see 60’s at the worst since they should be on track for a bowl game.

I like reading the Sentinel site because its football year round, but these rankings are a load of crap.

Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!

by Jeremy Mauss on May 25, 2010 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Survey says:

MWC average= 4 teams so far (106.75)

WAC average= 3 teams so far (106.67)

New Mexico State can’t be too far down the list. They certainly look like a triple digit team to me. I have great faith that Idaho and SDSU have to be coming soon as well.

Bottom five in each league= extreme ineptitudity. (like I said, I can make it up if I want to)

by rjohnson_jl on May 24, 2010 10:59 PM PDT reply actions

I knew NMSU would be here pretty soon.

No. 99. Wow. 8 of the bottom 21 are MWC or WAC teams.

Sure wish it could be like european soccer, and we combine the two leagues. The top 10 get to be in the big boy league, and the bottom 8 have to play each other. Every year or two, the top two of B league get to move up to the big boys table, and the bottom two of the A league has to move down. It would make for some keen competition.

by rjohnson_jl on May 25, 2010 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions