SB Nation - Colorado St. Rams

If College Football Had a Playoff: #14 Central Michigan Chippewas @ #3 Cincinnati Bearcats

Jeremy Mauss — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:00:34 -0000

More photos » by Tom Uhlman - ASSOCIATED PRESS

Before we get to game the next game the previous matchup of Boise State vs. Virginia Tech came down to the end with the second upset of the playoff with Virginia Tech gathering their troops to defeat Boise State.

This last game of the first round features MAC champion Central Michigan facing off against Big East champ Cincinnati. This game will see a lot of fireworks since both teams will be looking to throw the ball a lot, and with not much defense being played a combined score above sixty should be expected. This would not be a push over win for Cincy.

Using the simulator What if Sports the projected final outcome would be 55-38 in favor of the Bearcats. Not an unexpected outcome since Cincy allows a lot of teams to score points. Both quarterbacks would have very good days but throwing for multiple scores, but the difference came down to Cincinnati being able to run the ball on the Chips.

Now it is time for the fan vote to decide who moves on, yes that is you. Check back daily at 12 PM eastern time to vote for the next matchup, and voting is only for 24 hours. As they say in Chicago vote early and vote often.

Central Michigan Stats

Passing

		Passing									Rushing					Sacks
	G	Rating	Comp	Att	Pct	Yds	Y/G	Y/A	TD	INT	Rush	Yds	Y/G	Avg	TD	Sack	YdsL
Dan LeFevour	13	103.0	285	400	71.3	3043	234.1	7.6	27	6	175	702	54	4	14	-	-
Ryan Radcliff	5	30.0	10	21	47.6	115	23	5.5	0	2	6	48	9.6	8	1	-	-

Rushing

		Rushing					Receiving
	G	Rush	Yds	Y/G	Avg	TD	Rec	Yds	Y/G	Avg	TD
Antonio Brown	13	40	328	25.2	8.2	2	97	1020	78.5	10.5	9
Paris Cotton	8	58	220	27.5	3.8	1	8	77	9.6	9.6	1
James Falls	0	3	13	0	4.3	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dan LeFevour	13	175	702	54	4	14	1	24	1.8	24	0
Tim Phillips	4	10	57	14.3	5.7	1	3	25	6.3	8.3	0
Ryan Radcliff	5	6	48	9.6	8	1	0	0	0	0	0
Bryan Schroeder	10	87	486	48.6	5.6	5	31	270	27	8.7	3
Carl Volny	9	81	388	43.1	4.8	3	7	54	6	7.7	0

Receiving

		Receiving
	G	Rec	Yds	Y/G	AVG	TD
Bryan Anderson	13	57	700	53.8	12.3	6
David Blackburn	9	11	109	12.1	9.9	2
Antonio Brown	13	97	1020	78.5	10.5	9
Paris Cotton	8	8	77	9.6	9.6	1
Jerry Harris	2	2	13	6.5	6.5	0
Ronnie Kennedy	2	3	14	7	4.7	0
Tim Phillips	4	3	25	6.3	8.3	0
Kito Poblah	13	50	631	48.5	12.6	4
Bryan Schroeder	10	31	270	27	8.7	3
Sean Skergan	3	3	25	8.3	8.3	0
Carl Volny	9	7	54	6	7.7	0
Cody Wilson	9	20	186	20.7	9.3	2
Jeremy Wilson	1	1	10	10	10	0

Kicking

		Field Goals								PAT
	G	0-19	20-29	30-39	40-49	50+	FGM	FGA	PCT	XPM	XPA	PCT	pts
Andrew Aguila	13	-	-	-	-	-	12	17	70.0%	52	54	100.0%	88

Cincinnati Stats

Passing

		Passing									Rushing					Sacks
	G	Rating	Comp	Att	Pct	Yds	Y/G	Y/A	TD	INT	Rush	Yds	Y/G	Avg	TD	Sack	YdsL
Chazz Anderson	3	80.0	5	6	83.3	33	11	5.5	0	0	8	27	9	3.4	0	-	-
Zach Collaros	9	113.0	93	124	75	1434	159.3	11.6	10	2	57	344	38.2	6	4	-	-
Brendon Kay	2	100.0	2	2	100	27	13.5	13.5	0	0	4	24	12	6	0	-	-
Travis Kelce	3	0.0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	24	8	4.8	2	-	-
Tony Pike	9	93.0	184	293	62.8	2350	261.1	8	26	6	24	18	2	.800	2	-	-

Rushing

		Rushing					Receiving
	G	Rush	Yds	Y/G	Avg	TD	Rec	Yds	Y/G	Avg	TD
Chazz Anderson	3	8	27	9	3.4	0	0	0	0	0	0
Zach Collaros	9	57	344	38.2	6	4	0	0	0	0	0
Mardy Gilyard	12	5	16	1.3	3.2	1	80	1150	95.8	14.4	11
John Goebel	2	11	33	16.5	3	0	1	11	5.5	11	0
Quentin Hines	1	2	5	5	2.5	0	0	0	0	0	0
Scott Johnson	1	2	35	35	17.5	1	0	0	0	0	0
Brendon Kay	2	4	24	12	6	0	0	0	0	0	0
Travis Kelce	3	5	24	8	4.8	2	1	3	1	3	0
Isaiah Pead	12	114	765	63.8	6.7	9	19	194	16.2	10.2	2
Tony Pike	9	24	18	2	.800	2	0	0	0	0	0
Jacob Ramsey	10	68	421	42.1	6.2	4	16	129	12.9	8.1	2
Darrin Williams	7	16	42	6	2.6	0	4	14	2	3.5	0
George Winn	1	5	12	12	2.4	0	1	19	19	19	0

Receiving

		Receiving
	G	Rec	Yds	Y/G	AVG	TD
Kazeem Alli	6	11	150	25	13.6	1
Marcus Barnett	4	10	95	23.8	9.5	1
Armon Binns	12	56	859	71.6	15.3	10
Mardy Gilyard	12	80	1150	95.8	14.4	11
John Goebel	2	1	11	5.5	11	0
Ben Guidugli	10	22	342	34.2	15.5	3
Jamar Howard	2	3	50	25	16.7	0
Charley Howard	3	2	52	17.3	26	1
Lynell Payne	1	1	8	8	8	0
Isaiah Pead	12	19	194	16.2	10.2	2
Jacob Ramsey	10	16	129	12.9	8.1	2
Adrien Robinson	6	10	174	29	17.4	1
Darrin Williams	7	4	14	2	3.5	0
George Winn	1	1	19	19	19	0
D.J. Woods	11	47	594	54	12.6	4

Kicking

		Field Goals								PAT
	G	0-19	20-29	30-39	40-49	50+	FGM	FGA	PCT	XPM	XPA	PCT	pts
Jake Rogers	12	-	-	-	-	-	12	18	70.0%	60	62	100.0%	96

Poll

Who wins?

Central Michigan

16 votes

Cincinnati

48 votes

64 votes | Poll has closed

Know Your Braggin' Rights Rival: Illinois

Bill C. — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:00:29 -0000

by STEPHEN HAAS - AP

Mike Davis is Illinois' best all-around player. (AP Photo/Stephen Haas)

View full size photo »

There must be something wrong with me. I know Mizzou can win this game, and I know a win tomorrow night would give this season a significant bump in the right direction. But when I think of the Illinois game, two major thoughts come to mind:

We're probably going to lose. It's what we do in this game. (And as long as we keep winning the football game, I see this as a fair trade.)
As long as we show improvement, moving the ball relatively well on offense and showing that we've improved on the boards, I'm more or less okay with that.

Here's the problem: every time I've ever decided I've come to grips with a loss beforehand, we end up losing in the most annoying, grating way possible. AJ blocks a shot right to Brian Boddicker for an open 3 against Texas in 2004. Kansas makes two ridiculously stupid 25-foot 3-pointers to win at Hearnes in 2003. Keon Lawrence slips and dribbles the ball off his foot against Illinois in 2007. Et cetera. So now that I've officially accepted that we're probably going to lose this game ... I'm fired up about not losing this game.

Illinois 8-3

	UI	Opp
Points Per Minute	1.97	1.63
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.15	0.95
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.29	1.11
2-PT FG%	52.8%	47.1%
3-PT FG%	38.6%	27.9%
FT%	73.0%	70.8%
True Shooting %	57.3%	49.2%

	UI	Opp
Assists/Gm	17.5	11.5
Steals/Gm	6.1	6.1
Turnovers/Gm	11.7	14.3
Ball Control Index (Assists + Steals) / TO	2.01	1.24

	UI	Opp
Expected Offensive Rebounds	131	144
Offensive Rebounds	125	123
Difference	-6	-21

Ken Pomeroy Stats

UI Offense vs MU Defense Ranks
	UI Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	38	13	MU
Effective FG%	34	11	MU
Turnover %	22	2	MU
Off. Reb. %	122	268	Illini Big
FTA/FGA	321	185	MU Big
MU Offense vs UI Defense Ranks
	MU Offense	UI Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	58	101	MU
Effective FG%	48	73	MU
Turnover %	73	198	MU Big
Off. Reb. %	86	50	Illini
FTA/FGA	313	59	Illini Big

Where the Illini are best

In all, Illinois is a pretty damn efficient offensive team. They shoot well (57.3% true shooting), they don't turn the ball over much (outside of Demetri McCamey), their BCI hovers right at a lovely 2.0, and they are perfectly acceptable in the offensive rebounding category; they're only okay in the rebounds department considering their overall size (six guys 6'9 or taller), but they're still better than Mizzou by all means.

Where the Illini are weakest

First of all, they don't get to the line any better than Mizzou does -- this game could be decided by long jumpers and offensive rebound opportunities. Plus, while they're strong in terms of FG% defense, they don't force too many turnovers.

UI's Season to Date

@Illinois 96, SIU-Edwardsville 69 (W)
@Illinois 80, Northern Illinois 61 (W)
Las Vegas Invitational
@Illinois 94, Presbyterian 48 (W)
@Illinois 78, Wofford 64 (W)
Utah 60, Illinois 58 (in Las Vegas) (L)
Bradley 72, Illinois 68 (in Las Vegas) (L)
Illinois 76, @Clemson 74 (W)
@Illinois 84, Boise State 77 (W)
@Illinois 79, Vanderbilt 68 (W)
@Illinois 88, Western Michigan 53 (W)
@Georgia 70, Illinois 67 (L)

Looking at both Mizzou's and Illinois' results this year, one thing most certainly stands out: these are two young teams. Illinois pulls off an astounding comeback to win in Clemson ... right after losing to an iffy Bradley team and a downright bad Utah team. They pull away from Vanderbilt in a big win ... then lose to Georgia. They have been outstanding (5-0) at home this season, but away from Assembly Hall, things get relatively dicey (3-3). Sounds familiar, right? Mizzou's average win at home this season is by a margin of roughly eleventy-billion-point-one. Away from Mizzou Arena, they're capable of losing to Oral Roberts. This makes this game extremely tough to predict.

Illinois Player Stats

College Basketball

Player	*AdjGS/Gm**	GmSc/Min	Line
Mike Davis (6'9, 220, Jr.)	14.1	0.46	30.5 MPG, 12.5 PPG, 9.5 RPG, 1.2 APG
Demetri McCamey (6'3, 200, Jr.)	13.1	0.47	27.6 MPG, 14.2 PPG, 5.5 APG, 3.0 RPG, 1.6 SPG, 3.7 TOPG
Mike Tisdale (7'1, 235, Jr.)	11.8	0.50	23.4 MPG, 10.8 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 2.1 BPG
D.J. Richardson (6'2, 185, Fr.)	9.9	0.34	29.4 MPG, 10.8 PPG, 3.0 APG, 2.3 RPG
Brandon Paul (6'4, 195, Fr.)	8.3	0.37	22.3 MPG, 10.4 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 1.9 APG, 1.7 TOPG
Dominique Keller (6'7, 230, Sr.)	6.7	0.45	15.1 MPG, 7.0 PPG, 2.9 RPG
Bill Cole (6'9, 215, Jr.)	4.1	0.27	15.2 MPG, 3.5 PPG, 3.3 RPG
Tyler Griffey (6'9, 225, Fr.)	3.9	0.48	8.1 MPG, 3.5 PPG, 2.1 RPG
Jeff Jordan (6'1, 185, Jr.)	3.0	0.17	17.6 MPG, 2.3 PPG, 2.4 APG, 2.2 RPG
Richard Semrau (6'10, 245, Jr.)	2.8	0.44	6.2 MPG, 2.1 PPG, 2.0 RPG
Alex Legion (6'5, 200, Jr.)	1.5	0.15	10.4 MPG, 3.0 PPG
Stan Simpson (6'10, 230, Fr.)	0.6	0.19	12 minutes
Bubba Chisholm (5'11, 180, Sr.)	0.5	0.38	8 minutes

* AdjGS = a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It redistributes a team's points based not only on points scored, but also by giving credit for assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls. It is a stat intended to determine who had the biggest overall impact on the game itself, instead of just how many balls a player put through a basket.

Stats from the last two Mizzou-Illinois games:
Demetri McCamey: 28.0 MPG, 12.0 PPG (9-for-14 FG, 4-for-7 3PT), 3.0 APG, 3.0 TOPG
Mike Davis: 25.0 MPG, 9.5 PPG (8-for-13 FG), 5.0 RPG
Mike Tisdale: 13.0 MPG, 6.5 PPG (6-for-11 FG), 4.0 RPG

McCamey murdered Mizzou last year, with 18 first-half points (including, if I remember correctly, at least one bank-shot 3...always a tell-tale sign that you're about to get massacred), so he's clearly the player Mizzou fans fear the most. Knowing Mizzou's current strengths and weaknesses, however, Davis and Tisdale are almost as worrisome.
In all, Mizzou's best opportunity might come from the fact that two of UI's primary ball-handlers are freshmen. That lack of experience is offset a bit by McCamey and the fact that he has had a primary role in two Braggin' Rights games now, but he's a bit of a turnover machine himself. Even though Illinois has put together some solid turnover numbers, if Mizzou can avoid getting shot out of the building like they were last year, they might eventually be able to wear down the Illini backcourt. But that whole "avoid getting your doors blown off early" thing is a bit up in the air.
If Mizzou does derive a bit of an advantage in the backcourt, it is offset by Illinois' extreme depth advantage up front. I like that Davis is only 220 pounds, roughly the same as Laurence Bowers and Keith Ramsey, but Tisdale is a bit of a load, and they have a wealth of other tall guys -- Dominique Keller, Bill Cole, former Mizzou recruit Tyler Griffey, Richard Semrau -- to throw at Mizzou.

And just in case any Illinois fans end up reading this, here are Mizzou's own player stats as well.

Mizzou Player Stats

NCAA Basketball

Player	*AdjGS/Gm**	GmSc/Min	Line
Laurence Bowers (6'8, 205, So.)	13.3	0.67	19.8 MPG, 10.2 PPG, 5.6 RPG, 1.7 BPG, 1.5 APG, 1.3 SPG
Kim English (6'6, 200, So.)	12.4	0.56	22.1 MPG, 16.1 PPG, 3.1 RPG, 2.0 SPG, 1.4 APG, 2.1 TOPG
Zaire Taylor (6'4, 189, Sr.)	11.1	0.40	27.8 MPG, 9.0 PPG, 3.1 APG, 3.1 RPG, 2.8 SPG
Marcus Denmon (6'3, 185, So.)	9.2	0.46	20.1 MPG, 10.5 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 1.2 APG, 1.2 SPG
Keith Ramsey (6'9, 210, Sr.)	9.2	0.36	25.4 MPG, 5.9 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 2.1 SPG, 1.7 APG, 1.3 BPG, 1.7 TOPG
J.T. Tiller (6'3, 200, Sr.)	7.0	0.30	23.3 MPG, 9.6 PPG, 2.9 APG, 2.3 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 2.4 TOPG
Mike Dixon (6'1, 175, Fr.)	6.9	0.38	18.1 MPG, 8.2 PPG, 2.8 APG, 1.6 RPG
Justin Safford (6'8, 230, Jr.)	6.2	0.34	18.4 MPG, 7.6 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 1.2 APG, 1.5 TOPG
Miguel Paul (6'1, 172, So.)	4.4	0.31	14.0 MPG, 4.2 PPG, 2.6 APG
John Underwood (6'9, 208, Fr.)	1.9	0.30	6.3 MPG, 1.3 PPG, 2.8 RPG
Tyler Stone (6'7, 225, Fr.)	1.5	0.34	4.3 MPG, 1.7 PPG, 1.2 RPG
Steve Moore (6'9, 264, So.)	1.3	0.12	11.0 MPG, 1.6 PPG, 1.4 RPG
Jarrett Sutton (6'3, 190, Jr.)	0.6	0.16	4.0 MPG, 1.8 PPG

In some ways, Bowers and Mike Davis are similar players -- not prominent shooters (they score, but they don't take a boatload of shots), solid rebounders (Davis is better), solid passers (Bowers is better). Bowers is the ultimate box score filler, and as we'll see soon enough, the more prominent he is, the better Mizzou gets.
It really is neat watching this defense in action -- no single player dominates in the steals department, but just about everybody snags at least one a game.

Keys to the Game

Pace. The main difference between last season's Mizzou squad and this season's (thus far) is the ability to force their will on their opponent. In almost every game last year, Mizzou was able to force opponents into playing much faster than they wanted, and while we've seen the same type of spurts this season, the spurts don't last nearly as long. While Mizzou prefers a pace well over 70 possessions a game, Old Dominion was able to keep things at a 65-possession pace. Richmond? 60. Oral Roberts? 61. Unacceptable.

Illinois plays at a reasonably fast clip, averaging about 68 possessions per game. With two freshmen and a turnover-heavy star, Illinois might be vulnerable to a faster pace if Mizzou can force them into it. If not, Mizzou's best opportunity for winning goes by the wayside.
Laurence Bowers. He is the key to Mizzou's offensive flow. Ball movement has been alright this year, but with only one person consistently trying to generate shots (Kim English), there hasn't been a lot of purpose to the ball movement. Guys like Bowers and Zaire Taylor will shoot it if they're wide open, but they're not looking to score or create. That has to change if Mizzou has any chance. Taylor has an excuse (he's the point guard, not the shooting guard), but it's time for Bowers to show what his ceiling is. He's done well in the last two cupcake games, taking plenty of shots, but most of them are still in the "putbacks and wide open looks" vein. Let's find out if that's all he is, or if there's a natural, 15 PPG scorer beneath the surface. He's a skinny guy, but he's a good FT shooter, and I want to see him taking a few more not-completely-open shots and driving. Maybe he can do it, and maybe he can't, but I want to find out.
Justin Safford. Can't say it enough: against a reasonably decent rebounding team Saturday night (UAPB), Safford was more aggressive on the boards than I've ever seen him. It was a breath of fresh air, and even if he picks up a couple over-aggressive fouls, I want to see the same level of intensity against Illinois. He is, by default, the biggest player in Mizzou's rotation, the only main contributor over 220 pounds (barely), and if he turns into a solid 6-7 RPG guy (he's averaged only 2.8 RPG against the "real" opponents on Mizzou's schedule so far), Mizzou's overall rebounding trouble just took a step in the right direction.

Prediction

Never bet against a streak, right? This isn't a great Illinois team -- like Mizzou, they are pretty young and vulnerable to falling asleep for minutes at a time. They have a high upside and pretty low downside, and if Mizzou brings the attack to them early, they could run away with this game. But that hasn't happened since 1999. It feels like odds are still in favor of the "McCamey gets hot early, Mizzou has some shots rim in and out and goes into a shell, and they're playing from behind all night" scenario. So I'm chickening out and going with Illinois 75, Mizzou 67. Mizzou absolutely can win this game, but they need to prove it.

Counting Down the Mountain West 2000's Decade Greatest Players: Honorable Mentions

Jeremy Mauss — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:04:15 -0000

Falling for peer pressure here with nearly every site doing decade best this and that, so we decided to get together as a staff and put together the Mountain West best of the decade. This will last about six weeks (yes we will torture you with slow methodical post) just trying to spread the football stuff out as long as possible. The categories are best player, best team, and games of the decade. Today we start the countdown of players of the decade with a handful of guys who just missed the list and these are in no order.

Louie Sakoda K/P Utah Utes 2005-2008

Clutch kicker and punter for the Utah Utes, and was a key cog to their 2008 Sugar Bowl run. Only reason not on the top 10, he is a kicker with multiple game winning kicks in his career. Below are his accolades.

2007 Rivals.com first team All-American kicker
2007 SI.com second team All-American punter
2007 CBS Sports first team All-American punter and FWAA
2008 unanimous consensus first team All-American kicker (received the honor after being named to the AP,AFCA, FWAA, Sporting News, and the WCFF teams)

Dennis Pitta TE BYU Cougars (2004, 2007-2009)

Interesting fact about Pitta, he was a walk on as a wide receiver before getting a scholarship and moving to tight end. He will go down along the best of the best in BYU's great tight end history. Those absent years was when he served an LDS mission between 2005 and 2006.

2007 All-MWC first team
2008 All-MWC first team
2008 Rivals.com All-America third team
2008 College Football News All-America honorable mention
2008 Sports Illustrated All-America honorable mention
2009 AFCA All-America first team
2009 All-MWC first team
2009 Mackey Award finalist (runner up)
2009 unanimous consensus first team All-American kicker (received the honor after being named to the AP,AFCA, FWAA, Sporting News, and the WCFF teams)

Cory Rodgers WR/KR TCU Horned Frogs (2003-2005)

Only his 2005 year counts since that is the year TCU was in the Mountain West, but his year in the league was amazing as he had 12 total touchdowns. Of those 12 scores five were reeving and rushing while the other two were on returns. He averaged 30.3 yards per return on kickoffs and 15.3 yards per return on punts.

2005 All-MWC first team return man
2005 All-MWC third team receiver
2005 ESPN first team All-American Kick returner
2005 Watler Camp first team All-American Kick returner
2005 Sports Illustrated first team All-American Kick returner

Jordan Gross OL Utah Utes (2000-2002)

Gross was a stud on the line for as he was versitatle and able to play most positiosn on the line. He anchored a line that gave up only five sacks all year which tied for the nations best with Miami, Fl. In the 2003 April NFL draft Gross was selected eight overall.

2× Honorable mention All-Mountain West (2000-2001)
First-team All-Mountain West (2002)
Consensus All-American (2002)
Outland Trophy finalist (2002)

Andy Dalton QB TCU Horned Frogs 2007 - Current

The only player with eligibility on the list and still has a year of eligibility. 2008 was by far his greatest season as he lead the TCU Horned Frogs to an undefeated season and to the Fiesta Bowl. He does not have the awards, but all he does is win with three straight bowl appearances and the last two were wins.

First-team All-Mountain West (2009)
Mountain West offensive player of the year (2009)

Ryan Wolfe WR UNLV Rebels 2006- 2009

Four starter and would have better stats had not broke his foot late in the season. He never did attend a bowl game but will go down as one of the best MWC receivers in the leagues young history. He was somewhat held back from the multiple quarterbacks that were inserted to the starting positon, but was still able to make plays.

First-team All-Mountain West (2006, 2008, and 2009)
Honorable Mention All-Mountain West (2007)
Freshman of the year in the Mountain West (2006)
Biletnikoff Watch List (2007, 2008, and 2009)

Bradlee Van Pelt QB Colorado State Rams (2000- 2003)

Took the Rams to three straight bowl games with two bowl wins and a conference title. Van Pelt had a 20-8 record as a starter and was one of the most dynamic players in league history with his run first pass second mentality.

First-team All-Mountain West (2002 and 2003)
Offensive Player of the Year in Mountain West (2003)

Part I: Why the Big 12 Needs to Do Everything It Can to Keep Missouri

TB — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:00:15 -0000

This post will be the first in a two-part series discussing the ramifications of the recent talk that Missouri could move to the Big 10 in the not-too-distant future.

As you've no doubt heard, the Big 10 has announced that it will explore the possibility of adding a twelfth school in the next 12 to 18 months. For a conference that clings to the past like dress pants to your leg on a dry winter day, this was big news. For the rest of the college sports world, this is also big news, because Big 10 expansion would likely lead to a chain reaction with far-reaching effects.

If Notre Dame is interested this time after turning down the Big 10 in 1999, and if the Big 10 is over that little rejection, then it stands to reason that the Fighting Irish would be the most likely addition. The Big 10 wanted ND before, and I doubt enough has changed that they wouldn't want them now. We'll discuss the situation surrounding Notre Dame in Part II.

It's big news to the Big 12, too, because it has long been known that Missouri has more than a passing interest in the Big 10. After it became known this week that the Big 10 was looking to expand, Mizzou officials released a statement saying they hadn't been contacted, but would consider the situation if they were. It wasn't just Missouri officials who were discussing the possibility. Several of SB Nation's Big 10 blogs hypothesized on who would be added, with most concluding that Missouri was most likely a candidate, and some others concluding that the Tigers make the most sense.

Given that Big 10 expansion could be the first domino to fall in a long chain, this raises a lot of questions for Missouri and the rest of the Big 12. This post will be dedicated to discussing and trying to answer those questions. For the sake of keeping these posts to manageable length, we're going to assume that the Big 10 is only going to add one school. Also, we're going to limit the discussion as much as possible to the more measurable factors, like money and academic prestige, rather than amorphous concepts like "ties" and "nostalgia" and "fan sentiment."

And for those of you who are a little more uninformed about that conference that hugs the Great Lakes, the title "Big 10" is a misnomer, as the conference actually contains 11 teams; thus, adding one would get them to the magical 12 that would make divisional play and a cash-grab conference championship game possible.

1. Why would Missouri jump to the Big 10?

When I've discussed this issue with others this week -- and it has been a frequent topic of conversation for me -- this is always the first question I am asked. The truth is that Missouri would have a lot of good reasons to move to the Big 10.

First, Big 10 athletics are much more lucrative than Big 12 athletics for the conference's member institutions. It's hard to know exactly how much money the Big 10 distributes to its member institutions each year because it doesn't release official figures, but we can at least get an estimate. This article from the Sports Business Journal shows that in 2006-07, the Big 10 distributed $154 million to its schools, or $14 million per school, because the Big 10 shares all athletic revenue equally. Obviously, that was two years ago, and did not include revenue from the Big 10 Network, which this article indicates was $6.1 million this year. As such, it doesn't seem like a stretch to believe Stewart Mandel when he estimates that the conference will distribute more than $22 million per school next season. Adjusting those numbers for the addition of a twelfth school, the conference would have distributed almost $12 million per school in 2006-07, and would distribute a little more than $20 million this year.

Now, compare that to Missouri and the Big 12. Last year, the Big 12 distributed $103 million to its schools, which would be $8.6 million per school if all revenue was shared equally. However, half of the Big 12's TV money is split based on number of TV appearances -- the more often you're on TV, the more money you get -- so Texas received $10.2 million, while Missouri took home $8.4 million. It's projected that the Big 12 will distribute $130 million to its schools for 2008-09, which would be $10.8 million per school if it was all distributed evenly. Specific school breakdowns were not available for this year's projected income, but if we keep the percentages the same, we can roughly estimate that Texas would receive $12.9 million, while Missouri would receive $10.6 million.

As you can see, Missouri would have at least 10 million reasons per year to leave the Big 12, and that's just if we're talking about revenue. However, there's more. The Big 10 is as much an academic conference as it is an athletic one. The academic arm of the Big 10, also known as the Committee on Institutional Cooperation ("CIC"), includes all of the athletic Big 10 schools, plus the University of Chicago, one of the most highly respected academic institutions in the country. From what I can tell, the CIC basically coordinates the activities of its member institutions. As I read the Big 10 blogs this week, it seemed to me that the CIC helps with coordinating research and providing unique academic opportunities to students at its member institutions, among other things. Make no mistake, for a school that is serious about "prestigious" academics, the CIC is a big deal. Missouri is just such an institution.

With that, I think we have provided enough information on why a school like Missouri, if offered membership in the Big 10, would give it more than passing consideration.

2. Does the Big 10 really want Missouri?

Obviously, I can't really answer this. Other than the Big 10 presidents, athletic directors, and conference commissioner Jim Delany, nobody has any idea at this point whether the Big 10 wants Missouri. As mentioned above, if the past is any indication, Notre Dame is probably the first target. It's not like there aren't other options, as schools such as Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, and even other Big 12 schools such as Iowa State and Nebraska, have been mentioned. I'm not focusing on NU and ISU because a) I don't think they're particularly likely to be invited, and b) I don't think their loss would hurt the Big 12 as much as Missouri's would. More on that later.

SB Nation's blogs are managed by regular fans of each school who follow that school closely. Usually, they have a pretty good knowledge of what is going on in their school and conference. As such, I think it's illustrative that every Big 10 blog on SB Nation that I have seen discussing this issue considers Missouri a potential target. Some even consider them the obvious target. While the Big 10 has never expressed formal interest in MU, nor extended them an official invitation, there has been a long-standing belief among some Tigers that the Big 10 was the way to go, if an invitation ever materialized.

Taking everything into account, and being mindful that I have zero inside information, it would seem like Missouri would be near the top of any list of schools targeted for expansion.

3. What would happen to the Big 12 if Missouri did leave?

Among some fanbases in the conference, the answer seems to be "Who cares? We'll get someone else." Because Missouri has never been a dominant school in any sport, it's understandable that some take that approach. However, there's a lot more to this equation than prowess on the gridiron or hardcourt.

I bet every Big 12 fan can instantly name the largest state in this conference by population. Obviously, it's Texas and its 24 million residents. But I bet a lot of people would have to take a moment to answer the question "What is the second most-populous state in the Big 12?" The answer is Missouri and its six million inhabitants. The Show-Me State also contains the conference's best TV markets after Houston, Dallas and Denver, with St. Louis (No. 21 nationally) and Kansas City (No. 31).

In other words, if we lost Missouri, we would be out a state of six million people and a top-25 media market. St. Louis would cease to have any Big 12 identity, and Kansas City's identity as a Big 8/Big 12 town would be weakened, though KU commands a larger presence in KC than Mizzou.

Now, all that discussion of population and TV ignores the fact that, if the Big 12 desired to continue on, it would need to fill Mizzou's void with another school. Again, for the sake of brevity (yeah, right), we're going to assume that Mizzou's departure would not cause Texas to go independent, Colorado to jump to the Pac-10, and any of a million other scenarios that could happen.

The list of replacements for Missouri is not particularly enticing. In this area, I think we need to look primarily at schools that currently reside in conferences that do not receive an automatic BCS berth, as schools in other automatic-qualifier conferences are unlikely to jump to the Big 12 due to money and/or geography. Here's the list of possible replacements, along with a few pros and cons to each:

TCU: On the plus side, they've had a very good football program the last few years. But that's about all they have going for them. Texas Christian is a school of only 8,000 students in Fort Worth that couldn't even sell out its 40,000 seat stadium this year as its team made a run to the Fiesta Bowl. The basketball programs would be afterthoughts in the Big 12. Most importantly, it delivers nothing new in the way of a TV market. The Dallas/Fort Worth market is already owned by the Big 12, between Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and assorted alumni of other Big 12 schools.

Houston: Similar to TCU, the Coogs are on an upswing in football currently. While the men's basketball team is no powerhouse, they would be competent in the Big 12, and by "competent" I mean "they wouldn't lose by 25 in every game." Also, UH is a public university that's looking to reach Tier 1 status and might actually give us a little more penetration in the Houston TV market, a market that is divided between the Big 12 and the SEC, although I'm guessing we already have a pretty good hold on this market between UT and TAMU. However, Robertson Stadium at UH holds only 30,000, which would be by far the smallest stadium in the Big 12. Fan support at UH hasn't been great the last few years, even as the team improved. Also, I've heard that, as long as Tom Penders is the basketball coach at UH, Texas will adamantly oppose adding Houston to the Big 12.

Colorado State: With due respect to my good friend JSchwarz, absolutely not. The Rams are a middling MWC team in football and generally finish toward the bottom in basketball. As long as Colorado is in the conference, we have a solid footing in the Denver TV market, so CSU brings little TV attraction. Fort Collins is a nice town, but even that's not enough to make me interested in Colorado State.

Arkansas: I'll break my own rule that we won't discuss other automatic-qualifier-conference schools to acknowledge that there is a rampant Internet rumor that Arkansas is fed up with the SEC and might be interested in moving to the Big 12. Monetarily, it wouldn't make much sense, as the SEC distributed $135 million last year to its schools, meaning the average payout was $11.25 million. I have a hard time believing the Razorbacks would rank any higher than Missouri in the Big 12's distribution chain, meaning they'd be taking a $3 million paycut per year just based on last year's numbers. With the SEC's new TV deal, the league distribution is sure to increase going forward at a higher rate than the Big 12. The money difference isn't as big as it would be for Missouri, though, so maybe the pull of old rivalries with Texas and Texas A&M could pull the Hogs to the Big 12.

Now, would Arkansas adequately replace Missouri? Not really. The best TV market Arkansas delivers is Little Rock-Pine Bluff, which is only 56th nationally. In terms of overall population, Arkansas ranks just ahead of Kansas with 2.9 million residents. I like Fayetteville, and would enjoy road trips there, but Arkansas would be a downgrade for this conference compared to Missouri.

Utah: Now, we're getting to the schools that bring something to the table with respect to TV markets. Salt Lake City would be a comparable market to Kansas City. In overall population, Utah would again rank right there with Kansas, with about 2.8 million citizens. The Utes won a BCS bowl game last year and field a basketball team that would be competent in the Big 12. Now, that all ignores the giant elephant in the corner: geography. We already kind of consider Colorado "out there" in the Big 12, so I'm not sure what we'd think of Utah. It would be a real drain on travel costs to send the volleyball, women's basketball, baseball, and other non-revenue-generating sports out there. Again, the overriding point is that we would be better served to just keep Missouri rather than consider whether we could make Utah work.

BYU: See Utah.

Memphis: Like Utah/BYU, this would be a new TV market to the Big 12, although not quite as attractive as Salt Lake City, because Memphis is the No. 48 market in the country. Memphis isn't very good at football, and we don't know how they'll fare in basketball without John Calipari, but the basketball team already boasts somewhat of a national following. Again, the geography isn't great, bringing up the same concerns discussed with respect to Utah, but if we were to lose Missouri, it would be worth taking a look at these Tigers.

New Mexico: I'm sure some are laughing, but this would actually make as much sense as anyone else on this list. Geographically, it's a better fit than Utah/BYU. It brings in a top-50 TV market in Albuquerque-Santa Fe (No. 44). Athletically, the Lobos are nothing special, but they wouldn't be any worse than Baylor.

4. Could the Big 10 be interested in other Big 12 schools?

Sure. Nebraska and Iowa State probably technically fit the Big 10's academic profile, as both are members of the AAU and are fairly large state schools. It's not too far out in left field to think that the Big 10 may be interested in Texas, as just about any conference would welcome the TV sets the Longhorns control. However, I'm not going to discuss these at any length, because there are glaring reasons why the Big 10 may not be interested in these schools. First, Nebraska and Iowa State bring nothing to the table in terms of TV markets. Des Moines (No. 71) is the best TV market in Iowa, and I'm sure the Hawkeyes already deliver that one pretty well. Omaha ranks slightly lower at No. 76, and Nebraska is the smallest state in the Big 12 by population with about 1.8 million residents. I know the Huskers have somewhat of a national following, but those fans aren't sufficiently concentrated anywhere to deliver another TV market.

With respect to Texas, geography concerns and regional pride really get in the way. Austin is pretty far south in Texas, and in case you had forgotten, Texas is really big. It's a long way from Austin to all those other "Not Texas" states, especially Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. Even with a mammoth budget, that's still a drain on travel costs for the non-revenue sports. Again, I wouldn't rule out Texas, but this would be such a leap for such a conservative conference that I'll wait to discuss this at greater length until I hear more concrete talk that the Big 10 is interested in the Longhorns.

Thus concludes Part I. Stay tuned for Part II, where we'll discuss Notre Dame, what the Big 12 can and should do to try and keep Missouri, whether this is a conspiracy by the Big 10, the amorphous concepts like "ties" and "nostalgia" and "fan sentiment," and what this could mean for K-State.

Mountain West and their Road to the BCS: Week 14

Michael Rueckert — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:00:31 -0000

More photos » by J Pat Carter - AP

Browse more photos »

The Mountain West Conference regular season has officially come to a close, but there is still one final weekend of college football. This is a big weekend that will determine where most teams are going bowling when announced on Sunday.

TCU crushed New Mexico and finished the season undefeated, guaranteeing them their first ever spot in the BCS. They remain ranked 4th in the BCS standings, but still have a shot at the BCS National Championship Game in Pasadena.

Here is a look at the games being played in the final week of the regular season in college football, and how they will affect the Mountain West's BCS outlook:

All times are eastern

No. 3 Texas vs No. 22 Nebraska (ABC, 8:00 PM)

The Big 12 Championship Game. If Texas wins they will play the winner of the SEC Championship Game in the BCS National Championship. If Nebraska wins they will play in the Fiesta Bowl, and Texas will likely be selected as an at-large team.

MWC rooting interest: Nebraska. This is TCU's last chance to get into the Championship Game. If Texas loses TCU should jump to the No. 2 spot over Texas and the loser of the SEC Championship Game. Mountain West fans should all become the biggest Huskers fans on Saturday night.

No. 1 Florida vs. No. 2 Alabama (CBS, 4:00 PM)

A rematch of the 2008 SEC Championship Game. The winner will punch their ticket to Pasadena, and the loser will be going to the Sugar Bowl.

MWC rooting interest: Toss up. TCU has no chance of jumping the winner of this game. There is a good chance that TCU will play the loser of this game in the Sugar Bowl. That is what Jeremy Mauss has been predicting here for a while now. I believe that TCU can beat either of these teams, a MWC vs SEC matchup would be great for the conference.

No. 5 Cincinnati at No. 15 Pittsburgh (ABC, 12:00 PM)

The winner will claim the Big East for 2009 and their automatic spot in the BCS.

MWC rooting interest: Pittsburgh. Cincinnati is not far behind TCU in the rankings. With a win over Pitt there is a very good chance that they can jump the Horned Frogs. It would be awful is Texas loses, but Cincinnati jumps TCU to get into the BCS Championship Game.

No. 10 Georgia Tech vs Clemson (8:00 PM, ESPN)

The ACC Championship Game. The winner will represent the ACC with their automatic spot in the BCS. TCU defeated Clemson earlier this season.

MWC rooting interest: Clemson. TCU has only beated two teams that are currently ranked in the Top 25. It would strengthen their claim to the National Championship Game by having Clemson get back into the Top 25. If Clemson wins, they will likely boot No. 25 Utah out of the Top 25 which actually may be worse for the Mountain West with the AQ Evaluations.

New Mexico State at No. 6 Boise State (3:00 PM, ESPN 360)

A win means another undefeated regular season for the Boise State Broncos, who are looking to get into the BCS as an at-large team.

MWC rooting interest: Boise State. Multiple non-AQ teams in the BCS would be a great thing for all non-automatic qualifier conferences. It can open the door of the non-BCS movement even more. Also, if rumors are true, and the Mountain West chooses to expand; the higher Boise State's final ranking, the better off the MWC would be in the AQ Evaluations.

Thursday Buff Bites - Hawkins Does Not Envision Any Changes to His Staff

irish1611 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:22:22 -0000

Woelk: Time to put CU`s past woes to rest - Boulder Daily Camera

Speaking of staff, Hawkins said he didn`t anticipate any changes in his assistant coaches, unless some of them choose to leave on their own volition. But nobody should have expected him to say anything different in that regard. If he makes any changes, it likely won`t happen for another month or so -- meaning the current staffers are needed to be out on the road recruiting. Honestly? I`ll be surprised if the Buffs start spring ball with the same staff that took the field in the season finale against Nebraska. The gut feeling here is that there will be at least a couple of new faces when the Buffs hit the practice fields in mid-March. Meanwhile, Hawkins has a laundry list of issues to address in the offseason. Hementioned special teams -- several times -- Tuesday, as well as penalties, the running game and turnovers.

Hawkins humbled - The Longmont Times-Call

"Living in this world, where your whole life is exposed to TV every night and Internet every day, it’s interesting," he said. "It really is. I’m trying so hard to be everything to everybody. And I’m trying so hard to say all the right things and I’m trying so hard to do all the right things. It’s frustrating for me. ... I don’t know if I’ll ever do that, quite honestly. "Where our record is and where we’re at, that’s all me. It is. When you have press conferences every day and (reporters) talk to me every day, I could just say it’s my fault and I have to fix it and walk away. And you’d guys would go, ‘Where’s the story there,’ right? "My comment about this program — I came here because Colorado has such a great tradition, but I’m also very well aware, as are our guys, that when an institution has a new president, chancellor, (athletic director) and football coach, and you get an entirely new compliance department, athletic department, trainers, strength people, every single person is new, that’s like going from scratch. "I’m not trying to disrespect anybody, I’m not trying to disrespect any games won here, any championships won, any alums here, any faculty, any former players. I’m not."

In other news:

Offensive coordinator Eric Kiesau said Tuesday he was contacted by Portland State regarding its head coaching vacancy. Kiesau said he has decided the position is "not for me" and has withdrawn his name from consideration. Player news: Hawkins said receiver Kendrick Celestine and offensive lineman Sione Tau "might be" on the team in January. Spring dates: CU will return to holding two weeks of spring drills prior to spring break, and two more after spring break, which runs March 22-26, 2010. The spring game is scheduled for April 10.

CU Buffs show their killer instinct - Boulder Daily Camera

"We just wanted to basically stomp on them," explained Cory Higgins, who scored a game-high 22 points on 9-for-12 shooting with three rebounds, three steals and an assist in 30 minutes. "In the past we've had leads and relaxed a little bit and let teams get back into games. In this game we made a big step to show that we have that killer instinct.

On-fire offense gets win for CU - The Longmont Times-Call

If the Colorado men’s basketball team keeps shooting like it did during Tuesday’s 78-54 defeat of San Francisco, it’ll win some games this year. Maybe a bunch. Who knows? Of course, concerns linger about its defense and rebounding, concerns that Tuesday’s first half did little to alleviate when San Francisco created nine second-chance scoring opportunities. Those concerns were addressed at halftime, and San Francisco had none in the second half.

Making the Rounds: 12/1/09

Jeremy Mauss — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:59:41 -0000

Air Force

The Falcons will have to wait till Sunday before they know if they are going to the Armed Forces Bowl or the New Mexico Bowl. Fellas pack your bags for Texas.

BYU

Max Hall's words are still causing quite a stir across the social media sites and the newspapers. BYU is still in consideration for a BCS bowl, even though very unlikely. Is there too much hate? Max Hall apologizes and is publically reprimended by his comments.

Colorado State

The Rams had a disappointing way to end the season ending on a nine game winning streak.

New Mexico

This past season was a complete mess and finally ended in a blowout loss to TCU, but they did get that one win.

San Diego State

Season finished in a disappointing fashion... again.

TCU Coach Gary Patterson is receiving a nice bump in pay from his previous $1.7 million base in a multi-year extension. This means Notre Dame can remove Patterson from their speed dial. Is Andy Dalton worthy of Heisman consideration?

UNLV

Rebels are having a hard time finding their replacement athletic director. UNLV sent out fired coach Mike Sanford with a victory. WR Ryan Wolfe ends his career as one of the best ever at UNLV.

Utah

Utes looking to go to Vegas Bowl and will play loser of USC/Arizona game. Grading the Holy War game. Ute fans are lashing back at Max Hall.

Wyoming

Freshman QB Austyn Carta-Samuels is named frosh of the year. New Mexico bowl is the most likely site for Wyoming.

2009 Mountain West All-Conference Football Team Announced

Jeremy Mauss — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:54:10 -0000

As expected TCU lead the way with all-conference selections, but they ran away with 15 first and second team selections which more then doubles second place BYU with seven spots. The Horned Frogs also took home three of four player of the year awards, and coach of the year -- the one loss was freshman of the year which went to Wyoming's QB Austyn Carta-Samuels.

Some irony in the list is that New Mexico had the first team punter; he did have the most chances to impress. A choice that was not expected when the season started was Utah RB Eddie Wide who ran for over 1,000 yards but was to be the back up before Matt Asiata tore his ACL in the Louisville game.

The offensive player of the year award went to TCU's QB Andy Dalton while the defensive award went to TCU's DE Jerry Hughes. The rest of the awards are after the jump.

2009 ALL-MOUNTAIN WEST FOOTBALL FIRST-TEAM
Offense
Pos.	Player	Cl.	School
QB	Andy Dalton	Jr.	TCU
WR	David Reed	Sr.	Utah
WR	Ryan Wolfe**	Sr.	UNLV
RB	Harvey Unga	Jr.	BYU
RB	Eddie Wide	Jr.	Utah
TE	Dennis Pitta**#	Sr.	BYU
OL	Matt Reynolds	So.	BYU
OL	Erik Cook	Sr.	New Mexico
OL	Marshall Newhouse	Sr.	TCU
OL	Marcus Cannon	Jr.	TCU
OL	Zane Beadles*	Sr.	Utah
PK	Ross Evans	So.	TCU
PR/KR	Jeremy Kerley*#	Jr.	TCU
Defense
Pos.	Player	Cl.	School
DL	Jan Jorgensen**	Sr.	BYU
DL	Jerry Hughes*#	Sr.	TCU
DL	Koa Misi	Sr.	Utah
DL	John Fletcher	Sr.	Wyoming
LB	Carmen Messina	So.	New Mexico
LB	Daryl Washington	Sr.	TCU
LB	Stevenson Sylvester	Sr.	Utah
DB	Reggie Rembert	Jr.	Air Force
DB	Rafael Priest	Sr.	TCU
DB	Nick Sanders	Sr.	TCU
DB	Robert Johnson	Sr.	Utah
P	Adam Miller	Sr.	New Mexico
--Two-Time First-Team Selection *--Three-Time First-Team Selection #--Unanimous Selection
2009 ALL-MOUNTAIN WEST FOOTBALL SECOND-TEAM
Offense
Pos.	Player	Cl.	School
QB	Max Hall	Sr.	BYU
WR	Vincent Brown	Jr.	San Diego State
WR	DeMarco Sampson	Sr.	San Diego State
RB	Joseph Turner	Sr.	TCU
RB	Jared Tew	Jr.	Air Force
TE	Andrew George	Sr.	BYU
OL	Nick Charles	Sr.	Air Force
OL	Peter Lusk	Sr.	Air Force
OL	Caleb Schlauderaff	Jr.	Utah
OL	Jake Kirkpatrick	Jr.	TCU
OL	Zane Taylor	Jr.	Utah
PK	Erik Soderberg	So.	Air Force
PR/KR	Dion Morton	Sr.	Colorado State
Defense
Pos.	Player	Cl.	School
DL	Wayne Daniels	Jr.	TCU
DL	Ben Garland	Sr.	Air Force
DL	Johnathan Rainey	So.	New Mexico
DL	Cory Grant	Jr.	TCU
LB	Tank Carder	So.	TCU
LB	Mychal Sisson	So.	Colorado State
LB	Brian Hendricks	So.	Wyoming
DB	Andrew Rich	Jr.	BYU
DB	Anthony Wright	So.	Air Force
DB	Tejay Johnson	Jr.	TCU
DB	Chris Prosinski	Jr.	Wyoming
P	Brian Stahovich	So.	San Diego State
OFFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR Andy Dalton, Jr., QB, TCU
DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR Jerry Hughes, Sr., DE, TCU
SPECIAL TEAMS PLAYER OF THE YEAR Jeremy Kerley, Jr., KR, TCU
FRESHMAN OF THE YEAR Austyn Carta-Samuels, QB, Wyoming
COACH OF THE YEAR Gary Patterson, TCU

2009 HONORABLE MENTION
Air Force:	John Falgout, Sr., LB; Brandon Geyer, Sr., P; Ryan Gonzales, Sr., OL; Chris Thomas, Sr., DB.
BYU:	Coleby Clawson, Sr., LB; Brett Denney, Sr., DL; Scott Johnson, Sr., DB; Brian Logan, Jr., DB; Riley Stephenson, Fr., P; R.J. Willing, Sr., OL.
Colorado State:	Adrian Martinez, Sr., OL; Nick Oppenneer, Sr., DB; Cole Pemberton, Sr., OL; Shelley Smith, Sr., OL; Tim Walter, Sr., OL.
New Mexico:	Kendall Briscoe, Sr., DL.
San Diego State:	Davion Mauldin, Sr., KR; Jerry Milling, Sr., LB.
TCU:	Evan Frosch, Jr., TE; Antoine Hicks, So., WR; Jeremy Kerley, Jr., WR; Ed Wesley, Fr., RB; Jimmy Young, Jr., WR.
UNLV:	Jason Beauchamp, Sr., LB; Joe Hawley, Sr., OL; Matt Murphy, Jr., OL.
Utah:	Joe Phillips, Jr., K; Sean Sellwood, Fr., P; Sealver Siliga, So., DL; Mike Wright, Sr., LB.
Wyoming:	David Leonard, Jr., WR; Austin McCoy, So., P; Mitch Unrein, Sr., DL.

Talking AQ Evaluation With BCS Executive Director, Bill Hancock

Michael Rueckert — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:00:41 -0000

More photos » AP

Bill Hancock

Browse more photos »

Everyone knows that the Mountain West is looking to become a BCS conference. They tried lobbying for it last summer, but was rejected. The only way that they can guarantee automatic qualification BCS status would be to gain it through the "BCS Evaluation Period."

The given criteria for evaluating BCS Conferences is very vague. According to the BCS website, the following is how they determine AQ status:

The evaluation data includes the following for each conference
(1) The ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year
(2) The final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and
(3) The number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.

Obviously the given information is very vague. Fortunately the new BCS Executive Director, Bill Hancock was kind enough to answer a few of my questions regarding the process of determining automatic qualifier status.

Note: This was an e-mail and not exactly an interview. Bill Hancock gave me permission to quote him on his answers.

If a conference is to expand and add a team during the evaluation period, would the conference be able to use that teams statistics in their evaluation, even if the team gained some of their "points" in another conference?

Yes.

This is big news for Boise State fans. The Mountain West Conference will very likely need to expand and add a team like Boise State since it is a top-heavy conference, with little competition aside from TCU, Utah and BYU. This explains the reason that the MWC has not invited anyone in yet. This is a strategic move, which would allow that team to gain points without beating up on MWC teams. If the MWC does expand they will need to invite a team before July 1, 2010 to use that team in their evaluation data.

There are three rules listed for determining AQ status. Is each rule given an equal weight? If not, which categories are "worth more?"

All are the same weight.

This is good news for the Mountain West. Two of the three criteria the MWC is very strong in. The amount of teams in the final Top-25 and ranking of the highest team are things that the Mountain West is very competitive in. The MWC struggles in the ranking of the entire conference in the computers since it is a top heavy conference. It is definitely a plus that that category will not out-weigh the rest.

Does the number of teams in each conference affect how the statistics are calculated for certain criteria such as, number of teams in Top 25?

No, the data is averaged so that the number of teams in the conference does not affect the rankings.

Another positive for the conference. The Mountain West in 2008 and 2009 finished with three ranked teams in the final BCS standings. The Mountain West is a smaller conference with only nine teams. Having three teams ranked for the Mountain West would be greater in the evaluations than three teams from a larger conference like the Big-12.

Does a current non-Automatic Qualifier conference have to "beat out" a single BCS conference four of the four years of the evaluation period? Or, does that conference just have to finish ranked ahead of a certain conference in the final statistics?

Basically a conference must finish in the top half of each category.

Does this mean that a current non-AQ conference must finish ranked at least third in each of the three evaluation criteria? They must finish ahead of at least three current BCS conferences in each of the three categories?

Actually, no, it wouldn't have to finish at least third. Basically it would have to finish in the top 50 percent in each of the three categories.

This is a confusing topic to me. I'm guessing that they would have to finish in the top 50 percent among the 11 conferences in averaged data at the end of the evaluation. It sounds like the Mountain West would have to finish at least fifth in each category. This is a problem for the "final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year" criteria. They may need to expand to finish at least fifth in this category. In the other two categories the MWC seems to be among the top 50 percent.

If a non Automatic Qualifying conference gains Automatic Qualifier status, would the BCS expand to 7 conferences, or would that conference replace a current BCS conference?

There would be seven automatic-qualifying conferences.

This is what everyone expected, but I just wanted to clarify it. This is good news for current BCS conference. If the Mountain West becomes a BCS Conference, no one will get replaced.

A big thanks to Bill Hancock for taking the time answering my questions. He is very involved in the public and seems to be the guy that the BCS is using to boost their public relations.

Wyoming grabs the Bronze Boot and a Bowl berth

The Road — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:39:28 -0000

More photos » by Andy Carpenean - AP

26 days ago: Colorado State quarterback Jon Eastman is tackled by Wyoming linebacker Luke Diehl during an NCAA college football game Friday, Nov. 27, 2009, in Fort Collins, Colo. Wyoming won 17-16. (AP Photo/Laramie Boomerang, Andy Carpenean)

Browse more photos »

Final - 11.27.2009	1	2	3	4	Total
Wyoming Cowboys	0	7	0	10	17
Colorado St. Rams	0	6	7	3	16

Complete Coverage >

This was your typical Border War which meant throw out the records because anything can happen. The Wyoming Cowboys needed a victory to give them a 6th win and become bowl eligible. The Colorado State Rams were looking to play spoiler and end the season on a high note after losing eight straight games.

Wyoming has a knack for fourth quarter comebacks this season and pulled off their fourth of the season in a 17-16 victory. Ian Watts made a 33 yard field goal with 1:29 left to give the Cowboys (6-6) a one point lead. The Rams were driving down the field but Ghaali Muhammad intercepted a Jon Eastman pass to secure the victory and give the Cowboys the Bronze Boot trophy for the first time in three years.

With the victory the Cowboys locked up fifth place in the Mountain West and will be heading to their first bowl game since a 2004 Las Vegas Bowl win over UCLA. The New Mexico Bowl is the likely destination for the Cowboys but the Armed Forces and Humanitarian Bowl are still possibilities.

The Rams (3-9) went winless in the Mountain West this year and finished with a 9 game losing streak but they controlled the momentum most of the game. CSU out gained the Cowboys 352 to 233 and had the ground game working all game. Leonard Mason put 119 yards on the ground, John Mosure had 36 yards on four attempts before leaving the game with an injury. QB Jon Eastman got his first start for the Rams and completed his first eight passes, Eastman finished the day 22 of 30 for 185 yards.

The Rams scored first on a 8 yard touchdown by Lou Greenwood. John Fletcher blocked the extra point for the Pokes and that would end up being the difference in the game. QB Austyn Carta-Samuels got the Cowboys on the board with a 6 yard TD run. Eastman found Zac Pauga in the third on a 6 yard pass to give the Rams a 13-7 lead. Later in the third Carta-Samuels broke out again for a 49 run to give the Cowboys the 14-13 edge. The Rams used nearly 7 points to drive down and a Ben Deline 23 yard field goal gave them the 16-14 lead.

On the winning drive Carta-Samuels kept the drive alive with a 14 yard run on 3rd and 11 and then found Greg Bolling for a 7 yard pass on 4th and 6. Brandon Stewart broke out a 20 yard run to move the ball inside field goal range. The Cowboys drive stalled at CSU 16 and on 4th and 2 Ian Watts nailed the game winning field goal.

The Cowboys evened the Border War at 21 wins a piece and now have the Bronze Boot back for the first time in three years. This has been an impressive season for the Cowboys as they were picked to finished last in the Mountain West and have surpassed all expectations despite playing 12 freshman and one of the toughest schedules in the nation. First year Coach Dave Christensen has changed the minds of those in Laramie who thought this program was going nowhere after struggling for years during the Joe Glenn era.

Christensen had a great quote after his earning first Border War victory:

"The boot's back where it belongs," Wyoming's first-year coach shouted. "Gimme a beer."