It's not November, yet here we are

Is the Holy War really upon us?

Hard to believe, but Utah and BYU, participants in the most underrated rivalry in college football, will do battle this Saturday, September 17. Instead of a chance of cold, blustery weather, there is an almost guarantee of perfect weather. Instead of Thanksgiving being around the corner or just concluded, Labor Day was two weeks ago and school is only three-four weeks into the semester. Instead of both teams having 11 games under their belts, both squads are still trying to establish and offensive identity. The additional prize of conference/bowl implications has been replaced by nothing. Both sides are playing for pride only.

It is harder than usual to make any predictions about how the game will go.

- I would like to say the BYU has the clear advantage in quarterback play, but I can't. While Heaps is a better QB overall than Jordan Wynn, his play thus far is not enough for me to declare him an x-factor in this Saturday's game. The BYU offense has struggled in both of its games thus far. The second half struggles Heaps experienced in the Texas game was unnerving simply because BYU had had offensive success in the first half. Did Texas figure BYU out? Was Heaps rattled by the pressure and the crowd? In this upcoming game, if I was forced to choose I would much rather have Heaps under center than Wynn.

- A lot of fans have pointed the finger at Brandon Doman's play-calling decisions, rather than Heaps, for the lack of offensive production in the second half. I won't defend either side of the argument, but I will say that both Heaps and Doman are relatively young and inexperienced. This is Doman's first year as an offensive coordinator and there were bound to be some lumps along the way. Perhaps too much was expected right away? This is one situation that Utah can take advantage of. Utah's defense is a product of Kyle Whittingham's  mind and wealth of experience. A few defensive wrinkles here or there could tip the scales in Utah's favor.

- Both defenses are highly skilled and well-coached. BYU proved it on the road in SEC and Big XII country. Utah's defense was good in their first game against Montana St, but was really put to the test against USC and third year starter Matt Barkley. They held and were able to pressure Barkley a few times. The defense kept Utah in that game and gave them a chance to win. At this point, it's a push as far as who possesses the better defense. Both defenses will make it hard on the opposing offense to move the ball.

- Utah has an edge in the running game. John White IV made some tough runs against USC. He was not able to gain much yardage and only averaged 2.8 yards per carry, but there is little doubt who is Utah's stud running back. For BYU, both DiLuigi and Quezada are good weapons who have the ability to burn most defenses. Unfortunately, neither has shown the ability to bust or fight through that tackle and get those extra 2 yards. Essentially, neither of them is Harvey Unga. At this point, Utah seems to be in a better position to establish the run game. That being said, both if Quezada gets his timing back and if DiLuigi can get into space, this could change the whole game.

This link is my prediction for the rivalry game.

How the MWC could have saved College Football

What follows is un-researched but seems plausible in my mind.

How could have the MWC saved college football? Expansion. Boise St. has clearly built a following. It is no where near as impressive as their fans think it is, but the arrival of Boise St. has been fast and exciting. Beating Oklahoma in the BCS. Beating TCU in the BCS. Winning bunches of games and scoring bunches of points. Boise St. got coverage and became a media darling at ESPN. Friday night became Boise St. night on the mother-ship. The MWC should have extended an invite to Boise St. four years ago. Why not? The knock on Boise has always been the lack of competition in the WAC. It seems to me that Boise would have been thrilled to take a step up from the WAC to the MWC and play against teams like BYU, Utah, and TCU annually.

I argue that a conference composed of Utah, BYU, TCU, Boise St., and Air Force would be enough to block the movement toward super-conferences. Simply put, a conference with those five at the top would have to be reckoned with. You couldn't ignore them. You couldn't paint the picture of a "weak" conference. This conference would make a strong case for a place at the table of big-time college football. 

(Now, the argument against this move is that with adding Boise the competition improves. Therefore, the road to an undefeated record becomes that more difficult. The top-tier of the  MWC would beat up on each other and not one of them would make it to the BCS. This is a valid argument and lack of participation in the BCS would hurt the anti-BCS movement.)

The biggest assumption here is whether this conference would be strong enough to keep itself from imploding. Had the MWC added Boise 4 years ago and somehow been able to renegotiate a TV contract that rewarded the members who invested in their football programs, it may have been enough for the conference to stay intact. This renegotiation would have to happen, there is no way that TCU, Utah, or BYU would have stuck around with the current TV contract.

The didn't stick around. After Utah left, it became a question of when BYU would follow, not if. TCU to the Big East really wasn't a surprise. With the conference in flux and nothing positive on the horizon, the MWC became the WAC 2.0.


Here is a good breakdown of the current MWC TV contract as provided by the Idaho Statesman. Essentially it was a 10 year deal that began in 2006 worth $120 million over the length of the contract. As of 2010, the mtn TV network was available in 8 million homes, or around 8% of the footprint of ESPN and ESPN2.

Also in the contract was a provision that made it very difficult, nigh impossible, for local TV stations to broadcast games. This difficulty also applied to the rebroadcasting of games (in the case of byutv).

If it is not clear by now, it is my opinion that this TV contract led to the mass exodus of the MWC top-tier in 2010. First, with Utah accepting an invite to the PAC-12. Second, with BYU declaring independence. And finally, TCU agreeing to go and win the Big East every year beginning in 2012. If you believe that "exposure" (my least favorite buzzword in college football) is necessary for success, it is remarkable how well TCU, Utah, and BYU have performed since 2006. In TCU and Utah's case, it was participation in BCS bowl games. For all three, it was annual top 25 rankings. There was no lack of ability in the MWC.

The main problem with the MWC since 2006 has been leadership. With TCU and Utah playing in BCS bowl games, the MWC became the de facto representative of the non-BCS schools and of the anti-BCS cause. The 2008, 2009, 2010 seasons all finished with a team from the MWC in a BCS bowl game. The anti-BCS movement was strong, and the MWC should have capitalized.

Perhaps the most pathetic aspect of this transformational shift in the composition of the MWC in 2010, and that which encapsulates the lacking leadership in the MWC, was the hesitancy the MWC showed in extending an invitation to Boise St. to join. At one point, Craig Thompson said there were no plans to expand. Eventually the invitation was extended to Boise, but the only positive to come out of this debacle for the MWC was that they weren't as in as dire a situation as the WAC was. In fact, it was sucking the WAC dry that saved the MWC.

Though I cannot say exactly how, my argument is simply that a conference with Utah, TCU, BYU, Boise St. and Air Force may have been enough to stop the move toward super-conferences. Unfortunately, the leadership of the MWC was not proactive and in some cases not even reactive to the changing landscape of college football. Really, as leader of the anti-BCS movement, the MWC had nothing to lose by proactively trying to carve out their place in college football. Instead, the MWC just let the house come crumbling down around them and then rebuild with the likes of Boise St, Fresno St. and Nevada. Though formidable, not exactly TCU, Utah, and BYU.

The End of the NCAA?

Since the beginning of the BCS, college football has undergone a seismic shift. More lucrative tv deals, a host of new technologies, and round-the-clock coverage have all contributed to this shift. I would not argue that college football before the BCS-era was "pure" by any means, but the shift of this era seems to be particularly large. If college football moves to super-conferences, 4 each with 16 members, it will change the game as we know it.

Now, we cannot know specifics, but besides actually talking about the game itself, speculation has become a favorite of fans. I will now do as the rest of the nation is doing and speculate. In this case about what changes super-conferences would bring. Most telling to me would be the end of the NCAA.

Better said, the marginalization of the NCAA. With four super-conferences looking to expand their brand, why subject yourself to regulation from a largely ineffective body? Why follow the restrictions of the NCAA when you could build your program unfettered from oversight? Why not just pay the players? So many questions which lead to one outcome: the NCAA having no authority over the four super-conferences.

The results of this could be scary if you like to think that your team has a chance at the beginning of the year to contend for a conference title. Even though as currently constituted the NCAA is a paper tiger with limited power to enforce its rules, it at least causes programs to have a desire to avoid scandal. An offending program needs to cover its tracks or it could end up like Ohio State, USC, or Miami. Moving to a four-conference system with no NCAA would allow the conferences to set their own rules. Naturally, these rules would benefit the haves over the have-nots. The gap between the leviathan programs who spend gaudy amounts of money and the programs trying to get ahead by, gasp, winning would widen. Big-time schools with the resources to run their corporations/football-programs would have the ability to throw their weight around even more. I assume that there is a limit to the size that any given program can grow, but as of today I do not think any program has reached that capacity.

The end of the NCAA would signal the end of amateurism. Or at least the guise of amateurism that college sports operate under. At the end of the day, all most athletic departments care about is the money. Indeed, some more than others are focused on the "student-athlete" and the formation of these students into responsible adults. Unfortunately, these programs are the exception. With four super-conferences, there would be no need to operate with this facade of amateurism and a focus on academics. Football programs would become money making enterprises for the universities. The programs would bring notoriety and millions in tv money to the school. Athletic directors within the super-conferences would be crazy not to try and build-up their school's football team.

In effect, the four-conferences would become the only organization to come along that could compete with the NFL. The USFL failed. The XFL was a joke. The UFL only kind of exists. The four super-conferences though, now they could give the NFL a run for their money. With the NCAA out of the way, why not put some games on Sunday in order to get more games into prime-time?

At the risk of being alarmist, I will stop there. I do not feel like these are unwarranted claims. No NCAA would free up a lot of schools to flex their muscles. The creation of four super-conferences and essentially a division outside of the FBS and FCS could be the step that moves down that path.

Larry Scott, what have you started?