| Top of Board | Message List | Start Topic |
Date: Nov 12, 2009 - 06:25am
Log in to vote for Post of the Day!
Really, I'd rather have just Boise rather than Boise and the other two, but given the DC radio station's rumors, we'll see.
I think we'd be better off splitting East - West rather than splitting the cold weather teams and the warm weather teams.
The big question is do you put Boise in the same column as BYU-Utah? Or does that make one side too one sided?
Here's how I would split them:
West:
SDSU
Fresno
UNLV
Nevada
BYU
Utah
East:
Boise
Wyoming
CSU
Air Force
New Mexico
TCU
Anyone else have another preferred set of divisions?
I think we'd be better off splitting East - West rather than splitting the cold weather teams and the warm weather teams.
The big question is do you put Boise in the same column as BYU-Utah? Or does that make one side too one sided?
Here's how I would split them:
West:
SDSU
Fresno
UNLV
Nevada
BYU
Utah
East:
Boise
Wyoming
CSU
Air Force
New Mexico
TCU
Anyone else have another preferred set of divisions?
-----
"Football is not the most important thing in the world, and it's certainly not the most important thing in my life." -- Lavell Edwards

| Reply |
|
| Topics | Author | Date |
| If it is Boise, FSU and Nevada, what divisions? |
|
| That looks good to me. (nm) |
|
| We should Add SMU, BOISE and Houston |
|
| SMU adds nothing market-wise (short) |
|
| So you're saying that the TCU fans are SMU fans? |
|
| There's pros and cons for all of them |
|
| oh no, the TV market argument |
|
| definitely Houston if we have to expand. (nm) |
|
| SMU's only asset is that they are TCU's natural (short) |
|
| That. And millions and millions of dollars. |
|
| Signed, the last decade. (nm) |
|
| RE: If it is Boise, FSU and Nevada, what divisions? |
|
| Replace Nevada with Houston or UTEP and we're good |
|
| Nevada is clearly the weakest of the three |
|
| Adding UTEP does NOT really add to your Texas |
|
| RE: Replace Nevada with Houston or UTEP and we're good |
|
| New MWC Divisions |
|
| problem is that BYU and Utah have to play each |
|
| RE: problem is that BYU and Utah have to play each |
|
| Someone on the MWCBoard suggested this: |
|
| One group would have 3 of the top 4 teams. (short) |
|
| Every team would have to play 2 out BYU, Utah, BSU |
|
| "One of these divisions is not like the other..." (nm) |
|
| They arent divisions |
|
| Because it increases our chance of having to play (short) |
|
| Never happen. |
|
| It was done completely different in the old WAC |
|
| The reasoning why the teams didn't like it was the |
|
| Where did you hear the rumor or do you have a link (nm) |
|
| San Diego radio via utefans |
|
| Thanks (nm) |
|
| After looking at the numbers that the BCS would |
|
| North & South Divisions |
|
| This the way I thought of doing it but it does (short) |
|
| It is the best way to split them geographically bu |
|
| thats the best way to split them. makes sense (nm) |
|
| I don't think a geographic split makes sense |
|
| RE: If it is Boise, FSU and Nevada, what divisions? |
|







