Why the Mountain West Should be in the BCS

Why the Moutain West Should be in the BCS

12/14/09 in NCAAF   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

Why are the only conferences that make up the BCS the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, SEC, and Pac 10. More importantly who decided that only these conferences should be a part of the BCS. Furthermore, why has the national media never brought up the idea of adding another conference such as the Mountain West.

In this article I will prove that at the very least the BCS should have a discussion about including the Mountain West. The best measuring stick to compare conferences against one another is how well they do against each other. In recent years Utah won at Michigan (2008), at Oregon St (2008), at Louisville (2007), UCLA (2007). BYU won at Oklahoma (2009), UCLA (2008), Washington (2008), Arizona (2007), at UCLA (2007). TCU holds recent wins over at Clemson (2009), at UVA (2009), Stanford (2008), Baylor (2007), at Stanford (2007). Furthermore, the wins listed above do not include Bowl wins.

Each year all the conferences compete for the Bowl Championship Cup, and the winner is based on winning percentage. The Mountain West is the only conference to win this award twice, 2004 and 2007. Since 2004 they have an overall Bowl record of 14-7, and are 3-0 in BCS Bowl Games, the only conference achieve this as well with multiple teams. Lets compare how the Mountain West has done in Bowl Games to two BCS Conferences, the ACC and Big 10. The ACC 18-22 and 2-9 in BCS Bowl Games with Virginia Tech winning both games. The Big 10 is 13-21 and 2-7 in BCS Bowl Games. Furthermore, neither the ACC or Big 10 has won the Bowl Championship Cup since 2004.

So what is my point? Both the ACC and Big 10 having losing Bowl Game records the last 5 years, compared to the Mountain West winning 66.6% of their Bowl Games. Also, why are conferences such as the ACC and the Big 10 consistently being awarded an automatic BCS Bowl Game win they continue to fail year after year; whereas when the Mountain West is given a shot they won each time. If TCU beats Boise St. this year, then 4 different Mountain West Teams would have won BCS Games since 2004.

I propose that the if the BCS wants to keep their “Conference” to 6 teams, then their conferences must prove they belong. The Big 10 has been a disgrace to the BCS, and has become the laughing stock of College Football, but please someone tell me how not 1 but 2 teams normally go to BCS Games. Now, how should a conference prove they belong in the BCS, thus receive an automatic BCS Game. Why not use the Bowl Championship Cup, and have at least 5 teams from each of the current BCS conferences and the Mountain West play each other. The conference with the worst record is then removed from an automatic BCS Game for the next year.

It is about time the “Big Boys” are penalized for playing “cupcake” schedules, and expect their name to automatically mean they deserve to be in a big Bowl Game.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

12/15/09   |   Funkdenomotron

BigTone2475 wrote:
"It is about time the “Big Boys” are penalized for playing “cupcake” schedules, and expect their name to automatically mean they deserve to be in a big Bowl Game. "

Why is it that the so called "Big Boys" get hammered for playing "cupcakes" for maybe one to two games but TCU, Boise, Utah and the rest of the MW and WAC play those same teams or the same level of teams for 90% of the schedule and everyone thinks they are so great and deserve so much more based solely on their OC schedule which is one to two decent games not big ones.

 Because they win

12/14/09   |   BigTone2475   |   326 respect

spawn_master wrote:
Can you honestly say the Big 10 has less cupcakes than the Mountain West. The Mountain West has TXU, Utah, and BYU. It seems like the Big 10 only has Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. I really don't see a huge difference, plus the bowl results should speak volumes as well.

Also look at how many of the victories from the smaller conferences are on the road.

Spawn you are a little confused I am in no way defending the Big 10 I have said for years that they are a joke. 

12/14/09   |   BigTone2475   |   326 respect

gobigblue1960 wrote:
I can tell you that the fact is the Big Ten was never in favor of any BCS system, and have been steadfastly opposed to any college football playoff system. As a Michigan fan, i can tell you that since i have been following Michigan football, and that's 35 years now,  every Michigan President, Athletic Director, and every Wolverine coach, from Bo Schembechler to Lloyd Carr, have vehemently been against anything that takes the Big Ten Champion away from the Rose Bowl.
The BCS is a SEC developed sysyem, and you're right about one point, the Big Ten did finally agree to participate, but, as you mentioned, ONLY AFTER THE ROSE BOWL TIE IN WAS LEFT IN TACT, and that's as it should be. The Rose Bowl Game is the most sacred, traditional, and historic bowl game in the history of college football, and i would rather watch any Rose Bowl Game, between two great conferences like the Big Ten, and the Pac-10, a game that both teams belong in,  than watch a game like the BCS title game, in which the teams don't earn the right to play in, a game in which the two teams are allowed to play in by a set of ridiculous rules that favor a certain few.
In fact, i wish the Big Ten/Pac-10 conferences would tell the BCS to take a hike. I'll settle for the Rose Bowl every time.

If the Rose Bowl is so great with it's tradition and sacredness the how is it fair that only the Big 10 and PAC 10 get a shot at playing in it. With it being the oldest and most well known off the bowl games then all should be welcomed. You can't say the BCS is unfair and then say only the PAC 10 and Big 10 get to play in the Rose Bowl.

12/14/09   |   BigTone2475   |   326 respect

gobigblue1960 wrote:
Your facts are way off. The BCS was developed by the former commissioner of the SEC, Roy Kramer. Kramer is the guy who was tired of seeing SEC teams not winning National Championships. Jim Delaney, the Big Ten commissioner, had nothing to do with it. In fact, the Big Ten refused to be a part of the BCS for many years, because they, along with the Pac Ten conference, refused to allow any teams to break the Rose Bowl tradition that the Big Ten and Pac Ten have had for over 60 years.
The BCS was concocted by an SEC guy because the SEC won no National Titles from 1981-1991, and only two from 1980(Georgia), and 1992(Alabama).
The BCS is an SEC driven idea, powered by pre-season polls that favor SEC teams, and powered by SEC shills on ESPN, and CBS, who are pouring millions of dollars into the SEC to televise their games.
Yes, Jim Delany "works for the Big Ten", and he has been a great commissioner, but the Big Ten only went into the BCS after the BCS agreed to allow the BigTen/Pac Ten Rose Bowl alliance to continue. I cringe at the though of any Florida team ever setting foot into the Rose Bowl Game.

 "refused to allow any teams to break the Rose Bowl tradition that the Big Ten and Pac Ten have had for over 60 years."

Ladies and gents the reason there will never be a playoff system!

12/14/09   |   BigTone2475   |   326 respect

MarkTheShark wrote:
But you have to compare TCU for instance traveled TO Death Valley and TO Charlottesville. When does an SEC team outside of Tennessee or Auburn EVER travel TO anywhere out-of-conference? These are legitimate wins.

I think the point of the article was not to bash the SEC but to say: Hey, you know what? If you 65 BCS schools want to hog it all, fine. But at the end of the year we are going to be here and we are going to prove we're just as good as your best.
(Edited by BigTone2475)

I never said they were not legitimate wins. I am saying why are they only judged on those to games but not criticized for the rest of their schedule while the "Big Boys" are criticized for the two weak games and not judged on the rest of their schedule. When one plays maybe two cupcakes and then faces a tougher conference schedule while the other plays maybe two tough games and then a cupcake laden conference schedule.

I am in no way excusing the "Big Boys" for not scheduling bigger NCG (even though I understand why they don't) I am saying how is it fair to bust one for only a couple of those games and excuse another who plays those games 90% of the time.

12/14/09   |   BigTone2475   |   326 respect

gobigblue1960 wrote:
I was about to give you respect for writing a terrific article, then you started to ridicule the Big Ten for, as you call it, "the disgrace of college football." This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. You're asking how two Big Ten team can get in the BCS.? Easy, they deserve it. In fact, they deserve more than that. Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa are all 10-2.
The Big Ten has had 21 teams qualify for BCS games, the most by any other conference.
Now, before you start blowing a gasket, remember, i'm a huge critic of the BCS, because it does keep out teams from getting their rightful shot at winning the National Championship, however, the Buckeyes, Nittany Lions, and Hawkeyes did the same thing that teams from other conferences do, they played the conference schedule they were given by the Big Ten, battled each other, and played excellent football.
Tes, the Mountain West should be given a chance to play in the BCS, but they are not the only ones. Every conference that plays D-1 A, or FBS, should be able to compete.
The Big Ten takes a lot of undue criticism because Ohio State got beat in two consecutive NC games, but they were it the game by way of 12-0, and 11-1 records.
Now, i realize that the Big Ten doesn't have the greatest bowl record, but that doesn't mean that they don't have team deserving of BCS bowl bids every year. Maybe the Big Ten should forget the BCS bowls, and invite all the warm weather teams to play in all the Big Ten stadiums on New Yearsday...ah, frozen Gators, Trojans, and Tigers for dinner...yum.

Yeah and I would invite you to come and play in the Swamp when it is 105 on the field. I am sick of that argument. 

Before everyone piles on I know UF's AD would not schedule them so no need to bring it up. I was just saying it is just as hard to play in sweltering heat when you are not used to it as it is to play when it's cold, and yes I have played in them both an personally I would rather play in the cold.

12/14/09   |   MarkTheShark   |   590 respect

(Edited by MarkTheShark)

First SHUT UP about cold weather games. It's a farce of an excuse. Everybody knows late in the season is when you play your conference games. Period. Really. Auburn went to WVU on Oct 23, 2008. That's as late as ANY school in ANY conference is going to schedule ANY non-conference game that is not a rivalry.
Where's Michigan playing Florida on Sept 1 in 94degree temps with the humidity feel like factor of 104. See, it's just as lame when you reverse it.In 2009:     
              vs. each other         other BCS schools            non-BCS schools         FCS
Big Ten   2-2                               3-7 *                                       18-3                       9-0 &

     
Big East  2-2                             7-6                                           13-0                      10-0




*   Iowa won TWO of those three, beating Arizona and Iowa State...but it must be noted that the Hawkeyes beat an FCS school AT HOME by a single point

&   Minnesota also boasted a three point win over an FCS school (South Dakota State) There were no such close calls for the Big East vs. FCS schools.

You the Q population be the judge. Note that EIGHT Big East schools scheduled 17 games vs. fellow BCS opponents. Meanwhile, the Big Ten (ELEVEN schools) scheduled 14 games vs other BCS schools.


"When you go 13-17 in non-conference play, the majority of your teams don't have winning records. That makes it difficult, especially when you have parity in your conference play." - Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner in 1993 before he suggested that Big Ten schools schedule less competent opponents.

12/14/09   |   spawn_master   |   18 respect

BigTone2475 wrote:
"It is about time the “Big Boys” are penalized for playing “cupcake” schedules, and expect their name to automatically mean they deserve to be in a big Bowl Game. "

Why is it that the so called "Big Boys" get hammered for playing "cupcakes" for maybe one to two games but TCU, Boise, Utah and the rest of the MW and WAC play those same teams or the same level of teams for 90% of the schedule and everyone thinks they are so great and deserve so much more based solely on their OC schedule which is one to two decent games not big ones.

Can you honestly say the Big 10 has less cupcakes than the Mountain West. The Mountain West has TXU, Utah, and BYU. It seems like the Big 10 only has Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. I really don't see a huge difference, plus the bowl results should speak volumes as well.

Also look at how many of the victories from the smaller conferences are on the road.

12/14/09   |   gobigblue1960   |   4805 respect

MarkTheShark wrote:
Your facts are way off. The BCS was developed by the former commissioner of the SEC, Roy Kramer. Kramer is the guy who was tired of seeing SEC teams not winning National Championships. Jim Delaney, the Big Ten commissioner, had nothing to do with it. In fact, the Big Ten refused to be a part of the BCS for many years, because they, along with the Pac Ten conference, refused to allow any teams to break the Rose Bowl tradition that the Big Ten and Pac Ten have had for over 60 years.
The BCS was concocted by an SEC guy because the SEC won no National Titles from 1981-1991, and only two from 1980(Georgia), and 1992(Alabama).
The BCS is an SEC driven idea, powered by pre-season polls that favor SEC teams, and powered by SEC shills on ESPN, and CBS, who are pouring millions of dollars into the SEC to televise their games.
Yes, Jim Delany "works for the Big Ten", and he has been a great commissioner, but the Big Ten only went into the BCS after the BCS agreed to allow the BigTen/Pac Ten Rose Bowl alliance to continue. I cringe at the though of any Florida team ever setting foot into the Rose Bowl Game.


Your facts are way off. Basically all the big schools were pissed when BYU won the National Championship in 1984 because all the other conferences were locked into their respective bowl games and had losses. Everyone knew that undefeated BYU had wrapped up the NC before Christmas with their win over (ahem) MICHIGAN! (despite feverish and open cheating by the refs I might add) in the Holiday Bowl. No one wanted to play BYU for fear of during more harm than good (basically ALL the big schools wanted no part of BYU that year. They also knew they could make sure that never happened again.

Another factor was the locked conference tie-ins such as the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. In 1991 Washington and Miami had to share a NC because of the Rose Bowl not allowing the Pac 10 champion Huskies out of the Rose Bowl.

To address this problem, five conferences, six bowl games and leading independent Notre Dame joined forces to create the Bowl Coalition, which was intended to force a de facto "national championship game" between the top two teams. By entirely excluding all the other conferences, the Bowl Coalition also made it impossible for a non-Bowl Coalition team to win a national championship as BYU did in 1984.

Still, The Tournament of Roses Association, which operates the Rose Bowl, wouldn't let go of the Big Ten and Pac 10. This bowl coalition was restructured a little in 1995..and then in 1998 the BCS was created with all of it's complexities. Roy Kramer is indeed credited with its origin, but he had tons of help including Delany and Ohio State's Gordon Gee. After a protracted round of negotiations, the Bowl Alliance was reformed into the Bowl Championship Series for the 1998 season. The Tournament of Roses Association, which operates the Rose Bowl, agreed to release the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions if it was necessary to force a national championship game. In return, the Rose Bowl was added to the yearly national championship rotation, and the game was able to keep its coveted exclusive TV time slot on the afternoon of New Year's Day.

However, beginning with the 2006 season, the BCS National Championship Game became a separate event played at the same site as a host bowl a week following New Year's Day.

It is still fail, because the system is tainted and manipulated by the bigger conferences. The money involved is why, former Ohio State player Ben Espy says, the BCS will always favor larger schools. "So the Cincinnati's and the Boise State's will never be in a BCS championship game unless it's based on a playoff system, it's as simple as that." "The system will not change unless Congress steps in," Espy told Heath. "Because the system is based upon money. And the BCS is based upon what team travels best."

Proof off this is setting Florida (NOT a champion of its conference) up with Cincinnati in New Orleans and putting TCU and Boise State against each other in Arizona EVEN though that breaks with the "rules" of the BCS setup. (last year UTAH played Alabama in New Orleans) Why? Easy, the conferences that make the most money from the BCS don't want to be embarrassed by the WAC and Mountain West .....ok that was snarky. Of course, the real reason is it sets up the bowls with more fans and that means more $$$. Why not just admit that. These secret computer formulas? A joke, meant to throw you off. Cincinnati played a tougher schedule than did Alabama but you knew that Cincy wouldn't get a shot.

I can tell you that the fact is the Big Ten was never in favor of any BCS system, and have been steadfastly opposed to any college football playoff system. As a Michigan fan, i can tell you that since i have been following Michigan football, and that's 35 years now,  every Michigan President, Athletic Director, and every Wolverine coach, from Bo Schembechler to Lloyd Carr, have vehemently been against anything that takes the Big Ten Champion away from the Rose Bowl.
The BCS is a SEC developed sysyem, and you're right about one point, the Big Ten did finally agree to participate, but, as you mentioned, ONLY AFTER THE ROSE BOWL TIE IN WAS LEFT IN TACT, and that's as it should be. The Rose Bowl Game is the most sacred, traditional, and historic bowl game in the history of college football, and i would rather watch any Rose Bowl Game, between two great conferences like the Big Ten, and the Pac-10, a game that both teams belong in,  than watch a game like the BCS title game, in which the teams don't earn the right to play in, a game in which the two teams are allowed to play in by a set of ridiculous rules that favor a certain few.
In fact, i wish the Big Ten/Pac-10 conferences would tell the BCS to take a hike. I'll settle for the Rose Bowl every time.

12/14/09   |   gobigblue1960   |   4805 respect

phillydeac4life wrote:
If the Big 10 deserves to go to BCS Games, then why are they 2-7 over the last 5 years, and 13-21 in non BCS Bowl Games over the last 5 years as well?  My point is the majority of the time the Big 10 goes outside of their conference they lose.  Furthermore, the last two years OSU has played USC in the regular season, for sake of argument, the two best teams from the Big 10 and Pac 10.  USC destroyed OSU both times, not to mention USC dominating Penn St. in last year's Rose Bowl.

Also, your last statement about having other BCS teams go play on the road to play teams at Big 10 Stadiums is meaningless, when their best teams play in BCS games each year, and get embarrassed. 

Finally, explain to me why the Big 10 deserves to be a part of the BCS?  Or, for that matter why any of the current six conferences are in this exclusive club that controls all the cash? 

The point of the article is that if we are stuck with the BCS, then the best conferences should be the members.  One of the best measuring sticks of determining who the best conferences are is head to head non conference games (MW vs. ACC this year), and Bowl Records/BCS Records.

I'm defending the Big Ten, and not slighting the Mountain West. The Big Ten has not had a great record, true, but they are certainly a better conference, and have far more marquee teams than either the Mountain West, the WAC, ACC, or the Big East. Your stating that the Big Ten is a disgrace, and a laughing stock is absurd. Why is it meaningless to make a point about the Big Ten teams playing cold weather games at home.? The SEC teams play warm weather games all year long. I have nothing against any teams from the Mountain West, but the BCS is not going to drop the Big Ten, or the ACC, or the Big East for the Mountain West, not now, nor ever. Now, the BCS should be open to all conferences, not just a few "select power conferences."
I have been anti-BCS from the start, but you asking that the MW replace the Big Ten is ridiculous.
Your complaining about the 2-7 record the last five years for the Big Ten, but you fail to mention the Big Ten's four straight wins at the start of the BCS in 1998 and 1999, and the Big Ten's 5-3 record in the BCS from 1998-2002, including the 2002 BCS Champion, Ohio State.
By the way, according to a search about SEC non-conference games from 1990-2008, the SEC has a 30-0 record vs. the Big West, a 32-6 record against the WAC, and a 9-4 record against the Mountain West.
There's the old saying, "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it,"

12/14/09   |   MarkTheShark   |   590 respect

(Edited by MarkTheShark)

Your facts are way off. The BCS was developed by the former commissioner of the SEC, Roy Kramer. Kramer is the guy who was tired of seeing SEC teams not winning National Championships. Jim Delaney, the Big Ten commissioner, had nothing to do with it. In fact, the Big Ten refused to be a part of the BCS for many years, because they, along with the Pac Ten conference, refused to allow any teams to break the Rose Bowl tradition that the Big Ten and Pac Ten have had for over 60 years.
The BCS was concocted by an SEC guy because the SEC won no National Titles from 1981-1991, and only two from 1980(Georgia), and 1992(Alabama).
The BCS is an SEC driven idea, powered by pre-season polls that favor SEC teams, and powered by SEC shills on ESPN, and CBS, who are pouring millions of dollars into the SEC to televise their games.
Yes, Jim Delany "works for the Big Ten", and he has been a great commissioner, but the Big Ten only went into the BCS after the BCS agreed to allow the BigTen/Pac Ten Rose Bowl alliance to continue. I cringe at the though of any Florida team ever setting foot into the Rose Bowl Game.


Your facts are way off. Basically all the big schools were pissed when BYU won the National Championship in 1984 because all the other conferences were locked into their respective bowl games and had losses. Everyone knew that undefeated BYU had wrapped up the NC before Christmas with their win over (ahem) MICHIGAN! (despite feverish and open cheating by the refs I might add) in the Holiday Bowl. No one wanted to play BYU for fear of during more harm than good (basically ALL the big schools wanted no part of BYU that year. They also knew they could make sure that never happened again.

Another factor was the locked conference tie-ins such as the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl. In 1991 Washington and Miami had to share a NC because of the Rose Bowl not allowing the Pac 10 champion Huskies out of the Rose Bowl.

To address this problem, five conferences, six bowl games and leading independent Notre Dame joined forces to create the Bowl Coalition, which was intended to force a de facto "national championship game" between the top two teams. By entirely excluding all the other conferences, the Bowl Coalition also made it impossible for a non-Bowl Coalition team to win a national championship as BYU did in 1984.

Still, The Tournament of Roses Association, which operates the Rose Bowl, wouldn't let go of the Big Ten and Pac 10. This bowl coalition was restructured a little in 1995..and then in 1998 the BCS was created with all of it's complexities. Roy Kramer is indeed credited with its origin, but he had tons of help including Delany and Ohio State's Gordon Gee. After a protracted round of negotiations, the Bowl Alliance was reformed into the Bowl Championship Series for the 1998 season. The Tournament of Roses Association, which operates the Rose Bowl, agreed to release the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions if it was necessary to force a national championship game. In return, the Rose Bowl was added to the yearly national championship rotation, and the game was able to keep its coveted exclusive TV time slot on the afternoon of New Year's Day.

However, beginning with the 2006 season, the BCS National Championship Game became a separate event played at the same site as a host bowl a week following New Year's Day.

It is still fail, because the system is tainted and manipulated by the bigger conferences. The money involved is why, former Ohio State player Ben Espy says, the BCS will always favor larger schools. "So the Cincinnati's and the Boise State's will never be in a BCS championship game unless it's based on a playoff system, it's as simple as that." "The system will not change unless Congress steps in," Espy told Heath. "Because the system is based upon money. And the BCS is based upon what team travels best."

Proof off this is setting Florida (NOT a champion of its conference) up with Cincinnati in New Orleans and putting TCU and Boise State against each other in Arizona EVEN though that breaks with the "rules" of the BCS setup. (last year UTAH played Alabama in New Orleans) Why? Easy, the conferences that make the most money from the BCS don't want to be embarrassed by the WAC and Mountain West .....ok that was snarky. Of course, the real reason is it sets up the bowls with more fans and that means more $$$. Why not just admit that. These secret computer formulas? A joke, meant to throw you off. Cincinnati played a tougher schedule than did Alabama but you knew that Cincy wouldn't get a shot.

12/14/09   |   Jaybo   |   128 respect

(Edited by Jaybo)

I have an idea.  Why doesn't the Mountain West Conference take the "Mountain" out of their name and change it to the "Big West Conference", then it would be easy to take the "Big East Conference's" spot in the BCS.
Point is: put the word "Big" in your conference name, and you are golden

12/14/09   |   elevenbravo138again   |   1163 respect

wrote:
 PLAYOFFS!

Your lips to the BCS's Hideously Misshapen, Animatronic Ears Resistance is Futile 

12/14/09   |   MrNFL   |   175 respect

Everyone, everyone...I think we can agree on something...the BCS blows goat balls.

12/14/09   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

Dubs wrote:
To answer your question about why certain conferences get automatic BCS bids and some don't, see Jim Delany.  He is a very high ranking official in the Big 10 and apparantly, he is one hell of a negotiator.  It's been a couple of years since I actually read the article, but basicly, the BCS was primarily HIS brainchild as a way to make money for the Big 10.  He only included what he thought were the best conferences in his BCS idea and it was conceived solely as a way to make money - and lots of it - for these conferences.  He didn't include the other conferences in the BCS because he didn't want to have to share the big money with them.  When questioned about a playoff system and how much better it would be for college football, he replied (and I paraphrase), "I don't work for college football.  I work for the Big 10."

I'm sure I left out a ton of info here so if anyone wants to expand or correct me, feel free.  But I'm pretty sure that is the general gist of it. 

I understand how the BCS system works, I was just asking a rhetoric question?  I just find it strange that about every year the Big 10 sends two teams to BCS Games to get rocked.

The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

12/14/09   |   Dubs   |   2563 respect

gobigblue1960 wrote:
Your facts are way off. The BCS was developed by the former commissioner of the SEC, Roy Kramer. Kramer is the guy who was tired of seeing SEC teams not winning National Championships. Jim Delaney, the Big Ten commissioner, had nothing to do with it. In fact, the Big Ten refused to be a part of the BCS for many years, because they, along with the Pac Ten conference, refused to allow any teams to break the Rose Bowl tradition that the Big Ten and Pac Ten have had for over 60 years.
The BCS was concocted by an SEC guy because the SEC won no National Titles from 1981-1991, and only two from 1980(Georgia), and 1992(Alabama).
The BCS is an SEC driven idea, powered by pre-season polls that favor SEC teams, and powered by SEC shills on ESPN, and CBS, who are pouring millions of dollars into the SEC to televise their games.
Yes, Jim Delany "works for the Big Ten", and he has been a great commissioner, but the Big Ten only went into the BCS after the BCS agreed to allow the BigTen/Pac Ten Rose Bowl alliance to continue. I cringe at the though of any Florida team ever setting foot into the Rose Bowl Game.

Awesome!  Thanks for clearing that up for me.  I had forgotten about the whole, Big 10, Pac 10, Rose Bowl fiasco.  I guess the article I read was more concerning how Delany got those entities involved.  Like I said, it has been a while since I read that.  Thanks again. 

12/14/09   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

gobigblue1960 wrote:
I was about to give you respect for writing a terrific article, then you started to ridicule the Big Ten for, as you call it, "the disgrace of college football." This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. You're asking how two Big Ten team can get in the BCS.? Easy, they deserve it. In fact, they deserve more than that. Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa are all 10-2.
The Big Ten has had 21 teams qualify for BCS games, the most by any other conference.
Now, before you start blowing a gasket, remember, i'm a huge critic of the BCS, because it does keep out teams from getting their rightful shot at winning the National Championship, however, the Buckeyes, Nittany Lions, and Hawkeyes did the same thing that teams from other conferences do, they played the conference schedule they were given by the Big Ten, battled each other, and played excellent football.
Tes, the Mountain West should be given a chance to play in the BCS, but they are not the only ones. Every conference that plays D-1 A, or FBS, should be able to compete.
The Big Ten takes a lot of undue criticism because Ohio State got beat in two consecutive NC games, but they were it the game by way of 12-0, and 11-1 records.
Now, i realize that the Big Ten doesn't have the greatest bowl record, but that doesn't mean that they don't have team deserving of BCS bowl bids every year. Maybe the Big Ten should forget the BCS bowls, and invite all the warm weather teams to play in all the Big Ten stadiums on New Yearsday...ah, frozen Gators, Trojans, and Tigers for dinner...yum.

If the Big 10 deserves to go to BCS Games, then why are they 2-7 over the last 5 years, and 13-21 in non BCS Bowl Games over the last 5 years as well?  My point is the majority of the time the Big 10 goes outside of their conference they lose.  Furthermore, the last two years OSU has played USC in the regular season, for sake of argument, the two best teams from the Big 10 and Pac 10.  USC destroyed OSU both times, not to mention USC dominating Penn St. in last year's Rose Bowl.

Also, your last statement about having other BCS teams go play on the road to play teams at Big 10 Stadiums is meaningless, when their best teams play in BCS games each year, and get embarrassed. 

Finally, explain to me why the Big 10 deserves to be a part of the BCS?  Or, for that matter why any of the current six conferences are in this exclusive club that controls all the cash? 

The point of the article is that if we are stuck with the BCS, then the best conferences should be the members.  One of the best measuring sticks of determining who the best conferences are is head to head non conference games (MW vs. ACC this year), and Bowl Records/BCS Records.

12/14/09   |   shfessler   |   55 respect

I live in Utah and coach at a local highschool, I see Utah and BYU play regularly I feel they could hang with any team in the country and TCU the past couple of years are amazing.

12/14/09   |   shfessler   |   55 respect

gobigblue1960 wrote:
I was about to give you respect for writing a terrific article, then you started to ridicule the Big Ten for, as you call it, "the disgrace of college football." This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. You're asking how two Big Ten team can get in the BCS.? Easy, they deserve it. In fact, they deserve more than that. Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa are all 10-2.
The Big Ten has had 21 teams qualify for BCS games, the most by any other conference.
Now, before you start blowing a gasket, remember, i'm a huge critic of the BCS, because it does keep out teams from getting their rightful shot at winning the National Championship, however, the Buckeyes, Nittany Lions, and Hawkeyes did the same thing that teams from other conferences do, they played the conference schedule they were given by the Big Ten, battled each other, and played excellent football.
Tes, the Mountain West should be given a chance to play in the BCS, but they are not the only ones. Every conference that plays D-1 A, or FBS, should be able to compete.
The Big Ten takes a lot of undue criticism because Ohio State got beat in two consecutive NC games, but they were it the game by way of 12-0, and 11-1 records.
Now, i realize that the Big Ten doesn't have the greatest bowl record, but that doesn't mean that they don't have team deserving of BCS bowl bids every year. Maybe the Big Ten should forget the BCS bowls, and invite all the warm weather teams to play in all the Big Ten stadiums on New Yearsday...ah, frozen Gators, Trojans, and Tigers for dinner...yum.

I have to agree with the article about the mountain west they should have an automatic bid to the BCS, they have earned that right  I think the Wac, Mac, Sunbelt, Independents, and Conference USA should have a playoff game to get into it if they are ranked in the top 25.  Mountain West is proven they can win I saw eveyone in the mountain west play this year and BYU, Utah, TCU could hang with the nations elite.  (BYU did get rocked by FSU, but they gave OU all they wanted and then ruined their season by hurting the QB) TCU is tough! They could beat anybody they way they are playing. And Utah just ask Bama about UTAH. 

I think the Moutain West should have an Automatic bid!

And I would never cheer or want OHio State to accomplish anything even if they were undefeated!

12/14/09   |   phillydeac4life   |   20 respect

BigTone2475 wrote:
"It is about time the “Big Boys” are penalized for playing “cupcake” schedules, and expect their name to automatically mean they deserve to be in a big Bowl Game. "

Why is it that the so called "Big Boys" get hammered for playing "cupcakes" for maybe one to two games but TCU, Boise, Utah and the rest of the MW and WAC play those same teams or the same level of teams for 90% of the schedule and everyone thinks they are so great and deserve so much more based solely on their OC schedule which is one to two decent games not big ones.

1.  A lot of the schools from the BCS barely play one decent non-conference team, if not 1 at all. This year Florida played two teams from Div 1AA, Texas played no team from a BCS Conference outside the Big 12.  If you want to claim your the best, then actually go out and play at least 1 decent team a year.  Alabama played VTech, Ohio St. played USC, next year Alabama starts a one and one with Penn St.  The problem is not so much teams from BCS conferences playing "cupcakes", but more about them trying to slide by their nonconference schedule without a loss.  For example, if Florida beat Alabama this year, their best nonconference win was FSU; whereas Alabama beat VTech.  My point is that Alabama had the balls to go outside their conference, and play arguably the best team from the ACC over the last few years. 

2.  Boise St.'s AD recently went public, and said no team from a BCS school will schedule them.  He even offered to go to their stadium, and not play the "one and one".  This is becoming a big problem for teams from the Mountain West as well, moreso after BYU knocked off Oklahoma in the first game of the season.

3.  When a BCS school plays one of these schools, there is a chance they could lose.  Therefore, a BCS School that is trying to win a National Championship will never schedule a Utah or Boise St, and will play teams from the Sun Belt, MAC, or DIV 1AA. 

4.  "TCU, Boise, Utah and the rest of the MW and WAC play those same teams or the same level of teams for 90% of the schedule and everyone thinks they are so great and deserve so much more based solely on their OC schedule which is one to two decent games not big ones."

    -  I need to break this into two parts.  This article is about the Mountain West being included in the BCS not the WAC.  The WAC has Boise St., Nevada, and Fresno St, after that a lot of bad teams (Nevada and Frenso St. are only decent programs at that).  Did you know that over half of the Mountain West's team are over .500, with 3 teams ranked?  The only other conference that has more than 3 teams ranked is the Big 10.  Sure the MW has New Mexico, but the Pac 10 has Washington St, the SEC has Vandy, the ACC has Duke, the Big East has Syracuse, the Big 10 has Indiana.  Finally, your argument that the MW consists of cupcakes has no merit when over the last 5 years they have a better Bowl Record than any other conference in College Football.

12/14/09   |   gobigblue1960   |   4805 respect

Dubs wrote:
To answer your question about why certain conferences get automatic BCS bids and some don't, see Jim Delany.  He is a very high ranking official in the Big 10 and apparantly, he is one hell of a negotiator.  It's been a couple of years since I actually read the article, but basicly, the BCS was primarily HIS brainchild as a way to make money for the Big 10.  He only included what he thought were the best conferences in his BCS idea and it was conceived solely as a way to make money - and lots of it - for these conferences.  He didn't include the other conferences in the BCS because he didn't want to have to share the big money with them.  When questioned about a playoff system and how much better it would be for college football, he replied (and I paraphrase), "I don't work for college football.  I work for the Big 10."

I'm sure I left out a ton of info here so if anyone wants to expand or correct me, feel free.  But I'm pretty sure that is the general gist of it. 

Your facts are way off. The BCS was developed by the former commissioner of the SEC, Roy Kramer. Kramer is the guy who was tired of seeing SEC teams not winning National Championships. Jim Delaney, the Big Ten commissioner, had nothing to do with it. In fact, the Big Ten refused to be a part of the BCS for many years, because they, along with the Pac Ten conference, refused to allow any teams to break the Rose Bowl tradition that the Big Ten and Pac Ten have had for over 60 years.
The BCS was concocted by an SEC guy because the SEC won no National Titles from 1981-1991, and only two from 1980(Georgia), and 1992(Alabama).
The BCS is an SEC driven idea, powered by pre-season polls that favor SEC teams, and powered by SEC shills on ESPN, and CBS, who are pouring millions of dollars into the SEC to televise their games.
Yes, Jim Delany "works for the Big Ten", and he has been a great commissioner, but the Big Ten only went into the BCS after the BCS agreed to allow the BigTen/Pac Ten Rose Bowl alliance to continue. I cringe at the though of any Florida team ever setting foot into the Rose Bowl Game.

12/14/09   |   gobigblue1960   |   4805 respect

I was about to give you respect for writing a terrific article, then you started to ridicule the Big Ten for, as you call it, "the disgrace of college football." This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. You're asking how two Big Ten team can get in the BCS.? Easy, they deserve it. In fact, they deserve more than that. Ohio State, Penn State, and Iowa are all 10-2.
The Big Ten has had 21 teams qualify for BCS games, the most by any other conference.
Now, before you start blowing a gasket, remember, i'm a huge critic of the BCS, because it does keep out teams from getting their rightful shot at winning the National Championship, however, the Buckeyes, Nittany Lions, and Hawkeyes did the same thing that teams from other conferences do, they played the conference schedule they were given by the Big Ten, battled each other, and played excellent football.
Tes, the Mountain West should be given a chance to play in the BCS, but they are not the only ones. Every conference that plays D-1 A, or FBS, should be able to compete.
The Big Ten takes a lot of undue criticism because Ohio State got beat in two consecutive NC games, but they were it the game by way of 12-0, and 11-1 records.
Now, i realize that the Big Ten doesn't have the greatest bowl record, but that doesn't mean that they don't have team deserving of BCS bowl bids every year. Maybe the Big Ten should forget the BCS bowls, and invite all the warm weather teams to play in all the Big Ten stadiums on New Yearsday...ah, frozen Gators, Trojans, and Tigers for dinner...yum.

12/14/09   |   Dubs   |   2563 respect

(Edited by Dubs)

To answer your question about why certain conferences get automatic BCS bids and some don't, see Jim Delany.  He is a very high ranking official in the Big 10 and apparantly, he is one hell of a negotiator.  It's been a couple of years since I actually read the article, but basicly, the BCS was primarily HIS brainchild as a way to make money for the Big 10.  He only included what he thought were the best conferences in his BCS idea and it was conceived solely as a way to make money - and lots of it - for these conferences.  He didn't include the other conferences in the BCS because he didn't want to have to share the big money with them.  When questioned about a playoff system and how much better it would be for college football, he replied (and I paraphrase), "I don't work for college football.  I work for the Big 10."

I'm sure I left out a ton of info here so if anyone wants to expand or correct me, feel free.  But I'm pretty sure that is the general gist of it. 

12/14/09   |   ipunki   |   91 respect

Great article. Certainly the Mountain West should at least be given a shot at a BCS Bowl game. It is a tough division, and it actually provides some great football to watch!!! BYU and TCU are both good teams with hard schedules, and I think they should have a shot at the National Title, just as much as anyone else, and my favorite teams are in the  Pac-10 and the Big-10... Just let them have their chance at becoming National Champions!! 

12/14/09   |   MarkTheShark   |   590 respect

BigTone2475 wrote:
"It is about time the “Big Boys” are penalized for playing “cupcake” schedules, and expect their name to automatically mean they deserve to be in a big Bowl Game. "

Why is it that the so called "Big Boys" get hammered for playing "cupcakes" for maybe one to two games but TCU, Boise, Utah and the rest of the MW and WAC play those same teams or the same level of teams for 90% of the schedule and everyone thinks they are so great and deserve so much more based solely on their OC schedule which is one to two decent games not big ones.

But you have to compare TCU for instance traveled TO Death Valley and TO Charlottesville. When does an SEC team outside of Tennessee or Auburn EVER travel TO anywhere out-of-conference? These are legitimate wins.

I think the point of the article was not to bash the SEC but to say: Hey, you know what? If you 65 BCS schools want to hog it all, fine. But at the end of the year we are going to be here and we are going to prove we're just as good as your best.

12/14/09   |   BigTone2475   |   326 respect

"It is about time the “Big Boys” are penalized for playing “cupcake” schedules, and expect their name to automatically mean they deserve to be in a big Bowl Game. "

Why is it that the so called "Big Boys" get hammered for playing "cupcakes" for maybe one to two games but TCU, Boise, Utah and the rest of the MW and WAC play those same teams or the same level of teams for 90% of the schedule and everyone thinks they are so great and deserve so much more based solely on their OC schedule which is one to two decent games not big ones.

12/14/09   |   MarkTheShark   |   590 respect

(Edited by MarkTheShark)

Dude, you are preaching to the choir...if the Big Ten..(nothing big about them but academics) can be in the BCS certainly the Mountain West belongs there. 

then 4 different Mountain West Teams would have won BCS Games since 2004.
Hey Joe, Can ANY other conference claim that?


.........................................BYU played OU in Dallas early this season, not Norman.