Remarkable.

Lets see how much press that gets.
Big East 3 out of 8= 37.55
SEC 4 out of 12= 33%
Big12 3 out of 12= 25%
BigTen 4 out of 11= 36%
PacTen 3 out of 10= 30%
ACC= 3 out of 12= 25%
MWC= 3 out of 9= 33%
CUSA= 1out of 12= 8%
WAC 1 out of9= 11%

The highest rating of any league. Maybe the league should send out a flyer to ALL those writers and sites that thrashed the BE on those preseason polls.

mwc also making its case to be #7

(10-18-2009 06:46 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  mwc also making its case to be #7

Yes they are, if they continue the pace the past 2 years they deserve IMO the 7th AQ status. Just evalate the Cotton Bowl to BCS Status like it deserves to be in the first place.

Rose Bowl Big Ten vs. Pac 10
Sugar Bowl SEC vs. @ Large
Orange Bowl ACC vs. BIG EAST
Fiesta Bowl MWC vs. @ Large
Cotton Bowl Big XII vs. @ Large
BCS Championship Game BCS 1 vs. BCS 2

Technically speaking, the BCS didn't have a preseason poll.

(10-18-2009 07:45 PM)BlazerRod Wrote:  Technically speaking, the BCS didn't have a preseason poll.

A technicality only. The BCS is heavily influenced by polls, who determine their favorites long before the season. And those polls give up those early preconceptions only when it's obvious to the entire world that they're wrong...

(10-18-2009 06:58 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(10-18-2009 06:46 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  mwc also making its case to be #7

Yes they are, if they continue the pace the past 2 years they deserve IMO the 7th AQ status. Just evalate the Cotton Bowl to BCS Status like it deserves to be in the first place.

Rose Bowl Big Ten vs. Pac 10
Sugar Bowl SEC vs. @ Large
Orange Bowl ACC vs. BIG EAST
Fiesta Bowl MWC vs. @ Large
Cotton Bowl Big XII vs. @ Large
BCS Championship Game BCS 1 vs. BCS 2

You don't have to elevate the Cotton bowl, you just need to stop allowing two big Televen teams in every year and allow the MWC to take that other spot since their team is likely higher rated than that second big televen team anyway. If you look I don't think there is a year the big televen hasn't had two teams in and there really isn't any justification for this when you look at the results they've had.

Of course this is one of the main reasons that the idea is to take away the Big Easts bid, so that the big televen or another of the five BCS leagues (not named Big East) doesn't have to give up a second bid and the millions they receive. I think the Big televen's Rose Bowl recently had to make some concessions towards this in an effort to thwart congressionally mandated playoffs. The Rose Bowl instead of just taking an available big televen now will accept a non qualifier with a high rating instead.

If the MWC wants to be the 7th AQ conference, they still need to meet minimum BCS guidelines for inclusion. If they do that they're in, and they're close. They're very close. But the bottom of the conference still needs to step it up. Or the MWC should expand, including Boise, to give them the strength needed...

But with the keep no child behind rule in the schools, promoting idiots, to keep them with their peers, I bet the MWC gets included without the neccessity of meeting all minimum guidelines, and without all the harrassment The BEast receives every year...

(10-19-2009 10:29 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  But with the keep no child behind rule in the schools, promoting idiots, to keep them with their peers, I bet the MWC gets included without the neccessity of meeting all minimum guidelines, and without all the harrassment The BEast receives every year...

I think exactly the opposite. The BCS isn't the football equivalent of the National Honor Society as a merit organization - it's an exclusive club that's no different than Augusta National. The MWC could exceed all of the criteria that they want and they still won't get an auto-bid. People act like the "BCS criteria" constitute hard and fast rules when they are simply guidelines that try to reinforce that the 6 current BCS conferences should remain the only 6 BCS conferences. To the extent that another conference somehow meets that criteria, the other 6 BCS conferences can (and will) freely ignore it and say that it still doesn't matter. The only parties that matter are the 6 current BCS conferences who get to decide whether to allow another member into its exclusive club and pretty much every conference has a direct incentive to not let that happen. The biggest criteria is whether the BCS will make more money guaranteeing a spot to the MWC or taking another random SEC, Big 12 or Big Ten team and it's pretty clear - all of the undefeated Utah teams in the world don't trump 2-loss Ohio States or Oklahomas to the TV networks and bowls (who are the ones paying the bills).

(10-18-2009 07:45 PM)BlazerRod Wrote:  Technically speaking, the BCS didn't have a preseason poll.

The coaches poll is basically the BCS poll early in the season.

(10-19-2009 10:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2009 10:29 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  But with the keep no child behind rule in the schools, promoting idiots, to keep them with their peers, I bet the MWC gets included without the neccessity of meeting all minimum guidelines, and without all the harrassment The BEast receives every year...

I think exactly the opposite. The BCS isn't the football equivalent of the National Honor Society as a merit organization - it's an exclusive club that's no different than Augusta National. The MWC could exceed all of the criteria that they want and they still won't get an auto-bid. People act like the "BCS criteria" constitute hard and fast rules when they are simply guidelines that try to reinforce that the 6 current BCS conferences should remain the only 6 BCS conferences. To the extent that another conference somehow meets that criteria, the other 6 BCS conferences can (and will) freely ignore it and say that it still doesn't matter. The only parties that matter are the 6 current BCS conferences who get to decide whether to allow another member into its exclusive club and pretty much every conference has a direct incentive to not let that happen. The biggest criteria is whether the BCS will make more money guaranteeing a spot to the MWC or taking another random SEC, Big 12 or Big Ten team and it's pretty clear - all of the undefeated Utah teams in the world don't trump 2-loss Ohio States or Oklahomas to the TV networks and bowls (who are the ones paying the bills).

Well said.

I have no sympathy for TCU or Boise and I certainly would not give them a BCS bid. It's becoming a system where they can play one legit team all year and ride through the conference to a BCS paycheck. Winthat one game and you collect from the BCS. If they played a tougher schedule throughout the year- I would be better but as it is they are really taking that second BCS check away from a BCS conference.

I'm not an elitist. But let's face it, the BE could use the money too. It would be different if we had a $1 billion TV contract like the SEC and Big 10.

(10-19-2009 10:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-19-2009 10:29 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  But with the keep no child behind rule in the schools, promoting idiots, to keep them with their peers, I bet the MWC gets included without the neccessity of meeting all minimum guidelines, and without all the harrassment The BEast receives every year...

I think exactly the opposite. The BCS isn't the football equivalent of the National Honor Society as a merit organization - it's an exclusive club that's no different than Augusta National. The MWC could exceed all of the criteria that they want and they still won't get an auto-bid. People act like the "BCS criteria" constitute hard and fast rules when they are simply guidelines that try to reinforce that the 6 current BCS conferences should remain the only 6 BCS conferences. To the extent that another conference somehow meets that criteria, the other 6 BCS conferences can (and will) freely ignore it and say that it still doesn't matter. The only parties that matter are the 6 current BCS conferences who get to decide whether to allow another member into its exclusive club and pretty much every conference has a direct incentive to not let that happen. The biggest criteria is whether the BCS will make more money guaranteeing a spot to the MWC or taking another random SEC, Big 12 or Big Ten team and it's pretty clear - all of the undefeated Utah teams in the world don't trump 2-loss Ohio States or Oklahomas to the TV networks and bowls (who are the ones paying the bills).

Trouble is that the BCS is the one that came up with the criteria, in order to appease the political/legal pressure the non-AQ conferences applied in 2004. They also made it that everyone is "BCS" with a vote at the table. It seems like me they've painted themselves a bit in the corner with the criteria and wouldn't be able to simply ignore it.

Luckily for the BCS, I don't think the MWC will be able to meet the criteria, yet. If we add Boise, it'll be close, but a top 6 average in the overall conference strength will be tough to meet.

(10-19-2009 02:20 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Trouble is that the BCS is the one that came up with the criteria, in order to appease the political/legal pressure the non-AQ conferences applied in 2004. They also made it that everyone is "BCS" with a vote at the table. It seems like me they've painted themselves a bit in the corner with the criteria and wouldn't be able to simply ignore it.

Luckily for the BCS, I don't think the MWC will be able to meet the criteria, yet. If we add Boise, it'll be close, but a top 6 average in the overall conference strength will be tough to meet.

You're right that the criteria may not be met, so it may all be moot. There might be some political pressure, but it's comparable to the health care debate. If you took a poll of Americans in November 2008, most people would've said that they want some type of national health care system and that the BCS sucks. However, when details started to come out about a new health care plan, a lot of support dropped off the table, mainly in the form of, "While the health care system might suck overall, don't mess with MY health care plan." This is the same thing with the BCS - the majority of people in, say, the State of Texas might conceptually dislike the BCS, but if some outside political force starts messing with it to the detriment of the University of Texas and Texas A&M, then you'll see a ton a support drop off of the table - AKA "While the BCS system might suck overall, don't mess with MY team or conference." On the other side, are Texas politicians going to listen more to the Big 12 schools or the MWC and C-USA schools? It's almost certainly going to be the former when push comes to shove. The devil is always in the details, as they always say.

The legal issue is non-existent, which is why lawsuits are always threatened by state AGs that want to get their names in the news but never actually filed. I've gone through it in other threads - the Supreme Court's interpretation of how antitrust law applies to college football shows that the law is very much on the side of the BCS schools (and that the NCAA trying to impose anything would likely be an antitrust violation). It's actually fairly clear - any sportswriter that starts talking about BCS "antitrust issues" didn't take 2 seconds to do some Google research.

Anyway, I think the fervor regarding the MWC is temporary more based on Utah's extraordinary 2008 season as opposed to a long-term phenomenon. It's a shame that TCU, Utah and BYU are BCS-level schools that are stuck in a non-BCS conferences, but the bottom portion of the MWC is the real impediment for becoming a BCS member. The Pac-10 schools aren't going to be empowering San Diego State and the Big 12 isn't going to be empowering TCU and Colorado State anytime soon.