Non-BCS Teams

[TIDE-HSV]

I'll agree that the BCS, as presently constituted, basically sucks. I can't find myself in agreement that the only thing which governs difference in conference strengths is being cut into the BCS pie. Conference strength, top to bottom, comes from two factors - population density and football tradition, which means popularity at the HS (and collegiate) level. This "sweet spot" encompasses, on the map, the midwest, southeast, wrapping around down through Texas and Oklahoma. The northeast is population-rich, but football is far down the interest totem pole for HS students. In the southeast, just to examine our immediate neighborhood, FB is very popular in AL, so we produce a lot of Div I-level talent. MS, next door, has a smaller population, but interest in FB is even higher, so they produce as many, or even more, Div I prospects. Tennessee, by contrast, is larger in population than either AL or MS, but produces far fewer honest Div I prospects, because of the interest level, so UT has historically relied on out of state recruits. I was a property owner and part-time resident of the mountain west for over a decade, not that I hold myself out as an expert. The problem in the mountain west is both sparse population and ethnic mix. I just don't see the possibility that the mountain west can be as strong, from top to bottom, as a southeastern-based conference. The raw material is just not there, and it's an impossibility to import ALL your players. Of course, individual teams, Utah, Boise State can break out of that mold - I'm talking about the overall picture. Just my homespun take...

 

[cptww]

Just my homespun take...

And a good take it is... RTR

 

[MidnightRambler]

It is my understanding that conferences are periodically reevaluated for BCS status. Given the direction that the MWC is going, and the direction the Big East is headed, the next evaluation may grant BCS status to the MWC. The evaluation allows for as many as 7 BCS conferences, or as few as 5.

 

[DiamondDust]

why can't we have a relegation system in college football? anyone here a soccer fan? :biggrin:

I'd be in support of it in a heartbeat.

 

[hayes6]

The problem in the mountain west is both sparse population and ethnic mix. I just don't see the possibility that the mountain west can be as strong, from top to bottom, as a southeastern-based conference. The raw material is just not there, and it's an impossibility to import ALL your players. Of course, individual teams, Utah, Boise State can break out of that mold - I'm talking about the overall picture. Just my homespun take...

You are correct. Well put. Utah's recruits come primarily from Utah, Texas, and California with a smattering from Hawai'i, Nevada and Arizona. We'll probably never take a recruit from USC, Texas or you guys, but we're competing well with A&M, UCLA, Cal, etc. In good years like this, we can compete on the field with the top tier, I believe. We shall see on January 2.

 

[Probius]

What I have never understood is how the BCS conferences were picked when this current system was put in place. Who decided which conferences were in the BCS and which conferences were not?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Kramer...

 

[Tokolosh]

What I have never understood is how the BCS conferences were picked when this current system was put in place. Who decided which conferences were in the BCS and which conferences were not?

The Commissioners/Presidents of the BCS six made the decisions. The Rose Bowl was a hold up but eventually they caved with some concessions. I was really hoping this year that the Rose Bowl would be forced to take a non-PAC-10 team, just based on overall performance and USC somehow sliding into the Scampionship game. Alas, it was not meant to be.

I don't think the PAC-10 will expand, Utah's only real hope of being in a BCS league, unless we can continue to take money directly form their pockets. Our 2004 invite prevented a potential second PAC-10 team from going to the BCS. This year they didn't qualify a second but I am hoping any future BCS games that we might attend will be at the expense of the PAC-10. It's really our only shot of getting them to invite us.

 

[califbamafan]

I think the bcs should really look at getting rid of the big east and putting the mw in its place.They could take the best 2 teams of the big east and put them in the acc. Boise State and Fresno State should join the MW. This would make the MW a very tough conf.The big east is a big joke and most of the time the good MW teams would beat them.:BigA:

 

[markenk]

I'd be in support of it in a heartbeat.

actually i said it in a joking manner. i think the #1 issue would be that it'll make the league as a whole look like a professional league. in other words, the concept of education first, football second would no longer hold true.

 

[cmmiller711]

Is this a serious question? Do you think we prefer being in a conference with no tie to the BCS? It kills fans of teams like Utah to watch the Big East and ACC get auto bids while we (there are arguements that we are the 3rd or 4th best conference this year) don't get a sniff of the BCS if we lose one game. And the title game is out of the question regardless of what we do.

Here's the thing. If the PAC-1 offered us a spot our acceptance letter would be on the commissioner's desk before he could ask the question. So many of the BCS teams in this country are such because of their geography. Why doesn't a school with top facilities, 30,000 enrollment, a brand new stadium, near a major airport not have BCS access through auto-bid status? Geography. Plain and simple. We took 50,000+ to the Fiesta bowl but that doesn't matter.

If Utah could be in a BCS conference we would be. But the BCS conferences and their cronies (sorry, you guys fit the bill here) have locked the game and tossed away the key. It is a ridiculous, closed system and there is not much we can do to change our access to the system. All we can do is play our schedule and hope to be undefeated.

I really really wish that the pac 10 would pick up a two team combo of you guys, byu, or Boise and have a championship game. Its totally ridiculous how the pac 10 just rolls over for USC every year. it seems like every conference game they've lost in the last 5 years has been an absolute shock. Thats a testemony to how ridiculously easy the pac 10 is for them.

on that note. i wish the big televen would do the same thing.

 

[cmmiller711]

I think part of the problem is that there are too many schools competing for one title. We start the season with over half of the FBS disqualified simply because of what conference they play in. Perhaps these conferences should be separated in their own division to play for their own national championship. Without a playoff, this may be the only way for these schools to win title that they deserve.

Isn't that called division 1A and division 1AA? (or FBS and FCS to be politically correct)

 

[ukrednek]

As it's been said, it's not like the super-conferences are bending over backwards in an attempt to get the Boises, Utahs, TCU's, and schools like them into their club. Boise and Utah would be great additions to the PAC-10, although they would counter by saying, "Since every team in our conference already plays each other... we produce a true conference champion, thus negating the need to add two more teams and a conference championship."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... college football is pretty much the only sport in this country that should give promotion and relegation a serious look. It'll never, but it would definitely make things interesting.

It had never occurred to me to think about the promotion / relegation system in relation to college football. Depending on where you set the bar, that's a very interesting concept. The silver lining for someone like Utah this year would be that they become a "top tier" team for next year. On the downside, can you imagine a Notre Dame or Michigan dealing with the aftermath of a devestating season and getting "relegated" to non BCS status?

Although in reality, relegation for someone like ND or UM wouldn't be a huge deal because, 1) they probably wouldn't play themselves into championship position the year after such a dismal season, and 2) even if they did play out of their skin the next year, at least they could end up "at large" (aka, in a high profile bowl) and get promoted to the "top tier" the next year.

Pretty interesting.

 

[MT_Dave]

The BCS system is not completely fair, but I think there are some ways that non-BCS schools could get a shot at the BCSCG. The two biggest parts of it, to me, are to schedule as many big name programs as possible in your OOC schedule and win consistently. Having one or two good years per decade while playing in a "weaker" conference doesn't get you much respect from the media. Beat the crap out of your conference, take down some big name schools, and do it for a few years in a row and I think there is a chance of playing for a NC.

What you are describing is unrealistic. When was the last time even the mighty Alabama went undefeated for 3 straight seasons? It's ridiculous that a program can have a great, world-beating year and still not have a shot at the MNC (like Utah in 2004). If Utah went undefeated for 2 straight seasons, they might (but also might not) get selected for the national championship game. But what about Boise State? As much as I dislike them, they have had a handful undefeated seasons recently and have only made 1 BCS game (and not even a sniff of the championship game). I guess what I am saying is Boise has done almost exactly what you just described and they are not even in a BCS game this year. The whole system stinks.

 

[MT_Dave]

The BCS is about money, not national championships. I posted a link in another thread that discussed the cash that the BCS had to give to non-BCS conferences and schools to get their votes. If those schools and conferences really cared about winning national championships, they would have voted no. They didn't. They had a chance to greatly increase their bowl revenue through the BCS and they took it.

They are the only people that can kill this thing, and they won't even consider it. It is all about the $$$...

While I agree that the B_S is all about the $, the rest of your point is ridiculous. The non-B_S conferences were issued an ultimatum to either sign the agreement, or take our ball and go home. There was no choice involved (at least not if the non-B_S conferences wanted to keep playing D-1-a football).

 

[bamacon]

As much as I dislike them, they have had a handful undefeated seasons recently and have only made 1 BCS game

Is that because they absolutely have owned Utah over the years?

 

[MT_Dave]

Is that because they absolutely have owned Utah over the years?

LOL. Ouch, that's kind of a sensitive subject.

 

[CullmanTide]

We should not even be having this discussion. If your not in a BCS conference you shouldn't be in the NCAA's top division.

 

[NYBamaFan]

While I agree that the B_S is all about the $, the rest of your point is ridiculous. The non-B_S conferences were issued an ultimatum to either sign the agreement, or take our ball and go home. There was no choice involved (at least not if the non-B_S conferences wanted to keep playing D-1-a football).

This is not true. They wanted a unanimous vote. They were not even sure that they wanted to do this. The "BCS conferences" did not put this together (they were not a group then), a single man did. It was Kramer's brain child, but the "BCS conferences" actually had something to lose (MNCs) because (on paper) it made it easier for non-BCS schools to get into the big game. As it turns out, that still hasn't happened, but it could.

If Utah wins this year and goes undefeated next season, they will almost certainly be in the MNC game.

 

[NYBamaFan]

We should not even be having this discussion. If your not in a BCS conference you shouldn't be in the NCAA's top division.

You realize that there are a lot of teams in BCS conferences that fit this profile too, right?