What does it take to become a BCS team and why would you play in the NCAA and not be a BCS team? If you want to play with the big boys and go to the BCS bowls, then become a BCS team. Am I missing something?
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.What does it take to become a BCS team and why would you play in the NCAA and not be a BCS team? If you want to play with the big boys and go to the BCS bowls, then become a BCS team. Am I missing something?
The BCS conferences are not taking more schools. While a team like Notre Dame might get a conference to accept them, most don't want another small school added. Schools like Utah and Boise State would love to join a BCS conference, but none on the west coast will have them, and they can't join a conference on the east coast (too much travel). BTW, non-BCS conferences get paid by the BCS pool every year (as does Notre Dame), even if they don't put a team in the BCS bowls. It is their hush money, so to speak......Am I missing something?
The term "small school" is pretty misleading. Utah is bigger than most BCS programs from an enrollment standpoint, I believe Alabama is included but I think we are only a few thousand bigger. Utah also has a much better football and basketball resume than a huge portion of the BCS schools. Yet, we are playing on an uneven field.most don't want another small school added.
Sorry - poor choice of words, but you get my point...The term "small school" is pretty misleading. Utah is bigger than most BCS programs from an enrollment standpoint, I believe Alabama is included but I think we are only a few thousand bigger. Utah also has a much better football and basketball resume than a huge portion of the BCS schools. Yet, we are playing on an uneven field.
You realize that your conference and school presidents all voted to accept the BCS, right?The term "small school" is pretty misleading. Utah is bigger than most BCS programs from an enrollment standpoint, I believe Alabama is included but I think we are only a few thousand bigger. Utah also has a much better football and basketball resume than a huge portion of the BCS schools. Yet, we are playing on an uneven field.
If you are referring to the hush money that is being paid right now, yes, they voted to get what piece of the pie they could get. But they really had no other options. Any discussion of anything that isn't the BCS gets quelled before it gets any legs. It's not like the vote was do you choose a playoff or this computer system that determines a decent champ half of the time. It was, here's the compromise. Take it or leave it.You realize that your conference and school presidents all voted to accept the BCS, right?
The payouts are nice, it's a boon to the school for sure. But as a fan I would really liked to have seen the 2004 Utes take a shot at the national title instead of getting the sacrificial lamb from the Big East.The BCS has worked pretty well for Utah. We've been to two BCS bowls in five years. By my count, there are 45 BCS schools who haven't been to a single BCS bowl in that time.
Absolutely no argument here. I am not a fan of the auto-bid process. Sure Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, and even (maybe) Ohio State all deserve to go. But does Cincinnati or Virginia Tech? Virginia Tech is ranked 19th in the country right now. Most fans may not like it but my opinion is that Utah and Boise State deserve to play. Utah has accepted its bid so that is a moot point.Yet, we are playing on an uneven field.
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."What does it take to become a BCS team and why would you play in the NCAA and not be a BCS team? If you want to play with the big boys and go to the BCS bowls, then become a BCS team. Am I missing something?
Just to make sure the question is answered... it is CONFERENCE affiliation.What does it take to become a BCS team and why would you play in the NCAA and not be a BCS team? If you want to play with the big boys and go to the BCS bowls, then become a BCS team. Am I missing something?
The term "small school" is pretty misleading. Utah is bigger than most BCS programs from an enrollment standpoint, I believe Alabama is included but I think we are only a few thousand bigger. Utah also has a much better football and basketball resume than a huge portion of the BCS schools. Yet, we are playing on an uneven field.
If you draw comparisons to the top of the BCS hierarchy, of course Utah isn't a "Big School" by those terms. I'm not saying Utah is a Texas, Florida, 'Bama, Ohio State, etc. But that isn't what irks us. Look at all the programs in the BCS that don't compare to those top BCS programs.Is it misleading? in football terms, Utah is a small school. At least by standards of the SEC. you have a 45,000 seat stadium, that according to the official U of U athletic department the best average attendance was 44, 112 in 2004. . lets compare that to BDS, at 92, 000 more than twice Utah's capacity and is always sold out. heck, BDS will be expanded in the next few years to 100, 000+. and will sell out every game. Utah took 50,000 to Pheonix , AZ for the fiesta bowl, the high water mark for Utah football. Bama took 25,000 to UCLA for a regular season game in 2003. Utah shares a border with Arizona. there are many borders between Cali and Alabama . your program has done well for itself, but its not a BCS program, IMO, and geography does play a part.
Utah's football program is far smaller than Bama's and probably always will be. But there are a couple dozen BCS conference programs that Utah outperforms in the stands and and several dozen we outperform on the field regularly. You're right that geography plays a big part. So does history. The primary reason we get shut out, though, is the big conferences want to keep all the money to themselves. They were forced to allow a non-BCS school into the bowl system, and those schools are 2-1 so far. Hopefully, soon to be 3-1Is it misleading? in football terms, Utah is a small school. At least by standards of the SEC. you have a 45,000 seat stadium, that according to the official U of U athletic department the best average attendance was 44, 112 in 2004. . lets compare that to BDS, at 92, 000 more than twice Utah's capacity and is always sold out. heck, BDS will be expanded in the next few years to 100, 000+. and will sell out every game. Utah took 50,000 to Pheonix , AZ for the fiesta bowl, the high water mark for Utah football. Bama took 25,000 to UCLA for a regular season game in 2003. Utah shares a border with Arizona. there are many borders between Cali and Alabama . your program has done well for itself, but its not a BCS program, IMO, and geography does play a part.
Some of those programs tuck tail and run. We had a home and home contract with Texas scheduled but they cancelled because a loss at Rice-Eccles stadium would all but kill their shot at a title in a given year.are to schedule as many big name programs as possible in your OOC schedule and win consistently.