🏈 BCS conferences

[BamaGradinTN]

I'd like for someone to explain to me why the ACC, and especially the Big East, should get automatic BCS bowl berths. Coming into the bowls, the highest ranked Big East and ACC teams in the AP were Cincinnati at #12 and Ga. Tech at #14. The ACC BCS bowl representative was Va. Tech, #21 ranked at 9-4.

In contrast, you had Utah from the Mountain West at 12-0 and #7, TCU at 10-2 and #11, and BYU 10-2 at #17. Only two teams in the top 25 each from the Big LEast and the ACC, but three from the Mountain West.

I wish someone would explain why the Big East should keep getting that automatic bid instead of the Mountain West.

 

[Guest]

Not at all trying to flame, and i understand where you are coming from BUT ...

if you were to have beaten Utah this wouldn't even be discussed.

I think that teams like Utah, Boise St., TCU etc would still struggle in any major conference. These teams play weaker schedules, build up confidence and overall are usually more healthy coming into bowl games.

I think if anything, it should scream playoffs.

 

[Guest]

I'd like for someone to explain to me why the ACC, and especially the Big East, should get automatic BCS bowl berths. Coming into the bowls, the highest ranked Big East and ACC teams in the AP were Cincinnati at #12 and Ga. Tech at #14. The ACC BCS bowl representative was Va. Tech, #21 ranked at 9-4.

In contrast, you had Utah from the Mountain West at 12-0 and #7, TCU at 10-2 and #11, and BYU 10-2 at #17. Only two teams in the top 25 each from the Big LEast and the ACC, but three from the Mountain West.

I wish someone would explain why the Big East should keep getting that automatic bid instead of the Mountain West.

The Big East and the ACC being down, particularly in comparison to the non-BCS conferences, has not historically been the case. Likewise, there are a scares few teams scattered among the the non-BCS conferences that are of significant quality - historically. Since the automatic bids are not divided up and handed out in early December, foresight as to who finishs where can not be a determining factor, as you tried to cite. Finally, the conference NOT THE TEAM is awarded the bid. Historically speaking the non-BCS conferences have sucked.

Now all of this said, I can understand this years issues and can see the logic in an argument to do away with the automatic bids all together, because "history" does not win football games. The teams here and now do.

 

[planomateo]

why should any conf for that matter get automatic bids...that is the real question....MONEY.

 

[TerryP]

why should any conf for that matter get automatic bids...that is the real question....MONEY.

Quite frankly, that question doesn't make any sense to me.

What conferences are the ones responsible for what college football is today?

 

[planomateo]

i don't think any conf should get an auto bid to a BCS game, but that is how it is right now. I would guess this is how they had to sell it to the big 6 conferences who as you say have brought football to where it is today.

 

[Guest]

why should any conf for that matter get automatic bids...that is the real question....MONEY.

Quite frankly, that question doesn't make any sense to me.

What conferences are the ones responsible for what college football is today?

The BCS Bowls should not be a reward for past success, but present (this season) success.
I think that we can agree that the Michigans, Notre Dames, and Alabama's stunk up college football for a few years, but they still did more for college football than most other schools. So should we bump winning teams for these traditionally successful teams? No. This example focuses on individual teams, but the same logic applies to an entire conference (ACC).

 

[BamaGradinTN]

Not at all trying to flame, and i understand where you are coming from BUT ...

if you were to have beaten Utah this wouldn't even be discussed.

I think that teams like Utah, Boise St., TCU etc would still struggle in any major conference. These teams play weaker schedules, build up confidence and overall are usually more healthy coming into bowl games.

I think if anything, it should scream playoffs.

Actually, it would be discussed, and it's been discussed before. Frankly, I've always thought the Big East is a second tier conference unworthy of a guaranteed spot.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

The conferences that were necessary to put the BCS deal together, along with Notre Dame, were offered automatic bids. Plain and simple. Everyone who had to be at the table to make it work was given a piece of the pie.

Big East and ACC have been more down than up since the full implementation of the BCS. Here are conference BCS records:

BCS Bowl Record
Pac-10: 9-4
SEC: 11-5
Big East: 6-5
Big Ten 8-10
Big 12: 6-8
ACC: 2-9

I must add a revealing snippet - both ACC wins were against Big East teams.

There has to be some cut off, and there has to be a worst BCS league. In this case, the Big East and ACC are in a battle for it.

RTR,

Tim

 

[Guest]

The schools that made college football what it is today were located in the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10 + Notre Dame, FSU, Miami and Virginia Tech. The ACC got into the act because three of the schools listed above were members. West Virginia has been respectable in recent years, but on the whole the Big East has been dreadful. The power brokers would never agree to it, but it would be much fairer to drop the automatic bids for the Big East and ACC and create more at large bids.

 

[Rick in New York]

Utah's recruiting is first rate...

Not at all trying to flame, and i understand where you are coming from BUT ...

if you were to have beaten Utah this wouldn't even be discussed.

I think that teams like Utah, Boise St., TCU etc would still struggle in any major conference. These teams play weaker schedules, build up confidence and overall are usually more healthy coming into bowl games.

I think if anything, it should scream playoffs.

The facilities are awesome and it has 30,000 students. We have Nobel Laureates, one of the best medical schools in the nation not to mention the law school and other awarded programs.

As to sports, success brings recruiting. Utah does find the "little guy" that has real talent and speed. It only gets better by beating teams like Alabama. The day after the game, Two 4 star recruits commited. Florida offered to both.

Weaker schedules do not mean weak programs. Conferences are based on locality not on USA possibilites.

Coaching is the key and when you have a great staff your possibilities are endless.

If Utah got into the Pac 10 everything would be easier. We do not lose very often to Pac 10 teams. However, the recruiting goes up when you are in a BCS (what a joke) conference. Teams are hard to judge until you play them. I am sure you though we would struggle against you this year. I had my own doubts.

Utah is not going away. I heard the same thing in 05 the year after our Fiesta bowl win. Funny, we had like a 6-5 season and were barely bowl eligible. We were paired against a top 20 Georgia Tech team. We dismantled them. Brian Johnson had surgery and he was out. We lost 8 players from the starting O and D. That was our down point for a season and up point for our growth at the same time.

We destroyed Georgia Tech. The game was a joke.

I am not saying that we were great but we get the players that grow into studs...just like all good teams.

You cannot always judge how great a 5 or 4 star will become. Hell, most go nowhere. It is the coaching.

I do agree about playoffs. You get through a gauntlet of excellent teams then there would be no doubt.

Go Utes!!!

 

[TerryP]

Re: Utah's recruiting is first rate...

Not at all trying to flame, and i understand where you are coming from BUT ...

if you were to have beaten Utah this wouldn't even be discussed.

I think that teams like Utah, Boise St., TCU etc would still struggle in any major conference. These teams play weaker schedules, build up confidence and overall are usually more healthy coming into bowl games.

I think if anything, it should scream playoffs.

The facilities are awesome and it has 30,000 students. We have Nobel Laureates, one of the best medical schools in the nation not to mention the law school and other awarded programs.

As to sports, success brings recruiting. Utah does find the "little guy" that has real talent and speed. It only gets better by beating teams like Alabama. The day after the game, Two 4 star recruits commited. Florida offered to both.

Weaker schedules do not mean weak programs. Conferences are based on locality not on USA possibilites.

Coaching is the key and when you have a great staff your possibilities are endless.

If Utah got into the Pac 10 everything would be easier. We do not lose very often to Pac 10 teams. However, the recruiting goes up when you are in a BCS (what a joke) conference. Teams are hard to judge until you play them. I am sure you though we would struggle against you this year. I had my own doubts.

Utah is not going away. I heard the same thing in 05 the year after our Fiesta bowl win. Funny, we had like a 6-5 season and were barely bowl eligible. We were paired against a top 20 Georgia Tech team. We dismantled them. Brian Johnson had surgery and he was out. We lost 8 players from the starting O and D. That was our down point for a season and up point for our growth at the same time.

We destroyed Georgia Tech. The game was a joke.

I am not saying that we were great but we get the players that grow into studs...just like all good teams.

You cannot always judge how great a 5 or 4 star will become. Hell, most go nowhere. It is the coaching.

I do agree about playoffs. You get through a gauntlet of excellent teams then there would be no doubt.

Go Utes!!!

Georgia Tech was 7-4, ranked #24 going into that game. Mid-tier NCAA team at best.

 

[musso]

guys, let's be honest, with the increasing parity in college football all this talk about BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences is stupid. it's only logical that as BCS conferences become more and more competitive, more and more teams outside of the BCS will also be worthy of BCS competition. this means that the number of "great" teams each season is gradually declining. i mean, really, at the end of the season will there be any discernable and measurable difference among the teams ranked 1-5? 6-15? what about the teams ranked 16-35? etc.

we'll see how Texas does against Ohio St, but if Texas wins as easily as i expect them to, i would say that the best teams this season would be OU, Texas, UF, Utah, and USC. any one of those teams could beat any of the other on any given day. after those five teams there seems to be a noticable decline.

keep in mind, that increased parity also refers to coaching as well. these days, you give any coaching staff a month or so to prepare for an opponent and there is no telling what will happen. that's one reason why bowl games are so unpredictable.