should the Mountain West get an automatic BCS bid?

[King Crimson]

Not that I speak for other Pac 10 people but swapping BYU and Utah for Arizona and ASU seems like a lateral move at best.

i'm not talking about swapping anybody. BYU and Utah stay in my super MWC. this a conference with CU, Boise, Utah, BYU, TCU (possibly T Tech) etc. that represents its geographical region (the mountain time zone, give or take) in a legit revamped BCS or playoff-type conference.

[Van]

KC, hell, you just wanna take the two Arizona schools from the Pac 10 without giving the Pac 10 anything back in exchange?

Well ain't that a bitch!

[King Crimson]

nah, i make it a sweet deal such that U of A and ASU want to leave.

i guess my point is: that if there is some sentiment that the Rocky Mountain region/MWC is underrepresented by the *current* BCS formula then they need to think about marshaling whatever representation they can and piece together (if need be) a *qualitatively* different type conference of which maybe being a big dog instead of exiled inland from the Pac would appeal to the Zona schools....if they thought the new conference could get a legit BCS recognition.

not realistic, but if i'm a MWC administrator this is how i'm starting to think and planting Manchurian candidates in the AD's in Tempe and Tucson. and if i'm in CU's AD i start to think about how and WHERE it is i'm winning games (since that's the money engine) and not competing with cash-poor product against Texas, ATM, OU and Nebraska and Kansas hoops.

[SoCalTrjn]

since 2005, Oregon state has won 2 national titles (baseball in 2006 and 2007)
since 2005 USC has won 4 national titles (mens waterpolo 2005 and 2008, soccer in 2007, womens golf in 2008)

[Van]

since 2005, Oregon state has won 2 national titles (baseball in 2006 and 2007)
since 2005 USC has won 4 national titles (mens waterpolo 2005 and 2008, soccer in 2007, womens golf in 2008)

Dins will not be pleased.

[War Wagon]

since 2005 USC has won 4 national titles (mens waterpolo 2005 and 2008, soccer in 2007, womens golf in 2008)

Wow, what a resume.

Every kid in America who plays water polo should be looking towards USC as their guiding light.

[Van]

since 2005 USC has won 4 national titles (mens waterpolo 2005 and 2008, soccer in 2007, womens golf in 2008)

Wow, what a resume.

It's better than Missouri's.

[SoCalTrjn]

Missouri has 2 national titles, baseball in 1954 and indoor track and field in 1965.

To be fair though, the Tigers have just 8 mens sports teams while USC has 9

USCs men have won 74 titles recognized by the NCAA and 87 titles overall

[Van]

Soooooo...it's better than Missouri's, and Oregon St's.

That's important. Sorta.

[Mr T]

Florida State opted for the ACC over the SEC (the offer was made) because they knew they could win more football titles in the ACC. No way they'd be able to dominate the SEC as they did for a while in the ACC.

You dumb fucking hick. Bowden tried to get on as Alabama's HC after the Bear and got turned down, so then he tried to get FSU in the SEC during the entire 80's.

Only when FSU had almost finalized a deal with the ACC did the SEC say "Well i guess you guys can play with us".

Considering FSU dominated the gates and the visor, I doubt FSU wouldve struggled in the big bad SEC. If Alabama can win 10 straight in it, FSU wouldve been BCS bowl bound this year.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'd like to see some macho version of the MWC that includes CU and Boise, and for the super-macho....poach back Arizona and Arizona State from the Pac 10 (they WERE in the Wac)...for a legit Rocky Mountain/non-coastal West Conference that could be legit in BCS conference/RPI super-conference football and basketball.

A beefed-up Mountain West Conference that was a true geographic representation of the Mountain West region? Hmmm, intriguing . . .

And in a vacuum, the MWC isn't all that far away from it. Add Texas Tech, Colorado, Boise State, Arizona and Arizona State. That gets you to 14 teams. Get back to 12 by dumping TCU and San Diego State. Neither is a good geographic fit, and SDSU isn't a good athletic fit to boot.

You'd wind up with a conference that looked something like this . . .

East: Air Force, Colorado, Colorado State, New Mexico, Texas Tech, Wyoming
West: Arizona, Arizona State, Boise State, BYU, UNLV, Utah

Yeah, there are a few weak sisters in that bunch, but that grouping is strong enough to at least arguably merit an automatic BCS bid. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, you might be able to draw this up in a vacuum. But the real world is an entirely different animal.

And in the real world, money talks. Four of these teams are already on the right side of the BCS/non-BCS divide. Would they throw that away for this? And would Texas Tech throw away years of conference rivalry with Texas and aTm to hook up with Arizona and Arizona State? Likewise, would Arizona and Arizona State end their relationship with USC and UCLA for Tech?

I don't think so. So where does that leave the MWC, in reality? I think they add Boise State, and that's it.

[Terry in Crapchester]

You know, that's true. MSU adds nothing to the SEC.

Nothing good, anyway.

And if you stuck them in the Pac 10, year in and out, they'd be a #2 or #3 seed. :D

You cant be that stupid, they would go 0-9 every year (well maybe not in 2008) and would have to play a real OOC schedule year in and year out.
If they did though, Washington State wouldnt be the lowest ranked academic school in the conference anymore

UCLA 100 National Titles
Stanford 94 National Titles
USC 87 National Titles
California 26 National Titles
Arizona 17 National Titles
Arizona State 17 National Titles
Oregon 13 National Titles
Washington 4 National Titles
Oregon State 3 National Titles
Washington State 2 National Titles

363 titles 10 schools


Alabama 4 national titles
Arkansas 41 national titles
Auburn 13 national tiltes
Florida 17 national titles
Georgia 24 national titles
Kentucky 8 national titles
LSU 40 national titles
Ole Miss 0 national titles
Mississippi State 0 national titles
South Carolina 1 national titles
Tennessee 14 national titles
Vanderbilt 1 national titles

163 titles 12 schools

it seems Mississippi State is right where they belong

The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that a national title in one sport is as good as a national title in any other sport. With all due respect to college athletics and the individuals who participate in the so-called "Olympic sports," I submit that's not the case, at least not from a fan's perspective.

For instance, I would submit that in the eyes of a fan, a national title in football carries much more weight than does a national title in water polo (or, under the heading of smacking my own, fencing).

Hell, UCLA is at the top of your conference, and a good portion of UCLA's national titles come from basketball. We all know how you feel about that particular sport.

[Terry in Crapchester]

And speaking of reality . . .

It's the Big Least. They don't deserve an automatic bid. Top Ten isn't necessarily Top Eight.

In its current iteration the Big Least has yet to come up with a national title caliber football team.

No automatic bids for any conference. Change You Can Believe In.

Why do you hate America?

Van,

The format you're proposing -- an 8-team playoff format with no automatic bids, just the top 8 -- would make sense if we were starting from scratch. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Like it or not, there are two factors you're completely ignoring, and those factors will weigh heavily on any playoff proposal . . .

1. The six BCS conferences have become de facto gatekeepers to the national championship; and
2. Money talks.

Let's take these factors one at a time, shall we?

1. You can't accuse me, of all people, for honking for the BCS conferences on this point. I root for the last independent standing, remember? I hate this particular aspect of college football. I'm just the messenger on this particular point. But I recognize that it exists. It is what it is. Because of that, you'll never get a true playoff in college football unless all of the BCS conferences buy off on it. In your particular proposal, the six BCS conferences all are placed, at least potentially, in a worse situation than they currently find themselves. For that reason alone, your proposal would never stand a realistic chance of passing.

2. I'm of the opinion that a true playoff, if done correctly, would be an even bigger cash cow for college football than the BCS has been. But again, you go back to Point One. Part of the reason the BCS conferences like the status quo is that they're all guaranteed their piece of the pie under it. Take away the automatic bids, and there's no way they go along with a playoff.

I suppose you could go to a system with an 8-team format and 6 automatic bids, but that pretty much puts you back to the way the BCS used to be, where the non-BCS schools were threatening to sue on antitrust grounds.

[Van]

Terry, it's a non issue. The big money BCS conferences would still be well represented in any end-of-year Top 8 rankings. We're never going to see three or more non BCS conference teams cracking the final Top 8.

The only difference is that in this scenario non BCS conference teams aren't (for all intents and purposes) automatically excluded from title contention, as they are now.