T1B

Better yet, let's make EVERY bowl a BCS bowl. That way even a 7-5 Sun Belt team will get a chance to be in a sacred BCS game.

Just run it by Jim Delaney, ok?

Sudden Sam wrote:If the Pac 10 gets a bid, the Mountain West damn sure should!


BYU - 59, UCLA - 0
UNLV - 23, ASU - 20
TCU - 31, Stanford - 14
New Mexico - 36- Arizona - 28

I mean...those are the 4 best teams in the MW against 4 REALLY bad PAC-10 teams.

I don't think the Mountain West has proven enough to earn a BCS bid.

BlindRef wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:If the Pac 10 gets a bid, the Mountain West damn sure should!


BYU - 59, UCLA - 0
UNLV - 23, ASU - 20
TCU - 31, Stanford - 14
New Mexico - 36- Arizona - 28

I mean...those are the 4 best teams in the MW against 4 REALLY bad PAC-10 teams.

Yeah, sure.

Gonna go out on a limb here and say that Utah might be one of the 4 best teams in the MWC. Call me crazy...

UNLV sure as hell ain't one of them, since they've finished at the bottom of the MWC two years running.

BlindRef wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote:If the Pac 10 gets a bid, the Mountain West damn sure should!


BYU - 59, UCLA - 0
UNLV - 23, ASU - 20
TCU - 31, Stanford - 14
New Mexico - 36- Arizona - 28

I mean...those are the 4 best teams in the MW against 4 REALLY bad PAC-10 teams.

I don't think the Mountain West has proven enough to earn a BCS bid.

UNLV is NOT one of the 4 best teams in the MWC. ASU losing to UNLV at home is unforgivable. The season is still early but UNLV's one other win was to Utah State.
Hell UNLV has given up more points than they've scored. The MWC best four are Utah, BYU, TCU, and Air Force.

i'd agree that New Mexico is also not one of the MWC's best 4. they did lose at home to A&M. so, if they were among the "giant-killers" they should have won that one.

topic answer: no. i follow the MWC some here in Boulder and i did gain a lot of respect for the core group of MWC teams that split from the 16 team Monster WAC to preserve their original WAC rivalries (mostly) and original conference feel.

if Utah had been shut out the year they rolled Pitt, maybe I could see some "redress" or reform....but an outright bid, naw.

like the NCAA hoops tournament, it's fashionable to play up David over Goliath in sports "journalism" world.

why not have a BCS bid for a non BCS conference?



rule would be, if any team from either of the non bcs conference qualify under bcs rules, they get that last spot. if not, it goes to BCS conference team that qualifies. its their Bid, unless no one qualifies.

Sudden Sam wrote:If the Pac 10 gets a bid, the Mountain West damn sure should!


BYU - 59, UCLA - 0
UNLV - 23, ASU - 20
TCU - 31, Stanford - 14
New Mexico - 36- Arizona - 28

If the SEC gets a bid, the Pac-10 damn sure should!

UCLA 27, Tennessee 24

If they could poach Boise St. & Fresno St. from the WAC, they'd definitely deserve it. As it stands, probably not.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:If they could poach Boise St. & Fresno St. from the WAC, they'd definitely deserve it. As it stands, probably not.

Maybe the WAC and MWC champs could have a play-in game.

Maybe the WAC, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt, and CON-USA can all compete in a playoff to determine the...Oh wait, nevermind.

Here's a novel idea...

No conference gets an automatic bid. Going 8-4 while winning a horrible conference means you're eating Chick-Fil-A sammiches, not Oranges.

Van wrote:Here's a novel idea...

No conference gets an automatic bid. Going 8-4 while winning a horrible conference means you're eating Chick-Fil-A sammiches, not Oranges.

Havin’ a hard time understanding your point, counselor.

Sudden Sam wrote:If the Pac 10 gets a bid, the Mountain West damn sure should!


BYU - 59, UCLA - 0
UNLV - 23, ASU - 20
TCU - 31, Stanford - 14
New Mexico - 36- Arizona - 28

Genius take, dude.

Sin,
Zona 31, BYU 21


P.S.: Utah said to say hello

i've been pissing off my CU buddies lately suggesting that CU join the MWC. and i'm actually fairly serious and think, after the pride issue, it would benefit CU. Colorado is marginally competitive in football in the Big XII and that's about all it offers the Big XII. the CU AD is really in the red and fields the minimum sports to be D-1. the other "revenue" sport, basketball, is terrible and one of the NCAA's biggest money drains every year. no baseball, no wrestling, no soccer, no hockey.... title IX stuff is nothing too hot (soccer is OK) and outside skiiing and cross-country....not a lot there. lately, the CU people i know are saying "they can't compete" in terms of resources and facilities and so comparison's to the UT's and Nebraska's of the world isn't fair. So, i ask, if you can't compete at structural levels...then maybe the MWC is for you. CU fans have long, long complained about the bad geographical/cultural fit with the Big XII/Big 8 and many secretly pined for a move to the Pac 10. I don't think CU is anywhere near attractive to the Pac 10 for reasons above...it's not an AD that offers a complete package. maybe in the mid 90's, but not now.

MWC is a good football oriented conference (very good last year) and most of the other teams are in the same boat: mediocre to decent hoops, and skiing and some other fringe sports. volleyball.

that said, in a roundabout way, i still don't think the MWC deserves a BCS bid as it stands (or based just on last year's results). A MWC with Boise and Colorado, I could see. i think that conference provided last season wasn't fluky is at least as good as the Big East.

KC, excellent post. Colorado and Iowa St should both leave the Big XII, with CU going to the MWC and Iowa St going to the Big 10 to make it an even number Bigger XII.

Iowa and Iowa St should be in the same conference. The Bigger XII could then extend their season naturally while also shutting up SECBSH, by adding their own vile money grab of a CCG.

TCU and Arkansas should be in the Big XII, replacing Colorado and Iowa St.

Florida St should replace Arkansas in the SEC.

Bam! Done!

There's just one problem with your otherwise excellent thought...

BYU and Utah ought to move to the Pac 10. This would give the Pac 10 twelve teams and their own vile money grab CCG but it would also ruin the MWC.

Gonna havta then merge the MWC and the WAC, with Colorado, Boise St and Fresneck being this new conference's lynchpins.

I think they should. Why shouldn't they? Afterall they've had 1 good year out of 20 so that's worthy of an automatic bid every year!!

Of course, I also think the Royals should make the playoffs when they DON'T lose 100 games because it's a monumental accomplishment. But that's not gonna happen, so I think the MWC can feel free to shut the hell up and go fuck themselves.

Van wrote: TCU and Arkansas should be in the Big XII, replacing Colorado and Iowa St.

TCU, but only if they swap with Baylor. Four Texass teams is already too damn many.

Arkansas makes sense.

Let the Mountain West and the Big East champs have a MCCG and the winner gets the automatic BCS bid.

Arkansas belongs with its traditional SWC buddies from Texas. Arkansas has no real business being in the SEC.

Then again Iowa St has no business being in the Big XII, not with Iowa being in the Big 10.

Florida St really shouldn't be in a conference with Boston College. Florida St should be in the same conference as Florida.

Arkansas gives the SEC National Titles

Arkansas has won 41 national titles, all in mens sports, more than any SEC school

Alabama has won just 4 national titles (all by their womens gymnastics team)
Auburn has won 13 national tiltes (7 in mens swimming and diving, 5 in womens swimming and diving and 1 in womens track
Florida has 17 national titles (only 8 by the men)
Georgia 24 national titles (only 8 by the Georgia men)
Kentucky has won 8 national titles (7 by the men, all in basketball)
LSU has 40 national championships (16 by the men)
Ole Miss has won 0 national championships
Mississippi State has won 0 national championships
South Carolina has won 1 national championship (womens track)
Tennessee has 14 national championships (6 by the men)
Vanderbilt has won 1 national championship (womens bowling)

of the 93 National titles in mens sports the SEC has, 41 of them were won by Arkansas.

Contrast that to
USC 74 mens national titles
UCLA 70 mens national titles
Stanford 58 mens national titles

SEC football fans may not want Arkansas but the South Eastern Conference needs Arkansas

King Crimson wrote:i've been pissing off my CU buddies lately suggesting that CU join the MWC. and i'm actually fairly serious and think, after the pride issue, it would benefit CU. Colorado is marginally competitive in football in the Big XII and that's about all it offers the Big XII. the CU AD is really in the red and fields the minimum sports to be D-1. the other "revenue" sport, basketball, is terrible and one of the NCAA's biggest money drains every year. no baseball, no wrestling, no soccer, no hockey.... title IX stuff is nothing too hot (soccer is OK) and outside skiiing and cross-country....not a lot there. lately, the CU people i know are saying "they can't compete" in terms of resources and facilities and so comparison's to the UT's and Nebraska's of the world isn't fair. So, i ask, if you can't compete at structural levels...then maybe the MWC is for you. CU fans have long, long complained about the bad geographical/cultural fit with the Big XII/Big 8 and many secretly pined for a move to the Pac 10. I don't think CU is anywhere near attractive to the Pac 10 for reasons above...it's not an AD that offers a complete package. maybe in the mid 90's, but not now.

MWC is a good football oriented conference (very good last year) and most of the other teams are in the same boat: mediocre to decent hoops, and skiing and some other fringe sports. volleyball.

that said, in a roundabout way, i still don't think the MWC deserves a BCS bid as it stands (or based just on last year's results). A MWC with Boise and Colorado, I could see. i think that conference provided last season wasn't fluky is at least as good as the Big East.

There has been similar talk about Taco Tech joining the MWC as well, think that is coming from the 3-way tie and them being the odd man out. Tech joining the MWC almost automatically makes them the best team in said conference, maybe not this year but as a program in general.

Losing Colorado would probably kill the Big 12, we would need to replace them with another team that brings in a big market, like a Utah. Of course a 10 team Big 12 would make it more competitive for everyone since we would have to play everyone in the conference.

Schmick wrote:Alabama has won just 4 national titles (all by their womens gymnastics team)

Huh?

-Bear Bryant

Btw, how did the "Schmick" moniker come about anyway? Can someone fill me in on that one...

Sam, I like your idea of dumping S. Carolina from the SEC. Dump both S. Carolina and Arkansas. Swap S. Carolina and Florida St, for starters. Makes more regional sense and more rivalry sense for S. Carolina to be in the ACC and for FSU to be in the SEC.

That still leaves one hole in the SEC though. You say Georgia Tech. I'm good with that.

I'm better though with Miami. Miami is better than Georgia Tech in more sports and wouldn't it be just special to have Florida St, Florida and Miami in the same conference, the way they oughtta be?

SoCalTrjn wrote:Let the Mountain West and the Big East champs have a MCCG and the winner gets the automatic BCS bid.

I don't think 1 good year by the Mountain West should give them the right to as for a BCS bid. This was the first season in the last 4 that the Big East had a down year.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/bigeast/0-3- ... -West.html

If you're going to have a MCCG, then the Mountain West should be playing the ACC. 2008 was the first season in the last 4 where the ACC Champion finished ahead of the Big East Champion.

No automatic bids...especially for the Big Least and ACC.

Rarely these days does either conference deserve a BCS bowl game.

No automatic bids for anybody. Either you end up in the top eight in the final poll or off you go to enjoy your holidays with some Meineke Car Care.

Van wrote:No automatic bids...especially for the Big Least and ACC.

Rarely these days does either conference deserve a BCS bowl game.

2008 was the first season the current members of the Big East didn't have a team going into their BCS game that wasn't in the top 10.

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?

Papa Willie wrote:Funny how nobody really wants to claim Arkansas. I know most SEC folks were kind of like "where the fuck did that come from?".

The SEC got stuck with Arkansas after Texas A&M rebuffed their offers to join the SEC... It wasn't so much that A&M wasn't interested but knew that the state legislature would never sign off on anything that didn't benefit Texas and Baylor whose graduates dominate the state's politics. It created a soap opera behind closed doors that's fall out directly effected the Big 8 schools who started discussions behind closed doors with UT and Texas A&M as soon as 3 months after Arkansas announced its intention to leave for the SEC.

Nebraska was the wise old soothsayer in the situation but got screwed. At first the discussions were just for UT and aTm to come on board and at Nebraska and Kansas' call to go after some two team combination of Colorado State, Air Force, BYU, Tulsa, and Utah.

Texas knew that the SWC conference was a dying but at the same time also knew that they basically controlled its operations with a little input from aTm; they also knew the troubles that would be brewing getting it to go through without Baylor.

The Big 8 schools did want a private school desperately which would take away oversight by the states of the conference's budget. As the talks evolved Most of the Big 8 schools were pushing for TCU to be the private school if it had to come from Texas.

Nebraska sat back shaking it's head and were very unhappy about how things were evolving in the discussions as early late 1992. They didn't want a conference taken over by southern schools since it was their perception (and rightfully so) that OU and OSU had more in common both economically and culturally with Texas and Texas A&M (similar lifestyles, values, athletic & academic concerns, industry, etc.). Nebraska with the help of Missouri and Kansas began to make some noise about souring the deal. The then AD at OU was grasping at straws to create some sort of legacy or at least good grace in his wanning years after he had successfully ran off both Barry Switzer and the most successful HC in OU basketball history since WWII (Billy Tubbs) with the athletic department operating in the red.

Texas pushed Baylor hard; they knew the issues politically they would be facing if Baylor was left out in the cold. Nebraska began to push a deal that left out the Texas schools entirely. Oklahoma State had a shit fit about this because they wanted no part of Tulsa in the same conference to lend credibility towards. They were already making strides in basketball which they considered their God given right to dominate the state in (which hasn't ever really been the case but this isn't the place to cast away those delusions) and had been having enough trouble recruiting against in other sports since the mid 80s.

Oklahoma and OSU began to make veiled threats about just ditching the conference for the SWC and then possibly going after two other schools if they wanted 12 for CCG. You can speculate who those two would be but I've heard everything from KSU, Colorado, Colorado State, New Mexico, Tulane, etc. The threats worried Missouri and Kansas enough that they got back on the wagon but Nebraska was still pushing TCU...

In the end the Big 8 brought in the Texas schools and Nebraska's fear that the conference power gravitate in a more southerly direction came to fruition...

Fuggin' excellent post, SCS.

Papa Willie wrote:Funny how nobody really wants to claim Arkansas.

Um, two posts above yours I said to Van's idea of them moving to the XII that it made sense.

Shit. I must be nobody.

Carry on.

Sudden Sam wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:Arkansas gives the SEC National Titles

Arkansas has won 41 national titles, all in mens sports, more than any SEC school

Alabama has won just 4 national titles (all by their womens gymnastics team)
Auburn has won 13 national tiltes (7 in mens swimming and diving, 5 in womens swimming and diving and 1 in womens track
Florida has 17 national titles (only 8 by the men)
Georgia 24 national titles (only 8 by the Georgia men)
Kentucky has won 8 national titles (7 by the men, all in basketball)
LSU has 40 national championships (16 by the men)
Ole Miss has won 0 national championships
Mississippi State has won 0 national championships
South Carolina has won 1 national championship (womens track)
Tennessee has 14 national championships (6 by the men)
Vanderbilt has won 1 national championship (womens bowling)

of the 93 National titles in mens sports the SEC has, 41 of them were won by Arkansas.

Contrast that to
USC 74 mens national titles
UCLA 70 mens national titles
Stanford 58 mens national titles

SEC football fans may not want Arkansas but the South Eastern Conference needs Arkansas

WTF is this mess?

Kentucky has 8 national titles in basketball in the same period of time as "Alabama has won just 4 national titles (all by their womens gymnastics team)"? WTF are you talking about? This list is complete trash.

Thats from the NCAAs site, they dont recognize football since it doesnt have a playoff. It did just go through the Summer of 2007 so if Bama has won a title since then, my condolences for saying that their womens gymnastics team were the only champions the school has ever had.


Why would you get rid of Arkansas and not Mississippi State? The Razorbacks have a real athletic department, their men have 41 national titles, more than twice as many as any other school in the conference. Mississippi State belongs in the Sun Belt, the only reason you would want to keep them in the SEC is for the easy win... in everything

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

Nothing good, anyway.

Van wrote: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.

Fair enough. The Big East had a team in the top 10 in the 2005, 2006, and 2007 seasons, with 2 teams in the Top 10 in 2006 and a third at #12. WVU was as high as #6 on 2 occaisions.

WVU was #2 going into the last game of the 2007 season, so they were a national championship caliber team.

No, they weren't.

Sincerely,
Reality

Papa Willie wrote:

Van wrote: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

Vito Corleone wrote: Losing Colorado would probably kill the Big 12, we would need to replace them with another team that brings in a big market, like a Utah. Of course a 10 team Big 12 would make it more competitive for everyone since we would have to play everyone in the conference.

I'm not sure i agree with this (CU leaving being that detrimental to the Big XII). The Denver market and front range of the Rockies are very pro sports oriented and CU football is running 4th or 5th on the local sports scene. if you went 150 miles North and West and included all of the Denver "media market" i'm not even sure Nebraska is much less popular than the home-state team. Every NU game is on the radio on Colorado AM stations. Kids in Denver grow up being Bronco fans....unless their parents went to CU. Increasingly, the Denver/Boulder area is composed of first-generation transplants loyal to Stanford or Michigan or Indiana or schools on the East Coast. their kids don't grow up Buff fans either. Additionally, though it's changing some with Hawkins (somewhat), the Denver media is kind of hostile to CU and Boulder....which is seen as elitist and a good way for sports writers to "get their rocks off" and appear to be "critical journalists" when they've been blowing Shanny and Bowlen for the last 10 years. So, it's an easy kill for even the supremely untalented hair-bag of sports writers in Denver.

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.

Pac 10 peeps, how good a fit are the Zona schools in the Pac? U of A won the hoops crown in what 98? If Arkie is up for grabs for the Big XII....why not move the Zona schools if we are free to speculate about what it would take to create some conference/geographical equity for whatever BCS style of selection we get down the road....or that selection mechanism that produces playoff qualifiers. ??


edit: i'd also be in favor of a 10 (or less even) Big XII formulation where every team plays every team in football and home-homes in hoops. the biggest tragedy of the Big XII from an OU perspec was losing the Nebraska game in football and home-homes in hoops with KU, MU especially....and then the other Big 8'ers.

and, to play advocatus diabolis, if the Denver market is so important for the Big XII....what are the chances of the Big XII football CCG or Big XII hoops tournament being played in Denver?

and the weather in Denver is NOT worse than KC in December 85% of the time.

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.

'Zona is obviously good in hoops, and so too is Utah, quite frequently. 'Zona'a consistently better though.

Football? Right now Utah is better than either Arizona school but historically they haven't been.

ASU has always been really good in baseball and occasionally decent in hoops and they've been known to be decent in football on occasion.

BYU minus Danny Ainge is a football school, and that's about it. How good of a football school they are is difficult to say, since they've spent their entire existence in a relatively weak conference. Had they been in the Pac 10 the entire time they would've suffered many more losses and they would've achieved many fewer league titles.

The other thing is the women. BYU and Utah certainly don't hurt for hot wimmins but their women just don't know how to properly behave. The Pac 10 giving up 'Zona women and ASU women in particular would be one tough pill to swallow, especially if it's in exchange for a bunch of girls who wouldn't be caught dead leaving the house without their granny panties.

Nah. If someone wants to poach any Pac 10 teams it needs to start with Wazzou. They bring very little to the table, in any area. They really oughtta be in the WAC, not the Pac 10.

If it weren't for their recent success under Erickson and Riley I would've also said take Oregon St too, please, but they're finally managing to pull their own weight over the last decade.

Van wrote:If it weren't for their recent success under Erickson and Riley I would've also said take Oregon St too, please, but they're finally managing to pull their own weight over the last decade.

Which school has won more championships in the last 3 years -- OS, or USC?

What period of time encompasses the last three years?

A-The last decade

B-The Renaissance

C-The Industrial Revolution

D-The Bronze Age

E-1984

But yes, in addition to their recent football success I neglected to mention that Oregon St also won two baseball titles in the past three seasons.

Couldn't tell you though how that stacks up against USC during that same time period. I know USC won at least one national title recently, in golf, or something. Dunno if that's all they've won.

I guess I'll go ahead and assume it was, unless maybe you clicked on the wrong link again.