Tough to say, their 3 game noncon block looked like this in one 2 year frame: Boise State, Utah State, Purdue Boise State, Purdue, Utah and then went to New Mexico, Tennessee, Portland State LSU, Nevada, Missouri State I think it's pretty clear if you look at that..
Oh no no.. no you don't... you can't take the 'week in week out' approach justifying the BCS bloodline and then look at that 6 game block and play naive about what you're looking at. In the 1st two years.. there are 6 spots on the schedule.. 5 of those 6 spots are taken by legit annual bowl teams. Two of them, Boise and Utah, have been in BCS bowls and won recently. The worst team in this slate is Utah State.. Utah State would be the 3rd best team on the 2nd 2 year bracket. You knew that though. The 2nd two year bracket has 6 spots.. 2 of them are filled with potential bowl teams and exactly 1 of them is a recent BCS bowl team. You're using the 'name brand' of this year's LSU to ignore what's a rather clear dummying down of the schedule by Oregon. Really? Your 2nd best team n that 2 year frame is Tennessee.. really?
Corey, We've had this same discussion too many times. In my opinion, Boise is the outsider with nothing to lose. If they win the one big game of the season then coast through their conference schedule, then they get to pretend that their season is just like the "big boys". You don't agree with that assessment so let's get a playoff and settle this (I know, I know you agree with that). Then they would get to prove themselves in the same fire that everyone else had to play in. :wink:
KP, since we don't have a playoff why shouldn't we have some BCS games that are exciting, I would like you to tell me what team TCU screwed out of a BCS bowl bid in 2010 and how would the fans be better off with that team? TCU clearly didn't play a big time schedule. IMHO the Rose Bowl was arguably the best BCS game last year, give me a better match up.
I am growing to realize, especially with my team below par for the last decade, that we are expecting something that is not going to happen without a playoff. No matter how we tweak the system, manipulate the formula, etc, there is no answer that will not leave one team or another on the outside looking in. Until we get a playoff, save yourself a lot of stress and view college football for what it is: Entertainment that serves as a stage for the possible education of its participants. It will always be a mythical national champion until the playoffs arrive.
Terry, I'm not against TCU or BSU or anyone else playing in a BCS Bowl. I am saying that their strength of schedule should be considered when playing for the National Championship. To be honest with you, I feel like there are two kinds of bowl games... the one for the National Championship and all of the others. So being in a BCS bowl game doesn't matter all that much to me.
KP, We agree about the playoff being the only way to really hash it out. Short of that, it's all a beauty pageant. The thing that pisses me off is that when you talk about the week in, week out grind of being in a super conference, they think of and point to the SEC. What about the Big East? The ACC? Those are teams that produce never ending mediocrity and God help us if one of them goes unbeaten. They'll play for the title for sure.
Corey, I really try to concentrate on the Big 10, Big 12, Pac10 and the SEC. I agree with you on the Big East and to a lesser degree on the ACC, but if the Big East is that weak (and I agree it is), then you have to agree that the Mountain West is at least that weak. I am not arguing for Clemson either. 8)
If the super conferences keep evolving teams will duck Notre Dame too. Can you blame them? You might share a conference with 4-5 teams ranked; why would you want to play another ranked team out of conference? I think the Irish are headed to the ACC eventually.
KP, I'd make the case that, until this season, the Mountain West wasn't just better than both the Big East and the ACC, it was substantially better. Then we started to see the polar caps shift in the world of college football and we're seeing the fluid situation unfolding. The Big East raids the MWC for TCU.. which is funny because it eventually leads to expansion in the Pac12 and SEC which winds up leading to the crumbling of the Big East.. So no, I wouldn't concede that right off the bat. This year, I would agree with that but every year running for the past several years.. the MWC is better than those two and it's not close. The results on the field (bowls or regular season) don't support anything favoring the BE or ACC over the MWC.
George, You make a good point.. I mean, hell, Auburn was ranked until last week (did they finally fall out of the polls?).. The super conference has brought back the old days of teams not playing each other and living off reputation alone. Why risk anything? Just sit back in the super conference and schedule to go unbeaten.
How many years have we had an unbeaten team from a super conference vs unbeaten teams from a conference in which everyone played all members? But... adjust we must.. so here we are in a Pac12 super conference and UCLA controls their own destiny.. We're barely .500 Only in the BCS SuperConference system can we watch a month long argument between LSU-Alabama and Oregon... while there is a very real chance that Georgia could win the SEC... but Boise have no shot at playing for a title because they lost to someone 'less than' big time.. however Oklahoma is still very much in it.. We can't get to a playoff fast enough.
it's a heck of a lot easier to go undefeated in the SEC than the B12, B10, or P12, that's a given. :twisted:
Yep and it's lot easier for the SEC team to beat the team from the B12, B10, or P12 in the NC game, that's a given too! :roll: