OT - MWC making case for auto bid

Submitted by brendandavis22 on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 PM

I'm watching the Utah-Cal game right now and after watching BYU take apart Oregon State last night I'm really starting to respect the MWC a lot more. (plus Wyoming) I think it is time for Boise, Nevada and Fresno to join up with the MWC and give it an auto BCS bid.

Comments

mattkast

December 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 PM ^

That would be an interesting shift in power, and a really exciting one too. I'd love to see TCU vs Boise be the MWC Title Game, and then have them face one of the other big BCS in a bowl.

wishitwas97

December 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 PM ^

always do well in bowl games. This year is no different.

They have 3 ranked teams in BYU, Utah and TCU. If TCU can beat Boise State convincingly, TCU may have a legitimate complaint that they deserves to be in the national championship game. They were killing teams left and right this season. Their defense is pretty awesome with Hughes leading the way.

mbee1

December 23rd, 2009 at 11:51 PM ^

Don't know their bowl record last year, but Utah spanked Alabama, TCU won too. I'm surprised the Horny Frogs aren't make a bigger croak about being in the national title conversation.

bacon1431

December 24th, 2009 at 12:25 AM ^

I think bowl games need to be taken with a grain of salt. There are too many variables. Sometimes, teams just don't want to be there. Hard to get motivated when you're playing in a terrible bowl game. Also, after #1vs.#2 OSU-UM in 2006, the Rose Bowl after having a chance at an undefeated national championship was almost a let down for some of the guys. We came out really flat in that game and never picked it up. I'd rather take their regular season victories into consideration than bowl wins.

But I do think BYU and Utah are good teams. Both could have probably finished in the top half of the Big 10 this past year. Sadly.

Tater

December 24th, 2009 at 12:53 AM ^

I agree with this comment. Whenever minor conference teams are playing BCS conference teams, the smaller conference teams see it as a chance to stick it to the big boys, while the BCS teams are disappointed that they didn't get to a better bowl. Also, the number one or two MWC team is often matched up with a four, five, or six team from a BCS conference. So, I definitely do take the results with a grain of salt.

I would, though, rather see the teams given the opportunities they are asking for. I would have been a lot more excited to see Florida vs Boise State and TCU vs Cincy than the games they are playing now. The non-BCS teams might win or might fall flat on their faces, but at least their worth would be determined on the field, where it should be determined.

Plegerize

December 24th, 2009 at 1:32 AM ^

Much is already made about which conference dominates their bowl games and which conference does poorly.

Bowls are statement games and they are that way because they are played in a championship setting between two teams that are not in the same conference. Just like OOC games during the regular season, Bowl games are the only measuring stick (to date) to see if teams can compete on a national level.

I don't think that the MWC deserves an automatic bid just yet, I think they need to tweak the conference just a little to include some better playing teams, but they should definitely be given more consideration.

Big Shot

December 24th, 2009 at 1:39 AM ^

I think the MWC deserves an auto-bid. I don't know how you can justify giving the Big East and the ACC an auto-bid and leaving the MWC out.

Off the field, I've heard hundreds of excuses for why the MWC doesn't deserve an auto-bid. On the field, the MWC keeps proving to me that they deserve an auto-bid with big wins over BCS teams.

George Blogha

December 24th, 2009 at 5:34 AM ^

,but recruiting is such a big part of what happens in the FBS. I still think these schools can't compete on a year to year basis with the schools from the BCS conferences because of this.

blueheron

December 24th, 2009 at 9:45 AM ^

The proposed shift of those teams is interesting, but I'd like to see some more data.

Remember that in these bowl games you often have an upper-tier MWC school playing a mid-tier school from a BCS conference. (Yes, I *do* remember that Utah beat Alabama and that Boise St. beat Oklahoma. Those are obvious exceptions.) Motivation has also been mentioned, and I think that matters.

Aside: As others have noted, part of the reason the Big 10 has such a lousy bowl record is the mismatches that routinely occur (our #3 against their #2).

Anyway, I don't think that, say, Utah and TCU could consistently win against OSU, Florida, and USC. Those would be the apple-to-apple games in my view. Now, you could say that West Virginia wouldn't win, either (and point out that OSU has crapped the bed repeatedly against better conferences). But, I'd still like to see the outcome of a few of those games.

gobluesasquatch

December 24th, 2009 at 11:40 AM ^

A lot of people always bring up this comparison. And Mountain West teams not only have done well in the bowl season, but they've done very well against the Pac-10 the past two years in the regular season as well. However, consider the schools in the Big East and the Mountain West, and their locations. Louisville, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Connecticut, Rutgers, South Florida, Pittsburgh all have "access" to decent media markets. Not only that, but all are located in the eastern time zone, which makes media coverage so much easier. Consider the Mountain West - Wyoming (Laramie, WY), Colorado St (Ft. Collins), Air Force (Colorado Springs), are not necessarily huge markets, and outside of TCU (in Dallas - right), the only others with access to a large market might be Utah and BYU (Salt Lake City). But even with TCU, they are a distant third compared to Texas and Texas AM in that state (not necessarily in terms of football, but interest).

Granted, all conferences have schools in the middle of nowhere, like Iowa City, West Lafayette, East Lansing (j/k), but many of those conferences have a long tradition. The Mountain West is just under 10 years separated from being part of the 16 member WAC - if you remember that screwball conference idea.

I'd like the see Mountain West teams try and go out and schedule Big East teams over the next few years and see how they stack up. I suspect they'd win.

jmblue

December 31st, 2009 at 3:44 PM ^

If they do give the MWC an auto-bid, would that strengthen momentum for a playoff? There have been what, 4-5 unbeaten MWC teams in the past decade? They've been frozen out of the title game because people didn't respect their conference. If they become a BCS conference, that argument loses weight, and we'll likely have even greater controversy surrounding the title game in the future.

Steve in PA

January 1st, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

If a conference has 3 teams in the top-25 they get one autobid. It would make it harder for teams in really weak conferences to be assured an autobid for beating bad competition.

Small conferences like MWC are loaded with schools that don't see the regular season revenue that the bigboys get. A BCS payday for them would be HUGE.