Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
We are talking about conferences, not teams. The MWC, WAC, etc are mid major conferences. they are inferior, in general, to the BCS conferences. Not sure why that is such a difficult pill to swallow. Perhaps you believe that on average, year in and year out, the MWC, CUSA, Big Sky, etc are actually on par with the BCS conferences? Just as deep, just as talented, etc. You are obviously free to believe as you wish, but I will simply disagree that the MWC is not a mid-major. For if it were not, then the only alternative would be that it is an equal conference to the other BCS conferences. And that, amigo, is laughable. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We get all excited because our schedule has "Arizona" and "UCLA" on it. We beat an awful UCLA and Washington team and people on both boards are talking about Heismans and National Championships. The reason being is because we generally LOSE those games, so to finally break through and win them feels pretty good. Why is that? Because, for the most part, teams in our conference are not as good as those teams and it feels nice to beat up on them every now and then. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
All conferences are equal. I am now convinced. Go back since the MWC inception. What is BYU's record against BCS schools? Is it a winning margin? i dont know off the top of my head....i bet we dominate... |
Quote:
Like i said, the term mid-major does not preclude this. BlueK is suggesting that the presumption is that every team in the BCS is automatically better. I dont think anyone really thinks that. The MWC is a mid-major because, on the whole, the conference is weaker than its BCS counterparts. References to wins over really bad UCLA, Washington, etc teams does little to contradict. The win over ASU was about the only real quality win for the MWC. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.