Quote:
Originally Posted by Travis Henry
The rules changed starting, I think, for the 2006 season. That's why Boise State made it in 2006 and Hawaii made it last year. Utah made it in when the rules were more stringent, I believe. If the rules were the same as they were in 2004, then, yeah it would be a once or twice in a decade thing.
Now, it only takes being in the top 12 (and no other non-BCS team being ahead of you) to make a BCS game. BYU would have possibly made it in last year ahead of Hawaii if BYU only had one loss. Did anyone want Hawaii last year? Absolutely not. But Hawaii ended up at no 11 or 12 so they were automatic qualifiers even though they played a horrid schedule.
Also, I would have to say that knucklehead Crowton was the coach for four of the seasons this decade (not that the program was going anywhere with LaVell in his old age). Bronco has obviously turned out to be a helluva coach and there's a lot more continuity in the program now. There's no reason to think that BYU can't be a one loss (or undefeated) team and in the top 12 at least every 3-4 years. I'm not sure if BYU is #2 in the Pac-1 or Big 12 that frequently.
|
Irrelevant to the question. Is it easier for a very good team to go an entire season playing a theoretically easier schedule and having no losses (until a team makes it to the BCS with one loss, it's unproven that it can happen) or for a very good team to go an entire season playing a BCS conference schedule with two losses?
Given the number of teams that do each every year, the answer is obvious. It's far easier to go through a BCS schedule with two losses than it is to go undefeated with a non-bcs schedule.