Pac 10 irrelevant?

[Coach McGuirk]

The argument is flawed from the start. Mid Majors are asked to compete and somehow be better than Majors, yet are denied the benefits of Majors that allows them to continue to be Majors. Think Urban Meyer. Utah start the ball rolling only to allow bigger funded schools that are provided more funding through the BCS to hire coaching/recruiting talent away from the mid majors. So tell me, How long and how consistant, with the odds stacked against are the mid majors to compete before the field levels?

Somehow, magically the mid majors are suppose to show a winning % that is better than what the BCS conferences can do? Are you kidding?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Coach McGuirk

The argument is flawed from the start. Mid Majors are asked to compete and somehow be better than Majors, yet are denied the benefits of Majors that allows them to continue to be Majors. Think Urban Meyer. Utah start the ball rolling only to allow bigger funded schools that are provided more funding through the BCS to hire coaching/recruiting talent away from the mid majors. So tell me, How long and how consistant, with the odds stacked against are the mid majors to compete before the field levels?

Somehow, magically the mid majors are suppose to show a winning % that is better than what the BCS conferences can do? Are you kidding?

This is a standard retort, and has merit.....

except that, as has been pointed out before, the BCS/Bowl Alliance has been around for a decade. The mid-majors were failing to win football NCs for decades before that. Again, with the exception of BYU, nobody else has done it since before WW2. So the BCS is not to blame for the lack of championships at the mid major level. It is simply the weak SOS for teams that play in these traditionally marginal football conferences.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

If I understand your logic correctly, then there is really no difference. Conferences are mostly equal and year over year, the talent gap and quality is basically the same.

Personally, I am biased towards BYU. Also, Utah had an amazing run of dominance. In 2004, they were an excellent team that was definitely Top 5 material. This year, both BYU and Utah are poised to make a special run on the national stage. My point being, of all the mid majors, the MWC seems to have consistently produced someone to take the national stage each year.

So if I had to answer, I would say that the MWC generally is better than....say....the SunBelt or the MAC.

Geez, how many times do I have to say I am NOT saying all conferences are equal. I have a problem with the mid major label because fans like you see it and lump all those mid major conferences into the same pot. You can't even come out and say definitively that the MWC is better than the WAC or MAC or Sunbelt. You think it might be but only because you're probably biased? You would use numbers to support that the MWC is not as good as the BCS leagues and think when Indy brings up that we mostly beat losing teams last year, but you totally ignore the difference between the MWC's record and that of all the other non-BCS leagues. Why? Because you're stuck in ESPN land and can't get past the mid major label. You don't think there is a difference between the MWC going 7-7 against the BCS and a conference like the WAC or Sunbelt or MAC or CUSA going 2-22?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Geez, how many times do I have to say I am NOT saying all conferences are equal. I have a problem with the mid major label because fans like you see it and lump all those mid major conferences into the same pot. You can't even come out and say definitively that the MWC is better than the WAC or MAC or Sunbelt. You think it might be but only because you're probably biased? You would use numbers to support that the MWC is not as good as the BCS leagues and think when Indy brings up that we mostly beat losing teams last year, but you totally ignore the difference between the MWC's record and that of all the other non-BCS leagues. Why? Because you're stuck in ESPN land and can't get past the mid major label.

I guess I dont understand your point.

I dont know how to say it more clearly. I DO lump all the mid-majors into the same pot.....the pot being "Not as Good as the BCS conferences" pot. Who cares if the MWC is better than the Big Sky? I certainly don't.

[Coach McGuirk]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is a standard retort, and has merit.....

except that, as has been pointed out before, the BCS/Bowl Alliance has been around for a decade. The mid-majors were failing to win football NCs for decades before that. Again, with the exception of BYU, nobody else has done it since before WW2. So the BCS is not to blame for the lack of championships at the mid major level. It is simply the weak SOS for teams that play in these traditionally marginal football conferences.

This is standard as well.

I am headed to the PGA tourney but would love to continue the discussion upon my return. Everyone have a great day!

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is a standard retort, and has merit.....

except that, as has been pointed out before, the BCS/Bowl Alliance has been around for a decade. The mid-majors were failing to win football NCs for decades before that. Again, with the exception of BYU, nobody else has done it since before WW2. So the BCS is not to blame for the lack of championships at the mid major level. It is simply the weak SOS for teams that play in these traditionally marginal football conferences.

Baylor hasn't won it since WW2 either. But they get all the benefits anyway.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is the big head scratcher for me. Why is being a mid-major such a big deal? Why is it so negative? I don't see it that way. I just see it as reality.

How about this. What if one day I said Triplet Dad is a mid-major poster on Cougarguard? How would that make you feel about yourself? Better or worse?

You'd probably think to yourself..."I work just as hard as SU, IPU, Arch and the rest of those fellas. In fact, I occasionally produce some good material. Though I'm not as consistently awesome as say, YOhio, there have been times I could hang with him. Why am I then automatically relegated to mid-major status? It's just not right!"

That didn't feel very good did it Triplet?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I guess I dont understand your point.

I dont know how to say it more clearly. I DO lump all the mid-majors into the same pot.....the pot being "Not as Good as the BCS conferences" pot. Who cares if the MWC is better than the Big Sky? I certainly don't.

That's the point. Your bias makes it forever impossible for you to ever acknowledge that the MWC belongs at the same table at the BCS. That is what gives the Big East an auto bid while the MWC can outperform them and get nothing. Because you lump us together with the non-BCS it allows you to ignore any accomplishment from the MWC no matter what. Utah can beat the crap out of Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl. Means nothing. BYU can win a BCS game this year. Won't mean anything. I can prove the MWC is much better than the other non-BCS leagues, showing they deserve a little more consideration than the WAC but it means nothing. Just because of a label enforced by the BCS and promoted by the media, mostly ESPN.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BlueK

That's the point. Your bias makes it forever impossible for you to ever acknowledge that the MWC belongs at the same table at the BCS. That is what gives the Big East an auto bid while the MWC can outperform them and get nothing. Because you lump us together with the non-BCS it allows you to ignore any accomplishment from the MWC no matter what. Utah can beat the crap out of Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl. Means nothing. BYU can win a BCS game this year. Won't mean anything. I can prove the MWC is much better than the other non-BCS leagues showing they deserve a little more consideration than the WAC but it means nothing. Just because of a label enforced by the BCS and promoted by the media, mostly ESPN.

actually BlueK, it's not wins that determine the BCS structure. It's money. Look at the athletic dept. budgets as well as the TV contracts for each of the conferences and see where the MWC ends up.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Baylor hasn't won it since WW2 either. But they get all the benefits anyway.

I view this as a different argument. I agree that the BCS is unfair in that coattail schools such as Baylor get the financial benefits. But that doesnt make those crappy schools better football programs.

If what you were saying earlier is true, then Baylor fans this year want a piece of BYU because they all think that they are better. And ESPN would pick Baylor over BYU. That is where you are losing me. It seems to be an overstatement of bias towards all BCS schools. There is bias towards the usual suspects (SC, Florida, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc...), but not across the board.