BYU 11th in both polls

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I think it's pretty obvious what's easier. Look at how many MWC teams in the last 10 years have gone unbeaten (which is what it takes). ONE.

Compare that to the number of teams in BCS conferences getting into the BCS with a one- or two-loss team.


If you've got a very good, bcs-worthy team (like BYU & Utah both have this year), you've got to like your chances where you have a mulligan or two better than when you have NO room for error at all.

Thanks you for stating it better and more succinctly than I ever could have.

[Travis Henry]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I think it's pretty obvious what's easier. Look at how many MWC teams in the last 10 years have gone unbeaten (which is what it takes). ONE.

Compare that to the number of teams in BCS conferences getting into the BCS with a one- or two-loss team.


If you've got a very good, bcs-worthy team (like BYU & Utah both have this year), you've got to like your chances where you have a mulligan or two better than when you have NO room for error at all.

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.

[MikeWaters]

I think BYU could conceivably be tops in the north division of the Big 12 every 3 to 4 years.

[Travis Henry]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think BYU could conceivably be tops in the north division of the Big 12 every 3 to 4 years.

Unless Nebraska becomes a power again, I'm not sure if that would be enough to make it to a BCS bowl every 3 to 4 years. It would be a once in a decade thing. It's no secret that the South is where the power and prestige is in that conference. Kansas only made it because there was virtually no one else last year, and last year was flukey.

With all of this being said, I don't want to sound like I don't think BYU should jump at the chance to go into a BCS conference if invited. As someone mentioned before, if the choice is between having a better shot at a BCS game and having having four-five games every year with Big 12/Pac 10 opponents in Provo, then you've got to choose inclusion in the BCS conference.

Besides, BYU really doesn't have a shot at the national title being in the MWC. At least in the Big 12, BYU would possibly get a mention once in a great while.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Travis Henry

Unless Nebraska becomes a power again, I'm not sure if that would be enough to make it to a BCS bowl every 3 to 4 years. It would be a once in a decade thing. It's no secret that the South is where the power and prestige is in that conference. Kansas only made it because there was virtually no one else last year, and last year was flukey.

Kansas didn't win the north last year. Kansas was selected because it was one of only two one-loss teams remaining, and its only loss came to a top five team.

[jay santos]

What is easier, getting to a BCS bowl game for a non-BCS or a BCS?

Isolating just on this question, and given your team at the beginning of the year with the only delta being the schedule difference and the BCS rules, I'd say it's probably about equal but maybe a little easier for a non-BCS.

Why?

If you are top 12 in the BCS rankings as a non-BCS, you are virtually guaranteed to make it (though you might not if there is a higher ranked non-BCS. If you are 13-16, you have a small chance.

If you are top 12 in the BCS rankings, you are not guaranteed a BCS bowl, though it is likely.

[Travis Henry]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Kansas didn't win the north last year. Kansas was selected because it was one of only two one-loss teams remaining, and its only loss came to a top five team.

And the stars aligned last year to allow for Kansas to make that BCS game. Kansas didn't play Texas or Oklahoma last year. Hell, they didn't even play Texas Tech. If there were four other teams in the top 5, Kansas only played one of them: Missouri. In addition, numerous teams across the land dropped like flies to allow Kansas that opportunity.

Nebraska will eventually be back as a national powerhouse. USC, Oklahoma, Ohio State and now Alabama have all come back in recent years. These traditional powerhouses always seem to do that. Notre Dame came back and is now fading again.

I'm not sure if Missouri is here to stay, but the Big 12 North won't be down forever. I don't think BYU has a legitimate shot every 3-4 years in the Big 12 North. If the priority is to simply make a BCS game, then BYU is better off in the MWC under the current rules. But I would rather have BYU get the BCS money, prestige and schedule than simply having more frequent shots at BCS games.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Kansas didn't win the north last year. Kansas was selected because it was one of only two one-loss teams remaining, and its only loss came to a top five team.

Ironically they lost to the team that the BCS excluded, whose only 2 losses were to the same top 5 team.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ironically they lost to the team that the BCS excluded, whose only 2 losses were to the same top 5 team.

Right. That's why we hate our conference championship game. If it weren't for that game, Missouri would have played for the national title last year.

[Travis Henry]

Originally Posted by jay santos

What is easier, getting to a BCS bowl game for a non-BCS or a BCS?

Isolating just on this question, and given your team at the beginning of the year with the only delta being the schedule difference and the BCS rules, I'd say it's probably about equal but maybe a little easier for a non-BCS.

Why?

If you are top 12 in the BCS rankings as a non-BCS, you are virtually guaranteed to make it (though you might not if there is a higher ranked non-BCS. If you are 13-16, you have a small chance.

If you are top 12 in the BCS rankings, you are not guaranteed a BCS bowl, though it is likely.

Being in the top 12 with an MWC schedule and being the cream of the crop of a very bad crop is something BYU can do every three years or so as long as the current coaching staff is in place.

Right now, there are ten spots between the BCS bowls and the national title game. Due to conference tie-ins, there's usually one or two screwy conference champs that otherwise wouldn't deserve to make it. This reduces the effective spots to 8 or 9. I maintain that BYU can make it in future years with one loss and still make it to 10, 11 or 12 in the rankings, though it would have to be at the beginning of the year. This could have been the case last year. If BYU had only lost to UCLA, BYU may have been sitting there at #10, 11 or 12 ahead of Hawaii.