Arguments for and against AQ bid

I just read an article that basically said that even though we have shown that we deserve the bid that we won't get it because it will take money away from the BCS schools. Perhaps the only thing that will do it for us is the swell of public opinion. Note that the BCS has hired a PR guy to swing the opinion in their favor. We will need to have good arguments and responses for all of their arguments. We have to convince others as we all agree already.



Even though we have demonstrated our worthiness, we might have to add BSU to strength the conference and in negotiating with the BCS. If we add BSU give us AQ. This year we got two BCS bids. With them in the conference there probably would have been only one bid. This actually benfits the BCS and could be more money in their pocket.



Here is one:

I have heard the comment that if BSU played Oregon's schedule that they could not go undefeated. The only thing that we know for sure is that if Oregon played BSU's schedule that they would have at least one loss (against BSU)!!! If Utah had won against Oregon that we could have used Utah instead of BSU.



Two: They argue that our bottom teams are not as good as theirs. Well who goes to the bowl? The last place team or the top 10 team? We have had top 10 teams the last two years. The top team is all that matters.



Any others? TCU winning is important to continue to build the opinion. Maybe these should be email to the fiesta bowl commendators to hope they use them on the air.

This is an argument you're hearing more and more: their bottom end teams just aren't that good. Well no one is arguing for New Mexico to be in a BCS bowl. We're simply arguing for our best team, our league champion to be grant automatic status.

I was thinking of this topic yesterday because I was reminded the night before that Arizona, who Nebraska tore apart, was once in the WAC. When AU and ASU were in the WAC, they usually led the field and garnered a lot of the championships. Then they move on to the PAC10 and they've had good years and bad and while they are probably better programs because of recruiting as a BCS team and we know they have more money, they traded leading a league to usually being also-rans.



That would be the end result for BYU and Utah if they were to be included in the PAC10. BYU's one ace is the LDS member connection that none of the other teams have, and I believe that would fair them better, but the truth is that we'd not be having 11-2 seasons regularly in such a conference and is that really what we want to see, BYU have more 9-4, 8-5 type seasons? I don't know the answer to that.



But if we could get the MWC to be a AQ, then we stay with our same league, that would get better, but I still think we would have more 11-2 seasons than being a member of the PAC10 or Big 12.

EM_Puma wrote:
I was thinking of this topic yesterday because I was reminded the night before that Arizona, who Nebraska tore apart, was once in the WAC. When AU and ASU were in the WAC, they usually led the field and garnered a lot of the championships. Then they move on to the PAC10 and they've had good years and bad and while they are probably better programs because of recruiting as a BCS team and we know they have more money, they traded leading a league to usually being also-rans.



That would be the end result for BYU and Utah if they were to be included in the PAC10. BYU's one ace is the LDS member connection that none of the other teams have, and I believe that would fair them better, but the truth is that we'd not be having 11-2 seasons regularly in such a conference and is that really what we want to see, BYU have more 9-4, 8-5 type seasons? I don't know the answer to that.



But if we could get the MWC to be a AQ, then we stay with our same league, that would get better, but I still think we would have more 11-2 seasons than being a member of the PAC10 or Big 12.

I don't completely agree. As incredible as our 2010 recruiting class is, I think it would improve if we were part of the BCS. We lose some high profile players that would come to BYU.

kitic77 wrote:
This is an argument you're hearing more and more: their bottom end teams just aren't that good. Well no one is arguing for New Mexico to be in a BCS bowl. We're simply arguing for our best team, our league champion to be grant automatic status.

I think what I'm hearing here in SEC country (and please don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger here and totally don't agree) is that BC$ schools are more thoroughly vetted and proven because their conferences are better top to bottom. They play a couple of patsys in pre-conference warmups but then face tough conference games the rest of the year where MWC play their weak pre-conference warmups and then only a couple of tough conference games. Of course everyone thinks their conference is better top to bottom, to me the Bowls speak volumes and the MWC has the highest winning percentage or close to it in the past few years.



Go Cougs!



L Hatton

Louisville KY

KYCoug wrote:

This is an argument you're hearing more and more: their bottom end teams just aren't that good. Well no one is arguing for New Mexico to be in a BCS bowl. We're simply arguing for our best team, our league champion to be grant automatic status.

I think what I'm hearing here in SEC country (and please don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger here and totally don't agree) is that BC$ schools are more thoroughly vetted and proven because their conferences are better top to bottom. They play a couple of patsys in pre-conference warmups but then face tough conference games the rest of the year where MWC play their weak pre-conference warmups and then only a couple of tough conference games. Of course everyone thinks their conference is better top to bottom, to me the Bowls speak volumes and the MWC has the highest winning percentage or close to it in the past few years.



Go Cougs!



L Hatton

Louisville KY

Tell that to Wyoming, and Tenn.

The "better teams" top to bottom argument is weak sauce. Every conference has strong and weak teams. The MWC, according to realtimerpi, is the 7th best conference and is less than a a half a point away from the ACC to being the 6th best. Further, the MWC is less than 5 points away from being the #1 conference in all of football. A stretch, yes, but when you look at the #8 conference and see that they are more than 6 points behind the MWC, it is clear that the MWC has the same quality as the AQ conferences.



Further, the MWC doesn't have to be as good as the top conference to be BCS AQ worthy, something ms. Lya Wodroska of the SLT seems to think, but only as good as the 5th and 6th conferences to get in.



Further, in looking at the realtimerpi rankings, all the AQ conferences have at least 2 teams ranked 100+, except for the SEC. Some have 3, like the MWC.



More importantly, it's where your top teams and conference champion rate overall against the other top teams in college football. In that case, the MWC more than holds its own with 3 teams in the top 20 (and likely 2 in the top ten and a second year in a row with the conference champion finishing 2d in the country should TCU beat BSU).



http://www.realtimerpi.com/football/ncaaf_conf_Men.html



(I looked at Sagarin's rankings and this season's is so disreputable it's not even funny. He has Utah State and La Tech, both 4-8 ranked ahead of Wyoming, which is 7-6 and ahead of UNLV, which is 5-7.)

KYCoug wrote:

This is an argument you're hearing more and more: their bottom end teams just aren't that good. Well no one is arguing for New Mexico to be in a BCS bowl. We're simply arguing for our best team, our league champion to be grant automatic status.

I think what I'm hearing here in SEC country (and please don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger here and totally don't agree) is that BC$ schools are more thoroughly vetted and proven because their conferences are better top to bottom. They play a couple of patsys in pre-conference warmups but then face tough conference games the rest of the year where MWC play their weak pre-conference warmups and then only a couple of tough conference games. Of course everyone thinks their conference is better top to bottom, to me the Bowls speak volumes and the MWC has the highest winning percentage or close to it in the past few years.



Go Cougs!



L Hatton

Louisville KY

So the best conferences typically schedule down and the "low", "less-deserving" conferences schedule up. Doesn't that about balance things out in the end ?



So Texas scheduled down with Wyoming (nearly got beat) and we tried to schedule up with Oklahoma and FSU to balance out our "weak" conference schedule of only 2 top-25 MWC teams.



I think the balance is MUCH closer than perception.

kitic77 wrote:
This is an argument you're hearing more and more: their bottom end teams just aren't that good. Well no one is arguing for New Mexico to be in a BCS bowl. We're simply arguing for our best team, our league champion to be grant automatic status.

Yeah it's not like the Dukes or the Washington States of the BCS conferences are perennial world-beaters... It's a, crappy crappy argument... Lou holtz seems to agree at least.