NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > MWC question for the esteemed FN memebers
November 2, 2010, 08:07 AM
Was thinking early this morning about the MWC trying to get the AQ bid. Obviously its good if TCU beats Utah as Utah is leaving for the PAC 12 and then both TCU and BSU win out.
The real question is this: Is it better for the MWC as a whole to have the Ducks and Auburn win out and thus have TCU and BSU in other BCS bowls (Rose and Fiesta probably against MSU and Pitt) where they would both probably win? If they do that then you are probably looking at a 2 and 3 (or 3/4) final ranking for two MWC teams. If BSU or TCU make a title game and lose-even by one point, I bet the pollsters whould pummel them in the rankings and they would end up around 7th or 8th at best.
November 2, 2010  08:52 AM ET

Is it better for the MWC as a whole to have the Ducks and Auburn win out and thus have TCU and BSU in other BCS bowls (Rose and Fiesta probably against MSU and Pitt) where they would both probably win?

Absolutely not. Win or lose in the National Title game, the question of MWC legitimacy needs to be answered. 3 Teams are currently in the top 5, so the polls are convinced.

The general public needs to be convinced one way or the other. It is much better for BSU and TCU/UTah winner to lose the NC and win the other BCS bowl than to win another BCS game against Pitt or NC State.

A close loss in the NC game (especially by a point) establishes that the team belongs. A blowout might be devastating... even teams like Oklahoma and Ohio State take years to recover from NC blowouts in the public perception.

A close loss would drop them to 4 or 5. No need to be fatalistic about that.

November 2, 2010  09:38 AM ET

So you are advocating that the AQ conferences should be re-evaluated every so often? How often? And does history play a part in the evaluation...if so, how far back?

True, BSU and TCU are doing very well and have so for the past few years...
For BSU (and this was a very quick research), looks like there have been only 15 loses from 2000 thru 2007, but of those loses, 90% were to AQ schools or ranked teams. Only recently have they started beating ranked teams....historically it is a different story.

TCU has been a little better with only one 5-6 season and one 8.5 season. The difference is that a lot of TCU's losses have been to other MWC schools and not to the AQ's that they play.

The think is that I also remember when TCU was known as a doormat for the SWC...and now they are not...because they aren't playing the TU's, TTU's, Arky's, etc? Hmmmm

November 2, 2010  09:47 AM ET

It doesn't matter! The official BCS final ranking, as far as it concerns conference AQ status, is done before all the bowl games.

November 2, 2010  10:19 AM ET

First of all, if Auburn and Oregon win out and play in the NCG, neither Boise State nor TCU nor Utah is going to beat the Big Ten champion (Ohio State, Iowa, Wisconsin or Michigan State) in the Rose Bowl.

Secondly, the 4 at-large BCS berths will go to (1) Alabama, (2) whoever doesn't win the Big Ten, (3) whoever doesn't win the PAC 10 and the highest ranked of the Boise State, TCU, Utah trio.

Finally, if Auburn and Oregon don't win out, it does not change my second point and it becomes even an even stronger eventuality.

November 2, 2010  10:20 AM ET
QUOTE(#3):

It doesn't matter! The official BCS final ranking, as far as it concerns conference AQ status, is done before all the bowl games.

Thanks, did not know that-I thought the final (post-bowl) USA Today and Harris polls were used since the BCS standings freeze after the CC games.

November 2, 2010  10:27 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

First of all, if Auburn and Oregon win out and play in the NCG, neither Boise State nor TCU nor Utah is going to beat the Big Ten champion (Ohio State, Iowa, Wisconsin or Michigan State) in the Rose Bowl.Secondly, the 4 at-large BCS berths will go to (1) Alabama, (2) whoever doesn't win the Big Ten, (3) whoever doesn't win the PAC 10 and the highest ranked of the Boise State, TCU, Utah trio.Finally, if Auburn and Oregon don't win out, it does not change my second point and it becomes even an even stronger eventuality.

You are not really living up to your namesake here: You honestly think MSU (which will be the B10 Rose Rep in all likeyhood) is better than BSU or TCU? MSU is simply a decent team that got lucky a few times this year. Wait a few weeks and then compare the Utah vs ND score to the MSU vs ND score...
In any MSU matchup I would say the spread would be at least a TD in BSU/TCU's favor, and at least a FG in Utah's. If the B10 rep is tOSU or WISC then the spread would be about even, and the games would probably be great, close games. I would tend to favor TCU or BSU in those matchups though-the players will care more about the bowl than the BCS conference team will in all probablity.

As to your second point-its fairly doubtful a no-loss TCU or BSU will be left out of any BCS bowl in favor of a two loss big-conference team-the outcry would be insane and the Fiesta did OK ratings wise last year in any event. My guess is the BCS will do what it always does-(give the SEC and B10 two bids) and give BSU and TCU/Utah the other two.

November 2, 2010  10:37 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

Is it better for the MWC as a whole to have the Ducks and Auburn win out and thus have TCU and BSU in other BCS bowls (Rose and Fiesta probably against MSU and Pitt) where they would both probably win? Absolutely not. Win or lose in the National Title game, the question of MWC legitimacy needs to be answered. 3 Teams are currently in the top 5, so the polls are convinced.The general public needs to be convinced one way or the other. It is much better for BSU and TCU/UTah winner to lose the NC and win the other BCS bowl than to win another BCS game against Pitt or NC State.A close loss in the NC game (especially by a point) establishes that the team belongs. A blowout might be devastating... even teams like Oklahoma and Ohio State take years to recover from NC blowouts in the public perception.A close loss would drop them to 4 or 5. No need to be fatalistic about that.

I got you, just was thinking about the possiblity of the Ducks getting on a roll. They could certainly do the exact same thing to Auburn, tOSU, the Sooners, or Bama but any major team would recover the reputation much quicker (for evidence see how many SEC fans point to the BSU loss at UGA many years ago as "proof" that smaller teams are a fraud but somehow have themselves believing at the same time that Bama just didn't want to even be at the more recent Sugar Bowl when Utah beat them).

November 2, 2010  10:42 AM ET

Does anyone remember when the BCS was formed and why there are 6 AQ conferences? Why don't they just take the top 12 teams and go have fun...seed them according to the last standings and 1 plays 2 (not gonna get a playoff so quit)...that would take away everyone's argument that the AQ's have a better shot....and if an SEC or B10/12 or 12/10 have more than 2 teams in the top 12, so be it...they won it as fairly as the current parameters allow.

November 2, 2010  11:12 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

You are not really living up to your namesake here: You honestly think MSU (which will be the B10 Rose Rep in all likeyhood) is better than BSU or TCU? MSU is simply a decent team that got lucky a few times this year. Wait a few weeks and then compare the Utah vs ND score to the MSU vs ND score... In any MSU matchup I would say the spread would be at least a TD in BSU/TCU's favor, and at least a FG in Utah's. If the B10 rep is tOSU or WISC then the spread would be about even, and the games would probably be great, close games. I would tend to favor TCU or BSU in those matchups though-the players will care more about the bowl than the BCS conference team will in all probablity.As to your second point-its fairly doubtful a no-loss TCU or BSU will be left out of any BCS bowl in favor of a two loss big-conference team-the outcry would be insane and the Fiesta did OK ratings wise last year in any event. My guess is the BCS will do what it always does-(give the SEC and B10 two bids) and give BSU and TCU/Utah the other two.

In a word... YES. Barring injuries, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State and Michigan State would all be installed as the Rose Bowl favorite over Utah, Boise State or TCU.

As an at-large candidate, a one loss Stanford, Oregon, Auburn, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, Michigan State and a two loss Oklahoma, Nebraska and Alabama would in all likelihood be chosen by the BCS bowl committee ahead of an undefeated TCU/Utah or Boise State.

It may not be fair but after all it is BCS.

Comment #10 has been removed
November 2, 2010  12:18 PM ET
QUOTE(#10):

Untrue this year.

Yep, the dynamic this year will be the top 5 one. Both TCU and BSU have been top 5 all year. Fear of congress and public backlash will have TCU and BSU in as long as they run the table.

November 2, 2010  12:20 PM ET
QUOTE(#9):

In a word... YES. Barring injuries, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State and Michigan State would all be installed as the Rose Bowl favorite over Utah, Boise State or TCU.As an at-large candidate, a one loss Stanford, Oregon, Auburn, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, Michigan State and a two loss Oklahoma, Nebraska and Alabama would in all likelihood be chosen by the BCS bowl committee ahead of an undefeated TCU/Utah or Boise State.It may not be fair but after all it is BCS.

KIR, will have to see how it plays out, but I bet the line will be MSU as dogs by at least 7. Utah is the biggest wildcard. If they win out there may not be near the level of respect/sympathy for them as for BSU and TCU. The feeling may be that they will get plenty of chances in the future.

November 2, 2010  12:21 PM ET
QUOTE(#9):

In a word... YES. Barring injuries, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State and Michigan State would all be installed as the Rose Bowl favorite over Utah, Boise State or TCU.As an at-large candidate, a one loss Stanford, Oregon, Auburn, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, Michigan State and a two loss Oklahoma, Nebraska and Alabama would in all likelihood be chosen by the BCS bowl committee ahead of an undefeated TCU/Utah or Boise State.It may not be fair but after all it is BCS.

Oh and the real funny part of this reasoning is that a 2011 Utah that goes 11-1 deserves to go to a BCS bowl but a 2010 one that goes 12-0 does not (even though the PAC10 and MWC will probably end up with the same number of ranked teams)...

November 2, 2010  03:03 PM ET

If "all goes according to Hoyle"...

Because of schedule, Boise State will continue to sink in the computer rankings and hence continue to fall in the BCS. The final BCS rankings, after the various conference championship games, will find them behind, at the very least, the TCU/Utah winner, the four conference champions plus the runner-up in the Big 12, the Big Ten and the SEC. 10 spots - 6 AQ - 4 at-large. Three of these go to the runner-ups in Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 (all ranked by the BCS ahead of Boise) and one goes to the TCU/Utah winner.

...as has been suggested, anything can happen and only time will tell.

Also... ...a 12-0 Utah team in 2010 (meaning it beat TCU this Saturday and pass them in the rankings) would get the automatic (highest ranked non-AQ school within the top 12) at-large bid. I think we all should wait and see if 2011 brings a 11-1 Utah team... ...a 11-1 PAC 10 team is viewed nowhere nearly the same as a 12-0 MWC team.

November 2, 2010  03:17 PM ET
QUOTE(#14):

If "all goes according to Hoyle"...Because of schedule, Boise State will continue to sink in the computer rankings and hence continue to fall in the BCS. The final BCS rankings, after the various conference championship games, will find them behind, at the very least, the TCU/Utah winner, the four conference champions plus the runner-up in the Big 12, the Big Ten and the SEC. 10 spots - 6 AQ - 4 at-large. Three of these go to the runner-ups in Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 (all ranked by the BCS ahead of Boise) and one goes to the TCU/Utah winner....as has been suggested, anything can happen and only time will tell.Also... ...a 12-0 Utah team in 2010 (meaning it beat TCU this Saturday and pass them in the rankings) would get the automatic (highest ranked non-AQ school within the top 12) at-large bid. I think we all should wait and see if 2011 brings a 11-1 Utah team... ...a 11-1 PAC 10 team is viewed nowhere nearly the same as a 12-0 MWC team.

You are right in your last sentence. My point is that over the last 5 years the upper MWC teams have consistantly beaten the upper PAC-10 teams (except for USC) come bowl time and during the regular season. IMHO a 12-0 record in the MWC should be viewed as a much harder achievement than an 11-1 one in the PAC10.

There is a grand total of 3 legit top 25 teams in the PAC-10 (and 3-4 25-40 ranked ones), which means each of the top teams plays 2 hard IC games. Stanford and Oregon don't have any hard OOC games this year.

There are 2 legit top 25 teams in the MWC, both of whom play each other. TCU also played and whipped up on another top 25 team.

In other words, TCU and Oregon both play 2 games where they should be challenged on the field and both should/have been favored by a TD or more in every other game. Its certainly possible for TCU to lose to BYU/SDSU/AFA or Oregon to lose to ASU/CAL/OrSU, but if they do they have shown a clear lack of focus. I.E. a no-loss MWC team should certainly trump a one-loss PAC10 one.

You can swap out MSU and Oregon fairly easily here-MSU has had 2 hard games and they are 1-1....

November 2, 2010  03:36 PM ET
QUOTE(#15):

You are right in your last sentence. My point is that over the last 5 years the upper MWC teams have consistantly beaten the upper PAC-10 teams (except for USC) come bowl time and during the regular season. IMHO a 12-0 record in the MWC should be viewed as a much harder achievement than an 11-1 one in the PAC10. There is a grand total of 3 legit top 25 teams in the PAC-10 (and 3-4 25-40 ranked ones), which means each of the top teams plays 2 hard IC games. Stanford and Oregon don't have any hard OOC games this year. There are 2 legit top 25 teams in the MWC, both of whom play each other. TCU also played and whipped up on another top 25 team.In other words, TCU and Oregon both play 2 games where they should be challenged on the field and both should/have been favored by a TD or more in every other game. Its certainly possible for TCU to lose to BYU/SDSU/AFA or Oregon to lose to ASU/CAL/OrSU, but if they do they have shown a clear lack of focus. I.E. a no-loss MWC team should certainly trump a one-loss PAC10 one.You can swap out MSU and Oregon fairly easily here-MSU has had 2 hard games and they are 1-1....

Your use of the term "hard games" is misleading at best A team from the PAC 10 will play a number of games that even a very good team will have a significant chance of losing. By significant chance, I would say between 16 to 35%. Teams from the MWC have a number of games where the chance of losing falls between 0 and 4%. Over the course of a season the probability of a very good team losing at least one game in the PAC 10 will convincingly exceed the probability of a MWC team losing at least one game.

November 2, 2010  04:09 PM ET

when oregon state beats oregon, what then? what then...

also go UTES!

November 2, 2010  04:10 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

Does anyone remember when the BCS was formed and why there are 6 AQ conferences?

The BCS started in the late 1990s. Its predecessors were the Bowl Alliance and bowl Coalition. they date back to the early 1990s.

all three of these systems were set up for two purposes:
1. Match up the #1 and #2 teams from the polls in a bowl game to avoid split titles.
2. Provide an orderly manner for conference champions to get bowl invites to the major bowls so that bowls would not poach top teams (independents like ND and PSU, plus Big 8 teams like Nebraska and OU) from rival bowls. bidding wars are bad for business, even if you're allegedly a non-profit.

The original major bowls in the Coalition era were
Orange - Big East tie in, brought perennial #1 contender Miami
Sugar - SEC tie in, nuff said
Fiesta - no conference tie in, but a history of staging marquee #1 vs .#2 games at the expense of other bowls
Gator - de-facto ACC tie in, brought FSU to the table
Cotton - SWC tie in, brought Texas, etc. to the table

The bowl Alliance dropped the Gator and Cotton bowls, but kept the BE, SEC, ACC, B12 conferences. The SWC and Big8 had merged to become the BigXII, and the Fiesta began a tie-in with them.

The Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition did not include the Rose Bowl (and thus the Pac10 and big10 champions). When the Rose joined up, the BCS was born.

And we all lived happily ever after....

November 2, 2010  04:34 PM ET
QUOTE(#14):

If "all goes according to Hoyle"...Because of schedule, Boise State will continue to sink in the computer rankings and hence continue to fall in the BCS. The final BCS rankings, after the various conference championship games, will find them behind, at the very least, the TCU/Utah winner, the four conference champions plus the runner-up in the Big 12, the Big Ten and the SEC.

I disagree. Prior to the bowls in last year, Boise and TCU were ranked #4 and #6 respectively in the BCS.

Both teams were ranked above the Pac10, big10 and ACC champions. TCU was ranked ahead of the SEC #2, while boise was ranked just below.

IMO, both Boise and TCU's schedules last year were comparable to this year (TCU's marquee win last season was over #23 Utah, no worse than Boise's marquee win over VaTech this year), so I don't expect either team to fall much below #6 so long as they remain undefeated.

 
November 2, 2010  04:35 PM ET
QUOTE(#16):

Your use of the term "hard games" is misleading at best A team from the PAC 10 will play a number of games that even a very good team will have a significant chance of losing. By significant chance, I would say between 16 to 35%. Teams from the MWC have a number of games where the chance of losing falls between 0 and 4%. Over the course of a season the probability of a very good team losing at least one game in the PAC 10 will convincingly exceed the probability of a MWC team losing at least one game.

I get what you are saying but I don't buy the underlying logic. When you look at the crappy OOC schedules and the weak links in pretty much every conference its not like any top 10 team this year is playing the AFC east week in and week out. (UCLA, WSU, UW, ASU, and CAL hardly represent some sort of super gauntlet and none are significantly better than AFA or SDSU this year).

Yes playing a 25-40th ranked opponent does present you with a chance of losing, but if you really are a top team you should win if you stay focused. In other words if you want to play in a big money game you should act the part and walk the walk-win the games you are supposed to win.

Further, for BSU/TCU/Utah not only do they have to win, they have to blow people out by and large, which is a grind in and of itself-and even then they don't get a whole lot of credit (Utah crushes ISU and drops in the polls, OU rises after beating ISU the next week by pretty much the same score).

Also, if you really believe those percentages you already have buy-in to the fact that TCU/Utah are every bit as good as Auburn/Oregon-otherwise the failure % numbers would be roughly the same...

It just gets tiring hearing year after year that team X could never compete in conference Y because every team in conference Y is tougher than nails, when the truth is that pretty much no team in any given year faces more 5 or 6 legit top 25 teams (and that's just the SEC squads, everyone else has it significantly easier) out of a 12 game schedule.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
    Views
    1739
    Comments
    1433
  2. 2
    No return timetable for Lightning MVP
    Views
    878
    Comments
    218
  3. 3
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    3097
    Comments
    168
  4. 4
    Niners table talks with Kaepernick
    Views
    1172
    Comments
    64
  5. 5
    ... So, L.A. will line up for Love and Durant
    Views
    5753
    Comments
    48

SI.com

SI Photos