What does it take to become a BCS team and why would you play in the NCAA and not be a BCS team? If you want to play with the big boys and go to the BCS bowls, then become a BCS team. Am I missing something?
Non-BCS Teams
- Thread starter Tidester
- Start date
yeah, that's what is so messed up about major college football.
what other sports are there, where starting the year you know for sure there is NO CHANCE whatsoever in you winning the championship. (and that's what teams like ball state, utah, boise st, etc. pretty much have)
what other sports are there, where starting the year you know for sure there is NO CHANCE whatsoever in you winning the championship. (and that's what teams like ball state, utah, boise st, etc. pretty much have)
Is this a serious question? Do you think we prefer being in a conference with no tie to the BCS? It kills fans of teams like Utah to watch the Big East and ACC get auto bids while we (there are arguements that we are the 3rd or 4th best conference this year) don't get a sniff of the BCS if we lose one game. And the title game is out of the question regardless of what we do.
Here's the thing. If the PAC-1 offered us a spot our acceptance letter would be on the commissioner's desk before he could ask the question. So many of the BCS teams in this country are such because of their geography. Why doesn't a school with top facilities, 30,000 enrollment, a brand new stadium, near a major airport not have BCS access through auto-bid status? Geography. Plain and simple. We took 50,000+ to the Fiesta bowl but that doesn't matter.
If Utah could be in a BCS conference we would be. But the BCS conferences and their cronies (sorry, you guys fit the bill here) have locked the game and tossed away the key. It is a ridiculous, closed system and there is not much we can do to change our access to the system. All we can do is play our schedule and hope to be undefeated.
The BCS conferences are not taking more schools. While a team like Notre Dame might get a conference to accept them, most don't want another small school added. Schools like Utah and Boise State would love to join a BCS conference, but none on the west coast will have them, and they can't join a conference on the east coast (too much travel). BTW, non-BCS conferences get paid by the BCS pool every year (as does Notre Dame), even if they don't put a team in the BCS bowls. It is their hush money, so to speak...
The term "small school" is pretty misleading. Utah is bigger than most BCS programs from an enrollment standpoint, I believe Alabama is included but I think we are only a few thousand bigger. Utah also has a much better football and basketball resume than a huge portion of the BCS schools. Yet, we are playing on an uneven field.
You realize that your conference and school presidents all voted to accept the BCS, right?
If you are referring to the hush money that is being paid right now, yes, they voted to get what piece of the pie they could get. But they really had no other options. Any discussion of anything that isn't the BCS gets quelled before it gets any legs. It's not like the vote was do you choose a playoff or this computer system that determines a decent champ half of the time. It was, here's the compromise. Take it or leave it.
Sorry, this BCS versus non-BCS thing really bugs me. It is an uneven distribution of the money and it is not a merit based system.
The payouts are nice, it's a boon to the school for sure. But as a fan I would really liked to have seen the 2004 Utes take a shot at the national title instead of getting the sacrificial lamb from the Big East.
Absolutely no argument here. I am not a fan of the auto-bid process. Sure Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, and even (maybe) Ohio State all deserve to go. But does Cincinnati or Virginia Tech? Virginia Tech is ranked 19th in the country right now. Most fans may not like it but my opinion is that Utah and Boise State deserve to play. Utah has accepted its bid so that is a moot point.
DiamondDust
Hall of Fame
As it's been said, it's not like the super-conferences are bending over backwards in an attempt to get the Boises, Utahs, TCU's, and schools like them into their club. Boise and Utah would be great additions to the PAC-10, although they would counter by saying, "Since every team in our conference already plays each other... we produce a true conference champion, thus negating the need to add two more teams and a conference championship."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... college football is pretty much the only sport in this country that should give promotion and relegation a serious look. It'll never, but it would definitely make things interesting.
Utah's only hope at a BCS conference is to join the Pac 10. You would think they see the wisdom in a 12-team conference with a championship game. A main problem is there is no other school that they could join with. BYU has the athletic programs, but has significant intellectual freedom issues and is not a "research university". Boise State has a great football program, but that's about it.
R
rolltidescott
Guest
I hate the system in place, and even though my beloved Bama program gets the best from this system.
Playoff or nothing, I say.........
I won't lie, Utah didn't excite me much at first, and I wanted Bama to play Texas or Ohio St. I have seen Utah fans sorta get upset because of this, and I totally understand why, but I hope they realize they aren't quite up their yet with schools like Texas. I'm not talking about how good the Utah team is, but with how much excitement Utah's program brings to a program excitement factor. The more I find out about Utah's program the more I respect what they have done, but I've only seen them play once. I think it was the TCU game, and it seems like they aren't on in our region much at all. I know some Utah fan might rip into me for saying that, but I'm just asking to understand why someone might feel this way. I'm glad your program gets a chance to play a team that almost was playing for the national title this year.
That other BCS team (Pitt) was a joke to throw at Utah that one year.
I think Utah plays much better football than Pitt does, and to me this is Utah's first chance to play a national title contender in a BCS bowl. Utah had played enough decent teams to get a title shot this year, and this sugar bowl will be a huge chance for Utah to make a huge statement for non BCS schools.
Sorry, I hope that doesn't happen.........LOL
I believe Utah's team can give Bama a good game, and I'm not just saying that to be nice either. Look at what Saban & staff did with not such high recruits this year at Bama. They coached them up, and had a program in place to make them better players. Bama played at a very high level this year, but with much less raw talent that Florida had almost pulled off a win............
Why doesn't the BCS just add like two more conferences to the BCS so the Utah's, Boise St., and other teams have a way to get in without having to go undefeated ?
It's system that doesn't give the underdog programs a fighting chance, and they just might have a great team that year too, but we will never know without giving them that chance.
Playoff ...........
:BigA: ROLL TIDE :BigA:
Playoff or nothing, I say.........
I won't lie, Utah didn't excite me much at first, and I wanted Bama to play Texas or Ohio St. I have seen Utah fans sorta get upset because of this, and I totally understand why, but I hope they realize they aren't quite up their yet with schools like Texas. I'm not talking about how good the Utah team is, but with how much excitement Utah's program brings to a program excitement factor. The more I find out about Utah's program the more I respect what they have done, but I've only seen them play once. I think it was the TCU game, and it seems like they aren't on in our region much at all. I know some Utah fan might rip into me for saying that, but I'm just asking to understand why someone might feel this way. I'm glad your program gets a chance to play a team that almost was playing for the national title this year.
That other BCS team (Pitt) was a joke to throw at Utah that one year.
I think Utah plays much better football than Pitt does, and to me this is Utah's first chance to play a national title contender in a BCS bowl. Utah had played enough decent teams to get a title shot this year, and this sugar bowl will be a huge chance for Utah to make a huge statement for non BCS schools.
Sorry, I hope that doesn't happen.........LOL
I believe Utah's team can give Bama a good game, and I'm not just saying that to be nice either. Look at what Saban & staff did with not such high recruits this year at Bama. They coached them up, and had a program in place to make them better players. Bama played at a very high level this year, but with much less raw talent that Florida had almost pulled off a win............
Why doesn't the BCS just add like two more conferences to the BCS so the Utah's, Boise St., and other teams have a way to get in without having to go undefeated ?
It's system that doesn't give the underdog programs a fighting chance, and they just might have a great team that year too, but we will never know without giving them that chance.
Playoff ...........
:BigA: ROLL TIDE :BigA:
Last edited:
Is it misleading? in football terms, Utah is a small school. At least by standards of the SEC. you have a 45,000 seat stadium, that according to the official U of U athletic department the best average attendance was 44, 112 in 2004. . lets compare that to BDS, at 92, 000 more than twice Utah's capacity and is always sold out. heck, BDS will be expanded in the next few years to 100, 000+. and will sell out every game. Utah took 50,000 to Pheonix , AZ for the fiesta bowl, the high water mark for Utah football. Bama took 25,000 to UCLA for a regular season game in 2003. Utah shares a border with Arizona. there are many borders between Cali and Alabama . your program has done well for itself, but its not a BCS program, IMO, and geography does play a part.
The BCS system is not completely fair, but I think there are some ways that non-BCS schools could get a shot at the BCSCG. The two biggest parts of it, to me, are to schedule as many big name programs as possible in your OOC schedule and win consistently. Having one or two good years per decade while playing in a "weaker" conference doesn't get you much respect from the media. Beat the crap out of your conference, take down some big name schools, and do it for a few years in a row and I think there is a chance of playing for a NC.
If you draw comparisons to the top of the BCS hierarchy, of course Utah isn't a "Big School" by those terms. I'm not saying Utah is a Texas, Florida, 'Bama, Ohio State, etc. But that isn't what irks us. Look at all the programs in the BCS that don't compare to those top BCS programs.
It also is now very difficult but more likely impossible to build a tradition that is respectable. It can be argued that if a playoff were in place Utah would have a championship in 2004. With the current system those with a full trophey case can continue to fill them while those of us on the outside can't even catch lightning in a bottle to get a piece of National Championship hardware in our case. If Utah had Baylor's spot in the Big 12 would we have been in the 2004 championship game?
Utah's football program is far smaller than Bama's and probably always will be. But there are a couple dozen BCS conference programs that Utah outperforms in the stands and and several dozen we outperform on the field regularly. You're right that geography plays a big part. So does history. The primary reason we get shut out, though, is the big conferences want to keep all the money to themselves. They were forced to allow a non-BCS school into the bowl system, and those schools are 2-1 so far. Hopefully, soon to be 3-1
Some of those programs tuck tail and run. We had a home and home contract with Texas scheduled but they cancelled because a loss at Rice-Eccles stadium would all but kill their shot at a title in a given year.
It is also tough to get them on the up. So many of these scheules are set years in advance and then a team will tank. Texas A&M was like that for us. Michigan was a farce of a team this year... we did take them to a 10-6 game at the Big House in one of their better years though.
Basically we are taking this approach as much as possible. But is it fair to have to go play all four of our OOC games against top 20 teams, usually in their house? The MWC wasn't exactly weak this year. Check a lot of conference rankings in the National media and you'll see us right behind the SEC, Big 12 and swapping places with the ACC in most publications.
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thread 'CFN: Alabama vs Oklahoma: College Football Playoff Preview and Pick'- crimsonaudio
Replies: 74
Latest threads
-
Man hides while muggers attack a woman- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Sources: Iowa State QB Becht set to enter portal- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Sources: Dillingham signs 5-year deal with ASU
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Tulane-Ole Miss best bets: Why to bet the Mean Green's team total instead of spread
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0