Check out this link about 1/2 way down the page about BYU.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/753458.html

It is interesting to me to see what they said about the 1996 team which I think was an amazing team and beat KSU in basically a home game for them as it was played in the cotton bowl, very close to their home compared to BYU. That is the year that BYU was shunned from the BCS and finished 5th in the nation.

It always amazes me how they understate BYU's victories versus big team and then understate the importance of a bcs teams loss to non-BCS teams.

Cornellcoug wrote:

Check out this link about 1/2 way down the page about BYU.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/753458.html

It is interesting to me to see what they said about the 1996 team which I think was an amazing team and beat KSU in basically a home game for them as it was played in the cotton bowl, very close to their home compared to BYU. That is the year that BYU was shunned from the BCS and finished 5th in the nation.

It always amazes me how they understate BYU's victories versus big team and then understate the importance of a bcs teams loss to non-BCS teams.

What I don't like is how they always assume that all things will remain equal. If we were in a BCS conference our recruits wouldn't have to worry about not playing on TV or being able to play for a national championship. Honestly, if you put the Mt. West BYU in a BCS conference I could see us being a Michigan State or UCLA type. But if BYU were truly a BCS team with BCS money and BCS exposure I think BYU would be quite a bit more than a perennial Michigan State or Maryland.

The major problem I have is the designation BCS vs. nonBCS is sloppy. Yes, by and large BCS conferences are better and more difficult to navigate top to bottom, but they all don't carry the same degree of difficulty.

For example, I agree if BYU had a schedule similar to an average Pac-10 team. Their record would be significantly worse. That schedule IS a grind. Consider that every Pac-10 team plays 9 conference games and most play at least one VERY good nonconference game. No Pac-10 team has finished the season with less than 2 losses since they went to this kind of schedule.

However, if BYU played a Big East schedule of 7 conference games, half of which were Conference USA teams only 2 years ago, and the remainder of the schedule cupcake city against 1-AA opponents and service academies then their record would be much the same as it has been the last 2 years.

WACoug wrote:

What I don't like is how they always assume that all things will remain equal. If we were in a BCS conference our recruits wouldn't have to worry about not playing on TV or being able to play for a national championship. Honestly, if you put the Mt. West BYU in a BCS conference I could see us being a Michigan State or UCLA type. But if BYU were truly a BCS team with BCS money and BCS exposure I think BYU would be quite a bit more than a perennial Michigan State or Maryland. :huh:

I totally agree. If you look at the former CUSA teams that got the BCS badge a couple years back, all three have seen significant improvements. BYU and Utah would have compared favorably with South Florida, Cincinnati and even Louisville before they joined the Big East, and even now in many regards. The difference is that they were positioned well geographically, because it put them right in the midst of BCS conference upheaval.

Also it often comes down between BYU and a Pac 10 school for recruits and BYU wins over a lot of recruits but many also choose to go with the Pac 10 because of the BCS. Stick BYU in the Pac 10 and maybe Kaveinga sticks with his committment to BYU instead of switching at the last minute to USC. I'm not saying that BYU would surpass USC, but the fact is that we already compete closely with the Pac 10 for recruits and if the playing field were leveled by being in the Pac 10, we would win more of those recruiting battles.

Plus how good would [fill in your favorite non-California Pac 10 school]'s recruiting be if BYU were in the Pac 10 and they were in the MWC.

I agree here. If BYU WERE to be in a "BCS" conference, they would be picking up those recruits that say, "I would rather be playing on TV and a shot a NC title", than be playing for a team that only appears half the time to only 1.5 million viewers scattered through Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho....

Recruiting and TV coverage WOULD make a difference in how BYU would play. Give them a couple of years, and they would more than likely be in the Top 3 in ANY BCS conference (other than the SEC).

As for that "homer" that wrote the article, that 1996 was a VERY GOOD team. They came within a TD of beating UW on their field and go undefeated. As for the 2001 team, they just out-scored everyone until they got the wind knocked out of them by being turned down. I believe we had the option to drop the Miss St. game - we should have done that, even with the win. Luke Staley broke his ankle at the end and Doman and Mahe were banged up. (We probably should have dropped the Hawaii game, as well - I think we had an option on that, as well, IIRC...)