iShowsToGo.com wrote:

I believe the Pac-10 commissioner has already said they are not looking to expand any time soon.

And then he retired.

BYUtx wrote:

iShowsToGo.com wrote:

I believe the Pac-10 commissioner has already said they are not looking to expand any time soon.

And then he retired.

too bad he and hair thompson didnt make it a joint event.

BYUtx wrote:

Perhaps my biggest problem with the BCS isn't that USC and Texas get all the money/glory/etc., it's that the Baylors, WSU's, Dukes, Uconn's, Syracuses, Wake Forests, etc. get to ride the gravy train all the way. Those teams would give the UNLV's, SDSU's, San Jose States, and UAB's a lot of competition for the cellar-dweller positions in their respective conferences.

I don't know what they are gravy training. A million or two a year from the BCS? Who cares? That's not big money in today's college athletics. Many of those schools make up for their terrible football performances by being great in basketball and bring revenue to the conference in that way.

Those schools certainly don't get glory unless they beat the aforementioned Texas, USC, Florida type teams.

But that's why the BCS wasn't created for Duke, or Baylor, or Wake Forest. It was created for the 10 teams that are the most accomplished and most popular nationwide. They are Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Penn State, and USC. They have combined for 61% of the AP top 5 finishes over the last 30 years and not surprisingly 50% of all BCS bids.

I disagree. More money, glory, membership in a BCS conference and the recruiting boost that that provides, etc. are things that the worst BCS teams flat out do not deserve.

BYUtx wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:

Metal Bubba wrote:

Good article though. I just don't see it happening... EVER. The discussion was already 10 years old when I was at BYU in the early 90s. I lack faith.

That article pointed out how much weaker the resume is of BYU and Utah compared to schools that are already in the BCS west of the Mississippi. The Pac-10 isn't expanding anytime soon.

Except for weaker Pac-10 teams like WSU, of course.

Perhaps my biggest problem with the BCS isn't that USC and Texas get all the money/glory/etc., it's that the Baylors, WSU's, Dukes, Uconn's, Syracuses, Wake Forests, etc. get to ride the gravy train all the way. Those teams would give the UNLV's, SDSU's, San Jose States, and UAB's a lot of competition for the cellar-dweller positions in their respective conferences.

You do know that WF is a pre-season Top 25 team, is coming off back to back ranked seasons, an ACC championship in 2007 and that the entire ACC rode the Orange Bowl/BCS payday gravy train in 2007 thanks to WF... right? You also know that UConn is another rising football program too... correct?

Metal Bubba wrote:

BYUtx wrote:

mormonrasta wrote:

Metal Bubba wrote:

Good article though. I just don't see it happening... EVER. The discussion was already 10 years old when I was at BYU in the early 90s. I lack faith.

That article pointed out how much weaker the resume is of BYU and Utah compared to schools that are already in the BCS west of the Mississippi. The Pac-10 isn't expanding anytime soon.

Except for weaker Pac-10 teams like WSU, of course.

Perhaps my biggest problem with the BCS isn't that USC and Texas get all the money/glory/etc., it's that the Baylors, WSU's, Dukes, Uconn's, Syracuses, Wake Forests, etc. get to ride the gravy train all the way. Those teams would give the UNLV's, SDSU's, San Jose States, and UAB's a lot of competition for the cellar-dweller positions in their respective conferences.

You do know that WF is a pre-season Top 25 team, is coming off back to back ranked seasons, an ACC championship in 2007 and that the entire ACC rode the Orange Bowl/BCS payday gravy train in 2007 thanks to WF... right? You also know that UConn is another rising football program too... correct?

B)

Yeah-and they've always been awful-until 10 years of extra cash and hype finally paid off for them. Of course, Rasta would argue that this has nothing to do with their membership in a BCS conference.

Nevertheless, no need to be a smart-A. You know what the point is that I'm trying to make, right? (I guess I shouldn't assume that.)