Blog article suggesting that the MWC is one of the "elite" FB conferences this season at http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=888388

Another blog article suggesting that the BCS "may" eventually go out of business if the top MWC/WAC schools are constantly bypassed for BCS bowl spots by inferior BE and ACC schools.
Link at http://www.sports-central.org/sports/2008/12/12/how_john_swofford_killed_the_bcs.php

Another blog article suggesting that the MWC should add Boise State and then "somehow take" a BCS autobid. Link at http://bleacherreport.com/articles/93025-mountain-west-should-take-bcs-by-the-uhhappy-place-and-adopt-boise-state

Freaked, et. al.,

While being predominantly an SEC fan, I believe those bloggers who are bashing the Big East and ACC for their BCS entries this year are a bit off course. The system would have allowed Boise State as an at-large selection. The BCS bowl did NOT have to take Ohio State. Cincinnati and VPI earned their bids by the system in place.
While particularly the ACC, and significantly the BE, showed a lot of parity; the ACC did place a load of teams in bowl games, external to the BCS. While neither conference produced that glamorous undefeated (or only once defeated) this year, it's not an indication they are crumbling by any means. The ACC wanted parity when they expanded; and they sure got it. Though FSU domination was further contained, none are rising to the top of the league without some battering. My opinion, the BE is taking chances with just 8 fb members. They had some good luck the last few years, having a team or two that produced very well.
Agree, MWC/WAC deserve better recognition. Certainly an undefeated Boise State team has firm arguments they are worthy.
As long as conferences are unequal in numbers, some having championship games while others don't; and politics and favoritism remains with the BCS selection process, the system will not be regarded as really fair.
If Boise State was added to the MWC, that may indeed push the BCS into giving the MWC an eventual auto-bid. It also, though, could further regulate those remaining teams in the WAC and CUSA to greater challenges in sustaining themselves.
There seems to be a hidden expectation that the end-of-regular season polls have 1 through 6 as champions of each BCS conference, and #s' 7 through 10 would all be prospects as clear conference runner-ups' and with no more than one as an undefeated team from one of the better non-BCS conferences. The chances of all that happening is exceedingly slim.

I don't think the question is whether or not the MWC should have a team in this year's BCS. The answer is a very obvious yes.

The question should then focus on whether or not the WAC should have been invite or not. The WAC did have ninth ranked and undefeated team in Boise State. Parity in the WAC? I believe there was a three way tie for second place in that conference.

Should there be automatic conference ties to the Bowls may be an even better question.

The ACC will send their conference champions, 21st ranked Virginia Tech with its 8 - 4 record to a BCS game. Can't say that they had any big wins, and I can't say that they had any bad losses. They are undoubtedly a good team, but BCS caliber?

The Big East is at least sending a12th ranked team in Cincinnati, with an 11 - 2 record to a BCS game. Still their record is not as impressive as Boise States, nor their ranking. Cincinnati did have three wins by substantial scores, but their two losses were blow-outs. Even though Oklahoma is playing for the BCS National Title, the 52 - 26 point drubbing is an indicator that Cincinnati does not belong in the company of other BCS programs. Add to that a 40 - 16 loss to Connecticut and a very competitive victory over a middle of the pack MAC team makes me think they would be well suited to play the MAC champions in a lesser bowl game.

The latter question, should any conference have automatic BCS bowl ties should be the question we need to ask.

And, in my opinion, the answer is an emphatic "No!" Take the eight highest ranked conference winners at the end of the season and play them in the BCS games.

Blog article crunching computer numbers to come up with 2008 conference rankings showing MWC in the five hole.Link at http://www.fanblogs.com/ncaa/007963.php

Article out of Birmingham commenting on the relatively weak showings by the ACC and BE this season.
If the top MWC/WAC schools continue to win they should eventually obtain a BCS autobid especially if certain BCS conferences are perceived to be weak.. Link at http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews ... xml&coll=2

That's exactly the point. Ohio St. deserved a spot OVER Cincy and VPI. And Boise perhaps deserved a spot over them all. But the system gave the ACc and BE spots as well.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Article from TSN regarding pressure on Utah to perform well in tonight's Sugar Bowl at http://sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=502690

Dennis Dodd weighing in on Utah Sugar Bowl win and whether they should be ranked #1 at http://dennis-dodd.blogs.sportsline.com ... 2/12678731

Tony Barnhart discussing last night's Sugar Bowl and the issue of greater BCS access for the non-BCS conferences at http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared ... uld_n.html

Article out of WV supporting Utah for #1 at http://www.bdtonline.com/localsports/lo ... 15510.html

WV MB thread with support for Utah for #1 at http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=159&f=2508&t=3703641

NYTimes blog article discussing impact of Utah Sugar Bowl win at http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0 ... ctory-mean

Blog article regarding how Utah is getting a little "computer love" at http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/n ... &type=lgns