Quantcast
Sports

Brad Rock: Joining MWC wouldn't get Boise State any closer to title

Comments

Return To Article
  • Buster
    May 28, 2010 1:53 a.m.

    "The BCS is a five-game showcase of college football. It is designed to ensure that the two top-rated teams in the country meet in the national championship game, and to create exciting and competitive matchups among eight other highly regarded teams in four other bowl games."

    Not my words, but those from the BCS website.

    No interest in pitting the top ten teams in the bowls. No interst in letting the MWC in.

    Dr. King(not comparing to civil rights movement in any way) said "Justice delayed is justice denied" when the Birmingham ministers asked him to "Wait".

    The BCS says "Wait". No intention to invite the MWC unless it gets big government off their back, but I don't think they feel threatened, and I don't think it happens without BSU and Utah in the MWC.

    But, still wait.

    Utah would be smart to go PAC-12 if invited, but I'm not sure PAC-10 wants to go from 1/10th split to 1/12th unless they are motivated by BCS to break up the MWC.

    It's more drama than Junior High, raging hormones and all.

    Going to need to "wait" on this one.

  • Magna Ute Fan
    May 28, 2010 6:07 a.m.

    Sad, but probably true, I'm afraid. I would like to see Utah stay in the MWC if it's a automatic qualifier. On the other hand I'm far from sure there is an invite coming. Either way, I'm looking forward to college football season.

    Go Utes!!!

  • CKS007
    May 28, 2010 6:54 a.m.

    The Mountain West won't be worth much after BYU, TCU and Utah leave for bigger conferences. I wouldn't be surprised to see the WAC raid some of the MWC teams.

  • hedgehog
    May 28, 2010 7:37 a.m.

    Buster,

    Utah wouldn't get a 1/12 slice of the PAC(12) pie.

    I suspect a payout would be based on seniority, power and clout, most likely putting Utah at the bottom of the revenue grab. Having said this, Utah would still be collecting a considerable larger pool or revenue then there current MWC arrangement. Plus they’re guaranteed the opportunity of playing in a BCS bowl(s) EVERY year

    If offered, Utah needs to jump to the PAC(12) and never look back. Let BYU and Boise be victimized.

  • UtahUtes1
    May 28, 2010 7:51 a.m.

    "The Mountain West won't be worth much after BYU...leave for bigger conferences."

    BYU?? Where did that come from?

  • Spicy McHaggis
    May 28, 2010 8:01 a.m.

    If the BCS doesn't give the MWC the same consideration they gave the Big East when doling out automatic qualifications, then they would face a lawsuit and most likely lose.
    I keep hearing that the BCS will change the requirements for being an automatice qualifier, making it more difficult. If that happens Orin Hatch will have his case made for him.

  • sports-junkie
    May 28, 2010 8:15 a.m.

    @UtahUtes1

    Everything is pure speculation at this point. And yes, there has been talk of BYU possibly moving to into the big10 after everything goes down out there. I know the utes are a "lock" for the pac12 but BYU has been talked about as well. I personally will not get sucked in or excited until the dotted line in signed, because lets be real, its all speculation at this point.

  • Buster
    May 28, 2010 8:21 a.m.

    Typical Hedge

    "Utah wouldn't get a 1/12 slice of the PAC(12) pie."

    Every team in every conference in the country gets an equal split... but Utah??? Do you think that little about Utah.

    Wow, what you come up with.

    "UtahUtes1 | 7:51 a.m."

    "BYU?? Where did that come from?

    BYU to BIG 12 -- Same rumors that have Utah going PAC-12. Do they have newspapers in the Crimson Bubble?

  • hedgehog
    May 28, 2010 8:50 a.m.

    Buster,

    "Every team in every conference in the country gets an equal split... but Utah???"

    hmmmm, do you really need to get busted again? Really ,Buster?

    Tell you what, a little homework assignment for you over the long holiday weekend. Research what the conference football revenue % takes for Ohio State and Michigan vs. Minnesota and Indiana.

    Get back to me, m’k.

  • DEW Cougars
    May 28, 2010 9:30 a.m.

    stay put with MWC - no matter how the pie goes. If those two splitting up in different direction - the pie will still be small. Look at Missouri what I read - they too only got a small pie with big12. Either way - stay put or split up and the pie will still be small. Boise St might look good wit MWC while the WAC will be in the dump. This BLUE Turf need to go!

  • Buster
    May 28, 2010 9:30 a.m.

    Hedge Hog.

    Tell you what, Hedge. Read up on what the Pac-10 schools are saying in their local papers.

    Read Larry Scoot's interviews about the split going to 1/12th.

    Read ESPN. Read what they say about the ACC TV deal and it's impact, and get back to me.

    MMMMMMM'K?

  • Buster
    May 28, 2010 9:54 a.m.

    Hedge

    Every conference has their own rules regarding individual deals and spits.

    I was referring to the TV Deal.

    Sorry, in this case you were right the way I worded it.

  • hedgehog
    May 28, 2010 9:56 a.m.

    Buster,

    Is this how you’re getting through life? Having others do your homework?


    "Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC have hybrid splits in which a percentage of revenue is split and the remaining amount is divided based on the number of television appearances for each school."

    Sport Business Journal 2010

  • Bottom Line
    May 28, 2010 10:37 a.m.

    It would be nice to see all of this work out, but Utah is not going to the Pac 10 unless better options fail. Utah would be an early choice if they "have" to take a non AQ, but they are working very hard to not take one.

  • Big_Ben
    May 28, 2010 10:50 a.m.

    lets all just admit the obvious here, utah rules and byu is inferior. logic says so.

  • Buster
    May 28, 2010 11:07 a.m.

    Hedge, thanks for the homework.

    Google this to se where I am coming fromm.

    Let's discuss... not be antagonistic.

    That's getting old...

    Pac-10 expansion: Scott won’t seek change in NCAA legislation … for now

  • TrueAggie
    May 28, 2010 11:18 a.m.

    Brad Rock speaks the truth about the BCS. But just thinking outloud about the MWC, is the addition of Boise State that automatic? Last time I checked it takes a majority of votes to get BSU in. And if the MWC is not an automatic qualifier, why would Wyoming, SDSU, CSU, UNM, Air Force and UNLV vote to admit another school that makes it nearly impossible for them to ever go to a bowl game again? If Utah, BYU, TCU and then Boise State tie up all the bowl games, what's in it for the other six? I just don't think the MWC can get the votes they need from the originators of the conference (Wyo, CSU) or the other four schools named. It does nothing but marginalize their programs, unless the BCS comes calling, which it won't ever do because it doesn't have to. It already has most, if not all, the money. Like Rock said.

  • Jealous U
    May 28, 2010 11:27 a.m.

    If logic ruled up on the hill, the Utes would change their fight song since women's gymnastics is Utah's premier sports program.

    Chances of Utah finishing with a better record than BYU for 2010-2011:

    Football - 50/50
    Men's Basketball - 0

  • scott
    May 28, 2010 11:35 a.m.

    I believe the MWC has 5 or 6 bowl tie-ins; the Humanatarian might have changed, but, if it did, it would certainly follow Boise State to the MWC.

    Mountain West
    1. Las Vegas
    2. Poinsettia
    3. Independence
    4. Armed Forces
    5. New Mexico
    6. Humanitarian

  • Big_Ben
    May 28, 2010 11:42 a.m.

    jealous u= first person to fall into my trap. some of you are far too easy.

  • royalblue
    May 28, 2010 11:51 a.m.

    Moving the best/better football team debate from the Henderson article to a football article:

    Trying to argue which team is better/best all-time is an exercise in futility.

    Bottom line, it really doesn't matter which team was better, what matters is which team finished higher.

    Phi Slama Jamma was much better than North Carolina State, but the Wolfpack won the National Championship. At least in basketball, better/best is decided on the court.

    Utah 2004 or Utah 2008 could have been better than BYU 1996 or BYU 1984, but BYU 1984 won the National Championship.

    BYU 1984 #1/#1
    Utah 2008 #2/#4
    Utah 2004 #4/#5
    BYU 1996 #5/#5

    The final results are in the record books. Fans can argue all they want to, but nothing is going to change the final results.

    This is how I would rank those four teams:

    #1 BYU 1996
    #2 BYU 1984
    #3 Utah 2004
    #4 Utah 2008

  • scott
    May 28, 2010 11:54 a.m.

    Who appointed you blog police Big_Ben?

    Get over yourself.

  • scenic view
    May 28, 2010 11:58 a.m.

    Utah's chances of playing in a BCS game will actually go down by joining the PAC 12.

    Sure, the Utes will be "guaranteed" an invite to a BCS game if the Utes win the PAC 12, but there's no guarantee that the Utes will ever win the PAC 12.

    See Arizona.

  • Buster
    May 28, 2010 12:32 p.m.

    OK, weird thought that has not been addressed.

    Joining the PAC-12 or BIG-10 (12) would seperate BYU and Utah. Now that is an interesting question for a sportsfan, athlete, or coach... but.

    What about the decision makers?

    Didn't the President of the U go to BYU, and BYU's president the U?

    What about the LDS General Authorities that (dare I say it) have the ear of many of the decision makers at Utah, and are other decision makers acverse to that influence at the U? I know the GA's would have a say at BYU.

    I mean, an invite comes out to either school... Would the decision makers really seperate the two schools?

  • Big_Ben
    May 28, 2010 12:37 p.m.

    hey scott, calm down. first of all, I have no idea what you are talking about. second, get over myself? ok, here we go, and......im over myself! only for you buddy!

  • DEW Cougars
    May 28, 2010 1:24 p.m.

    Big_Ben, you asked me how old I am. Ask Brad Rock which he might be able to tell you, Brad and I use to be in the same Ward.

  • BYUHOCKEY
    May 28, 2010 2:33 p.m.

    it's all about the money. the MWC will never get into the BSc. as teams get raided and go from one conference to the next, the non-players (non-BSC teams) will be forever silenced as they lose the top tiered teams of their non-AQ conferences. As these Boise's, Utah's and TCU's are quietly added to the big boys club the BSC loses a few dollars to dilution but the preservation of the MACHINE of MONEY (BSC) is intact. "The Plantation" of 40 million dollar slaves remains in effect.

  • Batman
    May 28, 2010 2:47 p.m.

    Wrong again Rock.

    If the big 4 can stick together, meaning BYU, Utah, TCU, and BSU (that might be a big if), then the pressure will be too much for the BCS and they will yield to giving them the automatic. I agree that it is very unlikely they allow entry into the championship, however.

    Besides the fact that BSU has actually beaten BCS teams, the main reason the MWC should add them is that they are an ESPN darling, and even some of their analysts might, just might, start aknowledging that the MWC deserves an automatic. Last I looked, the Big East and ACC are not meeting all 3 BCS criteria either, and MWC is ahead of them overall. So does the BCS have the guts to allow them to stay at the party, while not inviting the MWC? We may see, or if Utah or another changes conferences back to square one for whoever is left. The real thing the MWC needs to do is kick out WY and NM. They are dragging down big time since they stick so bad.

  • moodyblue77
    May 28, 2010 3:30 p.m.

    An awful lot of people have confidence that the Utes will be able to compete in the PAC 12, whenever it happens.

    I don't see it. The Utes would be so far behind in overall budgets and facilities that it would take decades for them to be competitive. No Rose Bowl. No BCS. No taking people by surprise. Lots of losses.

    No one has even asked how much the Utes would have to pay in order to join. It won't be cheap. They would have only partial revenue sharing with other league teams for 5 to 10 years. This is not about prestige for the Utes, it's about more money for the rest of the PAC 12.



    You would definitely see more good teams come to the state. Unfortunately, most of them will leave as winners.

  • hedgehog
    May 28, 2010 3:31 p.m.

    Royalblue,

    "This is how I would rank those four teams:
    #1 BYU 1996
    #2 BYU 1984
    #3 Utah 2004
    #4 Utah 2008"

    hmmmm, the 1996 BYU team gave up 72 points ( yes I said 72) to Hawaii and lost- please take off the blue goggles.
    '84 played no end-of-season ranked teams and pulls out a tight bowl win against a 6th placed non-ranked team.

    We all know this is delusion.


  • IDC
    May 28, 2010 3:32 p.m.

    If TCU and Utah leave the MWC, BYU would be in the same position as BSU is. In a conference allowing them to go undefeated and to BCS bowls every few years. Utah will be lucky to finish 3rd in the pac 10.

  • hedgehog
    May 28, 2010 3:51 p.m.

    moodyblue77,

    Sounds like a lot of sour grapes. I wonder what your story would be if BYU was being courted by the PAC10 instead of Utah.

    Let me guess, BYU would be primed for a Rose bowl win within two years....LOL!

  • Buster
    May 28, 2010 4:03 p.m.

    @Royal Blue and Hedgie

    Having the benefit of watching them all play:

    #1 BYU 1984
    #1 BYU 1996
    #1 Utah 2004
    #1 Utah 2008

    I would have them all tied for first as best team from the state.

    1984 Was the first to break through from the area and won the National Championship. They had a target on their backs, had all of the media distraction from Gumble and Switzer and still came through.

    1996 14 win season. That's tough to do anytime.

    2004 Was the first to break through for Utah, and the BCS. Great coach.

    2008 Probably had the weakest team all season, but caught the breaks, and probably the biggest surprise in in the Bowl Game, and got Kyle out of Urban's shadow.

    If they could assemble all teams and play each other, they would all be a tossup.

    You could rank them on paper, but they don't play on paper. They all had intangibles.

    As a BYU fan first, Utah second, I would be tempted to pick the BYU teams first. I still need to give props Utah's accomplishments.

    If I had to choose, though, who can argue with a crystal football.

  • SportsFan
    May 28, 2010 4:08 p.m.

    Yes, hedgehog, BYU would have a better chance of winning the PAC 12 and going to a BCS bowl, simply because, unlike Utah, BYU knows how to consistently win conference games.

  • Puddy
    May 28, 2010 4:22 p.m.

    Re: hedgehog

    "hmmmm, the 1996 BYU team gave up 72 points ( yes I said 72) to Hawaii and lost- please take off the blue goggles."

    Actually hedgie, it was the 2001 BYU team that gave up 72 points to Hawaii. Guess you didn't do YOUR homework.

  • bigutefan
    May 28, 2010 5:10 p.m.

    As soon as the Utes make the switch to the PAC-12, you will see mormon athletes who wouldn't consider Utah, suddenly start to look at Utah for a chance to play in the BCS and for a National Championship. When the Yners do not receive an invitation to anything, which they won't, your program will decline FAST........... as all those mormon boys you guilt into playing for you, decide play for the Utes who present much better opportunities. What kid doesn't want to play USC every year..c'mon! I would be worried Yners, real worried.........

  • hedgehog
    May 28, 2010 6:06 p.m.

    Bigutefan,

    BYU will still get the zealot LDS athlete no matter what the relevance of the BYU program. But I think we've all seen the 4 star (or higher) mormon football player drop BYU for the bright lights of a BCS program. It happens year in and year out. Utah going into the a BCS conference just might fix this problem. Who knows we might even get some of you kewgs to convert to Ute fans.

  • So-CalAggie
    May 28, 2010 6:24 p.m.

    Lets get one thing strait, BSU would upgrade the MWC in ONE sport, Football. If that's all the conference cares about, then cool, invite Boise. Not being a jerk, I wish the best for Boise, they are my second favorite WAC school.

  • Naval Vet
    May 28, 2010 6:37 p.m.

    bigutefan, hedgehog:

    I once heard another poster cleverly refer to "why?" recruits as one born with a road map to Provo. Look at Heaps for example. He could have went to virtually anywhere, but when he narrowed his choices down to 2, it was hometown favorite Washington [who had just come off of an 0-12 season] and ybU. Either way, Heaps demonstrate he had no designs to seek an opportunity to play in a BCS bowl game or Nat'l Championship.

    My point is, the only noticeable difference the tdS would most likely see from their recruiting base would be a slight reduction in winning the IN-STATE recruiting battle. The Utes would see a runaway difference however, and THAT's where the gap would be defined.

  • SportsFan
    May 28, 2010 6:47 p.m.

    Why would 4-star LDS athletes want to play for Utah, when they could just as easily play for USC or Oregon where they'd have a much better chance of actually playing in the Rose Bowl, rather than simply playing for a team in an AQ conference?

    At least Utah fans will have Arizona fans to commiserate with.

    BYU, btw, will continue to get great LDS athletes in whichever conference the Cougars are in.

  • SLC BYU Fan
    May 28, 2010 9:12 p.m.

    I find it oh so amazing the number of Ute fans who think they are still going to make the PAC-10 the PAC-12 with Colorado, when all the marketing studies done have pointed to diminishing returns if the Salt Lake City TV market were split between Utah and BYU in different BCS leagues (the Big-XII would grab BYU in such a scenario). Utah State fans amaze me even more when nothing, not even Boise State staying put in the WAC will save their bankrupt football program.
    The PAC-10 and Big-XII among other things are discussing an alliance TV deal since they are the only BCS leagues comprising exclusively of territory west of the Mississippi River. This will better enable both leagues to better compete with the Big-Ten and SEC which have the best overall TV deals of any leagues. It might actually prove to their advantage to keep the MWC together in the end, so they're likely pushing the MWC to add Boise State as well, since this will put the 4 most powerful non-AQ programs at this time in one single league.

  • Utes4Ever
    May 28, 2010 9:16 p.m.

    @ hedgehog | 8:50 a.m. May 28, 2010

    PAC 10 splits TV revenue equally ... always has. Washington State gets as much as USC.

    As for bowl game revenue, I am not sure how this is split, but I suspect bowl game participants keep the majority of the revenue.

  • Utes4Ever
    May 28, 2010 9:25 p.m.

    @ moodyblue77 | 3:30 p.m. May 28, 2010

    "The Utes would be so far behind in overall budgets and facilities that it would take decades for them to be competitive"

    Budgets? In the MWC, yes. In the PAC 10, the revenue sharing would close this gap significantly.

    Facilities? There are few (if any) PAC 10 schools that have the basketball facilities that Utah has. And football facilities? They are right on par with the PAC 10 teams.

    The gap is not as wide as you may think it is.

  • Creeper51
    May 28, 2010 10:17 p.m.

    Too all of the people trying to compare the historic teams just understand that the way the game is played today is faster and harder then how they played it back then

  • Buster
    May 28, 2010 11:10 p.m.

    @Big ute Fan
    " What kid doesn't want to play USC every year..c'mon! I would be worried Yners, real worried......... "

    Kids like Quezada and Heaps...

    @Naval Vet | 6:37 p.m. May 28, 2010
    "bigutefan, hedgehog:"
    "He could have went to virtually anywhere," "Either way, Heaps demonstrate[d] he had no designs to seek an opportunity to play in a BCS bowl game or Nat'l Championship."

    That, or Heaps and Quezada figure their best shot would be at BYU.

    Maybe they were blinded by the Crystal Trophy, LaVell Edwards Stadium, with its 64,045-seat capacity, huge video scoreboards and immaculate press boxes, the Heisman and Doak Walker Trophies in the Trophy Case.

    Maybe they just don't like palying on a FieldTurf surface.

    Why not?





  • Uteology
    May 28, 2010 11:30 p.m.

    scenic view|11:58 a.m. May 28, 2010

    Sure, the Utes will be "guaranteed" an invite to a BCS game if the Utes win the PAC 12, but there's no guarantee that the Utes will ever win the PAC 12.

    See Arizona.

    -----------

    According to wikipidia Arizona won the PAC 10 in 1993 with their "desert storm" defense at 10-2.

    My other alumatter ASU has three titles.

    I work in the DFW area and the news their is saying TCU going to the Big 12 if it gets raided. If Utah gets the invite that's great if not then KW needs to keep raiding Texas and California for talent

  • Buster
    May 29, 2010 12:47 a.m.

    Uteology is correct:

    "According to wikipidia Arizona won the PAC 10 in 1993 with their "desert storm" defense at 10-2."

    There was a three way tie with UofA, UCLA and USC. (UofA also won the WAC in 1964 and 1973.)

    No Rose Bowl, but beat the Miami Hurricanes in the Fiesta Bowl by a score of 29—0.

    They were ranked Number 1 in 1994. However, Arizona was stunned by Colorado State and the rest of the season went down along with it.


    U of Arizona has played in 15 Bowl games since 1921, going 6-8-1.

    ------------

    Even with the information you provided Uteology, I'd say this point still goes to Scenic View. Utah is not really wanting to replicate Arizona's sucess in the Pac 10.

    ----------------

    Actually, DFW aside, the talk is that the PAC-10 and Big 12 will be "aligning" without expanding.

    ---------
    Hedge
    "zealot LDS athlete"

    No need to sound like a religous "bigot"...

    ---------------


    So getting back on topic: Joining MWC wouldn't get Boise State any closer to title...

    They might get there on their own this year. They are pretty loaded. If everyone stays put, might be good add for the MWC...

  • Uteology
    May 29, 2010 2:58 a.m.

    That, or Heaps and Quezada figure their best shot would be at BYU.

    Maybe they were blinded by the Crystal Trophy, LaVell Edwards Stadium, with its 64,045-seat capacity, huge video scoreboards and immaculate press boxes, the Heisman and Doak Walker Trophies in the Trophy Case.

    -----------
    The trophy is 25 years old, the shine has faded. Just like the talent level at BYU. The Doak award was 9 years ago. The Heisman was in 1993 when they were in diapers. BYU has put 9 players in the NFL under Bronco, same time Boise with 8 and Utah with 19. BYU talent last cracked the top 5 14 years ago.

    Like the article said non-BCS team will never play in a title game. I tend to agree because if they did the monopoly will crumble specially if a nonAQ team wins.

  • SportsFan
    May 29, 2010 11:23 a.m.

    Boise State and TCU both have realistic chances of playing in the title game THIS YEAR.

    Boise State will be ranked around #5 to start the season and plays two likely Top 25 BCS teams, Virginia Tech and Oregon State. Win those games impressively and the Broncos could be ranked #1 or #2 before the end of September with a realistic chance of staying there if they run the table.

    TCU will be ranked around #7 to start the season and also plays Oregon State as well as two other likely Top 25 teams, Utah and BYU. Beating Oregon State and Baylor could vault TCU to #3 or #4 by the end of September and give TCU a realistic chance of finishing #1 or #2 in the final regular season polls.

    Utah's problem with ever playing in the title game is inconsistency. Utah can't seem to put together more than one or two good years in a row so the Utes never start the season highly ranked. Maybe with a great showing against Pittsburgh the Utes could make an early leap in the polls, but Utah has no chance of climbing to #1 or #2 in the polls.

  • Buster
    May 29, 2010 11:41 a.m.

    Uteology | 2:58 a.m.
    "The trophy is 25 years old, the shine has faded."

    Man, I've see it, It shines, It Shines, It shines...

    And sCoReBoArD is last year, 3 out of the past 4 years.

    Deseret Duel was BYU 45.5 - Utah 14.5 LAST year.

    PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE... BYU has it all locked.

    Let's just stick with now, though.
    -------------
    "Like the article said non-BCS team will never play in a title game."

    ANY newspaper sportswriter that predicts the future... could makea lot more money working out of a sportsbook. Never is a long time, and putting quotes around something will not make it a fact

    But, sure... Ute-ol-o-gy is a field that neve cared about facts or logic.

  • Naval Vet
    May 29, 2010 11:42 a.m.

    SportsFan:

    "Utah's problem with ever playing in the title game is inconsistency."

    ybU's problem with ever playing in a BCS Bowl is their consistency. As in consistently losing big games. Consistently failing in their quests for perfection. Consistently resting on the laurels of an accidental title 26 years ago.

    I'm glad Utah doesn't seem to have that problem.

    Go zoobs.

  • Buster
    May 29, 2010 12:07 p.m.

    Naval Vet

    Shouldn't the argument about consistency really be over on the comment board about the Deseret Duel.

    Wow, talk about a program that put a yearlong beatdown on their rival.

    Last year BYU didn't seem to be resting on anything.

  • SportsFan
    May 29, 2010 12:21 p.m.

    Naval Vet

    Utah is the classic example of a one-hit wonder.

    The Utes win a few big games, but Utah also consistently loses little games. Despite their BCS success, Utah has never come close to winning a National Championship. Their #2 final AP ranking in 2008 was a DISTANT second.

    The key to winning a National Championship is positioning from the previous season.

    The most likely non-BCS teams to play in a BCS title game are BYU, Utah, TCU, and Boise State.

    When was the last time those teams

    1. won a conference championship
    2. finished in the Top 25
    3. finished the season with 2 or fewer losses

    in back-to-back seasons?

    Do 1, 2 AND 3 the previous season, then have an undefeated season and the Utes might have a shot at a BCS title game.

    TCU and Boise State have a shot at the title game this season, because they did 1, 2 and 3 last season.

    If BYU only had 1984, yes, they would be resting on their 26-year-old laurels. Unfortunately for BYU haters, BYU has also done 1, 2 and 3 back-to-back in the last four years.

    Consistency!

  • Uteology
    May 29, 2010 4:20 p.m.

    @SportsFan

    Assuming TCU and Boise run the table. Assuming there is no more than one undefeated BCS team. Then TCU and Boise might have a chance at the title.

    TCU finished #7 in 2008 yet in 2009 could not make it to the title game even after humuilating 2 top 20 teams. I believe even Cincinnatti leapfroged them in the final BCS standings.

  • Buster
    May 29, 2010 4:54 p.m.

    @Uteology
    Uteology | 2:58 a.m. May 29, 2010
    "Like the article said non-BCS team will never play in a title game. I tend to agree because if they did the monopoly will crumble specially if a nonAQ team wins."

    Uteology | 4:20 p.m. May 29, 2010
    "Assuming TCU and Boise run the table. Assuming there is no more than one undefeated BCS team. Then TCU and Boise might have a chance at the title."

    ------------
    Never, or might have a chance. Could you please clarify your position?

    Or is it a fluid thing, which is OK...

  • Uteology
    May 30, 2010 12:54 a.m.

    Buster|12:47 a.m. May 29, 2010

    The question I replied to was about "winning the PAC". Tie or no tie Arizona has a PAC title.

    They also have a national title in basketball playing in the PAC 10. So it seems only the football program had issues.

    "PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE... BYU has it all locked."

    3-2 in Vegas and 1-5 in the dance would indicate that the only thing BYU has locked is postseason failure. Unless I am missing something here and the Desert Dual is how BYU measures success today?

  • Buster
    May 30, 2010 11:44 a.m.

    @Uteology

    Uteology | 12:54 a.m
    Yeah, but you have to admit, the extra information did shed light on the subject, since you keep talking about "playing in the RoseBowl" which the U of AZ never has.

    "3-2 in Vegas and 1-5"
    You bring up BYU vs. others and not head to head against Utah...

    Why is that?


    Oh, you must have missed ny post at | 4:54 p.m, It's the one where two of your quotes are side by side, where you definitively say one thing, and flop to say something else.

    You have a chance to clarify...

  • Uteology
    May 30, 2010 1:30 p.m.

    @Buster | 11:44 a.m. May 30, 2010

    I will quote one of your heroes: "You Lie." Please tell me where I keep talking about "playing in the Rose Bowl".



    @Buster | 11:44 a.m. May 30, 2010

    I bring up BYU vs. Postseason because to most fans playing in the postseason is more important. I guess it's not for you.

    Congrats to Buster and his team please do enjoy your success of 3 of 4 and 1 of 8 over Utah.

    But remember being "consistent" and "elite" you have to do something on the national stage not only the Desert Dual.



    Buster | 4:54 p.m. May 29, 2010
    BSU and TCU "might" have a chance using "what if" analysis but in reality "never" considering Baylor has a better chance just by playing in a BCS conference. Also, "never" considering Cincinnati went from #5 to #3 in the final BCS standings while #4 TCU did not move up.

    It seems you have more faith in the "corrupt" system then I do. The only good thing about BcS is a team like 1984 with a 104 SOS will never be champion.


  • Buster
    May 30, 2010 5:56 p.m.

    Uteology | 1:30 p.m. May 30, 2010

    I will quote one of your heroes: "You Lie." Please tell me where I keep talking about "playing in the Rose Bowl".
    -------------------

    I give you a chance to "clarify" where you have obviously stated two different positions, and you ignore.

    Then you claim I "lie" (stong word), when you talk about playing in the Rose Bowl.

    Tell me:
    When you Utah fans say that Heaps and Quezada chose BYU because they have no desire to play in a BCS game, and talk about going to play in the PAC-12 so you can play in a BCS game, which BCS game are you talking about besides the Rose Bowl?

    Dude, be civil...

    Uteology | 2:58 a.m. May 29, 2010
    "Like the article said non-BCS team will never play in a title game.
    "BSU and TCU "might" have a chance"--

    So we can ignore your assertion that they will "never" play in a title game?

    So, you are asserting that there may be another non-BCS winner of the NC, just like 1984?

    So, to get out of BYU's shadow, Utah really needs to win a NC...

    Cool.

  • JustintimeY
    June 1, 2010 9:44 a.m.

    RE Hedge

    "hmmmm, the 1996 BYU team gave up 72 points ( yes I said 72) to Hawaii and lost- please take off the blue goggles."


    Nice fact checking Hedge. You really out did yourself on this one? To bad the only loss BYU had in 1996 was to Washington on the Road. They ended up beating a ranked Kansas St team that year in the Cotton Bowl and ended ranked 5th in the nation in both polls, 14-1. If you are going to talk smack please get your facts straight you lose all credibility! Either way you are blatantly trying to miss represent the facts or you are just clueless either way you are wrong!

  • armystrong1986
    June 1, 2010 1:10 p.m.

    im just throwing this out there, but u can not really believe that they should be auto-qualifiers. BYU who was supposed to be so great last year faced a ACC team in FSU that went 6-6. they were at home and just got crushed like no ones business. boise's sheadule this year is the worst i have seen. yes VT is good. not great. a top 15 at the end of the year maybe...but for that to be your only game u play all year..and it is..its not that these teams r good, just get hyped up more for one huge game..which is only huge to them i might add. if any of ur so called big 4 go to a real conference. they will never sniff the BCS games cause u will never compete for the titles. play texas,oklh,nebr..or uf,ga,lsu,bama..or fsu,vt,gt,miami,nc,an clemson in a row then talk. u have no shot. it might stink..but its the truth

  • JustintimeY
    June 1, 2010 1:52 p.m.

    RE Armstrong, you can cheery picked the information that you post but to be objective you should also include all the data. BYU lost to TCU and FSU at home last year in what where very poor performances. They also went undefeated on the road and in neutral site games last year, beating a ranked Oklahoma, Oregon St and Utah team at the time that the Y played them. Few of the teams that you mentioned above are going out of there way to schedule a home and away game with BYU, BSU, TCU and Utah. You sound like a BCS homer, just saying.

  • byronbca
    June 1, 2010 9:35 p.m.

    Re BYU fans:

    How can a team that never played any of the top 20 teams claim to be the best in the nation? In order to be the best don't you have to beat the best?

    In 1984 BYU won the national championship on a technicality.

    Out of all the non bcs confrence teams to have gone undefeated only one had a record worthy of a national championship and that was Utah in 2008.

    Beating 3 ranked teams in the regular season, and then beating a #3 ranked Alabama team that was ranked #1 most of the season is a much greater accomplishment than going undefeated on bunch of scrubs.

    This argument goes to BSU fans too, your regular season last year was a joke. I don't care how good your team was they never left the kiddie pool.

    Call me crazy but I think the national champion should have to earn their way in.

    But since there is no playoff, I guess you have a right to speculate.

  • armystrong1986
    June 2, 2010 3:27 a.m.

    its not that i am a BCS homer. im not. i like the teams in your conf. i think they r fun to watch and agree some teams might choose not to play u all. but overall i still dont really trust that your teams would hang with the big boys with the deep pockets of the south or north or teams like a usc or texas or oklahoma..on a week to week basis. u did beat oregon st. and oklahoma. but both finished 8-5. not all that impressive in the end. however byu DID scheadule people..that u can not take away. they couldnt predict that it would be lesser years for fsu or oklh. plus utah was not the team from the year prior..just saying. just so u have back round on me though i am from tampa so all about the little guy being able to do big things..USF..well shot at. but am a die hard life long FSU fan deployed to kuwait who just loves college football peroid. boise should go to the mwc for sure though..100%

  • MUSSing with U
    June 2, 2010 11:00 p.m.

    "How can a team that never played any of the top 20 teams claim to be the best in the nation? In order to be the best don't you have to beat the best?"

    BYU never claimed to be the best in 1984, but they did the best, beating everybody on their schedule, when teams like Oklahoma, Washington, Nebraska and Florida couldn't.

    Both Nebraska and Washington were invited to play BYU in the Holiday Bowl, but chose $$$ and playing in a "more prestigious" bowl over playing the #1-ranked team for a chance at a national championship.

    If you want to blame someone for BYU winning a national championship without having to beat a Top 20 team, blame the Huskers and the Huskies.

    BYU would have gladly played anybody in the country in 1984, and could have beaten anybody in the country, but the Cougars were never given that opportunity.