BYU in a BCS game???

**Benandorf** · 09-21-08, 06:28 PM

Oooh, I got another question to add to that: Why can Notre Dame only have to be about 8-4, losing their 4 games against the only decent/ranked opponents they played, to go to a BCS game, and gets a large slice of the BCS money REGARDLESS of whether or not they actually go? All while having the refs call every play in their favor and actually being caught cheating. Screw Notre Dame and their broken system.

Boise State proved a couple years ago that the little guy can sometimes play with the big dogs, but Hawaii also proved that it isn't always true.

**rock_lobster** · 09-21-08, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Benandorf

Oooh, I got another question to add to that: Why can Notre Dame only have to be about 8-4, losing their 4 games against the only decent/ranked opponents they played, to go to a BCS game, and gets a large slice of the BCS money REGARDLESS of whether or not they actually go? All while having the refs call every play in their favor and actually being caught cheating. Screw Notre Dame and their broken system.

Boise State proved a couple years ago that the little guy can sometimes play with the big dogs, but Hawaii also proved that it isn't always true.

Boise State was the better team in that game, but who's to say if they threw Florida, Auburn, and Alabama in their schedule, that they would have gone undefeated to get to that bowl game. I understand that the small schools can beat the big schools. But it doesn't seem fair to make one team go through a rigorous schedule and have the other one play cupcakes, when both are striving for the same goal. I blame the voters and the BCS computers for rewarding weak schedules.

**CivilWars** · 09-21-08, 07:26 PM

Rock,

I agree, but I can also see the argument from the perspectives of the smaller schools. Look at Fresno State. Pat Hill is willing to play anyone, anytime, anywhere, but since they have started winning some of those big games other BCS conference schools have backed out on them. I imagine Boise, and a few other schools, have the same problem.

As for the initial question I think it depends on what the BCS conference teams that don't win their conference do. I think a 1 loss, and maybe even a 2 loss, SEC or Big 12 team is better than a no loss BYU team.

**rock_lobster** · 09-21-08, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

As for the initial question I think it depends on what the BCS conference teams that don't win their conference do. I think a 1 loss, and maybe even a 2 loss, SEC or Big 12 team is better than a no loss BYU team.

I can agree with that last sentence. Fresno I dont particularly have a problem with usually since they are willing to play USC among other teams, but this year their schedule is pretty easy. But have you looked at Boise State's and BYU's schedule?

BYU's only ranked opponents: #24 TCU & #17 Utah

Boise State's only ranked opponents: #17 Oregon (who basically has no QB) & #25 Fresno State

Fresno State's only ranked opponents: #10 Wisconsin & #19 Boise State

Their two schedules combined doesnt come close to a Big 12 or SEC schedule. You make up for a weak conference by scheduling tough opponents, and I would find it hard to believe that out of the top 25 teams that either of these two teams would have trouble finding good competition willing to play them.

Fresno in the past has looked good and played some good teams, Im not sure why they wouldnt take a tougher schedule to prove themselves. The schedules listed above combined could maybe pass as a hard schedule. It's like the guy at work who does just enough work to get the promotion, when he could have done 200 times better and actually earned it like the guy who actually worked his ass off for the same rewards.

Their two schedules combined doesnt come close to a Big 12 or SEC schedule. You make up for a weak conference by scheduling tough opponents, and I would find it hard to believe that out of the top 25 teams that either of these two teams would have trouble finding good competition willing to play them.

**CivilWars** · 09-21-08, 07:45 PM

True, but what does an SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, or Big Ten team gain by playing FSU, BYU, BSU, or any other of these BCS buster teams. Take for example Oklahoma. They play TCU next week. If they win it really won't make enough of a difference in their strength of schedule to overcome a loss later in the year if they have one, and if they go undefeated they are in the national championship game. If they happen to lose to TCU it will hurt them even though TCU is in the top 25.

If I were a coach/AD at a school in any of these top conferences I know that if I run the table I am in the big bowl games, so why risk it with a tough non-conference opponent that is more likely to pull of an upset.

**rock_lobster** · 09-22-08, 02:07 AM

I can think of one team from last year, Kansas. They played neither Texas nor Oklahoma. They only played Missouri, and LOST, then somehow get the bid to go to the Orange bowl over Missouri, THE TEAM THEY LOST TO!!! (BCS pisses me off to no end). So they then go in and beat a Virginia Tech team from the mediocre, at best, ACC conference by only 3 points. Basically what it comes down to, we need a playoff system.

**CivilWars** · 10-17-08, 01:34 PM

Fairwell BYU, we barely knew thee. Thanks to the TCU Horned Frogs we will not have to worry about this. To me the thing that sucks is TCU probably won't make a BCS bowl because they actually scheduled a good team on the road in Oklahoma.

**Red_Lizard2** · 10-20-08, 03:02 PM

no now we get to worry about Tulsa and Ball State because they are in the BCS rankings.

seriously TULSA AND BALL FUCKING STATE. WTF

I get the point of small teams playing with the big teams but i want to see something out of the small fries first. I mean Boise St. was a pretty good team. i haven't seen Tulsa or Ball State play but i doubt they look impressive enough to be in the BCS rankings, let alone a BCS game.