According to a recent report, offered via College Football Talk, the MWC and Conference-USA (C-USA) are in the very early stages of a discussion that would pit the MWC Champion against the C-USA Champion in a "play-in" game. The winner would be awarded an AQ bid by the BCS.
Okay, first of all, in what universe would a play-in game versus a C-USA opponent be an attractive package for the BCS?...Seriously?
The recent successes of East Carolina and Houston aside, the overall success of C-USA against current opponents that fall under the AQ umbrella is not impressive—at all. As a matter of fact, the conference as a whole sports a losing percentage against the Big XII (0.383), the ACC (0.377), the SEC (0.334), the Big Ten (0.209), and the Pac-10 (0.322). Shoot, they even have a poor winning percentage against the MWC (0.400).
*scratching my head*
Explain to me again how this idea would be attractive to the BCS?
C-USA might house some great offensive powerhouses in Tulsa, Rice, Houston, and Memphis, but they are far from ready to compete with some of the bigger and better programs of the Big Ten and the SEC—that's laughable.
Admittedly, these discussions are in their infancy and neither side is ready to confidently go forth and present this option to anyone with the power to change things, but the mere fact that this step is being talked about at all puts a glaring spotlight on how badly the MWC is trying to gain legitimacy—they are tired of being the have-nots of college football.
I can't say that I blame them, the Boise State Broncos have gotten more respect as one team in a remarkably unchallenging conference than BYU or TCU have gotten playing in the MWC.
Boise State may have the more attractive record over the last 6-years (bolstered in large part by a 31-1 conference record), including BCS wins over Oklahoma and TCU, but their conference schedule continues to be a joke and their undefeated record at the end of the year seldom houses a quality win over a quality opponent. They play just as many pansies in their OOC match-ups as they do in their own conference—yet they are rewarded for it time and again.
Consider this, the Broncos, under Chris Petersen, are 4-1 against BCS teams that play in a conference with an AQ bid. Those four wins came against Oregon (2-0), Oregon State (1-0), and Oklahoma (1-0). BYU, in that same span of time, is 7-5 against BCS teams with an AQ bid. Their seven wins came against Oregon (1-0), Oregon State (1-0), Oklahoma (1-0), UCLA (2-1), Washington (1-0) and Arizona (1-2)—three of the five losses were against the ACC.
TCU has fared even better, going 7-2 against AQ opponents—including wins over Stanford, Texas Tech, and Clemson.
Last I checked, Boise State hasn't played the ACC, under Chris Petersen, yet. For that matter, they haven't played a team from the SEC or the Big Ten either—just saying.
Oh, I know...no one wants to play Boise because they're scared they'll get pummelled. Uh huh, okay. I really wish people would stop making Boise sound so much better than they are because it's getting old.
A large part of the reason why no one wants to play Boise is because they aren't interested in doing a home-and-home series with them. Texas, Florida, USC, Ohio State, etc., don't need to dole out more money in travel than they will get in gate and concession receipts for going out to Idaho to play in a stadium that maxes out at 32,000—gimme a break.
Boise isn't scary, they are unreasonable and seem to forget they play in the WAC.
They play one relevant game a season and the media wants to anoint them as better than the other 119 Division-I teams that play in the FBS—it's pathetic and, personally, I'm tired of it.
Yet, I digress.
The MWC has been crapped on for years now, despite the success of BYU, Utah, and TCU and they are tired of it. Unfortunately for them, they are barking up the wrong tree with this idea as it will amount to a whole lot of nothing if they ever do bring it to the table.
No comments:
Post a Comment