Deseret News | MWC coach blasts rejection from BCS

Reader comments
MWC coach blasts rejection from BCS

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Scoobie | 6:03 a.m. June 27, 2009

REF: UTAH Continued

You see that's the stick that got stuck in the Big New Years boys craw... That win against Michigan on DEC. 27, 1983 in the Holiday Bowl broke all the traditions. Having to give the 1984 NCAA National Championship to some little team from the Rockies that didn't even play in one of the Sacred Big 3 Bowls on New Years Day was unheard of.

I've already mentioned that the Brain Child of the BCS is a former Ohio State alum who also has held the positions of OSU president and Big 10 Commissioner. The big Ten traditionaly won or lost their National Championship games against the PAC 8 or the PAC 10 on New Years Day in the ROSE BOWL ... and on National Televison no less. Not some little podunk stadium in San Diego in December.

So unless your extremely slow on the uptake... you should understand the logic here...and thus the growing call for a revamping of the present system that in 2008 / 2009 denied another little school from the Rockies a legitimate shot. BYU is not the problem Brother.........the rivalry will take care of itself....Try changing your focus

JUST ME | 7:52 a.m. June 27, 2009

Re: Utah - That's cute. Did you calculate 1984 as 100 years ago all by yourself or did you ask your Utah math professor to calculate it for you? I'm just kidding, you probably never even graduated from highschool.

Re: BS - You must be a Ute putting up a straw man so others bring up your #1 pick. Or you're a cougar who wants someone to bring it up so you can mock them. Either way, it's funny how you ask the question as if you don't know the answer.

Re: PP - If BYU had beaten TCU and Utah they'd have moved up significantly rather than getting jumped by other teams. The pollsters were right to wait until BYU proved itself (which BYU failed to do). Once you're in the top 10 it's all about quality wins.

Re: Don't Worry - As much as I'd like to see market factors drive the BCS out of existence, college football is more popular than ever so the "nobody will watch" strategy isn't going to work. The BCS is unfair and biased and the NCAA shouldn't allow it to continue to exist.

Re: Stop it. | 8:21 a.m. June 27, 2009

Utah would gladly play teams like Georgia,Florida,or LSU. But those teams are too chicken to schedule a team like Utah because they know that their season could be over fairly quickly. Many "elite" schools shy away from utah because the risk of losing to them is way too high. Utah openly challenged Florida to a game after they won their "national title" but the "national champions" didn't respond obviously they chickened out.

Comments continue below

@Utah | 1:05 a.m | 8:28 a.m. June 27, 2009

Your insomnia has made you delirious.

Dumbest Argument for BCS Ever | 10:17 a.m. June 27, 2009

Graham Watson, the ESPN blogger that is supposedly for the non-bcs conferences, made the laughable argument that all the conferences agreed to the BCS formula so the non-BCS conferences shouldn't complain. I'm sure the non-BCS conferences agreed to the modifications that gave them more access (which was part of an incredibly one-sided compromise where the BCS conferences gave up just enough to keep congress off its back). But saying that means everyone agreed to this structure is like saying people who vote for a tax cut have intrinsically thrown their support behind every aspect of the Internal Revenue Code. It's ridiculous. All the non-BCS conferences agreed to a broken system with slight access because it was better than a broken system with no access. ESPN is in bed with the BCS so I don't know why Watson even pretends to sound objective when her agenda is so transparent. I did note that ESPN no longer posts a link to the independent's blog on their college football homepage. It's bad enough that they rarely show non-BCS team's highlights. It's just typical ESPN.

The BCS is fine | 1:55 p.m. June 27, 2009

You guys are whining that you should have played in the national title game. Are you serious? It's utah!! You guys play an easy conference schedule every year, granted its not as easy as boise. Since you played Alabama and won by 2 touchdowns, what would utah have done if they played an SEC schedule? The utes would have ended up with at least 2 or 3 losses and been left out anyway. Be grateful for the trip to the sugar bowl against an unmotivated alabama team!!!!

mwc is weak | 1:59 p.m. June 27, 2009

Your little conference is weak. There is no national interest in your conference, so why should the national media care? You guys have the midas car care bowl in vegas, so be happy.

Re: The BCS is fine | 6:48 p.m. June 27, 2009

"You guys play an easy conference schedule..."

The Utes' 2008 SOS was ranked #31. By way of comparison, Alabama's was #32. Had Alabama not blown their late 4th Qtr lead, they would have played Oklahoma in the NC, and you wouldn't have suggested they didn't deserve to be there. Penn State's SOS was #39. If they hadn't blown THEIR late 4th Qtr lead against Iowa, THEY would have played in the NC, and you wouldn't have panned THEIR worthiness. USC's SOS was #40. Had USC not lost to Oregon St, would you have protested THEIR NC appearance? No!

BTW --> The Utes beat Oregon St.

"The utes would have ended up with at least 2 or 3 losses and been left out anyway."

Well, since we're speculating based on NO REAL EVIDENCE, what would have happened is we would have went undefeated, and played [and won] the National Championship. Brian Johnson would have won the Heisman, peace would have been achieved in the Middle East, and the apoplexy in cougartown would have resulted in 7 million fatal cardiac arrests.

Wah Wah | 7:56 p.m. June 27, 2009

The MWC is a joke when compared to the Big 12 or the SEC conferences. Undefeated in the MWC or WAC conferences has little significance on a national level.

Re: Wah Wah | 8:40 p.m. June 27, 2009

So, in other words, you have no valid, immutable, or irrefutable argument against my previous post at 6:48.

I thought not. And evidently, neither does Phil Steele, who ranked the 2008 MWC the 4th best conference in the nation. In 2007, the 4th best conference in the nation was the Big 10. At the time that year's NC was played, Ohio St. was ranked #1. In 2004, the 4th best conference was the PAC 10, yet USC met [and DESTROYED] Oklahoma for that year's title.

If the Big 10 or PAC 10 can play in the NC as the 4th best conference, there can be no compelling argument any other conference can't.

Go MWC.

GO UTES!!!

SEC strength? | 9:42 p.m. June 27, 2009

It is expected that Florida will be number one throughout the season. They have such a rough non-conference schedule playing at home against Troy, Charleston Southern, Florida International. Why do they get all the accolades when they have such a whimpy shedule? Of course they may go undefeated, but just because they win in the SEC shouldn't give them a free ticket to a National Championship. USC has the right idea. At least they have the guts to play at Ohio State this year.

Scoobie | 10:34 p.m. June 27, 2009

REF:WAH WAH I'm sorry but the Big 12 hasn't done so well against MWC conference and a couple of WAC teams in recent years.... and the SEC doesn't play us very often especially since FSU and Miami couldn't pull out a couple of wins while being highly ranked but that's been ages ago there haven't been that many games since to really base anything on. They're gun shy in the SEC when it comes to the MWC. Your sense of mightness is over rated. I will admit that the SEC is the strongest with 4 big guns and the Big 12 has 3 but there just isn't a whole lot of big guns out there anymore in all the other conferences. Both the PAC and The Big 10 have been cut down to size in the past several years....really the SEC is the only conference of any real significance.

Selective Equality | 12:51 a.m. June 28, 2009

We seem to be very selective when it comes to providing equal opportunity. I mean it's ok for us to support affirmative action and other programs focused on leveling the social and economic playing field yet when it comes to major collegiate sports we tell the mid major conferences to put up or shut up? We tell them they must schedule extremely difficult road games and win on the road in Oklahoma, Texas, or Florida. And when teams like Utah do beat the power conferences they get a "that a boy" and a pat on the back and are told that if they keep it up one day things might change. Where is the equality in that? I'd love to see that happen in the work place...tell a minority to keep up the good work and one day they qualify for the same pay as the rest of the office workers.

Juancho | 6:27 a.m. June 28, 2009

Thw non BCS teams must start their own championship, play each other and not ever play a BCS team. Find sponsors so that the money mande on our bowl games will be descent and create enoguh interest so that our fans will watch more our own games instead of wishing to be accepted. Lets chart our own course, our own path. So what is they do not want us, we should not want them either. The whole nation will come to support us eventually and we will weaken thier stance. We, in the mean time, shoul also be happy anytime one of our schols beat their teams.

Re: Juancho | 10:56 a.m. June 28, 2009

What you just described is the FCS league. I don't think dropping down to that league will reinforce the competitiveness of our non-AQ conferences. Besides, the Big 6 wouldn't care. They'll continue to draw the better athletes, and we'd make less money. So bad idea.

The way to go is the way we've been going. First propose a draft to the BCS, wait for the dismissal of said draft, and, after exhausting all avenues, procede with anti-Trust lawsuits and congressional hearings.

I believe the BCS knows their days are numbered. They're just dragging this out as long as possible before having to share the access. Once shared access has been mandated, they won't be required to "back pay" any of the non-AQ conferences, so really...what do they have to lose? They have only to gain during those periods their sham will be allowed to continue.

IdaoAggie | 1:15 p.m. June 28, 2009

There are eleven D-I conferences. All conference deserve a place in any playoff format. A sixteen team playoff is the only way to go to be fair. All conference champions should be included along with selected at-large teams just as done in the basketball playoffs.

Scoobie | 1:51 p.m. June 28, 2009

It's a whole lot easier to pull off a 64 team basketball tournament... you will never see a sixteen team Division I football playoff system and will be lucky to see an 8 team Playoff. The present Bowl system will not budge to allow that to happen. There are too many bowls and too many conference ties to the Bowls so lawsuits would be all over the place if they tried. To initially start the process the first issue to address is the undefeated issue and then work to get it to a four team playoff. The BCS will drag their feet the whole entire way so getting them to first address a playoff bowl for undefeated teams before the final selection is the right course to go. See my opening post at the beginning of all these posts.

Once again | 3:42 p.m. June 28, 2009

oklahoma,florida, and texas, do not have the guts to schedule a team like utah. if those schools were so great why don't they just come out and prove us wrong? I dare one of those overrated jokes of a team to come and proves us wrong on the field? They can't they are too week. their only defense against a team like utah is to cluck like a chicken because when it comes down to it thats all they really are. Them and their idiot fans just try to beat us by word because we know and they know and everyone in the educated world know that they won't and can't do it. bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok bok.

Where's Stocton???? | 3:54 p.m. June 28, 2009

REF: Scoobie 5:28&5:49 am 26 June Also 5:23;6:03am 27 June & 1:51 pm 28 June

Dude, I don't know who you are, but those are some awesome comments about a revamp of the Present BCS System. I like your idea of the 2 game playoff for undefeated teams. We've seen 3 teams before who were undefeated at the end of regular season play, and your idea has a lot of merit. Dude could you even comprehend the possibility of 4 undefeated teams? The likelihood of that happening are astronomically remote but what if the Non BCS conferences had two and the BCS conferences also had 2. Could you imagine the implications??? Man I like this idea even if the Non BCS conferences only have one undefeate and got two additional shots at being in the title game in a BCS sponsored and sanctioned Bowl. I think you are right it would be fitting if they added the Cottonbowl. But could you picture the WAC and the MWC going head to head with say the SEC and the Big 12...and the little guys both went on to play in the BIG ONE

Re: BS 1:01 a.m. | 7:43 p.m. June 28, 2009

"How many first round NFL draft picks came out of the MTN conference?, just wondering."

What an idiotic question! Yeah, the UTE scrubs just wiped the floor with the mighty Bama tide. Whoever you are, pick yourself off the turf and admit the UTES were 2008's best! Or, is it always about money to you??

Team Jumpsuit | 7:43 p.m. June 28, 2009

I am a MWC and UTAH fan. I do believe the BCS needs work but going to a playoff system would kill college football. Last year if a playoff system was in place, UTAH still would have not been invited. With an Eight Team playoff it would have been-FLORIDA(SEC),OKLAHOMA(big12), CINCY(big east), VT(acc), USC(pac10), OSU(big10). Then the 2 at large bids would have gone to-TEXAS and BAMA, both ranked higher than UTAH at the time. Again a playoff system would kill college football. Bowl games, big or small, are crucial for college sports. There are reasons why schools will lose money- (FAU)- to go to them. Bowl games help recruiting not only in football but in every other sport. The BCS has problems that need to be looked at but saying that a playoff system is the only way to fix it is just wrong. Non-BCS schools need to just focus on themselves and when the chance comes along to play the big boys. We need to do what UTAH and BOISE ST did. Both of those schools and their conferences got paid. That is really all you can ask for

Ernesto de Bajo | 8:36 p.m. June 28, 2009

To those who think that the BCS stranglehold can only be loosened by legal action or an appeal to the congress, wise up! Get a grip and get focused on a better solution, one that you directly control.

Carry with you when you shop a list of products and services advertised during BCS games. Then as you spend your moola--something that is completely under your control--make a point to avoid items on the list.

Re: Team Jumpsuit | 5:29 a.m. June 29, 2009

The Utes ranked #6 in the final BCS standings. They would have only needed to rank in the Top-8. They WOULD have been included in the playoff.

Where's Stockton???? | 5:37 a.m. June 29, 2009

REF:Team Jumpsuit
The Undefeated issue has to be addressed and resolved in some fashion. Trying to go to a 16 team playoff is insane and would as you have stated ruin College Divsion I Football. Even an 8 team playoff is too big of an expectation for the BCS to swallow... and would be at least a decade away...if at all.

The Bowls involved in the BCS and the TV Networks are the real powers especially the historical BIG 3 and their ties to the Television Networks, The Rose,The Orange and The Sugar. The Conferences tied to the automatic births have a stranglehold advantage that needs to be broken. The only way to break the stranglehold is to continue the BCS bashing by the Non BCS conferences. Right now the only conferences doing that consistantly are the MWC and the WAC. But due to the Two undefeated Utah teams and the Boise State undefeated team the blatant obvious that is not going unnoticed is catching up with the BCS. They will have to do something soon...or risk serious legal actions. A playoff to settle the undefeated issuehas to be the logical first step. RISE AND SHOUT

Where's Stockton???? | 6:41 a.m. June 29, 2009

Another Division I issue that should be addressed that could effect everyone adversely just as much as positively with equality of fairness is the issue of scheduling games against Division II teams. Purists would argue that the practice should be eliminated completely and that the so called superpowers should divide their preseason scheduling equally among the so called bottomfeeders in Division I...and not scheduling the same team more than once in 5 years. There are plenty of tertiary and mid level teams within the Division I system for the Traditional Big boys to pick on, but I like to see the occasional Appalacha States ( sp )pasting the big boys once in a while, so would rather see an allowance to scheduling a Div II on an every other year or every 3 year approach approach.

not dominating | 8:54 a.m. June 29, 2009

has everyone forgotten that utah only won by 2 touchdowns. That is not a blowout!!!!!

Scoobie | 9:27 a.m. June 29, 2009

REF: Where's Stockton???? 5:37 & 6:41 am

Look friend... I don't mind you hitching to my wagon but let's keep perspective here. The Scheduling of Div II games among Div I schools is a whole different issue. Let's stick to one line of thinking here. Some sort of playoff has to be initiated. You can't expect any progress if you go in making a lof of demands or ones that are too big. You can't shotgun a bunch of unrelated issues. The most obvious flaw is the fact that you have Undefeated teams not given an equal shot only because they are not part of an exclusive club. Then to have those same teams still kick butt in a BCS game against a powerhouse only to be fed crumbs... (money isn't everything) ...is a sham. I like Calhoun's perspective but to go in and expect a 8 team plyoff system is not realistic...it's too big to swallow. The issue of undefeated teams not getting a shot is not only a blantent reality which is causing a boil on the BCS's butt... it's a lot smaller to digest

Scoobie | 1:57 p.m. June 29, 2009

I'm really surprised that there isn't a lot more input from University of Utah and BYU fans on this subject. It's sad that some of you people can't seem to address the real issues here. But you are more than happy to rip each other on these sites over the rivalry. Just because the person who was man enough to stand firmly and denounce the corruption that permeates the BCS system is the Head Coach From Air Force should not deter you from speaking out. He represents all the others who are not part of a preselected group of Schools and Conferences deemed not worthy. Your silence suggests that you agree or just don't care anymore.

I even miss the input from our Aggie and Smurf friends up North. This article still has a few days of life on this site and those of you who I know have extremely strong feelings need to express them. Good things can happen.

I and others expressed our feelings about transfers of student athletes among High Schools and the needed regulations needed to finally bring some control over the recruiting of athletes into High School programs were implemented.

Scoobie | 2:18 p.m. June 29, 2009

Correction to my 1:57 p.m. posting

The 2nd to last senence in the first paragraph should read as follows:

.....He represents all of the OTHERS who are not part of a preselected group of schools and Conferences who have piously deemed us not worthy to play football with them.

The Nick Saban's who are indicative of these narrow minded types have to be continuously reminded of their shortsightedness as well as their enemic piety.

Sick of BCS | 9:19 a.m. June 30, 2009

So why don't all the good teams/conferences out there that are non-bcs break out of the system, and refuse to play any of the bcs folks? Give'em the silent treatment and boycott anything and everything bcs, they could even form their own bowl series with a playoff system to determine the real champion.

Virginia Ute | 9:27 a.m. June 30, 2009

In 2012 the BCS will "re-evaluate" the conferences and can offer automatic bids to those that currently are on the outside looking in. Assuming the MWC and WAC continue to churn out strong teams that crash the BCS and win, it is likely that the BCS will come calling, waving their money and offering the MWC and/or the WAC an automatic bowl berth.
My only hope is that the MWC/WAC will have the strength and vision to stand up to the BCS and just say no. Accepting an automatic invitation would just make the conference part of the problem and continue to put down the other little guys. Imagine what a powerful statement that would make if the BCS offered them an automatic bid and the MWC/WAC refused it (and the cash that comes with it) in protest of the unjust system.

Scoobie | 10:09 a.m. June 30, 2009

REF: Virginia Ute

Well said....As tempting as a tenured offer might be... to accept such an offer could be the wrong way to go. Now is the time to raise a big red flag and to go in and get the undefeated issue cleared up first and then build from there. The issue could be resolved before the end of the current BCS term in 2011. Trying to go for an 8 team playoff is just way too early right now and will delay any progress. The pressure has to be to get the undefeated issue resolved first.
After that the ties that the "Chosen Ones"..i.e. those conferences which have the automatic bids due to the old arcaic system of conferences tied to certain Bowls must be weakened and eliminated. The BCS will drag their feet but eventually it will happen.

Re: Virginia Ute | 1:48 p.m. June 30, 2009

If the MWC refused an invitation to the BCS, we would lose our argument for inclusion, and forfeit any stake in claiming anti-Trust issues.

If we accept the invitation, our conference will have a vote in how the BCS is governed and moderated. We could then work from within to get that playoff we so covet, and shield ourselves from any potential long-range future expulsion from said body like the Big [L]East is currently facing now.

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.