You know most of your post made a lot of sense, but I did not see Colorado get a lot better by season end. Their level of play really did not seem to change much all season.
TCU and the Mountain West
- Thread starter CYKOFAN
- Start date
You know most of your post made a lot of sense, but I did not see Colorado get a lot better by season end. Their level of play really did not seem to change much all season.
It's just not the same. The teams that are considered average or bad in the BCS conferences are on a whole other level than the average and bad teams from the Mountain West. Teams like Kansas, Purdue, Baylor, Washington, Wake Forest, Virginia, Syracuse, etc. that are considered bad teams wouldn't have much problem getting to a bowl in the Mountain West. They would lose to BYU, Utah, TCU, and maybe Air Force, but beat most of the other teams.
I disagree. Colorado did not look good at all to start the season. In November though, they played four bowl teams. The offense looked a lot better and they beat Texas A&M. The losses to Iowa State, Oklahoma State, and Nebraska were all one score games.
Yeah right.
That's why Iowa State was lucky to defeat UNLV which was a bad Mountain West in 2007 and lost to UNLV which was a bad Mountain West team in 2008.
You can believe whatever you want, but we're talking about the 6th place team in the MWC needing overtime to beat 2-10, last place in the Big 12 Iowa State.
Yeah, in 2007 ISU was lucky to beat UNLV at Ames and won two Conference games while UNLV ended up wining one conference game.
The bottom team in a BCS conference isn't going to dominate the bottom team in the MWC every single time, but it will more often than not. And you're talking about 2006 team that won one conference game and was four plays away from 0-12. My point remains that most of the bad team in BCS conferences would perform very well against the bottom of the MWC. There are always exceptions, like Washington State this year.
Blah blah blah it was a rivalry game. Blah blah blah Colorado would still rule the MWC. You know what this screams of? Excuses. Fact is, it's a rather bold assumption to say that Colorado would automatically have a better record than they do now if they played in the MWC, considering they lost to the worst team in the MWC (they even lost to New Mexico, a team that we were making fun of earlier this year). Colorado was just bad. So bad they lost to Toledo, a rather poor team from the MAC. You want to go to bat for Colorado and use the rivalry excuse for Colorado losing that game? :nah:
And unless they were playing in the Sun Belt Conference, they were going to struggle no matter who they played this year. But even that's debatable - as I pointed out, they couldn't compete with less-than-middle-of-the-road MAC teams this year...
It's really kind of funny that people are now arguing that the MWC type conference aren't as good because their worst teams aren't as "good" as the automatic qualifying conference's worst teams. Why is it comical? Because we'll never know since the worst teams don't play each other in bowl games (and very infrequently in regular season). As others have said, CSU regularly beats Colorado. UNLV beat us last year. Most yearss I'd take Air Force against the bottom half of the Big12. I guess people can't argue that the top teams aren't good enough anymore because they are smoking automatic qualifying conf teams in bowl games.
so should the mountain west be added? What will that solve? Boise state will ***** then.
What really needs to change is notre dame and their BS automatic qualifying
What really needs to change is notre dame and their BS automatic qualifying
Even honest Mountain West fans will admit the things I said are true. They might argue that the MWC deserves to be a BCS conference based on what the top teams have done, but they will admit the bottom half is weaker than the bottom half of the BCS conferences.
I actually think the six highest rated conferences champions should earn automatic bids to the BCS. In a lot of years that would include the MWC champ.
Look, I like the MWC. I wish it had a better TV package so more people could watch it. I just think people are kidding themselves when they say the MWC as a whole is better than the Big Ten or the Big 12 or even the Big East. That doesn't take anything away from how good TCU, BYU, and Utah are in my opinion.
I actually think the six highest rated conferences champions should earn automatic bids to the BCS. In a lot of years that would include the MWC champ.
Look, I like the MWC. I wish it had a better TV package so more people could watch it. I just think people are kidding themselves when they say the MWC as a whole is better than the Big Ten or the Big 12 or even the Big East. That doesn't take anything away from how good TCU, BYU, and Utah are in my opinion.
Hypothetical:
If TCU is competetive with Boise and Air Force edges Missouri (MWC goes 5-0 in bowl games), and the Pac 10 does well against the other BCS conferences, does that change your opinion? How good does the conference have to be in order to cross the threshold?
I think the Mountain West would have easily proven themselves to be on par with the other power conferences this season in this scenario, and TCU should be considered having a share of the national championship with the winner of the Texas/Alabama game.
If TCU is competetive with Boise and Air Force edges Missouri (MWC goes 5-0 in bowl games), and the Pac 10 does well against the other BCS conferences, does that change your opinion? How good does the conference have to be in order to cross the threshold?
I think the Mountain West would have easily proven themselves to be on par with the other power conferences this season in this scenario, and TCU should be considered having a share of the national championship with the winner of the Texas/Alabama game.
There are very weak teams in every conference. Teams in the BCS Conferences aren't playing high quality teams week in and week out. For example just how many high quality teams did Iowa State play this season? Iowa, Nebraska, and that's really the extent of the high quality teams they played this season
Your right but imagine a MWC team with our schedule next year? AT Iowa, Utah (i know they are MWC team but pretend its a similar team), AT Oklahoma, Tech, AT Texas, Missouri and Nebraska. Im just saying they wont go undefeated.
Your right but imagine a MWC team with our schedule next year? AT Iowa, Utah (i know they are MWC team but pretend its a similar team), AT Oklahoma, Tech, AT Texas, Missouri and Nebraska. Im just saying they wont go undefeated.
It doesn't change my opinion because I already acknowledge that the top four in the MWC are good teams.
I know this is somewhat of a change in the subject but maybe instead of waiting for the Big 11 to expand maybe the Big 12 should add BYU and Utah - no to TCU, Houston, SMU and all other Texas teams.
This. This is why the MWC isn't auto-qualifying. Even Virginia, Syracuse, and Baylor could all finish mid pack in the MWC. No one denies their "top end", so to speak, but after BYU, Utah, and TCU you're hard pressed to find a school that would go a bowl game in ANY BCS conference.
A little example. The ACC was unquestionably the worst BCS conference this year. ACC mid-packer Florida State at 6-6 upended BYU, one of the MWC's power teams.
Last edited:
I think it's downright funny (in the hypocritical sense) that most BCS schools refuse to play the teams from the MWC, and then have the gall to tell them that not only they couldn't compete with them, but the fact that they didn't play anyone all season proves it.
It's funny - the MWC on a yearly basis proves they can play with anyone in America, yet people continuously refuse to credit them with it. How many times is the MWC going to have to own BCS teams in bowl games, especially BCS bowl games, before people start giving them credit? And don't give me that "Alabama had nothing to play for last year after losing the SEC championship game" excuse. Because that's all that is - a bull**** excuse. If Alabama can't get up for saving face in a BCS game, that's Alabama's problem, not a shot to the credibility of Utah's win. Not only that, how many times is the MWC going to have to own the Pac 10 before people stop with this "they couldn't finish in the top half" bull****? With the way the Pac 10 went down this year, I'm pretty sure TCU, Utah, and BYU would have definitely finished in the top half, if not one of them winning it outright.
It's funny - the MWC on a yearly basis proves they can play with anyone in America, yet people continuously refuse to credit them with it. How many times is the MWC going to have to own BCS teams in bowl games, especially BCS bowl games, before people start giving them credit? And don't give me that "Alabama had nothing to play for last year after losing the SEC championship game" excuse. Because that's all that is - a bull**** excuse. If Alabama can't get up for saving face in a BCS game, that's Alabama's problem, not a shot to the credibility of Utah's win. Not only that, how many times is the MWC going to have to own the Pac 10 before people stop with this "they couldn't finish in the top half" bull****? With the way the Pac 10 went down this year, I'm pretty sure TCU, Utah, and BYU would have definitely finished in the top half, if not one of them winning it outright.
Last edited:
I think it's downright funny (in the hypocritical sense) that most BCS schools refuse to play the teams from the MWC, and then have the gall to tell them that not only they couldn't compete with them, but the fact that they didn't play anyone all season proves it.
It's funny - the MWC on a yearly basis proves they can play with anyone in America, yet people continuously refuse to credit them with it. How many times is the MWC going to have to own BCS teams in bowl games, especially BCS bowl games, before people start giving them credit? And don't give me that "Alabama had nothing to play for last year after losing the SEC championship game" excuse. Because that's all that is - a bull**** excuse. If Alabama can't get up for saving face in a BCS game, that's Alabama's problem, not a shot to the credibility of Utah's win. Not only that, how many times is the MWC going to have to own the Pac 10 before people stop with this "they couldn't finish in the top half" bull****? With the way the Pac 10 went down this year, I'm pretty sure TCU, Utah, and BYU would have definitely finished in the top half, if not one of them winning it outright.
I understand what your saying. But i bet if TCU, Utah, BYU and Boise State asked Florida, Texas, Alabama if they could get a matchup at the BCS school they would accept it. I wouldnt want to play a MWC team away like Oregon did the first game of the season.
It's funny - the MWC on a yearly basis proves they can play with anyone in America, yet people continuously refuse to credit them with it. How many times is the MWC going to have to own BCS teams in bowl games, especially BCS bowl games, before people start giving them credit? And don't give me that "Alabama had nothing to play for last year after losing the SEC championship game" excuse. Because that's all that is - a bull**** excuse. If Alabama can't get up for saving face in a BCS game, that's Alabama's problem, not a shot to the credibility of Utah's win. Not only that, how many times is the MWC going to have to own the Pac 10 before people stop with this "they couldn't finish in the top half" bull****? With the way the Pac 10 went down this year, I'm pretty sure TCU, Utah, and BYU would have definitely finished in the top half, if not one of them winning it outright.
I understand what your saying. But i bet if TCU, Utah, BYU and Boise State asked Florida, Texas, Alabama if they could get a matchup at the BCS school they would accept it. I wouldnt want to play a MWC team away like Oregon did the first game of the season.
First of all Boise Sate is in the WAC. Second of all TCU, Boise State did ask to play power BCS teams and they did refuse.
