Name me one team that doesn't have any worthy opponents in its own conference, and everbody else is scared to schedule them, we will go from there.
I'm less sure whether TCU deserves a chance in taking a beating in a non-title BCS bowl game. If TCU is good enough to convince the voters they are in the top 6, we won't have an issue there.
So the new Big East Champion will be worthy of such an automatic berth, but TCU or Houston or even BYU out in the Mountain West, no matter how good they are, does not? Being Top 6 doesn't clinch it because there are automatic bids. The two at large slots available do not necessarily go to non-BCS teams, even if they finish the season in the Top 6. Teams like Michigan, Washington State or Georgia could very well get those at-large slots even if they finish lower than TCU. It isn't automatic even if TCU finishes in the top 6, especially since the Big East winner gets a BCS Bowl invite even though none of them will be likely to be ranked in the Top 6 come Bowl time. And, no team in the new Big East has ever finished the season above 15th since the BCS started. But they'll get to go to a BCS Bowl guaranteed even after Miami, BC and Va Tech bolt to the ACC. Hard to believe the powerhouse conference that is Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers and Temple is so much better than Conference USA, the Mountain West or even the WAC. But the winner of that conference, even if they are completely unranked, will get an automatic BCS Bowl bid.
when does VT.Miami, and BC officially start playing in the ACC? I ask because the current BCS contract is through the 2005 season. After that, the Big East might not be included infavor of the new expanded ACC (along with their new ACC Championship game)
They start play next year in the ACC. The ACC already gets an automatic bid under the current set-up.
Being Top 6 doesn't clinch it because there are automatic bids. The two at large slots available do not necessarily go to non-BCS teams, even if they finish the season in the Top 6. If a non-BCS conference team finishes in the Top 6 of the BCS standings, they are required to be taken as an At-Large team. If a BCS conference team finishes in the top 4 of the BCS standings, they are also required to be taken as an At-Large team. The exception is that no conference can get 3 teams. I have no idea who gets precedence if more than 2 of these teams are required to be taken in the 2 at-large spots.
You are correct. Sorry about my misinformation before about there being no guarantee for TCU if they finish in the Top 6. Here's a potentially interesting scenario: What if Louisville bucks up and goes undefeated next season? Would we see the first time that an undefeated BCS Conference team is left out of the national championship game? I mean, they'd go to a BCS Bowl no matter what, but does beating WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and Temple mean a shot at the NC? (And is Boston College having to wait an additional year before leaving the Big East? I know Va. Tech and Miami are gone for 2004, but since BC was asked later, are they having to spend an additional year in the Big East?)
Big east is weak next year, but Pitts, West Virginia, are no push overs, Louisville, cinci played competitive lately. And current BCS will be renegotiated after next year. Tell you what, I almost wish TCU get into a BCS bowl game, so that people can open their eyes and stop whinning.
The BCS runs through the 2005 season and includes the 2006 Bowls, so there will be at least two years of piss poor Big East football clogging up the BCS instead of just one. The question remains, though, will the Big East get kicked out? If so, what takes their place? The Mountain West? Or just a third at-large team?
If beating Cincy and Louisville will mean something next season, it should also mean something this season. I doubt that if TCU had WVU and Pitt on their schedule this season they'd be considered any better of a team. Or would you no longer think them a fraud or their request to be in the BCS Bowl mix to be whining? Are Pitt and WVU really the difference between a bad conference and a good one? Because it can't be Cincy and Louisville because TCU is in a conference with them right now.
I bet if TCU has Pitt and WVU on the schedule and still go undfeated, a lot less people will be vocal about them being not deserving a BCS berth. At least, it would do it for me. A team with a Heisman frontrunner should not be taken lightly.
Here's a quote from espn BCS article: That TCU has even reached this high in the polls is remarkable, considering that it has won five games by exactly three points and another by seven points against what is the nation's sixth-weakest schedule based on opponents' winning percentage.
I wish that each conference would have at least one team go undeafeated in a season then you would have some serious debates going on even though we have some going on already.
Bowl games used to be special, until it got diluted with the addition of so many new bowl game sponsors. Now your team must suck really hard not to qualify for the KrispyKreme Bowl or the Google.com Bowl. Who would want to watch a BCS game with TCU? They're small potatos. No one cares how many JV squads they beat. BCS is about powerhouse teams playing other powerhouse teams. Oklahoma vs Ohio St = Big ratings Oklahoma vs TCU = No ratings and total beatdown.
The New Big East is a joke. Their conference champ definitely does not deserve an automatic bid. They replaced Miami, VT and BC with Basketball schools. They are not any better than the MAC, WAC or MWC. Ideally, their spot should be another at large bid for the real BCS conferences. I would not be opposed to the spot being open to the higest ranking team from all the non-BCS teams, just to keep everyone happy.
