The chances for a loss increase when the teams are more evenly matched in talent. And the more of those types of games that you play, the better your chances for a loss. There's a pretty wide range of talent levels among MWC teams. The talent gap between the top and bottom isn't so pronounced in BCS conferences. It's simple logic...

(05-28-2010 06:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The chances for a loss increase when the teams are more evenly matched in talent. And the more of those types of games that you play, the better your chances for a loss. There's a pretty wide range of talent levels among MWC teams. The talent gap between the top and bottom isn't so pronounced in BCS conferences. It's simple logic...

That might seem intuitive at first, but it has holes. Lets say 2009 Alabama- same team, same coaches- never played in the SEC but were members of the MWC. What would their record be? Well of course they'd have to beat Utah this time ( ), but assuming they did, let's say they would have a undefeated record. Now turn back around and put them back in the SEC. Using your reasoning, you assume they'd lose a couple of games because the schedule was "harder" (even though we know in reality they went undefeated). Just because someone has a weaker schedule doesn't mean we can assume against a harder schedule they'd have more losses. It really depends on how talented the team is in the first place.

In that regard, strong MWC teams the last 5 years have proven themselves to be at a level commensurate with their record when competing against the only thing we can use to directly compare them- records versus teams from AQ conferences in nonconference play. Sure, there is probably a slightly increased chance for an upset, but using the data we have, that probably only equates to an extra half loss or so a year.

God help us all if the SEC Champion has to play mighty Utah, TCU, or any other MWC pretender to the throne...

(05-28-2010 08:21 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(05-27-2010 11:44 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Consistently playing teams in the lowest echelon of FBS football is a big advantage. And no matter how good the top team in the MWC or WAC may be, the bottom half of each conference consistently ranks in the bottom third of FBS. The lowest ranked SEC team would challenge the top ranked MWC or WAC team far better than MWC or WAC teams...

Do you think TCU would have the same record in the SEC? How about Boise?

If you think they would, you're deluding yourself...

Do you think TCU or Boise St. would have the same recruiting classes they do now if they were in the SEC? Somehow, I think if you took teams that are uber successful in Non-AQ conferences and then gave them the advantages of being in those AQ conferences you'd see they could compete just fine. It is a two-way street. I do agree that a 1-1 comparison of records between Top Non-AQ and AQ schools (top only) is not a good thing to do. There are considerable differences.

This. Big East fans of all people should know this after Cincy has run roughshod over the conference the past 2 years. That would have been unthinkable even 5 years ago.

If Boise State joins the MWC(and they will) then there is no justification for not giving the conference an AQ unless a BCS conference expands and takes some of its top programs.

Boise St, TCU, Utah, and BYU have all shown themselves to be legitimate BCS contenders.

Boise is already a legitimate contender. They are currently ranked #2 in the preseason poll. That says volumes...