The Big East expansion groundswell thread

[jay santos]

You're right, Boise State has a bad TV market, and bad academics. I'm not discounting the fact that it isn't a reason. I think a big conference takes a harder look at BYU if they win a BCS game or two though, you can disagree if you want, that's fine.

Actual question here, has the PAC-12 actually went out and said they oppose to religious affiliated schools? Just simply curious.

It's alright. Let it go. Regroup and come back strong on another issue.

[UtahJazzFan88]

Let me rephrase. Your fandom for Utah started circa 2003 or 2004? You know nothing about the PAC but naturally (and correctly) were excited about the jump to the PAC? Do a little research on the relationship between the LDS church and the schools in the PAC-10.

You'll find LiveCoug is right.

But what does that have to do ANYTHING with reality like your trying to come out here and attack me for? I admit that I have not done the research on the PAC's relationship with BYU/LDS church. I'm 19 so obviously I haven't been around like a lot of people here, but I can say I've watched (not LIVE in person) the Utes studder and fail in football until they started getting success in the Ron McBride era.

My point is that winning a few BCS games does definitely help your resume on trying to get into a BCS conference. I'm not saying the Big 12 is a stable ship right now, but their football sucess lately has contributed to TCU getting into the conference, without it, they are basically SMU.

[LiveCoug]

You're right, Boise State has a bad TV market, and bad academics. I'm not discounting the fact that it isn't a reason. I think a big conference takes a harder look at BYU if they win a BCS game or two though, you can disagree if you want, that's fine.

Actual question here, has the PAC-12 actually went out and said they oppose to religious affiliated schools? Just simply curious.

Utah could have gone to zero BCS games and they would have probably been in the PAC.

CU has been to exactly 1 BCS game 10 years ago and lost. Getting to a BCS game 10 years ago and losing had no bearing on them getting a PAC invite.

BYU has won a national championship. That is better than a BCS game. They were not invited back in the 80's to a big boy conference. That is not what it's about.

[UtahJazzFan88]

Utah could have gone to zero BCS games and they would have probably been in the PAC.

CU has been to exactly 1 BCS game 10 years ago and lost. Getting to a BCS game 10 years ago and losing had no bearing on them getting a PAC invite.

BYU has won a national championship. That is better than a BCS game. They were not invited back in the 80's to a big boy conference. That is not what it's about.

Fair enough, but I'll also say that I think Colorado lived off the rep of being in the Big 12 for a while, so that didn't hurt their case getting into the PAC-12, but I get that.

As for BYU winning a National Championship, that's great for BYU, great for Utah sports, but I can't compare a 1984 Championship in the Holiday Bowl against a 6-5 Michigan (They were 13-0, I understand). It's a totally different era and system.

[LiveCoug]

Fair enough, but I'll also say that I think Colorado lived off the rep of being in the Big 12 for a while, so that didn't hurt their case getting into the PAC-12, but I get that.

As for BYU winning a National Championship, that's great for BYU, great for Utah sports, but I can't compare a 1984 Championship in the Holiday Bowl against a 6-5 Michigan (They were 13-0, I understand). It's a totally different era and system.

LOL... spoken like a true Ute fan.

[YOhio]

This would have to grow on me and after several years and crazy things happening, I might look back and think it was the best thing to do. But right now, it feels very dumb.

You and I are ideological soulmates. We're both skeptical of Herman Cain and the Big East.

[UtahJazzFan88]

LOL... spoken like a true Ute fan.

No. None of the Ute fan in me even cared if it was BYU or not. I don't validate many National Championships under the old system before the Bowl Alliance, and BCS system came about. It wasn't about money back then, which is why the system wasn't there.

BYU only beat ranked Pitt in that '84 season, they beat a 6-5 team in a bowl game? How does that make it more impressive than a BCS bowl win? I'll give them credit for the win, and it's a National Title, but it was a different era and system.

[falafel]

No. None of the Ute fan in me even cared if it was BYU or not. I don't validate many National Championships under the old system before the Bowl Alliance, and BCS system came about. It wasn't about money back then, which is why the system wasn't there.

Which is exactly why you should validate past champions under the old system.

[UtahJazzFan88]

Which is exactly why you should validate past champions under the old system.

That's fair, but do you think BYU should have been playing 6-5 Michigan in the Holiday Bowl for a National Title? Even if that's what the WAC's bowl tie-in was then?

[Blueintheface]

No. None of the Ute fan in me even cared if it was BYU or not. I don't validate many National Championships under the old system before the Bowl Alliance, and BCS system came about. It wasn't about money back then, which is why the system wasn't there.

BYU only beat ranked Pitt in that '84 season, they beat a 6-5 team in a bowl game? How does that make it more impressive than a BCS bowl win? I'll give them credit for the win, and it's a National Title, but it was a different era and system.

So you're saying that at 19 (something I wasn't aware of btw) you came to the conclusion on your own that validating any game played prior to 1997 doesn't make sense? I find that hard to believe it has nothing to do with you being a Ute fan.

[LiveCoug]

No. None of the Ute fan in me even cared if it was BYU or not. I don't validate many National Championships under the old system before the Bowl Alliance, and BCS system came about. It wasn't about money back then, which is why the system wasn't there.

BYU only beat ranked Pitt in that '84 season, they beat a 6-5 team in a bowl game? How does that make it more impressive than a BCS bowl win? I'll give them credit for the win, and it's a National Title, but it was a different era and system.

This is what is sad about the younger generation. A NC is always better than a BCS bowl win. Always.

[LiveCoug]

That's fair, but do you think BYU should have been playing 6-5 Michigan in the Holiday Bowl for a National Title? Even if that's what the WAC's bowl tie-in was then?

You think that was BYU's choice?

[Portland Ute]

I think it would be fun if BYU came and played in Annapolis. That is a great setting to watch a football game and I would totally go. I actually went to exactly this game when Detmer was the quarterback and I was in high school.

Are there Ute Stories groups?

[PolyCougar]

Fair enough, but I'll also say that I think Colorado lived off the rep of being in the Big 12 for a while, so that didn't hurt their case getting into the PAC-12, but I get that.

As for BYU winning a National Championship, that's great for BYU, great for Utah sports, but I can't compare a 1984 Championship in the Holiday Bowl against a 6-5 Michigan (They were 13-0, I understand). It's a totally different era and system.

This argument always makes me laugh... ironically, if the BCS were created BYU could've played much better competition as they carried the number 1 ranking, but Bowl tie-ins prevented the other big namers (strange that the Holiday Bowl was the only one to take the Number 1 team in the country). The system screwed itself back then, and brought forth what eventually became the BCS.

[falafel]

That's fair, but do you think BYU should have been playing 6-5 Michigan in the Holiday Bowl for a National Title? Even if that's what the WAC's bowl tie-in was then?

I agree with LC, we had to play who we had to play. The point is, the champion back then was voted on, so BYU still had to measure up to all the other title contenders.