One of the common arguments against allowing non-BCS schools such as Boise and TCU into the BCS bowl games is that they play no real opponents during the year. You look at the leagues such as the SEC and the PAC 10 and week after week they are playing top caliber teams.
The BCS proponents claim that schools such as Boise, TCU, and Utah can beat any given team on any given day but believe that these schools would not be able to win near as many games if they were in a stronger conference such as the SEC or PAC 10.
First lets look at the scheduling problems that schools such as Boise have. Boise would love to play USC or Florida but these schools refuse to schedule them. Why would they. If a major school such as Florida played Boise in the regular season they would have nothing to gain. If they lost they would say things such as "Oh Florida's not as good as we thought", or "Florida just didn't show up to this game". That's the same things that were said about Oregon after they lost the season opener to Boise. Obviously Oregon is an excellent team and they have since proved that.
If Florida instead of losing the season opener to Boise won then Florida still would not gain. The pollsters would assume that Boise was a "cake" opponent for them.
Credit: Flickr/cogdogblogThe claim that any school such as Boise State or Utah can beat any given team on any given day but could not do it week after week if theses schools played in different conference such as the SEC or the Pac10 is wrong.
Any school can beat any school on any given day. Could Boise or TCU beat BCS conference teams week after week? Yes and no. Schools such as Boise may not be as dominant week after week but they could still run up an awesome win/loss record for the season. You got to consider that Boise and TCU would be more dominant then you may think. Boise State started of the season by beating Oregon. Oregon later went on to beat USC by the largest margin ever during the dominate Pete Carroll era.
Another item to consider is recruiting. USC and other BCS conference teams have a lot more recruiting power and ability then non BCS schools. Boise uses local kids and kids overlooked by the big BCS conference teams. They turn thee average players into top notch football players. If Boise State was able to move up to a conference with an automatic qualified bid for the BCS bowls then their recruiting would drastically increase. The pool of players that would then consider Boise because it now plays in a BCS conference would be huge.
The argument is given that any given team can beat any given team on any given day and this is the reason Boise should not be allowed to play a team that plays in a BCS auto qualified conference because these BCS conference teams play a hard schedule week after week. They reason that it would not be fair for a team to have to play such a lowly opponent such as Boise State. Lets take a look at the record of Non BCS teams in BCS bowls.
2005 Utah 35 Pitt 7
2007 Boise State 43 Oklahoma 42
2008 Georgia 41 Hawaii 10
2009 Utah 31 Alabama 17
The Non BCS schools have a record of 3-1
The finals scores of all the BCS games combined:
Non BCS schools 119 vs 107 for the BCS schools.
The BCS setup is flawed. It is not fixable. No matter what the BCS does the system is flawed to the core. A playoff is needed that DOES NOT RELY on polls.