The problem is that Penn St, rated at a nearly identical #55, was in the running for the National Championship until it lost to Iowa.  Had they beaten the Hawkeyes, I think it’s hard for anyone to argue that an undefeated Penn St would have been left out of the title game the way Utah was.  Nope.  Penn St would have gone on to the title game, and because it is in a BCS conference, no one would even care what their SOS was.  The implication here, then, is that SOS is primarily a measure the BCS uses to pomp itself and criticize outsiders.

The double standard that a mid-50′s rating would be sufficient for one team but not the other is disgusting.  However, just to be fair, it still doesn’t mean that Utah was one of the top two deserving schools for the title last year.  Because Penn St would have got in inspite of its weak schedule could just as easily mean Penn St would have got in undeservable as it means Utah was unfairly excluded.  The only sure thing in this situation is that tremendous bias exists in the system and puts the non-AQ at an unfair and unjustifiable disadvantage.

So, back to the original question.  Utah definitely could have bolstered its schedule by keeping the game with Texas.  Thereagain, though, Penn St’s schedule would have been good enough as is, so there would have been a double standard.  Utah still would have had to go undefeated to get a sniff at the championship, but with that kind of schedule, a BCS team might get in with a loss.  You can dance around it any way you want, and while you can’t prove that it means Utah should’ve been in, it does prove emphatically there is a double standard that is unjustifiable.

To really understand whether or not the BCS is justifiable, you have to understand the historical relationship between bowls and conferences.  Bowls are merely post-season exhibition games that bring money to the universities and provide their teams with a reward for a good season.  Accordingly, conferences developed relationships with the bowls to send their champions to various bowls each year, which became a tradition.  Naturally, the bowls that were fortunate enough to develop a relationship with the big-time conferences became the big-time bowls.  For example, the Orange bowl historically hosted the champion of the Big 8 (now the Big XII), and has been home to the Big East and/or ACC champ(s) throughout the BCS era.  The Sugar Bowl was home to the SEC champ.  We all know about the Rose Bowl’s Big Ten-Pac 10 rivalry.  And the Cotton Bowl hosted the SWC’s champ each year.  However, when four of the SWC’s schools left to join the Big 8 in forming the Big XII, the Cotton Bowl found itself on the outs, and has lost its big-time status.  Over the same era, meanwhile, the Fiesta Bowl came out of nowhere by hosting at-large teams.  That meant big-time schools with no conference affiliation, like Miami at the time, weren’t tied to a certain bowl.  This allowed the Fiesta bowl to create a true National Championship game in years where the top two contenders were independents.  Again, lots of quality schools were independents back then, so it was a good niche for the Fiesta Bowl.  In the BCS era, however, the Fiesta Bowl has been home to the Big XII champ.

Anyway, these lucrative exhibition games historically belonged to these conferences, so they have a legitimate argument in not wanting to let outsiders in.  It gives these schools access to funds they may not have helped much in generating.

With the recent growth in the Rocky Mountain region, the Mountain West conference has seen a significant improvement in recruiting, and overall performance on the field.  Unfortunately, having good teams and profitable programs don’t necessarily go hand in hand.  Up-and-coming programs must be good for a while before they can build a profitable fan base.  This brings about an interesting issue.  Do you let these schools in on money your conference has earned simply because they are approaching parity on the field?

The BCS has fought tooth and nail to keep the outsiders out of the BCS coffers.  I can respect that, but what drives me crazy is that these same parties in positions of power and notoriety have the audacity to claim their advantage in profitability equates to being superior on the field.  So I say if the BCS wants to put the most profitable teams on the field, that’s fine.  But call it what it is–a fundraiser.

Boise State

Before any of you Bronco fans freak out, this should not be a knock on the BSU football program.  I think it is generally on the same level as the Mountain West’s top three.  Does that mean Boise St would strengthen the conference?  Not necessarily.

What the conference needs is a school that can schedule and win games against quality competition.  Because of its tiny stadium and inconvenient location, Boise St is not in the position to schedule home-and-home series with big schools.  As a result, BSU is relegated to either playing tough competition on the road, or playing crappy teams at home.  Neither scenario would add to the conference’s resume.  Being forced to go on the road is just too much of an uphill battle for any team, even a good one like Boise St.

Like I said before, I think Boise St would be in regular competition for the MWC title–for a little while, anyway.  In a given year, that means a couple conference losses, just like BYU, Utah, and TCU get on average.  What has made Boise St special is the chance to go undefeated and get a BCS bowl.  It’s not the facilities, the chance to play big-time opponents from week to week, the path to the NFL, and especially not the location.  So losing what has set Boise St apart could end up hurting recruiting, putting the program into a tailspin until it’s little more than the likes of New Mexico and Colorado St.  Until Boise St expands its stadium to be able to attract big-time opponents, they have nothing to add to the Mountain West.  To the contrary, by keeping themselves and the non-BCS in the spotlight as the WAC representative, Boise St adds more to the conference as a nonmember.

Oh, and did I mention that Boise is a crap television market, and would be the smallest in the Mountain West? Ok, maybe tied with New Mexico…

Fresno St

I’ll be honest.  I like the Bulldogs, and their mantra “anyone, anywhere” is down-right respectable.  However, I can’t say that it’s been the greatest long-term strategy.  It seems like it’s left the team too banged up and worn down to compete through conference play.  I do like their stadium size, although, they have not been able to fill it as of late.  That could be a concern, especially since bringing in big-name programs like Wisconsin, Oregon, and Kansas St hasn’t even been enough to sell out.  If admitted to the Mountain West, Fresno St would likely continue to do what it does now in the WAC.

Nevada

The wolfpack gets some respect in non-AQ discussion, but I don’t think it’s well deserved.  Over the past seven years Nevada’s record is 46-41, and that’s playing in the WAC!!  The standout years are seasons with 9-3 and 8-5 marks.  The rest of the years hover just below .500 on average.  Nevada has had mixed success against UNLV.  That is no reason to believe they could amount to anything in the Mountain West.  Furthermore, if the Mountain West is to become a BCS conference, we need UNLV to be decent, something they’ve started to do recently.  With the state’s small recruiting base and proximity to Pac 10 reruiting competition, the Mountain West needs UNLV to win the recruiting battle over Nevada, thereby improving at the expense of the Wolfpack.  Having both in the same conference would be a perfect plan to keep both crappy indefinitely.  Oh, and did I mention that Nevada can’t even draw 20,000 fans on average?  How in the world is that supposed to improve the Mountain West?

Hawaii

Hawaii has every quality of a BCS-level football program.  Decent stadium and attendance, solid recruiting, etc.  Unfortunately Hawaii is half-way to Japan.  Bringing Hawaii into your conference screws up logistics.  That’s why the Warriors were not invited to join the Mountain West in the first place.  I like the ‘Bows, but if the directors see regular games against Hawaii as not beneficial, I trust them.

Tulsa

Now this is one team that has been making a splash in C-USA over the past few years.  Tulsa has gone bowling four years in a row now, posting a 3-1 record.  A lot of people look at Tulsa and think they’d make a great travel partner for TCU.  Tulsa’s a little farther away from the rest of the conference than Dallas/Ft. Worth, but I can buy that argument.  Here’s what I don’t like, though: Tulsa is 0-13 vs. BCS opponents since 2001.  0-13!!  Granted, you’ve got to acknowledge that a lot of those games have come against Oklahoma and Texas, but with average attendance around 24,000 and maximum capacity of 35,000, how are they going to attract anyone away by more than a few hours’ bus ride?  Not to mention, how is that team supposed to win the recruiting battle over its in-state rivals?  I like Tulsa, but I think they have too much against them to compete at the BCS conference’s level over the long run (if ever at all…remember, they’re 0-13)!  I will give props, though, to what I believe is Tulsa’s biggest win of the decade: a 55-47 win over BYU in 2007.

Houston

A presence in southern Texas would be a good place for the Mountain West…lots of people to watch games…lots of boys to recruit from, not to mention Houston would be an even better travel partner for TCU than Tulsa (a little better distance, but a much better airport).  There’s just one problem…Houston has kind of sucked it up when it comes to actually playing football.  The Cougars are 3-13 vs. BCS opponents since 2001.  Not much better than Tulsa…Also, Houston’s stadium is dinky.  Still there are ways around that.  Houston could maybe schedule some big-time non-conference games in Rice Stadium (seats up to 70,000), but who knows if they’d really be interested in that.  In any case, Houston is picked to win the C-USA this year, so maybe we’ll see how they rise to the challenge.  If they started dominating their conference the way Boise St owns the WAC, the Cougars could make a good candidate for the Mountain West.

UTEP

I hear this one brought up, but I’m not sure why.  I guess UTEP kind of fits geographically, though it’s so far out of the way from about everything maybe the NCAA should give them the same rule as Hawaii, and let anyone who plays at UTEP schedule an extra home game to make up for the travel expenses.  Seriously, though, maybe UTEP’s ability to seat over 50,000 is a draw.   Whatever it is, all I see is the Miners’ 0-9 record against BCS opponents.  Again, they’re in the middle of nowhere, and no respectible BCS team would take the financial hit of traveling to El Paso to play in front of 15,000 empty seats.  I have a real hard time taking UTEP seriously as a candidate, but people mention them, so I figured, why not point out how stupid that would be.

Colorado

The Buffs in the Mountain West?  It could happen, that is, if they didn’t have to leave an autoqualifying conference for a non-AQ.  If the MWC were awarded a long-awaited auto-bid, I wouldn’t be shocked to see CU jump ship for the MWC for a few reasons.  First, they could face quality competition, but not have to face Texas and Oklahoma every year.  Second, I don’t percieve their tie to the Big XII North to be that strong.  There haven’t been any consistently good teams there for nearly a decade, and Colorado is kind of the odd man out on an island in the West–they have no strong, natural conference rival.  Third, along those lines, a move to the MWC might save CU significantly in travel costs–maybe enough to offset the revenue sharing it would miss out on in the more profitable Big XII.

Texas-San Antonio

This idea is more just for fun, but what if the MWC brought in a brand new program, like UTSA?  No worries if you haven’t heard of them.  2009 will be the Roadrunners’ (I love that mascot, by the way) inaugeral season.  Prior to that San Antonio was one of the largest universities without a football program.  They have a few things going for them: they will be playing in the Alamodome, which can seat 65,000.  They’re in a great location to attract recruits and quality opponents.  They’ve also hired former Miami coach Larry Coker and declared their intention to become and FBS program, which shows they’re serious.  South Florida benefitted from it’s mindboggling inclusion in the Big East to become a ranked program seemingly overnight.  Maybe a new school in an up-and-coming conference could make some noise, especially with all that southern Texas talent to recruit from.  Here’s a huge logistical problem: UTSA will play its first season next year in FCS.  When it’s ready to play FBS competition, it must meet NCAA benchmarks over two years under provisional status as an FBS independent before it may join any conference, so the Mountain West may very well already have AQ status well before UTSA is even a full-blown FBS program.  Still, the move could be profitable with TV markets.  After all, UTSA has a pretty big alumni base and surrounding population.

Other Issues that Scream Do Not Expand

The Mountain West plays a round-robin conference schedule, meaning every team plays every other team to determine a true champion.  With nine teams, that works nice.  Each team plays eight conference games: four on the road, and four at home.  Adding a tenth team throws a wrench in that system.  If you keep the round robin, each team now plays nine games with either an extra home or away game.  Also, keeping the round robin means you have to drop a non-conference game, giving less opportunity and flexibility for each team to schedule quality non-conference opposition.  What’s worse is that making previously non-conference games conference games ensures the conference a few additional losses–very bad for middle-of-the-pack teams that are on the bubble of bowl eligibility.

You want to see just how dysfunctional a conference of ten teams can be, just look at the Pac 10.  For a while they were against the round robin, opting instead for each school to forgo one conference matchup per year.  A few schools started to complain, though, when others were able to have great years without USC on their schedule, so in the name of crowning a true champion, they started the round robin.  For the past several years, though, the Pac 10 has averaged only five bowl eligible teams, with the sixth and seventh just a single win away from eligibility.  Just imagine what one or two extra bowl games would do for revenue.  It’s not like it would double it or anything, but it does make a difference.  I’m convinced that difference would be especially significant for the Mountain West.

Another question for expansion is if it is really necessary for BCS acceptance.  If the conference continues to improve and plays near the level it achieved last season it should be in.  It will be hard to produce a valid reason to deny the MWC, yet keep the ACC and Big East.  Adding any team will be another mouth to feed, and if the costs don’t outweigh the benefits, why expand?

The obvious answer there is to make the conference stronger, which I am a fan of.  I wouldn’t mind seeing teams added gradually, as they have proven what they can bring to the table in terms of competition, money, exposure, etc.  Those are the factors that will make the conference continue to improve over the long haul.