There have been more than a few blogs championing the idea of including the MWC in the BCS. In my opinion, asking for a guaranteed BCS bowl bid is the same as wanting to become part of the BCS.
Entry is accomplished either by expanding the BCS to seven conferences or having the MWC replace an existing BCS conference. Rationale from the reasonable to the ridiculous was put forward.
For all those who want to continue to argue for including the MWC in the BCS, please present some new reasoning. If all you are going to do is continue repeating how well the MWC did in 2008, save yourself the effort and the rest of us the time. The argument is becoming tedious.
As to the question of the MWC becoming part of the BCS: Sorry, folks. As things stand, the MWC becoming a BCS conference is not going to happen. The BCS will remain as the current six conferences.
Here are just four of many reasons why:
1. The MWC is not the only non-BCS conference in the FBS. If the MWC is allowed in, why not the MAC, CUSA, Sunbelt, and/or WAC?
2. The MWC cannot demand entry based on one very good season. Utah beat a very good Alabama team in the recent Sugar Bowl. Boise State beat a better Oklahoma team two years previously. What has the MWC done as a whole during the BCS era?
3. With the exception of TCU and San Diego St., the MWC is located in low density (read: small TV market) states. Despite being in two of the largest states, TCU and San Diego St. aren't close to being the dominant programs or having anywhere near the largest fanbase in their state.
4. Because most of the teams are in either the Mountain or Pacific time zones, it makes it difficult for them to receive exposure east of the Mississippi. The Pac-10 has had to deal with this problem from the beginning.
Forget about replacing one of the existing BCS conferences. The Big East will remain because several of its teams are concentrated in very large TV markets.
Though not as large a TV market as the Big East, the market for the ACC is substantially larger than the MWC. Further, the ACC has several teams, such as Miami, FSU, and VTech, which have established themselves as being competitive nationally over many years.
Is the BCS fair? Probably not. Fair has nothing to do with reality. It's all about the bottom line.
The MWC, like the other non-BCS conferences, is caught in a Catch-22. Until MWC teams can generate interest outside of their region, they will not receive the needed exposure. Without exposure outside their region, they will not generate interest.
MWC teams may be the victims of their own success. By upsetting BCS teams from time to time, the BCS teams, especially the contenders, reduce or stop scheduling MWC teams.
BCS contenders consider these "no-win" games. If the BCS team wins, it was supposed to. If it loses, any chance it may have of making it to the BCS Championship Game is probably over.
This is a fate suffered over the years by other programs, such as Southern Mississippi and Marshall. It took intervention by state legislators to force the "big time" in-state universities to play them.
Note, earlier, I said "as things stand." One possibility, which could result in a change, is if the Cotton Bowl becomes a BCS bowl after it moves to its new home. This would open two more BCS bowl spots.
At that time the non-BCS conferences would have to justify entry into the club.
The MWC would have to justify why it should be selected ahead of the other non-BCS conferences. "We play a better brand of football," is a non-starter.
Justification must be in economic terms. In other words, what do you bring to the table in terms of revenue generation, which justifies you getting a slice of the BCS pie on a regular basis?
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!