BCS Thoughts: What Does It Mean If Anything?
We are now into week three of “debacle” year 11, also known as the BCS era. While history claims otherwise, like it or not, earning a BCS bid is our primary measure of success. Sure there are the undefeated 2004s, some conference champs who are snubbed, Independents not named Notre Dame and those who play Big 12 teams in the first four weeks, but for the most part, are those who've failed to make it thus far considered lower on the football program totem pole? I dare to ask...
For the sake of brevity, I'll single out the big six conferences in D1 football, or, as some would say, the upper echelon of D1. In the 11 previous seasons there has been 37 out of 65 teams to reach the holy grail of post-season play out of the six major conferences.
My question is, are these teams considered inferior programs because of their absence BCS bowl games? Let me break it down...
Those who have failed by BCS standards:
Big Ten – Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan State, Northwestern
SEC – Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Mississippi State
Big 12 – Iowa State, Mizzou, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
Pac-10 – Arizona, Arizona State, Cal
Big East – USF, Rutgers, UConn
ACC – Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, UNC, NC State, Virginia
Now let me make myself abundantly clear..I'm not calling these programs out as inferior. I'm just wondering if, by BCS standards, are these teams considered irrelevant until they reach that landmark? More so, if this is how we are to measure success, then is it the best system possible, leaving out the likes of Texas Tech, Mizzou and Cal who has had tremendous success in recent years?
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?