No. 1 - C-USA vs. BCS: Home 2-1; Away 4-5; OVERALL 6-6
Expected Losses: @Miami, @Alabama, @Michigan
Toss-up Losses: @Cal, West Virginia
Embarrassing Losses: @Rutgers (Army)
Expected Wins: @Baylor, UAB
Toss-up Wins: @Syracuse, @ Kentucky
Upset Wins: Ole Miss, Miss State, @West Virginia
C-USA has the best record vs. non-BCS teams, but they have not played the quality of opponents as the MWC has. Also, they have no wins over ranked teams.
No. 2 - MWC vs. BCS: Home 2-1; Away 3-7; OVERALL 5-8
Expected Losses: @Ohio State, @USC, @Texas A&M, @Oklahoma State
Toss-up Losses: Colorado, @Texas Tech, Kansas (Wyoming)
Embarrassing Losses: @Kansas (UNLV)
Expected Wins: @Northwestern, @California (CSU)
Toss-up Wins: Georgia Tech, California (Utah)
Upset Wins: Wisconsin.
Heartbreakers: Two of the losses against ranked teams were decided by three or fewer points. USC and Texas Tech games were "still in doubt" midway through the fourth quarters. MWC gets bonus points for having a win over a ranked team (on the road by UNLV).
Actually, I almost want to call it a tie because the MWC took on superior competition, had many "great showings" against top teams, and had a win over a ranked team.
Other "not-so-BCS-worthy" conferences:
No. 3 - MAC vs. BCS: Home 1-3; Away 2-11; OVERALL 3-14
No. 4 - WAC vs. BCS: Home 1-1; Away 1-12; OVERALL 2-13
No. 5 - Sun Belt vs. BCS: Home 1-0; Away 0-12; OVERALL 1-12
Totals: non-BCS vs. BCS: Home 7-6; Away 10-47; OVERALL 17-53
Notice a trend? Non-BCS schools – yes, even including the weakest of the weak teams – have a WINNING RECORD vs. BCS schools when they play in non-BCS stadiums.
Also, 13 home games compared to 57 away games is hardly a level playing field. That makes the overall 17-53 record not look all that bad. The fact that non-BCS teams have won more games (17) than they have had home games (13) is actually quite impressive.
Hypocrisy still abounds, however. Why is it the sports media and BCS-supporters can say that because the MWC has a losing record (5-8) vs. BCS teams, it implies inferiority? This is a very hypocritical argument. This year, the ACC is a whopping 2-5 in non-conference BCS vs. BCS games. That's a lot worse than the MWC or C-USA vs. BCS teams.
Also, the Big East Conference only sports a 3-4 record and the mighty SEC has a similar losing record at 4-5. How can these BCS-types expect better records from non-BCS conferences than they get themselves – especially considering the dearth of home games for non-BCS teams?
Extending the hypocritical trend, from 1996-2001 the Big East is 33-53 vs. non-Big East BCS teams. If you exclude Miami and Virginia Tech (which will be a reality sooner than later), their record is an abysmal 14-41.
Although the MWC and C-USA records vs. BCS teams during the same time period is nothing to get too excited about (27-64 & 50-121 respectively), they're not far from how the Big East has performed. Both conferences would also be far superior to a BEC with Miami and Virginia Tech. If you also factor in the home/away component, the top non-BCS conferences are right there at the competitive level.
I also find it funny the Big XII is only 39-46 against other BCS teams over this 1996-2001 period.
The top non-BCS conferences seem to be stepping it up this year. This timely winning will, at least, make a case for greater access to the BCS when re-negotiation discussions proceed. This may be a first step in "leveling the playing field". Hopefully, this will lead to a future playoff format where any deserving team can have a fair chance at winning a true national championship.
As it stands, no non-BCS team can play in the BSC national championship bowl game regardless to record and strength of schedule. There's a lot wrong with that picture that perhaps Congressional pressure, the CF-16 and the non-BCS conference presidents can correct and amend.
(c) copyright by TotalBlueSports.com