Originally Posted by Rock Chalk
I have a great memory and the MWC does not consistently put up 3+ good teams year in and year out.
Maybe to ****ty non-BCS conferences they put up good teams every year.
3+ good teams year in and year out? So what's the criteria for a good team? The final standings? The teams they play? The fact they play in a certain conference? Because I'm looking at the final standings for MWC and they are as good if not better than the other conferences.
You're deluded if you think the BCS conferences play better talent. Overall they may play one good team depending on the year. Alabama, from the SEC, was thought to be #1 for quite awhile this season, Utah shellacked them, then all of a sudden they weren't really that good. What's the problem with giving teams that prove themselves a chance at what other schools get a chance at. And non-BCS schools might just generate a lot more income if they were given the same chance. Most of what's being said here by everyone is opinion.