Doesnt this argument go against itself? The Pac-10 (since I know it the best, I'll use it as an example) went 5-0 last winter in postseason bowls. I'm pretty sure four of them weren't named USC. So what would it take for people to notice a conference with quality wins outside of conference (along with quality losses) to make these teams noticed more?
Move the Pac-10 to the East Coast. It's called "East Coast Bias" for a reason, more than 2/3 of the voters are not from Western States, more than half (as of a couple of years ago) are East of the Mississippi.
It sounds to me that your argument is that not only must a team be in a quality conference (or USC or ND), but they must have some aspect of a storied winning history pre-BCS, post-circa 1970, preferably with a few national championships under it's belt. Sounds to me that you could be in one of those quality conferences, have a great no-loss or 1-loss season and still be dissed just because you don't have a history pre-BCS. This makes a BSU championship game anytime soon a near impossibility.
Yes, that's actually true. For some reason, football is very much the anti-basketball sport. The general media/fanbase *hates* underdogs, it's all about having a built in tradition of winning. There is a strong sense of entitlement from the ruling elite about needing to"earn" your place in the upper ranks.


















Urban Meyer's new contract
ensures one thing above all else -- the two-time national champion coach won't be bolting for another program anytime soon, writes ESPN.com's Chris
Low.
To put Meyer's new
contract into perspective, we crunched his salary using his 2008 stats to determine his payouts for different milestones.