Are we meeting the bcs criteria?

There is multiple criteria.

One is having your top-ranked BCS team to have an average top-12 ranking in the final BCS rankings; we are fine with that:

2004: Louisville #10
2005: West Virginia #11
2006: Louisville #6

There are some other criteria too, like the performance of the entire conference. I searched a little but couldn

I believe one is to avg in top six conf via the comp rankings.

[quote="CardHouse"]There is multiple criteria.

One is having your top-ranked BCS team to have an average top-12 ranking in the final BCS rankings; we are fine with that:

2004: Louisville #10
2005: West Virginia #11
2006: Louisville #6

There are some other criteria too, like the performance of the entire conference. I searched a little but couldn

TIGER-PAUL Wrote:Are we meeting the bcs criteria?

Yes.

We are 5th in Top-Ranked BCS team - ahead of the ACC.

We are 6th in Overall BCS Strength of the League (have some work to do here, but did show much improvement this year - but significantly behind the other 5 BCS leagues).

We are 5th in Top 25 Ranked Team Criteria (assuming Yoda's information is correct) - ahead of the ACC and just behind the B12 residing in 4th place in this criteria.

Let's hope we can mirror this year in 2007.

Cheers,
Neil

[quote="Maize"][quote="CardHouse"]There is multiple criteria.

One is having your top-ranked BCS team to have an average top-12 ranking in the final BCS rankings; we are fine with that:

2004: Louisville #10
2005: West Virginia #11
2006: Louisville #6

There are some other criteria too, like the performance of the entire conference. I searched a little but couldn

[quote="cuseroc"][quote="Maize"][quote="CardHouse"]There is multiple criteria.

One is having your top-ranked BCS team to have an average top-12 ranking in the final BCS rankings; we are fine with that:

2004: Louisville #10
2005: West Virginia #11
2006: Louisville #6

There are some other criteria too, like the performance of the entire conference. I searched a little but couldn

[quote="Krocker Krapp"][quote="cuseroc"][quote="Maize"][quote="CardHouse"]There is multiple criteria.

One is having your top-ranked BCS team to have an average top-12 ranking in the final BCS rankings; we are fine with that:

2004: Louisville #10
2005: West Virginia #11
2006: Louisville #6

There are some other criteria too, like the performance of the entire conference. I searched a little but couldn

[quote="Krocker Krapp"][quote="cuseroc"][quote="Maize"][quote="CardHouse"]There is multiple criteria.

One is having your top-ranked BCS team to have an average top-12 ranking in the final BCS rankings; we are fine with that:

2004: Louisville #10
2005: West Virginia #11
2006: Louisville #6

There are some other criteria too, like the performance of the entire conference. I searched a little but couldn

Just for comparison, does anyone know the three year average of the Mountain West conference?

[quote="cuseroc"][quote="Maize"][quote="CardHouse"]There is multiple criteria.

One is having your top-ranked BCS team to have an average top-12 ranking in the final BCS rankings; we are fine with that:

2004: Louisville #10
2005: West Virginia #11
2006: Louisville #6

There are some other criteria too, like the performance of the entire conference. I searched a little but couldn

[quote="CatsClaw"][quote="cuseroc"][quote="Maize"][quote="CardHouse"]There is multiple criteria.

One is having your top-ranked BCS team to have an average top-12 ranking in the final BCS rankings; we are fine with that:

2004: Louisville #10
2005: West Virginia #11
2006: Louisville #6

There are some other criteria too, like the performance of the entire conference. I searched a little but couldn

WacoBearcat Wrote:Just for comparison, does anyone know the three year average of the Mountain West conference?

I have Mountain West's 3-year average Top-to-Bottom BCS Ranking as 69.26

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Omni.

There is quite a gap between the BCS conferences and the MWC. That helps me put the Big East's numbers into better context.

Thanks Neil, we are in good shape but we cannot rest on our butts. We need another year like this to strengthen our rankings.

Thanks Neil for compiling the rankings......

Anyone know which ranking counts for the ACC in 2005 - Miami's rank of #8 or FSU's rank of #22?

These are the rankings I have for 2004, 2005, and 2006:

Pac 10: 1, 1, 5
Big 10: 12, 3, 1
Big 12: 2, 2, 10
SEC: 3, 7, 2
ACC: 8, 8, 14
BE: 10, 11, 6
MWC: 6, 14, 20
WAC: 9, 26*, 8

* The WAC champ was NOT listed in the top-25 BCS ranking so I used a value of 26

Average:
Pac 10: 2.3
SEC: 4
Big 12: 4.7
Big 10: 5.3
BE: 9
ACC: 10
MWC: 13.3
WAC: 14.3

Hoquista Wrote:Thanks Neil for compiling the rankings......

Anyone know which ranking counts for the ACC in 2005 - Miami's rank of #8 or FSU's rank of #22?

For this criteria, it's the highest ranked team, not champion's rank, so Miami's #8 is what will be used.

Quote:These are the rankings I have for 2004, 2005, and 2006:

Pac 10: 1, 1, 5
Big 10: 12, 3, 1
Big 12: 2, 2, 10
SEC: 3, 7, 2
ACC: 8, 8, 14
BE: 10, 11, 6
MWC: 6, 14, 20
WAC: 9, 26*, 8

* The WAC champ was NOT listed in the top-25 BCS ranking so I used a value of 26

Jerry Palm's site does a BCS ranking beyond the Top 25 where Boise finished at 29. That's the number I use.

Quote:Average:
Pac 10: 2.3
SEC: 4
Big 12: 4.7
Big 10: 5.3
BE: 9
ACC: 10
MWC: 13.3
WAC: 14.3

That's what I have, except for the WAC which I have 15.3 because I used the 29 rather than 26.

Cheers,
Neil

in the case of auto bid qualifications, the highest ranked bcs team of the conf in the final rankings is used. doesn't have to be the champ