Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Maize Wrote:That is why you are begging to join the Big East, that is why you are on this board.  You hope the Big East would take a Toledo and son that isn't happening. 

Right now just crunching the computer numbers and in reality the Big East is way ahead in the computer rankings in regards to the Anderson Sports, Billingsley Report and Sagrain Ratings.  Those 3 computer ratings all show a Big East lead over the MWC and that would even include Boise and Fresno.  I will post the results and links later.

According to the numbers it is pretty much on par with the Big 10 even though we all know the Big 10 is a better league then the Big East.  Let me put it this way, we are more in tune with the other BCS leagues then we are with the WAC, MAC, MWC and C-USA.

Exactly. Despite the talk from the bitter, angry people who went to bed dreaming that the Big East would lose their BCS bid but had those dreams shattered, the Big East is a BCS conference. And the Big East is in the same family as the Big Ten, ACC and other BCS conferences. Period.

This is from the Atlanta Journal Consitution on the qualifications for being a BCS Conference.
Conferences will be measured in three ways over a four-year stretch from 2004-07:

• Average ranking in the BCS standings for the conference's highest-rated team.

• Average ranking in the BCS computer standings for every member of the conference.

• Number of Top 25 teams.

I have no idea where the other stuff came from.

<a href='http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/0405/28bcs.html' target='_blank'>Atlanta Journal Consitution</a>

Maize Wrote:It is not fiasable to add 2 schools almost 2,000 miles away from the closest Big East school.  I could see the Tampa to Boise road trip now. &nbsp; :rolleyes:

AAACCCKKK!!! Sensory overload.

One trip a year across the country is no big deal.

I can appreciate that, in using the 4 year Sagarin ratings, I wasn't necessarily using the most accurate BCS model. The problem is, your numbers aren't accurate either because you've only used one year of statistics and the data change quite a bit from year to year. It's obviously arguable but in my view, Sagarin's four year average gives a truer picture of where the conferences are than does any combination of one year averages. Both are valuable, however.

It's a shame that the BCS doesn't make school and conference rankings available for at least the past four years. Then we could argue scenarios using agreed upon data. As it is, we are all making assumptions that are off base.

Yoda out...

Maize Wrote:This is from the Atlanta Journal Consitution on the qualifications for being a BCS Conference.
Conferences will be measured in three ways over a four-year stretch from 2004-07:

• Average ranking in the BCS standings for the conference's highest-rated team.

• Average ranking in the BCS computer standings for every member of the conference.

• Number of Top 25 teams.

I have no idea where the other stuff came from.

<a href='http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/0405/28bcs.html' target='_blank'>Atlanta Journal Consitution</a>

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has it wrong. I have the BCS document that was approved -- part of it anyway. The quote in Plan Bee comes directly from the BCS document.

Yoda out...

Yoda Wrote:

Maize Wrote:This is from the Atlanta Journal Consitution on the qualifications for being a BCS Conference.
Conferences will be measured in three ways over a four-year stretch from 2004-07:

• Average ranking in the BCS standings for the conference's highest-rated team.

• Average ranking in the BCS computer standings for every member of the conference.

• Number of Top 25 teams.

I have no idea where the other stuff came from.&nbsp;

<a href='http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/0405/28bcs.html' target='_blank'>Atlanta Journal Consitution</a>

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has it wrong. I have the BCS document that was approved -- part of it anyway. The quote in Plan Bee comes directly from the BCS document.

Yoda out...

Link it, because it really isn't anywhere in the net. BTW I would take the AJC over a self made website.

Yoda Wrote:

Maize Wrote:This is from the Atlanta Journal Consitution on the qualifications for being a BCS Conference.
Conferences will be measured in three ways over a four-year stretch from 2004-07:

• Average ranking in the BCS standings for the conference's highest-rated team.

• Average ranking in the BCS computer standings for every member of the conference.

• Number of Top 25 teams.

I have no idea where the other stuff came from.&nbsp;

<a href='http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/0405/28bcs.html' target='_blank'>Atlanta Journal Consitution</a>

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has it wrong. I have the BCS document that was approved -- part of it anyway. The quote in Plan Bee comes directly from the BCS document.

Yoda out...

This is from the Fresno Bee on 9 May 2005 on BCS AQ criteria.

The BCS is grading conferences with three measurements: the average rank of the league's highest-rated team in the BCS standings; the average rank in the BCS computer polls of all the league's teams; and the number of Top 25 teams.

<a href='http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/branch/story/10453192p-11250807c.html' target='_blank'>Fresno Bee 9 May 2005</a>

I guess that is two major media outlets that are wrong.

Maize Wrote:Link it, because it really isn't anywhere in the net. BTW I would take the AJC over a self made website.

I can't link it -- it was a fax. If you don't want to believe me, then fine -- that's your choice.

Yoda out...

No, just need more proof then that. As of right now it is basically your word against the AJC and Fresno Bee.

Also read you website and you had some real big assumptions. First off you only use the Sagrain ratings and I am not sure you used the correct one. And 2nd, I seriously doubt the Big East would do any expansion before 2010. I am starting to agree more with Top Coog on this, I doubt you will see Big East expansion especially after the new agreement with Notre Dame and the Big East.

Sagrain has 3 ratings, his basic rating, his predictor ratings and his Elo Cless Ratings. The BCS uses the Elo Cless ratings. Also you left out 5 other Computer Polls that are used by the BCS in the Sagrain Elo Cless, Billingsley Report, Dr. Peter Wolfe Ratings, Anderson Sports Ratings, Colley Matrix Ratings and the Massey Ratings. Use those 6 instead of one and your site would be much more accurate.

Yoda Wrote:

Maize Wrote:It is not fiasable to add 2 schools almost 2,000 miles away from the closest Big East school.  I could see the Tampa to Boise road trip now.   :rolleyes:

AAACCCKKK!!! Sensory overload.

One trip a year across the country is no big deal.

I can appreciate that, in using the 4 year Sagarin ratings, I wasn't necessarily using the most accurate BCS model. The problem is, your numbers aren't accurate either because you've only used one year of statistics and the data change quite a bit from year to year. It's obviously arguable but in my view, Sagarin's four year average gives a truer picture of where the conferences are than does any combination of one year averages. Both are valuable, however.

It's a shame that the BCS doesn't make school and conference rankings available for at least the past four years. Then we could argue scenarios using agreed upon data. As it is, we are all making assumptions that are off base.

Yoda out...

Yoda, the only reason why I use the 2004 data is very simple. Under the new agreement basically nothing else matters before 2004 except probably when it comes to any appeals process.

The BCS is ONLY looking at 2004-2007 so that is why I only used the 2004 data. What happened in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 really doesn't matter.

Maize Wrote:No, just need more proof then that. As of right now it is basically your word against the AJC and Fresno Bee.

Also read you website and you had some real big assumptions. First off you only use the Sagrain ratings and I am not sure you used the correct one. And 2nd, I seriously doubt the Big East would do any expansion before 2010. I am starting to agree more with Top Coog on this, I doubt you will see Big East expansion especially after the new agreement with Notre Dame and the Big East.

Sagrain has 3 ratings, his basic rating, his predictor ratings and his Elo Cless Ratings. The BCS uses the Elo Cless ratings. Also you left out 5 other Computer Polls that are used by the BCS in the Sagrain Elo Cless, Billingsley Report, Dr. Peter Wolfe Ratings, Anderson Sports Ratings, Colley Matrix Ratings and the Massey Ratings. Use those 6 instead of one and your site would be much more accurate.

As I said, I was striving to create a four year average so as to avoid the pitfall that I think you've fallen into -- basing conclusions on performances during a single season. Since I didn't have the BCS computer rankings available for four years, I chose to use Sagarin's four year averages.

That said, you're right -- I didn't use his Elo Cless Ratings.

As for when the Big East will expand, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't expand until 2010 or later -- precisely because, as I said, they don't have anybody that they can add that won't hurt their BCS calculations. You're out of Louisvilles. That, and to keep them away from the MWC, are the only reason to even consider Fresno and Boise. If Fresno and Boise were in New York, they'd be in the Big East by the end of the month. By the time that you find somebody to add, it will be too late.

Yoda out...

Not basing conclusion because under this new agreement we really can't make conclusions until the end of the 2006 season. Everything started over in 2004 and now we pretty much know where we stand after 1 year.

What happens in 2005, 2006 and 2007 is yet to be determined.

Maize Wrote:Yoda, the only reason why I use the 2004 data is very simple. Under the new agreement basically nothing else matters before 2004 except probably when it comes to any appeals process.

The BCS is ONLY looking at 2004-2007 so that is why I only used the 2004 data. What happened in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 really doesn't matter.

I understand. The problem is that you are using it as a predictive tool and one year doesn't give you enough data to do that. For example, back to my four year Sagarin averages...

Louisville has a higher four year average than Fresno State does. But Fresno had a higher Sagarin average than Louisville in three of those four years. Louisville broke the bank last season, however, scoring more than 20 points higher than the previous season -- and increasing their four year average to the point that the passed Fresno.

And now you are using the Louisvilles 2004 performance -- more than 10 Sagarin points higher than any of the other three years in the four year span -- as a predictive tool for how the Big East will perform in the future. That gives a very misleading picture. And bye the way, Utah's 2004 performance was similarly unrepresentative.

That's why I went for a four year average. It may not be the BCS but it gives a truer picture of where the schools and the conferences are.

Yoda out...

Yoda Wrote:

Maize Wrote:Yoda, the only reason why I use the 2004 data is very simple.&nbsp; Under the new agreement basically nothing else matters before 2004 except probably when it comes to any appeals process.

The BCS is ONLY looking at 2004-2007 so that is why I only used the 2004 data.&nbsp; What happened in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 really doesn't matter.

I understand. The problem is that you are using it as a predictive tool and one year doesn't give you enough data to do that. For example, back to my four year Sagarin averages...

Louisville has a higher four year average than Fresno State does. But Fresno had a higher Sagarin average than Louisville in three of those four years. Louisville broke the bank last season, however, scoring more than 20 points higher than the previous season -- and increasing their four year average to the point that the passed Fresno.

And now you are using the Louisvilles 2004 performance -- more than 10 Sagarin points higher than any of the other three years in the four year span -- as a predictive tool for how the Big East will perform in the future. That gives a very misleading picture. And bye the way, Utah's 2004 performance was similarly unrepresentative.

That's why I went for a four year average. It may not be the BCS but it gives a truer picture of where the schools and the conferences are.

Yoda out...

Uh, the Sagrain and other Computer Ratings are not predictive as far as I am concerned. If I wanted to use the Sagrain in that way I would use the Sagrain Predictor Ratings which is the last set of ratings on his site.

I am not using it in the manner, instead I am using to see where the Big East stands right here and right now in regards to the BCS.

I am not using it as to try to gauge what kind on success Louisville or any other school will have in the coming years. Situations have changed in regards to Louisville in which teams we play and what kind of recruits that are now either looking at or committing to Louisville-(BTW Big East membership has helped in both Football and Basketball Recruiting).

Right now we know where we stand in regards to this new artifical starting point of 2004 and that is the Big East is the 5th Strongest Conference in Division I College Football in regards to the computers. It is up to the members of the Big East to build upon this and not depend on bringing in schools to help boost it standing.

With Pitt returning many players, with Louisville also returning key players including the OLine and with the players WVU has brought into their program the Big East should be fine.

Maize Wrote:Uh, the Sagrain and other Computer Ratings are not predictive as far as I am concerned.  If I wanted to use the Sagrain in that way I would use the Sagrain Predictor Ratings which is the last set of ratings on his site.

You are predicting that the Big East will "be fine". That prediction is based principally upon the performance of the conference during a single season. You would get an entirely different set of numbers, and perhaps an entirely different conclusion, if you based them upon the prior year's performance. The point being, one year is not a sufficient period of time to draw upon in order to conclude that the Big East will "be fine".

The Sagarin Predictor Ratings have to do with head-to-head meetings of teams – they include consideration of the margin of victory, which the BCS doesn’t include because it wasn’t “politically correct

Yoda Wrote:[quote="Maize"] Uh, the Sagrain and other Computer Ratings are not predictive as far as I am concerned.  If I wanted to use the Sagrain in that way I would use the Sagrain Predictor Ratings which is the last set of ratings on his site.

You are predicting that the Big East will "be fine". That prediction is based principally upon the performance of the conference during a single season. You would get an entirely different set of numbers, and perhaps an entirely different conclusion, if you based them upon the prior year's performance. The point being, one year is not a sufficient period of time to draw upon in order to conclude that the Big East will be fine.

The Sagarin Predictor Ratings have to do with head-to-head meetings of teams – they include consideration of the margin of victory, which the BCS doesn’t include because it wasn’t “politically correct

The Big Ten's performance tends to support my contention that you can't use a single year to make judgements as to whether or not someone is in trouble. Nobody expects the Big Ten to repeat it's poor year of 2004 -- at least not sufficiently as to not qualify for an autobid.

And my contention that the Big East is in trouble isn't based upon your one year performance but on your four year performance. As I said, one year isn't sufficient to to make such judgments.

The last 15 posts in this thread have been made by you or I. I fear that we are boring everyone else.

Yoda out...

Yoda Wrote:[quote="Maize"] [quote="Yoda"] [quote="Maize"] Uh, the Sagrain and other Computer Ratings are not predictive as far as I am concerned.  If I wanted to use the Sagrain in that way I would use the Sagrain Predictor Ratings which is the last set of ratings on his site.

You are predicting that the Big East will "be fine". That prediction is based principally upon the performance of the conference during a single season. You would get an entirely different set of numbers, and perhaps an entirely different conclusion, if you based them upon the prior year's performance. The point being, one year is not a sufficient period of time to draw upon in order to conclude that the Big East will be fine.

The Sagarin Predictor Ratings have to do with head-to-head meetings of teams – they include consideration of the margin of victory, which the BCS doesn’t include because it wasn’t “politically correct

Mountain West's BCS destiny is tied to WAC


By John Branch / The Fresno Bee

(Updated Sunday, May 8, 2005, 5:45 AM)

Hidden deep in the complex mess of the latest Bowl Championship Series tinkering is a clear message that affects the future of Fresno State athletics.

If it wasn't obvious before, it is now: To go big time, the Mountain West Conference needs part of the Western Athletic Conference.

Mainly, it needs Fresno State and Boise State.

And Fresno State and Boise State need a couple more good football seasons to forever alter their athletic departments.

The BCS is changing the way it doles out the cherished automatic spots in its bowls. No longer are the Pac-10, Big Ten, Big 12, Southeastern, Atlantic Coast and Big East conferences guaranteed at least one spot.

Instead, conferences will be graded by the performance of their football teams over a four-year period that began last fall. In 2008 and 2009, and probably beyond, the five to seven conferences with the best ratings from 2004 to 2007 will get automatic entries and the easy money that comes with BCS inclusion.

Neither the Mountain West nor the WAC is strong enough to get an automatic BCS invite on its own. But the right combination probably gets one there.

The smartest combination looks to be a Mountain West with the addition of Fresno State and Boise State.

When the BCS changes were announced recently, much of the focus was on the Big East, weakened by the defections of Miami, Boston College and Virginia Tech to the ACC.

The Big East, we learned, will be allowed to include last year's Louisville team in its rating, even though the Cardinals played in Conference USA. Louisville finished 10th in the BCS standings and joins the Big East this season.

What's critical for Fresno State is the loophole that allows that.

"Your conference membership at the time of evaluation is what will be evaluated," BCS coordinator Kevin Weiberg told reporters. "So Louisville will count under that provision, assuming the report is accepted [by college presidents], in the Big East Conference. That is, assuming it is still there when the evaluation is taken four years from now."

Catch that? What matters during this four-year evaluation process is not what conference teams play in during 2004, '05, '06 and '07. Conferences will be judged by their rosters of teams in 2008.

That means conferences can do some last-minute shifting to improve their standing, grabbing good teams from other conferences to sneak into the BCS.

And that means the Mountain West -- the likeliest BCS candidate among the smaller conferences -- can wait a couple of years, keep an eye on Fresno State and Boise State and others, and get those schools into the conference just in time for the 2008 season to help snare a BCS automatic bid.

The BCS is grading conferences with three measurements: the average rank of the league's highest-rated team in the BCS standings; the average rank in the BCS computer polls of all the league's teams; and the number of Top 25 teams.

Last season, the first of four under the new scoring system, the Mountain West had Utah, the first team from a non-BCS conference to earn a spot in a BCS bowl. But the Utes lost their coach, Urban Meyer, and they might not start this season ranked in the polls.

Most of the rest of the Mountain West is decidedly average. Six teams had average computer rankings of between 50 and 90 among the 117 Division I teams.

The WAC is bogged down by five teams that last year were ranked 100th or worse in at least one BCS computer poll.

But it has two teams more consistent and more highly regarded than any in the Mountain West. Boise State was ranked ninth in last year's final BCS standings. Fresno State wasn't in the Top 25, but that's because the BCS doesn't recompute its rankings after the bowls -- something it needs to change.

Most of the early 2005 polls have Fresno State and Boise State in the Top 25, ahead of any teams from the Mountain West.

The Mountain West has treated expansion slowly and deliberately, partly because of an unwillingness to share revenues with more teams, partly out of the fear of accepting a school that quickly would embarrass it with scandal -- still a major reason an invitation for Fresno State never is guaranteed.

The Mountain West also has wanted to wait and see whether the ever-changing BCS landscape would force it to expand further in the coming years.

Now it knows.

If Fresno State can prove its horrible reputation can be mended, and the football team can parlay its momentum into greater success, the Mountain West won't be able to ignore the Bulldogs for long.

That's if BCS money is an issue.

And you know it is.

The columnist can be reached at jbranch@fresnobee.com or (559) 441-6217.

<a href='http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/branch/story/10453192p-11250807c.html' target='_blank'>http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/branch...-11250807c.html</a>

I could easily see the MWC making itself into a BCS conference by adding the rights teams. If I were in charge, I would go after 3 teams, BOISE ST AND FRESNO ST from the WAC and UTEP from CUSA.

Then I would create 2 divisions for this megaconference with a playoff game to be held in either California or Dallas.

A logical breakdown might go like this, but it would put the toughest teams in the Western division.

WEST: BYU, UTAH, BOISE ST, UNLV, FRESNO STATE, AND SAN DIEGO STATE.

EAST: UTEP, TCU, NEW MEXICO, COL ST, AIR FORCE, WYOMING.

A more balanced set-up might look like this:

1 division: FRESNO ST, SAN DIEGO ST, UNLV, BOISE ST, WYOMING, AIR FORCE.
2 division: UTAH, BYU, COL ST, NEW MEXICO, UTEP, TCU.

With this expansion the MWC would definitely enhance it bcs chances in several ways.

1. Their highest rated team would likely have a higher average over the 4-year evaluation period. UTAH earned 6th last year, but BOISE STATE was 9th, and in any given year might have the higher average.
2. Average ranking for every member of the conference should increase. BOISE ST, 11-1; FRESNO ST, 9-3; AND UTEP, 8-4 would invariably rank the conference average.
3. The number of top 25 teams would increase also. Both Utah and Boise St were bcs top 25 teams lasy year. Additionally, Fresno St was ranked in both the AP and Coaches' poll. Instead of just one top 25 team, the new MWC could have 2 or 3 every year.

I think the MWC expansion I mentioned above would create a formidable conference.

I'm not so sure about UTEP. In the old WAC -- and even in the new one -- they've historically been the doormat. For literally years, they were number one in the "Bottom Ten". They've had one good season under Mike Price but I'm not certain that they can sustain his success when he leaves -- and he will eventually leave. From a travel partner standpoint, New Mexico and TCU are already matched up -- three schools in that subregion would be a problem. The MWC claims to be all about rivalries and UNLV's rival is Nevada -- I think they'd be school #12.

But let's assume that you are correct and the MWC adds those three schools and creates this "formidable conference". The question then becomes, what does the Big East do to keep up with the MWC? Currently, at least, nobody in the east is even close to the quality of play of Boise State and Fresno State. From a football standpoint anyeay, the MWC will have added two Louisville's -- and you are all out of Louisvilles in the east.

As I've said before, the only way to keep the MWC from passing the Big East by is to add their expansion candidates (for football only) before they can. That separates you from the MWC and blocks what will almost certainly be an expansion move on their part that separates the MWC from the Big East.

Yoda out...

I could be wrong, but I think the bcs is looking more toward inclusion, rather than exclusion. I do believe that Congress throws a little scare into them.

The bcs has added 1 bowl game bringing the spots to 10 for teams. With 2 more spots, the bcs could give up one and still have an extra for their existing teams.

Politically, the bcs can not afford to cut the BE loose. They would lose the states of CN, NJ, NY, AND WV. That's 8 senators and bunches of representatives.

Still, on a political bent, adding the MWC with the configuration I mentioned, would add these states: NV, UT, ID, WY, AND NM. That's 10 senatorial votes. I'm uncertain as to how politically astute the bcs is, but I do feel that if too much exclusion remains, Congress will eventually have to rule on the monopoly aspects of the BCS.