wow, i've never seen so many wrong statements or half truths in a post before, i'm not going to even try to correct them all. but for the record universisty of south florida is in the big east not ucf and we destroyed your precious tcu team last year in fort worth with our worse team in our history with a glorified div Ia recruit playing qb. it's funny how only mountain west teams can improve, meanwhile all big east teams should just drop down to div III since we obviously can't compete :rolleyes:

Louisville easily beat BYU when we played them in the Liberty BowL!

Quote:This year, Boise should be better than Louisville, Fresno should be better than Pitt, BYU should be better than WV, New Mexico should be better than SU, Wyo should be better than UConn, TCU should be better than UCF, etc- we match up very very well head to head

If the Mountain West is as superior top to bottom as this statement would make it seem, then your BCS numbers will reflect it at the end of the year.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think was the better league last year, and why did the numbers side with the Big East?

Quote:All three polls count for 2004, and two of those and the replacement poll will be the ones counting from now on.

The Coaches Poll, Computer Polls, and Replacement Poll make up the BCS poll. The BCS poll is the one that will be used for determining BCS worthiness (or unworthiness). We are looking at the BCS poll with the numbers.

Quote:which is basically a mid-season poll (before Pitt got stomped), we are referencing the end of season polls. Both will be looked at.

I would hardly call a poll released after 11 of the 12 games have been played a 'mid-season poll.' And I don't see why you think both pre and post bowl polls will be looked at, as the BCS has never released an official post bowl poll. When the requirements from the old BCS agreements were checked, only the pre-bowl poll was looked at, there is no indication that this will change.

Quote:wow, i've never seen so many wrong statements or half truths in a post before

You're telling me. I considered refuting some of them (Boise over Louisville? Fresno over Pitt? BYU over WVU? I would say these games are crap shoots at best), but someone who is so certain of his conferences football superiority is not worth arguing with.

<span style='color:blue'>

Who Rich Tellshow is, I have no idea. Were his rankings a part of any official poll last year? But here are his rankings and the numbers he gave.

Comp Coach's AP BCS
Team W L Ave Rank Pts BCS Rank Pts BCS Points

5 Utah 12 0 0.84 5 1300 0.852 4 1438 0.885 0.8591
11 Boise St 11 1 0.63 13 792 0.519 12 888 0.546 0.5653
25 Fresno St 9 3 -0.10 22 206 0.135 22 203 0.125 0.0533
37 New Mexico 7 5 -0.42 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.1400
47 Wyoming 7 5 -0.93 38 2 0.001 37 0 0.000 -0.3096
53 Brigham Young 5 6 -1.07 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.3567
72 Air Force 5 6 -1.84 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.6133
73 TCU 5 6 -1.85 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.6167
79 Colorado St 4 7 -2.06 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.6867
81 San Diego St 4 7 -2.21 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.7367
98 UNLV 2 9 -2.85 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.9500

52.82 MWC-11 71 55 -1.08 34.45 209.09 0.14 30.36 229.90 0.14 -0.27

7 Louisville 11 1 0.71 7 1166 0.765 6 1261 0.776 0.7502
30 Pittsburgh 8 4 -0.26 28 45 0.030 25 99 0.061 -0.0565
32 West Virginia 8 4 -0.27 26 96 0.063 30 26 0.016 -0.0637
41 Connecticut 8 4 -0.68 36 4 0.003 33 11 0.007 -0.2235
50 Syracuse 6 6 -1.03 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.3433
55 Cincinnati 7 5 -1.07 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.3567
83 Rutgers 4 7 -2.26 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.7533
85 South Florida 4 7 -2.36 43 0 0.000 37 0 0.000 -0.7867

47.88 BE-8 56 38 -0.90 33.63 163.88 0.11 30.25 174.63 0.11 -0.23

I'm a little surprised with the results. While the MWC is definitely stronger at the top, the BE is showing here that they are a little stronger by the averages.

</span>

eldermars,

If you take out Boise and Fresno the BE had a better year.

I think the numbers you have are for after the bowls. In the past the BCS was mainly for picking teams for the bowls so they ended after the regular season. I wonder since they are now ranking the conferences with the BCS if they will now have an "after the bowl" BCS and include the bowl games.

Quote:If you take out Boise and Fresno the BE had a better year.

Leave them in and the Big East still had a better year. Big East averaged 47.88, 11 Team Mountain West, 52.82.

Quote:Were his rankings a part of any official poll last year?

He uses the exact same formula as the BCS, compare his archives to the official ones at BCSfootball.org.

eldermars Wrote:<span style='color:blue'>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Apples and oranges.&nbsp; You guys all reference the BCS poll, which is basically a mid-season poll (before Pitt got stomped), we are referencing the end of season polls.&nbsp; Both will be looked at.
&nbsp; </span>

The objective of BCS ranking was designed to gauge teams’ worthiness to participate in the BCS bowls, especially matching up #1 and # 2 for championship game. You don’t need that kind of system ranking after BCS bowl games. It's not mid-season but end of regular season.

eldermars Wrote:<span style='color:blue'>
Cuseroc- I see your point that I may be jumping the gun, but if you don't think the MWC will add both Boise and Fresno State -including their last 4 years worth of top rankings- by the end of the 2007 season, you're betting all your money on the odds of a Royal Flush (just some poker talk for y'all). You can't say that the B-12 isn't better than the Big East just because they have more teams. Fans today are of the mind that if you don't have a full 12 teams it's simply because you can't find 12 teams good enough to join you (the Big Ten hasn't gone to 12 yet because they can't find a team good enough that will accept their offer, likewise in the past the MWC has stayed at 8 because no one else in the west non-bcs was good enough. That gap has been bridged by the 2 schools previously mentioned).

Louisville and Pitt may be improved this year, WV and SU could take a step back, and I don't imagine anyone else emerging yet. BSU and FSU will both be better, Utah will take a step back, but BYU, TCU, New Mexico, and Wyoming are all set to have good years, with Air Force and Colorado State being much improved. Marshall and Bowling Green would be good adds for you guys, USM or Miami(OH) could be good adds by then too. We will see how BYU does against Boston College during their opening game this year. By the end of last year, BC had more wins over the previous 4 seasons than any other team remaining in your conference. Losing them this year should hurt you guys big. SU and UConn were weak last year, much more so than North Carolina who Utah torched. This year, Boise should be better than Louisville, Fresno should be better than Pitt, BYU should be better than WV, New Mexico should be better than SU, Wyo should be better than UConn, TCU should be better than UCF, etc- we match up very very well head to head.

Maize- What poll did I post bro? I referenced the BCS poll, the end of season ESPN and AP polls, and this season's pre-season polls. I didn't post any, and I only referenced Boise State's BCS ranking (the other two were higher after their bowl games, like Louisville). All three polls count for 2004, and two of those and the replacement poll will be the ones counting from now on. The BCS poll isn't end of season and thus is only a part of it all. This puts the Big East far behind the MWC. Market share will only be used in a tiebreaker situation (where they could go either way, otherwise there would be lawsuits).

Apples and oranges. You guys all reference the BCS poll, which is basically a mid-season poll (before Pitt got stomped), we are referencing the end of season polls. Both will be looked at.

I see the most predictable outcome being neither getting an auto-bid, with the 2nd most likely being both getting a bid.
</span>

Elders, you were making some valid points that I was actually saying to myself "this guy knows what he's talking about". But the point about a conference not going to 12 because there are not enough good teams to go to 12, well what about the pac10? From the way that your talking, there are some good teams in the MWC who would go to the pac10 in a NY minute. Are they not good enough teams for the Pac 10 to invite?

And how does losing BC with their #21 ranking and 9 wins really hurt us when we have Louisville with their #7 ranking and 11 wins coming in?

And what makes you think that all of these MWC schools that had losing records last season (TCU,BYU, Wyoming and New Mexico)are going to be better than WV, Pitt, Syracuse, Uconn etc.. when all of these schools were bowl teams? It sounds like more of you wishing than anything. :)

And finally, the only bcs poll that matters to the bcs as far as rankings go is the final bcs.

eldermars Wrote:<span style='color:blue'>

&nbsp; Who Rich Tellshow is, I have no idea.&nbsp; Were his rankings a part of any official poll last year?&nbsp; But here are his rankings and the numbers he gave.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Comp&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Coach's&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; AP&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; BCS&nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; Team&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; W&nbsp; L&nbsp; &nbsp; Ave&nbsp; Rank&nbsp; Pts&nbsp; &nbsp; BCS&nbsp; Rank&nbsp; Pts&nbsp; &nbsp; BCS&nbsp; Points

&nbsp; 5&nbsp; Utah&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 12&nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.84&nbsp; &nbsp; 5&nbsp; 1300&nbsp; 0.852&nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; 1438&nbsp; 0.885&nbsp; 0.8591
11&nbsp; Boise St&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; 1&nbsp; 0.63&nbsp; 13&nbsp; 792&nbsp; 0.519&nbsp; 12&nbsp; 888&nbsp; 0.546&nbsp; 0.5653
25&nbsp; Fresno St&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 9&nbsp; 3&nbsp; -0.10&nbsp; 22&nbsp; 206&nbsp; 0.135&nbsp; 22&nbsp; 203&nbsp; 0.125&nbsp; 0.0533
37&nbsp; New Mexico&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7&nbsp; 5&nbsp; -0.42&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.1400
47&nbsp; Wyoming&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7&nbsp; 5&nbsp; -0.93&nbsp; 38&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2&nbsp; 0.001&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.3096
53&nbsp; Brigham Young&nbsp; 5&nbsp; 6&nbsp; -1.07&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.3567
72&nbsp; Air Force&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5&nbsp; 6&nbsp; -1.84&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.6133
73&nbsp; TCU&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5&nbsp; 6&nbsp; -1.85&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.6167
79&nbsp; Colorado St&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; 7&nbsp; -2.06&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.6867
81&nbsp; San Diego St&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; 7&nbsp; -2.21&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.7367
98&nbsp; UNLV&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2&nbsp; 9&nbsp; -2.85&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.9500

52.82 MWC-11 71 55 -1.08 34.45 209.09 0.14 30.36 229.90 0.14 -0.27

&nbsp; 7&nbsp; Louisville&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; 1&nbsp; 0.71&nbsp; &nbsp; 7&nbsp; 1166&nbsp; 0.765&nbsp; &nbsp; 6&nbsp; 1261&nbsp; 0.776&nbsp; 0.7502
30&nbsp; Pittsburgh&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8&nbsp; 4&nbsp; -0.26&nbsp; 28&nbsp; &nbsp; 45&nbsp; 0.030&nbsp; 25&nbsp; &nbsp; 99&nbsp; 0.061&nbsp; -0.0565
32&nbsp; West Virginia&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8&nbsp; 4&nbsp; -0.27&nbsp; 26&nbsp; &nbsp; 96&nbsp; 0.063&nbsp; 30&nbsp; &nbsp; 26&nbsp; 0.016&nbsp; -0.0637
41&nbsp; Connecticut&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8&nbsp; 4&nbsp; -0.68&nbsp; 36&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; 0.003&nbsp; 33&nbsp; &nbsp; 11&nbsp; 0.007&nbsp; -0.2235
50&nbsp; Syracuse&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6&nbsp; 6&nbsp; -1.03&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.3433
55&nbsp; Cincinnati&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7&nbsp; 5&nbsp; -1.07&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.3567
83&nbsp; Rutgers&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; 7&nbsp; -2.26&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.7533
85&nbsp; South Florida&nbsp; &nbsp; 4&nbsp; 7&nbsp; -2.36&nbsp; 43&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; 37&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; 0.000&nbsp; -0.7867

47.88 BE-8 56 38 -0.90 33.63 163.88 0.11 30.25 174.63 0.11 -0.23

&nbsp; I'm a little surprised with the results.&nbsp; While the MWC is definitely stronger at the top, the BE is showing here that they are a little stronger by the averages.

</span>

Elders; How can you refer to MWC being stronger at the top and you have Boise and Fresno in there? They are still in the WAC. The only time that I ever read about them going to the MWC is on a mesage board like this one and its usually a MWC fan that says it. Until there is something official from the MWC, those 2 schools are still in the WAC and the BE is still better than the MWC. Everything else is speculation which is a lot of fun when fb season and bb season are done. :)

<span style='color:blue'>
I apologize that I keep coming back, but we have a good conversation going on and I think I may be being enlightened. By the way, it's nice to have your opinion over at the MWCBoard Maize.

It seems that I may be wrong. I only remember the BCS Top 16 ever mattering in the past, so when they said that the Top 25 FINISHES would be a contributing part of the conference analysis, I figured that meant end of postseason AP & ESPN polls. I could very easily be wrong on that point, the whole thing just seems so muddy and confusing so far (nothing has been put into specific, mathematical terms just yet... hopefully soon, for the sake of equity).

Thanks for your answer nflsucks. But if the nfl really does suck, does that mean you don't care how Alex Smith and Carlos Rodgers do at San Francisco and Green Bay? I know it's not college ball, but professional leagues still have their uses.

Cuseroc- If there were 2 glaringly obvious teams for the Pac-10 to take, don't you think they already would have taken them? (*warning* rant coming on) The remaining Cal teams (Fresno State, SDSU, San Jose State) are counted out because of conference diversity and political purposes. Hawaii costs too much for travel, and is mediocre atheltically and academically. Any other school requires eastern expansion. Both Nevada schools are bad academically and bad in football. Boise State and Wyoming are too small (academics and athletic budgets/attendence). Colorado/Colorado State/Air Force are decent fits, they have good athletics and good academics but may be too far east. Add also Colorado's major embarassments lately and CSU's recent down years in football. Air Force is actually removing 5000 seats from their stadium to increase the percentage filled. New Mexico is also too far east, but with a little lesser athletic and academic performances than the Colorados. Texas I think is out because of the travel costs and geographic non-fit. Utah and BYU are a fit, but a controversial one. The Cal schools bypassed would be mad and want to take legal action against their 4 brethren. The 2 Nevada schools would have to be leapfrogged. The state of Utah is a perfect fit as far as being in the middle of their north/south conference and proximity to Arizona though. BYU is a highly ranked undergraduate school, while Utah is a highly praised graduate school. BYU consistently has the highest rated overall non-BCS academic program in the nation (see track and field, volleyball, rugby, women's soccer, etc, as well as tons of football history), while Utah has their recent football success, a long tradition of basketball success, and national prominence in other sports like rugby and women's gymnastics. Both have good athletic budgets, high attendence and great facilities, and lots of local and national fans willing to travel to games. Also, they were both in the old WAC with the 2 Arizona schools. Rivalries would form quickly and vehemontly(sp?) with the others. Still, academic institutions like Stanford and USC would oppose anyone they see as inferior. Politically liberal schools like Cal and UCLA would oppose BYU as a religious and conservative school. And both of the Oregon and Washington school sets want to guarantee their California recruiting, especially in southern Cali, and thus are against any expansion, ESPECIALLY if involves forming divisions (as they would most likely be stuck in a north division away from USC and UCLA). So despite some good candidates, I would say that right now to a picky conference, No, no two schools/teams are good enough for them according to what they want. BYU/Utah could happen someday though.

Moving on... losing BC hurts you guys because, well, look at Rutgers. Who is better? Losing them hurts your strength at the top and your overall strength.

BYU and TCU have had a strong year in the last few years, but were one win short of a bowl last season (BYU lost to three undefeated teams in USC, Boise State, and Utah... they also plyed Notre Dame and Stanford out-of-conference). Both New Mexico and Wyoming made a bowl, with Wyoming beating UCLA. Besides Utah, it was a very very DOWN year in the Mountain West. Expect this year to be a big UP year. Though last year could have been a down year for you guys as well (by the way, when I was going through my hed to head matchups for this season, many of those would be very close games, where I see your #1 beating our #2, your #2 beating our #3, your #3 beating our #4, etc). My only problem with your "bowl teams" is that 1st look at your scheduling --UCF? Buffalo? Ohio? E. Mich? Army? E. Car? Fl. Atl? Liberty? Youngstown? Villanova? Flo. A&M? Wofford?-- and 2nd look at the bottom of your conference last year (Temple/Rutgers)

Oh, and you guys need to make me a MWC icon button. Just kidding!
</span>

<span style='color:blue'>
The Citadel vs. Florida State, Sept. 10th & Florida A&M vs. South Florida, Sept. 10. Alternative suggestion: South Florida vs. Florida State. The Noles are doing it wrong scheduling the cupcake after Miami. Considering the other two non-conference games are against Syracuse and at Florida, it's not fair to play another brutally tough game. Giving South Florida a shot at the big time would generate plenty of Sunshine State interest.

VMI vs. Duke, Sept. 17th & Villanova vs. Rutgers, Sept. 10. Alternative suggestion: Duke vs. Rutgers. There's a reason the Duke basketball team always plays in New York and is ecstatic to play tournament games in New Jersey: alumni. A trip to Rutgers would make sense for fans of both teams and give these two traditionally downtrodden programs an even matchup.

Youngstown State vs. Pittsburgh, Sept. 24 & Eastern Illinois vs. BYU, Sept. 10. Alternative suggestion: Pittsburgh vs. BYU. Tyler Palko and Pittsburgh vs. the suddenly strong Cougar offense would make for a high scoring shootout.

Western Carolina vs. Cincinnati, Sept. 17 & Idaho State vs. Kentucky, Sept. 10. Alternative suggestion: Kentucky vs. Cincinnati. It's less than 90 miles between the two schools. There's no reason these two shouldn't be playing every year.

Liberty vs. Connecticut, Sept. 10 & Tennessee Tech vs. Northern Illinois, Sept. 17. Alternative suggestion: Northern Illinois vs. Connecticut. Each program has had to battle for bowl respect over the last few years and each finally got it. This wouldn't make a bad post-season game.

</span>

No need to apollogize for coming over. You are a classy visitor. This is interesting debating with you about our 2 conferences although I could have done without the last post, which could be mistaken for a novel :) .

But i disagree with you about losing BC hurts us. You forget that Temple is gone and the 2 schools (USF/Cincy) coming in both have performed a whole lot better than Temple has, in fact they improve the conference a great deal. With those programs replacing Temple for the better, and Louisville more than replacing BC, the conference has a higher rating than if BC and Temple were still here.

Dont laugh when I say this, but Rutgers is much improved. I watched their spring game. There is more speed at Rutgers now than I have ever seen before. If there coach can become a game day coach, lookout.

Going to the Big East board has helped me figure things out. The math is all coming into place now. #1, Each conference will be measured according to its member teams going into the 2008 season, #2 Conferences will be measured from the previous 4 seasons (2004-2007), #3 Measurements will be based on 1A- Average BCS rank of top team, 2A- Average overall BCS rank of conference top to bottom, and 3A- Number of teams in Top 25 BCS poll, #4 The top 5 conferences based on at least 2 of the previous 3 measurements get an auto-bid, and #5 The 6th and 7th place conferences may or may not get an auto-bid based on how they compare to the first 5 and their general tv worth and national audience appeal.

The BCS polls are final, they are pre-bowl and they will not be changed, even though the individual elements change every year. Just be glad they are no longer Top 15 only, but Top 25.

If we had to decide auto-bids for the 2005 season NOW, over the last 4 years, assuming for the current conference alignment (and including Boise State and Fresno State to the MWC) for Top BCS team and # of Top 25 BCS teams per conference, we get:

2004 Top 25
P-10 USC 1st 3
B-12 Oklahoma 2nd 5
SEC Auburn 3rd 5
MWC Utah 6th 2
ACC Virginia Tech 8th 4
BE Louisville 10th 2
B-10 Iowa 12th 4

2003 Top 15
B-12 Oklahoma 1st 2
ACC Miami 2nd 3
SEC Georgia 4th 2
B-10 Ohio State 6th 4
P-10 USC 7th 2
MAC N. Illinois 10th 1
MWC TCU 14th 1

2002 Top 15
ACC Miami 1st 3
B-10 Ohio State 2nd 3
SEC Georgia 3rd 1
P-10 USC 4th 2
B-12 Oklahoma 7th 4
INDY Notre Dame 9th 1
BE West Virginia 15th 1

2001 Top 15
ACC Miami 1st 2
B-12 Nebraska 2nd 4
P-10 Oregon 4th 4
SEC Florida 5th 4
B-10 Illinois 8th 1

2001-2004 OVERALL:
1st Big 12
Ave. #1 Ranking: 2+1+7+2=12/4= 3
# of Top 25 Teams: 5+2+4+4= 15
2nd ACC
8+2+1+1=12/4= 3
4+3+3+2= 12
3rd SEC
3+4+3+5=15/4= 3.75
5+2+1+4= 12
4th PAC 10
1+7+4+4=16/4= 4
3+2+2+4= 11
5th Big Ten
12+6+2+8=28/4= 7
4+4+3+1= 12

6th MWC
6+14+16+16=52/4= 13
2+1+0+0= 3
7th Big East
10+16+15+16=57/4= 14.25
2+0+1+0= 3
8th Indy
26+16+9+16=67/4= 16.75
0+0+1+0= 1
9th MAC
26+10+16+16=68/4= 17
0+1+0+0= 1

Based on these findings, the MWC is the #6 conference in the nation but undeserving of an auto-bid. This is basically what I expect the 2008 findings to look like, but with slightly bigger numbers at the bottom and slightly smaller numbers at the top.

In answer to why the BE had more teams over .500 last year..it would be interesting to see who each team in each conference played.

If last year was anything like this year's BE scheduling than I think we may have our answer.

This year the BE plays 7 D1AA teams for easy wins and Buffalo 3 times. among the 8 bottom 25 teams they play.

MWC plays 6-8 bottom D1 teams and there is 1 D1AA game.

MWC-9 against bottom 25 D1 teams and D1AA teams:

*=bottom 25 D1 teams
**= D1AA teams (anyone else think Liberty and Wofford are D2?)

New Mex St*
San Jose St*
@SMU*
Army*
Idaho*
@Utah St*
Utah St*
UL Monroe*
(8)

E Illinois**
(1)

BE-8 against bottom 25 D1 teams and D1AA teams:

UCF *
Buffalo*
Buffalo*
Buffalo*
Ohio*
E Mich*
@Army*
(8)

W Carolina**
Liberty **
Florida Atl**
Youngstn St **
Villanova**
Florida A&M**
Wofford (D2?)**
(7)

loboj Wrote:In answer to why the BE had more teams over .500 last year..it would be interesting to see who each team in each conference played.

If last year was anything like this year's BE scheduling than I think we may have our answer.

This year the BE plays 7 D1AA teams for easy wins and Buffalo 3 times. among the 8 bottom 25 teams they play.

MWC plays 6-8 bottom D1 teams and there is 1 D1AA game.

MWC-9 against bottom 25 D1 teams and D1AA teams:

*=bottom 25 D1 teams
**= D1AA teams (anyone else think Liberty and Wofford are D2?)

New Mex St*
San Jose St*
@SMU*
Army*
Idaho*
@Utah St*
Utah St*
UL Monroe*
(8)

E Illinois**
(1)

BE-8 against bottom 25 D1 teams and D1AA teams:

UCF *
Buffalo*
Buffalo*
Buffalo*
Ohio*
E Mich*
@Army*
(8)

W Carolina**
Liberty **
Florida Atl**
Youngstn St **
Villanova**
Florida A&M**
Wofford (D2?)**
(7)

Like we have said numerous times the weak OOC has just a wee bit to due with four teams leaving the conference.

Some BE schools do play a very good OOC: Syracuse meets FSU, Virginia, Notre Dame and Buffalo. I'm sure that OOC schedule isn't up to par for the MWC but we can't change it at this late date. Sorry but San Diego State, UNM, Wyoming and UNLV weren't available.

eldermars Wrote:Going to the Big East board has helped me figure things out. The math is all coming into place now. #1, Each conference will be measured according to its member teams going into the 2008 season, #2 Conferences will be measured from the previous 4 seasons (2004-2007), #3 Measurements will be based on 1A- Average BCS rank of top team, 2A- Average overall BCS rank of conference top to bottom, and 3A- Number of teams in Top 25 BCS poll, #4 The top 5 conferences based on at least 2 of the previous 3 measurements get an auto-bid, and #5 The 6th and 7th place conferences may or may not get an auto-bid based on how they compare to the first 5 and their general tv worth and national audience appeal.

The BCS polls are final, they are pre-bowl and they will not be changed, even though the individual elements change every year. Just be glad they are no longer Top 15 only, but Top 25.

If we had to decide auto-bids for the 2005 season NOW, over the last 4 years, assuming for the current conference alignment (and including Boise State and Fresno State to the MWC) for Top BCS team and # of Top 25 BCS teams per conference, we get:

2004 Top 25
P-10 USC 1st 3
B-12 Oklahoma 2nd 5
SEC Auburn 3rd 5
MWC Utah 6th 2
ACC Virginia Tech 8th 4
BE Louisville 10th 2
B-10 Iowa 12th 4

2003 Top 15
B-12 Oklahoma 1st 2
ACC Miami 2nd 3
SEC Georgia 4th 2
B-10 Ohio State 6th 4
P-10 USC 7th 2
MAC N. Illinois 10th 1
MWC TCU 14th 1

2002 Top 15
ACC Miami 1st 3
B-10 Ohio State 2nd 3
SEC Georgia 3rd 1
P-10 USC 4th 2
B-12 Oklahoma 7th 4
INDY Notre Dame 9th 1
BE West Virginia 15th 1

2001 Top 15
ACC Miami 1st 2
B-12 Nebraska 2nd 4
P-10 Oregon 4th 4
SEC Florida 5th 4
B-10 Illinois 8th 1

2001-2004 OVERALL:
1st Big 12
Ave. #1 Ranking: 2+1+7+2=12/4= 3
# of Top 25 Teams: 5+2+4+4= 15
2nd ACC
8+2+1+1=12/4= 3
4+3+3+2= 12
3rd SEC
3+4+3+5=15/4= 3.75
5+2+1+4= 12
4th PAC 10
1+7+4+4=16/4= 4
3+2+2+4= 11
5th Big Ten
12+6+2+8=28/4= 7
4+4+3+1= 12

6th MWC
6+14+16+16=52/4= 13
2+1+0+0= 3
7th Big East
10+16+15+16=57/4= 14.25
2+0+1+0= 3
8th Indy
26+16+9+16=67/4= 16.75
0+0+1+0= 1
9th MAC
26+10+16+16=68/4= 17
0+1+0+0= 1

Based on these findings, the MWC is the #6 conference in the nation but undeserving of an auto-bid. This is basically what I expect the 2008 findings to look like, but with slightly bigger numbers at the bottom and slightly smaller numbers at the top.

I dont know if your numbers are accurate. Why is Syracuse not on your list for 2001 ranking? They ended the season ranked #14 with a 10-3 record.

Also I can gaurantee you that come 2008 when the bcs evaluates the conferences, that Boise and Fresno's rankings will not be used in the MWC rankings the last 4 years, even if they are apart of the MWC at that time. They may use at the most 1 year, but not all 4. If that were the case, we should have had Louisvilles ranking toward the BE not just last season, but the season before that as well. So your numbers are going to be way off.

The same thing can be said for Miami and VT's rankings. You have them listed with the acc for the 2001, 2002, 2003 season, but their rankings stayed with the BE during those seasons. Therefore, your numbers above are already off.

loboj Wrote:In answer to why the BE had more teams over .500 last year..it would be interesting to see who each team in each conference played.

If last year was anything like this year's BE scheduling than I think we may have our answer.

This year the BE plays 7 D1AA teams for easy wins and Buffalo 3 times. among the 8 bottom 25 teams they play.

MWC plays 6-8 bottom D1 teams and there is 1 D1AA game.

MWC-9 against bottom 25 D1 teams and D1AA teams:

*=bottom 25 D1 teams
**= D1AA teams (anyone else think Liberty and Wofford are D2?)

New Mex St*
San Jose St*
@SMU*
Army*
Idaho*
@Utah St*
Utah St*
UL Monroe*
(8)

E Illinois**
(1)

BE-8 against bottom 25 D1 teams and D1AA teams:

UCF *
Buffalo*
Buffalo*
Buffalo*
Ohio*
E Mich*
@Army*
(8)

W Carolina**
Liberty **
Florida Atl**
Youngstn St **
Villanova**
Florida A&M**
Wofford (D2?)**
(7)

Is that the best excuse that you can come up with for having 5 of your 8 teams end up with losing records? Two of the other 3 just barely had a winning record. The MWC was just barely able to get 3 teams to qualify for its 3 bowls. Come on man.

cuseroc Wrote:Also I can gaurantee you that come 2008 when the bcs evaluates the conferences, that Boise and Fresno's rankings will not be used in the MWC rankings the last 4 years, even if they are apart of the MWC at that time. They may use at the most 1 year, but not all 4. If that were the case, we should have had Louisvilles ranking toward the BE not just last season, but the season before that as well. So your numbers are going to be way off.

The below quote is from the BCS presser.

What we're taking forward as a recommendation is that your conference membership at the time of evaluation is what will be evaluated. The reason for that is that we're trying to get an assessment looking forward of the prospective strength of the conference, even though it will be based on past performance.

With the evaluation being in early 2008, from the above statement any team playing the 2007 season will have their past 4 year history included in the evaluation. Any future teams added will have to be invited by 6-30-06 to get to play the 2007 season. Any records before 2004 mean nothing anymore.

Of course none of this is final until the presidential oversight committee approves it. Below are the members of that committee.

BCS Presidential Oversight Committee
Dave Frohnmayer, president, University of Oregon, BCS Presidential Oversight Committee chairperson
David Hardesty, president, University of West Virginia
Robert Khayat, chancellor, University of Mississippi
Father Edward Malloy, president, University of Notre Dame
C.D. Mote, president, University of Maryland
Harvey Perlman, chancellor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Graham Spanier, president, Pennsylvania State University
Stephen Weber, president, San Diego State University

I wonder if Weber and Hardesty could get together and make a pact for the 2008 vote. I would think the BE could count on the good Father's vote. 3 out of 8 votes would be in the bag.

UABGrad Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:Also I can gaurantee you that come 2008 when the bcs evaluates the conferences, that Boise and Fresno's rankings will not be used in the MWC rankings the last 4 years, even if they are apart of the MWC at that time.&nbsp; They may use at the most 1 year, but not all 4.&nbsp; If that were the case, we should have had Louisvilles ranking toward the BE not just last season, but the season before that as well.&nbsp; So your numbers are going to be way off.

The below quote is from the BCS presser.

What we're taking forward as a recommendation is that your conference membership at the time of evaluation is what will be evaluated. The reason for that is that we're trying to get an assessment looking forward of the prospective strength of the conference, even though it will be based on past performance.

With the evaluation being in early 2008, from the above statement any team playing the 2007 season will have their past 4 year history included in the evaluation. Any future teams added will have to be invited by 6-30-06 to get to play the 2007 season. Any records before 2004 mean nothing anymore.

Of course none of this is final until the presidential oversight committee approves it. Below are the members of that committee.

BCS Presidential Oversight Committee
Dave Frohnmayer, president, University of Oregon, BCS Presidential Oversight Committee chairperson
David Hardesty, president, University of West Virginia
Robert Khayat, chancellor, University of Mississippi
Father Edward Malloy, president, University of Notre Dame
C.D. Mote, president, University of Maryland
Harvey Perlman, chancellor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Graham Spanier, president, Pennsylvania State University
Stephen Weber, president, San Diego State University

I wonder if Weber and Hardesty could get together and make a pact for the 2008 vote. I would think the BE could count on the good Father's vote. 3 out of 8 votes would be in the bag.

That maybe noteworthy info. It does appear that they may use the previous 4 years. If I were a betting man, I would put money on there being some additional stipulations that could totally change what Weiberg says. I could be wrong. One thing that I am certain off, is the BE will always have a seat at the bcs table.