Since the new BCS agreement is for the 2006, 07, 08 and 09 seasons, I would have thought the bid was safe through 2009, but I found one article saying 2005 and one saying 2007. Does anyone know the real poop?

Also has anyone heard what the new criteria is going to be announced for autobids? The last I read it was supposed to be decided shortly after the first of the year.


From Nov 28, 2004 article

Quote:The commissioners cut the Big East a break allowing it to keep its automatic bid through the 2005 season. After that, all bets are off. In fact, the Big East's status is one of the touchiest subjects among the commissioners now that the new TV deals have been signed.

<a href='http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/7938832' target='_blank'>http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/...l/story/7938832</a>


From Oct 20, 2004 article

Quote:Much of the credit goes to Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese, who was smart enough and politically savvy enough to wrangle an affiliation for his league with the BCS through 2007, when there is no on-the-field justification for it.

<a href='http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04294/398788.stm' target='_blank'>http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04294/398788.stm</a>

I think it is either 2007 or 2009.

they could change the rules anytime they wish....might be 5 years might be 1. For the NBE to keep it they will have to give it to other leagues as well to avoid legal problems.

As of right now no review of any BCS league will occur until after the 2007 season at the earliest. They are still deciding to whether start counting the new requirements to this year or will they go back to last season. It will be either at the end of the 2007 or 2008 season.

For what its worth...I heard Dave Wannstedt on the radio the other day....he said that spoke with several BCS officials before taking the position and that he would have never taken the Pitt job unless he was satisfied that the BEs BCS bid was secure


Jackson

The coalition of non-BCS schools have already agreed to the new BCS set-up, so it's unlikely any lawsuit is forthcoming. But anything is possible.

Part of the agreement is to have a new conference analysis in place to review conference (not BE, but conference) auto-bids. It has leaked that the analysis will be based on the overall conference, not just conference champion as it was in the past.

Now for some realities:

Reality #1 Since conference size is different for different leagues, any analysis based on the overall conference will most likely be in percentages - as in what percentages of conference teams are ranked in the Top 10, Top 25, Top 40, and lastly not in the Top 40 in the last BCS rankings prior to picking the teams for BCS Bowl games.

As past posts done on this topic have demonstrated, all the BE conference needs to stay competitive with other leagues because of its size is basically, one team in the Top 10, another one in the Top 25 and two more in the Top 40.

Now, while there may be a year every now and then when it may not happen, it is extremely unlikely it would happen four years in a row or even three out of four which is what would trigger the review.

The opposite is true of C-USA, the MAC and Mountain West. While they may have a year or two in which, as a total conference they would qualify under these conditions (MW with 9 teams would be like the BE, C-USA and MAC with 12 teams would need 2 in the Top 10, 2 more in the Top 25 and 2 more in the Top 40), the probability of them qualifying consistently year in and year out simply isn't there based on past performances of the teams in their leagues. This could change, but it's not there yet based upon past data.

Reality #2Div. 1A majority or minority. To have simply the five conferences (which I'm sure they would prefer) means not having a majority of D-1A schools as part of the BCS Cartel. As a result, the 5 super-conferences could lose out on some important votes when it comes to NCAA regulations that impact college football. The very fact that they allowed the BE to keep the auto-bid shows that this is somewhat of a concern and that they may try to find a way to allow the BE to continue to keep it. Which leads into the next reality.

Reality #3Markets. The College Football market it is believed has pretty much reached its peak in the Midwest (which hurts the MAC) and in the South (which hurts new C-USA). There still exists the potential for growth in the West and in the Northeast (which theoretically could help MW and BE).

Whether or not teams in either conference can actually get these untapped viewers is a different question from are their untapped viewers to get. Since the answer to the former is yes for the BE, possibly yes for MW, and no for the MAC and C-USA - the BCS has no incentive in terms of markets for justifying giving the MAC or C-USA an auto-bid.

Reality #4$$$ - Since the BE only has 8 teams, if it continues with an auto-bid, don't be surprised if the Cartel cuts down its conference share reflecting the fact that there are fewer teams in the conference in comparison with the power conferences.

From the above it is easy to ascertain the following:

1) If the BCS Cartel could get away with only the 5 super-conferences have auto-bids they could have done that with this most recent contract. The BE expected to lose their auto-bid and the media was crying foul that it didn't.

2) Since, for whatever reason, the BCS did not pull the auto-bid of the BE, it is must be assumed they need a 6th conference with an auto-bid for the foreseeable future.

3) Needing a 6th conference with an auto-bid, the BCS Cartel is more comfortable with the BE being that 6th conference than any of the others. (This is obvious subject to change, but somehow I doubt it based upon both past performance and past allegiances).

4) The BCS Cartel still needs a review to stem the tide of the outcry of the BE getting an auto-bid.

5) The BCS Cartel will rig the review in such a way as to be favorable enough for the BE to keep it but likely out of reach of the other conferences to attain an auto-bid. Whether or not the BE performs up to the level still remains to be seen.

Cheers,
Neil

Good post Omni.

I don't think the majority of schools in the BCS means much since voting is no longer 1 school 1 vote. The management council and BOD is where the voting takes place. If the BCS did take away they the BE bid then they majority would swing in the BOD but not the MC so I guess it might be kind of a stalemate. I think your probably right though. I think the BCS guys want total control.

I do think unless something changes there will be no way to make a formula to include the BE and exclude the MWC. Not only that but the formula would be within possible reach of the WAC, C-USA and MAC which I bet would be a doomsday scenerio for the BCS. By the time this is all said and done I wouldn't be surprised to see the 5 power conferences forming their on little club outside the NCAA.

I've read in the BCS presser what you're talking about conference size possibly impacting the qualifications. It's only the top team that will be in the BCS for borderline conferences and to me what really matters is how strong is that top school every year.

As far as sports markets in different areas of the country goes, will it really matter what potential the markets have, if it all boils down to a formula for on the field performance?

the best thing for everybody is to go back to the old system. The BCS has hardly cleared up the title picture and in the old system the cream rises to the top. It gives everyone a chance to grow.

UABGrad Wrote:Good post Omni.

I don't think the majority of schools in the BCS means much since voting is no longer 1 school 1 vote.&nbsp; The management council and BOD is where the voting takes place.&nbsp; If the BCS did take away they the BE bid then they majority would swing in the BOD but not the MC so I guess it might be kind of a stalemate.&nbsp; I think your probably right though.&nbsp; I think the BCS guys want total control.&nbsp;

I do think unless something changes there will be no way to make a formula to include the BE and exclude the MWC.&nbsp; Not only that but the formula would be within possible reach of the WAC, C-USA and MAC which I bet would be a doomsday scenerio for the BCS.&nbsp; By the time this is all said and done I wouldn't be surprised to see the 5 power conferences forming their on little club outside the NCAA.

I've read in the BCS presser what you're talking about conference size possibly impacting the qualifications.&nbsp; It's only the top team that will be in the BCS for borderline conferences and to me what really matters is how strong is that top school every year.

As far as sports markets in different areas of the country goes, will it really matter what potential the markets have, if it all boils down to a formula for on the field performance?

The problem with "forming their own little club outside the ncaa" 1. possible taxation 2. these schools essentially become a "minor league" as in professional baseball. I doubt every one of the "big five" would go along with that anyway; would they be walking away from the NCCA basketball tourney? What would the implication be on the olympic sports? etc.

tigercat Wrote:The problem with "forming their own little club outside the ncaa" 1. possible taxation 2. these schools essentially become a "minor league" as in professional baseball. I doubt every one of the "big five" would go along with that anyway; would they be walking away from the NCCA basketball tourney? What would the implication be on the olympic sports? etc.

There would be no taxation issues if it is set up just like the NCAA. The NAIA isn't subject to taxation.

The NCAA tournament would be secondary to the "BCS tournament" if they ever did break away.

Great post omni....

Quote: do think unless something changes there will be no way to make a formula to include the BE and exclude the MWC

-- Omnicarrier just described what that formula would be...you would judge the conference as a whole...the NBE last yr had 1 team in the top 10, another in the top 25, and more then likly two more in the top 40.....if I remember correctly Utah was the only school in the MWC with a winning record...there is your difference

-- Just another quick comment on this quote...

Quote:Reality #1 Since conference size is different for different leagues, any analysis based on the overall conference will most likely be in percentages - as in what percentages of conference teams are ranked in the Top 10, Top 25, Top 40, and lastly not in the Top 40 in the last BCS rankings prior to picking the teams for BCS Bowl games.

As past posts done on this topic have demonstrated, all the BE conference needs to stay competitive with other leagues because of its size is basically, one team in the Top 10, another one in the Top 25 and two more in the Top 40.

....maybe Tanghese and the football presidents are not as shortsighted as I thought....that is a pretty good reason to keep the league at 8


Jackson

5. Utah
37. Colo St
47. Wyo
53. AF

7. UL
30. Pitt
32. WVU
41. UConn

Not very different.

I do agree if the conference size is included in the formula then the BE and MW might put the breaks on expansion unless they are confident the expansion team will be in the top 50 most of the time and occasionally crack the top 25.

Quote:As far as sports markets in different areas of the country goes, will it really matter what potential the markets have, if it all boils down to a formula for on the field performance?

Not if the BCS Cartel were truly trying to decide the auto-bid based upon merit. But as my post tried to point out, the auto-bid doesn't really work that way.

So in essence, the auto-bid is a privilege for being an elite conference. There are 5 elite conferences now. For some reason, (I theorized majority control in NCAA bodies governing regulations and such but it might be a different one), the 'elite' have given the BE an auto-bid for at least the first two years of the next contract.

By contract they had to give it to us through the end of the current contract, but under the new contract they could have simply said, the BE or any other conference doesn't receive an auto-bid until they prove worthy based upon a formula we will develop to govern such things. They didn't do that. They gave the BE the benefit of the doubt, which would seem to indicate theY want a sixth conference with an auto-bid.

Could be 'old boys' network, could be markets, could be wanting to ensure control of NCAA governing bodies, could be projecting out the future where the BCS Cartel breaks away from the regular NCAAs and they would feel more comfortable on the bb side of things with UConn, SU, Louisville, Cincinnati, etc. as part of the breakaway then remaining behind, or some combination of the preceding.

As for why markets matter, keep in mind that the BCS Cartel is a triangle - Bowls/Bowls sponsors-TV/Super-Conferences. Bowls want teams that travel well and Bowl sponsors/TV want teams that will draw viewers across the country. To increase ratings, even if UAB for example were to become the next USC, they aren't any more likely to improve ratings than any other good southern team that already exists, such as an LSU or an Auburn - meaning ratings are basically static.

A UConn or Syracuse becoming the next USC could increase viewership of college football in the northeast (since the area is vastly underrepresented with what could be the potential viewership). Basically the northeast only follows two teams - PSU and Notre Dame - neither of which has been very good for the past 5 years or so. A UConn or SU getting good as well could result in increased ratings from the northeast area for the bowls, which make the BCS Bowl sponsors and TV happy.

Now, it's a gamble that a UConn or an SU will be able to pull it off, but if you are the BCS Cartel looking for reasons to include one conference (as the deemed necessary evil sixth conference) over another conference - this definitely is a consideration, though not necessarily the overriding deciding factor.

If you had decided only 5 conferences are needed, then you would simply justify you have the northeastern markets covered with PSU and ND (and now BC in the ACC). Again, they didn't do this, which leaves open the question as to why?

Quote:I do think unless something changes there will be no way to make a formula to include the BE and exclude the MWC. Not only that but the formula would be within possible reach of the WAC, C-USA and MAC which I bet would be a doomsday scenerio for the BCS.

Actually, as I stated in my post, the opposite is true based upon past data. Not saying it can't be done, but an analysis of the teams that presently make up the other conferences without auto-bids shows that they would not meet the possible formula.

For conferences with 8 or 9 teams they would likely need:

1 Team in the Top 10
1 more Team in the Top 25
and 2 more Teams in the Top 40.

For conferences with 12 or more teams, they would likely need:

2 Teams in the Top 10
2 more Teams in the Top 25
and 2 more Teams in the Top 40.

Other than 1 team in the Top 10, the BE tends to meet the projected criteria on a consistent basis based upon past data. The other conferences are lucky to have 1 in Top 25 and 1 other in the Top 40, whereas the NBE tends to place two teams in the Top 25 and two more in the Top 40.

Now it is true that the only consistent Top 10 team the BE had was Miami, and there are no Miamis in the NBE. There are, however, four programs that can be considered Top 25/Top 40 caliber teams based upon performances over the past decade.

I don't think the MW can say the same. And I know the larger conferences like C-USA and MAC can't say that (because they will need 6 programs 3 Top 25, 3 Top 40 to be equivalent). This is where the larger conference won't help.

Cheers,
Neil

Quote: 5. Utah
37. Colo St
47. Wyo
53. AF

7. UL
30. Pitt
32. WVU
41. UConn

Not very different.

I do agree if the conference size is included in the formula then the BE and MW might put the breaks on expansion unless they are confident the expansion team will be in the top 50 most of the time and occasionally crack the top 25.

-- It seems to me that the MWC rankings you posted may be a bit off....Coloradto St was 4-7 last yr, Wyoming was 6-5 and Air Force was 5-6


Jackson

The BCS rankings that will be used are the final ones as done prior to bowl selections:


NBE

UL - 10
Pitt - 21
WVU - 26
SU - 39

MW

Utah - 6
New Mexico - 40

Cheers,
Neil

UABGrad Wrote:5. Utah
37. Colo St
47. Wyo
53. AF

7. UL
30. Pitt
32. WVU
41. UConn

Not very different.

I do agree if the conference size is included in the formula then the BE and MW might put the breaks on expansion unless they are confident the expansion team will be in the top 50 most of the time and occasionally crack the top 25.

The Big East had 6 of their 8 schools finish with winning records and go to bowl games. The MWC had 6 of their 9 schools finish with losing records. There is a VERY big difference.

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

UABGrad Wrote:5. Utah
37. Colo St
47. Wyo
53. AF

7. UL
30. Pitt
32. WVU
41. UConn

Not very different.

I do agree if the conference size is included in the formula then the BE and MW might put the breaks on expansion unless they are confident the expansion team will be in the top 50 most of the time and occasionally crack the top 25.

The Big East had 6 of their 8 schools finish with winning records and go to bowl games. The MWC had 6 of their 9 schools finish with losing records. There is a VERY big difference.

Below is a link to the only RPI's I know of that rank them all. Records don't mean much without a strength of schedule attached to them. Also the Utah, TCU and BYU have all been in the top 15 since the BCS began 7 years ago. I think (but I may be wrong only UL) has from the BE.

<a href='http://www.geocities.com/rtell/' target='_blank'>http://www.geocities.com/rtell/</a>

Quote:QUOTE (Cat's_Claw @ Apr 1 2005, 05:12 PM)
QUOTE (UABGrad @ Apr 1 2005, 04:08 PM)
5. Utah
37. Colo St
47. Wyo
53. AF

7. UL
30. Pitt
32. WVU
41. UConn

Not very different.

I do agree if the conference size is included in the formula then the BE and MW might put the breaks on expansion unless they are confident the expansion team will be in the top 50 most of the time and occasionally crack the top 25.&nbsp;

The Big East had 6 of their 8 schools finish with winning records and go to bowl games. The MWC had 6 of their 9 schools finish with losing records. There is a VERY big difference.&nbsp;

Below is a link to the only RPI's I know of that rank them all. Records don't mean much without a strength of schedule attached to them. Also the Utah, TCU and BYU have all been in the top 15 since the BCS began 7 years ago. I think (but I may be wrong only UL) has from the BE.

<a href='http://www.geocities.com/rtell/' target='_blank'>http://www.geocities.com/rtell/</a>

-- Again...I'm confused....the site you posted has Colorado St at #79 and you have them at #37....most be some kind of mistake somewhere

--West Virginia was #14 in the final BCS standings in 2002


Jackson

omni,

I'm not saying markets don't matter and agree in the past it was a big part of the decision of who was in and who was out. I have just gathered from the BCS statements that things are changing and there will only be an on the field performance formula similar to the one you proposed for qualification. I don't know this for a fact, but I bet the MWC commish Craig Thompson got this concession.

My proposal for a formula is similar to yours.

3 out 4 years having a top 15 team
Average 25% of the conference in the top 25
Average 50% of the conference in the top 50

This would be a quite a bit tougher on the 12 team conferences but the big 5 would easily pass muster.

UABGrad Wrote:Below is a link to the only RPI's I know of that rank them all.&nbsp; Records don't mean much without a strength of schedule attached to them.&nbsp; Also the Utah, TCU and BYU have all been in the top 15 since the BCS began 7 years ago.&nbsp; I think (but I may be wrong only UL) has from the BE.&nbsp;

<a href='http://www.geocities.com/rtell/' target='_blank'>http://www.geocities.com/rtell/</a>

That doesn't mean anything. Past records don't mean anything because the Big East is changing the requirements. Unless those schools you mentioned finish in the Top 15 now and for the next few years it means nothing. Meanwhile, schools like Virginia Tech and Louisville are proof that things change and its possible for schools to finish in the Top 15 who never finished their consistently before. Bottomline, the BCS is more likely to look at the fact that 4 Big East schools are CURRENTLY ranked, or finished the season ranked in the Top 40 before looking at the fact that a few schools finished in the Top 15 over the last 15 years. You're wrong about records not meaning anything without a SOS connected to it when looking at current rankings. Louisville finished the season ranked #10. Now, say, Louisville finished with a SOS of #110. Do you really believe the BCS will say "Louisville's Top 10 ranking counts, but they had a weak SOS so it doesn't mean anything". Also, what do you think would carry more weight with the BCS changing their rules, the fact that the Big East had a team finish ranked #10, #21, #26 and #39 and had 6 bowl teams, or the fact that Utah, TCU and BYU (two of which finished with losing records) finished ranked in the Top 15 several years ago (except for Utah who finished this year)?