BCS changes

There is a lot of buzz out there about a change to the BCS format in 2014. If the plus 1 model replaces the automatic qualifier version we could be sitting pretty as an indepedent. An undefeated season could mean a real chance to play for a national championship, rather than just a BCS bowl birth. Boise St. and the other teams moving to the Big East could be regretting this move in fairly short fashion. It will be interesting to see how things play out.

With the BILLION $$$ tv contract that the Big East is looking to get I dont think any of the teams will be regreting anything. And if you dont think they'll get that kind of money, just wait and see. It might not be a billion but it will be close.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

+1 is a great change. Eliminating AQ bids will have both good and bad consequences - I'll withhold judgment until I see what decision-making process the bowls choose to follow. I hope there's SOME sort of guideline or provision that keeps smaller schools from getting screwed.

a1247 wrote:
With the BILLION $$$ tv contract that the Big East is looking to get I dont think any of the teams will be regreting anything. And if you dont think they'll get that kind of money, just wait and see. It might not be a billion but it will be close.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Most of the estimates I've seen have put the per-team value of the TV contract pretty close to what BYU is already making with ESPN. Good money - better than MWC money, but nothing game-changing. Nothing to be jealous of.



I don't think any of the five new schools hitching their wagon to the Big East are making a bad move. It's a step up for all of them. If you're a decent program and wary of changes on the horizon, C-USA and the MWC aren't great options. The Big East isn't, either, but at least you get more money and better exposure. The SOS looks better on paper but a good team could still run the table easier there than in the other 5 AQs. And you keep your name in the discussion.



BYU joining the Big East just swaps one set of problems for another. We wouldn't have to worry about mid-to-late season scheduling, but we could lose TV exposure and would have to worry about the Eastern faction of our conference bolting for the ACC/Big XII at the first chance they get.



BYU's in an okay position, for once. The Big East probably won't expand in the meantime, but will need to in the next few years. AFA has made it pretty clear they're committed to the MWC. Navy can't join until 2014 at the earliest. Temple isn't the most desirable backup. I think BYU's going to have a while to see how independence goes, see if the Big XII is really a shut door, etc. If independence or Big XII doesn't work out the next couple years, I think the BE door stays open. BSU's AD said as much yesterday.

Dcr36 I 100% agree with you. When I said what I said before I was in no way saying BYU had made a mistake. I think the teams that joint the BEast made a good move for them. It was a move up for each of them. I do hate how SDSU will now be considered an AQ school. They have done nothing to deserve that title. SDSU screwed there basketball program. And what sad about that is there basketball program is a far better program then there football program but its the bball program thats been left out in the cold.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I agree that the Big LEast teams will be screwed. They will probably loose their auto qualify anyway. I also know that in the SEC world they are thinking 2 possibly 3 SEC teams will be in the final 4 every year. If they go there they better include a rule you have to win your Conference championship to qualify.



Go Cougs!



L Hatton

Louisville, KY

If you get rid of AQ status and eliminate the 2 teams per conference rule, you simply must remove the coaches poll from the equation. That is simply too much of a conflict of interest.

SpiffCoug wrote:
If you get rid of AQ status and eliminate the 2 teams per conference rule, you simply must remove the coaches poll from the equation. That is simply too much of a conflict of interest.

Totally agree. You just take the top four teams as decided by the AP--since they actually watch the games to write about them. No computers, no coaches, just the AP deciding the top 4 teams similar to a committee deciding who is in the NCAA tournament.



Moving to that system and getting rid of AQ status altogether gets rid of all the anti-trust talk. Most years, if you weren't ranked in the top 4, you really didn't have an argument anyway. Play the first game at the home site of #1 and #2. Then play the title game like they do now.



The BCS Bowls can go back to their original tie-ins and everyone is happy (except the team ranked #5).



For past seasons, these were the top four in AP poll before bowl season:

2010--Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Wisconsin

2009--Bama, Texas, TCU, Cincinatti

2008--Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Bama

2007--Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma, Georgia

2006--Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU

2005--USC, Texas, Penn St., Ohio State

2004--USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Cal

2003--Oklahoma, USC, LSU, Michigan

2002--Miami, Ohio State, Iowa, Georgia



Of note, TCU would have been in the playoffs twice. SEC and Big XII usually have someone in with a healthy dose of PAC 10 and Big 10. A slight flaw is the Boise State would not ever have cracked the top four to play in the national title game. I'm not sure if it is a flaw, but :utard: wouldn't have made it either.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

If you get rid of AQ status and eliminate the 2 teams per conference rule, you simply must remove the coaches poll from the equation. That is simply too much of a conflict of interest.

Totally agree. You just take the top four teams as decided by the AP--since they actually watch the games to write about them. No computers, no coaches, just the AP deciding the top 4 teams similar to a committee deciding who is in the NCAA tournament.



Moving to that system and getting rid of AQ status altogether gets rid of all the anti-trust talk. Most years, if you weren't ranked in the top 4, you really didn't have an argument anyway. Play the first game at the home site of #1 and #2. Then play the title game like they do now.



The BCS Bowls can go back to their original tie-ins and everyone is happy (except the team ranked #5).



For past seasons, these were the top four in AP poll before bowl season:

2010--Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Wisconsin

2009--Bama, Texas, TCU, Cincinatti

2008--Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Bama

2007--Ohio State, LSU, Oklahoma, Georgia

2006--Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU

2005--USC, Texas, Penn St., Ohio State

2004--USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, Cal

2003--Oklahoma, USC, LSU, Michigan

2002--Miami, Ohio State, Iowa, Georgia



Of note, TCU would have been in the playoffs twice. SEC and Big XII usually have someone in with a healthy dose of PAC 10 and Big 10. A slight flaw is the Boise State would not ever have cracked the top four to play in the national title game. I'm not sure if it is a flaw, but :utard: wouldn't have made it either.

I like the computers, but I feel I may be one of the few.



I could be wrong here, but if the +1 happens, I think that's going to heavily influence the way AP voters vote. For example, you may have a year where BSU, for example, runs the table and under normal circumstances would come in at #5 or #6, behind 2 or 3 1-loss teams. I wouldn't be surprised if some AP voters went against their judgment and voted for BSU at #3 or #4, if only to avoid the controversy of an undefeated non-champion. Could be too optimistic on my part, though.

Even the computers can be improved. Some of the guys whose computer formulas are used have said they have more accurate formulas that the BCS won't let them use.



Yes, that's right, the BCS doesn't want more accurate formulas. So right, that's an immediate and easy fix to the BCS computers - let the math guys actually use their most accurate formulas.



Also the computer formulas don't have to be made public. I get that to a certain extent because that is proprietary information. But at the same time, how do we know those guys actually have computer formulas they're using? How do we know what one guy sends in as what the computer spit out, isn't just his own personal ballot.



Make the computer formulas public.

I quite like the idea of a play-off...as long as it's 16 teams that enter to play. 8 is too few. 32 is too many.



We should include all conference champions (which means 8 isn't enough), with a few at-large teams...but only a few (like I said, 32 is too many).



Plus, they should do it like the NFL—use their season records. Undefeated teams are the best, then teams with 1 loss, etc. That way, there's as little BCS bias as possible. However, they will still find a way—during the game. Make it hard to influence who's undefeated if you can't influence which teams (undefeated or not) get to play on the Big Stage.

cougarnerd wrote:
I quite like the idea of a play-off...as long as it's 16 teams that enter to play. 8 is too few. 32 is too many.



We should include all conference champions (which means 8 isn't enough), with a few at-large teams...but only a few (like I said, 32 is too many).



Plus, they should do it like the NFL—use their season records. Undefeated teams are the best, then teams with 1 loss, etc. That way, there's as little BCS bias as possible. However, they will still find a way—during the game. Make it hard to influence who's undefeated if you can't influence which teams (undefeated or not) get to play on the Big Stage.

BYU already has difficutly scheduling teams from the current AQ conferences and the better teams from the rest, and going with season record alone will make that much worse, IMO. If you are team X from the BE or Pac ?? or CUSA, and all you have to do to make the playoff is go undefeated, your nonconference schedule is going to be Little Sisters of the Poor times four. The only reason this works in the NFL is the fairly balanced schedule from team to team. Even then we get things like the NFC West last year and the AFC West this year.