CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Another thought on expansion rumors

by UVACoug · 11/12/2009

Advertisement
U
UVACoug
Someone brought it up on another site (yes I admit, I occasionally look on other BYU sites). I thought it made sense. Why wouldn't the Pac-10 (or another BCS conference) expand as a defensive move to prevent the Mountain West from joining the club? I really think that there is no desire to add teams like UNLV, UNM, and Wyoming to the BCS. By expanding their own conferences, the BCS conferences could undermine a quality Mountain West from forming and prevent them from getting an autobid. It seems to me that they would prefer conference expansion to BCS expansion -- quell the cries about good nonBCS teams being excluded, leave the bad MWC teams behind, prevent splitting BCS money with another conference, etc.



That seems consistent with the current rumor as well. The BCS promises to give an autobid if the Mountain West can put together a conference with these specific teams, and then one of the BCS conferences raids the Mountain West to prevent that from happening. The BCS said we would have let you in if you met our condition, but you didn't so you are left behind again.



This is bad news for BYU in my opinion. I could see the Pac-10 picking up Utah and Boise State (or Utah and Colorado) and passing over us all together. A conference that only had BYU and TCU would never be considered good enough to deserve an autobid. It is going to take a lot of work to get into the BCS -- we either have to convince the Pac-10 that it is in their interest to invite us or hope that the current nonBCS powers stand strong and resist the temptation to accept the pandering of the Pac-10. It would be hard to keep someone from going if they were invited -- its guaranteed inclusion vs. probability that nonBCS powers hold out.
C
cachevalleycougar
Would Utah want to leave for the Pac10 if the MWC adds BSU and becomes an AQ conference?
J
jonnylingo
UVACoug wrote:
The BCS promises to give an autobid if the Mountain West can put together a conference with these specific teams, and then one of the BCS conferences raids the Mountain West to prevent that from happening.


Not sure how that can happen because the pac10 is the 'bcs". they can't make an agreement and then undermine it without breaching it. This can't happen if the BCS has indeed made an agreement to included mwc if they do certain things. IN addition, imagien the political ramification this creates for the BCS is those types of moves were made public. Not going to happen.
U
UVACoug
cachevalleycougar wrote:
Would Utah want to leave for the Pac10 if the MWC adds BSU and becomes an AQ conference?


If they knew for certain the MWC would get an autobid, they might not. But they cannot know for certain that the MWC will get an autobid. It is classic game theory:



Lets simplify things a little bit and you will see that Utah would almost certainly accept an offer from the Pac-10. Lets say there are two teams that would have to cooperate in order to get the BCS autobid: Utah and Boise State. Lets also say that both get an offer to join the Pac-10 and whoever accepts first gets to join and the other is left out. Utah and BSU are indifferent between getting access to the BCS through the Pac-10 or through a glorified Mountain West. Both teams would rather join the Pac-10 and have access to the BCS than miss out on access to the BCS.



Thus, Utah and BSU face the following benefits:



If Utah and BSU resist the temptation to join the Pac-10 and wait for an autobid they get the greatest reward. We will say:



Utah gets $5 and BSU gets $5 worth of value out of this decision.



If Utah cheats and joins the BCS and BSU is left out, they face the following rewards:



Utah gets $5 and BSU gets -$5



If BSU cheats and Utah gets left out the rewards are the opposite:



Utah gets -$5 and BSU gets $5



If MWC refuses to invite BSU:



Utah gets $-5 and BSU gets -$5.



Utah therefore has two choices when it is faced with an invitation from the Pac-10. It either accepts, in which case they would be guaranteed $5 or it rejects. If it rejects the offer, there is a chance Boise State accepts, in which case Utah ends up with -$5. Utah is better off taking the guaranteed payoff than counting on Boise State to cooperate. Boise State has the same incentive and would accept rather than rely on Utah too. Whoever gets the offer first would accept it pretty quickly, I imagine.
U
UVACoug
jonnylingo wrote:
The BCS promises to give an autobid if the Mountain West can put together a conference with these specific teams, and then one of the BCS conferences raids the Mountain West to prevent that from happening.


Not sure how that can happen because the pac10 is the 'bcs". they can't make an agreement and then undermine it without breaching it. This can't happen if the BCS has indeed made an agreement to included mwc if they do certain things. IN addition, imagien the political ramification this creates for the BCS is those types of moves were made public. Not going to happen.


Sure they can. They agreement is conditional and there is nothing to stop the BCS (or one of its member conferences) from trying to prevent the condition from occurring. They don't get hurt in the PR department because they are giving access to the best teams outside the BCS and they have a good justification for leaving the remaining teams out (your conference isn't good enough).
Advertisement
B
blue buddha
I don't think the BCS schools would invite a Utah to join a conference. That just clears the way for the other powerful teams in that same conference to get the BCS invite instead. Take Utah last year for example, if Utah had been in a BCS conference last year, then they wouldn't have played TCU, then TCU or BSU would have gone to the BCS bowl. By inviting a Utah to join a BCS conference the BCS conferences lose twice: BCS money for the conference gets split up one more way, and it is just as likely a non-BCS school will still get invited to the BCS. You take out a Utah from the MWC, that just gives BYU or TCU an easier shot at winning the non-automatic bid. If Boise can get BCS bids by winning the WAC, then MWC teams won't be hurt too bad if one or two of the best are taken since one team will still rule supreme.
U
UVACoug
blue buddha wrote:
I don't think the BCS schools would invite a Utah to join a conference. That just clears the way for the other powerful teams in that same conference to get the BCS invite instead. Take Utah last year for example, if Utah had been in a BCS conference last year, then they wouldn't have played TCU, then TCU or BSU would have gone to the BCS bowl. By inviting a Utah to join a BCS conference the BCS conferences lose twice: BCS money for the conference gets split up one more way, and it is just as likely a non-BCS school will still get invited to the BCS. You take out a Utah from the MWC, that just gives BYU or TCU an easier shot at winning the non-automatic bid. If Boise can get BCS bids by winning the WAC, then MWC teams won't be hurt too bad if one or two of the best are taken since one team will still rule supreme.


So they would rather give up a guaranteed BCS spot to a new conference than risk a nonBCS team qualifying for an autobid the traditional way? I would think they would be indifferent to that, and if they could eliminate as many quality nonBCS teams as possible, the risk of having a nonBCS qualify under the current rules will go down.
B
blue buddha
UVACoug wrote:
I don't think the BCS schools would invite a Utah to join a conference. That just clears the way for the other powerful teams in that same conference to get the BCS invite instead. Take Utah last year for example, if Utah had been in a BCS conference last year, then they wouldn't have played TCU, then TCU or BSU would have gone to the BCS bowl. By inviting a Utah to join a BCS conference the BCS conferences lose twice: BCS money for the conference gets split up one more way, and it is just as likely a non-BCS school will still get invited to the BCS. You take out a Utah from the MWC, that just gives BYU or TCU an easier shot at winning the non-automatic bid. If Boise can get BCS bids by winning the WAC, then MWC teams won't be hurt too bad if one or two of the best are taken since one team will still rule supreme.


So they would rather give up a guaranteed BCS spot to a new conference than risk a nonBCS team qualifying for an autobid the traditional way? I would think they would be indifferent to that, and if they could eliminate as many quality nonBCS teams as possible, the risk of having a nonBCS qualify under the current rules will go down.


I think they would take one or two teams if it seriously cut down on non BCS schools but I don't know that it does. I think they would need to take 3 or 4 of the big 4: BYU, Utah, TCU, and Boise (and I think that is just too many for them to take in). Boise has proven that if you go undefeated, even in a weak conf, you go to the BCS. If you take out Utah and TCU then very good chance BYU will qualifing regularly. So they have to take Boise, and the 3 MWC powerhouse teams and I don't think they will. Look at the previous years where a non-AQ team went to the BCS, taking just one won't work,and just taking 1 from the MWC leaves a high chance of one of the others qualifying:



Pre Bowl rankings



2004: 2 non-AQ teams qualified

Utah-5

Boise-10



2006

Boise- 9



2007

Hawaii- 10



2008: 3 non-AQ teams qualified

Utah- 6

Boise- 9

TCU- 11



2009 so far 2 teams look like they will qualify

TCU- 4

Boise- 6



So of the 5 years (i'm including '09) where non-AQ teams have gone to the BCS, 3 years had multiple teams qualified. Take out Utah, and another team will fill it's place. Taking just one or two won't work, they have to take 3 or 4 teams to BCS conferences.



Also each BCS conference is one entity, and only a few get more than one bid per season. I don't know that the PAC 10 would want to add one more since they usually only have 1 team invited to the BCS per year. So each team in the PAC10 would take a BCS pay cut to help out the whole BCS entity (don't see that happening). If the BCS functioned as one big body then they may add additional teams, but since it comprises of individual conferences I don't see that happening. I do think it's an interesting idea though.
S
scott715
Interesting twist of politics. What if they told the conferences that they had to have 12 teams. Each would have a champtionship game and then the NC game. Almost a playoff. The Pac-10 would have to pick up 2 teams, BSU and Utah. The big 10 would need 1 team, Tulsa. That would leave the Big East at 8 teams, who would they pickup? Navy, TCU, Houston, East Carolina. BYU would be left out. If the conferences reshuffled who knows where people would land. BYU or a number of other teams could go to Big 12 and one of theirs could go Big East. This could put the BCS dispute to rest.



I just got Directv for the Mtn and next year I might not want it anymore.
M
Mars
UVACoug wrote:
The BCS promises to give an autobid if the Mountain West can put together a conference with these specific teams, and then one of the BCS conferences raids the Mountain West to prevent that from happening. The BCS said we would have let you in if you met our condition, but you didn't so you are left behind again.

The BCS is not a person, or even a group. It's just a set of rules. If we follow the rules, we get inclusion according to the rules. There's no deal-broker to work with here.
Advertisement
M
Mars


Besides, I think the "Eastern" nature of college football voters really hurts the PAC-10 in many ways. Everyone wants to focus on the SEC, the ACC, the Big east, more so than the only single conference in the west. Perhaps having the MWC in the BCS would help shed more light on the high quality of football being played out here. And a win over (say) BCS Wyoming would help USC in the polls a lot more than a win over non-BCS Wyoming...
U
UVACoug
Mars wrote:
The BCS promises to give an autobid if the Mountain West can put together a conference with these specific teams, and then one of the BCS conferences raids the Mountain West to prevent that from happening. The BCS said we would have let you in if you met our condition, but you didn't so you are left behind again.

The BCS is not a person, or even a group. It's just a set of rules. If we follow the rules, we get inclusion according to the rules. There's no deal-broker to work with here.


I know the BCS is not a person. I think it is more than a set of rules though. If it is just a set of rules, can you tell me what the rules for getting a BCS autobid are? Someone has to make the decision whether to let the Mountain West in or not. Are you suggesting there is a rule somewhere that says exactly what the requirements are for getting an automatic bid but nobody knows what it is?



Here is the exact language in the BCS rules:



"The 2008-2011 regular seasons will be evaluated under the same standards to determine if other conferences will have annual automatic qualification for the games after the 2012 and 2013 regular seasons. The champions of no more than seven conferences will have annual automatic berths."



Who is doing the evaluating? It doesn't provide for that or say what exactly the requirements for inclusion are. There is someone who gets to decide these things and that someone can and probably is being negotiated with.
M
Mars
UVACoug wrote:
Are you suggesting there is a rule somewhere that says exactly what the requirements are for getting an automatic bid but nobody knows what it is?

Bingo.



There is a criteria formula for inclusion/exclusion. Meet in and you're in. Don't and you're not.



The formula, like Sagarin's ranking system, is not made public. The main components, like in Sagarin, are. They are:



1. Top team ranking each season.

2. Number of Top 25 teams each season.

3. Average conference team ranking each season.



Add those together over a 4 year period and you get your Yes or No line. Big east is above currently, MWC is below. We aren't doing too shabby in the top 2 areas, but we are lacking in the third. Boise State would help, but perhaps not enough.
U
UVACoug
Mars wrote:
Are you suggesting there is a rule somewhere that says exactly what the requirements are for getting an automatic bid but nobody knows what it is?

Bingo.



There is a criteria formula for inclusion/exclusion. Meet in and you're in. Don't and you're not.



The formula, like Sagarin's ranking system, is not made public. The main components, like in Sagarin, are. They are:



1. Top team ranking each season.

2. Number of Top 25 teams each season.

3. Average conference team ranking each season.



Add those together over a 4 year period and you get your Yes or No line. Big east is above currently, MWC is below. We aren't doing too shabby in the top 2 areas, but we are lacking in the third. Boise State would help, but perhaps not enough.


Not saying you're wrong, but how do you know this? I have never heard that before. And why would the rule not be public? What does anybody gain by not making the guideline public? And who does know what the line is? Is this just theory of how things are, or do you have a source to say that this is how things really are?
S
Schmoe
I was under the impression that what Mars cited was the criteria by which they evaluated the conferences but that there weren't numbers set in stone to say either you're in or out. I very well could be mistaken, but that's how I understood it when I saw it (wherever it was...).
Advertisement
M
Mars
UVACoug wrote:
Not saying you're wrong, but how do you know this? I have never heard that before.

Really? I've literally read this from DOZENS of sources over the past few years...
U
UVACoug
Mars wrote:
Not saying you're wrong, but how do you know this? I have never heard that before.

Really? I've literally read this from DOZENS of sources over the past few years...


I was under the impression that there were guidelines for evaluation (# of top 25, average rank, etc.), but that there was no hard and fast rule. That the BCS conference commissioners (yes, they are the ones in control of the BCS rules, see http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/governance), had discretion to add an autobid for one more conference after looking at the cited factors.



I have never seen anywhere that there is a clear set of requirements that once met automatically get you an autobid. I may be wrong, and if you can show me that I am I am more than willing to admit it. If there is a hard and fast mechanism, then that would change everything. Can you show me where you got that impression? Is there anyone else out there that can back up what Mars is saying? Am I completely wrong on this one?
J
jonnylingo
UVACoug wrote:
UVACoug wrote:
The BCS promises to give an autobid if the Mountain West can put together a conference with these specific teams, and then one of the BCS conferences raids the Mountain West to prevent that from happening.


Not sure how that can happen because the pac10 is the 'bcs". they can't make an agreement and then undermine it without breaching it. This can't happen if the BCS has indeed made an agreement to included mwc if they do certain things. IN addition, imagien the political ramification this creates for the BCS is those types of moves were made public. Not going to happen.


Sure they can. They agreement is conditional and there is nothing to stop the BCS (or one of its member conferences) from trying to prevent the condition from occurring. They don't get hurt in the PR department because they are giving access to the best teams outside the BCS and they have a good justification for leaving the remaining teams out (your conference isn't good enough).


"Simple game theory" only makes sense if the assumptions are correct. I dont' think the assumption that the pac 10 would only want one more team makes sense, especially if its only BSU even if they are only trying to 'conspire' to ruin the mwc auto bid deal. What does this do for them?



Furthermore, BSU and Utah in your scenario both know that if they both join mwc they get their auto bid and don't have to play teams like usc to get to a bcs bowl game each year. What is BSU, UTAH, TCU and BYU's record against pac10 teams? In a few years of being in the BCS the MWC conference could be stronger than the Pac10. I think there is may be less uncertainty of an assured auto bid than you are assuming. Assuming there is more upside to joining a mwc with an auto bid than going alone to the pac10 by yourself (something that could be argued either way), I think that the opposite would happen even if a few of the bcs conferences implemented this conspiracy you speak of.
J
jonnylingo
Mars wrote:
Not saying you're wrong, but how do you know this? I have never heard that before.

Really? I've literally read this from DOZENS of sources over the past few years...


Yep, pretty much common knowledge. Wrubbel had a blurb on it a few weeks ago. in his column it said what schmoe said, that their are automatic inclusion criteria but no criteria for dropping someone out.
M
Mars
jonnylingo wrote:
BSU and Utah in your scenario both know that if they both join mwc they get their auto bid and don't have to play teams like usc to get to a bcs bowl game each year...

Even if the MWC was BCS, the PAC-10 would still make 10x more from their TV deal, still get better press, still get better recruits, still have bigger budgets, still have higher attendance, etc. It will likely always be superior to the Mountain West over the long term in almost all facets, even if the labels were done away with and the BCS bowl money was evenly distributed. Just sayin'.
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.