CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Is this good news or no news?

by Short_Change · 4/22/2010

Advertisement
S
Short_Change
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5123705



According to the article the MWC has a legitimate chance to receive an auto bid. I'm not sure if I believe it though.



They said there is a threshold and they have 3 criteria to rank conferences. Does anyone know what that criteria is? What I'd like to see is some concrete requirements for each conference to receive an auto-bid. For example, winning percentage vs. the top conferences or number of teams in the top 25. I'm not sure what exactly you should track, but I think there needs to be some concrete measurements and requirements that are made public and those conferences that meet those requirements should receive an auto-bid. It should be a season by season thing, not a contract. Tradition should not hold more value than what is happening right now. If the Big East or Big ten or whoever don't meet the requirements then they shouldn't receive in auto bid.



What are your thoughts. Does the MWC have a legitimate chance at this or are they just throwing crap out there to quiet the crowd?
L
Lawboy
Question is, what happens if Utah and TCU get recruited away? How does that affect things? Because those things are looking very possible right now, in the next 2 years or so. Just in time for the BCS evaluation period to end, no less.
R
redneckjedi
Short_Change wrote:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5123705



According to the article the MWC has a legitimate chance to receive an auto bid. I'm not sure if I believe it though.



They said there is a threshold and they have 3 criteria to rank conferences. Does anyone know what that criteria is? What I'd like to see is some concrete requirements for each conference to receive an auto-bid. For example, winning percentage vs. the top conferences or number of teams in the top 25. I'm not sure what exactly you should track, but I think there needs to be some concrete measurements and requirements that are made public and those conferences that meet those requirements should receive an auto-bid. It should be a season by season thing, not a contract. Tradition should not hold more value than what is happening right now. If the Big East or Big ten or whoever don't meet the requirements then they shouldn't receive in auto bid.



What are your thoughts. Does the MWC have a legitimate chance at this or are they just throwing crap out there to quiet the crowd?


From the BCS website:

Standards for future BCS automatic qualification



The champions of the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and Southeastern Conferences will have annual automatic qualification for a BCS game through the 2013 regular season, based on mathematical standards of performance during the 2004-2007 regular seasons.



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.



If the BCS continues under the same or similar format, conferences will be evaluated on their performances during the 2010-2013 regular seasons to determine which conferences will have automatic qualification for the bowls that will conclude the 2014-2017 regular seasons.



The evaluation data includes the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.



Conference agreements with bowls will continue. The Pac-10 and Big Ten champions will host the Rose Bowl if their teams are not in the BCS national championship game. Likewise, the Southeastern Conference champion will host the Sugar Bowl, ACC champion will host the Orange Bowl and Big 12 champion will host the Fiesta Bowl.


So, here are the three criteria that we know they will use. The problem is, we don't know how they will use them (they don't discuss the formula), and we don't know what else might be used (the data "includes" the three criteria above, but nowhere do they say those are the only factors). If they are weighted equally, and we do as well in the next two seasons as we did in the last two, we will probably be in. If we pick up Boise, we would definitely be in. If we lose TCU and/or Utah without picking up Boise, we probably won't be in. If they weight things differently or use other data, there is no guarantee of anything.
S
scott715
Take the comments with not just a grain but a lot of salt. That is the BCS spin doctor. He is trying to deflect criticism and slow down mometum against the BCS. He is saying wait two years and trust them. Then in two years will be you were really close. Try again.
Advertisement
S
sage
scott715 wrote:
Take the comments with not just a grain but a lot of salt. That is the BCS spin doctor. He is trying to deflect criticism and slow down mometum against the BCS. He is saying wait two years and trust them. Then in two years will be you were really close. Try again.

It's about the money. Not wins. Not who is hot. Not who has been good the last four years. Some time ago I heard a statistic, that 50% of the North American continent population (That is the whole continent folks) is with a day's drive from Palmyra NY. Look it up. It is about the popular vote, not wins/loses. Where the money is, is where the power is, is where secret/not so secret combinations will provide the most privileges. All this talk about winning or losing or being included or not, ad nauseum only deflects the real issue.



I want a playoff. Money talks tho. Won't happen till they are made to.
C
CrimsonCoug
ESPN reporting that the BcS is finally reporting the formula. Sort of.



http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5126561



The BCS uses three criteria that measure conference strength over a four-year period. The criteria are the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings; the final regular-season computer rankings of all the teams in a conference; and the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings.



...



For the first two criteria, the thresholds are being among the six best conferences in the country. For the third criteria, the league has to have an adjusted performance ranking of 50 percent or better. That number is derived using a point system that takes into account how each team in the conference was ranked (or not ranked) at the end of the season.


Still pretty opaque, and I can't find any further details on the bcs website http://www.bcsfootball.org. And I'm guessing that the point system ESPN refers to is for the second criterion (final regular-season computer rankings of all the teams in the conference) rather than the more straight-forward third criterion (number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings).
M
Mars
Lawboy wrote:
Question is, what happens if Utah and TCU get recruited away? How does that affect things? Because those things are looking very possible right now, in the next 2 years or so. Just in time for the BCS evaluation period to end, no less.

There isn't going to be any expansion this off-season. Expansion next off-season wouldn't affect this BCS period, or the MWC's membership during the final year of the process. Two more years like the last and we're in for two years, no matter if Utah/TCU aren't around those seasons.
C
CrimsonCoug
Mars wrote:
Question is, what happens if Utah and TCU get recruited away? How does that affect things? Because those things are looking very possible right now, in the next 2 years or so. Just in time for the BCS evaluation period to end, no less.

There isn't going to be any expansion this off-season. Expansion next off-season wouldn't affect this BCS period, or the MWC's membership during the final year of the process. Two more years like the last and we're in for two years, no matter if Utah/TCU aren't around those seasons.


If that's the case, then TCU and Utah have no incentive to leave. Which is certainly better for us if we also stay. I'd take an AQ MWC over the Big 10 or another currently AQ'ing conference. The money would be the same, and better the foe you know than the foe you don't.
L
Lawboy
TCU and Utah may still have an incentive to leave for at least 2 reason I can think of. The first is prestige. Simply put, the PAC10 and Big 12 have more of it. There is no denying it. And for ALL sports, the competition will be better, not just football.



Second is $$$. Those conferences still make more $$ on TV deals, not just BCS money. BCS money will help the MWC, but our TV deal still is dwarfed by the other leagues.



Getting in the BCS helps the MWC, but does not guarantee that teams may still not leap. Other issues to consider. All I know is that if the MWC got a BCS bid and BYU got an invite to the Big 12 or PAC 10, I'd want them to accept it.
Advertisement
C
CrimsonCoug
Good point on the money on TV deals. Still, as an AQ conf, the mtn and by extension the MWC schools would be in a better position to renegotiate contracts. But really, until we get a better relationship with ESPN (like the mtn selling/extorting them for the rights to some of the big matchups but keeping the smaller ones), we'd always be the BCS red-headed stepchild.



I think the prestige factor would be minor, but I could be wrong. I'd see TCU jumping before the U--potentially better competition closer to home for the frogs, and as a non-founding member of the MWC they have less invested in the conf than the U or Y. Fact is, BYU and Utah need each other, and I'd say the same if BYU was the one with the ethereal offer.
M
Mars
CrimsonCoug wrote:
If that's the case, then TCU and Utah have no incentive to leave. Which is certainly better for us if we also stay. I'd take an AQ MWC over the Big 10 or another currently AQ'ing conference. The money would be the same, and better the foe you know than the foe you don't.

Just like how no Big East team would want in the Big Ten, because the money's basically the same? No.
C
CougarPeasant
Lawboy wrote:
TCU and Utah may still have an incentive to leave for at least 2 reason I can think of. The first is prestige. Simply put, the PAC10 and Big 12 have more of it. There is no denying it. And for ALL sports, the competition will be better, not just football.



Second is $$$. Those conferences still make more $$ on TV deals, not just BCS money. BCS money will help the MWC, but our TV deal still is dwarfed by the other leagues.



Getting in the BCS helps the MWC, but does not guarantee that teams may still not leap. Other issues to consider. All I know is that if the MWC got a BCS bid and BYU got an invite to the Big 12 or PAC 10, I'd want them to accept it.


The real money is not in the BCS bowl games, but in regular season home games and TV contract money. At least that's the case for the BCS programs. The BCS money still is huge to us non-AQ programs since our TV deals are niggardly compared to the average AQ conferences. But with BCS membership comes the perks of getting better coaches, better recruits, playing other BCS programs sinces we'd no longer be davey knocking off goliath. And the TV money would improve as MWC teams schedule home and homes with the SECs and BIG 10s of the world.



So, going to the pac 10 or big 12 would provide much more money than staying in the MWC even if it was added as an AQ conference. And ther estill is more prestige in winning the Big 12, than there is in winning the MWC. (thank you Capt. Obvious. ;))
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.