BCS Formula (Archive)

scott715

4/23/2010, 8:21:09 PM

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

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/23/bcs-aq/index.html?eref=twitter_feed

It sounds like we have to be top 6 of all three criteria. We are number 3 in 2 of them and 7 in the team average. Note that Big 10 and ACC are not in the top 6 of all 3 (ACC only 1 of three). The bottom 5 teams need to step it up. I was hoping they would have signed more JC guys for a quick fix these last 2 years.

Mars

4/27/2010, 12:11:23 PM

scott715 wrote:
It sounds like we have to be top 6 of all three criteria.

Top 6 in two and above 33.3-50%, or Top 5 in one, Top 7 in the other. We don't meet the guaranteed criteria but we do meet the secondary criteria.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/23/bcs-aq/index.html

The interesting factor in all of this-

The Mountain West finishes AHEAD of BOTH the ACC AND the Big Ten in the current numbers. While the MWC is #3 in top-ranked teams, the Big Ten is #7 and the ACC is #8. If you are #7 in one main category (like the MWC is in overall ranking), you have to be #5 or better in the other. The Big Ten is #6 in overall ranking. And no conference #8 in any category can qualify under any circumstances.

So the MWC might be above BOTH the ACC and the Big Ten, not qualify, and still see those two lesser conferences (according to the official BCS numbers) retain auto-bids. Because, as far as I can tell, these numbers determine new qualifiers, but canât kick out the old ones.

More hypocrisy from the BCS. Big surprise right?

scott715

4/27/2010, 6:10:27 PM

So we need to root for Big 10 and pac 10 to flop the next two years. Maybe some of our lower teams need to back out of some games that they will probably lose and schedule Div II games in place like the BCS teams do.