CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

AQ #s

by Cougy_Monster · 6/15/2010

Advertisement
C
Cougy_Monster
I know somebody out there is itching to run the BCS AQ formula numbers for the MWC with the newly-added Boise State and the possibly-departing yewts. Any takers?



I don't care if the yewts go to the pac-10 (we already beat up on that league anyway, so we might as well add the yewts to their loss column), but the MWC getting AQ status is all I really care about. And, if the yewts sign on with another conference then the MWC will lose their recent success (I just vomited a little as I typed that) when calculating the formula.



And for those who think the yewts will be cellar-dwellars in the pac-10.....remember how sucky that league is. The MWC has manhandled the pac-1+9 for the last 3 years and I think the yewts will easily roll through that conference, just as BYU or TCU would. They are a joke. But we aren't free to fully enjoy the laughter until we get AQ status.
G
GolfDiveNCougs
No, I've not crunched the numbers, Cougy, but I do recall reading that the BCS calculations take place based on Conference membership in December of 2011, at which time, if I'm not mistaken, Utah would still be a member of the MWC, but so would Boise State. I don't know if this is the correct interpretation of the BCS "rules" (riiiiight, like you could actually use that word... "scheme" would likely be better), but on the offchance it is, that'd put BOTH their numbers in the MWC pot...

:bug:
B
blue42
GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
No, I've not crunched the numbers, Cougy, but I do recall reading that the BCS calculations take place based on Conference membership in December of 2011, at which time, if I'm not mistaken, Utah would still be a member of the MWC, but so would Boise State. I don't know if this is the correct interpretation of the BCS "rules" (riiiiight, like you could actually use that word... "scheme" would likely be better), but on the offchance it is, that'd put BOTH their numbers in the MWC pot...

:bug:


Wrong here golf. If the Utes get invited in the next couple of weeks they will be play in the Pac whatever in 2011 so all their numbers will be part of the their new conference, just like BSU will be part of the MWC in 2011.
S
scott715
It looks like Colorado joins in 2012, so Utah could be the same. There is a chance for us to get two years.
G
GolfDiveNCougs
What he said.

;)
Advertisement
G
GolfDiveNCougs
Actually, Greg Wrubell comments on exactly your point, 42:



http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=498&sid=11174974


A side note: since Colorado and Utah would not begin Pac-10 membership until July of 2012, both schools would have two lame duck seasons in the Big 12 and MWC, respectively.



As it turns out, Utah can help the cause of its current league, since any Ute football results achieved in the next two seasons would count toward the MWC's AQ qualification efforts, comprising the 2008 through 2011 seasons



The Mountain West will be able to count the performances of football power brokers BYU, Utah, TCU and now Boise State for all four of those seasons--assuming Utah stays in the MWC through the 2011-2012 athletic seasons, as appears would be the case considering the current Pac-10 timeline (according to BCS bylaws, "The (AQ status) computations will be made according to the conference's membership on Dec. 4, 2011").
C
CAFB_04-12
I don't understand how the MWC would be able to use Utah's 2010-2011 rankings in a BCS AQ formula with their departure in 2012 a given. So, the BCS would allow the MWC to use rankings of a member that will not be a part of the conference immediately upon acceptance as an AQ? That just doesn't strike me as something the BCS would allow. There has to be a stipulation somewhere that the teams must still be part of the conference or something.
M
Mars
CAFB_04-12 wrote:
I don't understand how the MWC would be able to use Utah's 2010-2011 rankings in a BCS AQ formula with their departure in 2012 a given. So, the BCS would allow the MWC to use rankings of a member that will not be a part of the conference immediately upon acceptance as an AQ? That just doesn't strike me as something the BCS would allow. There has to be a stipulation somewhere that the teams must still be part of the conference or something.

The conference you play in the last year of the 4-year period gets your numbers, regardless of whether you play in that conference the following season or not.
C
Cougy_Monster
So the yewts may be good for something after all. The only upside to their success is that the mwc can use it for an AQ bid. Niice.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
J
jonnylingo
CAFB_04-12 wrote:
I don't understand how the MWC would be able to use Utah's 2010-2011 rankings in a BCS AQ formula with their departure in 2012 a given. So, the BCS would allow the MWC to use rankings of a member that will not be a part of the conference immediately upon acceptance as an AQ? That just doesn't strike me as something the BCS would allow. There has to be a stipulation somewhere that the teams must still be part of the conference or something.


If there is not and it makes the difference of inclusion or not, you can be assured they make one.
Advertisement
C
CougarClaw
So, If the MWC grabs a BCS slot, how would our revenues compare to the Pac-0's?



The sting of the lousy utes leaving our conference for a lousier conference will be stymied quite a bit by the MWC gaining AQ status.
J
jonnylingo
Timetable could be accelerated.



http://www.ksl.com/?nid=498&sid=11177479



"The assumption has been that Colorado and Utah (if and when invited) would be lined up to begin play in the Pac-12 starting in 2012. But a report this morning claims that timetable could be accelerated.



I wrote last night that if Utah were to play in the MWC for two more seasons, the conference could count Utah's football performances in both seasons toward any BCS auto-bid qualification calculations, along with Boise State's results from the 2008 through 2011 seasons. If Utah were to leave the MWC before the 2011 football season, the MWC could only count three of Utah's four football seasons in the qualification window"



the article also cites on a different note that the coaches in the big12 don't like the championship game.
B
blue42
GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
Actually, Greg Wrubell comments on exactly your point, 42:



http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=498&sid=11174974


A side note: since Colorado and Utah would not begin Pac-10 membership until July of 2012, both schools would have two lame duck seasons in the Big 12 and MWC, respectively.



As it turns out, Utah can help the cause of its current league, since any Ute football results achieved in the next two seasons would count toward the MWC's AQ qualification efforts, comprising the 2008 through 2011 seasons



The Mountain West will be able to count the performances of football power brokers BYU, Utah, TCU and now Boise State for all four of those seasons--assuming Utah stays in the MWC through the 2011-2012 athletic seasons, as appears would be the case considering the current Pac-10 timeline (according to BCS bylaws, "The (AQ status) computations will be made according to the conference's membership on Dec. 4, 2011").


I must have missed the 2012 part of the whole thing, but I have always felt Utah was a lame duck anyway. :D




jonnylingo wrote:
Timetable could be accelerated.



http://www.ksl.com/?nid=498&sid=11177479



"The assumption has been that Colorado and Utah (if and when invited) would be lined up to begin play in the Pac-12 starting in 2012. But a report this morning claims that timetable could be accelerated.



I wrote last night that if Utah were to play in the MWC for two more seasons, the conference could count Utah's football performances in both seasons toward any BCS auto-bid qualification calculations, along with Boise State's results from the 2008 through 2011 seasons. If Utah were to leave the MWC before the 2011 football season, the MWC could only count three of Utah's four football seasons in the qualification window"



the article also cites on a different note that the coaches in the big12 don't like the championship game.


This makes me wonder if the Pac whatever is worried about their AQ status coming up as well? They haven't been world beaters this qualifying time. I would be interested to see if someone could run the numbers for the Pac and see where they would fall.
L
Lawboy
If you are the PAC10, and your new TV deal does not kick in until 2012, you do not want to add Utah in 2011. Why split money 11 ways the last year instead of 10, and why have 11 teams in a conference where you play everyone each year. That makes no sense. You add Utah and Colorado together, realign at that time, then start with the new TV deal and revenue sharing then. If Utah jumps, it will be 2012, and I really can not see it any other way.



I still think the realignment is not done. I guarantee that the Big 10 is not done, if they can land Notre Dame. And that could mean Missouri still goes, the Big East could get raided, and then the ACC might add teams. I think this is not over yet, by a long shot.
S
scott715
The real question is how do we get AQ for 2012. We might have to add Houston in a year and possibly drop a team to secure a top 6 in the 2nd criteria. Then that team could be added back when Utah leaves. Getting the AQ for 2 years makes it easier to get it permanently.
Advertisement
M
Mars


Colorado said that they would join the PAC-10 the first year of the new TV deal, 2012.



But then Nebraska said that they would join the Big Ten in 2011.



Now it's looking like Colorado and perhaps Utah could be playing in the PAC-12 by 2011 as well: http://www.dailycamera.com/top-sports/ci_15298600

How would this affect the current PAC-10 TV deal?



This would hurt the MWC's BCS numbers, of course.

Utah must receive an invite before Sep. 1st, 2010 for this to occur (so there's plenty of time).
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.