Another thought on expansion rumors

[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...

[UVACoug]

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.

[Mars]

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.

[UVACoug]

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?

[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...).

[Mars]

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...

[UVACoug]

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?

[jonnylingo]

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.

[jonnylingo]

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.

[Mars]

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'.