I wonder if the basketball people have any concern about the BCS formula and how this will affect the BE football schools the next time around.

The BE will be evaluated for "the number of top 25 teams, finish of the highest-ranked team and average rank of all teams over a four-year period."

I think 2013 will be the review. Starting with this past season this does not bode well for the BE at all. WVU had a down year and the rest of the league hasn't gotten up to what WVU was before this year. Cincinnati blew it on national TV to one of the worst BCS teams to play so far in the BCS. Only ONE Big East team finished in the top 25 in the poll that counts and next year some outlets are predicting zero BE teams to start the rankings.

This might not be a problem except that the MWC is getting media love and bashing the BCS bid for the Big East. They finished with 3 ranked teams-one in the top 5 (should have been no.1) and are predicted to be back there next year and will likely be for the foreseeable future since there are only 2 or 3 decent teams in their whole conference and all they have to do to get rave reviews is beat a couple of bottom feeding PAC ten teams and the 1-AAs that are the rest of their conference and they will have top 15 rankings every season (meanwhile the BE teams have to beat teams from the Big Ten, Big Twelve, SEC and ACC while also playing in a much more competitive conference top to bottom-also playing one extra non-conference due to less conference teams).

The BE seems asleep at the wheel. If the BCS stays as is which it likely will due to ESPNs huge contract through 2013 then the BE may indeed be in trouble, supposed media markets or not.

(01-27-2009 07:51 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  I wonder if the basketball people have any concern about the BCS formula and how this will affect the BE football schools the next time around.

The BE will be evaluated for "the number of top 25 teams, finish of the highest-ranked team and average rank of all teams over a four-year period."

I think 2013 will be the review. Starting with this past season this does not bode well for the BE at all. WVU had a down year and the rest of the league hasn't gotten up to what WVU was before this year. Cincinnati blew it on national TV to one of the worst BCS teams to play so far in the BCS. Only ONE Big East team finished in the top 25 in the poll that counts and next year some outlets are predicting zero BE teams to start the rankings.

This might not be a problem except that the MWC is getting media love and bashing the BCS bid for the Big East. They finished with 3 ranked teams-one in the top 5 (should have been no.1) and are predicted to be back there next year and will likely be for the foreseeable future since there are only 2 or 3 decent teams in their whole conference and all they have to do to get rave reviews is beat a couple of bottom feeding PAC ten teams and the 1-AAs that are the rest of their conference and they will have top 15 rankings every season (meanwhile the BE teams have to beat teams from the Big Ten, Big Twelve, SEC and ACC while also playing in a much more competitive conference top to bottom-also playing one extra non-conference due to less conference teams).

The BE seems asleep at the wheel. If the BCS stays as is which it likely will due to ESPNs huge contract through 2013 then the BE may indeed be in trouble, supposed media markets or not.

Actually you are somewhat misinformed. The poll in which the BCS goes by is the final regular season BCS Rankings in which you had 2 BIG EAST teams ranked. Also the formula is weighted in regards to league size so the BIG EAST is fine in that regard as well.

No current BCS league is not going to lose it AQ status IMHO and in reality the only league that has so-called issues is not the BIG EAST but the ACC. They finished with only 2 ranked teams in the final BCS rankings and their highest ranked team was 14th in Georgia Tech.

(01-27-2009 07:51 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  I wonder if the basketball people have any concern about the BCS formula and how this will affect the BE football schools the next time around.

The BE will be evaluated for "the number of top 25 teams, finish of the highest-ranked team and average rank of all teams over a four-year period."

I think 2013 will be the review. Starting with this past season this does not bode well for the BE at all. WVU had a down year and the rest of the league hasn't gotten up to what WVU was before this year. Cincinnati blew it on national TV to one of the worst BCS teams to play so far in the BCS. Only ONE Big East team finished in the top 25 in the poll that counts and next year some outlets are predicting zero BE teams to start the rankings.

This might not be a problem except that the MWC is getting media love and bashing the BCS bid for the Big East. They finished with 3 ranked teams-one in the top 5 (should have been no.1) and are predicted to be back there next year and will likely be for the foreseeable future since there are only 2 or 3 decent teams in their whole conference and all they have to do to get rave reviews is beat a couple of bottom feeding PAC ten teams and the 1-AAs that are the rest of their conference and they will have top 15 rankings every season (meanwhile the BE teams have to beat teams from the Big Ten, Big Twelve, SEC and ACC while also playing in a much more competitive conference top to bottom-also playing one extra non-conference due to less conference teams).

The BE seems asleep at the wheel. If the BCS stays as is which it likely will due to ESPNs huge contract through 2013 then the BE may indeed be in trouble, supposed media markets or not.

I question the meteoric rise of some of the BE teams since the realignment. UC,USF,Rutgers,UConn have all been good after either joining the BCS or when the "good" teams left the BE. I look at the BE schedules and they are filled with 1-AA teams and bottom feeding BCS teams minus Cincy playing Oklahoma, and Cuse playing Penn St (The Jury is still out on Kansas, they still haven't beaten anyone). People say the MWC is crap with a couple of good teams. The BE is filled with middle of the road teams with no marque teams. A lot of their rankings will come because they are a BCS conference. Win 10 games as a BCS team(which at least one team will do) and you will be ranked.

(01-27-2009 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Win 10 games as a BCS team(which at least one team will do) and you will be ranked.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you. You take issue with someone from a BCS league with 10 wins being ranked?

Sorry, but if you play in any BCS league and have double digit wins in the regular season, you are clearly a Top 25 team. Not sure how you want to debate that.

First off the poll that will be used is the final regular season BCS poll and as I had stated in previous thread the Big East has placed more teams in a four year period (evaluation period) than the MWD. The BE champ has avg a higher ranking in same time period and the Big East has placed SEVEN out of its eight teams in that final poll during that time. The MWC has placed THREE out nine.
So while they had a nice year, when you compare them during the evaluation period guidelines they are still behind the BE.
As for the comment of who the BE beat out of conference, please let me know outside of the bowl wins,which ranked team the MWC beat out of conference?

The BCS isn't going to remove the Big East. It might have been a question mark a couple of years ago, but I don't believe that it's an issue any longer. As someone said in another thread, the BCS is a private club and it will alter the rules of membership in order to fit it into who it wants as members (i.e. allowing Louisville's high rankings when it was in C-USA to count for the BE in the last BCS league calculations) as opposed to the other way around. The ACC also doesn't have any issues regardless of their rankings - they have Miami and Florida State, which are marquee national programs, and as long as those schools are in that conference, they are a guaranteed BCS league.

Most people are looking at this issue in a way that is completely opposite of what most university presidents care about. The measure for BCS membership is NOT about how GOOD a conference is - it's really about how much do people care about that conference even if it is BAD in a particular season. People are still watching Miami and Florida State (the two highest-rated bowl games this past year outside of the BCS and New Year's Day bowls involved those teams) even when they are relatively down and out of the national title picture. No team in the MWC is anywhere near that level in terms of sustained national interest year-in and year-out regardless of performance on the field. THAT'S the standard that the MWC would need to meet: it needs Utah to become as popular to the casual sports fan year-in and year-out as Florida State even when the Utes aren't that good. Does anyone reasonably see that ever happening?

(01-27-2009 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The BCS isn't going to remove the Big East. It might have been a question mark a couple of years ago, but I don't believe that it's an issue any longer. As someone said in another thread, the BCS is a private club and it will alter the rules of membership in order to fit it into who it wants as members (i.e. allowing Louisville's high rankings when it was in C-USA to count for the BE in the last BCS league calculations) as opposed to the other way around.

Actually that was an accident. John Swofford wanted to use BC rankings before the 2004 season started to boost his conference and hurt the BIG EAST. Little did he know that Louisville would go 11-1 and finish 10th in the nation.

(01-27-2009 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The BCS isn't going to remove the Big East. It might have been a question mark a couple of years ago, but I don't believe that it's an issue any longer. As someone said in another thread, the BCS is a private club and it will alter the rules of membership in order to fit it into who it wants as members (i.e. allowing Louisville's high rankings when it was in C-USA to count for the BE in the last BCS league calculations) as opposed to the other way around. The ACC also doesn't have any issues regardless of their rankings - they have Miami and Florida State, which are marquee national programs, and as long as those schools are in that conference, they are a guaranteed BCS league.

Most people are looking at this issue in a way that is completely opposite of what most university presidents care about. The measure for BCS membership is NOT about how GOOD a conference is - it's really about how much do people care about that conference even if it is BAD in a particular season. People are still watching Miami and Florida State (the two highest-rated bowl games this past year outside of the BCS and New Year's Day bowls involved those teams) even when they are relatively down and out of the national title picture. No team in the MWC is anywhere near that level in terms of sustained national interest year-in and year-out regardless of performance on the field. THAT'S the standard that the MWC would need to meet: it needs Utah to become as popular to the casual sports fan year-in and year-out as Florida State even when the Utes aren't that good. Does anyone reasonably see that ever happening?

To answer your question I remember in the 70s when Miami,FSU and UF did not matter to the national TV audience.
So can Utah and other teams do it? Yes but they would have to be in NC contention for a few years in arow and get into the minds of the national audience that this school is relevant on a yearly basis.

(01-27-2009 09:11 AM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(01-27-2009 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Win 10 games as a BCS team(which at least one team will do) and you will be ranked.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you. You take issue with someone from a BCS league with 10 wins being ranked?

Sorry, but if you play in any BCS league and have double digit wins in the regular season, you are clearly a Top 25 team. Not sure how you want to debate that.

Yea I agree completely. Cincy, Rutgers, and USF have it easier to sustain themselves clearly than UConn and UL due to being in the heart of prime recruiting grounds. However I think UConn continues to grow because they have a good coaching staff, an administration that knows how to build a program, and access to huge sports markets in New York and Boston. UL needs to can Krag and get someone capable in there ASAP.

All the experts agree that The BEast is the weakest conference. Even if they're wrong, they vote their feelings. So why in the hell should we care or worry about what they say?

They're going to do what they're going to do, and their ain't sh!t we can do about it. All we can do is go out and kick some butt every chance we get. And if we get to shove their foot in their mouth in the process, all the better...

(01-27-2009 10:26 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(01-27-2009 10:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The BCS isn't going to remove the Big East. It might have been a question mark a couple of years ago, but I don't believe that it's an issue any longer. As someone said in another thread, the BCS is a private club and it will alter the rules of membership in order to fit it into who it wants as members (i.e. allowing Louisville's high rankings when it was in C-USA to count for the BE in the last BCS league calculations) as opposed to the other way around. The ACC also doesn't have any issues regardless of their rankings - they have Miami and Florida State, which are marquee national programs, and as long as those schools are in that conference, they are a guaranteed BCS league.

Most people are looking at this issue in a way that is completely opposite of what most university presidents care about. The measure for BCS membership is NOT about how GOOD a conference is - it's really about how much do people care about that conference even if it is BAD in a particular season. People are still watching Miami and Florida State (the two highest-rated bowl games this past year outside of the BCS and New Year's Day bowls involved those teams) even when they are relatively down and out of the national title picture. No team in the MWC is anywhere near that level in terms of sustained national interest year-in and year-out regardless of performance on the field. THAT'S the standard that the MWC would need to meet: it needs Utah to become as popular to the casual sports fan year-in and year-out as Florida State even when the Utes aren't that good. Does anyone reasonably see that ever happening?

To answer your question I remember in the 70s when Miami,FSU and UF did not matter to the national TV audience.
So can Utah and other teams do it? Yes but they would have to be in NC contention for a few years in arow and get into the minds of the national audience that this school is relevant on a yearly basis.

I would agree that anything is possible but am still very skeptical as to whether it could happen. An interesting question is whether today's world where there are hundreds of football games on each season helps or hurts that situation. When the Florida schools started their rise back in 1970s and 1980s, they got the benefit of national TV exposure in an era when such exposure was relatively rare. Thus, they cemented their power status when lots of people were paying attention (since they had few other options). Now, there are a lot of teams that get on national television with regularity, which would seem to be a good thing on paper, but it also detracts from the ability to break through the clutter of options on television. (We can make a similar comparison to all TV shows in general. It will be almost impossible for any TV show going forward to have the cultural impact of shows such as, say, Happy Days in the 1970s or the Cosby Show in the 1980s because there are simply so many options these days.) As a result, breaking into that truly elite tier of programs (i.e. USC, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Florida, Texas, etc.) is actually more difficult today.

I think that the reasonable best case scenario for a program like Utah would to become the equivalent of Gonzaga for basketball - it gets some national attention, is respected in the postseason, yet wouldn't be considered an "elite" program. That's a perfectly good status to have, but that alone wouldn't suffice in terms of being a marquee headliner for an entire conference (such that it would leveraged to obtain BCS status).

The BCS bowl alliance was set up so that the power conferences would have even access to the high-payout bowls in seasons when all of the conferences didn't really have teams worthy to play in said bowls. It worked just like it was designed; the Big East and ACC had teams in the Orange Bowl while Texas Tech and Boise State - who deserved BCS bowl bids based on the BCS's own rankings - were left out.

All this talk of the MWC getting the 7th AQ or the Big East or the ACC losing their AQ status is really silly. The MWC will not repeat this year's success for 3 more years, and even if they do, the bottom half of their conference will bring down their "average rating" far enough to keep them from gaining an AQ. Likewise. there is no way in hell the Big East and the ACC stay down for the next 3 years. FSU and UNC could make a lot of noise next year on the national scene, as could USF or WVU... Heck, the entire Big East should be better next year than this year.

(01-27-2009 09:11 AM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(01-27-2009 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Win 10 games as a BCS team(which at least one team will do) and you will be ranked.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you. You take issue with someone from a BCS league with 10 wins being ranked?

Sorry, but if you play in any BCS league and have double digit wins in the regular season, you are clearly a Top 25 team. Not sure how you want to debate that.

What I am saying is that how can you blame the MWC teams for playing weak in conference scheduling, while so many of the BE teams are playing weak OOC scheduling. The schedules are ridiculous. 1 FCS team, 1-2 service academies, 2-3 BCS bottom feeders. That's 5 wins there. Then go 5-2 in the conference, which somebody has to do and you've got 10 wins and ranked. I don't think that makes a clear top 25 team. I'm just saying.

(01-27-2009 02:22 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-27-2009 09:11 AM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(01-27-2009 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Win 10 games as a BCS team(which at least one team will do) and you will be ranked.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you. You take issue with someone from a BCS league with 10 wins being ranked?

Sorry, but if you play in any BCS league and have double digit wins in the regular season, you are clearly a Top 25 team. Not sure how you want to debate that.

What I am saying is that how can you blame the MWC teams for playing weak in conference scheduling, while so many of the BE teams are playing weak OOC scheduling. The schedules are ridiculous. 1 FCS team, 1-2 service academies, 2-3 BCS bottom feeders. That's 5 wins there. Then go 5-2 in the conference, which somebody has to do and you've got 10 wins and ranked. I don't think that makes a clear top 25 team. I'm just saying.

What the hell are you talking about? I am sure BE teams play more BCS teams on the road than any other BCS conference.

For next year's UCONN schedule we got Baylor on the road, UNC at home and ND away. We also play Ohio (MAC) on the road. I would say this is not exactly an easy schedule. Baylor is much improved.

(01-27-2009 02:26 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(01-27-2009 02:22 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(01-27-2009 09:11 AM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(01-27-2009 08:29 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Win 10 games as a BCS team(which at least one team will do) and you will be ranked.

I want to make sure I'm understanding you. You take issue with someone from a BCS league with 10 wins being ranked?

Sorry, but if you play in any BCS league and have double digit wins in the regular season, you are clearly a Top 25 team. Not sure how you want to debate that.

What I am saying is that how can you blame the MWC teams for playing weak in conference scheduling, while so many of the BE teams are playing weak OOC scheduling. The schedules are ridiculous. 1 FCS team, 1-2 service academies, 2-3 BCS bottom feeders. That's 5 wins there. Then go 5-2 in the conference, which somebody has to do and you've got 10 wins and ranked. I don't think that makes a clear top 25 team. I'm just saying.

What the hell are you talking about? I am sure BE teams play more BCS teams on the road than any other BCS conference.

For next year's UCONN schedule we got Baylor on the road, UNC at home and ND away. We also play Ohio (MAC) on the road. I would say this is not exactly an easy schedule. Baylor is much improved.

That may be true, but so many of them are BCS bottom feeders. Baylor may be good next year, but your AD wasn't thinking that he put them on the schedule. That's a pretty easy schedule that you have plus add in the FCS game. 4-1 OOC (loss to UNC), who knows in conference? Go 6-1 in the BE and you won 10 games. Are they a 10 win team next year?

The BE has 0% chance of being kicked out of the club.. the MWC has a 1% chance of being added.

(01-27-2009 10:03 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  First off the poll that will be used is the final regular season BCS poll and as I had stated in previous thread the Big East has placed more teams in a four year period (evaluation period) than the MWD. The BE champ has avg a higher ranking in same time period and the Big East has placed SEVEN out of its eight teams in that final poll during that time. The MWC has placed THREE out nine.
So while they had a nice year, when you compare them during the evaluation period guidelines they are still behind the BE.
As for the comment of who the BE beat out of conference, please let me know outside of the bowl wins,which ranked team the MWC beat out of conference?

That's not what they mean by "number of top 25 teams". They mean the number of times the conference's teams are ranked in the top 25.
However, the Big East is doing very well. 9 top 25 rankings in the past 3 years. Compare to the bigger MWC's 5, and ACC and Big Ten's 10.

And, again, the Big East's rotating set of competitive teams does not help the league very much. When Louisville, Pittsburgh, South Florida rise and flop, it gives the impression that the league is full of mediocrity, not the parity that it would otherwise suggest.

Only the Big East is under the review criteria to my knowledge at this time. One of the criteria for a conference to remain a BCS AQ conference is whether it is an anchor conference to a BCS bowl. The ACC (Orange), Big 12 (Fiesta), SEC (Sugar), Big 10 and PAC-10 (Rose) are all anchored and going nowhere. The Big East, by being essentially an at-large AQ conference, appears to be the only one that has review criteria has any merit towards being applied to.

This is why, IMO, the conference needs to negotiate with someone, whether its the Orange, Sugar or Fiesta (or maybe a Orange/Sugar hybrid), and get the conference anchored to a bowl. Without it, the conference will always be under the scrutiny of reviews.

true, the top 5 are 'immune' due to the fact they have a 'host' bowl. The BE was 'reaffirmed' through 2013 by the bcs at the last meetings, basically giving the BE 'immunity' until then. The review yrs for the BE (and the nonbcs) will be 2010,11,12,13 to see if they qualify for 2014,15 if the thing is still intact. The mwc or other nonbcs really has no chance until 2014 unless the bcs changes criteria or adds spots.

(01-27-2009 04:42 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Only the Big East is under the review criteria to my knowledge at this time. One of the criteria for a conference to remain a BCS AQ conference is whether it is an anchor conference to a BCS bowl. The ACC (Orange), Big 12 (Fiesta), SEC (Sugar), Big 10 and PAC-10 (Rose) are all anchored and going nowhere. The Big East, by being essentially an at-large AQ conference, appears to be the only one that has review criteria has any merit towards being applied to.

This is why, IMO, the conference needs to negotiate with someone, whether its the Orange, Sugar or Fiesta (or maybe a Orange/Sugar hybrid), and get the conference anchored to a bowl. Without it, the conference will always be under the scrutiny of reviews.

Here are the rules for future BCS eligibility:

Quote:The champions of the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and Southeastern Conferences will have annual automatic qualification for a BCS game after the regular seasons of 2008 through 2013, 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.

You might be technically correct depending on how the last paragraph of the rules would be interpreted. The 5 BCS conferences outside of the BE have their own contractual arrangements with the various BCS bowls, so they are virtually protected. It's interesting what was stated in the 2nd paragraph, where the "champions of no more than seven conferences will have annual automatic berths". There seemed to be an anticipation that there could be one more AQ conference, but it would be capped thereafter. Notwithstanding my comment from earlier that the BCS will change it rules to fit the members that it wants, my thinking is that the BCS will actually stick to its own rules here and simply make its evaluation based on the 2008-2011 seasons. There's no reason for the BCS to rock the boat until that time.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility