Jackson1011 Wrote:-- Again...I'm confused....the site you posted has Colorado St at #79 and you have them at #37....most be some kind of mistake somewhere

--West Virginia was #14 in the final BCS standings in 2002


Jackson

I got the numbers from the "conference data" section

in 2003 it was

18 TCU
22 Utah
42 NM
47 Wyo

26 WVU
30 Pitt
43 UL
46 Uconn

UABGrad Wrote:omni,

I'm not saying markets don't matter and agree in the past it was a big part of the decision of who was in and who was out. I have just gathered from the BCS statements that things are changing and there will only be an on the field performance formula similar to the one you proposed for qualification. I don't know this for a fact, but I bet the MWC commish Craig Thompson got this concession.

My proposal for a formula is similar to yours.

3 out 4 years having a top 15 team
Average 25% of the conference in the top 25
Average 50% of the conference in the top 50

This would be a quite a bit tougher on the 12 team conferences but the big 5 would easily pass muster.

The Big East didn't have a problem meeting those criterias. They had 2 teams finish in the Top 25 (25% of the conference), 4 teams finish in the Top 50 (50% of the conference), and a Top 15 team, almost two. So those criteria fit the Big East just fine.

Cat's_Claw Wrote:That doesn't mean anything.  Past records don't mean anything because the Big East is changing the requirements.  Unless those schools you mentioned finish in the Top 15 now and for the next few years it means nothing.  Meanwhile, schools like Virginia Tech and Louisville are proof that things change and its possible for schools to finish in the Top 15 who never finished their consistently before.  Bottomline, the BCS is more likely to look at the fact that 4 Big East schools are CURRENTLY ranked, or finished the season ranked in the Top 40 before looking at the fact that a few schools finished in the Top 15 over the last 15 years.  You're wrong about records not meaning anything without a SOS connected to it when looking at current rankings.  Louisville finished the season ranked #10.  Now, say, Louisville finished with a SOS of #110.  Do you really believe the BCS will say "Louisville's Top 10 ranking counts, but they had a weak SOS so it doesn't mean anything".  Also, what do you think would carry more weight with the BCS changing their rules, the fact that the Big East had a team finish ranked #10, #21, #26 and #29 and had 6 bowl teams, or the fact that Utah, TCU and BYU (two of which finished with losing records) finished ranked in the Top 15 several years ago (except for Utah who finished this year)?

What I was trying to say and evidently not to clearly is records alone do not tell you the strength of a team.

Example:

Say Ohio St finished the year at 8-3 playing a B10 schedule and UAB finished 8-3 playing a C-USA schedule. Those records don't mean UAB is as good as Ohio St. The RPI rating is all that really matters in the messed up world.

And I agree things change. Problem is that opportunity exist for the MWC as well as the BE conference.

It really doesn't matter to me which conference is stronger since I don't have a horse in the race, but from an outsider looking at RPI's I can't tell a difference between the BE and MWC.

I understand perfectly clear, and I'm telling you that your theory that SOS will nullify a record or rankings is ridiculous. Bottomline, when the final rankings come out, Louisville's #10 ranking and Pitt's #21 ranking in the BCS are solidified, whether they had a SOS that was the worst in the country or not. Boise State's Top 10 ranking is set in stone, no matter what anybody thinks of their SOS, same with Utah. You may not see any difference in the BE and MWC but the BCS does. That's why they added conference strength.

UABGrad Wrote:Say Ohio St finished the year at 8-3 playing a B10 schedule and UAB finished 8-3 playing a C-USA schedule.  Those records don't mean UAB is as good as Ohio St.

You know what? If Ohio State finishes 8-3 in the Big Ten with a Big Ten schedule and Arizona finishes 8-3 in the Pac-10 with a Pac-10 schedule, guess which school is going to get the most respect? It varies from conference to conference. Winning in the Big Ten is more prestigious then winning in the Pac-10 or Big East. Example, Pitt finishing 8-4 in the Big East is more prestigious then Memphis finishing 8-4 in C-USA or New Mexico finishing 7-5 in the MWC.

Quote:3 out 4 years having a top 15 team
Average 25% of the conference in the top 25
Average 50% of the conference in the top 50

This would be a quite a bit tougher on the 12 team conferences but the big 5 would easily pass muster.

If that is the formula adopted, MW might have a chance at meeting as well as the BE. Not sure if it will be adopted, since one needs to keep in mind that after the Top 35 or so, the rest of the BCS rankings are skewed since the human polls are not involved, which takes away what was 2/3 of the rankings. With AP pulling their poll out of the BCS, it could conceivably become strictly computerized in which case Top 50 might be doable.

Still think they will probably cut it off at Top 40. And if they do, MW is more suspect but much closer at making it than non-auto-bid conferences with 12 members.

Quote:in 2003 it was

18 TCU
22 Utah
42 NM
47 Wyo

26 WVU
30 Pitt
43 UL
46 Uconn

Again, the BCS rankings that would be used are the ones prior to the Bowl game selections. According to CollegeBCS.com (a pay site) in 2003 the rankings were:

TCU - 18
Utah - 22
Colo St - 45
New Mexico - 46

WVU - 26
Pitt - 30
UL - 35
UConn - 36

Cheers,
Neil

Cat's_Claw Wrote:I understand perfectly clear, and I'm telling you that your theory that SOS will nullify a record or rankings is ridiculous. Bottomline, when the final rankings come out, Louisville's #10 ranking and Pitt's #21 ranking in the BCS are solidified, whether they had a SOS that was the worst in the country or not. Boise State's Top 10 ranking is set in stone, no matter what anybody thinks of their SOS, same with Utah. You may not see any difference in the BE and MWC but the BCS does. That's why they added conference strength.

Omni points out above it's probably not just going to be top 15 and top 25 but go deeper into the conferences. Last year is just one year and the autobid supposedly will be based on 4 years.

Why not just compare RPI's of the top 4 teams of the 2 new line ups over the last 4 years and leave it at that? I haven't done that and would be interested in the comparison.

omnicarrier Wrote:Again, the BCS rankings that would be used are the ones prior to the Bowl game selections. According to CollegeBCS.com (a pay site) in 2003 the rankings were:

TCU - 18
Utah - 22
Colo St - 45
New Mexico - 46

WVU - 26
Pitt - 30
UL - 35
UConn - 36

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks Neil,

I don't totally trust the RTell site.

UABGrad Wrote:Omni points out above it's probably not just going to be top 15 and top 25 but go deeper into the conferences. Last year is just one year and the autobid supposedly will be based on 4 years.

Why not just compare RPI's of the top 4 teams of the 2 new line ups over the last 4 years and leave it at that? I haven't done that and would be interested in the comparison.

Because what has happened over the last 4 years might not be relevant. UC has a new coach who is doing a fantastic job with the program and has a national profile and national championship ring, maybe UC will rise and be a Top 40 program. UConn has already showed they can be a Top 40 program. Maybe one of those programs will blossom into a Top 30 or 25 program. Maybe South Florida's recruiting class will go through the roof and they will be a Top 25 program. Maybe Syracuse's new coach will get them back to the national name that we know they can be. Why compare the last 4 years when Utah has a new coach? Maybe some of the programs in the Mountain West are on a downward spiral, who knows. If we compare teams over the last 4 years then that would leave you to believe that Marshall is a better football program right now then Louisville, which isn't true. That's why the BCS and others are looking at last season and the (current/near future) conference configurations.

Cat's_Claw Wrote:Because what has happened over the last 4 years might not be relevant.

Well I would say let's compare the coming four years but my time machine is on the blink.

Quote:(Cat's_Claw @ Apr 1 2005, 06:29 PM)
Because what has happened over the last 4 years might not be relevant. 

Well I would say let's compare the coming four years but my time machine is on the blink.

And what I'm attempting to do is to say based upon past performances we can take an educated guess as to which conferences are likely to, or unlikely to, achieve the hypothetical formula.

The MW schools that have finished in the Top 15 over the past seven years are:

TCU - #14 in 2000
Utah - #6 in 2004

In that period TCU also had a #18 and #33 finish with the others out of the Top 50.

Utah had a #22 and #34 finish with the others out of the Top 50.


NBE teams that have finished in the Top 15 in the BCS rankings over the past seven years are:

SU #15 in 1998
WVU #15 in 2002
Louisville #10 in 2004

In addition to the above, SU has had a #17, #39, and #41 finish.
WVU has had a #26, another #26, a #27, and a #43 finish.
UL has had a #25, a #27, a #35, and a #42.

Pitt, which hasn't finished in the Top 15 in the BCS rankings yet has had a #21, #26, #30, and #39 finish.

See how multiple finishes in the Top 40 for NBE teams happen more consistently than they do for MW teams? This doesn't mean that the trend will continue this way. But based upon past performances, year-in, year-out NBE teams appear to perform better.

It's easier to meet the criteria when you have 4 programs that perform consistently well. And in those years that one program doesn't, you hope one of the others in the conference not consistently a winner steps up to the plate and does well.

Cheers,
Neil

:bang: I think you should be on a CUSA board or UAB board worrying where UAB can meet the attendance requirements, whether UAB can ever get out of the red ink, and whether CUSA does not become 1AA in football!

The MWC has an ace-in-the-hole. If need be it can pick up Fresno State, Boise State, and UTEP.

Quote:The MWC has an ace-in-the-hole.

One could argue that the Big East has a similar 'ace' in Memphis, Marshall, Southern Miss, and ECU or whoever "if need be."

omnicarrier Wrote:See how multiple finishes in the Top 40 for NBE teams happen more consistently than they do for MW teams? This doesn't mean that the trend will continue this way. But based upon past performances, year-in, year-out NBE teams appear to perform better.

It's easier to meet the criteria when you have 4 programs that perform consistently well. And in those years that one program doesn't, you hope one of the others in the conference not consistently a winner steps up to the plate and does well.

Cheers,
Neil

Yes.

And don't forget Pitt, WVU, and Syracuse will be finishing higher in the standings than they did in previous years without the challenge of VT, Miami, and BC.

The Big East is in a much better position than the MWC.

1)The Big East currently has a BCS bid

2)The Big East has bigger markets

3)The members that make up the new membership of the Big E have more top 40 finishes.

I don't think the new rules are going to be as stringent as some on here are suggesting. They'll want 50% of a conference in the top 40 but there won't be a top 10 requirement although probably a top 25 requirement of a two school average per year for an 8 team conference.

Wilkie01 Wrote::bang: I think you should be on a CUSA board or UAB board worrying where UAB can meet the attendance requirements, whether UAB can ever get out of the red ink, and whether CUSA does not become 1AA in football!

Quite please the adults are trying to have a conversation. Can you just play with your army men or your GI Joe for a while?

omnicarrier Wrote:And what I'm attempting to do is to say based upon past performances we can take an educated guess as to which conferences are likely to, or unlikely to, achieve the hypothetical formula.

The RTell site only has rpi's for all the teams from the year 2000. Below is the average for the top 4 ranked teams.

MWC
16
33
47
60

BE
18
29
41
46

Quote:BE
18
29
41
46

This isn't really a fair measurement of the past 4 years in the Big East or an accurate way to predict the league's future performance. You exclude Miami and Virginia Tech from the previous rankings, but the losses that the 'Big East Champ' suffers against these schools still count. Losses that wouldn't have happened were they not in the league.

i.e. In 2002, WVU would have been ranked 10th or so, not 15th, had we played USF instead of Miami. Ditto in 03.

Quote:The RTell site only has rpi's for all the teams from the year 2000. Below is the average for the top 4 ranked teams.

MWC
16
33
47
60

BE
18
29
41
46

While RPI might be the way the formula goes in the future, it hasn't in the past. And if RPI were used, then the hypothetical formula we've been using - 1 in Top 10/15, 1 more in Top 25, 2 more in Top 40/50 would have to be adjusted simply because one bad year in a four or five year span where your RPI is in the 60s lowers the scores.

Ultimately, since this is the BCS and a BCS-eligibility formula, it is BCS rankings that I believe will be used.

Btw, I think this RTell site you are using may be off though, because I can find no MW team that would have achieved an average of 16 over that 5 year span nor a NBE team that would have achieved an average of 18. Or do the 16 and 18 not represent actual averages, but rather team rankings (out of 117) after all averages are calculated?

Cheers,
Neil

Leonardo Wrote:The MWC has an ace-in-the-hole. If need be it can pick up Fresno State, Boise State, and UTEP.

How is that an ace in the hole!?