04-28-2005, 01:02 PM
There are lots of interesting developments in the new provisions just adopted. There are three basic criteria and some "other criteria" which will be used in determining whether a conference automatically qualifies for having a team selected for a BCS bowl
Conferences will be measured in three ways over the period of 2004-2007.
1-Average ranking in the BCS standings for the conferences highest ranked team
2-Average ranking in the BCS standings for every member of the conference
3-Number of Top 25 teams
Also mentioned are "other criteria" which a committee of eight University Presidents can consider. These include conference market size, its traditions, its television ratings, and its history of selling bowl tickets.
I would hope that the three Basic Criteria cannot be significantly overriden by the "Other Criteria".
Finally, an interesting development is that teams will be included in the conference they are moving to. For example, the ACC's evaluation for 2004 will include Boston College and the Big East's evaluation for 2004 will include Louisville. I'm assuming then that the MAC's 2004 evaluation will not include Marshall and UCF. Rather, they will be included in the evaluation of C-USA.
These criteria using data from 2004-2007 will apply to a conference automatically qualifying for a BCS Bowl in any given year up through 2007.
Besides a conference's automatic qualification, there are other ways for a particular team to be selected.
Getting interesting, eh?
I'm not sure what all this means for the MAC. Certainly, the market size criterion speaks in favor of admitting Temple.
Also, the second of the basic criteria really emphasizes ALL teams in the conference performing well. Bottom feeders will hurt. But it will hurt chiefly in determining a conference's automatic qualification, not a particular team's qualification. Consider, for example, Utah last year. There were several bad teams in the MWC and yet Utah's individual superior performance got them in a BCS Bowl.
Conferences will be measured in three ways over the period of 2004-2007.
1-Average ranking in the BCS standings for the conferences highest ranked team
2-Average ranking in the BCS standings for every member of the conference
3-Number of Top 25 teams
Also mentioned are "other criteria" which a committee of eight University Presidents can consider. These include conference market size, its traditions, its television ratings, and its history of selling bowl tickets.
I would hope that the three Basic Criteria cannot be significantly overriden by the "Other Criteria".
Finally, an interesting development is that teams will be included in the conference they are moving to. For example, the ACC's evaluation for 2004 will include Boston College and the Big East's evaluation for 2004 will include Louisville. I'm assuming then that the MAC's 2004 evaluation will not include Marshall and UCF. Rather, they will be included in the evaluation of C-USA.
These criteria using data from 2004-2007 will apply to a conference automatically qualifying for a BCS Bowl in any given year up through 2007.
Besides a conference's automatic qualification, there are other ways for a particular team to be selected.
Getting interesting, eh?
I'm not sure what all this means for the MAC. Certainly, the market size criterion speaks in favor of admitting Temple.
Also, the second of the basic criteria really emphasizes ALL teams in the conference performing well. Bottom feeders will hurt. But it will hurt chiefly in determining a conference's automatic qualification, not a particular team's qualification. Consider, for example, Utah last year. There were several bad teams in the MWC and yet Utah's individual superior performance got them in a BCS Bowl.