CSNbbs

I'm going to try to summarize important features that we know so far and those we don't know. And I'm going to toss in my opinion about several issues.

Overall, I think what we know about the new BCS system is a significant improvement for what has been called the non-BCS conferences (this is what Scott Cowen, President of Tulane and head of the Coalition for Athletics reform said).

It looks like full details will not be determined until all conferences have reviewed and approved the new BCS system. Some important changes, however, have already been released.

1-Beyond adding a 5th BCS Bowl, the most important change I think is this: the new system moves more towards having BCS Bowl participation decided by performance on the field. This is true for all conferences. Yes, it appears the new Big East got a break by receiving a 5 year or so extension of its automatic bid before having to qualify by having its conference champion average a top 12 ranking over a four year period. Normally, the 5 top conferences should have no trouble meeting this requirement. Many people feel, however, that the new Big East could struggle to meet it. If they don't, their automatic bid could be revoked. But they've been given a breathing period.

2-We know that Coalition leader Scott Cowen has been very determined in making the BCS system more equitable for all Div. 1A conferences. This leads me to believe him when he said things like the new system is a significant improvement and that the BCS/non-BCS distinction will no longer be valid.

3-Access to BCS bowl bids for the former "non-BCS" conferences will be made easier by a changed BCS ranking system. Cowen said that under the proposed new ranking system, 4 former "non-BCS" teams would have received invitations in the last 6 years.

4-The amount of money that former "non-BCS" conferences receive will be increased.

5-The new 5th BCS Bowl will have the same status as the current BCS Bowls. I assume this means that its payout will be the same as the others. I also assume that former "non-BCS" conferences will not be restricted to this 5th Bowl. Rather, they will also be eligible for bids to the 4 current BCS Bowls.

So, among the significant things we don't yet know are 1-what the details of the new BCS ranking system will be and 2-how much more BCS Bowl money the former "non-BCS" conferences will receive from the total BCS pool. As I recall, the current distribution is something like over $100 million for BCS conferences and $6 million for "non-BCS" conferences.

Of course, we also don't know how the new BCS system might change other aspects of college football. Here's some I wonder about.

We can be sure that there will be continued pressure for teams to obtain bids to BCS Bowls. And soon this pressure will more directly affect former "non-BCS" schools. I'm wondering how this will affect out of conference scheduling. For example, will it be easier or more difficult for MAC schools to schedule current BCS schools?Surely, "strength of schedule" will still be a part of the new BCS ranking system. Too many "patsies" might make it more difficult for schools to be ranked highly, especially for conferences (new Big East?) whose status might come under review .

Another issue is conference championship games. If a highly ranked team loses in its conference championship game, it may jeopardize receiving a BCS Bowl bid. Does the MAC see this as a risk under the new system? Compare how much TV money the MAC receives for its championship game versus how much it would receive for playing in a BCS Bowl.

Also, consider how the new system might affect the MAC's tolerance for teams that continue to perform poorly and the impact of this on the BCS rankings of teams that are performing well. The teams performing well might have their BCS ranking negatively affected.

I do think that if things work out like they are projected to, the MAC's stronger connections with the new Big East (Indy Bowl? Increased scheduling?) might turn out to be be a good move.

Finally, if Cowen is correct and the BCS/non-BCS distinction will soon no longer be valid, I'm wondering what new terminology will emerge to distinguish automatic BCS Bowl bid conferences from non-automatic ones. And in basketball, I hate the "mid-major" term that seems to have become an accepted part of our college sports vocabulary.

So much to think about here. I hope the details of the new BCS system are released soon so that we can better answer some of these questions.

As I said at the beginning, though, it looks to me that what we know about the proposed new system represents a real advance for the MAC.

Santa Fe Falcon Wrote:Another issue is conference championship games. If a highly ranked team loses in its conference championship game, it may jeopardize receiving a BCS Bowl bid. Does the MAC see this as a risk under the new system? Compare how much TV money the MAC receives for its championship game versus how much it would receive for playing in a BCS Bowl.

That's definitely an interesting question. It has happened in the old Alliance, when Texas upset Nebraska...but one or both went to a big bowl, so it was no big deal.

Change that to a MAC scenario, where this year BG over Miami (OH) likely would have cost a BCS slot (to Boise St and TCU) and you gotta wonder if the MAC would pull the plug.

Maybe invites will go out before championship games, but that distracts from the upcoming games, and early invites were part of the problem of the old bowl system.

DrTorch Wrote:

Santa Fe Falcon Wrote:Another issue is conference championship games.  If a highly ranked team loses in its conference championship game, it may jeopardize receiving a BCS Bowl bid.  Does the MAC see this as a risk under the new system?  Compare how much TV money the MAC receives for its championship game versus how much it would receive for playing in a BCS Bowl.

That's definitely an interesting question. It has happened in the old Alliance, when Texas upset Nebraska...but one or both went to a big bowl, so it was no big deal.

Change that to a MAC scenario, where this year BG over Miami (OH) likely would have cost a BCS slot (to Boise St and TCU) and you gotta wonder if the MAC would pull the plug.

Maybe invites will go out before championship games, but that distracts from the upcoming games, and early invites were part of the problem of the old bowl system.

It could work both ways guys. Let's say team A from the East and B from the West meet in the MAC Championship game. Team A is just outside of the BCS picture. They beat team B, which has beat some good teams, and it raises team A up enough to get into the BCS picture.

I was under the impression that it is going to be harder for the current BCS teams to get BCS bids. I took it as the BCS conferences champion will need to be in the top 12, if not they don't get an automatic BCS bowl game. This would mean if a #6 lost to a #20 in a championship game the #20 wouldn't get an automatic bid. Is this how others took it or am I totally off base?

NIUFAN84 Wrote:I was under the impression that it is going to be harder for the current BCS teams to get BCS bids. I took it as the BCS conferences champion will need to be in the top 12, if not they don't get an automatic BCS bowl game. This would mean if a #6 lost to a #20 in a championship game the #20 wouldn't get an automatic bid. Is this how others took it or am I totally off base?

I understood this too, and I thought it was currently the case. Thus the BE's worry. But, these things have changed and been fudged so many times, I honestly don't know.

A lot of people are sniping at the new arrangement, but I think once we see and absorb all the details, I think we may grow to like it.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the situation, but it seems to me the Big East can plausibly claim to have retained an automatic bid because, under the new agreement, it would at least for now.

Now, if the Big East performs like I think the Big East is going to perform, then it maybe it could lose that automatic bid.

The Tulane guy says four non-BCS programs would have made the dance over the past few years under the new rules. (I'm guessing Tulane '98, Marshall '99 and Miami '03 are three of those schools). If true, that's probably fine.

I mean, did any other non-BCS school out there *really* deserve a spot in one of the top bowls? Did Boise State or Texas Christian deserve one last year? (That's a rhetorical question; the answer is "no.")

It wasn't like any of us were wringing our hands over Toledo missing out on one of the four big bowls in '95. That was a fine Toledo team, but they played a light schedule which is a big reason why they finished the season No. 24 instead of up toward the Top 10.

If I were to nitpick, it would be to nippick the comptuer rating system, which seems a bit stacked against us. That's my impression, anyway.

University of Oregon president Dave Frohnmayer,chairman of the BCS Oversight Committee: " The Big East is currently a member of the BCS, and under the new agreement will continue to be a member." The share base for a BCS berth is worth $13.5 million. The only requirement to maintaining an automatic bid is for the league champion to average a top 12 ranking over a four year period. This buys a five year continuance. By adding four Football members,which would allow for a Championship game, and more revenue,along with a top Basketball league, the Big East stands to gain a lot of $$$$$.

NIUFAN84 Wrote:I was under the impression that it is going to be harder for the current BCS teams to get BCS bids. I took it as the BCS conferences champion will need to be in the top 12, if not they don't get an automatic BCS bowl game. This would mean if a #6 lost to a #20 in a championship game the #20 wouldn't get an automatic bid. Is this how others took it or am I totally off base?

Totally off base. As it stands now, a team could be unranked and still get the conference's auto berth. The rule is that in order for the conference to retain its auto bid, its champion has to average at least a #12 BCS ranking over four years... Even then, I think it's only put on "probationary" status (I could be wrong about that one). Conferences have slipped under #12 before (Florida State '02, Syracuse '98), but it's the 4-year average that matters.

PhatPhelix Wrote:

NIUFAN84 Wrote:I was under the impression that it is going to be harder for the current BCS teams to get BCS bids. I took it as the BCS conferences champion will need to be in the top 12, if not they don't get an automatic BCS bowl game. This would mean if a #6 lost to a #20 in a championship game the #20 wouldn't get an automatic bid. Is this how others took it or am I totally off base?

Totally off base. As it stands now, a team could be unranked and still get the conference's auto berth. The rule is that in order for the conference to retain its auto bid, its champion has to average at least a #12 BCS ranking over four years... Even then, I think it's only put on "probationary" status (I could be wrong about that one). Conferences have slipped under #12 before (Florida State '02, Syracuse '98), but it's the 4-year average that matters.

Yeah, but the old BE always had UCG or VPI to bail it out.

Averaging in the top 12 can work against you too, as in, "Pitt and Syr haven't been above #15 in 3 years, that means the BE needs a champ to be #3 or better this year."

DrTorch Wrote:Yeah, but the old BE always had UCG or VPI to bail it out.

Averaging in the top 12 can work against you too, as in, "Pitt and Syr haven't been above #15 in 3 years, that means the BE needs a champ to be #3 or better this year."

Oh, you know that they'll let the NBE use Miami's averages from the last two years... Besides, the rules only say that there's a "possible" loss of the auto berth. Meaning that it's rigged anyway. Here's the rule:

"The automatic qualification of the original BCS conference champions is subject to review and possible loss of automatic selection by the BCS should the conference champion not have an average ranking of 12 or higher over a four-year period."

The only thing that not averaging #12 or higher guarantees is a "review."