And here is why:

First off, I will not be providing the actual BCS rankings for all the schools we are discussing here. I got the information from a pay site and to disclose the information violates the terms of service. If you really want to know, I will gladly post the website and for $25 you will get a years access to all the BCS rankings from inception through the 2010 season.

The BCS uses a 4 year revolving evaluation period. There are 3 major components to the BCS autobid equation:

(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.

I looked at the last 4 years and applied the BCS criteria to all 6 autobid conferences and the MWC. For the purpose of this analysis I have used the future membership after the most recent realignments since they will be what we are judged by. Even though the other 5 autobid conferences do not need to "qualify" under these criteria, I am analyzing all the autobid conferences to see how we compare. I have looked at how they are similar and dissimilar. Here is how they stack up.

As far as the highest ranked team goes here is how the conferences rank and their average

1. SEC (1.75)
2. Big 12 (4.25)
3. Big 10 (4.5)
4. PAC 12 (6)
5. Big East (7.5)
6. MWC (9.5)
7. ACC (10)

Percentage of the conference ranked.
1. Big East (38%)
2. B12 (35%)
3. SEC (33%)
4. Big 10 (33%)
5. PAC 12 (29%)
6. MWC (28%)
7. ACC (27%)

Average Ranking of total conference (This uses propietary data)
1. SEC
2. Big East
3. Big 12
4. ACC
5. Big 10
6. PAC 12
7. MWC

Here is where it gets interesting. The difference between the SEC and the PAC 12 is less than 9. The difference between the PAC 12 and the MWC is over 15. The difference between the PAC 12, ACC, & Big 10 is a fraction of 1. On average all 3 are functionally equivalent. The Big 10 have had a #1 ranked team during this period but they also have some really dreadful teams to balance them out.

Next I looked at all the commonly discussed expansion candidates over that same period: They ranked in order - TCU, Houston, Navy, ECU, UCF, So Miss, MTSU, Buffalo, Temple, Marshall, Memphis. That is based on their average BCS rank over the last 4 years.

I looked at adding each one individually and seeing where that puts us in relation to the other BCS autobid conferences.

3 schools have an average lower than the current 8 schools averaged for the same period. TCU, Houston, and Navy are better than the current average and would be a net plus if added individually.

TCU also has 2 top 25 finishes and would improve both the average conference rank and the percentage of the conference ranked (39% vs 38%). Easily still BCS autobid.

Houston would improve the average by a fraction of 1 and lower the percentage ranked from 38% to 33%. Which would drop us into a 3rd place tie in that category. Still BCS autobid.

Navy would also improve our average very marginally. They would also drop our percentage ranked to 33%. Still BCS autobid.

East Carolina would drop our average slightly and lower our percentage ranked to 33%. We would still be ranked second on average. Still BCS autobid.

UCF, So Miss, or MTSU would drop our average more so, but we would drop into 3rd place. They would also drop our percentage ranked to 33%. These schools are interchangeable. Still a BCS conference.

Buffalo or Temple would drop our average to 6th behind all the other BCS autobid conferences in average ranking and also lowers us to 33% in percentage ranked. These schools are also interchangeable. Probably still a BCS conference.

Marshall or Memphis drop us further behind the other autobid conferences in average ranking and again lowers the percentage ranked to 33%. We are still closer to the 5th ranked team in average ranking than the 7th place MWC. Maybe a BCS conference


Next I looked at adding 2 schools. For this I only looked at the two Texas schools and the 4 most often mentioned of ECU, UCF, Temple and Memphis.

TCU and Houston improve us in average and they drop us in percentage ranked from 1st to tied for 1st at 35%. I am not bothering to pair these two with anyone else. Geographically, if you take 1 you need to bring both as a travel partner. Still a BCS Conference.

ECU & UCF would drop us in both rankings but we would still be comfortably in the middle of the pack for percentage ranked. In average ranking we would drop to 6th behind the other autobid conferences. Probably a BCS conference

ECU + Temple or Memphis would drop us in both and more significantly in average ranked. Maybe a BCS conference.

UCF + Temple or Memphis a further drop in average ranking and really starts to show some distance behind the other 5 autobid conferences. Doubtful a BCS conference.

Temple and Memphis now closer the the MWC in average than any of the BCS autobid conferences. Doubtful a BCS conference.

Finally I looked at what would happen if we went to 12.

ECU, UCF, Temple and Memphis would drop us last in both percentage ranked and last among autobid conferences in average ranking. Again here, we are closer to the MWC than we are the lowest autobid conference in average. Doubtful a BCS conference.

TCU, Houston, UCF and Temple would Keep us close to the PAC 12, Big 10 and ACC in average and we would tie for 5th in percentage ranked. Probably a BCS conference.

TCU, Houston, ECU, and any of Temple, UCF, or Memphis is also probably a BCS conference.

Here is the rationale behind my ranking of definitely, still, probably, maybe, and doubtful a BCS conference.

Easily - BE is ranked in the top 3 in two or more categories
Still - BE is ranked at or about where they are now
Probably - BE slips behind the other conferences in one category, but is statistically close
Maybe - BE slips behind the other autobid conferences in 2 categories but is close in both
Doubtful - BE is behind the other autobid conferences in 2 categories and significantly in 1.

I freely admit this is my subjective opinion. We can agree to disagree if you'd like to.

Now looking ahead:

Pitt, UConn, and Cincy all had their worst year of the period 4 years ago. If they have good years and the rest hold fast or improve on average, our conference average ranking should improve.

Likewise:
Temple, UCF, ECU, Buffalo, and Memphis all had bad years in 2006 and would improve their ranking with good years this year. USM, Navy, MTSU, Marshall, and Houston had their best year in 2006, so they don't look to improve their rolling average much.

We will be judged on the rankings of the teams in conference as of 2013. If we wait to pick teams out if the MAC and CUSA they will likely have higher rankings playing in those leagues than the Big East. If we invite teams in and they begin play in 2013 they will get credit for 3 years in the easier conferences and 1 year in the Big East. This is exactly what the MWC is doing with Boise. Boise can roll through the WAC and it will count for the MWC.

The invitations should go out after this season. It's all about getting or keeping the BCS autobid, like it or not.

To throw a few annoying scenarios out: What if Rutgers gets taken? Or Pitt? Or Syracuse Or any two of those three?

And THEN add new teams?

I still don't see the BCS trying to take away anyones bid with Congress already sniffing around. They'll just add more IMO.

(06-24-2010 09:52 PM)KnightTower Wrote:  To throw a few annoying scenarios out: What if Rutgers gets taken? Or Pitt? Or Syracuse Or any two of those three?

And THEN add new teams?

All the better to allow you to pad you ranking in CUSA. If we invite you before next Jun 30th you still play in the conference in 2013.

Thanks for that analysis there SP. Interesting stuff.

If we can improve our BCS final ranking from 45th last year, to 35th this year, I think that'll come close to canceling out our 2006 season.

Interesting stuff. While I don't like the idea of jumping straight to 12 it seems for functionality's sake it makes sense to invite Houston, TCU, UCF and Temple. It obviously keeps us in the mix while at the same time shoring us up geographically speaking.

Temple reinforces the northeastern core (UConn, Cuse, RU) and the old eastern (WV, PA, NY, NJ, New England) core. Plus for the far flung members like Louisville, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, TCU and Houston it offers a clear travel partner scenario to hit up Temple and Rutgers (and possibly even UConn) on the same trip.
UCF does the obvious reinforcing of our Florida base and provides a clear travel partner to USF.
TCU and Houston added together is essential if we're going to go on this Texas adventure because we need travel partners and we need exposure in both in the DFW and Houston markets. We're not going to get top billing behind UT, A&M, OU and TTU but we'll have exposure and that's all we need out of those schools in that department.

I also found it interesting that the MWC is ahead of the ACC in 2 out of 3 categories. The MWC deserves the 7th autobid IMO.

(06-24-2010 10:01 PM)animus Wrote:  I also found it interesting that the MWC is ahead of the ACC in 2 out of 3 categories. The MWC deserves the 7th autobid IMO.

If their bottom teams can pick it up and improve the conference average they have it in the bag. They might have it now, but that would remove all doubt.

(06-24-2010 10:05 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(06-24-2010 10:01 PM)animus Wrote:  I also found it interesting that the MWC is ahead of the ACC in 2 out of 3 categories. The MWC deserves the 7th autobid IMO.

If their bottom teams can pick it up and improve the conference average they have it in the bag. They might have it now, but that would remove all doubt.

I think their middle teams are getting better right now as well. Their bowl record was pretty good last season.

I'll be honest, at first I hated losing the Orange Bowl as our AQ Bowl. But man every year rotating betwen the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta is pretty cool. You have a decent shot at beating the ACC champ, and an B12 and SEC team once ever 3 years.

(06-24-2010 10:01 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  If we can improve our BCS final ranking from 45th last year, to 35th this year, I think that'll come close to canceling out our 2006 season.

Since it is a rolling 4 year average, you would improve tremendously. The worst year would drop off and be replaced by a best year. BTW at 35 you would be higher than any conference's 4 year average.

Great analysis Shannon. I know the geography isn't great, but the Big East needs to invite TCU and Houston.

(06-24-2010 10:15 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(06-24-2010 10:01 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  If we can improve our BCS final ranking from 45th last year, to 35th this year, I think that'll come close to canceling out our 2006 season.

Since it is a rolling 4 year average, you would improve tremendously. The worst year would drop off and be replaced by a best year. BTW at 35 you would be higher than any conference's 4 year average.

Yeah, I thought so. It should definitely be possible. Central Michigan, ECU, Troy, and MTSU will probably not be ahead of us. I dont think Northwestern will. South Carolina will probably be even with us. Oklahoma State will probably be even to slightly worse than us. Cal will probably be even with us. Arizona will probably be slightly worse. So that's like 36th right there, not taking into account who could be worse and better than expected. I would have to think if we finish 35th or 36th, it'll definitely help us in terms of future conference affiliation.

Central Michigan is a good team to look at in terms of what we could do in the BCS standings if we really have a great year. They went 10-2, 8-0 in the MAC. Finished 2-2 OOC with wins over Alcorn State and Michigan State, and losses to Arizona and BC. Won the MAC Championship and their Bowl Game. They finished 27th in the BCS.

(06-24-2010 10:47 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  Great analysis Shannon. I know the geography isn't great, but the Big East needs to invite TCU and Houston.

Thanks. Sometimes we get carried away with our emotions here and if some guy like me who posts on a message board can do an analysis like this, you can bet the University Presidents have run these numbers or had someone run them for them. Like the commish has said, there really isn't a team out there that right now brings the kind of value it would take to dilute the revenues of our members. Other than TCU there isn't a team that material improves our BCS position. Houston and Navy would dilute our revenues while just maintaining our position. Everyone else diminishes our BCS standing to some extent.

What people forget when using BCS analysis is, say we do invite UCF and Memphis, they would be recruiting BCS talent NOW, they wouldn't be the same team that you're using your analysis for. If you used this analysis in 2003 Cincinnati and South Florida would have been skipped over for this same reason. Obviously, things were much more fluid and hectic back then, but as a conference, if we want to play with the big boys we have to act like one of the big boys. Forget the BCS rankings and build for the future.

(06-24-2010 10:15 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(06-24-2010 10:01 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  If we can improve our BCS final ranking from 45th last year, to 35th this year, I think that'll come close to canceling out our 2006 season.

Since it is a rolling 4 year average, you would improve tremendously. The worst year would drop off and be replaced by a best year. BTW at 35 you would be higher than any conference's 4 year average.

Same would be true with UCF. Lets say we go 8-4 this year, it replaces an 4-8 year.

What would your "precentage of conference ranked" be if you had 9, 10, 11 or 12 teams. If the BE had 3 teams ranked, Pac 10 had 3, Big 10 had 3 and the SEC had 3, the BE percentage would be considered higher because of the number of conference teams. Apples to oranges here with this analysis.

(06-25-2010 06:37 AM)SmokinPirate Wrote:  What would your "precentage of conference ranked" be if you had 9, 10, 11 or 12 teams. If the BE had 3 teams ranked, Pac 10 had 3, Big 10 had 3 and the SEC had 3, the BE percentage would be considered higher because of the number of conference teams. Apples to oranges here with this analysis.

If you take a 12 team league, they have 33% more opportunity to put teams into the top 25 because they are 1/3 larger than an 8 team league. Using the percentage actually removes the inherent bias towards the bigger conferences.

This isn't apples to oranges at all. If the Big East were to add anyone but TCU to get to 9, our percentage of BCS teams would drop from 38% to 33%. At 10 it drops to 30%, at 12 it drops to 25% which would be the lowest of any of the 7 leagues examined.

In my opinion, the Big East doesn't want to be last in any category because it would give the BCS the opportunity to say they weeded out the weakest member. Right now we are in the top half in 2 categories and in the middle on the third. There is no way they can claim the Big East isn't a BCS conference now.

This is the actual BCS criteria we are working with here. If you really have issue with it call them.

There is so many variations here, It's hard to know what does what. Bottom line is the BE is in no danger of losing its BCS bid today. and It wouldn't be in any danger with 1, 2, and likely 4 added. That could change with others raiding BE, but not too likely. Losing cuse could actually make BE on paper stronger in BCS, Rutgers probably a minor drop not huge. The teams you can not afford to lose are WV, Louisville, and Cincy. They have been the 3 schools in the bcs bowls. Uconn and Pitt would also be moderate negatives if they were taken. Because of the rolling average, who takes or adds what could change considerably after just this coming season. ECU I think will be dropping a 7-4 season, If they add 7-5 or 8-4 its an even swap, if the go 5-7 with new coach in 1st year, pretty big downer. Ucf will lose a 4-8 year, If UCF goes 7-5 to 9-3, it's a big swing up. Others lose good seasons, some lose bad ones.

TCU continues to be a no-brainer.