It became obvious to me that the bcs is trying to include as many constituents as possible when it added a population market clause to its standards. Obviously, this was to protect the BIGEAST because it involves a whole section of the country. Also, without this clause, the bcs might lose the states of NEW YORK, WEST VIRGINIA, NEW JERSEY, AND CONNECTICUT. I began to look at this as a Presidential campaign where one has to be accepted in as many states as possible.

Carrying this analogy even further, the bcs might be inclined to expand simply to have the support of more states. So who are the states not included now? MAINE, VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, RHODE ISLAND, AND DELAWARE in the East. NEVADA, UTAH, IDAHO, MONTANA, WYOMING, AND NEW MEXICO in the West. Hawaii and Alaska are the 2 non-contiguous states.

That means that the bcs does not have the support of 13 states, something that could be important if Congress were to ever become involved. True, many of these states have few electoral votes, but they all have 2 Senators.

Then, I noticed that the bcs made a comment to the effect that the membership would be reevaluated in 4 years (2008, based on results from 2004-2007), and would consider from 5-7 bcs conferences.

Think about that for a while, and I'll post more later.

I would like to see 8 conferences tied into the BCS!

If the MWC were to expand by adding BOISE STATE AND FRESNO STATE and one other, either UTEP or Nevada (my choice would be UTEP), then the MWC would be under BCS consideration.

Politically, the BCS would be adding 5 of 6 Western states that are currently not included. This could play big on the political scene, as well as more national appeal. UT, NV, ID, WY, AND NM are the 5 states that would be added.

Sooner or later. Congress will be called upon to rule on the monopoly status of the bcs. I believe that's one reason the bcs doesn't want to lose the BE.

Quote:Carrying this analogy even further, the bcs might be inclined to expand simply to have the support of more states. So who are the states not included now? MAINE, VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, RHODE ISLAND, AND DELAWARE in the East. NEVADA, UTAH, IDAHO, MONTANA, WYOMING, AND NEW MEXICO in the West. Hawaii and Alaska are the 2 non-contiguous states.

You forgot North and South Dakota, which isn't difficult.

Jim, I'm going to disagree with you. I don't think that the intent is to be inclusive. Rather, it is to be legally exclusive. With the new autobid criteria and the new individual game criteria both, the criteria are applied equally to all conferences. Every conference has an opportunity to earn its way into an autobid and every conference has an opportunity to earn its way out of an autobid. Since all conferences are treated equally, it would be a lot more difficult to beat them -- whether it be in court or in Congress.

In fact, I've been told by somebody who was at the BCS meetings that the intent was to be exclusive. They still don't want to share the money any more than they have to. The appeal process was added at the suggestion of the Big East conference -- but only after it was pointed out that the Big Ten didn't meet the proposed criteria -- at least based upon their 2004 performance.

I've also been told that the Big East won't win an appeal unless they can present a better case than the MWC can present -- AND (not or) -- unless they are awfully close to earning the autobid. The generally feeling is that, even in the northeast, people would rather watch the top schools go head-to-head than see a lower rated conferences champions invited over more deserving conference champions. The Fiesta Bowl really did hurt the Big East's case -- they need television ratings more than they need to pander to the Northeast and scores of 35-7 in BCS Bowl games is not the way to get them. As long as the Big East has the chance to send an at large school when deserving, and as long as the conference has a chance to earn back a lost autobid, they're fine with losing you for a year or two.

Understand, the same concerns apply to the MWC. You will see five autobids most often and a sixth only perhaps 50% of the time. It is about national appeal -- and national rankings -- far more than it is about pandering to each region of the country.

Yoda out...

Quote:I've also been told that the Big East won't win an appeal unless they can present a better case than the MWC can present -- AND (not or) -- unless they are awfully close to earning the autobid. The generally feeling is that, even in the northeast, people would rather watch the top schools go head-to-head than see a lower rated conferences champions invited over more deserving conference champions. The Fiesta Bowl really did hurt the Big East's case -- they need television ratings more than they need to pander to the Northeast and scores of 35-7 in BCS Bowl games is not the way to get them. As long as the Big East has the chance to send an at large school when deserving, and as long as the conference has a chance to earn back a lost autobid, they're fine with losing you for a year or two

--That's intersting because from the outside looking it would seem the BCS made there appeal process to benefit the BE specifcally...taking history, attendance and media markets into account

-- Frankly...I don't see how the Fiesta bowl hurt the BE last yr since the entire football league wasn't even in place...its easy for people to forget that the BE was a 6 team league last yr and one of the 6 was temple.....If Louisville was the BCS rep last yr the nationl media doesn't say a word....

-- If the gloom and doom scenario Yoda is talking about does come to pass....the BE does have one ace in the hole.....I am sure it would be possible to tie the our BCS bid to Notre Dame in a similar way we did with the Gator bowl....the BCS would have a choice of whether to take the BE champ or ND based on who is higher in the final BCS rankings....if we did that it wouldn't matter who the MWC added


Jackson

Jackson1011 Wrote:--That's intersting because from the outside looking it would seem the BCS made there appeal process to benefit the BE specifcally...taking history, attendance and media markets into account

-- Frankly...I don't see how the Fiesta bowl hurt the BE last yr since the entire football league wasn't even in place...its easy for people to forget that the BE was a 6 team league last yr and one of the 6 was temple.....If Louisville was the BCS rep last yr the nationl media doesn't say a word....

-- If the gloom and doom scenario Yoda is talking about does come to pass....the BE does have one ace in the hole.....I am sure it would be possible to tie the our BCS bid to Notre Dame in a similar way we did with the Gator bowl....the BCS would have a choice of whether to take the BE champ or ND based on who is higher in the final BCS rankings....if we did that it wouldn't matter who the MWC added


                                                                            Jackson

"History, attendance and media markets" apply to more than the Big East. Again, look at the Big 10 as an example. In fact, history barely applies to the Big East at all, given the changes in its makeup. Arguably, the MWC has more history -- it is a newer conference but its members have been playing together as either the MWC or the WAC for quite a long time.

Further, Louisville did great last year -- 20 Sagarin points better than the year prior. Note that there is no guarantee that they will continue at the same level. With a BCS affiliation, however, they might. Note too that the Big X needs one more school to get to 12 schools. Louisville could be that school. And you thought I was gloom-and-dooming you before...

Finally, why would Notre Dame agree to tie their BCS bowl to the Big East? All they have to do is meet certain criteria. Visualize, if you would, ND giving up a bid that they earned under the criteria to the Big East because the Big East had a higher rated champion. Besides, that wouldn't be necessary. If ND meets their criteria and the Big East were higher rated, then both would qualify for a bid for that year -- ND on an autobid basis and the BE Champ on a play in basis.

Yoda out...

Quote:And why would Notre Dame agree to tie their BCS bowl to the Big East

-- More access......ND has only been to a BCS bowl a handfull of times in recent yrs....from there perspective it would probably be much easier to be higher ranked then the BE champ then to be one of the few at larges schools

-- Also...if ND and the BE were to "share" a bid...NDs BCS bowl payouts would be probably be higher....remember under the new agreement they don't get the 14 million all to themeselves anymore

Quote: In fact, history barely applies to the Big East at all, given the changes in its makeup. Arguably, the MWC has more history -- it is a newer conference but its members have been playing together as either the MWC or the WAC for quite a long time.

-- yes...but take the history of the teams not the conference....Pitt alone has won 7 or 8 national championships in football....unless I am mistaken BYU is the only MWC school to do so

-- as long as history, media markets and attendance are all taken into account and the BE as Pitt, Syracuse and West Virginia as members we will be fine...I firmly believe that


Jackson

Quote:Further, Louisville did great last year -- 20 Sagarin points better than the year prior. Note that there is no guarantee that they will continue at the same level. With a BCS affiliation, however, they might. Note too that the Big X needs one more school to get to 12 schools. Louisville could be that school. And you thought I was gloom-and-dooming you before...

First off, NO WAY IN HELL will Louisville EVER get a Big 10 invite. Academics and University Mission alone would keep that from happening.

Two, why all the so-called focus on Louisville. We should be very good this year but we are not alone in the Big East. Pitt should be also very strong and WVU should be back in the Top 15 in 2006 with the recruiting classes they had the past couple of years.

The MWC has a huge problem, outside of the 2 years that Utah has been good the conference itself has been pretty mediocre. Plus unlike Louisville, Utah has to replace it's best player and coach this year.

As long as Petrino, Brohm and Michael Bush are on this campus and we continue to get the recruits we have the past 2 years we will be a Top 15 ball club along with Pitt and West Virginia. That is one of the differences between the Big East and MWC. Going into this year we are stronger at the top and in the middle of the conference.

Quote:The appeal process was added at the suggestion of the Big East conference -- but only after it was pointed out that the Big Ten didn't meet the proposed criteria -- at least based upon their 2004 performance.

Like I pointed out in another thread, under this new criteria the Big East is slightly ahead of the Big Ten. It is up to Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse and West Virginia to keep it that way. Louisville and Pitt already have the talent while WVU and Syracuse have the tradition, facilities and support.

Quote:"History, attendance and media markets" apply to more than the Big East. Again, look at the Big 10 as an example. In fact, history barely applies to the Big East at all, given the changes in its makeup. Arguably, the MWC has more history -- it is a newer conference but its members have been playing together as either the MWC or the WAC for quite a long time.

Syracuse, West Virginia and Pitt have either played or won the National Champion numerous times within the past 30 years. Only BYU can say that in the MWC. Again with the NYC, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Cincinnati and Hartford markets the MWC cannot match that either.

Unless Utah or another MWC team repeats what Utah did last year (without the best player or coach) I don't expect the BCS internet Love fest to last that long. The Big East teams have more name recognition and the stats right now still favor the New Big East even after a down year.

Ok we know the performance numbers of the MWC and the BE. Lets get down to population, markets served by the conference, etc.

MWC States
Colorado* - Pop. 4,601,403
Wyoming - Pop. 506,529
California* - Pop. 35,893,799
Utah - Pop. 2,389,039
New Mexico - Pop. 1,903,289
Nevada - Pop. 2,334,771
Texas* - Pop. 22,490,022
Total Population: 70,118,852

States asterisked have BCS conference teams in the state, Texas has Baylor, Texas A&M, Texas, and Texas Tech in the Big 12; California has Stanford, Cal, UCLA, and USC in the Pac 10; Colorado has Colorado in the Big 12. So you know that TCU is likely a bigger draw than Baylor but definitely behind TAMU, Texas and Texas Tech. Fresno State is behind probably not only all 4 Pac 10 schools but also the entire Pac 10 conference in fan support. You might have the number 1 and 2 states in population but you don't have their sports fans.

BE States
New Jersey - Pop. 8,698,879
New York - Pop. 19,227,088
Connecticut - Pop. 3,503,604
Pennsylvania* - Pop. 12,406,292
Kentucky* - Pop. 4,145,922
Ohio* - Pop. 11,459,011
Florida* - Pop. 17,397,161
West Virginia - Pop. 1,815,354
Total Population: 78,653,311

States asterisked have other BCS conference teams in the state. Pennsylvania has the Big Ten's Penn State, Kentucky has the SEC's Kentucky, Ohio has the Big Ten's Ohio State, and Florida has the SEC's Florida and the ACC's Miami and Florida State. Now in Florida we are currently 4th rung on the list no doubt about that but the Tampa market is quite large. In Ohio we're second fiddle in the state but we are in the third largest city there and a city that's metropolitan area is growing although not the city proper which is in decline. In Kentucky some might say Louisville is second fiddle however I'd have to imagine that fan support for both schools is approaching a point of being very much equal and eventually I fully expect Louisville to surpass Kentucky if they haven't already. In Pennsylvania, Pitt is second to Penn State but even that shows signs of eventually reversing at least in Western Pennsylvania. Another thing to consider is that people in Massachusetts and the rest of New England will also follow UConn. It goes on and on from there.