i think the 5th bcs game will put the big east champ against the mt west champ. and that would then in turn have 7 auto bids and 3 open bids. that woiuld lead to rose pac 10 verse big 10. orange acc vs open bid... fiesta sec vs open... cotton big 12 vs open. and finally the new bcs game pins big east vs mt west.

open comments and ur thoughts on what the 5th bcs will bring. i still don't think that the 5th game will lead to the plus 1 that everyone(including myself) wants

Actually the 5th BCS game is the BCS Championship Game. The Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl are already set. If the MWC becomes the 7th AutoBid Conference more then likely they will be a floater like the Big East.

Just a hunch, if that were to happen more times then not the MWC would be headed for the Fiesta Bowl.

As of right now here is how it stands:
Orange Bowl: ACC Champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC Champ
Rose Bowl: Big 10 and Pac 10 Champ
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 Champ

Big East Floater and 4 At Large Bids.

Piggyback/BCS Championship Game: BCS Number 1 vs. BCS Number 2.

i guess i might've been mistaken. i always took it that the bcs championchip game would float among the 5 bcs bowls the same way it did in the past w/ the 4.

animus Wrote:i guess i might've been mistaken. i always took it that the bcs championchip game would float among the 5 bcs bowls the same way it did in the past w/ the 4.

That was what Top Coog thought as well but it is not the case. You will still have the Fiesta, Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls. But a week later one of those sites will host the 5th BCS Game which is for the BCS Championship.

Exactly. The 5th BCS game is the BCS championship game. The Big East champion will "float" around, meaning the champion could conceivably be in the Fiesta, Orange, Sugar or Rose Bowls.

Thats right cat, they'll float around and be matched vs the Non BCS entry, just like last year. For example , you could see a Louisville vs Houston Fiesta Bowl.

TopCoog, the Big East will get its $15M payout or more, which makes all the C-USA exitors happy... And more often than not, there won't be a non-BCS team so therefore it will be the Big East versus the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Pac-10. That sounds good to me...

mlbUC Wrote:TopCoog, the Big East will get its $15M payout or more, which makes all the C-USA exitors happy... And more often than not, there won't be a non-BCS team so therefore it will be the Big East versus the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Pac-10. That sounds good to me... 

It killing him that he has been wrong more often then not. I doubt you will see any Non BCS school make it into the top 6 this year and more often then not the 4 at large spots starting in 2006 will be taken up by schools from either the Big 10, ACC, SEC, Pac 10, Big East or Big 12.

mlbUC remember last year about this time he was spewing his 4.5 Million for the Big East. He was half right, a Big East school will receive that much if they make it to the BCS and that school is Notre Dame. You know the only non Football member in D1 that is in the Big East Conference. It looks like the BCS Leagues had a bigger problem with ND getting a full share but they had no problem giving the Big East or any of the 11 Conferences a full share if they make it to a BCS Bowl.

TopCoog Wrote:Thats right cat, they'll float around and be matched vs the Non BCS entry, just like last year. For example , you could see a Louisville vs Houston Fiesta Bowl.

So, example, they would match the #7 ranked Louisville Cardinals against freaking Houston instead another high ranked team. And do you REALLY believe that BCS bowls would allow themselves to be put in that position every year? Especially since it isn't a lock that a non-BCS squad would make a bowl. You can't be that stupid can you?

Maize Wrote:

mlbUC Wrote:TopCoog, the Big East will get its $15M payout or more, which makes all the C-USA exitors happy... And more often than not, there won't be a non-BCS team so therefore it will be the Big East versus the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Pac-10. That sounds good to me... 

It killing him that he has been wrong more often then not. I doubt you will see any Non BCS school make it into the top 6 this year and more often then not the 4 at large spots starting in 2006 will be taken up by schools from either the Big 10, ACC, SEC, Pac 10, Big East or Big 12.

mlbUC remember last year about this time he was spewing his 4.5 Million for the Big East. He was half right, a Big East school will receive that much if they make it to the BCS and that school is Notre Dame. You know the only non Football member in D1 that is in the Big East Conference. It looks like the BCS Leagues had a bigger problem with ND getting a full share but they had no problem giving the Big East or any of the 11 Conferences a full share if they make it to a BCS Bowl.

Exactly. I'm still waiting for that announcement that Notre Dame is leaving and that the Big East will get 4.5 million dollars. The funniest thing of all was that Pitt and Utah happened to be matched against each other, it was almost Auburn and Utah and Pitt and Texas so last year's matchup wasn't even set in stone.

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Maize Wrote:

mlbUC Wrote:TopCoog, the Big East will get its $15M payout or more, which makes all the C-USA exitors happy... And more often than not, there won't be a non-BCS team so therefore it will be the Big East versus the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Pac-10. That sounds good to me... 

It killing him that he has been wrong more often then not. I doubt you will see any Non BCS school make it into the top 6 this year and more often then not the 4 at large spots starting in 2006 will be taken up by schools from either the Big 10, ACC, SEC, Pac 10, Big East or Big 12.

mlbUC remember last year about this time he was spewing his 4.5 Million for the Big East. He was half right, a Big East school will receive that much if they make it to the BCS and that school is Notre Dame. You know the only non Football member in D1 that is in the Big East Conference. It looks like the BCS Leagues had a bigger problem with ND getting a full share but they had no problem giving the Big East or any of the 11 Conferences a full share if they make it to a BCS Bowl.

Exactly. I'm still waiting for that announcement that Notre Dame is leaving and that the Big East will get 4.5 million dollars. The funniest thing of all was that Pitt and Utah happened to be matched against each other, it was almost Auburn and Utah and Pitt and Texas so last year's matchup wasn't even set in stone.

As a matter of fact the Fiesta Bowl cut a deal with the Rose Bowl that allowed them to take Utah. Until Mid Day on selection Sunday the Utes were headed to the Rose to play Michigan and the Fiesta Bowl was going to be Pitt vs. Texas.

Maize Wrote:

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Maize Wrote:

mlbUC Wrote:TopCoog, the Big East will get its $15M payout or more, which makes all the C-USA exitors happy... And more often than not, there won't be a non-BCS team so therefore it will be the Big East versus the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Pac-10. That sounds good to me... 

It killing him that he has been wrong more often then not. I doubt you will see any Non BCS school make it into the top 6 this year and more often then not the 4 at large spots starting in 2006 will be taken up by schools from either the Big 10, ACC, SEC, Pac 10, Big East or Big 12.

mlbUC remember last year about this time he was spewing his 4.5 Million for the Big East. He was half right, a Big East school will receive that much if they make it to the BCS and that school is Notre Dame. You know the only non Football member in D1 that is in the Big East Conference. It looks like the BCS Leagues had a bigger problem with ND getting a full share but they had no problem giving the Big East or any of the 11 Conferences a full share if they make it to a BCS Bowl.

Exactly. I'm still waiting for that announcement that Notre Dame is leaving and that the Big East will get 4.5 million dollars. The funniest thing of all was that Pitt and Utah happened to be matched against each other, it was almost Auburn and Utah and Pitt and Texas so last year's matchup wasn't even set in stone.

As a matter of fact the Fiesta Bowl cut a deal with the Rose Bowl that allowed them to take Utah. Until Mid Day on selection Sunday the Utes were headed to the Rose to play Michigan and the Fiesta Bowl was going to be Pitt vs. Texas.

You're exactly right, it was Utah and Michigan that were supposed to play each other. The reason the deal was cut to have Utah go to the Fiesta Bowl was because it is a perfect bowl to have Utah fans travel to.

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Maize Wrote:

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Maize Wrote:

mlbUC Wrote:TopCoog, the Big East will get its $15M payout or more, which makes all the C-USA exitors happy... And more often than not, there won't be a non-BCS team so therefore it will be the Big East versus the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, or Pac-10. That sounds good to me... 

It killing him that he has been wrong more often then not. I doubt you will see any Non BCS school make it into the top 6 this year and more often then not the 4 at large spots starting in 2006 will be taken up by schools from either the Big 10, ACC, SEC, Pac 10, Big East or Big 12.

mlbUC remember last year about this time he was spewing his 4.5 Million for the Big East. He was half right, a Big East school will receive that much if they make it to the BCS and that school is Notre Dame. You know the only non Football member in D1 that is in the Big East Conference. It looks like the BCS Leagues had a bigger problem with ND getting a full share but they had no problem giving the Big East or any of the 11 Conferences a full share if they make it to a BCS Bowl.

Exactly. I'm still waiting for that announcement that Notre Dame is leaving and that the Big East will get 4.5 million dollars. The funniest thing of all was that Pitt and Utah happened to be matched against each other, it was almost Auburn and Utah and Pitt and Texas so last year's matchup wasn't even set in stone.

As a matter of fact the Fiesta Bowl cut a deal with the Rose Bowl that allowed them to take Utah. Until Mid Day on selection Sunday the Utes were headed to the Rose to play Michigan and the Fiesta Bowl was going to be Pitt vs. Texas.

You're exactly right, it was Utah and Michigan that were supposed to play each other. The reason the deal was cut to have Utah go to the Fiesta Bowl was because it is a perfect bowl to have Utah fans travel to.

The Ute fans brought a lot of Fiesta Bowl tickets prior to selection Sunday and they had to do something. The Rose had the number 1 pick in which team they could select and it was going to be Utah. It was also a easy drive for Ute fans.

Look, folks, the coalition didn't fight as hard and as successfully as it did to stand idly by and allow the "BCS" to change the deal by granting a 7th autobid to the MWC and eliminate the spot for other non-autobid champions. If you remember, in order to win a guaranteed bid, not just one, but ANY conference champion simply has to finish in the top 12 (NOT top 6) in the BCS standings, or finishes in the top 16 in the BCS and ahead of ANY autobid champion. These new, relaxed criteria are meant to make it far more likely that a non-autobid conference champ qualifies. Applying these criteria to actual history, since 1998 members of non-autobid conferences would have qualified 2/3 of the time.

If the MWC is granted an autobid, it will in most years cost another autobid conference an at-large bid, or it may be at the expense of the Big East, whom the MWC might have beaten out for that autobid by 2007/08. I actually think it's more likely that the "victim" would be an at-large spot. Again, if a non-autobid conference champion merely finishes top 12/top 16 as described above, they are GUARANTEED a bid. And this will be done in an age where the BCS rankings are based largely on the polls, i.e. how successful teams are and not their strength of schedule.

The BCS leadership has just spent all this time & effort to establish "peace and brotherhood" with all 11 conferences, and is determined to stay out of court where they know they would lose. There is no way in hell that the new relaxed criteria for non-autobid conferences will be monkeyed with in any way, shape or form.

I might add, if TWO non-autobid conference champions finish in the top 12/top 16 of the standings, they BOTH get a BCS bid. I can easily see, for example, a year where the Big East champion for example wins the conference like Pitt did last year, finishes 19 or 20 in the BCS standings, and finishes for example behind both the CUSA and MWC champs (or the WAC or MAC champ) in those same standings. If both of those champs finish 16 or higher, there is no leeway in the rules; both get bids, and the at-large teams of 2 other conferences sit home. You think there's no chance of that happening? In 2004, 3 teams (Utah, Louisville, Boise St.) would have ALL qualified under the new criteria.

tufinal4 Wrote:Look, folks, the coalition didn't fight as hard and as successfully as it did to stand idly by and allow the "BCS" to change the deal by granting a 7th autobid to the MWC and eliminate the spot for other non-autobid champions.  If you remember, in order to win a guaranteed bid, not just one, but ANY conference champion simply has to finish in the top 12 (NOT top 6) in the BCS standings, or finishes in the top 16 in the BCS and ahead of ANY autobid champion.  These new, relaxed criteria are meant to make it far more likely that a non-autobid conference champ qualifies.  Applying these criteria to actual history, since 1998 members of non-autobid conferences would have qualified 2/3 of the time.

If the MWC is granted an autobid, it will in most years cost another autobid conference an at-large bid, or it may be at the expense of the Big East, whom the MWC might have beaten out for that autobid by 2007/08.  I actually think it's more likely that the "victim" would be an at-large spot.  Again, if a non-autobid conference champion merely finishes top 12/top 16 as described above, they are GUARANTEED a bid.  And this will be done in an age where the BCS rankings are based largely on the polls, i.e. how successful teams are and not their strength of schedule. 

The BCS leadership has just spent all this time & effort to establish "peace and brotherhood" with all 11 conferences, and is determined to stay out of court where they know they would lose.  There is no way in hell that the new relaxed criteria for non-autobid conferences will be monkeyed with in any way, shape or form.

The problem with your accessment is this, you have a huge drop off from the MWC 9 and the NC-USA, WAC and MAC. As of right now the NBE according to the Sagrain Elo Cless-(which is what the BCS uses) is the 4th overall conference-(yes it is shocking) with the Big 10 being in 6th place.

Chairman Weiberg has said it is possible for a conference to gain a 7th Bid and on that I would take his word.

This is from the BCS Teleconference right after the latest BCS Meetings on a 7th AQ League. I also remember you saying the Big East would never be allowed to use Louisville BCS Ranking. I guess you was wrong on that as well.

Will you have seven automatic conferences?

Seven automatics is just what's possible. There's no guarantee there will be seven automatics. There could be five, there could be six, there could be seven for that two-year block. So we're set through the first two years of the new agreement with the same six conferences having automatic qualification berths. This evaluation will occur, and it could change for the final two years for this agreement. That's years three and four of the new agreement, which is the regular seasons of 2008 and 2009.

<a href='http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=91' target='_blank'>http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=91</a>

My point remains, the number of autobid conferences will in no way affect or alter the automatic bids granted beginning in 2006 to ANY conference champion that finishes top 12, or top 16 and ahead of an autobid champ, in the BCS standings. And, go back and read my post; I said it was far more likely that qualifying non-auto bid conference champs would bump out and reduce the number of at-large bid recipients.

I personally feel that the "coalition" conferences did not object to the counting of Louisville's 2004 CUSA finish toward the Big East because they felt that they were better off under the new criteria WITH the Big East being counted. That way, there was a conference included that, based on history (ignoring Miami, Va. Tech) would often produce a champion ranked below 16 in the final BCS standings. All it takes is one of those, and your own champion has even better odds of getting in a earning the conference $14 m (i.e., top 16 is all that's necessary as opposed to top 12).

Quote:tufinal4 Posted on May 23 2005, 12:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, folks, the coalition didn't fight as hard and as successfully as it did to stand idly by and allow the "BCS" to change the deal by granting a 7th autobid to the MWC and eliminate the spot for other non-autobid champions. If you remember, in order to win a guaranteed bid, not just one, but ANY conference champion simply has to finish in the top 12 (NOT top 6) in the BCS standings, or finishes in the top 16 in the BCS and ahead of ANY autobid champion. These new, relaxed criteria are meant to make it far more likely that a non-autobid conference champ qualifies. Applying these criteria to actual history, since 1998 members of non-autobid conferences would have qualified 2/3 of the time

Agreed that the coalition did fight hard for this 'compromise', but don't agree that it is the 2/3 probability you seem to think. Keep in mind the BCS formula has been tinkered with a few times since 1998 when Tulane would have made it on merit alone as #10.

As a matter of fact, the BCS went three consecutive years 2001, 2002, and 2003 where the new criteria wouldn't have produced any non-auto berth conference champions being in a BCS Bowl.

Last year would have produced three (all on their own merits being Top 10 teams), but only two would have gone. Is it the start of the trend or was it a hiccup? Time will tell.

As for the BE conference being the coalition's best bet, well the BCS Cartel took out an insurance policy against that, it's called removing the auto-berth from conferences that don't make the grade. So if the BE is as bad as so many C-USA fans seem to think it is, it won't have an auto-berth starting in 2008.

Personally, I think the BE will do just fine, but time will tell on that as well.

Cheers,
Neil

Come on, I was actually being conservative on the 2/3 part. The fact is, since the inception of the BCS in 1998, 7 members of non-autobid conferences would have qualified for a guaranteed BCS game berth under the new criteria, as follows:

1998

10. Tulane

1999

12. Marshall

2000

14. TCU (Big Ten champion ranked below 16)

2001- none

2002- none

2003

11. Miami (Ohio)

2004

6. Utah
9. Boise St.
10. Louisville

So, that is 7 teams in 7 years. Also, at least one team qualified in 5 out of 7 years. Plus, these teams qualified when strength of schedule and computer rankings made it far more difficult on them; now all you have to do is win 10-11 games & finish strong, a top 12 position in the polls = a top 12 BCS ranking.

Sportswriters love to trivialize this provision as "letting a downtrodden program in every once in a while." Well, based on actual history, usually a far better indicator over time than the Conventional Wisdom, it will happen virtually every year, and during the next four years TWO TEAMS from non-autobid conferences will earn guaranteed bids at least once. How hard in any given year will it be for at least 1 team from CUSA, the MWC, the WAC or MAC to finish in the top 12 in the polls? I'll bet as much as you want that at least once in the next four years two teams from these conferences will finish in the top 12.

The BCS knows the only other alternative (they go to court and lose), they will do NOTHING to water this down, period.

Also, I didn't say that the BCS or the non-auto bid conferences wanted to see the Big East lose its bid. I was hypothesizing the opposite, i.e. that the reason the coalition didn't oppose Louisville's CUSA finish counting toward the Big East was because it would keep that conference in the mix, and provide a conference who on the face of it is more likely to periodically have a champion finishing low enough to drop the non-autobid requirement to top 16 instead of top 12. I don't see it happening every year, and it may or may not happen often enough to wind up affecting your autobid.

tufinal4 Wrote:I might add, if TWO non-autobid conference champions finish in the top 12/top 16 of the standings, they BOTH get a BCS bid.

tufinal4,

Are you sure about that? The only thing I have read about this from the BCS pressers is the below. I'm pretty sure only one nonBCS shool is guaranteed in the 12/16 rule, which is one really big reason to pull for the BE and MWC to get an auto. Of course I may be wrong.

Quote:Kevin Weiberg: Well I think we've always tried to say that we felt that system was one that was open, was fair, was inclusive. And I think there was a feeling that if teams could reach that level being among the top six in the country in the formula used to determine the BCS standings, that they were clearly deserving of being in. So, you know, there was never really a discussion about limiting it furthering in that regard.

Now as the access point drops, the automatic access point as it will in a new agreement, then, I think, there was a different feeling about having multiple teams automatically qualifying under that scenario. But with a top-six standard, I think, there was a very high standard to achieve. And teams that achieve it are likely to be teams too. that are very deserving of being in the system.

<a href='http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=71' target='_blank'>http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=71</a>