omnicarrier Wrote:While RPI might be the way the formula goes in the future, it hasn't in the past. 

Ultimately, since this is the BCS and a BCS-eligibility formula, it is BCS rankings that I believe will be used.

Btw, I think this RTell site you are using may be off though, because I can find no MW team that would have achieved an average of 16 over that 5 year span nor a NBE team that would have achieved an average of 18.  Or do the 16 and 18 not represent actual averages, but rather team rankings (out of 117) after all averages are calculated?

Cheers,
Neil

RPI was a typo (can't get basketball out of my head with the big games coming up tonite) I meant BCS.

Those averages were for 5 years 2000 through 2004. You're right, I just averaged the team ranking of the 1st place team every year and so on.

Here are the number for the highest teams. They are all after regular season except 2004 I could only find post bowl numbers.


2000 TCU 14
2001 BYU 20
2002 Colo St 25
2003 TCU18
2004 Utah 5
Avg 16

2000 UL 25
2001 Syr 17
2002 WVU 16
2003 WVU 26
2004 UL 7
Avg 18

You can check out the link I posted earlier. One reason I don't trust them totally is because I found and error in it last season. I emailed him and he fixed it but it makes you wonder about the previous years.

The problem with that latest ranking is that the new BCS rules will look at the ENTIRE conference. That's why the rankings over the last 5 years of the top teams are not going to hold a ton of weight. Example, talk about RPI, the Big East had 6 of their 8 teams finish with winning seasons and go to bowl games, and finished with a Top 10 team, a Top 25 team, and 2 teams that finished in the Top 40. That is current, and that will hold a lot more water then RPIs from things that happened 2 to 5 years ago.

We are talking BCS here! You need the BCS numbers for the last 5 years!

Wilkie01 Wrote:We are talking BCS here! You need the BCS numbers for the last 5 years!

Quote:RPI was a typo (can't get basketball out of my head with the big games coming up tonite) I meant BCS.
 

From post above

Quote:RPI was a typo (can't get basketball out of my head with the big games coming up tonite) I meant BCS.

Those averages were for 5 years 2000 through 2004. You're right, I just averaged the team ranking of the 1st place team every year and so on.

Here are the number for the highest teams. They are all after regular season except 2004 I could only find post bowl numbers.


2000 TCU 14
2001 BYU 20
2002 Colo St 25
2003 TCU18
2004 Utah 5
Avg 16

2000 UL 25
2001 Syr 17
2002 WVU 16
2003 WVU 26
2004 UL 7
Avg 18

Gotcha. Then the correct numbers according to CollegeBCS.com would be:

Last 5-yr Avg.

NBE, MW

#1 - 18, 16
#2 - 28, 33
#3 - 37, 48
#4 - 50, 61
#5 - 64, 69

Last 4-Yr Avg.

#1 - 17, 17
#2 - 25, 35
#3 - 36, 51
#4 - 52, 64
#5 - 66, 69

Last 3-Yr Avg.

#1 - 17, 16
#2 - 24, 32
#3 - 29, 51
#4 - 45, 58
#5 - 63, 67

As can be seen by the above figures, both NBE and MW had better hope the new formula is only looking for one team in Top 15, because it doesn't look like either conference has a program that will average Top 10 - not surprising. And in terms of #1, both conferences are basically equal. Which again, doesn't surprise me, and is probably why the BCS is going away from a champion's only analysis - (Keep in mind my original thesis is that for some reason the BCS 5 super conferences wants to allow the BE to keep an auto bid while not allowing other conferences to have one at the moment).

Next criteria is one other team in the Top 25. NBE consistently has this while the MW doesn't come close.

Last criteria is two additional teams in the Top 40/Top 50. MW doesn't have any additional whatsoever in the Top 40 and barely gets in or misses out on having one additional in the Top 50.

NBE has one consistently in the Top 40 and another most times in the Top 50, but not always (4-yr average).

I put in the 5th placed showing just to show how far both conferences have to go to get other programs up and viable - Top 50.

Cheers,
Neil

I thought you averaged just the highest finishing team in the conference each year for the 5 year average. The new Big East starts this year at 7. The next 5year average check will be in 2010!

Quote: I thought you averaged just the highest finishing team in the conference each year for the 5 year average. The new Big East starts this year at 7. The next 5year average check will be in 2010!

Under the current system, they look at the rankings of the conference champion only and the rankings they use are the final rankings prior to BCS Bowl selections, not the rankings after BCS Bowls are played.

They are considering dropping the current system and replacing it with an analysis that will look at the entire conference, not just the conference champion.

However, if they stick with the current system, the NBE starts with UL's ranking of 10.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:Last 5-yr Avg.

NBE, MW

#1 - 18, 16
#2 - 28, 33
#3 - 37, 48
#4 - 50, 61
#5 - 64, 69

Next criteria is one other team in the Top 25. NBE consistently has this while the MW doesn't come close.

Last criteria is two additional teams in the Top 40/Top 50. MW doesn't have any additional whatsoever in the Top 40 and barely gets in or misses out on having one additional in the Top 50.

NBE has one consistently in the Top 40 and another most times in the Top 50, but not always (4-yr average).

Thanks Neil for crunching the numbers.

I would think the longer the sample, the better the predictor. Looks like at least for the top team those numbers match the RTell site.

Those numbers for five years look fairly close to me. They don't look like a dividing line between BCS and nonBCS. I'm not asking you to do this, but if you threw in the lowest of the other five BCS conferences I think you would see a large divide above. Also if you threw in C-USA and WAC you would see a large divide below. I may be wrong, but I think the stage is set for the MWC to get a 7th autobid the next time around.

Thanks for having a rational discussion about this. It's hard to talk conference stuff on most boards without the usual grade school fans taking over a thread.

I think, we should just go to a 16 team playoff and have all the conference champions included, but that is to simple and fair.

Quote:I would think the longer the sample, the better the predictor. Looks like at least for the top team those numbers match the RTell site.

Not really, since either one unconventional bad year or one rather exceptional year can skew the numbers of a longer sample.

It's the reason why I provided the the 5 year, 4 year, and 3 year averages. If you then take the average of the averages you get:

NBE, MW

#1 - 17, 16
#2 - 26, 33
#3 - 34, 50
#4 - 49, 61
#5 - 64, 68

So, as you can see, not much difference between the Top team and the #5 team of the conferences, but #2 through #4 there is a noticeable gap.

Also, if you go back and look at the trends, NBE #1, 2, and 3 are moving up.

For MW, that trend was only true for #1. There #2 average fluctuated and there #3 is showing a decided downward trend.

Again, this is all subject to change. And the NBE has the advantage of having the auto-bid, so I'm not minimizing MW's achievements. It's just that if the BCS Cartel is indeed looking for a formula that will allow the BE to keep its auto-bid and make it difficult for other non-auto-bid conferences to be eligible to receive one, don't be surprised to see a formula similar to the one we've been discussing be presented and adopted.

I'll work up the Pac-10 and ACC later, since they have traditionally been regarded as the weaker of the 5 super-conferences.


Cheers,
Neil

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Leonardo Wrote:The MWC has an ace-in-the-hole.  If need be it can pick up Fresno State, Boise State, and UTEP.

How is that an ace in the hole!?

What he is talking about is once the new BCS rules come out, and if the MWC comes up short, they always have the ability to add a Boise or a Fresno State to push them over the top securing an automatic bid.

Big East expansion might work the same way. Schools might have to play their way in. For instance, UCF becomes a top 15 team down the road and the Big East needs to bolster its rankings to maintain the automatic bid.......UCF to the Big East.

Quote:Those numbers for five years look fairly close to me. They don't look like a dividing line between BCS and nonBCS. I'm not asking you to do this, but if you threw in the lowest of the other five BCS conferences I think you would see a large divide above. Also if you threw in C-USA and WAC you would see a large divide below. I may be wrong, but I think the stage is set for the MWC to get a 7th autobid the next time around.

Again, UABgrad, I think you are approaching this on the assumption that the BCS Cartel is either interested in 'fairness' or due to potential litigation will be forced to be.

My assumption is that they are out for themselves. Since in terms of BCS $$$ it would be in their best interest to have already booted out the NBE and they didn't, there must be some other selfish reason the Cartel has allowed the BE to keep the auto-bid - possible reasons given in previous posts.

Anyway, I used the ACC from 1999-2003 for the lowest super-conference analysis.

Team, 5yr, 4 yr, 3yr, Avg

#1 - 7,8,10 - 8
#2 - 18,18,20 - 19
#3 - 25,24,27 - 25
#4 - 34,35,35 - 35
#5 - 42,42,40 - 41


ACC, NBE, MW

#1 - 8, 17, 16
#2 - 19, 26, 33
#3 - 25, 34, 50
#4 - 35, 49, 61
#5 - 41, 64, 68

So as can be seen by the above, the gap between ACC #1 and the other two and between ACC #5 and the other two is substantial whereas the gap between NBE and MW is small. (Keeping in mind that the main reason the #5 program is listed is to more to show how far the best bottom-tier team in each league needs to go to reach Top 40/Top 50 level, not that the #5 team will necessarily be a crucial part of the formula for 8 and 9 team conferences.)

However, the gaps between ACC #2, #3, and #4 and NBE #2, #3, and #4 is as substantial as the gaps between NBE #2, #3, and #4 as MW #2, #3, and #4.

As a result, if my theory is correct that the BCS Cartel (for now) wants to find a way to allow the NBE to keep its auto-bid but not allow any other non-auto-bid conferences to be eligible to receive one, they would have to by necessity move away from a champions-only eligibility criteria. If they simply wanted the 5 present super-conferences to receive auto-bids all they have to do is retain the champions-only criteria and the NBE will probably be eliminated (at least based upon past performance to date).

The fact that they have been indicating the formula will be a conference analysis rather than a champions-only analysis could indicate they want to open it up more for all of the 1-A conferences or it could be that they are trying to design an analysis where the BE is allowed to retain its seat at the table legitimately while the other non-auto bid conferences have to go through the other door.

But let's not minimize that 'other door' either. Again, as can be seen by past performance and the above analysis, non-auto-bid conferences finishing the pre-Bowl game season in the Top 12 is becoming a less and less unusual event. There were three such occurences just last year.

And with the NBE champion not necessarily always being guaranteed a Top 16 BCS ranking, it opens that door even wider. The downside is that this 'other door' avenue is champion-driven and can change from non-auto-bid conference to non-auto-bid conference on a year-by-year basis. So not having BCS $$$ guaranteed annually will continue to hurt teams in non-auto-bid conferences in terms of both monies and recruiting.

Cheers,
Neil

Quote:Not really, since either one unconventional bad year or one rather exceptional year can skew the numbers of a longer sample

I see this just the opposite. The one unconventional year should affect a the smaller sample more than a larger one. I guess it's interesting to look at trends though. I wish some math nut at one of these websites would post the moving average for all the D1A schools win loss records. I bet with a few exceptions like Miami and FSU trending the average up, that most would be flat lines. In any event I don't think 2 or 3 years could define a trend.

Quote:As a result, if my theory is correct that the BCS Cartel (for now) wants to find a way to allow the NBE to keep its auto-bid but not allow any other non-auto-bid conferences to be eligible to receive one, they would have to by necessity move away from a champions-only eligibility criteria. If they simply wanted the 5 present super-conferences to receive auto-bids all they have to do is retain the champions-only criteria and the NBE will probably be eliminated (at least based upon past performance to date).

I agree with you on the above.

Quote:#1 - 7,8,10 - 8
#2 - 18,18,20 - 19
#3 - 25,24,27 - 25
#4 - 34,35,35 - 35
#5 - 42,42,40 - 41

ACC, NBE, MW

#1 - 8, 17, 16
#2 - 19, 26, 33
#3 - 25, 34, 50
#4 - 35, 49, 61
#5 - 41, 64, 68

I got very different numbers for the ACC for the years 2000 to 2004.

#1 - 2,1,1,7,10 - 4
#2 - 3,10,15,9,12 - 10
#3 - 5, 21, 17, 23, 16 - 16
#4 - 15, 22, 20, 28, 21 - 21

ACC, NBE, MW

#1 - 4, 18, 16
#2 - 10, 29, 33
#3 - 16, 41, 47
#4 - 21, 46, 60

Did you include Miami, VPI and BC?

Quote:But let's not minimize that 'other door' either. Again, as can be seen by past performance and the above analysis, non-auto-bid conferences finishing the pre-Bowl game season in the Top 12 is becoming a less and less unusual event. There were three such occurences just last year.

I think the other door is great for the nonBCS conferences too. If your not in the top12/16 you don't belong in the top bowl anyway.

Quote:Did you include Miami, VPI and BC?

No, as I said in my post I used the ACC as it existed from 1999 to 2003 since that conference was the lowest (non BE) level of where a true super-conference should theoretically be. Also, since it was a 9-team league it was better for comparison purposes with the 8-team BE and 9-team MW in terms of what the lowest denomination could possibly be at this point.

And as pointed out in my post, the NBE doesn't come close to meeting what theoretically should be the lowest level of an auto-bid conference. But, as also pointed out in my post they are much closer than MW and the gaps between NBE and MW are greater than you would like to believe, particularly at the #2, #3, and #4 positions. As my numbers, using the correct BCS rankings from the CollegeBCS.com site itself show.

Regardless, my overall point has been and continues to be that BCS Cartel, for whatever reason, appears to be willing to let the NBE keep its auto-bid while possibly trying to devise a formula that will not allow other non-auto-bid conferences being eligible for it.

Once the formula is devised, MW might seriously want to look at inviting Boise State and Fresno State and cutting loose some of the deadweight at the bottom.

NBE might want to consider doing the same if MW goes that route.

And if the formula goes the way I think it will, just adding programs will not help. Because once you go up in number of teams then the percentage of teams needed in certain categories Top 10/15, Top 25, Top 40/50 will go up as well.

Example, MW adding Boise St and Fresno State gets them to an 11-team conference. At that point I'm guessing under this hypothetical formula they would need 2 Top 10/15, 2 more Top 25, and 2 Top 40/50. Boise State will get them the additional (or close to it) Top 10/15 team, but Fresno State will at best get them 1 Top 25 more likely an additional Top 40/50 team and still come up short.

Now if they add Boise and Fresno and kick out two lower teams, they surpass the NBE in terms of percentages and the NBE would be forced to do something similar. But conferences tend not to think like this - removing underperforming programs. Rather than only tend to add.

Cheers,
Neil

ACC, NBE, MW

#1 - 4, 18, 16
#2 - 10, 29, 33
#3 - 16, 41, 47
#4 - 21, 46, 60

My point with using the 2005 line ups in the numbers above is that there is a natural dividing line between the MW/BE and the Big 5 and also between the MW/BE and C-USA/WAC. The difference between the BE and MW is very tiny compared with the difference between the BE and the ACC.

If as you and I believe the BCS wants the BE to remain a member and they write the criteria based on past performance to barely include them but to barely exclude the MW, they could very easily end up with the MW in and the BE out. I think the magic formula would be one that definitely include the BE and MW but defintely excludes the rest. If they can't do that then who knows what they will do.

I agree with you on expansion. If the formula is based on conference size, then expansion might be soley based on football strength not on academics, geography, basketball, rivalries or market size.

Kit-Cat Wrote:

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Leonardo Wrote:The MWC has an ace-in-the-hole.  If need be it can pick up Fresno State, Boise State, and UTEP.

How is that an ace in the hole!?

What he is talking about is once the new BCS rules come out, and if the MWC comes up short, they always have the ability to add a Boise or a Fresno State to push them over the top securing an automatic bid.

Big East expansion might work the same way. Schools might have to play their way in. For instance, UCF becomes a top 15 team down the road and the Big East needs to bolster its rankings to maintain the automatic bid.......UCF to the Big East.

Ok, I see. That only disadvantage to that is that those schools will beat up on each other so they will likely drop in rankings. And it doesn't eliminate the other schools that drag the conference down as far as SOS, RPI and the like.

Quote:My point with using the 2005 line ups in the numbers above is that there is a natural dividing line between the MW/BE and the Big 5 and also between the MW/BE and C-USA/WAC. The difference between the BE and MW is very tiny compared with the difference between the BE and the ACC.

*Sigh*

Using Miami, VT, and BC BE numbers would hardly make the New ACC the fifth (lowest) super-conference, now would it?

Also, a case could be made for allowing the usage of UL, UC, and TCU numbers when analyzing these conferences since they are facing teams of similar strengths as their old records were against without majorly impacting the numbers of the teams currently in those conferences - particularly in the BE's case since they no longer face Miami, an automatic loss for most of the league.

Lastly, as a 12 team league, the comparison would no longer be the same now would it?

As a 12-team league, it's not 1 vs. 1 and 2 vs. 2 and down the line. It would be ACC #1, #3, #5 and #6 since as a 12-team league the ACC would need 2 teams in the Top 10/15, 2 teams in the Top 25 and two more in the Top 40/50.

However, even with incorporating Miami, VT, and BC rankings you will see the gap using the correct analogies is still less between NBE and lower super-conference leagues then the gap between NBE and NMW (except at the top level).

NACC - 5yr, 4 yr, 3 yr, Avg

#1 - 4, 4, 6, 5
#2 - 10, 12, 12, 11
#3 - 16, 19, 18, 18
#4 - 20, 22, 22, 21
#5 - 26, 29, 28, 28
#6 - 34, 34, 34, 34

Pac-10 - 5yr, 4yr, 3 yr, Avg

#1 - 3, 3, 3, 3
#2 - 8, 9, 9, 9
#3 - 20, 22, 26, 23
#4 - 31, 30, 35, 32
#5 - 38, 39, 44, 40


In a 10-team league the analysis would probably call for 2 Top 10/15 team, 1 more Top 25, and 2 more Top 40/50.

Using the Average Numbers you get:

NACC, Pac-10, NBE, NMW

4, 3, 17, 16
(10, 9, -, -)
18, 23, 26, 33
(21, -, -, -)
28, 32, 34, 50
34, 40, 49, 61

So, as can be seen by the above, the top level of the NBE and NMW are comparable with each other but nowhere near the top level of super-conference leagues.

However, the difference between second-level (Top 25) and third level (Top 40/50) is about the same between super-conference and NBE as it is between NBE and NMW.

Cheers,
Neil

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you were implying the ACC would be the weakest of the top 5.

I get for the last 5 years average of the top half of the conferences:

P10, NBE, MW

#1 - 3, 18, 16
#2 - 9, 29, 33
#3 - 20, 41, 47
#4 - 24, 46, 60
#5 - 33

The P10 numbers are almost the same as the New ACC.

Since the MW will have 9 teams, if they used something smilar to my 25% and 50% criteria then I can see the advantage the BE has in only having 8 members. It's easier to average 2 teams in the top 25 than 2.25 teams and to average 4 teams in the top 50 instead of 4.5 teams.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion and the number crunching and good luck to your school.

nflsucks Wrote:

Quote:The MWC has an ace-in-the-hole.

One could argue that the Big East has a similar 'ace' in Memphis, Marshall, Southern Miss, and ECU or whoever "if need be."

But there is a difference in the MWC aces in the hole. First of all the MWC can invite those schools in with all of their sport programs. As of now the BE would only be able to invite Memphis, USM or anyone else for football only. And I'm only speaking in terms of how things are now and not what they could potentially become.

But IMHO I don't think the MWC is that attractive to schools like Frenso St or Boise St. Until the MWC becomes a BCS conference or the WAC completely dissolves those schools are better off staying where they're at.

Quote:But IMHO I don't think the MWC is that attractive to schools like Frenso St or Boise St.

Well I guess that puts a little damper on their 'ace in the hole.'