Those are certainly some incredible calculations. I must say that I am really impressed. I thought I'd just try and figure out what you were really saying, so I busted out the old abbicus, to see what I could come up with. So between 2004 and 2007, these would be the Top Six BCS conferences plus the MWC, records of head-to-head meetings between these seven conferences. I think we'll find this one very interesting.
1.) PAC 10 (46-31) .597 2.) SEC (42-34) .553 3.) Big 10 (39-35) .527 4.) Big 12 (39-40) .494 5.) ACC (48-51) .485 6.) Big East (35-42) .455 7.) MWC (27-41) .397
Wow, I mean Wow, you are on the money. Clearly, the MWC has a ways to go in order to ever catch up with the Big East conference. Hey, what's up with that lousy PAC 10 conference? For some strange reason - it looks as if they have the best overall record against all these other conferences. Is there a flaw in the old abbicus? Must be, because we all know that the MWC is just as good as the PAC 10 is. That has been proven in this one year alone, right?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The trend is very favorable and 2004 an d 2005 are the worst years for the MWC. This year will help tremendously, but I don't think they can close the gap without expanding, even with this remarkable year.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I got slightly different numbers when I added them up, but the results are close enough.
The minimum BCS contracted conference each year had a record of 38-50 for a PCT of 0.431. To be comparable with the methods used above this is the bar that should be used.
Taking the 2005-Present values the minimum bar goes to 0.399, thanks to the PAC 10's 6-11 mark thus far in 2008 replacing the ACC's 11-10 mark for 2004. The MWC goes to 0.456 as their 7-4 mark thus far in 2008 replaces their 8-13 mark from 2004.
shiguy
· 1 year ago
There is one problem with your theory. While I agree that there is a sychronous sinking of the ACC, Florida will freeze over before Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Va Tech would be in a BCS non-AQ. I know several are having very down times right now. but the pure thought of it would not go over well. Now if some of those team were to leave the conference due to a consistent failure of success in 5 years or so then you might have something.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The ACC has a contract with the Orange Bowl, guarnateeing there AQ status. as long as the Big East can stay above this level, or the MWC can get over this level, this appears to be the standard for BCS AQ status.
Regan
· 1 year ago
Very true, shiguy.
Bottom-Lining all this is the sheer Market Area - the TV markets alone in Florida and the northeast dictate that the ACC (and Big East) won't be demoted anytime soon.
Can you picture a scenario where Miami is non-BCS and, say BYU is? Justification is within the realm of reason, but realistically? Nagahappen.
Looking back at the history of many of those MWC teams, they have had enough national clout to justify looking at them - Utah, TCU, BYU, etc.
However, the most I can see (now that there are five BCS Bowls) might be the MWC joining as the 7th BCS Conference (or 8th after Notre Dame) , but I don't see the ACC or Big East losing their berths regardless.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Explain why UCONN is BCS and BYU is not? And South Florida? The ACC has a contract with the Orange Bowl and will not lose a BCS bid. The Big East is second fiddle to the NLF in their region.
Again the BCS is more likely to exclude the Big East than include the MWC at the end of this year.
Man I hope this makes sense...
I guess I will see tomorrow...
Porcine
· 1 year ago
UCONN do it!! What does the Vietcong have to do with anything?
Regan
· 1 year ago
I defend the ACC first, Ben; but as far as the Big East goes:
Connecticut and South Florida are in the BCS because they are in HUGE TV markets, and both schools have been added in the last few years because TCU, BYU, and Utah are too far west to be expansion candidates. :)
My point is that the "traditional" schools in the East (notably PITT, SYR, WVU, etc) and their alumni bases will just not be relegated to non-BCS status.
Not with all the money and TV sets in that region.
I'm cool with the MWC joining the existing BCS conferences, and I think that would be good for the sport as well.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The one fallacy in that argument is that the Big East plays second fiddle in those markets to the NFL. Despite being in larger markets, those teams don't instill the fan devotion that their NFL counterparts do. One exception may be WV, but then how does Morgantown compare to SLC?
If you want to hang your hat on tradition why not go the way of the Ivy League? If the Big East Alumni are so determined why does the Big East not have a contract with a BCS bowl?
Obviously BYU and Utah make no sense for the Big East. They both have more history and proven success than two programs that became 1-A less than a decade ago.
Regan
· 1 year ago
I was kidding about BYU and Utah joining the Big East, but ya get what I'm saying. Both schools have deep 1-A history and would make fine choices, but....they're on the other side of the country. :) If the Big East expanded, they'd go more locally.
Actually, that's a great point about the TV markets. My analysis was based on the basic concepts like the ACC's desire to get Boston College to get the Boston TV market, etc.
I feel that the huge population in the Northeast has enough CFB fans to keep enough interest. I just can't see excluding that big of a region from the BCS.
As far as 'Tradition' goes, I was referring to the tradition in the last 50 years - obviously the Ivy League cannot compete with BCS-caliber teams.
As far as the BCS Bowl contract goes, the Big East is the smallest BCS conference and is now getting settled after going thru a shakeup. New Rivalries have to form, etc. Even originally, though, the Big East (football) conference is relatively new (1991), so there has never been much "conference tradition" outside being a collection of many of the old Eastern Independents.
Also, the Alumni are not as numerous as they are in the SEC and Big Ten, etc.
That's just my take - you're the MWC expert, though. :)
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Why is everyone downing on the ACC so much? I haven't seen anything that remotely proves that the ACC is the last ranking BCS conference. The ACC is not disbanding and it is not losing its BCS AQ status.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I make the distinction between BCS contracted conference and BCS AQ conferences, with the Big East being in the later but not the former. The ACC can not lose their bid.
That said they are going to be the lowest of the 5 in all measures this year. Only the PAC 10 will be close. The only reason the ACC is getting the lightning now is because USC is still in the top 10. If USC loses another they will be right with you all this year.
Unlike the ACC, the PAC 10 performed very strongly in 2007 and 2006. The ACC had a good year in 2005, but that moves out of the window next year.
I actually used a lower bar than the ACC, the minimum performing BCS contracted conference each year.
The Big East has out performed this measure while the MWC has not. The trend line is very favorable for the MWC given the success this year.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
So when do you expect a change, if there is going to be one, and how do you foresee it playing out?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I started this series with the premise that I was starting with the most likely and ending with the most unlikely.
I expect to see a change less than I expect to see a MWC team in the national championship game.
If a change happens this year it would be to eliminate the automatic qualification for the Big East and make automatic qualification for the top 2 non AQ conference champions in the BCS standings if they are in the top 12 or ranked higher than the lowest BCS AQ champion. Though more likely than an inclusion of the MWC, this change is very unlikely.
The expansion needed for this description would need to be very aggressive, starting play next year. This is very unlikely, as usually a year of lead time is taken in expansions.
That said, if the MWC can consistently get a team into the top 10 and about 3 in the top 25 they will make the jump. Adding the three teams listed above would get them to the level of compitition to where this could happen.
Lossing BYU and Utah to the PAC 10 would be a serious injury to this possibility, and is more likely than the BCS expanding to include the MWC.
Porcine
· 1 year ago
I think it is unlikely to end that way. Nyuk, nyunk.
Cougar_Fan
· 1 year ago
Nice analysis! I'm excited to see how things come along during the next few years. I actually think that the MWC will do just as well next year, particularly because this year is kind of a rebuilding year for TCU, and BYU will be stronger next year considering they return all their skill players as well as getting MWC freshman of the year Mckay Jacobson back from his mission (and hopefully top linebacker recruit Manti Te'o). Also I think just looking at population trends it seems likely that the MWC will have better and better access to top athletes as time goes on.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
21-10, 8-4 BCS OOC record for the league is a stellar accomplishment that will be hard to beat next year. We won a lot of the close games that could go either way. The law of averages should expect that we would return to closer to 50% in those games and not do as well as a whole next year.
Cougar_Fan
· 1 year ago
Yeah you're probably right. I guess I should say that I think that we'll be better at the top. BYU, and TCU are both going to improve from this year to next year.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
BYU is looking too close to Utah of 2004 for my comfort. It is hard to say that they will be even better next year until they show a weakness.
Last night it looked like you all are trying to catch us in the NCAA penalties statistics.
12 Penalties for 123 yards?
Cougar_Fan
· 1 year ago
and MWC really does need to add Boise State and Fresno State! That will create much more appeal for fans and it will bolster the conference strength and reputation. It will be much more difficult to rag on the strength of schedule.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
This would make for a nice western division: Boise State, BYU, Fresno State, SDSU, UNLV and Utah
With a PAC 10 expansion Hawaii and Nevada are good backup plans.
The eastern division would need a sixth member. Tulsa has been the team to beat in the C-USA West and would raise the conference standings in the computers significantly. Houston has a larger TV market, but wasn't that the thinking that got us SDSU over Fresno State when we left the WAC? UTEP has historical rivalries that should not be over looked.
Air Force, CSU, New Mexico, TCU, Tulsa and Wyoming is not a bad division, though the conference strength may be imbalanced unless the PAC 10 expansion back up plan is needed.
NMLSooner
· 1 year ago
What if everyone is 6-6 at the end of the season? Then what do we do!!! AAAHHH the horror!!!!:)
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
What if not enough teams finish the season with 6 wins to fill all the bowl slots?
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Start the season over again!
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Ben:
It's more likely that the PAC 10 is gonna want to add two teams eventually. Those teams would come from BYU, Utah, Boise State and Fresno State. I can't see the MWC (as a whole) becoming a BCS conference anytime soon. Your bottom 5-6 teams are just not strong enough to help carry that conference. The top three teams are all good enough to become BCS schools.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Utah, BYU, TCU are BCS worthy.
Air Force, New Mexico, Wyoming and UNLV perform at least as well as the bottom 4 of the Big 12 or Big 10 and the middle 4 of the ACC and Big East of late.
CSU and SDSU might be like Baylor or the typical Northwestern, though Northwestern actually looks like they have a team this year. Both of these schools win occationally vs good teams but loss horribly to bad teams.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
I totally disagree Ben- Heck compared to the bottom four of the B-12? Who are the bottom 4? We wont know yet, because every year it changes Right now I believe that every team is 0-0 The B-12 is just starting conference games tomorrow for this season. Whos at the top? nobody knows right now alot of games have to be played Teams like Baylor for example would not have 3-9 or 4-8 seasons in the MWC or C-USA in my opinion The B-12 is a real tough place-no comparison
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The five MWC schools in the middle group would be competitive with Baylor, Texas A&M and Iowa State. In the MWC these teams are likely to go 7-5. In the Big 12 they go are likely to go 4-8.
I don't think we are that far off in our thinking.
The BIG 12 is nowhere near the boundary of BCS AQ/non AQ conferences.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Okay Ben Check this out C-USA 12 teams MAC 13 teams I know this sounds crazy, but when looking at MWC 3 teams stand out, If they could add a few from WAC or Sunbelt and become a 12 team conference then maybe they would fair better in the AQ arguement. C-USA could pick up am Sunbelt team after UTEP goes MWC at least its near some Mountains. Ive never really understood La Tech in the WAC, surrounded by C-USA,Sunbelt and SEC in the Tex,La,Ark, Miss region of the country. Seems like the WAC could be absorbed through the expainsion of The PAC and MWC- regionally Hookem Horns
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Did you even read my post? My thesis was that expansion would greatly benefit them, especially if it is Fresno State, Boise State and Tulsa. Louisiana Tech could take Tulsa's spot in C-USA.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Yes Its all makes too much sense and conference expansion seems like a win-win for everybody
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The remnant of the WAC might disagree with that assessment. Between them and the Sun Belt a workable conference exists, if Hawaii, San Jose State and Florida International are left out as independents.
NMLSooner
· 1 year ago
TT is right. Winning & being competitive is only a small piece of the pie. I think you have to look at the revenue sports: football & men's basketball. The attendance for BYU & Utah would put them in the catbird seat to be the two added. BYU is unique thoough because of the mormon ties, ie, not playing on Sundays. I don't know if BYU would accept it if they were offered. The other three...in a hearbeat.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Those are not the only revenue sports Utah and BYU have. Utah makes a profit from Gymnastics and BYU does well with Volleyball. Both schools have near top in the nation attendance in these sports respectively.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Roughly, how much does square-dancing bring in?
NMLSooner
· 1 year ago
My reference to football & men's basketball are the only revenue generating sports was a general one, Not one meant specifically about Utah & BYU. Women's basketball at OU makes ALOT of money, but they are one of the few exceptions in those sports. Most universities survive of of their football budget, and some off of men's basketball.
Jake
· 1 year ago
This is a fact. Alabama will not finish out the season undefeated. It just does not happen. The SEC is too balanced of a conference. I mean look at vanderbilt. Who saw that coming? Alabama will be upset by Ole Miss October 18th. Then they will lose another close game at LSU. So at this point the National title hopes are most likely at a Big 12 team because the SEC teams beat each other out of it.
Tommy_Trojan
· 1 year ago
Jake:
We're talkin' about a PAC-10 or MWC expansion or maybe both. We're also talking about MWC teams being BCS worthy. Nowhere should Alabama or SEC have to be mentioned in this discussion. You should keep that for the other 99% of these blogs that specifically mention the SEC.
OU_Ron
· 1 year ago
99.5
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I almost responded likewise, but deemed this post not worthy of a response.
I personally post more than 1 percent of the threads here and seldom reference the SEC.
I will give Jake this much...
The top two conferences are the SEC and the Big 12. The national title game is theirs to lose. Here is to one of them losing it... Especially if it is the SEC.
I like anyones odds vs a Big 12 title contender.
Regan
· 1 year ago
Hey Ben, why not at this point ask when Southern Cal is going to jump ship and go to the MWC? :)
Actually Tommy the title of this is BCS busting. And you obviously have a problem with the SEC
Jake
· 1 year ago
USC is overrated
Regan
· 1 year ago
Everyone is overrated. Life sucks. I want my delusional pre-season back.
fosterkeats
· 1 year ago
Can we PLEASE quit saying "BCS Buster"??? Why does everything have to have some dumb-ass nickname???
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The only place I used this name was in the title. It is the standard reference for a team from outside the 6 BCS Automatic Qualifying conferences attempting to earn a spot in one of the BCS Bowls.
I would also object to refering to the other FBS conferences as non BCS conferences as they also have contracts with the BCS. As such I refer to them as BCS non-AQ conferences.
I will agree that the term BCS Buster is outdated since 2006 when the BCS eased their qualifications and it is the expected case that one will get in each year. Perhaps you could help me identify a better term for the leading BCS non-AQ conference member in their pursuit of a BCS Bowl berth.
Until an improved term is coined we are stuck with the old term.
All Comments
Those are certainly some incredible calculations. I must say that I am really impressed. I thought I'd just try and figure out what you were really saying, so I busted out the old abbicus, to see what I could come up with. So between 2004 and 2007, these would be the Top Six BCS conferences plus the MWC, records of head-to-head meetings between these seven conferences. I think we'll find this one very interesting.
1.) PAC 10 (46-31) .597
2.) SEC (42-34) .553
3.) Big 10 (39-35) .527
4.) Big 12 (39-40) .494
5.) ACC (48-51) .485
6.) Big East (35-42) .455
7.) MWC (27-41) .397
Wow, I mean Wow, you are on the money. Clearly, the MWC has a ways to go in order to ever catch up with the Big East conference. Hey, what's up with that lousy PAC 10 conference? For some strange reason - it looks as if they have the best overall record against all these other conferences. Is there a flaw in the old abbicus? Must be, because we all know that the MWC is just as good as the PAC 10 is. That has been proven in this one year alone, right?
The minimum BCS contracted conference each year had a record of 38-50 for a PCT of 0.431. To be comparable with the methods used above this is the bar that should be used.
Taking the 2005-Present values the minimum bar goes to 0.399, thanks to the PAC 10's 6-11 mark thus far in 2008 replacing the ACC's 11-10 mark for 2004. The MWC goes to 0.456 as their 7-4 mark thus far in 2008 replaces their 8-13 mark from 2004.
Bottom-Lining all this is the sheer Market Area - the TV markets alone in Florida and the northeast dictate that the ACC (and Big East) won't be demoted anytime soon.
Can you picture a scenario where Miami is non-BCS and, say BYU is? Justification is within the realm of reason, but realistically? Nagahappen.
Looking back at the history of many of those MWC teams, they have had enough national clout to justify looking at them - Utah, TCU, BYU, etc.
However, the most I can see (now that there are five BCS Bowls) might be the MWC joining as the 7th BCS Conference (or 8th after Notre Dame) , but I don't see the ACC or Big East losing their berths regardless.
Again the BCS is more likely to exclude the Big East than include the MWC at the end of this year.
Man I hope this makes sense...
I guess I will see tomorrow...
Connecticut and South Florida are in the BCS because they are in HUGE TV markets, and both schools have been added in the last few years because TCU, BYU, and Utah are too far west to be expansion candidates. :)
My point is that the "traditional" schools in the East (notably PITT, SYR, WVU, etc) and their alumni bases will just not be relegated to non-BCS status.
Not with all the money and TV sets in that region.
I'm cool with the MWC joining the existing BCS conferences, and I think that would be good for the sport as well.
If you want to hang your hat on tradition why not go the way of the Ivy League? If the Big East Alumni are so determined why does the Big East not have a contract with a BCS bowl?
Obviously BYU and Utah make no sense for the Big East. They both have more history and proven success than two programs that became 1-A less than a decade ago.
Actually, that's a great point about the TV markets. My analysis was based on the basic concepts like the ACC's desire to get Boston College to get the Boston TV market, etc.
I feel that the huge population in the Northeast has enough CFB fans to keep enough interest. I just can't see excluding that big of a region from the BCS.
As far as 'Tradition' goes, I was referring to the tradition in the last 50 years - obviously the Ivy League cannot compete with BCS-caliber teams.
As far as the BCS Bowl contract goes, the Big East is the smallest BCS conference and is now getting settled after going thru a shakeup. New Rivalries have to form, etc. Even originally, though, the Big East (football) conference is relatively new (1991), so there has never been much "conference tradition" outside being a collection of many of the old Eastern Independents.
Also, the Alumni are not as numerous as they are in the SEC and Big Ten, etc.
That's just my take - you're the MWC expert, though. :)
That said they are going to be the lowest of the 5 in all measures this year. Only the PAC 10 will be close. The only reason the ACC is getting the lightning now is because USC is still in the top 10. If USC loses another they will be right with you all this year.
Unlike the ACC, the PAC 10 performed very strongly in 2007 and 2006. The ACC had a good year in 2005, but that moves out of the window next year.
I actually used a lower bar than the ACC, the minimum performing BCS contracted conference each year.
The Big East has out performed this measure while the MWC has not. The trend line is very favorable for the MWC given the success this year.
I expect to see a change less than I expect to see a MWC team in the national championship game.
If a change happens this year it would be to eliminate the automatic qualification for the Big East and make automatic qualification for the top 2 non AQ conference champions in the BCS standings if they are in the top 12 or ranked higher than the lowest BCS AQ champion. Though more likely than an inclusion of the MWC, this change is very unlikely.
The expansion needed for this description would need to be very aggressive, starting play next year. This is very unlikely, as usually a year of lead time is taken in expansions.
That said, if the MWC can consistently get a team into the top 10 and about 3 in the top 25 they will make the jump. Adding the three teams listed above would get them to the level of compitition to where this could happen.
Lossing BYU and Utah to the PAC 10 would be a serious injury to this possibility, and is more likely than the BCS expanding to include the MWC.
Also I think just looking at population trends it seems likely that the MWC will have better and better access to top athletes as time goes on.
Last night it looked like you all are trying to catch us in the NCAA penalties statistics.
12 Penalties for 123 yards?
Boise State, BYU, Fresno State, SDSU, UNLV and Utah
With a PAC 10 expansion Hawaii and Nevada are good backup plans.
The eastern division would need a sixth member. Tulsa has been the team to beat in the C-USA West and would raise the conference standings in the computers significantly. Houston has a larger TV market, but wasn't that the thinking that got us SDSU over Fresno State when we left the WAC? UTEP has historical rivalries that should not be over looked.
Air Force, CSU, New Mexico, TCU, Tulsa and Wyoming is not a bad division, though the conference strength may be imbalanced unless the PAC 10 expansion back up plan is needed.
It's more likely that the PAC 10 is gonna want to add two teams eventually. Those teams would come from BYU, Utah, Boise State and Fresno State. I can't see the MWC (as a whole) becoming a BCS conference anytime soon. Your bottom 5-6 teams are just not strong enough to help carry that conference. The top three teams are all good enough to become BCS schools.
Air Force, New Mexico, Wyoming and UNLV perform at least as well as the bottom 4 of the Big 12 or Big 10 and the middle 4 of the ACC and Big East of late.
CSU and SDSU might be like Baylor or the typical Northwestern, though Northwestern actually looks like they have a team this year. Both of these schools win occationally vs good teams but loss horribly to bad teams.
Who are the bottom 4? We wont know yet, because every year it changes Right now I believe that every team is 0-0
The B-12 is just starting conference games tomorrow for this season.
Whos at the top? nobody knows right now alot of games have to be played
Teams like Baylor for example would not have 3-9 or 4-8 seasons in the MWC or C-USA in my opinion The B-12 is a real tough place-no comparison
I don't think we are that far off in our thinking.
The BIG 12 is nowhere near the boundary of BCS AQ/non AQ conferences.
I know this sounds crazy, but when looking at MWC 3 teams stand out, If they could add a few from WAC or Sunbelt and become a 12 team conference then maybe they would fair better in the AQ arguement. C-USA could pick up am Sunbelt team after UTEP goes MWC at least its near some Mountains.
Ive never really understood La Tech in the WAC, surrounded by C-USA,Sunbelt and SEC in the Tex,La,Ark, Miss region of the country.
Seems like the WAC could be absorbed through the expainsion of The PAC and MWC- regionally
Hookem Horns
We're talkin' about a PAC-10 or MWC expansion or maybe both. We're also talking about MWC teams being BCS worthy. Nowhere should Alabama or SEC have to be mentioned in this discussion. You should keep that for the other 99% of these blogs that specifically mention the SEC.
I personally post more than 1 percent of the threads here and seldom reference the SEC.
I will give Jake this much...
The top two conferences are the SEC and the Big 12. The national title game is theirs to lose. Here is to one of them losing it... Especially if it is the SEC.
I like anyones odds vs a Big 12 title contender.
LOL kidding...
I would also object to refering to the other FBS conferences as non BCS conferences as they also have contracts with the BCS. As such I refer to them as BCS non-AQ conferences.
I will agree that the term BCS Buster is outdated since 2006 when the BCS eased their qualifications and it is the expected case that one will get in each year. Perhaps you could help me identify a better term for the leading BCS non-AQ conference member in their pursuit of a BCS Bowl berth.
Until an improved term is coined we are stuck with the old term.