BCS Is Asking More From The Mountain West Than It Does For Inclusion When Compared To Other Leagues

by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 26, 2011 11:24 AM PDT in BCS

This season for the Mountain West is critical to determine if they can become part of the BCS. We all know that the Mountain West falls short in the criteria when it comes to overall computer rankings, and we also know that the Big East and ACC do not qualify in all three categories but they will both keep their automatic qualifying status through the 2013 cycle. The ACC has a contract with the Orange Bowl and the Big East stays due to the BCS contract.

The Mountain West will need to file a petition to the Presidential Oversight Committee, but according to ESPN's Brad Edwards ($) the Big East's numbers would not even allow the league to file the petition to become an automatic qualifying league (emphasis mine):

You'll see that the ACC meets the first two criteria but doesn't reach the AQ standard on the third, while the Big East comes up short of the AQ standard on the first and third. Furthermore, the Big East ranks sixth in the second part, which means that it doesn't even achieve the level that's necessary for appeal.

In other words, the BCS is asking the Mountain West to achieve a standard that it doesn't even hold its front-line members to. Whether that fact might help the MWC appeal remains to be seen.

What also remains to be seen is whether this performance could cause the Big East not to be included as an AQ conference in the next BCS contract, which will be negotiated in 2012.

If it isn't, the conference still has hope. There's another four-year qualifying cycle that runs from 2010-13, and any non-AQ league that meets the standards during that span will have a guaranteed BCS berth for the 2014-17 seasons.

This puts the BCS and the Mountain West in a bind, because on one hand the Mountain West is getting to use Boise State's numbers from a weaker WAC and they get to use TCU's numbers even though they are not part of their league. Now it is clear why the Big East wanted TCU, they get the No. 3 BCS rankings from 2010 to count in the next cycle. The prior high was West Virginia at No. 22.

However, the BCS put these rules in place and while I would like to think the BCS would stick with the rules that have been in place I would not be surprised if the Mountain West gets denied. If they are denied rest assured that Craig Thompson, the Mountain West and all of the politicians that have been involved against the BCS to do something about this.

If the BCS was smart they would allow the Mountain West in the club for the 2012-13 cycle and use the rolling four-year numbers from 2010-13 which would exclude TCU's numbers during that time, but also include the numbers for Nevada, Hawai'i and Fresno State. There would be a two-year window where the Mountain West could receive an auto-bid and in my opinion once a team is in it is hard to push them out; just look at the Big East.

It also could depend on what the next incarnation of the BCS is going forward past the 2013 college football season. There could be a plus-one that was mentioned recently by adding the Cotton Bowl to the mix.

I have been on this drum for a while saying the Mountain West should be included to the BCS due to the rules the BCS has in place and that their petition should be granted when compared to the ACC and Big East who do not automatically qualify for BCS inclusion, but they still keep their seat at the table.

Current rankings are below in regard to BCS inclusion:

Criterion 1

Average ranking of highest-ranked team (final BCS standings, 2008-10).

Conference	Rank
1. SEC	1.3
2. Big 12	3.3
3. Pac-12	4.7
4. MWC	5.3
5. Big Ten	7.0
6. ACC	12.0
7. Big East	12.3
8. C-USA	27.7
9. MAC	38.0
10. WAC	38.7
11. Sun Belt	63.0

Criterion 2

Average ranking of all teams (2011 conference membership) by the six BCS computers. The high and low rankings for each team are not discarded, as is the case when the BCS standings are calculated (BCS computers, 2008-10).

Conference	Rank
1. SEC	38.4
2. Big 12	41.5
3. ACC	45.2
4. Pac-12	45.3
5. Big Ten	46.6
6. Big East	50.3
7. MWC	63.1
8. WAC	77.0
9. C-USA	79.7
10. MAC	88.2
11. Sun Belt	98.4

Criterion 3

Adjusted top-25 performance ranking (final BCS standings, 2008-10), which accounts for the number of top 25 teams in the conference, with weight given to where those teams ranked and an adjustment made for the number of conference members.

Conference	Pct
1. SEC	100.0
2. Big 12	90.6
3. Big Ten	88.9
4. Pac-12	77.8
5. MWC	72.9
6. Big East	45.1
7. ACC	41.7
8. WAC	10.4
t9. C-USA	2.8
t9. MAC	2.8
11. Sun Belt	0.0

Follow Mountain West Connection for more news around the clock via twitter, facebook and now google plus.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | Add comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Doesn't this argument really apply after 2013?

You can say it is true after the BE and ACC are re-evaluated. If the MWC is turned down and the BE gets to keep it’s AQ status, then you have a great case. The real issue is one of timing. Even so, I think the MWC does get AQ status, however I don’t think they will keep it.

by ev on Aug 26, 2011 12:36 PM PDT reply actions

No

This is actually more toward 2012 season. This December we will know where the MWC stands in at least the criteria which we know will have them on the outside.

Their petition would be good through 2012-13 since that is the last year of the BCS contract.

Beyond that it depends what the post season looks like.

Follow me on twitter!

by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 26, 2011 1:05 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

Yes but that was my point

You making point the BE doesn’t have as good of numbers which is true. However since their evaluation comes up after the 2013 season, the point that they are an AQ and the MWC isn’t doesn’t apply. Fact is the BE might already be a dead man walking, to complain he is hasn’t hit rigamortis yet is only a timing issue.

by ev on Aug 26, 2011 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions

that is a different evaluation period

That is to be used for what post season is used beyond 2012-13 which is the last year of the BCS contract. The big issue is the end of this season from the 2008-11 evaluation period to determine if the MWC can qualify through a position for 2012-13.

Follow me on twitter!

by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 26, 2011 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Exactly

Which is why I think the MWC will get AQ status and then lose it alone with the BE.

by ev on Aug 26, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Unless the BE gets blown up, it will keep AQ status and the MWC will not gain it

TCU will count for the Big East in the next evaluation that matters for the Big East; BYU and Utah and TCU will not count for the MWC (though Boise will). The most likely move out of the Big East (assuming a single ACC team joins the SEC along with Texas A&M) is Syracuse to the ACC, and as much as I wish it were otherwise, that will not hurt the Big East’s evaluation by statistical measures.

by drothgery on Aug 26, 2011 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions

I see where you are coming from

I don’t see the Big East ever losing it. The optimist side of me says that if the MWC gets in then it will be very tough to leave them out.

Follow me on twitter!

by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 26, 2011 2:08 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

The MWC problem is

two years later they won’t have TCU’s numbers. I can’t see them keeping AQ status if they just have Boise to go with. Won’t Hawaii’s numbers be gone by then, and no one should be counting on Fresno or Nevada to give it a boost. That evaluation period will not be kind to the MWC. As for the BE, we don’t even know if they will be alive in two years.

by ev on Aug 26, 2011 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions

It's pretty simple on that

If 16-team conferences break out all over, the BE football conference will not exist (the non-football members will still have a conference, and ND will still be in it, and a few other Catholic schools in the northeast and/or midwest will be added) unless the SEC starts things by bringing three ACC teams along with A&M and effectively blowing up the ACC.

by drothgery on Aug 26, 2011 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions

true

It is possibly they won’t qualify. However Fresno State, Hawaii and Nevada will help the overall average of the league but none are super teams.

Follow me on twitter!

by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 26, 2011 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Point of order here

As I’m almost (I don’t have ESPN Insider) sure Brad’s not crunching numbers with the current conference lineups, let alone the 2012 lineups, they’re largely meaningless.

by drothgery on Aug 26, 2011 12:38 PM PDT reply actions

2012 lineups

are not important for what happens for the 2012-13 seasons in regard to the BCS.

The changes for 2012 are not relevant, yet. There is another four-year cycle where TCU’s numbers won’t count to the MWC that runs from 2010-13.

Follow me on twitter!

by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 26, 2011 1:10 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

I don't understand why people are so quick to say the Big East doesn't deserve an AQ bid

We had one down season (last year obviously), which skews all the numbers. In 2008, we had two teams in the final poll (#12 and #20). In 2009, we had 3 teams (#3, #15, #17). Say the conference has a similar season to 2008. This discussion doesn’t happen. I know that there are qualifications that have to be met, but to punish a conference based on one down season seems extreme.

I’m all for the MWC having a bid, but not at the expense of the Big East, which has done better than people give it credit for since the 2005 realignment. Why can’t both conferences have an AQ bid?

Cardiac Hill contributor

by oaklandzoo12 on Aug 26, 2011 5:04 PM PDT reply actions

The problem for the BE is those 2009 numbers drop off

The next evaluation period runs from 2010 to 2013. The BE needs to step things up or get left behind.

by ev on Aug 26, 2011 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions

I am going by the numbers that are presented. Also, there is a reason there is a four-year cycle to eliminate one bad or one great year. I think the Big East should keep their bid if they qualify, my beef is that looking at the numbers I don’t see how they can include ACC and Big East while excluding the MWC.

Follow me on twitter!

by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 26, 2011 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions

If only...

…Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise had been able to stick together….

What an awesome conference that is in some alternate universe.

Ultimately though, Utah deserves the Pac-12 bid, BYU was upset that nobody else wanted them and decided to pretend to be Notre Dame, TCU did everything possible to get out of a sinking ship, Boise St. got totally screwed, and let’s face it, the bottom half of the MWC is awful. Had Utah, BYU, and (after this season) TCU decided to stick around, then UNLV, UNM (not far removed from being a solid mid-major team), and CSU (on the rise) most likely would have become more of a draw for recruits (ignoring glaring financial issues).

The MWC powers decided to jump conferences because the MWC TV draw doesn’t exist outside of the"region." College football is money-driven and anyone who says otherwise is flat out wrong. Let’s be honest, nobody has the Wyoming Cowboys on their radar outside of this conference. Adding teams like Fresno St. and Nevada does nothing for the MWC’s marketability either.

The MWC has played excellent football for years now, but the fact of the matter is that no matter how well teams in the league play from now on, the perception is that the MWC has become the new WAC.

Money-wise, the only time that teams make money off of bowl games is if they make it into a BCS bowl. More importantly, though, TV contracts are what really matter. Fort Worth is the largest TV market in the conference by far and will not be around after next year. Then the MWC has, what, the Boise TV market? Colorado Springs? Don’t even pretend that Vegas or San Diego are behind the MWC. They play great football, but Boise, Idaho is not exactly a booming metropolis.

Also, the knee-jerk reaction about how the Big East is terrible is premature. A couple of down years? Please. UNM, CSU, UNLV, Wyo, and (until this past season) SDSU, have been a blight on this conference for the past few years, but if Rutgers goes 4-8 everyone calls for the BE’s BCS status? Give me a break.

I guess my ultimate point is that the MWC will never get BCS status because none of the teams are relevant enough nationally other than Boise and maybe Air Force. The conference has played great football (outstanding football, at times), but almost nobody living in the major TV markets of our country are going to tune in to a Wyoming-Colorado St. game. Or even a Boise-[insert conference opponent here] game when there are any number of higher profile teams out there. Few outside of our geographic area care at all.

I am not a MWC hater at all, and I hope that y’all made it this far into my post, but the MWC is unjustly, yet unfortunately, doomed to the mid-major ranks unless Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Utah join.

by ejcham on Aug 26, 2011 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions

And trust me,

I love the MWC. I will continue to be a MWC fan after my Frogs leave, but I do not think that this conference will rise above the other so-called mid-majors.

by ejcham on Aug 26, 2011 9:57 PM PDT up reply actions

As of right now I think that perception will be tough to overcome

But some forget that back when TCU first joined in 2005, nobody thought that would make much of a difference and yet they made the top of the MWC more than just Utah and BYU. Some thought the same thing that the MWC was never going to be good enough to make it into the conversation of the BCS and in the past couple of years, most college football fans agree that the MWC deserved a BCS Bid (That is until Utah, BYU and TCU left).

Conferences can change perception easily. All they have to do is beat quaity teams out of conference. I think Nevada and Fresno State will make the middle of the pack much stronger, as that will be added to SDSU and Air Force as teams who are good enough to beat ranked teams just about every year, but don’t get ranked except every 4 or 5 years. One or two of those teams are going to have to rise up to Boise status and one of the four bottom dwellers are going to have to get out of the cellar and make it up to the next tier if this conference is going to get back what it lost when Utah, BYU, and TCU all left.

Mountain West Connection - All you need to know about the Mountain West and then some.
Stampede Blue - An Indianapolis Colts blog.
Bright Side of the Sun - Dedicated to Phoenix Suns basketball since 2006.

Twitter: @rebelfan1_

by rebelfan1 on Aug 27, 2011 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions

the reason I disagree

Is that the BCS made the qualification rules and looking at the numbers the MWC should be in for at least 2012-13 beyond that they still need to qualify and if they make it they make it.

Adding Fresno, Hawaii and Nevada is nothing sexy but they bring in above average teams which is what the league needs. That is why considering SJSU is a bad choice.

Follow me on twitter!

by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2011 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions

Well stated!

Nice to read so many good points and well thought out positions regarding this topic. I too wish TCU, Utah, and BYU could have stayed together along with the addition of Boise State. Would have been a great race for the title along with SDSU/AFA improving. All these teams are looking to sit at the BCS table and all deserve to be in an AQ conference, they have earned it.
I am not really sure about the whole Big East thing once A&M chooses to leave the Big12(10, 9). I think a dramatic shift in conference realignment will happen, and I would prefere my alma mater play more regional opponents, as we all know you develop better rivalries by playing your “neighbors”. I have hated that TCU has been a conference Nomad, but it has been necessary and understandable. I was really enjoying the rivalries that we developed, MWC and C-USA. I certainly don’t want any part of a conference that does not serve its members equally, as in equal revenue distribution. The SEC/Big Ten(12) has it right, the Big 12(10,9) has set itself to fail unless changes in said revenue distribution occur.

by HornedFrog1992 on Aug 27, 2011 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions