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

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 twitterfacebook and now google plus.

X
Log In Sign Up

forgot?
Log In Sign Up

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

I already have a Vox Media account!

Verify Vox Media account

Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Mountain West Connection

You must be a member of Mountain West Connection to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Mountain West Connection. You should read them.

Join Mountain West Connection

You must be a member of Mountain West Connection to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Mountain West Connection. You should read them.

Spinner.vc97ec6e

Authenticating

Great!

Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.

tracking_pixel_9341_tracker