New BCS Qualifying Standards

[mountainman]

Just read this on the BCS website:

Under the "double-hosting model" with the BCS title game, there will be 10 BCS teams, up from eight. Automatic bids go to the champions of six conferences - Big XII, Big Ten, Big East, ACC, SEC and Pac-10. One conference champion from the non-BCS conferences - MWC, WAC, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt - will automatically qualify for a BCS bowl in two ways:

1. finish in the top 12 of the final BCS standings;
2. finish in the top 16 of the BCS standings and ranked higher than the champion of one BCS conference.

Any of the 10 BCS spots not filled by conference champions will go to at-large teams determined by the final BCS standings. Notre Dame is guaranteed a BCS bowl bid if it finishes No. 8 or higher in the final BCS standings.

[colorado_loves_football]

Just read this on the BCS website:

Under the "double-hosting model" with the BCS title game, there will be 10 BCS teams, up from eight. Automatic bids go to the champions of six conferences - Big XII, Big Ten, Big East, ACC, SEC and Pac-10. One conference champion from the non-BCS conferences - MWC, WAC, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt - will automatically qualify for a BCS bowl in two ways:

1. finish in the top 12 of the final BCS standings;
2. finish in the top 16 of the BCS standings and ranked higher than the champion of one BCS conference.

Any of the 10 BCS spots not filled by conference champions will go to at-large teams determined by the final BCS standings. Notre Dame is guaranteed a BCS bowl bid if it finishes No. 8 or higher in the final BCS standings.

Thanks for giving me the informaton necessary to evaluate how the BCS will be selecting teams in the future, it's obviously designed to allow for greater participation in general, which I think is a good thing.
I still might have preferred an 'automatic' bid for any team that wins its conference, and finishes sufficiently high in the BCS ranking. But, if nothing else it gives a team an opportunity to qualify itself, through competitive play, much better than in previous years. TCU likely would have qualified, had this been in place, last year.
That being said, I would appreciate a BCS where every conference is represented somehow. It wouldn't be that hard to organize, but it would require some cooperation, to get it done.
So, it's progress, of a sort, but far from what I would like to see implemented with respect to a playoff.

[mountainman]

That's the way I read it too as far as TCU is concerned. That would be because TCU won their conference, was ranked #14 in the final BCS standings while Florida State was ranked #22 in the final BCS standings as ACC champion.

Just as a reminder, the final BCS standings are determined and published at the end of the regular season that includes the conference championship games.

[colorado_loves_football]

Just as a reminder, the final BCS standings are determined and published at the end of the regular season that includes the conference championship games.

Consider how a conference championship might have impacted the Big East Confernece, last year.
W. Virginia, and Penn St. likely would have met in the conference title game, rather than in a semi-final, securing a BCS bid for one of the teams, in a 'reorganized' Big East Confernece, that includes the following teams: Navy, Marshall, Notre Dame, Penn St.
But, it would also have made the Big East a lot more competitive, and there wouldn't have been any doubt with respect to how good the champion was.
That's why I support a re-structuring, to give every confernece a representative, to the BCS. Those 6 already occupying positions of 'priority' would remain in place, unaffected. The 4 'at large' bids would be awarded to confernece champions, traditionally 'outside' the BCS.
The two bids traditionally awarded by rank would then be selected through competition, a much better way to select a 'championship' field of teams. The BCS is inching closer to that, by its revised formula.
But it's still far from being a 'fair' way to select a team, in my opinion.
Top 12 is still a fairly high standard to uphold, more likely to favor the Big 6 conferences, than those outside it's jurisdiction.
Still, it's better than what was in place before, so it's progress.

[colorado_loves_football]

Yeah, I think it was yesterday on collegefootballnews.com that I saw this info about the BCS. It also said TCU would have been in last year if these rules had been in place.

I tried, unsuccessfully, to find that article, so I'm not sure it's where you said it was, but did find something worth reading:
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/vi ... p?p=358809
This is from the Sporting News, a publication I trust, and I think it's worthwhile reading for anyone who thinks the BCS is a 'fair' representation of teams, it's not. I like how he says "if the stars align".
That's pretty much what's required, for TCU to be selected.

[Guest]

Well, this is where I have a problem with these sportswriter guys.

Matt Hayes writes:

"Under the new system, TCU would have received a BCS spot instead of ACC champion FSU (No.22)."

What I quoted from the BCS website does say that (see above post).

There was no mention, that I read, of any team replacing a BCS conference champion. What it said was the team meeting the criteria would receive an automatic bid.

I don't know who's right about the it. All one can judge these new rules on is what they say. I would think the BCS site would be the authority.

Maybe not, but if this sportswriter guy is drawing conclusions without verifying what he says is a matter of fact, as opposed to his perception of what the rules say, then he's got his own issues with creditability and his intent is not to inform, but to advance his own interpretation or agenda.

[mountainman]

Sorry, that's my post ... had to flip over to a spreadsheet to get some numbers and forgot to log back in. Work, work, work.

I spit the gum out.

***********************************************************
EDIT:

above post should read: "does not say that"

[mountainman]

Don't know for sure ... but I think that would have been up to the particular bowl's selection committee. I'm guessing their choices would have been either Oregon, Miami, Auburn, Virginia Tech or LSU.

[colorado_loves_football]

The article that I am talking about was saying TCU would have gone to the BCS if it was like it will be next year. So they would be in the 5th bowl, not go instead of FSU. I don't know if there was confusion there or not. I wonder who the BCS would have selcted to play TCU in that 5th bowl? I guess Oregon?

My interpretation of the rules is that TCU would have been awarded a bid, through the provison that recognizes a team #16 or higher, in a year a conference champion finishes lower than them, or for all intents and purposes, 'out-of-the-running' competitively-speaking.
The reason I say that, is typically a confernece champion is also going to be highly ranked, perhaps in the top-6, if every conference champion is also undefeated, an unlikely, but possible scenario.
In effect what the BCS did, was assure itself of the 'best' teams, regardless, a smart move on their part, but it does make it difficult for a team like TCU to get selected, but for the provision of a conference champion finishing lower, in the BCS ranking. (#16 or lower).
They covered all the bases, but it's sad, in a way, the new rule wasn't already in place when TCU was trying to 'earn' a spot, one year too early.

[colorado_loves_football]

I got the point, I read the article you referenced also. I see that the sportswriter thinks that more BCS conf schools will just end up going, but we will have to wait and see to be sure. I really think the TCU's of the sport that are normally shut out will get bids now. At least 1 from a non-BCS conf will go it seems. (if they are top 12) At least the other conferences know what they have to do to get in now.

The reason I don't think it's fair, is the BCS only has to select a 'non-BCS' team if that team is ranked #12 or higher. If they are ranked lower than #12, then they don't have to take them, they can take whichever team they want, in what amounts to a 'field' of six teams (12 - 6 'champions'). This isn't a 'fair' arrangment, it just gives the BCS more options. But, should a 'non-BCS' team go undefeated, they will likely finish somewhere in the 'field' of teams, thereby 'earning' the right to be represented, in some fashion. It's a sneaky way of making it 'fair' without really making it fair. As was the case when Boise St. played Louisville, those were two legitimate BCS teams, paired together in the Liberty Bowl. The 'fifth' bowl, gives the BCS the 'option' to have that pairing included as a BCS bowl. They get richer, in other words, rather than making it 'fair' it's more like robbing from the poor (Liberty Bowl).
But, in fairness, TCU likely would have been selected this year, so it is closer to being a 'fair' way to select a 'non-BCS' team, but done in such a way to make me want to scream!
It would be so much simpler, and fairer, to simply award every conference a representative, provided they meet the necessary criteria.
Undefeated is such an impossible standard, and really all they did was make it harder for a team with one loss to get selected. Undefeated gets you in. Louisville goes in 2004, but they lost to Miami, FL. Ranked #10.

[Eric]

I see TCU with 2 losses. Against Texas Tech and at Utah. Utah will be much better this year. They'll be co-champs of the Mountain West, but Utah will own the tiebreaker. I think the Utes will lose to UCLA and maybe at New Mexico. I think the Lobos could pull off an upset there.

C-USA is too mediocre, I think the championship game will be SMU and ECU.

the MAC is too mediocre this year as well. Northern Illinois might have about a zero % chance to go undefeated, they do play Ohio State and Iowa. But they'll be solid. The best team in the MAC rarely wins, so my darkhorse is Ohio. We know for sure that no team from the MAC will represent a mid-major in the BCS.

Sun Belt........well.....no.

Now we can talk about some serious contenders. Fresno will have a tough time replacing Paul Pinegar, he was the leader even though he did make a LOT of stupid, 2005 Brett Favre-like passes. No way, they have Oregon, LSU, at an improved Washington Huskie team, and a not so easy task against Colorado State. Boise State on the other hand, if Chris Peterson can push the right buttons, they could be in. They'll have a tough time with Oregon State and at Wyoming (War Memorial Field is not a simple place to play), but they can certainly get that bid.

Conclusion: TCU, Utah, and Boise State are the only teams that can get in the BCS this year. If TCU and Utah can avoid a Mountain West upset, they're in. Boise will probably have to go undefeated because the MWC gets more respect than the WAC.

[Spence]

The reason I don't think it's fair, is the BCS only has to select a 'non-BCS' team if that team is ranked #12 or higher. If they are ranked lower than #12, then they don't have to take them, they can take whichever team they want, in what amounts to a 'field' of six teams (12 - 6 'champions'). This isn't a 'fair' arrangment, it just gives the BCS more options.

I have been telling you all along that they would only do this if it worked out better for the big 6. Playoff teams would be selected the very same way.

[colorado_loves_football]

Eric, you and I agree on most things, believe it or not, but I think TCU will likely win the MWC. They are going to play a tougher schedule, than last year, but I think they are equal to the task, myself. They could lose that first game, however, at Baylor. The game at Utah scares me, also. Home games against Texas Tech and Brigham Young aren't 'gimmes'. Neither, for that matter are games against Army, and Colorado State, so it's possible TCU goes 6-5.
But I predict they will be stronger than that, hopefully finish strong, at 10-1, just like last year, but 7-1 MWC, good enough for first place.
The WAC to me seems like a 'toss-up'. I think both Fresno & Boise will be 'down' from last year, personally. Nevada seems to be 'up-and-coming', and for that matter, so does Idaho. I won't predict a winner, but the WAC was more exciting than I thought they'd be.
As far as C-USA goes, I think SMU will be strong, so will S. Mississippi, and Marshall, in the east.
I can't predict the MAC, but I vote for Toledo, anyway. N. Illinois was ok, but they couldn't win the MAC, against Akron. Bowling Green is good, so is Miami, OH. Akron might surprise.

[Eric]

Bowling Green's most horrid play was when Omar Jacobs was sidelined. The Falcons better find a QB fast, or I think this season will be mediocre.

I think the MWC is a tossup because I think TCU and Utah will be probably the two most evenly matched teams going for a conference title. I'm only taking Utah because they get TCU at home this year. I think the winner of the Utah/TCU game has the best shot for a BCS bid.

[mountainman]

Guys, the BCS is not about fairness, it's about correctness. And there's a bunch of interests and perspectives to consider to get it correct. Fair would be the easiest thing to do, but getting it correct is the difficult part.

The BCS is about a set of tough and demanding standards and provides every D-1 team in college football an opportunity to meet them. Meet those standards and a team goes to a BCS bowl. Meet those standards and a team puts itself in a position to be selected to go to a BCS bowl. Meet those standards better than anybody else and you go to the title game.

BCS means Bowl Championship Series and the "Championship" part should mean something. Well, that's my two cents worth.