Does the MWC deserve a BCS bid?

by utesfan100 on Jan 8, 2009 8:50 AM MST Comment 15 comments

The BCS conference criteria have been known for a while, someone finally got around to looking at the numbers publicly.

The numbers can be found here. I can state with some degree of authority that these team values undervalue the top 25 appearances and BCS rankings, but that this issue was a post processing step not related to the conference standings.

The MWC has not consistently perfromed at a BCS level over the last four years. We did perform at this level in 2008, the first time ever a conference without a BCS automatic qualification did so. One thing to note is that, based on this estimate, adding Boise State to the MWC closes half of the gap betwen the MWC and the BCS cutoff.

I can also state that no other team from the WAC or the C-USA West significantly alters these numbers, though Hawaii and Tulsa would provide a small increase.

If Bosie State needs someone to show in numbers that they offer a BCS Automatic Qualification, well Boise State and another year like 2008 will get it done.

It is interesting to note that adding Utah and BYU to the PAC 10 reduces the PAC 10's BCS value, so if you are dreaming of a PAC 10 expansion it is not likely at this time.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Ok, congrats on one good year

Do it next year..then the year after that….then 5 years after that and you’ll be getting somewhere.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 2:05 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

If you look at the numbers...

We wouldn’t need to wait 5 years… 2 years at this years level would be enought.

by utesfan100 on Jan 8, 2009 2:33 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

you get what im saying though.

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 2:37 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, Bammer, you're flawed on this

In 2004 Utah went 12-0 with a BCS win.

In 2007 the MWC was 4-1 in Bowl games. It was also 6-2 against the PAC-10.

In 2008 Utah again has gone undefeated with a BCS win.

The MWC should have an automatic BCS bid. It’s the Big East that doesn’t belong.

Besides, isn’t the 2008 champion supposed to be decided based on 2008 performance, not what happened the previous seasons?

by Rhino95 on Jan 9, 2009 2:14 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

Ha! Yeah, that’s the problem, Bammer. Teams like Utah are expected to go undefeated every year, or it’s “just a fluke” or “one good season”. Then you have teams in every single BCS conference that consistently finish with losing records. Yet if they do manage “one good year” and go undefeated, BAM! National Champs.

Anyway, the problem with adding Boise State is that then we would only get 3 OOC games. This would likely lower our SOS, since basically half of our conference is currently seen as “cupcakes” (wyoming, sdsu, unlv, unm…). If we were to add Boise, we’d have to drop one of those schools. I would personally be fine with that, but I think it’s much easier said than done.

by vizzle07 on Jan 8, 2009 2:12 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Did i say

You HAVE to go undefeated? One loss gets you there to…and i wasn’t talking about Utah the team (stop being sensitive guys) I am talking about your conference consistently being good. Utah is directly linked to the conference in which its played. So the only way for Utah to make a push every year is for its conference to be good…

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 8, 2009 2:24 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with NOT adding Boise State

BCS conferences should be expected to have 2 or 3 top 25 teams, even if one or two teams have a down year. Right now we have 3 teams that can get their and if two slip up we are left with one. Boise State brings a solid team with some credibility to the conference and would give us 4 teams in the running for the top 25. If one or two slip we would still have two left left and the possibility that Air Force, New Mexico or CSU turn a corner and step up.

We could adopt a BIG 10 format an have every team miss a team but a round robin would be best. With Utah State weazeling, deciding it better to cancel the historic but lopesided series rather than alternate a home date and reschedule, out of our schedule this should not be an issue for us. With Boise State, Utah and BYU all scheduling games in the next few years several openings could be made for negotiating.

Our attempts to balance home and away games is failing. Having only three OOC games and adopting a 2 road and one home against anyone conference identity would go very far in establishing our conference further. Winning big games on the road makes a statement.

by utesfan100 on Jan 8, 2009 2:46 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

MWC's New Coaches

will add significantly to the depth and strength of the MWC. Especially true at San Diego State with Ball State’s Hoke as head coach and UNM’s old coach Rocky Long focusing on defense….they will be much much improved…and will show it early next year. Every MWC team should look out SDSU next year and in the future, as well as Colorado State and AF who will continue to improve.

If you thought ’09 was good for the MWC, wait until ’09 on a conference scales and especially 2010 and beyond. The future is very very bright. Go Utes!!

by MississippiUte on Jan 8, 2009 4:40 PM MST reply actions 0 recs

Woo ya!

Not only did we add defensive wiz Rocky Long who is very well known in the MWC and Brady Hoke who finished 6th overall in the coach of the year voting; we also added Al Borges as offensive coordinator who has coached two first round QB picks and was 33-5 as the offensive coordinator at Auburn the last 5 years including the 13-0 season in 2004. We also added PAC-10 savant Dan Ferrigno to coach special teams.

Brady Hoke, Al Borges, and Rocky Long. Aztec football is back!

by sdsuaztec4 on Jan 8, 2009 10:36 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

ESPN agrees

Here

Brady Hoke, Al Borges, and Rocky Long. Aztec football is back!

by sdsuaztec4 on Jan 8, 2009 11:26 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

The MWC needs one more thing: money.

Remember that before the Bowl Alliance/BCS systems, the contemporary BCS conferences had very lucrative and unquestioned tie-ins to the top bowl games. The BCS system is designed only to guarantee a polled #1 v. #2 matchup, but to otherwise leave the bowl tie-ins alone. Since there is a nonzero probability (allbeit very tiny) that a non-BCS team may be ranked high enough for consideration, some concessions have been made to allow the non-BCS teams a shot at the party. However, you’ll notice that those concessions either involve the non-BCS team actually being a #1 or #2, or they involve the non-BCS team essentially replacing a BCS team in a normal bowl game. (E.g. Utah basically occupied the slot that Notre Dame would normally have if they had been a 10-win team and if the traditional bowl system were fully in effect. In prior years, the non-BCS team effectively replaced a team that was in the NC game.)

Those bowl tie-ins are the product of a lot of old money exchanged between the bowls and the conferences. (E.g. the Rose Bowl holds onto the Big 10 and PAC-10 with a deathlock because those conference have proven to be very lucrative and prestigious over the years. and vice versa.) The MWC will have to demonstrate a similar financial viability to the bowl games in order to be given equal consideration.

It’s a business speculation deal, effectively. When the MWC projects a sufficient ROI, the BCS bowls will buy in.

by hooper on Jan 9, 2009 9:03 AM MST reply actions 0 recs

A couple of points, hooper

Utah actually earned it’s way in by getting an automatic bid. The only team that I got an “at-large” invitation was was Ohio State.

Had Oregon State beaten Oregon, I’m pretty sure USC would have gone to the Fiesta Bowl while the Beavers played in the Rose bowl.

The MWC is supposedly in the first year of a four-year evaluation for an automatic bid. Don’t be surprised if that timetable is accelerated. This is a PR catastrophe for the BCS, its bowls, it’s conferences and schools.

by Rhino95 on Jan 9, 2009 2:28 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

According to the numbers linked to above...

The MWC has a score of 0.2627 over the four year window. A score of 0.5000 represents BCS level should be. This includes this years score of 0.5347. Even if we keep up his years pace we would need three years to get over 0.5000.

Lets not kid ourselves. The MWC this year exceeded all our expectations. This is after three years of disappointment, and the year before that we were only happy because Utah was undefeated. The rest of the conference was down.

Adding Boise State would raise the four year average to 0.3722. This year would have been 0.6679, almost the PAC 10 average. Two years like that, with some breathing room, and we would warrent a BCS bid.

The WAC requires a team to announce their intentions of leaving a year in advance or else risk losing their share of the annual fund distribution, including bowl pay outs and NCAA tournament money. If we invited Boise State now they would not be in the MWC until 2010. The first year a team plays in a new league the BCS counts their numbers for the old league. We would not get Boise State’s numbers until 2011.

This is the soonest the MWC could warrant a BCS invite, but we would need to invite Boise State and play at a 2008 level for 2009 and 2010.

by utesfan100 on Jan 9, 2009 8:54 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

And thats what i ment by consistency

When you are an Alabama fan you are expected to hate Auburn, I hate Tennessee because I want to.

by bammer on Jan 12, 2009 2:33 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point on that.

Auto-bid, not at-large. But even that was a concession that came through the evolution of the Bowl Alliance/BCS system.

The BCS is still nothing more than the traditional bowl system with a guaranteed 1v2 matchup. For the MWC to be a “BCS” conference, they’ll have to validate an affiliation to a BCS bowl much as they would have to do prior to the Bowl Alliance. That will require the MWC to show both that they’re consistently good enough and that the money is there to make it financially beneficial to everybody. It’s a lot easier to think of the problem in terms of bowl affiliation rather than playoff qualification.

The MWC is on the right track. I hope they make it, but it’s still a work in progress.

by hooper on Jan 10, 2009 10:27 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs