Boise Is In, But BCS Still Flawed

The following is a guest column written by the co-founder of Playoff PAC. This article also appeared in RealClearSports.

By Matthew Sanderson

The college football world received good news Sunday night. Deserving and undefeated teams from Boise State and TCU received bowl invitations from the Bowl Championship Series. This will be the first post-season in BCS history that two teams from the five non-automatic qualifying conferences will receive BCS bowl berths in the same year. TCU automatically qualified for the invitation under BCS rules, while Boise State received an "at-large" invitation - a first for a "non-AQ" conference team.

These bowl invitations are a positive development, to be sure. But the BCS' new PR mercenaries, led by former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, are certain to over-inflate their importance. Even before yesterday's selection, they've compared the BCS to apple pie, motherhood, and the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. Wonder what they'll come up with now.

BCS officials will undoubtedly claim that the Broncos' bid, in particular, is proof positive that the door of opportunity is wide open to "non-AQ" schools under the BCS system. We need only look at the circumstances surrounding Boise State's invitation, though, to realize this is not true.

For the BCS to even consider extending this at-large berth, Boise State had to run up two consecutive undefeated regular seasons and manhandle this year's Pac-10 champion, the Oregon Ducks, along the way.

Yet Boise State still would not have received an invitation if any of the "Big Six" conference teams had a remotely credible claim to a big-time bowl. Because BCS rules bar any single conference from garnering more than one at-large bid and because SEC and Big Ten teams had already locked in the first two at-large spots, Boise State's competition for the final at-large BCS berth came from the ACC, Big 12, Big East, and Pac-10. Teams from those conferences - Oklahoma State, USC, Pittsburgh, Clemson, and others - were in the driver's seat but somehow couldn't close out the season successfully.

This left an enormous rankings gap of .2769 points between Boise State and the next eligible team, three-loss Virginia Tech. Selecting the three-loss Hokies over undefeated Boise State would have ignited the greatest uproar in BCS history and destroyed any remaining shreds of legitimacy. The BCS didn't select Boise State because they've turned over a new leaf. They begrudgingly extended the at-large invite because they had a gun to their head.

And after all that, the BCS issued a tainted invitation by making Boise State and fellow "non-AQ" team TCU face off against each other in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl on Jan. 4. One sportswriter is calling this "Separate But Equal Bowl" because it denies both teams an opportunity to prove their mettle against "Big Six" conference teams and allows the BCS to continue to rationalize its caste system by claiming a disparity in quality of play.

In addition, the BCS did nothing to address the system's greatest defects by selecting Boise State for an at-large spot. For example, the ACC will receive approximately $18.3 million from the BCS this post-season. For accomplishing the same feat - placing one team in a BCS bowl - the Mountain West Conference must divide $9.6 million among its fellow five "non-AQ" conferences. Forcing these teams to live off of table scraps is not good for college football's long-term health. Unfortunately, Boise State's historic at-large berth doesn't mean the BCS has changed its anti-competitive revenue distribution system.

Boise State's momentary inclusion also does not mean the BCS is suddenly a great way to choose a champion. Undefeated Cincinnati beat three teams ranked in the final AP Top 25 poll, while Texas defeated only two. Why exactly, then, is Texas "in" and Cincinnati "out" when the teams played in conferences of similar strength? Boise State and TCU have gripes similar to Cincinnati. Something is fundamentally wrong with a system that pointlessly rations championship opportunities and leaves three undefeated teams at home to watch the title game. The lesser BCS bowls are a poor consolation prize, even if they are a step up from the norm for these teams.

A single at-large bid for a "non-AQ" team cannot erase 11 years of scandal and controversy or cover up the system's inherent flaws. The status quo's warts remain. We need real reform in college football. Let's stop running this game needlessly on two cylinders and start a playoff.

======================
Matthew Sanderson is a co-founder of Playoff PAC (www.PlayoffPAC.com) and an attorney at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered in Washington, D.C. He served as Campaign Finance Counsel to John McCain 2008, Senator John McCain's presidential campaign committee. {These view are his own.}

What to Do About BYU?

In 1984, BYU went 13-0 and won the national championship - the last consensus national title for any school not in the current BCS conferences. What's largely forgotten is that the Cougars played only four teams that finished with a winning record, the best being Air Force's 8-4.

That won't be the case this year.

Should BYU go undefeated this regular season, its 13th game should be for the BCS national title, because its schedule would be worthy for it.

After upsetting Oklahoma, 14-13, at Cowboys Stadium last night, the Cougars should be ranked in the top five of the polls, the most critical element comprising the BCS standings formula. If they fail to crack the top five, then the Mountain West Conference's mounting grievances against the BCS will have the fiercest argument yet.

Consider -

* Despite being listed as a neutral-site game, last night's affair was a de facto OU home game, with Norman only 200 miles away and the Metroplex a natural habitat for OU alums.

* Never mind that Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford was hurt on the final play from scrimmage in the first half. When the 2008 Heisman winner was playing, OU managed only 10 points.

* In the fourth quarter, after OU got the ball on a turnover at the BYU 27, it failed to score a touchdown to put the game away. The Cougars stuffed the Sooners six times inside the 10 (three times inside the 2) to force a field goal.

* Despite having two 1,000-yard rushers in the backfield, the Sooners ran for only 118 yards. They were outgained by nearly 100 yards as BYU held the ball for almost 38 minutes.

It's unfortunate that Bradford got hurt, but don't kid yourself that OU would've won that game going away had he stayed healthy. BYU earned that victory, fair and square - injuries are part of the game.

BYU should be in the top 5 after this victory, and its remaining schedule is strong enough for the Cougars to make a case for the BCS title game should they stay undefeated. They play Florida State, TCU and Utah, all three teams currently in the AP top 20. By contrast, Florida, everyone's favorite to repeat as BCS champions, will play only two teams that will be in the top 20 in next week's poll (and please spare me the 'but SEC is the toughest conference in the galaxy' fallacy*).

Certainly the season just got started and BYU can easily suffer a loss (or two or three) along the way and render this whole debate moot. But at this point in time, with what's already done, the Cougars deserve recognition as a top 5 team.

One other side effect from BYU's upset win: Two nights ago, Boise State seemed poised to claim a BCS spot, after beating Oregon and with a favorable schedule ahead. But with BYU's victory, the Broncos may finish the regular season undefeated and not get a BCS bowl berth for a second consecutive season.

That would hurt a lot more than a LeGarrette Blount sucker punch.


*In the realm of logic, this is called "begging the question." It usually goes like this:

SEC Apologist: The SEC has the best teams in the country.
SEC Skeptic: How do you know?
SEC Apologist: Because week-in and week-out they have to play the toughest teams in the country.
SEC Skeptic: How do you know these are the toughest teams?
SEC Apologist: Because they play in the SEC, the toughest conference in the country.

This is not to say that the SEC doesn't have good teams, it's just that the league has its bottom feeders like all other leagues. And since top SEC teams get to feast on these weaklings, the argument that their schedules are tougher than any other doesn't hold water.

Do you know when's the last time Florida played a nonconference game against a BCS conference team outside of the state of Florida? Try 1991, at Syracuse, in a 38-21 loss. But this will be the topic for another day.

What the Coaches Poll Wrought

It's the first preseason poll of significance, and it's the first element of the 2009 BCS standings to be revealed. So when the USA Today Coaches Poll was released last Friday, it was immediately taken apart and analyzed.

Yeah, it may be a preseason poll, but don't think for a moment that it means little.

While the top of the poll yielded little surprise - defending BCS national champion Florida checked in at No. 1 - it's apparent that Coalition members (i.e. non-BCS schools) will have just about no chance for a spot in the BCS title game, and that one loss will doom their shot at even a BCS bowl appearance.

How can that be so quickly ordained after a short glance of the preseason poll, you ask?

Simple. The preseason poll in college football is a lot like the starting grid in a Formula One car race. There are few opportunities for passes, so where you start often times determine where you'll finish.

Four Coalition teams are in the top 25, led by Boise State at No. 16. This does not bode well for those teams (also Mountain West members TCU, Utah and BYU) to have any shot at the BCS national title game. In the past five years, only teams ranked in the preseason top 10 in the Coaches Poll made it to the BCS title game. This year, 9 of the top 10 teams will face each other at least once before the halfway point of the season, which means even a loss will keep these teams in the top 10, ahead of any unbeaten Coalition teams.

What about Coalition teams playing themselves into national title contention? After all, doesn't BYU open the season at Oklahoma?

Yes, but here's the rub. Even if the Cougars pull off a monumental upset at Norman, will they vault all the way up into the top 5? Not likely, not from where they start at No. 24. And a loss effectively ends BYU's BCS bowl hopes after one game, even if it goes on to win the MWC championship.

Contrast that to the Big East, one of the six BCS conferences. There's not a team from that conference that may even be in the top 10 by the end of the season (the highest preseason ranking is Cincinnati, at No. 29), but it's guaranteed a BCS bowl berth. Of course, based on our own research, the Big East is still well ahead of the MWC in overall performance - but there was little logic to grant the Big East a spot in the BCS for the next five years, as it was done before the start of this season.

Some might be quick to jump on a potential conspiracy by BCS conference coaches to keep non-BCS teams down in the polls to ensure as many BCS teams get the 10 BCS bowl spots as possible. But that link is tenuous at best.

There are 59 voters in the coaches poll and 25 of them (42%) are from non-BCS conferences. That roughly corresponds with the actual proportion of non-BCS teams (54 of 120, 45%) in Division I-A. If BCS conference coaches are keeping the non-BCS teams down in the polls, then the Coalition coaches are not exactly doing a bang-up job of propping up their brethren.

But just how everybody is actually voting? We'll never know. As usual, the Coaches Poll is secret ballots until the final poll of the season. And after this season, they intend to revert back to secret ballots for the entire season, including the final poll, over the protests of the BCS commissioners. So in essence, it remains the most controversial and non-transparent part of the BCS formula, and it accounts for one-third of the total.

There is a simple solution to this. After 2009, the BCS must dump the Coaches Poll.

Automatic Qualifiers, Beyond 2014

With the news that the BCS conferences will stay intact at least through the next TV contract (concluding with the bowls in January 2014), the debate will rage among BCS critics that the so-called Coalition conferences are getting the shaft.

But the truth is more complicated than that. During each review period, the BCS conferences have far out-performed the Coalitions conferences, even including last year, when the Mountain West had a banner season. Obviously, even if the formula for the evaluation is unbiased, the present arrangement of college football leaves an uneven playing field between the haves and have-nots.

We have decided to play watchdog on all this development, with the help our friend Ben Prather, who once again produced the goods on the AQ question. Last year, he released the simulation of the BCS evaluation process up through 2008. From now on, the Guru will host the ongoing evaluation for 2009 and beyond.

Here's Ben's explanation for the keys to the 2009 BCS AQ data.

By Ben Prather (Fanblogs.com)

Conference scores

The BCS currently uses three criteria to determine future automatic qualifications. These are the number of top 25 teams, the average of all conference members in the BCS standings and the highest ranked team in the BCS standings. The results of these criteria from 2008 through 2011 will determine the eligibility for 2012 and 2013. Changes in membership are applied after a team has played a year in a new league.

The BCS uses a four year window, so an interesting question is where do the conferences stand going into 2009? Observing that none of these criteria include bowl results, what happens if these are included as a fourth criterion? The criteria are not specified to a precision allowing exact duplication so an estimate must be made. Western Kentucky will count for the Sun Belt next year, after they complete this year in the league.

The numerical format is intended to match that of the BCS standings used to determine annual BCS qualifications. 1.0000 represents an ideal performance and 0.0000 represents a performance not warranting consideration. 0.5000 represents the borderline case, typically corresponding to #14 in the BCS standings. 0.7500 represents an elite performance typically corresponding to #6 in the BCS standings.

Top 25 index

The top 25 index shall be the number of top 25 teams each year divided by 5.

Intent:

The maximum number of teams any conference has ended the season with is 5, setting this value to 1.0000. This establishes an expected four year average of 2.5 teams for a BCS conference and a four year average of 3.75 teams for an elite conference. A conference with 6 teams one year could exceed 1.0000, rewarding excellence.

Computer average of all teams in each conference index

For each team remove the highest and lowest BCS computers rankings, add 0 points for last place thru 119 for first place. Divide by the total points possible to get each team’s score.

Average the team scores for each conference to get a raw score. The conference index is then (Raw Score - 0.5000) / 0.2000. Negative values are truncated at 0.0000.

Intent:

The team scores emulate the methodology used for the BCS formula. The conference index is scaled to account for the effects of averaging.

1.0000 represents a conference whose AVERAGE member ranks in the top 35. 0.5000 represents an average ranking in the top 48 while 0.0000 represents an average ranking of 60.

Annual values over 1.0000 are allowed to reward excellence while low values are dropped to prevent conferences from being unduly hindered by their past. The four year average will return to the expected bounds.

Top ranked team from each conference index

The top team for each conference in the BCS standings is used unmodified.

Bowl record index

Each conferences annual bowl record is adjusted using the formula (PCT-.5000)*2+.5000.

Intent:

Like the average in the computer rankings, PCT averages need to account for the central limit theorem. This is the only component allowed to take negative values.

Conference Classifications

1.0000-0.7500: Premier conferences

0.7500-0.5000: Automatic Qualifying conferences

0.5000-0.0000: At Large conferences

Intent:

The distinction between Premier and Automatic Qualifying conference is to give the top conferences something to compete for without jeopardizing BCS status.

The term At Large conferences would replace the current misnomers used to describe these conferences.

Team Scores

Simply applying these to teams does not properly reflect the value a team brings to a conference.

The top 25 index should be multiplied by the number of team in the conference. The average membership is currently 10.5.

The computer average does not need to be adjusted.

The top team index needs to be tempered by the probability that the team is the top team in the conference. This can be accomplished by raising it to the power of the number of teams the conference expects to have ranked.

Bowl results are not included at this time.

(CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE ANALYSIS DATA)

Big Ten the Money Machine

When It comes to raking in the cash, nobody has done it better than the Big Ten in the BCS Era. Though the conference (along with the Pac-10 and Rose Bowl) had to be cajoled and enticed to join the BCS after the 1997 season, it has made the most out of this marriage of convenience.

Over the past 11 years, the Big Ten has cashed $212 million, an average of over $19 million per school over that period. That's far more than anybody else has managed to bank. The SEC, coming in second, made $204 million, or an average of $17 million per school.

Jeremy Fowler of the Orlando Sentinel did the research and came up with how much each conference (both BCS and Coalition), as well as Notre Dame, has made from BCS participation in the BCS Era. It goes without saying that the BCS schools have earned disproportionally more than Coalition schools, as was noted in a previous post.

The data also provides ample reason why Notre Dame has resisted joining a conference. Despite its horrific recent history under Bob Davie, Tyrone Willingham and Charlie Weis, Notre Dame remains the most profitable school in the BCS arrangment simply because it does not have to share its revenue with anyone. Over the past 11 years, the Irish have made nearly as much as the entire Mountain West Conference. Its $35 million haul is about twice as much as the likes of Florida, Ohio State and USC, who have accomplished far more.


Click to enlarge | Data courtesy of Jeremy Fowler, Orlando Sentinel

* In Millions
** Totals do not include the Football Championship Subdivision conferences that currently receive $225,000 per year from the BCS


The breakdown by school (BCS members only):

Notre Dame - $35.00 million
West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers - $21.92
Big Ten members - $19.29
Boston College - $18.94
Pac-10 members - $18.36
Miami, Virginia Tech - $18.10
SEC members - $17.06
ACC members (except Miami, VaTech and BC) - $16.91
Big 12 members - $16.43
Connecticut - $11.27
South Florida, Cincinnati, Louisville - $9.52 ($0.56 as non-BCS members)

*Temple earned $12.96 as a BCS member, $13.02 total

How Much Does Your School Make?

The Orlando Sentinel is publishing a six-part series called "Tough Times: College Sports and the Economy." In today's installment, it looks at how much each athletic department is raking in among the 120 Division I-A schools (Army and Navy declined to furnish their numbers, so it's actually 118).

The top five: Texas, Ohio State, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin. No surprises there.

The bottom five (from the bottom up): Louisiana-Monroe, Arkansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, Idaho. Again, no surprises there.

The surprises: The top school in the Pac-10, checking in at No. 18, is Stanford, one spot ahead of the University of Southern California. The top school in the ACC is another private institution, Duke at No. 23. Florida State, one of the historically powerhouse football programs, is at No. 53, ahead of only N.C. State and Wake Forest in the ACC and a handful of BCS conference schools.

As expected, the 66 BCS schools are ahead of just about all Coalition (non-BCS) schools. The highest ranked Coalition school is Texas Christian, checking in at No. 58. BYU is next at No. 64. The dead-last BCS school - the only one not in the top 67 - is Mississippi State, at No. 75.

What kind of disparity is there among the richest schools and the poorest ones? The top three schools clear $100 million in total revenue annually. The bottom three, less than $12 million. Texas' athletic department makes $112 million more than Louisiana-Monroe, or roughly 15 times more.

Among the BCS conferences, this is how it shakes down by average:

1. Big Ten: $76.4 million
2. SEC: $71.1 million
3. Big 12: $66.5 million
4. Pac-10: $58.7 million
5. ACC: $54.1 million
6. Big East: $45.5 million

The full-table is on the Orlando Sentinel site. Data courtesy of the U.S. Department of Education.

The Mountain West Proposal

On Wednesday, the Mountain West Conference presented the BCS commissioners with a new proposal to tweak the BCS system. And it wants the proposal fast-tracked - to take place as soon as the 2010 season, when the new TV deal with ESPN kicks in.

Flush with success from the 2008 season - culminating with Utah's undefeated run and No. 2 ranking in the final AP poll - the Mountain West also managed to get the backing of a few congressmen. Its proposal seeks to use as much of the existing infrastructure as possible, with a few add-ons.

You can read the entire proposal, but here's the highlight:

• Amending the automatic qualifier standard (so the MWC could be let in, of course)

• Adding a fifth bowl to the rotation

• Creating national semifinals, to be played a week after the New Years Day bowls

• Pitting the semifinal winners in the national championship game, played a week later

• Using a committee to select the 10 BCS teams (and ditching the BCS standings, putting the Guru out of business)

The MWC wants the proposal discussed at the BCS meeting next month. And ACC commissioner John Swofford, no doubt under some political pressure, said the proposal will get a "full airing."

So what's going to happen?

Nothing. Or not much, other than that there will be "continued discussions" about a new format. There are simply too many things at work here against this proposal, or any other proposal.

First, the BCS conference schools and Notre Dame, the big power brokers, like the way things are right now. And so do the smaller conferences that probably will never get a shot at a BCS bowl in the system proposed by the MWC, especially the WAC, the forefather of the MWC that has benefited enormously from the current BCS arrangement.

Second, there is no real political will behind this. The nation is in crisis, college football is not going to be a priority in an environment where unemployment is about to hit 10% and the Dow Jones is heading toward 6,500. Any politician talking too much about this risks being viewed as out of touch with reality. That's why you're not going to see much of a reaction out of any senators, let along President Obama.

Finally, that the proposal comes from the Mountain West actually de-legitimizes it. This sounds too much like a grievance filing immediately after one has been wronged. The MWC conveniently picked and chose whatever data suited its argument. As you can see from this table compiled by our friend Ben Prather, the MWC really is the seventh-best conference over the past four years, when objective and more robust data were used.

But putting aside all the machinations of the BCS, does the MWC proposal have merit?

Not much. Certainly not enough to warrant its adoption.

Beyond the arbitrary automatic qualification process, adding a fifth bowl is wasteful and unnecessary. But the biggest problem is having an eight-team playoff. It's simply impractical from a logistical standpoint. It's even more impractical when you try to jam it in at the end of the bowl season.

Keep in mind the number of people that need to be moved around for these bowl games. Going to one bowl game is a huge expense, even in a healthy economy. Going to the equivalent of three bowl games in three consecutive weeks will bankrupt most people, those who are stupid enough to try it. Given the current economic climate, that's a deal breaker right there.

The most ludicrous part of the proposal, however, is the concept of a 12-man committee. This idea is considerably worse than the BCS standings. To have 12 people, each with a vested interest, to vote on the teams that would divvy up nearly $100 million is insane. Even the coaches poll, fraught with conflict of interest, is far superior to this model - and that is merely one-third of the BCS standings. Just imagine the horse-trading that'd go on in that committee room.

At the end, the BCS commissioners will kick this proposal around, spew out a few platitudes, and feed it down the shredder when everybody else leaves the room.

Unfortunately, that's where it belongs.

Why Shouldn't Utah Be No. 1?

After impressively dismantling Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, Utah should deserve consideration as the top team in the AP poll. And you know something? Utah SHOULD BE No. 1 in the final AP poll.

The Utes finished the season 13-0, becoming the first team to go undefeated twice in the BCS era. In beating the Tide, 31-17, in what was essentially a home game for their SEC foe, the Utes completed their resume and it stacks up favorably against any team in the country.

Let's take a look:

1. Utah is the only undefeated Division I-A team in 2008. That in itself should mean something.

2. Utah's strength of schedule is more than competitive - it should finish in the top 30. The Mountain West had a banner year both in the regular season and bowl season. Yet, the Utes went unbeaten in that conference. They defeated six bowl teams, including two (Alabama and Texas Christian) that will finish the year ranked in the Top 10.

3. In head-to-head comparisons, Utah has the edge over both USC and Florida. The Utes beat Oregon State, the team that handed the Trojans their only loss. They beat Alabama more decisively than Florida, which played the Tide on a more neutral setting. Oklahoma did win more impressively than Utah as both teams faced TCU at home.

4. The strength of western football has been vindicated by the Pac-10 and Mountain West going a combined 8-2 in the bowl season, with victories over the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, SEC and WAC. Utah played within the western environment, which has been unfairly underrated by the pollsters throughout the season. That should be readjusted.

Back in 1984, when BYU became the last non-BCS conference team to finish first in the AP poll, the Cougars had a considerably weaker resume. They defeated only four teams with a winning record, and their non-WAC schedule consisted of Pittsburgh, Baylor, Tulsa and Utah State. BYU defeated a 6-6 Michigan team in the Holiday Bowl, 24-17. That was the only Wolverines team in 40 years (1968-2007) not to finish with a winning record.

Utah is better than BYU 1984. It's better than its own 2004 version, which also went undefeated and beat Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl. That team, too, benefited from a subpar schedule, with only four opponents finishing with winning records. The Big East champion Panthers were also not respected, getting thrashed by Utah, 35-7, to finish 8-4.

This year's Utah team competed with some of the nation's best teams and won every game. Despite going into New Orleans as a double-digit underdog, the Utes thoroughly dominated an Alabama team that had trailed but 45 minutes in the entire season. Utah scored four minutes into the game and never relinquished the lead; and in the process, racked up 349 yards, shut down the vaunted 'Bama running game and sacked quarterback John Parker Wilson eight times.

That, was championship football.

The AP voters have a choice. They don't need to vote Utah No. 1 as a protest against the BCS. They simply need to discard some of their preconceived notion and bias against Utah. If they do that, then they'll realize there's a pretty case to be made for the Utes.

But will they?

BCS' Fairness Doctrine

Is the BCS unfair to the non-BCS conferences?

That question is a popular refrain ever since the advent of the BCS itself. While it quieted a bit after the BCS expanded in 2006 to give non-BCS teams more opportunities to qualify for a big payday, in 2008 the dissenters grew a bit louder once again.

The success of the Mountain West Conference was the primary reason for it. The MWC this season will be sending No. 6 Utah to the Sugar Bowl, the first encore performance by a non-BCS guest, as Texas Christian (No. 11) and Brigham Young (No. 16) also finished in the top 25. Only the SEC and the Big 12 could say that they had a better year than the Mountain West, when it comes to each conference's top teams.

Naturally, shouldn't the Mountain West deserve an automatic bid in the BCS, ahead of say, the ACC and the Big East?

Ben Prather, our friend at Fanblogs.com, has broken down the performances by team and by conference over each of the past four seasons. And here are his findings:

By Ben Prather (Fanblogs.com)

The champions of the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and Southeastern Conferences will have annual automatic qualification for a BCS game after the regular seasons of 2008 through 2013, based on mathematical standards of performance during the 2004-2007 regular seasons.

The 2008-2011 regular seasons will be evaluated under the same standards to determine if other conferences will have annual automatic qualification for the games after the 2012 and 2013 regular seasons. The champions of no more than seven conferences will have annual automatic berths.

If the BCS continues under the same or similar format, conferences will be evaluated on their performances during the 2010-2013 regular seasons to determine which conferences will have automatic qualification for the bowls that will conclude the 2014-2017 regular seasons.

The evaluation data includes the following for each conference (1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year, (2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.

Conference agreements with bowls will continue. The Pac-10 and Big Ten champions will host the Rose Bowl if their teams are not in the BCS national championship game. Likewise, the Southeastern Conference champion will host the Sugar Bowl, ACC champion will host the Orange Bowl and Big 12 champion will host the Fiesta Bowl.

(CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE ANALYSIS DATA)

METHODOLOGY

Estimates of the BCS Conference Criteria

Criterion 1: The ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year.

For each year the BCS points of the highest team is used, rather than the 1-25 ranking value, to increase resolution and produce more consistent results.

Criterion 2: The final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year.

For each year and each team the average of the 6 BCS computers is found, removing the highest and lowest value. This value is scaled so that #1 is 1 and the lowest team is #0. These values are then averaged to generate a conference average.

A conference of average teams should not have any BCS value, so the values where translated to let 0.5 represent a BCS value of 0. To produce values commensurate with the other two components this average was divided by 0.2. This value is truncated below 0.

Criterion 3: The number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.

No conference has ended the season with over 5 teams in the BCS top 25 since the current formula paradigm was established in 2004, but 6 teams have appeared at various times during the seasons. Dividing the number of top 25 teams each year by 5 produces a value that is in good agreement with the other two components.

Each conference has values for all three criteria over a four year period. The current BCS value of a conference can be estimated by taking the average of all 12 values. The average for each year can be used to examine trends and the average for each component shows where a conference's strengths and weaknesses are.

A BCS value of 1 corresponds to the BCS ideal. A BCS value of 0.5 represents a marginal BCS value. A BCS value of 0 represents an unacceptable value.

The BCS Ideal conference would typically the #1 team, have a BCS computer conference average that would place in the top 35 and places teams in the BCS top 25 each year.

A marginal BCS conference would average a top team with 0.5000 BCS points, roughly #14, have a BCS computer conference average that would place near #48 and places 2.5 teams in the BCS top 25 each year.

An unacceptable BCS conference would have top teams that do not earn any BCS points, hava a BCS computer conference average that would place in the bottom 60 and place no teams in the BCS top 25 any year.

A BCS value of 0.5 by this method is seen to be a reasonable borderline for determining BCS automatic qualifications.

Estimates of BCS Values for Individual Teams

Which teams contribute the most to a conferences BCS value? Which teams would increase the BCS value of a conference the most?

Since a conference considering BCS eligibility will need to have a positive computer average a negative value by a team will hurt the conference, thus the 0 limit on criterion 2 needs to be removed. Other than this, the values can be used to measure each team's BCS value according to the same formulas used to measure the conferences.

A value over 0.5 indicates the team consistently performs at a BCS level. A value between 0 and 0.5 indicates that a team contributes to a conference's BCS value but is short of the BCS standard. A value under 0 indicates that a team is not performing at an acceptable level for BCS consideration.

ANALYSIS

BCS Automatic Qualifications

The data would indicate that the current BCS automatic qualifications are distributed properly. The Big East, at 0.6058, is the closest conference to the 0.5000 standard. Adding Boise State would close almost half the gap between the MWC and the standard, bringing them from 0.2627 to 0.3722. Notre Dame, viewed as a conference of one, barely meets the standard.

BCS Value: Annual and Component Breakdown

In almost all cases the conferences aligned themselves above or below the 0.5000 standard each year consistent with their status in the BCS.
The MWC in 2008 is the only conference from 2005 through 2008 to cross above the threshold without an automatic qualification. The Big East in 2005, PAC 10 in 2008 and ACC in 2006 are the only conferences with an automatic qualification to fall below the threshold, in order of the lack in the given year.

The WAC is the sole exception to the agreement between current automatic qualifications and performance in the components, consistently placing its top team in the BCS radar.

BCS Value: BCS Caliber Outsiders and BCS Deadweights

Boise State and TCU are the only teams from outside BCS conferences to have a BCS value over 0.5000. BYU, Utah, Hawaii, Navy, Tulsa and Central Michigan contribute some BCS value to their conferences, listed in order of BCS value.

Duke, Syracuse, Washington, Iowa State, Mississippi State, Baylor, Washington State, Mississippi, Stanford, Illinois, Vanderbilt and Kansas State are BCS deadweights, hindering their respective conference's BCS value, listed in order of the deficiency.

Trends

Taking the average from 2006 through 2008 shows where a team stands going into next year, when the 2005 values will be dropped. This is a good estimate for the direction a team is going.

While some shuffling of the conferences is expected, none are expected to cross the 0.5000 threshold. The Big East should move away from the threshold, possibly jumping the PAC 10 and ACC who are expected to reduce in value. The WAC could jump ahead of the MWC as the lead outsider.

BYU is expected to move into BCS a caliber value, while TCU is expected to drop down to an asset short of the BCS standards. Air Force, East Carolina, Ball State and Houston are positioned to move into having BCS value.

Mississippi and Illinois are in a good position to lose their deadweight status. Colorado, Minnesota, NC State and North Carolina are at risk of earning deadweight status.

Merits of This Estimate of BCS Value

These results are consistent with the BCS's current alignments and popular attitudes towards conferences. Additionally, the exceptions resonate with popular opinions for the instances involved.

This would indicate that this methodology is a sufficient model of the BCS's actual methodology using the criteria they have specified.