Another Near-Perfect Season for BCS

The following is a guest column written by Jeff Anderson, operator of one of the six BCS computers. This article also appeared in RealClearSports.

By Jeff Anderson

College football certainly doesn't make things easy for sports dilettantes. It has 120 teams (the NFL only 32). Its culture varies by region, its style of play by team. (The NFL is relatively uniform). To get much out of it, one must watch from Week 1, not merely from Week 1 of a playoff. And its season culminates not in a playoff but in a smorgasbord of bowl games.

But as those who follow it closely best understand, these very qualities are what make college football the richest, most-satisfying, and - yes - best-designed, of American sports.

The key to college football's brilliant design is that no one really designed it. It's a bottom-up sport, not a top-down one. Its postseason grew out of Tocquevillian civil associations, like the Pasadena Tournament of Roses. Later, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was formed to give the sport a national championship game. The BCS has greatly enhanced the sport, but it has built upon an organic foundation that has developed across the decades, rather than tearing things down and building anew.

However, those who implemented the BCS couldn't have anticipated its effect on college football's already extraordinary regular season. In the past, fans in the South or Midwest didn't particularly care whether Oregon beat Oregon State, and fans in the Midwest or West didn't much care whether Auburn beat Alabama. Under the BCS, that has changed profoundly, as fans of teams in one region are now glued to games in other regions. As Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times writes, the BCS has "transformed the sport from a Saturday afternoon cookout to a national obsession."

What other sports' regular season could justly be characterized as a "national obsession"? The NFL regular season is widely watched, to be sure, but with the same intensity? Good NFL teams' starters often don't even play in their final game or two. And is anyone obsessed with the four months of quasi-exhibition games that predate college basketball's season-ending tournament?

Let's quickly recap this splendid college football season. Oregon overcame a 21-3 deficit to beat Stanford in a game that - as was clear by season's end - decided which of those teams would play for the national championship. At Alabama, Auburn rallied from a 24-0 deficit to win 28-27 and eventually join the Ducks in the title game. And Nevada rebounded from a 24-7 deficit to upset Boise State in overtime, knocking the Broncos from the ranks of the unbeaten and ending their Cinderella run. If college football had a playoff, these dramatic games would merely have tweaked teams' playoff seedings.

Undefeated TCU became the first team from a non-major conference to play in the Rose Bowl since, well, ever - beating the Big Ten's bruising Wisconsin Badgers, 21-19, to claim a title that the Horned Frogs' players will carry with them for the rest of their lives: "Rose Bowl champions." The game marked the seventh time in seven years that a team from a lesser-known conference has played in one of the major bowls (now called "BCS bowls.") To put that into perspective, prior to the BCS no such team had played in such a bowl since Air Force played in the 1971 Sugar Bowl.

In impressive performances, Alabama dominated Big Ten co-champion Michigan State, 49-7, in the Capital One Bowl, and Stanford dominated Atlantic Coast Conference champion Virginia Tech, 40-12, in the Orange Bowl. Then, in the BCS National Championship Game, undefeated Auburn (which had beaten Alabama) beat previously undefeated Oregon (which had beaten Stanford), 22-19, on a field goal on the season's final play.

With the best regular season in all of sports, a championship game that's more - not less - likely to feature the two best teams, and a full slate of colorful bowl games attended by participating teams' real fans (who have enough advanced notice to plan such trips over the holidays), college football is nearly perfect. The sport may confound the casual fan, but those who love it increasingly recognize the truth of this claim: This is college football's golden age.

====================

Anderson is co-creator of the Anderson & Hester Rankings, one of the six computer rankings used by the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). {These view are his own.}

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.}

Would a College Football Playoff Be Fair?

The following is a guest column written by two economists on the merits of a college football playoff. This article also appeared in RealClearSports.

By Michael Davis and Tim Kane

College football decides its champion in a unique way that has become somewhat controversial because every other major sport in America uses a playoff. Over time, the sizes of those playoff systems have expanded, making college football stand in ever sharper contrast.

College football crowns its Bowl Championship Series (BCS) champion after pairing the top-ranked two teams in a single game. The top teams are determined largely by expert polls with some input from computer algorithms. The team ranked third often has a semi-legitimate case that it deserved an opportunity to play in the championship game, especially since the BCS formula has been repeatedly tweaked. The issue of fairness is a common attack thrown at the bowl tradition by playoff agitators. But fairness is impossible to measure. Or is it?

Any playoff system requires a cutoff that leaves a single team out. The wider the net, the more arbitrary that cutoff becomes (requiring ever more complicated tie-breaker rules). The result is that any playoff introduces another kind of unfairness. An 8-team playoff gives an arguably weaker team the chance to defeat a squad that was much better during the regular season. That may make for enjoyable entertainment, but it is definitely unfair in its way. The argument is that a playoff cheapens the regular season and all its games.

Professional football in the NFL uses a 12-team single elimination playoff to determine its champion. During the most recent Super Bowl, a team with a 9-7 regular-season record (Arizona Cardinals) played and nearly won. That kind of finale happens because with 32 teams in the NFL, more than one-third make the playoff cut.

And consider professional basketball in the NBA and hockey in the NHL. Sixteen teams are included in the NHL's Stanley Cup playoff - selected from just 30 teams. Likewise, in the NBA, 16 playoff teams are chosen from 30 in the league. Literally below-average teams make the playoffs in those sports every year. Is that fair?

Wide bracket playoffs reward casual play during the regular season. Instead of striving for excellence, the smarter strategy is to avoid injuries, especially during the late season games. Such a structure is one way of defining greatness, but is it the only way?

These kinds of arguments can be had in any sports bar in America. But now college football is under assault, with President Obama suggesting a playoff, and Senate hearings grilling the BCS as "un-American." Now that's a low blow. With all the sports statistics available, it's about time somebody took a look at what's fair using quantitative analysis.

The Fairness Index

Being number crunchers by training, we decided to create the Fairness Index. Our index measures the regular season record of a league's champion against its top team. Let's say the champ has a 12-4 record, while the top-seeded team went undefeated during the regular season, 16-0. That's easy. The fairness index for that league in that year is 75 percent. In another case, the top team might have a 15-1 record and go on to win it all, so the fairness index would be 15/15 or 100 percent.

How do you think the fairness index for pro football compares to college? If you think a playoff is fair, then you probably think they're about the same, right? Not even close.

FAIRNESS INDEX

College Football
97.2 % BCS era
96.3 % Pre-BCS era

Professional U.S. Sports
96.6 % Basketball (NBA)
92.6 % Baseball (MLB)
91.6 % Football

* The Fairness Index measures the average ratio of the champion's regular season record to its team with the best regular season record. For example, the average NFL champion has 91.6 percent as many wins as the team with the best record that year. Each of the professional average includes only the years with the current number of playoff teams.

The fairness index is much higher in college football (97.2 percent) than in the NFL (91.6). The higher level of fairness for college ball was true before the BCS, but is even more true today. Gnash your teeth all you want, but the one thing an NCAA football playoff would not be is fair. By our estimate, it would be about 5 percentage points less fair. Translation: the odds of the best team winning the championship would be 5 percentage points lower.

Critics will point to the fairness index for basketball, which at 96.6 percent is roughly the same as the BCS. The NBA seems to prove that a playoff does not mean a low fairness score. But wait, these are different sports, and the playoff design is critical. Three reasons why the NBA index is deceptively high: its playoff follows a best-of-seven format for each series, better teams enjoy home-court advantage, and scoring is frequent (thus less subject to luck rather than talent). The better question is whether the fairness index would rise or fall outside of a playoff. If only there was a way to test that.

But there is!

Fairness Declines as Playoff Bracket Expands

Consider the problem of "playoff creep." As you increase the number of teams in the playoffs, you increase the likelihood that the best team will not win, since they will face more chances to be upset by an inferior team. Most plans for a college football playoff imagine a small number of qualifying teams, maybe four, maybe eight. That way the regular season would still matter to a great degree, and the top teams would not have to face as many playoff games, pivotal injuries, and possible upsets. Realistically, it is unlikely that the bracket would remain small. History says so. Look at the NCAA I-AA (now FCS) football playoffs. Look at the bloated NCAA basketball playoffs. Look at the NBA and NHL mentioned above. Over the decades, they all suffered playoff creep so severe that the regular season is now little more than a pre-season.

But no case of playoff creep is clearer than Major League Baseball. Once upon a time, the Pennant Race was as hallowed and glorious as anything in Sport, and it meant simply finishing the 162-game season with the best record. Winning the World Series was icing on the cake, sure, but it wasn't the cake. Only the team with the very best record in the regular season won the Pennant. Period.

Until 1969, the best team in the American League won its pennant, same for the best team in the National League. That was what determined the two - two! - teams that made it to the World Series. And winning the pennant wasn't just some kind of cheap semi-final for the Series, it was an achievement all its own. From 1969 to 1993, the same logic applied to four divisions. Then in 1995 they converted to a full-blown 8-team playoff, complete with wild cards.

Guess what happened to fairness? Playoff creep in Major League Baseball is associated with a clear decline in the fairness index, from an average of 97.5 percent up until 1968 (the highest in our data), to 95.5 percent when the playoff was introduced, then 92.6 percent when the playoff bracket was expanded after 1984.

A College Football Playoff?

The playoff creep that occurred in those sports is almost certain to hit college football, and with it, a decline in fairness. Again, lower fairness scores with bigger playoff systems means without a doubt that more teams with worse records will get crowned champion than before. It's happened in other sports, which the data proves.

The consequence is that regular season records will not matter. The difference between the BCS and NFL average fairness index is equivalent to one less win in a season. One way to interpret that is that a single loss will essentially have no consequence on a team's chances to be recognized as champion. In other words, every game in the regular season will be not only less important than it is now, but unimportant. There is no question that a playoff would reduce the importance of the regular season.

Famous games such as the series of Florida State-Miami games in the early 1990s would be changed from elimination games in the National Championship chase to warm-ups to possible future play-off matchups. Those games would still have appeal to fans of those teams but would lose their appeal to much of the nation.

College football is unique, though many wish to change it and end its traditions. College football has a more important regular season than any other sport. And because of that, college football has rivalries that maintain their intensity while those of other sports fade. The one knock on college football has long been that its championship crown just isn't fair. But now you know the real story.

=======

Michael Davis, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Economics at Missouri University of Science and Technology and can be contacted at davismc@fidnet.com. Tim Kane, Ph.D. is an economist at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and can be contacted at tkane@kauffman.org. {These view are their own.}

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)

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.