Boise State's Very Big Move

On the face of it, all the conference realignment action seems to have shaken up the college football landscape. But if you take a closer look, you'll notice that all the moving around really just amounted to rearranging the same deck chairs.

In 2006, when the BCS entered its second phase to include five bowls and increase their accessibility by non-automatic qualifying conference members, there were six AQ conferences (plus Notre Dame) consisting of 66 teams. By 2014, if nothing else changes, there will be five AQ conferences (plus Notre Dame) consisting of 65 teams.

Yep, even with all that upheaval, only five teams will see their status change from have-nots to haves (or vice versa): TCU and Utah have joined the big boys' club by leaving the Mountain West for the Big 12 and Pac-12, respectively; and UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida will lose their AQ status with the demotion of the Big East.

Of course, the realignment madness is far from over. Before it's all settled, Cincinnati and UConn likely will find new homes in the AQ conferences, likely either in the ACC or the Big 12, within a season or two. So essentially you're looking at the ascension two teams (TCU and Utah) and the demotion of one (South Florida) when it's all said and done.

So who are we missing here?

There are only three non-AQ teams that have made multiple BCS bowl appearances. While TCU and Utah have been justly rewarded for their excellence, Boise State, 2-0 in its two BCS bowl games, remains on the outside looking in. But the Broncos do have an opportunity here to finally cash in on the fact that they've been the winningest program since joining Division I-A in 1996.

Boise State was supposed to be the centerpiece of a reconstituted Big East when it joins the conference next season as a football-only member. But massive defections by current Big East members, capped by the pullout of the "Catholic 7" basketball schools on Saturday, have changed the outlook of this conference considerably.

Though he reaffirmed Boise State's commitment to the Big East over the summer, president Bob Kustra must reconsider all his options before his school's official entrance to the conference on July 1, 2013. Kustra thus becomes the man of the hour in the realignment game, as his decisions will fashion a domino effect.

He has several options:

* Stick it out in the Big East - Despite the defections of Rutgers, Louisville and the basketball schools, the Big East should still have 12 teams for 2013-2014 and 13 for 2015, if everybody else stays put. The conference will still have AQ status in 2013 though after that it will be dumped into the "Group of Five" with one guaranteed BCS spot among the teams. The Broncos conceivably could win the Big East next season and dominate the Group of Five for years to come.

But the money potential for the Broncos will have shrunk significantly from when they first signed up. At the time, the Big East just turned down a $150 million-per-year TV deal, and now, after the departure of the Catholic 7, the new deal could be worth as little as $40 million annually, leaving Boise State about $2 million per year as opposed to in the $8-9 million range.

* Return to the Mountain West - The Broncos could opt to stay in the conference it joined two years ago and its BCS status beginning in 2014 will be no different from if it had joined the Big East. Assuming they return with either San Diego State and/or BYU, the MWC will have at least 12 teams and be able to stage a conference title game, thus possibly be in position to renegotiate its current TV deal that still has two years left.

But Boise State will take a financial hit for doing this. First, it could be on the hook for a $10 million exit fee even though it never officially played in the Big East. Second, just by being in the Big East the Broncos will collect nearly $2 million in BCS payout in 2013, whereas it would get just a fraction of that if none of the Mountain West teams crashed the BCS party.

* Look for a spot in Big 12 or Pac-12 - To be frank, the first is a longshot, and the second is a non-starter. The Big 12 might be interested in the Broncos, along with maybe BYU, as football-only members, mostly for the purpose of being able to stage a conference championship game. The Pac-12, though, despite commissioner Larry Scott's recent comments, doesn't see a whole lot of value in adding Boise State.

* Become an independent - This is an option Boise State might seriously study and pursue. The Broncos have enough of a brand power to command a decent TV deal and be able to schedule an attractive collection of teams annually. The risks of being an independent are that unlike Notre Dame, Boise State will not get any kind of guarantees or preferential treatment from the BCS bowls; and if the program goes into a slump, it will quickly sink back into irrelevance with no way out.

Kustra has a very important decision to make. But unless the Big 12 or Pac-12 come calling, his best option might be doing nothing - taking his chances with the Big East.

(FULL ARTICLE @ SB NATION)

Why ESPN Is So Mad at NIU

Northern Illinois earned a BCS bowl berth. The outrage!

There was so much piling on during the ESPN show unveiling the BCS bowl selections that it could've easily been mistaken for a post-election program dissecting the Romney campaign. The vitriol directed toward Northern Illinois was overflowing to the point that it became must-see TV when Huskies quarterback Jordan Lynch was then invited to address the esteemed panel.

Luckily, as the only adult among all involved, Lynch bit his tongue and took the high road.
So what exactly did Northern Illinois do wrong?

Were the Huskies the lowest-ranked BCS team among this year's 10-team field?

No, that would be Big Ten champ Wisconsin, which was out of the official standings but checked in at No. 26 in the complete final standings.

Did Northern Illinois get in on some technicality?

That depends on what you'd consider technicality. But consider this also: The Huskies needed only to be in the top 16 to qualify because not just one, but two, AQ conference champions were ranked below them. The aforementioned Wisconsin and No. 21 Louisville, the Big East champion.

Is this going to kill the Orange Bowl's TV ratings? Is that why ESPN was mad?

Well, actually, there might be more eyeballs on the game now than had NIU not qualified for the BCS. You think Florida State-Louisville was going to smash M*A*S*H's record? At least the game now has some intrigue.

So who's really the loser in all this?

The Sugar Bowl, naturally. It would've had a marquee matchup between Florida and Oklahoma, two traditional powerhouses. But now it's just Florida-Louisville, which would make for a fine basketball game as it was last year in the West Regional final of the NCAA Tournament.

(FULL ARTICLE @ SB NATION)

Will Kent State Crash BCS Party?

Should a team that got blown out by Kentucky get a BCS bowl berth?

That's the burning question - not who's No. 1 or No. 2 - from the latest BCS standings. Kent State is on the precipice of becoming the first MAC team to land a BCS bid. At No. 17, the Golden Flashes need to move up just one spot in next week's final standings to secure a huge payday for their conference.
But should they get a spot? Does a team that accounted for Kentucky's only victory over an FBS team this season be playing in the Orange Bowl in Miami?

That's right, the Wildcats went 2-10 this season, which was good enough to get their coach fired. They beat FCS Samford in their penultimate game before getting pummeled by coachless-Tennessee in the season finale. But UK didn't just beat, but routed Kent State, 47-14, in the second game of the season.
But ah, when has "deserve" ever meant anything in the history of the BCS?

The fact is, Kent State is 11-1 and will be facing 11-1 Northern Illinois in the MAC championship game next Friday. With a victory, and a little help, the Golden Flashes could snag the final BCS bowl slot, as the other nine berths are already spoken for - six conference champions plus Notre Dame, Florida and Oregon will all go BCS bowling.

On paper, it looks as if Kent State just needs a UCLA loss in the Pac-12 championship game (and of course, winning the MAC championship) to accomplish the goal. That might be the one and only path the Golden Flashes have to the top 16. Losses by either Nebraska in the Big Ten title game to Wisconsin or a shocking upset loss by Florida State to Georgia Tech in the ACC title game might not be enough to help Kent State to move up that single spot.

This also means that neither Boise State nor Northern Illinois has a realistic chance of rising into the top 16. While the Huskies can beat Kent State in the MAC title game, their current spot at No. 21 in the BCS standings makes it about a bridge too far for them to close that gap. The same goes for Boise State, at No. 20 and facing 7-4 Nevada in the season finale, the Broncos simply have no chance of making up four spots.

By the time the MAC championship game takes place, we should already know which team would represent the Big East in the BCS. Rutgers hosts Louisville on Thursday in what essentially will be the conference title game. Rutgers can win the Big East outright with a victory, while a tiebreaker featuring the BCS standings will be applied in the event of a Louisville victory.

In the complete BCS standings, you'll find Louisville at No. 26 and Rutgers at No. 27 (and Cincinnati at No. 36 and Syracuse at No. 43), just outside the official top 25. It's certain that if Louisville wins the game, the Cardinals will represent the Big East because they'll be the only conference team to land in the top 25 in the final BCS standings.

(FULL ARTICLE @ SB NATION)

Look Who's Busting the BCS

Wow, Florida came out ahead of Oregon for No. 2 in this season's first official BCS standings.

This is only shocking and relevant if you're extremely uninformed about the BCS. In reality the exact positions of the top few teams bear very little consequence, since the season isn't even halfway over. We pretty much covered everything in yesterday's projections, where each of the top 15 teams were pegged at no more than 1 spot off the actual rankings.

The early-season standings are more helpful in terms of revealing two things: 1) The teams that are truly eliminated from the national title race; and 2) the teams that are in the running for the four at-large berths in each year's BCS bowls.

Since we've already dealt with item 1 ad nauseum and will come back to it nearly every week going forward, let's focus on item 2 this time. And to do that, we need to pay more attention to the bottom of the standings than the top.

We'd have to look at not just at the official standings, but the COMPLETE official standings, where the Guru ranks teams past No. 25. You'll find that four non-AQ teams are ranked in the top 31, each with a shot at earning the automatic bid given to the top non-AQ champion ranked in the top 16.

It's No. 16 and not No. 12 for now, thanks to the NCAA jail time Ohio State is serving and the weakness of the rest of the Big Ten. The highest-ranked B1G team is Northwestern, at No. 28, marking the first time in history that not a single team from college football's oldest conference is ranked in the BCS standings.

But the No. 16 threshold for the non-AQ bid is far from a certainty, and No. 29 Michigan is the team that holds the key. The Wolverines are ranked Nos. 25 and 26 in the coaches and Harris polls,
respectively, but they will have the best chance to rapidly move up. Their two losses this season are to teams currently ranked No. 1 and No. 5, so don't be surprised if Michigan ends up ahead of the highest non-AQ team in as few as two weeks by defeating Michigan State and Nebraska in succession.

(FULL ARTICLE @ SB NATION)

You Can Fix Computers, But Not Humans

Boise State jumped LSU in the final BCS standings a day after the release. The Broncos must've had a real spirited practice. Or was it an excellent team banquet?

Thanks to an error discovered by Jerry Palm, the flip-flop in the Colley Matrix computer rankings between Boise State and LSU resulted in the Broncos moving up to No. 10 in the BCS standings, one spot ahead of LSU. The same flip-flop between Alabama and Nebraska did not change any placements, though it did bump up the Huskers' ratings score a bit (but not Alabama's).

But just what does this all mean? The truth, not much.

First, let's give Palm, the Guru's competitor, credit for this discovery. And also Wes Colley, who's the only one of the six computer operators who makes his computer formula public and therefore it's verifiable. The acknowledgment of the error speaks well for Colley's integrity.

In the big picture, though, as much as this might come as shocking to some, it matters almost not at all. The reason? The BCS is rigged anyway. (Another shocking news!)

Alarmists like to point out what if the flip-flop didn't happen at Nos. 10-11, but at the critical Nos. 4-5 or even Nos. 2-3? For one, it would never happen at Nos. 2-3 as the system is so tilted toward the voters that they have the ultimate call on who gets to play for the BCS title anyway. The computer rankings, as I wrote previously, are completely irrelevant.

The brouhaha actually masks the real problem. Computer glitches happen and they're easily correctable. Human biases, however, are not. How do you justify, for example, that the Broncos are No. 16 on New Mexico coach Mike Locksley's ballot, six spots behind Virginia Tech (a team Boise beat and has two losses) and also behind three-loss Texas A&M?

This year's coaches' votes (and Harris, too, for that matter) are relatively controversy free. But that hardly means that "the system worked." The BCS's biggest problems have always been both a lack of transparency and an unacceptable conflict of interest. Until those are fixed, the computer problems are laughably insignificant.

You can have all six computer ratings audited and verified weekly as some have suggested (and I'm all for that, too) and that will not do that much to safeguard the standings. As long as the coaches and Harris voters get to keep their ballots secret for most of the season, and not throw any outliers out in the polls (as it's done with the computers), the voters can make a whole lot more difference than any of the computers.

And let's face it, as long as they place one-third of the standings in the hands of the coaches, who have a vested interest in all of this - ranging from postseason bonuses and job security to friendship and petty jealousies - the system will remain fatally flawed.

Let's also bring up another red herring, the much hyped automatic qualifying issue. Again, the exact component of the AQ formula and the "evaluation process" are just smoke screens. If the BCS wants the Big East in and Mountain West out, the "formula" will do exactly just that. TCU finally got the memo and hopped on the Big East wagon because it realized that unless the Dallas Cowboys decided to join the MWC, it's never going to be an AQ conference.

The bottom line should be crystal clear: The BCS is rigged and therefore can never be fixed.

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.