BCS Evolution

Senators' letter to Bill Hancock

2010-03-12T03:29:41Z

US Senator's Orin Hatch (R-Utah) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have sent a letter to BCS Administrator Bill Hancock looking for answers to their concerns. Bill Hancock has publicly acknowledged the letter, and will answer it in due time.

I'm looking forward to taking a longer look at the letter. I sure do think that Congress has more important things to do, with all the issues facing our country. The BCS is fair. Access is fair. Revenue is distributed fairly. And frankly, we welcome the opportunity to tell our story every chance we get.

A look at the questions contained in the letter, there significance and what is already known about the answers to the questions after the jump.

Question 1 Paraphrase: How will you be distributing the increased revenue?

The BCS literature is clear that the payouts are expressed in terms of percentages of revenue generated, after expenses. Each party will receive the same percentage of revenue they had in the past.

Question 2 Paraphrase: Will the measurable increase in parity be rewarded in the new contract?

With the possible exception of the MWC earning a BCS automatic qualification, it is unlikely that any changes will happen. The increase in parity will likely be dealt with by an impending round of conference alignments.

Question 3 Paraphrase: You said that the BCS pays roughly $18.5 to conferences who participate. Where is the WAC and MWC's money?

It is always good to catch someone in a falsehood in the public record. The BCS might be able to fudge their way out of this using averages, but the point made is unflinching. Neither conference mentioned made half the value quoted from BCS literature.

Question 4 Paraphrase: How exactly are future automatic qualifications determined, and how would the pay change?

The known details are listed in the letter. Frankly the picture is clear. The MWC will be very close to an invite, especially if they invite Boise State this summer. No one else even comes close to the edge. I expect this formula to be announced after this year's BCS annual meeting, which will also precede any formal answer to this letter.

Any conference earning a bid would earn an equal share with the other automatic qualifying conferences, plus $4.5 million if they qualify a second team. ESPN has already stated the revenue will not be changed based on any changes to the automatic qualifications that may happen. The result is the current automatic qualifying conferences would lose roughly $3 million each to pay for the new conference's share.

The BCS allows for 5-7 conferences to earn automatic qualifications. All were evaluated over 2007-2010 to determine the current automatic qualifications. 2008-2011 will be evaluated to determine if any new conferences should be admitted for 2012 and 2013. All conferences would be evaluated over 2010-2013 if the current arrangement is extended through the next cycle. If one of the six automatic qualifying conferences failed to meet these criteria they would lose their automatic qualification.

Question 5 Paraphrase: What exactly is the BCS?

Currently, it is unclear to us what sort of status the BCS enjoys as an organization. According to public information, it appears that the BCS agreement did not result in the formation of a separate legal entity, with an exception of an entity that has been assigned ownership of certain intellectual property rights. Instead, the BCS apparently considers itself an "arrangement" wherein the teams, conferences, and bowl-game organizations appear to have remained completely separate and ostensibly independent.

How then does the BCS hire an Executive Director and hire Ari Fleischer? Who pays for these expenses?

Awesome question from a legal side. I would be curious to hear the answers to this question myself.

Question 6 Paraphrase: How exactly do the computer methods work?

Calls for making source codes for the ranking algorithms public will not be answered due to intellectual property rights. While some form of auditing might be appropriate, the BCS has hinted that they have some measures for evaluating which computer components are used. Transparency here would be a far more reachable goal.

Frankly, I would defend the BCS on the computer rankings if they made one change. Allow algorithms incorporating MOV to compete in the performance metrics the BCS measure computer algorithms against.

Thus ends the letter, after a few pleasantries.

Super Conferences: Financial Independence

2010-03-12T02:24:45Z

Many BCS critics use the argument that most BCS institutions fund their athletic departments and receive fudning from state and federal sources. Only 25 of the 120 FBS athletic departments generate a profit for their institution. These revenue streams provide opportunity to hold these institutions accountable to the public interests.

For perspective, the average FBS institution subsidises athletics to the tune of $8 million above what they generate on their own. Over the entire FBS that is nearly a billion dollars nationally to support big time college athletics and big time coaches salaries funded by the universities from mostly tax payer revenue.

Accountability is a good thing. Could the day come when the BCS institutions decide that they could use less of it, especially in the financial areas? If that day comes they will need to learn to operate without those tax payer subsidies. That would typically mean budget cutbacks of nearly 12% for an athletic department with a budget of $65 million. Larger programs would feel less of an impact and 25 would feel no impact, as they already operate at a profit. Many smaller programs would simply be unable to compete.

If the big name schools really want to establish a clear definition of what makes them better than the rest profitability is the most direct measure that can be applied. If college is headed to a new of elite programs this is the measure that should be used to determine who should be invited.

If you want to join our league, make a profit where you are and we will start talking.

The major issue is accountability. If the athletic departments are financially independent, then they are also less answerable to the institutions they represent. The board of directors and university presidents would still have control of hiring and firing AD's, but the cash would flow the other direction.

Competitive rewards would need to be built into the system to reward institutions whose athletes excell academically. (A larger required payback to the parent college for academically struggling athletic departments for example.)

These budget cutbacks could be phased in to reduce there initial impact. Once these institutions are freed of the rest of the NCAA they should command a far larger share of the marketable revenue streams for college sports and regain these set backs.

Poll

Should big time athletic departments be supported by thier academic institutions?

116 Teams 'til Kickoff: Eastern Michigan

2010-03-08T00:00:20Z

The Eastern Michigan Eagles, like Boise St., play on a field the color of there uniforms. The comparisons end there, and in this case the uniforms are green.

East Michigan has a history of ending up near here in lists line this. These lists are fairly static and not much movement should be expected from one year to the next. This is amplified in lists where an average over a number of years is used.

Head Coach: Ron English (Second Year)
Offensive Coordinator: Ken Karcher (Second Year)
Defensive Coordinator: Phil Snow (First Year?)

So, how do the Eagles look in the BCS conference comp[arison numbers?

	2007 (4-9)	2008 (3-9)	2009 (3-10)	Average (0.2632)
BCS Averave	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000
Computer Average	100.5	108.8	119.0	109.4
BCS top 25	No	No	No	0.0
Score	-0.5602	-0.6758	-0.8193	-0.6851

Schedule:

Team	Date
Army	9/4
@Miami (OH)	9/11
Central Michigan	9/18
@Ohio State	9/25
Ohio	10/2
@Vanderbilt	10/9
@Ball State	10/16
@Virginia	10/23
Toledo	10/30
@Western Michigan	11/13
@Buffalo	11/20
Northern Illinois	11/26
MAC Championship Game	12/3

These are the type of teams Vanderbilt schedules for homecomming to dodge the claim that they are afraid to play a FBS team.

NCAA rules require all teams from a conference with a championship game to have that game listed on their schedules.

These reviews are making me start to feel mean. Really though, that is what happens when you start at the bottom. Especially if you really are mean.

Poll

Is it ok to be mean to the bottom 10 teams?

117 Team 'til Kickoff: New Mexico St.

2010-03-06T22:24:05Z

Finally, we have a team from outside the Sun Belt to discuss. Coming in at #117 over the past three years are the New Mexico St. Aggies.

As a perennial WAC bottom dweller, their recent win over New Mexico may indicate a turn for the worst in the Land of Enchantment.

Head Coach: DeWayne Walker (Second Year)
Offensive Coordinator: Mike Dunbar (First Year, from Minnesota)
Defensive Coordinator: None

Perhaps next year I should shuffle the order ... that would make things a little better at the start of the series.

	2007 (4-9)	2008 (3-9)	2009 (3-10)	Average (0.2632)
BCS Averave	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000
Computer Average	110.0	108.3	110.3	109.5
BCS top 25	No	No	No	0.0
Score	-0.6933	-0.6688	-0.6968	-0.6863

Schedule:

Team	Date
SDSU	9/11
@UTEP	9/18
@Kansas	9/25
New Mexico	10/9
Boise St.	TBA
Hawaii	TBA
LA Tech	TBA
San Jose St.	TBA
@Fresno St.	TBA
@Idaho	TBA
@Nevada	TBA
@Utah St.	TBA

The most interesting thing on the schedule to me is the battle of the bottom between the bottom of the WAC and MWC represented here.

BCS News Update

2010-03-06T20:26:54Z

BCS might be facing multi-hundred million dollar lawsuit says Utah's Mark Shurtleff at this years National Association of Attorneys General spring convention.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Christine Varney, the chief of the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division were listening, as Shurtleff also presented a 90 page report to the Depertment of Justice.

Really not much new here, just the same political insiders making stands that are known. The headway into the Department of Justice is notable.

We may be headed towards the end of college football as we now know it.

Dominoes: MWC Edition

2010-03-06T19:47:35Z

The members of the MWC have been mentioned in a few of the series so far. The Utah Utes and BYU Cougars were mentioned in the PAC 10 expansion dicussion and BYU and the TCU Horned Frogs were mentioned in the Big 12's response to losing the Texas Longhorns, Missouri Tigers or Colorado Buffalos.

The plain fact is that if the MWC loses two or even three of these teams they are tarneshed to a point where they are no longer the obvious choice for WAC and C-USA teams looking for an upgrade. I expect the MWC to expand this summer to possition themselves so that even if a team or two leaves they would still be left in a strong possition to draw WAC and C-USA west members.

The next college football realignment will be the MWC inviting the Boise St. Broncos. Or the MWC will be dealt a death blow when the PAC 10 and BIG 10 finally make their moves. It is pretty much that simple.

This is the year to move because an announcement for this year wound take place for the 2011 season and move the teams in question to the MWC for the next round of BCS evaluations. Boise State would likely push the MWC over the hump.

The question is whether this is the only team they add this year.

As far as the BCS metrics go, Boise State is the only sure fire win for the MWC. The Hawaii Warriors looks good in the BCS number now but their 2007 season will roll off the window before the next evaluation period. The Houston Cougars, Tulsa Golden Hurricane, Fresno St. Bulldogs and Nevada Wolf Pack would add strength to the middle of the MWC while also diminishing the value of the WAC and C-USA when further changes are forced upon them. These schools are all on par with what the Air Force Falcons bring to the confernece.

10-12 team confereces are the status quo, with the trend towards 12 teams. The main problem with the MWC is that Boise State, Utah and BYU would likely be in the same division, due to the very close proximity. This division would be much more top hevier than the other side, with TCU expected to be a clear leader. Houston and Tulsa would be the best additions if a 12 team confernece with a championship game is the way the MWC decides to go.

I would like an East-West split with the rockies forming a natural divide between the two divisions.

Poll

What should the MWC's expansion plan be?

118 Teams 'til Kickoff: Florida International

2010-03-02T14:00:32Z

The Fla. Interantional Golden Panthers began football in the 2002 season and became the fastest program to join FBS football in 2005.

Many believe the move to be premature, especially with the limited success of the team at the FCS level for its first three years.

Head Coach: Mario Cristobal (Fifth Year)
Offensive Coordinator: Scott Satterfield (First Year)
Defensive Coordinator: Geoff Colins(First Year)

How have the Golden Panthers faired at the FBS level?

Unfortunately the beat will go on for the first few weeks of this process as teams near the bottom that might well be better off in the FCS get thier fair ~~abuse~~ due coverage.

	2007 (1-11)	2008 (5-7)	2009 (0-12)	Average (0.2500)
BCS Averave	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000
Computer Average	117.3	100.3	111	109.5
BCS top 25	No	No	No	0.0
Score	-0.7948	-0.5567	-0.7073	-0.6863

Schedule:

Team	Date
Rutgers	9/11
@Texas A&M	9/18
@Maryland	9/25
@Pittsburgh	10/2
UL Monroe	TBA
Western Kentucky	TBA
Arkansas St	TBA
Middle Tenn. St.	TBA
@Troy	TBA
@UL Lafayette	TBA
@North Texas	TBA
@Florida Atlantic	TBA

Interesting that the first three teams in this series are all from the Sun Belt. More on that once I get all the Sun Belt teams done and post a conference recap.

BCS vs. the NCAA - The Birth of the Super Conferences?

2010-03-02T03:31:04Z

It is time to look at a side issue to conference realignment with overtones far more significant than teams changing dancing partners on their schedules.

The persistent rumor of super conferences has been around for decades. The idea is that the top conferences might split off and form a new league. The conferences involved in this idea? The same ones operating the BCS. After the jump I will outline how a shift might come about.

The real question is would this be a bad thing?

The NCAA is instituted to protect the student athletes and promote amateurism in collegiate sports. This has become overly bureaucratic and often the NCAA focuses on minutia of their rules while dragging their feet while investigating institutions too big to fail.

The NCAA constantly harasses the strongest teams with rules that require federal anti trust exemptions to be legal. Scholarship limits, restricting teams to playing only NCAA members and the strict interpretation of amateurism itself are ideas that can not be enforced as the NCAA does in any other market.

If a push is made to bring the FBS postseason in line with the NCAA systems used for other leagues this might be the final straw that pushes the big conferences over the tipping point. An NCAA postseason takeover would bring a far more egalitarian revenue sharing system than the bowls, which are already highly progressive when measured as a percent of football operations revenue. In short, the NCAA would take from the teams that create the market for the sports to subsidize those teams that wouldn't make it otherwise.

The top 60 or so teams subsidize the entire NCAA. If they did not have to share the TV revenue their sports teams generate they would have plenty of revenue to become financially independent of the parent institutions. If they were not paying for all other colleges to support their programs they would not be costing themselves or their tax payers to run their athletic departments.

European athletes in non revenue sports often have difficulties transferring to NCAA institutions due to cultural differences in athletes between the US and the rest of the world. The BCS could become the front for a collegiate sports reform effort to bring US sports to the club league concept used by most of the world.

To break away from the NCAA the BCS leagues would need to break free of the legislative ties that bind them politically to the whims of state politicians. The BCS leagues would have to commit themselves to running athletics on their own profits. Athletics would help fund the academic missions of the BCS institutions. The ability to meet this requirement would be the most fair way to determine which leagues and teams would be invited to participate. If you can't commit to a plan to forge a financially independent athletic department in the next decade you should not be invited.

NCAA members wishing to make a jump at a later time would need to demonstrate they can operate for a profit first. The days of taking on debt to build facilities that outpace the growth of the athletic departments for a division upgrade would be over.

A substantive move in this direction would put the NCAA on their heals. They would be forced to decide to ~~allow~~ force them to leave or compromise on their long standing views. A compromise allowing football to break away but maintaining all other sports could be a viable middle ground.

The BCS would then face tough issues like whether the new arrangements should include stipends for some players, possibility of independents, and a tournament format.

The best chance for a playoff between the top teams in the land might just be for the BCS to break away from the NCAA.

Poll

Should the BCS conferences break away from the NCAA?

119 Teams 'til Kickoff: Western Kentucky

2010-03-01T03:12:52Z

The Western Kentucky Hilltoppers look to jump out and get a football program with more name recognition than thier maskot, Big Red. They have just comnpleted their first year in FCS and earned an 0-12 record.

Head Coach: Willie Taggart (First Year)
Offensive Coordinator: Mike Sanford? (First Year)
Defensive Coordinator: Clint Bowen (First Year)

Will a new staff be enough to finish their move up to big time football?

BCS numbers and 2010 schedule after the jump.

If you really want to see the numbers, here they are. It certainly looks to me like they were doing better in the BCS computers before jumping to the Sun Belt.

	2007 (7-5) (Transition Year)	2008 (2-10) (Transition Year)	2009 (0-12)	Average (0.2500)
BCS Averave	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000
Computer Average	104.8	119.8	120	114.8
BCS top 25	No	No	No	0.0
Score	-0.6198	-0.8298	-0.8333	-0.7610

Schedule:

Team	Date
@Nebraska	9/4
@Kentucky	9/11
Indiana	9/18
@South Florida	9/25
Middle Tennessee St.	TBA
North Texas	TBA
Florida Atlantic	TBA
UL Monroe	TBA
@Florida International	TBA
@UL Lafayette	TBA
@Troy	TBA
@Arkansas State	TBA

Cases like this make me wonder if the time and effort some schools make into becoming FBS members is worth all the fuss. Maybe Grand Valley State is a model some of these schools should be looking towards for a realistic ideal.

Does it really make sense to invest lots of money on shiny new facilities paid for by debt that counts on future earning from a BCS bubble that might not last? I am not so sure.

Postseason Constraint #13: Rewarding the Champions of the Top Conferneces

2010-02-28T03:00:32Z

[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 90 and 91 of my plan to fix the BCS]

The TV money is generated from creating high interest matchups. Percieved value is a bigger part of this equation than actual team strength.

Lets look this one simple fact square in the eyes: most of the big name schools that the average fan recognises are members of a handful of conferences. (Let's also look this simple fact in the eyes. the TCU Horned Frogs and Boise St. Broncos garnered more eyes than the ACC champion Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets vs. Big 12 runner up Iowa Hawkeyes in the 2010 BCS Nelson ratings.)

There are teams in big name confrences with bad credentials and recognised teams outside the big name conferences. When you are looking to bet on which confernces are going to have the highest ranked champion you don't pick the confernece with one team running in the front and nothing to back them up if that team falls.

Any design will need to cater to those teams nost likely to participate. Or it will need anti-trust exemptions (as the NCAA requires to be legal).

The champions of the top conferences go to the top bowls. Any tournament is going to be viewed as more prestigious than any bowls that are not part of the tournament.

The field will likely have to be smaller than the number of strong conferences, the top bowls will have to lose their traditional tie-ins or the top bowls woven into the tournament in a way that maintains their tie-ins. Either way, the unique reward of the bowl system will be diminished.

The BCS has already eroded some of this by breaking the traditional tie-ins, especially prior to the addition of the national championship game as a stand alone bowl.

How do several leading options fair in light of the rewards to the top conferences?

Old Bowl System

The primary aim of the bowls was originally to provide a reward for then conference champions. This remains to be the case for the major bowls.

BCS

The BCS excels at guaranteeing the top conferences a berth to one of the highly prestigious BCS bowls. This is a solid reward for a team with a couple of losses in a contentious conference battle in a nationally recognized competitive conference and ending up on top.

A Tier Based Plus-One

This design does not add rewards to the champions of the top conferences but does maintain the existing automatic berths. The potential for conference champions to be demoted to a first round game rather than a BCS bowl is mitigate by allowing three teams from a conference to be eligible.

A Flexible Championship System

The BCS bowls not selected for semifinal consideration are maintained as part of this design to allow all automatic qualifying champions a chance at the tournament or their current BCS bowl tie-in.

The only way an automatic qualifying champion outside the tournament would not get their traditional tie-in by is if the Rose Bowl is selected as a semifinal and the other conference failed to qualify for the tournament. This conference champion would still be guaranteed a berth in one of the remaining BCS bowls.

MWC Proposal

This design includes metrics to determine the top conferences on a recurring basis. These conferences would have a guaranteed spot in the tournament or in a single side bowl.

Enhanced Bowl Season

This design guarantees eligibility for the champions of the automatic qualifying conferences, recognizing long term success. It also gives the highest ranked champions (or independent in the top 6) a first round bye, recognizing annual performances.

The Wetzel Plan

Dan Wetzel does not provide any means to single out any conferences in any manner a priori. The top conferences would tend to be ranked higher and better seeded, giving some advantage in the tournament.

Poll

Do the top conferences deserve preferred treatment?

Yes. As is. No changes.

3 votes

Yes, if evaluated every four years.

4 votes

Yes, but not to the point that it excludes others from the title.

17 votes

No. DOWN WITH THE MAN!

17 votes

41 votes | Poll has closed

Postseason Constraint #12: Prevent Unworthy Teams from Having a Chance to Win the National Title

2010-02-27T23:12:33Z

[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 88 through 90 of my plan to fix the BCS]

The opposite side of the good teams are getting left out coin is that a wider field will allow teams to participate that really didn't earn an elite spot in the postseason.

Many people feel that teams with two or more losses do not deserve to be in championship consideration. Some believe that teams that don't win their conference should not be in the national championship discussion.

The larger the field the lower the standards become for entry into the tournament. Lower standards mean that the reward of entry into the tournament is diminished.

Expanding the field to 96 is not an option for football.

Old Bowl System

Only the top teams would have a chance to earn the top spot after the bowls. Two loss teams rarely climbed to the top or high enough to threaten an undefeated or one loss team.

Strength of schedule was not considered as strongly twenty years ago as it is today in the polls.

BCS

The BCS errs on the side of limiting the field so this is not an issue for it.

A Tier Based Plus-One

This design would restrict the field to a point that this would not be an issue. A two loss participant would be rare.

A Flexible Championship System

A fixed cutoff allows an arbitrarily large gap between the last two teams selected. This could be interpreted to represent a large consensus that the last team did not really earn the right to participate and would generally be accompanied with a large number of teams claiming they should have been selected instead of that
team.

Using gaps in the standings minimizes the risk of selecting unworthy teams for the last spots filled.

MWC Proposal

Two or even three loss teams would begin to participate regularly in an eight team field and wins over undefeated teams would reinforce the ideas that one game in the postseason is worth two or three in the regular season.

Enhanced Bowl Season

This design would allow teams with three or four losses to participate and success of these teams would demean the value of the regular season games.

The Wetzel Plan

Including all conference champions allows teams with three or four losses to regularly participate. In 2001 North Texas won the Sun Belt with a losing record of 5-6 and would have been in Wetzel's tournament.

Poll

How low should the national championship bar be lowered?

120 Teams 'til Kickoff - North Texas

2010-02-26T13:00:31Z

We are just starting on March Madness, baseball has just begun, yet my ache for football is just beginning. Spring ball and recruiting are not my cup of tea, and the BCS political machine moves in small steps and results issued after a handful of meetings.

I don't have time to do 120 detailed previews for each team. That would involve actually assessing the incoming talent and loses to the NFL. I really don't think that predictions I have seen in the past based on these factors have produced successful results.

The plain fact is that the same teams that are good are good every year. The bad teams rarely change. Teams sometimes jump out of their place, only to fall back inline the next year. The BCS uses a four year window to evaluate conferences based on:

The highest ranked team in the BCS standings
The computer average of all conference members
The number of teams in the top 25 in the final BCS standings

These are weighted here (in a proprietary manner) to represent the value a team would add to a conference near a BCS critical average of 0.5000 by my modeling of this data.

Think of this as an appraisal of the resent success more than a preview. A simple tease of football fluff to kill some downtime.

First up, the #120 North Texas ~~Eagles~~ Mean Green.

Head Coach: Todd Dodge (Third Year)
Offensive Coordinator: Mike Canalees (First Year)
Defensive Coordinator: Gary Deloach (Third Year)

	2007 (2-10)	2008 (1-11)	2009 (2-10)	Average (0.0833)
BCS Averave	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000	0.0000
Computer Average	116.3	119.0	117.5	117.6
BCS top 25	No	No	No	0.0
Score	-.7808	-0.8193	-0.7983	-0.7995

Schedule:

Team	Date
@Clemson	9/4
Rice	9/11
@Army	9/18
Troy	10/23
Kansas State	11/27
Arkansas St.	TBA
Florida International	TBA
UL Lafayette	TBA
@Florida Atlantic	TBA
Middle Tenn. St.	TBA
UL Monroe	TBA
W. Kentucky	TBA

Long Forgotten are the four straight bowl appearances from 2001-2004. Somehow a win over Cincinnati was not enought to imprint them in our memory.

The good news is that there is nowhere to move but up, with a schedule where even slight improvements should allow for a few wins and a move away from the bottom of the pack. Another 2-10 record is not out of the question, but 5-7 could be within reach.

Dominoes: Big East Edition

2010-02-25T13:00:21Z

The mention of conference expansion must send shivers down the spine of every Big East fan from the scars of the last round of expansions and the likely targets on their backs for the next round.

I suppose the Pittsburgh Panther, Syracuse Orange, Rutgers Scarlet Night, and West Virginia Mountaneers fans might get a twinge of cautious optimism that they might be allowed an upgrade by the time the dust settles. I suppose that is half of the Big East and, judging by Sugar Bowl, sales most of the Big East's fans.

If two or three of those teams above leave for greener pastures, how would the Big East respond?

The knee jerk reaction would be to leverage their BCS bid to pick up top teams from the MAC and C-USA that are remaining. The Central Michigan Chipawas, East Carolina Pirates, Memphis Tigers, Southern Miss. Golden Eagles, Central Florida Golden Knights, Miami (Ohio) RedHawks (though that name might bring too many scars), and Marshall Thundering Herd are names that come to mind off the bat.

Of course, if the BIG 10 expands to a nice cozy level they might decide to stay their for a while. This could open a door for the Notre Dame Fighting Irish to be a natural fit as an all sport member if NBC decides to cut their payout. (Why NBC doesn't get a contract with a league is beyond me. If NBC signed up to show a Big East game every week, two during weeks Notre Dame is not available to them, this could speed up the process.)

The Big East has eight members, why not go to ten? My favorite expansion option for the Big East does not have to wait until they get picked appart first. This would involve a split between the football schools and non-football schools. Hey, it worked for the MWC and WAC, both in a better spot than they were 10 years ago.

Army Black Knights and Navy Midshipmen. These would harken back to the independent status of many of these schools. Army and Navy have history as deep (and almost as forgotten) as many Big East historical powers. Annapolis Maryland. West Point New York. I dunno. It just smells like a good fit.

For that matter, dissolving as a football conference is an option that worked for many of these schools prior to the BIg East. Maybe they ask Army, Navy and Notre Dame if they can join their non-confernece.

Poll

What should the Big East do after the next round of conference expansions?

Pick up whover they can and hope for the best

2 votes

Pick up a few good teams now and split into football and non football conferneces

9 votes

Know when to fold them ... VIVA THE RETURN OF THE FOOTBALL INDEPENDENTS!

2 votes

13 votes | Poll has closed

If I Were King 1998

2010-02-23T01:26:25Z

[Editor's note: This is a continuing look at what my design would look like for this year and will walk backwards one year per week, until the dawn of the BCS era. For other years and a better look at my design look here.]

Well, this series has reached the dawn of the BCS era. Without further ado, here is the final installment of how my designs would have compared to the BCS in each of the years it has existed.

Qualifying teams

Tennessee and Florida State would have qualified for being the top group of teams. Tulane would have qualified for being undefeated.

Since Tulane was not in the top 8 and would not have played three rounds the next group of teams would have been added. This next group of teams was Kansas State, Ohio State and UCLA.

Tournament

The following play-in games would be held on December 19th or 20th:

Tulane @ Kansas State, UCLA @ Ohio State.

The lowest ranked team to advance would play Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl. The other advancing team would face FSU in the Orange Bowl. The winners would advance to the National Championship Game.

Possible BCS Bowls

Rose: Wisconsin vs. Arizona
Fiesta: Texas A&M vs. Syracuse

Teams in bold would have been tied to that berth, italics indicate a BCS berth would have been guaranteed.

What actually happened and a tier based plus one next.

What actually happened

BCS Games

NCG-Fiesta: Tennessee 23 FSU 16
Sugar: Ohio State 24 Texas A&M 14
Rose: Wisconsin 38 UCLA 31
Orange: Florida 31 Syracuse 10

Kansas State, Arizona, Tulane, Nebraska, Virginia, Arkansas and
Georgia Tech were BCS eligible but not selected.

Under the current rules Tulane and Kansas State would have earned an automatic qualification.

Controversy

A wide gap formed between #2 and #3 after Kansas State's season ending loss to Texas A&M in the Big 12 championship game.

In addition to Tennessee, Tulane finished the regular season undefeated and went on to beat BYU 41-27 in the Liberty Bowl.

Ohio State being selected over higher ranked Kansas State was widely overlooked because Kansas State had just lost the Big 12 Champion Game to Texas A&M. Florida being selected over Kansas State and Arizona made geographical sense but caused some controversy.

A Tier Based Plus-One

Semifinals

Tennessee would have played Ohio State and FSU would have played Kansas State. (Guaranteeing access undefeated teams would have replaced Ohio State with Tulane.)

Direct Participants

UCLA would have received a direct participation as the highest ranked automatic qualifying conference champion. Syracuse would have received a direct BCS participation for not qualifying for two bowl games.

Tulane, Texas A&M and Wisconsin would have been guaranteed a direct participation. Ohio State would have been guaranteed a spot if the top four eligibility rules are used.

Remaining Teams Eligible for a Second Bowl

Air force, Arizona, Miami (OH), Arkansas, Georgia Tech, Marshall, Michigan, Nebraska, Notre Dame and Virginia would have been eligible for a second bowl.

Possible first round games

Mid-West: Nebraska(Wisconsin) vs. Texas A&M
North: Wisconsin (Ohio State) vs. Miami (OH)
South: Tulane vs. Virginia
West: Notre Dame vs. Arizona

An Improvement

Under the BCS nine teams were left out how were very close to the #2 team in the BCS average. The flexible design significantly improves this metric.

26 teams went undefeated since the advent of the BCS. 14 went to the National Championship Game. This would have increased to 19 if undefeated teams were selected preferentially (a debatable ideal.) Similar results to preferentially allowing undefeated teams are obtained with a plus-one using the top four, and only two teams would have been omitted if undefeated teams were given preferential treatment. This is far better than the four undefeated teams that did not earn an invitation to a BCS bowl. The flexible design was able to handle all undefeated teams in all years.

Five years saw six teams win an automatic qualifying conferences with less than nine FBS wins.

The flexible system would have averaged 4.4 teams per year, similar to a plus one. Eleven BCS bowls would have been selected as semifinals in eight of the twelve years. An extra wild card game would have been used in eight of the twelve years and ten play in games would have been hosted in six of the eleven years.

Only one undefeated team did not play two teams that had finished in the top 25 in the final BCS standings in any of the four previous years. Hawaii could have been eliminated by employing this rule. Only seven teams in 2009 failed to schedule to this level, indicating that it is attainable even in the worst conferneces.

Postseason Constraint #11: Fair Venues

2010-02-22T03:07:06Z

Tournament games should be played at venues that are away games for both teams. Home seeding for favored teams is a common technique used in many sports leagues to add importance to regular season games for teams having secured their eligibility for the tournament.

The old bowl system and the BCS use venues that are often home fields of regular participants. Any design that uses the bowls to host games will face this issue.

Old Bowl System

Many bowls use college stadiums as venues and as a result have strong ties to the universities whose field they use. The reduced travel expense of selecting a local team also makes them a compelling choice.

The result is that teams playing a bowl game on their home field were not a rare event. USC playing in the Rose bowl is a prime example of this. The bowls did not have any system that forced home field games, even for favored teams.

BCS

The BCS’s venues are as fair as the old bowl system it emerged from

A Tier Based Plus-One

This design would inherit the fairness of its venues from the bowl system.

A Flexible Championship System

This design maintains the venue fairness of the bowl system except in the play-in games which are hosted by the favored teams.

MWC Proposal

This design uses the BCS bowls for the first round followed by neutral site games for each additional round. Its venues are as fair as the current design.

Enhanced Bowl Season

Using regionally tied bowl helps mitigate against travel costs but significantly increases the chance that teams would end up playing on their home field.

The Wetzel Plan

By using home venues for the higher seeded team the Wetzel plan sacrifices fair neutral venues for an added significant benefit for highly ranked teams to keep late season games meaningful to their championship run.

Poll

How fair should playoff venues be?

All games should be at neutral sites.

4 votes

Home games should be allowed to add significance to higher rankings late in the season

10 votes

Keep the selection open, if team happens to be home, so be it.

0 votes

14 votes | Poll has closed

Dominoes: ACC edition

2010-02-21T04:18:15Z

Like the SEC, the ACC has little ambition to start another round of expansions (that is so 2004). Also like the SEC, they would be the ones responding to the defectors. The Big East would smile.

Until they realized that the ACC was now looking their way ... again.

The Clemson Tigers, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets and Florida St. Seminoles are the only teams likely to leave, and only if the SEC gives an invite. The East Carolina Pirates fits geographically and has some success recently. The West Virginia Mountaineers would be a solid program as well.

Both would be hindered with the ACC's PAC 10 like self image academically. That said, they got over it when they invited FSU.

The Cincinnati Bearcats and Memphis Tigers would help a loaded basketball conference. The South Florida Bulls and Louisville Cardinals deserve mention as well. Shoot, The Central Florida Golden Knights and Southern Miss. Golden Eagles can come along for the ride too.

This is the short list of who would be on the ACC's short list.

If I Were King in 1999

2010-02-21T03:00:50Z

Qualifying teams

Florida State, Virginia Tech and Nebraska would have qualified as the top group of teams. Marshall would have qualified for being undefeated.

Since Marshall is not in the top 8 of the standings and would not face three rounds the next group of teams would be added. This group consisted of Alabama, Tennessee, Kansas State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and
Florida.

Since this would expand the field past 8 teams the largest gap allowing a field between 5 and 8 would be used. This gap occurred between Alabama and Tennessee, so only Alabama would have been added.

Tournament

On December 19th or 20th Alabama would host Marshall for the opportunity to play Florida State in the Orange Bowl. Virginia Tech and Nebraska would play in the Wild Card Game. The winners would advance to the National Championship Game.

Possible BCS Bowls

Sugar: Tennessee vs. Southern Mississippi
Fiesta: Kansas State vs. Georgia Tech
Rose: Wisconsin vs. Stanford
Orange: Michigan vs. Miami(FL)

Teams in bold would have been tied to that berth, italics indicate a BCS berth would have been guaranteed.

Three at large spots would have required the BCS eligibility to be lowered to #18 and the official standings for that year were only released to 15. With three spots open it is possible the field might have required expanding to 22. Miami(FL), Southern Mississippi and Georgia Tech would have been likely candidates. Allowing a third team from a conference in the top 14 would have allowed Michigan State, Florida, Penn State, or Minnesota to be selected instead.

What actually happened and a tier based plus one next.

What actually happened

BCS Games

NCG-Sugar: FSU 46 Virginia Tech 29
Orange: Michigan 35 Alabama 34(OT)
Fiesta: Nebraska 31 Tennessee 21
Rose: Wisconsin 17 Stanford 9

Kansas State, Michigan State, Florida, Penn State, Marshall, Minnesota and Texas A&M were BCS eligible but not selected.

Under the current rules Marshall would have earned an automatic qualification.

Controversy

FSU had a solid lead on everyone but Nebraska and Virginia Tech were in a dead heat for the second spot in the championship game. The fact that Nebraska had a loss reduced complaints about the selection of undefeated Virginia Tech over them.

In addition to FSU and Virginia Tech, Marshall finished the season undefeated and beat BYU 21-3 in the Motor City Bowl.

Michigan was selected over a higher ranked Kansas State, part of the three year Kansas State snub series.

A Tier Based Plus-One

Semifinals

FSU would play Alabama and Virginia Tech would play Nebraska in the semifinal games.

Direct Participants

Stanford and Wisconsin would have qualified for direct participation due to not
qualifying for a second bowl.

Marshall would have been guaranteed a spot in the first round games.

Remaining Teams Eligible for a Second Bowl

Kansas State, East Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Tennessee and Texas would have been eligible for a second bowl.

Possible first round games

Mid-West: Michigan State vs. Kansas State
North: Marshall vs. Michigan
South: Tennessee vs. East Carolina
West: Texas vs. Florida

An Improvement

Both alternative desings avoid the Kansas State snub and the flexible tournament would have allowed Marshall a chance to earn a title. The Virginia Tech/Nebraska debate would have been settled on the field.

Postseason Constraint #10: Determine a Widely Accepted National Champion

2010-02-15T02:38:04Z

Those wishing to install a college football playoff often hearald the determination of a champion as their primary goal. The fact of the matter is that nine constraints rate higher in priority to the college football postseason than this ideal, and these would have to be maintained before any talk of installing a true national championship can be discussed.

Some have questioned whether there is a need to determine a widely accepted championship. If college athletics is about raising the character of the participating individuals then a championship is not a vilat component of the college athletics mission. The bowls actually thrived in regional marketing of competing potential championship games that add to the discussion and coverage of the sport.

To a marketer any print is good print.

The fans and players strongly desire the results to be determined on the field. This can only be accomplished by including all undefeated teams and other teams that have demonstrated that they have proven their worth in a broad battery of measurement techniques.

How do the top ideas fair in the context of this constraint, next...

Old Bowl System

This was the largest motivating factor in the decision to move from the old bowl system to the BCS. In the old bowl system each region would claim their local major bowl winning team was the champion.

Some don't think this was a bad thing.

BCS

Twice in twelve years the BCS has paired two consensus teams. Once in twelve years the BCS failed to prevent a split national championship.

Even among the computers used by the BCS, teams other than the winner of the national championship game are ranked #1 after the bowls. In 2008 Utah was the only team to finish undefeated and finished #1 in four of the six BCS computers.

As long as teams can finish undefeated without having a chance to win the title, as seven teams have done in the past 12 years, there will not be a widely accepted national championship game.

A Tier Based Plus-One

This design includes a two round tournament that expands the field and greatly increases the degree of acceptance of the national champion.

2004 and 2009 would have not allowed all undefeated teams to participate. The team left out would still face two solid opponents. This has the potential to generate disagreement regarding who the best team really was in these years.

A Flexible Championship System

This design allows all teams in the national consciousness to participate in the tournament every year. This is the minimal design able to accomplish this task.

MWC Proposal

With a three round tournament the consensus of the champion would be significantly enhanced.

Enhanced Bowl Season

A twelve team tournament would give its winner a large margin of certainty that they are the most deserving team.

The Wetzel Plan

A sixteen team format significantly reduces the controversy around the crowning of the eventual winner as champion.

Poll

How important is determining a true national champion?

What is the point of a sport without a championship?

11 votes

Participants should be seen as students first and athletes second - a championship is secondary.

3 votes

I lke the mess. I can find a reason every year why my teams should be the champions.

2 votes

16 votes | Poll has closed

Playoff PAC: Show me the Money!!

2010-02-13T03:14:07Z

Late last year Playoff PAC launched to promote political pressure againt the BCS. Well, the first quarter tax filings are out and they have raised $5,974.

"We recognize that we have more work ahead of us on fundraising," Playoff PAC official Matt Sanderson told The Hill.

To be fair this does not include the funds recieved after a campeign ad ran in select cities (mostly in Utah and Idaho) during the BCS national championship game. It also does not reflect the cost of those ads.

That's right. The movement to enact what is alleged to be the opinions of over 2/3 of the total population has raised enough money to, well actually not much. That, and after years of research and watching repeated attempts appear and then fizzle out after the much hoped for grass roots rally fails to emerge to support the cause, I am left suspecting the desire for substancive change is such a popular idea.

Most people want a smooth trasition based on freemarket pressures to yield to the temptation of bracket creep ... one could say a BCS evolution.

Playoff PAC takes credit for building the pressure on the BCS and forcing their hand.

"In spending just $1,700, we shaped the public debate and forced the BCS to spend six-figure sums on new full-time staffers and consultants, including …Fleischer," Sanderson said. "If we can accomplish all of that on a shoestring budget, we will accomplish much more once our fundraising operation is up and running."

Personally, I take credit for that. And on a much smaller budget.

Why not, right? Here is my claim:

On July 24th I sent the first version of my plan to various BCS officials. The message of this plan is simple:

If we are going to find the best option for the college football postseason for 2014, the people participating in and running the conversation need to be determined now.

Increased political pressure could have prompted the BCS to show their hand earlier than they had planned, but with the new BCS Coordinator never having been to a BCS meeting and 6 year administrator Bill Hancock around the promotion was fairly inevitable.

I will give Playoff PAC credit for spurring on a PR rally by the BCS that has been laughable.

What they can't explain is how they instigated the BCS to expand so that when they meet this year all FBS conferences will have a seat at the table for the first time?

Poll

How much change do you want for college football?

Playoff PAC is in financial trouble? My check is in the mail!

1 votes

I want substantive change, but not on my dime.

6 votes

If change comes from within the BCS I would support it.

3 votes

I don't care. I'll watch whatever college football I can get.

1 votes

If it ain't completely broke don't fix it!!

1 votes

12 votes | Poll has closed

Dominoes: SEC Edition

2010-02-13T02:25:30Z

Wait what? Why are we taking the time to talk about SEC expansion? No one expects the SEC to change anytime soon.

The SEC is needed for completeness, if for no other reason than to state that they are not a thread to any other conference. The SEC is very happy with their format and six team divisions. The only reseson to expand would be to replace a defecting member.

The Arkansas Razorbacks are mentioned as a replacement for Missouri in the BIG 12 and I am a lone wolf in my opinion that they could be on the BIG 10's expansion radar (admittedly very near the edge.)

Really though, why would Arkansas leave the SEC? Just start a home and away with Texas and all would be right in the world again. Being in the same conference is not neccessary.

The SEC's response would be a knee jerk reaction, taking the best ACC team money can buy. Not a direct payout, the increased SEC revenue stream would suffice. I agree with commadore_dude that the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets or the Clemson Tigers would be high on the list of replacements.

For more on the series so far, including the hot topic of PAC 10 expansion, check out my table of contents.