October 1, 2008

BCS Busting - Part IV

This, the final installment of this series, considers the ultimate BCS busting scenarios. While a team being accepted be a BCS league's expansion plans have been discussed ad nauseum, what would it actually take for an entire conference to make the jump and garner BCS automatic qualifier status? Obviously I am talking about the MWC here.

The BCS has given a glimpse of their athematical[sic] system for determining the BCS eligibility.

The conferences have developed athematical standards of performance which be applied to determine the number of conferences whose champions will automatically qualify for a BCS game after the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons. The champions of no fewer than five conferences and no more than seven conferences will have annual automatic berths.

The standards will be based on results from the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 regular seasons, using institutions that are members of the conferences during the 2007 season.

The data will include 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.

The standards will not prohibit the champion of any conference that has contracted with a bowl from playing in one of the participating BCS bowls. For example, the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions will, by contract, play in the Rose Bowl every year unless one or both qualifies for the National Championship Game.

Let us assume that this review is repeated every year, using a 4 year window and requiring a team to play in a conference one year before their numbers benefit the new conference. It is important to note only 5 conferences have a contract with a BCS Bowl, the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10 and SEC. This excludes the Big East.

The final standings in all of the BCS computer rankings for these years are not all available and knowledge of how this would be used is not known anyways. I will focus on the other two categories. Being generous, I will compare each conference's performance to the worst contracted conference each of the four years.

Top Team
To find this number I added the rank of the top team from each conference each year and subtracted this from 41, the sum of the lowest contracted conference leader each year. The leader may not have been the champion, which would raise these values accordingly.

PAC 10 +27
Big 12 +26
SEC +25
Big 10 +21
ACC +9
Big East +5
MWC -16

This clearly favors the current alignment. The MWC was 6 ahead of the minimum team in 2004 and will need to make that up as well to catch up this year. To catch the minimum BCS contracted conference the MWC would need to need to be ranked 22 spots higher than the lowest BCS contracted champion this year, likely to be the ACC. This is not likely to happen this year.

The Big East losses 2 spots it had in 2004, so would need to be within 3 of the lowest BCS contracted conference to keep up this year.

Top Team
To find this number I took the total number of top 25 teams and subtracted the sum of the minimum of the BCS contracted conferences for each year, 11.

SEC +8
Big 12 +5
Big 10 +5
ACC +5
PAC 10 +1
Big East EVEN
MWC -7

Again this clearly favors the current alignment. The MWC will gain 2 from the 2004 data but would still need 5 more teams in the top 25 than the lowest BCS contracted conference. This can not happen this year.

The Big East gains one from the loss of 2004 so it can actually afford to lose a ranked team on the minimum BCS contracted conference this year.

Next Year
Despite the astonishing performance, it would appear the MWC has no real hope of gaining an AQ after this year, what would it take to gain one after next year?

This year they would need to gain 22 points on the bottom ranked BCS contracted conference. They will gain another 5 simply by removing 2005 from the window. Between this year and next year they need to gain a total of 17 points. While not impossible, this is a very high bar to hit. They are in good position this year to gain 10 or so of those, but would need another 5 or so next year. Two years like this one is a tall order.

For the number of ranked teams they needed to gain 5 this year. They lose 2 of these next year due to the loss of the 2005 data, needing a total of 3. They are likely to have 2 with the ACC struggling to get 1 for a gain of 1 this year. Maybe the MWC could get a third team in the top 25 for a gain of 2, but would still need another next year. Again they would need two years like this one to get in. Again this is a tall order.

I will concede that it should be a tall order to gain BCS AQ status, but it is obvious to me that performance on the field alone will not get the MWC into the BCS club.

Expansion
What if the MWC used some of its likely BCS money to buy out the exit clauses for teams to pad their numbers? Boise State and Hawaii give the largest immediate boost to these numbers, but one has to questino Hawaii's future potential. Fresno State gives lower numbers but more stable results. Tulsa has to be the lead candidate for a third member, especially if they crawl into the top 25. Their performance exceeds that of Houston. What good is a large TV market if no one from that market cares about that team? Isn't that how the MWC got SDSU?

This expansion would need to be started next year so these teams are counted for the following year.

This expanded conference is behind the BCS minimum by only 4 ranking points going into this year. They would have to overcome the 6 points they had in 2004, but get back 5 of those when they lose 2005. Between this year and next year they would need to gain 5 ranking spots on the minimum BCS contracted conference. This year could even give them breathing room lead into next year.

This expansion would have left the conference behind by 4 ranked teams going into this year. Would would gain 1 after 2004 rolls over and 2 more when 2005 rolls over. This requires a gain of 1 either this year or next year. This expanded conference could gain 3 this year leaving an excess of 2 to give them breathing room next year.

Conclusion
Expansion alone can not get the MWC into the BCS, nor can this years performance, even if it is repeated next year. Taken together, it appears the MWC could have a chance for BCS AQ status as early as 2010.

The Big East is in little danger of losing its status by this measure, thanks in large part to the synchronous sinking of the ACC.

Comments:

BCS Busting - Part IV
This, the final installment of this series, considers the ultimate BCS busting scenarios. While a team being accepted be a BCS league's expansion plans have been discussed ad nauseum, what would it actually take for an entire conference to make the jump and garner BCS automatic qualifier status? Obviously I am talking about the MWC here. The BCS has given a glimpse of their athematical[sic] system for determining the BCS eligibility.
The conferences have developed athematical standards of performance which be applied to determine the number of conferences whose champions will automatically qualify for a BCS game after the 2008 and 2009 regular seasons. The champions of no fewer than five conferences and no more than seven conferences will have annual automatic berths. The standards will be based on results from the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 regular seasons, using institutions that are members of the conferences during the 2007 season. The data will include 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. The standards will not prohibit the champion of any conference that has contracted with a bowl from playing in one of the participating BCS bowls. For example, the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions will, by contract, play in the Rose Bowl every year unless one or both qualifies for the National Championship Game.
Let us assume that this review is repeated every year, using a 4 year window and requiring a team to play in a conference one year before their numbers benefit the new conference. It is important to note only 5 conferences have a contract with a BCS Bowl, the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10 and SEC. This excludes the Big East. The final standings in all of the BCS computer rankings for these years are not all available and knowledge of how this would be used is not known anyways. I will focus on the other two categories. Being generous, I will compare each conference's performance to the worst contracted conference each of the four years. Top Team To find this number I added the rank of the top team from each conference each year and subtracted this from 41, the sum of the lowest contracted conference leader each year. The leader may not have been the champion, which would raise these values accordingly. PAC 10 +27 Big 12 +26 SEC +25 Big 10 +21 ACC +9 Big East +5 MWC -16 This clearly favors the current alignment. The MWC was 6 ahead of the minimum team in 2004 and will need to make that up as well to catch up this year. To catch the minimum BCS contracted conference the MWC would need to need to be ranked 22 spots higher than the lowest BCS contracted champion this year, likely to be the ACC. This is not likely to happen this year. The Big East losses 2 spots it had in 2004, so would need to be within 3 of the lowest BCS contracted conference to keep up this year. Top Team To find this number I took the total number of top 25 teams and subtracted the sum of the minimum of the BCS contracted conferences for each year, 11. SEC +8 Big 12 +5 Big 10 +5 ACC +5 PAC 10 +1 Big East EVEN MWC -7 Again this clearly favors the current alignment. The MWC will gain 2 from the 2004 data but would still need 5 more teams in the top 25 than the lowest BCS contracted conference. This can not happen this year. The Big East gains one from the loss of 2004 so it can actually afford to lose a ranked team on the minimum BCS contracted conference this year. Next Year Despite the astonishing performance, it would appear the MWC has no real hope of gaining an AQ after this year, what would it take to gain one after next year? This year they would need to gain 22 points on the bottom ranked BCS contracted conference. They will gain another 5 simply by removing 2005 from the window. Between this year and next year they need to gain a total of 17 points. While not impossible, this is a very high bar to hit. They are in good position this year to gain 10 or so of those, but would need another 5 or so next year. Two years like this one is a tall order. For the number of ranked teams they needed to gain 5 this year. They lose 2 of these next year due to the loss of the 2005 data, needing a total of 3. They are likely to have 2 with the ACC struggling to get 1 for a gain of 1 this year. Maybe the MWC could get a third team in the top 25 for a gain of 2, but would still need another next year. Again they would need two years like this one to get in. Again this is a tall order. I will concede that it should be a tall order to gain BCS AQ status, but it is obvious to me that performance on the field alone will not get the MWC into the BCS club. Expansion What if the MWC used some of its likely BCS money to buy out the exit clauses for teams to pad their numbers? Boise State and Hawaii give the largest immediate boost to these numbers, but one has to questino Hawaii's future potential. Fresno State gives lower numbers but more stable results. Tulsa has to be the lead candidate for a third member, especially if they crawl into the top 25. Their performance exceeds that of Houston. What good is a large TV market if no one from that market cares about that team? Isn't that how the MWC got SDSU? This expansion would need to be started next year so these teams are counted for the following year. This expanded conference is behind the BCS minimum by only 4 ranking points going into this year. They would have to overcome the 6 points they had in 2004, but get back 5 of those when they lose 2005. Between this year and next year they would need to gain 5 ranking spots on the minimum BCS contracted conference. This year could even give them breathing room lead into next year. This expansion would have left the conference behind by 4 ranked teams going into this year. Would would gain 1 after 2004 rolls over and 2 more when 2005 rolls over. This requires a gain of 1 either this year or next year. This expanded conference could gain 3 this year leaving an excess of 2 to give them breathing room next year. Conclusion Expansion alone can not get the MWC into the BCS, nor can this years performance, even if it is repeated next year. Taken together, it appears the MWC could have a chance for BCS AQ status as early as 2010. The Big East is in little danger of losing its status by this measure, thanks in large part to the synchronous sinking of the ACC.