June 14, 2009

Will 2010, 2012 be the years of mass realignment announcments?

According to the BCS Website's "Standards for Future BCS Automatic Qualification" the results of the 2008-2011 seasons will be used to determine if a seventh conference will earn a BCS spot for 2012 and 2013. If the current procedures are used after this, then the 2010-2013 seasons will be used to determine the automatic qualifications for 2014-2017.

This means the MWC, WAC, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt will be re-evaluated after 2011 and all conferences will be examined after 2013 based on a four year window.

The criteria used are:
(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
(3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year

[Note the complete lack of any measure that incorporates bowl results of any kind. I guess bowl results really do mean nothing.]

Previously the BCS has set the precedent that if a team moves from one conference to another the conference they played in the last year of evaluation is where their numbers count for the evaluation.

If a conference is considering a team in a weaker conference they will get the most benefit in the BCS automatic qualification criteria by getting the most years with the team in question in the weaker conference as possible to count for their numbers. It also must be noted that it takes a full year to get out of a conference once an announcement is made.

To start in 2011 an announcement must be made in 2010. For 2013 the announcements would be 2012.

If the MWC is looking to poach Boise State while maximizing their post 2011 BCS numbers they are better off allowing Boise State to play the WAC in 2010. If the BCS is looking to eliminate the MWC by taking a few of their top teams 2010 would be the year to do so. Though I may be partial to BCS conspiracy theories, even in the worst case this would provide the final evidence needed to instigate an anti-trust investigation with teeth.

If the PAC 10, Big 10 or Big East are waiting to maximize the BCS value of teams from weaker conferences they would best wait until 2012 to announce their expansion plans.

This indicates that a conference realignment spurred by MWC expansion might be on the horizon next year and one triggered by the PAC 10 or Big East might be being developed for 2012.

So the contracts align themselves and my prediction from last year remains:

The MWC will earn a BCS automatic qualification for 2012, only to have the Mayan's calender proven right and never have the opportunity to use it due to world changing events.

Then again, for some of those visiting this site in the middle of June the MWC earning a spot in a BCS bowl due to an automatic qualification might constitute a world changing event.

Comments:

Will 2010, 2012 be the years of mass realignment announcments?
According to the BCS Website's "Standards for Future BCS Automatic Qualification" the results of the 2008-2011 seasons will be used to determine if a seventh conference will earn a BCS spot for 2012 and 2013. If the current procedures are used after this, then the 2010-2013 seasons will be used to determine the automatic qualifications for 2014-2017. This means the MWC, WAC, C-USA, MAC and Sun Belt will be re-evaluated after 2011 and all conferences will be examined after 2013 based on a four year window. The criteria used are: (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 (3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year [Note the complete lack of any measure that incorporates bowl results of any kind. I guess bowl results really do mean nothing.] Previously the BCS has set the precedent that if a team moves from one conference to another the conference they played in the last year of evaluation is where their numbers count for the evaluation. If a conference is considering a team in a weaker conference they will get the most benefit in the BCS automatic qualification criteria by getting the most years with the team in question in the weaker conference as possible to count for their numbers. It also must be noted that it takes a full year to get out of a conference once an announcement is made. To start in 2011 an announcement must be made in 2010. For 2013 the announcements would be 2012. If the MWC is looking to poach Boise State while maximizing their post 2011 BCS numbers they are better off allowing Boise State to play the WAC in 2010. If the BCS is looking to eliminate the MWC by taking a few of their top teams 2010 would be the year to do so. Though I may be partial to BCS conspiracy theories, even in the worst case this would provide the final evidence needed to instigate an anti-trust investigation with teeth. If the PAC 10, Big 10 or Big East are waiting to maximize the BCS value of teams from weaker conferences they would best wait until 2012 to announce their expansion plans. This indicates that a conference realignment spurred by MWC expansion might be on the horizon next year and one triggered by the PAC 10 or Big East might be being developed for 2012. So the contracts align themselves and my prediction from last year remains: The MWC will earn a BCS automatic qualification for 2012, only to have the Mayan's calender proven right and never have the opportunity to use it due to world changing events. Then again, for some of those visiting this site in the middle of June the MWC earning a spot in a BCS bowl due to an automatic qualification might constitute a world changing event.