NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:15 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:50 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540
I expected West Virginia to jump to #6, which they did in the coaches' poll. But in the AP poll, they jumped all the way to #5. I assume the logic was they deserve to be ranked ahead of LSU since they beat the SEC champs.

This has interesting implications for the BCS review of the Big East & other conferences in 2007. The BCS requires - sort of - an average ranking of #12 or higher over a 4-year period for a conference to maintain its automatic bid. Both WVU (#11) & Louisville (#10) have improved their position in the national polls with bowl wins in the past two years. (Louisville moved up to #6 & #7 in the two polls last year.) If the final polls were used, the Big East would be a virtual lock in 2 years - short of a complete disaster. Since the BCS chooses to ignore that one game each year, the Big East will continue to have to prove itself in the next 2 years.

But what about other conferences? Specifically, the ACC. The BCS language is very clear. A conference gains an automatic bid based on the ranking of its champion - NOT based on the ranking of its highest rated team. So, regardless of what Virginia Tech, Miami, etc. did this year, the automatic ACC bid depends on what Florida Stated did this year.

Florida State fnished #22 in the BCS rankings this year & Virginia Tech, 2004 ACC champs, finished #8 last year. That's an average ranking of 15. So, the ACC has some work to do as well. Both slipped in the polls after bowl losses - Tech to #10 & State to #23.

But, wait. What about the Mountain West. Let's not ignore the fact that TCU was ranked #14 in this year's BCS. Last year? Oh, yeah, Utah was #5. That's an average ranking of 9.5 - better than either the ACC or the Big East. And the MWC champs moved up in the polls after bowl wins both years - Utah to #4 in AP & TCU to #9 & #11.

One more angle. The BCS has said that their review of the conferences will be based on the membership in 2007, which means that the Big East can include Louisville's #10 ranking in 2004. Or can they? In 2004, Louisville was not the conference champs. The Big East finished in a 4-way tie. Pitt was designated as the champs. Pitt was ranked #21. This puts the average ranking of the Big East champ at 15.5 - a hair behind the ACC.

So, if the decision were made based on the first 4 years of this 4-year period the only thing that is clear is that the Mountain West would be in. The BCS language is interesting:

"The conferences whose champions have a guaranteed annual berth in one of the BCS bowls are subject to review and possible loss of that guaranteed annual berth should the conference champion not have an average ranking of 12 of higher over a four year period."

So, this is all "possible"? Apparently the BCS has discretion. And they have just expanded to a fifth bowl in order that they might be more "inclusive." Yeah, right. It seems they've boxed themselves into a corner. The ACC will point to its depth & high ranking finishes of also-rans. The Big East will highlight the success of Louisville in 2004 & West Virginia's bowl win in 2005. In the interests of "inclusiveness", the BCS will keep both.

But the big question is whether the BCS will do the right thing & include the Mountain West if they continue their success over the next 2 years. Their language says that they will have a minimum of 5 members & a maximum of 7. It seems that there's room for one more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:03 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:17 am
Posts: 147
There's no way that the BCS will choose FSUs ranking over VTs ranking for the 05 season.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:53 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:21 pm
Posts: 1916
The mwc is not getting an automatic BCS invite.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:05 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
There's no way that the BCS will choose FSUs ranking over VTs ranking for the 05 season.


Of course they will, Tman. They have no choice. It's written into their rules. Re-read the quote in my post. You can find it on the BCS website.

What will happen is that they will compute the average BCS rankings for the 6 BCS conference champions over the 4-year period 2004-07 & they will use that information as part of their review. However, failing to meet this criterion does not meet automatic expulsion. The language makes clear that "loss of that guaranteed annual berth" is "possible."

Remember it is the performance of teams that participate in the BCS bowls that they are evaluating to determine conference eligibility. What other conference members do is irrelevant to this issue. Florida State was the ACC's conference representative to the BCS in 2005, as determined by the ACC's own rules. Lash has pointed oput for a long time the liability of choosing the path of determining your conference champ by a play-off.

The only grey area here is whether they will allow the Big East to use Louisville's 2004 record in place of Pitt's. Louisville WAS a conference champion (CUSA) that year. Or will they simply allow the records of the new members from 2004 to be used as part of the review. Although it has been widely publicized that the Big East will be allowed to use Louisville's record, I believe that it is under the latter conditions & not as champion. The language seems to make that clear.

The real significance of the ACC standing is that it puts 2 conferences in the same boat & prevents the Big East from representing a unique situation. It also highlights the success of the Mountain West.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:14 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
The mwc is not getting an automatic BCS invite.


Tigershark, the BCS clearly left that door open by explicitly stating that it may include as many as 7 conferences after 2007. Read their website.

How can they possibly leave the Mountain West out if their champions continue to outperform both the Big East AND the ACC?

It would be the ultimate hypocrisy. The BCS wrote these roles themselves. If the Mountain West meets the standard that the BCS itself set & there is a spot available as defined by "no more than 7" AND the BCS rejects the Mountain West, it would be noticed by everyone in college football and especially by Congress. The BCS is already feeling the heat, as evidenced by their efforts to appear more inclusive. There is no way under these conditions that they would leave the Mountain West out in my opinion.

BTW, congratulations on a successful season at Rutgers & a strong showing against Arizona State. I got my hopes up that they would win the game as I watched it.

Happy New Year!

FriarFan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:04 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
FriarFan,

The post on this thread reminded me of another thread. Post 540 on page 23 of the New BCS thread had some interesting points. Here is a quote.

"Conferences will be measured in three ways over a four-year stretch from 2004-07:

• Average ranking in the BCS standings for the conference's highest-rated team.

• Average ranking in the BCS computer standings for every member of the conference.

• Number of Top 25 teams.

The interesting note is how do they calculate the number of Top-25 teams and compare the conferences to each other. Is that BCS number? How do they measure the Top-25 - using the last BCS rank that comes out in December? Many speculate that the number of Top-25 teams required is 25% of the conference size but nothing official has come out about it.

In addition, no where does the BCS list how they will account for the fact that the BE only has 8 teams, MWC 9, and the others have 10, 11, or 12. It will probably only matter to the BE and MWC though."

This post also contained a link to the article that the poster is discussing. Page 23 of the NEW BCS thread is a good read.

Please note that there are multiple criteria. IMHO the question is not whither the BE will lose its automatic bid, but will the MWC get one. Again, IMHO, I don't believe that the powers that be in the BCS want to included the MWC, but may feel that they have to in order to appear "fair" (and PC).

FBfan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1285
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
Friar, you assume the BCS might actually give more credence to meritocracy. I guess I'm not so trusting... and I don't trust Congress (not to mention the President) to actually spur enforcement of anti-trust. I think the BCS could have pushed Cowan aside and not had many problems.

If anything, the greater "threat" to the BCS may come from within the NCAA, question being whether the response would be a break from the NCAA, but I digress.

Separate that from what OUGHT to happen. Bowl games aren't really about merit, and save for whatever NIT-style existence they may have in a playoff world, I wouldn't miss them. However, since that's not happening anytime soon, I continue to pound sand.


Last edited by pounder on Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:18 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540
FBfan, I actually think that the powers that be in the BCS may want to include the MWC in their little group. And, no, Pounder it's not because I'm trusting of any belief in meritocracy on their part. I think that it's probably for pretty crass reasons. (Read that as "money.")

Remember that the BCS has expanded to a fifth bowl game. This actually gives them much more flexibility than the old system. Under the present system if they get a team that doesn't travel well or is a weak representative because the conference had an off-year or because of the vaguaries of championship games in 2-division conferences, they have no choice but to match that team up against one of the more "legitimate" BCS representatives. With a fifth bowl, they can match such a team up against a MWC opponent & save the best match-ups for games that will draw big audiences & draw more revenue. Since the fifth game will be held at one of the 4 existing sites & the championship game will continue to migrate among the four, one of the sites will be getting 2 bowl games in any given year. They wouldn't have much to complain about if their first game involved a match-up that was a dud since they would have THE top game a week later.

If they weren't open to Mountain West membership, why did they write into their plans for review that membership would include "a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 7 conferences."? It would have been foolish for them to open that door & then slam it shut when someone actually meets the criteria. Even the BCS isn't that foolish.


Last edited by friarfan on Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:54 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
FriarFan,

The post on this thread reminded me of another thread. Post 540 on page 23 of the New BCS thread had some interesting points.

FBfan


Thanks for the reference, FBfan. I read the page & post #540 in particular. However, note Panther 97's comment:

" . . . nowhere . . . does it say that the highest rank would be counted instead of the BCS rep's number . . ."

This directly contradicts the article excerpt he had just quoted. Remember that this is a news article & not a statement from the BCS. MY guess is that the reporter got it wrong. I say that because "conference champion" is clearly stated on the BCS website, which I quoted above. Or else "highest ranked" is an additional criterion to be considered among those other multiple factors after ranking of conference champion has been calculated.

Of course the BCS has allowed itself all kinds of wiggle room since they allowed for consideration of additional factors like market size, traditon, on & on. So, if we want to keep you, we can. If we want to get rid of you, we can find a way. It all comes down to whether they can fill the stadiums & draw TV ratings.

I agree with you r bottom line that the big question is whether they will add the Mountain West & that it is unlikely that they will get rid of the Big East - at least barring some complete collapse in performance by the conference.

Given that we are half way through the 4-year period & that Big East members have performed well enough & that the conference seems to be heading in the right direction & given the fact that this will probably continue into next year with West Virginia returning the vast majority of their key players, the Big East is probably home free.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2663
Location: Phoenix Arizona
No way Big East loses BCS automatic bid with BE 2005 champion beating the 2005 SEC champion. SEC is the BCS creator. That would be football version of sacrilegious.

BCS could do all of us college football fans a favor and invite the MWC as the seventh conference and finally end the who should be in and out stuff that does nothing for college football and only provides talking heads on ESPN with badly needed discussion material.

By the way, ESPN better start looking for some cash for Big East football, else CBS and CSTV may come in for the taking.

TCU looks like BCS material this year.

TCU would have probably beat FSU if provided the opportunity this year to play in the Orange or Notre Dame if allowed to play Notre Dame in the Fiesta.

WVU should be in the preseason top 5 next year. Should provide the BE with a good shot at the national title game.

Next years national title game will be in the new Cardinals Stadium in Glendale which is absolutely awesome.

A Texas/WVU match-up next year could be very interesting for the Fiesta.

Notre Dame/WVU would also be a great match-up as rematch of the 1989 national title game which was one of highest TV rated games in history.

Any match-up will be hard pressed to match the ratings of this years Texas/USC game.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:52 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1285
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
Since the BCS was lucky this year with USC and Texas being blatantly obvious #1 and #2 choices, next year is destined to be another exhibition in cat-herding for them. I have to admit that I'm rooting for the worst possible snafu to befall the system.

While I beef plenty with TS2's tactics, one thing you haven't seen me debate with him about is the "anchor bowl" issue for the Mountain West. Mind you, the WAC helped make the Holiday Bowl viable back in the day... it can be done, but the Holiday is in bed with the Pac-10. The Las Vegas Bowl is closer to shutdown than it is solvency. The Emerald will probably have to take a while to distinguish itself. That's all they have, it doesn't help travel great numbers to bowl games from MWC schools, hence it's possibly their biggest hindrance to getting a BCS bid. A good chunk of this can be laid at the feet of Las Vegas, who schedules their game before Christmas, partially because they do good hotel business between Christmas and New Year and therefore don't WANT to schedule the game then. The Mountain West has some searching to do.

Phoenix is rated as a poor place for a pro sports team- being heavily populated by retirees is the main problem there IMO. That just means Glendale Stadium being built there doubly bugs me- and you are justified and permitted to color me jealous. I can imagine how much mileage Portland could get out of a facility like that. That should be a sweet place. What I want to know, Lash, is how many days a year they make use of it... I can see a place like that becoming a standard for the next generation of stadia.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:58 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2663
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Pounder, you have the wrong perception of Phoenix. Yes there are may retirees in Phoenix, however, there are many new folks looking for better opportunities from the rust belt and cold midwest and fleeing California.

Phoenix is a great pro town. The Sun flags are everywhere and always sold out.

Womens pro basketball is very popular.

Pro Golf is a religion. OK that does have a lot to do with retirees.

The Diamondbacks were great until the owner sold out the good players and the team is down at the moment. They had really good baseball attendance at the top for a while.

Pro Hockey is also very popular and Phoenix has its own Hockey arena in Glendale close to the new football stadium. There is also a simi pro hockey team as well with the Roadrunners.

Now for pro football in Phoenix. Yes the Cardinals suck and that leads to a point.

The Cardinals always have to start the season on the road due to the severe heat in September.

So there is hope for us pro football fans than the new dome stadium will allow us to finally have a few home games early to build momentum for the season. At least that is our excuse for now for how badly the team performs.

There is also the rumor of the curse of the Cardinal football teams that have played in many other cities with losing records as well. They played in St Louis and Chicago in past lives..

We also get to host the Super Bowl in a few years which is always fun and interesting when its hosted in your home town.

Phoenix is much younger and hipper than everyone thinks. The old Phoenix is going the way of the desert. Its not your old Goldwater town anymore. Well maybe I am getting carried away here. Its still pretty conservative. Things are changing a bit slowly in this category. Its getting more like California every year.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:16 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:21 pm
Posts: 1916
Pounder you hate te truth? Pounder you hate the facts?You don't like my mwc humor?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:12 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1368
Location: Baltimore, MD
TS2 will be glad to know that Brokeback Mountain was filmed in Wyoming. Wyoming is not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mountaineers #5 in AP
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:49 pm 
We need to keep in perspective that conferences are composed of individual schools and West Virginia football is not the same as it is at Cincinnati nor should FSU football quality be equated with that of Duke. When it comes to bb and some other sports, there can be reversals. Conference, more than most anything else, defines a school's regular season schedule of opponents. Sure there are tv issues and other stuff coming into play.

Since West Virginia is a member of the Big East, then it is appropriate for BE fans to be proud of them. It is a measure of success. Whether or not the BE splits in the future or adds more fb members at some point, remains to be seen. Remember, the BE was being quite successful in fb when the ACC made a raid. It is important for the BE, as well as others, to always be monitoring its depth and security.

The ACC can no longer hide behind this pseudo-academic superior, above the rest, image. They took from the Big East to model themselves after the SEC without being the SEC. Had the SEC been raiding the BE, they would have taken WVU, not BC. The arrogance of the ACC revealed their style and their desire to load up with football factories. Michael Vick is just one of the poster boys.

WVU's victory goes into the record books. I would caution reading too much into it. It is not an anomaly either. Recruiting season is underway, coaches are changing, and a new season will be forthcoming. Next year can look much the same or very different.









Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jbb and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group