"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 or higher over a four-year period."
http://www.bcsfootball.org/index.cfm?page=eligibility

This is taken from the "Final" BCS Ranking, which is after the conference championships, but before any bowl games.

Since 1998 the following are the "worst" rankings for a champion from each conference:

BIG TEN:
1998 - Wisconsin #9 (Ohio St was #4 but was at-large selection to Sugar Bowl, Wisconsin played in Rose Bowl as Big Ten Champ; not sure how this would affect the 4-yr rule).
1999 - Wisconsin #7
2000 - Purdue Not Ranked in Final BCS Top 15. (3-way tie with Michigan & Northwestern, but Purdue got the Rose Bowl bid)
2001 - Illinois #8

This is hard to calculate and I haven't found any information regarding the 1998 situation or how Purdue's unranked status as Big Ten rep to Rose Bowl affects the 12th place average rule. If anyone has a BCS ranking that extends beyond the top 15 published on the BCS website, please share it. It would have taken a BCS ranking of 24 for Purdue in 2000 to give the BIG TEN a 4-yr average of 12 (assuming that Wisc's 98 ranking is used not Ohio State's).

PAC TEN:
1998 - UCLA #4
1999 - Stanford Not Ranked
2000 - Washington #4
2001 - Oregon #4

Obviously the same situation with the "unranked" team in the equation, but it would have taken a BCS ranking of 36 for Stanford in 1999 to put the PAC TEN's 4-yr average at 12.

ACC:
2001 - Maryland #10
2002 - Florida State #14
2003 - Florida State #7
2004 - Virginia Tech #8

This gives the ACC a "worst" 4-yr average of 9.75, meaning that a BCS ranking of 19 or worse in 2005 would result in a 12 average for '02-'05 period.

SEC:
1999 - Alabama #4
2000 - Florida #7
2001 - LSU #13
2002 - Georgia #3

This gives the SEC a "worst" 4-yr average of 6.75 for the period of '99-02.

BIG EAST:
2001 - Miami #1
2002 - Miami #1
2003 - Miami #9
2004 - Louisville #10 (Louisville's 2004 BCS ranking has been allowed by the BCS to calculate their 4-yr average, rather than Pitt's 21st rank).

This gives the Big East a 4-yr average of 5.25, requiring a 28th place ranking or worse in 2005 to arrive at a 12.

BIG XII:
1999 - Nebraska #3
2000 - Oklahoma #1
2001 - Colorado #3
2002 - Oklahoma #7

The "worst" 4-yr period in BCS history for the BIG XII is an average of 3.5 from '99-'02.

Others:

Mountain West:
2003 - Utah #22
2004 - Utah #6

The MWC would need a future 2-yr average of 10th place in the BCS rankings to garner the 12 average for its champion and an automatic BCS bid.

WAC:
2003 - Boise State #17
2004 - Boise State #9

The WAC would only need a future 2-yr average of 11th place in the BCS rankings get the 12 needed for an automatic BCS bid.

Can anyone help me with the questions listed above? Any additional thoughts/comments would be helpful as well.

ColoSpgsBuff,
The way to figure averages with non-ranked teams is the use the forumla that gives 25 points to #1,24 to #2...,1 to 25 and 0(zero) for everything lower. You total the points, divide by 4, then, and the is the part some miss, you recheck the chart. If your total points equals 100 and you divide by 4, you get 25 which is the # of points for #1. The total number of points needed to reach a #12 average is 56. (56/4=14 which is #12 on your chart.

Note: Using this formula, the ranking for the ACC and SEC averages is the same as the one you used. The MWC has earn 32 points for the 2003 and 2004 period, and the WAC has 26. Therefore the MWC needs 24 points, or a 13 average and the WAC an 11.

However, the rules, as I understand them, do NOT say that any conference other than the current 6 would qualify if they reached the "magic number" (56 points). It only states that the BCS 6 can automatically qualify as long as they maintain that ranking. If a BCS conference did not meet the criteria, and and non BCS conferences did: That still would not guarentee that they would be replaced.

2nd Note: I obviously did not make this rule, and I am not stating that I support it. I am only stating the facts as I understand them. If the actual rules or different, I trust someone on this board will correct me. (And I THANK YOU if you do.)

FBfan

Factors (plusses?) for conference size, eh? The BE won't like that.

Need to do:

* Stop treatng Notre Dame as a conference unto themselves, that has criteria set up for only one school. The money guarantees associated with this are shocking. Even with the proposed reduction to that of an at-large monetary recipient/payout, it reeks with favoritism.

* The BE has some prominent schools, but they are SHORT in number, comparatively. It should not be assumed because this conference was raided they should maintain an unlimited grace period. Nor should the BE hold a guarantee to BCS when there are other 1-A conferences of equal size or greater numbers that possess certain schools that distinguish themselves.

* Twelve team BCS conferences must cope with a championship game to deliver a representative. Psychologically, this could have a fatigue, anticlimatic, and a more strigent course to reach a national title or secure the most desired bowl.

* The Big10 and PAC 10 only need three more schools between them for each to reach twelve. If they choose not to, conference size should be a FACTOR.

You are right about the conference size factor. They do not want to disadvantage a conference because it has fewer teams than another. The Big 12, SEC and ACC will have to do 2/10 better than the Pac 10 in the number of ranked teams to be equal to the 10 team Pac 10.

Wonder if the remaining few regular season games we'll see an upset or two? It doesn't seem there are any huge late season surprises this year. Yeah, GT beating Miami was one, but GT can rise up on occasions as they did to Auburn at the start of the season. Any bold predictions? Everyone seems to have crowned USC but does UCLA have a real chance of an upset?

Nov. 29, 05 article, Mike Phillips of Miami Herald on BCS anticipations; from Macon Telegraph:

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/sports/13287619.htm

Please say it will not happen? Penn State vs FSU in the Orange Bowl. I can hear the media hype now-- "the battle of the grandfatherly coaches-- Paterno vs Bowden-- the most wins, etc. Paterno was wise enough to turn the offense over to Galen Hall, and of course, each dropped pass many FSU fans will send forth expletives at their own OC, son, Jeff. :-/

The above may all be a side show though. Just waiting for another media feature of Mack Brown and the brotherly mentoring from brother Watson at UAB. ::)

Please say Oregon will not end up in the Holiday! :(

Sorry, D&C. Too bad Okie isn't better, so as to provide a good test - and game.

Oregon-Auburn somewhere would have been interesting.

d**n. Mr. "Thingys" (sometimes, I wonder if this software is worth the trouble) almost seems more miffed about Oregon's predicament than I am... and I've got the Oregon degree, the Rose Bowl pennant from 2 Jan '95. and the whole nine yards for my credentials (including driving to that '96 Cotton Bowl).

After all, the BCS did have all that little trap door criteria, and seemingly all of it got used. Ohio State ended up 4th and therefore in, Notre Dame has its stupid contractual obligation, and we can certainly question West Virginia's deservedness in our late hours, but that's how that pig bounces. So be it.

I screwed up four years ago. I think I even told people that I was going to listen to the Oregon v Colorado Fiesta Bowl rather than watch it, avoid the sponsors, all that. I missed my chance then. My demands to burn every last bag of Tostitos is thus hypocritical. I missed my shot. I screwed up. I've kind of pushed off those "Hint Of Lime" Tostitos, however, you don't find me going near Nokia or FedEx or even AT&T. :) Oh, it's not like I've stayed glued to every BCS game every year anyway... maybe I can still gain redemption. What do you think?

Pounder -

I commiserate with Oregon's plilght.

However, I must object to the bashing of WVU. A one-loss conference champion. In that they won their conference, that would seem to give them better credentials than Oregon.

Their low ranking is a product of BE-bashing that continually occurs in the media. They narrowly lost to Va Tech. That's it !!! I will admit that none of the 8-4 BE teams of last year was very competitive with the likes of USC, Ok, Auburn & Utah, (Utah waxed Pitt, and it was no fluke) but this year that shoe is on the ACC and its dynamic champion FSU, who sail into the Orange Bowl having lost 3 of their last 4.

Where is that outcry about what a rotten representative Florida State is this year ?
Or numerous times when the underdog eliminated a powerhouse in the Big 12 Championship, and disappointed the Bowl folks ?
WVU absolutely deserves to be there, based on their performance.

I would advocate a 16-team bracket that includes Oregon and TCU and several other at-larges. Oregon got trampled by a ridiculous system that is set up by arbitrary special interests, and it'll keep happening to deserving teams every year until the system is changed.

Hmmm...Florida State beat Virginia Tech; West Virginia lost to Virginia Tech at home...West Virginia beat uh...Louisville and Maryland?