The Mountain West Conference's New BCS Trick

The Mountain West has issued their proposed changes to the BCS. Here they are:

The Pledge

1) 10 Teams make it to the BCS games.

2) Conferences earning automatic qualification (AQ) for the next cycle of games must have a 40 percent winning record against teams from current AQ conferences.

3) Notre Dame and a mid-major conference champion are eligible for BCS berths by the same current rules.

4) Computers and polls are scrapped in favor of a 12 member committee, which will rank teams at the end of the year.

5) This committee will choose which teams earn any remaining at-large berths.

6) The two lowest ranked of the 10 BCS teams play in a fifth BCS Bowl (Cotton, Gator, Outback, Peach).

7) The top eight teams are placed in their traditional bowls with the committee overseeing all pairings.

8) The semifinals and final are played approximately one week after each previous round.

The Turn

The MWC did a very good job of arguing for its inclusion as an automatically qualifying conference. The proposal (found here) shows the top seven conferences (BCS+MWC) all have at least a 44 percent winning record against current AQ conferences. The next closest is the WAC with 17 percent.

I do wonder how much these would change (probably not too much) if games against the MWC were included, as if to double check that the cutoff of 40 percent isn't too arbitrary. At the current rate, the MWC will get an AQ spot in 2012 and should have a team qualify for the mid-major berth each of the intervening three years.

The rules for Notre Dame and current mid-majors earning a spot in the BCS stay the same, which is a good move. Although I, personally, wouldn't mind combining these into a single berth, Notre Dame would.

The next part is rather sketch. A "committee" [quotes preserved from MWC proposal] comes up with the final BCS Standings after the last regular season game is played. The only purpose of the standing is to provide a legitimate eight team field; which means in reverse that the "committee" only uses the standing to validate their own picks for the playoff.

I respect the choice of a committee to determine that last one or two at large spots (2008, Ohio State, Boise State, or Texas Tech; 2007, Missouri or Kansas) but coming up with a top 25 to validate that simple choice seems like overkill, or an attempt to compensate (read: cover their butts) for any poor decisions after the fact.

I will not comment on the overall feasibility of a playoff, because under the MWC proposal, it will be a reality. Forget about PAC-10 and Rose Bowl considerations, and don't worry about too many games and destruction of the regular season, because those have already been passed over.

I believe it was intelligent not to limit the BCS to only the eight playoff teams. This allows AQ Conference Champions that didn't finish too strongly (Cincy and Virginia Tech this year) to play in the BCS without taking up those precious playoff spots.

That fifth BCS Bowl seems like a consolation game, but as long as the payout remains high then it is a rewarding trip all around.

I know most of you (me first) are wondering what exactly the matchups would be. Assuming that the "committee" would have ended up ranking teams as the BCS actually did, here are the likely matchups from last year:

The Prestige

No 1. Oklahoma vs. No 6. Utah in the Fiesta Bowl
No 2. Florida vs. No 7. Texas Tech in the Sugar Bowl
No 3. Texas vs. No 4. Alabama in the Orange Bowl
No 5. USC vs. No 8. Penn State in the Rose Bowl
No 12. Cincy vs. No 19. Va Tech in the fifth BCS Bowl

Neither Ohio State or Boise State are in the playoff because the "committee" always picks the higher ranked team, after a careful decision on where to rank them. My guess is that Texas Tech would not have gotten a top eight spot and instead Utah would have played Florida with Ohio State playing Oklahoma.

In 2008, Utah is not yet in an AQ conference, otherwise Boise State would have gotten the final spot.

Taking the teams which won their bowls, here are the semifinals:

No 2. Florida vs. No 6. Utah
No 3. Texas vs. No 5. USC

This playoff would no doubt be entertaining. Those two semifinals and the national championship would together average higher ratings than the top three BCS bowls actually did this year. Add in an additional two top quality games and you have a cash cow.

Just for fun, here are the 2007 and 2006 playoff matchups:

2007
No 1. Ohio State vs. No 7. USC in the Rose Bowl
No 2. LSU vs. No 8. Kansas in the Sugar Bowl
No 3. Virginia Tech vs. No 6. Missouri in the Orange Bowl
No 4. Oklahoma vs. No 5. Georgia in the Fiesta Bowl
No 9. W Virginia vs. No 10. Hawaii in the fifth BCS Bowl

No 2. LSU vs. No 7. USC
No 5. Georgia vs. No 6. Missouri

2006
No 1. Ohio State vs. No 5. USC in the Rose Bowl
No 2. Florida vs. No 8. Boise St in the Sugar Bowl
No 3. Michigan vs. No 6. Louisville in the Orange Bowl
No 4. LSU vs. No 7. Wisconsin in the Fiesta Bowl
No 10. Oklahoma vs. No 14. W Forest in the fifth BCS Bowl

No 2. Florida vs. No 6. Louisville
No 4. LSU vs. No 5. USC

Gosh, if Alabama beats Texas in 2008, and the higher ranked team wins each of the six above semifinals, then we could have seen SEC-SEC in the national championship each of the past three years.