Bleacher Report - Articles by Greg Welch

Boise State May Force Its Way into Mountain West with BCS Numbers

Greg Welch — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:22:00 -0400

Every school that is not part of a BCS conference has one goal: become part of a BCS conference. So far, the only way schools have found to get in is to exit Conference USA for the greener pastures of the Big East.

The Mountain West Conference is trying to get all of its schools into the BCS; unfortunately, the BCS doesn’t say exactly what they need to do to get in.

Based on the little we know about the evaluation process, it appears the Mountain West may need a little push to get over the top in their climb to join the group of conferences who get to send their champions to a BCS game automatically—and that push can only come from Boise State.

The rules set up to evaluate which conferences will get BCS auto bids will be based on the 2008-2011 seasons. We know the factors they are based on: (1) the highest ranked team in the conference, (2) the number of ranked teams in the top 25, and (3) the average computer ranking of all conference members.

However, these rules leave out a few details.

It seems the BCS prefers to not say exactly how the numbers are crunched. The public is left to wonder if equal weight is given to all three factors or whether there is some kind of formula. Would they need to be as good as another AQ conference, or would being nearly as good qualify them?

The BCS rules don’t say, and sadly, Orrin Hatch didn’t care to ask the BCS leaders when he had the chance this summer.

Even if we don’t know exactly what the formula is, Ben Prather claims to have something close to what the BCS will use. The results for 2008, the first of the four evaluation years, are below:

BIG 12 0.9819
SEC 0.7892
ACC 0.7465
BIG TEN 0.6689
MWC+BSU 0.6679
MWC 0.5347
BIG EAST 0.5259
PAC-10 0.4069
WAC 0.2993
MAC 0.1144
C-USA 0.002

After one year, the MWC is currently the fifth-best rated conference, although there are three more years' worth of numbers yet to come. After 2008, if the MWC were to add Boise State, it appears they would help the MWC’s numbers, but their addition wouldn’t change the MWC’s overall ranking.

After the losses by BYU and Utah this weekend, it appears much more likely that by the time 2011 rolls around, the MWC may need the numerical push Boise can offer.

During the August media days, MWC commissioner Craig Thompson explained the Mountain West’s position: "Now, if conversely a team were to come in and really strengthen the BCS cause, that would be reason for focus. It's something that we've looked at. We have said if there’s a way we can quantify and prove that by doing these two steps that gets us closer to an AQ, then we'd look at it differently.”

A reporter then directly asked about Boise: "And Boise’s record hasn’t given you that motivation? What they give you numerically?"

Thompson concluded: “I hate to even go down that road, but we’ve looked at a number of models, and there was no one there who with their numbers would put us over the top.”

Clearly, if the MWC can qualify on its own for an automatic BCS bid, they would prefer to not add another mouth to feed. The addition of Boise would mean all revenue would be split 10 ways instead of nine.

If, however, the addition of Boise comes with the guarantee of extra BCS dollars, all the schools will profit from the change.

What would it take for the Mountain West to be just close enough to a BCS bid that adding Boise State makes the difference? It would probably take a scenario where the MWC had a good year, but not a great one; where there is more than one ranked MWC team ranked in the top 25, but none in the top 10.

Boise would need to have a great year and add their high ranking to the MWC numbers, just as Louisville was allowed to do for the Big East in 2004.

Looking at the polls three weeks into the season, this is exactly the situation Boise State finds itself in now. Although it’s early, if the season ends with BYU and TCU ranked in the top 25, but not top 10, and Boise ranked in the top 10, the computer numbers will likely force the MWC to take a serious look at inviting Boise after the 2009 season.

This will allow them to play their final year in the WAC during 2010 and join the MWC in 2011, in time for final year of the BCS’ conference evaluation.

It would still be a risk to add Boise in the middle of the evaluation period. There would be no guarantee that adding them would get them into the BCS, since the invitation would have to be extended after 2009, only halfway through the four-year process.

However, looking at the numbers after week three, it appears that Boise is in a much better position to get an invitation from the Mountain West Conference than they were a month ago.

Boise would jump at the chance to join the Mountain West, with or without a BCS bid. Bob Kustra, Boise State President, has been quoted as saying, “if we could hook up with the Mountain West, which has excellent competition, which has considerable academic quality, it would be a good match for us."

Even WAC commissioner Karl Benson acknowledges Boise’s desire to upgrade their competition and revenue by joining the MWC. ESPN quoted him this summer as saying that Boise flirtation was “distracting and disappointing at times, but I think that the interest shown by Boise State for the Mountain West has been done in a upfront manner, and that is appreciated."

Of course, this is all quite speculative until we see what the polls look like at the end of this season. Boise may look ready for an invite after three weeks of the season, but then again, two weeks into the season BYU was in a position to make a run at a national title, so things can obviously change quickly in the college football season.

Sources

http://bcsguru.blogspot.com/2008/12/bcs-fairness-doctrine.html

http://www.fanblogs.com/boise_state/007147.php

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/4970/wac-commissioner-talks-boise-state-mountain-west

Vauge and Missunderstood Rules at the Heart of the BCS Problem

Greg Welch — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:50:35 -0400

The Senate's biggest BCS critic missed the heart of the problem in yesterday's BCS hearings.

While asking about the fairness of the BCS, Senator Hatch was surprised to learn from the BCS' lawyer that they had already provided rules that allow non-automatic-bid conferences to become automatic bid conferences.

Like the vast majority of college football fans, Senator Hatch had never heard of these rules and asked "have they been published?"

The BCS lawyers quickly outlined the three rough points in the rules and the hearings moved on. The rules, in fact, have been published. The evaluation data is based on four-year sets of data for each conference and includes (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.

Sadly, Senator Hatch was unprepared to ask any follow up questions about these rules which are vague, non-specific, and controlled by the BCS behind closed doors.

The rules leave a lot of questions unanswered, and sadly, Senator Hatch missed a big opportunity to ask the BCS under oath to finally explain to America exactly how this system works.

Eventually, the BCS is going to have to answer questions like:

>> How well would one of the currently non-automatic qualifying conferences need to do to become one of the insiders? Would ranking nearly as well as an automatic qualifier be enough? Or would an outsider have to rank better than an insider?

>> Is there a set point of evaluation they would need to pass regardless of the performance of other conferences? Or is it only based on performance relative to the other conferences?

>> Who is making a poll that ranks all 120 schools? No sports writers are ranking all 120 teams. Is this based a computer poll? A mix of six computer polls? What criteria are those computer polls based on?

>> Are the bowl games included in this poll? Or does it only use the regular season?

>> How are the elements weighted? Are the three elements weighted equally? Is one worth more than another?

>> How are the rankings for all conference members averaged? Median? Mean? What sort of math and statistical calculations are used to compare conferences?

>> Do all members have input on the formula? Or is it devised and calculated only by the current AQ members?

>> Why isn't someone asking why BCS insists on basing their multimillion-dollar decisions on a set of vague criteria and refuse to make the results public? Why are they so insistent on avoiding speculation or scrutiny?

The MWC proposal asked that non-AQ conferences qualify based on winning 40 percent of their games with AQ schools.

This is a simple and fixed objective based on field performance and not polls and computers...anyone can figure it out and check it's accuracy, unlike the current system which few people even know exists and no one can figure out what it's really based on.

If Senator Hatch, the MWC, and Boise State want to portray the BCS as an anti-trust they should point out they are making the rules up as they go along, ensuring the right members of the club stay in and the wrong members stay out.

If they want to prove BCS is an anti-trust, maybe someone should ask them why their formulas and evaluations are carried out in the smoke-filled backroom and their results aren't released.

Finally, here's an example of exactly how this smoke-filled backroom works: When Mike Tranghese spoke about the Big East's evaluation after the 2007 season (that guaranteed the Big East's inclusion through 2013) he said "It was quiet, the way I like it."

Mountain West Asks for Sweeping BCS Changes

Greg Welch — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:53:51 -0500

The Mountain West conference unveiled its proposed changes to the BCS rules this afternoon and asked to move the burden decisions made within the BCS from the hands of the pollsters to the players on the field. The conference asked to change both the way the teams playing for the national championship are determined as well as which conference champions automatically qualify for BCS bids.

The Mountain West is not satisfied with current contracts the other 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame have signed with ESPN and are proposing a number of changes to the way the college postseason is structured.

The Mountain West proposes making sweeping changes to the BCS system and asks to replace the computers and polls with a 12-person committee. Also they propose adding a fifth BCS bowl game as well as a four-team playoff made from the winners of the other four current BCS bowl games.

After the 10 BCS teams are determined, the lowest two teams play in the fifth BCS game and their season ends. The eight other teams play in the their BCS games after being seeded by the committee, keeping in mind conference bowl tie-ins. The four winners of those games are re-seeded by the committee to play in national semifinal games, and the winners of those games then play in a national championship.

The proposal also ask that new rules be implemented that determine which conferences are automatic qualifiers or which conference champions have guaranteed bids into college football’s most lucrative games.

Currently, the BCS decides this by using the following set of rules:

"Each conference will be evaluated over a four-year period based on the three elements: the average rank of the highest ranked team, the average rank of all conference teams, and the number of teams in the top 25.”

The Mountain West proposal asks that the conferences rely instead on the results of games played on the field between the conferences as a means of determining automatic qualification.

The rule as it is proposed reads: An FBS conference will be an “AQ Conference” if over a two-season period the conference (1) has played a minimum of 20 inter-conference regular-season games against the six current AQ Conferences, and (2) has a minimum winning percentage of .400 in these games.

While its perception in the polls has not been as high, the Mountain West provides the data for the last two years and the last five years to show a clear separation between the conferences when comparing the games played on the field.

Over the last two years, the Mountain West has had the best record of all FBS conferences in inter-conference games played against current AQ conferences (16-13). The Mountain West is also asking that based on the results of those games to be included as an AQ conference beginning in the 2010 season.

In both the two- and five-year periods provided by the conference, all six of the current AQ conferences and the Mountain West had winning percentages of at least .439. The best winning percentage of one of the remaining non-AQ conferences was the WAC with a .176 winning percentage over the last two years.

It remains to be seen how the other 10 conferences will react to the proposal.

Inter-Conference Regular Season Records Against AQ Conferences (2007-2008)

Conference Record

MWC 16-13 (.552)
ACC 22-18 (.550)
Big Ten 10-9 (.526)
Pac-10 10-9 (.526)
Big East 14-15 (.483)
Big 12 12-14 (.462)
SEC 13-16 (.448)
WAC 6-28 (.176)
MAC 11-57 (.162)
Sun Belt 5-43 (.104)
C-USA 4-44 (.083)

Inter-Conference Regular Season and Postseason Records Against AQ Conferences (2005-2008)

Conference Record

Pac-10 32-20 (.615)
SEC 43-36 (.544)
Big East 36-38 (.486)
Big 12 35-37 (.486)
MWC 29-32 (.475)
ACC 45-52 (.464)
Big Ten 29-37 (.439)
WAC 13-62 (.173)
MAC 17-109 (.135)
C-USA 11-92 (.107)
Sun Belt 6-78 (.071)

Mountain West Making Strong Case for BCS Auto-Bids

Greg Welch — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:23:01 -0500

The BCS has a website. It's got all kinds of interesting tidbits on it. On it you can find ratings for past games and future game schedules, as well as this gem: "The BCS isn't an entity; it is merely an event that the conferences and Notre Dame manage along with the bowls in order to create a matchup between the No. 1 and No. 2 team in a bowl game."

One of the biggest issues with the BCS is access. Access matters because it's tied to how much each school is guaranteed from the whole process. Why do Mountain West and WAC teams need to go undefeated to play in the BCS (only earning $4 million), while a four-loss ACC team waltzes into the Orange Bowl to collect $17 million dollars? Why does the ACC get to keep its auto-bid after going 2-9 in BCS games?

Well, the BCS’ website details exactly how this non-entity decides how to dole out those millions and millions of dollars. You can find these rules under bcsfootball.org's FAQ section.

“What about the process for determining which conferences receive automatic BCS bowl bids in the future. How does that process work?

First, one of the criteria isn’t even completely public: The BCS only releases rankings for the top 25, but the evaluation's second criterion is "the average rank of ALL conference teams."

Second, when are the numbers calculated? Before the bowls or after? Since the computer polls are used to determine the championship game, no BCS poll is released publicly after the game. Do they have a private poll that is computed for this calculation, or do they just use the pre-bowl data?

Third, what do they mean by "average"? Median? Mean? I am also no statistician, but I do know there are many ways to average numbers.

Finally, the biggest problem is there is no specificity about how the conferences are evaluated. It just says that they are evaluated. Would one of the currently non-automatic qualifying conferences need to pass one of the insiders, or would ranking nearly as well as they do be enough? Who knows?

My guess is since the six current conferences made the rules in the first place, they will always be working pretty hard to keep things the way they are.

The first evaluation period was from 2004-2007. Here are the results of the two public criteria (provided they used the publicly released pre-bowl rankings and a basic average). They're not particularly pretty for the MWC.

First, the average of the highest ranked team from each conference from 2004-2007 in the pre-bowl BCS poll.

SEC and Pac-10: 3.5

Big Ten: 4.25

Big XII: 4.5

ACC: 8.25

Big East: 8.75 (The Big East was allowed to include 2004 numbers from what were then members of CUSA. Without these additions their average would have been 11.5.)

MWC: 14.25 (Although if the Mountain West invited Boise State and the BCS allowed their numbers to be used like it allowed the Big East, their average would be 11.25.)

WAC: 15 (Although the WAC number is problematic since they didn't have any top 25 teams one year).

Second, the average number of teams ranked in the top 25 from 2004-2007.

SEC: 5

Big Ten and XII: 4

ACC: 3.75

Pac-10: 3

Big East: 2.75

MWC + Boise: 1.5

MWC: 1

WAC: 1

Now, looking at those numbers, it's not too hard to see where the line is drawn. (Although a pretty solid argument could be made to remove the ACC and Big East. They do manage to get multiple teams ranked, but there’s a very clear drop-off in the highest ranked-teams category.)

But here's where things get interesting. 2008 is the beginning of a new four-year evaluation period, and the Mountain West is off to a very good start. Here are the numbers for two of the BCS Evaluation Criteria (provided they used the publicly released pre-bowl rankings).

After one year (2008), the highest team from each conference using the pre-bowl BCS rankings was.

Big XII: 1

SEC: 2

Pac-10: 5

MWC: 6

Big Ten: 8

WAC: 9

Big East: 12

ACC: 14

The number of ranked teams shows a similar shakeup.

Big XII: 5

SEC, Big Ten: 4

ACC, MWC: 3 (The MWC would have four teams in if they added Boise and their numbers are allowed to count toward the MWC's).

Pac-10, Big East: 2

WAC: 1

Basically, things are looking up for the Mountain West. It's very hard to know exactly how well they are doing, since neither the evaluation criteria nor the data itself is entirely public, but the numbers that are public bode well for them.

If they continue to have years like they did in 2008, it will take some serious number bending to keep them out of the group of conferences with automatic access to BCS games.

Low Attendance Threatens FBS Status for Some College Football Teams

Greg Welch — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:56:17 -0400

Somewhere deep in the bowels of NCAA.org there's a page describing the differences between the divisions it makes for college programs. It includes the following rule:

"Football Bowl Subdivision teams have to meet minimum attendance requirements (average 15,000 people in actual or paid attendance per home game), which must be met once in a rolling two-year period. NCAA Football Championship Subdivision teams do not need to meet minimum attendance requirements."

If your favorite college team can't average 15,000 people to a game once every two years, the NCAA technically can drop your team from what used to be called Division I-A to I-AA.

No team has yet to be dropped, but which teams are dangerously close? And when will the NCAA man up and start enforcing its own rules?

Going back to 2005, some teams have already not met this standard for three straight years. According to the NCAA, these teams are supposed to pull 15,000 fans at least once every two years if they don't want to be dropped from the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Teams that have not met the standard since 2005

Utah State: 10,896, 11,360, 13,131
Eastern Michigan: 5,219, 14,734, 6,910

Teams that have not met the standard since 2006

Rice: 14,760, 13,353
Idaho: 14,543, 11,479

Teams that did not meet the standard in 2007

Ball State: 13,085
Kent State: 8,999
Buffalo: 13,658
New Mexico State: 14,412
Florida International: 7,982

Utah State managed to get both BYU and Utah to visit their stadium this year, as well as having a favorable conference schedule, so the Aggies might actually get 15,000 this year.

Eastern Michigan was able to pull 16,860 for their conference opener last week, but losing 41-17 might not get a lot fans to come back for the rest of the season.

Rice has also been doing better with a revamped offense, pulling in over 16,000.

Idaho seems to have wised up to the rules, reporting "15,003" people for its first two games of 2008.

It will be interesting to see how the other five teams that missed the standard in 2007 report their 2008 attendance. Also, I'm curious if the NCAA will ever have the cojones to drop a team.

Coupled with the NCAA rule that mandates FBS conferences have at least eight teams, dropping a school or two from a conference might cause the entire conference to fold. The Sun Belt (eight schools) and the WAC (nine schools) are both vulnerable to this problem.

While the MAC and CUSA also have teams on the death list, they certainly could absorb the losses of a few teams without collapsing.

The NCAA may also not want to be the catalyst to another series of conference raids, like what happened when the ACC picked a few teams from the Big East in 2004.

Why any team can't average 15,000 in paid attendance is beyond me. It seems simple loopholes like cutting the ticket price in half and having a yearlong two-for-one sale could instantly double "paid attendance," which is probably the only way Idaho is currently averaging "15,003" people.

Nice job, Vandals. Keep up the good work.

ESPN Takes Washington Huskies vs. BYU Call and Loss Awfully Hard

Greg Welch — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:35:04 -0400

Leading Saturday's College Football Live telecast tonight was the story about the officiating at the end of the BYU-Washington football game. ESPN was falling all over themselves to call out what they saw as a violation of a basic human right—celebrating in the end zone after a touchdown.

After leading a heroic drive, Jake Locker brought his team within one point, pending a PAT attempt. Unfortunately for Locker, after scoring the touchdown that could have tied the game, he threw the ball in the air—high into the air. Youtube highlights show the ball landing on his own head about 2.5 seconds after he let if fly.

To hear ESPN tell it, this penalty was totally unjustified. For the first two hours of the coverage Mark May insisted that Locker hadn't thrown the ball, that he had merely "tossed the ball over his shoulder."

My guess is that May stopped arguing this point when he finally sat down and watched the play. Lou Holtz took over after that, arguing that Locker had only "raised his hands in celebration and the ball slipped out." Kirk Herbstriet argued the ball "came out of his hand as he stood up."

Most of the ESPN commentators also talked in terms of the call "costing UW the game" and how much they hated the rule. It was interesting to see the news anchors read the rule verbatim from the rule book that you can't throw the ball in the air after a play, then toss the coverage to the editorial staff, only to have them jump out of their skin over the refs calling the penalty for throwing ball in the air.

If you think the rule is bad, fine, but if you watch the replay, you'll be hard pressed to argue the ball wasn't thrown high in the air.

Furthermore, very few mentioned that the unsportsmanlike penalty didn't end the game. It didn't hand the Cougars the victory. It backed up a PAT 15 yards. All UW had to do to send the game to overtime was kick a 35-yard PAT from the dead center of the field. They couldn't do it.

The Seattle Times quotes both players and coaches who say that rule was correctly interpreted and enforced. They aren't happy about the rule, but they certainly weren't making the excuses ESPN was all night.

Why is ESPN making such a big deal of this? It could be be due to the media empire ESPN has built on flashy highlights that can be packaged into neat :30 packages and re-aired on each of their 6 channels on a loop.

ESPN could be taking the position that NCAA rules forbidding such dancing should be ridiculed on air constantly until they are dropped; this will lead to more glitzy highlights. They could have an interest in promoting more showboating and less sportsmanship.

Or perhaps it's because ESPN has a product to promote, and unfortunately for BYU, they aren't part of that product. Their games air on Verses (owned by Comcast) and CBS' new college sports channel.

Some talking heads have been asking if BYU should fall in the polls from their 15th spot due to only beating UW by one point. I don't have the footage to check, but I doubt that ESPN was calling for voters to drop No. 1, USC, after beating UW on the road last year by three points, nor did ESPN feel the need to tell voters to be sure to drop Ohio State after a less-than-stellar home win over a MAC team.

Perhaps they have an interest in promoting the teams that play their games on their channels.

In most sports, ESPN's Power Polls matter very little. The NBA analysts can gripe all they want about who is up and who is down. It won't effect the championship. College football is unique in that it's public perception actually effects who gets to play.

ESPN's sad abuse of their own power is getting tired.

January Madness: Finding a College Football Playoff That Works

Greg Welch — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:01:47 -0400

Surveys of college football fans have found upwards of 90 percent would like to see a playoff in college football. The only problem comes when the type of playoff is specified—then the support doesn’t stay as consolidated.

Without addressing the problem of convincing the university presidents to commit to a playoff, or getting the bowls to release their iron-clad grip on college football’s postseason, what is the kind of playoff that will most closely capture the magic of March Madness, without harming the meaning of the regular season?

The NCAA basketball tournament is great because of three reasons:

The championship is proven on the court.

Sure, media pundits and athletic directors seed the tournament—but once you’re in, it’s win or go home.

Open access / Clear path.

Every school in the country knows how to punch their ticket: Win their conference. For some it’s the regular season, for most it’s the conference tournament—but every coach can stand in front of their team in November and say, "If we win these games, we’re in."

Cinderella gets a shot at the big boys.

One of the most important parts of March Madness, what makes every March special, are the "Cinderella" teams—the Davidsons, the George Masons, the Gonzagas. They might not win it all, but they don’t need to. They just need to beat one team to throw a wrench in the whole thing. No one can argue that the NCAA would be what is today without them.

So what kind of football tournament would capture these elements? What kind of rules would provide enough access to teams without rendering September and October a meaningless preseason?

The NCAA should create a tournament that invites the eight highest-ranked conference champions to a single-elimination tournament. No conference would have a guaranteed invitation, and there would be no set list of the eight conferences to be invited every year.

If the ACC or Big East had a down year, and the champions of CUSA, the MWC, and the WAC were all ranked ahead of the ACC champion or Big East champ, the BCS conference champs would stay home.

If a team from the MAC or Sun Belt caught fire and went 12-0 or 11-1, they would get a shot, much as 12-0 Utah in 2004 or 12-0 Boise State in 2006 did.

A tournament of eight Conference Champions would capture the magic of March Madness because:

It gets proven on the field.

I have no problems using AP or BCS polls to seed the tournament, but using rankings and votes as the only criterion for a tournament invitation is foolish. No one knows which teams are really the top two, or top four, or top eight. The AP writers don’t know, and the guy that fills out the coach’s poll for him doesn’t know. That’s why every sport on the planet determines its championship on the field.

Everyone knows what they have to do.

Not only is the tournament itself proven on the field, but access to the tournament is as well. In August, when training camp starts, every coach could stand in front of his team and say, “If we win all our games, we could win a national championship.” Many coaches, inside and outside the BCS conferences, can’t say that to their kids now.

The whole point of inviting only conference champions (rather than inviting some number based on a poll) is that the access is proven on the field. Teams that lost early but got hot (like Georgia last year) might complain, but everyone had a chance. If a team can’t win its conference, it shouldn’t be in a national championship tournament.

The Cinderellas get their shot.

Utah, Boise State, and Hawaii have all been invited to play in BCS games. No one knows how far 2004’s Utah team or 2006's Boise State team would have advanced in a tournament, but few will argue there’s no chance Utah or Boise could have won at least one game.

The NCAA basketball tournament is so special because the big teams invite the challenge: “You think you can beat me? Step onto the court and prove it.” The current BCS structure, and any tournament that only includes BCS schools, would be an elitist money-grab that says, "Our athletic budget is bigger than yours. Get off our field.”

Here’s what we would have had in 2007:

1. Ohio State

8. BYU

4. Oklahoma

5. USC

6. West Virginia

3. Virginia Tech

2. LSU

7. Hawaii

The highest ranked non-champions, (like Georgia or Missouri) may complain that they have been left out, or that they are clearly better than Hawaii or BYU—and they might be right—but including non-conference champions (through an at-large format) kills the regular season.

You can’t give Georgia a second chance without rendering their first chance meaningless. They had their shot. Why should they get another?

SEC teams may also complain that having only one school is unfair to their amazingly strong conference. But in this format, the best teams from the best conferences are rewarded: They get the high seeds. That’s what strong conferences and good teams deserve.

Also, eight teams mean every week still matters. You can’t win your conference by taking a week off or getting much better halfway through the season. A 16-team tournament means you’d have several two and three and even four-loss teams in, with conference rematch games possible.

Finally, an eight-team tournament means those conference championship games that the ACC, SEC, and Big XII have invested so much in are now bids to the really big dance. They would have all the spirit of March’s championship week in early December.

How many SEC fans would travel to Atlanta to watch an SEC championship game if both teams would be playing in a 16-team tournament a few weeks later? How many SEC fans would travel to Atlanta with a berth in an eight-team tournament on the line?

Perhaps as travel costs continue to skyrocket and the economy teeters on recession, enough financial motivation will finally exist for the college football brass to give the fans what they want.

Hopefully, when they do, they’ll give them something that will be as special as March Madness.

Pac-10: An Exhaustive Examination of Expansion Options

Greg Welch — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:34:42 -0400

The Pac-10 is currently looking for a new commissioner. Outgoing commissioner Tom Hansen has been a famous football traditionalist, resisting the BCS, conference basketball tournaments, and conference expansion.

Should the new commissioner of the Pac-10 take a more serious look at the revenue generated from expansion, what are the conference's options?

Below is a legitimate comparison of the non-BCS Western teams that come up as candidates for expansion: BYU, Utah, UNLV, UNR, Fresno, SDSU, Hawaii, Boise State, and TCU.

I wanted to look at real numbers for the kinds of things a conference should look for when looking to expand: football success, market, academics—not just the ESPN hype or message board hyperbole.

Also, for good measure I compared the Western schools to the non-BCS Eastern schools often reported as next in line for invitations to the Big East, if and when it expands: East Carolina, Central Florida, Memphis, and Southern Miss.

Finally, we’ll compare some numbers from the Big XII schools that are often mentioned as Pac-10 candidates: Texas A&M, Texas, and Colorado.

I realize that the Pac-10 wants the Texas schools, and I would too, but so did the Big VIII in 1995. Their original plan was reported to be to only take Texas and A&M, much like the Pac-10 would like to do now.

The Texas government (with pressure from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches) wouldn’t allow only those two to leave the SWC alone in 1995, and I doubt they’ll allow them to leave now.

The numbers show the strongest candidates to be Texas and A&M. After that a Colorado/Utah invitation would arguably be a better fit culturally and would bring in both the Denver and Salt Lake markets. However, I doubt any Big XII team wants to leave, or if the Pac-10 wants to make invitations only to be rejected.

Outside of those Big XII schools, the numbers below will show that among the national (not just Western) options for non-BCS teams:

BYU and Utah rank first and third for top 25 football finishes;

Rank first and second for football attendance;

Are classified by Carnegie as ‘research schools’ with Utah having ‘very high research activity’;

Bring new viewers within and outside the Pac-10 market;

Have solid athletic budgets (ranked second and sixth);

Have well-rounded athletic programs (with the second and fifth-highest men’s basketball attendance);

And maintain the rivalry pairing the conference is built on. Short of getting a Big XII team to defect, BYU and Utah are the best options. Have a look at the numbers:

I. Number of Football Seasons Ranked in Top 25

It’s pretty hard to compare teams who play in completely different conferences. How does one guess how well Boise’s 2006 team or BYU’s 1996 team would play if they were in the Pac-10? You can’t.

I have collected the number of times each program has finished the season nationally ranked in the top 25 of the AP or coaches poll. By using only national numbers, I think it’s a pretty good gauge of a team’s football reputation (i.e. BYU = pretty good. Nevada schools = nonexistent).

Pac-10

USC: 45

UCLA: 32

UW: 24

ASU: 19

Stanford: 15

Cal: 14

WSU: 11

Oregon State: 10

Oregon: 9

Zona: 7

Non-BCS

BYU: 15

TCU: 13

Utah: 4

Boise St.: 4

SDSU: 4

Hawaii: 3

East Carolina: 3

Fresno: 3

Southern Miss: 3

CSU: 3

Memphis: 1

Central Florida:0

UNLV: 0

UNR: 0

Big XII

Texas: 45

A&M: 23

Colorado: 21

II. Average Football Attendance, 2006 and 2007 (in thousands)

A second gauge of football power is how many people can you get to your games. This is important not only in terms of success, but marketability as well. The more people who watch the games live probably translates to more people who watch the games on TV.

While they do consistently sellout their stadium, the Pac-10 school with the lowest total attendance is in Pullman, WA with 33,000. The next lowest is Stanford with 40,000.

Pac-10

USC: 89.4

UCLA: 70.6

Cal: 63.7

UW: 62.6

ASU: 58.7

Oregon: 58.6

Zona: 53.9

Oregon State: 41.1

Stanford: 40.5

WSU: 33.3

Non-BCS

BYU: 62.5

Utah: 42.9

Hawaii: 40.0

East Carolina: 39.3

Fresno: 37.4

Central Florida: 37.1

Memphis: 31.0

TCU: 30.9

Boise St: 30.3

SDSU: 28.5

Southern Miss: 27.8

UNLV: 24.2

CSU: 22.9

UNR: 16.9

Big XII

Texas: 85.8

A&M: 79.0

Colorado: 48.2

III. Academics

Next is the much-ballyhooed ‘research institution’ problem. It is widely reported that the Pac-10 will only invite a fellow research school to its ranks. It looks to me like the way the Carnegie Foundation distinguishes research schools is by the number of doctoral programs the school has.

Twenty or more of these programs (JD, MD, PharmD, DPT, etc.) gets you in the Very High research club. Less than 20 gets you in the High Research Club. Some schools on the list have very few or no Doctoral programs.

In the Pac-10, Stanford, USC, Arizona, UCLA, Cal, UW, Oregon State, ASU, Oregon, and WSU are all “Research Universities with Very High Research Activity.”

Among the non-BCS schools, only Utah, Hawaii, and Colorado State are “Research Universities with Very High Research Activity.”

BYU, SDSU, UNLV, UNR, UCF, Memphis, and Southern Miss are “Research Universities with High Research Activity.”

TCU and East Carolina have the Doctoral Research label for some research, while Boise State and Fresno have no Doctoral Research programs and only award Masters Degrees.

All of the Big XII schools are “Research Universities with Very High Research Activity.”

Now, none of this makes any comparison about the undergraduate academic quality of any of these schools. It’s not a matter of average GPA coming in or the number of transfer students going out; it’s not even a matter of how good the Doctoral programs that exist are.

It’s only a matter of how many Doctoral programs a given school offers. Pac-10 schools have more than 20. BYU has less than 20, but it is still considered by Carnegie to be a “Research University.”

IV. Market Ranking

While it’s nice to talk about football and academics, only three things drove the Big VIII to raid the SWC, or the ACC to raid the Big East: market size, ratings, and money.

Obviously, some considerations need to be taken into account. Some colleges are in major metro areas (SDSU) but have less than stellar attendance and probably less than stellar ratings that go with them.

Other schools are in smaller areas (Oregon) but have a good national reputation and deliver good ratings in a nearby market.

One other caveat often overlooked about BYU is the number of Mormons in existing Pac-10 markets. In 2006, California had 750,000, Arizona had 361,000, Oregon had 143,000, and Washington had 248,000 Mormons for a total of 1.5 million Mormons within the Pac-10 footprint. That’s equivalent to the population of Phoenix.

Now, many of them are certainly already fans of their local teams, but looking at the number of students and football players who come to BYU from Pac-10 states, there are many BYU fans out there as well.

Even without considering BYU fans already living in Pac-10 markets, BYU and Utah are near the top of the list and command the market they are in.

Pac-10

USC: 1

UCLA: 1

Cal: 4

Stanford: 4

UW: 14

ASU: 15

Oregon: 23 (Portland), 148 (Eugene)

Oregon State: 23 (Portland), 148 (Corvallis)

Zona: 61

WSU: 92 (Spokane)

Non-BCS

TCU: 4

SDSU: 17

BYU: 31

Utah: 31

UNLV: 33

Central Florida: 34

Memphis: 49

Hawaii: 64

Fresno: 66

East Carolina: 89

Boise St.: 102

CSU: 123

UNR: 124

Southern Miss: 227

Big XII

Texas: 4 (Dallas), 42 (Austin)

A&M: 4 (Dallas), 243 (College Station)

Colorado: 22 (Denver-Boulder)

V. Athletic Department Budget (in millions)

Finally, here are two gauges of overall athletic commitment. This is a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg problem.

Many of the non-BCS schools would surely have larger budgets if they got a bigger slice of the BCS pie. Any school invited to the Pac-10 would be able to upgrade (much like Louisville, Cincinnati, and Connecticut have done in the Big East).

However, this list does show what these schools have been able to build without the BCS dollars.

Pac-10

USC: $76

Stanford: $65

UCLA: $61

Cal: $60

UW: $59

ASU: $53

Oregon: $50

Zona: $45

Oregon State: $45

WSU: $31

Non-BCS

TCU: $39

BYU: $32

SDSU: $31

Central Florida: $29

Memphis: $29

Utah: $26

Hawaii: $26

East Carolina: $25

UNLV: $25

Fresno: $25

Boise St: $22

CSU: $19

UNR: $19

Southern Miss: $16

Big XII

Texas: $105

A&M: $69

Colorado: $42

VI. Basketball Attendance, 2007 (in thousands)

Similar to the look at Athletic Budgets, this is a gauge of general athletic power. Schools like Boise State and TCU have developed solid football programs, but how is the rest of the program?

Pac-10

Zona: 14.2

UCLA: 10.4

UW: 9.9

Cal: 8.4

Oregon: 8.4

WSU: 7.1

Stanford: 7.0

ASU: 6.9

USC: 5.7

Oregon State: 5.1

Non-BCS

Memphis: 14.5

BYU: 12.0

Fresno: 11.7

UNLV: 11.3

Utah: 9.5

UNR: 8.9

SDSU: 7.8

Hawaii: 6.4

CSU: 4.6

East Carolina: 4.5

Boise St: 4.3

TCU: 3.7

Southern Miss: 3.4

Central Florida: 2.7

Big XII

Texas: 12.9

A&M: 9.8

Colorado: 3.3

VII. Rivalries

Finally, any pair of schools invited into the Pac-10 probably should continue the pattern of sets of geographic and reciprocal rivals. Of the Western schools, only BYU/Utah and UNLV/UNR can do this.

After all the numbers, it should be pretty obvious that BYU and Utah bring significantly more to the table than the Nevada schools.

Among the others, Hawaii has several ‘rivals’: Fresno State, Boise State, and BYU, but only from conference play.

Boise’s geographic rival is University of Idaho, but their jump to I-A football hasn’t gone as smoothly.

Colorado and Colorado State could develop into the kind of rivalry that the Pac-10 is looking for, but Colorado probably considers Nebraska their biggest rival, rather than the Rams.

So, those are the numbers. To wrap up, if BYU and Utah are invited, the conference could be split in a way that gives all schools access to the Southern California market, as well as accenting the conference’s rivalries.

University Division

Washington, Oregon, Cal, UCLA, Arizona, Utah

State Division

WSU, OSU, Stanford, USC, ASU, BYU

References:

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/

http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/attendance/IA_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=782&lookup=true&search_flag=true&start=782&search_string=Arizona&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&back=true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_radio_markets

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/search.asp

http://www.ncaa.org/stats/m_basketball/attendance/2007_basketball_attend.pdf