Archive for January, 2009
Utah, the MWC and the BCS
The Rise of the MWC
Yesterday, the Mountain West Conference formally announced that they will be seeking an automatic bid into the 5 annual BCS games. Currently, there are 10 bids each year, 6 automatic and 4 at-large. The 6 automatic bids go to the winners of the current conferences with automatic bid status: Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac 10, ACC and SEC. The MWC is seeking to be included into this group based on a stellar 2008 season which saw its conference champion ( Utah ) topple a team ranked #1 for most of the season ( Alabama ) and finish with the only perfect record in the country. The MWC also placed 2 other teams in the top 25 BCS final BCS standings.
Getting Invited To The Party
The current BCS rules allow for up to 7 conferences to receive automatic bids. Eligibility evaluation happens on a 4 year cycle. Eligibility for the 2008 – 2013 seasons was based on the BCS results from 2004-2007. Each evaluation cycle uses the following criteria for eligibility for an automatic bid (BCS eligibility rules)
The evaluation data includes the following for each conference (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.
The current evaluation period runs from the 2008 season through 2011. That period will determine eligibility for the regular seasons after 2013.
Unfortunately, based on the paragraph above, the evolution criteria is rather ambiguous. However, there are 3 criteria listed, so we can at least see how the MWCs 2008 season stacks up against the 6 BCS conferences from 2004-2007.
Note: The Final BCS standings are actually the last set of standings that determine the bowl matchups. There are no BCS standings created post-bowls, so the bowl results are not taken into account with regards to the BCS standings.
2 Out Of 3 Ain’t Bad
If we take a look at the 1st and the 3rd criteria for the current BCS conferences from the last evaluation period, we get the following graphs:
We can see a few things just from the data in two graphs:
- The Pac-10 is tied for the fewest average number of top 25 teams w/ the Big East, but it’s also tied with the highest team rank w/ the SEC. In short, the Pac-10 has been very top heavy recently, a fact backed up by our own research.
- The Big East, ACC, MWC and WAC are very close in terms of high team ranking for the period.
- The SEC consistently gets a higher percentage of their teams into the top 25 than any other conference.
We can also see that the MWC ( and the WAC ) had a pretty respectable showing in the past 4 years. In fact, if we looked at the underlying data for the evaluation period, we would see that:
- Boise State has ended its regular season in the top 25 in 3 out of the 4 years during this period.
- The MWC has placed a team in the top 25 every year and is the only non-BCS conference to accomplish such a feat.
- The Big 10 has placed a team in the top 3 the last 3 years which was highlighted by OSUs back-to-back title game appearances as the #1 team in ’06 & ’07. They’re only the conference to do so.
2008
So how does the 2008 season compare against the averages of the current BCS conferences during the evaluation period? Well, with the giant caveat that this is based on just one season ( 2008 ), let’s take a look:
Note: The bar represents the average highest ranked BCS team from 04-07 ( 5.75 ), meaning the highest ranked BCS conference team from any given conference during 04-07 was ranked between 5th & 6th.
Note: The bar represents the average number of BCS teams in the Top 25 from 04-07 (3.75), meaning the average number of teams to be ranked in the Top 25 from any given BCS conference from 04-07 was between 3 & 4.
Now, these are only two of the listed evaluation criteria. Keeping that in mind, we can see that 2008 was a very good year for the MWC, not only in relation to the rest of the BCS conferences, but also to the BCS conference averages during the last evaluation period. In fact, only 3 conferences had a higher ranked team or more teams in the top 25 in 2008. The 2008 season was right in line or better than the averages of the other BCS conferences from 04-07. If the MWC keeps up their 2008 performance throughout the evaluation period ( 2008-2011 ), they certainly would have an excellent argument that they deserve an automatic bid.
Computer Rankings: What about me guys?
Unfortunately for us, the last criteria, the final computer rankings of all the conference teams, are not discussed above. That’s because the authors are still trying to locate the complete rankings. The BCS only keeps track of the top 25, which is unfortunate. If anyone knows of a source of complete computer rankings, drop us a line.
Conclusion
After only one stellar season, the MWC looks poised to make a run at an automatic bid. If the BCS evaluation rules were a little clearer, we’d know for sure what they need to attain. However, I’m confident that the school presidents and heads of the MWC will pressure the BCS to reveal those rules, hopefully without the threat of litigation. This college football ecosystem maintains a delicate balance and the BCS conferences need the non-BCS conferences, especially for scheduling. If there is no carrot to reward teams and conferences, there is less of a reason for non-BCS conferences to participate.
USC, the Pac-10 and the BCS
Note: The discussion below is only concerned with pre-bowl performance. Since we’re discussing inclusion into BCS bowls, bowl results don’t factor in.
The dominance of USC
Beginning with the 2003 college football season and continuing w/ the 2008 season, USC has won at least a share of the Pac-10 title every year. This includes 4 outright titles and 2 split titles ( w/ Cal in 2006 and ASU in 2007 ). Since the Pac-10 is a BCS automatic qualifying conference, this means that USC has gone to 6 straight BCS bowls, with many of those being the Rose Bowl. During this 6 year span, USC has compiled an astounding 66-6 regular season record with 1 BCS championship and 1 AP championship. Truly, USC has been one of, if not the most, successful team in college football over these 6 years.
While the above information is nothing new to most college football fans, even casual ones, what may be surprising is the fact that during the same 6 year span, not a single other Pac-10 team has made an appearance in a BCS game.
Note: The BCS automatically includes the conference winner of the 6 membership conferences. Prior to the 06-07 season, there were 2 additional teams given at-large bids. Since 06-07, the number of at-large bids was expanded to 4 with the addition of a 5th BCS game representing the national championship game.
The failure of the Pac-10
While it’s not surprising to see that the dominance of USC has prevented another Pac-10 team from winning the conference, it is surprising to see that there hasn’t been a second elite level team in the Pac-10 over that time. Generally, a Pac-10 team plays 12 games a year: 9 conference games against the other Pac-10 teams plus 3 non-conference games. This means that a team can go 3-0 out of conference and 8-1 in conference ( w/ a loss vs USC ) for a 11-1 record. Typically such a record is awarded by a high ranking in the BCS standings and a BCS at-large bid. However, since 2003, there have only been three non-USC teams to compile even a 10 win season:
- Cal ( 2004 ): 10-1
- Oregon ( 2005 ): 10-1
- Arizona St. ( 2007 ): 10-2
In 2004, the only at-large BCS birth given went to Texas with an 11-1 record.
Note: In 2005, Utah, the first non-BCS conference team to play in a BCS game, was given an automatic bid in accordance w/ the rules for non-BCS teams and automatic bids.
In 2005, a 10-1 Oregon team, ranked #5 in the BCS standings, was passed over in favor of a pair of 9-2 teams, Notre Dame and Ohio State University. OSU was ranked #4 and Notre Dame was ranked #6. Notre Dame received an automatic bid for being ranked within the top 8 of the BCS standings.
In 2007, Arizona St., ranked #11, was passed over in favor of Illinois, ranked #13, from the Big 10. The Rose Bowl officials wanted to maintain the Pac-10 vs. Big 10 match up after losing Ohio State to the championship game. They also did not want a rematch of 20 point ASU loss to USC just a few weeks prior. However, ASU doesn’t have the biggest gripe since 11-2 Missouri, ranked #6, was also passed over in favor of 11-1 Kansas, ranked #8, which it beat during the year for the Big 12 North Division title. 10-2 Georgia (#5) from the SEC was chosen by the Sugar Bowl and given the last at-large bid.
Note: Hawaii, a school from the non-BCS affiliated WAC conference, was given an automatic bid for finishing within the top 12 of the BCS standings.
Unfortunately for the Pac-10, these 3 seasons were not rewarded. Contrast that to the 5 other BCS conferences and the number of teams with a record of 10-2 or better from 2003-2008:
- ACC: 6 seasons – Florida St. (1), Va Tech (4) and Wake Forrest (1)
- Big 12: 12 seasons – Oklahoma (5), Texas (4), Kansas (1), Missouri (1) and Texas Tech (1)
- Big East: 7 seasons – Mia (1), West Virgina (3), Rutgers (1), Louisville (1) and Cincinnati (1)
- Big 10: 9 seasons – Michigan (2), Ohio St. (4), Penn St. (2), Wisconsin (1)
- SEC: 12 seasons – Tennessee (1), LSU (4), Auburn (2), Georgia (2), Florida (2), Alabama (1)
Only the ACC matches the Pac-10s top heavy ratio of 10-2 or better seasons for one team and the ACC did it with a smaller number of seasons ( 6 vs. 9 ) and with one fewer team ( 3 vs. 4 ).
Pac-10: Worst BCS conference?
While the above numbers of the other conferences are impressive compared to the numbers of the Pac-10, let’s reexamine the stark contrast between the Pac-10 and other conference with regards to BCS participation. Examine the graph below:
BCS Appearances By Conference
Note: ND is represented at the same data point as the MWC. ND has appeared in 2 games, while the MWC has had 1 team ( Utah ) also appear in 2 games. Also, Miami made one appearance in a BCS game as a member of the Big East, so they are counted for the Big East.
Looking at the graph above, one can see a few interesting points:
- There have been more non-BCS teams ( 3 ) in BCS games than Pac-10 teams ( 1 ) in the last 6 years.
- Two other BCS conferences ( ACC & Big East ) have made the bare minimum of BCS appearances ( 6 ), but both have done it with more teams ( 3 & 5 )
- Contrary to popular belief, the Big 10 seems to be the most consistently successful BCS conference, playing both their champion and an at-large team in a BCS game 5 out of the last 6 years. We’ll tackle the Big 10 in another post, though.
- The SEC has been the most competitive and the most successful BCS conference, with 9 appearances by 5 different teams.
Conclusion
Much has been made recently about the lack of a truly dominant team in the ACC or the Big East. Many pundits and commentators have tagged one ( or both of those conferences ) as the worst BCS conference. Some have even lobbied to have their automatic bid status revoked. However, looking at the numbers above, it’s easy to see that the Pac-10 is the least competitive conference in the BCS. In fact, the Pac-10 could have had it’s automatic membership status revoked and its status within the BCS would not have changed since USC would still have been awarded an at-large bid. In our next post, we’ll take a closer look at the Pac-10 and it’s second most successful member, the University of California.