5 Yard Out: Mountain West Conference (MWC)

The Mountain West Conference (MWC) landed a team in the BCS for the third straight year, but in a few short years, the MWC will be a shell of what it was this year. Conference expansion and losing Brady Hoke to Michigan make it impossible for the MWC to ever reach BCS AQ status. Those are off the field issues, let’s get to what happened on the field this year.

Weekly Trivia: Oklahoma BCS Bowl Wins

The answer to last week's trivia question, " Which FBS conference won the Bowl Challenge Cup in 2009-10?" is the Mountain West Conference with a 4-1 record.

On to this week's question. Oklahoma beat UConn in the Fiesta Bowl to reverse their recent trend in BCS bowls—lose when favored. This week’s trivia question is:

When was Oklahoma’s last BCS bowl win?

Leave your answer in the comments section. The answer will be revealed next Wednesday when a new question is asked.

For more trivia questions, visit the Trivia page.

Monday Musings: Ohio State Buckeyes Arrive Late and Leave Early, But Still Get The Job Done

Thanksgiving weekend is typically one of the greatest weekends of college football. This year was no exception.

1. Arrive Late, Leave Early. Looking at the box score to the Ohio State-Michigan game, the scoring by quarters stuck out to me. Ohio State scored 0, 24, 13, and 0 points. While the Buckeyes were held scoreless in the first and the fourth quarters, they did enough in the second and third to win. Of course, it helps that Michigan only made a cameo appearance in the second quarter.

2. Rewarding Mediocrity? Auburn jumping Oregon into the top spot in the BCS is like rewarding mediocrity. Oregon thumped a good Arizona squad 49-28. Auburn, on the other hand, fell behind 24-0. It took injuries and turnovers for the Tigers to claw their way back for a one point win. I am not trying to take anything away from the win for Auburn. It’s just that I don’t understand how you can move Auburn ahead of Oregon on the merits of the two games that they played.

3. Special Teams is 1/3 of the game. You hear coaches say it, and it is very cliché, but special teams directly decided the outcome of two games this weekend. The high profile game was Boise State-Nevada, where the Boise State kicker missed two “easy” field goals. One at the end of regulation that would have ended the game, and another in overtime that would have forced Nevada to score a touchdown to win. The other game was BYU-Utah. BYU had a 16-10 lead and forced Utah to punt midway through the fourth quarter. The Utah punter shanked the punt, but to Utah’s great fortune, hit a BYU cover man. Utah was able to recover the ball and eventually scored a touchdown to go ahead 17-16. BYU was still able to drive into field goal range to attempt a game winner with four seconds to play. Utah blocked the kick.

4. Stuffing the ballot. Two weeks after running up the score on Indiana, Wisconsin was at it again. This time they rolled up 70 points to Northwestern’s 23. Wisconsin needed all the votes they could get to assure itself the Big Ten AQ spot in the BCS. Since Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Ohio State all have identical 7-1 conference records, the team with the highest BCS ranking gets the BCS bid.

5. Is nothing sacred in the MAC? In back-to-back weekends, Ohio and Miami (OH) beat up Temple. Wins in those two games would have put Temple in the MAC championship game. Now the Owls are third in their division.

6. The new WAC is Conference USA? Forget the fact that the Mountain West Conference is adding Boise State, Fresno State, Nevada, and probably Hawaii. Conference USA is where you need to go to see wild and high scoring shootouts that the WAC became known for 20 years ago. Conf. USA games featured scores like 56-50, 45-38, and in every game, the winner scored over 30 points, except one (Rice had 28).

7. Fisher makes a splash. Florida State head coach Jimbo Fisher is making a splash his first year as the head man in Tallahassee. The Seminoles beat Florida for the first time since 2003, and they will be playing in the ACC championship game for the first time since 2005.

8. Contract Extension? Will we be hearing about a contract extension for Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly? His Notre Dame Fighting Irish beat USC for the first time since 2001. When Charlie Weis lost to the Trojans 34-31 in 2005, he was rewarded with a generous contract extension.

9. Pulling for South Florida. There has to be little question that the Big East powers that be are silently rooting for a South Florida win this week over UConn coupled with a West Virginia win. If UConn wins, the Big East would be sending an unranked representative to the BCS.

10. Top heavy. The Mountain West Conference is often criticized by BCS bullies that it is a “top heavy” conference. Let’s throw that label on the Big Ten this year. Three teams are 11-1, after that the next best team is 7-5. How should I say this? A Big Ten conference schedule wouldn’t exactly qualify as, um, murderer’s row.

Other recent posts on COLLEGE FOOTBALL HAVEN:
Poll Results: Who Will Win The Big XII?
College Football Haven Top 25, Week 13, 2010
Game Predictions, Week 13, 2010
Weekly Trivia: Texas A&M Aggies and Texas Longhorns Win-Loss Record
Heisman Hopefuls: Oklahoma State Cowboys Justin Blackmon Is Added To The List
Michigan Wolverines Will Fire Rich Rodriguez Next Monday

Game Predictions, Week 1

The game predictions each week will be pretty simple and straight forward. I will select around 20-25 games that I find interesting, but that also represent each FBS conference. Feel free to chime in with your picks, or at least where you agree or disagree. If I leave out a game that really interests you, throw out your prediction for that.

Thursday, September 2
Pittsburgh at Utah: 24-21, Pitt
Northern Illinois at Iowa State: 21-14, Northern Illinois
Florida Atlantic at UAB: 17-10, UAB
Southern Mississippi at South Carolina: 31-24, South Carolina
USC at Hawaii: 38-7, USC
Minnesota at Middle Tennessee: 31-10, Minnesota

Friday, September 3
Arizona at Toledo: 21-17, Arizona

Saturday, September 4
TCU vs. Oregon State: 24-13 TCU
LSU vs. North Carolina: 28-14, LSU
Illinois vs. Missouri: 31-28, Missouri
Colorado vs. Colorado State: 21-13, Colorado
Kentucky at Louisville: 28-20, Kentucky
North Texas at Clemson: 34-13, Clemson
Troy at Bowling Green: 24-10, Bowling Green
New Mexico at Oregon: 28-10, Oregon
Purdue at Notre Dame: 21-13 Notre Dame
Memphis at Mississippi State: 31-10, Mississippi State
Cincinnati at Fresno State: 24-21, Fresno State
Western Michigan at Michigan State: 24-10, Michigan State
Connecticut at Michigan: 31-30, Michigan

Sunday, September 5
SMU at Texas Tech: 34-27, SMU

Monday, September 6
Virginia Tech vs. Boise State: 21-17, Boise State
Navy vs. Maryland: 31-17, Navy

If you missed College Football Haven's Top 25 this week, click here.
If you missed College Football Haven's Heisman Hopefuls this week, click here.
If you missed this week's trivia question, click here.

The Mountain West Conference Has BCS Automatic Qualifying Hopes Detoured

In the latest (and last?) round of college football conference realignment, the Mountain West Conference (MWC) saw its hopes for BCS automatic qualifying (AQ) status take a detour. Reports surfaced two weeks ago that the Brigham Young Cougars would leave the MWC and become a football independent. The Cougars will made it offical August 31, 2010, and they are holding a press conference today at 12:00 PM (MDT).

The MWC didn't waste any time inviting Fresno State and Nevada as soon as the initial reports about BYU were published. While this might have been the best possible way for the MWC to react, the MWC had no way to offset the loss of BYU when it comes to the conference's goal for BCS AQ status. To briefly review, BCS AQ status is determined by conference performance over a four year period. The current evaluation period commenced in 2008. BYU was nationally ranked at the end of 2008 and 2009 (number 21 and 12, respectively). BYU was in the final BCS standings in 2008 and 2009 (16 and 14). How does this apply to the MWC? First, Fresno State and Nevada won't make it to the MWC in time for their play to count for the MWC in the current four year cycle. Second, once they get to the MWC, they don't bring anything to improve the MWC bottom line. Neither Fresno State nor Nevada has been ranked in either rankings the last two years. The end result is that the MWC will go from a 9 team conference with 3 aces to a 10 team league with 2 aces.

The MWC will not, however, give up on trying to gain AQ status. This chain of events is not necessarily a death blow. It is merely a detour delaying this dream. The collection of TCU, Boise State, Air Force, Fresno State, and Nevada has the potential of developing into a respected top half of the conference. If any of these teams fail to do their part, then Wyoming and San Diego State are poised to join that group. These two schools need to build on the progress they made last year under new head coaches, and find a way to keep those coaches from leaving. This could make 2016 the magic year for the MWC.

In the end, the MWC will land on its feet. Boise State is not running back to the WAC. TCU won't return to Conference USA. The only question that remains is will Senator Orrin Hatch give it a rest?

Mountain West Conference Football Season Preview for 2010

The Mountain West Conference (MWC) has been on a roll the last few years with TCU and the Utah Utes going to BCS bowls. How do things look for 2010?

1. Who will win the conference? TCU Horned Frogs. Not only will TCU win the MWC, but they have a pretty clear path to another undefeated regular season and a second consecutive BCS bowl game. BYU and Utah will provide more of a challenge this year than last, but TCU should come out on top in the end.

2. Who is the top returning player? Carmen Messina, New Mexico. The Lobos linebacker led the nation in tackles (162) as a sophomore. He is going to give Brian Urlacher a run for his money as the best linebacker in New Mexico Lobos history if he posts similar numbers this year.

3. Which team will be the most improved? San Diego State Aztecs. Head Coach Brady Hoke brought competitiveness to San Diego last year, and this year they will take the next step and go bowling. They may even push Air Force for that number four spot in the conference.

4. What will be the biggest surprise? One of the "Big 3" (TCU, BYU, Utah) will lose to one of the other six members of the conference. No one has done it for a few years, but this year will be different. It could happen as early as September 11 when BYU and Air Force meet and Utah plays UNLV. Air Force usually plays Utah close, and the Cadets could trip up Utah on October 30 if the Utes are looking ahead to TCU the next week. Utah faces San Diego State after playing TCU and Notre Dame, back-to-back, and the week before rival BYU.

5. Which coach is on the hottest seat? Mike Locksley, New Mexico. After the disaster on the field (1-11) and the distractions off the field, Locksley is on a short leash. Even if everything off the field is in check, another one win season and he can expect to be canned.

Poll Results: What was the best expansion move?

Nebraska to the Big 10 received the most votes for best expansion move (44%). Boise State to the MWC was second with 33%, and Utah to the Pac 12 received the rest of the votes. Thank you to all who voted.

Don't forget to take a few seconds to vote in the new poll: Who will be the best quarterback in 2010?

Lessons Learned from Conference Expansion

Now that most of the dust has settled from conference expansion, let's see what we have learned.

1. Notre Dame is not the most powerful school in the country. That designation now belongs to Texas. Texas was able to turn college football on its head and then put it back on its feet, all in less than one week. The Longhorns had grown men fearing for their futures and desperately begging Texas to keep the status quo. Most importantly, Texas was able to leverage more money and control in the Big 12.

2. Expansion is all about money. Being good in football or basketball took a back row seat to other factors like the size of a school's local media market, the number of television sets that watch a school's games, and the impact on travel costs. Each conference did not hide that they would not expand if the current membership would not receive as much TV and other monies. Schools that have not fielded competitive teams in years (Colorado) were viewed more favorably than schools that win more than anyone else (Boise State). Schools that are very logical additions geographically (Pitt) are being rejected for schools that expand the conference footprint (Nebraska).

3. There are no loyalties. Each school will do what is best for it. While conferences were created to better the collective group, that won't stop one part of that group from leaving if a better offer comes along. Utah, with a BYU grad as school president and a former BYU player as its head football coach, had no concern about the impacts of its move on BYU and the rest of the Mountain West. Colorado couldn't accept the Pac-10's invite fast enough to throw Baylor to the curb. While doom and gloom was being forecasted for Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, and Iowa State, Nebraska happily jumped to the safety of the Big 10. The Boise State Broncos probably have not thought twice about how the WAC will be the Sun Belt of the West once they leave.

4. The Pac-10 is properly situation on the left coast. I, for one, was shocked to see the way certain schools in that conference openly opposed the addition of religious schools like Baylor and BYU. Come on, this is sports we are talking about. Why are you going to let liberal ideas get in the way of a good sports competition? Each conference has its own identity, but it is hard to find another conference that cares more about its identity than the Pac-10.

5. The power of the people. From the outset last December, all conferences proclaimed that this would be a 12 to 18 month process. That did not stop fans and media from talking about expansion and postulating expansion scenarios. Facts and data were being thrown out left and right arguing the merits of School A vs. School B. Demands for updates and leaks to the media fueled the fire. The people were heard and a mere six months later, the Big 10 and Pac 10 have made their moves (as well as the Mountain West, but that was more reactionary). The Big 12 is uncertain what it will do, but be assured that whatever timetable is set will be sped up by the people pushing for a resolve.

The Big 12 Will Be Fine

Let's say Nebraska and Missouri leave the Big 12 for the Big 10. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado then follow suit and leave for the Pac-10. Now what? Well, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor, first of all, I can assure you that the sun will rise the next day, and when it does rise here is the plan for you.

The Big 12 leftovers will be in a favorable situation, for being leftovers. Being positioned in the middle of the country, they have the option now of picking and choosing from the strong schools on the west and east of them. Take your time, because you will have time, and look at the following candidates.

Mountain West (MWC)
Air Force, BYU, TCU, and Utah

Big East
Cincinnati, Louisville

Conference USA
Houston, SMU, Southern Mississippi, and Tulsa

These schools provide two key ingredients: 1) An expanded conference footprint, while maintaining the traditional Big 12 footprint, and 2) A conference that could still be an automatic qualifyier in the BCS. You can pick your size, anywhere from 9 to 12 teams (5-8 in addition to the four leftovers). Here are some scenarios:

Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Iowa State
Houston
TCU or SMU
Cincinnati
BYU or Utah
Air Force
As long as you take TCU over SMU, this conference should be stong enough for a BCS AQ. The only problem is that long term, SMU might be better at getting attention in Dallas/Ft. Worth and Texas in general. :

Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Iowa State
Houston
TCU or SMU
Cincinnati
BYU
Utah
Air Force
Louisville
Southern Mississippi
This will give you 12 teams to hold a championship game. You are taking a chance on BCS AQ status with Louisville, but the basketball showdowns with Kansas could be too irresistable. Hopefully with both BYU and Utah, the conference will be strong enough to get AQ status.

The moral of this post is to keep your heads high Jayhawks, Wildcats, Bears, and Cyclones. The Big 12 has a future, and it might not be all that bad.

Conference Expansion Craziness

Sorry I have not posted a real article or anything for such a long time. Thank you to those who still frequented the site and have been participating in the opinion polls.

We are in the middle of what is supposed to be the quiet time for college football. Letter of Intent day is long passed and the spring football practice sessions wrapped up weeks ago. Classes are out and the coaches can't have contact with the players. Yet, the conference expansion craze is generating enough headlines and discussion to make this as busy as the regular season. Let's quickly run down the popular possibilities for each conference in expansion.

Big 10
We will start with the one that is responsible for this mess.
Plan A is to add Notre Dame to reach 12 and hold a championship game.
Plan B seems to be to take teams from the Big 12 and Big East to reach 14. Top candidates include the Big 12's Nebraska and Missouri and the Big East's Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt.

Pac-10
Plan A is to change the rule for championship games to conferences with 10 teams, as opposed to the current minimum of 12.
Plan A-1 emerged just last weekend to add six Big 12 schools that would include Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Colorado or Baylor.
Plan B Add Colorado and Utah to reach 12 and get a championship game to leverage a better TV deal and start a Pac-12 Network.

Big 12
Plan A is to weather the storm by keeping the nucleus of Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. They would prefer not to lose any team, but if Missouri goes they will survive.
Plan B add BYU, Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, Arkansas, or another team NOT IN THE CURRENT BIG 12 FOOTPRINT to replace Missouri.

SEC
Plan A is to wait and see what happens knowing most likely they won't have to do anything.
Plan B is to expand to 16 teams by attacking the ACC and/or Big 12. Popular candidates include Texas, Texas A&M, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and Georgia Tech.

Big East
Plan A is to give Notre Dame an ultimatum to join the conference for football or lose membership for its other sports. This is viewed as the best hope for survival, regardless of Notre Dame's response. The idea is to stop radical changes by forcing Notre Dame to join the Big 10 or, in their dreams, to stabilize the Big East by having Notre Dame as a football school.
Plan B die.
Plan C reach into the mid-majors again and repopulate the conference after the dust settles.

THE REST
Plan A is to wait and see. The Mountain West Conference (MWC) made this clear yesterday in a press conference announcing that Boise State would not be added. The ACC will only add teams if it loses teams or 16 becomes the new 12. The rest of the mid-majors won't expand unless one of the major conferences disbands and they feel they can capitalize with one of the once privileged "BCS schools."

With all these options on the table, which make the most sense and are the most likely?
Big 10 Plan A. Probably not going to happen. Notre Dame is being very vocal about wanting to stay independent, which means that is probably the message the boosters are sending. Notre Dame will listen to its boosters more than the Big 10.
Big 10 Plan B. Rumors are that Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10 is immenent and could be annouced very soon. I think this has a high probability of happening, but not this month. Expansion is as big of a decision for these conferences as marraige is to an individual. The conferences will take the time that they need. These two teams would bring the total to 13 for the Big 10, which means one Big East team needs to come along. Pitt has the best football program, but offers the least new market. Rutgers has shown promise and the head coach is committed to the school, but how much market do the Scarlet Knights really bring? Syracuse has been putrid in football, but is great in basketball. However, the Orangemen seem to have the potential of delivering the most TV sets. I would rank the likelihood of these teams joining the Big 10 as 1-Rutgers, 2-Pitt, 3-Syracuse.
Pac-10 Plan A and A-1. Until the news broke about the 6 Big 12 schools I thought changing the championship game rule was going to happen and the Pac-10 would not change. If the numbers add up for Texas, I think the six Big 12 teams will end up joining the Pac. I have no expertise in projecting TV revenues, but I think there is a good chance that Texas would stand to profit with this arrangement with the Pac-10. If not, I think this opens a new can of worms for the top teams from the Pac and the top teams from the Big 12 to form a new 12-16 team conference hand picking the teams that would make the $$$ numbers work.
Pac-10 Plan B. What was once the most likely and reasonable scenario is as good as dead, I think. If this was such a great idea, the Pac-10 would not be bending over backwards to try and make other scenarios work.
Big 12 Plan A. Your guess is as good as mine about keeping the Big 12 nucleus together. It is hard to imagine that the Big 12 could cease to exist, but at this point we have to accept that it just might.
Big 12 Plan B. If Missouri is the only school to replace you can rule out Arkansas and Memphis as candidates. It won't happen. Cincinnati is very unlikely as well. I think it will come down to Louisville or BYU. Anyone who knows me will know that BYU would be my preference, but my gut feeling tells me that the Big 12 would prefer to expand east, not west. A presence east of the Mississippi could be very valuable.
SEC Plan A. This is the plan I envision the SEC following. Even if conferences expand to 16 teams now, the SEC is in a position to wait and see if these expansions really work. If they do, the SEC is strong enough to rip teams away from almost anyone.
Big East Plan A. I don't see the ultimatum happening. I really think the Big East will go down (Plan B) without much of a fight if two or more teams are taken. Raiding other conferences will prove fruitless because the Big East will be so weakened that BCS automatic qualifying status will be lost.

To summarize, the biggest players in the conference expansion game are: Notre Dame, Texas, and the NCAA rule for minimum teams required for a championship game. Notre Dame is capable of keeping the structure of eastern college football largely in tact by joining the Big East. Texas is capable of exploding the structure of college football nationwide by breaking up the Big 12. An NCAA rule change could keep everything status quo. Not only would it satisfy the Pac 10, it could satisfy the Big 10, or keep the Big 12 from expanding if one or two teams leave.

NFL Draft: Round 1 Reaction

While this is a college football blog, I think the NFL draft still fits the scope of college football. For me, college football starts with a player signing a letter of intent, and ends with a player being drafted or signing as a free agent, or just moving on to grad school or the less glamorous part of the workforce. With round one in the books, five things stuck out to me.

1. Sam Bradford was the number one pick. Talk about the biggest case of “much ado about nothing” that football has ever seen. Bradford could have been the number one pick a year ago, but he decided to come back. He was injured less than 30 minutes into the season and the frenzy started about how much money he lost and how he should not have come back. It turns out it was all a waste of time and energy. What more productive and constructive thing could have been done with all that time and energy?

2. Big night for the Big 12. I saw the USA Today front page headline, “1-2 for the Big 12,” but that is only half the story. The first four picks were from the Big 12, three from Oklahoma, as well as picks six, fourteen, nineteen, twenty-one, and twenty-four. Nine players in all. If I had the resources, I would do the research to find out if this is precedent setting.

3. Three WAC players drafted. Ryan Matthews (Fresno State) was drafted number 12 by the Chargers, Mike Iupati (Idaho) was drafted 17 by the 49ers, and Kyle Wilson (Boise State) was taken number 29 by the Jets. As you can see, only one played for Boise State, and he was the last one taken. For all the criticism that Boise State gets for playing in such a weak conference, the WAC produced more first rounders than the Pac-10 and the MWC, an equal number of first rounders as the Big 10 and the Big East, and just one less first rounder than the ACC.

4. Tim Tebow at number 25 was not shocking. It happens every year. Someone is taken much earlier than expected. We all know the adage “it only takes one.” I just want to know what inside information Denver had that made them move back into the first round. Denver had the 22nd pick. If they really wanted Tebow this bad, they could have taken him then, or else wait for the second round. Someone else must have been hot on Tebow and was going to select him before the night ended, even with Jimmy Clausen still available. No only was this pick not shocking, but I like it. With the success Kyle Orton had last year in the Denver system, then I don’t see why Tim Tebow won’t be able to have a good NFL career there.

5. Jimmy Clausen. Quarterbacks falling in the first round has become common, but they still make it out of the first round. Not this time. Clausen is still without a team. Was leaving Notre Dame early really the right decision? How smart does this make Jake Locker in Washington look?

The Evidence: Performance on the Field

This is the third part of the BCS Bash series. For part one, click here. For part two, click here.

We all come to a point in life when we have to make a decision, but the best choice is not clear. However, after we make and carry out that decision, we are able to judge if the decision we made. The Bowl Alliance decided to include the Big East, Big 8, Southwest, Atlantic Coast, and Southeastern conferences and to exclude the Western Athletic, Mid-America, and Big West conferences. The Bowl Alliance decided to have the participants in its three bowl games be the conference champions of the five included conferences, plus one at-large team. The BCS made these same decisions three years later. (Note: The Big 8 and Southwest conferences merged in 1996 to form the Big 12. For clarity, I will refer only to the Big 12 for the rest of this article.)

The declared intent was still to match number one and number two in a bowl game, but the actions of the organizers sent a clear message that participating in the elite bowls was for conference champions. If you are a champion you have automatic access. If you are not a champion get in line and hope your name is called. The automatic access, however, was not granted to all conference champions because not all conference champions were viewed as equal. Champions of the SEC, ACC, Big East, and Big 12 were in a higher class than the other conference champions. They were given automatic qualifying status because they were "extra special." The other conference champions were merely mediocre.

This is America and we have the freedom of speech, so there is nothing illegal with anyone making that statement. In America you are also innocent until proven guilty, so let’s take this to the judge.

Court is now in session. Charges have come against the Bowl Alliance/BCS for unjustly limiting the automatic qualifying status for conference champions to the ACC, SEC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-10. The prosecution argues that for anyone to be a conference champion, they earn that distinction through their performance on the field of play. If these six conference champions are so superior to the other conference champions, their performance on the field of play will reflect that.

Exhibit one is the win-loss record and winning percentage before bowl games for the conference champions for the automatic qualifying conferences dating back to 1996.

Year....ACC....SEC....Big East..Big 10...Big 12...Pac-10

1996....11-0...11-1......10-1.........10-1.....8-4......11-0

1997....10-1...11-1.......9-3.........11-0....12-0......10-1

1998....11-1...12-0.......8-3.........10-1....11-2......10-1

1999....11-0...10-2......11-0..........9-2....11-1.......8-3

2000....10-1....9-3......11-0.........10-1....10-2......10-1

2001....10-1....9-3......11-0.........10-1....10-2......10-1

2002.....9-4...12-1......12-0.........13-0....11-2......10-2

2003....10-2...12-1......10-2.........10-2....11-3......11-1

2004....10-2...12-0.......8-3..........9-2....12-0......12-0

2005.....8-4...10-2......10-1.........10-1....12-0......12-0

2006....11-2...12-1......11-1.........12-0....11-2......10-2

2007....11-2...11-2......10-2.........11-1....11-2......10-2

2008.....9-4...12-1......11-2.........11-1....12-1......11-1

2009....11-2...13-0......12-0.........10-2....13-0......10-2

Total 143-26..157-17..143-19....154-17..157-19...145-17

Win % 0.846...0.902...0.882.....0.901...0.892....0.895

Relevance: The ACC champion had the lowest winning percentage (0.846) among the conference champions awarded automatic qualification to a BCS bowl. If this winning percentage is significantly higher than that of the conference champions not awarded automatic qualification to a BCS bowl, then the BCS is justified for excluding those other conferences.

Exhibit two is another table that shows the win-loss record and winning percentage before bowl games for the conference champions for the non-automatic qualifying conferences dating back to 1996.

Year...MWC*...WAC**...MAC...Conf. USA

1996...13-1.......8-3........8-3.........8-3

1997...10-2.......6-5.......10-2.........8-3

1998...11-1.......8-3.......11-1........11-0

1999....8-3.......8-4.......12-0.........8-3

2000....9-2......10-1........7-5.........9-2

2001...12-1.......7-4........9-2........10-2

2002...10-3......11-1.......10-2.........9-2

2003....9-2......12-1.......12-1.........9-3

2004...11-0......11-0........9-3........10-1

2005...10-1.......9-3........7-5.........8-4

2006...10-2......12-0........9-4........10-3

2007...10-2......12-0........8-5........10-3

2008...12-0......12-0........8-5.........9-4

2009...12-0......13-0.......11-2.........9-4

Total 147-20...139-25......131-40.... 128-37

Win%..0.880...0.847.......0.766......0.775

* = The Mountain West Conference (MWC) did not exist prior to the 1999 season. The data used for 1996-1998 are the records of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) champion since the MWC members competed in that conference at that time and all WAC champions during that time are now members of the MWC.
** = Most of the teams comprising the WAC today were members of the Big West Conference from 1996-1998, so the records of the Big West Champion was used for those years.

(Note: The Sun Belt Conference did not exist prior to 2001, so for lack of data, the Sun Belt Conference was not used in this comparison.)

Relevance: On the field of play, both the MWC and the WAC champions, over a 14 year period, have sustained better on the field performance than the ACC champion. The WAC champion’s winning percentage was 0.001 better, and the MWC champion’s winning percentage was 0.034 better. It is also important to point out that the MWC champion’s wining percentage was only 0.002 less than the Big East champion. The performance on the field of play by the WAC and the MWC champions has exceeded that of the ACC. The MWC champion is even on par with the Big East champion.

Exhibit three is the results of the “BCS Busters” against teams from automatic qualifying conferences.

2004: Utah 35, Pittsburgh 7 (Pittsburgh was the Big East Champion)
2006: Boise State 43, Oklahoma 42 (Oklahoma was the Big 12 Champion)
2007: Georgia 41, Hawaii 10
2008: Utah 31, Alabama 17
Overall Record: 3-1 (2-0 versus automatic qualifying conference champions)

Relevance: On the field of play, non-automatic qualifying conference champions have won 75% of the time they have played in BCS bowl games against teams from AQ conferences, and 100% of the time these non-automatic qualifying conference champions have played automatic qualifying champions.

While Hawaii lost to Georgia by 31 points that does not hurt my case. Teams from conferences with AQ status have lost by 31 points or more in Bowl Alliance or BCS games on six occasions.

Florida lost to Nebraska by 38 points in 1995
Florida State lost to Florida by 32 points in 1996
Notre Dame lost to Oregon State by 32 points in 2000
Maryland lost to Florida by 33 points in 2001
Oklahoma lost to USC by 36 points in 2004
Illinois lost to USC by 32 points in 2007

The BCS’s decision to exclude cannot be justified by Hawaii’s blowout loss since it is not the only time that a BCS game has had such an outcome. In fact, Hawaii did not have the greatest losing margin of all teams in BCS games in 2007. On the other side of the coin, Utah won in 2004 by 28 points, which begs the question, “Why would such a superior conference champion lose so lopsidedly?”

Exhibit four is the changes in conference make up. Since the Bowl Alliance formed in 1995, the composition of the Big 8, the ACC and the Big East have all changed. The Big 8 added teams from the SWC and the ACC swiped teams from the Big East. The Big East, however, reached into the pile of leftovers (teams not in a conference granted automatic qualifying status) and added three teams. Since the Big East added teams, three out of five years one of the former outsiders won the conference.

Relevance: While the Big East conducted research to determine the best candidates to add to the conference, the Big East did not need authorization by the BCS. The BCS did not conduct its own analysis of performance on the field of play and conclude who were the three most qualified teams in college football for membership in the exclusive BCS circle. The precedent established in 1995 changed the rules for conference expansion. The ACC added teams from a fellow AQ conference, but if a conference was going to reach outside the AQ boundaries, then the BCS should have to approve the move.

Furthermore, the immediate success of these new Big East members shows that, on the field of play, teams from conferences without an automatic qualifying conference champion are NOT inferior to the teams in conferences with an automatic qualifying conference champion.

Exhibit five is that the expressed purpose of the Bowl Alliance, which the BCS continued, was to create a system that would match the number one and number two ranked teams in the same bowl game.

Relevance: On two occasions (Nebraska in 2001 and Oklahoma in 2003) teams who were not conference champions played for the national championship. To play for the national championship, a team must be ranked either number one or number two. Since teams who were not conference champions qualified for the national championship game, the BCS showed that automatic qualifying status for conference champions was not necessary to accomplish its intent. Therefore, one or more of the parties involved in creating the Bowl Alliance and the BCS were working to protect special interests by creating the automatic qualifying status for a limited number of conferences in college football.

Closing Arguments: The defendant will, undoubtedly, attempt to counter my evidence with the strength of schedule for teams from the conferences with automatic qualifying champions. I rebut that argument by reiterating what was covered yesterday regarding “overall conference strength.” This notion of “strength of schedule” is a false perception born out of misconceptions that have, unfortunately, corrupted all forms of rankings and ratings for college football. When the issue is automatic qualifying status for conference champions, the only evidence that matters is performance on the field.

Specific to exhibit three, the defendant might rebut by incorporating regular season head-to-head competition of teams from conferences with automatic qualifying status versus teams from conferences without automatic qualifying status. That is irrelevant evidence. First, any head-to-head comparison should be between conference champions in the year that both teams were conference champions. Second, head-to-head competition is not a criterion used for selection of any team to the BCS bowls. USC and Notre Dame have both played in BCS bowls in the same year, regardless of the results on the field of play in the regular season. The same can be said for Florida and Florida State. Even in 2008, USC embarrassed Ohio State during the season, but both played in BCS bowls. The tables in exhibits one and two include all regular season games. Any head-to-head competitions that occurred are a part of those records. Bringing in regular season head-to-head competition is another bad cover up. It would be like lying: once you lie, you have to use another lie to cover it up. Regular season head-to-head competition would be using an injustice to cover up the original injustice.

The evidence I have presented clearly shows that two conference champions that don’t have automatic qualifying status have performed equally on the field of play to the conference champions that do have automatic qualifying status.

When we find out that we made a bad decision, we take corrective action. The BCS needs to take corrective action. Like most corrective action, it will hurt the wrongdoer. Fortunately in this case, the corrective action is simple. For now, though, we have had enough for one day. Come back tomorrow for The Solution.

Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions

Sources:
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4809942

The Cover Up: Overall Conference Strength

This is the second part of the BCS Bash series. For part one, click here.

Once the Bowl Coalition and its successors adopted a platform that would use conference champions as a means to its end, and then gave automatic qualifying status to the champions of the participating conferences, these entities needed to justify that platform. Justifying this platform was easy to defend in the beginning. Few criticized them and most just glossed over the automatic qualifying element. As time has passed and very good teams from the other conferences were overtly excluded from playing in one of the bowls, greater scrutiny has been given to the automatic qualifying status for six conferences.

The automatic qualifying provision has been exposed as a bad cover up. The conferences with automatic qualifying status needed some incentive to join this pact, and the automatic qualifying status for their champion was the incentive. Of course, if you are going to extend privileges you need to justify those privileges. To justify this privilege and to try and keep the hidden agendas safe, the battle cry became “overall conference strength.” The overall conference strength of these six conferences is so much better than the rest of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences that these six conference champions earned, by play on the field, one of the ten (formerly 8) slots in the participating bowl games. The other conference champions were relegated to parading themselves for style points from the voters and computers in a competition with the second and third place teams from conferences with automatically qualifying champions for the four (formerly 2) remaining slots.

Overall conference strength!!! Are you serious? How do you quantify that? Do you compare the last place teams in each conference? Do you look at each team’s non-conference record? Do you look at the end of the year rankings? While each of these can appear reasonable on the surface, the truth is they are all ridiculous.

Last Place Teams
This overall conference strength argument tells me that the powers that be must have done something to evaluate and compare the last place teams in each conference. Maybe they conducted 10,000 computer simulations of Vanderbilt vs. Tulane, Duke vs. Louisiana-Lafayette, Iowa State vs. UTEP, Indiana vs. Kent State, Rutgers vs. Northern Illinois, and Oregon State vs. New Mexico State (in the early to mid 1990s these were the perennial losers). The results of these computer simulations must have been so compelling that any reasonable person would look at them and say, “You know, if the WAC champion had to play Iowa State instead of UTEP, then I would support automatic qualifying status for the WAC champion. I mean look at last year (1994). A win over Iowa State (0-10-1) was much more impressive than a win over UTEP (3-7-1).” Reality check: The competitiveness of the worst team in the conferences was never discussed and it had no bearing on handing out the automatic qualifying status for conference champions. Reality check #2: A last place team is a last place team, and two wins in a season is two wins. There is no way to sugar coat bad teams.

Non-Conference Record
Since it wasn’t head-to-head competition between the last place teams, it must have been the better non-conference record by those bottom-of-the-bucket teams that made the overall conference strength so great. It is quite logical that in 1994 Wake Forest was only 1-7 in conference games because the ACC was so strong top to bottom. Look at the Demon Deacon’s 2-1 non-conference record. However, in 1994 Hawaii was 0-8 in the WAC because Hawaii was awful, never mind that Hawaii was 3-0-1 in non-conference games. Sorry, but that logic is grossly flawed! The facts reveal that Wake Forest beat Appalachian State 12-10, beat Army 33-27, and lost to Vanderbilt 35-14. Hawaii beat Pac-10 champion Oregon 36-16, Cal 21-7, and Southeast Missouri State 34-0, and tied Missouri 32-32.

The overall records at face value for the worst teams in the automatic qualifying conferences often do look better than their non-automatic qualifying conference counterparts. When you start to compare, it is evident that this difference can be attributed to the bad AQ teams playing more Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams or other bad FBS teams than the bad non-AQ teams. Am I the only one that cringes when a team that was 2-6 or 3-5 in league play goes to a bowl game because they were 4-0 or 3-1 against terrible non-conference opponents (case in point: Auburn, Arkansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Texas A&M, and UCLA in 2009)? Any ground that is gained by playing in a conference with greater “overall conference strength” is lost by playing much softer non-conference schedules. In other words, the season schedule as a whole is usually comparable.

Rankings
We were wrong about comparing the worst teams from each conference, and we were wrong about the non-conference records. Therefore, the answer to the overall conference strength mystery must be those hallowed national rankings. Sadly, the rankings have lost their integrity and now have a decided BCS bias. In 1994, Utah was 10-2, second place in the WAC, and ranked number 10 in the final Associated Press poll. Every other team in the top ten had one loss or less, except one other two loss team, so I have to say the number 10 ranking was fair. Fast forward 10 years and let’s track how the Mountain West Conference (MWC) champion finished in the final BCS standings (Note: The MWC is comprised of virtually the same teams as the WAC was in 1994.)

2004: Utah was 11-0 and ranked number 6, behind one-loss Texas and one-loss California; teams that finished second in their conferences.
2005: TCU was 10-1 and ranked number 14. A 10-1 record for a conference champion from an automatic qualifying conference garnered a no. 3 and no. 11 ranking that year, while two-loss Georgia was no. 7, two-loss Ohio State was no. 4, and two-loss Notre Dame was no. 6.
2006: BYU was 10-2 and ranked number 20. However, the AQ conference champions with two losses were ranked numbers 5, 10, and 14, while two-loss LSU was no. 4 and two-loss Notre Dame was no. 11.
2007: BYU was 10-2 and ranked number 17. The AQ conference champions with 2 losses were ranked numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, while the teams ranked numbers 12 through 16 all had three or four losses.
2008: Utah was 12-0 and ranked number 6. Every team ahead of Utah had one loss, including its Sugar Bowl opponent Alabama. Utah won that game convincingly, 31-17.
2009: TCU was 12-0 and ranked number four. Every team ahead of TCU was undefeated as well. However, all season long, TCU was ahead of Cincinnati, an AQ conference champion, until the final standings when the Bearcats leapfrogged TCU.

The last six years the BCS standings have shown a clear bias towards teams from conferences labeled as automatic qualifiers. (If we looked at the first six years of the BCS the bias would be even more apparent.) A similar pattern is reflected in the individual polls—human and computer. The examples cited above only look at conference champions, but it has a trickle down effect on the overall conference. If voters are going to rank a non-AQ conference champion lower than the AQ conference champions, they will also rank the second and third place teams lower. A second place team cannot be in the top 10 if the conference champion isn’t even in the top 10. The third place team won’t even be ranked if the second place team is stuck in the 20s.

Although I love the rankings, they are very flawed because they are largely influenced by opinion. At present, the human voters’ opinions and the computer formulas are biased by the two misconceptions previously addressed, and other subjective elements like unreliable recruiting class ranks, theoretical strength of schedule ranks, and the historical success of a team. The BCS has caused the voters and computer programmers to draw a line of demarcation between schools in AQ conferences and schools in non-AQ conferences. If you happen to be in one of those six AQ conferences you are given the benefit of the doubt, but if you are on the outside you are handicapped. The outsiders have to repeatedly prove themselves to be considered legitimate, but if they slip up once along the way the voters and computer matrices hastily slam the outsider schools back to ground zero. An outsider must finish a season undefeated to play in a BCS game, while an AQ team can expect a spot in the national championship game if it finishes undefeated.

(NOTE: I used 1994 for many of my arguments because that is the last year before the Bowl Coalition morphed into the Bowl Alliance, and it is the time frame that would have been used when analyzing conference strength and weighing the merits of the decision to have automatic qualifying conferences.)

SEC
The SEC is currently considered the gold standard for football conferences. Interestingly, Chris Low, the ESPN.com blogger for the SEC compiled the record of each SEC team against teams in the final Associated Press and USA Today top 25 over the last five years. Here are the results:

• Florida – 14-9 (.609)
• LSU – 13-11 (.542)
• Alabama – 10-12 (.455)
• Auburn – 8-12 (.400)
• Georgia – 8-12 (.400)
• Tennessee – 5-17 (.227)
• Ole Miss – 4-14 (.222)
• South Carolina – 5-19 (.208)
• Arkansas – 3-20 (.130)
• Kentucky – 2-17 (.105)
• Vanderbilt – 2-17 (.105)
• Mississippi State 2-20 (.091)

Two SEC teams have a winning record. Seven teams (over half of the conference) average one or fewer wins per year against a top 25 team. The winning percentage for each of those seven teams is below 0.250 (1 out of 4). Thank you, Mr. Low, for providing more numbers to expose the fallacy that is “overall conference strength.”

At this point, we still have no evidence supporting the overall conference strength argument. The fact is that each conference has three or four teams at the bottom that are "easy" victories, and each conference has four or five teams that pose a legitimate threat to the eventual conference champion. All these arguments that one team had a harder conference schedule are not compelling arguments.

Proponents of the BCS and its predecessors use the cover up that the overall conference strength is so much better in certain conferences that the champions from those conferences merit preferential treatment (automatic qualifying status). As we can see, that cover up is full of holes, and the situation only gets bleaker when you look at the evidence against those supposed merits. The evidence will be on display tomorrow.

Part 3: The Evidence: Performance on the Field
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions

Sources:
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819366
www.shrpsports.com/cf/
espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/9443/tracking-the-sec-vs-the-final-top-25-polls

The Scam: Automatic Qualifying Conference Champions

Note: This is the first part of a four part series on the Bowl Championship Series. Links to the other three parts are found at the end of this article.

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a scam. Why? The provision that grants automatic qualifying status to certain conference champions. The BCS toots its own horn about how great it is because it guarantees that the number one and two teams will play in a bowl game to finish each year. Okay, so where does the need for automatic qualification come in? First a little history, so we can understand the real answer to this question.

Historically, bowl games had agreements with one or two conferences for the right to host certain teams in their games at the end of the year. The bowl games operated completely independent of any entity that ranked the top teams in college football. As attention to both bowl games and the rankings increased, the desire to see the top two teams play each other at the end of the year increased.

In 1992 the Bowl Coalition was created between the Big East Conference, Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), Big 8, Southeastern Conference (SEC), Southwest Conference (SWC), and Notre Dame with the expressed intent to create better possibilities for a bowl game to feature number one and two. This coalition involved the Cotton, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, Gator, and John Hancock bowls.

The Bowl Coalition was dumped in 1995 for the Bowl Alliance. The Bowl Alliance consisted of the same five conferences, but reduced bowl participation to the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls. Each conference champion would automatically qualify for one of these bowls and one at-large team would be selected. Theoretically, that at-large team could be from any conference in NCAA Division 1-A football.

That brings us to the BCS. The BCS brought all the “major” conferences and bowl games together for the first time in 1998. The Pac-10, the Big 10, and the Rose Bowl joined the others to form the BCS. In 1996, the Big 8 and SWC had consolidated, more or less, to form the Big 12, so the official make up of the BCS was the Big East, the ACC, the SEC, the Big 10, the Big 12, the Pac-10, and Notre Dame, as well as the Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls. The BCS continued the automatic qualifying status for champions from the six participating conferences. Notre Dame could automatically qualify if it had 9 wins and was ranked in the BCS top 10. Teams from outside the six participating conferences could automatically qualify if they were ranked in the BCS top 6.

In most cases, I give people the benefit of the doubt and believe they act with good intentions. In the case of the Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance/BCS, it is pretty hard to accept that some other interests besides matching the top two teams in the same bowl were not driving this process. All that would have been necessary to accomplish the declared intent was to have an agreement between the bowls that the bowl with the number two ranked team would release its rights to that team so that team could play in the same bowl as the number one ranked team. Of course the bowl losing the number two ranked team would want retribution for its losses, but I think retribution would be a minor detail that could be worked out easily and beneficial to all. Furthermore, if we are talking about having the top two teams play, why wasn’t the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, and BCS all inclusive—all bowls, all teams. When was it ever decreed that a team from a conference with ties to one of the other bowls could not be number one or two? If a team from one of these outsider conferences and bowls was number one, why would that team not deserve to play for the championship in its affiliated bowl? Limiting the conferences and bowls involved and by giving automatic qualifying status to those conference champions was self-serving and collusive. The real intent was to have number one and number two play every year in a bowl game and to ensure that number one and two were teams from this select group of conferences.

Digging into history a little further makes this whole bowl confederation look very sketchy. I am still scratching my head wondering how the Big East and the ACC were able to gain favored nations status if the organizers’ motives were pure.

First, the Big East did not even exist until 1991 (Bowl Coalition began in 1992), so there was little to no historical evidence that this conference was important in accomplishing the objective to have number one and number two play in a bowl. Now, it is true that the University of Miami, Florida, technically was a Big East member and won the national championship in 1991 (as well as in 1983, 1987, 1989 as an independent), the Hurricanes played only two conference games that year. Now that 20 years have passed, the evidence we do have is that the Miami Dynasty unraveled shortly after it became affiliated with a conference.

Second, the ACC was a glorified Western Athletic Conference (WAC) before the 1992 season. Sure, Clemson won the national championship in 1981 and Georgia Tech split the national championship in 1990, but that is it. Once in a decade the ACC champion was relevant. The WAC was having the same level of success as the ACC during this timeframe. In 1992, however, Florida State left the ranks of the independents to join the ACC. Florida State was 53-8 and ranked in the top 5 from 1987-1991. Again, the evidence we have post-1991 is that the ACC, as a whole, was mediocre; the Seminoles dominated the ACC for the next decade. Furthermore, the ACC has never fielded an at-large BCS team.

Let’s be honest with ourselves and accept that the only reason the Big East is an automatic qualifying conference is Miami, and the only reason for the ACC is Florida State. No entity stating that it was trying to match number one and number two in a bowl game would have any credibility if it left these two national powerhouses out. However, all credibility would be lost if several schools were being hand picked like Notre Dame was.

Now, back to the original question, where does the need for automatic qualification come in? The short answer is it is not needed, all it is merely a cover up. I will uncover this cover up tomorrow. Don’t miss it!

Part 2: The Cover Up: Overall Conference Strength
Part 3: The Evidence: Performance on the Field
Part 4: The Solution: It's About Conference Champions

Sources:
www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819366
www.shrpsports.com/cf/

MORE CONFERENCE EXPANSION THOUGHTS

Since conference expansion usually takes months and years to happen, this will probably be a hot topic until September. There are about a million angles to take on this topic. Today, I will elaborate on three: TCU going to the Big 12, the Big 10 targeting ACC or SEC teams, and the impact on the BCS.

1.TCU to the Big12

Since it appears that the Big 12 is going to be hit by either the Big 10 (Missouri or Nebraska) or the Pac-10 (Colorado) the Big 12 will need to replace one or two schools, or shrink to 10 teams. TCU seems to be a perfect fit geographically and competitively. It doesn't hurt that TCU has tradition with several Big 12 schools as a former Southwestern Conference (SWC) member. That, however, is the exact reason I would be leery, if I were TCU, to join the Big 12. TCU was kicked to the curb while the then Texas Governor struck a deal to bind membership of one state school to the inclusion of three others. In other words, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor are a package deal. If one is in they all are in, if one is out they all are out. As the last one in, TCU would be the first one out if the Big 12 ever decided another rising team (Houston, Tulsa) became more desirable in the future and rather than increase to 13 teams it wanted to stay an even 12. Then again, this is TCU, who was rejected by the other eight teams in the Mountain West Conference (MWC) ten or so years ago when they left the Western Athletic Conferenc (WAC). When the MWC came calling five years later, TCU fully embraced reuniting with the eight schools who felt they were better off without the Horned Frogs.

2. Big 10 targeting ACC or SEC schools

Everyone seems set that the Big 10 will expand with either a Big 12 North team or with a Big East team. Money seems to be the biggest reason behind this round of expansion talks, and the Big 10 seems to be on par with the SEC in that regard, even if the performance on the field has not reflected it. Isn't there a middle of the pack SEC team that would provide just as much added revenue as Missouri or Pitt and would also want to go to the Big 10 to compete better in football? Kentucky would help Big 10 basketball and Kentucky football might fare better in the Big 10. It is also situated nicely geographically. What about Boston College from the ACC? Huge media market, and no strong roots in the ACC. Georgia Tech? The Yellow Jacket's big rival (Georgia) is already in a different conference, and the Atlanta media market would be a nice catch.

3. The Impact on the BCS

Lost in all of the conference expansions and realignments is how this impacts the "solid" foundation of the BCS. The BCS formed itself on the premise that the best football teams were in the ACC, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, and Pac-10. The ACC and Big East realignments last decade resulted in three teams (Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida) that were originally considered outsiders to become insiders. By the time this potentially catacalysmic round of conference expansion finishes we could have another three teams "promoted" to the BCS level. Who says that these six teams (the former three and the hypothetical future three) were the most deserving? It is unfair if a team like Boise State is left out of automatic qualification status, but a team like South Florida gains automatic qualification status. Boise State has done everything in its control (win on the field), but South Florida has all the uncontrolable variables (location, media market). Conferences expand for money, but the BCS was designed, on the surface, to get the top two teams to play each other. With a new composition, who says the Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, ACC, SEC, and Big East of 2012 will be worthy of the automatic qualification status they gained in 1998? The BCS should be null and void and a new system put in place after the conference expansions conclude, unless, like conference expansions, the BCS is really all about money.

END THE PAROCHIALISM OF COLLEGE CONFERENCES

College sports have thrived under the organizational structure of conference for several decades now. These conferences have created identities through the years, which, in many cases, involves the geographical location of the schools in the conference. The Atlantic Coast Conference, Mid-America Conference, Southeastern Conference, and Pacific 10 Conference all refer to specific regions of the country.

From time to time, these conferences have grown in size by incorporating additional teams. Currently, the Big 10 and the Pac-10 conferences have expressed an interest in growing. Ask any “expert” on the subject of conference expansion and he or she will tell you that expansion consists of many factors in addition to the regional location aspect already mentioned. Academics (admission standards, research accreditation) and athletic competitiveness in all sports, and money are some of the bigger issues.

I have been reading about the possible conference expansions and all this rhetoric about academics and water polo being as important as football brings one word to mind: parochial. I don’t expect anything different since educating America’s brightest young minds should be the primary goal of colleges and universities, but let’s be honest with ourselves. When expansion is announced where does it make headlines and generate endless discussion and debate? College football media outlets. Football is the driving force behind all expansion. I graduated from a school that is a member of the Mountain West Conference (MWC), but we never competed academically with other MWC schools. The chemistry department did not have trivia bowls with conference rivals. The English department did not meet on weekends to have essay write offs with other MWC member schools. Maybe it looks good for recruiting after a down year or it helps with those conference advertising spots during athletic events when your team is losing by 30 points to be able to promote a strong academic resume, but people rarely associate athletics and academics in college sports. Conference alignment pertains to sports and sports only, and even then, conference alignment is flexible. The smaller sports like lacrosse and wrestling are not sanctioned by all schools, so some schools compete in one conference for the small sports and another conference for the big sports.

It is time to revamp the conference structure we have come to know in college sports. We need conferences that are assembled based more on competitiveness. It is time to kick out teams like Vanderbilt, Baylor, Iowa State, Duke, Maryland, Kansas, Mississippi State, Washington State, and Indiana who show little commitment to football and field a competitive team once a generation, and let teams like Boise State, BYU, Utah, and TCU replace them.

COACHING: COACHES ON THE HOT SEAT

With the temperatures sinking across the country, this is the time of year that the heat is turning up on some college football coaches. Memphis (2-7) and Western Kentucky (0-9) have already fired their coaches. Who else can we expect to join the unemployment ranks within the next month?

1. Charlie Weis, Notre Dame: He barely survived last year. Supposedly he has the talent on the roster that should have resulted in a BCS birth. Now, the Fighting Irish have three losses and no hope for the BCS.
2. Steve Kragthorpe, Louisville: When he took over Louisville had just entered elite territory with an Orange Bowl win. The last three years Louisville has won a total of 14 games. Rumor is that his relationship off the field with school administration is not any better.
3. Mike Locksley, New Mexico: The Lobos are win less and to make matters worse he has some anger management issues. It does not matter that it is his first year, the program cannot maintain dignity by retaining Locksley for another year.
4. Dan Hawkins, Colorado: He predicted 10 wins at the beginning of the year. For most of the year they have been the laughing stock of the Big 12. He hasn’t helped himself by having his son start at quarterback. The tricky part of this one is that the Colorado Athletic Department is so strapped for cash right now that it might be impossible to buy out Hawkins’ contract, so he might have a job for one more year.
5. Al Groh, Virginia: Virginia has wallowed in mediocrity for the last five years, with the exception of 2007. The embarrassing start to this year coupled with the current three game losing streak have made this firing almost a foregone conclusion.
6. Paul Wulff, Washington State: Has any team in college football been as bad as Washington State over the last two years? The Cougars only won two games last year against win less Washington and FCS Portland State. This year a lone overtime win is the only time Washington State has walked of the field victorious. I don’t see any signs that this program is ready to make a turn in the right direction.
7. Rich Rodriguez, Michigan: Although the Wolverines have already improved their win total from 3 to 5 with two games to go. The problem is that Michigan does not stand much of a chance to win those games, and that all 5 of Michigan’s losses this year have come to Big 10 teams. In Ann Arbor the faithful expect to be the best in the Big 10 and Michigan isn’t winning conference games.

Hopefully, the coach of your favorite team is not listed above. Who else do you think should be on the list?

GAME PREVIEW: BYU vs. TCU

This game has been circled for months; now it is time to play ball. BYU vs. TCU is starting to become a nice Mountain West Conference (MWC) rivalry. Hopefully these two teams continue to play around this same time of year, and maybe one day this match-up will be considered on the same plane as the Oklahoma-Texas Red River Rivalry. The absense of other marquee match-ups this week has allowed this year's game to receive substantial national attention. I don't want to dwell on the basic discussion points that are all over the internet. I want to offer my original viewpoints. BYU should roll out Max Hall often to avoid the rush. He is an excellent thrower on the run and TCU will wear down chasing after him all game long. BYU should use the no huddle a lot. The no huddle and the roll outs will make it easier for Harvey Unga to run and have a big day. The defense needs to get the adrenaline flowing and play the way they did against Oklahoma. As they showed against the Sooners, they can be physical in the middle and have enough quickness to prevent teams from getting around the corner. Having lost so bad last year should help the Cougars, and might even cause this game to mirror the shock that TCU gave the nation last year.

COACHING: SOPHOMORE SUCCESS

Except when a head coach voluntarily retires, coaching changes are usually made when a team has poor win-loss record. The new coach is expected to come in and improve that record. Even when coaches retire on good terms, the successor coach is expected to take the team to the next level (unless the team is already at the top—in that case the coach only needs to maintain the formers’ level of success). More often than not, coaches achieve the expected improvement incrementally, and school athletic directors realize this and allow new coaches 3 to 5 years to accomplish the desired success. For example, if a team won 6 games the year before, we expect 8-9 wins the next year, and maybe 10-11 wins the following year. However, some coaches surprise everyone and skip a step or two on the ladder of success in year 2. Some examples of this sophomore success for coaches was achieved by the following:

Nick Saban, Alabama, 2007: 6 wins 6 losses, 2008: 12-2

Urban Meyer, Florida, 2005: 9-3, 2006: 13-1 (SEC and National Champions)

Bronco Mendenhall, BYU, 2005: 6-6, 2006: 11-2 (MWC Champions)

Pete Carroll, USC, 2001: 6-6, 2002: 11-2 (Pac-10 Champions)

Bob Stoops, Oklahoma, 1999: 7-5, 2000: 13-0 (Big 12 and National Champions)

My point is that as the 2009 season starts we should keep an eye on second year coaches. Their Teams can easily fly under the radar. However, some of them might be primed for a breakout year, including the following:

Rich Rodriguez, Michigan, 2008: 3-9

Bobby Petrino, Arkansas, 2008: 5-7

Huston Nutt, Ole Miss, 2008: 9-4

June Jones, SMU, 2008: 1-11

(While Urban Meyer’s 9 wins can be considered a success in his first year, I included him because no one expected his 2006 Gators to contend, let alone win, the national championship his second year. The same can be said for Houston Nutt. He was surprisingly successful last year, but no one is taking Ole Miss serious as a national title contender. If the Rebels do win the national championship, then I would say he fits the unexpected sophomore success lebel.)

ANOTHER BCS SMOKESCREEN

With the various BCS debates raging on, staunch BCS supporters are now turning to a new line of reasoning to justify excluding the Mountain West Conference (MWC) from being an automatic qualifying conference: overall conference strength. In 2008, the MWC champion and runner-up were ranked above the Big East and Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) champions. Naturally the question has followed: Is the MWC better than the Big East or the ACC? Most people seem satisfied that the ACC is clearly better than the MWC. However, when compared to the Big East, many feel that the MWC is slightly better on top (BYU, TCU, and Utah), but the bottom 2/3 of the Big East is better than the bottom 2/3 of the MWC. Therefore, the Big East automatic BCS bid is justified.

Can any other argument be more bogus? Name a “Big Six” conference that does not experience significant drop off after its top three teams.

• ACC:
  The ACC has never fielded two BCS teams. Virginia Tech is the preseason favorite. A lot of people are high on Georgia Tech, and Florida State seems to be a quality team again. In this case, the drop off starts before we leave the top three teams. Only Virginia Tech is considered as good enough to play in a BCS game.
• BIG 12:
  Texas and Oklahoma are neck and neck at the top of the conference, and this year Oklahoma State looks to be number three. After that, Texas Tech has a lot of question marks, and the whole North Division is closer to mediocrity than being contenders.
• BIG 10:
  Historically, the Big 10 has been dominated by Ohio State and Michigan, with one other team always making a strong showing. The rest are not considered competition. Why else is everyone assuming the Big 10 race title will be decided by an undefeated Penn State playing undefeated Ohio State (at least undefeated in conference play)?
• PAC-10:
  USC is the undisputed number one followed by Oregon and Cal. Again, the drop off starts immediately. That is more because USC is so dominant and not so much because Oregon and Cal are weak. Is there any other Pac-10 team that you expect to post more than 8 wins?
• BIG EAST:
  The parity in the Big East is so great, how do you start with three teams as the top three? I guess West Virginia, Pittsburgh, and Rutgers are the three best, but is there much difference between them and South Florida, Cincinnati, and Connecticut? This is not an all-star line up that screams “elite conference” to anybody.
• SEC:
  Here you might have a case that beyond the top three. Florida, Ole Miss, and Alabama seem to be the top three this year, followed by Georgia, and LSU. The teams after that are not considered to be on the same plane.
  
  

The point is the BCS is about conference champions. The conference champions of these six conferences get automatic bids, not the third place team, the sixth place team, or the last place team. The champions are not scrutinized on who they lost to, either. They could lose to the worst team in the league or the second place team, it does not matter.

My biggest concern is that the MWC will fight this criticism by expanding to include Boise State. With all due respect to the Broncos, that is the wrong way to go. The MWC is good the way it is. As I have explained three strong teams at the top is as good as everyone else. It is time to stop the hypocrisy.