CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Utah sold soul to get to Pac 12

by stuckinbig10country · 8/2/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
MTM
kitic77 wrote:
I'm afraid the real problem with the MWC is the bottom half of the conference. As far as I understand the AQ qualification process the bottom 4 or 5 need to get their numbers up before the MWC has a chance regardless of who is in their top 3 or 4.



And as far as there being NOBODY else-that's probably easy to see now but during those couple weeks every time Chip Brown farted the tweeted about it. I don't think anyone really knew for sure how it was going to shake out. Utah wasn't about to take a chance. That's my opinion.


Who cares about the bottom of the MWC? We're not asking for AQ status for them. They're not the ones who are going to be competing for BCS bowls. No one seems to care that Duke and Indiana are awful football programs? Why don't they drag down their fellow conference mates?


True but this is the formula

http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=5126859



It is predicated on the bottom of the conference pulling their own weight. And, of course, it doesn't and isn't applied to conferences that already have AQ. A conference can't lose their AQ status if they don't meet the criteria each year. Once you've got it you've got it. You just can't get it until you do meet all the criteria.



That is why the bottom of the conference matters.
S
SpiffCoug
I know. I haven't seen the numbers crunched and I don't have much interest in doing it tonight, but has anyone seen if the bottom of the some of the current AQ conferences would cause them to lose their status if that were an option?



I still like my AQ criteria: five BCS bowls equals ten BCS teams. So to qualify for the BCS you are an AQ team if you finish in the top 10 of the final BCS rankings.
M
MTM
kitic77 wrote:
I know. I haven't seen the numbers crunched and I don't have much interest in doing it tonight, but has anyone seen if the bottom of the some of the current AQ conferences would cause them to lose their status if that were an option?



I still like my AQ criteria: five BCS bowls equals ten BCS teams. So to qualify for the BCS you are an AQ team if you finish in the top 10 of the final BCS rankings.


I've been trying to find an easier to understand article but I can't.



I saw an article some time ago that showed the MWC good on 2 of the 3 criteria but way off on the 3rd one.



Don't get me wrong. I still hate the BCS. I think there should be a 16 team playoff with the 11 conference champs (yes Bill Hancock EVERYBODY gets a chance) and 5 at-large teams.
B
Brayden Green
The OP is referring that the Pukes have a soul, and that is news to me. :lol:



You cannot sell that which is already gone...
M
Mars
kitic77 wrote:
I know. I haven't seen the numbers crunched and I don't have much interest in doing it tonight, but has anyone seen if the bottom of the some of the current AQ conferences would cause them to lose their status if that were an option?

The ACC doesn't qualify (at the top or in the middle).

The Big Ten didn't qualify for the same reasons, back when Boise State was still in the WAC. Now they barely do, but are still behind the MWC in two of 3 prongs.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
MTM
kitic77 wrote:
I know. I haven't seen the numbers crunched and I don't have much interest in doing it tonight, but has anyone seen if the bottom of the some of the current AQ conferences would cause them to lose their status if that were an option?.


Here is the article I was looking for last night. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/23/bcs-aq/index.html



It's Prong 2 where the MWC is falling short. 2. The conference must finish among the top six in a listing of the average computer rankings of every conference's full roster of teams at the end of each regular season.



These numbers are for 2008-2009 season. I can't find one updated for last season.
M
MTM
MTM wrote:

These numbers are for 2008-2009 season. I can't find one updated for last season.


Actually, I'm thinking these numbers are for the '08 and '09 seasons and '10 and '11 are part of the same evaluation period so I guess these are the most recent #s.
B
blue42
MTM wrote:



And if Utah really did have all the negotiating power they wouldn't have taken zero dollars in 2011. They would've done better.


Maybe they figured they could make up that money by pumping higher priced gas in California. :lol:
S
scott715
Yup those numbers are the last two years. Our average needs to go up at least 8 places in the next two years. Very tough to do, unless Hair makes some bold moves.
R
redneckjedi
MTM wrote:
I know. I haven't seen the numbers crunched and I don't have much interest in doing it tonight, but has anyone seen if the bottom of the some of the current AQ conferences would cause them to lose their status if that were an option?.


Here is the article I was looking for last night. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/23/bcs-aq/index.html



It's Prong 2 where the MWC is falling short. 2. The conference must finish among the top six in a listing of the average computer rankings of every conference's full roster of teams at the end of each regular season.



These numbers are for 2008-2009 season. I can't find one updated for last season.


Given the numbers as they stand now and assuming that 2010 and 2011 are about the same, the MWC does fall short in criteria 2. That means they won't automatically get the bid. However, if you qualify in two categories and fall just short in the third, you can still petition to get in.


Further, a conference will be eligible to apply to the Presidential Oversight Committee for an exemption if it finishes among the top six in both No. 1 and No. 2 and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3,

OR

If it finishes among the top seven in either No. 1 or No. 2 and among the top five in the other and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3.


Adding Boise and subtracting Utah moves the MWC down to a tie at #4 in criteria 1, nowhere to stay at #7 in criteria 2, and up to #1 in criteria 3, ahead of even the mighty SEC. So, at 4/7/1, I think the MWC looks much better than the ACC at 8/2/7 or the Big Ten at 7/6/3.



The fact that the ACC doesn't qualify in two categories and the Big Ten doesn't qualify in one (if they were being evaluated for addition, of course) is going to be pretty helpful for the purposes of getting an exemption, and I believe that they'll see the writing on the wall and grant the petition, rather than being forced to do so by Congress.



Details and more numbers can be found here: http://www.byucougs.com/2010/04/official-bcs-conference-standings.html
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
MTM
redneckjedi wrote:
[
Further, a conference will be eligible to apply to the Presidential Oversight Committee for an exemption if it finishes among the top six in both No. 1 and No. 2 and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3,

OR

If it finishes among the top seven in either No. 1 or No. 2 and among the top five in the other and if its ranking in No. 3 is equal to or greater than 33.3 percent of the conference with the highest ranking in No. 3.


I believe that they'll see the writing on the wall and grant the petition, rather than being forced to do so by Congress.


Interesting. That may be the way in.
Page 2 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.