The article centers around how close the MWC may or may not be to an auto bid. Awful lot of secrecy in the formula, but the main standards are identified.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?page=roadtobcs/0910

The numbers are interesting in relation to the on-going conference comparisons and debate:

Highest Ranked Team in Final BCS Poll
Conference 2008-09 Average
1. Big 12 1.5
2. SEC 1.5
3. MWC 5.0
4. Pac-10 6.0
5. Big East 7.5
6. WAC 7.5
7. Big Ten 8.0
8. ACC 11.5

Teams in Final BCS Top 25
Conference 2008-09 Average
1. Big 12 4.0
2. Big Ten 4.0
3. Pac-10 3.5
4. SEC 3.5
5. ACC 3.0
6. MWC 3.0
7. Big East 2.5
8. WAC 1.0

Conference Average Final Computer Ranking
Conference 2008-09 Average
1. SEC 38.7
2. ACC 40.4
3. Big East 43.4
4. Big 12 45.7
5. Pac-10 49.7
6. Big Ten 50.8
7. MWC 59.9
8. WAC 73.0

i think if you put boise in the mwc that could be a very competitive conference

"The 11 conference commissioners agreed on the qualification standards," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, "and they also made the decision to keep the specifics of those standards private."

Honestly, meaningful discussion on the issue can't happen until there is full disclosure of the guidelines. This just wreeks of exclusionary motives by the haves against the have nots, despite a conferences obvious up and coming status, it appears these "private" standards will remain to keep them out.

ytownfootball wrote:

"The 11 conference commissioners agreed on the qualification standards," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, "and they also made the decision to keep the specifics of those standards private."

Honestly, meaningful discussion on the issue can't happen until there is full disclosure of the guidelines. This just wreeks of exclusionary motives by the haves against the have nots, despite a conferences obvious up and coming status, it appears these "private" standards will remain to keep them out.

Yeah, that is pretty much ridiculous. Obviously the thing that is going to hurt the MWC is the computer average for the entire conference, but I would expect that to be weighted more heavily.

It seems as though the MWC should know the criteria because they mention the 11 conferences. If that is the case, there shouldn't be any surprise to them regardless of what happens.

Also, the thing that stood out to me is that the Big East and ACC, who generally take a lot of heat for their autobids, actually don't do bad from top-to-bottom (as evidenced by their average computer ranking). People tend to look at the top couple of teams to form their opinions of the conference overall.

enigmaax wrote:

ytownfootball wrote:

"The 11 conference commissioners agreed on the qualification standards," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said, "and they also made the decision to keep the specifics of those standards private."

Honestly, meaningful discussion on the issue can't happen until there is full disclosure of the guidelines. This just wreeks of exclusionary motives by the haves against the have nots, despite a conferences obvious up and coming status, it appears these "private" standards will remain to keep them out.

Yeah, that is pretty much ridiculous. Obviously the thing that is going to hurt the MWC is the computer average for the entire conference, but I would expect that to be weighted more heavily.

It seems as though the MWC should know the criteria because they mention the 11 conferences. If that is the case, there shouldn't be any surprise to them regardless of what happens.

Also, the thing that stood out to me is that the Big East and ACC, who generally take a lot of heat for their autobids, actually don't do bad from top-to-bottom (as evidenced by their average computer ranking). People tend to look at the top couple of teams to form their opinions of the conference overall.

First thought that came to mind, however, it will be the last thought that comes to those clamboring for any kind of change.

Although the ACC and the Big East fared well in this particular sample (08-09) thier issue isn't that specifically, but rather a time frame that can be considered worthy of note. They'll not be able to shake the perception of inferiority until sufficient consistency is achieved. This translates to "bringing in the money" which is at the heart of the "private" specific standards.

Maybe not fair but it is what it is.

gotta have all the information to have a logical discussion.... looks like at this time we don't have it