More photos » Daniel Gluskoter - AP

8 months ago: BYU's Matt Bauman (35) reacts to a defensive stop against Oregon State early in the third quarter of the Las Vegas Bowl NCAA college football game in Las Vegas, Tuesday Dec. 22, 2009. BYU 44-20. (AP Photo/Daniel Gluskoter)

Browse more photos »

All reliable source appear to go back to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune stating that BYU is going independent in 2011.

What we do know is that Fresno State and Nevada are MWC bound in 2011. We also know this puts the WAC at 6 members and NCAA rules require a league to have 8 teams for a spot in their tournaments. WAC Commissioner Karl Benson has stated in the past that the WAC has plans for teams leaving that include top western FCS teams like Montana. I have even heard unsubstantiated rumors that economic pressures to keep up with the MWC might motivate SDSU and UNLV to consider a move from the MWC to the WAC.

The BYU Cougars are only interested in independence in football. The published reports indicate they would move their other sports to the WAC. With the loss of the Fresno St. Bulldogs and the Nevada Wolf Pack, this appears far less inviting. The religious based and non-football WCC has reportedly extended an offer to BYU (think Gonzaga) that might be a much better fit at this point.

My gut says both of these are a ploy to the real BYU end game. The optimal option for BYU is to be a football independent and in the MWC for all other sports. BYU has apparently decided to go independent  and is positioning itself for the case where the MWC does not agree to allow a non-football member, especially one whose football membership could deliver them a long sought BCS automatic qualification.

BCS implication next.

Continue reading this post »

More photos » Butch Dill - AP

about 1 month ago: Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive talks to media during the SEC Media Days on Wednesday, July 21, 2010, in Hoover, Ala. (AP Photo/ Butch Dill)

Browse more photos »

Clay Travis recently published an article titled The Future of the SEC and College Football Per Mike Slive.

Among many side issues, the article hits on one main point.

To further illustrate how difficult it is to craft a perfect system, Slive leans forward and clasps his hands together. "I've got an idea," he says, eyes twinkling with amusement. "We're going to have a new system, it's called the Flexible Final, and we won't determine how it's going to work until the end of the year. Then we'll pick the best and fairest way to format a championship based on the season. In some ways that would be the ideal. Because if you've got two undefeated teams -- good teams that have played good schedules -- they play. If you've got four teams with one loss, you figure out what's the fairest way to do this."

Now that is odd, because I have sent the SEC primary football contact Charles Bloom a copy of this design back in January, and predecessors to that idea before then.

A flexible design, determined at the end of the year based on the needs of each year. And preserving the nature of the BCS bowls.

Of course, that flexible final is never going to happen. Indeed, Slive does not believe that college football is very close to a playoff at all. Asked whether he foresees one coming in the future, Slive quips, "Not with this generation of administrators. I don't know for sure, but I think you've got to hope that we die off."

I still have hope, even if it is a sarcastic hope.

The BCS has clarified how teams ineligible for the postseason are to be handled in the BCS formula.

The Coaches poll has announced that USC will not be eligible for selection on their ballot. The Harris Poll is sponsored by the BCS and has announced it will follow suit.

"Basically, we will take each computer ranking, remove the ineligible teams, and move all the teams below the open position up one spot. It's fair, it's consistent, it's simple, and it's transparent," said Bill Hancock, Executive Director of the BCS.

For example, if the ineligible team is ranked No. 10 in a computer ranking, the No. 11 team would move up one slot, as would all teams ranked below it, preserving the integrity of the rankings. The process would be followed for all six computer rankings. The rest of the formula would stay the same the highest and lowest ranking for each team will be discarded and the remaining numbers averaged to create the team's computer ranking.

The computers will be free to include USC in their calculations and published results, but USC will be stricken from the list (along with any other ineligible teams) prior to determining the computer weights for each team. This is also what the BCS has done in a few cases where an FCS team has broken into the top 25 of one of the computer rankings.

This is essentially what was done when Alabama was ineligible earlier in the BCS' history. The president was set at that time that the ineligible teams would not receive any points, but if playing or beating them would reward another team those teams would still get that reward. During Alabama's penalty the BCS formula expressly rewarded teams for beating top teams and Alabama was scored to see where they would have been ranked to determine rewards for beating them and contributed to the explicit SOS component used at that time.

There is much to be determined in the 2010 football season. We now know this for sure: USC will have BCS average of 0.0000 each week in 2010.

For the second time this off season a BCS bowl has lost their title sponsor. Citi will not renew thier contract under the changes required by ESPN. AT&T is listed as an interested party, possibly restoring the Rose Bowl's original presenter.

ESPN is looking to package BCS title sponsorship with some of their regular season advertising, likely their promotion of their BCS assets. The result is roughly a 33% increase in the cost of being a BCS title sponsor.

FedEx backed away from the Orange Bowl months ago and no replacement sponsor has been named for that game.

Allstate appears set to renew their rights to the Sugar Bowl and Tostitos is still in discussions about their sponsorship with the Fiesta Bowl. Both of these sponsors already advertise heavily during the regular season, so the increased costs for more regular season air time of the new sponsorship deals are more inline with their goals.

The USC Trojans will be forced to vacate wins due to the NCAA findings of loss of institutional control announced today. Among the games needing vacated are the 2005 Orange Bowl, also the BCS Championship Game. This has envoked a process by which the BCS can will strip them of their national title for 2004. Here is the official BCS statement:

In accordance with the findings released today by the NCAA, the University of Southern California’s 2005 Orange Bowl game victory has been vacated. We take the integrity of NCAA rules seriously. As a procedural matter, the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee (POC) must meet to formally consider vacating USC’s championship title and the game records. If the POC takes such action, there would be no BCS champion for the 2004-05 season. The POC will meet shortly to discuss this matter.

In light of USC’s statement that it intends to appeal, we want to make it clear that no action will go into effect until the appeal is heard and decided by the NCAA.

For more on the sanctions and political fallout visit the USC Sanctions story stream.

Back in March Senators Orrin Hatch and Max Baucus sent the BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock a letter with a list of questions. I gave answers to many of these questions from information the BCS had previously released at that time.

That response has been released. Senator Hatch has even publicly responded to the letter.

The initial response by the BCS was to observe that the government had better things to do - oh, like, maybe, ensure the Minerals Management Service fulfilled scheduled inspections of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig of the coast of Louisiana or that NOAA used their resources to independently verify what BP claims, for example - than govern football.

Let's take a look at what new insight is gained from the letter and the response.

Continue reading this post »

Bill Hancock was gracious enough to answer a few questions I had regarding the newly released BCS guidelines for determining future automatic qualifications.

1) The criteria are designed to be able to be evaluated on BCS Selection Sunday. Can I anticipate that ESPN will incorporating this information in their exclusive Selection Sunday coverage?

Bill's response: You'd have to ask ESPN about its plans. It's important to remember that we won't be conducting the four-year mathematical evaluation until after the 2011 season; it will take a few days for the material to be compiled.

2) I would be greatly interested in providing links to the authoritative data, as I can for the BCS standings archive under the polls tab at the official BCS website. Will the actual number be released at the official BCS website in the near future?

Bill's response: The actual numbers for the 2008-2011 regular seasons will be released after the 2011 regular season. There won't be any interim numbers. It's only halftime.

[Oh, but there will be! I will have them as soon as the six computer rankings are made public :)]

3) Method 1 is clear for each given year, but not when averaged over four years. In the four year average over the 2006-2009 season the conferences ranked in the critical region of 5-8 are very close. These orderings can vary depending on (in order of increasing precision) whether a 1-11 listing each year is used, if the 1-25 ranking of the top team is used or if the BCS average of the top team is used. Which method is closest to what the BCS uses?

Bill's response: Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. All three criteria will be averaged over four years.

[In reviewing the press release since forming these questions I have found the descriptions of the three methods have changed slightly from last year's media guide description to specify that the ranking value of the highest ranked team is used]

4) Method 2 is fairly stable among various potential interpretations and provides a clear top 6, #7 and 8-11. Is this method an extension of the BCS computer average to include all 120 teams? (Are the highest and lowest ranking for each team thrown out?)

Bill's response: The high and low averages are not thrown out.

5) If two conferences are tied for #6 in method 1 or 2 do they both get credit for being #6?

Bill's response: They would both get credit for being No. 6.

6) Can conferences apply for an exemption in any year or only after the 2012 season? If they can apply in any year, would they need to have met the criteria over the past four years?

Bill's response: The data will be compiled only once for this cycle: after the 2011 regular season, for the four-year period ending that season.

I would like to thank Bill Hancock for taking the time to answer these questions and for his work to help make this process transparent.

It is that time of year again where the BCS meets, hoping to dodge off season attention while the football world focuses on the NFL draft. At this year's meeting change is in the air, everywhere but with the BCS itself.

For the first time all eleven conferences were at the table. Conference alignments and the expansion of the NCAA basketball tournament were significant distractions. At the end of the day, where the BCS is concerned, the more things change the more things stay the same.

The biggest development was the release of the formula used to determine which conferences are awarded automatic qualifications. I will be going into that in more depth as the off season wears on. (I conveniently already have all the data needed going back to 2005, and this data is being used in a slightly modified format to generate the Teams 'til Kickoff series.) Basically the as things stand now the MWC looks pretty good and deserve the platitudes Bill Hancock sends their direction. With Boise State they would look even better.

But for how long will things stay as they stand now? In less than 5 months a Big 10 expansion has gone from a pipe dream to a question of how many and how soon. This topic deserves a thread in its own right (say tomorrow). The Big East appears to be going into emergency mode to fight for its very existence.

But, at the end of the day, whether the MWC earns a BCS bid or if the Big 10 expansion kills the Big East 's automatic berth the BCS will go on as is.

And with the conference realignment picture as it is the dust might still be in the air in 2014 when the next real chance for change happens. All in all it looks like we might have the BCS through 2018.

Continue reading this post »