The BCS is an unfair, monopolistic, money-driven system with a million flaws. But here’s a new one that’s coming to a head this season.
The Big East has no business being included in the BCS while the Mountain West Conference is excluded.
Before I get flamed by Big East fans from three time zones away, let me clarify that it hasn’t always been that way. With the West Virginia Mountaineers leading the way, the Big East has put together some quality football teams over the past few years.
In the final AP college football polls at the end of the 2006-2008 seasons, the Big East has always had one more team ranked than the MWC—three-to-two, two-to-one, and then three-to-two again.
But the trend reversed in 2008, and in a dramatic way. The Mountain West ended with three ranked teams—including two in the top ten, the undefeated Utah Utes at #2 and TCU Horned Frogs at #7—while the Big East could only muster the Cincinnati Bearcats at #17 and West Virginia at #23. Hardly the domination of previous years.
And in 2009? Well, it’s just started, but it’s a blowout by the now-powerful MWC. Max Hall and the BYU Cougars, fresh off their public defiling of Oklahoma, have cracked the top 10 at #9. Utah and TCU aren’t far behind, at #16 and #17.
The Big East, on the other hand, started the season with zero teams in the top 25. Cincinnati, after a 32-point victory over a once-and-only-once-proud Rutgers team, has now wedged themselves in at #23, marking the first appearance of a Big East team in the rankings. Yeah, behind three Mountain West teams.
But, you say, the Big East has been stronger over time. It’s a fluke this year. An aberration. And there’s no way to know how the rankings will stand at season’s end—rankings often get less ridiculous by the end of the season, and a Big East team will probably climb into to the top 15 or so.
Sure. I’ll grant you all of those. But grant me this in return: There is no reason that inferior teams should play in BCS bowls while better teams are left out. You can agree with that no matter which conference floats your boat.
If the season ended today, being full aware that we’re four months from that actually happening, the problem would come into blinding clarity. If we use only the AP rankings to determine conference champions and at-large bids, the BCS bowl games would shake out something like this:
| BCS Championship Game (#1 vs. #2) Florida vs. Texas |
| Fiesta Bowl (Big 12 Champ/At-Large vs. At-Large) Oklahoma State vs. BYU |
| Orange Bowl (ACC Champ vs. At-Large) Virginia Tech vs. Ole Miss |
| Rose Bowl (Big Ten Champ vs. Pac-10 Champ) Penn State vs. USC |
| Sugar Bowl (SEC Champ/At-Large vs. At-Large) Alabama vs. Cincinnati |
(Virginia Tech is still the highest-ranked ACC team, even at 0-1; the Fiesta and Sugar Bowls both pick two at-larges because the SEC and Big 12 champs are in the Championship Game.)
This is obviously a bogus bowl schedule, but it serves to illustrate a single point. Cincinnati plays in a BCS bowl by virtue of winning the Big East—and the rest of the Big East reaps in the abundant associated conference payout—even though the following teams are ranked higher: Ohio State, Cal, LSU, Boise State, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, TCU, Utah, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Miami, Georgia, and Nebraska.
Whew.
So really, my beef isn’t specifically with the Big East. It’s one beef, of many beeves, with the BCS. The system artificially rewards teams for winning their conference when other teams may be more deserving.
| Ranked at Season’s End | ||
| Year | Big East | MWC |
| 2005 | #5 West Virginia | #11 TCU |
| #19 Louisville | ||
| 2006 | #6 Louisville | #16 BYU |
| #10 West Virginia | #22 TCU | |
| #12 Rutgers | ||
| 2007 | #6 West Virginia | #14 BYU |
| #17 Cincinnati | ||
| 2008 | #17 Cincinnati | #2 Utah |
| #23 West Virginia | #7 TCU | |
| #25 BYU | ||
The original intention of designating the six BCS conferences was to credit the winners of the six toughest conferences. It keeps out teams from weaker conferences who may have run the table simply by default, by playing a dozen cream puffs en route to a perfect season (2006 Boise State and 2005 and 2008 Utah certainly don’t fit that description).
It also keeps out strong, deserving teams from any number of conferences (not just the MWC). To be perfectly fair—wait, fair?—it’s Ohio State that gets left out of the BCS in the imaginary situation outlined above.
Yeah, that Ohio State. Cincinnati, at #23, gets in ahead of Terrelle Pryor and the Buckeyes.
Now, I’m not here to argue for one of the many possible better solutions. An 8-team or 16-team tournament? A 4-team playoff? Bowl placement by rankings alone? Bowl placement by conference affiliations, like it used to be? Feel free to make a case for your BCS fix of choice, but I’m going to stay out of that one.
But it doesn’t take Beano Cook to know that something’s wrong with this system. It’s entirely possible that the season could end with an unranked champion of a BCS conference, and in such a case there’ll be a laundry list of teams who have gotten it done on the field who won’t be eligible for a BCS bowl.
And that’s what should determine who goes to the bowl games, right? Getting it done on the field?
Maybe I’ve just gone crazy.
For now, Big East teams should consider themselves put on notice. Get your act together, and produce a team that deserves some BCS love.
Because if you don’t, both the MWC and I are going to have a bone to pick with you.
For the last three years the bigeast has kept a better bowl record than the MWC. BE at 12-4 and the MWC at 10-2. The BE also has a better bowl winning percetage than ANY BCS conference in the last 3 years. BE is at 75% while the the SEC is at 73%(19-7). The BE might not have as many dominat teams they are one of the best top to bottom conferences in the BCS… why dont you look at the ACC (10-16 last 3 years). I do think the MWC deserves a BCS spot but not at the expense of one of the better top to bottom conferences in college football.
Nick,
“For the last three years the bigeast has kept a better bowl record than the MWC. BE at 12-4 and the MWC at 10-2. ”
12-4 is 75% Big East
10-2 is 83.3% MWC
I’m no rogue scholar but I was always taught 83.3 > 75
They were 10-4… that was my mistake sorry
The Big East will not lose its automatic bid. Why? Because as it stands now, there 3 automatic qualifiers that have conference championships (SEC, BIG12, and ACC) and 3 that don’t (Pac10, Big East, Big Ten) so the voting power is balanced 3-3. The SEC, ACC, and BIG 12 will never let in a conference that disrupts this balance in favor of the other 3 conferences and vice versa. I can’t believe no one (at least I haven’t read)has approached this matter before. Another reason is money, the Big East football covers some of the largest viewing markets in the country (New York/New Jersey, Tampa, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh etc) unlike the Mountain West. I think the powers that be will ease up on the bias of nonqualifiers and we might even see 2 in the BCS games. BUT, that depends on the bowl committees and television networks themselves. Like I said before, that all depends on how much MONEY they think they can make off of inviting an extra nonqualifier. If they (BCS bowl committee and television executives) thinks it is in the best interest of the BCS financially to invite a 2nd nonqualifier you better believe they will. It’s not about fairness, it’s about MONEY. You may not like what I have to say, but it is the truth.
Hate to say it, Roger, but Randy’s right–it’ll never happen because of the money issues. At worst, giving autobids only to conferences with large viewerships still raises the interest of those excluded (see last year’s Utah team and how I’m sure the ratings spiked) while insuring the interest of those included, regardless of talent.
[...] In the final AP college football polls at the end of the 2006-2008 seasons, the Big East has always had one more team ranked than the MWC—three-to-two, two-to-one, and then three-to-two again. But the trend reversed in 2008, and in a dramatic way. … Cincinnati, after a 32-point victory over a once-and-only-once-proud Rutgers team, has now wedged themselves in at #23, marking the first appearance of a Big East team in the rankings . Yeah, behind three Mountain West teams. …Page 2 [...]