Well, this is Utah's last MWC Media Days. It is the last time Boise State will not attend MWC Media Days for the foreseeable future. A lot has been made of the MWC possibly becoming a BCS conference. So here's a look at how these two teams impact that.
First, all of Utah's credentials from this BCS cycle go with it to the Pac 10, including their BCS-Busting season 2 years ago, last year's top-25 finish, and whatever happens this year (perhaps another top-25 finish, perhaps a miraculous undefeated run and top-10 finish, or maybe even nothing). Second, all of Boise State's come with it to the MWC, including the undefeated top-10 finish two years ago, last year's #6 ranking and BCS game against TCU, and whatever happens this year (which by all accounts will be another top-10 finish, even at 11-1).
The BCS announced it's formula for BCS Conference inclusion. You are supposed to be in the top 6 in each of these three categories. However, you can be granted an exemption on one of the rules, if you qualify in the other two, and the BCS decides it's OK.
1: Average finish of your highest-ranked team in the BCS standings. The MWC loses Utah's #6 ranking from 2008, which is replaced by Boise State's #9. This is currently a slight decrease, enough to move them from 3rd place of all conferences to 4th place. However, if Boise State manages to finish in the top 5 either this year or next year, they would make up for the current drop. Even with the slight dip resulting from 2008, the MWC is still ahead of the Big East, Big Ten, and ACC. The Big Ten stands to improve upon theirs this year, while the Big East certainly will not and the ACC may not either depending on Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, or Florida State.
2. Average finish of all teams in your conference. This is one where the MWC currently ranks a distant 7th. Boise State, over the 4-year period, should be better than Utah (currently Boise State averages 7.5 and Utah averages 14.5, with Boise State expected to do better both this year and next year). However, neither of them individually does enough to push the MWC anywhere close to 6th. (With both teams in the MWC, it would be much closer, but still no cigar.)
3. A somewhat convoluted measure of number of teams finishing in the top 25 of the BCS standings, adjusted for size of conference. Both Boise State and Utah have finished in the top 25 both years so far and the MWC stays at 9 teams, so there is no difference whatsoever in the two teams for this rule. However, Boise State appears much more likely to finish in the top 25 the next two years than Utah does (or would if they stayed in the MWC). It seems unlikely that the MWC will drop enough to fall behind the Big East or ACC in this one, no matter how good of years they have, assuming that at least 2 MWC teams finish in the top 25 each of the next two years.
It should be pointed out that the MWC, with Boise State, without Utah, is currently 4th in rule 1, 7th in rule 2, and 3rd in rule 3. The ACC is 7th, 2nd, and 7th, respectively. The Big East is 5th, 3rd, and 6th, respectively. Interesting to note that the MWC has the best average of the 3 and that the ACC, not the Big East, would seem to be more in jeopardy of losing its AQ status, should such a thing ever happen.
The MWC's hopes to gain AQ status rest, not in the arrival of Boise State (nor were they crushed with the departure of Utah), but in the bottom of the league. CSU and Wyoming have both won bowl games the past two years, but another 3-9 season from CSU or 1-11 from New Mexico simply won't do. You can't have 2 or 3 teams in the bottom 100 and be a BCS league. If the bottom three improve the next two years, they may not even need an exemption on rule 2. Realistically though (since that is unlikely to happen), the question is: if the ACC doesn't qualify in two of the rules, why should they remain over the MWC, which doesn't qualify in only one?
Right on! BSU in the MWC is way better than Utah is or was. Remember under Whit they have finished above third place just once. They have averaged three losses a year. Name one Div. 1 coach with three losses a year, has finished third place in their conference four out of five times that gets as much positive press as Whit. And he has lost to his rival three of the last four years; this after inheriting a program with 2 total losses the previous two years. Does the word overrated come to mind? It should. Utah has mostly been a decent program over the years and still is, but not a great one. Bronco and Patterson should be getting the hype not Whit.
ReplyDelete