I just wrote an e-mail to Stewart Mandel’s podcast about the possibility of Boise State, having been leap(horned)frogged in the polls and BCS standings by TCU, being left out of not just the national title game, but the big-money bowls altogether. This is the same fear as last year, except: 1) It’s more likely to actually happen, because it doesn’t look likely that all of the other attractive at-large candidates will drop like flies, as they did last year — and also the Fiesta Bowl, the most Boise-friendly of the BCS bowls, has the last at-large pick, and thus will be saddled with Pittsburgh and so can’t help Boise; and 2) If it does happen, it’ll be a much bigger scandal, what with Boise being potentially on a 26-game winning streak, ranked #3 in the country (if TCU is #2), having been in the national title discussion all year, etc.
I’m now half-rooting for a Oregon-or-Auburn vs. TCU national title game — with the Horned Frogs winning — while Boise gets relegated to the Kraft Hunger Bowl, or else not bowling at all, I outline below. That double-whammy, with a team that Boise beat last year (with basically the same players), a team that’s at best a hairbreadth ahead of them in the standings based on a totally subjective determination of merit, winning the national championship, while Boise isn’t even offered a seat at the kids’ table, has to be the worst-case scenario for the BCS, because it would simultaneously prove that, yes, the little guys can compete with the big boys on the biggest stage, and yet also that they don’t have a fair shot at doing so. The debate over whether it’s better for BCS-haters to root for or against the “little guy” thus ends with the answer: Both! We can have our cake and eat it too.
Anyway, rather than doing a whole new blog post about this issue, I thought, for now, I’d just publish my e-mail to Mandel:
Stewart,
Isn’t it amazing how quickly we’ve gone from debating Boise State’s championship merits to wondering, just like we did last year, whether they’ll get passed over by the BCS altogether, and dumped in the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl against either 6-6 Cal or some at-large team? Ugh.
A couple of thoughts on this. First, I wonder whether those who are projecting that the Sugar Bowl will pick Ohio State over Boise State are adequately considering the enormous political pressures that such a scenario would bring to bear. Normally, I’m the first person to assume that the BCS bowls will take the path of maximum revenue, whatever the merits, without regard for any notion of fairness or justice. And I understand that the Sugar Bowl, which holds the key to this whole thing, is desperate for a high-powered matchup the likes of which they haven’t had since LSU vs. Notre Dame in 2007, what with Hawaii and Utah and Cincinnati crashing the party the last three years. But at the same time… leaving a potentially #3-ranked Boise State team on the curb, while giving bids (of necessity, by rule, but most people don’t understand that) to a possibly unranked Big East champ and a Virginia Tech team Boise beat, plus (voluntarily) a pair of teams that didn’t win their conference (obviously it would help if those teams have 2 losses instead of 1 — GO BIG TEN NOVEMBER CHAOS!), would be an absolute nuclear bomb dropped on the budding antitrust situation, wouldn’t it? Utah AG Mark Shurtleff could hardly dream up a better scenario. Nor could Dan Wetzel, for his book sale numbers. Here’s a team on a 26-game winning streak, that’s won BCS bowls 2 of the last 4 years, with basically the same starting lineup as last year’s team that beat both TCU and Oregon (your potential national title contenders), a team that we’ve been talking about as a national title contender all year, and suddenly they’re going to…. the Kraft Hunger Bowl?!?!? It’s unfathomable.
…so unfathomable that the pressure on the Sugar Bowl to “do the right thing” might be too much to overcome. Not BECAUSE it’s the right thing, of course, but because the very survival of the BCS could be at stake. If unbeaten, 26-game-winning-streak-holding, #3-ranked Boise is left out, and sent packing to a fourth-tier bowl, that might finally be the tipping point that kills the BCS, the trigger — because it primarily involves money, not competitive national-title nonsense — that gets the government involved, or at least seriously threatening to get involved if the BCS doesn’t change its ways.
Maybe this is wishful thinking, or a myopic obsession with the here & now, but I really think this would be the biggest scandal in the history of the BCS, from a money perspective. It’d be rivaled only by the 2003 USC-LSU-Oklahoma fiasco, where the #1 team was left out of the title game, but that involved only competitive merit, not money. This would be all about money, as the “have-not” conferences are denied what would be seen as being rightfully theirs, given Boise’s achievements on the field. Even most of the deranged anti-Broncos SEC homers would have to agree that Boise deserves a spot over a team like Pitt or VaTech (granted, again, that’s not the actual debate because those teams are guaranteed spots, but that’s how it would be spun).
And if, despite all this, the folks in New Orleans aren’t inclined to prevent such a disaster, perhaps some other interested parties might play hardball. I realize the BCS’s “best interests of college football” clause has never been invoked, and I’m too cynical to think it would ever be invoked to truly serve the best interests of college football. But how about the best interests of the BCS itself? How about to prevent antitrust armageddon? As I read the clause, it can’t technically be used to alter at-large selections — just to shuffle matchups — but what if the other folks at the table issue the Sugar Bowl an ultimatum? “Pick Boise State, or else we’ll use this clause to send you Pitt and throw whatever at-large team you pick to the Fiesta Bowl. Pittsburgh is closer to New Orleans than Glendale, after all. Best interests of college football!” And thus the Sugar folks’ hand is forced (perhaps with some sort of promised concession for a future year’s selection or something).
Or how about Boise and the WAC playing some hardball? Remember in 2002, when USC and Iowa were fighting to be the higher-ranked Top 4 non-champion, and thus get an autobid, and there was fear the lower ranked team would be excluded in favor of Notre Dame? Iowa and the Big Ten didn’t take the possibility lying down — instead, Jim Delany & co. prematurely announced the rest of the Big Ten’s bowl lineup, simply presuming that Iowa would get the BCS invite that the Hawkeyes obviously deserved, and basically daring the BCS to exclude them (and leave them without ANY bowl). Needless to say, Iowa got picked, and went to the Orange Bowl vs. USC. Now, granted, Boise and the WAC don’t have the same market power as Iowa and the Big Ten. But the Broncos could call up the Kraft Hunger Bowl and say, “Look, guys, no offense, but we will refuse on principle to play in your lesser-tier bowl if the BCS shafts us. So go ahead and pick Nevada or whomever.” Then, in coordination, the WAC and its affiliated bowls could go ahead and announce their lineups before the BCS announcement, just like the Big Ten did in 2002, on the assumption that Boise gets a spot — or rather, in an effort to assure that they do. Dare the BCS bowls to leave Boise completely out in the cold.
And if they do leave Boise out in the cold? Fine. If there are enough open at-large spots, Boise can try to put together a favorable deal for a reasonable second- or high third-tier bowl against a quality opponent, like what’s happened in prior years with the Louisville and TCU games — and if that doesn’t work out, they can boycott bowl season on principle. Easier said than done, I know, especially when we’re talking about a group of kids who have richly earned that “reward,” and an athletic department which doubtless needs its bowl money (although, as Wetzel points out, that’s an overrated factor). But at the same time, surely they can’t just meekly submit themselves to the indignity of playing in a lesser bowl against a lesser team. Sell it to the kids as a chance to make a difference, to be revolutionaries shaking up the system that’s shafted them. Instead of a bowl trip, how about a cross-country barnstorming campaign against the BCS? Hell, make a stop in L.A. and play an exhibition game against USC at the Coliseum on January 1. I’m sure the BCS and the NCAA would love that. Heh. (Okay, I know that last part can’t really happen, but I can dream, can’t I?)
–Brendan Loy, Denver, CO
Of course, Boise will render this whole thing moot by losing to Nevada.
It is more likely that Auburn and Oregon lose and LSU passes TCU and Boise St. with 1-loss without even winning the SEC championship to play in the BCS championship game, then Boise St. playing in the BCS championship.
It’s not a conspiracy, because there’s nothing secret, anymore, about the BCS making sure non AQ teams don’t play in the championship game.
There are a few ways the BCS can save itself (for now) at this point. First is working behind the scenes to ensure that Boise State gets picked for a BCS bowl if they don’t make the championship. They have to realize how bad it would be for them if the Broncos get left out.
Second, they need to add another bowl (the Cotton Bowl) to better prepare themselves for situations like this in the future. Two more at large spots and there wouldn’t be a question that Boise State is going to a bowl. They could even add some gaurentees that teams ranked above X get to go.
Third, they really need to give the Mountain West an auto bid, and consider revoking the Big Easts. This might mean a rules change, but looking at the past few years and this years results it seems pretty clear to anyone with a pulse that the Mountain West is better at football than the Big East. Probably the ACC too. Giving another autobid would only work if you add another game.
I agree with #1 and #2 whole-heartedly. #3 is wrong, though. You know what a mid-major guy I am, but it simply isn’t true that “it seems pretty clear to anyone with a pulse that the Mountain West is better at football than the Big East.” It’s not even debatable — this statement is just false.
The Mountain West’s top two teams (TCU & Utah now, TCU & Boise soon) are certainly better than the Big East’s and ACC’s top two, no doubt. And the next tier of teams are probably fairly comparable. But the MWC is incredibly top-heavy. Its bottom half is just AWFUL. The bottom teams in the Big East and ACC are just nowhere near as bad as Wyoming (Sagarin #106), Colorado State (#114) or UNLV (#147) and New Mexico (#175). Big East bottom 4, per Sagarin: South Florida (#67), Cincinnati (#68), UConn (#80), Rutgers (#88). ACC bottom 4: Boston College (#79), Virginia (#82), Duke (#96), Wake Forest (#124). This makes a difference, in a serious manifestation of #itsaWAR. Those bottom teams, possibly excepting Duke and Wake, can rise up and beat you if they play a really good game. The MWC’s bottom 4 really can’t. And whereas those ACC 4 are only one-third of the conference, the MWC’s bottom 4 is 44% of the conference. (The Big East’s bottom are half the conference, but as you see, there’s nobody nearly as bad.) That means half of TCU’s conference schedule almost might as well be bye weeks. There’s no realistic prospect of them losing to such godawful teams. Not true in the Big East or ACC.
Those bottom teams are pure dead weight, dragging down the whole conference. The top 5 teams — TCU (#2), Utah (#14), Air Force (#37) San Diego State (#48) and BYU (#69) — are as good as, maybe better than, the top 5 in the Big East or ACC. The same is true if you swap out Utah and BYU for Boise (#5), Nevada (#23) and Fresno (#61), and compare the top 6. It’s not a slam-dunk, certainly not year in & year out, but those teams are definitely competitive with the ACC and Big East equivalents. But conferences aren’t just judged on their top 5 or 6 teams, and you can’t just ignore Wyoming, CSU, UNLV and New Mexico. They suuuuuuck. And when TCU flees for the Big East, their influence will be even stronger.
If you could cobble together a conference combining the best of the WAC, the C-USA West Division, and the MWC, including soon-to-be-independent BYU and Pac-12-bound Utah — TCU (#2), Boise (#5), Utah (#14), Hawaii (#35), Air Force (#37), San Diego State (#48), Tulsa (#59), BYU (#69), Houston (#72) and SMU (#77) — now you’ve got a 10-team league that looks BCS-worthy. But that isn’t happening in this lifetime. It would require too many vested interests to look out for the common good. Instead we’re seeing the opposite happen: the best teams & programs are leaving for greener pastures, watering down the competitive level of the teams left behind.
The Mountain West will not get an automatic bid. Frankly, without Utah or BYU and possibly soon without TCU, it doesn’t deserve one. An expanded BCS with an extra bowl, a guaranteed spot for, say, any Top 6 team (maybe even a guaranteed spot for any undefeated conference champion, although that would trigger some major strength-of-schedule howling), and a plus-one, may happen. The Antitrust Armageddon could make it unavoidable. We’ll see.
I don’t think they will, but I think they deserve it. I think a conference with Boise State, Fresno State, Nevada, TCU, Air Force, (and to an extent SDSU) is better than the top of the Big Least.
Yes, but again, you don’t judge conferences purely by their “top.” (That’s SEC logic, my friend!) One of the criteria used by the BCS in determining AQ status is the overall ranking of all the teams in the conference, and rightfully so. If 44% of your conference games are pure gimmes against bottom-feeder, 100+-ranked teams, that makes your life a lot easier than a team in a conference with a bunch of “bottom” teams ranked in the 50s-90s. It’d be like if the ACC had 5 or 6 teams as bad as Duke and Wake Forest…..or even worse.
Bottom line, the MWC can’t become BCS-worthy unless and until its bottom-feeders either substantially improve, or are jettisoned in favor of better teams. As a mid-major homer, I wish that weren’t true, but it is.
I think the only way Boise gets into the Sugar Bowl is if Auburn runs the table. If the Sugar can take LSU, they will, and all of their concerns about tickets sales and such go out the window. They’d probably want a back room deal in exchange for it, but they’d come out okay this year. Auburn/Boise would be a much harder sell for them.
P.S. It should also be noted that you’re comparing the Mountain West during perhaps its best season ever (especially if you’re including future members) with the Big East in its worst season ever, and the ACC in one of its worst. If you looked at the conferences over, say, the last 5 years, even though the MWC has been on the rise, it would be much worse vis a vis the Big East and ACC, which have had much better years than this one (though they’re consistently #5 and #6 among the BCs conferences).
Good point, Matt. I hadn’t thought of that.
The only downside is that when Boise beats LSU, it can be blamed on Les Miles being an idiot, instead of giving proper credit to Boise. I’d much rather see them neutralize Cam Newton and Auburn, or beat a hypothetical 1-loss Alabama team that no longer exists. Oh well.
I’ll run the numbers later tonight on Big East vs MWC the past few seasons and let you know.
On a slightly related note, the big hang up for TCU goign to the Big East is its non-football sports. Traveling all those sports would be a huge pain. On thing I saw speculated on a blog was the idea that TCU would join in football only. But then where do their other sports go, the Mountain West is certainly not going to keep them around right? What if the WAC lets them in. Could the WAC be helping TCU jump ship to the Big East in a retaliatory move against the MWC for foiling its earlier plans with BYU? It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. So what if that happens? If it were up to me, i.e. if I were the MWC commisioner, I’d offer Hawaii a football only membership. Word out of the islands is that the non-football sports are all highly interested in moving to the currently-California only Big West conference. It would be a lot easier travel and competition wise to be grouped with those schools. What a blow to the WAC to lose yet another of its top members
The Mountain West going forward figures to be better than the Big East. When I saw Craig “Gay” James talking about the BCS match-ups “if the season ends today” and unranked [totally forgotten] Pitt was playing somebody in some BCS bowl, I quickly went to look up what the hell was up, and I have discovered that no Big East team is even in the Top 25, and in the AP rankings Pitt is behind USC and San Diego St. in votes received.
I don’t know anything about SDSU, except that they are commonly put on big schools September schedules to play the role of “cupcake”, sort of a pre-season automatic W– and they are ranked ahead of the best team in the Big East. Granted, this isn’t a good season for the Big East, but it’s never a deep season for the Big East. Yes there was 1 or 2 exciting seasons for Big East teams, but let’s be real, the Mountain West of the future is much better than the Big East of the recent past, present and future.
“P.S. It should also be noted that you’re comparing the Mountain West during perhaps its best season ever (especially if you’re including future members) with the Big East in its worst season ever, and the ACC in one of its worst.”
Indeed. Everyone seems to have a short memory with college football, and you have to think long-term when making changes affecting conferences. Cincinnati, Louisville, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers, and USF were all serious national contenders at some point in the past 5 years (Syracuse being a notable exception, along with maybe UConn?). I’m not crazy – go back and look at the polls week to week from 2005 to 2009.
The strength of teams and conferences is obviously cyclical, and you can’t disregard that when talking about major structural changes to the sport.
Pingback: Labuo.com
Pingback: World Spinner
Brendan, Pat Forde is stealing your stuff! Heard him on Tony Kornheiser’s radio show, and he posed the possibility of Boise ending up in the Kraft Hunger Bowl! 😉
I think he’s concerned about this as well. Because within a week, the Bus might go from BCS bound to in a Hunger ditch.