PonyFans.com

Who really deserves to be in the BCS? This is what everyone's been debating for the last 2 weeks, and with good reason. 95% of the revenue from post-season bowl games goes to schools in BCS conferences. BCS conferences get the lions share of all TV contracts and far outdraw non-BCS conferences at the turnstile. BCS membership is like having a license to print money. Its a lifeline to a drowning program, or the financial base that a champion is built on. BCS exclusion can be a slow, drawn out death sentence.
So, what programs deserve to be in the BCS? Baylor is in. TCU thinks they should be in. SMU desperately wants to be in. But do any of them really deserve it? do they cut the mustard when it comes to getting the job done? Is it fair that Baylor is pretty much locked into a conference that holds a guaranteed bid and which has gotten 2 teams into the big money games several times, while a national power like Miami is in a league that has never gotten more than 1 team in, and Virginia Tech is in real danger of losing that BCS connection, all together?
Everyone, absolutely everyone, wants to be in. Alot of teams sincerely believe they deserve to be in, for a wide variety of reasons, but who actually does? Since CPC has some spare time these days with basketball recruiting winding down, he has set out to objectively answer that eternal question. Every day this week, CPC will examine a different objective criteria, and see which of 118 teams in Div. 1A deserve to make the cut. The "cut" will be set at 85. Pundits have speculated that the largest the BCS will ever get is 7 conferences of 12 teams each. So, 7x12+1 (Notre Dame) = 85 teams.

To begin with, CPC is going to steal the rankings from the Collegefootballnews.com website. Normally CPC does not stoop to common thievery, but the CFN crew has put together a pretty good looking list with objective criteria, and it looks like a good place to start. To make their ranking system they combined a diverse set of criteria, including wins against Div.1 teams, wins against teams with winning records, wins in conference, losses to teams under .500, attendance (percentage of stadium capacity) and graduation rates. They took an average of the last 3 seasons, so one good or bad year couldnt sway a teams ranking too far. It looks like a pretty objective system, covering all the bases, and here is how the teams stacked up:

Who's in: It probably doesnt surprise anyone that Marshall makes the cut, but you might not expect them to be the highest ranked team currently not in a BCS conference, at #19. Marshall's MAC-mate Toledo was the 2nd highest rated non-BCS team, at #25, and 5 other MAC teams all made the cut. Also from the MAC, Akron and Ohio U. narrowly missed the cut at #87 and #88. Better luck next year, fellas.
Our next door neighbors at Rice and North Texas just barely slipped in under the wire at #84 and #85, respectively. It wasnt pretty, but they got in and thats what counts, right guys? TCU was 5th amongst current non-BCS teams, at #34. The highest rated WAC program was Fresno State at #26, Boise State was 30th, and Hawaii and La. Tech also made the cut.
In C-USA, Louisville was ranked slightly ahead of the Frogs at #32, while Southern Miss, Cinncinnatti and East Carolina all were also deemed worthy. In a bit of surprise, the financially unstable programs at UAB and Tulane also made the cut, at #73 and #82.
Colorado State was the highest rated team in the MWC, at #28. Of the three service academies, only Air Force makes the cut.

Who's out?:
Several schools with nationally prominent basketball programs didnt make the cut in football, Indiana (89), Missouri (93), Temple (96), Kansas (98), Uconn (101), and Duke (108) are resting on the laurels of their hoops teams as is Tulsa (110). Tulsa was the lowest ranked team in the WAC. The lowest ranked team thats currently a member of a BCS conference was Rutgers (112). As we go through some more objective measures in the days to come you may notice a pattern forming, as Rutgers clings tenaciously to last place in several of the important categories. Vanderbilt (94), and Baylor (100) are the other current BCS members who should lose their spots under this measurement. SMU came in at #97, their high score in the graduation rate category keeping them just ahead of Kansas, Nevada and Baylor.

So, whats the lesson in this? For TCU it may be something they havent thought of before. The MAC appears to be the most competitive of the Non-BCS conferences, with quality programs at the top, and several dogs at the bottom they could drop. If the Big East steals Louisville and Cincy, TCU could still make a decent home for themselves by keeping contact with Southern Miss, ECU and Memphis, then adding a few select schools such as Rice and North Texas to form the southern division of a very competive conference based mainly in the midwest. Marshall would also be in the southern division, while Toledo would be in the northern division with Ball State, Miami of Ohio, and Northern Illinois. They could add Tulsa to that mix to give their division a prominent basketball team, and a football opponent thats always safe to schedule for homecoming.

Thats all for today, boys and girls. Professor CPC will be back tomorrow, where we will focus on the sticky issue of Attendance. See you then, and remember, if you're walking home late at night and a strange man in a dark car, wearing a long trench coat and a porkpie hat pulled down low over his eyes, pulls up next to you and offers you a ride home to the Sun Belt conference, just say NO!

I think the MAC would be a perfect spot for TCU.

I take it that you are pointing out that SMU does not deserve to play ball with the big boys. You have seemed to draw a conclusion on power rating even though other factors like attendance, facilities, and location weren't mentioned. I dont see how you can concede anything to Rice and North Texas, recent records be damned. Heck, Virginia Tech was in the national championship game a couple years ago but no one would say they are a better long term program than Michigan,USC or Georgia or any number of other true elites that havent been to the BCS championship game...yet. SMU has serious issues, but I for one am not ready to say that Rice, Tulsa and UNT have proven superior or have greater real potential.

Sorry, I didnt read your post closely enough, attendance is included in criteria. Even so, the whole thing is still fraught with subjectivity. Was graduation rate given equal weighting to won/loss? What about having legitimate majors and no basket weaving courses, was that factored? How about tradition? Is Marshall really more deserving to sit at the table than Army? My point is fairness in a true sense is never gonna be achieved or even approximated. Like business, politics, life, the outcome will be determined by alliances, circumstances and plain luck.

The other issue is, of course, the other revenue sport, Basketball. While we have not been world beaters we have been TCU and UNT beaters. Conferences are going to look not just at football, but also with an eye toward having a basketball conference that means something as well. BTW women's basketball is also considered in the mix. Thus, TCU while having made significant improvements in its football program might not make the cut in basketball. For example while SMU had a mediocre Sagarin rating of 122, TCU was at 178 (despite playing good teams) and UNT was at 239. The Big East and MWC will be thinking football money and basketball money. Thus a team like Tulsa while awful at football might be selected ahead of SMU. In basketball again the MAC football teams do not fare well. The highest one Miami of Ohio is 137. While football drives the bus, if you are on the bubble and your basketball sucks, and your attendance is suspect, and your facilities are sub-par, you could be left behind. Interesting enough Virginia Tech had a Sagarin of 154, but top 15 in football. Either way, SMU doesn't make the cut to BCS. Also, I think BCS will be 5 conferences 12 teams each, not seven.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Hoop Fan:
<B>Sorry, I didnt read your post closely enough, attendance is included in criteria. Even so, the whole thing is still fraught with subjectivity. Was graduation rate given equal weighting to won/loss? What about having legitimate majors and no basket weaving courses, was that factored? How about tradition? Is Marshall really more deserving to sit at the table than Army? My point is fairness in a true sense is never gonna be achieved or even approximated. Like business, politics, life, the outcome will be determined by alliances, circumstances and plain luck. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hold onto your shorts, this isnt a one time shot. CPC clearly said he would be exploring
other measurements in the days to come, and attendance would be coming up next.
Tradition was not a criteria for this list, nor was there any mention of majors. graduation rate was one category, but there were several categories that involved wins and losses, so it wouldnt appear they were equally weighted. you can read exactly how this list was calculated at <A HREF="http://www.collegefootballnews.com" TARGET=_blank>www.collegefootballnews.com</A>
Relax, just wait, we're going to be talking about other measurements. If you have a list or specific criteria we can measure and evaluate, list it here and CPC will see what he can do for you.

Important point to remember, though, this isnt about fairness. Thats not the title of the thread.

An interesting assessment of the overall strength of I-A programs that goes beyond simply wins and losses. Rice and Tulane are hurt by the fact they play in 70,000 seat stadiums they can't come close to filling. Ford Stadium is the best thing that has happened to SMU football in a long, long, time. It just might be the key to our survival as a I-A program. It certainly makes for a great atmosphere when we play games like we have in recent years against Kansas, TTech and several others that were attended by about 25k fans.

The assessment is dead on about SMU. It's time to compete in the WAC and to stop losing to the lower level WAC teams (meaning it's time for us to stop being one of them!)

Thank you all for your comments, and welcome back to this, the weekend edition of "Who Deserves it?" Where we will once again examine the eternal question of who actually deserves to be in a BCS conference. Today we will focus on Attendance.
Why is Attendance so important? Because its all about the money. Realignment is money driven, and money comes from attendance. People buying tickets funds your program, and the more people you draw the better TV deal you can negotiate. Butts in the seats, thats what it eventually all comes down to. When conferences or teams go shopping for new partners, they're looking for teams that can deliver the market, as they say. So, CPC has obtained last years D1A attendance stats, and the cut is once again set at 85. These numbers are the "official" numbers that schools report for their game day attendance, not the audited numbers the NCAA uses to assess wether a team is meeting the minimum for 1A membership, but the NCAA doesnt publish those numbers, so these will have to do.

Who's in: Unlike yesterdays rankings which were heavily influenced by a teams competitive performance, the attendance numbers heavily favor the current members of the BCS leagues. Penn State is the overall attendance champ, drawing 857,911 total paying customers last year, filling their stadium to an average of 99.96% of its capacity for every game. Michigan actually drew 103% of its stadium capacity, and a higher per game average, but played one less home game than Penn State.
The only school that is currently in a BCS conference, but still doesnt make the 85 team cut is Rutgers. The Scarlet Knights drew less than 20,000 fans per game last year, well under half of their stadiums capacity.
Of the schools currently outside the BCS, BYU leads the way with 62,176 rapid fans per game, filling their stadium to 96% of its capacity, making them 27th amongst D1A teams. The Cougars Mountain West conference mate, Air Force, is the only other Non-BCS team in the top 50. The Falcons draw a healthy 42,713 fans per game.
Unlike yesterdays ratings, all the service academies make the cut today. This shouldnt be a surprise when you consider that the Army-Navy game by itself normally draws around 80,000 fans every year. Army-Navy was officially a home game for Navy this year, even though it was played in New Jersey, and and the Midshipmen also moved their game with Notre Dame to Baltimore, to accomodate the crowd of 70,000+ that game drew. Navy's 30,000 seat home stadium was packed for almost every game, despite the fact that the rest of their home schedule was predominantly teams that dont draw well, such as Duke, Rice, Northwestern, and UConn. Navy drew a total of 287,972 fans this season. Even without their 2 major draws, they would have averaged 27,808 fans per game at their home stadium, a number that would have been a virtual tie with TCU's attendance. Not bad for a team thats only won 3 games in the last 3 years.
Army didnt do quite as well as Air Force or Navy, but still managed a respectable 32,606 fans per game, 195,636 in total. Army didnt have any really big draws at home this year, since Navy was technically a road game, and they have had to drop Notre Dame and Boston College from their schedule since joining C-USA. Their average was still high enough for 62nd place, well within the 85 team cut.
It should be noted that the fans of the military academies also travel well. What other schools literally have their own air force of transport planes to carry fans around? For every road game, 2,000 cadets or middies will recieve orders to board a transport plane and fly to Boston, or Dallas, or San Jose, or wherever the game is being played. Seriously, they dont have a choice, going to the game is one of the Orders Of The Day. Also, there are military vets all over the country, its like having a massive alumni base. So, in every city there will be people who feel some kind of loyalty to the academies.
Hawaii was 54th overall, and drew an impressive 310,074 fans (8 home games this year) putting them first amongst WAC schools, but followed closely behind by Fresno State. The Bulldogs averaged 37,800 fans per game, 92% of their stadiums capacity. UTEP has fallen considerably since they averaged 44,000 a game in 2000 for their WAC co-champion team, but they still make the cut this year averaging 28,310, for 69th place. Boise is right behind them with 27,939 per game, 93% of their stadiums capacity.
Louisville was the strongest of the C-USA teams, with 36,473 per game, for 57th place. East Carolina, Memphis, TCU and Cinncinatti also make the 85 team cut.
The MAC was one of the big winners yesterday, but they barely make the radar screen today. Marshall and Toledo were 77th and 83rd, respectively, the rest didnt make it.
Duke stayed in by the skin of their teeth, at 84, and New Mexico State was the Sun Belts lone team in the top 85, taking the last spot.

Who's out?: The majority of the Sun Belt, and the MAC, for starters. The MAC has some quality teams, but they must be keeping it a secret, because the fans arent coming to watch. In some cases a bigger stadium would help, Toledo fills their stands but still barely makes the cut, but most of the MAC schools have more empty seats than paying customers. Several are under the 15,000 cutoff for remaining in D1A.
The Sun Belt has the dubious disctinction of being the home of La. Monroe, who only averaged 8,000 fans last year, the bottom of D1A. Several other SBC teams were under 15,000, including La. Lafayette, and Arkansas State. UNT was living dangerously, at 15,206 per game.
The WAC, MWC and C-USA each had 1 team under the 15k minimum, as San Jose, Wyoming and Houston all came up short.
UConn, in their first year moving up to D1A, drew 15,807 a game. UConn is not playing the Big East schedule yet, though. Their home slate was highlighted by a visit from Georgia Tech, but also included Kent State, Ball State, Temple and Florida Atlantic. And, they are still playing in a stadium that only holds 16,000, so it would seem that most of their games were packed. They begin play in a newly built, larger stadium next season.

A complete rundown of this years D1A attendance is available at the NCAA's website, at: <A HREF="http://www.ncaa.org/stats/division1%20football/attendance/IA_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf" TARGET=_blank>http://www.ncaa.org/stats/division1%20football/attendance/IA_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf</A>

Thats all the lecture for today, students. Professor CPC will now stand out of the way, so classroom debate can once more ensue.