T1B

1. There is no clear-cut best conference this year.

2. A four-way tie: SEC, Pac 12, Big 12, B1G.

The SEC is clearly two great teams, one good team, a couple of decent teams, and some real dogshit.

The Pac 12 is a bit better than I originally thought. USC is certainly better than expected, and ASU is better than decent. Washington isn't horrible either. This isn't merely a two-team conference. The thing is, their top two teams are better than any other conference's top two teams save the SEC's and maybe the Big XII's.

The Big XII has two really good teams, though I have serious doubts about the defenses of both. Other than Okie St and OU they've got a number of decent teams but nobody else who's even close to the first two.

The B1G has no great teams, four equally decent teams, some mediocre squads, and some absolute dogshit.

Of those four conferences, I guess I'd have to give it to...nope, I really can't. None of them stand out to me.

The ACC? No great teams, no real defense to speak of, a whole bunch of mediocre teams, and two tough offenses. I'd still put them behind the other four conferences.

The Big East shouldn't even have AQ status anymore, and I'd rate them about equal with the MWC and slightly above C-USA.

UDub's only 2 losses have been against top-10 teams.

Saturday, it will be 3 losses against top-10 teams.

Van wrote: The B1G has no great teams, four equally decent teams, some mediocre squads, and some absolute dogshit.

Hey!

Van wrote:The Big East shouldn't even have AQ status anymore, and I'd rate them about equal with the MWC and slightly above C-USA.

Believe it or not, there is actually somewhat objective criteria to determine which conferences have AQ status, and it's not merely a "because I said so" standard. The standard, as well as data from the most recently concluded observational period, can be found here.

Long story short, the Big East's future AQ status likely stands or falls with Boise State. If they don't add Boise, they have no shot at retaining AQ status. OTOH, if they do add Boise, it's likely that they will keep AQ status. For an article that agrees with this conclusion, see http://www.forbes.com/sites/bleacherrep ... -big-east/. If the MWC retains Boise State, they will be able to apply to the Presidential Oversight Committee for a waiver to obtain AQ status, but their standing with Boise likely is weaker than the Big East's standing with Boise.

As an aside, it should be noted that in hindsight, the ACC's addition of Pitt and Syracuse was huge, not because of the move itself but because of the chain of events it set in place. Also, the ACC was a significant, if unintended, beneficiary of aTm's move to the SEC. If the status quo from last year's realignment had held -- i.e., TCU to the Big East and Boise State to the MWC -- the ACC would have found itself in seventh place in the first category, and would have had to apply to the Presidential Oversight Committee for a waiver (which they likely would've gotten, but why leave anything to chance?). Now, as it stands, the ACC will be leapfrogged in that category by the Big East or the MWC, but not both, and therefore will retain the very important sixth spot in that category.

Van wrote:The Big East shouldn't even have AQ status anymore, and I'd rate them about equal with the MWC and slightly above C-USA.

What are you basing this on? Since the Big East and ACC have been in their current alignment here are the final BCS polls from 2005:

2005 - ACC - MIA (8), VT (10), BC (21), FSU (22), GT (24) Big East - WVU (11), LOU (19)
2006 - ACC - WF (14), VT (15), BC (24) Big East - UL (6), WVU (13), RUT (16)
2007 - ACC - VT (3), BC (14), CLE (15), VIR (20) Big East - WVU (9), USF (21), CIN (22), CON (25)
2008 - ACC - GT (14), VT (19), BC (24) Big East - CIN (12), PIT (20)
2009 - ACC - GT (9), VT (11), MIA (15) Big East - CIN (3), WVU (16), PIT (17)
2010 - ACC - VT (13), FSU (23) Big East - WVU (22)

Outside of one down year for the Big East (2010) I can't see how you can come to the conclusion that Big East should lose their automatic bid. If you take the 2005-2009 seasons you can make a very convincing case that the Big East was better than the ACC was.

Interesting statistic here is that of the 20 Top 25 BCS finishes by the ACC, 12 of them came from the former Big East programs that left.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Long story short, the Big East's future AQ status likely stands or falls with Boise State. If they don't add Boise, they have no shot at retaining AQ status. OTOH, if they do add Boise, it's likely that they will keep AQ status.

but no guarantees....that's my big problem with Boise State going to the big east...if the conference loses their AQ status, Boise State is in the same boat they're in with the MWC....

but from what I know, BSU moving to the big east is all but signed....

Felix wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Long story short, the Big East's future AQ status likely stands or falls with Boise State. If they don't add Boise, they have no shot at retaining AQ status. OTOH, if they do add Boise, it's likely that they will keep AQ status.

but no guarantees....that's my big problem with Boise State going to the big east...if the conference loses their AQ status, Boise State is in the same boat they're in with the MWC....

but from what I know, BSU moving to the big east is all but signed....

As things stand right now, there are 3 factors the BCS looks at to determine AQ status for conferences:

1. Average finish of highest-ranked team in conference;
2. Average rankings of all teams in the conference in the six computer ranking systems used by the BCS; and
3. Number of Top 25 finishers in final BCS standings for each conference, measured as a % of the leading conference, and with adjustments made for the size of each conference.

In order to get AQ status, a conference needs to be ranked in the top six conferences of each of the first two categories, and 50% or higher in the third category.

A conference can agree for a waiver for AQ status to the Presidential Oversight Committee if the conference finishes in the top six of each of the first two categories, or the top five in one and the top seven in the other, and has at least a 33.33% in the third category.

If Boise joins the Big East, the Big East is fine in the first category. It will finish ahead of the ACC and possibly even the B1G, so either fourth or fifth overall.

I haven't done a statistical analysis on the second category, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. I would note, however, that based upon the last completed observation period, the Big East ranked sixth in this category and was ranked about 20 points ahead of the MWC, which was seventh (by way of comparison, the Pac-12, which ranked first during the last observation period, was about six points ahead of the Big East). Given the realignment that has taken place, as well as the fact that this is likely the most static of the three categories the BCS uses, and the one in which a single program has the least impact, it's probably a pretty safe bet that the Big East will rank sixth in this category.

In the third category, assuming that Boise State, UCF and Houston all come onboard, it's nearly a moral certainty that the Big East will rank somewhere between 33.33% and 50%. Theoretically, they could get to 50% by adding just those three teams and no others (since their multiplier would be much higher in the event they stayed at eight teams), but it's doubtful that Boise would join under those circumstances, and even if they did, the Big East wouldn't be solving the problem which has left them subject to raids by other conferences. So I don't see that happening. Fwiw, the Big East needed a waiver from the Presidential Oversight Committee during the last go-round based on this category as well. Of course, the Big East was only percentage points away from getting automatic AQ status in this category (49.11% vice 50%). Their percentage is likely to fall slightly this time around, but on the positive side, they'll be in the top five, maybe even in the top four, in the first category, so that could be a pretty strong argument for a waiver.