Can someone point me to or help me understand BCS conference affiliation rules?

[HotBox]

Specifically, I am curious about the comments I have read on ESPN about the MWC being considered a possible BCS conference in 2014. I assume this was mentioned due to some sort of "BCS Conference Qualifications Standards" somewhere? While it may not be fair, the fact is that college football makes a lot of money from the bigger conferences and I understand them wanting to "reward" the conferences that make college football what it is on a national scale. I personally think that a 10-2 Florida with losses to Alabama and Auburn would be more qualified to play for a national championship than an undefeated Boise St, who's only quality win is at home vs Oregon. To me it is about who these teams have to play week in and week out, in other words, how tough is your conference.

I would be a supporter of a fair conference review that takes place every three years that ranks all of the conferences and simply includes the top 6 conferences for a three year clip. IF the MWC beat out the Big Least, then the MWC is in the BCS league for three years and if they continue to do well, they can remain in...if they tank over the three years, they are out.

I know it can't be that simple (can it?) but I think there is some semblance of this notion already in place, but I would be interested to see the criteria and the span of years between the reviews. I think three years is plenty.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Everyone always piles on the Big East. IMO the Big East is much better than the ACC.

[Babs]

Specifically, I am curious about the comments I have read on ESPN about the MWC being considered a possible BCS conference in 2014. I assume this was mentioned due to some sort of "BCS Conference Qualifications Standards" somewhere? While it may not be fair, the fact is that college football makes a lot of money from the bigger conferences and I understand them wanting to "reward" the conferences that make college football what it is on a national scale. I personally think that a 10-2 Florida with losses to Alabama and Auburn would be more qualified to play for a national championship than an undefeated Boise St, who's only quality win is at home vs Oregon. To me it is about who these teams have to play week in and week out, in other words, how tough is your conference.

I would be a supporter of a fair conference review that takes place every three years that ranks all of the conferences and simply includes the top 6 conferences for a three year clip. IF the MWC beat out the Big Least, then the MWC is in the BCS league for three years and if they continue to do well, they can remain in...if they tank over the three years, they are out.

I know it can't be that simple (can it?) but I think there is some semblance of this notion already in place, but I would be interested to see the criteria and the span of years between the reviews. I think three years is plenty.

There isn't any criteria, nor any fixed time period between reviews. They do whatever they want. They've been planning on an extensive review in 2010 for several years now.

Here's the current bowl selection process:

http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility

Here's the ruling commission:

http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/governance

[beefytee]

Everyone always piles on the Big East. IMO the Big East is much better than the ACC.

I was thinking the same thing. The MWC(Utah) has as many BCS wins as the ACC.

[HotBox]

I was thinking the same thing. The MWC(Utah) has as many BCS wins as the ACC.

But the ACC has more talent top to bottom than the Big East. Look at the piece that ESPN just did on the ACC and I think you will be as surprised as I was.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/previe...ark&id=4407308

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

But the ACC has more talent top to bottom than the Big East. Look at the piece that ESPN just did on the ACC and I think you will be as surprised as I was.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/previe...ark&id=4407308

NFL picks don't have anything to do with being BCS worthy. Oregon State had the 3rd most players picked in the NFL, USC #1, South Carolina #2, Oregon #4. But that didn't stop everyone from dismissing USC from the NC picture for losing to them.

According to this, the Big 10 is much better than the Pac 10. Somehow the Rose Bowl results just don't match up.

[cougjunkie]

But the ACC has more talent top to bottom than the Big East. Look at the piece that ESPN just did on the ACC and I think you will be as surprised as I was.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/previe...ark&id=4407308

Randy Shannon is a genius:

"I think the league is getting beat up a lot because we haven't had a team go to the BCS Championship Game," Miami coach Randy Shannon said. "We always have somebody in the Orange Bowl, but never anybody in the [BCS] championship game."

Ummm.... Randy breaking news the Orange Bowl is an autobid for you guys, it doesnt matter how crappy you are.

[Fiyero]

Hey HotBox, would you like me to help you choose an avatar?

[HotBox]

I was thinking the same thing. The MWC(Utah) has as many BCS wins as the ACC.

NFL picks don't have anything to do with being BCS worthy. Oregon State had the 3rd most players picked in the NFL, USC #1, South Carolina #2, Oregon #4. But that didn't stop everyone from dismissing USC from the NC picture for losing to them.

According to this, the Big 10 is much better than the Pac 10. Somehow the Rose Bowl results just don't match up.

I wasn't so interested in the number of NFL picks but the number of bowl qualifiers. Could there be something to what was said in the article, that because the ACC is not considered a "power conference" (yet they are still in the BCS) that in-conference losses are given less lenience than an in-conference loss in the SEC etc?

I still think that they are better than the Big East.

[HotBox]

Hey HotBox, would you like me to help you choose an avatar?

I was thinking Mary Poppins but whatever you have in your "hidden" files on your computer would probably do. :-)

[beefytee]

I wasn't so interested in the number of NFL picks but the number of bowl qualifiers. Could there be something to what was said in the article, that because the ACC is not considered a "power conference" (yet they are still in the BCS) that in-conference losses are given less lenience than an in-conference loss in the SEC etc?

I still think that they are better than the Big East.

And the had a losing record in those bowl games.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/16343161/