BCS GURU®

Taking the BS out of BCS

 HOME

 STANDINGS

 ARCHIVES

 POLLS

 COMPUTERS

 BCS LINKS

 

 ABOUT THE GURU

 CONTACT THE GURU

 



 

Hit Counter

 

 

TEN YEARS OF BCS: 2000

The Guru's Note: Beginning in June, the Guru will publish a review of each of the 10 seasons since the Bowl Championship Series came into existence in 1998. In this series -- Ten Years of BCS -- the Guru will examine the results from these seasons -- who got lucky and who got robbed, what could've been, what should've been and other controversies of the day. The series will appear weekly leading up to the 2008 season.

========================

After two years of relative calm, controversy exploded on the BCS in Year 3. For the first time, a team's presence in the BCS title game was called into question. And the criticism went unabated even after an undefeated champion was crowned.

But if anything, this was a self-inflicted wound.

Bowing more to an ignorant media than any real pressure from public opinion, the BCS drastically changed its formula to retroactively make amends for an outcome it was powerless to change. Instead of defending its method and holding its ground, the BCS capitulated. This knee-jerk reaction would bring far more serious consequences in the years to come and compromise its claim to legitimacy in the system's formative years.

Oklahoma finished the 2000 regular season as the only undefeated team and its No.1 ranking was undisputed. But Florida State, despite ranking No. 3 in both the AP and coaches polls, leapfrogged No. 2 Miami in the final BCS standings to earn a date with the Sooners in the Orange Bowl.

The media went berserk, more so than even Miami coach Butch Davis. The credibility of BCS computers was called into question because it was the computers' preference for the Seminoles that carried the day. The main argument was this: Since both Miami and Florida State each had one loss, and the Hurricanes beat the Seminoles on the field, how could Florida State be ranked ahead of Miami?

The BCS panicked big time. Changes were promised and then carried out in the offseason. The computer lineup was reshuffled to de-emphasize margin of victory. And a dubious "quality win" criteria was added to the formula -- as if the existing arrangement wasn't convoluted enough.

But the BCS should've responded ith: "What's the problem?" and vigorously defended the system.

Florida State was a worthy No. 2 team. If you lined up FSU and Miami side-by-side, plenty could've been made in the Seminoles' favor:

1. Strength of Schedule: Florida State and Miami ranked Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, in the strength of schedule compartment of the BCS standings. But upon further examination, that was laughable. (the SoS, parroted from the RPI that the NCAA uses for its basketball selections, would prove to be the most destructive part of the formula -- but more on that later in the series.) Florida State played in a tougher conference (ACC)- than Miami (Big East). Its non-conference games consisted of Louisville, Brigham Young, Florida and Miami. The 'Canes played I-AA McNeese State, Louisiana Tech, Washington and FSU, plus Big East cupcakes such as Rutgers and Temple.

2. Losses: Florida State's lone loss was to Miami, 27-24, at the Orange Bowl on Oct. 7. The Seminoles rallied from a 17-0 halftime deficit to take a 24-20 lead late in the game, only to lose on a Ken Dorsey-to-Jeremy Shockey pass with 46 seconds left. The 'Canes' only defeat was a 34-29 loss at Washington on Sept. 9.

3. The Washington Factor: If head-to-head results were so paramount, then maybe Washington should've been ranked ahead of Miami. After all, the Huskies beat Miami and also only lost once -- a 23-16 defeat at two-loss Oregon.

4. Margin of Victory: If Washington was discounted because it won lots of close games -- eight of its 11 games were decided by seven or fewer points -- then the fact that Florida State won its games, against a considerably tougher schedule, by a wider margin than Miami (38.9 vs. 30.4) should not have been overlooked. And the computers didn't.

5. Historic Precedent: Even before the birth of BCS, there had been several instances that a team was ranked ahead of another despite losing head-to-head and possessing the same record. In 1993, Florida State finished ahead of Notre Dame in both polls even though the Irish won, 31-24, at South Bend. In 1978, USC finished second to Alabama (11-1) in the AP poll even though the Trojans (12-1) beat the Tide, 24-14, in Birmingham, Ala.

See, the body of evidence is pretty strong in the Seminoles' favor. Their presence in the BCS championship game was easily defensible. That they laid an near-egg in an ugly 13-2 loss to Oklahoma is immaterial. And that Miami defeated a Florida team in the Sugar Bowl -- a team that the 'Noles walloped -- is irrelevant.

And one more thing: Even if today's BCS formula, which gives two-thirds of its weight to the human polls, were applied to the 2000 season, you'd still end up with the same result. Florida State would've finished second, ahead of Miami (1.1093 vs. 1.1025).

Final BCS Standings:1. Oklahoma, 2. Florida State, 3. Miami (Fla.), 4. Washington.

Alternative Methods:

* Using present day BCS formula: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Florida State.

* Using human polls only: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Miami (Fla.)

* Plus-One: Oklahoma vs. Washington; Florida State vs. Miami (Fla.).

Controversy:

* Notre Dame windfall: The Fiesta Bowl passed on four teams ahead of Notre Dame in the BCS standings to take the two-loss No. 10 Irish. Virginia Tech, ranked No. 5 with its only loss to Miami, fell just outside of the Kansas State-mandate and was ignored. Three other two-loss teams were also swept aside -- Oregon (out because two other Pac-10 teams were already taken), Kansas State (they're pretty used to this by now) and Nebraska. The Huskers also had a beef because they had defeated Notre Dame in South Bend, 27-24, earlier in the season. This occurred at a time when the Irish received a windfall of $13 million for a BCS bowl appearance -- as opposed to today's more balanced payouts. Notre Dame was promptly exposed as a fraud as it was annihilated by Dennis Erickson's Oregon State Beavers, 41-9.

BCS formula review: No change to the formula was made between the 1999 and 2000 seasons. And that's about to change, as the formula would be tweaked or overhauled in four of the next five years.

Analysis: The changes to the BCS formula prior to the 2001 season would prove to be simply reactionary and solved nothing. And while an argument may be stated on Miami's behalf, the results of the bowl games really made a case for Washington. The Huskies went 7-1 in easily the toughest conference in 2000. They beat Purdue in the Rose Bowl; and bowl wins by Oregon State and Oregon gave the Pac-10 three teams in the top seven in the final AP poll. The BCS was rocked by its first real crisis and another one would erupt the following season.

POST A COMMENT

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Gotickets has college football bowl tickets such as the new BCS Championship tickets as well as other BCS games like the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl tickets


TEN YEARS OF BCS: 1999

The Guru's Note: Beginning in June, the Guru will publish a review of each of the 10 seasons since the Bowl Championship Series came into existence in 1998. In this series -- Ten Years of BCS -- the Guru will examine the results from these seasons -- who got lucky and who got robbed, what could've been, what should've been and other controversies of the day. The series will appear weekly leading up to the 2008 season.

=========================

Give yourself a big pat on the back, BCS. You deserve it. You got it right.

You matched up the only two undefeated major conference teams in the national championship game. Brilliant! Couldn't have done it without ya!

What's was left unsaid was: "Whew!"

Despite the obvious -- only Florida State and Virginia Tech emerged from the regular season unbeaten -- there were doubts about whether they'd face each other in the Sugar Bowl for the national title. At the end, Virginia Tech had a barely comfortable margin to hold off one-loss No. 3 Nebraska to play in the title game.

In the 10-year history of the BCS, 1999 had to be one of the most uneventful. The Seminoles went wire-to-wire as the No. 1 team, their place in New Orleans never in question. Upset losses by Penn State and Tennessee in the first two weeks of November paved the way for Virginia Tech to seize the No. 2 ranking.

The Hokies, led by redshirt freshman quarterback Michael Vick, had to sweat out the final four weeks of the regular season mostly because of a soft schedule. With strength of schedule a separate component accounting for nearly one-third of the BCS standings, Virginia Tech had a hard time gaining breathing room from the Cornhuskers, finishing just 1.30 points ahead in the final standings.

Just as in 1998, an undefeated non-BCS conference team finished the regular season unbeaten. And just like Tulane, a 12-0 Marshall team was shut out of a BCS bowl despite finishing No. 12 in the final standings. And one more thing like the Green Wave: The Thundering Herd, quarterbacked by Chad Pennington, completed a perfect season with a victory over BYU, in the Motor City Bowl.

In the Sugar Bowl, Vick rallied the Hokies to take a 29-28 lead at the end of the third quarter. But the Seminoles scored the game's final 18 points in the fourth quarter, giving Bobby Bowden his only, and perhaps final, national championship.

Final BCS Standings: 1. Florida State, 2. Virginia Tech, 3. Nebraska, 4. Alabama.

Alternative Methods:

* Using present day BCS formula: 1. Florida State, 2. Virginia Tech.

* Using human polls only: 1. Florida State, 2. Virginia Tech.

* Plus-One: Florida State vs. Alabama; Virginia Tech vs. Nebraska.

Controversies:

* Kansas State snub II: Well, it wasn't quite as egregious as the one in 1998, but the Wildcats once again earned the dubious honor of being the highest-ranked team not invited to a BCS bowl. K-State, ranked No. 6 with its only loss to Nebraska, was passed up by the Fiesta Bowl (No. 5 Tennessee) and Orange Bowl (No. 8 Michigan). But unlike the previous year, the Wildcats managed to hold it together and win the Holiday Bowl, 24-20, over Washington.

* Marshall snub: With today's arrangement, the Herd would've earned an automatic BCS berth. But with strength-of-schedule a key component in the formula at the time, Marshall was doomed by its 98th-place schedule. The MAC champs, however, would become the last undefeated team not to play in a BCS bowl.

BCS Formula Review: Five more computer rankings were added to the formula -- Billingsley, Dunkel, Massey, Matthews and Rothman -- bringing the total to eight. The lowest ranking among the eight was dropped and the remaining seven averaged to produce the computer ranking. Also, a "Kansas State clause" was added, guaranteeing any team finishing in the top four a BCS bowl spot, but the Wildcats weren't in position to benefit from it.

Analysis: Two years in, the BCS appeared to be producing the desired results. The title games matched deserving teams and the other BCS bowls featured interesting matchups. But this was only the calm before the storm, as raging controversies were about to envelope the BCS, forcing major changes almost annually in the coming years.

POST A COMMENT

 


TEN YEARS OF BCS: 1998

The Guru's Note: Beginning in June, the Guru will publish a review of each of the 10 seasons since the Bowl Championship Series came into existence in 1998. In this series -- Ten Years of BCS -- the Guru will examine the results from these seasons -- who got lucky and who got robbed, what could've been, what should've been and other controversies of the day. The series will appear weekly leading up to the 2008 season.

=========================

On the precipice of a disaster in its infancy, the BCS was magically rescued by the hurricanes -- one named Georges, the other named Edgerrin James.

Three teams headed into the final Saturday of the season with undefeated records: Tennessee, Kansas State and UCLA. The Vols and Wildcats were scheduled to play in their respective conference title games; while the Bruins, riding a nation-best 20-game winning streak, were to play Miami at the Orange Bowl in a makeup game.

Originally, the game was to be played on Sept. 26. But because of the imminent threat of Hurricane Georges, it was temporarily postponed. UCLA had the option of canceling the game outright and standing on its performance in 10 games, but it took the risky move of rescheduling the game for the final day of the season.

The Miami team that beat UCLA, 49-45, that day was a vast improvement over the one the Bruins would've faced on Sept. 26. Behind James' 299 rushing yards (on 39 carries), the 'Canes shredded a shaky UCLA defense and benefited from an erroneous fumble call. Besides ending UCLA's quest to appear in the first BCS title game, Miami's upset victory sent the Bruins into a long descent into national irrelevance.

After UCLA's loss, it was up to Tennessee and Kansas State to hold up their end of the bargain. The Volunteers did but the Wildcats didn't -- losing to double-digit underdog Texas A&M in double overtime, 36-33. As a parting gift, K-State was handed an Alamo Bowl berth after being shut out of the BCS bowls.

While the Tennessee-Florida State title game -- played in the Fiesta Bowl -- was generally acknowledged as a fair outcome, there were a few minor controversies in the year of BCS's birth. Besides the snubbing of K-State, an 11-0 Tulane team was also shut out of the BCS. But thanks to the hurricanes, a catastrophe was averted.

Final BCS Standings: 1. Tennessee, 2. Florida State, 3. Kansas State, 4. Ohio State.

Alternative methods:

  • Using present day BCS formula: 1. Tennessee, 2. Florida State. 

  • Using human polls only: 1. Tennessee (1-AP, 1-Coaches), 2. Florida State (2-AP, 2-Coaches).

  • Plus-One: Tennessee vs. Ohio State; Florida State vs. Kansas State.

Controversies:

  • Kansas State snub: Despite finishing third in the final BCS standings, the Wildcats found themselves in the non-BCS Alamo Bowl. The Sugar Bowl opted for Big Ten co-champion Ohio State, who was the top-ranked team for most of the season until a 28-24 upset loss to Michigan State. The Orange Bowl took Steve Spurrier's Florida Gators, who finished eighth in the BCS standings. A dispirited and disinterested K-State team lost to Purdue, 37-34.

  • Tulane snub: An 11-0 record and Conference USA title weren't enough to get the Green Wave to a BCS bowl game, let alone a spot in the title game. Tulane, ranked No. 10, today would've received an automatic berth by being in the top 12. Nevertheless, playing without a head coach after Tommy Bowden took the Clemson job, the Green Wave romped to a 41-27 Liberty Bowl victory over BYU under some guy named Rich Rodriguez.

BCS Formula Review: The initial BCS standings, the brainchild of then-SEC commissioner Roy Kramer, was an unwieldy clunker divided in three -- human polls, computer rankings and strength of schedule. And each loss is tacked on as additional penalty. Only three computers were used -- Anderson & Hester, Jeff Sagarin and New York Times. Margin of victory was accounted for by all three computers and a 50% adjusted maximum deviation factor was applied.

Analysis: UCLA's loss, which occurred earlier in the day on Dec. 5, gave the BCS poobahs a huge sigh of relief. Tennessee's 23-16 victory over Florida State in the Fiesta Bowl, though underwhelming, was controversy-free. The BCS seemingly passed its first test ... only if they knew.

POST A COMMENT

 


IF IT AIN'T BROKE, WHY EVEN TALK ABOUT IT?

APRIL 30, 2008 -- So the head honchos who run college football went to Hollywood (Florida, that is) and, after a few days in the sun and too many pina coladas, they reached this shocking conclusion:

The BCS is beautiful as it is. Why mess with it?

With that, the Guru breathes a huge sigh of relief, knowing that I won't have to fold up shop after the 2009 season. Heck, the way this meeting went, I should be able to count on lots of buffo business well into my retirement. (Don't worry, I'll just mobile in my blogs from Lanikai -- if "mobile" and "blogs" are still relevant in 2030).

But rather than offering a typical ESPN-esque explanation as to why the BCS conferences -- with input from the smaller ones and Notre Dame -- opted for conservatism over revolution, the Guru considered the issues more deeply. And the reality is so much more than the powers-that-be's allergy to any sort of playoff talk.

So much more ... like 120 million more.

The only alternative on the table, presented by SEC commissioner Mike Slive, was rejected out of hand. The problem with his "plus-one" model was not so much that it resembled a playoff, but because its existence would threaten the financial well-being of some of his fellow travelers.

While it was well-known that the Big Ten and Pac-10 passionately opposed any alterations to the current format, the Big 12 broke its silence and threw its weight behind the status quo. And you can add the Big East to the mix as well. That makes four out of six BCS conferences. Slive's proposal was DOA before the first drink was poured.

The Big Ten and the Pac-10 want to keep their lucrative Rose Bowl deal in tact, and any sort of a "playoff" would jeopardize that. The Big Ten-Pac-10-Rose Bowl triumvirate worked very hard to keep their little cartel going -- they reluctantly joined the BCS after spurning the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance, and they extracted a lot of concessions when they finally entered the arrangement. Last year's USC-Illinois farce in the Rose Bowl was all you need to know about their protectionism.

Besides, the current system works out just fine for the two conferences. A team from either conference has played in the BCS championship game in five of the last six years -- and the year they didn't, USC won the AP title anyway. The Big Ten especially has been fat and happy, placing two teams in BCS bowls in five of the last six seasons, far more than any other conference.

For these guys, the system is working like a charm.

The Big 12 has different issues. Although a football power, the Big 12 is a distant fourth wheel in the BCS structure, behind the Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC. Aside from the University of Texas, none of the member schools is a strong draw in a big media market. So the BCS cash is critical. The current system works fine for the Big 12, too, as it's played in half of the 10 championship games in the BCS era.

That leaves Slive barking up the wrong tree. The SEC is pressing the "plus-one" because it is the most insecure conference about the current system and probably has the most grievance against it. Without a couple of huge upsets -- USC to UCLA in 2006, West Virginia to Pittsburgh in 2007 -- plus a computer-generated escape by LSU in 2003, the SEC would've been shut out of the BCS title game the last nine seasons.

As the strongest conference, in terms of balance, the SEC has more to worry from fratricide under the current regime than it would in a four-team format. In the latter scenario, the SEC will almost always be assured of a spot in the football version of the Final Four; and it would be content to let its representative(s) play their way to the championship.

So the plus-four died a swift death not so much because the P-word is malodorous, but because it potentially could hinder some very cozy relationships and access to fast cash. The smaller conferences and Notre Dame, with no chance of playing for the national championship (and I write this with a straight face) but with low thresholds to qualify for a BCS bowl and thus, a big-time payout, also want to leave well enough alone.

It's just as well. Slive's proposal was highly flawed anyway. It was no improvement over the current system and would've invited no less controversy. For example, in last year's scenario, Ohio State would've faced Oklahoma in one semifinal and LSU against Virginia Tech in another. More deserving teams such as USC and Georgia would've been shut out anyway and you'd still had the LSU-Ohio State championship game -- only now it'd take two weeks to reach the same mess. Why bother?

Since the BCS is all about the jack, we should just recognize that until someone can come up with a system that can guarantee more dough to more people, then we've reached an impasse. Don't forget that the "national championship" is a mere illusion and in this industry it's only incidental to the big picture.

We're not here to crown a champion. We're here to stuff our wallets. That's why this thing is called the Bowl Cash Series.

POST A COMMENT

 

   
Google

 A Production of SC Publications, All Rights Reserved © 2009 BCS GURU

ADVERTISEMENT

Great NCAA football tickets can be found through ticket broker Vivid Seats. We also sell Chicago Bears tickets, Patriots tickets, Colts tickets, Vikings tickets and plenty more. Check us out today!

 

Time to get away? Going to see a game?  Flights, Hotels, Cruises, Car Rentals, complete Vacation Packages ... let us take you there!  Let your "football widow" know you haven't forgotten her. ...    Send her some Flowers!

Travel is a great Home-Based Business Opportunity

 

  Premium Holiday Bowl tickets, Fiesta Bowl tickets, and      Sugar Bowl tickets on sale now. We also have seats to the     Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, and even the BCS Championship.

 

 

Compare ticket prices and buy from all major vendors for: Patriots Tickets, Chargers Tickets, Bears Tickets, Giants Tickets, Raiders Tickets, Packers Tickets