Somebody's Always Gonna Get Hosed
It's always gonna happen. End of story. But just to illustrate it, let's put some of the proposed, non-BCS systems to the test. Back awhile ago, I posted about which teams and conferences the BCS has hosed the most. Think of this as a companion piece about which teams and conferences other systems would hose the most. (And I'm not even going to consider other heavy factors like bowls, academics, money, tradition, conferences, the regular season, or any of the other things that play a major role in the shape of the college football post-season - we're talking strictly about on the field matchups here.)
We'll be looking at four different systems:
1) a Plus-One that uses the results of the bowls,
2) a Plus-One matching up the #1 v #4 and #2 v #3 final BCS standings teams,
3) an 8-Team Playoff with conference champions mandatorily included, and
4) an 8-Team Playoff just taking the top 8 in the final BCS standings.
Another possibility, a Plus-One that sends teams back to their original conference bowls, isn't feasible to examine because the pairings would be complete guess work and the results unknowable. (Plus it's likely to result in even more controversy because you wouldn't always have an automatic elimination game between the #1 & #2 teams - you might end up with as many possible plus-one teams after the bowls as you had before.)
| 1998 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Tennessee (12-0)
2. Florida State (11-1) 3. Kansas State (11-1) 4. Ohio State (10-1) 5. UCLA (10-1) 6. Texas A&M (11-2) 7. Arizona (11-1) 8. Florida (9-2) 9. Wisconsin (10-1) 10. Tulane (11-0) 11. Nebraska (9-3) 12. Virginia (9-2) | ACC: Florida State & Georgia Tech
Big10: Ohio State, Wisconsin, & Michigan Big12: Texas A&M BigEast: Syracuse Pac10: UCLA SEC: Tennessee | Fiesta (NC): #1 Tennessee def #2 Florida St, 23-16
Rose: #9 Wisconsin def #5 UCLA, 38-31 Sugar: #4 Ohio St def #6 Texas A&M, 24-14 Orange: #8 Florida def #15 Syracuse, 31-10 --------------- Alamo: Purdue def #3 Kansas St, 37-34 Holiday: #7 Arizona def Nebraska, 23-20 Liberty: #10 Tulane def BYU, 41-27 |
Plus-One Possibilities - w/ Bowl Results:
Tennessee v Ohio St or Wisconsin
Tennesse would be there because of their victory over Florida St, who would be out. The second slot would be tough - Kansas St, the previous #3, lost their bowl game, so they're out. Ohio State beat #6 Texas A&M, while Wisconsin beat #5 UCLA, and both games were relatively close. They were Big10 co-champions along with Michigan, but Wisconsin got the Rose Bowl bid because they hadn't been there in a longer time. One of them would've gotten left out.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Tennessee v #4 Ohio State, #2 Florida State v #3 Kansas State
The obvious problem here is that Kansas State wasn't Big12 champion - they lost to #6 Texas A&M.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 Tennessee, #2 Florida State, #4 Ohio State, #5 UCLA, #6 Texas A&M, and #15 Syracuse. The two at-large would be between #3 Kansas State, #7 Arizona, #8 Florida, #9 Wisconsin, and #10 and undefeated Tulane. Three of those teams are getting left out.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, #9 Wisconsin, the co-champion of the Big10 would be up in arms, as would undefeated #10 Tulane. The BigEast champion, Syracuse, also gets left out.
| 1999 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Florida State (11-0)
2. Virginia Tech (11-0) 3. Nebraska (11-1) 4. Alabama (10-2) 5. Tennessee (9-2) 6. Kansas State (10-1) 7. Wisconsin (9-2) 8. Michigan (9-2) 9. Michigan State (9-2) 10. Florida (9-3) 11. Penn State (9-3) 12. Marshall (12-0) | ACC: Florida State
Big10: Wisconsin Big12: Nebraska BigEast: Virginia Tech Pac10: Stanford SEC: Alabama | Sugar (NC): #1 Florida St def #2 Virginia Tech, 46-29
Rose: #7 Wisconsin def Stanford, 17-9 Orange: #8 Michigan def #4 Alabama, 35-34 Fiesta: #3 Nebraska def #5 Tennessee, 31-21 --------------- Holiday: #6 Kansas St def Washington, 24-20 Motor City: #12 Marshall def BYU, 21-3 |
Plus-One Possibilities: w/ Bowl Results
Florida State v Nebraska
Even though we can easily find the two best teams after the bowls, the plus-one wasn't necessary this year - Florida State and Virginia Tech were the only two undefeated teams from BCS conferences. Had the plus-one been used, Florida State most likely would've faced Nebraska next, which would've been great for the Huskers but unfair to the Seminoles.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Florida State v #4 Alabama, #2 Virginia Tech v #3 Nebraska
Again, not necessary - why punish the only two undefeated teams by making them play one more game against teams that have already lost?
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 Florida State, #2 Virginia Tech, #3 Nebraska, #4 Alabama, #7 Wisconsin, and Stanford. The two at-large would be between #5 Tennessee, #6 Kansas State, #8 Michigan, and #12 Marshall. Two of those four are getting left out.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, Stanford, the champion of the Pac10 would be left out, as would #12 and undefeated Marshall.
| 2000 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Oklahoma (12-0)
2. Florida State (11-1) 3. Miami (FL) (10-1) 4. Washington (10-1) 5. Virginia Tech (10-1) 6. Oregon State (10-1) 7. Florida (10-2) 8. Nebraska (9-2) 9. Kansas State (10-3) 10. Oregon (9-2) 11. Notre Dame (9-2) 12. Texas (9-2) | ACC: Florida State
Big10: Michigan, Northwestern, & Purdue Big12: Oklahoma BigEast: Miami (FL) Pac10: Washington, Oregon, Oregon State SEC: Florida | Orange (NC): #1 Okla. def #2 Florida St, 13-2
Rose: #4 Washington def Purdue, 34-24 Sugar: #3 Miami (FL) def #7 Florida 37-20 Fiesta: #6 Oregon St def #11 Notre Dame, 41-9 --------------- Gator: #5 Virginia Tech def Clemson, 41-20 Alamo: #8 Nebraska def Northwestern, 66-17 |
Plus-One Possibilities: w/ Bowl Results
Oklahoma v Miami (FL) or Washington
You remember the brou-ha-ha this year - Florida State getting chosen over Miami, who they lost to, and Washington, who the Hurricanes lost to. Miami played a tougher bowl opponent, but the Huskies still would've revolted.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Oklahoma v #4 Washington, #2 Florida State v #3 Miami (FL)
The second game is a rematch, since Miami beat Florida State in September of this year. Does that win just not count?
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida State, #3 Miami, #4 Washington, #7 Florida, and Purdue. The two at-large would be between #5 Virginia Tech, #6 Oregon State, and #8 Nebraska, all of whom went on to romp in their bowl games. One is getting left out.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, Purdue, the champion of the Big10 would be left out.
| 2001 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Miami (FL) (11-0)
2. Nebraska (11-1) 3. Colorado (10-2) 4. Oregon (10-1) 5. Florida (9-2) 6. Tennessee (10-2) 7. Texas (10-2) 8. Illinois (10-1) 9. Stanford (9-2) 10. Maryland (10-1) 11. Oklahoma (10-2) 12. Washington State (9-2) | ACC: Maryland
Big10: Illinois Big12: Colorado BigEast: Miami Pac10: Oregon SEC: LSU | Rose (NC): #1 Miami def #2 Nebraska, 37-14
Fiesta: #4 Oregon def #3 Colorado, 38-16 Sugar: #13 LSU def #8 Illinois, 47-34 Orange: #5 Florida def #10 Maryland, 56-23 --------------- Citrus: #6 Tennessee def Michigan, 45-17 Holiday: #7 Texas def Washington, 47-43 |
Plus-One Possibilities - w/ Bowl Results:
Miami v Oregon
A plus-one would have been perfect for after the bowls this year. Even though #5 Florida would've argued that they deserve a shot after pasting Maryland, they didn't win the SEC.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Miami v #4 Oregon, #2 Nebraska v #3 Colorado
A plus-one wouldn't have worked had this been the setup - Colorado smashed Nebraska at the end of November, no rematch needed.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 Miami, #3 Colorado, #4 Oregon, #8 Illinois, #10 Maryland, and #13 LSU. The two at-large would be between #2 Nebraska, #5 Florida, #6 Tennessee, and #7 Texas. Pick two, upset two.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, left out are the ACC champion, Maryland, and the SEC champion, LSU. Good luck with that.
| 2002 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Miami (FL) (12-0)
2. Ohio State (13-0) 3. Georgia (12-1) 4. USC (10-2) 5. Iowa (11-1) 6. Washington St (10-2) 7. Oklahoma (11-2) 8. Kansas State (10-2) 9. Notre Dame (10-2) 10. Texas (10-2) 11. Michigan (9-3) 12. Penn State (9-3) | ACC: Florida State
Big10: Ohio State & Iowa Big12: Oklahoma BigEast: Miami (FL) Pac10: USC & Washington St SEC: Georgia | Fiesta (NC): #2 Ohio St def #1 Miami,31-24
Rose: #7 Oklahoma def #6 Washington St, 34-14 Sugar: #3 Georgia def Florida St, 26-13 Orange: #4 USC def #5 Iowa, 38-17 --------------- Holiday: #8 Kansas St def Arizona St, 34-27 |
Plus-One Possibilities - w/ Bowl Results:
Ohio State v Georgia or USC
Another year a plus-one not only wasn't needed but would have been a huge mistake, since Ohio State and Miami were the only two undefeated BCS conference teams. Even if there was only one, either Georgia or USC would've been left out at the end.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Miami v #4 USC, #2 Ohio State v #3 Georgia
Those are great, pretty non-controversial matchups. But it still would've been unfair to make Miami & Ohio State win one more.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
Even though the BCS worked this year, a playoff might have too. Taking the conference champs, you get all the top 7 plus Florida State. #8 Kansas State is left out, but they didn't win the Big12.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, you still get nearly all the top teams and conference winners. Only the ACC champion, Florida State, is left out.
| 2003 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Oklahoma (12-1)
2. LSU (12-1) 3. USC (11-1) 4. Michigan (10-2) 5. Ohio State (10-2) 6. Texas (10-2) 7. Florida State (10-2) 8. Tennessee (10-2) 9. Miami (FL) (10-2) 10. Kansas St (11-3) 11. Miami (OH) (12-1) 12. Georgia (10-3) | ACC: Florida State
Big10: Michigan Big12: Kansas State BigEast: Miami & W. Virginia Pac10: USC SEC: LSU | Sugar (NC): #2 LSU def #1 Oklahoma, 21-14
Rose: #3 USC def #4 Michigan, 28-14 Orange: #9 Miami (FL) def #7 Florida St, 16-14 Fiesta: #5 Ohio State def #10 Kansas St, 35-28 --------------- Holiday: #16 Washington St def #6 Texas, 28-20 Peach: Clemson def #8 Tennessee, 27-14 GMAC: #11 Miami (OH) def Louisville, 49-28 |
Plus-One Possibilities: w/ Bowl Results
LSU v USC
This is the only one people would've gone for. Plus-one would've worked.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Oklahoma v #4 Michigan, #2 LSU v #3 USC
On the surface, it seems like it would've worked. But there would have been a lot of complaining that Oklahoma, seen as the weakest of the one-loss teams, got the easiest pick in Michigan, while the top two, LSU and USC, had to face each other. Of course there's the matter of Oklahoma not winning their conference either...
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #2 LSU, #3 USC, #4 Michigan, #7 Florida State, #9 Miami (FL), and #10 Kansas State. Pick two at-larges from the following - #1 Oklahoma, #5 Ohio State, #6 Texas, and #8 Tennessee. Two would be pissed.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
Taking the top eight in the BCS, you leave out the Big12 champion Kansas State, the BigEast champion Miami (FL), and a one-loss team in Miami (OH).
| 2004 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. USC (12-0)
2. Oklahoma (12-0) 3. Auburn (12-0) 4. Texas (10-1) 5. California (10-1) 6. Utah (11-0) 7. Georgia (9-2) 8. Virginia Tech (10-2) 9. Boise State (11-0) 10. Louisville (10-1) 11. LSU (9-2) 12. Iowa (9-2) | ACC: Virginia Tech
Big10: Iowa & Michigan Big12: Oklahoma BigEast: BC, Pitt, Syracuse, W.Va Pac10: USC SEC: Auburn | Orange (NC): #1 USC def #2 Oklahoma, 55-19
Rose: #4 Texas def Michigan, 38-37 Sugar: #3 Auburn def #8 Virginia Tech, 16-13 Fiesta: #6 Utah def Pittsburgh, 35-7 --------------- Holiday: Texas Tech def #5 California, 45-31 Outback: #7 Georgia def Wisconsin, 24-21 Liberty: #10 Louisville def #9 Boise St, 44-40 |
Plus-One Possibilities: w/ Bowl Results
USC v Auburn v Utah
USC-Auburn is the natural inclination here, as the only two undefeated BCS teams. But that ignores Utah, an undefeated team which destroyed Pitt in their bowl game. There'd be some grumbling - not a lot, and not from everyone, but definitely from the state of Utah and those who dislike the BCS.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 USC v #4 Texas, #2 Oklahoma v #3 Auburn
A seemingly solid setup, with the wrinkle that California would've been complaining. But in this case, they had their chance against #1 USC and lost in October. But you're still leaving out undefeated Utah & Boise State.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 USC, #2 Oklahoma, #3 Auburn, #8 Virginia Tech, #12 Iowa, and Pittsburgh. The two at-large would be between #4 Texas, #5 California, #6 and undefeated Utah, #7 Georgia, and #9 and undefeated Boise State. Pick two of those five to not slight.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you go with just the top eight in the BCS standings, you leave out the Big10 champion Iowa, and the BigEast champion Pittsburgh, as well as undefeated Boise State.
| 2005 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. USC (12-0)
2. Texas (12-0) 3. Penn State (10-1) 4. Ohio State (9-2) 5. Oregon (10-1) 6. Notre Dame (9-2) 7. Georgia (10-2) 8. Miami (FL) (9-2) 9. Auburn (9-2) 10. Virginia Tech (10-2) 11. West Virginia (10-1) 12. LSU (10-2) | ACC: Florida State
Big10: Ohio St & Penn St Big12: Texas BigEast: West Virginia Pac10: USC SEC: Georgia | Rose (NC): #2 Texas def #1 USC, 41-38
Fiesta: #4 Ohio State def #6 Notre Dame, 34-20 Sugar: #11 W.Virginia def #7 Georgia Orange: #3 Penn St def Florida St, 26-23 --------------- Holiday: Oklahoma def #5 Oregon, 17-14 |
Plus-One Possibilities - w/ Bowl Results:
Texas v Penn St or Ohio St
Talk about an unnecessary tragedy - no way.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 USC v #4 Ohio St, #2 Texas v #3 Penn State
Again, wholly unnecessary. Would some people have been pissed off that the Big10 got two spots? Maybe, but maybe not - this was before all the current Big10 backlash, and the Buckeyes and Nittany Lions did go on to win their BCS bowl games.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 USC, #2 Texas, #3 Penn State or #4 Ohio State, #7 Georgia, #11 West Virginia, and Florida State. The two at-large would be between #3 Penn State or #4 Ohio State (whichever was left out), #5 Oregon, #6 Notre Dame, and #8 Miami (FL).
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, left out are the ACC champion, Florida State, and the BigEast champion West Virginia.
| 2006 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Ohio State (12-0)
2. Florida (12-1) 3. Michigan (11-1) 4. LSU (10-2) 5. USC (10-2) 6. Louisville (11-1) 7. Wisconsin (11-1) 8. Boise State (12-0) 9. Auburn (10-2) 10. Oklahoma (11-2) 11. Notre Dame (10-2) 12. Arkansas (10-3) | ACC: Wake Forest
Big10: Ohio State Big12: Oklahoma BigEast: Louisville Pac10: USC & California SEC: Florida | National Champ: #2 Florida def #1 Ohio St, 41-14
Fiesta: #8 Boise St def #10 Oklahoma, 43-42 Rose: #5 USC def #3 Michigan, 32-18 Sugar: #4 LSU def #11 Notre Dame, 41-14 Orange: #6 Louisville def Wake Forest, 24-13 --------------- Capital One: #7 Wisconsin def #12 Arkansas, 17-14 |
Plus-One Possibilities - w/ Bowl Results:
Florida v USC or LSU
Sorta helpful, maybe, this year. LSU had their shot at Florida in October and lost, so a matchup with USC probably would've been good.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Ohio State v #4 LSU, #2 Florida v #3 Michigan
Not only does this leave out #5 USC who eventually pasted Michigan in the Rose Bowl, but it creates a whole Big10-SEC matchup dynamic that might well have resulted in a Florida v LSU rematch for the title, which isn't good.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
Taking the conference champs, you get #1 Ohio State, #2 Florida, #5 USC, #6 Louisville, #10 Oklahoma, and Wake Forest. For the two at-larges, pick between #3 Michigan, #4 LSU, #7 Wisconsin, and #8 and undefeated Boise State.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, you leave out the ACC champion Wake Forest, and the Big12 champion Oklahoma.
| 2007 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Ohio State (11-1)
2. LSU (11-2) 3. Virginia Tech (11-2) 4. Oklahoma (11-2) 5. Georgia (10-2) 6. Missouri (11-2) 7. USC (10-2) 8. Kansas (11-1) 9. West Virginia (10-2) 10. Hawaii (12-0) 11. Arizona St (10-2) 12. Florida (9-3) | ACC: Virginia Tech
Big10: Ohio State Big12: Oklahoma BigEast: W.Virginia & UConn Pac10: USC & Arizona St SEC: LSU | National Champ: #2 LSU def #1 Ohio St, 38-24
Sugar: #5 Georgia def #10 Hawaii, 41-10 Rose: #7 USC def Illinois, 49-17 Orange: #8 Kansas def #3 Virginia Tech, 24-21 Fiesta: #9 W.Virginia def #4 Oklahoma, 48-28 --------------- Cotton: #6 Missouri def Arkansas, 38-7 |
Plus-One Possibilities: w/ Bowl Results
LSU v Georgia
These two didn't get to meet during the regular season, and since #3 and #4 lost, the Dawgs would've been a logical #2. But I'm not so sure this is an ideal use of the plus-one...
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Ohio State v #4 Oklahoma, #2 LSU v #3 Virginia Tech
Rematch - no good. LSU destroyed Virginia Tech in September.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 Ohio State, #2 LSU, #3 Virginia Tech, #4 Oklahoma, #7 USC, and #9 West Virginia. Pick two more from #5 Georgia, #6 Missouri, #8 Kansas, and #10 and undefeated Hawaii.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
Taking the top eight in the BCS, you leave out the BigEast champion West Virginia, and undefeated Hawaii.
| 2008 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Oklahoma (12-1)
2. Florida (12-1) 3. Texas (11-1) 4. Alabama (12-1) 5. USC (11-1) 6. Utah (12-0) 7. Texas Tech (11-1) 8. Penn State (11-1) 9. Boise State (12-0) 10. Ohio State (10-2) 11. TCU (10-2) 12. Cincinnati (11-2) | ACC: Virginia Tech
Big10: Penn State & Ohio State Big12: Oklahoma BigEast: Cincinnati Pac10: USC SEC: Florida | National Champ: #2 Florida def #1 Oklahoma, 24-14
Sugar: #6 Utah def #4 Alabama, 31-17 Rose: #5 USC def #8 Penn State, 38-24 Orange: #19 Virginia Tech def #12 Cincinnati, 20-7 Fiesta: #3 Texas def #10 Ohio State, 24-21 --------------- Cotton: #25 Ole Miss def #7 Texas Tech, 47-34 |
Plus-One Possibilities: w/ Bowl Results
Florida v USC v Texas v Utah
Plus one wouldn't have done anything but keep people mad.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Oklahoma v #4 Alabama, #2 Florida v #3 Texas
Uh, two conferences with two participants each? Leaving out USC, Utah, and Texas Tech? Good probability of a conference rematch? Uh, no.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 Oklahoma, #2 Florida, #5 USC, #8 Penn State, #12 Cincinnati, and #19 Virginia Tech. Pick two more from #3 Texas, #4 Alabama, #6 and undefeated Utah, #7 Texas Tech, #9 and undefeated Boise State, and #10 Ohio State. Good luck with that.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
Taking the top eight in the BCS, you leave out the BigEast champion Cincinnati, the ACC champion Virginia Tech, and undefeated Boise State. And you have three from the Big12.
| 2009 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Alabama (13-0)
2. Texas (13-0) 3. Cincinnati (12-0) 4. TCU (12-0) 5. Florida (12-1) 6. Boise State (13-0) 7. Oregon (10-2) 8. Ohio State (10-2) 9. Georgia Tech (11-1) 10. Iowa (10-2) 11. Penn State (10-2) 12. Virginia Tech (9-3) | ACC: Georgia Tech
Big10: Ohio State Big12: Texas BigEast: Cincinnati Pac10: Oregon SEC: Alabama | National Champ: #1 Alabama def #2 Texas, 37-21
Fiesta: #6 Boise State def #4 TCU, 17-10 Rose: #8 Ohio State def #7 Oregon, 26-17 Sugar: #5 Florida def #3 Cincinnati, 51-24 Orange: #10 Iowa def #9 Georgia Tech, 24-14 |
Plus-One Possibilities - w/ Bowl Results:
Alabama v Boise State v Florida
Even though it seems like Alabama vs Boise State is the logical matchup in a post-bowl Plus-One, there's a problem - Florida. I know, I know, the Gators lost to the Tide in the SEC championship game. But they also were ranked higher (#3) than the undefeated Broncos (#4) in both the AP and Coaches Final Polls which came out after the bowl games. So would Florida have an argument for a rematch for the natl. title? A slim one, but yes - you know there'd be some controversy.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Alabama v #4 TCU, #2 Texas v #3 Cincinnati
The obvious problem here is that undefeated Boise State is still left out, as is Florida who whupped Cincy. Unacceptable.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 Alabama, #2 Texas, #3 Cincinnati, #7 Oregon, #8 Ohio State, and #9 Georgia Tech. The two at-large would be between #4 TCU, #5 Florida, and #6 Boise State. One of those teams is getting left out.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, #9 Georgia Tech, the champion of the ACC would be left out and up in arms.
| 2010 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Auburn (13-0)
2. Oregon (12-0) 3. TCU (12-0) 4. Stanford (11-1) 5. Wisconsin (11-1) 6. Ohio State (11-1) 7. Oklahoma (11-2) 8. Arkansas (10-2) 9. Michigan State (11-1) 10. Boise State (11-1) 11. LSU (10-2) 12. Missouri (10-2) | ACC: Virginia Tech
Big10: Ohio State, Wisconsin, & Michigan State Big12: Oklahoma BigEast: Connecticut, West Virginia, & Pittsburgh Pac10: Oregon SEC: Auburn | National Champ: #1 Auburn def #2 Oregon, 22-19
Sugar: #6 Ohio State def #8 Arkansas, 31-26 Rose: #3 TCU def #5 Wisconsin, 21-19 Orange: #4 Stanford def #13 Virginia Tech, 40-12 Fiesta: #7 Oklahoma def Connecticut, 48-20 --------------- Capital One: #16Alabama def #9 Michigan State, 49-7 Las Vegas: #10 Boise State def #19Utah, 26-3 |
Plus-One Possibilities - w/ Bowl Results:
Auburn vs TCU
Plus-One would've worked last year, pitting the last two undefeated teams against each other.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 Auburn v #4 Stanford, #2 Oregon v #3 TCU
So the Pac10 gets another team in, (not a conference champ to boot), while there are four other teams with records just as good and championships under some of their belts.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 Auburn, #2 Oregon, #5 Wisconsin, #7 Oklahoma, #13 Virginia Tech, and unranked Connecticut. The two at-large would be between undefeated #3 TCU, #4 Stanford, conference co-champs #6 Ohio State & #9 Michigan State, #8 Arkansas, and 11-1 #10 Boise State. Four of those teams are getting left out.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, you're only including 4 of the 6 BCS conference champs: Virginia Tech in the ACC is getting left out, as is Connecticut of the BigEast. Six of the eight teams would be from 3 conferences (SEC, Pac10, and Big10).
| 2011 Final BCS Standings | Conference Champs | Relevant Bowls |
|---|---|---|
| 1. LSU (13-0)
2. Alabama (11-1) 3. Oklahoma St (11-1) 4. Stanford (11-1) 5. Oregon (11-2) 6. Arkansas (10-2) 7. Boise St (11-1) 8. Kansas St (10-2) 9. South Carolina (10-2) 10. Wisconsin (11-2) 11. Virginia Tech (11-2) 12. Baylor (9-3) | ACC: Clemson
Big10: Wisconsin Big12: Oklahoma St BigEast: West Virginia, Cincinnati, & Louisville Pac10: Oregon SEC: LSU | National Champ: #2 Alabama def #1 LSU, 21-0
Sugar: #13 Michigan def #11 Virginia Tech, 23-20 Rose: #5 Oregon def #10 Wisconsin, 45-38 Fiesta: #3 Oklahoma St def #4 Stanford, 41-38 Orange: #23 West Virginia def #15 Clemson, 70-33 --------------- Cotton: #6Arkansas def #8 Kansas St, 29-16 |
Plus-One Possibilities - w/ Bowl Results:
Alabama v Oklahoma St (v LSU?)
Of course it seems like a plus-one could be tacked on pretty easily this year - we had two matchups involving all four top-4 teams, so just let the winners, Alabama and Oklahoma State play each other. Right? In theory, yes. But there's a bit of a rub - LSU is #2 in the final polls, both AP and Coaches. So, technically, if we take the two highest ranked teams after the bowls, as some people describe the plus-one, then we'd be treated to a third game between Bama and LSU.
Plus-One Possibilities - Top 4:
#1 LSU v #4 Stanford, #2 Alabama v #3 Oklahoma State
This is pretty close to the best a top-4 Plus-one setup before the bowls can offer. But even then there are issues in that neither Stanford nor Alabama won their conference championships. A case can be made for Bama, but with Oregon sitting at #5 with the Pac12 championship and a head-to-head win over Stanford in their pocket, it'd be hard to say this worked fairly. (But if you include Oregon instead, you've got a rematch between the Tigers and Ducks from the regular season...) Lotsa issues here.
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Conf Champs:
If you take the conf champs, you've got #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #10 Wisconsin, #11 Clemson, and #23 West Virginia. The two at-large would most fairly be #2 Alabama and #4 Stanford. But then you're leaving three teams better than half of the conference champs out, in #6 Arkansas, #7 Boise St, #8 Kansas St. Is it fair to leave them out of an 8-team playoff when they're all ranked in the top-8?
Eight-Team Playoff Possibilities - Top 8:
If you just take the top eight in the BCS rankings, you're only including 3 of the 6 BCS conference champs: Wisconsin of the Big10 is getting left out, which wouldn't work, as is Clemson of the ACC and West Virginia of the BigEast. Seven of the eight teams would be from 3 conferences (SEC, Pac12, and Big12).
____________________________________________________
So What've we got? Well, let's take them system by system.
The Plus-One w/ Bowl Results would've definitely helped in 2001, 2003, & 2010, and may have been better than the BCS in 2004, 2006, 2007, & 2009. But it would have completely screwed up 1999, 2002, 2005, & 2008 and it wouldn't have done any good in 1998 & 2000. And, depending on the exact wording, it might have resulted in a third game between two of the same teams in 2011. So if we're generous, it would've been the failsafe solution some people say in just three of thirteen years, and would've kept the grumbling to a minimum less than half the time.
The Plus-One Top 4 would not have been better than the BCS in any year. Not one. If the point is to have less controversy than the BCS, this isn't the system you want.
Eight-Team Playoff w/ Conf Champs would have been solid only in 2002, but so was the BCS that year. In one other year (2000) you have three teams vying for two spots, so one is getting left out. In all other years, you have either 4 or 5 teams that would be worthy of an at-large, so you're gonna be pissing off more people than you're gonna be making happy. (And I'm not even including the uproar that would occur when a playoff round staged a rematch of a regular season game, which is pretty likely. Or the fact that the non-BCS conferences would demand at least one spot, thereby leaving just one at-large for those 3-5 worthy teams.)
Eight-Team Playoff w/ BCS Top 8 If you go this route, you're always going to be leaving a BCS conference champion out - it would've happened to every single conference at least once during the last ten years. Most likely you'll be leaving two out, as well as the random undefeated non-BCS conf champion.
I know you hate the BCS, but there'd be just as much controversy surrounding these setups as well. Somebody is always gonna get screwed - and there's a good chance that someday it'll be your team, if it hasn't happened already. The BCS might be easier to live with if we just accept the reality that no system is even close to perfect every year. All of them would be controversial most of the time, just as the BCS is.
9 comments:
Amazing work, man. It makes me rethink my stance that a playoff would solve everything. Or actually be any better.
Thanks much - I appreciate it!
Great post.
To me the biggest issue with any of these alternative systems is not so much not screwing anyone, as the logistical issues. How many fans are going to be able to travel to these playoff or plus one games on less than a week notice? The answer, judging by the number of people that show up at the NCAA basketball tournament each week, is not enough to fill a football stadium. I can't imagine that it would be good for college football to have great games played in empty stadiums.
Yup, that's a big issue too. The easy answer is to play the games on the campus of the higher-ranked team - but that excludes the cash-cow bowls. What to do, what to do...
Your article has made me think again about the 2003 BCS that has intrigued me for a while now; I never did understand the “problem” at the time. Although OU dropped their last game to Kansas State, I did believe they and LSU should be ranked 1 and 2 going in to the championship (although I thought before that game that LSU and USC would probably be a more “fun” game to watch). It’s been a while now and reading up on your article, I decided to go back and rethink this by looking at the 3 teams again, 6 plus years later without the hoopla, and just do a quick comparison based on what their records tell us.
LOSSES: Looking at the regular season, LSU had 1 loss, OU 1 loss, and USC 1 loss. Ok, all are even on that stat. LSU +0, OU +0, USC +0.
WINS: LSU had 12 wins, OU 12 wins, and USC 11 wins. Ok, clear separation there and LSU and OU win that stat. LSU +1, OU +1, USC +0. Sorry USC, but this is a self-inflicted wound. Don’t get mad at OU or LSU (or the computers), they have nothing to do with the PAC-10 simply playing fewer games. Both LSU and OU have greater risk playing this extra game against a guaranteed good opponent; greater risk = greater reward.
Looking more closely at wins and losses (rankings are the final ones at end of regular season):
USC single loss that year was to unranked California 34-31. The rest of their schedule included only 1 ranked team, a win over #14 Washington State.
LSU’s single loss was to #17 Florida 19-7. The rest of their schedule included wins over 3 ranked teams, #11 Georgia, #18 Mississippi, and #11 Georgia a 2nd time in the SEC championship game.
Oklahoma single loss was to #10 Kansas State 35-7 in the championship game. The rest of their schedule included wins over 2 ranked teams, #5 Texas and # 22 Oklahoma State.
Without even thinking about it USC is clearly down on this issue. USC’s loss was the worst of the 3 (USC loss to unranked, LSU loss #17, OU #10) and USC’s best win was the least impressive of the 3 (USC over #14, LSU over #11, OU over #5).
All 3 blew away unranked opponents by routinely putting up 40+ points against them. USC had a good win over their only ranked opponent (#14) 43-16. LSU had a 34-13 win over #11. OU had impressive wins of 65-13 over #5 and 52-9 over #22. This certainly I think gives more clarity on why the computers who aren’t so influenced that OU’s loss came on their last game (still fresh I the minds of the pollsters) ranked OU still #1 even over LSU. So my unprofessional tally on the point of looking at their wins/losses is USC +0, LSU +1, and OU +1 (or +2 given their sked).
And all this doesn’t even include the fact that all the conferences before the 1st game knew, understood, and signed off on how the BCS computation was to be made to determine which teams go into the title game. Seems a bit strange to argue the system after it’s been run.
In short, I do understand USC’s complaint given that that the polls ranked them #1 going in to the title game, but perhaps this is one of those times that emotion (and wanting to make a statement against the BCS system) got the best of fallible humans and the result was (though only maybe slightly) inflating their “right” to the game artificially. Don’t get me wrong, USC was just as good as both OU and LSU that year, just that the system was based largely (not exclusively) on merit; what you did that year. Like this analysis shows, they just fell a smidge short like so many other teams have, and will certainly again in the future no matter what system is used.
@ Anon
This is the problem with this whole BCS system. We're comparing point differentials for wins and losses with subjective human rankings and in the end we might as well be judging a figure skating competition.
The "problem" at the time is that 2003 Oklahoma didn't win their own conference. It wasn't just "their last game" it was the game that determined who won the Big 12. They were crushed, absolutely dismantled, and left for dead by KSU. If you can't win your own conference, the notion that you should advance to a NCG ahead of other conference winners with a similar record makes a mockery of the whole concept of a national championship. National Championship worthy teams do not get crushed in their final, most important game of the season.
The irony of all this is that LSU was actually #3 prior to the OK loss, and while we will never know how things might have turned out with the computers had OU won, I believe that OU's loss was critical for LSU advancement to the title game. I've done the math and its extremely close, but again impossible to know since its only guesswork.
It should have been USC vs LSU, the two 1 loss BCS conference champions who were 1-2 in the polls.
You bring up a very good point about earning the right by being your conf champ. But... OU played that extra game; USC didn't. Since it was that extra championship game that was their only loss I say your argument is valid against other conf champs that have the extra risk of that game. I argue it should have been LSU against another 12 win team (vice worying so much about losses since USC plays less which translates to less risk). Only other 12 win team was Miami (Ohio) which is probably not acceptabe for average fan. So the only good team option they had was OU.
In essence I guess I'm saying that PAC 10 and other conferences that don't play a final game have an unfair advantage (which should be a self-imposed penalty) since for some reason poll voters focus on losses not wins. If I were a voter, I'd factor that in and probably have penalized USC (really the PAC 10) for not playing that extra game. USC very well may have been 1 of the top teams, but like you think that OU didn't earn it, I think USC didn't either. (USC was also "dismantled" by virtue of losing to an unranked).
As you said and I admit, kinda subjective like figure skating, but I don't place OU's 1 slip up to a good team at the very end (again, a game USC didn't even play) as any worse than USC's loss to a much more suspect team earlier. Even so, from my purely entertainment view, LSU-USC would have been nice to see, as was the LSU-OU game. I guess think of it this way, would you still feel that way if all else was equal EXCEPT that OU lost their 1st game to 10th ranked KU then ran the table the way they did including their conf champ game? I don't think the pollseters would have. BTW, that's the way the computers looked at it since none of them weighed late losses more than early losses like humans seem to do.
This also applies to today; look at LSU and USC this year, LSU loss is to #1 (now #2) FLA last game; USC lost to an unranked team that LSU beat and USC is ranked higher than LSU. Most likely b/c LSU just lost and USC lost some weeks ago, but the y both have 1 loss. And yes, LSU and USC are both somewhat suspect this year as powerhouses. Until they prove otherwise, they both should be ranked back to back somewher around 10th to 15th.
The championship game that some conferences play is sometimes a risk but just as often, if not more, an opportunity for them.
First, lets be clear about the nature of these championship games. They exist for money, pure and simple. NCAA rules require that a conference have at least 12 teams, and so these conferences made the choice to add teams in order to cash in on this opportunity.
They also do something else: add a ninth game to the conference schedule. Or more accurately, they remove the ninth game and then add it back in for the two teams playing in the CG. The Pac-10 and Big-10 don't have these games but instead they now play 9 conferences games a year. So CCGs actually help even things out and make it harder to "duck" a strong conference opponent.
You're also ignoring the opportunity presented to potential national title teams. CCGs allow teams to have a big, signature win on national television at the end of a season against a (presumably) strong opponent. More than one team has taken advantage of this to springboard into the NCG in recent years.
They also do something else which isn't related to national championships but does help conferences: they shield strong but blemished teams in the rankings and allow them to bigger BCS games. In recent years Kansas, LSU and Georgia have all taken advantage of the fact that they DIDN'T play in the CCG, instead sitting at home on high rankings waiting for the BCS to call with a bag of cash. But that's a different issue.
As for USC being "dismantled", that's just false. They lost by 3 points on the road in triple OT to a team that went to and won a bowl game that year (and a team which, incidentally, suffered a 3 point loss that year while visiting KSU). That's not the same as getting smoked 35-7 on neutral field. OU wasn't suffering from injuries, they weren't jobbed by the refs or the victim of awful luck. They just got flat out outplayed in a game for the conference crown.
Either conference titles mean something, or they don't. If they do, then let's act like they do. If they don't, then what's the point of having a conference title game? We can't have it both ways.
Wow, some of the most convoluted thinking complicating a simple idea. Playoffs like in the NCAA basketball are superior to the "methods" that are used today to decide a "mythical" national Div I football champion. How is that the other divisions of the NCAA can have a football playoff? It's easy. What is not easy is getting the power brokers of today's college football to give up their power (and money).
So a simple 16 team playoff with 11 conference champs and 5 wildcards decided by NCAA committee like in basketball. Play at the home stadium of the higher seeded team - settles crowds. You can have a championship game at a neutral site. Done.
Now who can argue with the great drama that Butler/Duke gave us this year - but in any of your cases we would be denied this since the Butler's of football would not be allowed to participate unless you included all conference champs and not used the biased rankings system.
You suffer from not being able to divorce yourself from today's system.
But on a positive note, I do love your records on conferences, etc.
Post a Comment