In Memoriam, BCS

[KidSilverhair]

The now-departed BCS gets a bad rap from football fans. I just saw a comment in another thread somewhere that was kicking the BCS when it was down, comparing it to something else that was considered a failure (I can't locate the comment now, so forgive me for being vague).

While I'm excited about this season's four-team playoff (and hoping the greedheads of college football don't decide to expand that sucker past eight), I think the BCS didn't do all that badly in its history. Remember, the only goal of the BCS rankings was to select the top two teams to meet for a championship game. Well, it was a de facto championship game between 1999 and 2006, but from 2007 on it became an official non-bowl championship.

By my own personal count, I say the BCS got things right in eight of the 16 years. In four other seasons (bowl/championship games of 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008) they didn't have a clear choice for the top two, but I think they could have done a better job. Four times (2004, 2005, 2009, 2012) they got things miserably wrong.

Let's look at the history:

1999 - Tennessee over Florida State.
Tennessee and Tulane were the only undefeateds (and you're not going to see Tulane in a BCS bowl).
Florida State had one loss, along with Kansas State, Ohio State, UCLA, Arizona and Wisconsin. Kansas State was the only one of those teams ranked close to FSU in the BCS.
I say the BCS got this one right.

2000 - Florida State over Virginia Tech.
FSU and VT were the only undefeateds left, except for Marshall.
This was an easy one. The BCS got it right.

2001 - Oklahoma over Florida State.
OU was the only undefeated team.
FSU, Miami, Washington, Virginia Tech, Oregon State and TCU all had one loss. Only Miami was ranked anywhere near FSU.
The BCS had to basically flip a coin between FSU and UM, but heck, I won't count this one.

2002 - Miami over Nebraska.
Miami was the only undefeated team.
Nebraska, Oregon, Illinois and Maryland all had one loss. Even a two-loss Colorado was ranked close to Nebraska and Oregon.
I won't give the BCS this one either. Who knows if Oregon or Colorado might have given the Hurricanes a better game.

2003 - Ohio State over Miami.
These were the only two undefeated teams.
Again, a no-brainer, but the BCS didn't mess this one up.

2004 - LSU over Oklahoma.
Everybody had a loss this season, including USC, Miami (Ohio), Boise State and TCU. USC is the only team that might have a real beef with the BCS.
Chalk it up as a miss.

2005 - USC over Oklahoma.
This was the Auburn/Utah year, where all four of these teams were undefeated, as well as Boise State.
Can't give this one to the BCS, although three teams are gonna be ticked off regardless.

2006 - Texas over USC.
These two were ranked 1 and 2 for the entire season.
Give this one to the BCS.

2007 - Florida over Ohio State.
Ohio State was undefeated, as was Boise State. Florida had one loss, along with Michigan, Louisville and TCU. Michigan really couldn't complain, since they lost to Ohio State.
Could Boise State have beaten Ohio State in the championship? Was BSU better than the Gators? We'll never know ... I guess that's why I can't give the BCS this one, although it's close.

2008 - LSU over Ohio State.
Ohio State had one loss, LSU had two. A one-loss Kansas team got left out.
Again, could Kansas have knocked off Ohio State? Was Kansas better than LSU?
Too many questions to give the BCS full credit.

2009 - Florida over Oklahoma.
Utah and Boise State were undefeated ... what a BCS title game that might have been, huh?
Florida and OU were part of a one-loss parade that included Texas, Alabama, USC, Texas Tech and Penn State.
This is a year where you should have had the last two unbeatens face off. BCS Fail.

2010 - Alabama over Texas.
In addition to these two, Cincinnati, TCU and Boise State were all undefeated. Given those five, I think the BCS chose well.
Give the BCS this one.

2011 - Auburn over Oregon.
Both undefeated. The only other unbeaten was TCU.
The BCS gets this year.

2012 - Alabama over LSU.
The rematch year. The SEC/SEC/SEC BCS game. I hated the fact that the BCS rankings put these two on top.
The only other one-loss team that was ranked close to these two was Oklahoma State, and in my opinion they should have gone to the title game (thanks a lot, Cyclones! ). Other teams with one loss were Stanford, Boise State and Houston.
BCS Fail, big time.

2013 - Alabama over Notre Dame.
The Irish took a lot of flak for making the title game this year, but they were the only undefeated team. Other one-loss teams were Florida, Oregon, Kansas State and Northern Illinois, and only Florida was even close in the BCS rankings.
Yes, I give the BCS this one.

2014 - Florida State over Auburn.
FSU was the last undefeated team in the rankings.
Other one-loss teams were Alabama, Michigan State, Baylor, Ohio State, Central Florida, Louisville, Fresno State and Northern Illinois. Ohio State could have made this all moot by, you know, winning the Big Ten championship game, but ... they didn't.
Given the outcome of the Big Ten and SEC, I think the BCS ended its time by choosing well again.

So, you could say the BCS "only" got it right half the time. Or you could say they only screwed things up badly four years out of 16. Either way, I wouldn't call it an utter failure. It mostly did what it was intended to do, identify the top two teams to meet in the last game of the year.

This four-game playoff is going to be sweet, though. Bring it on!

 

[HFCS]

I'll always think Utah was as legit a national champ in 05 as anyone. It was statistically the second most dominant team in college football history behind the Husker team that stomped fla for the title. Those are the only two teams to go an entire season with nobody getting within two TDs.

Meyer was running a system ahead of its time that much of college football would soon emulate. They curb stomped Alabama in their bowl. If a team goes all season without even being in remote danger of losing they're champs in my book.

 

[Mr Janny]

By your own words, the only job of the BCA was to match up the top two teams and by your own calculations it only successfully accomplished that job half the time, and half of the times they got it wrong, they got it miserably wrong.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's not exactly a great track record, especially if it's their only job.

 

[TXCyclones]

Got it right half the time and you think they did a good job. I'm glad you're not ranking doctors!

 

[00clone]

By my own personal count, I say the BCS got things right in eight of the 16 years. In four other seasons (bowl/championship games of 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008) they didn't have a clear choice for the top two, but I think they could have done a better job. Four times (2004, 2005, 2009, 2012) they got things miserably wrong.


So, you could say the BCS "only" got it right half the time. Or you could say they only screwed things up badly four years out of 16. Either way, I wouldn't call it an utter failure. It mostly did what it was intended to do, identify the top two teams to meet in the last game of the year.

This four-game playoff is going to be sweet, though. Bring it on!

By either measure...50% success rate, or 75% success rate is pretty crappy.

 

[Cyclonepride]

The BCS was the steaming turd of all sport championship methodologies. But I appreciate you for the time it took to post all that OP.

 

[KidSilverhair]

The BCS was the steaming turd of all sport championship methodologies. But I appreciate you for the time it took to post all that OP.

Well, perhaps. But what replacement methodology would you suggest?

Also, those of you saying 50-75% success is crappy ... how might you have chosen better? I think, given the limitations of no playoffs allowed, a 25% failure rate isn't all that bad. I am not trying to pimp out the BCS as "best system evaaar" but merely pointing out the actual results of the BCS system weren't the horrific travesty lots of fans claim. Well, maybe except for 2005.

I also point out out that the BCS mainly came about because people were complaining about the poll system, how it was so flawed and writers/coaches/ADs were doing a horrible job of determining the best team. So, the BCS was created to use input from not only human voters, but also several computer-based polling systems - to which people cried, "Computers don't know football! They only screw up the rankings!"

So now the four playoff teams will be determined by ... a committee of humans. Not all that different from the AP/UPI polls of 1978. Just kinda funny.

 

[Rabbuk]

How are we going to win a BCS national championship now???

 

[Cyclonepride]

Well, perhaps. But what replacement methodology would you suggest?

Also, those of you saying 50-75% success is crappy ... how might you have chosen better? I think, given the limitations of no playoffs allowed, a 25% failure rate isn't all that bad. I am not trying to pimp out the BCS as "best system evaaar" but merely pointing out the actual results of the BCS system weren't the horrific travesty lots of fans claim. Well, maybe except for 2005.

I also point out out that the BCS mainly came about because people were complaining about the poll system, how it was so flawed and writers/coaches/ADs were doing a horrible job of determining the best team. So, the BCS was created to use input from not only human voters, but also several computer-based polling systems - to which people cried, "Computers don't know football! They only screw up the rankings!"

So now the four playoff teams will be determined by ... a committee of humans. Not all that different from the AP/UPI polls of 1978. Just kinda funny.

Needs to be 16 teams. Hard to argue that you have a serious case for the title at #17.

 

[DFWClone]

Personally I liked the BCS. I know I'm in the few with that opinion but it was exciting.

 

[pourcyne]

Only in the classroom is 50% a failing grade.

Don't let 'em push you around, OP.

cool:

 

[KidSilverhair]

Only in the classroom is 50% a failing grade.

Don't let 'em push you around, OP.

cool:

"The world needs D students too, son."

 

[jbindm]

There's probably no perfect system, but that doesn't mean that a system that got it right 50% of the time should stay in place. The playoff system will likely have to be tweaked along the way, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Needs to be 16 teams. Hard to argue that you have a serious case for the title at #17.

It's hard to argue you have a serious case at #9, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. In most of the past 16 seasons, the team at 9 in the BCS had two or more losses. Admittedly, there were a couple of undefeated Boise State teams ranked ninth, too, but you gotta score them down for that MWC schedule.

Obviously, you could make a 16-team playoff work by using the month of December and eliminating/incorporating the bowls into the playoff system. I personally would rather not see that - I like the four we're starting with, I could live with 8, but in my personal opinion, 16 seems like too many.

Dear god, don't make it 64. I love the regular season far too much for that.

 

[no2cyclones]

I'm of the opinion that they had the BCS formula perfected, IMHO, a few years into it, when they changed it to take out the margin of victory portion. College football polls will always be an inexact science, so putting all of the factors into a formula designed to give an objective opinion of the top two teams may have been the best method to eliminate biases. That being said, bring on the playoff. The debate for the #4 and #5 teams will be heated, but won't matter nearly as much as who was #2 and #3 has mattered for the past 16 years.

 

[jbindm]

It's hard to argue you have a serious case at #9, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. In most of the past 16 seasons, the team at 9 in the BCS had two or more losses. Admittedly, there were a couple of undefeated Boise State teams ranked ninth, too, but you gotta score them down for that MWC schedule.

Obviously, you could make a 16-team playoff work by using the month of December and eliminating/incorporating the bowls into the playoff system. I personally would rather not see that - I like the four we're starting with, I could live with 8, but in my personal opinion, 16 seems like too many.

Dear god, don't make it 64. I love the regular season far too much for that.

I think eight teams is the magic number - the #9 team wouldn't have much of a case to complain, and a sixteen team playoff would water down the importance of the regular season a little too much. Eight gives you the regular season champs from the Power five conferences plus three wild card spots to account for championship game upsets or undefeated teams from non power five conferences. Still not a perfect system but better than a system that reduces coaches to lobbyists.

 

[HFCS]

I'm of the opinion that they had the BCS formula perfected, IMHO, a few years into it, when they changed it to take out the margin of victory portion. College football polls will always be an inexact science, so putting all of the factors into a formula designed to give an objective opinion of the top two teams may have been the best method to eliminate biases. That being said, bring on the playoff. The debate for the #4 and #5 teams will be heated, but won't matter nearly as much as who was #2 and #3 has mattered for the past 16 years.

The BCS ranking is absolutely incredible. The idea of a 2 team playoff for 100+ teams is the problem.

They're insane for going to a selection committee over just sticking with the bcs formula of the two polls and 1/3 computer average to pick a clean top 4. If I was dictator of college football I'd lock in the straight up BCS ranking selecting 8 teams and ban it from ever moving beyond 8. I'd also put a cap on the number of FBS teams.

 

[HFCS]

I think eight teams is the magic number - the #9 team wouldn't have much of a case to complain, and a sixteen team playoff would water down the importance of the regular season a little too much. Eight gives you the regular season champs from the Power five conferences plus three wild card spots to account for championship game upsets or undefeated teams from non power five conferences. Still not a perfect system but better than a system that reduces coaches to lobbyists.

Exactly, what's the largest number that truly still makes every team count? 8 is that number. Even 12 or 16 you have teams that can lose a game late and have it not matter.

With 8 teams a MWC, CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt or AAC team still has to run the table...maybe even a big 5 team with a weak schedule. With 8 teams a Big 5 team is often going to be out with just a second loss, unless it's a year where there are hardly any one loss teams.

The two things that make college football the phenomenon that it is are connection to people through loyalty ties to their state and alma mater that are much like nationalism (I compare it to world cup soccer fandom) and the fact that it's the only major American sport where every regular season game is huge. Only 12 games but every one of them matters...American pro sports regular season games are like meaningless practice games in comparison.