The BCS Worked

[TrickySU]

Can anyone honestly say that the best team didn't win the national championship during the BCS era? I think a playoff is going to be fun, but ultimately, the BCS system crowned the best college football team each year. A playoff this year would have had Alabama and Stanford in it. Both teams lost in their BCS bowl games.

 

[690West]

Growing up, I enjoyed Big Macs and Whopper Jr's. They worked. Then I discovered Surf and Turf. It works better.

 

[PeteCalvin]

Growing up, I enjoyed Big Macs and Whopper Jr's. They worked. Then I discovered Surf and Turf. It works better.

What about the McDLT?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

McRibs. Period.

 

[Chip]

BCS worked more often that not. But what made it insane was that since it was one game, everyone would start freaking out about 6 games in. After a full season, it usually shakes out.

Having said that, I think the playoff is going to be much better.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

A BCS system I think is better at putting the two best teams against each other while a play off system is more fair.

 

[DNABB5]

The 2004 Auburn Tigers would like to offer an alternate opinion.

 

[sufandu]

It worked better than the lack of a system before it, but a playoff will be better.

In 2004 an undefeated Auburn team was left out.

In 2000 Miami may have been the best team in the country by the end. A playoff would have allowed us to find out.

In 2007 a 2 loss LSU gets into the BCS title game over five other 2 loss teams and one 1 loss team after losing to an unranked Arkansas team in their last regular season game. They beat Ohio State to win the championship, but does that mean they were the best or did they just matchup with Ohio State better than they would've against one of the other teams?

 

[SWC75]

I did a study, which I last updated two years ago about how often the BCS "works". I went over every season since 1936. I won't repost all of that, just the introduction and the conclusion:



The BCS system would have “worked”, (produced a championship game between two teams that had better records than any team that finished in the top 8), 18 times in 74 years, counting 1944. That’s 24.3% of the time. The other 75.7%, somebody with a good enough schedule to finish in the top 8 and who had as good a regular season record as at least one of the teams in the championship game would have watched it on TV-or did. (Of course some of those teams lost or would have lost in bowl games before the title game and others lost to a team in the game, so their “case” would have been weakened.) The importance of this is that, if the BCS system isn’t expanded into a more comprehensive playoff, we can expect there to be a significant controversy, at least going into the bowls, ¾ of the time. The BCS is a .250 hitter.


2011 Update: 18 times in 76 years .236. If it had been a four team playoff, as is now being proposed, There would have been 23 years where the #5 team had as good as record as the teams in the tournament. That’s 30.3% of the time there would still be a problem.

 

[TrickySU]

The 2004 Auburn Tigers would like to offer an alternate opinion.

At the time, I was disappointed Auburn didn't get their shot at a title. That Auburn team still had a chance to get a share of the title but squeaked out a 16-13 win over Virginia Tech while USC crushed Oklahoma 55-19. After that, I don't think there was any doubt that USC was the best team in the country.

 

[TrickySU]

It worked better than the lack of a system before it, but a playoff will be better.

In 2004 an undefeated Auburn team was left out.

In 2000 Miami may have been the best team in the country by the end. A playoff would have allowed us to find out.

In 2007 a 2 loss LSU gets into the BCS title game over five other 2 loss teams and one 1 loss team after losing to an unranked Arkansas team in their last regular season game. They beat Ohio State to win the championship, but does that mean they were the best or did they just matchup with Ohio State better than they would've against one of the other teams?

I already discussed 2004 Auburn.

I'll give you 2000 Miami although I think you have to give it to Oklahoma because they were undefeated, but Miami may have been the best team by the end of the year.

2007 was an anomaly. There weren't any undefeated teams. Ohio State with one loss got in and LSU was the best two loss team. #3 Virginia Tech and #4 Oklahoma both lost in their bowls so LSU was the best team in 2007.

 

[Delmar]

2007 was an anomaly. There weren't any undefeated teams. Ohio State with one loss got in and LSU was the best two loss team. #3 Virginia Tech and #4 Oklahoma both lost in their bowls so LSU was the best team in 2007.

The BCS was a wreck. The times they got it right it was like going into a very dark bar with sunglasses on and walking out with the prettiest girl. The end result was okay, but there were far better ways of determining the winner.

Also, you can't justify the BCS by how jilted teams performed in bowls that they really didn't want to play in. This year proves that --Alabama, Ohio State wanted to play in the big game; Baylor wanted a different opponent; Stanford was playing in its 3rd straight Rose Bowl. In each case, their opponent was much, much happier to be there.

 

[Marsh01]

I dont care if it worked, the system sucked and a playoff is 1000000X better.

 

[DNABB5]

At the time, I was disappointed Auburn didn't get their shot at a title. That Auburn team still had a chance to get a share of the title but squeaked out a 16-13 win over Virginia Tech while USC crushed Oklahoma 55-19. After that, I don't think there was any doubt that USC was the best team in the country.

My point is that Auburn deserved to play in it and Oklahoma did not because the computers computers saw it that way. It shows EXACTLY what was wrong with the BCS. The Sooners started #2 and finished there, the only other very good team that played all year was Texas. Virginia Tech, whom Auburn did "squeak by" played that undefeated USC team in the opener and played them tight as I recall it was Reggie (VACATED) Bush who scored on VT very late in the 4th for USC to win. Auburn beat everyone they played in the SEC by A LOT. Only LSU was close and they wound up with 4 wins over top 10 teams. I think anyone that saw both Oklahoma play and Auburn play felt they got the shaft.

The very reason I posted this is because this is the prime example of it not working. I would have LOVED to see if USC could have scored on Auburn and I am absolutely sure that the Tigers would not have given up 55 when they only gave up 20 one time all season. That was the right matchup. The BCS didn't work. Sometimes cheaters win.

Plus, no disrespect but...weren't you like 12 then?

 

[sufandu]

I already discussed 2004 Auburn.
Nothing is clear when you end up with two undefeated teams. You can't just compare scores from games and make assumptions. We'll never know if Auburn matched up better with USC than Oklahoma.

I'll give you 2000 Miami although I think you have to give it to Oklahoma because they were undefeated, but Miami may have been the best team by the end of the year.
This is a matter of how you define the function of the regular season. If a team is allowed to improve and grow throughout the regular season they may be the best team at the end even without the best record (I lean toward this definition). Miami lost an away game against a good team with a sophomore QB making his first start. If they do like most of the country and schedule a scrub, they're undefeated. If, on the other hand, the regular season is an elimination tournament then Miami was knocked out fairly, but...

2007 was an anomaly. There weren't any undefeated teams. Ohio State with one loss got in and LSU was the best two loss team. #3 Virginia Tech and #4 Oklahoma both lost in their bowls so LSU was the best team in 2007.
... LSU should've been too. You can't say a loss knocks a team out one year and then ignore a late season loss to an unranked team in another.

I'll also bring up the Alabama vs LSU rematch. The argument against a playoff had always been that it would devalue the regular season. By declaring Alabama the NC it completely made meaningless LSU's regular season win. What we ended up with were two 1 loss teams that had each beaten the other once. That is not what anyone would call conclusive.

The whole fraud the last 16 years was that we had no blueprint for a playoff. We've had a blueprint for decades. It's call the FCS, Division II, and Division III.

Edit: The 4 years discussed represent 25% of the BCS era. 75% success is a C grade in any college course.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

For years we've had a two team playoff ... and team #3 is always pissed off.

Now we'll have a four team playoff ... and team #5 will be pissed off.

Somebody has to be on the bubble.

 

[retro44]

the BCS maxed out in the profit arena....there was only one to way to grab even more money and separate the haves from the have not's even more

 

[All4SU]

I hate a system that relies on the subjectivity of polls. Too much opportunity for teams and conferences to lobby for votes and work the system. The system has to be in place where you must win your conference to get in. There is way too much manipulation in college football.

 

[Alsacs]

BCS did not work throughout the entire time it was around. It was good in getting the B1G and Pac-12 to play ball if they had number 1 or 2, but that is it.
In 2000, Miami lost @Washington to a team that would win the Rose Bowl, and beat Florida State in the regular season head to head, but the BCS gave us Oklahoma vs Florida State, and Oklahoma won 13-2.

In 2001, probably the biggest mismatch of all-time occurred. Miami played a team that couldn't even win its own division in the Big XII and gave up 50 plus points in their last game to Colorado in Nebraska. It wasn't like Nebraska didn't lose its division to an undefeated #1 team in the country like Alabama in 2011, but they got absolutely crushed by Colorado and backdoored their way to the BCS title game over a 1 loss Oregon or even a 2 loss Colorado who played a tough non-conference schedule that season and destroyed Nebraska.

In 2004, Auburn of the SEC got left out of the BCS title game for an Oklahoma-USC matchup. USC ABSOLUTELY destroyed Oklahoma. This was pre-SEC bias in the country when people were objective. USC earned their spot most felt and had actually defeated Auburn in 2002 and 2003 so they weren't questioned, but Oklahoma vs. Auburn was never really debated.


The BCS was not a success IMO, but it the job in getting all the conferences together and got rid of the B1G/Pac-12 arrogance, and it only happened because the Coaches poll gave Nebraska a split NC in 1998 after the AP gave Michigan their title. If Michigan didn't get screwed then the B1G likely would never have given away their Rose Bowl.

 

[sufandu]

BCS did not work throughout the entire time it was around. It was good in getting the B1G and Pac-12 to play ball if they had number 1 or 2, but that is it.
In 2000, Miami lost @Washington to a team that would win the Rose Bowl, and beat Florida State in the regular season head to head, but the BCS gave us Oklahoma vs Florida State, and Oklahoma won 13-2.

In 2001, probably the biggest mismatch of all-time occurred. Miami played a team that couldn't even win its own division in the Big XII and gave up 50 plus points in their last game to Colorado in Nebraska. It wasn't like Nebraska didn't lose its division to an undefeated #1 team in the country like Alabama in 2011, but they got absolutely crushed by Colorado and backdoored their way to the BCS title game over a 1 loss Oregon or even a 2 loss Colorado who played a tough non-conference schedule that season and destroyed Nebraska.

In 2004, Auburn of the SEC got left out of the BCS title game for an Oklahoma-USC matchup. USC ABSOLUTELY destroyed Oklahoma. This was pre-SEC bias in the country when people were objective. USC earned their spot most felt and had actually defeated Auburn in 2002 and 2003 so they weren't questioned, but Oklahoma vs. Auburn was never really debated.


The BCS was not a success IMO, but it the job in getting all the conferences together and got rid of the B1G/Pac-12 arrogance, and it only happened because the Coaches poll gave Nebraska a split NC in 1998 after the AP gave Michigan their title. If Michigan didn't get screwed then the B1G likely would never have given away their Rose Bowl.

Two small quibbles because we are 99.9% in agreement. Split title was in '97. Oklahoma beating Auburn in '02 and '03 is not conclusive regarding '04. Teams change too much from year to year, look at Auburn last year versus this year.

 

[SmilinBob]

Back then the Big 10 and Big 12 were the it girls along with USC.

 

[sufandu]

Back then the Big 10 and Big 12 were the it girls along with USC.

USC wasn't quite an it girl yet. That came after the BCS came together, when Pete Carroll showed up in '01. Sorry, I'm being really nitpicky today. It's a slow one at work.

 

[SmilinBob]

USC wasn't quite an it girl yet. That came after the BCS came together, when Pete Carroll showed up in '01. Sorry, I'm being really nitpicky today. It's a slow one at work.

True...early they were not. Yoda 2014.

 

[PeteCalvin]

It worked better than the lack of a system before it, but a playoff will be better.

In 2004 an undefeated Auburn team was left out.

In 2000 Miami may have been the best team in the country by the end. A playoff would have allowed us to find out.

In 2007 a 2 loss LSU gets into the BCS title game over five other 2 loss teams and one 1 loss team after losing to an unranked Arkansas team in their last regular season game. They beat Ohio State to win the championship, but does that mean they were the best or did they just matchup with Ohio State better than they would've against one of the other teams?

The fact that they beat Ohio State absolves them of the loss to Arkansas. They did the nation a favor.

 

[sufandu]

The fact that they beat Ohio State absolves them of the loss to Arkansas. They did the nation a favor.

Maybe a 1 loss Kansas does the same thing :noidea:.