Old BCS Debates Renewed

Tony Barnhart (despite being a nauseating SEC homer) is a primo college football writer, analyst and fan. Well, except in this entry last week from his Mr. College Football blog at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I expect more from ol' Tony than these tired half-assed explanations of BCS controversies of yore:

2000: Miami beats Florida State head to head during the regular season but finishes third behind the Seminoles in the final BCS Standings and gets shut out of the game. Florida State loses to Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl

Every time I read one of these critiques about 2000, I feel like I'm living in bizarro-world. Why is Washington (and Oregon State and Virginia Tech to lesser extents) always left out of this discussion? Yes, Miami beat FSU...in a nailbiter. Two weeks earlier, Washington had beaten Miami, in a more dominating fashion (not necessarily by the score, but I watched both games). FSU, Miami, Washington, Oregon State and Virginia Tech each finished with one loss. Washington's one loss was on the road to an Oregon team that finished 10-2. Is it provincial bias? Sheer ignorance? How the hell do you distill 2000 to a debate over two teams when five BCS-league squads finished with one defeat, and each of the five teams played at least one of the other five? I actually analyzed the 2000 situation two years ago and I haven't changed my opinion in the slightest.

2001: Nebraska played for the BCS championship but didn’t even win the Big 12. The Cornhuskers were embarrassed by Miami in the Rose Bowl.

I don't recall a lot of "didn't even win the SEC" arguments regarding Georgia last year when many pundits - Barnhart chief among them - exclaimed (inexplicably) that the Dawgs might really deserve to be in the BCS title game. Personally, I don't have an issue if a team gets a BCS title shot without winning their league. It's not uncommon for the champion in NCAA hoops or baseball to not have a conference crown as well. But getting back to the Nebraska argument...I don't recall the main sticking point being that the Huskers didn't win the Big XII. The big problem with Nebraska getting to the Rose Bowl that season was that they got curb-stomped 62-36 by Colorado in the regular season finale.

2003: Southern Cal finishes No. 1 in both of the human polls but No. 3 in the BCS formula. LSU and Oklahoma play for the BCS championship and USC settles for the AP title. This game changed the BCS formula to weight it more heavily towards the human voters.

Tony leaves out half of the cause of the '03 debate...that Oklahoma got violated 35-7 in the Big XII championship to a three-loss Kansas State team, yet still got a BCS title shot. It's still bad that the #1 team in both human polls got left out, but when a team gets drilled by four touchdowns in early December and still gets a BCS championship game bid...that's the real problem.

2004: Auburn wins the SEC championship at 12-0 and gets shut out of the BCS championship game.

Short of an actual playoff, there is no system that would've solved this dilemma. This same situation would've happened under the old pre-BCS bowl system, except worse - USC would've played in the Rose Bowl, Oklahoma in the Orange (or Fiesta), and Auburn in the Sugar. At least the BCS got two of the three to play. And poor little Auburn's case would've been helped greatly if they hadn't nearly blown the Sugar Bowl to Virginia Tech in a 16-13 final, while USC was abusing Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl.

BCS Bowl Picks and other Miscellanea

Now that the season is rapidly approaching, I suppose I should throw out a few non-ACC predictions and thoughts.

Per my Blog Poll ballot, it's obvious that I'm playing it safe in picking USC #1. That said, I give the Trojans less than a 50-50 chance of actually winning the whole shebang. They don't seem as indestructible as some are making them out to be, however I sure as hell don't feel truly confident in anyone else either. The Trojans probably should win the national title given their sick level of talent, but more likely than not it'll be someone else.

Anyway, my best guesses as to the BCS bowl matchups...

BCS National Championship Game (New Orleans, LA)- USC vs. Texas
Sugar Bowl (New Orleans, LA)- LSU vs. Oklahoma
Orange Bowl (Miami, FL)- Georgia Tech vs. West Virginia
Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA)- Michigan vs. California
Fiesta Bowl (Glendale, AZ)- Wisconsin vs. Hawaii

--For the 10th season in a row, the ACC will not place a second team in the BCS; certainly not what the suits in the league office had in mind 4 years ago when they pratfalled their way through expansion
--Not surprisingly, the SEC should be the King of College Football, although I don't see any team getting out of league play with less than two losses
--The Big 12, despite probably getting two teams in the BCS this season, will bring up the rear in major conferences, considering only half the conference could be bowl-eligible
--The Big 10 will again look rosy in the regular season, only to get pummeled come bowl time
--The Big East will be a complete dichotomy...West Virginia, Louisville, Rutgers and USF could all post 10 wins, but the bottom half of Cincinnati, UConn, Pitt, and Syracuse will finish under .500
--I don't have a frickin clue as to the Heisman...I can't imagine John David Booty at USC nabbing a 4th trophy in 6 years for the Trojans unless he posts some sick efficiency numbers. Colt Brennan at Hawaii will have to go undefeated and break a few NCAA passing records to win it, and Darren McFadden at Arkansas needs his Hogs to at least compete for the SEC West title. The '07 Heisman winner will likely start this season outside of the spotlight.

There seems to be a general blanket of uncertainty entering this season, and that's a good thing for everyone. Sure, most pundits and pollsters have USC #1, but that's the safe bet since the national picture appears so wide open. I'd love to see an off the wall Cal-Texas A&M or Georgia Tech-Wisconsin national title game, along with under-the-radar guys like Virginia Tech's Brandon Ore or Nebraska's Sam Keller taking home the Heisman. Will that happen? Doubt it, but it's certainly possible at this time, when so many things are within reach of so many teams and so many players.


FOX execs would throw-up in their mouths a little bit at this BCS title game, but I'd sure as hell watch

The Chronicles' Top 25...Plus BCS Bowl Guesses

Allow me to join the legion of other college football bloggers in posting my own extra-special Top 25 list. Special kudos to myself for actually compiling this list a few days ahead of time instead of the usual Week 1 Saturday morning 10:59am mad-scramble to write out my own Top 25 list, for no other purpose other than to see how way off base I was at season's end.

Now that my list is out there for all the world to see, the rest of you can share in wonder and amazement. And, I'll even throw in a special treat at the end, my projected BCS bowl matchups. Really!

So, on with my poll. This is not a power poll. This is how I think the polls will look like at the end of the regular season and conference championship games, but before the bowls. I've considered each team's strengths and weaknesses, gone through each team's schedule, and have come up with this mighty fine list. Projected records in parentheses...

1. Ohio State (12-0)
2. Notre Dame (11-1)
3. Auburn (12-1)
4. Texas (11-2)
5. USC (10-2)
6. LSU (10-2)
7. Florida State (11-2)
8. Louisville (11-1)
9. California (10-2)
10. Clemson (10-2)
11. Nebraska (10-3)
12. Iowa (10-2)
13. West Virginia (10-2)
14. Florida (9-3)
15. TCU (11-1)
16. Utah (10-2)
17. Oklahoma (9-3)
18. Georgia Tech (9-4)
19. Michigan (9-3)
20. Georgia (9-4)
21. Virginia Tech (9-3)
22. Miami (8-4)
23. Texas Tech (9-3)
24. Oregon (8-4)
25. Penn State (8-4)

Also considered: Arizona, Arizona State, Boise State, Boston College, Navy, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, UCF, UTEP

First off, I know what y'all are thinking....well maybe I don't, but if I had stumbled across this poll, the first thing I would be thinking is that it would be near impossible to have 9-3 Oklahoma, Michigan and Virginia Tech squads sitting in the low teens/high twenties. And in a normal year, that wouldn't happen. But this isn't anywhere near a normal year. There isn't any single dominant team entering this season, which means that there's an unprecedented level of parity for 2006 and that is why you could see 9- and 10- win major conference teams sitting well outside the Top 10. This year, it will really matter when you lose.

BCS Bowl Picks
So now we get a super-duper national championship game this season, although I'm not quite sure what this was supposed to accomplish. As best as I can tell, all the BCS has really done is just added another BCS game, called it the "BCS National Championship Game" (oh to have been a fly on the wall at that "Possible Names For The BCS National Championship Game" executive meeting), placed it in one of the 4 BCS cities on a rotating basis (huh? why?), and therefore opened up two more at-large spots to soothe the howls from the small conference folk as well as the 2004 Cal and 2005 Oregon type teams.

Anyhoo, here is the schedule of BCS Bowls for the 2006 season:
Jan. 1, 2007 - Fiesta Bowl- Glendale, AZ
Jan. 1, 2007- Rose Bowl- Pasadena, CA
Jan. 2, 2007- Orange Bowl- Miami, FL
Jan. 3, 2007- Sugar Bowl- New Orleans, LA
Jan. 8, 2007- National Championship Game- Glendale, AZ

The ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10 and SEC will each have an automatic tie-in to one of the bowls for their conference champ, provided that said conference champ doesn't qualify for the National Championship Game. That said, the tie-ins are:

ACC-Orange
Big 10-Rose
Big 12-Fiesta
Pac 10-Rose
SEC-Sugar

The poor ol' stepchild Big East gets no such tie-in, although the Big East champ will take one of the open slots along with 3 other at-large squads.

So, that fun little explanation aside, here's how I see the BCS bowls shaking out:

Fiesta Bowl- Texas (Big 12 champ) vs. California (at-large)
Rose Bowl- USC (Pac-10 champ) vs. LSU (at-large)
Orange Bowl- Florida State (ACC champ) vs. Louisville (Big East champ)
Sugar Bowl- Auburn (SEC champ) vs. Clemson (at-large)
National Championship Game- Ohio State (BCS #1/Big Ten champ) vs. Notre Dame (BCS #2)

And there you have it.

BCS "Blunders"

The good folks over at CollegeFootballNews.com have a weekly section imaginatively titled "Ask CFN", and this week one of the reader-submitted questions was an inquiry into the worst BCS blunders since the inception of the BCS. The Nebraska travesty of 2001 and the Oklahoma fiasco of 2003 were correctly noted, but then talk veered into more questionable "blunders" such as Florida State over Ohio State in 1998 for the Fiesta Bowl bid, and Florida State over Miami in 2000 for the right to get blasted by Oklahoma.

DISCLAIMER: This blogger graduated from Florida State University in 1995, bleeds Garnet and Gold, thinks the War Chant belongs in public schools just after the Pledge of Allegiance, and so on and so forth. So feel free to question my reasoning, but not the facts outlined below.

Any debate between Florida State and Ohio State for the '98 Fiesta Bowl bid is almost a non-starter. The Seminoles deserved the bid. FSU lost to 7-5 NC State in early September, and then rolled through the remainder of their schedule, with the closest game a 23-12 win over #4 Florida (with Marcus Outzen at QB in place of the injured Chris Weinke). Furthermore, FSU had beaten 4 other teams listed in the final Top 15 BCS poll (Texas A&M, Florida, Virginia, Georgia Tech). Additionally, the Noles had beaten the two teams who made the whole "debate" possible: Miami, who knocked off 10-0 UCLA, and Texas A&M, who upset 11-0 Kansas State on that incredible December Saturday.

Ohio State certainly played well throughout the '98 season, in fact rising to #1 in late October. However, a Michigan State team that would finish 6-6 and bowl-less came into Columbus in early November and walked out with a win. The Buckeyes didn't even play anyone ranked in the final BCS poll. Debate over, thanks for playing Bucks, your parting gift was suffering through just 2 more years of the John Cooper era.

The 2000 debate gets a little stickier. The most disengenous portion of most '00 arguments is that it boils down to just Florida State and Miami, and leaves out Washington and (to a lesser extent) Virginia Tech and Oregon State. Let's take a little trip back to the final BCS poll of the 2000 regular season and see what a mess we had:

Final BCS poll - Dec. 4, 2000
1- Oklahoma (12-0)
2- Florida State (11-1)
3- Miami (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 (8-3)
13- Georgia Tech (9-2)
14- TCU (10-1)
15- Clemson (9-2)

So, we had one clear-cut undefeated team and 5 one-loss teams. Having 5 one-loss teams in and of itself is messy enough, but considering the fact that each of those 5 squads played at least one of the other 5 one-loss teams, and you get another brand of insanity altogether. Breaking down the games between each one-loss squad, this is what we get:

-Florida State (0-1): lost at Miami 27-24
-Miami (2-1): lost at Washington 34-29, beat Florida State 27-24, beat Virginia Tech 41-21
-Washington (2-0): beat Miami 34-29, beat Oregon State 33-30
-Virginia Tech (0-1): lost at Miami 41-21
-Oregon State (0-1): lost at Washington 33-30

For the remaining schedules, the breakdown goes as follows (remaining overall record, then other losses and/or notable wins):

-Florida State (11-0): beat #7 Florida 30-7, beat #13 Georgia Tech 26-21, beat #15 Clemson 54-7
-Miami (8-0): no other victories over BCS ranked teams
-Washington (8-1): lost at #10 Oregon 23-16; no other victories over BCS ranked teams
-Virginia Tech (10-0): no other victories over BCS ranked teams
-Oregon State (10-0): beat #10 Oregon 23-13

After reviewing the two categories above, it seems an obvious call to drop Virginia Tech from consideration. I would also drop Oregon State from consideration, due to the fact that they went 0-1 vs. the other 4 teams and played just one other ranked BCS team, albeit a victory.

So that leaves us with Florida State, Miami, and Washington. Miami played 3 of the other 4 one-loss teams and went 2-1; very impressive. But they didn't play anyone else of consequence after that. Florida State played just one of the other 4, and lost; not so great. But they beat 3 other BCS ranked teams, two of which were blowout wins; very impressive. Washington played two of the other 4 one-loss clubs and won both; most impressive. But they played just one other BCS-ranked team and lost; not so good.

So who should've gone? Well....not Miami. Of the "Big Three" one-loss teams, the team that gets the most sympathy in all the arguments - the Hurricanes - seem the least deserving of the three. Florida State played a better overall schedule and demolished much of that competition; Washington beat Miami head-to-head. Either way, Miami comes up short. They lose the overall schedule and margin-of-victory argument to FSU, and they lose the head-to-head argument to Washington. So explain to me why the Canes get all the love in these debates?

As for Oklahoma's opponent in that Orange Bowl? It probably should've been Washington. But maybe not.