- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
College Football Playoff using top 4 Conference winners: BCS era
Posted on 12/16/13 at 7:38 pm
Posted on 12/16/13 at 7:38 pm
I've gone through all 16 years of the BCS and using the final BCS standings to determine a 4 team playoff using just conference winners. [link=( https://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_standings.html)]BCS Rankings 1998-2013[/link]
13 of 16 years the top 4 conference winners were all in the final top 6. 8 of 16 were all top 5, with 5 years were the top 4 were all conference winners. I'll discuss the other years in separate posts. This will be tl, so dr accordingly.
Overall the disputes are minor, with 1 or 2 exceptions.
The 5 years where the top 4 were all conference winners.
1999: FSU, Va Tech, Neb, Bama
2000: OU, FSU, Miami, Washington
2002: Miami, tOSU, UGA, USC *( will discuss separately)
2007: tOSU, LSU, VT, OU (maybe the most controversial BCS is one of least controversial 4 team playoffs)
2009: Bama, Texas, Cincy, TCU (Sorry Florida)
3 other years were it was top 5
1998: Tenn, FSU, #4 tOSU #5 UCLA, #3 KSU blew BigXII title game. UCLA was unbeaten before playing postponed game vs Miami late. Splitting hairs between these 2. This is the first, but not last time a CCG cost someone.
2010: Auburn, Oregon, TCU, #5 Wisconsin. #4 Stanford had same record was Wisky. Stanford’s loss was to #2 Oregon. Wisc was part of 3 way tie in B1G with #6 tOSU and #9 MSU. Their only loss was to MSU and Wisc beat tOSU. Now, Wisc and MSU would play in B1G CG.
2013: FSU, Auburn, #4 MSU, #5 Stanford. #6 Baylor had better record than Stanford and has a great case. #3 Bama passes the eyeball test and lost a tough game on last play on the road.
13 of 16 years the top 4 conference winners were all in the final top 6. 8 of 16 were all top 5, with 5 years were the top 4 were all conference winners. I'll discuss the other years in separate posts. This will be tl, so dr accordingly.
Overall the disputes are minor, with 1 or 2 exceptions.
The 5 years where the top 4 were all conference winners.
1999: FSU, Va Tech, Neb, Bama
2000: OU, FSU, Miami, Washington
2002: Miami, tOSU, UGA, USC *( will discuss separately)
2007: tOSU, LSU, VT, OU (maybe the most controversial BCS is one of least controversial 4 team playoffs)
2009: Bama, Texas, Cincy, TCU (Sorry Florida)
3 other years were it was top 5
1998: Tenn, FSU, #4 tOSU #5 UCLA, #3 KSU blew BigXII title game. UCLA was unbeaten before playing postponed game vs Miami late. Splitting hairs between these 2. This is the first, but not last time a CCG cost someone.
2010: Auburn, Oregon, TCU, #5 Wisconsin. #4 Stanford had same record was Wisky. Stanford’s loss was to #2 Oregon. Wisc was part of 3 way tie in B1G with #6 tOSU and #9 MSU. Their only loss was to MSU and Wisc beat tOSU. Now, Wisc and MSU would play in B1G CG.
2013: FSU, Auburn, #4 MSU, #5 Stanford. #6 Baylor had better record than Stanford and has a great case. #3 Bama passes the eyeball test and lost a tough game on last play on the road.
9
Posted on 12/16/13 at 7:39 pm to H-Town Tiger
2001: Miami, #3 Colorado, #4 Oregon #8 Illinois. Illinois was 10-1 and won the B1G, why they were #8 behind a slew of 2 loses teams is a mystery to me. I suspect if they were called tOSU or Michigan they would have been higher. Anyway, this was the 2nd time a team (Tenn) was #2 going into the CCG and lost. Worse they had to play a team they had already beaten that was 5-3 in conference. Texas also blew CCG losing to CU who they had also already beaten. of the 3 teams to make the BCS CG without winning their conference., 2001 Nebraska was easily the worst, they would probably be #4 using the current BCS formula.
2002: The final top 4: Miami, Ohio State, Georgia, USC were all conference winners. However, USC lost to #6 Wash State, both were 7-1 in conference, there was no Pac12 CG at the time and WSU did get the Rose Bowl berth. #2 Ohio State and #5 Iowa did not play and both were 8-0 in the Big 10. Again this would not be an issue going forward. Iowa’s loss was to 7-6 Iowa State.
2003: #2 LSU, #3 USC, #4 Michigan, #7 FSU. At the time OU was #1 however that was the old BCS formula, they would be #3 most likely using current formula they were #3 in the traditional aka human polls at the time. FSU was 10-2 and the 4th highest ranked conference winner. Miami was #9 and also 10-2. They beat FSU and were probably ranked lower because they lost 2 in a row to VT and Tennessee who were both top 10 at the time they played Miami. IMO, 2003 OU is the worst omission using just conference winners because they not only dominated 90% of the season, but still had the best record in their conference. This is exhibit A of why I don’t like conference champ games.
2004: USC, OU, Auburn, #6 Utah. Like the top 3 Utah was unbeaten. #4 was Texas, #5 was Cal, their loses were to OU and USC. I really don’t see how anyone could gripe about Utah going over Texas/Cal. IMO Texas being #4 is everything that is wrong with the poll systems. The moved up in part because Cal had an unimpressive win over So Miss the last week. Cal should have beaten USC, Texas was handled easily by OU. If you think the BCS is good because the regular season matters, UT and Cal had their chance and lost.
2002: The final top 4: Miami, Ohio State, Georgia, USC were all conference winners. However, USC lost to #6 Wash State, both were 7-1 in conference, there was no Pac12 CG at the time and WSU did get the Rose Bowl berth. #2 Ohio State and #5 Iowa did not play and both were 8-0 in the Big 10. Again this would not be an issue going forward. Iowa’s loss was to 7-6 Iowa State.
2003: #2 LSU, #3 USC, #4 Michigan, #7 FSU. At the time OU was #1 however that was the old BCS formula, they would be #3 most likely using current formula they were #3 in the traditional aka human polls at the time. FSU was 10-2 and the 4th highest ranked conference winner. Miami was #9 and also 10-2. They beat FSU and were probably ranked lower because they lost 2 in a row to VT and Tennessee who were both top 10 at the time they played Miami. IMO, 2003 OU is the worst omission using just conference winners because they not only dominated 90% of the season, but still had the best record in their conference. This is exhibit A of why I don’t like conference champ games.
2004: USC, OU, Auburn, #6 Utah. Like the top 3 Utah was unbeaten. #4 was Texas, #5 was Cal, their loses were to OU and USC. I really don’t see how anyone could gripe about Utah going over Texas/Cal. IMO Texas being #4 is everything that is wrong with the poll systems. The moved up in part because Cal had an unimpressive win over So Miss the last week. Cal should have beaten USC, Texas was handled easily by OU. If you think the BCS is good because the regular season matters, UT and Cal had their chance and lost.
This post was edited on 12/16/13 at 10:00 pm
Posted on 12/16/13 at 7:41 pm to H-Town Tiger
I think the top 4 should just be selected using the same BCS formula.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 8:02 pm to H-Town Tiger
2000 would have been a perfect time for the 4 team playoff since 3 teams had a legit argument for the #2 spot against Oklahoma.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 8:21 pm to H-Town Tiger
2002 would have a been great year for a playoff as well. I honestly thought USC was the best team in the country that year. They got really hot late in the season and had a lot of talent with Carson Palmer, Troy Polamalu, Shaun Cody, Kenechi Udeze and Mike Williams. I think they would have won it all if there was a four team playoff that year.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 8:23 pm to H-Town Tiger
First, the head of this new committee never said it was limited to conference champions, only they would weight the conference champions.
There are 6, soon to be 5 BCS conferences so how do you leave 1 out of the play-off.
In most years the play-off will consists of teams from 4 different conferences. In some years when multiple conference champions have 2-3 losses you might see a second team sneak in, but that will be the exception....not the rule.
THIS PLAY-OFF WAS NOT CREATED TO REWARD THE SEC FOR BEING A DEEP CONFERENCE. IT WAS DONE TO GIVE THE OTHER CONFERENCES A BETTER CHANCE TO WIN THE NC.
There are 6, soon to be 5 BCS conferences so how do you leave 1 out of the play-off.
In most years the play-off will consists of teams from 4 different conferences. In some years when multiple conference champions have 2-3 losses you might see a second team sneak in, but that will be the exception....not the rule.
THIS PLAY-OFF WAS NOT CREATED TO REWARD THE SEC FOR BEING A DEEP CONFERENCE. IT WAS DONE TO GIVE THE OTHER CONFERENCES A BETTER CHANCE TO WIN THE NC.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 8:26 pm to H-Town Tiger
What about independents?
Posted on 12/16/13 at 8:48 pm to H-Town Tiger
I prefer simply taking the top four teams, but I don't mind a conference champ being given the edge over a borderline #4 team.
However, I think #2 should always be in the playoff.
However, I think #2 should always be in the playoff.
Posted on 12/16/13 at 9:12 pm to H-Town Tiger
Ok, so let's go with you not having to win your conference title to say you can win the national title (which makes no fricking sense to me), but shouldn't you at least have to win the DIVISION you play in 
Posted on 12/17/13 at 5:08 am to H-Town Tiger
I don't disagree with any of your logic. Solid posts!
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News