- 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
Ranking the BCS Controversies
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:16 pm
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:16 pm
History of BCS Chaos
With commissioners keeping the rankings formula in place through 2014 instead of implementing a playoff format, we're likely to see more of the same controversies this season.
No one can predict what's going to happen this year, but based on BCS history, chances are decent there could be another ruckus.
Our ranking of the biggest BCS controversies to date:
* 5: Year, 2000. No beef with Oklahoma at No. 1 in the final BCS standings. But Florida State edged Miami for No. 2 even though Miami beat Florida State in the regular season.
* 4: Year, 2006. No. 1 Ohio State beat No. 2 Michigan in an epic regular-season thriller and the talk afterward was whether Michigan, with one loss, deserved a rematch in the BCS title game. The BCS rankings, instead, promoted one-loss Florida to No. 2, and the Gators took advantage by beating Ohio State to win the BCS title.
* 3: Year, 2004. USC and Oklahoma finished 1-2 in the final BCS standings with the Trojans winning the national title game, 55-19.
Problem: Auburn, champion of the Southeastern Conference, finished undefeated and didn't get a crack at the national title.
Problem II: Texas lobbied poll voters hard to finish No. 4 in the standings ahead of No. 5 California, denying the Golden Bears their first Rose Bowl trip since 1959.
This led the Associated Press to pulling out of the BCS formula.
* 2: Year, 2003. USC finished No. 1 in both the Associated Press and USA Today coaches' poll yet ended up No. 3 in the BCS standings behind Oklahoma and Louisiana State.
Even though USC defeated Michigan in the Rose Bowl, 34 coaches who had USC No. 1 switched their first-place votes to LSU after the Tigers beat Oklahoma in the BCS title game.
LSU won the BCS championship, with USC earning the AP title.
* 1: Year, 2001. Colorado thrashed BCS No. 1 Nebraska, 62-36, the day after Thanksgiving. Yet, Cornhusker players left crying in their locker room in Boulder were smiling again days later when Nebraska rebounded to No. 2 in the final BCS standings behind undefeated Miami.
Colorado, which had just handed Nebraska a brutal defeat, finished No. 3 ahead of No. 4 Oregon, which finished No. 2 in both the AP and coaches' polls.
Result: Miami hammered Nebraska, in the Rose Bowl, on a Thursday night, two days after the parade, to win its fifth national title.
It couldn't get crazier than that.
Or could it?
Dufresne
With commissioners keeping the rankings formula in place through 2014 instead of implementing a playoff format, we're likely to see more of the same controversies this season.
No one can predict what's going to happen this year, but based on BCS history, chances are decent there could be another ruckus.
Our ranking of the biggest BCS controversies to date:
* 5: Year, 2000. No beef with Oklahoma at No. 1 in the final BCS standings. But Florida State edged Miami for No. 2 even though Miami beat Florida State in the regular season.
* 4: Year, 2006. No. 1 Ohio State beat No. 2 Michigan in an epic regular-season thriller and the talk afterward was whether Michigan, with one loss, deserved a rematch in the BCS title game. The BCS rankings, instead, promoted one-loss Florida to No. 2, and the Gators took advantage by beating Ohio State to win the BCS title.
* 3: Year, 2004. USC and Oklahoma finished 1-2 in the final BCS standings with the Trojans winning the national title game, 55-19.
Problem: Auburn, champion of the Southeastern Conference, finished undefeated and didn't get a crack at the national title.
Problem II: Texas lobbied poll voters hard to finish No. 4 in the standings ahead of No. 5 California, denying the Golden Bears their first Rose Bowl trip since 1959.
This led the Associated Press to pulling out of the BCS formula.
* 2: Year, 2003. USC finished No. 1 in both the Associated Press and USA Today coaches' poll yet ended up No. 3 in the BCS standings behind Oklahoma and Louisiana State.
Even though USC defeated Michigan in the Rose Bowl, 34 coaches who had USC No. 1 switched their first-place votes to LSU after the Tigers beat Oklahoma in the BCS title game.
LSU won the BCS championship, with USC earning the AP title.
* 1: Year, 2001. Colorado thrashed BCS No. 1 Nebraska, 62-36, the day after Thanksgiving. Yet, Cornhusker players left crying in their locker room in Boulder were smiling again days later when Nebraska rebounded to No. 2 in the final BCS standings behind undefeated Miami.
Colorado, which had just handed Nebraska a brutal defeat, finished No. 3 ahead of No. 4 Oregon, which finished No. 2 in both the AP and coaches' polls.
Result: Miami hammered Nebraska, in the Rose Bowl, on a Thursday night, two days after the parade, to win its fifth national title.
It couldn't get crazier than that.
Or could it?
Dufresne
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 4:20 pm
10
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:20 pm to Zamoro10
I had no problem with any of those "controversies."
I think that Math > Democracy when ranking college football teams. If the math says that Team A > Team B, I'll trust that over sportswriters' opinions.
The BCS isn't perfect, but it's WAY closer than you think.
I think that Math > Democracy when ranking college football teams. If the math says that Team A > Team B, I'll trust that over sportswriters' opinions.
The BCS isn't perfect, but it's WAY closer than you think.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:21 pm to Zamoro10
How could last year, a 2 loss LSU team getting the nod over several other 2 loss teams, a 1 loss team, and an undefeated team, not make the list? Not saying LSU wasn't the most deserving, but it was definitely controversial.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:25 pm to Zamoro10
Most of these problems have arisen due to the belief that the AP and the Coaches polls were accurate. If that is the case, then why the hell did we create the BCS to begin with?! I was under the assumption that the BCS was created to remove the human bias from the polls. If we wanted it to simply reflect the human polls, then creating it would have been a huge waste of time, correct?
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:26 pm to xiv
The media and this country thrives off of drama and that is the reson it will never change. Then nobody would have anything to bitch about. Except the one team that got left out of the playoffs
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:26 pm to medtiger
quote:Good point, but the thing that all the stated controversies have in common is that, in each situation, there is a general perception that someone got screwed. While some may argue that Georgia '07 and/or USC '07 got screwed, any argument that a 2-loss team got screwed--albeit in lieu of another 2-loss team--does not hold much water.
How could last year, a 2 loss LSU team getting the nod over several other 2 loss teams, a 1 loss team, and an undefeated team, not make the list? Not saying LSU wasn't the most deserving, but it was definitely controversial.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:27 pm to INFIDEL
quote:This is the single most intelligent thing ever stated since the Emancipation Proclamation.
Most of these problems have arisen due to the belief that the AP and the Coaches polls were accurate. If that is the case, then why the hell did we create the BCS to begin with?!
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:27 pm to Zamoro10
Oregon probably got screwed, but they would have got hammered by that Miami team anyway. Sure college football isn't perfect, but it has created the best regular season in sports
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:29 pm to xiv
quote:
While some may argue that Georgia '07 and/or USC '07 got screwed, any argument that a 2-loss team got screwed--albeit in lieu of another 2-loss team--does not hold much water.
Yeah pretty much agree with this. If you don't win your division and you can't beat Stanford at home, don't bitch about getting left out. I hate USC fans that bitch about getting left out last season.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:30 pm to usc6158
quote:Agree 100%. I'm not against a playoff expanded beyond just two teams, but I admire CFB's reluctance to go overboard.
Sure college football isn't perfect, but it has created the best regular season in sports
Any league that has a "wild card," in my opinion, has gone too far.
In the NFL, if you just went with division winners, you have a perfect playoff (you only have to beat three teams to get in!).
In the NBA and NHL, more than half the teams make the playoffs. To give a team with a <.500 record a shot at winning the league title is seriously stupid imo.
MLB plays 162!!! games, and they still need a fricking wild card?
College football.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:32 pm to xiv
quote:
MLB plays 162!!! games, and they still need a fricking wild card?
I know you know this, but if a championship race is over with before the end of the season (well before the end), what do teams have to play for at that point?
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:32 pm to usc6158
quote:
This is the single most intelligent thing ever stated since the Emancipation Proclamation.
I don't remember typing it. I think I must have blacked out!
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:34 pm to INFIDEL
I thought the BCS was supposed to remove controversy, not bias. Including the human polls still maintains the presence of their bias, but it was supposed to allow for a consensus champion.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:34 pm to usc6158
Computers only spit out what you put in...that is why most people on this board rail against Sagarin and his Top Conference Pac 10.
I'd rather have some stupid honk who at least watched one game decide the rankings then a computer that doesn't watch any games.
This is sports...not Algebra. College Football can't be whittled away from the subjective...which is why we watch the freakin' games.
Trust your eyes people...not an algorithm.
I'd rather have some stupid honk who at least watched one game decide the rankings then a computer that doesn't watch any games.
This is sports...not Algebra. College Football can't be whittled away from the subjective...which is why we watch the freakin' games.
Trust your eyes people...not an algorithm.
This post was edited on 8/2/08 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:35 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
This is sports...not Algebra.
something tells me you've never done any numerical modeling.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:38 pm to Spirit of Dunson
I posted this last night. I came up with this in a discussion on another site for writers. It was during a debate about whether or not CFB fans should boycott the sport altogether due to the "inaccuracy" of the BCS. This idea may be a little far-fetched for some of you, but the article I wrote was voted the best on the site, so I'm not alone in this concept.
-10-game schedule.
-All conferences will have a conference championship game. (Face it, they're not going anywhere. There is way too much money tied up in these events.)
-The conference champions each receive an automatic berth into a 32-team playoff format. This reduces the number of complaints from the mid-major schools.
-The top 8 BCS schools are the host sites for round one contests (2 games per location)
-The rounds of 16 and 8 are played on neutral sites.
-Finally, the semifinals and championship game will be played at the same site, and the site will be determined by the same method of which the BCS National Championship game is each season. Rotate between New Orleans, Tempe, Pasadena, and Miami, possibly throwing in a fifth location in the future. I say a possible fifth because the Cowboys' new stadium will certainly be a favorable location once the Cotton Bowl is moved there.
-10-game schedule.
-All conferences will have a conference championship game. (Face it, they're not going anywhere. There is way too much money tied up in these events.)
-The conference champions each receive an automatic berth into a 32-team playoff format. This reduces the number of complaints from the mid-major schools.
-The top 8 BCS schools are the host sites for round one contests (2 games per location)
-The rounds of 16 and 8 are played on neutral sites.
-Finally, the semifinals and championship game will be played at the same site, and the site will be determined by the same method of which the BCS National Championship game is each season. Rotate between New Orleans, Tempe, Pasadena, and Miami, possibly throwing in a fifth location in the future. I say a possible fifth because the Cowboys' new stadium will certainly be a favorable location once the Cotton Bowl is moved there.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:39 pm to Spirit of Dunson
quote:
something tells me you've never done any numerical modeling.
Something tells me you took your Mom to the prom.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:39 pm to brad8504
everyone has a plan to fix CFB. Everyone's plan is the best (min includes naked chicks, does yours?).
I think it is fine the way it is.
I think it is fine the way it is.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:40 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Something tells me you took your Mom to the prom.
you're hilarious! but seriously, objective math > lou holtz.
Posted on 8/2/08 at 4:41 pm to Zamoro10
quote:
Including the human polls still maintains the presence of their bias, but it was supposed to allow for a consensus champion.
It was originally designed to "water down" the human bias.
It has allowed for concensus champions. The problem is that the writers don't always agree with said champion. Hence the controversy. Ironically, they have always been the creaters of said controversy (that led to the creation of the BCS). There's a pattern there. They're a bunch of bitches that will scream their BS opinions until someone listens and strokes their over-inflated egos.
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News