- 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
re: Re-visiting some of the BCS’s controversies...
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:15 pm to Oilfieldbiology
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:15 pm to Oilfieldbiology
I think every year the BCS formula and the CFP committee have agreed.
2
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:16 pm to VinegarStrokes
quote:
Joe Hamilton
Dude was so fun to watch
quote:
shitty freshman backup (who also ended up being really good as a Jr/Sr).
Was that George Godsey?
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:17 pm to KosmoCramer
Have they? Then why do we need the dog and pony show that is the committee? It sounds like the formula was pretty good
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:19 pm to VinegarStrokes
quote:
2001 was a pretty big one.
Yeah, 2001 was crazy. Nebraska was in the driver’s seat with Miami all year. Then the Huskers get killed. Next in line was Florida I believe? Then they lost that epic game to Tennessee. Then it was Texas turn, and they were upset by Colorado in Irving.
Tennessee was slated to face Miami, then LSU beats them in Atlanta. That game was a week later because of 9-11.
Somehow, Oregon as Pac-10 champ was never seriously given a shot.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:20 pm to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
The biggest BCS controversy has to be a team not winning its conference, or even its division, and still making it into the NCG
Literally every other sport allows a non-conference/division champ to win it all
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:24 pm to WG_Dawg
FUSC!
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:26 pm to KosmoCramer
You could go back to the Bowl Alliance for more Ohio State fun.
Ohio State was a solid #2 until they couldn’t score against Michigan and lost 13-9. I still remember watching that one.
FSU-Florida had a #1 v #2 tilt a week later. Noles won that one. People started pumping 1-loss Nebraska, but they were shocked by Texas in the inaugural Big 12 CG.
That brought it back to #1 FSU v #3 Florida in the Sugar. The Alliance contract preserved the Big Ten/Pac 10 Rose Bowl, so you had #2 Arizona State v #4 Ohio State.
Crazy to think that if ASU wins that game, they are national champs. Great game in Pasadena.
Another year where I think Ohio State may have been the best team.
Ohio State was a solid #2 until they couldn’t score against Michigan and lost 13-9. I still remember watching that one.
FSU-Florida had a #1 v #2 tilt a week later. Noles won that one. People started pumping 1-loss Nebraska, but they were shocked by Texas in the inaugural Big 12 CG.
That brought it back to #1 FSU v #3 Florida in the Sugar. The Alliance contract preserved the Big Ten/Pac 10 Rose Bowl, so you had #2 Arizona State v #4 Ohio State.
Crazy to think that if ASU wins that game, they are national champs. Great game in Pasadena.
Another year where I think Ohio State may have been the best team.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:26 pm to TexasTiger08
Wouldn’t the logical explanation for 2003 be that the Rose Bowl probably threw a fit about not getting the Pac10 champ in their game, a bigger draw and thus more revenue, and the BCS Committee placated them? I mean, we didn’t get the Playoff until we did because of the ABC/Rose Bowl contract.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:30 pm to WaltTeevens
They could just claim those 4 national championships. Would be as valid as some of the other ones they already claim.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:38 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:
Somehow, Oregon as Pac-10 champ was never seriously given a shot.
I still believe they should have gotten a shot, but the Pac 10 back then was considered as weak as the Pac 12 is now. And Oregon was just starting to be nationally relevant, so they didn't get their due.
Smacking around Colorado in Tempe and finishing #2 was a great catapult for them into the next decade or so.
This post was edited on 8/22/19 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:38 pm to WG_Dawg
quote:
And of course hindsight is 20/20, but we all saw what happened in the bowl game that year when they played a legitimate team. It was so lopsided it was like the 2 teams weren't even playing the same sport.
So that Sugar Bowl mattered but not the last one?
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:39 pm to TexasTiger08
The BCS was a response to years like 1994 where you had 2, (but only 2) undefeated teams that couldn’t play because of the conference bowl tie ins. Other years where you had at least 1 Independent and not a Big10/PAC10 team you could have a 1 v 2 matchup. We had a of those (86 which Is argue is where the push for a BCS type system began, 87, 88, 92). In the Bowl Alliance we got
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:39 pm to TexasTiger08
quote:
You could go back to the Bowl Alliance for more Ohio State fun.
Ohio State was a solid #2 until they couldn’t score against Michigan and lost 13-9. I still remember watching that one.
FSU-Florida had a #1 v #2 tilt a week later. Noles won that one. People started pumping 1-loss Nebraska, but they were shocked by Texas in the inaugural Big 12 CG.
That brought it back to #1 FSU v #3 Florida in the Sugar. The Alliance contract preserved the Big Ten/Pac 10 Rose Bowl, so you had #2 Arizona State v #4 Ohio State.
Crazy to think that if ASU wins that game, they are national champs. Great game in Pasadena.
Another year where I think Ohio State may have been the best team.
The Alliance was an agreement between certain bowl committees and didn't involve the Rose. Buckeyes shouldn't have lost to unranked Michigan at home.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:41 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
The BCS was a response to years like 1994 where you had 2, (but only 2) undefeated teams that couldn’t play because of the conference bowl tie ins. Other years where you had at least 1 Independent and not a Big10/PAC10 team you could have a 1 v 2 matchup. We had a of those (86 which Is argue is where the push for a BCS type system began, 87, 88, 92). In the Bowl Alliance we got
Bowl Coalition was before the Alliance. Problem is it still had all the old tie-ins.
SEC champ must play in Sugar
Big 8 champ must play in Orange
SWC champ must play in Cotton
Pac 12 and Big 10 champs must play in Rose
Notre Dame and the ACC and Big East champs could play in whatever (outside the Rose of course).
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:43 pm to TexasTiger08
And there was no controversy in 2011. 
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:45 pm to Korin
quote:
Bowl Coalition was before the Alliance. Problem is it still had all the old tie-ins.
Yeah I know but it wasn’t anything really different than before. The Sugar Bowl would have gotten Miami in 92 and the Orange FSU in 93. The 95 BA was the first game we would not have gotten previously since Florida would have been in the Sugar and Nebraska in the Orange
Posted on 8/22/19 at 3:53 pm to Korin
quote:
And there was no controversy in 2011.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 4:00 pm to karmew32
quote:
(besides Kansas, but putting them in would've been unfair to Missouri).
They were still unfair by giving them the Orange Bowl...slimy backdoor politics certainly helped too.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 4:02 pm to TexasTiger08
The formula in 2000 was much different than it would be later on.
The first few years of the BCS there was a much more complex formula and the two major human polls were not as dominant of a factor as they would be later on.
It was after USC got left out despite being #1 in both polls in 2003 that they simplified the formula to essentially make the human polls the dominant factor.
The first few years of the BCS there was a much more complex formula and the two major human polls were not as dominant of a factor as they would be later on.
It was after USC got left out despite being #1 in both polls in 2003 that they simplified the formula to essentially make the human polls the dominant factor.
Posted on 8/22/19 at 4:08 pm to PEPE
quote:
It was after USC got left out despite being #1 in both polls in 2003 that they simplified the formula to essentially make the human polls the dominant factor
The quality win adder was one of the smartest things they did, but because it hurt one of the chosen teams one year it had to go.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News