PDA

View Full Version : BCS History - As if you couldn't get enough



word
07-14-2005, 11:53 AM
I'll RUB IT IN some more...

USC and the University of Oklahoma met on opposite sides of the football in the 2005 national championship game, but they shared one thing. They were playing for the national title because the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was in place.

The BCS was established to determine the national champion for college football while maintaining and enhancing the bowl system that's nearly 100 years old. The BCS has quickly become a showcase for the sport, matching the best teams at the end of the season.

The BCS, which runs through the 2005 regular season and 2006 bowl season, consists of the Rose Bowl, Nokia Sugar Bowl, FedEx Orange Bowl and the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl. Before the start of the 1998 season, those bowls joined with the Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pacific-10 and Southeastern Conferences and the University of Notre Dame to form the BCS. Conference USA also signed on to the agreement.

Until the early 1990s the selection process for major bowl matchups with affiliated conference champions was totally disorganized and in many cases resulted in a chaotic situation. Some bowls would effectively make selections after seven or eight games. The BCS has worked to develop a system that not only allows the selection process to be completed at the end of the regular season and creates better matchups.

For the first time in college football history the BCS has opened the bowl agreements more so than they have ever been, and in doing so have elevated the possibility of excitement in college football. But, at the same time, it's being done within the framework of the bowl system that has been an integral part of the tradition and success of college football. Look no further than last season's Fiesta Bowl matchup as an example of the BCS at its best.

There are two at-large positions in the BCS that are open to any Division I-A team. This allows any Division I-A school in the nation the opportunity to play in a BCS bowl game, should it qualify to play in the National Championship game or be selected by one of the bowls.

The BCS also notes the importance of traditional and regional considerations regarding team selection. Specifically, the four BCS Bowls will host the following conference champions in the years the national championship game is not played at their site.

These consideration tie-ins include the ACC or Big East champion in the FedEx Orange Bowl, the SEC champion in the Nokia Sugar Bowl, the Big Ten and the Pac-10 champions in the Rose Bowl and the Big 12 champion in the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl.

Should a BCS Bowl's host champion be ranked number one or two in the final BCS standings, when such bowl is not hosting the national championship game, the number one- or two-ranked team shall move to the national championship game and the Bowl shall select a replacement team from the BCS pool of eligible teams. The pool will consist of any Division I-A team that is ranked among the Top 12 in the final BCS standings and has achieved at least nine wins during the regular season (excluding NCAA-exempted contests).
---------
*HURL*

Good night, if anything should be buried alive, it's the BCS.

FromWayDowntown
07-14-2005, 01:41 PM
UT fans should be thrilled that the BCS is in place.

Think about it: had there been no BCS, OU plays an opponent other than USC in its bowl game, likely wins that game, ends the season undefeated and shares some portion of the national title.

At least with the BCS, Horns fan can jump on OU for having lost badly to USC.

jalbre6
07-14-2005, 01:43 PM
UT fans should be thrilled that the BCS is in place.

Think about it: had there been no BCS, OU plays an opponent other than USC in its bowl game, likely wins that game, ends the season undefeated and shares some portion of the national title.

At least with the BCS, Horns fan can jump on OU for having lost badly to USC.

I'm not being a homer here, but I don't think OU would have beaten Auburn. Utah, yes, probably by a sizable margin.

FromWayDowntown
07-14-2005, 02:06 PM
I'm not being a homer here, but I don't think OU would have beaten Auburn. Utah, yes, probably by a sizable margin.

Under the old system, though, OU wouldn't have played Auburn, either.

In the old system OU goes to either the Orange Bowl (Big 8 Champ) or the Cotton Bowl (SWC Champ). I'd think the Orange Bowl. In the Orange Bowl, they would have played someone like Virginia Tech.

Meanwhile, Auburn would have played in the Sugar Bowl (against Utah or perhaps someone like Miami?) and USC would have played in the Rose Bowl against Michigan.

jalbre6
07-14-2005, 02:28 PM
Under the old system, though, OU wouldn't have played Auburn, either.

In the old system OU goes to either the Orange Bowl (Big 8 Champ) or the Cotton Bowl (SWC Champ). I'd think the Orange Bowl. In the Orange Bowl, they would have played someone like Virginia Tech.

Meanwhile, Auburn would have played in the Sugar Bowl (against Utah or perhaps someone like Miami?) and USC would have played in the Rose Bowl against Michigan.

I keep forgetting that the BCS and the Big 12 came about at the same time, so I suppose you're right regarding Big 8/SWC/SEC placement.

And the Orange Bowl took the Big East winner, not the ACC one. And since Miami and Va Tech were both Big East schools, and Va Tech won last season's matchup, we'll call them Big East champs.

That would be an interesting situation, though. Would OU want to play in a second Red River shootout against a top five megarival they already beat, or travel halfway across the country to play 10th ranked Virginia Tech, who lost to NC State (or here in the land of make-believe, some random Big East school) and #1 USC?

FromWayDowntown
07-14-2005, 03:20 PM
I keep forgetting that the BCS and the Big 12 came about at the same time, so I suppose you're right regarding Big 8/SWC/SEC placement.

Yeah, it was a whole different world back then . . . .


And the Orange Bowl took the Big East winner, not the ACC one. And since Miami and Va Tech were both Big East schools, and Va Tech won last season's matchup, we'll call them Big East champs.

That's not necessarily true, because Miami made a ton of Orange Bowl appearances before it was in the Big East, and Florida State made a bunch of Orange Bowl appearances after it joined the ACC. The Orange Bowl was Big 8 Champion vs. an at-large team, usually an East Coast power (and ideally, a Florida power).

The Sugar Bowl had a similar arrangement, taking the SEC champ and pitting it against an at-large team -- that's how Florida State and Florida met in that game for the 1997 national championship, IIRC.

I think you would have seen a battle between the Orange and the Sugar to get Virginia Tech, and the loser between those two would have taken Utah. Since OU was the higher ranked between itself and Auburn, I think you would have seen OU v. Va Tech and Auburn v. Utah, in the old system, though Utah probably would have been screwed and someone like Texas or Cal would have played against either OU or Auburn.

Mr Dio
07-14-2005, 07:27 PM
Still waiting for that book/novel.

Guess what, the score was & still is 55-19 right?

N.Y. Johnny
07-14-2005, 07:54 PM
The BCS Sucks

they robbed us of those great bowls like the Freedom Bowl, the POulan Weedeater Bowl and others of similar ridiculous names :lmao

the Poulan Weedeater Bowl has to be the best of all time!

FromWayDowntown
07-14-2005, 10:33 PM
Still waiting for that book/novel.

Guess what, the score was & still is 55-19 right?

and, somehow, 55-19 in a national championship game is worse than 63-14 or 65-13 in regular season games?

scott
07-14-2005, 10:47 PM
Without the BCS, I think we would have seen the following match-ups with the top 3 undefeated teams at the end of last season (assuming the Big 12 exists even if the BCS didn't).

Rose: USC vs. Michigan (Pac-10 Champ vs. Big 10 Champ)
Sugar: Auburn vs. Va. Tech, Texas, or Cal (top at large)
Cotton: Oklahoma vs. Tennessee (Cotton is set up now to be any non-BCS Big 12 team it chooses versus basically any team the SEC feels like sending)

I don't see how any of those are better than the BCS.

The only complaint you can have about the BCS is that it doesn't help resolve issues we had last year or the year before with controversy around which team really deserved to be in the National Title game. Anytime there are 3 teams you can make an argument for, things will be tricky, with or without the BCS. The only resolution is a playoff of course. Lot's of people want to see a playoff with a large field... I'd want it to only be the top 4 teams.

Mr Dio
07-15-2005, 05:59 AM
and, somehow, 55-19 in a national championship game is worse than 63-14 or 65-13 in regular season games?

Still trying to associate yourself w/ou huh?
What does hypocrite mean? Here's a clue..you're one. :lol

FromWayDowntown
07-15-2005, 08:35 AM
Still trying to associate yourself w/ou huh?
What does hypocrite mean? Here's a clue..you're one. :lol

I'm not associating myself with anyone other than my school, which doesn't have a dog in this fight.

I'm just reminding you of what you don't seem to want to admit.

jalbre6
07-15-2005, 12:28 PM
Without the BCS, I think we would have seen the following match-ups with the top 3 undefeated teams at the end of last season (assuming the Big 12 exists even if the BCS didn't).

Rose: USC vs. Michigan (Pac-10 Champ vs. Big 10 Champ)
Sugar: Auburn vs. Va. Tech, Texas, or Cal (top at large)
Cotton: Oklahoma vs. Tennessee (Cotton is set up now to be any non-BCS Big 12 team it chooses versus basically any team the SEC feels like sending)

I don't see how any of those are better than the BCS.

The only complaint you can have about the BCS is that it doesn't help resolve issues we had last year or the year before with controversy around which team really deserved to be in the National Title game. Anytime there are 3 teams you can make an argument for, things will be tricky, with or without the BCS. The only resolution is a playoff of course. Lot's of people want to see a playoff with a large field... I'd want it to only be the top 4 teams.


The problem with restricing a playoff to four teams is that there are more than four "major" conferences (Big 12, Big 10, ACC, Pac-10, SEC), so in some way polls or opinions will still have a say in the process. Throw in Notre Dame whining and worthy mid-major squads, and a playoff system might be a bigger mess than the BCS.

If a playoff system ever happens, I will be all for it, however. I'm kind of OK with the system now, and was OK with the pre-BCS system. Call it what you want, but all the conspiracy and who's team gets screwed talk makes me enjoy NCAA football more than the absolute certainty of the NFL system.

It's kind of like the NCAA basketball tourney. Some deserving team always gets left at home, and I'm sure the same will happen in the event of a football playoff.

word
07-20-2005, 04:54 PM
and, somehow, 55-19 in a national championship game is worse than 63-14 or 65-13 in regular season games?

Yup.

word
07-20-2005, 04:57 PM
The only complaint you can have about the BCS is that it doesn't help resolve issues we had last year or the year before....

No shit.

:pctoss

scott
07-20-2005, 05:07 PM
No shit.

:pctoss

But neither does the pre-BCS system. I can only see people getting their panties in a bunch about a system if it is somehow worse than the system it replaced- which the BCS is not. But... it can definitely be improved.

word
07-20-2005, 05:36 PM
I can agree with that statement. The problem is, that a team has to go undefeated, apparently, to win a title AND be from an 'annointed' school. *sigh*....Okay...any Div-I team that goes undefeated should deserve a shot. Would Utah have stood up against Auburn or OU or USC ? Probably not. But hey, the only way you know is to play the fockin' game, right ? Hence the saying, 'That's why they play the games.' They were a division-I team, they beat everyone in front of them. They deserved a shot.

Is the BCS better than what they had...? Barely. College Football needs an 8 team playoff system which could be easily done. 16 teams pushing it as far as time.... 4 teams, not enough. 8 is jussssssst right.

I cannot, I will not, accept a bogus system simply because it's better than the LAST bogus system.

samikeyp
07-20-2005, 05:47 PM
UT fans should be thrilled that the BCS is in place

I am a UT fan and personally I would rather see a true playoff even if it meant no Rose Bowl last year.

scott
07-20-2005, 06:26 PM
I can agree with that statement. The problem is, that a team has to go undefeated, apparently, to win a title AND be from an 'annointed' school. *sigh*....Okay...any Div-I team that goes undefeated should deserve a shot. Would Utah have stood up against Auburn or OU or USC ? Probably not. But hey, the only way you know is to play the fockin' game, right ? Hence the saying, 'That's why they play the games.' They were a division-I team, they beat everyone in front of them. They deserved a shot.

Is the BCS better than what they had...? Barely. College Football needs an 8 team playoff system which could be easily done. 16 teams pushing it as far as time.... 4 teams, not enough. 8 is jussssssst right.

I cannot, I will not, accept a bogus system simply because it's better than the LAST bogus system.

Why would 8 be perfect? In any given year, I can't think of 8 teams worthy of a shot at the national title in college football. 4 teams seems perfect to me. I think anything greater than that will begin to cheapen the regular season - part of why I enjoy college ball so much, there is a lot riding on every regular season game.

FromWayDowntown
07-20-2005, 07:12 PM
I am a UT fan and personally I would rather see a true playoff even if it meant no Rose Bowl last year.

I hear you, mikey. My point had more to do with the fact that OU probably would have taken a share of the national title last year, absent the BCS, which I deduce from guys like word and Mr. Dio to be about the worst thing that could ever happen for a Horns fan.

I'm not much of a fan of a playoff, mostly because I think it brings college football closer to being minor league pro football. I'm a traditionalist when it comes to football and the idea of there being a marked distinction between college and the NFL has always appealed to me. I can honestly say that while I can understand the arguments for a playoff from an intellectual standpoint, my heart yearns for the nostalgia of knowing that the Big 10 champ would play the Pac-10 champ on New Year's Day in the Rose Bowl -- I actually miss the time when I could wake up (with or sans hangover) on January 1, turn on the Cotton Bowl and not move from the couch through the Rose Bowl, some part of the Sugar Bowl and through the end of the Orange Bowl. It's been a long time since that was the deal in college football, but I miss it.

word
07-20-2005, 07:28 PM
[QUOTE=scott]Why would 8 be perfect? In any given year, I can't think of 8 teams worthy of a shot at the national title in college football. 4 teams seems perfect to me. I think anything greater than that will begin to cheapen the regular season - part of why I enjoy college ball so much, there is a lot riding on every regular season game.[/QUOTE

Did not USC, OU, Auburn, Utah go undefeated ? Were these the best four teams ? Probably not. Were they the only Div-1A teams to go undefeated ? If memory serves me, no.

Hence my point for an 8 team playoff. The more the better but the season does have to count but a loss or two shouldn't take a team out.

The more teams you can have in a playoff, the better. As I said, 16 is too many according to the NCAA's funky excuses of 'time'. 4 is pointless in my book for the reasons I stated. You have that now. See USC two years ago. Does anyone really think LSU was the national champs in 2003 ? No.

You had 4 undefeated Teams last year and I'm not sure that OU and Utah could have beat a lot of teams out there at the time. Auburn and Texas were both better teams than OU at the end of the season. That of course is subjective and really my entire point.

scott
07-20-2005, 10:30 PM
Did not USC, OU, Auburn, Utah go undefeated ? Were these the best four teams ? Probably not. Were they the only Div-1A teams to go undefeated ? If memory serves me, no.

Boise State also went undefeated in the regular season - but I didn't say that the top 4 undefeated teams should make the 4 team playoff - just the top 4 teams. Last year, according to the final regular season BCS poll, that would have been USC, Oklahoma, Auburn, and Texas. Your next 4 would have been Cal, Georgia, Utah, and Virginia Tech - 4 teams that wouldn't have deserved it.


The more the better but the season does have to count but a loss or two shouldn't take a team out.

Sounds like a Mack Brown excuse. Everyone knows the way it works going into the season... win out or sit back and pray. Instituting a 4 team playoff would have given a 1-loss team a bid to play for the title. Instituting an 8 team playoff would have given a 2 loss team AND a 3 loss team a shot. I don't think those schools are deserving.


You had 4 undefeated Teams last year and I'm not sure that OU and Utah could have beat a lot of teams out there at the time. Auburn and Texas were both better teams than OU at the end of the season. That of course is subjective and really my entire point.

Your right, it is subjective - and in a 4 team playoff we could have found out if Auburn or Texas could have done better just as easily as we could have with an 8 team playoff.

Sounds like your push for the 8 team playoff is based off of years of non-BCS bids for your Horns and you'd like to see them get their undeserving chance. Worry about winning the Big 12 first.

I like your signature... what's the Texas Motto? Choking: It's in our blood?