Jump to content

Bowl Championship Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 204.57.104.6 (talk) at 17:01, 22 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bowl Championship Series logo
Bowl Championship Series logo
For other uses of the abbreviation BCS, please see BCS (disambiguation).

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a system which selects the college football matchups for four prestigious bowl games, called the BCS bowl games. The BCS is fucking gay. The teams selected include the conference champion from each of the six BCS conferences plus two others ("at-large" selections). The top-ranked and second-ranked teams are pitted in the BCS National Championship Game in order to crown an unofficial NCAA Division I-A national football champion. It has been in place since the 1998 season; it replaced the Bowl Alliance (in place from 1995-1997), which followed the Bowl Coalition (in place from 1992-1994). As of the 2006-07 season, the BCS will air on both Fox and ABC (each network will air specific games in the series, as noted below under Changes for 2006-07).

Formulae

For the portions of the formulae that are determined by polls and computer-generated rankings, the BCS uses a series of borda counts to arrive at its overall rankings. This is an example of using a voting system to generate a complete ordered list of winners from both actual and computer-constructed votes.

2003-04 formula

The BCS formula calculated the top 25 teams in poll format. After combining a number of factors, a final point total was created and the teams who received the 25 lowest scores were ranked in descending order. The factors were:

  • Poll Average: Both the AP and ESPN-USA Today coaches polls were averaged to make a number which is the poll average.
  • Computer Average: An average of the rankings of a team in seven different computer polls (Anderson-Hester, Billingsley, Colley, Massey, Sagarin, and Wolfe) were gathered, with the poll in which the team was lowest ranked being dropped. This created the computer average.
  • Schedule rank: This was the team's strength of schedule divided by 25. A teams strength of schedule was calculated by win/loss record of opponents (66.6%) and cumulative win/loss record of team's opponents (33.3%).
  • Losses: One point was added for every loss the team has suffered during the season.
  • Quality Win Component: If a team beat a team which was in the top 10 in the BCS standings, a range of 1 to .1 points was subtracted from their total. Beating the #1 ranked team resulted in a loss of 1 point (remember, losing points was a good thing), a #5 team resulted in a loss of .5 points and the #10th ranked team would have resulted in a loss of .1 points. If a team had beaten a team twice during the season, that team was only rewarded quality win points once--or, possibly, not at all. Quality win points were calculated by the final BCS standings (so if you beat the #1 team in the second week of the season, you may not be entitled to .8 points at the end of the season).

The exact formula of how the final point total for any team was calculated was not public information, but it was known that it is derived from these factors. Some were able to guess the formula and thus predict the results before the official standings were released.

2004-05 formula

After the 2003-04 controversy (see BCS Controversies) in which the top team in the human polls, the University of Southern California (USC) was denied a place in the title game, the formula was revamped. Schedule strength, losses, and quality wins were no longer to be considered as distinct components in the formula, though of course the human voters remain free to consider whatever factors they wish. Also, the exact formula was made public information, and shown to consist of an arithmetic average of the following three numbers:

  • AP Poll: A team's AP Poll number is the percentage of the possible points it could receive in the poll. As an example, in the final regular-season poll of 2003, LSU received a total of 1,580 out of a possible 1,625 points from the voters, giving them an AP Poll percentage of 97.2.
  • Coaches' Poll: This is calculated in the same manner as the AP Poll number. For LSU, their final regular-season number in this poll would have been 96.3 (1,516 out of 1,575 possible points).
  • Computer Average: The BCS now uses six computer rating systems, dropping the highest and lowest ranking for each team. Then, it will give a team 25 points for a Number 1 ranking in an individual system, 24 points for Number 2, and so on down to 1 point for Number 25. Each team's set of numbers is then added, conveniently making the number compatible with the percentages from the two polls. For USC, dropping their highest and lowest computer rankings would have left them with four third-place finishes, worth 23 points each for a total of 92, while LSU would have had four second-place finishes for a total of 96.

The BCS averaged the three numbers obtained above, divided the result by 100, and converted it to a decimal fraction.

This formula made it highly unlikely that the top team in both human polls would be denied a place in the title game, as it happened in 2003-04.

2005-06 formula

The BCS formula for 2005-06 is the same as in the 04-05, except that the Harris Interactive College Football Poll replaces the AP poll. [1] [2]

BCS bowl games

Rose Bowl Game
Rose Bowl Game
FedEx Orange Bowl
FedEx Orange Bowl
Nokia Sugar Bowl
Nokia Sugar Bowl
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl
Tostitos Fiesta Bowl

For a complete list of bowl games for the 2005-2006 season, see NCAA football bowl games, 2005-06.

In the current BCS format, four bowl games outside of the National Championship Game are considered "BCS bowl games". They are the Rose Bowl Game, the Sugar Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, and the Orange Bowl. The championship was rotated among the different bowls; for example, the Sugar Bowl would have the national championship "weight" once every four years. Starting with the 2007 BCS, the site of that game that served as the last game in the BCS will now serve as the host facility of the new stand-alone BCS Championship Game played on January 8 of that year, one week following the playing of the traditional bowl game which would follow the Rose Bowl with the exception of the games to be played in 2010. There are also 24 non-BCS bowls.

The BCS National Championship Game pairs the top two BCS-ranked teams. The winners of the six major conferences (Big East, ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10) are guaranteed automatic BCS bowl appearances. Independent teams not affiliated with a conference receiving an automatic bid (displacing one of the at-large berths) if they meet certain criteria. There are currently four independents; Army, Navy, Notre Dame and Temple. In 2007, Temple will leave the independent ranks and become a football-only member of the non-BCS Mid-American Conference.

There were two "at-large" berths which can be granted either to teams in those conferences who did not win their championship or to teams belonging to other conferences. The procedure for selecting at-large berths is, in this order:

  • A team finishing first or second in the final BCS rankings as an at-large receives an automatic bid;
  • A team finishing in the top six of the final BCS rankings from an independent school or from a non-BCS conference receives an automatic bid; if a team qualifies in this manner, then Notre Dame would also qualify by winning at least nine games or finishing in the top ten in the BCS standings;
  • A team finishing either third or fourth in the final BCS rankings and finishes higher than any other at-large team receives an automatic bid.

If at any step, the two berths are filled, the process stops. If there are not two teams by this point, any other team from the top 12 of the final BCS rankings with at least nine wins is eligible. Starting in 2006, the number at-large berths will be increased to four.

Initial plans were for the additional BCS bowl game to be held at the site of that year's championship game, such that the additional, non-championship bowl be named after the original bowl (e.g. the Sugar Bowl when the championship is in New Orleans), and have the extra game just be called "The National Championship Game". Later, the BCS considered having cities bid to be the permanent site of the new BCS game, and to place the new game in the title rotation. In the end, the BCS opted for its original plan.

Despite the possibility of an "at-large" berth being granted to a "mid-major" conference team, this didn't happen until the 2004-05 season, when Utah recieved a BCS bid to play in the Fiesta Bowl, in which the Utes convincingly defeated Pittsburgh 35-7. The extra BCS game will at least theoretically give mid-majors better access to a BCS bowl game, possibly ahead of a higher ranked school from a major conference.

Unless their champion is involved in the BCS Championship Game, the conference tie-ins are as follows:

  • Rose Bowl - Big Ten vs. Pac-10.
  • Fiesta Bowl - Big 12.
  • Orange Bowl - ACC.
  • Sugar Bowl - SEC.

The Big East Champions are in the pool with the four at-large teams.

Using the 2005 BCS standings and the above tie-ins as an example, here is what the new system would have looked like had it been in effect:

  • BCS Championship: Southern California (Pac 10) vs. Texas (Big 12).
  • Rose Bowl Game: Penn State (Big Ten) vs. At-Large (replacing USC).
  • Fiesta Bowl: West Virginia (Big East) vs. At Large (replacing Texas).
  • Orange Bowl: Florida State (ACC) vs. At Large.
  • Sugar Bowl: Georgia (SEC) vs. At Large.

The pool of "At Large" teams would have included Miami (FL) and Virginia Tech from the ACC, Oregon from the Pac-10, Ohio State from the Big Ten, LSU and Auburn from the SEC and Notre Dame.

BCS controversies

Among the criticisms of the BCS (and the bowl system in general) is the fact that the final ranking of Division I-A NCAA football teams is decided by arbitrary and subjective standards, much like beauty pageants. Observers point-out that the “champion” of the largest and most popular collegiate sport should not be decided by fiat. The BCS was especially criticized and deemed controversial in both the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 seasons. In 2004, five teams (three from BCS conferences) finished the regular season with one loss, with no unbeaten team, while in the following season, the same number of teams (again with three from BCS conferences) finished the regular season unbeaten. In both seasons, three of the five teams had legitimate cases for playing in the BCS title game. Most recently, additional controversy has come from the decison by the Associated Press to prohibit the BCS from using their rankings in the BCS formula, and by ESPN to remove itself from the USA Today coaches poll.

Much of the controversy stirred by the BCS arises simply from the fact that there is a single national championship game. As such, the formulas must be used to determine which two (and only two) nationwide teams are the most deserving teams to play for the national championship. In some minds, the 2 top teams in the nation are not always clear-cut choices . The most recent year in which there were only two undefeated Division I-A teams at the end of the regular season was 2005, when Southern California and Texas both finished the regular season undefeated.

2003-04 season

The 2003-2004 season consisted of much controversy, when three schools from BCS conferences finished the season with one loss (in fact, no I-A Division team finished the season undefeated, something that hadn't happened since 1996, the year before the advent of the BCS). The three schools in question were:

Two non-BCS schools also finished with one loss:

USC was rated #1 in both the AP and ESPN-USA Today Coaches poll by slim margins, but they were burdened by a collective 2.67 computer ranking (3rd place) and by having the 37th-ranked strength of schedule. LSU was rated #2 by both poll services (AP and Coach's), held a 1.83 computer ranking (smaller is better), and a 29th ranked strength of schedule. Oklahoma had a #3 poll ranking, a 1.17 computer average, and the 11th ranked strength of schedule along with a quality win of .5. The final ranking was even more controversial as it came after Oklahoma suffered a lopsided loss in the Big XII Championship when OU was upset by Kansas State 35-7. The final numeric averages for the teams were as follows:

  • Oklahoma: 5.11
  • LSU: 5.99
  • USC: 6.15

Therefore, Oklahoma and LSU played each other in that year's title game, the Sugar Bowl, with LSU winning. The BCS was widely criticized, particularly by the sports writers (see the conflict?), since USC had been ranked #1 in the AP and USA Today polls but #3 in the computer rankings, yielding the Trojans their overall #3 ranking in the BCS. When USC beat 4th ranked Michigan in the Rose Bowl, the majority of Associated Press sports writers refused to drop the Trojans to a ranking of #2 since the move down would be unprecedented for a team that had just won its bowl game. The result of the final BCS vote gave LSU the outright national championship by the accepted standards that all schools participating in the BCS agreement(including USC) had agreed to. While USC claimed the #1 ranking of the AP sportswriters, LSU took home the BCS National Championship Trophy by virtue of its win over Oklahoma in the BCS National Championship Game.

LSU over USC Argument

There are many USC fans, even USC officials, that claim a split national championship for that year. Many LSU fans give USC its due following USC's highly successful season, but the majority of LSU fans tend to disavow any claims to a split National Championship by USC's fans and officials. The basis for refuting the USC claim lies both in the passion of the LSU fans as well as the statistical and contractual facts. There is, when viewed from the outside looking in, a most compelling and persuasive argument in the LSUoverUSC Argument which breaks down the terms and conditions of the BCS contract and provokes an in-depth analysis of the on-the-field merit of LSU vs. USC. While this debate will undoubtedly never rest, one item remains to separate the fact from the fiction: only LSU retains the National Championship Trophy for 2004.

Mid-Major Debate

The BCS has also been criticized for locking out mid-major programs. Before 2004, no mid-major program had gone to a BCS bowl, and some have accused the BCS and associating conferences of having a monopoly of sorts on the top bowls. There were even congressional hearings on the issue. It would likely take a qualified mid-major program being locked out of the BCS when they were obviously deserving for this issue to be looked at more closely. With Utah making the BCS after the 2004 season, and with the addition of a fifth BCS game starting with the 2006-07 season, this may be less of an issue in the future.

Some, including ESPN's Lee Corso have suggested that the BCS reincorporate margin of victory into the rankings, a factor which would have changed the 2003-2004 final rankings (had LSU and Oklahoma still would have been in the championship). However, the BCS completely revamped its formula as noted previously, completely eliminating strength of schedule, losses, and quality wins, and not considering victory margin. This was done in order to discourage running up the score, where a team scores far more points than are necessary to win.

There are some who insist that had the 2004-05 formula been used in the 2003-04 season, the National Championship Game would have pitted USC and LSU. This formulation may or not be true. Oklahoma's team was considered by a wide consensus, up until their defeat in the conference title game, as one of, if not THE most powerful and greatest team in college football history. Revisionists like to offer conjecture that LSU would have been top-ranked under the new formula, that Oklahoma would have fallen to #3, and at #2, the USC Trojans would have received a shot at winning the BCS Crystal Football, symbolic of winning an outright National Championship. Also, conjecture is that had this same formula been used at that time, Oregon, not Nebraska, would have faced Miami (FL) in the 2001 Rose Bowl. The current formula, according to some, creates a situation in which a single individual's vote in either poll may possibly decide who advances to the BCS title game. As a result, the votes for these final polls are now made public.

Congress becomes involved

On October 29, 2003, a US Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a meeting called "BCS or Bust: Competitive and Economic Effects of the Bowl Championship Series On and Off the Field." Testimony came from Keith Tribble, the head of the Orange Bowl who testified that the bowl system is a solution, not a problem, to college football; and from Steve Young, a NFL Hall of Fame Quarterback with the San Francisco 49ers and BYU, who testified of many problems with the system. Following the meeting and testimony, the committee did not pursue any action.

2004-05 season

The new BCS formula, however, did not end the controversy. Unlike the previous season, in which no Division I-A team entered the bowl games unbeaten, the 2004 regular season saw five teams go unbeaten, which had not happened since 1979.

Three of the five were from BCS conferences:

USC and Oklahoma were both involved in the previous season's BCS controversy as two of the three BCS teams that finished the 2003 regular season with one loss.

The other two were from non-BCS conferences. Although neither was generally considered to be in contention for the championship, both were possibilities for BCS bowl bids during the season (Utah more so):

USC and Oklahoma were ranked 1-2 in both human polls in the preseason. On the other hand, Auburn began the season ranked outside of the top 15. Since poll voters are usually reluctant to drop highly-ranked teams that continue to win games, this gave Auburn a considerable deficit to overcome.

Going into the last regular-season games on December 4, USC had remained top-ranked in both human polls for the entire regular season by a comfortable margin, which gave the Trojans the BCS lead. Auburn had been able to close almost all of its original gap on Oklahoma by mid-November (and even tied them at #2 for one week in the AP poll), but Oklahoma took a more substantial lead going into that day's games.

On that day, USC survived a close road game against rival UCLA, 29-24. This result kept USC in the top spot, and assured the Trojans of the top placing and a spot in the Orange Bowl, the season's BCS title game. In the SEC championship game, Auburn defeated Tennessee 38-28, in a closer game than expected. Meanwhile, in the Big 12 title game, Oklahoma routed Colorado 42-3. Auburn, which was already trailing Oklahoma in all three components, didn't gain in points standing enough to pass OU. Thus, the Orange Bowl matched #1 USC and #2 Oklahoma. The two teams also finished No. 1 and No. 2 in all three major polls (AP, ESPN/USA Today, and BCS). USC won that game 55-19 over the Sooners.

The final outcome of all the polls could have become even more controversial if Utah, Boise State, and especially Auburn had all won their bowl games by a large point margin. Boise State lost in the Liberty Bowl, and Auburn gave up two fourth-quarter touchdowns to Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl to turn a comfortable 16-0 lead into a 16-13 win. The only team outside the top two to score a convincing bowl win was Utah, which routed Pittsburgh 35-7 in the Fiesta Bowl--however, Pittsburgh was not anywhere near as good a team as USC's opponent, Oklahoma, so Utah had no real shot at a national title.

As for the non-BCS schools, Utah was generally believed to have a considerably stronger case for making a BCS game than Boise State. Utah's schedule was noticeably stronger than Boise State's, including four BCS-league teams, and no team came within two touchdowns of the Utes during their 11-0 regular season, while Boise State was pushed to overtime on the road against a simply horrific San Jose State team, won by a field goal against a weak Tulsa team, and won by a point at home against a so-so Brigham Young squad.

The best chance for Boise State to break into the BCS depended on a loss by fifth-ranked Texas against archrival Texas A&M on November 26 at home in Austin; however, Texas won the game, which kept Texas ahead of Boise State. The Broncos' chances of breaking into the BCS disappeared with the release of the November 29 BCS rankings, in which Georgia, whose season was then complete, leapfrogged past Boise State into seventh. Boise State finished ninth in the season-ending standings and played in the Liberty Bowl, losing to Louisville.

Even before the bowl games took place, Utah's BCS entry created yet another controversy. Because of the rule requiring that a non-BCS team in the top six receive a bid to a BCS game, this left only one at-large bid for another school. Going into December 4, Cal was fourth in the BCS standings, barely ahead of Texas. Cal was 9-1 with a game at Southern Miss, postponed due to Hurricane Ivan, remaining. Texas was 10-1 with its season finished. Cal defeated Southern Miss 26-16 in a much closer game than expected; Cal's coach, Jeff Tedford had a policy of not running up the score if his team was obviously going to win. This result caused Texas to finish fourth and Cal to finish fifth in the season-ending BCS standings. Texas coach Mack Brown raised some eyebrows by openly campaigning for voters in the two human polls, especially his fellow coaches, to place his team ahead of Cal. This led to increased calls for the votes of the individual coaches who vote in the coaches poll to be released for public scrutiny. There was also an incident in which two AP voters from Texas were reprimanded by their newspapers for putting Auburn ahead of Texas.

Utah finished sixth in the season-ending BCS standings, and became the first non-BCS team to play in a BCS bowl game since the adoption of the BCS, playing in the Fiesta Bowl against Pittsburgh. This caused further controversy due to the fact that Pittsburgh's 8-3 record put them in one of the top bowl games. Pittsburgh was in the game because it won a four-team tiebreaker for the Big East title.

On that note, the automatic BCS bid annually given to the Big East has been the subject of controversy ever since the conference lost its two strongest football programs before the 2004 season, thanks to Miami and Virginia Tech leaving for the ACC; another highly competitive program, Boston College, joined the ACC for the 2005 season. Of the three football programs that joined the Big East in 2005, only Louisville was considered to be competitive on a national level, though another Big East newcomer, South Florida, has become a major player in the new Big East. The Big East seems to have regained a level of stability after the defections stated above, with the performances of teams such as West Virginia, Louisville, South Florida, Pittsburgh, and even an improved Rutgers, to go along with a down, but still nationally-recognized Syracuse program. Likewise, West Virginia's defeat of SEC champion Georgia in the 2006 Sugar Bowl will likely enhance the standing of Big East football.

AP disallows use of its poll in BCS rankings

On December 21, 2004, the Associated Press issued a cease and desist letter to the BCS telling them to stop using the AP poll in the BCS rankings. In their statement, the AP says, "The Associated Press has not at any time given permission to the Bowl Championship Series to use its proprietary ranking of college football teams. This unauthorized use of the AP poll has harmed AP's reputation and interfered with AP's agreements with AP poll voters." The cease and desist letter to the BCS concludes by saying "AP hereby demands that BCS immediately cease and desist from all current and future use of the AP Poll in producing the BCS rankings and that BCS confirm to AP that it has done so by December 31, 2004."

2005-06 season

Final Coaches Poll for 2005-06 to be made public

After the controversies of the 2004-2005 season, the American Football Coaches Association announced on May 26, 2005 that they would make public the individual votes of the voters in their coaches poll, which helps to determine college football's national champion. Only the final poll (initially released on December 6, 2005) discloses the individual votes. [3] The plan for only limited disclosure caused ESPN to disassociate itself from the USA Today coaches poll. [4]

Congress gets involved again

On December 1st, 2005, a Congressional House Energy and Commerce subcommittee announced that, beginning Wednesday, December 7, they would begin to look into a "deeply flawed" BCS system, restating what the Senate said in 2003. This will be a "comprehensive review" of the system, according to the subcommittee.

The end result was a suggestion of the plus one system, an already proposed idea for the future. No legislation was made, but the subcommitee felt that they had to be heard.

BCS history and schedule

1998-99 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 1998 regular season

1999-2000 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 1999 regular season:

  • Saturday, January 1, 2000 - Rose Bowl Game presented by PlayStation 2: Wisconsin 17, Stanford 9
  • Saturday, January 1, 2000 - FedEx Orange Bowl: Michigan 35, Alabama 34 (OT)
  • Sunday, January 2, 2000 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska 31, Tennessee 21
  • Tuesday, January 4, 2000 - Nokia Sugar Bowl, (National Championship): Florida State 46, Virginia Tech 29

2000-01 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2000 regular season

  • Monday, January 1, 2001 - Rose Bowl Game presented by PS2: Washington 34, Purdue 24
  • Monday, January 1, 2001 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Oregon State, 41, Notre Dame 9
  • Tuesday, January 2, 2001 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: Miami 37, Florida 20
  • Wednesday, January 3, 2001 - FedEx Orange Bowl, (National Championship): Oklahoma 13, Florida State 2

2001-02 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2001 regular season

  • Tuesday, January 1, 2002 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Oregon 38, Colorado 16
  • Tuesday, January 1, 2002 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: LSU 47, Illinois 34
  • Wednesday, January 2, 2002 - FedEx Orange Bowl, Florida 56, Maryland 23
  • Thursday, January 3, 2002 - Rose Bowl Game presented by AT&T (National Championship): Miami 37, Nebraska 14

2002-03 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2002 regular season

  • Wednesday, January 1, 2003 - Rose Bowl Game presented by citi: Oklahoma 34, Washington State 14
  • Wednesday, January 1, 2003 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: Georgia 26, Florida State 13
  • Thursday, January 2, 2003 - FedEx Orange Bowl: USC 38, Iowa 17
  • Friday, January 3, 2003 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl (National Championship): Ohio State 31, Miami 24 (2 OT)

2003-04 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2003 regular season

  • Thursday, January 1, 2004 - Rose Bowl Game presented by citi: USC 28, Michigan 14
  • Thursday, January 1, 2004 - FedEx Orange Bowl: Miami 16, Florida State 14
  • Friday, January 2, 2004 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 35, Kansas State 28
  • Sunday, January 4, 2004 - Nokia Sugar Bowl (National Championship) LSU 21, Oklahoma 14

2004-05 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2004 regular season:

  • Saturday, January 1, 2005 - Rose Bowl presented by citi: Texas 38, Michigan 37
  • Saturday, January 1, 2005 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Utah 35, Pittsburgh 7
  • Monday, January 3, 2005 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: Auburn 16, Virginia Tech 13
  • Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - FedEx Orange Bowl (National Championship): USC 55, Oklahoma 19

2005-06 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2005 regular season in chronological order:

  • Monday, January 2, 2006 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 34, Notre Dame 20
  • Monday, January 2, 2006 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: West Virginia 38, Georgia 35
(NOTE: Due to damage to the Louisiana Superdome because of Hurricane Katrina, the game was played at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, Georgia.)
  • Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - FedEx Orange Bowl: Penn State 26, Florida State 23 (3 OT)
  • Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi (National Championship): Texas 41, Southern California 38

Future schedules

Changes for 2006-07

There will be major changes in store for the 2006-07 BCS. First, television rights (with the exception of the Rose Bowl Game) will shift to FOX, while ABC will continue telecasting "The Granddaddy Of Them All". Second, the addition of a BCS National Championship Game separate from the games already in the BCS matching the top two teams in the BCS rankings at the site of one of the games one week following the Bowl Games as the current rotation will continue (as an example, the new Cardinals Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, which is the site of the Fiesta Bowl, will serve as the host of the 2006 championship game) and due to that, the addition of two more "at large" teams will take place with the same rules under use. Had this system been in place in 2005, Oregon and Miami (FL) would have played in a BCS game instead of playing in the Holiday Bowl and the Peach Bowl respectively.

2007 schedule

To be played following 2006 season.

  • Monday, January 1 - Rose Bowl Game
  • Monday, January 1 - Fiesta Bowl
  • Tuesday, January 2 - Orange Bowl
  • Wednesday, January 3 - Sugar Bowl
  • Monday, January 8 - BCS National Championship (Glendale, Arizona)

2008 schedule

To be played following 2007 season.

  • Tuesday, January 1 - Rose Bowl Game
  • Tuesday, January 1 - Sugar Bowl
  • Wednesday, January 2 - Fiesta Bowl
  • Thursday, January 3 - Orange Bowl
  • Tuesday, January 8 - BCS National Championship (New Orleans)

2009 schedule

To be played following 2008 season.

  • Thursday, January 1 - Rose Bowl Game
  • Thursday, January 1 - Orange Bowl
  • Friday, January 2 - Sugar Bowl
  • Saturday, January 3 - Fiesta Bowl
  • Thursday, January 8 - BCS National Championship (Miami)

2010 schedule

To be played following 2009 season.

  • Friday, January 1 - Rose Bowl Game
  • Friday, January 1 - Sugar Bowl
  • Saturday, January 2 - Fiesta Bowl
  • Monday, January 4 or Tuesday, January 5 - Orange Bowl (NOTE: Date will depend on 2009 NFL scheduling.)
  • Friday, January 8 - BCS National Championship (Pasadena, California)

"You Can't Blame the BCS"

On November 22, 2005, ESPN Classic aired, as part of a regular series, The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... the Bowl Championship Series for the Lack of a Playoff in Division I-A College Football. ESPN and ABC are both owned by Disney and are both affiliated with the BCS. ESPN's reasons (paraphrased):

  • 5. The U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling that the colleges, not the NCAA, had the right to regulate their television contracts made it very difficult for the NCAA to create and enforce a playoff system. However, this has not kept the BCS from organizing TV coverage for all the BCS bowl games.
  • 4. The BCS is an improvement over the previous system, with the conference tie-ins: The Rose Bowl taking the Big 10 and Pac-10 champions, the Big 8 winner going to the Orange, the SEC winner going to the Sugar and the Southwest Conference winner going to the Cotton. Suppose all those conference champions had been undefeated after the regular season. Michigan and USC, for example, could have settled things in the Rose Bowl, with the winner being 12-0. But what if Nebraska won the Orange, Alabama the Sugar, and Texas the Cotton? And what if Notre Dame, Penn State or Miami, all of whom were independents until the 1990s (Notre Dame still is in football), ended up being chosen by the Fiesta Bowl, which had no conference tie-ins in the 1980s and 1990s? There would have been as many as five teams that were 12-0, or 11-1, and only two polls to crown as many as two "National Champions." The BCS doesn't eliminate the possibility of split polls, or a third (or fourth) team being left out, but it's better than the tie-in system. (Or so ESPN argued.) This argument could be considered a straw-man, since rarely does anyone ever argue that the BCS is worse than what it replaced. Rather, the usual argument is that a play-off would be even better.
  • 3. The BCS, along with conference championship games between division winners, makes the regular season a virtual playoff: One loss, and you're probably out of the national title hunt; two, and you're definitely out. One problem with this is that a team could go into a conference title game, or its final regular-season game, ranked Number 1, lose their last game before the bowls, still be ranked Number 2, or even Number 1, in the last poll due to computer figuring, and reach the National Championship Game without winning its Conference Championship. This happened in both 2001 and 2003:
    • In 2001, Nebraska was unbeaten going into its final game at Colorado, which would decide the Big 12 North title. The Huskers left Boulder at the short end of a 62-36 pasting. Nonetheless, the computers put Nebraska in the Number 2 slot, behind Miami and barely ahead of two-loss Colorado and one-loss Oregon—putting them into the National Championship Game without even playing in their conference title game. The Huskers were convincingly beaten by the Hurricanes in the Rose Bowl.
    • In 2003, Oklahoma lost the Big 12 Championship Game but finished Number 1 in the computer rankings, and faced SEC Champion Louisiana State in the Sugar Bowl, leaving USC, 11-1 (Oklahoma and LSU were 12-1), on the outside looking in, as far as the BCS was concerned. LSU beat Oklahoma to claim the BCS National Championship. The occurrence of a team failing to win its Conference Championship and then actually winning the National Championship Game has not happened in eight seasons of BCS play.
Another problem with this argument is that it assumes a good choice can be made in picking the number 1 and number 2 teams. Usually, there are not exactly two unbeaten teams. That means either that one or more unbeaten teams will be left out, or that a one-loss team will have to be selected from the ranks of several one-loss schools. Also, a play-off system does not have to involve a huge number of schools. An 8 team play-off would still be composed mainly of undefeated and one-loss teams. Therefore, each regular season game would still be hugely important.
  • 2. The bowls. They mean a lot of money for the participating schools, and they give several schools, not just one, a chance to end their season with a victory. However, a 4 or 8 team play-off system does not mean an end to the bowls any more than the current BCS meant an end to the bowls. The other bowls could still be played as a lead-in to the playoff, and those bowls would mean no more nor no less than they do today in terms of picking the final champion. They would still be a chance for winning programs to have one more chance to play.
  • 1. University presidents. They won't allow it, citing academics as a reason (despite the first half of January, when the playoff would take place, being part of an extended break between academic terms at most schools), but really wanting the bowl money (over $10 million for BCS bowls) for their schools.

ESPN did not address a recent action by university presidents that, to some observers, undermined their position against a playoff. The presidents approved a recent NCAA move to make a 12th regular season game a permanent fixture in Division I-A college football. This fueled accusations of hypocrisy against university presidents, as a 12th regular-season game would add one game for all Division I-A schools (in most years) during the academic term, while a 16-team playoff similar to that currently used in Division I-AA would result in extra games for only a handful of teams, with many of these games during academic breaks. Also, the university presidents have allowed conference championship games to occur in many conferences. Those games could be eliminated if they wanted to avoid lengthening the season.

Notes

  1. ^ BCS Football Official Website
  2. ^ Harris Interactive Poll replaces AP Poll in BCS rankings
  3. ^ Harmonson, Todd "Texas ascends to No. 1 in BCS ahead of USC" October 25, 2005 San Diego Union Tribune pD1.
  4. ^ Schecter, B. J. Trojan fans, stay calm October 24, 2005 Sports Illustrated.com

BCS controversies

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowl_Championship_Series&oldid=40730319"