OK, so it's off-season, and I've been meaning to get around to this for two years now. (Relax, I had a divorce going on, I'm a new supervisor at work, and I was a season ticket holder last year who went to most of the games). This is part of an add-on to a couple of articles I wrote regarding the evolution to the four-team playoff. Let me be crystal clear: I think the four-team playoff is the 'most perfect solution' imaginable. I think eight will dilute the regular season too much and my major problem with the BCS - a system I kept saying was better than most folks wanted to admit - was the potential injustice for an unbeaten team such as occurred in 2004 with Auburn. A creative person can go back and see that I was arguing for a 16-team playoff in 2011. I have recanted this position so don't bring it here with "but here you said." In fact, it was what happened in 2011 that made me realize four was perfect but if we had had sixteen teams then I would not have watched nor cared who won Okie State-Iowa State, Boise-TCU, or Oregon-USC. I watched more games BECAUSE of the BCS than I would have otherwise. That potential is still there with the current four-team playoff. In fact, I would argue it worked perfectly last year. Clemson and Washington both lost on the same day - which is why their games were important and kept both alive. But the purpose here is to look back at how we got here.
THE PRECONCEPTION OF THE BCS
The BCS was the result of a series of controversial national championship winners that culminated in an agreement to permit the teams ranked one and two in the final regular season poll to meet on the field in a bowl game to determine the winner. (Well, actually it was the result of a Congressional threat but I digress). After the AP/UPI split titles of 1973 - when Alabama won the title prior to the game and then lost to Notre Dame, who claimed the AP title - there was a 25-year series of controversial champions, split champions, and champions that should have been split but were not. Indeed, in the 25 years between the 1973 Sugar Bowl and the BCS, there was a controversy over the team that ultimately won the championship no less than THIRTEEN times, more than half. And in a number of other instances (1981, 1985, 1988), college football was bailed out by good fortune that prevented controversy. But the real impetus was found in a number of endings to the season that were perpetually unsatisfying.
1990 - Colorado, aided in part by a controversial Fifth Down decision against Missouri, splits the national championship with Georgia Tech
1991 - Miami and Washington, unable to play one another, split the championship. The most relevant controversy was Miami's refusal to play higher-ranked Florida in the New Orleans Sugar Bowl and opting to rout unheralded Nebraska on their own Orange Bowl turf.
1993 - Florida State wins the consensus national championship despite having lost head-to-head to Notre Dame, with a better record.
1994 - Nebraska wins both titles because Penn State is obligated to play unknown Oregon in the Rose Bowl.
1996 - a four-team car crash at the top of the standings winds up settled in favor of the Florida Gators
1997 - Nebraska and Michigan end the year undefeated, the Cornhuskers assisted by an illegal kick play that keeps them alive to beat Missouri.
In 1992, as a response to three consecutive controversial finishes, the Bowl Coalition was born. This was a grouping of Notre Dame and all the major conferences except the two tied to the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten and the Pac Ten. The agreement was to allow the Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowls to bypass conference tie-ins on a rotating basis to set up ultimate 1 vs 2 matchups. The system worked perfectly in 1992 and saw Alabama upset Miami in the Sugar Bowl to the win the championship. It had problems in 1993 with disputes about the rankings; however, Florida State did meet (and beat) Nebraska on the field to win the championship. And just as has happened in every case, the Coalition fell apart in 1994, when there were two unbeatens and one was the Rose Bowl-obligated Penn State. Nebraska won the title and Penn State was left to seethe.
In 1995, the Bowl Alliance replaced the Bowl Coalition. Once again, the Rose Bowl obligated conferences were left out. And once again, disaster struck the determination of a champion. Only Michigan's upset win over Ohio State spared a disaster the very first year. In 1996, the Alliance shattered when Arizona State completed their season unbeaten and left a train wreck at the top of the standings. Combined with the perceived snubbing of 14-1 BYU, the Alliance was on life support before it even began. The call to the coroner came when Michigan and Nebraska split the 1997 national championship, the third split in eight years and seventh controversy in the previous nine. Furthermore, the success of BYU in a mid-major in 1996 opened up a Congressional investigation as to whether or not the Bowl Alliance violated anti-trust laws.
THE BCS BEGINS
To satisfy Congress, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was created. Unlike the previous attempts, this grouping would permit participation by mid-major conferences that met certain criteria and also included the Rose Bowl-obligated conferences. (To be fair - part of the concern on the part of the conferences was that the ABC television contract for the Rose Bowl might necessitate a lawsuit). The Tournament of Roses Association agreed to release their champions from obligation if necessary but in the typical sop thrown to the Rose Bowl, they were set up last in the rotation of the Big Four bowl games to host the championship.
The BCS as originally designed set up a four-point plan: the AP poll results plus coaches poll results (as one block), several computer rankings (including Sagarin and Seattle Times), strength of schedule (quartile), and number of losses. There was one immediate flaw in the BCS plan despite all its assets: what if there were THREE equally deserving teams that had gone unbeaten and won their conference? This was a rarity, of course and so naturally - college football being as insane as it is - it damn near happened the first year.
The very first BCS rankings were issued on October 26, 1998 and were as follows:
1) UCLA
2) Ohio State
3) Tennessee
4) Kansas State
5) Florida State (with a solitary loss)
Ohio State was the concurrent number one in the AP poll, with UCLA second and media darling Kansas State in third. Succeeding - and even shellacking - powerhouse Nebraska in November gave an urgency to underdog K-State's rise to prominence. The rankings continued to shuffle among the top three. Ohio St and Tennessee both jumped UCLA in the second poll. The Buckeyes shocking loss to Michigan State dropped them out of the hunt. (This was the game where Nick Saban discovered "the Process" while trailing, 17-3). Tennessee, with a difficult schedule, headed up the BCS rankings while Kansas State was making converts to their sudden rise with more votes as the AP number one. When the regular season - mostly - ended, the BCS rankings looked thus:
1) Tennessee
2) UCLA
3) Kansas State
4) Florida State
5) Ohio State
The AP rankings, meanwhile, looked a little different:
1) K State
2) Tennessee
3) UCLA
4) Florida State
5) Ohio State (with a first-place vote)
The BCS was on the verge of a major disaster in its first year. The AP number one and fan favorite appeared to be on the outside looking in. But fate - or more precisely Mother Nature - intervened. In September, UCLA had been scheduled to play Miami in the Orange Bowl stadium, but the game was moved because of Hurricane Georges. It should hardly have mattered. UCLA had a Heisman candidate at quarterback, Cade McNown, and the Hurricanes were coming off an embarrassing 66-13 blowout loss to Syracuse. A win by UCLA would clinch them a spot in the first-ever BCS title game.
Naturally, the Bruins lost.
This was welcome news in Manhattan - both of them, in fact. Wins by K-State and Tennessee in their conference title games would christen the BCS an immense success and set the table for years to come for college football.
Naturally, Kansas State blew a two-touchdown lead and lost in overtime to Texas A/M. The virtual semi-finals were turning into a disaster quickly. With only eight minutes left in their game against over-achieving upstart Mississippi State, the Volunteers only led by the narrow margin of 14-10. They asserted their ability in closing the game, however, and clinched their spot in the BCS title game.
After plugging in all the computer rankings, etc, Florida State benefited by virtue of not having the additional game to play. It didn't matter as Tennessee finished off the Seminoles to win the BCS inaugural title game.
CONTROVERSY REVISITED
It is forgotten how near close to utter disaster the BCS was in its very first year. What if K-State as the AP number one had run the table and UCLA beat Miami to play Tennessee? The AP was NOT obligated (witness the 2003 debacle) to vote for the BCS winner, and we might very well have had a split champion in the very first year of the new format. Indeed, the eventual disaster that would undermine the BCS in 2011 was basically what occurred in 1998 only worse. At least in the case of 2011, the issue was teams who had lost a game. These could be dismissed with "you should have won your game," but this argument would not have worked with three unbeaten teams.
And there was another unfortunate wrinkle to the system exposed by K-State's sudden loss to ATM - the Wildcats did not even appear in a BCS bowl. The Sugar Bowl chose one-loss Ohio State and the Orange Bowl took the Florida Gators. Despite being #3 in the BCS poll, K-State wound up losing the Alamo Bowl.
But would the AP have done this? We will never know the answer to that question. K-State did have the weakest schedule among the top five teams in the rankings so their margin for error was nil. The other controversy did not even exist - even the coach of 11-0 Tulane, Tommy Bowden, said that having coached in the SEC before that he could not in good conscience say that his team had faced the challenges that the big conferences had.
One year of the BCS was now in the books. They survived a potential disaster but the warning flag was out and flying.
THE PRECONCEPTION OF THE BCS
The BCS was the result of a series of controversial national championship winners that culminated in an agreement to permit the teams ranked one and two in the final regular season poll to meet on the field in a bowl game to determine the winner. (Well, actually it was the result of a Congressional threat but I digress). After the AP/UPI split titles of 1973 - when Alabama won the title prior to the game and then lost to Notre Dame, who claimed the AP title - there was a 25-year series of controversial champions, split champions, and champions that should have been split but were not. Indeed, in the 25 years between the 1973 Sugar Bowl and the BCS, there was a controversy over the team that ultimately won the championship no less than THIRTEEN times, more than half. And in a number of other instances (1981, 1985, 1988), college football was bailed out by good fortune that prevented controversy. But the real impetus was found in a number of endings to the season that were perpetually unsatisfying.
1990 - Colorado, aided in part by a controversial Fifth Down decision against Missouri, splits the national championship with Georgia Tech
1991 - Miami and Washington, unable to play one another, split the championship. The most relevant controversy was Miami's refusal to play higher-ranked Florida in the New Orleans Sugar Bowl and opting to rout unheralded Nebraska on their own Orange Bowl turf.
1993 - Florida State wins the consensus national championship despite having lost head-to-head to Notre Dame, with a better record.
1994 - Nebraska wins both titles because Penn State is obligated to play unknown Oregon in the Rose Bowl.
1996 - a four-team car crash at the top of the standings winds up settled in favor of the Florida Gators
1997 - Nebraska and Michigan end the year undefeated, the Cornhuskers assisted by an illegal kick play that keeps them alive to beat Missouri.
In 1992, as a response to three consecutive controversial finishes, the Bowl Coalition was born. This was a grouping of Notre Dame and all the major conferences except the two tied to the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten and the Pac Ten. The agreement was to allow the Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowls to bypass conference tie-ins on a rotating basis to set up ultimate 1 vs 2 matchups. The system worked perfectly in 1992 and saw Alabama upset Miami in the Sugar Bowl to the win the championship. It had problems in 1993 with disputes about the rankings; however, Florida State did meet (and beat) Nebraska on the field to win the championship. And just as has happened in every case, the Coalition fell apart in 1994, when there were two unbeatens and one was the Rose Bowl-obligated Penn State. Nebraska won the title and Penn State was left to seethe.
In 1995, the Bowl Alliance replaced the Bowl Coalition. Once again, the Rose Bowl obligated conferences were left out. And once again, disaster struck the determination of a champion. Only Michigan's upset win over Ohio State spared a disaster the very first year. In 1996, the Alliance shattered when Arizona State completed their season unbeaten and left a train wreck at the top of the standings. Combined with the perceived snubbing of 14-1 BYU, the Alliance was on life support before it even began. The call to the coroner came when Michigan and Nebraska split the 1997 national championship, the third split in eight years and seventh controversy in the previous nine. Furthermore, the success of BYU in a mid-major in 1996 opened up a Congressional investigation as to whether or not the Bowl Alliance violated anti-trust laws.
THE BCS BEGINS
To satisfy Congress, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was created. Unlike the previous attempts, this grouping would permit participation by mid-major conferences that met certain criteria and also included the Rose Bowl-obligated conferences. (To be fair - part of the concern on the part of the conferences was that the ABC television contract for the Rose Bowl might necessitate a lawsuit). The Tournament of Roses Association agreed to release their champions from obligation if necessary but in the typical sop thrown to the Rose Bowl, they were set up last in the rotation of the Big Four bowl games to host the championship.
The BCS as originally designed set up a four-point plan: the AP poll results plus coaches poll results (as one block), several computer rankings (including Sagarin and Seattle Times), strength of schedule (quartile), and number of losses. There was one immediate flaw in the BCS plan despite all its assets: what if there were THREE equally deserving teams that had gone unbeaten and won their conference? This was a rarity, of course and so naturally - college football being as insane as it is - it damn near happened the first year.
The very first BCS rankings were issued on October 26, 1998 and were as follows:
1) UCLA
2) Ohio State
3) Tennessee
4) Kansas State
5) Florida State (with a solitary loss)
Ohio State was the concurrent number one in the AP poll, with UCLA second and media darling Kansas State in third. Succeeding - and even shellacking - powerhouse Nebraska in November gave an urgency to underdog K-State's rise to prominence. The rankings continued to shuffle among the top three. Ohio St and Tennessee both jumped UCLA in the second poll. The Buckeyes shocking loss to Michigan State dropped them out of the hunt. (This was the game where Nick Saban discovered "the Process" while trailing, 17-3). Tennessee, with a difficult schedule, headed up the BCS rankings while Kansas State was making converts to their sudden rise with more votes as the AP number one. When the regular season - mostly - ended, the BCS rankings looked thus:
1) Tennessee
2) UCLA
3) Kansas State
4) Florida State
5) Ohio State
The AP rankings, meanwhile, looked a little different:
1) K State
2) Tennessee
3) UCLA
4) Florida State
5) Ohio State (with a first-place vote)
The BCS was on the verge of a major disaster in its first year. The AP number one and fan favorite appeared to be on the outside looking in. But fate - or more precisely Mother Nature - intervened. In September, UCLA had been scheduled to play Miami in the Orange Bowl stadium, but the game was moved because of Hurricane Georges. It should hardly have mattered. UCLA had a Heisman candidate at quarterback, Cade McNown, and the Hurricanes were coming off an embarrassing 66-13 blowout loss to Syracuse. A win by UCLA would clinch them a spot in the first-ever BCS title game.
Naturally, the Bruins lost.
This was welcome news in Manhattan - both of them, in fact. Wins by K-State and Tennessee in their conference title games would christen the BCS an immense success and set the table for years to come for college football.
Naturally, Kansas State blew a two-touchdown lead and lost in overtime to Texas A/M. The virtual semi-finals were turning into a disaster quickly. With only eight minutes left in their game against over-achieving upstart Mississippi State, the Volunteers only led by the narrow margin of 14-10. They asserted their ability in closing the game, however, and clinched their spot in the BCS title game.
After plugging in all the computer rankings, etc, Florida State benefited by virtue of not having the additional game to play. It didn't matter as Tennessee finished off the Seminoles to win the BCS inaugural title game.
CONTROVERSY REVISITED
It is forgotten how near close to utter disaster the BCS was in its very first year. What if K-State as the AP number one had run the table and UCLA beat Miami to play Tennessee? The AP was NOT obligated (witness the 2003 debacle) to vote for the BCS winner, and we might very well have had a split champion in the very first year of the new format. Indeed, the eventual disaster that would undermine the BCS in 2011 was basically what occurred in 1998 only worse. At least in the case of 2011, the issue was teams who had lost a game. These could be dismissed with "you should have won your game," but this argument would not have worked with three unbeaten teams.
And there was another unfortunate wrinkle to the system exposed by K-State's sudden loss to ATM - the Wildcats did not even appear in a BCS bowl. The Sugar Bowl chose one-loss Ohio State and the Orange Bowl took the Florida Gators. Despite being #3 in the BCS poll, K-State wound up losing the Alamo Bowl.
But would the AP have done this? We will never know the answer to that question. K-State did have the weakest schedule among the top five teams in the rankings so their margin for error was nil. The other controversy did not even exist - even the coach of 11-0 Tulane, Tommy Bowden, said that having coached in the SEC before that he could not in good conscience say that his team had faced the challenges that the big conferences had.
One year of the BCS was now in the books. They survived a potential disaster but the warning flag was out and flying.