BCS Controversies Revisited: 1998

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
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.
 

Elefantman

Hall of Fame
Sep 18, 2007
5,935
3,855
187
R Can Saw
The BCS worked most of the time and then one year it worked well and that year ended up being its demise (IMO). Remember that year when two SEC teams played for the NC?
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
The BCS worked most of the time and then one year it worked well and that year ended up being its demise (IMO). Remember that year when two SEC teams played for the NC?
That was 2011. That was the death blow, but it wasn't solely because of that, either.

The BCS was not that much different from the four-team playoff in that it was generally easy to do the 'eyeball test' and pick the teams. The only reason 2011 got set up was the fact that Oregon had lost to LSU, too. The press mantra would have been 'no rematch,' but they couldn't do that given LSU had drilled Oregon with relative ease compared to their win over us.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
That was 2011. That was the death blow, but it wasn't solely because of that, either.

The BCS was not that much different from the four-team playoff in that it was generally easy to do the 'eyeball test' and pick the teams. The only reason 2011 got set up was the fact that Oregon had lost to LSU, too. The press mantra would have been 'no rematch,' but they couldn't do that given LSU had drilled Oregon with relative ease compared to their win over us.
Didn't Kiffin handle the Oregon dilemma for us.

I thought Delaney was the reason we went to the playoffs. Even though the SEC wanted a playoff since 2003.

I think the biggest issue with the BCS from 98-05 was the computer polls. 2001, 2003, and 2004 showed all the kinks in the BCS when they booked the wrong contender. 2005 almost ran into the issue, but Shula prevented it by losing his last 2 games. I guarantee it would've been Bama vs USC in the Rose Bowl after 2 straight years of the SEC complaining about not being able to play for the de facto championship due to the Big 12. It wouldn't be the right championship, and the BCS probably goes to a playoff by 2009 with so many years of controversy.
 
Last edited:

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,895
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I remember well that Miami vs. UCLA game. It was a back and forth game, and really, it was the Bob Toledo era in a nutshell. So much promise, and ultimate just disappointment.

Seems like Edgerrin James had a great game for Miami, and it was sort of the launching of their last really good run under Butch Davis and Larry Coker.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,895
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Didn't Kiffin handle the Oregon dilemma for us.

I thought Delaney was the reason we went to the playoffs. Even though the SEC wanted a playoff since 2003.
Well, Delaney and the Big Ten finally got on board with it as did the Pac 12. I think Selma is right that it was really the threat of Congress getting involved. The Power 5 concocted a nice scheme to allow access to the lesser guys, maintain the bowl systems strangle hold on the process (admittedly that's some hyperbole. The Playoff committee selects which teams go to which bowls now), and still have a 4 team playoff. And everyone makes more money than before.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Didn't Kiffin handle the Oregon dilemma for us.
Yes, he did.

I thought Delaney was the reason we went to the playoffs. Even though the SEC wanted a playoff since 2003.
Ok, let me clarify because it's come up below: Congress is the reason we went from the Bowl Alliance to the BCS in 1998 (more in a moment). Delany AND the other clown show basically agreed on the four-team concept and then came the argument.

The Big 12 was aboard because they felt hosed with Okie State (even though the Big 12 arguably benefited more from putting undeserving teams in there than any other conference - I'm looking right at you, 2001 Nebraska, 2003-04-08 OU).

Actually, Kramer had been wanting a playoff going back to the SEC title game in 1992. The big outcry from the SEC arose in 2004 over the Auburn snub. I don't think it was so much the SEC folks wanting Auburn as the realization that LSU was darn lucky to have made it in the previous year (the assumption was they would be the odd team out) and then Auburn didn't.

I think the biggest issue with the BCS from 98-05 was the computer polls. 2001, 2003, and 2004 showed all the kinks in the BCS when they booked the wrong contender. 2005 almost ran into the issue, but Shula prevented it by losing his last 2 games. I guarantee it would've been Bama vs USC in the Rose Bowl after 2 straight years of the SEC complaining about not being able to play for the de facto championship due to the Big 12. It wouldn't be the right championship, and the BCS probably goes to a playoff by 2009 with so many years of controversy.
It's debatable all the way around. I think USC would have sandblasted us into another universe in 2005, a game that probably makes the 1971 Nebraska game look like the 1985 Iron Bowl.

But there's no question the SEC would not have stood for it to continually happen to us, either.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Well, Delaney and the Big Ten finally got on board with it as did the Pac 12. I think Selma is right that it was really the threat of Congress getting involved. The Power 5 concocted a nice scheme to allow access to the lesser guys, maintain the bowl systems strangle hold on the process (admittedly that's some hyperbole. The Playoff committee selects which teams go to which bowls now), and still have a 4 team playoff. And everyone makes more money than before.
There were TWO Congressional threats. The first was in 1997 and gave us the BCS. The second was a loud mouthed Texas right-winger named Joe Barton, who just happened to be classmates with my (then) assistant boss. They somehow decided in 2009 of all years that there was a problem. In fact, look at the hostile language being used at the time:

The legislation, which goes to the full committee, would make it illegal to promote a national championship game "or make a similar representation," unless it results from a playoff.


I mean, really?

But let's set that aside because I don't want this headed to NS - I only mentioned it because a lot of folks aren't aware of the first investigation.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,042
907
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
I agree that a four team playoff is as near perfect as we will ever get. There will always be controversy and the four team gives us the potential for a big one each year -- and if we are going to have one it may as well be a big one. Five Power 5 conferences and only four can send a team. Now this is set up for major controversy each year, though we don't get one always.

I'll put it this way: If you can't convince the committee you are one of the top four teams ...... then you really don't have much evidence for making the playoff, IMO. However, I had rather argue over number five getting left out (and how unfair that is) as to argue how number nine got left out.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
2005 USCW vs Alabama would have not been good for us.
Loved that defense, but they would've ate us up. Hersey perhaps but I like theoretical '04 Auburn over '04 USC but I don't think even a 100% healthy '05 Bama had a shot against '05 Texas or USC.
 

JDCrimson

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2006
5,346
4,417
187
51
I think 6 is the magic number because there is usually separation between 1 and 2 versus 3 and 4. The playoff won't make it through the first contract without expansion due to conferences being cut out of the money opportunity and the selection being done by a committee. The PAC 12 and Big 12 will not stand for continually being excluded largely on the weakness of their respective power 5 conferences.

At 6, I believe it solidifies the value of the conference championship knowing the high probability the conference champion will ultimately represent in the national playoff. Now the conference championships are being devalued to a degree.

6 spots would also leave a spot for 1 at large deserving team that is either not a conference champion, Notre Dame, or Group of 5 team. The play in could be held on the campus of the higher seed the weekend before Christmas.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Not meaning to be combative in my response - seriously.

I think 6 is the magic number because there is usually separation between 1 and 2 versus 3 and 4.
But isn't this krazy's exact argument IN FAVOR of the BCS? And it's a good point. We've had three playoffs now. I believe that 1 played 2 in the last two years (Ohio State was the four seed in 2014). What I'm saying is that this supports your underlying argument AND the BCS argument - but your advocacy is for six teams.

And while your next point is a valid one, a six-team playoff ensures a stink over "but we beat that team (the Penn State argument) but THEY got the bye week!"

The playoff won't make it through the first contract without expansion due to conferences being cut out of the money opportunity and the selection being done by a committee. The PAC 12 and Big 12 will not stand for continually being excluded largely on the weakness of their respective power 5 conferences.
The reason I think you're probably wrong about this is because a conference gets $6 million for selection to the final four and ZERO for advancing. But then you see that the teams selected for the Orange, Cotton, and Rose Bowls by contractual obligation net $55 million while the conferences WITHOUT the bowl agreements net $83.5 million for their conferences. In a 12-team conference with equal distribution, $6 million is only $500,000 per school. Given the other money coming in, I don't think the risk justifies the reward.

I agree totally with you about money driving the train, but it's just not that much in the bigger picture at least right now it isn't.

At 6, I believe it solidifies the value of the conference championship knowing the high probability the conference champion will ultimately represent in the national playoff. Now the conference championships are being devalued to a degree.
But isn't it also true that if more than one team makes the playoff then the conference championship is likewise devalued? Let's take 2009 as a good example. Alabama beats Florida. I think we can all agree that was a GREAT Florida team, they were certainly #2 in the country for the year. Alabama wins the SEC title and then Florida gets to play a game and advances and they meet again.....and then Florida wins it all. Does it not likewise devalue Alabama's SEC title?

Does anyone think LSU would have rather won the national title in 2011 but not won the SEC? I sure do.

Furthermore - and I realize this will be considered football blasphemy - but conference championships are a relic of the days of regional college football before coast-to-coast travel was easy and then during the time frame of limited televised games with specific bowl games (SEC to the Sugar) as a reward. Going to the Sugar Bowl nowadays - unless it's one of the semi-final games - is NOT a reward for winning your conference but a consolation prize because you didn't go to the playoffs. I will always sort of chuckle because when Penn State joined the Big Ten there were multiple stories about them dreaming of the Rose Bowl. In fact, their head coach Sandusky Enabler actually said, "'I'm very excited about having the opportunity to coach against some of the schools in the Big Ten and I'd very much like some day to coach in the Rose Bowl."

The Rose Bowl was one of the things they talked about the most.


The irony? Remember how upset they were they got the Rose Bowl this past year?


6 spots would also leave a spot for 1 at large deserving team that is either not a conference champion, Notre Dame, or Group of 5 team. The play in could be held on the campus of the higher seed the weekend before Christmas.
Six spots will also literally devalue.....pretty much everything. And I think the history of cfb is against this, in large part because never once has anyone seriously argued that the nation's number six team deserving of being number one. Twice - 1977 and 1983 - we had number five teams jump to the national title, but it took a series of flukes to enable that to occur anyway.

You may ultimately be right, and I'm concerned that expansion is inevitable. But I hope you're not right to be honest with you.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Not meaning to be combative in my response - seriously.



But isn't this krazy's exact argument IN FAVOR of the BCS? And it's a good point. We've had three playoffs now. I believe that 1 played 2 in the last two years (Ohio State was the four seed in 2014). What I'm saying is that this supports your underlying argument AND the BCS argument - but your advocacy is for six teams.

And while your next point is a valid one, a six-team playoff ensures a stink over "but we beat that team (the Penn State argument) but THEY got the bye week!"



The reason I think you're probably wrong about this is because a conference gets $6 million for selection to the final four and ZERO for advancing. But then you see that the teams selected for the Orange, Cotton, and Rose Bowls by contractual obligation net $55 million while the conferences WITHOUT the bowl agreements net $83.5 million for their conferences. In a 12-team conference with equal distribution, $6 million is only $500,000 per school. Given the other money coming in, I don't think the risk justifies the reward.

I agree totally with you about money driving the train, but it's just not that much in the bigger picture at least right now it isn't.



But isn't it also true that if more than one team makes the playoff then the conference championship is likewise devalued? Let's take 2009 as a good example. Alabama beats Florida. I think we can all agree that was a GREAT Florida team, they were certainly #2 in the country for the year. Alabama wins the SEC title and then Florida gets to play a game and advances and they meet again.....and then Florida wins it all. Does it not likewise devalue Alabama's SEC title?

Does anyone think LSU would have rather won the national title in 2011 but not won the SEC? I sure do.

Furthermore - and I realize this will be considered football blasphemy - but conference championships are a relic of the days of regional college football before coast-to-coast travel was easy and then during the time frame of limited televised games with specific bowl games (SEC to the Sugar) as a reward. Going to the Sugar Bowl nowadays - unless it's one of the semi-final games - is NOT a reward for winning your conference but a consolation prize because you didn't go to the playoffs. I will always sort of chuckle because when Penn State joined the Big Ten there were multiple stories about them dreaming of the Rose Bowl. In fact, their head coach Sandusky Enabler actually said, "'I'm very excited about having the opportunity to coach against some of the schools in the Big Ten and I'd very much like some day to coach in the Rose Bowl."

The Rose Bowl was one of the things they talked about the most.


The irony? Remember how upset they were they got the Rose Bowl this past year?




Six spots will also literally devalue.....pretty much everything. And I think the history of cfb is against this, in large part because never once has anyone seriously argued that the nation's number six team deserving of being number one. Twice - 1977 and 1983 - we had number five teams jump to the national title, but it took a series of flukes to enable that to occur anyway.

You may ultimately be right, and I'm concerned that expansion is inevitable. But I hope you're not right to be honest with you.
The whole point of a playoff is to have a chance of chaos. How many NFL dynasties have there been in 51 years. I count 4 legit ones (70's Steelers , 90's Cowboys, 80's 49ers, and the current Patriots) I guess 5 if you really want to count the pre NFL packers. But the point is tye playoffs are trying to spread the wealth. I think 6 is the max it should go, but 4 is probably the best.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.