Part I of this article explained the background of a Plus-One idea and how it would be implemented, then analyzed the first five years of the BCS.
The following finishes up the BCS era and gives an overall verdict of the BCS and a Plus-One option.
Read the first article here before proceeding.
The History (2003-2007)
2003
BCS top 5 (losses in parentheses):
- Oklahoma (1)
- LSU (1)
- USC (1)
- Michigan (2)
- Ohio State (2)
Other undefeateds: None
Controversy: This was arguably the most controversial year of the BCS. Three major-conference teams ended the season with one loss. USC, though ranked at the top of the AP poll, was left out of the championship game in favor of LSU and Oklahoma. The Sooners were coming off a bad loss to Kansas State in the Big 12 Championship game, but failed to drop from first in the BCS. Despite the goal of the BCS, the bowl pairings were reminiscent of the old Bowl Alliance, and resulted in a split national championship.
Plus-One: A plus-one would have eliminated the debate over who the top two teams were—all three worthy candidates would have been given a shot. It would have opened the door to arguments over the fourth seed between a large pack of two-loss teams with similar pedigrees.
(1) Oklahoma vs. (4) Michigan
(2) LSU vs. (3) USC
Analysis: It’s likely that if the BCS formula used relied on the polls as much as the present one does, this situation wouldn’t have occurred. Still, most of the controversy would have remained, and any pairing for the national championship would have been tainted. In a nightmare scenario for the BCS, a plus-one would have fixed the biggest problems.
Conclusion: The BCS failed miserably, while a plus-one would have only the relatively minor issue of deciding on a fourth-place team.
Grades: BCS: D-; Plus-One: B
2004
BCS top 5 (losses in parentheses):
- USC (0)
- Oklahoma (0)
- Auburn (0)
- Texas (1)
- California (1)
Other undefeateds: #6 Utah, #9 Boise State
Controversy: Again, the top three teams in the final rankings had the same record. This time all three were undefeated, with two more undefeated teams outside the top four. The BCS was forced to exclude undefeated, SEC Champion Auburn from the title game. While Utah did earn a bid to the BCS, they were not paired with Auburn, leaving three undefeated teams left at season’s end. Texas jumped Cal in the final poll after very public lobbying from Mack Brown, and the Bears were left out of a BCS game.
Plus-One: Again, the controversy over the top three teams would have been completely dispelled under a Plus-One. Arguably, though, the controversy over the fourth seed would have been just as bad. Texas and California already had a bitter enough dispute over the automatic bid from being ranked fourth. Add in the possibility of Utah and Boise State, and there are four teams with very legitimate arguments for inclusion in the playoff. Neither Utah nor Boise State played a very difficult schedule, but depending on the schedule strength ranking used, they could potentially have earned an automatic inclusion based on the stipulations outline above. For the sake of argument, assume Utah’s schedule met the criteria.
(1) USC vs. (4) Utah
(2) Oklahoma vs. (3) Auburn
Analysis: The 2004 season was far too wild for any postseason format to handle. The BCS assured that at least one worthy team would be excluded. A plus-one would assure that the consensus top three could play out the championship on the field. Any one of four choices for the fourth seed would have been reasonable, but left critics with plenty to talk about. The possibility that a plus-one would result in a four-team playoff between undefeated conference champions is, however, mouth-watering.
Conclusion: The BCS decidedly failed at determining a national champion. A plus-one would have at least ended the season with a clearer picture (and far fewer undefeated teams).
Grades: BCS: D-; Plus-One: B+
2005
BCS top 5 (losses in parentheses):
- USC (0)
- Texas (0)
- Penn State (1)
- Ohio State (2)
- Oregon (1)
Other undefeateds: None
Controversy: Almost none. USC and Texas spent the whole season at the top of the polls and ended as the only teams without losses. The national championship was an easy choice. The lone BCS controversy was 9-2 Notre Dame earning a bid over 10-1 Oregon, who was snubbed from the BCS.
Plus-One: A plus-one would only have invited controversy over the fourth seed. If Ohio State had indeed taken the number four spot as a conference non-champion, Oregon, Georgia, Notre Dame, and even West Virginia would have had arguments putting them into the equation. Several other teams finished with two losses, though none of them were conference champions.
(1) USC vs. (4) Ohio State
(2) Texas vs. (3) Penn State
Analysis: While the simple BCS guaranteed the undefeated one-two match-up as 1999 and 2002, a plus-one would make the situation much more difficult to sort through. Again, expanding the size of the pool to four teams would create undue controversy over the final seed. The BCS Championship game wouldn’t have been possible under the old Bowl Alliance system, and the USC-Texas game was one of the most anticipated national championships ever.
Conclusion: The BCS was more than adequate to handle the 2005 post-season, and a plus-one would only cause unnecessary problems.
Grades: BCS: A+; Plus-One: B-
2006
BCS top 5 (losses in parentheses):
- Ohio State (0)
- Florida (1)
- Michigan (1)
- LSU (2)
- USC (2)
Other undefeateds: #8 Boise State
Controversy: The choice of who was number two polarized much of the country. Michigan and Ohio State duked it out in a thrilling regular season finale. Both were unbeaten going in, and Ohio State won by only 3 points. Many people wanted to see a rematch for the national title. Meanwhile, Florida finished with just one loss, winning the SEC championship convincingly. Boise State finished undefeated but didn’t get a shot against the top dogs, playing their BCS bowl game against Oklahoma.
Plus-One: Assuming that Boise State’s strength of schedule would earn it an automatic bid, the plus one would work itself out quite well. The two teams with claims to the number two spot would be included, and Boise State would have a chance to play their way to a championship.
(1) Ohio State vs. (4) Boise State
(2) Florida vs. (3) Michigan
Analysis: Like 2004, this was one of the years in which a plus-one would be perfect. Including Boise State would cause some uproar from LSU and USC, but would leave very few objective observers unsatisfied. The BCS system left two seemingly deserving teams out to dry.
Conclusion: A plus-one would have neatly resolved the controversies of the BCS format without creating many of its own.
Grades: BCS: C; Plus-One: A+
2007
BCS top 5 (losses in parentheses):
- Ohio State (1)
- LSU (2)
- Virginia Tech (2)
- Oklahoma (2)
- Georgia (2)
Other undefeateds: #10 Hawaii
Controversy: In a season when nearly every potential title game participant had a blemish, the final polls saw six consecutive two-loss teams ranked numbers 2 through seven. Even eighth-ranked, one-loss Kansas and ninth-ranked, two-loss Big East Champ West Virginia could make arguments for being in the title match (albeit weak ones). Adding to the confusion was the discussion of whether a team’s status as conference champion should impact their ranking. Most of the top ten was left sitting on the outside looking in, wondering what might have been.
Plus-One: Ohio State and LSU would almost certainly have stayed 1-2 in the rankings. It’s debatable whether voters would have placed Georgia and USC, two teams many claimed to be playing the best of anyone by season’s end, in the last two slots of a plus-one. Oklahoma had as good an argument as either of those teams, maybe even better, coming off of its Big 12 Championship win over previously number 1 Missouri. Virginia Tech, having been blasted by LSU earlier in the season, might have been dropped from a plus-one foursome based on their relatively weak schedule. Lastly, undefeated Hawaii’s schedule was so remarkably weak that they couldn’t have earned a bid to the plus-one.
(1) Ohio State vs. (4) Oklahoma
(2) LSU vs. (3) Virginia Tech
Analysis: Nothing could have handled this scenario. Even an eight-team playoff would have had a hard time deciding who to include. A four-team playoff would make more parties happy, but probably also make the excluded teams all that much angrier. Guessing the top two was about as useless as guessing the top four.
Conclusion: The BCS and a plus-one were completely inept at sorting out the 2007 postseason.
Grades: BCS: C; Plus-One: C.
The Verdict
It's clear that neither the simple BCS format nor a Plus-One would be sure to give a perfect postseason every year.
Three times since the inception of the BCS have there been a clear-cut top two teams to play in the title: 1999, 2002, and 2005. In those situations, a Plus-One brings in needless controversy and devalues the accomplishment of finishing the season undefeated.
However, there were three years where a plus-one would have neatly solved the most pressing problems of the BCS. Allowing two more teams a chance at the national title was all that was necessary in 2000, 2004, and 2006.
In 2003, a plus-one wouldn't have solved all the problems of the BCS, but would have at least been a marked improvement.
The remaining three seasons (1998, 2001, and 2007) would have seen roughly the same amount of problems under a plus-one as under the BCS.
A plus-one model would, at the worst, have the same number of problems as the present BCS system. Some teams would be left complaining about being excluded, and the subjective nature of the poll would necessarily bring about controversy.
At the best, a plus-one would include all of the teams deemed most worthy, at the expense of including, on occasion, a team or two with lesser credentials. When the top two teams aren't clear-cut, the plus-one truly shines.
Every year the plus-one would annually provide an opportunity for the national champion team to definitively prove its worth on the field. That's something the BCS can't offer every year.
So, if crowning a clear national champion were the utmost goal of college football and the BCS, a plus-one would be a step in the right direction. However, given the complicated politics involved in the process, it's unlikely a change will happen any time soon.
comments (22) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
"2007
BCS top 5 (losses in parentheses):
Ohio State (1)
LSU (2)
Virginia Tech (2)
Oklahoma (2)
Georgia (2)
Other undefeateds: #10 Hawaii"
Hey, you gave Hawaii an HONORABLE MENTION... but you did NOT give my Kansas Jayhawks an honorable mention!!! That is just TRULY VILE AND PURE DISRESPECT, in my opinion :)
from 3 months ago
Hey Jimson, I DID mention your claim for Kansas's spot in the National Championship:
"Even eighth-ranked, one-loss Kansas and ninth-ranked, two-loss Big East Champ West Virginia could make arguments for being in the title match"
So there go pal, a shout-out to your Jayhawks.
3 months ago
Assuming Mack Brown did not get his way, a Cal-USC rematch would've been awesome. That was such a fantastic game in 2004 (Leinart, Bush, Rodgers, Arrington).
(1) USC vs. (4) Cal
(2) Oklahoma vs. (3) Auburn
I'm a Cal fan but USC-Texas would've been a great game also. Of course, that was before VY's first break-out Rose Bowl game.
from 3 months ago
I totally agree. You really couldn't go wrong with a four-team playoff that year.
My brother's a Cal student now and we were already Bears fans back then, but that game wasn't on TV in Florida (stupid ABC regional coverage). We got some bore-fest between Georgia Tech and Maryland, and had to keep up with the Cal-USC game by refreshing ESPN every few seconds. I couldn't believe it when I read that Rodgers' fourth down pass was incomplete!
A rematch would definitely have been amazing, but a 2004 USC-Texas game would have made the 2005 championship even more dramatic.
3 months ago
That 04 Utah team, while in conference there was nothing special that year with BYU being down, but their non conference was solid by destroying Texas A&M, North Carolina, and Arizona. Pretty good compared to what Hawaii and Boise did. That Ute team could have handled Oklahoma in my opinion. As with Auburn and USC not sure if Utah would have won but they would give those team all they could handle.
from 3 months ago
I agree with you on that. Utah completely pasted everyone they played, including Pitt in their BCS game. Their closest game was a 14 point win, for crying out loud. That was probably the best chance a BCS outsider could hope for to play for a title. I think they could have hung with anybody.
Maybe we'll get to see BYU make a run at it this year. Could be very interesting.
from 3 months ago
04 Utes would have gotten killed against Auburn or USC about like Hawaii did vs Georgia this past year. There non conferece wasn't that solid. Texasa A&M was the only one you named with a winning season with 7 wins. UNC won 6 and Arizona won 3 games... There were also only 2 teams in the MW that year with winning season besides Utah, none more than 7. Utes were pretty good that year but they can't be compared to Auburn or USC.
from 3 months ago
How about the 35-7 dismantling of Pittsburgh? Pitt may not have been as good as Auburn or USC, but Utah handled them easily, just like they handled everyone else they played.
It's fair to say that they wouldn't have been simply run over, no matter who they played. I think they would have had a decent chance to beat Oklahoma or Auburn; USC would probably have been too much for them. I just wish we could have seen the Utes play at least one top-flight opponent.
3 months ago
Great article. You give a Plus-One a try to end the speculation on which is better, increase fan interest, create better matchups and give a shot in the arm to TV ratings. The BCS commissioners seem to think the entire bowl season is just about raking in money - not the fans and not the competition.
3 months ago
good read. lots of research which helps a lot. i like the plus one format and im more old fashioned in the sense i love the bowl season. i think the bowls are a great part of college football and a treat to the players. for now the plus one could def work and provide a short term solution, and then yes a playoff can really determine a real champion. i dont kno what the right answer is because im curious if a playoff will take away from some of the drama created by the bcs.
3 months ago
Thanks for the quality and researched article. Can you take a look at a more likely version of the "PLUS 1" .
Leave all the bowls in place and
add a single National Championship games based on the final rankings AFTER the bowl games conclude.
This avoids a "playoff style" system (that they are concerned will snowball)
Lets everyone still enjoy the bowl games (and the money that they generate)
J
3 months ago
Great research, and 2006 was the reason for the season...bring on the plus -1. Great job! Great insight.
3 months ago
Great work, just like you did with Part One.
3 months ago
Good job on both of these; very thorough.
The one thing I'd caution anyone about when looking at hypothetical plus-one setups from the past is that in the final rankings before the bowls, the pollsters are lazy. They pick their #1 and #2 and let the rest kind of fall wherever it was. If we did have a plus one all these years, the matchups would not have looked exactly like this because the human voters would have voted differently.
3 months ago
ku rules
from 2 months ago
"ku rules"
omg, I know... That is why the Kansas Jayhawks WON the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP in BOTH College Football AND College Basketball, during the 2007-2008 ACADEMIC year, lolz :)
3 months ago
once again great article.
3 months ago
2007 is incorrect. with a plus 1 system there would have been no need for a break all tradition shake-up and take number 7 and make em number 2 after they had lost at home to an unranked opponent giving up 50 points less than an 100 hours earlier while 3 goes to 1 and never snaps the football while 4 goes back to 5 after beating their last 7 opponents by over 100 points. and the icing. usc goes from what 9 to 2 in the ap after that big rose bowl win over illinois who would have lost at least 5 games in the SEC. and hawaii, i can't believe you mentioned it. i don't have to expound.
it's real simple. take the top 8 and let them play new years day in the 4 big bowls. those bowls become much bigger games. take the 4 winners. flip a coin for seeding and play a plus 2 the 7th and 14th. start a new lower division and get rid of about 50 teams which don't stand a chance and stop leaving 300 million dollars on the table. the 60+ teams that are left split the money and get 5 million each. any potential deal breaking conferences will come out better. for instance the big 11 and sec and pac 10 can ditch 3 teams and still come out with more money. then bar ESPN and Gameday til they promise to quit spewing crap.
take a look at this. http://preseason.stassen.com/over-under/teams.html
the respect vs reality is way way out of bounds. ask herby.
from 3 months ago
i respect your opinion, but the purpose of these articles was not to outline an unfeasible, idealistic, completely impossible scenario like you mention. it was simply to analyze the most commonly discussed step toward a playoff-style postseason, and how it would have affected recent seasons.
if you pay attention to the premise at the beginning of the first article, i address the fact that the rankings would have been different in some seasons had a plus-one been in effect. i can't pretend to know how the polls would have changed in this situation, and neither should anyone else. as for hawaii, i only mentioned them obligatorily. i made no mention of them deserving a national championship shot.
as for your "real simple" fantasy playoff idea... keep dreaming. a shakeup that big and far-reaching couldn't even happen in a professional league like the NFL, where there is an all-powerful centralized head of the organization. the factors keeping a shakeup like you mentioned from happening are so numerous it's not even worth discussing.
3 months ago
Exellent, exellent article! :)
8 days ago
In 2003 Oklahoma lost to Kansas State, not Colorado.
from 7 days ago
Thanks, it's fixed.
write a new comment