I know this is an NFL blog, but I've done a few pieces on college football over the years, and I wanted to do a little research piece to coincide with the first college football playoff coming up soon. I have to admit right away that I'm not a huge college football fan anymore. I was really into Penn State when I was in high school and they were a yearly contender, but after attending a college that didn't have a football team (well, not a real one, anyway) and growing past college age, my interest began to fade. The decline of PSU in the early 2000's didn't help, nor did the domination by big state schools from mostly the South. When conference realignment ruined a lot of traditional rivalries and destroyed the Big East (which I know was falling apart in football, but it didn't have to ruin basketball too), I was really ready to get out.
Then the only program I still cared about ran into a bit of trouble there.... you know.... where it turned out the long-respected coordinator was a child molester, and the legendary coach claimed he didn't really know, but it's hard to see how he couldn't, and the important higher-ups claimed they didn't know but documents showed they did, and a program whose biggest source of pride was its cleanliness and avoidance of any controversy at all suddenly had THE BIGGEST GIGANTIC CLUSTERF**K MESS in recent sports history.
You may have heard of this. I think it was in the news a little bit?
Anyway, that nearly killed any remaining real interest in college football. I still paid attention here and there to the rankings, and what the results of the major bowl games were, but I didn't care. I watched as the BCS began to shift towards the SEC. I watched as the national title game rarely matched teams I wanted to see, or thought should be there. I was usually on the side of those pushing for a playoff, but I didn't really expect it to happen.
For any of you unfamiliar with the history of college football, it has long been filled with controversy over the idea of a national champion. There was no playoff until this year, there were only polls that ranked teams, and the team that ended up ranked first called themselves champion. The Associated Press poll is the first major one, and then ESPN and USA Today also have a coaches' poll that, well, polls the actual coaches of every team. Both of these polls have had plenty of controversy. People have long accused coaches of being biased to teams in their conference or region. People have also suggested that media members could be biased too. Many times, the # 1 and # 2 teams in the polls did indeed meet in a bowl, so that served as a de facto national championship game, but it never was officially called that. Disagreements between the two polls also led to times where there was no consensus; a team ranked # 2 in one poll could be ranked # 3 in the other and not get to play the top team. Conference affiliations also hurt, because certain conferences were tied into certain bowls, and couldn't match up with other teams. Most notably, the Rose Bowl had a deal with the Pac Ten and the Big Ten, where their conference winners had to meet. If a highly ranked team was from one of those conferences, they had to play there, even if there was a better match up somewhere else. This caused a lot of split national titles for polls and a lot of arguments for fans. Other major bowls like the Orange, the Sugar, and the Cotton all had various conference tie-ins as well. Again, a lot of times, there indeed was a match up that featured the two clear-cut top ranked teams - but not always.
Things got a little more complicated in the early 90's when more teams joined conferences. A lot of teams that had been independent and free to play in any bowl were now tied in to a conference. The powers that be in college football (i.e. the commissioners of the big conferences) tried to make it easier for the top 2 teams to play. After a string of years in which the Big Ten and Pac Ten would have teams miss out on a 1 vs. 2 game (we will see this when I go over the years), their commissioners finally agreed to let their teams out of the Rose Bowl if they were ranked highly enough to play in a title game. Everyone hoped this would help smooth out
Then, the commissioners and the powers came up with a plan in case the 2 major polls were still split. They created a system called the Bowl Championship Series that factored in the 2 polls, plus several other rankings. The 2 polls weighed the most, and the other rankings were mostly computer-based systems that ranked teams by a calculated series of strength of schedule and other statistics. Sounds smart, right? They had a way to deal with differences in polls while still honoring them and using them for the most part. They thought this would guarantee a good match every time.
Well, if you've paid attention to sports at all for the past 18 years, you know it wasn't that easy. The BCS ran into controversy as well when it didn't match the polls exactly. If the BCS came up with a ranking system that didn't match what people wanted, they would scream and say "FOOTBALL IS NOT DETERMINED BY COMPUTERS WHERE ARE THE HUMAN EYE TESTS RABBLE RABBLE" and so forth. I always thought it was a decent system and those people were stupid. If you wanted to just go by the polls, that doesn't always work. They can be split. If you have two teams that are obvious, then you don't even need the system at all! It was always funny to me that people would complain about the BCS in years when they didn't have two obvious teams. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SYSTEM!!!!! THE SYSTEM HELPED DETERMINE THE TOUGH CASES, NOT THE EASY ONES! If you had several teams with similar records vying for a spot, and the polls didn't agree on them, then the BCS system was there to come up with an answer. So yeah, people didn't say anything when there were 2 obvious teams, and complained when it didn't give them the match up they liked, even though that was the whole point.
Sports fans: We really are the worst!
Well, the powers caved and finally announced a four team playoff last year. Many rejoiced, and those who had been calling for a playoff for years (like me) and never thought it would happen were suddenly piqued. Of course, the moment it happened, the argument began that it should be 6 teams, or 8 , or 16. They thought they could settle the masses, but you can't. It became the new argument, even though I feel like msot of the reasonable writers were fine with 4. It is set at 4, but expanding it higher might still happen down the road. Sigh....
Side note: this is one of the things that has always bugged me about college football and its need to have some sort of champion and please everyone: it's impossible. There is no way to guarantee that there will be a specific number of teams that fit a certain level. You can never be sure how the top teams in the country will be divided. Some years, there are obvious 2 teams from top conferences that go unbeaten and everyone agrees they should be in the title game, but that's rare. Most times, there are 2-3 contenders, and then 2-3 teams a little bit below them. Sometimes there is one team way above the rest and then 2-4 teams that are hard to tell apart. Sometimes there are no standouts at all, and a big pack of teams that are good but have flaws. You never know. There are usually tiers and it's impossible to know how they will turn out. It can never be perfect. There will always be one or two teams that think they should be in, and whatever the cut off is, there will always be controversy. Some of those arguing for more teams in the playoff say that's the only way to be fair. I think that's too many. I wouldn't want a team with two losses making it in unless they were really, really good.
[and now, the real stuff]
Which brings me, finally, to the point of this post: would a playoff of 4 teams have helped clear up some things in the past? Would 6 or 8? I actually think 4 is a pretty good number. I think it's hard to say you're a true contender if you can't finish in the top five or so, and once you get past 6 teams then you start to have teams with 2 or more losses, and that seems like too much in a season with 12 games and not a lot of parity like the pros. I am, however, willing to look and see if maybe in some cases, it would be better to have more than 4. I'm going to take a look back at the past 20 years, since that's when I started really paying attention to college football, and see how a playoff would have affected each year. I'm going to list the top ten teams ranked by the AP poll each year BEFORE the bowl games, since the playoff would replace some of those, but I'll include what happened in the bowls too. Then I'll look and see if a playoff would have helped, and if so, how many teams might have been in. I hope this will give everyone an idea of how much the playoff system now should (or shouldn't) impact things.
Actually, let's go a little bit back before 1994. I know there were some contested titles in the early 90's, and even though I don't remember this era that well, I'd like to see how they are. I definitely can't go back any further than that, so let's begin.
1990
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Colorado 10-1-1 (would win Orange)
2. Georgia Tech 10-0-1 (would win Citrus)
3. Texas 10-1 (would lose Cotton)
4. Miami 9-2 (would win Cotton)
5. Notre Dame 9-2 (would lose Orange)
6. Florida State 9-2 (would win Blockbuster)
7. Penn State 9-2 (would lose Blockbuster)
8. Washington 9-2 (would win Rose)
9. Houston 10-1 (didn't play a bowl)
10. Tennessee 8-2-2 (would win Sugar)
What happened: I included this year because I remembered this was a split national title, but it's not the way I thought. Colorado won the top spot in both major polls by beating Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl. Georgia Tech finished second, but they did get the top spot in the UPI poll, which.... I don't even remember that one. So, not nearly as controversial as a split between the AP and the coaches poll.
Would a playoff have helped: Yes, it certainly looks like it. I believe there was some support for Georgia Tech to be first, but going undefeated in the ACC before Florida State joined might not have been impressive. They got sent to the Citrus Bowl, which seems like a dis. Then again, Colorado had a tie and a loss and still was ranked first. It seems like Colorado, GT, and Texas would have made a playoff. If we're going with 4 teams, then there would be a ton of controversy for that last spot, because teams 4-8 have the same record and all were major programs. Let's look because I bet some of them played each other .... Florida State lost to Miami; Miami lost to Notre Dame; Notre Dame lost to Penn State; Penn State lost to Texas; Washington lost to Colorado. Yikes. There's no easy answer there. Maybe 8 teams would be ok, but I hate to have a lot of teams with 2 losses make it. I guess Notre Dame would get in by since they did beat Miami, did not play Florida State, and their schedule was pretty impressive. Of course, as we know now, Miami ended up destroying Texas....
Yes, Colorado (beating ND, since they did anyway) versus the winner of Georgia Tech-Texas would have been nice.
Random notes: Wait, there was a time when the Blockbuster Video bowl, which has been mostly forgettable for the past 20 years, changed sponsors a million times, and is now the Russell Athletic Bowl, once had a better match up than almost all the traditional huge bowls???
1991
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Miami 11-0 (would win Orange)
2. Washington 11-0 (would win Rose)
3. Florida 10-1 (would lose Sugar)
4. Michigan 10-1 (would lose Rose)
5. Florida State 10-2 (would win Cotton)
6. Penn State 10-2 (would win Fiesta)
7. Iowa 10-1 (would tie Holiday)
8. Alabama 10-1 (would win Blockbuster)
9. Texas AM 10-1 (would lose Cotton)
10t. Tennessee 9-2 (would lose Fiesta)
10t. Nebraska 9-1-1 (would lose Orange)
What happened: Miami won the AP poll and Washington won the coaches, giving us that split title I was talking about. The Big Ten-Pac Ten agreement hurt them.
Would a playoff have helped: Probably not. What they needed was that Big Ten-Pac Ten rule to be gone, but it wasn't, so they missed a killer showdown. Miami and Washington both had stellar seasons. Miami beat fellow top tens Florida State and Penn State; Washington beat Nebraska and cruised through the Pac Ten. Florida and Michigan were good, but they both had losses, and there's a little controversy here if we went to 4 spots: Michigan was #4, but lost to #5 Florida State. Florida State lost to Florida and Miami, so they could at least say those were good losses. 6 or 8 teams wouldn't work. It seems that a title game with just the top 2 would be best.
...but then again, imagine if we had that traditional Rose Bowl match up with Washington and Michigan as a semifinal, and then had Miami and Florida in the other one. That's not quite how the numbers go, but it would have been exciting. Florida State would have a bit of a gripe, but it's not much. So a 4 team playoff would not have necessarily helped, but it might have made things more interesting. Given what actually happened in the bowls, it seems like the Miami-Washington final most likely would have been there anyway.
1992
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Miami 11-0 (would lose Sugar)
2. Alabama 11-0 (would win Sugar)
3. Florida State 10-1 (would win Orange)
4. Texas AM 11-0 (would lose Cotton)
5. Notre Dame 9-1-1 (would win Cotton)
6. Syracuse 9-2 (would win Fiesta)
7. Michigan 8-0-3 (would win Rose)
8. Georgia 9-2 (would win Citrus)
9. Washington 9-2 (would lose Rose)
10. Colorado 9-1-1 (would lose Fiesta)
What happened: We had a de facto title game after all. Undefeated Alabama beat undefeated Miami to claim all the polls.
Would a playoff have helped: Maybe. It's hard to vote for anything besides the actual title game. But 4 teams would haven't been terrible. Texas AM was also undefeated, and I get that they were ranked lower because the Southwestern conference was not great and they didn't play anyone big.... but it would have been cool to see them in there. Florida State had one loss, but it was a close one to Miami. I don't like rematches, but if FSU somehow beat Bama and made it in, that'd be worth it. 4 teams wouldn't hurt, in this case.
Random notes: Michigan had no losses but 3 ties??? I don't even....
1993
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Florida State 11-1 (would win Orange)
2. Nebraska 11-0 (would lose Orange)
3. West Virginia 11-0 (would lose Sugar)
4. Notre Dame 11-1 (would win Cotton)
5. Auburn 11-0 (didn't play bowl - ineligible)
6. Tennessee 9-1-1 (would lose Citrus)
7. Texas AM 10-1 (would lose Cotton)
8. Florida 10-2 (would win Sugar)
9. Wisconsin 9-1-1 (would win Rose)
10. Miami 9-2 (would lose Fiesta)
What happened: I remember this as a year where everyone was upset. As Sports Illustrated put it, "This is like one of those years where no one wins the lottery. No one really won the championship." Then they pointed out why every team had flaws. Notre Dame beat Florida State during the season, but lost late in the year to Boston College. They both finished with just one loss but Florida State edged Notre Dame in the polls after narrowly beating Nebraska. Notre Dame fans were pissed.
Would a playoff have helped: Absolutely. I knew about the Florida State vs. Notre Dame debate, but Nebraska and West Virginia were very good too. I forgot that Nebraska went into the Orange Bowl undefeated (but they were still ranked below one-loss FSU). West Virginia lost points for being in the Big East, I'm guessing, but that conference actually had a good year. A four-team playoff would have been great. I wouldn't want a FSU-ND rematch in the first game, but if they beat others, it would work. After Auburn (who went undefeated but was ineligible for all postseason play), there is a drop off, so no need for more than 4 teams.
1994
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Nebraska 12-0 (would win Orange)
2. Penn State 12-0 (would win Rose)
3. Miami 10-1 (would lose Orange)
4. Colorado 10-1 (would win Fiesta)
5. Florida 10-1-1 (would lose Sugar)
6. Alabama 10-1 (would win Citrus)
7. Florida State 9-1-1 (would win Sugar)
8. Texas AM 10-0-1 (didn't play in bowl - ineligible)
9. Auburn 9-1-1 (didn't play in bowl - ineligible)
10. Colorado State 10-1 (would lose Holiday)
What happened: Here's where my memory kicks in. I can say more about what happened. But what else can I say about the most infamous year in Penn State history? Once again, the Big Ten-Pac Ten agreement to only play the Rose Bowl held us from a 1 vs 2 match. Penn State could not play Nebraska, and our state argued for years over this. They were warned when they joined the Big Ten. Nebraska won the major polls but there were a few outlets that took Penn State.
Would a playoff have helped: Not really. We just needed the rule to be changed. It would be hard to pick a field for 4 teams or even 8, since there was a big drop-off after 7. After PSU and Nebraska, there were some good teams, but no one on their level. It would be hard to pick as well because of match ups - Florida State and Florida tied; Alabama lost to Florida; Miami beat Florida State but had a bad loss; Colorado lost to Nebraska but had a decent schedule.
If a 4 team playoff was implemented, I guess you could have Penn State play Colorado (to avoid the rematch in the first round) and Miami go against Nebraska (again) and it wouldn't be awful. That's probably the best playoff scenario possible.
1995
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Nebraska 11-0 (would win Fiesta)
2. Florida 12-0 (would lose Fiesta)
3. Northwestern 10-1 (would lose Rose)
4. Ohio State 10-1 (would lose Citrus)
5. Tennessee 10-1 (would win Citrus)
6. Notre Dame 9-2 (would lose Orange)
7. Colorado 9-2 (would win Cotton)
8. Florida State 9-2 (would win Orange)
9. Texas 10-1-1 (would lose Sugar)
10. Kansas State 9-2 (would win Holiday)
What happened: Once again, there was a de facto title game. Undefeated Nebraska beat undefeated Florida to claim all the polls - and repeat as number one.
Would a playoff have helped: No, there were 2 teams that were obvious to be there, and they made it. Northwestern had a nice unexpected run to the Rose Bowl, but didn't have to play Ohio State and lost to a MAC team. Ohio State was doing well until they lost to Michigan; then they fell apart. No team comes close to the top two. If there was a 4 team playoff, it would be interesting to see if they would invite two Big Ten teams who didn't play each other. The schedule wouldn't allow for that now, obviously. Tennessee was good and only lost to Florida but, yeah, I don't see a playoff helping here.
1996
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Florida State 11-0 (would lose Sugar)
2. Arizona State 11-0 (would lose Rose)
3. Florida 11-1 (would win Sugar)
4. Ohio State 10-1 (would win Rose)
5. BYU 13-1 (would win Cotton)
6. Nebraska 10-2 (would win Orange)
7. Penn State 10-2 (would win Fiesta)
8. Colorado 9-2 (would win Holiday)
9. Tennessee 9-2 (would win Citrus)
10. Virginia Tech 10-1 (would lose Orange)
What happened: This was a mess. The Big Ten - Pac Ten agreement came into play again, preventing a match of unbeaten # 1 vs. unbeaten # 2. Too bad. Florida State and Arizona State should have been the title game, but no. Instead, Florida State played Florida - even though they HAD JUST PLAYED IN THE LAST GAME OF THE SEASON. Oddly enough, the Sugar Bowl had a rematch of Florida-FSU just two years before, but at least THAT year, they tied in the regular season and so a rematch didn't seem so lame. Florida lost to FSU but stumbled into the title game anyways because Arizona State and Ohio State had to go to the Rose Bowl, and there really wasn't anyone else.
We were looking at a possible split national title, or maybe Arizona State getting dissed despite going unbeaten, but then chaos happened - both FSU and ASU lost, leaving Florida as the number one, despite losing to FSU already. It was ugly. Most pollsters claimed that if Arizona State had won, they would have given them the top spot over Florida. Instead, Florida won and claimed a pretty lame championship that didn't satisfy anyone.
Would a playoff have helped: Not really. Once again, they just needed the Big Ten - Pac Ten rule changed. This year helped it change. A playoff, however, would not have been terrible. There are 2 clear top teams, but then there are also 4 clear top teams. It drops off after that. BYU had a loss and not a strong schedule, and no one else was close to Florida or Ohio State. (Once again, Ohio State was undefeated and looking to murk up the championship race even more when they lost to Michigan in the last week.) Having Florida and Ohio State in the mix wouldn't be so bad, and real life shows they were both capable.
1997
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Michigan 11-0 (would win Rose)
2. Nebraska 12-0 (would win Orange)
3. Tennessee 11-1 (would lose Orange)
4. Florida State 10-1 (would win Sugar)
5. UCLA 9-2 (would win Cotton)
6. Florida 9-2 (would win Citrus)
7. North Carolina 10-1 (would win Gator)
8. Washington State 10-1 (would lose Rose)
9. Ohio State 10-2 (would lose Sugar)
10. Kansas State 10-1 (would win Fiesta)
What happened: This was the last year the Big Ten and Pac Ten would have the agreement, and once again, it caused problems. Michigan and Nebraska both went undefeated and in the end, we had another split national title. I should point out that Michigan were clear favorites in the AP poll and Nebraska barely won the Coaches, and many suggested that other coaches were showing favoritism to Tom Osborne, who announced his retirement beforehand. As a PSU fan, I was enraged that this time the pollsters had no problems taking a Big Ten team over an unbeaten Nebraska team, but I also thought Michigan was the much better team. Nebraska had close calls with Missouri and Colorado and then won a tight Orange Bowl 17-13. Michigan dominated a really tough Big Ten.
Would a playoff have helped: Once again, this is a case of just needing the Big Ten and Pac Ten rule to be over, but also once again, a playoff wouldn't have been terrible. Michigan and Nebraska were clearly the top 2 teams, but Nebraska struggled at times and the next 2 teams were very good too. Tennessee and Florida State only had one loss. Oddly enough, they both lost to Florida (but then Florida lost twice in the SEC to let Tennessee make the SEC championship game.) Having a Michigan-FSU game and then Nebraska-Tennessee would be a decent playoff if the 4 team rule was in. I think the fact that Michigan barely edged an unknown Washington State team in the Rose Bowl while Nebraska took down powerful Tennessee (with a senior Peyton Manning) hurt them in the Coaches poll a tad, so it would be nice to have 4 strong teams.
1998
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Tennessee 12-0 (would win Fiesta)
2. Florida State 11-1 (would lose Fiesta)
3. Ohio State 10-1 (would win Sugar)
4. Kansas State 11-1 (would lose Alamo)
5. Arizona 11-1 (would win Holiday)
6. UCLA 10-1 (would lose Rose)
7. Florida 9-2 (would win Orange)
8. Texas AM 11-2 (would lose Sugar)
9. Wisconsin 10-1 (would win Rose)
10. Tulane 11-0 (would win Liberty)
What happened: This was messy, but it made sense at the end. The Big Ten and Pac Ten were free to play in the title game for the first time, but it didn't matter. Tennessee finally went undefeated in the regular season and beat FSU, the number 2 team in all polls, for a title (ironically right after Peyton Manning left). But there was some controversy right before the end. Before the last week of the season, Tennessee, Kansas State, and UCLA were all undefeated. Kansas State was ranked higher than UCLA and there was an argument for who should be in the title game if all 3 went undefeated. This was a big topic for the last few weeks of the season.
Then, Kansas State and UCLA both lost on the last day, and suddenly there was an argument over who should be number two now. FSU, Ohio State, KSU, Arizona, and UCLA all had one loss. FSU may have benefited from their loss coming early in the season, and they got in. All the other teams had gripes. Kansas State went from potentially playing for a title to the Alamo Bowl, because most bowls had made other commitments. UCLA had to settle for the Rose, which probably knocked Arizona out of a major bowl, as they went to the Holiday. Ohio State and Wisconsin tied for the Big Ten title and did not play each other, but each had a conference loss (this time, it was Michigan State who ruined Ohio State's year). FSU did beat Florida at the end of the season, so that helped boost them up.
Would a playoff have helped: Yes indeed.... but it wouldn't necessarily clear up the controversy. Tennessee was the clear number one, but to get to 4, there would be a lot of tough decisions. I remember being so bored that FSU was getting another chance to play for a title, but looking back, they had a pretty good case to be that team. They beat always tough rivals Miami and Florida, and had good non-conference wins over USC and Texas AM as well. They lost one ACC game, which was a shock, but the ACC wasn't so terrible that year and they beat the other top teams. They should be in.
The problem is with the next 2 spots. Ohio State had been ranked number one early in the season, but that MSU loss gave them a shared title with Wisconsin, who had a similar record. They didn't play each other. They might split votes. Ohio State had a better non-conference schedule and two big wins, though, so that could help. Arizona and UCLA were ranked close, although UCLA beat Arizona and won the conference outright (their loss was non-conference) and I think they would be favored.
So maybe Ohio State and UCLA round it out, but then what about Kansas State? They were almost number one, but they lost the Big 12 Championship game to Texas AM and fell out completely. They won the Big 12 North and took down longtime powers Colorado and Nebraska, but their non-conference sked was pretty weak and they didn't win the conference. UCLA could at least claim an outright conference championship, and Ohio State could at least claim a shared one.
So then, a committee would probably go with Tennessee, Florida State, Ohio State, and UCLA, and that would have been ok. Kansas State, Arizona, and Wisconsin would have complained, but this seems like a good playoff.
1999
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Florida State 11-0 (would win Sugar)
2. Virginia Tech 11-0 (would lose Sugar)
3. Nebraska 11-1 (would win Fiesta)
4. Wisconsin 9-2 (would win Rose)
5. Alabama 10-2 (would lose Orange)
6. Tennessee 9-2 (would lose Fiesta)
7. Kansas State 10-1 (would win Holiday)
8. Michigan 9-2 (would win Orange)
9. Michigan State 9-2 (would win Citrus)
10. Florida 9-3 (would lose Citrus)
What happened: This was the first year, officially, with the BCS system. It was not really needed, though, as we had an unbeaten # 1 vs. an unbeaten # 2. Florida State beat Virginia Tech to sweep all the polls. There wasn't much controversy, although some people pushed for Nebraska, even with one loss, to be in over Virginia Tech, based on the strength of the Big 12 vs. the Big East. The BCS numbers had Nebraska closer to them than the polls did, but it didn't matter in the end.
Would a playoff have helped: Probably not. The title game was good, and had two unbeaten teams from big conferences. The Big East was ok that year, so I wouldn't hold that against VT. Nebraska was a close third, but I don't know if it's tragic that they didn't get in. Finding a fourth team would be hard. Wisconsin won the Big Ten but had a weak non-conference (including a bad loss), lost to Michigan, and didn't play Penn State. Michigan lost to Michigan State. The SEC also had a similar mess at the top as Tennessee beat Alabama but lost to Florida, who lost to Alabama twice. Alabama won the conference title, so that might have helped, but they had a bad loss and might split votes with Tennessee. Maybe this would be a year to have 6 spots and give the top 2 byes. 4 spots is rough.
2000
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Oklahoma 12-0 (would win Orange)
2. Miami 10-1 (would win Sugar)
3. Florida State 10-1 (would lose Orange)
4. Washington 10-1 (would win Rose)
5. Oregon State 10-1 (would win Fiesta)
6. Virginia Tech 10-1 (would win Gator)
7. Florida 10-2 (would lose Sugar)
8. Oregon 9-2 (would win Holiday)
9. Nebraska 9-2 (would win Alamo)
10. Notre Dame 9-2 (would lose Fiesta)
What happened: We had out first controversy with the BCS. Oklahoma was the clear number one, but the race for number two was jumbled. Miami was ranked 2 in the polls, but the BCS system placed Florida State there instead. To make matters worse, Miami had beaten Florida State during the season. People started attacking the BCS for not using the polls more and ignoring the obvious head-to-head result. What threw things even more is that right behind them was Washington, who also had just one loss, and beat Miami. It was a three-way race for number two and the BCS system gave it to Florida State based on various systems. It didn't really matter that much because Oklahoma killed FSU in the title game and swept all the polls, but Miami and Washington fans were mad.
Would a playoff have helped: Yes, this is a big event in its favor. Oklahoma was clearly the best, but since there were 3 teams vying for the next spot, a 4 team playoff would be great. I'd go with Oklahoma-Miami and Florida State-Washington to avoid (immediate) rematches, but in any case, this would be a great playoff.
2001
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Miami 11-0 (would win Rose)
2. Oregon 10-1 (would win Fiesta)
3. Colorado 10-2 (would lose Fiesta)
4. Nebraska 11-1 (would lose Rose)
5. Florida 9-2 (would win Orange)
6. Maryland 10-1 (would lose Orange)
7. Illinois 10-1 (would lose Sugar)
8. Tennessee 10-2 (would win Citrus)
9. Texas 10-2 (would win Holiday)
10. Oklahoma 10-2 (would win Cotton)
What happened: More controversy in the BCS. Much like the previous year, there was a clear cut number one, and a mess of teams trying to get number two. Miami was an easy top choice. Nebraska had been looking great all year, but lost in their final game to Colorado. Colorado then got to go to the Big 12 Championship, and won that, moving ahead of Nebraska in the polls (though they also had two losses). Oregon, with one loss, moved up to number two. The BCS system still gave the number two slot to Nebraska, however, angering people who were already pissed about the last year. Both polls had Oregon as the number two by a clean margin, but they were left out.
Would a playoff have helped: Yes, and since we already had 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 in the actual bowls, it would be easy to set up. Those are probably the top 4 teams without anyone really close. I'm almost ready to say, however, that a national title game with Miami vs. Oregon would be enough. I don't love Colorado with two losses, one of them bad, or Nebraska, who didn't even get to the conference championship game. I guess the BCS system liked Nebraska's strength of schedule way more than Oregon's, but looking at it now, it's not that bad. Oregon won a tough Pac Ten, and its only loss was to Stanford, who ended up in the top 12. Nebraska beat Oklahoma and Notre Dame, but Notre Dame wasn't that good, and they did not play Texas or Texas AM (at least Colorado beat those two). So I don't even know if a playoff would be TOTALLY needed, I think I would be ok with Miami vs. Oregon... but it would have probably helped clear some things up here.
Random notes: Maryland won the ACC? Illinois won the Big Ten? I forgot that. Also, this mess would have been avoided if Tennessee had won the SEC Championship. They would have been the clear number two in the polls (they were once Nebraska lost) and the BCS would probably favor them over everyone else besides Miami. Alas, they lost to LSU and had to go to the Citrus Bowl.
2002
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Miami 11-0 (would lose Fiesta)
2. Ohio State 11-0 (would win Fiesta)
3. Iowa 11-1 (would lose Orange)
4. Georgia 12-1 (would win Sugar)
5. USC 10-2 (would win Orange)
6. Kansas State 10-2 (would win Holiday)
7. Washington State 10-2 (would lose Rose)
8. Oklahoma 11-2 (would win Rose)
9. Texas 10-2 (would win Cotton)
10. Penn State 9-3 (would lose Citrus)
What happened: No controversy for the BCS, because it was not needed, there was a clear national title game: unbeaten Miami vs. unbeaten Ohio State. Ohio State won in overtime (questionably) and swept the polls.
Would a playoff have helped: No, there were two definite teams that needed to be in the title game, and they were. It might have been nice to see Iowa and Georgia, who had really good years, but they had losses. No one else was close. A 4 team playoff would not have been terrible, but not needed.
Random notes: It seems like every game that year was down to the wire for Ohio State, but they always pulled it out. Meanwhile, Penn State's three losses in the Big Ten all went the other way, with some shady officiating. I'd like to think there is an alternate universe (if not several) where Ohio State lost some of those games and PSU won some and maybe they were in it instead. Yes, I'm bitter. Fuck THE Ohio State University.
2003
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. USC 11-1 (would win Rose)
2. LSU 12-1 (would win Sugar)
3. Oklahoma 12-1 (would lose Sugar)
4. Michigan 10-2 (would lose Rose)
5. Texas 10-2 (would lose Holiday)
6. Tennessee 10-2 (would lose Peach)
7. Ohio State 10-2 (would win Fiesta)
8. Kansas State 11-3 (would lose Fiesta)
9. Florida State 10-2 (would lose Orange)
10. Miami 10-2 (would win Orange)
What happened: Possibly the most controversy for the BCS, this was the year that really made people push for a playoff. Oklahoma had been the runaway number one for a while, undefeated and killing everyone, but lost in the Big 12 Championship. LSU and USC, each with one loss, had been pushing for number two. Even though Oklahoma lost, they still held onto a top spot in the BCS. USC was first in the AP poll, but had to settle for the Rose Bowl. People freaked out. USC's film school made a video where Doc Brown smashed the BCS computers (I don't even want to link to this.) Nike made a shirt that had brackets pinning the winners of the Sugar and Rose bowls to have a real playoff. Talking heads demanded the BCS be revised and/or a playoff be implemented.
Oklahoma then made even more of a mess by losing again, creating a split national title. LSU officially won the BCS title, and the Coaches poll because of that, while USC remained number one in the AP poll (and several others). The BCS was supposed to prevent this, but it did not. I believe the people in charge of the BCS tweaked it a little after this to make the polls count even more, but it was not enough to satisfy everyone.
Would a playoff have helped: Well, yeah! Everyone wanted it this year. The problem here is that there were three teams with easy cases to be in, and then a lot of teams fighting for the 4th spot. It worked out that Michigan and USC met up, and Michigan was ranked 4th. But there were a lot of teams with 2 losses there with them. Michigan was 4th by BCS rankings as well, and they beat Ohio State to win a tough Big Ten. Texas didn't make the Big 12 Championship; Tennessee didn't make the SEC Championship either. I guess Michigan would be the playoff choice after all.
So yes.... if USC and LSU met after winning, that would have been great. People asked for it. They would have gotten it.
Random notes: Kansas State upsetting Oklahoma in the last week set off a lot of things. Besides messing up the title game, it meant Texas had to settle for the Holiday Bowl. This and others probably helped the BCS committee to make the BCS title game its own bowl game, increasing the number of major bowls to five.
2004
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. USC 12-0 (would win Orange)
2. Oklahoma 12-0 (would lose Orange)
3. Auburn 12-0 (would win Sugar)
4. Cal 10-1 (would lose Holiday)
5. Utah 11-0 (would win Fiesta)
6. Texas 10-1 (would win Rose)
7. Louisville 10-1 (would win Liberty)
8. Georgia 9-2 (would win Outback)
9. Virginia Tech 10-2 (would lose Sugar)
10. Boise State 11-0 (would lose Liberty)
What happened: We had a real national title game between two unbeaten teams who were ranked 1 and 2.... but we also had some questions because there was a third unbeaten that was good too. Auburn got shut out of the national title game despite going unbeaten in the SEC. That would not happen today. There were also two mid-majors that went undefeated in the regular season.
Would a playoff have helped: Auburn fans will say yes. I think it would be great here. Oklahoma wasn't that much better off, and USC was a clear number one, so having an Auburn-Oklahoma semi final would be great. The 4th spot is debatable. I like Utah going unbeaten, despite being in the WAC. They had a great offense and they deserved to play someone real. Cal and Texas had similar resumes, each losing to one of the title game participants, but their non-conference was weak and they might split votes. Imagine 4 unbeaten teams in the playoff. That's fun.
Random notes: A lot of crazy things happened. Texas edged Cal to make the Rose Bowl even though they had similar resumes, and Cal had to settle for the Holiday Bowl. It seemed like coaches felt sorry for Texas after they had a similar problem the previous year. I feel for Cal, who'd never be that close again to a major bowl. Meanwhile, Pitt got to make a major bowl for winning, through tiebreakers, a very, very watered-down Big East with only seven teams (after Miami and Virginia Tech left, and before Louisville and Cincinnati came in.) They might have been the worst major bowl team of the past 25 years. Utah making a major bowl did allow Boise State to play in the Liberty Bowl, giving that mid-major showdown two teams in the top 10, which is insane. This further convinced the BCS controllers to make the BCS game its own and have another major bowl.
2005
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. USC 12-0 (would lose Rose) *
2. Texas 12-0 (would win Rose)
3. Penn State 10-1 (would win Orange) *
4. Ohio State 9-2 (would win Fiesta)
5. Notre Dame 9-2 (would lose Fiesta)
6. Oregon 10-1 (would lose Holiday)
7. Auburn 9-2 (would lose Citrus)
8. Georgia 10-2 (would lose Sugar)
9. Miami 9-2 (would lose Peach)
10. LSU 10-2 (would win Peach)
* if you haven't noticed by now, I'm not worried about wins that were redacted later, just how things were at the time.
What happened: No controversy this year as we had an easy BCS title game between two unbeaten teams, clearly ranked one and two. Texas took down USC in a thrilling game to sweep all the polls.
Would a playoff have helped: No, this was a clear case of two teams that needed to be there and just those two. I say this as a former PSU fan who got reeled back in that year. They were good, but they weren't even close to USC or Texas. Even if they had gone undefeated, they wouldn't have made the title game. They were a distant third, and then there were no easy teams after that to get a fourth. Ohio State and Notre Dame had two losses, along with a gaggle atop the SEC. I guess Ohio State could be 4th, but that's weak.
Random notes: This time, it was Oregon falling to the Holiday Bowl after lesser teams got in major bowls. This would soon be solved.
2006
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Ohio State 12-0 (would lose BCS)
2. Florida 12-1 (would win BCS)
3. Michigan 11-1 (would lose Rose)
4. LSU 10-2 (would win Sugar)
5. Louisville 11-1 (would win Orange)
6. Wisconsin 11-1 (would win Citrus)
7. Oklahoma 11-2 (would lose Fiesta)
8. USC 10-2 (would win Rose)
9. Boise State 12-0 (would win Fiesta)
10. Auburn 10-2 (would win Cotton)
What happened: They finally made the BCS title game its own bowl, so there were now 5 major bowls. Ohio State had been the favorite all year, but Florida made it in with one loss after several other teams lost late (USC had been # 2, and Michigan had to play Ohio State). Florida then upset Ohio State to sweep the polls. There was a little controversy over who should be the number two team to go with Ohio State, but Florida was the only real choice in the end, other than a Michigan-Ohio State rematch.
Would a playoff have helped: I think so, although the top two was pretty clear. Looking back, I thought there were a lot of other teams that Florida was vying against, but really, there weren't. USC had been # 2 but lost on the last day, Michigan was also highly ranked but lost to Ohio State, and I would definitely not want a rematch after Ohio State and Michigan had just played. A lot of Big Ten fans did, but that doesn't seem right. A playoff would have made things slightly more interesting... but finding the fourth spot would be hard. I'm ok with Michigan making the playoff after losing late; they played Ohio State tough and had a good schedule. I don't know about LSU making it in with two losses; they were good, but the SEC had a lot of splits: Florida lost to Auburn; LSU lost to Auburn and Florida; Auburn lost to Arkansas and Georgia; Arkansas ended up winning the SEC West but lost to LSU and then Florida in the SEC Championship, and had another loss.
Besides that grouping of SEC West teams, you had Louisville winning a better but not great Big East and losing once; USC and Oklahoma winning conferences but with two losses; unbeaten Boise, who would go on to shock Oklahoma; and Wisconsin, who lost to Michigan and did not play Ohio State. I honestly don't know who to pick here. I might go with Boise in retrospect. In any case, I think a playoff would have at least made this look better.
Random notes: I had this weird feeling in my mind that there was a semi-recent year in which Wake Forest won the ACC. Well, this was that year.
2007
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Ohio State 11-1 (would lose BCS)
2. LSU 11-2 (would win BCS)
3. Oklahoma 11-2 (would lose Fiesta)
4. Georgia 10-2 (would win Sugar)
5. Virginia Tech 10-2 (would lose Orange)
6. USC 10-2 (would win Rose)
7. Missouri 10-2 (would win Cotton)
8. Kansas 11-1 (would win Orange)
9. Hawaii 12-0 (would lose Sugar)
10. West Virginia 10-2 (would win Fiesta)
What happened: Seems like no one wanted to win it this year. Every team that was in contention lost late. Ohio State had been number one but lost its penultimate game to Illinois. LSU then took over number one, but lost its last regular season game to Arkansas. Kansas and Missouri had surprised people in the Big 12 - Kansas was unbeaten but hadn't faced some tough teams; Missouri had one loss, then beat Kansas, then lost to Oklahoma in the Big 12 Championship. West Virginia was also in the running for a top spot, but lost their last game to fall down the list.
After this giant mess of top teams all losing at the end, we were left with Ohio State and LSU. Even though they both lost late, and LSU had two losses, they were the top 2 teams left in the polls and the BCS system, so it was them. LSU won handily to win maybe the least celebrated national title of the decade.
As Sports Illustrated said in 1993, I don't think anyone really won the championship this year.
Would a playoff have helped: Yes, but there would still be a mess at the top. Since everyone near the top lost, it might not be any easier to come up with 4 teams. This is a year in which I think I could maybe go with 8 teams, because it's hard to pick them out of a group. Ohio State probably had the best ranking after all, so they should be in. LSU had two losses, but so did everyone else, and they did win the SEC. Oklahoma did win the Big 12. I think those three are probably in.
Then it gets tough. Virginia Tech won the ACC, and its two losses were not so bad (and they avenged the one in the title game)... but the ACC... hmmmm. Missouri beat Kansas, but lost to Oklahoma twice, and then Kansas (who didn't have to play Oklahoma or Texas) made a major bowl ahead of them. Georgia had two losses and didn't play in the SEC title game; they did not face LSU or Auburn. USC shared the Pac Ten title with Arizona State (and beat them during the season) but had two losses. Hawaii made a nice run through the WAC unbeaten.
I think I would take Virginia Tech by a hair over Georgia. That would be a better top four. If it was 8, I would take Georgia, USC, probably Missouri.... actually, four teams would be fine. Georgia and USC could complain but they didn't have the numbers, and Kansas and Missouri would split some votes. The 4 team playoff should be enough to make this year better.
2008
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Florida 12-1 (would win BCS)
2. Oklahoma 12-1 (would lose BCS)
3. Texas 11-1 (would win Fiesta)
4. Alabama 12-1 (would lose Sugar)
5. USC 12-1 (would win Rose)
6. Penn State 11-1 (would lose Rose)
7. Texas Tech 11-1 (would lose Cotton)
8. Utah 12-0 (would win Sugar)
9. Boise State 12-0 (would lose Poinsettia)
10. Ohio State 10-2 (would lose Fiesta)
What happened: The BCS title game featured # 1 and # 2, and Florida beat Oklahoma to sweep the polls. There was controversy, however, in how Oklahoma got there. The Big 12 South had a complete ro-sham-bo with Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech. They all beat each other and finished with one loss. Oklahoma won the tiebreaker based on just being the highest-ranked, although Texas was right behind them had had beaten them. Texas fans were obviously upset, but what about Texas Tech, who was also tied and had beaten them? In the end, it was Oklahoma to meet Florida.
Would a playoff have helped: Yes, and this is one of the few times where I think 8 teams might work. It's impossible to sort out that 3-way tie in the Big 12, and I think all of them deserved to be there. There were several other schools who won their conferences and/or just had one loss. Throw in mid-majors but unbeaten Utah and Boise and there were a lot of good teams. I'd take the top 8 straight up. It seemed like people favored the SEC and the Big 12 way over the Pac Ten and Big Ten; if Penn State or USC went undefeated, they still might not have made it in.... or they would have and people would complain. Plus, just having Texas and Alabama would be rematches of the big two conferences. That's boring. I'm not doing this just to have Penn State in it; I doubt they would get that far. It's mostly the Texas-Oklahoma-Texas Tech thing, and Utah.
2009
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Alabama 13-0 (would win BCS)
2. Texas 13-0 (would lose BCS)
3. TCU 12-0 (would lose Fiesta)
4. Cincinnati 12-0 (would lose Sugar)
5. Florida 12-1 (would win Sugar)
6. Boise State 13-0 (would win Fiesta)
7. Oregon 10-2 (would lose Rose)
8. Ohio State 10-2 (would win Rose)
9. Georgia Tech 11-2 (would lose Orange)
10. Iowa 10-2 (would win Orange)
What happened: No controversy here as the BCS matched two powerhouse unbeaten teams ranked 1 and 2. Alabama beat Texas to sweep the polls. Interestingly, three other schools went unbeaten in the regular season, but were not close in the BCS. TCU and Boise actually ended up together in an all-mid-major, major bowl, playing the Fiesta.
Would a playoff have helped: Not really. The two top teams were pretty clear. I'd love for TCU or Cincy to have a shot, but they didn't have that much competition. They lost their bowls. Maybe Boise deserved it? But if we had four and they made it in, it wouldn't be terrible. A playoff with all-unbeatens is fun, and maybe they would have done something.
2010
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Auburn 13-0 (would win BCS)
2. Oregon 12-0 (would lose BCS)
3. TCU 12-0 (would win Rose)
4. Wisconsin 11-1 (would lose Rose)
5. Stanford 11-1 (would win Orange)
6. Ohio State 11-1 (would win Sugar)
7. Michigan State 11-1 (would lose Citrus)
8. Arkansas 10-2 (would lose Sugar)
9. Oklahoma 11-2 (would win Fiesta)
10. Boise State 11-1 (would win Vegas)
What happened: No controversy at all as the BCS set up two unbeaten power teams again. Auburn beat Oregon to sweep the polls.
Would a playoff have helped: No. Once again, there were two obvious teams. TCU went unbeaten again, but wasn't close in the BCS standings. And after that, it would be hard to select a fourth. The Big Ten had a tricky three-way tie between Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Michigan State, who all beat each other. Wisconsin got the nod, but it's tough. Stanford was good, but couldn't beat Oregon, and no one else is even close.
2011
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. LSU 13-0 (would lose BCS)
2. Alabama 11-1 (would win BCS)
3. Oklahoma State 11-1 (would win Fiesta)
4. Stanford 11-1 (would lose Fiesta)
5. USC 10-2 (didn't play bowl - ineligible)
6. Oregon 11-2 (would win Rose)
7. Arkansas 10-2 (would win Cotton)
8. Boise State 11-1 (would win Vegas)
9. Wisconsin 11-2 (would lose Rose)
10. South Carolina 10-2 (would win Citrus)
What happened: Controversy again! LSU was the runaway number one after going unbeaten and winning the SEC Championship. The race for number two, however, was a difficult choice between three major teams with one loss: Alabama, Oklahoma State, and Stanford. Poll voters and the BCS system picked Alabama, even though they had already lost at home to LSU. Everyone outside the SEC was furious. Alabama didn't even play in the conference championship, although neither did Stanford. Oklahoma State won the Big 12 outright, but suffered a bad late loss, and had to settle for the Fiesta Bowl. Then Alabama won, creating even more chaos. This stoked the fires for playoff more than ever.
Would a playoff have helped: Yes, a million times, yes! This is probably the best example of the need for a playoff, and it may have been the final straw to get the major powers in college to start leaning that way. Even though the first LSU-Alabama game was close, LSU won on the road. A rematch was just not that interesting. Oklahoma State and Stanford had flaws, but they would have been much better games to watch. A playoff would have at least let the SEC earn that rematch. LSU-Stanford and Bama-OKST would have been perfect. This is where I pretty much stopped caring.
Random notes: Ironically, it was Oregon ruining Stanford's chance for a perfect season this year. Stanford would do the same to the Ducks several times.
2012
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Notre Dame 12-0 (would lose BCS)
2. Alabama 12-1 (would win BCS)
3. Ohio State 12-0 (did not play bowl - ineligible)
4. Florida 11-1 (would lose Sugar)
5. Oregon 11-1 (would win Fiesta)
6. Georgia 11-2 (would win Citrus)
7. Kansas State 11-1 (would lose Fiesta)
8. Stanford 11-2 (would win Rose)
9. LSU 10-2 (would lose Peach)
10. Texas AM 10-2 (would win Cotton)
What happened: Not a ton of controversy as the number one and number two by a mile were matched up in the title game. Ohio State was ineligible so their unbeaten record didn't matter. Alabama had one loss and won the SEC Championship. Bama then beat unbeaten Notre Dame to sweep everything.
Would a playoff have helped: It would have made things more interesting. I can't argue with Alabama being the best team to face ND, and thus the title game made sense.... but I'd love to see more teams that were close to them. Notre Dame was unbeaten, but had a lot of close calls, and though Bama was the best of a tough SEC, they lost late, and four teams would make this more fun. Oregon had just one loss, although they didn't even make the Pac 12 Championship. Florida and Georgia would be a tough decision because Georgia beat Florida and won the SEC East, but Florida had big wins over Texas AM and LSU (both of whom Georgia didn't face), South Carolina (who beat Georgia), and Florida State, all of whom would be ranked in the top 15 before bowls. Kansas State also looked good (although they shared the conference title). I think Florida gets it by a hair, and Oregon.
Random notes: Kansas State shared the conference title even though they beat co-champ Oklahoma.... you know, Big 12, you really ought to reconsider that notion. Other conferences have this crazy idea of using head-to-head match ups. Weird, I know.
2013
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Florida State 13-0 (would win BCS)
2. Auburn 12-1 (would lose BCS)
3. Alabama 11-1 (would lose Sugar)
4. Michigan State 12-1 (would win Rose)
5. Stanford 11-2 (would lose Rose)
6. Baylor 11-1 (would lose Fiesta)
7. Ohio State 12-1 (would lose Orange)
8. South Carolina 10-2 (would win Citrus)
9. Missouri 11-2 (would win Cotton)
10. Oregon 10-2 (would win Alamo)
What happened: In the last year of the BCS, there was not much controversy in the end as number one and number two in the polls met. Florida State took down Auburn to stay unbeaten and win everything. It looked very late in the season that there might be some controversy if FSU, Alabama, and Ohio State all went unbeaten, but then OSU and Bama lost their final games, so FSU was the runaway number one, and after winning the SEC, Auburn was a fairly non-contested number two.
Would a playoff have helped: It's not completely needed, but it would make things interesting. FSU was clearly first after going unbeaten and winning the ACC, and Auburn was a good number two with one loss after winning the SEC. No one was super close to them, but a few were worth considering if there was a playoff. Michigan State won the Big Ten with one loss; Alabama looked great all year and just had that close loss at Auburn; Baylor won the Big 12 with one loss; Stanford won the Pac 12 (but had 2 losses). This might be the rare year in which 6 teams could work; give FSU and Auburn byes, and have Bama, MSU, Stanford, and Baylor in there. I think Alabama and MSU would have been in if it was 4, and that's probably ok. Auburn had one loss before narrowly beating Bama, so they were kinda close, and MSU's resume was better than Baylor's by a little.
And since we're at it, I might as well look at this year.
2014
AP Top Ten Before Bowls
1. Alabama 12-1
2. Florida State 13-0
3. Oregon 12-1
4. Baylor 11-1
5. Ohio State (almost tied for 4th) 12-1
6. TCU (right behind OSU) 11-1
7. Michigan State 10-2
8. Mississippi State 10-2
9. Ole Miss 9-3
10. Georgia Tech 10-3
What happened: In the first year of a playoff, Alabama, Oregon, Florida State, and Ohio State got those 4 spots. Baylor and TCU were upset, but they split the Big 12 title, though Baylor won their regular season match. There was a bit of controversy after the committee dropped TCU a few spots in the final week, but Ohio State dominated the Big Ten Championship to move ahead.
And now, we know that if it was just Alabama vs. Florida State... well, they both lost. The playoff was a good touch this year. (I started writing this before bowls started, and I'm finishing it right before the weekend of the title game. I think Oregon should have it, but who knows. I guess I've been rooting for them.)
---------------------------
So, let us look back at the years and get a final tally. How many years would a playoff have helped?
Years in which an 8 team playoff would help (a 4 team playoff would be ok): 2008
Years in which a 4 team playoff would definitely help: 1990, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2011
Years in which there were 2 dominant teams and/or a fairly easy choice for the title game, but a 4 team playoff would have probably helped: 2006, 2012, 2013
Years in which there were two dominant (and unbeaten) teams, but a 4 team playoff would have been ok: 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2009
Years in which there were 2 dominant teams ONLY and a 4 team playoff would have been unnecessary: 1995, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2010
That means, out of the past 24 years, I believe there were 13 years in which a playoff would have definitely or probably helped, and only 5 years where it would really hurt. The rest is debatable, but that seems like a fairly strong support of a playoff. It's not perfect, but then, college football never is. You'd love to have 4 easy choices every year, or 2, or maybe 8, but it is impossible to know how things will work out. Looking back, it was very rare that having more than 4 teams in a playoff was good, and it was also fairly rare that having more than 2 teams in a playoff was a bad idea, too. Over and over, 4 seemed like a pretty good number.
I noticed a lot of trends, too, looking back at these, that I think will be solved now. Obviously, the old rule that the Big Ten and Pac Ten had to play the Rose Bowl held both of those conferences back several times, and that's long gone. As much as I don't love the conference realignment, it does leave us with 5 major conferences and thus less clutter. Most conferences have championship games now, which means that, more often, two great teams from one conference will face each other at least once. While researching this, I found a lot of instances where two top teams from the same conference didn't even play each other (the Big Ten had this happen quite a bit). Now, for example, if Ohio State and Wisconsin/Iowa/Nebraska are both doing well, they will meet in the Big Ten title game (and if it's Ohio State and Michigan, they've already played). It's just harder now to have a bunch of unbeaten or one-loss teams from major conferences, so picking the top teams should be easier than when there were 6 or 7 conferences plus some decent mid-majors plus not everyone in a conference played the same schedule. Most of the good mid-majors have been called up by majors (I feel for Boise, BYU, Cincinnati, and UConn [well, mostly on UConn's original Big East history], but there's a chance they will get the call at some point) so finding the top teams is generally easier. It's a bit ironic that the Big 12, which was one of the first conferences to have a title game and who used that expansion to 12 teams to really strengthen themselves, is now the only one that doesn't have a title game and at least 12 members. At least they have every team play each other, which helps sort out who should be considered (even if they don't see it that way).
Also, there are now 6 major bowls, including the 2 playoff semi-finals, so that means 12 teams now get to play for a big payday. When it was just 4 bowls and 8 teams, some very good teams got left out, and then when it went to 5 bowls with the BCS title game, there were still a few times were a good team was left out. There was also a rule that one conference couldn't have more than 2 teams in major bowls, so some high-ranking teams from big conferences had to settle for smaller bowls. Now, if you finish in the top ten, you will almost certainly get a major bowl. The best mid-major is also guaranteed a spot in one of the big bowls. This is a very good development.
One last thing to note: over the past few weeks when I've been researching this, one complaint I keep hearing (besides those pushing for TCU and Baylor) is that it should go to 8 teams or even 16. As I said before, I think that's too much. Once you get past the top 4 teams, then you have teams with two or three losses. I had a conversation with a guy the other day who asked, "But why is it bad that teams with two or three losses get in? Why does it have to be unbeaten teams? In that case, teams with easy schedules win. Teams in tough conferences lose out unfairly. We don't hold the NFL to this standard. In the NFL, teams can go 9-7 and win the Super Bowl. It would be crazy if only NFL teams with one or two losses could make the playoffs. The regular season is still important, but the playoffs shouldn't be so exclusive. For basketball, the NCAA takes 72 teams, and it's often teams outside the top 20 who make it far. You could be ranked 14 at the end of the season and still be one of the hottest or best teams in the country."
First of all, college football doesn't have nearly the parity of the NFL (or college basketball, which is in a wacky place right now). The NFL is a pro league with rules for competitive balance and 8 streamlined divisions. It's absolutely not the same thing. Looking back at all these years, there were ALWAYS at least a few teams that could make it through tough conferences with two or fewer losses. Most teams have a number of easy games, and there's usually only 4 to 5 really good teams per conference. While college football may have more parity than in the past, there's still not nearly enough to think of it like the NFL. The gap between the Broncos and Raiders is much, MUCH smaller than the gap between, say, Oregon and Colorado, or Florida State and Wake Forest. If you can't go 11-2 or better, then you probably can't say you're one of the best teams in the country. There will be other teams that play tough schedules and do better than that. Let's keep it at 4 and no more.
There are still problems, and I don't think I will ever get back into college football like I once was, but I have to say that the playoff intrigued me and it is overall a very good step for the sport to take. We'll always have controversy, but the 4 team playoff seems like the fairest way to try to collect a true national champion.
No comments:
Post a Comment