psuexv
02-08-2012, 12:41 PM
Pretty interesting, Stewart Mandel goes back and breaks down what would have happened through the years if a 4 team playoff were in place. Most cases it seems there is controversy on the 4th team.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/08/bcs-vs-four-team-playoff/index.html
2011
BCS: No. 1 LSU (13-0) vs. No. 2 Alabama (11-1).
Controversy: The Tide get a rematch with the Tigers despite failing to win their conference, at the expense of Big 12 champion No. 3 Oklahoma State (11-1).
Playoff: No. 4 Stanford (11-1) at No. 1 LSU (13-0); No. 3 Oklahoma State (11-1) at No. 2 Alabama (11-1).
Controversy: Despite beating the Cardinal and winning the Pac-12, No. 5 Oregon (11-2) is denied a shot because of a season-opening loss to No. 1 LSU.
Better off with: A playoff. Alabama is forced to play an elite team from another conference to earn its title. Also, voters likely would have elevated Oregon to No. 4 if title stakes were at play.
2010
BCS: No. 1 Auburn (13-0) vs. No. 2 Oregon (12-0).
Controversy: No. 3 TCU (12-0) is left in the cold.
Playoff: No. 4 Stanford (11-1) at No. 1 Auburn (13-0); No. 3 TCU (12-0) at No. 2 Oregon (12-0).
Controversy: Stanford gets in at 11-1 over three Big Ten teams (Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State) with the same record.
Better off with: A playoff. The fuss over No. 4 would be heated, but much more importantly, the undefeated Horned Frogs -- who went on to beat No. 5 Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl -- get a shot at the prize.
2009
BCS: No. 1 Alabama (13-0) vs. No. 2 Texas (13-0).
Controversy: It's relatively mild, though three other teams (No. 3 Cincinnati, No. 4 TCU and No. 6 Boise State) finish undefeated.
Playoff: No. 4 TCU (12-0) at No. 1 Alabama (13-0); No. 3 Cincinnati (12-0) at No. 2 Texas (13-0).
Controversy: Why TCU but not 13-0 Boise (which wound up beating the Frogs in the Fiesta Bowl)? And what of Tim Tebow and No. 5 Florida (12-1), which wound up clobbering the overmatched Bearcats in the Sugar Bowl?
Better off with: The BCS. Alabama and Texas were clearly the two best teams. Nos. 3-6 were more muddled.
2008
BCS: No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 2 Florida (12-1).
Controversy: No. 3 Texas (11-1) beat Oklahoma head-to-head.
Playoff: No. 4 Alabama (12-1) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1); No. 3 Texas (11-1) at No. 2 Florida (12-1).
Controversy: SEC runner-up Alabama gets in over Pac-12 champ USC (11-1), while undefeated Utah (12-0) -- which would go on to stomp 'Bama in the Sugar Bowl -- still doesn't get a shot.
Better off with: Neither. A semifinal solves the maddening OU-Texas tiebreaker, but it's possible USC or Utah would have beaten any of the other four.
2007
BCS: No. 1 Ohio State (11-1) vs. No. 2 LSU (11-2).
Controversy: The Tigers emerged from a scourge of eight two-loss teams.
Playoff: No. 4 Oklahoma (11-2) at No. 1 Ohio State (11-1); No. 3 Virginia Tech (11-2) at No. 2 LSU (11-2).
Controversy: Georgia (10-2), which fell from fourth to fifth without playing, and No. 7 USC (10-2), have a beef.
Better off with: A playoff. No team stood out as particularly deserving that year, so there'd be little sympathy for any squad that got left out.
2006
BCS: No. 1 Ohio State (12-0) vs. No. 2 Florida (12-1).
Controversy: Florida surged ahead of idle Michigan (11-1) on the final weekend.
Playoff: No. 4 LSU (10-2) at No. 1 Ohio State (12-0); No. 3 Michigan (11-1) at No. 2 Florida (12-1).
Controversy: None. No. 5 USC's (10-2) argument is rendered moot by losing to 7-5 UCLA the final weekend. No. 8 Boise State (12-0) is not yet a factor.
Better off with: A playoff. This one works out pretty much perfectly.
2005
BCS: No. 1 USC (12-0) vs. No. 2 Texas (12-0).
Controversy: None.
Playoff: No. 4 Ohio State (9-2) at No. 1 USC (12-0); No. 3 Penn State (11-1) at No. 2 Texas (12-0).
Controversy: No. 5 Oregon (10-1) would be awfully curious why two-loss Ohio State was going in its place.
Better off with: The BCS. It's the rare case where two, and only two, was the right number.
2004
BCS: No. 1 USC (12-0) vs. No. 2 Oklahoma (12-0).
Controversy: No. 3 Auburn also went 12-0 ... in the SEC!
Playoff: No. 4 Texas (10-1) at No. 1 USC (12-0); No. 3 Auburn (12-0) at No. 2 Oklahoma (12-0).
Controversy: The fight for No. 4 between Texas and 10-1 Cal was contentious then; it would be tenfold now. And what of Urban Meyer-led No. 6 Utah (11-0)?
Better off with: A playoff, though it still wouldn't be pretty. At least an undefeated major-conference champion would not be left out.
NOTE: The BCS formula changed considerably prior to the 2004 season, and many of the controversies listed below stemmed from the earlier version's heavy emphasis on computer ratings.
2003
BCS: No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 2 LSU (12-1).
Controversy: No. 3 USC (11-1) finished No. 1 in both the AP and Coaches' polls, leading to a split national championship when the Trojans beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.
Playoff: No. 4 Michigan (10-2) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1); No. 3 USC (11-1) at No. 2 LSU (12-1).
Controversy: None.
Better off with: A playoff. Wasn't that easy?
2002
BCS: No. 1 Miami (12-0) vs. No. 2 Ohio State (13-0).
Controversy: None.
Playoff: No. 4 USC (10-2) at No. 1 Miami (12-0); No. 3 Georgia (12-1) at No. 2 Ohio State (13-0).
Controversy: No. 5 Iowa (11-1) finished No. 3 in both major polls. No. 6 Washington State (10-2) beat USC head-to-head and won the Pac-10's automatic berth.
Better off with: The BCS. Cut straight to the double-overtime classic.
2001
BCS: No. 1 Miami (11-0) vs. No. 2 Nebraska (11-1).
Controversy: No. 3 Colorado (10-2) crushed Nebraska 62-36 and won the Big 12 championship. No. 4 Oregon (10-1) was No. 2 in both polls.
Playoff: No. 4 Oregon (10-1) at No. 1 Miami (11-0); No. 3 Colorado (10-2) at No. 2 Nebraska (11-1).
Controversy: None.
Better off with: A playoff. Joey Harrington will be 35 by the time his team is finally vindicated.
2000
BCS: No. 1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
Controversy: No. 3 Miami (11-1) beat FSU. No. 4 Washington (10-1) beat Miami.
Playoff: No. 4 Washington (10-1) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-0); No. 3 Miami (11-1) at No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
Controversy: None.
Better off with: A playoff. Right now, my younger readers are saying to themselves: This really happened?
1999
BCS: No. 1 Florida State (11-0) vs. No. 2 Virginia Tech (11-0).
Controversy: None, though fans of No. 3 Nebraska (11-1) still swear the Huskers were the best team that year.
Playoff: No. 4 Alabama (10-2) at No. 1 Florida State (11-0); No. 3 Nebraska (11-1) at No. 2 Virginia Tech (11-0).
Controversy: Somehow an Alabama team that lost to Louisiana Tech makes the cut. Isn't that the 1999 version of Oklahoma State losing to Iowa State?
Better off with: A playoff. Michael Vick's Hokies played just one team that finished the year in the Top 25. It would have been nice to see them face another test.
1998
BCS: No. 1 Tennessee (12-0) vs. No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
Controversy: A rash of 11th-hour upsets left the 'Noles atop a cluster of four similarly accomplished one-loss teams.
Playoff: No. 4 Ohio State (10-1) at No. 1 Tennessee (12-0); No. 3 Kansas State (11-1) at No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
Controversy: Heading into Championship Saturday, undefeated UCLA is No. 2, undefeated K-State No. 3. After the Bruins lose at 8-3 Miami and 11-2 Texas A&M upsets the Wildcats, suddenly they're reversed -- and UCLA is out.
Better off with: A playoff. FSU's ascension was random (it got in by not playing), and many felt Ohio State was equally as deserving. UCLA will be ticked, but K-State doesn't get penalized for playing an extra game.
So when we total it up, a four-team playoff would have been more effective than the stand-alone title game 10 times in 14 years. That's certainly progress. But it's also true that the controversy won't fade. While there have been just three seasons (1999, 2002, 2005) in which the BCS title-game matchup was deemed universally satisfying, there were only four in which the four-team field was controversy free.
Yet with the lone exception of a clunky 2008 season, the debates we would be having over Nos. 3 and 4 would be easier to digest than some of the gross injustices that have plagued the 1 vs. 2 game.
And oh, by the way, we would have seen TCU at Oregon (2010), Michigan at Florida (2006), Auburn at Oklahoma (2004) and Oregon at Miami (2001).
Is that something you might be interested in?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/08/bcs-vs-four-team-playoff/index.html
2011
BCS: No. 1 LSU (13-0) vs. No. 2 Alabama (11-1).
Controversy: The Tide get a rematch with the Tigers despite failing to win their conference, at the expense of Big 12 champion No. 3 Oklahoma State (11-1).
Playoff: No. 4 Stanford (11-1) at No. 1 LSU (13-0); No. 3 Oklahoma State (11-1) at No. 2 Alabama (11-1).
Controversy: Despite beating the Cardinal and winning the Pac-12, No. 5 Oregon (11-2) is denied a shot because of a season-opening loss to No. 1 LSU.
Better off with: A playoff. Alabama is forced to play an elite team from another conference to earn its title. Also, voters likely would have elevated Oregon to No. 4 if title stakes were at play.
2010
BCS: No. 1 Auburn (13-0) vs. No. 2 Oregon (12-0).
Controversy: No. 3 TCU (12-0) is left in the cold.
Playoff: No. 4 Stanford (11-1) at No. 1 Auburn (13-0); No. 3 TCU (12-0) at No. 2 Oregon (12-0).
Controversy: Stanford gets in at 11-1 over three Big Ten teams (Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State) with the same record.
Better off with: A playoff. The fuss over No. 4 would be heated, but much more importantly, the undefeated Horned Frogs -- who went on to beat No. 5 Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl -- get a shot at the prize.
2009
BCS: No. 1 Alabama (13-0) vs. No. 2 Texas (13-0).
Controversy: It's relatively mild, though three other teams (No. 3 Cincinnati, No. 4 TCU and No. 6 Boise State) finish undefeated.
Playoff: No. 4 TCU (12-0) at No. 1 Alabama (13-0); No. 3 Cincinnati (12-0) at No. 2 Texas (13-0).
Controversy: Why TCU but not 13-0 Boise (which wound up beating the Frogs in the Fiesta Bowl)? And what of Tim Tebow and No. 5 Florida (12-1), which wound up clobbering the overmatched Bearcats in the Sugar Bowl?
Better off with: The BCS. Alabama and Texas were clearly the two best teams. Nos. 3-6 were more muddled.
2008
BCS: No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 2 Florida (12-1).
Controversy: No. 3 Texas (11-1) beat Oklahoma head-to-head.
Playoff: No. 4 Alabama (12-1) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1); No. 3 Texas (11-1) at No. 2 Florida (12-1).
Controversy: SEC runner-up Alabama gets in over Pac-12 champ USC (11-1), while undefeated Utah (12-0) -- which would go on to stomp 'Bama in the Sugar Bowl -- still doesn't get a shot.
Better off with: Neither. A semifinal solves the maddening OU-Texas tiebreaker, but it's possible USC or Utah would have beaten any of the other four.
2007
BCS: No. 1 Ohio State (11-1) vs. No. 2 LSU (11-2).
Controversy: The Tigers emerged from a scourge of eight two-loss teams.
Playoff: No. 4 Oklahoma (11-2) at No. 1 Ohio State (11-1); No. 3 Virginia Tech (11-2) at No. 2 LSU (11-2).
Controversy: Georgia (10-2), which fell from fourth to fifth without playing, and No. 7 USC (10-2), have a beef.
Better off with: A playoff. No team stood out as particularly deserving that year, so there'd be little sympathy for any squad that got left out.
2006
BCS: No. 1 Ohio State (12-0) vs. No. 2 Florida (12-1).
Controversy: Florida surged ahead of idle Michigan (11-1) on the final weekend.
Playoff: No. 4 LSU (10-2) at No. 1 Ohio State (12-0); No. 3 Michigan (11-1) at No. 2 Florida (12-1).
Controversy: None. No. 5 USC's (10-2) argument is rendered moot by losing to 7-5 UCLA the final weekend. No. 8 Boise State (12-0) is not yet a factor.
Better off with: A playoff. This one works out pretty much perfectly.
2005
BCS: No. 1 USC (12-0) vs. No. 2 Texas (12-0).
Controversy: None.
Playoff: No. 4 Ohio State (9-2) at No. 1 USC (12-0); No. 3 Penn State (11-1) at No. 2 Texas (12-0).
Controversy: No. 5 Oregon (10-1) would be awfully curious why two-loss Ohio State was going in its place.
Better off with: The BCS. It's the rare case where two, and only two, was the right number.
2004
BCS: No. 1 USC (12-0) vs. No. 2 Oklahoma (12-0).
Controversy: No. 3 Auburn also went 12-0 ... in the SEC!
Playoff: No. 4 Texas (10-1) at No. 1 USC (12-0); No. 3 Auburn (12-0) at No. 2 Oklahoma (12-0).
Controversy: The fight for No. 4 between Texas and 10-1 Cal was contentious then; it would be tenfold now. And what of Urban Meyer-led No. 6 Utah (11-0)?
Better off with: A playoff, though it still wouldn't be pretty. At least an undefeated major-conference champion would not be left out.
NOTE: The BCS formula changed considerably prior to the 2004 season, and many of the controversies listed below stemmed from the earlier version's heavy emphasis on computer ratings.
2003
BCS: No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1) vs. No. 2 LSU (12-1).
Controversy: No. 3 USC (11-1) finished No. 1 in both the AP and Coaches' polls, leading to a split national championship when the Trojans beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.
Playoff: No. 4 Michigan (10-2) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1); No. 3 USC (11-1) at No. 2 LSU (12-1).
Controversy: None.
Better off with: A playoff. Wasn't that easy?
2002
BCS: No. 1 Miami (12-0) vs. No. 2 Ohio State (13-0).
Controversy: None.
Playoff: No. 4 USC (10-2) at No. 1 Miami (12-0); No. 3 Georgia (12-1) at No. 2 Ohio State (13-0).
Controversy: No. 5 Iowa (11-1) finished No. 3 in both major polls. No. 6 Washington State (10-2) beat USC head-to-head and won the Pac-10's automatic berth.
Better off with: The BCS. Cut straight to the double-overtime classic.
2001
BCS: No. 1 Miami (11-0) vs. No. 2 Nebraska (11-1).
Controversy: No. 3 Colorado (10-2) crushed Nebraska 62-36 and won the Big 12 championship. No. 4 Oregon (10-1) was No. 2 in both polls.
Playoff: No. 4 Oregon (10-1) at No. 1 Miami (11-0); No. 3 Colorado (10-2) at No. 2 Nebraska (11-1).
Controversy: None.
Better off with: A playoff. Joey Harrington will be 35 by the time his team is finally vindicated.
2000
BCS: No. 1 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
Controversy: No. 3 Miami (11-1) beat FSU. No. 4 Washington (10-1) beat Miami.
Playoff: No. 4 Washington (10-1) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-0); No. 3 Miami (11-1) at No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
Controversy: None.
Better off with: A playoff. Right now, my younger readers are saying to themselves: This really happened?
1999
BCS: No. 1 Florida State (11-0) vs. No. 2 Virginia Tech (11-0).
Controversy: None, though fans of No. 3 Nebraska (11-1) still swear the Huskers were the best team that year.
Playoff: No. 4 Alabama (10-2) at No. 1 Florida State (11-0); No. 3 Nebraska (11-1) at No. 2 Virginia Tech (11-0).
Controversy: Somehow an Alabama team that lost to Louisiana Tech makes the cut. Isn't that the 1999 version of Oklahoma State losing to Iowa State?
Better off with: A playoff. Michael Vick's Hokies played just one team that finished the year in the Top 25. It would have been nice to see them face another test.
1998
BCS: No. 1 Tennessee (12-0) vs. No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
Controversy: A rash of 11th-hour upsets left the 'Noles atop a cluster of four similarly accomplished one-loss teams.
Playoff: No. 4 Ohio State (10-1) at No. 1 Tennessee (12-0); No. 3 Kansas State (11-1) at No. 2 Florida State (11-1).
Controversy: Heading into Championship Saturday, undefeated UCLA is No. 2, undefeated K-State No. 3. After the Bruins lose at 8-3 Miami and 11-2 Texas A&M upsets the Wildcats, suddenly they're reversed -- and UCLA is out.
Better off with: A playoff. FSU's ascension was random (it got in by not playing), and many felt Ohio State was equally as deserving. UCLA will be ticked, but K-State doesn't get penalized for playing an extra game.
So when we total it up, a four-team playoff would have been more effective than the stand-alone title game 10 times in 14 years. That's certainly progress. But it's also true that the controversy won't fade. While there have been just three seasons (1999, 2002, 2005) in which the BCS title-game matchup was deemed universally satisfying, there were only four in which the four-team field was controversy free.
Yet with the lone exception of a clunky 2008 season, the debates we would be having over Nos. 3 and 4 would be easier to digest than some of the gross injustices that have plagued the 1 vs. 2 game.
And oh, by the way, we would have seen TCU at Oregon (2010), Michigan at Florida (2006), Auburn at Oklahoma (2004) and Oregon at Miami (2001).
Is that something you might be interested in?