Up until 1992, teams were simply voted upon which team was the best. Amazingly, this didnt generate that many controversies. By controversies I mean, split national championships. The teams were voted on by the media outlets Associated Press (AP), and United Press International (UPI) from 1958-1990, (the AP is still used today, but the UPI stopped in 1990).
In those years, there were 7 split championships:
1965: Alabama (AP), Michigan State (UPI)
1970: Nebraska (AP), Texas (UPI)
1973: Notre Dame (AP), Alabama (UPI)
1974: Oklahoma (AP), USC (UPI)
1978: Alabama (AP), USC (UPI)
1990: Colorado (AP), Georgia Tech (UPI)
1991: Miami (AP), Washington (Coaches)
In 1991, the CNN/USA Today Coaches poll was instituted, and they wasted no time creating controversy, voting for Washington while the AP voted for Miami.
Of course, all of these titles are legitimate. But think about how stupid it is to decide who the champion is by a vote, and not by actually playing the game. As you can see, 4/7 split titles featured teams from either the Pac-10 or Big10, something that would cause problems later. As we all know, the Rose Bowl has been a matchup of Big10 champions and Pac10 champions. Therefore, such as in 1991, Washington played Michigan in the Rose Bowl. They dominated, and so did Miami in the Orange Bowl against Nebraska. We are familiar with this system. Back then, ALL conferences had a bowl affiliation. Heres where they sent them:
SWC (see below) -- Cotton Bowl
Big 8 (see below) -- Orange Bowl
SEC -- Sugar Bowl
ACC -- Citrus bowl
Big East -- Didnt Exist
Big10 -- Rose Bowl
Pac10 -- Rose Bowl
So there was always only one game set in stone, the Rose Bowl. For example the Orange Bowl in the 1980s featured a Big8 team and the following teams:
Florida State Twice (independent, didnt join ACC until 1991)
Clemson (ACC)
LSU (SEC)
Miami three times (independent, joined Big East in 1990)
Washington (Pac-10)
Penn State (independent, didnt joing Big10 until 1993)
Arkansas (SWC)
So look at that spread of teams. Every major conference sent a team to the Orange Bowl in the 1980s alone except for the Big10 and Big East. 6/10 games featured an independent team. Lets look at the same thing for the Sugar Bowl. The SEC played there every year, and their opponents in the 1980s were:
Arkansas (SWC)
Notre Dame (independent)
Pittsburgh (independent)
Penn State (independent)
Michigan (Big10)
Nebraska twice (Big8)
Miami (independent)
Syracuse (independent)
Florida State (independent)
So we see a similar pattern for the Sugar Bowl. A wide variety of teams got sent to the Sugar Bowl to take on the SEC champions. HOW then, youre asking, with all these random matchups, did the NCAA avoid having split titles in the 1980s? Good question. Lets look at the champions of the 1980s, and who they played in their bowl game. But lets also look at who the #2 team was: (records are records entering bowl game):
1980: #1 Georgia (11-0) beat #7 Notre Dame in Sugar Bowl. #2 Florida State (10-1) lost to #4 Oklahoma in Orange Bowl.
1981: #1 Clemson (11-0) beat #4 Nebraska in Orange Bowl. #2 Georgia (10-1) lost to Pittsburgh in Sugar Bowl.
1982: #2 Penn State (10-1) beat #1 Georgia (11-0) in Sugar Bowl. This is the first time we see 1 vs 2.
1983: #4 Miami (10-1) beat #1 Nebraska (12-0) in Orange Bowl. This is considered the greatest game of all time. #2 Texas lost to #7 Georgia in the Cotton Bowl, and #3 Illinois lost to UCLA in the Rose Bowl.
1984: #1 BYU (11-0) beat UR Michigan (6-5) in the Holiday Bowl. #2 Oklahoma lost to #4 Washington in the Orange Bowl. BYU was the only undefeated team this year, and it was speculated whether they would win the title if they won. What would have happened if Oklahoma won? Washington interestingly was invited to Holiday Bowl, but declined and went to the Orange Bowl (no idea why).
1985: #3 Oklahoma (10-1) beat #1 Penn State (11-0) in Orange Bowl. #2 Miami (10-1), who beat Oklahoma earlier in the year, lost to #8 Tennessee in Sugar Bowl.
1986: #2 Penn State (11-0) beat #1 Miami (11-0) in the Fiesta Bowl. This is the second time weve seen #1 vs #2.
1987: #2 Miami (11-0) beat #1 Oklahoma (11-0) in the Orange Bowl. Make it the third time.
1988: #1 Notre Dame (11-0) beat #3 West Virginia (11-0) in the Fiesta Bowl. #2 Miami (10-1) beat #6 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl.
1989: #2 Miami (10-1) beat #7 Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. #1 Colorado (11-0) lost to #4 Notre Dame (10-1) in the Orange Bowl. #3 Michigan (10-1) lost to #8 USC in the Rose Bowl.
So in total, #1 and #2 by chance met 3 times out of 10 in the bowl games. Before I go any further, what happened in 1990 and 1991 that led to split titles???
1990: #1 Colorado (10-1-1) beat #5 Notre Dame (9-2) in the Orange Bowl Bowl. #2 Georgia Tech (10-0-1) beat Nebraska (9-2) in the Citrus Bowl. Miami was #3 going into the bowl game. They beat #4 Texas 46-3 in the Cotton Bowl. This is the absolute craziest season Ive come across, and it breaks down basically like this. Colorado had to play in the Orange Bowl. GT had to play in the Citrus Bowl, so that doomed a 1 vs 2 matchup. Miami and ND were independents, and could go wherever they wanted. Georgia Tech ended up being the only team without a loss. Despite not being ranked #1 all year, they jumped Colorado in the UPI ratings by one point. In addition to all this madness, remember that Colorado won a game on 5th down (vs Mizzou), and should have lost to Notre Dame in the Fiesta Bowl if not for an imaginary clip on a Raghib Ismail punt return. Colorado will go down as one of the worst teams to win the title, (despite the efforts of Eric Bienemy), and the 1990 season is the craziest. Please read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_NCAA_Division_I-A_football_season
1991: #1 Miami (11-0) beat #11 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl 22-0. #2 Washington (11-0) beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl. This was just a perfect example of two teams clearly being the best, going undefeated, and not meeting because of the contractual makeup of the bowls.
I want to say a few things here quickly. There wasnt any split champions in the 1980s because there was some great system the NCAA thought up that prevented it. There were no split titles because the NCAA got lucky. Downright lucky. We saw that only 3/10 years featured a 1 vs 2 matchup. Those 3 years (82, 86, 87), we can forget about. Also, UGA was consensus #1 in 1980, Clemson in 81, ND in 88 too, so forget about those years. The rest of the years, 83, 84, 85, 89 could have all ended in split titles. Four out of 10 could have ended in split titles very easily.
May not sound like a lot, but remember that there were only 7 in 33 years, so 4/10 would raise the rate even more. Heres how:
1983: What if Texas or Illinois win their bowl game? They were ranked higher than Miami. Would they win, or would Miami leapfrog them based on their win over #1 Nebraska. If your torn on this, the voters probably would be too.
1984: This is the biggest one in my opinion. What if Oklahoma won? Would the voters really give the title to BYU over an Oklahoma team, or would they split it? Or, better question, what if BYU played Washington, or anyone for that matter other than a 6-5 Michigan team in the bowl game?
1985: Similar to 83. What if Miami won their bowl game? Youd have to give them the title based on the fact that they beat Oklahoma in the regular season, but Oklahoma had just beaten #1 Penn State.
1989: What if Michigan won the Rose Bowl? You would then have 3 11-1 teams coming off bowl wins, none having faced each other.
So as you can see, the league was lucky to have avoided split titles for the 1980s. They didnt do anything special, they just got lucky, and they knew that after several split titles in the 1970s, that change needed to be had. They bit their tongue and hoped for no controversy, and for awhile, there wasnt any. Then 1990 happened, and im 99.999% certain this led to the Bowl Coalition. If they werent already trying to fix things after 1990, they 100% were after another split title in 1991.
THE BOWL COALITION
The Bowl Coalition was the first of two predecessors to the BCS. Their idea was the same; get 1 vs 2 in a bowl game at the end of the year, and put an end to the controversy. The coalition only featured 5 conferences though; the SEC, ACC, Big East, Big 8 (same as Big12 minus the "texas's" - U of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor), and the SWC. The SWC was Baylor, Rice, U of Texas, Texas A&M, SMU, TCU, Texas Tech, and Houston. (Arkansas was in the SWC for 75 years but joined the SEC in 1991, which is why they have a rivalry with Texas). These five conferences, along with ND, would fill 6 bowl games: Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta, Gator, Sun. Kinda sounds like what we have now right? The Orange, Sugar, and Cotton would still take the Big 8, SEC, and SWC champs, unless any of them were #1 or #2.
What/Who is missing? Thats right, the Pac-10 and Big10. The coalition wanted them of course, to be released from the Rose Bowl if either team was #1 or #2, but the Tournament of Roses Board refused. Also, the Coalition doesn't include any other conferences (mid-majors). So, despite the fact that just eight years earlier, BYU won the title, the coalition basically said, sorry. If BYU were to go undefeated again, they were shit out of luck (almost like what happened to Utah in 2008, but when I say they had 0% chance, I mean 0%. Utah still could have gotten in theoretically if the craziest stuff happened to other teams).
Also, the coalition was flawed because there was a chance that an undefeated team could not play in the title game if they werent ranked #1 or #2. This is what happened to Auburn in 2005, when they were undefeated, and Texas and USC were undefeated. This did happen under the coalition in 1993. West Virginia was undefeated, but ranked third, behind a one loss Florida State team. Florida State beat Nebraska in the Orange Bowl, won the title, and W. Virginia lost to Florida in the Sugar Bowl.
Before we mention what happened in the 3 year history of the coalition, it is important to note that all those teams that were independent became parts of conferences. This obviously helped generate revenues for the conferences, and then the conferences becoming part of the coalition generated revenue. If Miami stayed independent, they wouldnt be able to play in the title game under the rules of the coalition, and thus, they joined a conference. Here are all the other teams to join, and when:
Pitt, 1990
Syracuse, 1990
Miami, 1990
Rutgers, 1990
Va Tech, 1990
West Virginia, 1990
Florida State, 1991
S. Carolina, 1991 (was in the ACC before, not an independent)
Penn State, 1992
So those are some big names. In particular, Penn State and Miami combined for 5/10 titles in the 1980s. The Big East didnt even exist until 1991-1992, the same year the coalition began. Perhaps I was wrong earlier, and they started planning on this coalition before the 1990 season. I find it very strange that for years these teams were independent, and then all of a sudden, at the same time, they decide to join conferences. Notre Dame is obviously still independent, but were protected under the coalition.
So here is how the title games went:
1992: #2 Alabama (12-0) beat #1 Miami (11-0) in the Sugar Bowl.
1993: #1 Florida State (11-1) beat #2 Nebraska (11-0) in the Orange Bowl (more on this later)
1994: #1 Nebraska (12-0) beat #3 Miami (11-0) in Orange Bowl
So you can guess what happened. Im sure youre all saying, i thought it was supposed to be #1 vs #2, why is Miami #3 and in there? What happened was, Penn State was #2 and undefeated in 1994. They joined a conference, but I guess they joined the wrong one, cause remember, the Big10 was not part of the coalition. They went on to play Oregon in the Rose Bowl, kicked their ass, and were out of luck because the Big10 was not part of the coalition. Also, Nebraska was really good that year, undefeated themselves, so no one voted for Penn State in the final polls (something well see later with Michigan in 1997). They had no chance to play Nebraska, and no one voted for them. If Miami beat Nebraska, they probably would have split champs, something they wanted to avoid, (again, we do see it in 1997). I feel this is the #1 reason why the coalition failed.
Another reason is what happened in 1993. As mentioned before, W. Virginia went undefeated and wasnt invited to the title, cause they werent ranked #1 or #2. In the end, Florida State was the champion, and Notre Dame finished ranked #2. But guess what, Notre Dame beat Florida State during the regular season. Notre Dame lost the week after that game to Boston College, and never recovered in the polls. Sit down and think about all that information. Is this really a good way to determine the champion? It still just boiled down to who people voted for! Yes, in the end, we saw #1 play #2 in the Orange Bowl. BUT, #1 and #2 were determined by votes. West Virginia got screwed, and Notre Dame got screwed. Just like Miami in 2000..how can you put in Florida State when Miami beat them head to head? How could you put Florida State in over ND when ND beat them head to head? It still just came down to people voting for #1 and #2.
Wikipedia points out a few other reasons why the coalition broke up. The SWC was breaking up after 1995. This would mean that one of the conferences locked into the big six bowl games would no longer exist. We know what happens, they do break up, and Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor and Texas Tech go and join the Big 8 and make it the Big12, and the other schools go wherever; some make the Mountain West, some C-USA. They also mention that Notre Dame deteriorated in quality. They went 6-4-1 in 1994 and still was invited to the Fiesta Bowl. While I dont think this was a major and maybe not even a minor reason to why the coalition stopped, it is interesting. What if Notre Dame did have a sub .500 season, would they still get invited? Its an interesting thought, but it never happened. The coalition failed. Therefore, in 1995, we get:
THE BOWL ALLIANCE
The same thing here. They want #1 vs #2 in a title game. The conferences involved were the SEC, BIG12, ACC, Big East, and 2 at-large teams for a total of 6 teams. So, the main difference between the alliance and the coaliton was: 1) the SWC and Big 8 combined and thus eliminated 1 team, 2) the alliance consisted of only 3 bowls, and they didnt care where the runners-up of each conference went, and 3) notre dame would have to qualify as an at-large, and was not guaranteed anything.
Whats missing? Ill give you a clue....its the same thing that was missing last time. NO PAC 10 or BIG 10!!! The only changes were they kicked ND out, combined the SWC and Big8 (which they had to since the SWC ceased to exist), and got rid of some bowls. They didnt address the main problem! If you built a skyscraper, and didn't build it to withstand earthquakes, then an earthquake came and knocked it down, how would you rebuild it? What the coalition did was rebuild it, still not to withstand earthquakes, but put solar panels on the roof and smaller antennas...shit that was irrelevant to the major problem. This would come back to bite them in the ass.
The three bowls were the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Fiesta Bowl. Heres how they played out:
1995: #1 Nebraska beat #2 Florida in the Fiesta Bowl. They beat em 62-24, its not even close, Nebraska is consensus #1. A two year old could have told you that they were the best team that year.
1996: #3 Florida beat #1 Florida State in the Sugar Bowl. They beat em 52-20, should be consensus champs right? Well theres a problem here. Again, if youre astute, you should notice that this game didn't include #2. #2 was Arizona State. They lost to #4 Ohio State in the Rose Bowl (classic game w/ Musburger). On top of that, Florida State beat Florida in the final game of the regular season, hence, why they were #1. So they played twice, split the outcomes, and they just decided that Florida was better. Again, Ill ask the question, what if Arizona State won, (not far fetched since they were winning with 90 seconds left). They would be #1 in the polls. But, they wouldnt have won this made up title game....the alliance got lucky..this time.
1997: #2 Nebraska beat #3 Tennessee in the Orange Bowl. Now you're really seeing things right? No #1? Well, Michigan was #1 this year, and they beat #8 Washington State in the Rose Bowl. This time, they couldnt ignore the results of the Rose Bowl. The AP voted Michigan #1, and Nebraska was the Alliance's champion by virtue of winning the title game. Boom, split champions. The first since 1991, the first under the coalition or the alliance.
If youre keeping score at home, the coalition and alliance combined for 6 years, and had controversy in 4 of them. Only twice, when the teams were clear cut the best was there not controversy: 92, undefeated Bama, and 95, undefeated Nebraska. All other four years there was the controversy that I already talked about. Thats not a very good ratio.
In addition to all the reasons I talked about above, there was one more big reason the alliance failed. BYU went 13-1 and was ranked #5 in the polls after the regular season. This was not a flash in the pan either, we all know that BYU is a perennial powerhouse (remember, they won the title in 84). We also know that #1 played #3 in the Orange Bowl, and #2 played #4 in the Rose Bowl. That means that BYU is now the highest ranked team left, and there are two bowls in the Alliance, a total of four spots for them to pick BYU. Well, really two, because they needed to pick the Big12 champion and the Big East Champ. #6 Nebraska (at-large) played #10 Virginia Tech (Big East Champ) in the Orange Bowl. For the at-large bids, the Fiesta Bowl took #7 Penn State (at large) and #20 Texas (Big 12 Champ) in lieu of BYU. (Sidenote: dont ask me why the Big10 could still send teams to the Alliance's bowls, but just not the championships.
There must have been some compromise? The Tournament of Roses board must not have wanted to release the Pac-10/Big-10 champs, but didnt care about the other teams in the conference. The Big10 was not part of the alliance, but nevertheless, Penn State played in the Fiesta Bowl. If anyone knows more about this, lemme know).
THus the BCS was born. How did they get the Pac-10 and Big-10 teams? I would assume that the Big-10 and Pac-10 commissioners pressured the Tournament of Roses Association (TRA) because not being involved could lead to one of their teams being slighted. The TRA was worried about money of course, and they reached a compromise that a Big10/Pac10 team would go to the title game if they are #1 or #2. In return, the Rose Bowl becomes part of the rotation of bowls to host the championship game, and they get to keep their 4 PM EST, or whatever, time slot on January 1st, (this didnt happen for the title games; 2001 Miami vs Nebraska or 2005 Texas vs USC...and this year will be the first year that the Rose Bowl stadium will host two post season games; the Rose Bowl, and the National Championship game). There was talk that if either a Big-10 or Pac-10 team left, or other teams played in the Rose Bowl for the title, that this would ruin the tradition. That is up for debate, but since the BCS came about, it has happened 4 times.
In 2001, it was the Rose Bowls turn to host the title game, and it was Nebraska vs Miami. Under old rules, it would have been Oregon vs Illinois. Oregon won the Fiesta Bowl over Colorado, and Illinois lost to LSU in the Sugar Bowl
In 2002, Ohio State was #2, and invited to play in the title game against Miami, in which they won. Oklahoma replaced them, and played Washington State in the Rose Bowl, OK won 34-14. Ironically, there was a "rose bowl east" that year, with atlarge USC dismantling atlarge Iowa in the Orange Bowl 38-17.
In 2004, USC was #1, and went to the Orange Bowl to kick Oklahoma's ass. The Rose Bowl selected Texas to replace them, and Texas beat Michigan. This would be the most controversial selection of the Rose Bowl. California was 10-1, ranked #4 going into the final week, and if selected, would preserve the tradition of the Rose Bowl. Despite beating Southern Miss the final week, Texas mysteriously jumped Cal and found themselves selected. Many blame Mack Brown for lobbying to the voters to select him, and I am part of the many. Cal went on to lose to Texas Tech in the Holiday Bowl.
In 2005, the title game was again held at the Rose Bowl, and it featured USC vs Texas. Penn State went south to beat Florida State in the Orange Bowl.
Since then, the BCS has added another game, a title game separate from the other four bowl games. There has not been a break of tradition since then. So out of the 11 years, there have been 4 break ups of the Rose Bowl, but all to make a #1 vs #2 title game. Would this have worked under old rules? Ignore the controversies of who is #1 and #2 for now, which we will talk about later. Lets look at the title matchups, and see if they would have been possible.
Lets assume it was 1980 the whole time, and all the teams were with original conference affiliations. Well be generous, and say that every time an independent qualified, they were in fact matched up with the #1 or #2 team if they were affiliated with a bowl (even though we know this wasnt always the case):
1998: Tennessee would be in the Sugar Bowl, and lets say they then took IND Fla. State
1999: Florida State and Virginia Tech were both independents, and this wouldnt have been possible.
2000: Oklahoma would be in the Orange Bowl, and again, say they took IND Fla. State
2001: Nebraska would be in the Orange Bowl, and again, say they took IND Miami.
2002: Ohio State would play in the Rose Bowl, and they couldnt play Miami, this would be impossible
2003: LSU would be in the Sugar Bowl, and Oklahoma would be in the Orange Bowl, therfore, impossible to get #1 vs #2.
2004: USC would have to play in the Rose Bowl, and Oklahoma in the Orange, not possible.
2005: USC would have to play in the Rose Bowl, and Texas in the Orange, not possible
2006: Ohio State would play in the Rose Bowl, and Florida in the Sugar, not possible.
2007: Ohio State would play in the Rose Bowl, and LSU in the Sugar, not possible.
2008: Florida would play in the Sugar, and Oklahoma in the Orange, not possible.
So, out of the last 10 years, if we were using the conference and bowl affiliations of the 1980s, we would have #1 play #2 a total of 3 times at BEST. This would be 1999, 2001, and 2002, all based on the fact that those bowls would take Miami and Florida State as an independent. Sound like a familiar number? It should, because in the 1980s, there was a matchup of #1 vs #2 a total of 3 times as well. Seems like that just might be the number you get when you randomly do it. Instead, since 1999, #1 has played #2 100% of the time. I think we can all thank the BCS for that. No one is arguing that the idea of the BCS is right, its just that its execution is not always right. In particular, the voting of #1 and #2 is sometimes, ehh, a bit off.
Lets do a quick review of teams that have gotten screwed big time, as you know most of them:
In 2000, Miami beat Florida State, yet Florida State was selected over them in the title game.
Miami beat Florida in the Sugar Bowl, FSU lost to Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl.
In 2001, Colorado beat Nebraska, winning the Big12 North title in the process. Nevertheless, the Rose Bowl took Nebraska, who then lost to Miami. Oregon beat Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl.
In 2003, Oklahoma lost to Kansas State in the Dr. Pepper Big 12 Championship game. Despite not winning their conference, they were picked to play USC. (Why Not!?!?! Nebraska didnt even win their division and they made it!!!) USC was ranked #1 in the polls, but not in the BCS....hmmmm, dont ask me how that happens. Oklahoma lost (a trend you should notice). This led to, for the only time under the BCS, split titles.
In 2004, Auburn went undefeated, but only finished ranked #3. This was because there were 2 other undefeated teams ranked ahead of them: USC and Oklahoma. Utah also went undefeated, and finished #6. Utah beat Pitt in the Fiesta Bowl, and Auburn beat Va. Tech in the Sugar Bowl. Oklahoma lost (again).
In 2006, Boise State went undefeated, but was not invited to the title game. They beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.
In 2007, Hawaii went undefeated, but was not invited to the title game. They lost to UGA in the Sugar Bowl.....btw, Oklahoma lost to West Virginia.
In 2008, Oklahoma made the Big12 title game over Texas, despite Texas beating Oklahoma. Oklahoma subsequently lost to Florida in the title game.
And those are just for the title games! There have been countless incidents of teams not getting invited to the BCS at all, such as the Cal 2004 incident I mentioned. Also, in 2007, Mizzou went 12-1, and didnt make the BCS, but Kansas (11-1) and Illinois (9-3) did make the BCS. Whats so special about that? Well, Mizzou beat both of them that year, oops!
More importantly though, and why congress somehow got involved, is why mid-major teams have been excluded from the BCS in past years. Teams from non-BCS conferences can make a BCS game if it fulfills one of the following criteria:
The highest ranked champion of a non-BCS conference will be selected if:
1. They are ranked in the top 12 in the BCS
2. They are ranked in the top 16 and ranked higher than a BCS conference champion
Also--- out of the five conferences that are non-BCS, only one team can make the BCS, hence the "highest ranked champion". This also explains why Boise State didnt make the BCS last year; Utah was ranked higher.
This was not always the case though. In fact, look at the teams that would have qualified under these rules:
1998: Tulane went 11-0, finishing 11th in the BCS, and 7th in the AP.
1999: Marshall went 12-0, finishing 12th in the BCS, and 10th in the AP.
2000: TCU went 10-1, finishing 14th in the BCS. They were ranked ahead of #17 Purdue, the Big10 Champions. Also, Notre Dame received an at-large bid this year, which they used to get their ass kicked by Oregon State. They were 9-2 and 11th in the BCS. Notre Dame has a slot in the BCS if they win 9 games. (Wikipedia says if they finish in the top 8? Anyone verify this? I always thought it was 9 games and theyre in, but I could be wrong).
2003: Miami (OH) went 10-1, finishing 11th in the BCS, and 10th in the AP.
2005: TCU went 11-1, finishing 14th in the BCS. This is ahead of #22 Florida State, the ACC champions.
Those are just teams that would have qualified. There is then the case of 2005 Utah, 2006 Boise State, 2007 Hawaii, and 2008 Utah. So every year since the BCS began, except for 2001 and 2002, there was an eligible/should have been a non-BCS conference team in the BCS.
So why is there such hesitation to include these teams? Why was there such reluctance initially, and even now, a thought of whether to include Utah in the title game?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Let me break it down for you. Every year, the 6 BCS conferences get 18 million dollars each. They get an additional 4.5 million if 2 teams make the BCS instead of one. Thats the conference, and they disburse it evenly. So yes, every year, no matter what, Duke gets 1.5 million dollars (18 million / 12 teams). So every year that the Big10 has gotten 2 teams in, Indiana has made 2.045 million dollars (22.5 million / 11 teams). Guess what, you know how they just added that additional BCS game to bring a grand total to 5? That means 2 more teams, that means 9 million more dollars. Cha-CHing.
Other notes about money: Notre Dame makes 1.3 million dollars a year just for playing. period. If they make a BCS bowl, they receive 4.5 million dollars. Unlike teams in conferences, they dont have to share it with anyone.
9.5 Million goes to all the other conferences. If one team from them makes a BCS game, as Utah did last year, another 9.5 million is paid out to all five conferences. Think about that. Theyre paying more money, yes, but its to five conferences, not one. The Sun Belt benefits when Utah makes the BCS. If they broke down that 9.5 million across the 51 teams in the other 5 conferences, then each team would make $186,000/yr. This occurred the 7 years that a mid-major didnt make the BCS. On the 4 years that a team did, the figure obviously doubled to $372,000. So every year Iowa State make 1.5 million, and on the best years, TCU makes $372,000. Read more about this here: http://www.bcsfootball.org/id/7212064_37_1.pdf
So when they say congress is looking into it, or a playoff system was brought before the house, its not because a bunch of white haired men are sitting around complaining that Miami got screwed in 2000. Its not because Nebraska made it over Colorado in 2001. Its about how they can make the most money. I should have mentioned something important. The money that the BCS conferences get is real, and it is revenue. It doesn't fall out of the sky. They generate revenue from selling everything, including tickets. They dont want other schools/conferences, (smaller ones), to be part of their sharing (revenue-sharing).
Here are the options:
They let the Mountain West become a BCS conference. (fill in any conference, using MWC as an example). The Mountain West doesnt generate as much revenue as the 6 BCS conferences. They dont bring in enough revenue, yet, they still get an equal sized piece of the pie at the end of the year. The champion goes to a BCS game, and they get, whatever....(the 18 million adjusted would mean that they would get 15.42 million). That means that all the other BCS conferences would get 15.42 million. This is also assuming that the MWC would generate 0 dollars, which obviously isnt true. The point is, is that they WONT generate 18 million, or above average of the BCS conferences. Therefore, the 6 BCS conferences, dont want to share with them. They will never allow it.
Option 2 is a playoff. Now, you have to figure out a whole new way to pay teams for making the bowl games. Lets say they had a 32 team playoff (unrealistic). And the breakdown of the top 32 teams was like this:
ACC -4
Big12 -6
BIG10 - 6
SEC - 7
Pac10 - 4
BigEast -3
WAC - 1
MT West - 2
C-USA - 1
How would you pay those teams? How would you pay those conferences? What about the MAC and the Sun-Belt? Also, teams get more money for making better bowls, even the non-bcs ones. For example, you make more money for making the Citrus Bowl than you do for making the New Orleans Bowl. So, would you no put all these first round games in bowls, and pay them all the same amount? Then if they advance, pay them more? Then they advance again, and pay them more? I dont think so.
Heres the point. From a money standpoint, the BCS is perfect. They have it figured out. And because money is the final word, the BCS will not change anytime soon.
I think now you can understand the BCS and the history a little more. Now next time this comes up at your local bar or friends place, you can talk about it without seeming like a total idiot. I cant really say whether I want a BCS or a playoff as a fan... its really a discussion for another time, but I will briefly state what I feel.
Gun to my head, someone says pick, I say keep it the way it is.
The BCS is flawed, but its the best system we have, and I dont know if a playoff improves it.
I understand that every other sport settles things based on a playoff. Football isnt every other sport. It is physical, violent, and dangerous. You can't play bi-weekly like basketball, and you cant play 50 games like baseball. Its different. You cant expect a college football playoff to work cause a college basketball playoff works.
Since the ideal format would limit the amount of teams to 8, then what about the 9th team? Now are we including the 6 champions, and then 2 at larges? What if at-large #3 is better than the ACC champion? Thats not fair. What if we say, no, were just gonna take the best eight teams. Then, again, theres an argument between #8 and #9, and, what if say the Big East and the Pac-10 dont have any teams in the top 8? Then do they not get any money that year? How does that work? A field of 16 or more teams is unrealistic, because as I said, youre adding 4+ more weeks to a season thats only 12 weeks to begin with.
Also, Im a traditionalist. I love the history of college football (otherwise I wouldnt have spent all day writing this). If we let more than two teams compete for the title, it diminishes the importance of big games and rivalry games during the year. For example, the SEC championship would not have mattered at all last year. #1 Alabama played #2 Florida, and if there were an 8 team playoff, it woudlnt have mattered who won, they both would have made the playoff. Then there would be talk to if they were gonna rest Tebow, take it easy, try to win, who do they want to play, getting the #1 overall seed, and all this stupid stuff instead of whos gonna win and go on to play in the title game. There are tons of these games throughout the year. In a sick joke of course, the Texas Oklahoma game seemed to be one of those games, and Texas won, all for it to not matter. In college basketball, Duke plays UNC twice in the regular season, maybe once more in the ACC, and maybe even once more in the big dance. If Duke beats UNC on January 21st, it means absolutely nothing. If they beat em in the ACC tournament, it usually means nothing (unless one of the teams needed to win to become eligible), it only matters once you get to the tournament. With a BCS tournament, we would see the same sort of attitude.
On the other hand, I do feel bad for Utah. They were basically given no chance to win the title. They won every game, including beating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, and instead two 1-loss teams played for the title. Do I think Utah would have beaten Florida? No...but they deserved the chance. However, there isnt a rule in the BCS that a non-BCS team cant make the title. What if Boise State runs the table this year? Theyre starting ranked higher than Utah was last year, and they play Oregon non conference. If they run the table and every other team loses at least once, will we see them? What if in three years, TCU is preseason #5, and runs the table? Certainly theyd be in the top 2, and would be invited. So its not impossible, just harder. But also, fair or not, that is the luxury and privilege that big name teams like Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Florida, Ohio State have earned over 100 years of football. They get the benefit of the doubt. Utah probably was better than Oklahoma last year, but I guess well never know. Boise State and Utah are starting to build their legacies. IN a few short years, they will be perennial contenders, and will have no problem making the title game if and when they go undefeated.
Im sorry I got sidetracked, I just meant to say, ummm, money. Thats what its all about anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment