Jump to content

Bowl Championship Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sackthebcs07 (talk | contribs) at 13:00, 5 December 2006 (→‎BCS controversies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is designed to pair the top two teams in college football against each other in the BCS National Championship Game with the winner being the BCS national champion. The system also selects matchups for the other prestigious BCS bowl games. The ten teams selected include the conference champion from each of the six BCS conferences plus four others ("at-large" selections). It has been in place since the 1998 season. Prior to the 2006 season eight teams competed in four BCS Bowls. The BCS replaced the Bowl Alliance (in place from 1995-1997), which followed the Bowl Coalition (in place from 1992-1994). As of the 2006-07 season, the BCS will air primarily on FOX while only the Rose Bowl will continue to be aired on ABC.

BCS bowl games

For a complete list of bowl games for the 2006-2007 season, see NCAA football bowl games, 2006-07.
File:BCS Map.PNG
A map of every university in the BCS Conferences.

In the current BCS format, four bowl games, including the National Championship Game, are considered "BCS bowl games". They are the Rose Bowl Game in Pasadena, the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, the Fiesta Bowl in Glendale, Arizona, and the Orange Bowl in Miami. In the first eight years of the BCS contract, the championship game was rotated among the four bowls; for example, the Sugar Bowl would have the national championship "weight" once every four years. Starting with the 2007 BCS, the site of the game that served as the last game on January 1 (or if January 1 fell on a Sunday, January 2) in the BCS will now serve as the host facility of the new stand-alone BCS National Championship game played on January 8 of that year, one week following the playing of the traditional bowl game which would follow the Rose Bowl with the exception of the games to be played in 2010. There are also twenty-seven non-BCS bowls.

Initial plans were for the additional BCS bowl game to be held at the site of that year's championship game, such that the additional, non-championship bowl be named after the original bowl (e.g. the Sugar Bowl when the championship is in New Orleans), and have the extra game just be called "The National Championship Game". Later, the BCS considered having cities bid to be the permanent site of the new BCS game, and to place the new game in the title rotation. In the end, the BCS opted for its original plan.

A complicated set of rules is used to determine which teams compete in the BCS bowl games[1]. Certain teams are given automatic berths depending on their BCS ranking and conference, as follows: The top two teams are given automatic berths in the BCS National Championship Game. The champions of the ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, and SEC conferences are guaranteed automatic BCS bowl appearances. The highest ranked champion of a non-BCS conference will receive an automatic berth if it is ranked in the top twelve, or ranked in the top sixteen and higher than another BCS Conference champion. A special case is made for the independent (non-conference) team Notre Dame, which receives an automatic berth if it finishes in the top eight. If there is an available spot the third-ranked team will receive an automatic berth. Again if there is another available spot, and the third-ranked team did not require an at-large berth, then the fourth-ranked team will receive an automatic berth.

After the automatic berths have been granted, the remaining berths, known as "at-large" berths, are filled from a pool of teams who are ranked in the top fourteen and have at least nine wins. The actual teams that are chosen for the at-large berths are determined by the individual bowl committees.

A final consideration is that no more than two teams from any conference may play in BCS Bowls in any year, regardless of whether they are automatic or at-large selections.

Despite the possibility of an "at-large" berth being granted to a "mid-major" conference team, this didn't happen until the 2004-05 season, when Utah received a BCS bid to play in the Fiesta Bowl, in which the Utes convincingly defeated Pittsburgh 35-7. The extra BCS game will relax requirements to give mid-major conferences better access to a BCS bowl game, possibly ahead of a higher ranked school from a major conference.

Unless their champion is involved in the BCS National Championship game, the conference tie-ins are as follows:

  • Rose Bowl - Big Ten vs. Pac-10.
  • Fiesta Bowl - Big 12.
  • Orange Bowl - ACC.
  • Sugar Bowl - SEC.

The Big East Champions are in the pool with the four at-large teams.

Using the 2005 BCS standings and the above tie-ins as an example, here is what the new system likely would have resulted in had it been in effect: [citation needed]

The pool of "at large" teams also would have included Miami (FL) and Virginia Tech from the ACC, and LSU and Auburn from the SEC. Ohio State (BCS #4), TCU (BCS #14, higher than that of ACC champion Florida State), and Notre Dame (BCS #6) would have been auto-locked into 3 of the at-large berths, with the last spot likely to have gone to Oregon due to its higher ranking than Miami (BCS #5 v. BCS #8). [citation needed]

BCS Rankings

For the portions of the ranking that are determined by polls and computer-generated rankings, the BCS uses a series of borda counts to arrive at its overall rankings. This is an example of using a voting system to generate a complete ordered list of winners from both human and computer-constructed votes. Obtaining a fair ranking system is a difficult mathematical problem and numerous algorithms have been proposed for ranking college football teams in particular. One example is the "random-walker rankings" studied by applied mathematicians Thomas Callaghan, Peter Mucha, and Mason Porter that employs the science of complex networks.

1998-99 formula

The BCS formula calculated the top 25 teams in poll format. After combining a number of factors, a final point total was created and the teams that received the 25 lowest scores were ranked in descending order. The factors were:

  • Poll average: Both the AP and ESPN-USA Today coaches polls were averaged to make a number which is the poll average.
  • Computer average: An average of the rankings of a team in three different computer polls were gathered (Jeff Sagarin/USA Today, Anderson-Hester/Seattle Times, and New York Times), with a 50% adjusted maximum deviation factor. (For instance, if the computers had ranked a team third, fifth, and twelfth, the poll which ranked the team twelfth would be adjusted to rank the team sixth.)
  • Strength of Schedule: This was the team's NCAA rank in strength of schedule divided by 25. A teams strength of schedule was calculated by win/loss record of opponents (66.6%) and cumulative win/loss record of team's opponents (33.3%). The team who played the toughest schedule was given .04 points, second toughest .08 points, and so on.
  • Losses: One point was added for every loss the team has suffered during the season. All games are counted, including Kickoff Classics and conference title games. [2]

1999-2000 formula

Five more computer rankings were added to the system. The new five were Richard Billingsley, Richard Dunkel, Kenneth Massey, Herman Matthews/Scripps Howard and David Rothman. The lowest ranking was dropped and the remainder averaged.

2000-01 formula

No changes were made.

2001-02 formula

In place of the NYT and Dunkel rankings, the Peter Wolfe and Wes Colley/Atlanta Journal-Constitution computer rankings were used. The change was made because the BCS wanted computer rankings that did not depend heavily on margin of victory. [3] The highest and lowest rankings were discarded, and the remainder averaged. A team's poll average, computer average, strength of schedule points, and losses were added to create a subtotal.

In addition, a Quality Win component was added. If a team beat a team which was in the top 15 in the BCS standings, a range of 1.5 to .1 points was subtracted from their total. Beating the #1 ranked team resulted in a subtraction of 1.5 point, beating the #2 team resulted in a deduction of 1.4 points, and so on. Beating the #15 ranked team would have resulted in a deduction of .1 points. A team would only be awarded for a quality win once if it beat a Top 10 team more than once (such as in the regular season and a conference championship game), and quality wins were determined using a team's current subtotal, not the ranking when the game was played. The subtotal ranks were used to determine quality win deductions to create a team's final score.

2002-03 formula

The BCS continued to purge ranking systems which included margin of victory, causing the removal of the Matthews and Rothman ratings. Sagarin provided a BCS-specific formula that did not include margin of victory, and the New York Times index returned in a form without margin of victory considerations. In addition, a new computer ranking, the Wesley Colley Matrix, was added. [[4]] The lowest ranking was dropped and the remaining six averaged.

In addition, the quality win component was modified such that the deduction for beating the #1 team in the BCS would be 1.0, declining by 0.1 increments until beating the 10th ranked team at 0.1. Teams on probation were not included in the BCS standings, but quality win points were given to teams who beat teams on probation as if they were ranked accordingly in the BCS.

2003-04 formula

No changes to the formula were made. However, selection criteria for bowls were changed slightly.

2004-05 formula

In response to the controversy regarding the split national championship between USC and LSU, and criticism that human polls were not weighted more than computer rankings, the formula was completely rewritten.

  • AP Poll: A team's AP Poll number is the percentage of the possible points it could receive in the poll. As an example, in the final regular-season poll of 2003, LSU received a total of 1,580 out of a possible 1,625 points from the voters, giving them an AP Poll percentage of 97.2.
  • Coaches' Poll: This is calculated in the same manner as the AP Poll number. For LSU, their final regular-season number in this poll would have been 96.3 (1,516 out of 1,525 possible points).
  • Computer Average: The BCS used six ranking systems, with the New York Times opting not to participate. In the calculation, the highest and lowest ranking for each team are dropped. Then, it will give a team 25 points for a Number 1 ranking in an individual system, 24 points for Number 2, and so on down to 1 point. Each team's set of numbers is then added, conveniently making the number compatible with the percentages from the two polls. To address concerns about loss of the schedule strength factor, the description of the computer rankings explicitly included schedule strength as a consideration.

For USC, dropping their highest and lowest computer rankings would have left them with four third-place finishes, worth 23 points each for a total of 92, while LSU would have had four second-place finishes for a total of 96. The BCS averaged the three numbers obtained above, divided the result by 100, and converted it to a decimal fraction. This system placed twice as much emphasis on human polls than computer rankings, and made it highly unlikely that the top team in both human polls would be denied a place in the title game, as it happened in 2003-04.

2005-06 formula

The BCS formula for 2005-06 was the same as in the 04-05, except that the Harris Interactive College Football Poll replaced the AP poll. [5] [6] The Harris Interactive College Football Poll's maximum point value was 2,825 [7] and for the Coaches' Poll, it was 1,550.

2006-07 formula

There was no change to the formula for this season, although the maximum point value of the Harris Poll was 2,850 and the USA Today/Coaches' Poll was 1,575.

BCS controversies

Among the criticism of the BCS (and the bowl system in general) is the fact that the final ranking of Division I-A NCAA football teams is decided by arbitrary and subjective standards. Opponents of the current system believe that the “champion” of the largest and most popular collegiate sport should be decided on the field, in a head-to-head match-up. The BCS was especially criticized and deemed controversial in both the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 seasons. In 2003, five teams (three from BCS conferences) finished the regular season with one loss, with no unbeaten team, while in the following season, the same number of teams (again with three from BCS conferences) finished the regular season unbeaten. In both seasons, the three teams from BCS conferences had legitimate cases for playing in the BCS title game. Most recently, additional controversy has come from the decision by the Associated Press to prohibit the BCS from using their rankings in the BCS formula, and by ESPN choosing to remove itself from the USA Today coaches poll.

Much of the controversy stirred by the BCS arises simply from the fact that there is a single national championship game. As such, the formulas must be used to determine which two teams are the most deserving teams to play for the national championship. In some minds, the two top teams in the nation are not always clear-cut choices. The most recent year in which there were only two undefeated Division I-A teams at the end of the regular season was 2006, when Ohio State and Boise State both finished the regular season undefeated.

Another criticism of the system is that it is often accused of institutionalized bias towards the six BCS conferences (and Notre Dame, which is independent) at the deliberate expense of the five non-BCS conferences. Since its implementation, five non-BCS conference Division I-A teams have finished the regular season undefeated (Tulane in 1998, Marshall in 1999, Utah in 2004, and Boise State in 2004 and 2006) without being given an opportunity to win the title, making it difficult (the AP title may be awarded to any team that the nationwide pollsters feel is best in the nation) for a non-BCS conference team to compete for the national title regardless of their achievements on the field. (In fact, Marshall, despite being ranked #11 that year, was in danger of not going to ANY bowl game if they had lost the MAC Championship.) It has sometimes been claimed that this was done deliberately in order to prevent a repeat of an event like Brigham Young's controversial national title in 1984 and that the larger conferences felt that their dominance was being threatened. It is also believed that this bias is designed to adversely affect recruitment to non-BCS schools in favor of BCS schools, intended to create a qualitative downward spiral and a de facto "two-tier" Division I-A.

Some of the more prominent smaller conference schools, such as Louisville and Cincinnati have switched into BCS conferences primarily in order to avoid this bias. It should be noted, however, that non-BCS schools often play much easier schedules, which is often cited as the reason for not admitting non-BCS schools to BCS bowls and/or the BCS Championship Game. Non-BCS programs are encouraged to schedule quality non-conference opponents in order to strengthen their schedules. However, several top non-BCS programs, particularly Bowling Green and Boise State, have attempted to do so and have been expressly refused a matchup the year after they finished highly ranked by top BCS conference programs. For example, BGSU sought a matchup against Big Ten opponents and Boise State sought opponents in the Pac 10, but both schools were unsuccessful in scheduling schools from these conferences.[citation needed]

1998-99 season

The first year of the BCS ended in controversy when Kansas State finished third in the final BCS standings but was passed over for participation in BCS bowl games in favor of Ohio State (ranked 4th) and Florida (ranked 8th). The following season, the BCS adopted the "Kansas State Rule," which provides that the 3rd ranked team (or 4th ranked team if the 3rd ranked team has already qualified as a conference champion) in the final BCS standings is ensured of an invitation to a BCS bowl game.

The following season, Kansas State finished 6th in the BCS standings but again received no invitation, this time being passed over in favor of Michigan (ranked 8th). Kansas State's predicament (as well as that of undefeated Tulane who was denied a BCS bid because they played in Conference USA) demonstrated early on the arbitrary nature of invitations to BCS bowl games.

2000-01 season

One-loss Florida State was chosen to play undefeated Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl for the national championship, despite their one loss coming to a Miami Hurricanes team that was ranked #2 in both human polls. Florida State lost to Oklahoma 13-2, after Florida State was finally able to score on a safety with minutes to go in the game. As a result of the controversy, the BCS was tweaked in the off-season. A "quality-win" bonus was added to the formula, giving extra credit for beating a top ten team.

2001-02 season

In another controversial season, second-ranked Nebraska in the BCS was chosen as a national title game participant despite being ranked #4 in the human polls and not playing in the Big 12 championship game or winning their conference or division. The Huskers went into their last regularly scheduled game at Colorado undefeated, but left Boulder with a 62-36 loss. The Buffaloes went on to win the Big 12 championship game. However, the BCS computers don't take into account time of loss, so one-loss Nebraska came out ahead of two-loss Colorado and one-loss, second-ranked Oregon. Nebraska beat Colorado for the #2 spot in the BCS poll by .05 points. Chants of "Number Four!" were heard throughout the title game held at the Rose Bowl. Nebraska was routed in the game, 37-14, by the Miami Hurricanes. Meanwhile Oregon, the consensus #2 team in both human polls (and #4 in the BCS), routed Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl.

2003-04 season

The 2003-2004 season aroused much controversy when three schools from BCS conferences finished the season with one loss (in fact, no I-A Division team finished the season undefeated, something that hadn't happened since 1996, two years before the advent of the BCS). The three schools in question were:

Three non-BCS schools also finished with one loss:

USC was ranked #1 in both the AP and ESPN-USA Today Coaches poll, but was burdened by a collective 2.67 computer ranking due to an extremely weak schedule. Meanwhile Oklahoma, after an undefeated regular season was beat by Kansas State (35-7) in the Big 12 Championship Game. The loss dropped them to #3 in the human polls (while the computers still had them at #1). LSU had earned a stronger computer ranking than USC and a #2 human poll ranking, and went on to claim the BCS championship (and thus an automatic #1 ranking in the final Coaches Poll) with a 21-14 win over Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl. USC, which beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, retained its #1 ranking in the AP Poll. Oklahoma (which finished 12-2) had been eliminated from national championship contention, but the debate between LSU (13-1) and USC (12-1) was not settled, and resulted in the schools being named "co-champions" by some (the BCS lists LSU as sole champions). This incident has been considered an embarrassment for college football and the BCS in particular.[1]

2004-05 season

The 2004-2005 regular season finished with five undefeated teams for the first time since 1979. Despite having perfect records, the Auburn Tigers, Utah Utes, and Boise State Broncos were denied an opportunity to play for the BCS championship. Auburn was left out despite of having the strongest strength of schedule, a factor whose emphasis in the formula had been decreased, possibly because it caused Southern Cal's exclusion a year earlier.[citation needed] Ironically, the PAC-10, which called endlessly for that change, was harmed by it when the at-large bids were issued. The pollsters jumped the Texas Longhorns over the California Golden Bears in the final regular-season poll. Utah did become the first school outside the BCS conferences to play in a BCS bowl game; this was also controversial because they were matched against the Pitt Panthers, the three-loss Big East champion. Utah won the game 35-7.

2006-07 season

Going into the final poll, undefeated Boise State and four one-loss teams (Louisville, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida) were up for a spot against undefeated top-ranked Ohio State in the BCS National Championship game. Most fans and pundits did not consider Wisconsin, Louisville, and Boise State contenders because they played significantly weaker schedules than Florida and Michigan. Michigan lost to Ohio State by three points in its season finale but was ranked ahead of Florida going into the final ballot. Florida defeated Arkansas in the SEC Championship Game, leaving Michigan and Florida as one-loss teams who both claimed they deserved to play for the national championship against Ohio State. Controversy arose as to whether Michigan should get another chance to play Ohio State after losing the meeting in the final game of the regular season, which led to many questions as to whether the voters thought Florida was the #2 team in the nation, or if they simply did not want a rematch. Ultimately, the BCS National Championship will be a meeting between Ohio State and Florida. A mere .0101 points separated #2 Florida from #3 Michigan. This small difference was a result of the human polls (USA Today's Coaches' Poll and Harris Interactive Poll) ranking Florida above Michigan while the computer polls had the two teams tied for second. Meanwhile, Michigan will head to the Rose Bowl to face Southern California.

BCS Support

While there is substantial criticism aimed the BCS system from coaches, media and fans alike, there is also ardent support for the system. Supporters cite several key advantages that the BCS has over a playoff system. Under the BCS, a single defeat is extremely detrimental to a team's prospects for a national championship. Supporters contend that this creates a substantial incentive for teams to do their best to win every game. Under a playoff system, front-running teams could be in a position of safety at the end of the regular season and could pull or greatly reduce their use of top players in order to protect them from injuries or give them recovery time (this happens frequently in the NFL). It is even possible for a team to advantageously "tank" an end of season game if it results in a weaker team on the threshold of getting into the playoffs making the cut and taking the spot of stronger team that would have otherwise received it.[citation needed] This is very unlikely to happen in the BCS system where a team in the running for a #1 or #2 ranking at the end of the year would be nearly certain to be punished in the polls enough for a loss that the team would be eliminated from contention.

Supporters also note that while the BCS routinely involves controversy about which two teams are the top teams, other times there is a clear-cut top two; the BCS ensures these top two will play each other for the championship. For example, USC and Texas in 2005 were the only undefeated teams, and both teams had only a couple of close contests and had nearly every other game out of reach for the opponent by the second or third quarter. Under the BCS system, these two teams got to play for the championship. Before the BCS, they would likely have played two other schools, and if they both won, then there would be either two champions, or else #2 Texas would have been denied a championship despite going 13-0. With a playoff, one of the teams might have been upset before reaching the championship game by a team with two losses, resulting in a less exciting matchup. However, a playoff would have avoided a co-champion outcome.

Another reason for supporting the BCS system is that it gives a large number of teams an opportunity to finish the post season on a victory with the multitude of bowl games. Under a playoff system only one team has the opportunity to do this and with over 100 teams in the current BCS system it would take over a century for every team to experience finishing the post-season with a victory with the very unlikely assumption of victories being evenly distributed. It is, however, likely that a playoff (which would most likely involve four to sixteen teams) would still allow schools who did not make the playoffs to participate in bowl games. The BCS format system is currently scheduled to end after the 2010 season. However, there has been one extension from the 2006 season for four years, so the system could be extended again.

BCS history and schedule

1998-99 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 1998 regular season

1999-2000 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 1999 regular season:

  • Saturday, January 1, 2000 - Rose Bowl Game presented by AT&T: Wisconsin (Big Ten champion) 17, Stanford (Pac-10 champion) 9
  • Saturday, January 1, 2000 - FedEx Orange Bowl: Michigan (at-large) 35, Alabama (SEC champion) 34 (OT)
  • Sunday, January 2, 2000 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska (Big 12 champion) 31, Tennessee (at-large) 21
  • Tuesday, January 4, 2000 - Nokia Sugar Bowl, (National Championship): Florida State (BCS #1, ACC champion) 46, Virginia Tech (BCS #2, Big East champion) 29

2000-01 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2000 regular season

  • Monday, January 1, 2001 - Rose Bowl Game presented by AT&T: Washington (Pac-10 champion) 34, Purdue (Big Ten champion) 24
  • Monday, January 1, 2001 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Oregon State (at-large) 41, Notre Dame (at-large) 9
  • Tuesday, January 2, 2001 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: Miami (FL) (Big East champion) 37, Florida (SEC champion) 20
  • Wednesday, January 3, 2001 - FedEx Orange Bowl, (National Championship): Oklahoma (BCS #1, Big 12 champion) 13, Florida State (BCS #2, ACC champion) 2

2001-02 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2001 regular season

  • Tuesday, January 1, 2002 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Oregon (Pac-10 champion) 38, Colorado (Big 12 champion) 16
  • Tuesday, January 1, 2002 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: LSU (SEC champion) 47, Illinois (Big Ten champion) 34
  • Wednesday, January 2, 2002 - FedEx Orange Bowl, Florida (at-large) 56, Maryland (ACC champion) 23
  • Thursday, January 3, 2002 - Rose Bowl Game presented by AT&T (National Championship): Miami (FL) (BCS #1, Big East champion) 37, Nebraska (BCS #2) 14

2002-03 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2002 regular season

  • Wednesday, January 1, 2003 - Rose Bowl Game presented by citi: Oklahoma (Big 12 champion) 34, Washington State (Pac-10 champion) 14
  • Wednesday, January 1, 2003 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: Georgia (SEC champion) 26, Florida State (ACC champion) 13
  • Thursday, January 2, 2003 - FedEx Orange Bowl: USC (at-large) 38, Iowa (at-large) 17
  • Friday, January 3, 2003 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl (National Championship): Ohio State (BCS #2, Big Ten champion) 31, Miami (FL) (BCS #1, Big East champion) 24 (2 OT)

NOTE 1: USC and Washington State tied for the Pac-10 championship, but due to the Cougars' victory over the Trojans during the season, Washington St. was extended the automatic berth to the Rose Bowl as league champion.

NOTE 2: Iowa and Ohio State did not play each other during the season, and both finished at 8-0 in Big Ten conference play. With a better overall record as the tiebreaker (13-0 vs Iowa's 11-1), Ohio State was extended the league's automatic bid to the BCS.

2003-04 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2003 regular season

  • Thursday, January 1, 2004 - Rose Bowl Game presented by citi : Southern California (Pac-10 champion) 28, Michigan (Big Ten champion) 14
  • Thursday, January 1, 2004 - FedEx Orange Bowl: Miami (Big East champion) 16, Florida State (ACC champion) 14
  • Friday, January 2, 2004 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State (at-large) 35, Kansas State (Big 12 champion) 28
  • Sunday, January 4, 2004 - Nokia Sugar Bowl (BCS National Championship) LSU (BCS #2, SEC champion) 21, Oklahoma (BCS #1) 14

2004-05 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2004 regular season:

  • Saturday, January 1, 2005 - Rose Bowl presented by citi: Texas (at-large) 38, Michigan (Big Ten champion) 37
  • Saturday, January 1, 2005 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Utah (at-large*) 35, Pittsburgh (Big East champion) 7
  • Monday, January 3, 2005 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: Auburn (SEC champion) 16, Virginia Tech (ACC champion) 13
  • Tuesday, January 4, 2005 - FedEx Orange Bowl (National Championship): USC (BCS #1, Pac-10 champion) 55, Oklahoma (BCS #2, Big 12 champion) 19

NOTE: Utah was an automatic at-large selection as it was champion of the Mountain West Conference and ranked #6 in the final BCS standings.

2005-06 season

These BCS bowl games were played following the 2005 regular season in chronological order:

  • Monday, January 2, 2006 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: #4 Ohio State (at-large) 34, #6 Notre Dame (at-large) 20
  • Monday, January 2, 2006 - Nokia Sugar Bowl: #11 West Virginia (Big East champion) 38, #8 Georgia (SEC champion) 35
(NOTE: Due to damage to the Louisiana Superdome because of Hurricane Katrina, the game was played at the Georgia Dome in Atlanta, Georgia.)
  • Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - FedEx Orange Bowl: #3 Penn State (Big Ten champion) 26, Florida State (ACC champion) 23 (3 OT)
  • Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi (National Championship): Texas (BCS #2, Big 12 champion) 41, USC (BCS #1, Pac-10 champion) 38

BCS Bowl wins and appearances by team

Appearances School W L Pct Games
6 Florida State 1 5 .167 Lost 1999 Fiesta Bowl*
Won 2000 Sugar Bowl*
Lost 2001 Orange Bowl
Lost 2003 Sugar Bowl
Lost 2004 Orange Bowl
Lost 2006 Orange Bowl
5 Ohio State 4 0 1.000 Won 1999 Sugar
Won 2003 Fiesta*
Won 2004 Fiesta
Won 2006 Fiesta
2007 National Championship Game*
5 Oklahoma 2 2 .500 Won 2001 Orange Bowl*
Won 2003 Rose Bowl
Lost 2004 Sugar Bowl*
Lost 2005 Orange Bowl*
2007 Fiesta Bowl
5 USC 3 1 .750 Won 2003 Orange Bowl
Won 2004 Rose Bowl
Won 2005 Orange Bowl*
Lost 2006 Rose Bowl*
2007 Rose Bowl
4 Florida 2 1 .666 Won 1999 Orange Bowl
Lost 2001 Sugar Bowl
Won 2002 Orange Bowl
2007 National Chamionship Game*
4 Miami (FL) 3 1 .750 Won 2001 Sugar Bowl
Won 2002 Rose Bowl*
Lost 2003 Fiesta Bowl*
Won 2004 Orange
4 Michigan 1 2 .333 Won 2000 Orange Bowl
Lost 2004 Rose Bowl
Lost 2005 Rose Bowl
2007 Rose Bowl
3 LSU 2 0 1.000 Won 2002 Sugar Bowl
Won 2004 Sugar Bowl*
2007 Sugar Bowl
3 Notre Dame 0 2 .000 Lost 2001 Fiesta Bowl
Lost 2006 Fiesta Bowl
2007 Sugar Bowl
2 Georgia 1 1 .500 Won 2003 Sugar Bowl
Lost 2006 Sugar Bowl
2 Nebraska 1 1 .500 Won 2000 Fiesta Bowl
Lost 2002 Rose Bowl*
2 Tennessee 1 1 .500 Won 1999 Fiesta Bowl*
Lost 2000 Fiesta Bowl
2 Texas 2 0 1.000 Won 2005 Rose Bowl
Won 2006 Rose Bowl*
2 Virginia Tech 0 2 .000 Lost 2000 Sugar Bowl*
Lost 2005 Sugar Bowl
2 Wisconsin 2 0 1.000 Won 1999 Rose Bowl
Won 2000 Rose Bowl
1 Alabama 0 1 .000 Lost 2000 Orange Bowl
1 Auburn 1 0 1.000 Won 2005 Sugar Bowl
1 Boise State 0 0 N/A 2007 Fiesta Bowl
1 Colorado 0 1 .000 Lost 2002 Fiesta Bowl
1 Illinois 0 1 .000 Lost 2002 Sugar Bowl
1 Iowa 0 1 .000 Lost 2003 Orange Bowl
1 Kansas State 0 1 .000 Lost 2004 Fiesta Bowl
1 Louisville 0 0 N/A 2007 Orange Bowl
1 Maryland 0 1 .000 Lost 2002 Orange Bowl
1 Oregon 1 0 1.000 Won 2002 Fiesta Bowl
1 Oregon State 1 0 1.000 Won 2001 Fiesta Bowl
1 Penn State 1 0 1.000 Won 2006 Orange Bowl
1 Pittsburgh 0 1 .000 Lost 2005 Fiesta Bowl
1 Purdue 0 1 .000 Lost 2001 Rose Bowl
1 Stanford 0 1 .000 Lost 2000 Rose Bowl
1 Syracuse 0 1 .000 Lost 1999 Orange Bowl
1 Texas A&M 0 1 .000 Lost 1999 Sugar Bowl
1 UCLA 0 1 .000 Lost 1999 Rose Bowl
1 Utah 1 0 1.000 Won 2005 Fiesta Bowl
1 Wake Forest 0 0 N/A 2007 Orange Bowl
1 Washington 1 0 1.000 Won 2001 Rose Bowl
1 Washington State 0 1 .000 Lost 2003 Rose Bowl
1 West Virginia 1 0 1.000 Won 2006 Sugar Bowl
*Denotes BCS National Championship Game

Future schedules

Changes for 2006-07

There will be major changes in store for the 2006-07 BCS.

First, television rights will shift to FOX, while ABC will continue telecasting the Rose Bowl. Second, the addition of a BCS National Championship Game separate from the games already in the BCS will match the top two teams in the BCS rankings at the site of one of the BCS games one week after these games have been played. (For example, the new University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, which is the site of the Fiesta Bowl, will serve as the host of the 2006 championship game, which will occur in January 2007.) As such, the addition of two more "at large" teams will take place.

Another new rule states: "...one conference champion from among Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, and Western Athletic Conferences will automatically qualify to play in a BCS bowl if it is: (1) ranked among the top 12 teams in the final BCS Standings; or (2) ranked among the top 16 teams in the final BCS Standings and ranked higher than the champion of one of the conferences whose champion has an annual automatic berth in a BCS bowl."[2] In the first year with this new rule, Boise State was able to take advantage and earn a berth in the Fiesta Bowl by virtue of a 12-0 regular season and #8 ranking in the final BCS Standings. Boise State becomes the second non-BCS school (after Utah in 2004) to play in a BCS game.

2007 schedule

To be played following 2006 season.

  • Monday, January 1 - Rose Bowl Game presented by Citibank: USC (10-2, Pac-10 champion) vs. Michigan (11-1, at-large)
  • Monday, January 1 - Tostitos Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma (11-2, Big 12 champion) vs. Boise State (12-0, at-large)
  • Tuesday, January 2 - FedEx Orange Bowl: Wake Forest (11-2, ACC champion) vs. Louisville (11-1, Big East champion)
  • Wednesday, January 3 - Allstate Sugar Bowl: Notre Dame (10-2, at-large) vs. LSU (10-2, at-large)
  • Monday, January 8 - Tostitos BCS National Championship: Ohio State (12-0, BCS #1, Big Ten champion) vs. Florida (12-1, BCS #2, SEC champion)

NOTE: Boise State was an automatic at-large selection as it was champion of the Western Athletic Conference and ranked #8 in the final BCS standings.

2008 schedule

To be played following 2007 season.

  • Tuesday, January 1 - Rose Bowl Game
  • Tuesday, January 1 - Sugar Bowl
  • Wednesday, January 2 - Fiesta Bowl
  • Thursday, January 3 - Orange Bowl
  • Tuesday, January 8 - BCS National Championship (New Orleans, Louisiana)

2009 schedule

To be played following 2008 season.

  • Thursday, January 1 - Rose Bowl Game
  • Thursday, January 1 - Orange Bowl
  • Friday, January 2 - Sugar Bowl
  • Saturday, January 3 - Fiesta Bowl
  • Thursday, January 8 - BCS National Championship (Miami Gardens, Florida)

2010 schedule

To be played following 2009 season.

  • Friday, January 1 - Rose Bowl Game
  • Friday, January 1 - Sugar Bowl
  • Saturday, January 2 - Fiesta Bowl
  • Monday, January 4 or Tuesday, January 5 - Orange Bowl (NOTE: Date will depend on 2009 NFL scheduling.)
  • Friday, January 8 - BCS National Championship (Pasadena, California)

BCS Buster

The term BCS Buster refers to any team not from a BCS conference that manages to earn a spot in a BCS bowl game. With the exception of independents such as Notre Dame (who receives special consideration), it is generally more difficult for a non-BCS team to reach a BCS bowl than for a BCS conference team (see rules above), so that becoming a BCS Buster is noteworthy. Even though there have been a number of worthy teams, only one team has actually been considered by the BCS officials to be "good enough" to become a BCS Buster. The University of Utah football program became the first BCS Buster in 2004 after an undefeated season. The Utah Utes played in the 2004 Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, and beat their opponent, the Pittsburgh Panthers, 35-7.

With the addition of a fifth BCS bowl game in 2006 and the accompanying rule changes, it is now slightly less difficult to bust into the BCS. It is unclear whether or not BCS Busters will become more commonplace, but due to the rule change, in 2006 Boise State became the second BCS Buster after a 12-0 regular season and subsequent Fiesta Bowl berth.

Each season, among all the preseason picks and predictions, media members will pick their most likely BCS Buster(s). In addition to the two successful BCS Busters, recent media favorites have included, but are not limited to, Boise State in 2004, TCU at several different points over the last few years (2003, late 2005 and early in 2006), and Miami University (Ohio) late in 2003.

BCS Winning Percentage by Conference (through 2005 Season)

Conference W - L %
MWC 1 - 0 1.000
SEC 7 - 4 0.636
Big Ten 8 - 5 0.615
Pac-10 6 - 4 0.600
Big East 5 - 4 0.555
Big 12 5 - 6 0.455
ACC 1 - 7 0.125
WAC 0 - 0 0.000
Independent 0 - 2 0.000

Notes

  1. ^ BCS Football Official Website
  2. ^ Harris Interactive Poll replaces AP Poll in BCS rankings
  3. ^ Harmonson, Todd "Texas ascends to No. 1 in BCS ahead of USC" October 25, 2005 San Diego Union Tribune pD1.
  4. ^ Schecter, B. J. Trojan fans, stay calm October 24, 2005 Sports Illustrated.com

References

  1. ^ Tim Layden, Embarrassing moments in College Football (#10), SportsIllustrated.com, Aug. 2, 2006 , Accessed Aug. 2, 2006.
  2. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions" (HTML). 2006-07-31.

See also

BCS controversies

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bowl_Championship_Series&oldid=92213530"