 |
|
| |
|
||||
Missing image
BowlChampionshipSeriesLogo.png Bowl Championship Series logo The BCS stands for Bowl Championship Series, a computer ranking format and bowl setup that has decided the unofficial but de facto NCAA Division I-A national football championship since 1998. The BCS has been criticized often, but was especially controversial in both the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 seasons. In 2003, five teams finished the regular season with one loss; the following season, the same number of teams finished the regular season unbeaten. In both seasons, three of the five teams had legitimate cases for playing in the BCS title game. Most recently, additional controversy has come from the decison by the Associated Press to prohibit the BCS from using the AP rankings in the BCS formula.
Formula2003-04 formulaThe BCS formula calculated the top 25 teams in a poll format. After combining a number of factors, a final point total was created and the teams who received the 25 lowest scores were ranked in descending order. The factors were:
The exact formula of how the final point total for any team was calculated was not public information, but it was known that it is derived from these factors. Some were able to guess the formula and thus predict the results before the official standings were released. 2004-05 formula
After the 2003-04 controversy (see BCS Controversy) in which the top team in the human polls (USC) was denied a place in the title game, the formula was revamped. Schedule strength, losses, and quality wins will no longer be considered as distinct components in the formula, though of course the human voters remain free to consider whatever factors they wish. Also, the exact formula has been made public information, and consists of an arithmetic average of the following three numbers:
The BCS will average the three numbers obtained above, and then divide the result by 100, converting it to a decimal fraction. The new formula will make it highly unlikely that the top team in both human polls will be denied a place in the title game, as happened in 2003-04. Bowl gamesMissing image
2005FedExOrangeBowlLogo.png FedEx Orange Bowl Missing image
NokiaSugarBowlLogo.png Nokia Sugar Bowl Missing image
RoseBowlLogo.jpg Rose Bowl Missing image
TostitosFiestaBowl.png Tostitos Fiesta Bowl For a complete list of bowl games for the 2004-2005 season, see NCAA football bowl games, 2004-05. In the current BCS format, four bowl games are considered "BCS Bowl Games". They include the Sugar Bowl, the Rose Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl, and the Orange Bowl. The bowls are played between January 1 and January 4. To accommodate the NFL schedule, BCS games are not normally played on Sunday. If possible, each game is scheduled on a different day. This will happen in the 2005-06 season; although January 1, 2006 will fall on a Sunday, the game played on that date, the Sugar Bowl, is traditionally played at nighttime in the eastern U.S., which is later than normally scheduled NFL games. Otherwise, two bowls will be played on the first game date, with one bowl on the second game date and the national championship game on January 4. Since January 2, 2005 was a Sunday, two of that season's bowls were played January 1, one was scheduled on January 3, and the national championship was played on January 4. The championship is rotated among the different bowls; for example, the Sugar Bowl will have the national championship "weight" once every four years. The national championship bowl game is forced to select the top 2 BCS-ranked teams. The winners of the 6 major conferences (Big East, ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 10) are guaranteed automatic BCS bowl appearances. One independent, Notre Dame, is also a BCS member, and is guaranteed BCS consideration (though not necessarily a BCS bowl game) if it finishes in the top 12 of the BCS rankings. If Notre Dame does not qualify for BCS consideration, but is otherwise bowl-eligible, it will be considered for Big East bowl slots; Notre Dame is a Big East member in all other sports sponsored by that conference. There are 2 "at-large" berths which can be granted either to teams in those conferences who did not win their championship or to teams belonging to mid-major conferences. Also, in theory, a team that did not win its conference could play in the national championship game. This has happened twice. In the 2003 season, Oklahoma went to the BCS title game despite being blown out in the Big 12 championship game by Kansas State. In 2001, Nebraska made the BCS title game despite not even qualifying for the Big 12 championship game. Despite the possibility of an "at-large" berth being granted to a mid-major team, this did not happen until the 2004 season, when Utah received a BCS bowl bid (the Fiesta Bowl, in which the Utes crushed Pittsburgh 35-7). The BCS bowls are required to have the top 6 BCS ranked teams in their games, but this requirement generally falls lower than the conference requirement. For example, if the 6th ranked team had to be left out for an 11th ranked team who won its major conference to be admitted, the 11th ranked would be admitted. However, if a school from a non-BCS conference finishes in the top six, the BCS bylaws require that this team receive an at-large berth to one of the current BCS games. Utah benefited from this rule in 2004. The BCS bylaws also include a provision that gives the Rose Bowl the right to preserve its traditional Big 10-Pac 10 matchup, if possible, in years when it does not host the national championship game. Starting with the 2006-07 season (the year in which the BCS starts a new television contract), a fifth BCS bowl will be added. Initial plans were for the additional BCS bowl game to be held at the site of that year's championship game, and not to include it in the title-game rotation. However, the BCS later decided to have cities bid to be the permanent site of the new BCS game, and to place the new game in the title rotation. The extra BCS game will at least theoretically give mid-majors better access to a BCS bowl game. BCS controversyThe BCS has come under fire, partly due to its existence; the formula has to determine which 2 nationwide teams are fit to be play for the national championship. Rarely is there a year where the 2 top teams in the nation are clear-cut choices. In fact, unlike the NFL, the ultimate aim of a college team is to finish the regular season undefeated. So, a college team that ends its season with an umblemished record almost guarantees a spot in the BCS championship game, while two teams would surely get the nod in the title game. One loss by any team and their fate is sure to be sealed. 2003-04 seasonThe worst year was arguably the 2003-2004 season, 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 1997, the year before the advent of the BCS). The three schools in question were: Two non-BCS schools also finished with one loss, but neither was in contention for a BCS bowl berth, much less the championship.
USC was #1 in both the AP and ESPN-USA Today Coaches poll, but had a 2.67 computer poll ranking and had the 37th ranking schedule. LSU had a #2 poll average, a 1.83 computer average, and a 29th rank of schedule. Oklahoma had a #3 poll average, a 1.17 computer average, and the 11th ranking schedule along with a quality win of .5. The final numeric averages for the teams were as follows (keep in mind anything within 1 is close)
Therefore, Oklahoma and LSU played each other in that year's title game, the Sugar Bowl, with LSU winning. The BCS was highly criticized since USC had been ranked #1 by humans but had somehow fallen to #3 in a computer average like the BCS. Since USC beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl, the writers who vote in the AP poll had the opportunity to vote USC as their national champion, which they did. However, the coaches were contractually bound to vote for the Sugar Bowl winner (LSU). Three coaches violated the agreement and voted USC #1, but all other coaches voted for LSU, giving the Tigers the other half of the national title. The BCS has also been criticized for locking out mid-major programs. Before 2004, no mid-major program had gone to a BCS bowl, and some have accused the BCS and associating bowls of having a monopoly of sorts on the top bowls. There were even congressional hearings on the issue. It would likely take a qualified mid-major program being locked out of the BCS when they were obviously deserving for this issue to be looked at more closely. With Utah making the BCS after the 2004 season, and with the addition of a fifth BCS game starting with the 2006-07 season, this may be less of an issue in the future. Some, including ESPN's Lee Corso have suggested that the BCS reincorporate margin of victory into the rankings, a factor which would have changed the 2003-2004 final rankings (had USC and Oklahoma in the championship). However, the BCS completely revamped its formula as noted previously, completely eliminating strength of schedule, losses, and quality wins, and not considering victory margin. Had the 2004-05 formula been used in the 2003-04 season, the final game would have pitted USC and LSU. While USC would have been indisputably top-ranked under the new formula, there may have been some controversy regarding the Trojans' opponent. LSU and Oklahoma would have been separated by .014. The new formula creates a situation in which an individual's vote in either poll may possibly decide who advances to the BCS title game. 2004-05 seasonThe new BCS formula, however, did not end the controversy. Unlike the previous season, in which no Division I-A team entered the bowl games unbeaten, the 2004 regular season saw five teams go unbeaten, which had not happened since 1979. Three of the five were from BCS conferences: USC and Oklahoma were both involved in the previous season's BCS controversy as two of the three BCS teams that finished the 2003 regular season with one loss. The other two were from non-BCS conferences. Although neither was generally considered to be in contention for the championship, both were possibilities for BCS bowl bids during the season: USC and Oklahoma were ranked 1-2 in both human polls in the preseason. On the other hand, Auburn began the season ranked outside of the top 15. Since poll voters are normally reluctant to drop highly-ranked teams that continue to win games, this gave Auburn a huge deficit to overcome. Going into the last regular-season games on December 4, USC had remained top-ranked in both human polls for the entire regular season by a comfortable margin, which gave the Trojans the BCS lead. Auburn had been able to close almost all of its original gap on Oklahoma by mid-November, but Oklahoma took a more substantial lead going into that day's games. On that day, USC survived a close game against rival UCLA, 29-24. This result kept USC in the top spot, and assured the Trojans of the top placing and a spot in the Orange Bowl, the season's BCS title game. In the Southeastern Conference championship game, Auburn defeated Tennessee 38-28, in a closer game than expected. Meanwhile, in the Big 12 title game, Oklahoma routed Colorado 42-3. These results caused Auburn (an unbeaten school from a BCS conference) to be shut out of the national title game, thus, the Orange Bowl matched USC and Oklahoma, two teams that respectively finished No. 1 and No. 2 in all three major polls (AP, ESPN/USA Today, and BCS). USC won that game 55-19 over the Sooners. The final outcome of all the polls could have become even more controversial if Utah, Boise State, and especially Auburn all convincingly won their games; however, this did not happen. Boise State lost in the Liberty Bowl, and Auburn gave up two fourth-quarter touchdowns to Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl to turn a comfortable 16-0 lead into a nail-biting 16-13 win. The only team outside the top two to score a convincing bowl win was Utah, which routed Pittsburgh 35-7 in the Fiesta Bowl. As for the non-BCS schools, Utah was generally believed to have a considerably stronger case for making a BCS game than Boise State. Utah's schedule was noticeably stronger than Boise State's, and no team came within two touchdowns of the Utes during their 11-0 regular season, while Boise State was pushed to overtime in one game and won by less than a touchdown in another. Utah finished sixth in the season-ending BCS standings, and became the first non-BCS team to play in a BCS bowl game since the adoption of the current system, playing in the Fiesta Bowl against Pittsburgh. This has caused further controversy due to the fact that Pittsburgh's 8-3 record is putting them in one of the top bowl games. It should be noted that Pittsburgh is in the game because it won a four-team tiebreaker for the Big East title. The Big East lost its two strongest football programs before the 2004 season when Miami and Virginia Tech left for the ACC; a slightly less strong but still highly competitive program, Boston College, will join the ACC for the 2005 season. Of the three football programs that are joining the Big East for 2005, only Louisville is currently considered to be competitive on a national level. The possibility of a second non-BCS team in the BCS games emerged on November 22. Boise State was in seventh in the BCS rankings released on that day, one place below the top-six standing that would also guarantee the Broncos a BCS game. They went on to complete an 11-0 regular season with a 58-21 win over Nevada. The best chance for Boise State to break into the BCS depended on a loss by fifth-ranked Texas against archrival Texas A&M on November 26 at home in Austin; however, Texas won the game, which kept Texas ahead of Boise State. The Broncos' chances of breaking into the BCS disappeared with the release of the November 29 BCS rankings, in which Georgia, whose season was then complete, leapfrogged past Boise State into seventh. Boise State finished ninth in the season-ending standings and played in the Liberty Bowl, losing to Louisville (which, ironically, will join the BCS next season when it becomes a Big East member). Even before the bowl games took place, Utah's BCS entry created yet another controversy. Because of the rule requiring that a non-BCS team in the top six receive a bid to a BCS game, this left only one at-large bid for another school. Going into December 4, Cal was fourth in the BCS standings, barely ahead of Texas. Cal was 9-1 with a game at Southern Miss, postponed due to Hurricane Ivan, remaining. Texas was 10-1 with its season finished. Cal defeated Southern Miss 26-16 in a much closer game than expected; this result caused Texas to finish fourth and Cal to finish fifth in the season-ending BCS standings. Texas coach Mack Brown raised some eyebrows by openly campaigning for voters in the two human polls, especially his fellow coaches, to place his team ahead of Cal. However, Cal's subsequent Holiday Bowl defeat at the hands of Texas Tech, the fourth-place team from the Big 12 South Division, has led many to conclude that Cal was not deserving of its high ranking. Regardless of any controversy created by Utah's presence in the 2005 BCS games, virtually all experts considered Utah to be much more deserving of a BCS bowl bid than Pittsburgh, the Big East champion. The Big East's two strongest schools left the conference in favor of the ACC this year, leaving the Big East very weak from a football standpoint. However, current BCS rules dictate that the conference must perform poorly over a 4-year period before it can be considered for removal. Ironically, these two schools met in the Fiesta Bowl. Utah lived up to the experts' assessment, crushing Pittsburgh 35-7. AP disallows use of its poll in BCS rankingsOn December 21, 2004, the Associated Press issued a cease and desist letter to the BCS telling them to stop using the AP poll in the BCS rankings. In their statement, the AP says, "The Associated Press has not at any time given permission to the Bowl Championship Series to use its proprietary ranking of college football teams. This unauthorized use of the AP poll has harmed AP's reputation and interfered with AP's agreements with AP poll voters." The cease and desist letter to the BCS concludes by saying "AP hereby demands that BCS immediately cease and desist from all current and future use of the AP Poll in producing the BCS rankings and that BCS confirm to AP that it has done so by December 31, 2004." It is not yet clear what effect this will have on the final rankings of the 2004-2005 season. Schools with special BCS consideration (2005-06 season)This list reflects the following changes in the membership of the ACC and Big East scheduled to take place in July 2005:
BCS schedule2004-05 seasonThese BCS bowl games were played following the 2004 regular season:
2005-06 seasonThese BCS bowl games will be played following the 2005 regular season:
External links
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 WordIQ.com - Privacy Policy
::
Terms of Use
:: Contact Us
:: About Us This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Bowl games". |