
|
|
|
Although there were many College Football National Championship controversies prior to the 1998 inception of the BCS, such as Penn State going 12-0 in '94-95 and winning the Rose Bowl, but lost out to the Title, or at least a share of, to Nebraska.
When choosing teams to fill out the BCS brackets, IN NO WAY should program prestige have ANYTHING TO DO with the selection. Strength of schedule and other such arguments are fine, but things are so different from season to season and continually teams seem to get preferential treatment over others simply because of their "History". Hey, it's not last year, the year before, or even TEN YEARS AGO; it's THIS YEAR and we want to see all the BEST TEAMS from THIS YEAR play each other no matter WHAT! (For a perfect example(s), see 2000 and 2001 BCS Seasons) .. Notice how the explanations of each season seem to get longer as the page goes on. This is not because we remember the more recent things better, it's because of all the controversy BUILDING/BREWING each year in a system that simply DOES NOT WORK!
The very first year of the BCS started with controversy. Let's take a look:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For complete BCS results, refer to:
http://msn.foxsports.com/id/7894687_37_1.pdf
The Kansas State Wildcats finshing the season ranked third in the final overall BCS standings was obviously not good enough for Bill Snyder and the Kansas State Wildcats this year. The third ranked Wildcats jumped out of the gates to an 11-0 record in 1998, only to be upset by the Texas A&M Aggies in the Big XII Championship. The 11-1, third-ranked Wildcats then not only found themselves out of the National Championship picture, but in the non-BCS Alamo Bowl where they lost to Purdue, 37-34.
The BCS didn't even bat an eye when the Tulane Green Wave went 11-0 and won the Conference USA Title this year. Even though Tulane would've more than likely ended up like Boise State or Ball State did in 2008-2009, without a top-eight ranking and a BCS berth, they still would've had a much better shot at something had the system been different. Keep these situations in mind when exploring expansions/improvements on the current, proposed BCS Playoff System.
|
|

|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin (Big Ten Champion)
UCLA (Pac-10 Champion)
|
38
<
31
|
|

|
|
|
|
Ohio State (At-large)
Texas A&M (Big 12 Champion)
|
24
<
14
|
|

|
|
|
|
Florida (At-large)
Syracuse (Big East Champion)
|
31
<
10
|
|

|
|
|
|
Tennessee (BCS #1, SEC Champion)
Florida State (BCS #2, ACC Champion)
|
23
<
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For complete BCS results, refer to:
http://msn.foxsports.com/id/7894689_37_1.pdf
Kansas State fans should've been outraged. I'm sure they were. Once again, a ONE-LOSS, sixth-ranked Kansas State team, whose only loss was to the eventual third-ranked Nebraska Cornhuskers, were snubbed in favor of the No. 5 Tennessee Volunteers, and the No. 8 Michigan Wolverines.
Same as the previous year with Tulane, The Marhsall Thundering Herd, an undefeated non-BCS conference team finished the regular season without a loss and was shut out of a BCS bowl. The 12-0 Thundering Herd may not have been in the top eight that year, but as in the case with the Green Wave, they still would've had a much better shot at something had the system been different. Again, keep these situations in mind when exploring expansions/improvements on the current, proposed BCS Playoff System.
|
|
|
|

|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin (Big Ten Champion)
Stanford (Pac-10 Champion)
|
17
<
9
|
|


|
|
|
|
Florida State (BCS #1, ACC Champion)
Virginia (BCS #2, Big East Champion)
|
46
<
29
|
|

|
|
|
|
Michigan (At-large)
Alabama (SEC Champion)
|
35
<
34
(OT)
|
|

|
|
|
|
Nebraska (Big 12 Champion)
Tennessee (At-large)
|
31
<
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have any ideas that you feel should be added to this page, please use the Contact Us link.
|
|
|
|