Oklahoma State should have a chance to be BCS champions over Alabama and LSU

Did the BCS get it right?

1/10/12 in NCAAF   |   Pat   |   5233 respect

After last night's BCS National Championship game, there's no doubt that the better team won. LSU looked completely lost on offense, Alabama's defense was ridiculous, and the Bama kicker finally looked like he should actually be a college kicker.

It wasn't pretty, and I wouldn't watch the game again if you paid me. But like it or not, the Alabama Crimson Tide are your BCS Champions.

Did the BCS get it right? Alabama would probably pass the eyeball test, but is their résumé truly the best in the country?

Let's check it out. Here are 3 teams, with their various wins and one loss, along with the Sagarin Rating for their opponent.

Team A Team B Team C
WIN - 4 WIN -2 WIN -1
WIN - 7 WIN -6 WIN -5
WIN -13 WIN - 28 WIN -6
WIN -14 WIN -29 WIN -21
WIN -16 WIN -31 WIN -22
WIN -17 WIN -33 WIN -29
WIN -19 WIN -42 WIN -31
WIN -35 WIN -50 WIN -33
WIN -53 WIN -81 WIN -50
WIN -64 WIN -103 WIN -85
WIN -82 WIN -116 WIN -101
WIN -91 WIN -121 WIN -103
LOSS - 43 (Road/2OT) LOSS - 2 (Home/OT) WIN -167
    LOSS - 1 (Neutral/Reg)

If you've even remotely been following college football this year, then you know exactly who each team is. But try to throw away any preconceived notions and just look at their respective bodies of work.

One can sort the teams in several different ways. Before the bowls, the most popular method was to choose the team with the "best" loss. Clearly, you can throw out Team A. Double overtime on the road still isn't anything to scoff at, but the 43rd rank team knocks it down a notch.

Between the other two teams, those are pretty close. Based on ranking alone, Team C has the best "loss" since it was against the #1 team and technically a neutral site. However, knowing what we know, I'd be remiss to omit the fact that it was pretty deep in Team C's territory, and they were beaten far more handily than Team B was, in their loss.

By the "best loss" method, Team B gets the slight nod over Team C, with Team A trailing them both.

However, the biggest problem with the "best loss" method is that it ignores over 90% of the season. When the "quality" of losses are that close, shouldn't we look at the quality of their wins as well?

Based on the "Strength of Schedule" argument, Team A has the significant advantage. Team C is easily 2nd, and Team B is a distant third.

Average rating of opponents in wins:
Team A: 34.58
Team B: 53.5
Team C: 50.37

So who's the true champion here? Based on the strength of schedule for both wins and losses, nothing is truly conclusive. Based on common opponents, we learn nothing. Team A has no opponents in common with either Team B or C, and Teams B and C not only had the exact same results against common opponents, they also split 2 games between the two of them.

What have we really learned from the BCS system? Honestly... nothing. As always, we know who we THINK is better. But as we've seen many times, the best team isn't always the team that wins the game. Just ask Boise State, Utah or Appalachian State.

Worse yet, this isn't the first time this has happened. Do we KNOW that Auburn was better than TCU after the 2010 season? We think so, but do we KNOW? Nope. How about Boise State the year before? And Utah, the year before that? In 2007, there were a half dozen teams that had a strong title claim.

In 2006, it looked like Ohio State and Michigan were the two best teams in the country. Then Ohio State beat Michigan by a field goal, and Michigan was relegated to the Rose Bowl instead of a chance to rematch for the title, like Alabama got to do. We learned that it was the right move at the time, when Florida routed Ohio State and USC beat Michigan. Why wasn't that precedent followed this year in an almost identical situation?

Whether your favorite team got hosed, or won a championship... there's no denying that this system is wrong, and it's broken. It's time to fix it. Will it be the end of the world if the best team on paper isn't in the championship? Absolutely not... if their on-field play dictates it. Let's settle it on the field, and not in some shady back-room ballot box. Fix college football, and end this insanity.
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

1/18/12   |   w_g_walters   |   223 respect

Tigers2010 wrote:
 I am  a LSU fan and have been for life....I do think my Tigers took  Bama for granted..They felt that they already beat them once and should have payed Ok.St....This  was not the LSU  i saw all year long....The players were saying they were  focus for this game. 

Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to say before about Houston vs. Southern Miss.

1/12/12   |   Tigers2010   |   646 respect

pmichael45 wrote:
We are all "Monday Morning Quaterbacks" or, in this case, "Tuesday Morning Quaterbacks". Let's all stop playing the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" game about who should of played who and fix a busted system. A playoff works in every other sport, why not college football?

 They did have a playoff system in division 2 football.  

1/12/12   |   pmichael45   |   2 respect

We are all "Monday Morning Quaterbacks" or, in this case, "Tuesday Morning Quaterbacks". Let's all stop playing the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" game about who should of played who and fix a busted system. A playoff works in every other sport, why not college football?

1/11/12   |   Tigers2010   |   646 respect

 We have  35 bowl games and the Rose has a tie in with the Big 10 and Pac 12 conferences..They talk yesterday in NOLA  about the plus 1 sounds like the big 12 would finally give in and want a plus 1....

1/11/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

beerstudk wrote:
Don't get me wrong, a +1 is better than what we got, but I don't think I'm alone here when I say that the NCAA can do a hell of a lot better than a 4 team playoff and 42 bowl games that 35 of them nobody wants to watch.

The weird thing is that all those worthless bowl games that "nobody wants to watch" have got to be making someone money or they wouldn't even exist.  And therein lies the root of the issue.

1/11/12   |   WhoDat12   |   2252 respect

BCS & "right" = Two words that should never be used in the same sentence unless the sentence is "It is right for us to get rid of the BCS".

1/11/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

beerstudk wrote:

The problem with +1 system this year is Stanford at #4.  Not only did they not win their conference, but they didn't even with their subconference (Pac 12 North).  This is the second most popular sport in the country, yet the only sport in the world that settles it championship by basically a computer generated coin flip.  I want to see a 8 or even 16 team playoff!!

Don't get me wrong, a +1 is better than what we got, but I don't think I'm alone here when I say that the NCAA can do a hell of a lot better than a 4 team playoff and 42 bowl games that 35 of them nobody wants to watch.

1/11/12   |   Pat   |   5233 respect

beerstudk wrote:

The problem with +1 system this year is Stanford at #4.  Not only did they not win their conference, but they didn't even with their subconference (Pac 12 North).  This is the second most popular sport in the country, yet the only sport in the world that settles it championship by basically a computer generated coin flip.  I want to see a 8 or even 16 team playoff!!

8-team would probably be ideal, but I'd be ok with a +1 system. Right now, there are teams with legitimate cases for the #1 ranking getting snubbed. At least with a +1, we'd only be arguing about who should be 4th place.  I don't feel nearly as bad for a 5th place team with a claim for 4th as I do for a 3rd place team that should have been 2nd or 1st.

1/11/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

Scott wrote:
Since its inception, has the BCS actually gotten anything right?  

I would go with a plus 1 system as well.  #1 versus #4, #2 versus #3 with the winners meeting the next week at a neutral site.  College football could still go ahead with their bowl schedule but IMO, would be wise to cut about a 1/3 of the games.


The problem with +1 system this year is Stanford at #4.  Not only did they not win their conference, but they didn't even with their subconference (Pac 12 North).  This is the second most popular sport in the country, yet the only sport in the world that settles it championship by basically a computer generated coin flip.  I want to see a 8 or even 16 team playoff!!

1/11/12   |   Pat   |   5233 respect

Jizmaglobin wrote:
 Without a playoff system the BCS systematically can not ever get it right from us fans view. That said, if LSU was considered the best team in the nation, and the majority of us considered them to be so, then regrettably I'd have to say yes they did get it right because LSU got their ashes whooped. WHOOPED!! You can't win if you can't score and once again defense wins championships. Bama's D was absolutely incredible. It wasn't offensive ineptitude, it was defensive mastery IMO. The only college football game I ever watch is the National Championship each and every year and I love solid D so it's not a surprise I feel the way I do. There are serious flaws in the system. I only do pro football and my Skins beat the Giants twice, who beat the Cowboys twice, who beat us twice. WTF would the BCS do with that?

Yes, that was defensive mastery. But it WAS also offensive ineptitude. There were numerous REALLY stupid plays on the part of LSU. The defense was awesome, but that wasn't the only thing.

1/11/12   |   Tigers2010   |   646 respect

kitty_kitty wrote:
 BCS is a joke. Granted LSU didn't deserve a "W" even if they could have pulled it out their rear. But how can you take a team that lost in their conference championship game and give them a chance at the BCS title? BAMA was definitely the better team on 1-9-12, but what about on 2-9-12, or 1-30-12 (or any other date)? I think we all agree here and want to see something that makes sense. But it almost seemed like LSU didn't really care. Like it was a waste of time and they were only in it for the hype. Not to take anything from the Tide, but there was a lot of things that could have been attempted or changed on LSU's side to actually be part of the game. We've seen LSU play all year and know what they are (were) capable of, and this wasn't even close. oh well...what a waste of my time.

 I am  a LSU fan and have been for life....I do think my Tigers took  Bama for granted..They felt that they already beat them once and should have payed Ok.St....This  was not the LSU  i saw all year long....The players were saying they were  focus for this game. 

1/11/12   |   kitty_kitty   |   198 respect

 BCS is a joke. Granted LSU didn't deserve a "W" even if they could have pulled it out their rear. But how can you take a team that lost in their conference championship game and give them a chance at the BCS title? BAMA was definitely the better team on 1-9-12, but what about on 2-9-12, or 1-30-12 (or any other date)? I think we all agree here and want to see something that makes sense. But it almost seemed like LSU didn't really care. Like it was a waste of time and they were only in it for the hype. Not to take anything from the Tide, but there was a lot of things that could have been attempted or changed on LSU's side to actually be part of the game. We've seen LSU play all year and know what they are (were) capable of, and this wasn't even close. oh well...what a waste of my time.

1/11/12   |   derms33   |   17649 respect

 LSU got over the 50 yard line once...IMO the BCS did get it right, then again, with that performance, Toledo coulda beat LSU last nite

1/10/12   |   james_earl_williams69   |   12 respect

BCS idiots, How can you give a team a 2nd chance to win when there are other teams need that opportunity. You'll never go to a playoff bracket because you are too lazy and your heads is all up each other ass. Just because a school is small doesn't mean the team sucks dipshits, ask Bose State.

1/10/12   |   Jizmaglobin   |   540 respect

 Without a playoff system the BCS systematically can not ever get it right from us fans view. That said, if LSU was considered the best team in the nation, and the majority of us considered them to be so, then regrettably I'd have to say yes they did get it right because LSU got their ashes whooped. WHOOPED!! You can't win if you can't score and once again defense wins championships. Bama's D was absolutely incredible. It wasn't offensive ineptitude, it was defensive mastery IMO. The only college football game I ever watch is the National Championship each and every year and I love solid D so it's not a surprise I feel the way I do. There are serious flaws in the system. I only do pro football and my Skins beat the Giants twice, who beat the Cowboys twice, who beat us twice. WTF would the BCS do with that?

1/10/12   |   w_g_walters   |   223 respect

ML31 wrote:
I guess it depends on what you mean by "got it right". 

Did they crown a definitive national champion?  No. 
Did the NCAA and a bunch of colleges and the make a ton of money?  Yes.

Guess what is the most important question to those running this thing?

You hit it right on the nose.

EVERY team with a 12-1 or 13-1 record, and maybe a couple 10-2 also, has a claim to being the best team on the year in some way, even if they don't make a claim to the national championship. The best claims are all based around schedule, especially Okie State, who didn't get a shot at any of the teams that finished at the top this year. (Naturally, that happens frequently.) Yet Alabama gets the rematch, and they split their two games with LSU. Meanwhile, Oregon takes what I call the "insult position", #4, while Houston boasts of numerous records and, along with Boise State, licks wounds that will take a long time to heal.

1/10/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

I guess it depends on what you mean by "got it right". 

Did they crown a definitive national champion?  No. 
Did the NCAA and a bunch of colleges and the make a ton of money?  Yes.

Guess what is the most important question to those running this thing?

1/10/12   |   jaysinw   |   4992 respect

No I have to agree with most here in saying the BCS did not get it right, nor have they gotten it right in the past. Lets go to a playoffs system, and you can still keep the bowl games. with that we would not have OT wait 44 days for the team that plays in the championship and they earn their way there. Yes I am sure there will be complaints but there will be less of them.

1/10/12   |   Scott   |   54121 respect

Since its inception, has the BCS actually gotten anything right?  

I would go with a plus 1 system as well.  #1 versus #4, #2 versus #3 with the winners meeting the next week at a neutral site.  College football could still go ahead with their bowl schedule but IMO, would be wise to cut about a 1/3 of the games.


1/10/12   |   troygray1   |   1 respect

Why didn’t coach make the QB change after half time?  Why didn’t QB JJ make the DE comment to him when he ran the options?  He did same thing ALL NIGHT LONG pitch the ball early and he didn’t want to get HIT at ALL.  So I’m upset at the offensive performance of LSU Offense which was none.  As for the Defense of LSU I give them an A- because they had no HELP from the offense at ALL.  (What is the Definition of insanity?)  That is LSU offensive.  I will not take anything away from BAMA they was the better team last night.  Defense, Offense, and Special Teams they won the game ALL around.  Congratulation job well done “Roll Tide”.  I will say this which team will be the first team to bet and SEC team in the BCS?  Will it be the Ducks, Trojans, Badgers, Hookies, Seminoles, who will it BE?  I look forward to next year because LSU Defense will bring it so watch out.  Will the Offense bring it like their Defense that question will be answer next season?

1/10/12   |   rayray3466   |   1255 respect

 BCS=Bullchit Continues in Sports

1/10/12   |   Tigers2010   |   646 respect

 No the BCS go it wrong  it should have been  Ok. St vs. LSU...We need a plus 1 and scrap the BCS it's a joke.