skyvoyager wrote:eaglenjxn wrote:My problem was never with the BCS ratings. I liked the ratings and rarely disagreed with the 1 vs. 2 that they gave us. The problem was that it gave us two teams.
2000 - Oklahoma vs FSU. FSU chosen over miami even though the Hurricanes had beaten FSU in the regular season.
FSU loses 13-2. Miami beats florida in the sugar.
2001 - Nebraska gets in after losing 62-36 to colorado and does not win their division
2003 - Kansas state drills OK. Somehow OK gets in to play LSU instead of USC
2005 - USC trashes OK 55-19.... Undefeated Auburn 13-0 beating 5 top 15 teams finishes #3
2007 - Lsu gets in with 2 loses over many 2 loss teams
2008 - undefeated utah does not get in
2009 - five undefeated teams enter the bowl season...."got to blow it up and start over" urban meyer was quoted regarding
the BCS.
For me, most of those are perfect examples of the problem with selecting two teams....but not with the rankings. From 2004 (when the formula was redone) through 2013, I really only had a problem with Oklahoma in 05.
And even before that, Oklahoma in 2003 was my only problem....and I kind of understood that one.
2000 - Miami won by 3 at home on a last minute TD. Not decisive. FSU played a brutal schedule and blew the doors off Clemson and Florida (both were top 10 at the time) in two of the last 3 weeks of the season. Miami was still in the Big East and was burned by a weak conference schedule. They gave Vick and VT their only loss but that was their only other notable win. Washington had as good of an argument (with a win over Miami) as Miami. Good example of the problem with having two teams.
2001 - Non-division champ playing for the title? Sounds familiar. That was a season where no one deserved to be #2 and they probably could have just handed Miami the title after the regular season.
2003 - That's the first one. But people forget what Oklahoma did to their opponents that season (e.g. beat #6 in BCS Texas by 55 at a neutral site). It was a known fact that Oklahoma would be #1 after the Big 12 title game regardless of a result...and they treated it like an exhibition. Also, people forget that USC's resume wasn't good. USC was beaten by a 6-loss Cal team and had one ranked win (Wazzou). Still, they deserved it over Oklahoma. The formula was changed after this....
2005 - Auburn had four Top 15 wins--with two over UT, who lost to a bad Notre Dame team at home late in the season. That destroyed any credibility for that win. That was a down year for the SEC. Still, they had the better resume. Oklahoma didn't really even have the style points like they did in 2003...but they had the most impressive win at the end of the regular season and shut out Vince Young.
2007-2009: Sounds more like a problem with there only being two teams than the ratings.