The BCS has been absolutely wonderful for college football. It made each week of the regular season important, gave us a real national championship game, and gave the little guy a chance to play against the big boys in a major bowl game. It brought increased importance on the major rivalries. Those games impacted the BCS quite a bit. And the SEC won 9 titles. Out of what, about 16?
Was the BCS better than what we had? Yes. Is it still one flawed mofugger? Absolutely. No doubt the SEC dominated. I do however think Auburn's alleged snub in 2004 is what happens when you have 7 home games and play the likes of The Citadel. And they ended up the regular season ranked #3. The previous year, USC was ranked #1 but got snubbed at a chance for the NC. Perhaps USC and Auburn should have played in 2004 and USC vs LSU instead of LSU playing Oklahoma. For the sake of discussion of the era and the actual play on the field, I would like to ask permission to leave out vacated championships. With that in mind, the NC has been absolutely dominated by the SEC with 9 of 16. Had Auburn won last night I think 6 of the last 7 would have come from the state of Alabama. In terms of individual teams, it's an interesting breakdown. Ohio St has the most appearances with 10 and a 6-4 record. Oklahoma has 9 at 4-5 (lol). Florida St has 8 with a 3-5 record, USC with 7 at 6-1, and Florida with 7 at 5-2. Alabama and VaTech are at 6 and 3-3, 1-5 respectively (ouch VaTech). LSU and Oregon with 5 and 4-1 and 3-2 respectively. Michigan, Stanford, and Wisconsin are at 5 and are all with 2-3 records. Clearly there are some teams who enjoyed BCS success, others not so much. I am not convinced that a playoff is going to remove the current issues or that "fairness" will be achieved. It certainly was a great an interesting era in college football.
Excuse me, but USC finished #3 in the BCS or they would have been in the championship game. The rules are the rules.
I gotta agree. USC did get snubbed in 03, Auburn in 04, Oklahoma State in 2011. It also really stung the pocketbook of any small school it selected. Ask UConn or UCF who lost 2 million on returned tickets alone.
All things being equal, then Auburn has no argument for 2004. That was my point. In both years, it seems fairly obvious to me that the NC was not played by the two best teams available. 2003 in particular was a joke as Oklahoma lost late....lost their CCG. Both USC and LSU lost early, with USC's a triple overtime loss at Cal. Oklahoma got their butt kicked by K State. In 2004, Auburn got hurt by 7 home games, The Citadel, and the fact that they started the season outside the top 10 (15 maybe?). This little leg up is why so few teams outside the SEC could make BCS progress throughout the season. Even today, there is a poll out for next season and the top 20 is dominated by SEC teams. Last night seemed to be the correct two teams. Great game. A nice finish to the BCS era.
The difference maker for some of those schools though is the payout. Look at Hawaii in 2008. I think they returned somewhere around 10-15k tickets but the payout was $17M per team.
Auburn was hurt by one thing: the teams that started #1 (USC) and #2 (OU) never lost. That is completely unheard of. Auburn could have started #3 and it wouldn't have mattered. Really tough luck.
There is no doubt in my mind that LSU and USC should have played each other for the 2003 championship. The key connecting figure here is the dreadful over-ranking of OU--especially early in that decade. They should have fallen farther for getting spanked in their conference championship game. AND...they should not have been ranked so high to start the next season; if they hadn't been, AU would have had a chance, even with their pathetic OOC schedule. Would you not have enjoyed an AU/USC matchup more than the one with OU?
Now that's just baloney. Auburn crushed everyone on their schedule except for LSU. As has been proven time and again since then, any team that goes undefeated in the SEC deserves a spot in the NC.
