BCS Guru -- Taking the BS out of BCS

The Guru's Note: Continuing our Ten Years of BCS series, the Guru reviews and examines the top programs during the BCS Era (1998-2007) and ranks them from Nos. 1-10. The rankings will be published in reverse order in the coming days as we approach the kickoff of the 2008 season.

Overall Record: 93-32 (.744), 9th
BCS Bowl Record: 1-3 (4, 8th)
National Titles (Game Record): 0 (0-0)
Final AP Rankings (1998-2007): 12-5-11-20-9-6-14-U-8-18 (Top 5: 1/Top 10: 4)

Michigan embarks on the 2008 season with a lot of uncertainty, but it had been one of the most consistent teams in the BCS Era (1998-2007) and played in four BCS bowls – winning the 2000 Orange Bowl while quarterbacked by Tom Brady.

The Wolverines will begin a new chapter in their storied history following the retirement of coach Lloyd Carr, who won a split national title in 1997, just before the dawn of BCS. Michigan’s inability to defeat Ohio State in recent years (losing six of the last seven) kept the Maize and Blue from contending for the BCS title.

Without a doubt we have been here before: Ohio State is No. 1 in the BCS standings.

Just like at the end of the 2007 regular season, and the 2006 regular season, the Buckeyes are once again on top of the BCS standings. Despite Georgia's lofty status as the top team in both the AP and coaches preseason polls, Ohio State is ranked No. 1 in the preseason BCS standings after the computers have spoken.

Georgia is not even No. 2, in fact -- that spot goes to USC. The Bulldogs, eyeing their first national championship since 1980, are at No. 3, followed by Oklahoma, Florida and Missouri. Defending BCS champion LSU is No. 7, with West Virginia, Clemson and Texas rounding up the Top 10.

See the complete preseason BCS standings, all the way down to No. 57s Hawaii and Washington. Every team that received at least a single vote in the AP or coaches poll is placed in the BCS standings.

So what is the methodology of our preseason standings, you ask? Well, it's the same formula that produces the official BCS standings, with two exceptions: 1) Since the Harris Interactive Poll that accounts for 1/3 of the standings won't be available until late September, the AP poll is used in its place; 2) None of the six BCS computers has published preseason ratings, so ratings from 20 computers that do are used. The highest and lowest ratings for each team are discarded, and the remaining 18 averaged to produce the computer score.

How important is it to be No. 1 in the preseason? Well, it's far from meaningless. Or let's put it this way: you don't want to be way down in the standings to begin the season if you have any aspirations of getting into the BCS championship game. Just ask Auburn of 2004, which began the year No. 17 in the polls and never made it all the way to the top despite not losing a game.

For Ohio State, being No. 1 is nothing special, but finishing No. 1 has proved elusive. The Buckeyes have been to the last two BCS title games -- and got blown out in each. Their legitimacy will be severely questioned every step of way because of that history, and it doesn't help that the Big Ten will be even weaker than last season, particularly with Michigan seemingly on a rebuilding trail.

Luckily for Ohio State, it has an opportunity to quiet most of its critics early in the season. The Buckeyes have a date at the L.A. Coliseum on Sept. 15 against No. 2 USC. With an inexperienced offense and the availability of QB Mark Sanchez in question after dislocating his knee last week, the Trojans may be vulnerable. But USC, which hasn't lost a non-conference regular season game since 2002, has a stout defense of its own led by All-American linebackers Ray Maualuga and Brian Cushing.

The winner of the game that night should be on top of the unofficial BCS standings while Georgia, without a strong early-season test until the Sept. 20 game at No. 17 Arizona State, might hang on as No. 1 in both polls.

The Guru's Note: Beginning in June, the Guru will publish a review of each of the 10 seasons since the Bowl Championship Series came into existence in 1998. In this series -- Ten Years of BCS -- the Guru will examine the results from these seasons -- who got lucky and who got robbed, what could've been, what should've been and other controversies of the day. The series will appear weekly leading up to the 2008 season.

If 2003 was a wakeup call for the BCS, then 2004 represented a broken snooze button.

There was no split championship, like in 2003, mostly because the Trojans savagely mauled the Sooners, 55-19. Even Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville, who was on hand to troll for AP votes, conceded during ABC's halftime show that USC would be difficult to beat "when you give (offensive coordinator) Norm Chow a month to get ready for somebody."

But that was hardly a happy ending for the BCS, which had completely overhauled its formula from the previous season.

In fact, the BCS formula may be seen in two phases. BCS I ran from its inception in 1998 through the disastrous 2003 season. While there were alterations, they were mostly minor. BCS II emerged with the 2004 season, with human polls taking over the preponderance of the equation.

Ironically, BCS I and BCS II would've yielded the same USC-Oklahoma result in 2004, leaving Auburn and Utah out. With the Utes (and the Broncos), it's fairly easy to explain. The non-BCS conferences are not respected by the voters even if the computers treat them more fairly. The Mountain West in 2004 also was not a particularly solid conference, with only three teams finishing with winning records (both New Mexico and Wyoming were 7-5).

The last non-BCS school to win a national championship was Brigham Young in 1984. And it will remain the last one, well after this country elects a woman president, and possibly all through eternity.

As for Auburn, two factors proved fatal to its BCS title prospects. One, the Tigers were lightly regarded before the season started, checking in at No. 17 in the preseason AP poll. Auburn eventually worked its way up to No. 3, but could never crack the stranglehold USC and Oklahoma held on Nos. 1 and 2 -- going wire-to-wire. Two, just as LSU in 2003 and most of SEC teams in general, the Tigers played an extremely uncompetitive non-conference schedule.

Of their 11 regular-season games in 2004, seven were at home. Their three non-conference games were against Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana Tech and I-AA Citadel -- all at home. Compared that with USC (at Virginia Tech and BYU, home to Colorado State and Notre Dame) and Oklahoma (home to Bowling Green, Houston and Oregon), it's easy to see that both the human voters and computers punished Auburn for the soft schedule.

The Tigers eked out a 16-13 win over Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl to finish second in the final AP and coaches polls. But that didn't stop Tuberville and Auburn from declaring themselves champions. The Tigers made themselves big diamond rings to commemorate their "championship" season, and they're now available on eBay.

Plus One: USC vs. Utah; Oklahoma vs. Auburn.

Controversy

The Mack Brown Campaign: In 2003, Texas finished No. 5 in the BCS standings but was relegated to the Holiday Bowl. The Longhorns seemed headed to San Diego again in 2004, until coach Mack Brown did something about it.

With undefeated Utah poised to become the first BCS Buster, there was only one BCS bowl slot available to a non-conference champion. And since the No. 4 team was guaranteed an at-large spot, the race was on between Texas and California.

The Golden Bears had a tenuous hold on the fourth spot since October. Their only loss all season was a 23-17 heartbreaker to USC at the L.A. Coliseum when they couldn't get the ball in the end zone from the 9-yard line in the game's waning moments. Texas's only loss was a 12-0 defeat at the Cotton Bowl against the Sooners.

After Cal routed archrival Stanford in the Big Game, its season should've been over. But once again, a hurricane proved to be a Pac-10 team's undoing, as it was in 1998. The Bears' Sept. 23 game at Southern Mississippi was postponed because of Hurricane Ivan, and it was re-scheduled for Dec. 4.

Texas was done with its schedule on Nov. 26, after beating rival Texas A&M. Immediately thereafter, Brown started an endless media campaign on behalf of his No. 5-ranked Longhorns. His tactics also made the Cal-Southern Miss matchup something of a referendum on the Bears, whose game would be nationally televised on ESPN.

Perhaps affected by the pressure and expectations, the Bears did not play an impressive game, but nonetheless they won, 26-16. While Cal coach Jeff Tedford thought his team had done what it needed to secure the program's first Rose Bowl berth since 1959, others weren't so sure.

The Bears' worst fears were realized when they fell from No. 4 to No. 5 in the final BCS standings as Texas snatched the coveted Rose Bowl berth. Voter defection carried the day. In the AP poll, Cal's advantage over Texas shrunk from 85 points to 62. But the real story was the coaches poll.

In the penultimate standings, Cal held a 48-point lead over Texas. In the one that counted, it was ahead by a mere 5 points. In other words, no fewer than 20 coaches switched their placements of Texas and Cal. But more telling was that four coaches voted Cal No. 7 and two No. 8 -- after a Bears victory, and behind 2-loss Georgia.

Predictably, the Pac-10 was furious and demanded that the coaches disclose their final ballot. The AFCA refused and disputed the suggestions that impropriety took place behind the cloak of secrecy. The Longhorns went on to win the Rose Bowl behind the electrifying performance of sophomore QB Vince Young. The dispirited Bears were routed by Texas Tech in the Holiday Bowl.

The Texas-California controversy had a long-lasting effect on the BCS standings. First, the AP poll refused to be included in the BCS standings after the 2004 season. Because all AP poll balloting is available to the public, some AP voters were harassed and threatened by fans who were unhappy with the decisions. The BCS had to scramble and invent the "Harris Interactive Poll" to replace the venerable and prestigious AP poll in its standings. Second, to promote more transparency, the coaches reluctantly agreed to reveal their final regular-season balloting.

Through it all, Tedford took the high road. He didn't try to score an extra touchdown against Southern Miss in the game's final minutes to curry favor with the voters and never indulged in a war of words with Brown or anyone else. And the final irony was that the AP flip-flops alone would've put Texas ahead of Cal in the final standings. But the coaches ended up catching most of the heat because of their shenanigans.

BCS Formula Review: The BCS blew up its previous formula (BCS I) and started from scratch. The new formula (BCS II) comprised of only two parts -- the human polls and computers. Strength of Schedule and Quality Win components were purged.

The human polls now account for two-thirds of the formula, with the AP poll and coaches poll each weighing one third. Instead of using the team's actual ranking, the formula now calls for the percentage of total votes received. This alteration actually made the deciding difference in the Texas-Cal controversy as the old formula would've disregarded the vote-margin difference.

The computer ratings shrank further from seven to six, with the New York Times bowing out. The new formula required strength of schedule to be part of each computer's calculations. The computer average counts for one-third of the formula, with the highest and lowest rating for each team discarded.

After replacing the AP with Harris poll following the 2004 season, this formula has stayed exactly intact, at least through the 2008 season.

Analysis: The twin controversies engulfed the 2004 season, mitigated only somewhat by USC's impressive Orange Bowl win and "repeat" championship. But unlike the previous season, the BCS did not blow up the system and start from scratch again.

The nonchalant, near-shrug of a reaction actually, in the long view, saved the BCS. It's as if the BCS simply stated: "We're here to stay so deal with it." It may be because the BCS couldn't risk undergoing another wholesale change without completely destroying its already-tattered credibility. Or because there just wasn't anything else to do short of going to a playoff system.

The epic Miami-Ohio State showdown in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl, even with the attendant controversy at the end of the game, gave the BCS a huge sigh of relief. "The system works!" went the battle cry.

No, it doesn't. And it most certainly didn't in the 2003 season, when the BCS was met with catastrophe -- the very scenario that the system was created to avoid: A split national championship

In its first five years of existence, while there were disagreements and debates about certain teams' merits to be included in the championship game, there had never been a case where the BCS champion was deemed unworthy, or not been crowned by the Associated Press, which maintained its independence.

But in 2003, it all happened. Going into the final weekend of the season, three teams were vying for two spots in the Sugar Bowl. USC had one loss -- at Cal in triple overtime, 34-31. As did LSU -- to Florida at home, 19-7. No. 1 Oklahoma was undefeated going into the Big XII title game against Kansas State.

Even before the games were played on that final Saturday, word was that the Sooners would stay No. 1, even if they lost the game. (Keep in mind that the Guru wasn't in business back then, or you'd known that as certainty.) The computers favored Oklahoma by a wide margin, and, since all other teams besides USC and LSU had at least two losses, Oklahoma would not drop to lower than No. 3 in the human polls. Put it together, the Big XII title game was a mere exhibition with very little riding on it.

And the Sooners played like it, getting pasted by Kansas State, 35-7. After LSU beat Georgia in the SEC title game and USC romped past Oregon State, as expected, USC ascended to No. 1 in both polls while LSU moved up to No. 2.

In the penultimate BCS standings, USC had a comfortable lead on LSU (6.90 vs. 8.43). The Trojans were ranked higher in the human polls and computer rankings and also had better strength-of-schedule ratings. The expectation was that USC would play Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl with LSU left to howl.

Exactly right, that's what happened. Combined with Syracuse's 38-12 pasting of Notre Dame, the Tigers got enough of a boost to nudge out USC by .16 of a percentage point, getting Oklahoma as their date while the Trojans were left with a Rose Bowl berth against No. 4 Michigan.

A confluence of events made this happen, and pretty much all of it the BCS's fault:

1. Eliminating margin of victory from all computer equations: This completely unnecessary step was taken gradually, out of an irrational fear of teams running up the scores to impress computers. By 2003, all BCS computers had agreed to abide by this restriction, in some cases reluctantly. Because of this, Oklahoma's 4-touchdown debacle was weighed the same as a road loss in triple overtime. Since the BCS wasn't able to legislate how the voters think (yet, anyway), the polls appropriately knocked the Sooners down to No. 3. But the computers overwhelmingly went for Oklahoma.

2. Keeping strength of schedule (SOS) as a component: Strangely, with all the tweaking in the first five years, the BCS never touched this. First of all, it's hardly an objective tool, almost as arbitrary as the human polls. The formula being used was a poor imitation of the RPI (used by the NCAA basketball selection committee) and called for an absurd division of 25 to produce the SOS number. Besides, all computer rankings have formulas for strength of schedule of their own, so at the very least it's redundant. Teams playing a soft schedule would've been punished enough by the computers anyway.

3. If you can't beat them ... tank them: Notre Dame was routed by the Trojans, 45-14, in South Bend, so the Irish returned the favor ... by getting blown out at Syracuse on the final Saturday of the season. Notre Dame's loss dealt USC's SOS rating a fatal blow. That, combined with Boise State's 45-28 win over Hawaii, another team beaten by USC earlier in the year, catapulted LSU over USC. The Tigers, by beating Georgia for the second time in the season, saw their SOS rating jump from 54th to 29th while USC's held at 37th. LSU beat USC by .30 of a percentage point in the SOS ratings, the difference it needed to seal its hold on the No. 2 spot.

For the record, USC played at Auburn and Notre Dame and played home games against Hawaii and BYU while LSU faced Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana Tech and I-AA Western Illinois at home and Arizona on the road. Just how LSU's schedule could be considered to be among the top 30 in the country showed the flaw in the SOS ratings.

At the end, USC impressively defeated Michigan, 28-14, in the Rose Bowl and held onto the No. 1 AP ranking and a share of the national championship. In a rather sloppy and uninspired game, LSU edged Oklahoma, 21-14, for the BCS title -- though not without one last bit of drama.

Despite a mandate to vote for the BCS title game winner No. 1 in the final poll, three coaches (Mike Bellotti, Ron Turner and Lou Holtz) broke the contractual agreement and cast their No. 1 ballot for USC. The Tigers got their half of the title, but were quickly forgotten as USC romped to the BCS title games the following two seasons. The general acknowledgement that the Trojans won "back-to-back" national championships in 2003 and 2004 left many LSU fans embittered to this day.

* Using 1998-2003 formula eliminating SOS: 1. (Tie) Oklahoma, USC, 3. LSU, 4. Michigan.

* The Snub of Miami of Ohio -- After losing the season opener to Iowa, 21-3, junior quarterback Ben Roethlisberger led the Red Hawks to 12 consecutive victories, beating Bowling Green for a second time in the Mid-American title game. Bowling Green, incidentally, lost only three times - twice to Miami and once at Ohio State, 24-17.

But despite a No. 11 ranking in the BCS standings, Miami never had a chance for an at-large berth. Even though the Red Hawks were "eligible," they received no consideration from the four BCS bowls and ended up finishing a 13-1 season by routing Louisville in the GMAC Bowl.

Until before the 2006 season, a non-BCS school had to be ranked in the top six for a guaranteed spot in a BCS bowl game. Under congressional pressure and with the advent of a fifth -- the BCS national championship game -- bowl, the standard for "mid-major" schools were relaxed to guarantee a spot for any team in the top 12. Too late for Miami and Big Ben, though.

* The Texas Shaft: Despite being ranked No. 5 in both polls, the Longhorns were shut out of a BCS bowl berth thanks to Kansas State's upset victory over Oklahoma. With the Big XII's two slots already spoken for, Texas had to settle for the Holiday Bowl where it was beaten by Washington State. But a year later, the 'Horns managed to avoid a return trip to San Diego by being engulfed in yet another BCS controversy.

Ironically, after being the BCS victim the first two years of its existence, Bill Snyder's Wildcats finally made its BCS bowl debut by earning the Big XII's automatic bid. K-State lost to Ohio State, 35-28, in a wild Fiesta Bowl.

*The Extra Game: On Jan. 9, 2004, Ted Waitt, CEO of Gateway Computers offered a $31 million package for a national championship game between USC and LSU. Despite vocal support from both teams, the NCAA did not consider the offer.

BCS Formula Review: With no audible criticism of its formula -- thanks to having two, and only two, undefeated teams in 2002 -- the BCS for the first time in four years maintained the same formula with only a slight adjustment to decrease the value of "quality win." This little-known adjustment actually thew some extra fuel on the controversy because LSU would've gotten an extra .40 points with its victory over Georgia, giving it a much more robust final lead of .56 over USC.

Analysis: Just how close was the LSU-USC spread? Had one of the four computers that ranked LSU No. 2 and USC No. 3 switched places for those teams, the Trojans would've gotten the coveted No. 2 BCS slot by .01 of a percentage point. Or, if the Tigers had not made the quantum leap from 54th to 29th in the SOS rating in the space of one week -- let's say they finished 34th instead, then USC would've been ahead by .04 of a percentage point. Yes, had any of the teams that USC played won one more game or any of LSU's opponents lost one more game, then it would've been a different outcome.

LSU was not undeserving of a spot in the BCS title game. That's not the issue at all. The "correct" result should've been a USC-LSU title game in the Sugar Bowl. The team that didn't belong there was Oklahoma, which failed to win its own conference after getting blown out in the Big XII title game -- in fact, a game that was not as close as the four-touchdown spread suggested.

An easy remedy could've been found, as early as 2001, after Nebraska somehow secured safe passage to the BCS title game without even winning its division, let along the conference. The old bowl alignment was always arranged to match conference champions in the most prestigious bowls, and therefore a pre-requisite of winning one's conference would not be unreasonable for teams vying to play in the BCS title game.

But the BCS refused to insert this one amendment -- even to this day. After the catastrophe of 2003, when the No. 1 team in both polls was denied a place in its title game that resulted in a split championship, the BCS was forced back to the drawing board, and smashed it up. A brand new formula was concocted to appease an increasingly angry and skeptical public.

The formula overhaul, however, would not save the BCS from the raging controversy of 2004.

After two years of turmoil, BCS got a big break in 2002 as two undefeated teams -- the only ones -- met in a memorable title game that wasn't decided until after two overtimes. This time, the only controversy came only during the game.

But just like in 1999, while the BCS could pat itself on the back all it wants, the reality is that a caveman could've picked the Miami-Ohio State matchup -- and he wouldn't even need the BCS standings to muddle his thoughts.

After Oklahoma was upset in the first week of November, it became clear that the title game would feature defending champion and No. 1-ranked Miami and second-ranked Ohio State. The Buckeyes had to survive a tight battle with arch rival Michigan, 14-9, while the 'Canes romped through the final weeks, bidding to become the first team in the BCS era to repeat as champions.

Ohio State, riding on the back of the criminally talented freshman Maurice Clarett, would spoil Miami's quest, but it needed two big breaks to do it. First, Hurricanes running back Willis McGahee tore his ACL in the third quarter, slowing down the Miami offensive powerhouse. Then, just as the 'Canes seemingly clinched victory on the game's final play, a pass-interference (wait, or was it defensive holding?) flag came out five seconds later that gave the Buckeyes new life.

Was that a good call? You decide.

(Warning: The neutrality of the commentary is in question)

But the most significant development of this season went mostly unnoticed. After losing two of its first five games, USC blew through the rest of the Pac-10 and routed Iowa in the Orange Bowl, led by Heisman-winning quarterback Carson Palmer. The Trojans would re-enter college football's top echelon and become the most BCS-relevant juggernaut for years to come.

Final BCS standings: 1. Miami, 2. Ohio State, 3. Georgia, 4. USC.

Alternative Methods:

* Using present day formula: 1. Miami, 2. Ohio State.

* Using 1998-2000 formula: 1. Miami, 2. Ohio State.

* Using human polls only: 1. Miami, 2. Ohio State.

* Plus-One: Miami vs. USC; Ohio State vs. Georgia.

Controversy:

* The Rose Bowl in Miami: The real Rose Bowl lost out on the traditional Big Ten-Pac-10 matchup and was none too pleased about it. Adding insult to more insult, the Orange Bowl invoked a little-known BCS backroom rule to secure a USC-Iowa matchup that announced the arrival of the Trojan Empire.

Here's how it happened:

After the Fiesta Bowl took the top two teams for the national title game, the Orange Bowl snagged No. 5 Iowa, the Big Ten runner-up. The Rose Bowl was next. With Pac-10 co-champ Washington State (which beat USC head-to-head) already anchored, and Iowa unavailable, the Rose took Big 12 champion Oklahoma.

The Sugar Bowl was next, ready to invite No. 4 USC to play No. 3 Georgia. But the Orange Bowl took advantage of an exception clause that allowed a higher-paying bowl to jump another once every four years and swiped the Trojans away. The Sugar Bowl was stuck with SEC champion Georgia and ACC winner No. 14 Florida State.

BCS Formula Review: Computer rankings by Herman Matthews and Dave Rothman were dropped and the New York Times added back in, making it a total of seven. The lowest ranking was discarded and the remaining six averaged.

All rankings now purged the margin-of-victory component, as Jeff Sagarin introduced a new ELO-CHESS rating that removed margin of victory, reluctantly -- in his words: "In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence, which makes it very 'politically correct'."

Analysis: The BCS celebrated its most successful season yet, and decided to take the rest of the year off to congratulate itself. The Miami-Ohio State game was a boon to the BCS and seemingly validated its existence -- without the participation of the Big Ten, Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl, this matchup wouldn't have happened in the pre-BCS era. But the next two years would bring nothing but trouble for the system, especially 2003, when the mother of all controversies would force the BCS to blow itself up.

If the BCS was shaken by the 2000 controversy, then it was rocked by an earthquake in 2001.

Heading into the final weeks of the regular season, it appeared that a Miami-Nebraska showdown in the Rose Bowl would be inevitable. After Nebraska's 20-10 win over previously unbeaten Oklahoma, Miami and Nebraska were ranked 1-2 for the next four consecutive weeks, with non-BCS Brigham Young the only other unbeaten team.

Heading into their final regular-season game, the Huskers still needed a victory in Boulder to clinch the Big 12 North against two-loss Colorado. But the Buffaloes didn't comply, and thrashed Nebraska, 62-36, in a game that wasn't even that close. Nebraska tumbled to No. 6 in the polls and its national title aspirations seemingly squashed.

After Nebraska's loss, Florida claimed the all-important No. 2 spot. The Gators just needed to beat Tennessee to secure a berth in the SEC championship game. Annually played in the third week of September, the Florida-Tennessee game in 2001 was postponed because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Vols surprised Florida with a 34-32 victory, in what turned out to be Steve Spurrier's final regular-season game as Gators coach.

The victory catapulted Tennessee from No. 6 to No. 2 in the BCS standings after No. 4 Colorado upset No. 3 Texas in the Big XII title game. Now all the Vols had to do was beat LSU in the SEC title game to secure their second BCS title game appearance in four years.

In the meantime, left on the sideline seething was Oregon. The Ducks, with its only defeat to two-loss Stanford, were No. 3 in both polls. Yet, they were ranked only No. 5 in the BCS standings, behind two-loss Colorado, who had been beaten by Fresno State and also Texas in the regular season. The Buffs, after winning the rematch against the Longhorns, had their issue, too: Somehow, they were ranked No. 4 in the BCS, behind the Nebraska team that had been idle since being annihilated in Boulder.

The BCS would've dodged a bullet if Tennessee could just take care of business against three-loss LSU, which had been beaten in Knoxville earlier in the season. But the Tigers didn't oblige, pulling out a 31-20 victory in the SEC title game, completing the frenzied final three weeks of the season with one more upset.

So who was going to play undefeated Miami? Oregon, now No. 2 in both polls, seemed to have the strongest argument. Colorado, with an impressive late-season run but two losses, wanted to have a say, too. The team that really shouldn't be in the discussion was Nebraska, which had snuck back up to No. 4 after the spate of late-season upsets.

But it was Nebraska that claimed the No. 2 spot in the final BCS standings, edging out Colorado by five-hundredth (.05) of a percentage point. Oregon, with a low computer average and hampered by its strength-of-schedule rating, was a distant fourth and never had a shot.

The Buffaloes howled for weeks after narrowly losing out. But the truth is that they were even that close to Nebraska only because of the new "quality win" component, added after the 2000 season as make-good to Miami's snub. Had the 2000 formula been applied, Colorado would've been fourth, behind Nebraska by nearly two full points and also Oregon as well.

At the end, the Ducks were really the aggrieved party, and they proved it by destroying Colorado, 38-16, in the Fiesta Bowl. Miami finished its undefeated season with a ho-hum 34-14 victory over Nebraska, universally disparaged as being undeserving. While the Hurricanes celebrated their national championship, the BCS was sent back to the drawing board once again.

Other than Nebraska getting into the national championship game in the Rose Bowl, not really. (But that's like saying a car hit my wife and then ran over my dog, but other than that, it's been a great day.) The only other one-loss teams from major conferences, Illinois (Big Ten) and Maryland (ACC), were both throttled in BCS bowl games. No. 5 Florida was the only at-large selection, and as it turned out, sent out coach Spurrier to the NFL with a 56-23 rout of Maryland at the Orange Bowl.

BCS Formula Review: Wes Colley (of the Colley Matrix) and Peter Wolfe were added to the computer ratings, replacing the New York Times and Richard Dunkel. The move ostensibly was to lessen the impact of margin of victory in computer rankings. Of the eight ratings for each team, the highest and lowest were thrown out and the remainder averaged.

Also, a "quality win" component was added to the team's final total, in response to Miami's being snubbed in 2000. This scheme called for teams to receive bonus points by beating other teams in the final BCS top 15. As a result, Colorado's late-season wins over Nebraska and Texas gave it a boost of 2.3 points, nearly knocking Nebraska out of the No. 2 spot.

Analysis: The 2001 mess probably should've been a wake-up call for the BCS to completely revamp its formula. Yet, the powers-that-be continued to scrutinize the computers and margin of victory as the problem areas, overlooking the real issues that made the cumbersome system dysfunctional. The next season brought a big relief -- through no credit to the BCS system -- but the calm would prove short-lived.

After two years of relative calm, controversy exploded on the BCS in Year 3. For the first time, a team's presence in the BCS title game was called into question. And the criticism went unabated even after an undefeated champion was crowned.

Bowing more to an ignorant media than any real pressure from public opinion, the BCS drastically changed its formula to retroactively make amends for an outcome it was powerless to change. Instead of defending its method and holding its ground, the BCS capitulated. This knee-jerk reaction would bring far more serious consequences in the years to come and compromise its claim to legitimacy in the system's formative years.

Oklahoma finished the 2000 regular season as the only undefeated team and its No.1 ranking was undisputed. But Florida State, despite ranking No. 3 in both the AP and coaches polls, leapfrogged No. 2 Miami in the final BCS standings to earn a date with the Sooners in the Orange Bowl.

The media went berserk, more so than even Miami coach Butch Davis. The credibility of BCS computers was called into question because it was the computers' preference for the Seminoles that carried the day. The main argument was this: Since both Miami and Florida State each had one loss, and the Hurricanes beat the Seminoles on the field, how could Florida State be ranked ahead of Miami?

The BCS panicked big time. Changes were promised and then carried out in the offseason. The computer lineup was reshuffled to de-emphasize margin of victory. And a dubious "quality win" criteria was added to the formula -- as if the existing arrangement wasn't convoluted enough.

But the BCS should've responded ith: "What's the problem?" and vigorously defended the system.

Florida State was a worthy No. 2 team. If you lined up FSU and Miami side-by-side, plenty could've been made in the Seminoles' favor:

1. Strength of Schedule: Florida State and Miami ranked Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, in the strength of schedule compartment of the BCS standings. But upon further examination, that was laughable. (the SoS, parroted from the RPI that the NCAA uses for its basketball selections, would prove to be the most destructive part of the formula -- but more on that later in the series.) Florida State played in a tougher conference (ACC)- than Miami (Big East). Its non-conference games consisted of Louisville, Brigham Young, Florida and Miami. The 'Canes played I-AA McNeese State, Louisiana Tech, Washington and FSU, plus Big East cupcakes such as Rutgers and Temple.

2. Losses: Florida State's lone loss was to Miami, 27-24, at the Orange Bowl on Oct. 7. The Seminoles rallied from a 17-0 halftime deficit to take a 24-20 lead late in the game, only to lose on a Ken Dorsey-to-Jeremy Shockey pass with 46 seconds left. The 'Canes' only defeat was a 34-29 loss at Washington on Sept. 9.

3. The Washington Factor: If head-to-head results were so paramount, then maybe Washington should've been ranked ahead of Miami. After all, the Huskies beat Miami and also only lost once -- a 23-16 defeat at two-loss Oregon.

4. Margin of Victory: If Washington was discounted because it won lots of close games -- eight of its 11 games were decided by seven or fewer points -- then the fact that Florida State won its games, against a considerably tougher schedule, by a wider margin than Miami (38.9 vs. 30.4) should not have been overlooked. And the computers didn't.

5. Historic Precedent: Even before the birth of BCS, there had been several instances that a team was ranked ahead of another despite losing head-to-head and possessing the same record. In 1993, Florida State finished ahead of Notre Dame in both polls even though the Irish won, 31-24, at South Bend. In 1978, USC finished second to Alabama (11-1) in the AP poll even though the Trojans (12-1) beat the Tide, 24-14, in Birmingham, Ala.

See, the body of evidence is pretty strong in the Seminoles' favor. Their presence in the BCS championship game was easily defensible. That they laid an near-egg in an ugly 13-2 loss to Oklahoma is immaterial. And that Miami defeated a Florida team in the Sugar Bowl -- a team that the 'Noles walloped -- is irrelevant.

And one more thing: Even if today's BCS formula, which gives two-thirds of its weight to the human polls, were applied to the 2000 season, you'd still end up with the same result. Florida State would've finished second, ahead of Miami (1.1093 vs. 1.1025).

Final BCS Standings:1. Oklahoma, 2. Florida State, 3. Miami (Fla.), 4. Washington.

Alternative Methods:

* Using present day BCS formula: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Florida State.

* Using human polls only: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Miami (Fla.).

* Plus-One: Oklahoma vs. Washington; Florida State vs. Miami (Fla.).

* Notre Dame windfall: The Fiesta Bowl passed on four teams ahead of Notre Dame in the BCS standings to take the two-loss No. 10 Irish. Virginia Tech, ranked No. 5 with its only loss to Miami, fell just outside of the Kansas State-mandate and was ignored. Three other two-loss teams were also swept aside -- Oregon (out because two other Pac-10 teams were already taken), Kansas State (they're pretty used to this by now) and Nebraska. The Huskers also had a beef because they had defeated Notre Dame in South Bend, 27-24, earlier in the season. This occurred at a time when the Irish received a windfall of $13 million for a BCS bowl appearance -- as opposed to today's more balanced payouts. Notre Dame was promptly exposed as a fraud as it was annihilated by Dennis Erickson's Oregon State Beavers, 41-9.

BCS formula review: No change to the formula was made between the 1999 and 2000 seasons. And that's about to change, as the formula would be tweaked or overhauled in four of the next five years.

Analysis: The changes to the BCS formula prior to the 2001 season would prove to be simply reactionary and solved nothing. And while an argument may be stated on Miami's behalf, the results of the bowl games really made a case for Washington. The Huskies went 7-1 in easily the toughest conference in 2000. They beat Purdue in the Rose Bowl; and bowl wins by Oregon State and Oregon gave the Pac-10 three teams in the top seven in the final AP poll. The BCS was rocked by its first real crisis and another one would erupt the following season.

Give yourself a big pat on the back, BCS. You deserve it. You got it right.

You matched up the only two undefeated major conference teams in the national championship game. Brilliant! Couldn't have done it without ya!

What's was left unsaid was: "Whew!"

Despite the obvious -- only Florida State and Virginia Tech emerged from the regular season unbeaten -- there were doubts about whether they'd face each other in the Sugar Bowl for the national title. At the end, Virginia Tech had a barely comfortable margin to hold off one-loss No. 3 Nebraska to play in the title game.

In the 10-year history of the BCS, 1999 had to be one of the most uneventful. The Seminoles went wire-to-wire as the No. 1 team, their place in New Orleans never in question. Upset losses by Penn State and Tennessee in the first two weeks of November paved the way for Virginia Tech to seize the No. 2 ranking.

The Hokies, led by redshirt freshman quarterback Michael Vick, had to sweat out the final four weeks of the regular season mostly because of a soft schedule. With strength of schedule a separate component accounting for nearly one-third of the BCS standings, Virginia Tech had a hard time gaining breathing room from the Cornhuskers, finishing just 1.30 points ahead in the final standings.

Just as in 1998, an undefeated non-BCS conference team finished the regular season unbeaten. And just like Tulane, a 12-0 Marshall team was shut out of a BCS bowl despite finishing No. 12 in the final standings. And one more thing like the Green Wave: The Thundering Herd, quarterbacked by Chad Pennington, completed a perfect season with a victory over BYU, in the Motor City Bowl.

In the Sugar Bowl, Vick rallied the Hokies to take a 29-28 lead at the end of the third quarter. But the Seminoles scored the game's final 18 points in the fourth quarter, giving Bobby Bowden his only, and perhaps final, national championship.

Final BCS Standings: 1. Florida State, 2. Virginia Tech, 3. Nebraska, 4. Alabama.

Alternative Methods:

* Using present day BCS formula: 1. Florida State, 2. Virginia Tech.

* Using human polls only: 1. Florida State, 2. Virginia Tech.

* Plus-One: Florida State vs. Alabama; Virginia Tech vs. Nebraska.

Controversies:

* Kansas State snub II: Well, it wasn't quite as egregious as the one in 1998, but the Wildcats once again earned the dubious honor of being the highest-ranked team not invited to a BCS bowl. K-State, ranked No. 6 with its only loss to Nebraska, was passed up by the Fiesta Bowl (No. 5 Tennessee) and Orange Bowl (No. 8 Michigan). But unlike the previous year, the Wildcats managed to hold it together and win the Holiday Bowl, 24-20, over Washington.

* Marshall snub: With today's arrangement, the Herd would've earned an automatic BCS berth. But with strength-of-schedule a key component in the formula at the time, Marshall was doomed by its 98th-place schedule. The MAC champs, however, would become the last undefeated team not to play in a BCS bowl.

BCS Formula Review: Five more computer rankings were added to the formula -- Billingsley, Dunkel, Massey, Matthews and Rothman -- bringing the total to eight. The lowest ranking among the eight was dropped and the remaining seven averaged to produce the computer ranking. Also, a "Kansas State clause" was added, guaranteeing any team finishing in the top four a BCS bowl spot, but the Wildcats weren't in position to benefit from it.

Analysis: Two years in, the BCS appeared to be producing the desired results. The title games matched deserving teams and the other BCS bowls featured interesting matchups. But this was only the calm before the storm, as raging controversies were about to envelope the BCS, forcing major changes almost annually in the coming years.

On the precipice of a disaster in its infancy, the BCS was magically rescued by the hurricanes -- one named Georges, the other named Edgerrin James.

Three teams headed into the final Saturday of the season with undefeated records: Tennessee, Kansas State and UCLA. The Vols and Wildcats were scheduled to play in their respective conference title games; while the Bruins, riding a nation-best 20-game winning streak, were to play Miami at the Orange Bowl in a makeup game.

Originally, the game was to be played on Sept. 26. But because of the imminent threat of Hurricane Georges, it was temporarily postponed. UCLA had the option of canceling the game outright and standing on its performance in 10 games, but it took the risky move of rescheduling the game for the final day of the season.

The Miami team that beat UCLA, 49-45, that day was a vast improvement over the one the Bruins would've faced on Sept. 26. Behind James' 299 rushing yards (on 39 carries), the 'Canes shredded a shaky UCLA defense and benefited from an erroneous fumble call. Besides ending UCLA's quest to appear in the first BCS title game, Miami's upset victory sent the Bruins into a long descent into national irrelevance.

After UCLA's loss, it was up to Tennessee and Kansas State to hold up their end of the bargain. The Volunteers did but the Wildcats didn't -- losing to double-digit underdog Texas A&M in double overtime, 36-33. As a parting gift, K-State was handed an Alamo Bowl berth after being shut out of the BCS bowls.

While the Tennessee-Florida State title game -- played in the Fiesta Bowl -- was generally acknowledged as a fair outcome, there were a few minor controversies in the year of BCS's birth. Besides the snubbing of K-State, an 11-0 Tulane team was also shut out of the BCS. But thanks to the hurricanes, a catastrophe was averted.

Final BCS Standings: 1. Tennessee, 2. Florida State, 3. Kansas State, 4. Ohio State.

BCS Formula Review: The initial BCS standings, the brainchild of then-SEC commissioner Roy Kramer, was an unwieldy clunker divided in three -- human polls, computer rankings and strength of schedule. And each loss is tacked on as additional penalty. Only three computers were used -- Anderson & Hester, Jeff Sagarin and New York Times. Margin of victory was accounted for by all three computers and a 50% adjusted maximum deviation factor was applied.

Analysis: UCLA's loss, which occurred earlier in the day on Dec. 5, gave the BCS poobahs a huge sigh of relief. Tennessee's 23-16 victory over Florida State in the Fiesta Bowl, though underwhelming, was controversy-free. The BCS seemingly passed its first test ... only if they knew.

BCS GURU®

Taking the BS out of BCS