• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Who Would Have Made the 4-Team College Football Playoffs During the BCS Era? -- 10 Questions

As we acclimate ourselves to the new College Football Playoff era, we still have many questions about what the future holds.

Taking some cues from the recent past to predict the future, I took the BCS rankings from the final week of the regular seasons (post-conference championship game week) during the BCS era (1998-2013). I used the top four teams from those rankings to determine who would qualify for the College Football Playoffs in those years. For history’s sake, I used the conference that each of the team was affiliated with at that time, not where they are currently due to expansion.

The results were intriguing.


Q: How likely is it that we see two teams from the same conference in the playoffs?

Wrap your mind around this… according to the recent past, surprisingly likely. In 8 of the last 10 years of the BCS era, you would have seen at least one conference with two teams in the four-team playoff.

In fact, in 2 of those 8 years, only 2 conferences total would have been represented in the playoffs. 2008 would have pinned the the Big 12’s Oklahoma (#1) and Texas (#3) against the SEC’s Florida (#2) and Alabama (#4), and in 2006, the playoffs would have boasted Big Ten blue-bloods Ohio State (#1) and Michigan (#3) against SEC powerhouses Florida (#2) and LSU (#4). The ACC was the only Power 5 conference to not have two teams qualify for the playoffs in a single year during the BCS era.

During the BCS era, we never had three teams from the same conference finish in the top four. However... if you considered what expansion has done to college football, three current Big Ten members would have finished in the top four pre-BCS in 1995… Tommy Frazier and #1 Nebraska, Darnell Autrey and #3 Northwestern, and that year's Heisman Trophy winner Eddie George and #4 Ohio State. What a playoff that one would have been!


Q: What Power 5 conferences are most likely to be represented in the College Football Playoffs?

During the BCS era, the SEC would have had at least one representative in 13 of the 16 years (81%), including each of the last 8 years… or since Urban’s 2006 Gator team took a chomp out of our beloved Buckeyes. Expect the SEC’s run of having at least one team finish in the top four of the regular season rankings to continue, despite the south's fear of being left out this year.

The Big 12 would have had representation in 11 of the 16 years (69%) for the conference second most likely to be in the playoffs. However, the Big 12 hasn’t had a team that would have qualified for the playoffs since 2011, indicating that recent conference expansion, the downturn of blue-blood programs Texas and Oklahoma, and subsequent removal of a conference championship game has certainly hindered their chances.


Q: What Power 5 conferences are least likely to be represented in the College Football Playoffs?

Having a representative in only 5 years (31%) of the BCS era, the ACC is the least likely to have a team in the playoffs. The addition of 5-time national champion Miami (FL) has been not as fruitful for the conference as expected, as the Hurricanes haven’t finished above #8 in the final regular season BCS standings since they joined the conference in 2004. The agreement the ACC signed with Notre Dame also looks like it could hinder the conference if the Domers start going unbeaten in head-to-head match-ups against the ACC, stealing the conference's thunder and their potential spot in the College Football Playoffs.

Having representatives in two more years than the ACC during that time period is the Big Ten (44%). With the recent influx of head coaching talent to the conference (Meyer, Dantonio, Harbaugh, Franklin) and the addition of a conference championship game to help their strength of schedule, the Big Ten’s chances certainly seem to be trending upwardly for the future after a long run of futility.


Q: Would Notre Dame have forced its way into the playoffs more often than they should have due to their “brand recognition”?

Actually, they only would have qualified once during the entire BCS era… in 2012 (#1) with Manti Te’o and his fake dead girlfriend. The only other time they would have had an argument would have been in 2005 with Brady Quinn at the helm and Charlie Weis giving them a "competitive advantage". In hindsight for Domer fans, that team ended up getting waxed by our Buckeyes as a tune-up for what would be a national championship run (and Heisman run for Troy) the following year.


Q: What teams were most likely to be “In” the playoffs during the BCS years?

To no one's surprise, the usual suspects would have been Alabama (6), Ohio State (5), Oklahoma (5), USC (4), Texas (4), and Florida State (4). Because I know you are interested, Ohio State would have been “In” in 1998 (#4), 2002 (#2), 2005 (#4), 2006 (#1), 2007 (#1). The Buckeyes would have made it 6 in the undefeated 2012 season if not for being ineligible for the BCS that year due to the outcome of an NCAA investigation. In 1998, the playoffs certainly would have given the Bucks a second shot at earning the national title after having lost to Nick Saban’s Spartans late in the season.

(For shits and giggles, Ohio State would have also been “In” in 1995 & 1996 as well, both at the #4 spot.)

The most impressive run/potential dynasty would have been Alabama qualifying for the playoffs in 5 out of 6 years between 2008 and 2013 (plus qualifying for the CFP in 2014). The only year they wouldn’t have been “In” during that stretch was in 2010, where they finished outside of the top 10 and rival Auburn won the national championship with Cam Newton.

Also, for the record, 27 different universities would have made the playoffs during the BCS era, with the Big 12 & SEC each boasting 6 unique schools during that time.


Q: Would a team from a non-Power 5 conference have made the College Football Playoffs during the BCS era?

Yes, but it might not be the team that first came to your mind. Despite their grumblings during this past year’s chase, the "Little Sisters of the Poor" themselves, TCU, would have qualified for the playoffs in back-to-back years for the Mountain West in 2009 (#4) and 2010 (#3). Fellow mid-majors Boise State (WAC) finished the regular season as high as #6 in 2009 and Utah (MWC) finished #6 in both 2004 (with Urban Meyer) and 2008.

TCU’s two Playoff appearances during the BCS era would have been as many as football blue-bloods M*ch*g*n (2003, 2006), Virginia Tech (1999, 2007), and Nebraska (1999, 2001) had during the same time period... and 1 more appearance than each of Notre Dame (2012), Georgia (2002), Tennessee (1998), & Penn State (2005).


Q: Other than TCU’s 2-year run, would the Playoffs have been a “blue-blood only” club during the BCS era?

Despite recent national perception being swayed by the incessant whining of Big 12 coaches, the playoffs wouldn’t have been run only by blue-blood programs.

Upstart fellow Big 12 member Oklahoma State (#3) would have made a deep run at a national title in 2011 despite being upset by Offensive Coordinator Tom Herman’s Iowa State Cyclones, later proving their mettle by winning a nail biter against then #4 Stanford in the Fiesta Bowl.

Another Big 12 member Kansas State (#3) would have made an appearance in the playoffs during the initial year of the BCS in 1998.

In 2001, the year that really started the calls for a switch to a playoff model, would have seen #3 Colorado and Joey Harrington’s #4 Oregon team (pre-Chip Kelly’s offense) in the running for a national title.

Michigan State shed its “Sparty” nature to defeat Ohio State in the B1G championship game in 2013 to finish the regular season #4 in the BCS standings.

And finally, the #3 Cincinnati Bearcats finished the 2009 season undefeated before being taken to the woodshed by Meyer and Tebow’s Florida Gators in the 2010 Sugar Bowl. No more complaints, Bears and Horned Frogs. You get there by merit, not by what's on the front of your jersey.


Q: How has the downfall and eventual demise of the Big East affected college football?

This might be surprising, but the Big East was a huge factor in the BCS in its early years, having a team play in 3 of the first 5 BCS Championship games and would have had a team in 4 of the first 5 playoffs: 1999 Virginia Tech (#2), 2000 Miami (#3), 2001 Miami (#1), and 2002 Miami (#1).

After Miami and Virginia Tech left for the ACC in 2004 and Boston College followed suit the next year, the conference was never the same and did not command the respect it once had. Only once after that 2004 expansion season would a Big East team had made the playoffs... the above mentioned 2009 Cincinnati Bearcats. Neither Virginia Tech or Miami have fared quite as well since entering the ACC, though Virginia Tech would have made the playoffs in 2007 (#3) in their new conference.


Q: Would teams and conferences have grumbled about not making the top 4 the same way they grumbled about not making the top 2 during the BCS era?

It’s inevitable. Even if they expanded it to 8, there would still be teams at #9 and #10 telling the world that they got the short end of the stick.

However, I think there wouldn’t have been as much grumbling and politicking as you might think there might have been. In an astounding 11 of the 16 years BCS era, the ACC didn’t have a current member at that time finish in the top 6 (!) of the final regular season BCS standings, let alone the top 4. The Big Ten had 8 such years during that span where they didn’t have a team finish in the top 6, as did each of the other Power 5 conferences at least twice... even the mighty SEC (2000, 2005).


Q: Now, since you brought it up, what would the playoffs have looked like during the BCS era if we had an 8-TEAM playoff??

Well… that would be a question for another time... :pimp:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Playoff Qualifiers (plus first two out) During the BCS Era:


1998
  1. Tennessee - SEC
  2. Florida State - ACC
  3. Kansas State - Big 12
  4. Ohio State - B1G
----------------------------------
5. UCLA - Pac 12
6. Texas A&M - Big 12


1999
  1. Florida State - ACC
  2. Virginia Tech - Big East
  3. Nebraska - Big 12
  4. Alabama - SEC
---------------------------------
5. Tennessee - SEC
6. Kansas State - Big 12


2000
  1. Oklahoma - Big 12
  2. Florida State - ACC
  3. Miami - Big East
  4. Washington - Pac 12
-------------------------------
5. Virginia Tech - Big East
6. Oregon State - Pac 12


2001
  1. Miami - Big East
  2. Nebraska - Big 12
  3. Colorado - Big 12
  4. Oregon - Pac 12
-----------------------------
5. Florida - SEC
6. Tennessee - SEC


2002
  1. Miami - Big East
  2. Ohio State - B1G
  3. Georgia - SEC
  4. USC - Pac 12
----------------------------
5. Iowa - B1G
6. Washington State - Pac 12


2003
  1. Oklahoma - Big 12
  2. LSU - SEC
  3. USC - Pac 12
  4. m*ch*g*n - B1G
----------------------------
5. Ohio State - B1G
6. Texas - Big 12


2004
  1. USC - Pac 12
  2. Oklahoma - Big 12
  3. Auburn - SEC
  4. Texas - Big 12
---------------------------
5. Cal - Pac 12
6. Utah - Mountain West


2005
  1. USC - Pac 12
  2. Texas - Big 12
  3. Penn State - B1G
  4. Ohio State - B1G
---------------------------
5. Oregon - Pac 12
6. Notre Dame - Independent


2006
  1. Ohio State - B1G
  2. Florida - SEC
  3. m*ch*g*n - B1G
  4. LSU - SEC
------------------------------
5. USC - Pac 12
6. Louisville - Big East


2007
  1. Ohio State - B1G
  2. LSU - SEC
  3. Virginia Tech - ACC
  4. Oklahoma - Big 12
---------------------------
5. Georgia - SEC
6. Missouri - Big 12


2008
  1. Oklahoma - Big 12
  2. Florida - SEC
  3. Texas - Big 12
  4. Alabama - SEC
--------------------------
5. USC - Pac 12
6. Utah - Mountain West


2009
  1. Alabama - SEC
  2. Texas - Big 12
  3. Cincinnati - Big East
  4. TCU - Mountain West
---------------------------
5. Florida - SEC
6. Boise State - WAC


2010
  1. Auburn - SEC
  2. Oregon - Pac 12
  3. TCU - Mountain West
  4. Stanford - Pac 12
----------------------------
5. Wisconsin - B1G
6. Ohio State - B1G


2011
  1. LSU - SEC
  2. Alabama - SEC
  3. Oklahoma State - Big 12
  4. Stanford - Pac 12
---------------------------
5. Oregon - Pac 12
6. Arkansas - SEC

2012*
  1. Notre Dame - Independent
  2. Alabama - SEC
  3. Florida - SEC
  4. Oregon - Pac 12
------------------------------
5. Kansas State - Big 12
6. Stanford - Pac 12
(* = Undefeated Ohio State ineligible in the BCS this year... finished the year #3 in AP poll)


2013
  1. Florida State - ACC
  2. Auburn - SEC
  3. Alabama - SEC
  4. M*ch*g*n State - B1G
-----------------------------
5. Stanford - Pac 12
6. Baylor - Big 12




Specific Schools That Would Have Been in Playoffs During BCS Era:


Big 12- 6 schools


Oklahoma - 5 times
Texas - 4
Nebraska - 2
Colorado - 1
Kansas State - 1
Oklahoma State - 1



SEC - 6 schools

Alabama - 6 times
LSU - 4
Auburn - 3
Florida - 3
Georgia - 1
Tennessee -1


Big Ten - 4 schools


Ohio State - 5 times
m*ch*g*n - 2
M*ch*g*n State - 1
Penn State - 1


Pac 12 - 4 schools


USC - 4 times
Oregon - 3
Stanford - 2
Washington - 1



Big East - 3 schools


Miami - 3 times
Cincinnati - 1
Virginia Tech - 1



ACC - 2 Schools

Florida State - 4 times
Virginia Tech - 1


Others


TCU (Mountain West) - 2 times
Notre Dame (Independent) - 1
 
Upvote 0
I took the BCS rankings from the final week of the regular seasons (post-conference championship game week) during the BCS era (1998-2013). I used the top four teams from those rankings to determine who would qualify for the College Football Playoffs in those years. For history’s sake, I used the conference that each of the team was affiliated with at that time, not where they are currently due to expansion.

Not to Mark May all over your post, because I really enjoyed reading it, and I can tell that you put a lot of work into it and it was probably a lot of fun. But I think the fact that you're using the BCS rankings for these numbers probably changes things, a bit. Admittedly, that's really all you have to go by; there was no "playoff committee" before there was a playoff. And since they march to the beat of their own drum (they don't pay attention to any of the polls), there's no way of knowing how they would have voted.

It'd be interesting to see how the BCS rankings would have chosen the playoffs in 2014. And I get the feeling (through no actual word from any of the committee members) that they were trying to give the 4 spots to conference champions last year. So if the BCS rankings in a specific year had SEC teams 1 and 4, with Big 12 at #2, ACC at #3, and PAC-12 at #5, the committee may have chosen 1, 2, 3, and 5 as the playoff contenders.

Again, excellent work - that was a fun read.
 
Upvote 0
Not to Mark May all over your post, because I really enjoyed reading it, and I can tell that you put a lot of work into it and it was probably a lot of fun. But I think the fact that you're using the BCS rankings for these numbers probably changes things, a bit. Admittedly, that's really all you have to go by; there was no "playoff committee" before there was a playoff. And since they march to the beat of their own drum (they don't pay attention to any of the polls), there's no way of knowing how they would have voted.

It'd be interesting to see how the BCS rankings would have chosen the playoffs in 2014. And I get the feeling (through no actual word from any of the committee members) that they were trying to give the 4 spots to conference champions last year. So if the BCS rankings in a specific year had SEC teams 1 and 4, with Big 12 at #2, ACC at #3, and PAC-12 at #5, the committee may have chosen 1, 2, 3, and 5 as the playoff contenders.

Again, excellent work - that was a fun read.

I disagree.

The BCS was essentially a two-team playoff. All this hypothetical assumes is an expanded field. I don't think we can assume that a selection committee would have been implemented had the field originally been set at four teams instead of two. Back then I don't think people thought of the polls as being a broken system. They were simply looking for a way to unify and synthesize the different rankings that were being done. The years of using that system, tweaking it, and finding it to still be fundamentally flawed were what brought about the new selection committee - not the expansion of the field. Going straight from the poll system to a selection committee back in the late '90s could have never happened - it's too radical of a change. Love it or hate it, the BCS was the intermediate step that was necessary in the evolution of how championships are determined.
 
Upvote 0
I tend to agree with Zurp that using the BCS rankings is a fatally flawed method of trying to predict past four team playoffs. The methodology of the rankings themselves were changed several times due to criticism.

Even if we accept that the BCS ranking system would have been implemented in year one it's almost certain that the changes it underwent would have been very different in a four team system as the complaints would likely have been very different.

For the four team pairings you listed did you just grab the final BCS standings? Those are released after the bowl games were played and aren't indicative of what was thought at the end of the regular season.

In 2002 at the end of the regular season the standings were:

1. Miami
2. Ohio State
3. Iowa
4. Georgia
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
In 2002 at the end of the regular season the standings were:

1. Miami
2. Ohio State
3. Iowa
4. Georgia
I don't know where you got those standings. Here's a LINK that shows the final BCS standings for 2002 (pre-bowl) being:

1. Miami
2. Ohio State
3. Georgia
4. Southern Cal
5. Iowa

There never were any post-bowl BCS rankings, for one fairly obvious reason: The BCS rankings were used to determine the "best" two teams for the national championship game match-up. Once those two teams were selected, i.e., after the conference championship games, any further BCS rankings would have been pointless. The final "BCS poll" (USAToday/ESPN in 2002) was really just the college coaches voting, with the caveat that they had to vote the BCS title game winner #1.

The following is a link to a .pdf file showing the 2002 BCS poll standings with methodology:

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think another thing that would have affected the standings would be the human portion of the vote that would have been cognizant of the fact there would be a huge difference between position 4 and 5. When BCS #4 means nothing more than bragging rights then it's easy to place LSU at #4 and USC at 5 in 2006. But when that #4 spot means a playoff berth, then I would say the human voters would have placed USC at 4 and dropped LSU to 5 since LSU wasn't a conference champ and "already had their shot" at Florida. Don't know what would have happened to TSUN that year, since dropping 2 spots is harder than flip-flopping 4 and 5 but it's possible that Louisville get's in instead for the same reason.

With this in mind, my pure speculation is this:

1998 - same results
1999 - same results
2000 - same results
2001 - Florida in, Nebraska or Colorado out (What can I say, stupid is as stupid does.)
2002 - Same results
2003 - Same results
2004 - Same results
2005 - Notre Dame in, Ohio State out :(
2006 - USC in, LSU out
2007 - Same result
2008 - USC (and maybe Utah) in, Bama (and maybe Texas) out
2009 - Same result
2010 - Wisky in, Stanford out
2011 - Same result (other conference champs too low in rankings)
2012 - KState in, Florida out (maybe)
2013 - Stanford in, Bama out.

So looking at that, except for the f-tarded voting keeping Nebraska high up in 2001, during the era when the computers had the greatest impact on the rankings (pre-2004) there was only one case when the results would have been different (in my imo). Once it was largely human opinions, things get much more messy. Thanks E$PN.
 
Upvote 0
So looking at that, except for the f-tarded voting keeping Nebraska high up in 2001, during the era when the computers had the greatest impact on the rankings (pre-2004) there was only one case when the results would have been different (in my imo). Once it was largely human opinions, things get much more messy. Thanks E$PN.

The percentage of the formula that went to computers actually went up after 2004. Before that, 5 items factored in to the formula: human polls (both AP and coaches'), computer polls, strength of schedule, number losses, and quality wins. Since they're all added up, they can't really be weighted the same, but its fair to say that the first four items were about 25% of the weight, with quality wins sometimes coming in to play.

With the dumbed-down formula (or, as I call it, the "We really wanted to get USC into the national championship game, and this formula proves that they should have been there" formula), the computers went up to 1/3 of the overall ranking, with another 1/3 going to the AP ranking (and later the Harris Poll) and the last 1/3 going to the Coaches' Poll. The importance of the strength of schedule, number of losses, and quality wins went down, as it was assumed that they'd be incorporated in the other 3 ranking systems.
 
Upvote 0
The percentage of the formula that went to computers actually went up after 2004. Before that, 5 items factored in to the formula: human polls (both AP and coaches'), computer polls, strength of schedule, number losses, and quality wins. Since they're all added up, they can't really be weighted the same, but its fair to say that the first four items were about 25% of the weight, with quality wins sometimes coming in to play.

With the dumbed-down formula (or, as I call it, the "We really wanted to get USC into the national championship game, and this formula proves that they should have been there" formula), the computers went up to 1/3 of the overall ranking, with another 1/3 going to the AP ranking (and later the Harris Poll) and the last 1/3 going to the Coaches' Poll. The importance of the strength of schedule, number of losses, and quality wins went down, as it was assumed that they'd be incorporated in the other 3 ranking systems.

I really thought it was the opposite. I seem to remember people complaining that the computers kept Aubern out of the NCG in 2004. Or maybe that was a later year (I guess when USC was being left out...). It's been a while now.
 
Upvote 0
Yes, the computers snubbing Auburn was a big factor. My biggest gripe with the original BCS formula was that it had an independent SOS component, when every poll and computer inherently had its own SOS component already.

Having a weak schedule in the original system penalized a team on three different fronts, and once Margin of Victory was removed from the computers it was impossible to pass "the eye test" no matter how good a team looked in the games they played.

Another thing that would have been significantly different was a committee's ranking of Big Ten teams. The Big Ten was probably stronger from 93-02 than at any other time in its history post-WWII.
 
Upvote 0
I thought about doing this article with AP rankings, but in the end, though as imperfect as it was always claimed to be, the BCS rankings worked and helped temper the strong and easily-manipulated or biased opinion of human voters with some reason. Lest anyone forget, there were specific voters that left Ohio State completely off their ballot for absurd, self-absorbed reasons... and I'm sure that that happened to other teams as well.

Obviously, like people did when these rankings were put out before the bowl games, you can make any number of arguments for any of teams that finished #4 to be switched with someone that finished #5 or #6 (especially looking in hindsight after those games were played), but these rankings where the best snapshot in time that we had of what teams were most qualified to play in the national championship game at that time.
 
Upvote 0
It might be worth going back and looking at where the semi-finals/finals would have been played each year. How often would USC & LSU have played De facto home games during the years they made it in.

I know that's even harder to post predict due to the changes of influence for some bowls (would the Fiesta have been one of the big 4 in 98?) but might be interesting nonetheless.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top