Tim Cottrell

Sports Writer/Designer

Playoffs?

We ran this story in Sunday’s edition of the Opelika-Auburn News, and by now you’ve probably seen that a “playoff” isn’t on the immediate horizon, but I’ve been wanting to comment on this for a while.

As I said in a column last December that didn’t survive our move to the new Web site, I’m 100 percent against a “plus-one” system in determining a champion.

Is it a move forward from what we have now? Maybe. But in many ways you’d be opening the door for massive amounts of arguing if they were to try a 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3 type system.

Just on my end, I find it massively unsatisfying in calling something a playoff that only allows four out of 120 teams in. My own personal preference has always been a 32- or 64-team playoff (and yes I know that would never happen and would devalue the regular season too much), but even if we’re going beyond that there’s the matter of how you’re going to pick who would be a part of it.

And what about years when just two teams are undefeated? Why make them bother with playing a game and potentially getting a key player hurt before they get to each other?

So with that thought in mind I decided to take a look at the final BCS standings in each year of the BCS era to gauge the feasibility of the plus-one in each year. Here we go. (I’m only including teams which would have a case for being in a four-team playoff)

1998

Final standings:
1. Tennessee 12-0
2. Florida State 11-1
3. Kansas State 11-1
4. Ohio State 10-1
5. UCLA 10-1

A plus-one could have potentially worked in 1998. Tennessee obviously belonged there, and wound up playing Florida State in the first BCS national title game, winning, 23-16.

The Seminoles weren’t a particularly great team by the time they played the Vols thanks to the absence of Chris Weinke, who was lost for the season in the Noles’ 10th game.

Ohio State was, by far, the most talented team that year, but were coached by John Cooper, who I liken to Les Miles, only if Miles were a worse coach and a better recruiter.

UCLA and Kansas State each lost games on the final day of the season, the Wildcats to Texas A&M in the Big XII title game and the Bruins to Miami in a game that had been rescheduled from September. Both of those teams were probably better than Florida State (at least at that point of the season).

So you certainly have a case where there are teams that might’ve belonged there more than the team that actually made it, but who are you going to leave out?

It’d be easy to leave KSU out, since they didn’t even manage to win their conference, but the BCS formula at the time (which, I think, was far better than what we have now) seemed to think the Wildcats were better than UCLA.

All in all, it would still feel pretty unsatisfying.

1999

Final standings:
1. Florida State 11-0
2. Virginia Tech 11-0
3. Nebraska 11-1

As you can see, only three teams really stood out, undefeated Florida State and Virginia Tech squads and a superb one-loss Nebraska team. So if you’re trying to match up four teams there, who is going to play?

A pretty good Alabama (10-2) team finished fourth in the final BCS standings, but there was a pretty significant dropoff in talent between the third-place Huskers and fourth-place Tide.

So are you going to have Florida State play an Alabama team they most likely would have beaten handily, while having Virginia Tech and Nebraska play what would have most likely been a blood-letting? That’s not particularly fair to the Hokies or Huskers.

2000

Final standings:
1. Oklahoma 12-0
2. Florida State 11-1
3. Miami 10-1
4. Washington 10-1
5. Virginia Tech 10-1
6. Oregon State 10-1

Now most people would say this is a year that the plus-one model would make a ton of sense, and to a large extent I agree with that. Florida State shouldn’t have been in the title game in front of Miami, and Washington had a case to be in in front of both of them since the Huskies beat Miami in September (the Hurricanes would not lose again until Jan. 3, 2003).

So matching up Oklahoma (who sort of peaked in October and coasted to the finish line in winning the title that year) with Washington and Florida State with Miami would have made sense, except you also had Virginia Tech (whose lone loss was at Miami with a banged-up Michael Vick) and Oregon State (whose lone loss was at Washington) sitting there.

Now I guess you could say they had their chance, but both proved in bowl games (Tech with a 41-20 win over a very good Clemson team in the Gator Bowl and Oregon State with a 41-9 beatdown of Notre Dame in the Fiesta) that they belonged among the nation’s elite.

Overall, however, the plus-one model would’ve worked that year and provided three incredibly entertaining games.

2001

Final standings
1. Miami 11-0
2. Nebraska 11-1
3. Colorado 10-2
4. Oregon 10-1

This is a year that the plus one would have “worked,” at least when it comes to the final standings, but wouldn’t exactly have been very fair, or right.

Colorado got super hot toward the end of the year and destroyed Nebraska in the regular season finale and then defeated a good Texas team in the Big XII title game.

The Cornhuskers wound up sneaking back into the title game (without winning their division, let alone their conference) and were blown out by Miami, one of the three or four best college football teams ever.

But, if you really want to get technical, the four best teams that season were probably Miami, Oregon, Florida and Texas. The Gators were unable to win their division due to upset losses at Auburn and vs. Tennessee (both games they were missing running back Earnest Graham) and Texas pulled their annual Red River choke job vs. Oklahoma and lost to Colorado in the title game.

And, in all honesty, the Hurricanes were so much better than everyone else they probably shouldn’t have even had to play anybody.

2002

Final standings:
1. Miami 12-0
2. Ohio State 13-0
3. Georgia 12-1
4. USC 10-2
5. Iowa 11-1

This is a year it would’ve been pretty hard to try to make Miami and Ohio State play an extra game before playing each other, but there were pretty good cases to make for Georgia, USC and Iowa.

The Hawkeyes had won eight or nine in a row after dropping an early-season game at Iowa State (who was playing well at the time before completely falling apart at midseason) and hadn’t played Ohio State in the regular season. Georgia had gone on the road and beaten a good Alabama team and a pretty good Auburn team, but lost to an out-manned Florida team coached by Ron Zook. USC had struggled early before closing out the season with impressive blowouts of UCLA and Notre Dame.

Most assumed the Hawkeyes were right up there with Ohio State, but USC torched them, 38-17, in the Orange Bowl that year.

So you’d have to leave one of those teams out (it most likely would have been USC) if you were to do a plus-one, but it really wouldn’t even be needed that year.

2003

Final standings:

1. Oklahoma 12-1
2. LSU 12-1
3. USC 11-1

Boy has this year been a cause for much wailing and gnashing of teeth, so I won’t rehash all of it. But it was pretty clear by early November when Miami was knocked out of the picture that Oklahoma, LSU and USC were the three best teams in the nation. In fact, many - myself included - were ready to anoint the Sooners the best team of all time at one point. Then Oklahoma got blown out by Kansas State in the Big XII title game (that just keeps coming up doesn’t it?) and somehow still kept the No. 1 ranking, leaving USC out.

A lot of pundits were trying to say Michigan (10-2) belonged up there with the top three teams (as pundits often do whenever Michigan is mildly good), but USC pounded the Wolverines in the Rose Bowl, proving they didn’t belong.

So odds are Michigan (who was fourth in the final BCS standings) would have made it there, but they didn’t belong and would’ve just given Oklahoma an easy whipping boy while LSU and USC slugged it out.

2004

Final standings:
1. USC 12-0
2. Oklahoma 12-0
3. Auburn 12-0
4. Texas 10-1
5. California 10-1
6. Utah 11-0

This would’ve been a tremendously difficult year to find that fourth team.

Texas had a very good football team, but Vince Young hadn’t come into his own yet at the time (he would in a Rose Bowl win over Michigan that year) and they barely snuck into the BCS thanks to some politicking by Mack Brown. California was also very strong, but how strong is anyone’s guess. They gave USC a tough time in the L.A. Coliseum and really didn’t beat anyone else of any significance, and then lost in the Holiday Bowl to Texas Tech while moping for being left out of the BCS.

Utah went undefeated in Urban Meyer’s final year there, but they really weren’t anywhere near the class of USC, Oklahoma and Auburn.

So again, you would’ve been left with the Nos. 2 and 3 teams playing a tremendously tough game while the No. 1 team got a fairly easy time of it.

2005

1. USC 12-0
2. Texas 12-0
3. Penn State 10-1

There really wasn’t a need for a plus-one in 2005. USC and Texas were both so far superior to Penn State it really doesn’t even bear mentioning, and no one else was incredibly deserving of being there. But if there were one, it would’ve been a 9-2 Ohio State team or a 10-1 Oregon team (which lost to Oklahoma in the Holiday Bowl while moping for being left out of the BCS).

2006

1. Ohio State 12-0
2. Florida 12-1
3. Michigan 11-1
4. LSU 10-2
5. USC 10-2
6. Louisville 11-1
7. Wisconsin 11-1

As you can see, it would’ve been pretty difficult to determine who should be the No. 4 seed in a plus one from 2006, at least prior to bowl season.

USC showed it was one of the best in the nation in thumping Michigan in that year’s Rose Bowl, and LSU showed what it could do when it plays to its potential in a thrashing of Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl.

So, at least by my personal preference, a plus-one would’ve looked something like Ohio State vs. LSU and Florida vs. USC.

However, since these are picked before bowls, it most likely would’ve been Ohio State vs. USC and Florida vs. Michigan (I’m just going to assume LSU would’ve been left out).

And don’t forget that you had a very good Louisville team and a Wisconsin team that no one is sure how good it was since they only played two good teams (Michigan - a loss and Arkansas in the bowl game - a win).

2007

Final standings:
1. Ohio State 11-1
2. LSU 11-2
3. Virginia Tech 11-2
4. Oklahoma 11-2
5. Georgia 10-2
6. Missouri 11-2
7. USC 10-2
8. Kansas 11-1
9. West Virginia 10-2
10. Hawaii 12-0

Ah, 2007, you were a very good year.

Picking just four teams from the pool of those worthy of consideration would’ve been unbelievably difficult, and could have very well led to rioting in locales such as Athens, Ga., or Blacksburg, Va.

I personally didn’t think Virginia Tech was all that good (as they proved in losing to Kansas in the Orange Bowl), and had their been a plus-one I would’ve been stomping my feet for Ohio State vs. Georgia and LSU vs. Oklahoma prior to bowl season.

But West Virginia and Missouri proved in their bowl games they were pretty darn good, Kansas was one of only two teams in the country to finish with only one loss and Hawaii (the other team in that equation) was undefeated prior to its loss to Georgia.. Did they deserve to be there? Of course not. But they would’ve had an argument.

-----------------------

So basically what I’m trying to say is don’t think a plus-one is the answer to our problems, or even necessarily a better solution than what we have now.

And the plan the commissioners mention toward the end of that article I posted way up there about just picking two teams at the end of the bowls might even be worse.

And here’s the story about the conference commissioners rejecting the plus-one model.

No playoff for us, college football fans.