Questions

Last updated 11/27/10

• What is the BCS?
• Which teams are eligible for BCS bowls?
• OK, we've picked the teams, now which bowl do they play in?
• How about an example?
• What are the conference tiebreakers?
• How can my favorite conference become an automatic qualifier?
• What is the BCS ratings formula?
• Do conference championship games count in the formula?
• When is the first official release?
• What happens if there is a tie for second?
• Which computer rankings are being used?
• What do you know about the different computer rankings?
• Who votes in the polls that are used in the formula?
• How do you figure the Strength of Schedule?
• How does the SOS formula account for a team playing a non-Division I-A opponent?
• How about a Strength of Schedule example?
• How does this thing really work?
• Why does the formula change almost every year?
• What have been the different formulas over the years?
• When will we get a playoff?
• Do you want a playoff?
• What do you think of my playoff proposal?
• How do I read the BCS Ratings page?

Answers

The Bowl Championship Series, or BCS, replaced what was known as the Bowl Alliance. It is the latest attempt to create a National Championship without having an actual playoff. The BCS is administered by the conference commissioners and the Notre Dame AD. They have created a rating system to determine who should play in the National Championship game at the end of the season. The top two teams in the ratings at the end of the regular season will meet in the title game.

There are four bowls involved in the BCS: Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta.

Starting with the 2006 season, a fifth BCS game has been added to serve as the championship game. This is not the "plus one" system. This simply means that there will now be ten teams playing in BCS games instead of eight. The fifth game is played at the site of one of the other four. The four bowls will rotate as hosts. The Fiesta hosts the championship game this year, followed by the Sugar, Orange and Rose in the rotation.

The automatic qualification standards are not the same for all teams. The teams are divided into four groups: automatic qualifying (AQ) conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, Pac Ten, SEC), non-automatic qualifying conferences (C-USA, MAC, Mtn West, Sun Belt, WAC), Notre Dame, and other independents.

There are ten spots in the five BCS bowl games (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar and the title game). No conference may place more than two teams in the BCS games, with one exception. If an AQ conference has the top two teams in the standings, but neither is the champion, then those two teams play for the BCS title as at-large teams, and the champion participates as well. This interpretation was changed in the 2008 season. The old interpretation was that the champion would not participate to keep the two-team limit in place.

With that in mind, the following teams automatically qualify for one of those spots. (In order of preference. All ranking criteria refer to the final BCS standings unless otherwise noted.)

1. The top two teams in the rankings. Those teams are assigned to the title game.
2. AQ conference champions, regardless of ranking.
3. The highest-rated champion of a non-AQ conference if it either ranks in the top 12 or is ranked in the top 16 and also ranked ahead of one of the champions of an AQ conference.
4. Notre Dame, if it finishes in the top eight.
5. The #3 team, if it is a member of an AQ conference and there is still an open spot.
6. The #4 team, if it is a member of an AQ conference and there is still an open spot and no team qualifies under rule 5.

If there are still open spots after all that, then any team can be selected by a BCS bowl if it:

Has 9 wins against I-A opponents (teams may count one I-AA win toward that total), and is rated in the top 14 of the BCS standings, or

Is a non-AQ conference champion and meets the qualification standard in #3, but was not the highest-rated team to do so.

If, because of conflicts with two-team-per-conference limit, there are not enough teams in the at-large pool to fill the bowl openings, the pool will be expanded down the BCS standings by four teams. Teams must still have nine wins to be considered. If that still fails, the process will be repeated until the bowls are filled.

Note that for independents not named Notre Dame, the only way to automatically qualify is to finish #1 or #2.

Also, the #3 provision only applies to the champions of the non-AQ leagues. That means, for example, if TCU were to finish 11-1, but have that loss be to Utah, which is 8-4 overall, but 8-0 in conference, then TCU could not automatically qualify under rule #3 no matter how high it is ranked.

At this point, we have two groups of teams: those that have automatically qualified and a pool of at-large candidates. Here is how they get assigned to the bowls.

1. The top two teams in the BCS rankings play in the national title game.
2. The BCS bowls get their conference champion tie-ins. The tie-ins are: Big Ten and Pac 10 champions to the Rose Bowl, SEC champion to the Sugar Bowl, Big 12 champion to the Fiesta Bowl, and the Orange gets the ACC champion. The Big East champion is not tied to a specific BCS game.
3. If the #1 team is the champion of a conference tied to one of the bowl games, that bowl gets to choose a replacement for that team.
4. If the #2 team is the champion of a conference tied to one of the bowl games, that bowl gets to choose a replacement for that team.

A bowl choosing a replacement for a tie-in lost to the national title game is not required to choose another team from its tie-in conference. Also, if both the #1 and #2 teams need to be replaced in tie-in bowl games, the bowl choosing a replacement for the #1 team may not select a team from the same conference as the #2 team without the permission of the tie-in bowl for that conference.

For the four year period beginning in 2010, the first time the Rose Bowl loses one of its anchor teams to the BCS title game, and a non-AQ team automatically qualifies for selection, and that team is not in the title game itself, the Rose Bowl is required to take that team.

At this point, seven of the ten spots will be assigned. The selection order for the other three is the following.

1. the bowl that will be played fourth that year.
2. the bowl that will be played third that year.
3. the bowl that will be played second that year (right after the Rose Bowl).

For the 2010 season, the order is Sugar, Orange, Fiesta.

Once all the games are set, the BCS folks can still do some shifting around to try to get more desirable matchups. For example, they may try to avoid regular season rematches or rematches of last year's bowl games. Also, TV may have something to say here. Note that this sort of flexibility has always been an option, but it has never been used.

Sure. Here's an semi-fictional example.

The final rankings, with conference won in parenthesis.

1. Texas (Big 12)
2. USC (Pac 10)
3. Penn St (Big Ten)
4. Ohio St
5. Purdue
6. Oregon
7. Notre Dame
8. Georgia (SEC)
9. Miami-FL
10. Virginia Tech
11. West Virginia (Big East)
12. LSU
13. Alabama
14. TCU (Mtn W)
15. Boise St (WAC)
16. Florida St (ACC)

The automatic qualifiers are: Texas, USC (rule 1), Penn St, Georgia, West Virginia, Florida St (rule 2), TCU (rule 3), Notre Dame (rule 4) and Ohio St (rule 6).

That means only one spot is left, and it will be filled from a pool consisting of Oregon, Miami-FL, Virginia Tech, LSU, Alabama and Boise St. Note that Purdue is not listed because two Big Ten teams automatically qualified and no conference may have more than two teams selected. Also, Boise St is in the pool even though it is outside the top 14 because it would have automatically qualified if not for being ranked behind TCU.

When setting up the matchups, you start with the BCS title game, which would match #1 Texas and #2 USC.

Then the conference tie-ins are satisfied. That means Penn St goes to the Rose Bowl, Georgia to the Sugar Bowl, and Florida St to the Orange Bowl.

At this point, there are still five open spots, and West Virginia, Notre Dame, TCU and Ohio St have to fill four of them.

The Fiesta gets to choose next because it lost #1 Texas to the title game. Since the Rose Bowl lost the #2 team to the title game, the Fiesta could not choose a Pac 10 team as a replacement for Texas without the permission of the Rose Bowl. However, in this particular case, we'll say the Fiesta takes Notre Dame.

Next, the Rose Bowl gets to choose a replacement for #2 USC. Because the Rose likes Big Ten-Pac 10 matchups when it can get them, it takes Oregon, which is the final at-large team.

Now were down to the last three spots. Using the priorities assigned to this year's games, the Sugar chooses next (Ohio St), followed by the Orange (West Virginia) and Fiesta (left with TCU).

So, our matchups would be:

Title: #1 USC vs #2 Texas

Sugar: #8 Georgia vs #4 Ohio St

Rose: #3 Penn St vs #6 Oregon

Fiesta: #7 Notre Dame vs #14 TCU

Orange: #16 Florida St vs #11 West Virginia

Note that in this example, three top-ten teams are left out, while three teams ranked below them got in as automatic qualifiers. The #5 team was not even eligible for selection. The BCS has never been and will likely never be about simply rewarding the best teams.

For conferences that play championship games (ACC, Big 12, SEC, C-USA, MAC), there are only divisional tiebreakers. For the Big East, Big Ten and Pac 10, there are tiebreakers to determine the BCS representative. The Mountain West, Sun Belt and WAC do not have published tiebreakers, although they need one in case its champion has a chance to qualify for a BCS game.

ACC

1. Head-to-head. If more than two teams are tied, this may not settle it.
2. Division record.
3. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall (divisional or conference) record, and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken first to last.
4. Record vs non-division teams.
5. Record vs common non-division teams.
6. Record versus common non-divisional with the best overall Conference (divisional and non-divisional) record and proceeding through the other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within the division.
7. BCS ranking. Exception: if the second highest rated team is five or fewer places behind the highest rated team and beat the highest rated team, then the second highest rated team wins the tiebreaker.
8. Draw.

Big 12

1. Head-to-head. If more than two teams are tied, this may not settle it. If at any point in the process only two teams are left, head-to-head between those teams is used.
2. Division record.
3. Head-to-head competition vs. the next highest placed team in the division, proceeding down the standings.
4. Record vs all common conference opponents.
5. BCS standings. If the top two teams in the BCS standings are one place apart, head-to-head between those two teams is used (The Texas Rule).
6. Overall winning percentage (except exempted games).
7. Draw.

Big East

1. Two teams: head-to-head. Three or more teams: If one has defeated the others, it wins the tiebreaker.
2. Three teams, all 1-1 vs each other: BCS standings.
3. Four teams, two of which are 2-1 vs the group: BCS standings (not head-to-head, unless the teams are tied in the BCS standings also).

Big Ten
Two teams tie

1. Head-to-head.
2. Overall winning percentage.
3. BCS ratings.

Three teams tie

1. If one team has defeated the other two, it wins the tiebreaker.
2. If one team has lost to the other two, it is eliminated and the two-team tiebreaker is used for the remaining teams.
3. Overall winning percentage. If one team is eliminated, the two-team tiebreaker is used for the remaining teams.
4. BCS ratings.

Four or more teams tie

1. If one team has defeated the other three, it wins the tiebreaker.
2. If two of the four teams have defeated each of the other two, the latter two are eliminated and the others revert to the two-team procedure.
3. If one team has lost to the other three, it is eliminated and the three-team tiebreaker is used for the remaining teams.
4. Overall winning percentage. If one or two teams is eliminated, the appropriate tiebreaker is used for the remaining teams.
5. BCS ratings.

Conference USA
Hosting tiebreaker: head-to-head, then BCS standings.

Divisional tiebreaker:

1. Head-to-head. If more than two teams are tied, this may not settle it.
2. Division record.
3. Record vs teams within the division in descending order of finish.
4. Record vs non-division teams.
5. Record vs non-division teams in descending order of finish.
6. BCS ranking.
7. Team that has not participated in the championship game most recently.
8. If a team is eliminated at any point, the tiebreaker starts over with the remaining teams at step 2.

MAC

1. Head-to-head. If more than two teams are tied, this may not settle it.
2. Record vs. teams within the division in descending order of finish.
3. Conference record of non-division opponents.
4. Record vs. non-division teams in descending order of finish.

Pac 10

1. Best record vs group of tied teams. If some of the group are eliminated in this step, the procedure starts over with the remaining teams.
2. If more than two teams are still tied, records for each team vs the team in the highest position in the standings are compared. This continues down the standings until one or two teams are left. If a group of teams is tied further down the standings, records vs the tied group are used. Once two teams are left, head-to-head between them is used.
3. If more than two teams are still tied, BCS standings are used.

SEC

1. Head-to-head. If more than two teams are tied, this may not settle it. If at any point, the group is reduced to two, head-to-head is used.
2. Division record.
3. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall (divisional or conference) record, and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken first to last.
4. Record vs non-division teams.
5. Record versus common non-divisional teams with the best overall Conference (divisional and non-divisional) record and proceeding through the other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within the division.
6. BCS ranking. Exception: if the second highest rated team is five or fewer places behind the highest rated team and beat the highest rated team, then the second highest rated team wins the tiebreaker.
7. Draw.

The next season that a league can become an AQ is 2012. To make that determination, leagues will be scored in three categories.

1. the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS Standings each year,
2. the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year, and
3. the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS Standings each year.

Leagues will be scored based on their performance in the 2008-11 regular seasons, and their membership at the end of the 2011 regular season. That means that if, for example, the Mountain West adds Boise St for the 2011 season, the Broncos' numbers would count for the Mountain West for all four years, even though they were only members for the last year.

For a conference to become an AQ league, it must finish in the top six of each of the first two categories, plus have a score within 50% of the best score in category three. However, a league can appeal to the Presidential Oversight Committee if it scores within 33% of the best in category three and either meets the first two criteria or if it is top seven in one of the first two categories, top five in the other.

Here is a list of how each conference has fared in those three elements in since 2008. Note that this includes Nebraska moving to the Big Ten, Utah going to the Pac 10 and Boise State's move to the Mountain West. Fresno St and Nevada do not count for the Mountain West in the current cycle because they will not join the league until the 2012 season.

The first category is the ranking of the highest-team in each league. For conferences that do not have a team in the top 25 of the BCS standings, rankings in the BCS computers are used.

Ranking of Highest-Rated Team
Conference	2008	2009	2010	2011	Avg
Big 12	#1 Oklahoma	#2 Texas			1.5
SEC	#2 Florida	#1 Alabama			1.5
Pac 10	#5 USC	#7 Oregon			6
Mtn West	#9 Boise St	#4 TCU			6.5
Big East	#12 Cincinnati	#3 Cincinnati			7.5
Big Ten	#8 Penn St	#8 Ohio St			8
ACC	#14 Georgia Tech	#9 Georgia Tech			11.5
MAC	#22 Ball St	#29 Central Michigan			25.5
C-USA	#41.5 East Carolina	#36 East Carolina			38.75
WAC	#54 Nevada	#52 Nevada			53
Sun Belt	#62.5 Troy	#49 Troy			55.75

Category two is the average BCS computer ranking of all teams in the conference.

Computer Ranking of Conference Teams
Conference	2008	2009	2010	2011	Avg
SEC	45.58	31.71			38.65
ACC	32.33	48.50			40.42
Big East	45.06	40.38			42.72
Big 12	40.55	50.20			45.38
Pac 10	57.17	40.88			49.02
Big Ten	47.33	50.88			49.10
Mtn West	60.13	66.19			63.16
WAC	80.06	81.00			80.53
C-USA	84.25	78.54			81.40
MAC	81.58	90.58			86.08
Sun Belt	98.89	93.83			96.36

The final category is the most convoluted. It is a score based on the number and ranking of teams from each league in the top 25 of the final BCS standings.

A league gets four points for each team in the top 6, three points for each team ranked 7-12, two points for each team ranked 13-18, and one point for each team ranked 19-25.

Those points are adjusted further based on the number of teams in each league. If a league has at least 10-11 teams, it gets a bonus of 12.5%. If a league has fewer than 10 teams, it gets a bonus of 25%. This is the category where the percentage of the best score is used.

The table shows the unadjusted score for each league for each season, and in parenthesis, the rankings of the teams in the top 25.

Conference Teams in the Top 25
Conference	2008	2009	2010	2011	Total	Bonus	Adjusted	% of Best
SEC	11 (2, 4, 15, 25)	11 (1, 5, 12)			22	n/a	22	100%
Big 12	14 (1, 3, 7, 13, 21)	5 (2, 19)			19	12.5%	21.38	97.2%
Pac 10	10 (5, 6, 17)	9 (7, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24)			19	12.5%	21.38	97.2%
Big Ten	9 (8, 10, 18, 23)	10 (8, 10, 13, 22, 25)			19	n/a	19	86.4%
Mtn West	6 (9, 11)	8 (4, 6)			14	25%	17.50	79.5%
Big East	4 (12, 20)	8 (3, 16, 17)			12	25%	15	68.2%
ACC	4 (14, 19, 24)	8 (9, 11, 15)			12	n/a	12	54.5%
MAC	1 (22)	0			1	n/a	1	4.5%
C-USA	0	0			0	n/a	0	0%
Sun Belt	0	0			0	25%	0	0%
WAC	0	0			0	25%	0	0%

No current non-AQ league meets the criteria for becoming an AQ, but as things stand right now, the Mountain West would be in position to appeal to the Presidential Oversight Committee.

The current version uses three basic factors:

Point total in the Harris Interactive poll.

Point total in the coaches' poll.

Ranking in the six selected computer ranking systems, after throwing out the best and worst ranking for each team.

In the polls, a team's score is its point total divided by the best possible point total for that poll. In 2009, there are 114 Harris voters and 59 coaches voting, which means that the best possible score for the Harris poll is 2850 (114 voters x 25 points for a first place vote) and in the coaches' poll, the best possible score is 1475.

The four computers for each team will be treated like voters in a mini-poll. That means, the team ranked #1 in a computer ranking will get 25 points. The #2 team will receive 24, and so on, down to the #25 team in a computer getting one point. Each team's four computer scores (after tossing the best and worst) will be added and divided by 100 (the best possible score) to give the computer average.

Then, the three numbers will be averaged for the total BCS score, highest being better.

Here is an example of how to calculate the BCS ratings:

• In the Harris poll, Purdue has 1556 points. That was good enough for the #10 ranking, but that doesn't matter. Their score for the Harris poll part of the formula is 1556/2850 or .5450.
• In the coaches' poll, the Boilers have 664 points, which is then divided by 1475 to give a score of .4502.
• Purdue has computer rankings of 3, 4, 4, 6, 9 and 10. When you throw out the best and the worst, you are left with 4, 4, 6 and 9. Those rankings are worth 22, 22, 20 and 17 points respectively in the mini-poll, which adds up to 81 points. That is then divided by 100 for a total of .81.
• The Boilermakers final BCS score then is the average of those three numbers, or (.5450 + .4502 + .81) / 3 = .6017.

Note that every game counts fully in every part of the BCS formula. One of the bigger myths is that championship games don't count, or duplicate opponents don't count, but that is not true.

In 2009, the first official release will be October 18th.

The tiebreaker is as follows.

Head-to-head.

Result against highest-ranked common opponent in the BCS standings.

BCS rating using all six computer rankings.

Flip the cosmic coin.

• Jeff Anderson-Chris Hester
• Richard Billingsley
• Wes Colley
• Kenneth Massey
• Jeff Sagarin
• Peter Wolfe

Not a whole lot. Most of the formulas are proprietary. Some are more forthcoming about what goes in than others. All of the systems use the same basic set of data (except where noted): Date of game, location of game, who played and who won. What distinguishes them is what they do with the data, how much they weigh certain factors, and what set of teams they rank.

None of the rating systems consider margin of victory.

Unless otherwise noted, all publish ratings from the beginning of the season and therefore have some prior season bias at least early on. In those systems, at some point, the prior season data is no longer relevant and each season stands on its own.

• Jeff Anderson-Chris Hester
  Rates D1A teams only. Strength of schedule factors in conference strength of opponents, which is based on how conference teams do in non-conference play. It also appears to give weight to how a team performs against better opposition. Does consider game location, but not the date. Does not publish until after 5th week.

• Richard Billingsley
  Rates D1A teams only. Carries a team's rank over from previous year and values early part of season more highly. Also gives slight emphasis to recent performance. If a team does not play, its raw rating (as opposed to ranking) does not change that week. If a team wins, it goes up and if it loses, with rare exception, it goes down. Has a detailed explanation on his site, although he does not provide his formula. Game location given "very minor" consideration.

• Wes Colley
  Rates D1A teams only, plus provisional 1A teams (like Troy St in 2001). His ratings only consider games between I-A opponents, although in 2007, he made a change to account for games against I-AA foes by grouping I-AA teams and treating the groups like a I-A team. Guidelines for forming those groups are listed on his site, but he doesn't always follow them precisely. Publishes his formula on his website, but you need to be a math geek to understand it. Publishes ratings at the beginning of the season, but uses no prior season data. Everyone starts at 0.5. Game location and date are not considered.

• Kenneth Massey
  Rates all NCAA and NAIA teams. Starts everyone at zero and starts publishing at the beginning of the season. The formula does not consider homefield advantage or game date. Massey provides a description of his MOV based system on his site, but we can't be sure how much, if any, of that description applies to his BCS ratings.

• Jeff Sagarin
  Rates all DI teams, both IA and IAA. The BCS will not be using the ratings Sagarin is famous for, but rather a rating system he calls "Elo Chess," which does not include MOV. Presumably, he named it "Elo Chess" because it is based on the rating system used for chess players developed by Arpad Elo. Home field advantage is considered.

• Peter Wolfe
  Rates all NCAA and NAIA teams. Does not publish rankings until the week of the first release. Rankings based on actual outcome vs probability of that outcome occurring. Game location is a factor.

In 2008, there were 114 voters in the Harris poll, which is made up of former coaches, players, administrators and some current and former media. In 2005, one was kicked out right before the first official release. Hopefully, we'll be spared a similar fate this year. The number of coaches voting in 2009 is 59, two fewer than last year. New voters for this season are noted.

Known current and former affiliations are listed. Current affiliation/job in italics. Since Harris is interested in spreading things out by conference, I have also broken both lists down that way.

Harris Voters

Coach Voters

Aldridge, Denny - Texas Anderson, Bob - Army Bailey, Eric - Kansas St Batten, Sammy - Fayetteville Observer Bestwick, Dick - Virginia coach Biddle, Joe - Nashville Tennesseean Bishop, Blaine - Ball St Brandt, Gil - Dallas Cowboys GM Brooks, Rich - Oregon St player, Oregon, Kentucky coach (new) Brown, Chip - Orangebloods.com Buckner, Brentson - Clemson, Carolina Panthers Bunting, John - North Carolina player, coach (new) Burget, Grant - Oklahoma (new) Carlin, Chris - WFAN Casciola, Bob - National Football Foundation Cavagnaro, Charlie - Memphis, UNLV AD Cleary, Michael - NACDA executive director Collins, Tony - East Carolina Corrigan, Gene - Virginia, Notre Dame AD, ACC Commish, NCAA President Criqui, Don - Notre Dame radio Crowley, Joe - former Nevada president Crum, Dick - Kent St, Miami-OH, North Carolina coach (new) Curci, Fran - Miami-FL, Kentucky coach Dawkins, Pete - Army Deromedi, Herb - Central Michigan coach (new) Dickson, Darnell - Provo Daily Herald Dienhart, Mark - Minnesota AD Dombrowski, Jim - Virginia Dorsey, John - Connecticut, Green Bay Packers scouting director Dunlevy, Bob - West Virginia Ealey, Chuck - Toledo Fehlberg, Rondo - BYU AD Frazier, Tommie - Nebraska Frerotte, Gus - Tulsa (new) Gagliardi, Robert - Wyoming Tribune-Eagle Gbaja-Biamila, Akbar - San Diego St Grim, Bob - Oregon St Grosscup, Lee - Utah, Cal radio Hall, Wally - Arkansas Democrat (new) Hennings, Chad - Air Force Hicks, Tommy - Mobile Register Housel, David - Auburn AD Husak, Todd - Stanford (new) Irvine, Steve - Birmingham News Joe, JJ - Baylor player, radio Johnson, Scott - Fresno St AD Keech, Larry - retired media, Greensboro, NC Kerkhoff, Blair - KC Star Kern, Mike - Philly Daily News Kramer, Roy - SEC comm Kurtz, Jesse - KKTV Leach, Bobby - SMU Lessig, Jim - Bowling Green, Kansas AD, Sun Belt, MAC comm Lubick, Sonny - Colorado St coach Lucas, Mike - Madison Capital Times Lude, Mike - Colo St coach, Auburn, Kent St, Washington AD Luicci, Tom - Newark Star Ledger Luis, Cindy - Honolulu Advertiser Mallory, John - West Virginia Mandich, Jim - Michigan, WQAM Radio, Miami Marcum, Bob - Iowa St, Kansas, Marshall AD (new) Matthews, Loren - retired, ABC Sports Mayes, Derrick - Notre Dame McBride, Charlie - Colorado player, Nebraska asst coach McConnell, Joe - Purdue radio McGee, Mike - Duke player, coach, ECU coach, Cinci, USC (both of them) AD McIlhenny, Lance - SMU McLellan, Bill - Clemson player, AD, Southern Miss AD Medhurst, Pete - Navy radio Millis, Tim - retired Big 12 officials supervisor Mizell, Eric - Troy Morton, Craig - Cal Novak, Joe - Miami-OH player, Northern Illinois coach Oakes, Jim - Louisiana Tech AD O'Brien, Denny - Bonesville (East Carolina) Paschall, David - Chattanooga Times Free Press Pinkett, Allen - Notre Dame player, radio Plank, Doug - Ohio St (new) Ponti, Gene - KMLB Radio, Monroe, LA Prater, Mike Idaho Statesman Preece, Steve - Oregon St Richter, Pat - Wisconsin AD Robinson, Earle - WKAR Radio, Lansing, MI Roda, Kenny - WKNR Cleveland Sanders, Gary former play-by-play for UAB Schiller, Harvey - SEC comm Schmidt, Dr. Terry R. - Ball St Schneider, Paul - KBOI radio Schroeder, George - Eugene Register-Guard Shea, Terry - Oregon player, San Jose St, Rutgers coach Sherrill, Jackie - Alabama player, Washington St, Pitt, Texas A&M, Mississippi St coach Simpson, Corky - Tucson Citizen Smigiel, Joe - Arizona Stabley, Fred former CoSIDA president Stephenson, Ron - Big Sky commissioner Stevens, Patrick - D1scource Strock, Don - Virginia Tech player, Florida Int'l coach Thalman, Bud - Navy, Penn St Thulin, Ron - TBS Sports Tiller, Joe - Purdue, Wyoming coach (new) Toner, John - UConn AD Torretta, Gino - Miami (new) Trotman, Charlie - Auburn Urick, Max - Iowa St, Kansas St AD Valdiserri, Roger - Notre Dame SID Van Note, Jeff - Kentucky Vardell, Tommy - Stanford Vruggink, Jim - Purdue media relations Wagner, Bob - Hawaii coach Walden, Jim - Iowa St, Washington St, coach, radio White, Jack - East Carolina, Kansas, Oregon St, Southern Miss assistant coach Wiegert, Zach - Nebraska Wine, George - Iowa SID Yoshida, Hugh - Hawaii AD

Rob Akey, Idaho David Bailiff, Rice Frank Beamer, Virginia Tech Tim Beckman, Toledo Todd Berry, UL Monroe (new) Bret Bielema, Wisconsin (new) Art Briles, Baylor (new) Dave Christensen, Wyoming David Cutcliffe, Duke Mark Dantonio, Michigan St Todd Dodge, North Texas Sonny Dykes, Louisiana Tech (new) Dan Enos, Central Michigan (new) Steve Fairchild, Colorado St (new) Larry Fedora, Southern Miss Jimbo Fisher, Florida St (new) Al Golden, Temple Jim Grobe, Wake Forest Jim Harbaugh, Stanford Mike Haywood, Miami-OH (new) Butch Jones, Cincinnati (new) Brian Kelly, Notre Dame Jerry Kill, Northern Illinois (new) Mike Locksley, New Mexico (new) Mike London, Virginia (new) Bill Lynch, Indiana Mike MacIntyre, San Jose St (new) Doug Marrone, Syracuse (new) Urban Meyer, Florida (new) Dan Mullen, Mississippi St Ken Niumatalolo, Navy Tom O'Brien, North Carolina St George O'Leary, UCF (new) Bo Pelini, Nebraska Chris Petersen, Boise St Bobby Petrino, Arkansas (new) Gary Pinkel, Missouri Larry Porter, Memphis (new) Jeff Quinn, Buffalo (new) Paul Rhoads, Iowa St (new) Mark Richt, Georgia Mike Riley, Oregon St Rich Rodriguez, Michigan Nick Saban, Alabama Steve Sarkisian, Washington (new) Greg Schiano, Rutgers Howard Schnellenberger, Florida Atlantic (new) Mike Sherman, Texas A&M Steve Spurrier, South Carolina Rick Stockstill, Middle Tennessee Mike Stoops, Arizona (new) Charlie Strong, Louisville (new) Kevin Sumlin, Houston Bob Toledo, Tulane Jim Tressel, Ohio State Tommy Tuberville, Texas Tech (new) Kyle Whittingham, Utah (new) Paul Wulff, Washington St Ron Zook, Illinois

By Conference. p - player, c - coach, a - administrator, m - media

Harris Voters	Coach Voters
ACC
Commissioner: Corrigan, Gene Clemson: Buckner, Brentson-p; McLellan, Bill-pa Duke: McGee, Mike-pc Miami-FL: Curci, Fran-c; Torretta, Gino-p North Carolina: Bunting, John-pc; Crum, Dick-c Virginia: Bestwick, Dick-c; Corrigan, Gene-a; Dombrowski, Jim-p Virginia Tech: Strock, Don-p	David Cutcliffe, Duke Jimbo Fisher, Florida St (new) Tom O'Brien, N.C. State Mike London, Virginia (new) Frank Beamer, Virginia Tech Jim Grobe, Wake Forest
Big East
Cincinnati: McGee, Mike-a; Connecticut: Dorsey, John-p; Toner, John-a Pitt: Sherrill, Jackie-c Rutgers: Shea, Terry-c West Virginia: Dunlevy, Bob-p; Mallory, John-p	Butch Jones, Cincinnati (new) Charlie Strong, Louisville (new) Greg Schiano, Rutgers Doug Marrone, Syracuse (new)
Big Ten
Iowa: Wine, George-a Michigan: Mandich, Jim-p Minnesota: Dienhart, Mark-a; Ohio St: Plank, Doug-p Penn St: Thalman, Bud-a Purdue: McConnell, Joe-m; Tiller, Joe-c; Vruggink, Jim-a Wisconsin: Richter, Pat-a	Ron Zook, Illinois Bill Lynch, Indiana Rich Rodriguez, Michigan Mark Dantonio, Michigan St Jim Tressel, Ohio State Bret Bielema, Wisconsin (new)
Big 12
Baylor: Joe, JJ-pm Colorado: McBride, Charlie-p Iowa St: Marcum, Bob-a; Urick, Max-a; Walden, Jim-c Kansas: Lessig, Jim-a; Marcum, Bob-a; White, Jack-c Kansas St: Bailey, Eric-p; Urick, Max-a Nebraska: Frazier, Tommie-p; McBride, Charlie-c; Weigert, Zach-p Oklahoma: Burget, Grant-p Texas: Aldridge, Denny-p Texas A&M: Sherrill, Jackie-c	Art Briles, Baylor (new) Paul Rhoads, Iowa St (new) Gary Pinkel, Missouri Bo Pelini, Nebraska Mike Sherman, Texas A&M Tommy Tuberville, Texas Tech (new)
C-USA
East Carolina: Collins, Tony-p; McGee, Mike-c; O'Brien, Denny-m; White, Jack-c Marshall: Marcum, Bob-a Memphis: Cavagnaro, Charlie-a SMU: Leach, Bobby-p; McIlhenny, Lance-p Southern Miss - McLellan, Bill-a; White, Jack-c Tulsa: Frerotte, Gus-p UAB: Sanders, Gary-m	Kevin Sumlin, Houston Larry Porter, Memphis (new) David Bailiff, Rice Larry Fedora, Southern Miss Bob Toledo, Tulane George O'Leary, UCF (new)
MAC
Commissioner: Lessig, Jim Ball St: Bishop, Blaine-p; Schmidt, Dr. Terry R.-p Bowling Green: Lessig, Jim-a Central Michigan: Deromedi, Herb-c Kent St: Crum, Dick-c; Lude, Mike-a; Miami: Crum, Dick-c; Novak, Joe-p Northern Illinois: Novak, Joe-c Toledo: Ealey, Chuck-p	Jeff Quinn, Buffalo (new) Dan Enos, Central Michigan (new) Mike Haywood, Miami-OH (new) Jerry Kill, Northern Illinois (new) Al Golden, Temple Tim Beckman, Toledo
Mountain West
Air Force: Hennings, Chad-p BYU: Fehlberg, Rondo-a Colorado St: Lude, Mike-c; Lubick, Sonny-c San Diego St: Gbaja-Biamila, Akbar-p Utah: Grosscup, Lee-p UNLV: Cavagnaro, Charlie-a Wyoming: Tiller, Joe-c	Steve Fairchild, Colorado St (new) Mike Locksley, New Mexico (new) Kyle Whittingham, Utah (new) Dave Christensen, Wyoming
Pac 10
Arizona: Smigiel, Joe-p Cal: Grosscup, Lee-m; Morton, Craig-p Oregon: Brooks, Rich-c; Shea, Terry-p Oregon St: Brooks, Rich-p; Grim, Bob-p; Preece, Steve-p; White, Jack-c Stanford: Husak, Todd-p; Vardell, Tommy-p USC: McGee, Mike-a Washington: Lude, Mike-a Washington St: Sherrill, Jackie-c; Walden, Jim-cm	Mike Stoops, Arizona (new) Mike Riley, Oregon St Jim Harbaugh, Stanford Steve Sarkisian, Washington (new) Paul Wulff, Washington St
SEC
Commissioner: Kramer, Roy; Schiller, Harvey Alabama: Sherrill, Jackie-p Auburn: Housel, David-a; Lude, Mike-a; Trotman, Charlie-p Kentucky: Brooks, Rich-p; Curci, Fran-c; Van Note, Jeff-p Mississippi St: Sherrill, Jackie-c South Carolina: McGee, Mike-a	Nick Saban, Alabama Bobby Petrino, Arkansas (new) Urban Meyer, Florida (new) Mark Richt, Georgia Dan Mullen, Mississippi St Steve Spurrier, South Carolina
Sun Belt
Commissioner: Lessig, Jim Florida International: Strock, Don-c Troy: Mizell, Eric-p	Howard Schnellenberger, Florida Atlantic (new) Rick Stockstill, Middle Tennessee Todd Dodge, North Texas Todd Berry, UL Monroe (new)
WAC
Fresno St: Johnson, Scott-a Hawaii: Wagner, Bob-c; Yoshida, Hugh-a Louisiana Tech: Oakes, Jim-a Crowley, Joe-a San Jose St: Shea, Terry-c	Chris Petersen, Boise St Rob Akey, Idaho Sonny Dykes, Louisiana Tech (new) Mike MacIntyre, San Jose St (new)
Independent
Army: Anderson, Bob-p; Dawkins, Pete-p Navy: Medhurst, Pete-m; Thalman, Bud-a Notre Dame: Corrigan, Gene-a; Criqui, Don-m; Mayes, Derrick-p; Pinkett, Allen-pm; Valdiserri, Roger-a	Ken Niumatalolo, Navy Brian Kelly, Notre Dame
Media
Batten, Sammy - Fayetteville Observer Biddle, Joe - Nashville Tennesseean Brown, Chip - Orangebloods.com Carlin, Chris - WFAN New York Dickson, Darnell - Provo Daily Herald Gagliardi, Robert - Wyoming Tribune-Eagle Hall, Wally - Arkansas Democrat Hicks, Tommy - Mobile Register Irvine, Steve - Birmingham News Keech, Larry - retired media, Greensboro, NC Kerkhoff, Blair - Kansas City Star Kern, Mike - Philadelphia Daily News Kurtz, Jesse - KKTV Colorado Springs Lucas, Mike - Madison Capital Times Luicci, Tom - Newark Star Ledger Luis, Cindy - Honolulu Advertiser Mandich, Jim - WQAM Radio, Miami Matthews, Loren - retired, ABC Sports Paschall, David - Chattanooga Times Free Press Ponti, Gene - KMLB Radio, Monroe, LA Prater, Mike Idaho Statesman Robinson, Earle - WKAR Radio, Lansing, MI Roda, Kenny - WKNR Cleveland Schneider, Paul - KBOI Boise Schroeder, George - Eugene Register-Guard Simpson, Corky - Tucson Citizen Stevens, Patrick - D1scource Thulin, Ron - TBS Sports
Other
Brandt, Gil - Dallas Cowbowys GM Casciola, Bob - National Football Foundation Cleary, Michael - NACDA executive director Corrigan, Gene - NCAA President Dorsey, John - Green Bay Packers scouting director Millis, Tim - retired Big 12 officials supervisor Stabley, Fred former CoSIDA president Stephenson, Ron - Big Sky commissioner
Unknown

It is 2/3 opponents' winning percentage and 1/3 opponents' opponents' winning percentage. The opponents' winning percentage is figured by adding up all the opponents' wins and all their losses and taking the percentage. An adjustment is made for the opponents' games against the team in question. The opponents' opponents' winning percentage is figured by adding up all the opponents' records of a team's opponents and taking the percentage.

SOS is calculated based only on games played so far. Future scheduled games are not included.

Note that SOS is no longer part of the BCS formula, but I still calculate it for comparison purposes.

A team's record for SOS purposes is considered to be all wins over Division I-A opponents and all losses. For non-Division I-A teams, that record is going to be something like 0-6. Or at best 1-0. Here is an example from 1998.

Kansas State beat Division I-AA Indiana State 66-0. Indiana State ended up 5-6, but none of their wins came against Division I-A competition, so for the purposes of calculating SOS, ISU was 0-6. The loss to KSU counted in 1998, but not in 1999. Also, ISU's opponents could only manage 2 wins against D-IA opponents (not counting KSU in 1998; KSU does count in 1999), so their opponents' record was 2-45. The 0-6 and 2-45 went into KSU's SOS calculation, which helps explain why they finished about 65th in the SOS ratings last year, despite playing in a good conference.

However, games against teams outside of Division I altogether do not count in the SOS formula, so there is no penalty for playing them. For example, in 1999, New Mexico State played D-II New Mexico-Highlands and was not penalized in the SOS for it. This is easily the most illogical piece of this relatively simple formula.

OK, here is a simple example for Louisville.

Each team has two records. The BCS Record (BR) for each team is wins over D1A opponents and all losses. The Total Record (TR) includes wins over D1-AA teams. D1-AA teams marked with a *.

Records
Lvl	BR: 1-0 TR: 2-0	W Ky*, W Gramb
Ky	BR: 0-1 TR: 1-1	L Lvl, W SFla*
Gramb*	BR: 0-1 TR: 1-1	L Lvl, W Alc St*
SFla*	BR: 0-1 TR: 1-1	W JSU*, L Ky
Alc St*	BR: 0-2 TR: 0-2	L Gramb*, L Ala St*

For D1A teams, the opponents record for all teams is the sum of opponents' BCS Records minus the games played against the team in question (the team's inverted Total Record).

For D1-AA teams, you subtract the team's Total Wins from its opponent's losses, but not vice versa. It is not entirely logical, but that is how it works. The logic is that all of the I-AA team's wins will show up as losses in its raw opponents' record, but not all of the I-AA team's losses will show up as wins. Only the losses to I-A teams show up, so this method is kind of the lazy way out. Instead of subtracting the number of losses to D1A teams from the opponents' wins, it just uses 0.

Opponents Records
Lvl	0-0	Ky (0-1) + Gramb* (0-1) - inv(Lvl) (0-2)
Ky	0-0	Lvl (1-0) + SFla* (0-1) + inv(Ky) (1-1)
Gramb*	1-1	Lvl (1-0) + Alc St* (0-2) - invW(Gramb*) (0-1)

Opponents' Opponents Record is simply the sum of the opponents' records of a team's opponents.

Opponents' Opponents Records
Lvl	1-1	OR(Ky) (0-0) + OR(Gramb*) (1-1)

The BCS is a tough system to beat because of its dependence on the polls. Tulane went 11-0 in 1998, but because they were not highly regarded before the season started, and because they played in what is considered a weak conference, they had no shot of playing in the title game. If a team is not in the top 4 in each poll (Harris and Coaches) at the end of the season, there is no realistic chance to finish in the top 2 in the BCS.

However, the polls are not the biggest factor. Losing is. That is because a loss will negatively impact the polls for sure and likely also the computer rankings.

The computer rankings are less of a factor than the polls, but they can still overrule the polls if the point totals are close.

The computer ratings are also more of a mystery because many are proprietary, so exactly how they are computed is unknown. Each poll is a consensus of the opinion of its voters. That is 114 Harris voters and 60 coaches, so it can be said that the polls are a consensus of 174 opinions. Each computer rating though is basically the individual programmer's opinion. That means that the computer ratings piece of the BCS is a consensus of six opinions. And the "best" and "worst" opinions do not count. So it can be said that Richard Billingsley's opinion, for example, is more important than any one writer's or any one coach's. Is that a good idea? I think it is fine, but draw your own confusion.

The BCS is between a rock and a hard place. The good thing about giving this much power to the pollsters is that it increases the chance that the fans will get what they want each year, which is the #1 and #2 teams in the polls playing each other for the title.

Note that I did not say the two best or most deserving teams playing each other, which brings me to the bad part about giving this much power to the voters. The polls do a terrible job of measuring that. Just about all they care about is who has the longest winning streak and are biased by preseason expectations.

There is also an ethical problem with poll voters being given this much power. The coaches clearly have a conflict of interest, since it is their programs that will benefit from the distribution of all this money. What's to stop, for example, the voting coaches from the non-AQ schools from voting up the standard-bearer among their group for any given season as high as possible in an effort to get them into the $15M game?

The coaches have shown that are not above messing around at the top of their poll. In 2001, after the Big XII title game, Colorado was still right behind Nebraska in the coaches poll. However, after a week of hand-wringing in the media over the possibility of the Huskers playing for the National title without winning its conference, the coaches switched their votes the following week in an effort to affect the outcome. It almost worked. Note that after the bowls, in which both NU and CU got creamed, Nebraska was back ahead of the Buffs.

In 1997, we have the legendary example of the coaches switching their #1 votes from undefeated Michigan to undefeated Nebraska after the bowls so as to provide a lovely parting gift to Cornhusker coach Tom Osborne, who had announced his retirement.

The writers had ethical concerns as well. The strictest standard of journalism ethics states that as a reporter, you report news, not make it. The reason the BCS formula doesn't simply use the polls and nothing else is that the AP objected to being given that much power because of those very concerns. With every vote counting now, it was possible that one writer could be the person who decides which school gets the $15M bonus in a close enough race. In fact, that became very evident at the end of the 2004 season in the race between Cal and Texas for the fourth spot in the BCS rankings and an automatic at-large bid. Voters were deluged with e-mail accusing them of biases and other nasty things. That's why the AP dropped out after 2004.

The polls have always been accused of having a geographic bias also, though I have not studied it personally.

The BCS honchos have been quick to throw their formula under the bus anytime there has been any controversy. The BCS formula produced the same top two teams as the polls at the end of the regular season four times (1998, 1999, 2002, 2005). The formula was changed after every other season in an effort to create something that would have "worked" for the previous year. "Worked" is defined as matching the top two teams in the polls.

The formula was also changed after the 1998 season even though it produced the desired result. Details below.

The initial formula introduced in 1998 was the sum of a team's losses, average ranking in the AP and coaches' polls, computer ranking average, and one quarter of the team's strength of schedule ranking. That basic formula remained in place until the 2004 season, although how the computer average was calculated was frequently changed. Low scores were better.

In 1998, only three computer rankings were used: Jeff Sagarin's, the New York Times' and the Anderson-Hester rankings, which were published in the Seattle Times. Among the reasons those computer rankings were chosen was their geographic locations, as if the formulas might factor in a school's distance from the computer. A team's computer average was calculated by averaging the three computer rankings for that team. However, if the worst of the three was more than 1.5 times the average of the other two, then the worst ranking was replaced by 1.5 times the average of the other two in the calculation. For example, say a team's three computer rankings were 2, 4 and 7. One-and-a-half times the average of 2 and 4 is 4.5, so the computer ranking average for this team would be the average of 2, 4 and 4.5 instead of the average of 2, 4 and 7. Yes, that was a strange way to calculate it and it was very difficult to explain.

The other strange thing about the 1998 season was that the BCS never quite calculated its own SOS formula correctly. I was never able to figure out what they were doing wrong, but they did manage to fix it for the 1999 season.

The 1998 championship game featured Tennessee and Florida St, which were 1-2 in both the BCS rankings and the polls. In spite of that, there was still a great deal of controversy over the selections. Kansas St entered the Big 12 championship game undefeated and with a chance to play for the national championship. The conference was confident that KSU would be in the BCS either as the conference champion or as an at-large team even if it lost, so it placed other teams in the Holiday and Cotton bowls. When KSU lost to Texas A&M, the Wildcats ended up third in the BCS, but because they are bad TV, they were not chosen as at-large teams by the bowls. Ohio St and Florida were chosen instead. As a result, the #3 team in the country ended up dropping all the way down to the Alamo Bowl. KSU spent all its preparation time pouting out loud about having to play an inferior opponent (unranked Purdue) in an inferior bowl, so they ended up losing that game also.

However, the so-called "Kansas State rule" was added after that season so that the highest ranked non-champion from a BCS conference finishes third or fourth in the standings, it is an automatic at-large selection for a BCS bowl.

Also, because Big East champion Syracuse finished so low in the rankings, the "Big East rule" was created. That is described above.

Even though there was no real controversy over the formula itself, it was changed for the 1999 season to add five more computer rankings. Introduced to the formula that season were the computer rankings of Richard Billingsley, Ken Massey, Herman Matthews, David Rothman, and the Dunkel Index. The computer average part of the formula was calculated by throwing out the worst ranking for each team and averaging the other seven.

There was one big controversy over the formula during the season. The SOS formula was changed Thanksgiving week to exclude I-AA playoff games. That was important because undefeated Virginia Tech was #2 and Nebraska was nipping at its heels in spite of having one loss because the SOS difference was so huge in the Cornhuskers' favor. Tech had played James Madison, and the fear was a JMU playoff loss before the end of the I-A season could cause the Hokies to miss out on the championship game. The fact that the rules were changed so late in the season to clearly benefit one team in contention caused a lot of problems for the BCS, but it ended up being a moot point. Nebraska struggled to be Colorado at the end of the regular season, clearing the way for Virginia Tech to face Florida St in the title game.

Since FSU and Virginia Tech were a clear 1-2 as the only undefeated teams, the BCS entered 2000 with no change to the formula.

The 2000 season was when the first time the BCS formula came up with a 1-2 matchup that differed from the polls. Oklahoma was the only undefeated team and was #1 everywhere, but the polls had Miami as #2 and the BCS formula came up in favor of poll #3 Florida St. Exacerbating the problem was that Miami beat FSU during the season. Needless to say, Miami fans were beyond irate at finishing behind a team with the same record that it beat in the regular season. It was even more irritating that it was their biggest rival. They were not at all bothered by the fact that the team right behind them in the BCS standings (Washington) also had the same record and had beaten the Hurricanes in the regular season. Washington was hurt by being the last of the three to lose, which put it fourth in the polls, and by not winning by enough points to satisfy the margin of victory (MOV) measurement in the computers. Seven of the eight computers considered MOV.

Another minor controversy came up during the season surrounding the Dunkel Index when it was discovered that ties in the ratings were being broken by the alphabetic order of the teams. For example, if Florida St and Virginia Tech were tied for first, Florida St was listed as #1 and Virginia Tech as #2 instead of simply listing them as both being #1.

Instead of standing up for its formula, the BCS changed it in an effort to come up with something that would have had Miami ahead of FSU had it been in place the year before. There were three changes. In an effort to minimize margin of victory, some of the computer rankings were replaced. The Dunkel Index and NY Times rankings were removed and were replaced by the Colley Matrix and Peter Wolfe's rankings. Also, Richard Billingsley changed his formula to remove margin of victory and Ken Massey created a new, non-MOV version of his rankings for the BCS to use. As a result, the eight computer rankings were now split, with four considering MOV and four ignoring it.

The formula was also changed to calculate the computer average by throwing out both the best and worst ranking for each team and averaging the other six.

The most significant (and ridiculous) change though was the addition of a quality win component (QW). After calculating the basic formula, a bonus reduction was given to any team that had a win over a team in the top 15 of the basic formula. If a team had beaten the #1 team, it's BCS score would be reduced by 1.5 points. If it had beaten the #2 team, the bonus reduction was 1.4 points, and so on down to a bonus of 0.1 for a win over #15. One particularly illogical piece of this component was that a team could only earn one bonus if it beat the same team twice during the year. For example, if a team had beaten the #15 team twice, it would only get 0.1 for a bonus instead of 0.2.

Had all these changes been in place in 2000, Miami would have finished ahead of Florida St, which was the goal of the changes.

However, they didn't stave off controversy in 2001. That year, Nebraska finished second in the BCS, despite not even playing for the Big 12 conference championship, let alone winning it. That was because its only loss came to Colorado, which won the division tiebreaker because of the head-to-head result. CU finished third, 0.05 BCS points behind the Huskers in the closest race for second so far, in spite of two losses during the regular season. Oregon, which was 10-1 and #2 in the polls, finished 4th in the BCS because of poor MOV-based computer rankings. The Ducks were ahead of Colorado in the basic BCS rankings, but the Buffaloes moved past based on a whopping 2.3 QW bonus.

Since there was controversy, there was change again for 2002. This time, the goal was to change the formula so that poll #2 Oregon would have finished second. Since the Ducks were hurt by MOV, the computers were changed again to have all eight ignore the MOV factor. That meant saying goodbye to the rankings of Herman Matthews and David Rothman, who refused to change their rankings to suit the BCS, and hello again to the NY Times, which had a consultant come in and remove MOV from its old formula. Also, Peter Wolfe removed MOV from his rankings and Jeff Sagarin created a new, non-MOV ranking for the BCS to use. That left seven computer rankings in the formula, so the computer average calculation went back to the old method of removing only the worst ranking for each team and averaging the rest.

Also, the QW bonus was watered down so that bonuses were only given for wins over teams in the top 10 of the basic formula. That changed the scale from 1.5-0.1 to 1.0-0.1.

The BCS was spared controversy in the championship game in 2002 when both Miami and Ohio St finished undefeated and were the clear 1-2. That meant that the formula would not change for 2003. However, there was some controversy over the at-large selections. USC became the first school to automatically qualify under the "Kansas St" rule, which was unfortunate. Since there was no close by bowl for them to go to (the Fiesta had the title game and the Rose didn't want an all-Pac 10 game), the Trojans ended up in Miami. The other at-large spot was considered up in the air between Iowa and Notre Dame until Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said a week before selections that Iowa would be the choice. We're not sure if that had been decided by the committee or if Delany was simply exerting influence, but it did end up being Iowa.

In 2003, the BCS would face its biggest controversy yet. USC, LSU and Oklahoma, each with one loss, finished 1-2-3 in the polls, but in reverse order in the BCS rankings. That meant that for the first time, the #1 team in the polls would not play for the BCS championship, meaning that the AP might vote a different champion than the one the BCS decides on the field. And, in fact, that's exactly what happened. USC won the Rose Bowl over Michigan and the AP national championship, while LSU won the Sugar Bowl and the BCS title (along with the coaches' poll title, which is tied to the BCS title game).

The reason USC finished third in spite of a #1 poll ranking was a relatively poor schedule, which hurt it not only in the SOS portion of the formula, but also the computer rankings, which were heavily SOS-biased because MOV was no longer a factor.

That result caused the BCS to practically scrap its formula altogether for 2004. They did away completely with the QW bonus, the SOS component and the loss component and went with just the AP poll, the coaches' poll and the computer average, with each getting equal weight in the formula.

Also, instead of simply using the rankings in the polls, it was decided to use the percentage of the best possible score. For example, there were 65 voters in the AP poll, so if a team was the unanimous #1, it would have 1625 points in the poll. For the BCS, each team's score for the AP part of the formula was its point total divided by 1625. The same concept applied to the coaches' poll, which had four fewer voters.

In the computers, the NY Times dropped out of the formula because of the paper's ethical concerns over being involved so intimately in a news story they cover (note: this is standard journalism ethics, but is also routinely ignored - papers are supposed to cover news, not make it). That left the BCS with six computers, so to calculate the computer score in a consistent manner with the polls, the best and worst ranking were thrown out for each team. Then, if a team was ranked #1 in a computer, it got 25 points, and so on down to 1 point for a #25 ranking. No points were given for rankings below 25. Then the team's computer points was divided by 100 (the best possible score).

All three component scores, each of which is now a number between 0 and 1, were then averaged for the final BCS score, which was also a number between 0 and 1. Now, high scores are better instead of low scores.

The potential problems with this change were obvious, the biggest of which is that a great deal of power was being given to the voters, which should have ethically declined to accept this level of power. The coaches have a clear conflict of interest and the writers ethical problems were what caused the NY Times to drop out earlier. And, with every vote counting, you had a situation where one writer or coach could decide which team plays for the title, or worse, which team automatically qualifies for an at-large spot and gets the big pile of money that goes with it.

And, in fact, that's exactly what happened. The race for #4 and a guaranteed at-large spot came down to California and Texas at the end of the regular season. Going into the final week, Cal led Texas, but by a slim enough margin that only a few voters had to change their minds in favor of Texas to push the Longhorns past Cal and into the BCS. Exacerbating the problem was that the AP votes are publicly available, and it was learned that some Texas-based voters had Cal ahead of Texas on their ballots. Any voter who had Texas behind Cal was subjected to a barrage of e-mail trying to convince them, through arguments of various elegance and a few threats, to change their minds. After a mediocre performance by Cal that weekend, more than enough voters changed their minds and Texas got the $15M guaranteed spot in the BCS instead of Cal.

Note that this was the second time the Kansas St rule was invoked, and it was a disaster. While Cal did not pout nearly as loudly as Kansas St did in 1998, like the Wildcats, it lost its bowl game.

There was also controversy over the selection of the championship game participants, even though the top two teams in the polls and the BCS rankings matched. For the first time, there were more than two undefeated major-conference teams. USC and Oklahoma, which had been the preseason #1 and #2 teams, finished unscathed and met for the title. Auburn also finished undefeated, but couldn't crack the top two in any category of the BCS, so it was relegated to the Sugar Bowl and didn't get a chance to compete for the title. Of course, no formula can put three equally-worthy teams into one game, as was demonstrated the year before.

As a result of the abuse the AP voters took in the Texas-Cal brouhaha, the AP decided that making news instead of covering it was a bad idea, and pulled its poll from the BCS rankings. For 2005, the BCS created its own poll, with the help of Harris Interactive, and it replaced the AP poll in the formula.

Since the 2005 result was without controversy, the formula was not changed for the 2006 season.

2006 brought about more controversy as voters moved Florida ahead of Michigan at the end of the season, even though Michigan had not played. In spite of that, the formula was not changed, marking the first time that a controversial result did not lead to a change in the system.

The BCS has a TV deal through 2009 and the Rose Bowl has one through 2013, so we will probably have to wait until at least then. I do not think we will see one until the non-BCS bowls start to dry up and go away. I am not talking about bowls like the New Orleans Bowl or the Las Vegas Bowl, but more like the Capital One (formerly Citrus) or Outback bowls. Right now, there is no incentive for the big schools to create one. They get just about all their bowl-eligible teams into postseason football. There is not a playoff format that will put eight SEC teams (for example) into the postseason.

Also, right now, they have this big pile of money from the BCS that they share among themselves. If there is a playoff, the pile of money might be bigger, but the wealth would get shared more evenly. Why would the big schools go for that?

There are several economic and political challenges to creating a playoff besides the one I just mentioned. The biggest political roadblock is that university presidents do not want one. Since the presidents run the NCAA, it is going to be a pretty hard sell to get one going. There has been no indication that the presidents are softening on this issue.

I think it is more likely that we will go back to the old system, where the Big Ten and Pac 10 champions played in the Rose Bowl no matter what, than see the creation of any sort of true playoff.

I have mixed emotions about it. The purist in me wants to see all the conference champions (at least) get a shot to settle it on the field. The Purdue fan in me realizes that my team will not make the playoffs too often, so that takes away some of the interest for me, personally. I kind of like the idea of my team getting to play some postseason football at 6-5.

Late in 2001, I was getting so many playoff proposals e-mailed to me that I decided I was going to stop commenting on them. That is, until someone sends me one that has an answer for all the political, economic and logistical roadblocks that prevent us from having one right now. Feel free to keep sending them to me, but do not expect a response.

Rank - BCS Ranking.

School - School name.

W-L - Team record.

BCS Data

BCS - BCS Score, which is the average of the other three factors.

HARPct - Harris poll point total divided by best possible score.

USAPct - Coaches' poll point total divided by best possible score.

CRPct - Computer ranking score (see example for calculation details).

Polls

HAR (Rank) - Harris Interactive poll point total, with ranking in parenthesis.

USA (Rank) - USA Today coaches' poll point total, with ranking in parenthesis.

Computer Rankings
All rankings are relative to other Division I-A teams.

Avg (Rank) - Average of the computer rankings after removing the best and worst ranking for each team. Since not all of the rating systems begin publishing at the beginning of the season, if fewer than five rankings are available, no rankings are removed before averaging. The ranking among computer averages is in parenthesis.

AH - Anderson-Hester.

BIL - Richard Billingsley.

COL - Wes Colley.

MAS - Kenneth Massey.

SAG - Jeff Sagarin.

WLF - Peter Wolfe.

The column heading for each ranking is a link to that ranking's site.

Once at least five computers are publishing data, the best ranking for each team is in blue and the worst is in red.

The list is divided into "rated" and "unrated" teams. "Rated" teams have non-zero BCS scores, which occur with at least one vote in either poll, or a top 25 ranking in two computers. If five computers are not publishing yet, a top 25 ranking in only one computer is necessary to have a non-zero BCS score.