Golden Rankings: Summary of Bowls Plus One Plans

Summary of Pros/Cons of Bowls Plus One Plans

This summary assumes you have studied the analysis of Bowls Plus One plans as they would have played out during the nine years of the BCS. The intent is to answer, year-by-year, the following questions.

1998
Rose Bowl: Same UCLA-Wisconsin matchup it had under the BCS. #5 UCLA might have an outside shot to get to the championship game if three of top four lost.
Modified Final Four: includes #5 UCLA and #6 Texas A&M since #3 (KSU) and #4 (OSU) were not conference champions. A&M had two losses whereas both the teams dropped had only one (as did UCLA). Dropping down to #6 is about as low as I would want to go in a Final Four. Otherwise the regular season loses too much significance.
Bowls Plus One: #1 Tennessee would play #3 Kansas State – a top four matchup. However, #2 FSU would be stuck with #15 Syracuse, the Big East champ, providing them with an easy road to the finals.
Modified Bowls Plus One: Now #1 would play #2 FSU in the Sugar Bowl, a semifinal game. Not bad since FSU was not a clearcut #2. Winner would probably play #3 Kansas State.
Verdict 1: Modified Bowls Plus One preferable to Bowls Plus One One because of better semifinal games, which means one of the top three teams in final regular season rankings would most likely win the title.
Verdict 2: Modified Bowls Plus One better than the BCS because one of the other one-loss teams would get a shot at the championship after winning its bowl game.

1999
Rose Bowl: Same Wisconsin-Stanford pairing it had. Game would have no championship bearing. Too many upsets would have to occur for #7 Wisconsin to have a chance.
Modified Final Four: No different since top four teams all conference champs.
Bowls Plus One: #1 FSU and #2 Virginia Tech play in the Orange Bowl, a semifinal game. Poll taken after the bowls might very well keep them 1 and 2, requiring #3 (Nebraska or Alabama) to replace Orange Bowl loser in final. However, the champion would be one of the top four teams at the end of the regular season.
Modified Bowls Plus One: No different from Bowls Plus One because two highest ranked teams play in Orange Bowl on basis of conference tie-ins.
Verdict: Bowls Plus One allows a one-loss Big 12 champ (Nebraska) or even two-loss Alabama to have a shot at the title. Unless you change the rules for bowl pairings to prevent #1 and #2 meeting (which the bowls would never agree to), the BCS is superior for this season.

2000
Rose Bowl: Same Washington-Purdue matchup. #4 Washington would have a shot at championship game if #1 Oklahoma were upset by #5 Virginia Tech, although in that case Hokies would probably leapfrog Huskies to #2 in final poll.
Modified Final Four: No different since top four teams all conference champs.
Bowls Plus One: Orange Bowl gets a repeat game but worth it to settle the controversy as to whether FSU or Miami should be in title game. #5 Virginia Tech gets a shot at title by upsetting #1 Oklahoma.
Modified Bowls Plus One: As in 1998, #1 would play #2 but since FSU was not a clearcut #2, this would be good. Winner would play #3 Miami or #4 Washington in finals (unless both were upset), assuring a team no lower than #4 at end of regular season became the champ.
Verdict 1: Bowls Plus One and Modififed Bowls Plus One about equal.
Verdict 2: Either Bowls Plus One plan better than BCS because the team many thought should be in the championship game, Miami, gets a shot at the title.

2001
Rose Bowl: When it hosted the BCS championship game in 2001, Pasadena had to put up with the uneducated bumpkins from Miami and Nebraska. So the traditional Pac-10/Big 10 matchup far superior.
Modified Final Four: #8 Illinois makes the Final Four, albeit with only one loss. Controversial #2 Nebraska, with its humiliating pasting by Colorado, is eliminated. If you go as low as #8, you might as well do an eight-team playoff. The regular season is diluted.
Bowls Plus One: Miami gets an easy ticket to the final against #10 Maryland. In the meantime, the three teams that had good claims to #2 get to show their wares in bowl games, leading to a more confident show for Miami's championship foe. However, if all three win, arguments are not settled and the two left out of the championship game will howl.
Modified Bowls Plus One: Miami plays #2 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl to prove the 'Huskers don't believe in title game. Meanwhile, Oregon and Colorado play in two different bowls. If both win, they would have equal claims to the #2 spot. However, pollsters and computers would have another game for each, against high-ranked foes, to make a more informed decision.
Verdict 1: Modified Bowls Plus One better than Bowls Plus One because one of the one-loss teams, Nebraska, is eliminated. At most two other teams can claim the other title spot as opposed to three possible claimants under Bowls Plus One.
Verdict 2: Modified Bowls Plus One superior to BCS because it makes the one-loss contenders play another game before the championship.

2002
Rose Bowl: Big Ten champ Ohio State plays in the game instead of runner-up Michigan. And obviously the game is important for the national title since OSU is #2 coming in.
Modified Final Four: Two-loss #6 Washington State, which was the Pac-10 champ, replaces #4 USC. Not an improvement.
Bowls Plus One: Miami gets a rematch with four-loss FSU while OSU meets #6 WSU in Rose. #3 Georgia and #4 USC meet in Sugar Bowl but with no chance of making the championship game if UM and OSU win.
Modified Bowls Plus One: Here Miami must play #3 Georgia instead of #14 FSU. OSU still gets an easy semifinal against WSU.
Verdict 1: Modified Bowls Plus One superior to Bowls Plus One since one-loss SEC champ Georgia gets a shot at the title.
Verdict 2: Modified Bowls Plus One superior to BCS because it gives Georgia a chance. If they can knock off #1 Miami, they deserve to meet OSU for the championship.

2003
Rose Bowl: Same matchup of conference champs #3 USC and #4 Michigan as BCS provided. Only the game would now be a semifinal.
Modified Final Four: #1 Oklahoma thrown out because they aren't a conference champ and replaced by #7 FSU (since #5 Ohio State and #6 Texas aren't conference champs). Good feature is LSU and USC would not meet in a semifinal but instead in the finals (if both win). Since Oklahoma's excellent season shouldn't be wiped out by a bad night against KSU in Big 12 championship game and #7 FSU with two losses shouldn't get a shot at the title (otherwise regular season diluted), Modified Final Four on balance not preferable to true Final Four this year.
Bowls Plus One: Final Four preserved with different matchups: #3 USC-#4 Michigan in Rose and #1 Oklahoma and #2 LSU in Sugar. This would have settled the controversy by allowing USC to play LSU in the finals.
Modified Bowls Plus One: Same pairings as Bowls Plus One.
Verdict: Bowls Plus One and Modified Bowls Plus One both far superior to 2003 BCS setup which didn't allow USC and LSU to play after the bowls.

2004
Rose Bowl: Rose Bowl replaces #4 Texas with #1 USC. Hard to imagine the game would be better than the 38-37 Texas victory in Young in Pasadena I. However, the game would have championship implications because of USC's presence.
Modified Final Four: #8 two-loss Virginia Tech replaces #4 one-loss Texas – not good. However, undefeated Auburn gets a shot in either Final Four plan.
Bowls Plus One: If USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn all win separate bowl games, the same controversy that ended the regular season remains with only two of the three undefeated teams able to play in the championship. No better than the BCS.
Modified Bowls Plus One: Fiesta Bowl a true semifinal with #2 Oklahoma and #3 Auburn. USC gets easy road to title game against #13 Michigan. But now there are two undefeateds left standing for the championship.
Verdict 1: Modified Bowls Plus One much better than Bowls Plus One because Oklahoma plays Auburn.
Verdict 2: Modified Bowls Plus One far superior to BCS because undefeated Auburn gets a shot at the title.

2005
Rose Bowl: #1 USC returns but against Big Team champ #3 Penn State instead of Texas. Game in effect a semifinal.
Modified Final Four: Drops #4 Texas in favor of #7 two-loss Georgia. Not an improvement.
Bowls Plus One: Rose and Fiesta semifinal games, albeit with #1 against #3 and #2 against #4. Each pairs one of the two undefeated teams (USC and Texas) against one-loss Big Ten teams. Just as one-loss Georgia would have had a title chance in 2002, this gives one-loss teams from another tough BCS conference a shot.
Modified Bowls Plus One: Same pairings as Bowls Plus One.
Verdict: Bowls Plus One probably leads to same result as BCS, #1 USC vs #2 Texas for championship, but has the advantage of giving one-loss BCS teams a chance. For that reason I give a slight edge to Bowls Plus One over BCS.

2006
Rose Bowl: #1 Ohio State replaces #3 Michigan as USC's opponent. Same Big Ten/Pac-10 pairing but with the conference champ instead of the runner-up. Plus the game is a semifinal.
Modified Final Four: One-loss #6 Louisville replaces two-loss #4 LSU and #5 two-loss USC replaces #3 Michigan. This breaks up the two Big Ten-SEC pairings of a true Final Four. Probably most of the nation would prefer that (although UM and LSU fans wouldn't).
Bowls Plus One: Rose and Sugar are almost semifinals, with #5 USC replacing #4 LSU.
Modified Bowls Plus One: Florida plays #6 Louisville instead of the next highest ranked team, its SEC sister school #4 LSU. This is not an improvement over Florida-Michigan.
Verdict 1: Bowls Plus One provides better matchups than the Modified Bowls Plus One.
Verdict 2: Bowls Plus One gives two two-loss teams (#4 LSU and #5 USC) and keeps Michigan in the hunt. Final under this setup would likely have been Florida-USC or Florida-LSU rematch, either of which would have been a better game than Florida-OSU. The problem lies in giving a two-loss team a shot at the title, which cheapens the regular season. The advantage over what the BCS did is that the issue is taken away from the voters, who came close to giving Michigan a rematch with OSU and leaving Florida out in the cold. On balance, let's call this a slight advantage to the BCS.

Summary
Rose Bowl: Happy to get Big 10/Pac-10 champs every year. However, what would have added interest for fans nationwide – having a game with championship implications the last six of the nine BCS years – may not be viewed favorably in Pasadena because of fear that fewer fans will attend or that those who do will spend less money in the area. On the other hand, can you imagine a Rose Bowl game pitting the Big 10 and Pac-10 champions not being a sellout or the TV ratings dropping? Since most years the game would be like a semifinal, the TV ratings would only go up.
Final Four vs Modified Final Four: Only twice in nine years were the top four teams all conference champions. From a fan's viewpoint, keeping non-conference champions out of the Final Four would dilute the semifinals by bringing in lower ranked teams. However, the conferences may insist on only conference champions to keep any conference from getting more than one semifinalist. The actual breakdown of semifinal teams in the nine BCS years so far looks like this for the True Final Four plan:

Bowls Plus One vs Modified Bowls Plus One: 6 of the 9 years would have required an adjustment in the regular bowl pairings to create a matchup of the two highest ranked teams outside the Rose Bowl. In four of those six years the Modified Bowls Plus One would have provided a better matchup than just letting the bowl pairings fall according to conference tie-ins and at-large bids. In one of the other two years, the two plans would have similar effects. So the ability to create the best matchup possible outside the Rose Bowl should be part of any Bowls Plus One package the BCS would consider.

Bowls Plus One vs BCS: In seven of the nine years, a Bowls Plus One plan would have provided a more satisfying conclusion to the season than the BCS did. In another years Bowls Plus One would have had a slight advantage over BCS. In only one year (2006) did the BCS plan produce arguably a better conclusion.