Tournament of Champions - 2008 Edition

It's that time of year again... time when virtually every sportswriter covering college football puts out a fictional playoff, in and of itself strong evidence that the current BCS is a ridiculous farce. So in the spirit of December in College Football Without A Legitimate Post-Season Playoff Format, here is our Tournament of Champions for 2008.

In our fictional system, champions from all eleven conferences are invited to duke it out on the fictional field. We defer to the conferences themselves to select their representatives, so we don't care whether there is a conference championship game or not. We also don't care about three-way ties in the Big XII South; that's for the Big XII to sort out. We also don't care that the SEC has so many strong teams, or that the Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, and Big East are having relatively down years.

Second-placers from the conferences don't make it - you win and you're in - that's all there is to it. No polls, no computers, no lobbying, no mass-opinion-pushed-like-crazy-by-all-the-ESPN-on-air-talent... you win and you're in.

In lieu of a seeding committee, we'll consult a combination of polls for seeding assistance, and allow any independent that finishes #6 or higher in a relevant poll an invitation.

Conference Champions:

Seeding	Team	Conference
1	Oklahoma	Big XII
2	Florida	SEC
3	USC	PAC 10
4	Utah	Mountain West
5	Penn St.	Big 10
6	Boise St.	WAC
7	Cincinnati	Big East
8	Virginia Tech	ACC
9	East Carolina	Conference USA
10	Buffalo	MAC
11	Troy	Sun Belt

Independents: None qualify.

With the championship held in the Orange Bowl, the other top-tier bowls could look something like this:

Rose: Ohio St. vs. Oregon
Sugar: Alabama vs. Texas Tech
Fiesta: Texas vs. TCU

And the tournament bracket is as follows:



Notable in 2008:

• Mid-Majors Utah (Mountain West) and Boise St. (WAC) seed better than the ACC champion (Virginia Tech). Why does the ACC get an automatic bid to the BCS?
  
• Cincinnati of the Big East seeds a respectable #7... but as this isn't in the top 6, one might ask why the Big East gets an automatic bid to the BCS as well?
  
• USC-Boise St. in the second round would be a surprisingly entertaining game.
  

And the National Champion is...

This is a difficult year to call, with a number of teams legitimately in the hunt. We'd give home teams Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, and Boise St. wins in the first round. And it's hard to see any upsets in round two, with Oklahoma, Florida, and USC advancing. While Utah/Penn St. would be a good matchup, we think the Mountain West, top-to-bottom, was a better conference this year than the Big 10, and give Utah the win to advance and face the Sooners. Oklahoma then takes that game, and we'll give a coin-flip to USC to outlast the Gators in the semi-finals, leaving...

Oklahoma vs. USC in the championship game. Oklahoma made headlines as the only team in NCAA history to score over 60 points a game against five opponents in a row. The only problem with a team with such a strong offense is when they hit against a team with a tremendous defense in a championship. It's often enough for the immovable Defense to slow down the irresistible Offense to take the match.

We'll use the 1983 Nebraska Cornhuskers, the dominant offensive powerhouse vs. Miami in the 1984 Orange Bowl as the model. Through tremendous special teams' and defensive play, the Hurricanes made the Husker offensive machine play from behind the entire game, ultimately securing the win as Nebraska failed on a two-point conversion gamble late in the fourth quarter. We see our fictional championship playing out in a similar fashion. Yes, Offense wins games... but Defense wins championships.

USC 31, Oklahoma 30.

The BCS vs. the Old Poll System: Consensus or Controversy

Following up on the previous post, I thought it would be worthwhile to look more closely at the major polls and see just how frequently there was controversy regarding the crowning of a national championship. Prior to 1950, the only national poll was that sponsored by the Associated Press. The BCS came into being after 1997, so we'll focus on the years 1950 - 1997 to see if the polls provided consensus or controversy.

In the decade that was the 1950's, the two major national polls were the AP and the coaches' poll sponsored by the United Press (later the United Press International). During this decade, both polls agreed eight times on a national champion, disagreeing only in 1954 (AP choosing Ohio State, with the UP choosing UCLA) and 1957 (AP choosing Auburn and UP choosing Ohio State).

In the 1960's, both major polls agreed on champions nine times, disagreeing only once in 1965 when the AP chose Alabama and the UPI favored Michigan State.

The 70's saw the most controversy, with the AP and UPI agreeing six times and disagreeing on four. Split national championships were awarded in 1970 (Nebraska/Texas), 1973 (Notre Dame/Alabama), 1974 (Oklahoma/USC), and 1978 (Alabama/USC). In fairness, 1974 was the first year the UPI instituted the rule that teams on NCAA probation would not be ranked in its poll; otherwise, Oklahoma may have been the consensus in both polls.

The 80's was a decade clear of controversy, at least as far as the polls were concerned. In all 10 years, both AP and UPI polls agreed on their national champions.

In the 90's, the USA Today took over sponsorship of the coaches' poll from the UPI (1991) and for the eight years of consideration, 1990 - 1997, consensus was had in five. The AP gave national championships to Colorado in 1990, Miami in 1991, and Michigan in 1997 while the UPI/USA Today polls crowned Georgia Tech, Washington, and Nebraska respectively.

So, in a total of 48 years with two major polls, a split national championship occurred exactly 10 times, or approximately 20%. This means that in 48 years before the BCS, a consensus national champion was crowned without controversy about 80% of the time.

So how is the BCS's record on controversy in the decade in which it has existed?

• After the 1998 regular season: Tennessee and Tulane were the only Div. 1-A schools to finish the regular season undefeated, but Tulane coming from Conference USA was not only rejected for the BCS title game, it was excluded from all BCS bowls. And even though Kansas State was ranked #3 in the BCS standings, it too was excluded from the four BCS bowls.
  
  
• After 1999: Not too much controversy, with undefeated Florida State paired with undefeated Virginia Tech for the BCS championship. Third ranked Nebraska had a single loss by four points to Texas, which it avenged by beating the Longhorns in the Big XII title game by a convincing 22-6 score. Though the one loss would mean the Huskers had no shot at the national championship, many at the time believed they were the strongest team in the country as they dominated the defending champions Tennessee in a Fiesta Bowl that was not nearly so close as the 31-21 final score would indicate. And Kansas State again got the shaft, ranked #6 in the final BCS standings, but denied a BCS bowl bid.
  
  
• After 2000: Oklahoma finished the regular season undefeated and was the clear #1 choice. Florida State, Miami, and Washington all finished with a single loss and clear cases to be matched against the Sooners. Florida State was ultimately chosen to face Oklahoma in the BCS championship game, even though their one regular-season loss was to Miami. And while Florida State lost to the Sooners, Miami and Washington each won their bowl games convincingly, adding to the controversy.
  
  
• After 2001: Not only was Nebraska ranked #4 in both the AP and coaches' polls, it had not won its conference, having been blown out by Colorado in its last regular season game. Oregon had one loss and was the Pac 10 champion, but it was the Huskers stunningly selected to play Miami for the national championship. A 37-14 spanking by Miami in the Rose Bowl, combined with Oregon's 38-16 drumming of Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl left many convinced the BCS got it flat wrong.
  
  
• After 2002: This was arguably the best year for the BCS thus far, creating a national championship pairing that could not have happened under the old bowl system. It took double overtime for undefeated Ohio State to beat previously-undefeated Miami in a game for the ages.
  
  
• After 2003: This was arguably the worst year for the BCS thus far in terms of controversy. Oklahoma had a good regular season but was thumped by Kansas State 35-7 in the Big XII championship. The Sooners were loved by computers though and selected to play against one-loss LSU for the BCS championship, even though Pac 10 champion USC also had only one loss, and was rated #1 by both the AP and coaches' polls. And after winning the Rose Bowl against Michigan, the AP kept USC rated #1, creating a split national championship between USC and LSU - the very thing the BCS was created to avoid. The controversy spilled over into the final coaches poll, when three voters broke contractual obligations to vote USC #1 over LSU.
  
  
• After 2004: another year filled with controversy over the selection of two teams to play for the BCS national championship. Fully five teams finished the regular season undefeated: BCS teams USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn, and mid-majors Utah and Boise State. Auburn was hurt by a significantly lower preseason ranking than USC or Oklahoma, but proved its worth winning the Sugar Bowl against Virginia Tech. USC crushed Oklahoma in the BCS national championship, and Utah cruised past Pitt leaving three undefeated teams following the bowls, and more question marks as to whether the correct two teams were paired for the championship.
  
  
• After 2005: another clean year, as none would argue over the pairing of undefeated Texas and undefeated USC. Like after the 2002 regular season, this was a terrific matchup that could not have happened under the old bowl system. Had they played and won separate bowl games, Texas and USC would surely have shared a split national title.
  
  
• After 2006: Ohio State finished the regular season undefeated, ranked #1 in the AP, and a clear choice for the BCS national championship game. Controversy came in the selection of the Buckeye's opponent, with Boise State having also finished the season undefeated, and four teams each with one loss. Ultimately one-loss Florida crushed Ohio State to win the BCS championship while leaving Boise State with its victory over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl the only undefeated Div. 1-A school following the bowls.
  
  
• After 2007: Strong finishes by ACC champion Virginia Tech and Big XII champion Oklahoma as well as an undefeated season by WAC champion Hawaii were overlooked in favor of two-loss LSU, which had lost its final regular season game. For the second straight year, Ohio State, ranked #1 in the BCS standings, lost to the SEC champion in the BCS title game.
  
  
• After 2008: Oklahoma/Florida may very well be the correct pairing, but this year can be hardly considered free of controversy. In a monster Big XII South division, Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas Tech, each with one loss has a legitimate claim to a bid in the title game. Count the same for Pac 10 champion USC and Big 10 champion Penn State. Utah went undefeated in the Mountain West which arguably, top-to-bottom, was better this year than either the Pac 10 or Big 10. Throw in undefeated Boise State, and you have seven teams with reasonable arguments to participate in the BCS national championship game.
  

In eleven attempts, the BCS has had three relatively controversy-free years in 1999, 2002, and 2005. Significant controversy in the selection of two teams to face off for the BCS national championship has occurred in eight out eleven years, or roughly 73% of the total attempts.

National champions decided by polls saw consensus about 80% of the time. National champions decided by the BCS have seen consensus only about 27% of the time. A playoff tournament would be better than either, but if one were to compare the current BCS system to the old poll system, wouldn't one want the system with significantly less controversy in determining its national champion?

The BCS vs. the Old Bowl System

At this time of year, sports journalists invariably write articles showing their versions of a playoff system, like this one from Dan Wetzel. That there is so much conversation around having a playoff tournament at this time of year remains solid evidence that the BCS is an utter failure as a post-season national championship format. No one is writing articles about how cool it would be if the NFL, or NCAA Div. 1-AA could have a series of polls and computers decide which two teams should play for their national championships.

For what it's worth, I love Wetzel's 16-team imaginary tournament. The matchups would be fun. In fact, I agree with everything he wrote with one exception: Wetzel contends that the BCS is better than the old bowl system. It is not.

The old bowl system was never about crowning a national champion. The old bowl system relished league champions, and there is something to be said for that. Complete with conference tie-ins, the bowls were a celebration, and conclusion, of a regular season of conference play. The Big 8 Champion was rewarded with the Orange Bowl... Pac 10 & Big 10, with the Rose... The Southwestern Conference with the Cotton, Southeastern with the Sugar... With a focus on conference champions rather than a national champion, every one of these bowl games (and I would argue the lesser bowls as well) had a special significance and was meaningful in a way that has been lost under the current system.

There was no pretense that the old bowl system was producing a national champion, nor had the responsibility to. So-called National Champions were voted and named, beginning with the Associated Press in 1936. Certainly polls like the AP, post-1968 at least, took bowl performance into account in determining a final set of rankings (prior to 1968, the AP national champion was crowned before the bowls), so this isn't to say that the bowls didn't have an impact on who would be viewed as a national champion.

Nor would I argue that voting for champions in a poll a good way to determine a national champion. The AP national champion was exactly that - the AP national champion. There was no pretense that the #1-ranked team in a poll was anything more than the #1-ranked team in a poll.

Even then for the most part, the polls would get it right - there would be general consensus around the country that the right team was rated #1. At worst, there would be occasional years where two teams would win their conference championship and bowl game, and have a reasonable claim at #1 (1997 comes to mind, with Nebraska and Michigan both finishing undefeated seasons with bowl wins). The solution would usually be a split-national championship, AP giving one, UPI/ESPN giving the other. Whatever controversy this caused during those occasional years pales in comparison to the annual controversy provided consistently by the current system.

The BCS is worse - far worse - precisely because it holds up that pretense of crowning a national champion, sanctioned by the NCAA, college football presidents and athletic departments. And because it fails so miserably at doing so, when any number of playoff formats provide clear and better alternatives. This year we will again have a number of 1-loss BCS teams and undefeated mid-major teams with reasonable claims to post-season championship eligibility. And again, the BCS will pick two, leaving no fewer than five others out.

If we are determined to avoid a post-season format that can crown a worthy national champion on the field, then let's stop pretending we care about a National Championship and go back to the days where Conference Championships were king.

If we can't have a real playoff tournament, give me the Old Bowl System over the BCS any day.

How much marketing does it take to get to the BCS?

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports has a wonderful piece on the politics of lobbying for a spot in the BCS championship game.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-bcs112608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

His article details how LSU, with two losses, managed to lobby its way into the BCS a year ago on a marketing effort based on an observation from Kathy Miles, the wife of coach Les Miles. Her observation was simple and ultimately proved a successful lobbying argument.  LSU hadn't lost in regulation.  Two losses didn't really count, because neither was in regulation.  LSU's athletic department and politicking team were successful in selling that message to human poll voters, enough to garner a spot in the championship game.

No one here is arguing whether LSU deserved a shot a national title last year.  They were an outstanding team and would have had an envious seed in a playoff tournament were one in place.  The point here is to once again demonstrate a major fallacy in a primary argument for the BCS.

BCS supporters contend that with the BCS, the regular season functions as a de facto playoff system, a weekly whittling of champion hopefuls down to two.  If the BCS were successful at making the regular season a weekly playoff, then there would be no need for any post-season lobbying to participate in the championship game.  The "playoff" would produce two clear choices.

Of course that doesn't happen, and the reason is simple:  the BCS is not successful at making the regular season a weekly playoff.

Always a Good Time

Three congressmen have revived a bill designed to end the BCS:

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/11121011/rss

Now, some may say that in the midst of an economic meltdown, the potential of hundreds of thousands of jobs to be lost in the American auto industry and elsewhere (if not millions), state governments in financial turmoil, war on two fronts (still), an increasingly fragile infrastructure, a health-care system that works as long as you are rich or don't get sick, a transfer of executive power, a ten-trillion-dollar national debt (think: your children's children's children will still be paying off that albatross), a voracious and insatiable dependence on foreign oil, a daily fear of an inevitable terrorist attack (whether a well-founded fear or not, does it really matter?)... some may say that in such a climate, our elected officials have better things to do than worry about some post-season system for playing football games. But of course, those people are wrong, for one simple reason.

It is always a good time to dismantle, annihilate, extinguish, obliterate, exterminate, or otherwise dance-on-the-grave of this monstrosity soon-to-be-formerly-known as the BCS.

All the best to congressmen Abercrombie, Simpson, and Matheson and their bipartisan effort to end this post-season monopolistic system. I have no doubt that if a special election were held today, with a single ballot measure to replace the BCS with a proper playoff system, Americans would vote for it in the high 90-percent range. Is there any issue with such lopsided support in America today?

Sure there are bigger problems, but this one is a no-brainer.

Obama wants a playoff!

Maybe the good senator could have some influence over the NCAA and college presidents? If he's elected President tomorrow, he'll have plenty more to worry about than how College Football div. 1-A selects a national champion. Still, when ESPN's Chris Berman asked if he could change just one thing about sport, Sen. Obama said it was time to have a college football playoff.

And if you didn't have enough reasons to vote for him, add BCS-ending to the list. Or at least a desire to end it.

Obama, McCain on what to change in sports (A.P.)

For his part, Sen. McCain had a good answer too (preventing the spread and use of performance-enhancing drugs).

Swinging the Balance of Power

Responding to a question on whether or not the recent announcement that two BCS commissioners (Mike Tranghese, Tom Hansen) and Notre Dame's AD Kevin White are leaving and/or retiring will better the chances for a college football playoff, Stewart Mandel of SI says probably not. Mandel suggests that the deck is so far stacked among the remaining commissioners against a playoff that even if the incoming replacements were in favor of a playoff, it would like not "swing the balance of power."

I wonder... if Tranghese in particular was a driving force - a leadership force - for keeping the BCS, removing that influence may have more of an effect than we realize. Mandel may be right when he writes that commissioners "act primarily as mouthpieces for their member schools' presidents and chancellors". That said, it seems there is growing support among institutions, if not the overwheming support that exists among fans, to see a post-season championship playoff.

I imagine that the timing to retire for Tranghese and Hansen was well designed to ensure one last extension of the current BCS system.

A Healthy Regular Season

As a college football fan who would like to have a clear division 1-A national champion crowned, it heartens me to read articles like that recently posted by Matt Zemek of CollegeFootballNews.com. In the post, Mr. Zemek acknowledges the arrogance of the BCS commissioners who recently shot down a plus-one playoff format and encourages a boycott of bowl game attendance for the upcoming season.

That is a very strong thing to ask for, particularly from one who is so knowledgeable, and such a fan, of the sport. But it made me consider something. Those who protect the BCS system as it currently exists are constantly touting how precious is the regular season. Zemek makes it very clear that he is not calling for a boycott of regular season games, just the bowl game.

So treat this as a thought experiment: imagine a 2008 season with record attendances during the regular season, but every one of the 34 bowl games is played in an empty venue due to a fan boycott. Record revenues from regular-season attendance are seen across the country, but the bowls instantly become a financial fiasco. Following such a spectacle, do BCS commissioners continue to trumpet the regular season as they do now?

Even if you're a fan of the current BCS system, if you answered "no" to the above question, you have to acknowledge that the health of the regular season isn't the driving factor to the commissioners' decision to stonewall a playoff.

The Ten Percent Experience

It continues to amaze me how there are people that consider a playoff in College Football div. 1-A would somehow diminish the value of the regular season. Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel insists that this is the real reason behind the recent decision of BCS commissioners to torpedo a plus-one post-season format.

I've written in prior posts how this is a red herring - that limiting championship eligibility to only two teams (and for the most part decided by vote at that) actually devalues the regular seasons for many teams, year after year. I described a "Championship Eligibility ratio" - the ratio of the number of teams eligible for their league's national championship to the total number of teams in the league - as a useful metric for considering the "value" of a given league's regular season. Have a ratio too high, like in the NBA, and the regular season for its teams is watered down. But have a ratio too low, like in the BCS, and several deserving teams year after year never get a shot, equally diminishing the value of their regular seasons.

Here's another metric. In college football, teams only play 12 regular season games. That's a total of 12 opponents. That means that each team in division 1-A football plays only about ten percent of the total divisional competition during the regular season. Is that really a large enough representation to definitively select, through arbitrary selection, only two teams for championship eligibility? Does anyone really think that? 10%?

Put another way: every division 1-A college football team during every regular season barely scratches the surface of the available competition pool. At seasons' end, there are 11 conference champions, and several other teams with cases to be made that their 10% experience matches up with anyone else's.

The point to a playoff is to recognize that the 10% experience is inherently limited. Those with the best 10% experiences become representatives in a playoff. A fully-played tournament is a time-efficient means for translating individual 10% experiences into a full 100% champion, without having to play all 119 teams against eachother. The best representatives for the regular season play instead.

Catch that? The best representatives for the regular season get to play for the national championship. If a team performs poorly for the regular season, they don't get to the playoff. It's that simple. The regular season matters, with or without a playoff post-season. It's a red herring. The only way it isn't a red herring is if too many teams are invited to the post-season.

So don't have a 64-team brawl! An 8-team tournament playoff represents only about seven percent of all the division's teams. Isn't that elite enough?

More bowls?

The NCAA has approved two new bowl games, taking the number of bowls to 34 for the 2008 season.

I wonder at what point over-saturation hit with bowls... was it at 16? 20? I'm sure it was well before the 32 we had in 2007. We now have the St. Petersburg bowl and the Congressional bowl.

But I guess it isn't an automatic thing... the NCAA denied the Rocky Mountain bowl in Salt Lake City. Why not have yet another bowl? Why not have one in every city? If we're already over-saturated with bowls, what's one more?

Maintaining the BCStatus Quo

Dennis Dodd from CBS Sports has recently reported that the commissioners of the six BCS conference and Notre Dame's AD have voted to maintain the BCS status quo through the 2013 season and 2014 New Year's bowls. At stake was a plus-one format, a four-team mini-playoff pushed for by SEC commissioner Mike Slive, supported only by the ACC. A couple of quotes from the article are particularly nauseating:

"Another wise person said, 'If isn't broken don't fix it,'" attributed to Notre Dame AD, Kevin White.

"A seeded model looked like a playoff to us. We don't think a playoff is in the best interests of college football." attributed to Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese.

This is what these five people think. Keep that in mind - FIVE people decided this thing. To them, the gravy train is chugging along and there's no sense in upsetting the known cash cow for some unknown potential.

Really? A playoff is an unknown as far as money is concerned? Really?!? Either these guys are incredibly short-sighted (a playoff system would rake in ratings-driven media revenue well beyond what the BCS is currently making) or something else is going on.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assert that these five guys are not short-sighted idiots. In fact, I'll concede, without having met any one of them, that these are smart people who, through those smarts and life experience, each earned his way to a BCS-conference commissioner's post.

So what is going on here? The true interest being served by these BCS commissioners is the exclusivity of their club. They don't want to risk a playoff, even if it were to mean more overall revenue, if it also meant having to share that revenue more fully across all Division 1-A schools. As it stands now, BCS schools can keep the lion's share (and we're talking in the 95% range) of all the revenue earned through this crazy system. I would almost appreciate hearing one of them come out and say the truth - "we're protecting a system that let's us keep most of the money." This is really what White means when he says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." It ain't broke for BCS schools.

Reading Tranghese quoted saying "We don't think a playoff is in the best interests of college football" is insulting in a way that belies his insulated arrogance. Substitute any other major professional or collegiate team sport for "college football" in that quote to see how haughtily ludicrous the statement is. For that matter, substitute "Division 1-AA college football". And arrogance is the right word; Tranghese also said: "I know that's what a lot of fans don't want to hear, but they're not responsible for crafting what we have in college football".

Wow. Let that sink in for a minute. How many fans is he talking about? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Compare that to the number that fancy themselves as the ones responsible for crafting what we have in college football - five people. Just five.

I thought tens of thousands of hard-working coaches and players crafted what we have in college football. I thought the devotion of tens of millions of fans, reflected through their donations, ticket purchases, and television viewership crafted what we have in college football.

Nope. Not according to Tranghese.

And as for the decision to maintain the BCS status quo? It's about the money. It's about who's keeping it all for themselves.

It's about five guys.

Looking in the Vault

Sports Illustrated has done sports fans a wonderful service by making its historical issues available through its online Vault. I was browsing through one issue in particular, from September 20, 1965. What amazed me was the article forecasting the then-upcoming 1965 college football season. Even back then, folks were clamoring for a true college football national championship, decided on the field, through a tournament-style playoff.

The 16-team tournament envisioned by writer Dan Jenkins on page 40 is charmingly dated, but also serves to demonstrate how little progress has been made in 43 years for fans who wish to see a national champion decided through a fair playoff.

Tournament of Champions - 2007 Redux

We've been testing the Tournament of Champions playoff concept for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 seasons, with some predictive guessing prior to the playing of the BCS bowls as to how a 2007 playoff might have turned out. Now that the bowls have been played, we return to the 2007 season with the following playoff teams, each having won their Division 1-A conference:




We had originally predicted Oklahoma would win such a playoff. Given how the teams actually performed in the post-season, we can replay our fictional tournament for 2007.

First Round

• Undoubtedly, West Virginia cruises past Florida Atlantic.
• We'll take BYU over UCF; in spite of struggling, they beat UCLA in the Las Vegas bowl.
• Hawaii vs. Central Michigan? Hawaii stunk against tough competition in Georgia in the Sugar, while Central Michigan lost a shootout to Purdue in the Motor City. While Purdue isn't quite the competition this year that Georgia was, we'll take Central Michigan. Hawaii made way too many turnovers and was dominated at the line.

Second Round

• Ohio State wins comfortably against BYU. The Cougars struggled too much against UCLA to expect they would have done much against the Buckeyes.
• USC trounces Oklahoma. Probably scores as much as West Virginia did in the Fiesta, but without giving up as many points to the Sooners.
• LSU takes out a scrappy Central Michigan team, overwhelming them in the second half.
• West Virginia wins a surprisingly easy game against Virginia Tech. The Mountaineers looked great in their Fiesta win, while it took everything the Hokies had to hang with Kansas in the Orange.

Third Round

• #1-seeded Ohio State vs. #5-seeded USC. Based on their actual bowl play, this one isn't tough. USC comfortably handles Ohio State, but credit OSU for giving the Trojans a better game than Illinois did in the Rose.
• #2-seeded LSU vs. #6-seeded West Virginia. Wow. What a game this would have been. West Virginia would take the early lead, not unlike the Buckeyes did vs. LSU in the BCS title game. But we'll take LSU's overall quality in all phases of the game and with good halftime defensive adjustments, the Tigers take a fourth-quarter nail-biter.
  

And the National Champion is...

How to even call it? In their win against the Buckeyes in the championship game, LSU proved their strengths in all facets, and ability to adjust to OSU's surprising first quarter offensive strike.

However... USC cleaned Illinois' clock in the Rose. Those two teams didn't belong on the same field in a top-tier bowl game. And when we realize that in November, Illinois took it to Ohio State on their home field, USC's dominance in their bowl game might ring more impressive than LSU's victory.

#5 USC beats #2 LSU. And what a fantastic game it would have been.

Tournament of Champions - 2005 Edition

The Tournament of Champions is a proposal for a playoff alternative to the BCS to select a genuine national champion among 11 division 1-A conferences and 119 teams. Invitations are given to all eleven conference champions and to qualifying independents. For the purposes of this run-through, the BCS rankings is used for the seeding order, and independents ranked sixth or higher qualify.

We've looked at the 2006 and 2007 regular seasons and the Tournaments they would have produced. For 2005, we have the first opportunity going back in time to test this system with a qualifying independent. Notre Dame at 9-2 will be seeded among conference champions having earned their place finishing sixth in the BCS rankings.

Seeding	Team	Conference
1	USC	PAC 10
2	Texas	Big 12
3	Penn St.	Big 10
4	Notre Dame	Independent
5	Georgia	SEC
6	West Virginia	Big East
7	TCU	Mountain West
8	Florida St.	ACC
9	Boise St.	WAC
10	Tulsa	Conference USA
11	Akron	MAC
12	Arkansas St.	Sun Belt

The Rose Bowl hosts the National Championship game this year, with the Tournament leaving some excellent teams available for the other top-tier bowls: Ohio St. (9-2), Oregon (10-1), Miami (9-2), Auburn (9-2), Virginia Tech (10-2), LSU (10-2), Alabama (9-2), Texas Tech (9-2), UCLA (9-2), Florida (8-3), Wisconsin (9-3), and Louisville (9-2). Pick any six for the Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange bowls for some outstanding matchups.

With a qualifying independent in the mix we have our first 12-team bracket:

Notable in the 2005 edition:

• With an independent qualifying, the fifth seed must play a first-round game.
  
• 2005 Tulsa is a decent team that improved throughout the season; its first-round matchup against TCU would prove to be a very good game.
  
• We have another example of a non-BCS champion (TCU from the Mountain West) out-seeding a BCS champion (the ACC's Florida St.)
• It seems that the Sun Belt conference is the bottom feeder in each of the 2005, 2006, and 2007 tournaments. Not being the bottom feeder would be good incentive for lesser conferences to improve.
  
• Penn St. vs. West Virginia and Notre Dame vs. Georgia are great second-round matchups.
  

And the National Champion is...

In 2005, the BCS probably had its easiest year with no controversy in selecting USC and Texas to compete. We also think nothing would stop USC and Texas from colliding in the finals of this tournament. We could see Georgia upsetting Notre Dame, and West Virginia having a good shot against Penn St. along the way, but otherwise we'll take Texas and Vince Young repeating their real-life victory over USC.