With the Alabama Crimson Tide edging the Oklahoma State Cowboys by .0086 in the final BCS standings -- the closest margin between the No. 2 and No. 3 teams since the current formula was implemented in 2004 -- this will go down as one of the more memorable finishes in BCS history.
So, naturally, I looked at a couple of formula-related factors to see whether something simple might have swung things in the other direction. If Alabama hadn't managed to hang on to its No. 2 ranking in a second BCS computer (either Sagarin or Wolfe), the Crimson Tide still would've finished ahead of the Cowboys by .0019. And if the 21 voters in the Harris and coaches' polls who ranked OSU either fourth, fifth or sixth on their ballots had all put the Pokes at No. 3 instead, that would have reduced Bama's margin to approximately .004 -- but not erased it.
I even plugged the numbers for both teams into the previous BCS formula that was last used in the 2003 season to see whether that would've had Oklahoma State higher than Bama. That formula had both a schedule strength factor (which I got from Jerry Palm of CollegeBCS.com, who hasn't yet deleted the old SOS calculation from his computer) and a quality win component, but the result was still Alabama by a nose. It might surprise some to know that the quality-win bonus actually favored Bama because both teams have one top-10 win, and the Arkansas Razorbacks are ranked higher than the Kansas State Wildcats.
The one other thought I had that could have made the difference in the final BCS standings for Oklahoma State was the impact of the Nebraska Cornhuskers and Colorado Buffaloes leaving the Big 12 before this season and, therefore, eliminating the conference championship game.
OSU would've played nine games against Big 12 competition either way, but having a 13th game and a second meeting with Nebraska or Kansas State (the Cowboys would then have to win that game, of course) certainly would have been enough to give the Cowboys a No. 2 ranking in every BCS computer.
Although it's important to point out that the 2011 schedule for a 12-team conference would've required Oklahoma State to play road games against Nebraska, the Oklahoma Sooners and Baylor Bears, it's also worth noting that the three teams from the Big 12 North that OSU wouldn't have played are Colorado, the Missouri Tigers and Iowa State Cyclones. Yes, the only reason the Cyclones were on the Pokes' schedule this year was that political unrest within the Big 12 drove Nebraska and Colorado to leave the conference.
But you won't hear Mike Gundy, T. Boone Pickens or anyone else representing Oklahoma State use that as an excuse. In fact, there have been very few gripes coming out of Stillwater, although there are plenty to be made. Mostly, they are the same gripes that have been levied against the BCS system for years.
Here is a look at changes that should -- and in some cases could -- come to the BCS.
The subjectivity issue
One issue with the BCS, of course, is the subjective nature of the polls. Clearly, some voters have agendas, whether that's a person in the Southeast wanting to see an all-SEC championship game or someone in another part of the country wanting to see anything other than a rematch. And the potential conflicts of interest in the coaches' poll have been obvious for as long as the BCS has existed, yet that poll remains one of the few constants of the system.
Just look at the final ballots of Alabama's Nick Saban and Boise State's Chris Petersen. Saban voted his team second, the Stanford Cardinal third and Oklahoma State fourth. Although he wasn't the only coach to rank Stanford ahead of OSU, there's no denying that his order could've been motivated by the desire to add one more point of separation between his team and his chief competitor in the BCS title chase. And who could blame him for taking advantage of the opportunity to do it?
Petersen came out Monday and pleaded guilty to manipulating his ballot for the benefit of his team. He voted Boise State fifth and the TCU Horned Frogs, who won at Boise and went undefeated through the Mountain West Conference, 18th. He did this knowing that if TCU didn't finish in the top 16 of the BCS standings, another at-large spot would be available to the BCS bowls, which would increase the chances of Boise State being selected. After explaining his vote, Petersen added, "So I probably shouldn't be a voter."
The general belief is that by having an even dispersal of voters throughout the conferences, the biases will be offsetting. But only half (59 of 120) of the FBS coaches get a vote each season, and Oklahoma State's Gundy wasn't a voter this year, so he didn't have the opportunity to vote his team second and Alabama fourth. Likewise, TCU's Gary Patterson wasn't a voter, so he wasn't able to give his Horned Frogs a boost in the poll to help their cause.
Aside from that particular problem that stems from not every coach having a vote, there's also the fact that the Harris poll panel consists of 115 voters, which means each coach's ballot has twice as much impact on the overall BCS average as a Harris ballot does. It's fortunate for everyone that personal voting agendas have yet to decide a race for No. 2 in the BCS standings. But if the system doesn't change, it's bound to happen sooner or later.
A question of the subconscious
Then there's the subconscious aspect of the subjective vote. I've been asked many times whether Oklahoma State would've still finished third if its jerseys said "Oklahoma." I wish I could answer a definitive "yes" to that question, but I can't. It's absolutely possible that some voters refused to buy into OSU as the second-best team in the nation because it has no history of competing for national titles.
It's also possible that what turned out to be the Cowboys' two best wins -- against No. 8 Kansas State and No. 12 Baylor -- were devalued by voters because those teams came out of nowhere in 2011 after several years of playing bad to mediocre football. All season, the computers said the Big 12 was the nation's strongest conference, but when the top three teams ended up being Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Baylor, a lot of voters had a difficult time agreeing with that computer assessment.
So, what about the computers?
Yes, the computers also must be re-evaluated.
Schedule strength is a factor in every computer, and the 10 teams in the Big 12 currently rank No. 1 through No. 10 in strength of schedule in the Sagarin ratings. In the Anderson & Hester rankings, the top nine schedules all come from that conference. The Colley Matrix gives its top eight schedules to teams from the Big 12.
This stems from the Big 12 having only three losses out of conference this season, and all three were to bowl teams (Arkansas, Georgia Tech and Arizona State). Much like the RPI in college basketball, the foundation is laid in nonconference play, and whichever league emerges from that part of the season with the best profile will just get stronger and stronger as it plays more and more games against itself. That happened to an extreme level with the Big 12 this season.
For us mere humans, it's tough to look at the schedules of the Big 12 teams and and identify even one of them that's more difficult than the slate LSU played. Yet, the combination of results such as Kansas State beating the 6-6 Miami Hurricanes, Iowa State upsetting the 7-5 Iowa Hawkeyes, and the doormat Kansas Jayhawks knocking off the MAC champion Northern Illinois Huskies led to this questionable computer analysis.
Here's one other way of looking at it: The top 25 teams in the current coaches' poll have 10 nonconference losses between them. Five of those losses were to the SEC. Two were to the Big 12 (Baylor over TCU and Oklahoma over Florida State). There's no question that the Big 12 had a great out-of-conference performance, but not nearly as great as the computers made it out to be.
The selection committee proposal
How do we fix these issues with the polls and computers? The simple answer is a selection committee, much like the one used for basketball. For football, what makes the most sense is to gather a small group of former coaches and players, and -- here's the catch -- sit them in a room all day every Saturday to watch the top teams play their games.
Many of us at ESPN do this each week, and I'm sure some other national media do, as well. Of course, we're getting paid to do it, so if you want to ask committee members to give up their weekends for one-third of the year, the BCS probably would have to pay them, too.
With all of these games being televised, there's no excuse for the people making the ultimate judgments on the teams not to be watching. It's important, because you need to see what a team is like at its worst in addition to how it plays at its best. Just seeing the biggest games or catching the highlights on TV won't accomplish that mission.
The chances of a plus-one model
Of course, all of the above is just an improvement to the method of choosing the top two teams and doesn't change the fact that, in many seasons, more than two teams have a good argument for a spot in the national championship game. For quite a while, any type of college football playoff bracket has seemed to be more fantasy than near-reality, but there are rumblings that several AQ-conference leaders are now willing to have serious discussions about taking that step.
In the summer, the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee and the conference commissioners will meet to discuss what college football's next postseason format should look like, and the frustration that many people have with the way the 2011 season ended is just one more reason for them to consider change.
Conference expansion/realignment has been further proof that money is a huge factor behind the decisions of college football's leadership, and a four-team playoff (a seeded plus-one) would generate more revenue for the conferences and bowls. If the four BCS locations are used as rotating sites for the semifinals and championship game, each location would be guaranteed to have a meaningful game at least three times every four years rather than once every four years. To me, that sounds like it'd be good for business.
The biggest hurdle, as always, will be putting together a plan that is satisfactory to the partnership of the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Rose Bowl. This was accomplished when the BCS was constructed in 1998, so there's no reason to think that it can't be done again.
One of the big flaws in the current postseason structure is the ridiculous amount of time between the end of the regular season and the dates of the BCS games, but that could work to the advantage of the seeded plus-one. The Rose Bowl might agree to give up its semifinal game in exchange for the Big Ten champ versus the Pac-12 champ in seasons such as this one when neither of those teams is ranked in the BCS top four. A switch like that would be totally unrealistic with one or two weeks' notice, but with four weeks, it's certainly possible.
Don't you think the Orange Bowl would gladly give up Clemson versus West Virginia to get an Alabama versus Oklahoma State national semifinal if the Rose decided a month in advance that it would rather have Wisconsin versus Oregon? That would mean LSU versus Stanford in the Fiesta in the other semifinal, and the winners would meet about a week later in the Sugar Bowl for the national championship.
We might still end up with LSU against Alabama for the BCS title, but one thing would be different: Nobody would be complaining about the rematch.
