The excitement of college football season is building, and fans are eagerly following the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) standings. While the BCS system has evolved into the College Football Playoff (CFP) system since the 2014 season, understanding the historical context and mechanics of the BCS standings can provide valuable insight into the current college football landscape.
Understanding the BCS Standings System
The BCS standings were determined by a combination of three main components: the Harris Interactive Poll, the USA Today Coaches’ Poll, and advanced computer rankings. These elements worked together to create a comprehensive ranking system that aimed to identify the top two teams for the national championship game.
Harris Interactive Poll
The Harris Interactive Poll was a significant component of the BCS standings, representing the opinions of 114 Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) head coaches and a select group of media members. This poll was designed to capture the subjective views of experienced observers and provide a human element to the rankings.
USA Today Coaches’ Poll
The USA Today Coaches’ Poll, on the other hand, gathered opinions from a broader group of 62 FBS head coaches. While some coaches participated in both polls, the USA Today Coaches’ Poll was generally considered more influential due to its wider reach and reputation.
Computer Rankings
The computer rankings added an objective layer to the BCS standings. Six different computer models were used to evaluate team performance based on various metrics, such as strength of schedule, margin of victory, and overall win-loss record. These models helped to mitigate the subjective nature of the human polls and provided a data-driven perspective.
How BCS Standings Were Calculated
To calculate the BCS standings, the Harris Interactive Poll and USA Today Coaches’ Poll were averaged to create a human poll component. The computer rankings were then averaged to produce a computer ranking component. These two components were combined, with the human poll component weighted at 1⁄3 and the computer ranking component weighted at 2⁄3 for the top 25 teams, and equally weighted for teams outside the top 25 but within the top 112.5 (the actual number used was 112.5 to avoid ties).
Example Calculation
To illustrate the calculation process, let’s consider a hypothetical team ranked #5 in both the Harris Interactive Poll and the USA Today Coaches’ Poll, with an average human poll ranking of 5.0. If this team was ranked #3 in the averaged computer rankings, its BCS standings score would be calculated as follows:
- Human Poll Component: (5.0) = 5.0
- Computer Ranking Component: (3.0) = 3.0
- BCS Standings Score: (1⁄3) * 5.0 + (2⁄3) * 3.0 = 3.67 (for simplicity, the actual formula was more complex and considered more factors)
Top 5 BCS Standings Explained
To simplify the understanding of the top 5 BCS standings, let’s examine the top teams during a hypothetical season:
Top Team: The team ranked #1 in the BCS standings, typically boasting a strong win-loss record, impressive margin of victory, and a robust strength of schedule. For instance, in a given year, the top team might have been Alabama with a 12-0 record, averaging 35 points per game, and facing a challenging schedule that included multiple ranked opponents.
Second-Ranked Team: The #2 team in the BCS standings, often with a similar profile to the top team, but with some minor differences in their human poll or computer ranking components. They might have had a slightly weaker schedule or a closer margin of victory in certain games.
Third Place: The #3 team represented a strong contender, potentially with a single loss or a weaker strength of schedule compared to the top two teams. They might have been a team like Oregon, featuring a high-powered offense and a competitive win-loss record.
Fourth and Fifth Place: Teams ranked #4 and #5 were usually closely contested, with slight variations in their human poll and computer ranking components. These teams might have included powerhouses like Florida State or Ohio State, with impressive resumes and challenging schedules.
Transition to the College Football Playoff System
The BCS system was replaced by the College Football Playoff (CFP) system in 2014. The CFP features a four-team playoff, with a committee responsible for selecting and seeding the top teams. While the CFP has introduced new dynamics to the college football postseason, understanding the historical BCS standings provides context for appreciating the evolution of college football’s competitive landscape.
Key Differences Between BCS and CFP
The CFP system differs significantly from the BCS in several ways:
- Committee Selection: The CFP committee, comprising athletic directors and other college football experts, selects the top four teams based on a comprehensive evaluation of their performance.
- Playoff Format: The CFP features a four-team playoff, with semifinal games hosted by a rotating selection of bowl games, followed by the national championship game.
- Increased Participation: The CFP has expanded the postseason opportunities for more teams, as the top four teams compete in the playoff.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the main purpose of the BCS standings?
+The primary purpose of the BCS standings was to determine the top two teams to compete in the national championship game, providing a clear and fair method for selecting the participants.
How did the computer rankings contribute to the BCS standings?
+The computer rankings added an objective layer to the BCS standings, evaluating team performance based on various metrics such as strength of schedule and margin of victory. This helped to mitigate the subjective nature of the human polls.
What replaced the BCS system?
+The BCS system was replaced by the College Football Playoff (CFP) system in 2014, featuring a four-team playoff and a committee responsible for selecting and seeding the top teams.
How do the BCS standings differ from the CFP rankings?
+The BCS standings were based on a combination of human polls and computer rankings, while the CFP rankings rely on a committee's evaluation of team performance. The CFP also features a four-team playoff, whereas the BCS determined the top two teams for the national championship game.
In conclusion, understanding the BCS standings provides valuable insight into the historical context of college football’s competitive landscape. While the CFP has introduced new dynamics to the postseason, appreciating the mechanics and significance of the BCS standings can enhance one’s appreciation for the sport.
