Overall McMNC Analysis: Part Three & Conclusion

The BCS Years are a mess, of course.

In 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2005, I agreed with the BCS determination of the MNC. However, I did so grudgingly in 1999, 2000 and 2001 when the BCS screwed up the choice of the #2 team for the "title" game.

Interesting years? In 1998, Sagarin chose Ohio State as his #1 (they were my No. 2). In 2002, Dunkel, Matthews and Sagarin chose USC as their #1 (they were my No. 4).

The years I chose a different champion than the BCS did were 2003, 2006 and 2007. In the first of those years (2003), the AP, Eck, Matthews and the NY Times also picked USC -- so I certainly wasn't alone. But it surprises me so many of the other selectors chose LSU: they had a worse loss, a worse bowl win and lesser results against common opponents. I see this as the distinct beginning of the "SEC bias" mentality that is now dominating the college football scene, for better or for worse.

However, it is also interesting to note that USC was the unanimous champion in 2004 over Auburn, for at least two of the same reasons noted above.

In 2006, I stood alone, of course, in selecting Boise State. The BCS had a clusterfuck to separate for the #2 title slot, and Florida got the opportunity to take down a flawed Ohio State squad when four other teams probably could have done the same. Why choose Florida over those four other teams? Boise State may be my most radical McMNC call of the whole analysis, but oh well. They went undefeated, they beat a BCS big boy in the bowl game, and they deserved it in my mind.

Finally, 2007 was a disgrace to the entire college football scene. In choosing West Virginia over USC and LSU, I am bucking conventional wisdom, for sure. But I really couldn't understand why LSU was chosen as #2 over Kansas, USC and WVU in the first place, although I am sure the preseason expectations had a lot to do with it. LSU shot itself in the foot twice against unranked teams (while KU only lost to #4) but survived simply because people believed the SEC was "so good" -- although a closer look at SEC OOC schedules really shows most SEC teams to be around .500 against quality competition. I know this is a point of contention on RSFC, and it will be for a long time. But potential and expectation didn't sway my viewpoints, as it did so many "voters" in the laughable BCS polls -- which we have seen to be easily manipulated on multiple occasions by coaches' pleas, conference commissioners and bowl representatives.

Either way, I stood alone again in 2007. So I stood alone twice in the ten years of the BCS. Overall, I picked eight champions that no one else did in 73 seasons -- agreeing with "experts" 89% of the time. Most of my McMNCs went to worthy teams in the estimation of others, while 11% of my picks strayed from mainstream thought/analysis.

That's not a high percentage, and it's one I can live with and sleep soundly upon, for we all know RSFCkers are smr4t3r than the mediots, anyway.

One idea that was floated on RSFC was that of "chance" opening the door for both Florida in 2006 and LSU in 2007. Say USC hadn't lost to UCLA at the end of 2006, for example. Do the one-loss Trojans beat Ohio State in the Fiesta Bowl? Probably. Does Florida win their bowl game? Probably. So why would anyone pick USC over Florida for the AP title if Florida was so good? This is the issue with the BCS is most years: it is a flawed system that leaves the selection of the top two teams to chance and the easily-manipulated polls. It's a flawed system, and therefore, no BCS champion can really be considered "real" or "absolute" or "concrete". Likewise, if West Virginia beats Pitt in 2007, LSU can't sniff the BCS title game. But wouldn't they still be considered "better" than either Ohio State or the Mountaineers, if what the mediots and/or RSFCkers would have us believe?

Problems left, problems right. The BCS sucks.

Anyway, that's that. The 2008 season starts tomorrow, and it will bring more controversy and confusion to our fingertips, no doubt. I hope you have enjoyed the experience this off-season, and thanks to interesting information I came across in these studies, I have already decided what to do for Offseason 2009 ...

But you'll have to wait until the second week of January to find out what it is.