Week 11 Thread: https://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/college-sports/2024/11/150382/fake-bcs-rankings-week-11
Week 12 Thread: https://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/college-sports/2024/11/150598/fake-bcs-rankings-week-12
Week 13 Thread: https://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/college-sports/2024/11/150792/fake-bcs-rankings-week-13
Week 14 Thread: https://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/college-sports/2024/11/151053/fake-bcs-rankings-week-14
Week 15 Thread: https://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/college-sports/2024/12/151417/fake-bcs-rankings-week-15
Now that the regular season is over, conference champions have been decided, and we have the final CFP Rankings, we get to ask the question, "What would the BCS have done?"
During the 4 team playoff era, the BCS formula agreed with the CFP committee on the 4 teams all but one of the years. That year was last year where undefeated FSU was left out in favor of Alabama. Alabama is on the bubble again this year, and the CFP committee left them out in favor of ACC newcomer SMU. Quite a reversal, for sure. But did they get it right? What would the BCS have done?
| Team | Conf | Record | BCS Rank | BCS Average | AP Poll | AP Avg | Coaches | Coaches Avg | Computer | Computer Avg | CFP Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon | B10 | 13-0 | 1* | 1.0000 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 | 1.0000 | 1 |
| Georgia | SEC | 11-2 | 2* | 0.9500 | 2 | 0.9510 | 2 | 0.9489 | 2 | 0.9500 | 2 |
| Notre Dame | FBSI | 11-1 | 3 | 0.8971 | 3 | 0.9019 | 3 | 0.8993 | 3 | 0.8900 | 5 |
| Texas | SEC | 11-2 | 4 | 0.8670 | 4 | 0.8684 | 4 | 0.8726 | 4 | 0.8600 | 3 |
| Ohio St | B10 | 10-2 | 5 | 0.8079 | 6 | 0.7955 | 7 | 0.7681 | 4 | 0.8600 | 6 |
| Penn St | B10 | 11-2 | 6 | 0.8072 | 5 | 0.8116 | 5 | 0.8000 | 6 | 0.8100 | 4 |
| Tennessee | SEC | 10-2 | 7 | 0.7138 | 7 | 0.7897 | 6 | 0.7919 | 12 | 0.5600 | 7 |
| Boise St | MWC | 12-1 | 8* | 0.7110 | 8 | 0.7148 | 8 | 0.6881 | 8 | 0.7300 | 9 |
| Indiana | B10 | 11-1 | 9 | 0.7013 | 9 | 0.6787 | 9 | 0.6852 | 7 | 0.7400 | 8 |
| Arizona St | B12 | 11-2 | 10* | 0.6300 | 10 | 0.6458 | 10 | 0.6341 | 10 | 0.6100 | 12 |
| SMU | ACC | 11-2 | 11 | 0.5696 | 12 | 0.5400 | 12 | 0.5489 | 9 | 0.6200 | 10 |
| Alabama | SEC | 9-3 | 12 | 0.5618 | 11 | 0.5406 | 11 | 0.5548 | 11 | 0.5900 | 11 |
| South Carolina | SEC | 9-3 | 13 | 0.5039 | 14 | 0.4968 | 14 | 0.4948 | 13 | 0.5200 | 15 |
| Clemson | ACC | 10-3 | 14* | 0.4924 | 13 | 0.5335 | 13 | 0.5237 | 16 | 0.4200 | 16 |
| Miami FL | ACC | 10-2 | 15 | 0.4608 | 15 | 0.4497 | 16 | 0.4526 | 14 | 0.4800 | 13 |
| Mississippi | SEC | 9-3 | 16 | 0.4154 | 16 | 0.4387 | 15 | 0.4674 | 17 | 0.3400 | 14 |
| BYU | B12 | 10-2 | 17 | 0.3720 | 17 | 0.3426 | 17 | 0.3133 | 15 | 0.4600 | 17 |
| Iowa St | B12 | 10-3 | 18 | 0.2639 | 18 | 0.2587 | 19 | 0.2630 | 18 | 0.2700 | 18 |
| Army | AAC | 11-1 | 19 | 0.2372 | 19 | 0.2342 | 18 | 0.2674 | 20 | 0.2100 | 22 |
| Illinois | B10 | 9-3 | 20 | 0.2094 | 21 | 0.2045 | 21 | 0.2037 | 19 | 0.2200 | 20 |
| Missouri | SEC | 9-3 | 21 | 0.1687 | 23 | 0.1471 | 20 | 0.2089 | 22 | 0.1500 | 19 |
| Colorado | B12 | 9-3 | 22 | 0.1470 | 20 | 0.2123 | 22 | 0.1689 | 25 | 0.0600 | 23 |
| Syracuse | ACC | 9-3 | 23 | 0.1222 | 22 | 0.1510 | 25 | 0.0956 | 23 | 0.1200 | 21 |
| Memphis | AAC | 10-2 | 24 | 0.0694 | 25 | 0.0852 | 23 | 0.1230 | NR | 0.0000 | 25 |
| UNLV | MWC | 10-3 | 25 | 0.0655 | 24 | 0.0929 | 24 | 0.1037 | NR | 0.0000 | 24 |
CFP Seedings:
- Oregon (1 - 1.0000)
- Georgia (2 - 0.9500)
- Boise State (8 - 0.7110)
- Arizona State (10 - 0.6300)
- Notre Dame (3 - 0.8971)
- Texas (4 - 0.8670)
- Ohio State (5 - 0.8079)
- Penn State (6 - 0.8072)
- Tennessee (7 - 0.7138)
- Indiana (9 - 0.7013)
- SMU (11 - 0.5696)
- Clemson (14 - 0.4924)
Matchups:
- Tennessee (7 - 0.7138) at Penn State (6 - 0.8072) - Winner plays Oregon (1 - 1.0000)
- Clemson (14 - 0.4924) at Notre Dame (3 - 0.8971) - Winner plays Arizona State (10 - 0.6300)
- SMU (11 - 0.5696) at Texas (4 - 0.8670) - Winner plays Boise State (8 - 0.7110)
- Indiana (9 - 0.7013) at Ohio State (5 - 0.8079) - Winner plays Georgia (2 - 0.9500)
So at first glance, the BCS would have chose the same exact 12 teams as the CFP Committee, but there are some differences in the matchups. The thing that I am looking at the most is what happened with teams that lost in their conference championship games. Many people have been talking about "not punishing" CCG losers. By and large, the committee did not. Texas and Penn State were ranked ahead of Notre Dame going into championship week and remained ahead despite losses. However, SMU dropped below idle Indiana with their loss. This has a big impact on matchups.
Let's look at Ohio State's path as an example. The BCS has them going through Indiana (rematch) before getting Georgia in the second round and then Texas (who gets favorable matchups with SMU and Boise State to get there). Then the potential rematch with Oregon is in the finals (as it should be). But their CFP path is much different in reality - we start with Tennessee before moving on directly to Oregon, then we'd likely play Texas and finish with Georgia. So the main difference is swapping out Indiana with Tennessee and then reshuffling the order of the other 3 teams.
It's hard to say if it's better or worse one way or the other. It's just different. Football is a game of matchups, so even though we are 9 percentage points ahead of Tennessee (and 8 places in the computer average), they are build similar to Michigan and could pose problems if we try to use the same game plan. I expect Ryan Day to step up but a lot depends on our OL, which apparently we are reshuffling again. I'd rather beat Indiana to a pulp for a second time, tbh. And it's likely better to play Oregon earlier when we are more fresh. Texas and Georgia are both good, but don't have the type of defense that gives our offense trouble, so I feel good about our chances with either. We just have to survive the first 2 games.
