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.

  --
.. unless her great neighbors are prosperous
and orderly, Poland is an economic impossibility
with no industry but Jew-baiting.

- JM Keynes

How can you even suggest that #2 LSU's bowl win over #3 Oklahoma was
better than #1 USC's bowl win over #4 Michigan? Michigan never had a
chance to win that Rose Bowl, while Oklahoma had the ball with a
chance to beat LSU at the end of the Sugar Bowl.

only the most profoundly demented USC fan would compare the win over
hapless, nothing Michigan to LSU's win over a team touted for most of
the year as one of the best ever.

you truly are dumb, ya know?

--
--

"those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better
off without Saddam Hussein, and those who
  believe today that we are not safer with his capture,
don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility
to be elected president."

- John Kerry, 12/16/03

In crazed world, the difference between #3 and #6 is the difference
between being "hapless, nothing" and being "one of the best ever!!!!"

Ok, I added the !!!!.  Oklahoma wasn't "touted as... one of the best
ever", though.  Dewd, when yer argument is just a couple of lines, and
you flat out make one of those lines up, and everyone knows you made it
up... well, not very convincing.

Cheers.

Clearly, other people in this thread think you're ridiculous, too, so
I'm good with whatever you want to imagine about me.

yet in the end, OK had 1 fewer loss than michigan, 2 more wins than
michigan, and finished well above michigan in both polls.

and at the time, the stoops version of OK had a very good bowl record.
they had won the 2000 orange bowl, 2001 cotton bowl, and 2002 rose bowl.
LSU beat them and they haven't won a big bowl since.

Ok was clearly and obviously a tougher bowl opponent than Michigan.

--
The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from
enacting stupid laws.

- Thurgood Marshall

Cuz, I think you might have some very subtle begging the question
reasoning here.  Basically, yer claiming USC is worse than LSU because
they beat UM more convincingly than LSU beat Oklahoma.

Funny guy!

Cheers.