Few Are Partial to BCS After Latest Numbers Game

There were a lot of significant numbers posted this year:

Northwestern scored 54 points against Michigan, Oklahoma hung a 63 on Texas, Florida State quarterback Chris Weinke won the Heisman at 28, Texas Christian tailback LaDainian Tomlinson rushed for more than 2,000 yards.

But the most important figure turned out to be a partial: .32.

Oklahoma ended some of the controversy Wednesday night with its 13-2 victory over Florida State in the Orange Bowl.

The Sooners finished 13-0 and claimed their seventh national title. Oklahoma Coach Bob Stoops collected the brass Thursday morning at the Hyatt Regency, accepting the Sears Trophy, awarded to the bowl championship series game winner by the voting coaches, and the Associated Press title.

So, the BCS slips another noose?

Yes and no.

The BCS avoided a potential mess when Oklahoma won and spared its sport a 10th split title.

Had Florida State squeaked out a victory over Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, Florida State would have won the BCS title but Miami surely would have won the Associated Press crown.

The BCS formula was devised three years ago to match No. 1 and No. 2 in a unifying title game.

It worked out again because Oklahoma won and ended up as the only unbeaten team in the country.

But that doesn’t end the controversy.

There remains this hanging partial, .32.

That was the margin of victory for Florida State over Miami for the coveted No. 2 spot in the final BCS standings.

Miami defeated Florida State, 27-24, and finished No. 2 in both polls, yet the BCS rankings, which also incorporate losses, eight computers and strength of schedule into the equation, spit out the Seminoles in the final analysis.

Under the old system of the polls, No. 1 Oklahoma and No. 2 Miami would have met for the national championship.

Under the new system, Miami Coach Butch Davis, like Al Gore, is left to wonder “what if” in Florida.

Davis thinks, with good argument, his team deserved the chance to play Oklahoma for the championship.

Would Miami have fared better than Florida State?

“Absolutely, we would have played better,” Davis said. “We would have liked that chance.”

The problem with .32 is no one is really sure what it means. We know Miami lost the BCS in a close race, but not even the BCS coordinators know exactly how the eight computers used in the formula tabulate factors such as margin of victory and strength of schedule.

What if Miami had not scheduled McNeese State, a Division I-AA school?

Would that have made a difference in .32?

What if lightning had not forced the cancellation of a Georgia Tech-Virginia Tech game in August.

In the BCS formula, the strength of an opponent’s opponent is considered. Miami soundly defeated Virginia Tech, but lost the schedule strength component of Georgia Tech.

What if Miami had run up the score a few more times, not substituted freely in the fourth quarter in the name of sportsmanship.

“Maybe if we beat somebody by seven more points,” Davis said Thursday. “Maybe that would have made it up. People kept reassuring me, ‘It’s going to work out.’ ”

These questions almost certainly will lead to more tweaking in the BCS system when the conference commissioners meet in April.

“This year, we’ll definitely look at some aspects,” BCS coordinator John Swofford said this week.

After the first year of the BCS, five computers were added to the formula, bringing the total to eight.

The system remained the same for two years.

Swofford, who also serves as Commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference, believes the BCS has served college football well and there is no strong push for a playoff system.

But you can bet there will be changes.

First, he and other major conference commissioners will ask the eight computer operators to consider a head-to-head component.

This could address the problem of Miami defeating Florida State and Washington defeating Miami. All those school had one loss after the regular season, yet Florida State finished ahead of Miami in the final BCS standings and Miami was ahead of Washington.

The other problem is the margin-of-victory component. Should teams be rewarded for running up the scores against weaker opponents?

“I think we all agree it shouldn’t play a significant role,” Swofford said.

Currently, six of the BCS computer polls have caps on margin of victory at 21-28 points. One system has no margin component and another has a potentially limitless margin.

Swofford is a proponent of change here.

“Personally, I would be for looking at that and telling the computer partners, ‘This is the way it is, if you can’t live with it, you can’t be a part of the BCS formula.’ ”

In the afterglow of Wednesday’s victory, Oklahoma wasn’t concerned with what is wrong with the BCS.

The Sooners did everything right. They won 13 games and defeated the opponent the BCS told them to play.

“The best part of this is the pursuit of it,” Stoops said. “Getting to the national championship, being in the game. Once it’s over, it’s sort of anticlimactic. You try to do it again.”

What’s next? On Day 1 after the title, Stoops already was shooting down rumors that he might be a candidate for the coaching vacancy at Ohio State, which fired John Cooper this week.

Stoops grew up in Youngstown, Ohio.

Asked if he had been contacted by Ohio State, Stoops said, “No.”

Asked if he would accept a call from Ohio State, he said, “No,” and then fudged a bit.

“If somebody calls, you always talk to them,” Stoops joked. “How will I know who it is?”

The chances of Stoops leaving appear remote. After Oklahoma defeated Nebraska in November, the school tore up Stoops’ contract and doubled his salary to $1.4 million a season.

Oklahoma Athletic Director Joe Castiglione was miffed Thursday when he had to address questions about Stoops’ future.

“I don’t know if insult is the right word,” Castiglione said, “but give me a break.”

Asked if he would grant permission for Ohio State to speak to Stoops, Castiglione said, “No, no, no. Why should I? I don’t need to make it easier. We worked hard to get to this point.”