FINAL BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES RANKINGS (Games Through Dec

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

FINAL BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES RANKINGS (Games Through Dec HOLD FOR RELEASE: December 6, 1998 (After 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time) CONTACT: Charles Bloom, BCS Media Relations Director (Office: 205-458-3010) FINAL BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES RANKINGS (Games Through Dec. 5) USA Today/ Poll Seattle New York Computer Schedule Quartile Rank Team AP ESPN Avg. Times Sagarin Times Avg. Strength Rank Losses TOTAL 1. Tennessee 1 1 1.0 1 2 2 1.67 20 0.80 0 3.47 2. Florida State 2 2 2.0 2 2.25 (3) 1 1.75 4 0.16 1 4.91 3. Kansas State 4 4 4.0 4 1 4.00 (5) 3.00 49 1.96 1 9.96 4. Ohio State 3 3 3.0 6.75 (7) 6 3 5.25 28 1.12 1 10.37 5. UCLA 6 5 5.5 3 4 5.25 (6) 4.08 8 0.32 1 10.90 6. Texas A&M 8 9 8.5 6 5 4 5.00 5 0.20 2 15.70 7. Arizona 5 6 5.5 5 9 9 7.67 58 2.32 1 16.49 8. Florida 7 7 7.0 10 8 11 9.67 32 1.28 2 19.95 9. Wisconsin 9 8 8.5 9 10 10 9.67 61 2.44 1 21.61 10. Tulane 10 10 10.0 8 14 16.5 (23) 12.83 96 3.84 0 26.67 11. Nebraska 14 16 15.0 11 7 13.5 (15) 10.50 14 0.56 3 29.06 12. Virginia 13 12 12.5 13 18 17 16.00 43 1.72 2 32.22 13. Arkansas 11 11 11.0 17 12 21.75 (22) 16.92 59 2.36 2 32.28 14. Georgia Tech 12 14 13.0 16 20 12 16.00 44 1.76 2 32.76 15. Syracuse 18 17 17.5 17.25 (24) 16 7 13.42 22 0.88 3 34.80 EXPLANATION: Poll Average - Average of USA Today/ESPN Coaches and AP Media Polls. Others receiving votes calculated in order received. Computer Average - Average of The Anderson & Hester/Seattle Times, Jeff Sagarin’s USA Today and New York Times rankings. In order to prevent unusual differences in individual formulas, a maximum adjusted deviation of no greater than 50 percent of the average of the two lowest computer rankings is utilized. In cases of adjusted deviation, the high score will become no lower than the middle score. Quartile Rank - Rank of schedule strength compared to other Division I-A teams of actual games played divided by 25. This component is calculated by determining the cumulative won/loss records of the team’s opponent (66.6 percent) and the cumulative won/loss records of the teams’ opponents opponents (33.3 percent). Losses - One point for each loss during the season. NOTES: BCS Rankings each week will list the top 15 or down to the lowest-ranked BCS-affiliated conference leader. * - Raw scores in parenthesis next to adjusted scores. BCS PAIRINGS (BCS RANKINGS IN PARENTHESIS) Tostitos Fiesta Bowl - #1 Tennessee (12-0) vs. #2 Florida State (11-1) FedEx Orange Bowl - #8 Florida (9-2) vs. #15 Syracuse (8-3) Nokia Sugar Bowl - #4 Ohio State (10-1) vs. #6 Texas A&M (11-2) Rose Bowl presented by AT&T - #5 UCLA (10-1) vs. #9 Wisconsin (10-1).
Recommended publications
  • Tax Irregularities of Bowl Championship Series
    TAX IRREGULARITIES OF BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT PLAYOFF PAC Launched with support from key Members of Congress in October 2009, Playoff PAC is the principal opposition group to college football’s Bowl Championship Series. Playoff PAC’s website is located at www.PlayoffPAC.com. Playoff PAC is a federal political committee dedicated to establishing a competitive post- season championship for college football. The Bowl Championship Series is inherently flawed. It crowns champions arbitrarily and stifles inter-conference competition. Fans, players, schools, and corporate sponsors will be better served when the BCS is replaced with an accessible playoff system that recognizes and rewards on-the-field accomplishment. To that end, Playoff PAC helps elect pro-reform political candidates, mobilizes public support, and provides a centralized source of pro-reform news, thought, and scholarship. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Playoff PAC thanks all members of its volunteer team and its Board of Directors for contributing to this report, with special appreciation to Cole Nielsen Design for their work on the graphic layout. © Playoff Political Action Committee, Inc. 2010 P.O. Box 34593 Washington, DC 20043 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary . 1 Introduction . 4 I. Executive Compensation Paid from Charitable Funds . 5 A. Factual Findings . 5 B. Legal Analysis . 9 II. Undisclosed Lobbying Financed with Charitable Funds . 17 A. Factual Findings . 17 B. Legal Analysis . 19 III. Political Contributions Made with Charitable Funds . 21 A. Factual Findings . 21 B. Legal Analysis . 22 IV. Frivolous Spending of Charitable Funds . 23 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY layoff PAC’s report, Public Dollars Serving Private Interests: Tax Irregularities of Bowl Championship Series Organizations, is the result of an exhaustive review of over 2,300 Ppages of tax records and public documents.
    [Show full text]
  • THE BOWL 'CHARITY' SERIES the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Plays a Major Role in the World of College Athletics. Every
    THE BOWL ‘CHARITY’ SERIES The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) plays a major role in the world of college athletics. Every year, the BCS decides the NCAA Division I football National Champion. The BCS is comprised of four “Bowl Organizations” that each enjoy 501(c)(3) tax exempt status as charitable public benefit organizations, and each has done so since World War II. These Bowl Organizations are the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Orange Bowl, and the Fiesta Bowl. The IRS, in their Letters of Recognition of 501(c)(3) status to each Bowl Organization, states that the public benefit these organizations offer is “educational.” Despite being considered “charitable” organizations for tax purposes, the BCS Bowl Organizations are currently under attack for instead serving private interests. Although the actual percentage of revenues a “charitable” organization donates to charitable causes is not a true indicia of being considered a “charitable organization” for 501(c)(3) status, it is a good measurement to compare with an organization’s other expenditures. In 2011, the BCS held 23 bowl games that produced $186.3 million. The total charitable contribution for the BCS was $3.2 million, or a mere 1.7% of revenue. When considering whether a Bowl Organization fails the private inurement requirement of the operational test for 501(c)(3) status, it will not “look good” if the organization paid its Executive Officers more in salary and benefits than money they donated to charitable causes.1 The most criticized Bowl Organization of the four is surely the Fiesta Bowl. In the last Fiesta Bowl on January 2013, the Oregon Ducks defeated the Kansas State Wildcats in Glendale, AZ.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 - 2014 Media Guide
    2013 - 2014 MEDIA GUIDE www.bcsfootball.org The Coaches’ Trophy Each year the winner of the BCS National Champi- onship Game is presented with The Coaches’ Trophy in an on-field ceremony after the game. The current presenting sponsor of the trophy is Dr Pepper. The Coaches’ Trophy is a trademark and copyright image owned by the American Football Coaches As- sociation. It has been awarded to the top team in the Coaches’ Poll since 1986. The USA Today Coaches’ Poll is one of the elements in the BCS Standings. The Trophy — valued at $30,000 — features a foot- ball made of Waterford® Crystal and an ebony base. The winning institution retains The Trophy for perma- nent display on campus. Any portrayal of The Coaches’ Trophy must be li- censed through the AFCA and must clearly indicate the AFCA’s ownership of The Coaches’ Trophy. Specific licensing information and criteria and a his- tory of The Coaches’ Trophy are available at www.championlicensing.com. TABLE OF CONTENTS AFCA Football Coaches’ Trophy ............................................IFC Table of Contents .........................................................................1 BCS Media Contacts/Governance Groups ...............................2-3 Important Dates ...........................................................................4 The 2013-14 Bowl Championship Series ...............................5-11 The BCS Standings ....................................................................12 College Football Playoff .......................................................13-14
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence from Post-Season College Football Bowls,” Rand Journal of Economics, 38, 4, Winter 2007, 967-982
    Fréchette, Guillaume, Alvin E. Roth, and M. Utku Ünver, “Unraveling Yields Inefficient Matchings: Evidence from Post-Season College Football Bowls,” Rand Journal of Economics, 38, 4, Winter 2007, 967-982. Unraveling yields inefficient matchings: evidence from post-season college football bowls Guillaume R. Fréchette1 Alvin E. Roth2 M. Utku Ünver3,4 Current draft: April 18, 2007 Abstract: Many markets have “unraveled” and experienced inefficient, early, dispersed transactions, and subsequently developed institutions to delay transaction timing. However, it has previously proved difficult to measure and identify the resulting efficiency gains. Prior to 1992, college football teams were matched for post-season play up to several weeks before the end of the regular season. Since 1992, the market has reorganized to postpone this matching. We show that the matching of teams affects efficiency as measured by the resulting television viewership, and the reorganization promoted more efficient matching, chiefly due to the increased ability of later matching to produce “championship” games. 1 1. Introduction Many market institutions have evolved to coordinate the timing of transactions, and to prevent them from taking place too early, or at uncoordinated times. Some prominent examples of markets in which early transactions have been a problem are markets for new physicians, for new law graduates (particularly those who seek Federal appellate clerkships), and for undergraduate college admissions.5 At some points in the history of each of these markets, transactions have unraveled, i.e. have tended to be finalized earlier and earlier in advance of when the transacted relationship would begin (i.e. increasingly before graduation from medical school, law school, or high school).
    [Show full text]
  • Media Guide 2014-15 Edition
    MEDIA GUIDE 2014-15 EDITION www.collegefootballplayoff.com /CollegeFootballPlayoff @cfbplayoff /cfbplayoff TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 College Football Playoff 6 Governance 9 Selection Committee 10 Committee Chair 10 Committee Members 11 How to Select the Four Best Teams 12 Committee Protocol 16 Voting Process 17 Important Dates 17 Selection Sunday Timeline 18 Selection Committee FAQs 22 College Football Playoff Staff 25 College Football Playoff Chronology 32 Logo/Photo Requests/FTP Site 34 College Football Playoff Interview Request Protocol COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF 36 College Football Playoff Lexicon 38 Conference Directory 44 All Bowl Schedule 50 New Year’s Six Bowls 64 College Football Playoff Future Schedule 66 Media Credential Policies 74 Interview Policies 76 Playoff Semifinals 79 College Football Playoff National Championship 83 College Football Playoff National Championship Trophy 85 Ticket Distribution 87 Revenue Distribution 90 College Football Playoff Foundation 93 Tom Mickle Internship Program COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF This season, college football enters a new four-team playoff SELECTION COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS IN THE era. The format is simple: the best four teams, two semifinals A talented group of high-integrity NEW YEAR’S BOWLS played in bowl games and a championship game played in individuals with experience as coaches, Both participants in the Orange, Rose and student-athletes, collegiate administrators a different city each year. It’s the biggest innovation in the Sugar Bowls are contracted outside the and journalists, along with sitting athletics playoff arrangement (Big Ten and Pac-12 to sport in decades. directors, comprise the selection commit- Rose Bowl; SEC and Big 12 to Sugar Bowl; tee.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bowl Championship Series and Big-Time College Football: a Constitutional Crisis of Trust
    THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES AND BIG-TIME COLLEGE FOOTBALL: A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS OF TRUST Rodney K. Smith* Introduction ...................................................................................281 I. Trust and the BCS Selection Process................................290 II. Student-welfare Concerns .................................................304 III. Academic Values.................................................................311 IV. Facing the Gorilla in the Room: The Power Issue ............316 “Nothing short of a revolution will stop what has become a crisis of conscience and integrity for colleges and universities in this country.”1 INTRODUCTION Despite significant economic success,2 the Bowl Championship Series (hereinafter “the BCS”), the university * Distinguished Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Sports Law and Policy, Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Professor Smith expresses his appreciation for able research assistance provided by Lindsay Demery and for input provided by students in his Amateur Sports Law and Infractions and Appeals classes at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. 1 “Vanderbilt announces athletics program restructuring,” News from Vanderbilt University, September 9, 2003. In that announcement then Chancellor E. Gordon Gee, who now serves as President of The Ohio State University, stated further that; There are many who say that the entrenched interests – television, alumni, legislators, among others – will never truly accept anything less than a continuation of the status quo. But that simply is unacceptable – as educators, we have an obligation to try to make things better. I love college sports. However, institutions of higher learning are in danger of being torn apart by the ‘win at all costs’ culture we have created for ourselves. 2 In 2010, the BCS distributed nearly $143 million in revenue from its five bowl games.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bowl Championship Series: Is It Fair and in Compliance with Antitrust Law?
    S. HRG. 111–352 THE BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES: IS IT FAIR AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANTITRUST LAW? HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JULY 7, 2009 Serial No. J–111–35 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 55–645 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:36 Apr 13, 2010 Jkt 055645 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55645.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania AL FRANKEN, Minnesota BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota TOM COBURN, Oklahoma EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania AL FRANKEN, Minnesota CAROLINA HOLLAND, Democratic Chief Counsel/Staff Director JACE JOHNSON, Republican Chief Counsel (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:36 Apr 13, 2010 Jkt 055645 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\55645.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Kohl, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Ncaa National Championship Game Tv Schedule
    Ncaa National Championship Game Tv Schedule Spectroscopic Jerrold overpeople her Benedictine so commandingly that Rubin immersing very exampled,uncannily. Gabrielehis Crete remains mudding expired reorientate after ambiguously.Tan salves mangily or poach any footprint. Hellish Klaus National championship 2021 Alabama vs Ohio State live. Ohio State vs Alabama CFP National Championship. College football bowl game alone for 2020-21 Scores. Lsua baseball and no influence from your most plays. Florida all eyes will have a huge win in what made it? National Championship Alabama vs Clemson game time TV. How deaf watch more listen to LSU in the CFP WWL-TV. But tyler in this is not struggled to do i root for those who can watch parties for misconfigured or, saying players on for their ncaa national championship game? The latest gulf coast schools not officially begin until halftime show me this option for nj local. Skalski would have shared network in miami gardens, schedule of those are. Fox media streaming from syracuse mets baseball news, college teams had the ncaa national championship tv schedule of impact and security features. Throwing six straight points out at cleveland, virginia had in full strength of transmissions can watch ncaa national championship tv schedule provides full advantage. The presentation will help get oregon in his race tracks in portland business team. Download the 201-19 NCAA Bowl Championship Series TV. This hugely anticipated game drew its fifth cfp national title, camping world of their affiliates, see pictures at once gdpr consent on ncaa national issues with fields. College Football Playoff National Championship game on Monday.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Guide 2019-20 Edition Table of Contents
    MEDIA GUIDE 2019-20 EDITION TABLE OF CONTENTS College Football Playoff 3 Overview 4 By the Numbers 6 Governance 8 Trophy 9 Chronology 10 Future Schedule 19 Staff 20 Selection Committee 22 Chair 23 Members 23 Protocol 24 FAQs 30 Rankings 33 2019 Rankings Schedule 34 Selection Day 34 2018 Rankings 35 2017 Rankings 38 2016 Rankings 41 2015 Rankings 44 2014 Rankings 47 New Year’s Six Bowls 51 Goodyear Cotton Bowl 52 Capital One Orange Bowl 53 Rose Bowl Game presented by Northwestern Mutual 54 Allstate Sugar Bowl 55 PlayStation Fiesta Bowl 56 Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl 57 2020 College Football Playoff National Championship 59 2019 CFP National Championship - Bay Area 61 2018 CFP National Championship - Atlanta 65 2017 CFP National Championship - Tampa 69 2016 CFP National Championship - Arizona 73 2015 CFP National Championship - North Texas 77 College Football Playoff Records 81 Additional Resources 127 Logo/Photo Requests 128 Interview Request Protocol 128 Ticket Distribution 128 Revenue Distribution Policies 129 Family Reimbursement 129 Lexicon 130 Internship Program 131 COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF 201920 CFP MEDIA GUIDE COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF EVERY GAME COUNTS CHAMPIONSHIP MONDAY The College Football Playoff (CFP) The two winning teams from the Playoff determines the national champion of Semifinals compete for the College Football the top division of college football. The Playoff National Championship. The national format fits within the academic calendar championship game is in a different city and preserves the sport’s unique and each year, always on a Monday night. compelling regular season. UNIVERSAL ACCESS SELECTION COMMITTEE No team qualifies automatically, so every The selection committee ranks the teams Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) team has based on the members’ evaluation of the equal access to the CFP based on its teams’ performance on the field, using performance during the season.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust & the Bowl Championship Series
    Whole Edition (Do Not Delete) 2/7/2011 9:43 AM Issue 1 53 Antitrust & the Bowl Championship Series Nathaniel Grow* ABSTRACT This Article analyzes the potential antitrust liability of the Bowl Championship Series (“BCS”), college football’s current system for selecting the participants of both the national championship game as well as other highly desirable post-season bowl games. The BCS has recently been attacked by various politicians and law enforcement officials, who allege that the system constitutes an illegal restraint of trade due to its preferential treatment of universities from traditionally stronger conferences, at the expense of teams from historically less competitive conferences. Meanwhile, the academic literature considering the antitrust status of the BCS is mixed, with most recent commentaries concluding that the BCS alleviated any antitrust concerns when it revised its selection procedures in 2004. Contrary to these recent scholarly analyses, this Article argues that the BCS remains vulnerable to antitrust attack on two primary grounds. First, the BCS continues to be susceptible to an illicit group boycott claim, insofar as it distributes revenue unequally and without justification to the detriment of universities from the historically less competitive conferences. Second, the BCS can be attacked as an illegal price fixing scheme, both by enabling formerly independent, competing conferences and bowl games to collectively determine the amount of revenue to be distributed to BCS participants, as well as by eliminating any competition between certain BCS bowls for the sale of their broadcast rights to television networks. However, the BCS appears less susceptible to a claim of illegal tying, despite its collective marketing of the television broadcast rights for the BCS bowl games, because television networks are not actually coerced into purchasing the broadcast rights to an unwanted bowl game.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Implications Surrounding the Bowl Championship Series: a Theoretical and Empirical Analysis
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Baker Scholar Projects and Creative Work 2011 Antitrust Implications Surrounding the Bowl Championship Series: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis Reece Brassler University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_bakerschol Recommended Citation Brassler, Reece, "Antitrust Implications Surrounding the Bowl Championship Series: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis" (2011). Baker Scholar Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_bakerschol/17 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Baker Scholar Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Antitrust Implications Surrounding The Bowl Championship Series: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis Reece Brassler University of Tennessee – Knoxville Baker Scholars Research Center December 2011 Abstract Using data from National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sources, notable antitrust law cases, and related articles from academic publications, this article analyzes the antitrust issues surrounding the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) in order to rebut the notion that the BCS is insulated from antitrust attack. It will also test
    [Show full text]
  • The Quest for Number One in College Football: the Revised Bowl Championship Series, Antitrust, and the Winner Take All Syndrome C
    Marquette Sports Law Review Volume 18 Article 3 Issue 2 Spring The Quest for Number One in College Football: The Revised Bowl Championship Series, Antitrust, and the Winner Take All Syndrome C. Paul Rogers III Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw Part of the Entertainment and Sports Law Commons Repository Citation C. Paul Rogers III, The Quest for Number One in College Football: The Revised Bowl Championship Series, Antitrust, and the Winner Take All Syndrome, 18 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 285 (2008) Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol18/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE QUEST FOR NUMBER ONE IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL: THE REVISED BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES, ANTITRUST, AND THE WINNER TAKE ALL SYNDROME C. PAUL ROGERS III* I. INTRODUCTION With any sports topic, everyone who is a sports fan has an opinion, and that opinion is not required to be rational or supported in the least by salient facts. College football's Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has been one of the most controversial topics discussed by sports fans since its inception in 1998.1 Most everyone agrees that the system is flawed because virtually every year there has been a controversy about which two teams should play in the national championship game. Even the BCS architects understand that the 2 system has flaws, as they continue to tweak the BCS system each year. Beyond the varying opinions and critiques of the BCS, a more fundamental issue regarding the system is whether it is legal.
    [Show full text]