I believe until 1973 the Big10 Conference had a rule that no school to could to the Rose Bowl 2 years in a row. To this day the only Big10 School to win the Rose Bowl two straight years is Wisconsin (1998 and 1999) Back in 1973 the Athletic directors voted to break the tie between Michigan and Ohio State. I do clearly remember that season where both Oregon and Oregon State were worthy of the Rose Bowl. Excellent video. I thought they used the BCS Rankings but now I found out they did not thanks to your video
That's not dumb. What's dumb is when a Rose Bowl berth is determined by "last time played in the Rose Bowl," which I believe was the reason why at least one B10 team ended up playing in Pasadena instead of UM/OSU/PSU.
That happened in both 1993 and '95--Ohio State kind of got the shaft both times. In '93, they tied Wisconsin 14-14. In '95, they and Northwestern didn't play each other. But both teams had longer Rose Bowl droughts so they got the nod. Now, I said "kind of" got the shaft because OSU had chances in both season to win the B1G outright but got demolished by Michigan both times--those years were Peak Cooper in almost every way.
@@pronkb000 They also failed to beat Wisconsin, yet celebrated like they were already going to the Rose Bowl and multiple players were seen with Roses in their hands. Karma got them on that one.
Also your comparison is lacking the fact that I lament as well that college football schedules are often infect very often scheduled years in advance advance up to more than a decade
I love how you say "This punishes teams for playing tough opponents" when Washington played and beat a much better Miami(FL) team that season. Washington took care of business despite a tough OOC schedule. Oregon didn't. Just based on OOC results, rankings, and probably other metrics, Washington should have been in the Rose Bowl regardless.
There are other contenders (2003, 2006, 2007, 2008 and to a lesser extent, 2011) but 2000 was probably the weirdest season of the BCS era. Heading into the Bowls, Oklahoma was undefeated and the clear No. 1. 2-5 were Florida State, Miami, Washington and Oregon State. All were one-loss teams and Miami, Washington and Oregon State all a regular season win over the team ranked directly ahead of them.
A few years ago, my high school was involved in this kind of 3 way tie with only one team going through. The league decided they’d break the tie by fewest points allows in the first half of head to head games. It sounds silly, but it actually worked pretty well.
There was a situation in Texas high school football in the 1980's. There was a three-way tie for the district championship but only two teams from the district could make the playoffs. The three coaches from each school secretly met inside a truck-stop diner and each flipped a coin at the same time. Witnesses would make sure it was done right. Anyway, odd man out. If all the coins came out heads or tails, they would flip again. For whatever reason, that's how it was decided. The team with the best season at 9-1 got left out.
This is why you play conference championship games lol. But also, UW was the best team of the three and they won the tiebreaker, so it worked out. Ideally tho, tiebreakers should be: 1. Head to Head 2. Record against common opponents (take all teams that all three schools played against, and their record among those teams. Pac10 didn’t play every school in the conference every year, so this is often different from conference schedule) 3. Strength of conference schedule (ie, if one of these three teams avoided the fourth best team to arrive at their record, penalize them on that. Add up the conference records of all conference opponents of each team and the one with the toughest schedule wins it) 4. Point differential in conference play 5. Coin flip
There was a similar issue in 2008 when Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech went 7-1 in the Big XII South. Oklahoma won the tiebreaker based on a higher BSC ranking. This was for the right to represent the Big XII South in the Big XII Championship Game.
I remember at the time thinking that Oklahoma might have actually hurt itself by beating Texas Tech so badly. It was a 3-way tiebreaker but Texas Tech losing so badly (especially in the last game pitting 2 of the 3 teams in the tiebreaker) made it easy to just overlook them as viable and consider it a 2-way tiebreaker with Oklahoma and Texas.
Indeed. There's no denying that Oklahoma got the last laugh during the final part of that season. First they lost to Texas, which later Texas lost to Texas Tech and eventually Texas Tech lost to Oklahoma. Should they had beaten the Sooners, the Red Raiders would had an outright division title and a berth to the Big XII title game and possibly a Big XII bowl tournament title and a spot for the national title against Florida
This reminds me of a high school tournament I went to a couple of years ago. It was an 8 team tournament that was divided into two pools of 4. Each team played each other pool member once and your pool-play record would decide which placement game your team played. There was a three-way tie for first place in one pool with all 3 teams going 2-1. All three teams went 1-1 against each other and beat the 4th place team in the pool. Instead of going by margin of victory first in the tiebreaker process, they went with Free Throw percentage in Pool play before margin of victory. The team that played in championship game (85%) was defeated by the 2nd place team (70%) by 20, but beat the 3rd place team by 5. The 2nd place team lost to 3rd place team (67%) on a buzzer beater by one. The 2nd and 3rd place team would drop out the following year because of this rule
And then when you combine the Ducks getting screwed out of a national title game the next year because the voters had a hard on for Nebraska and you see why most of us Ducks fans are livid about the early 2000s
Nothing of the sort happened. The voters had Oregon second and Nebraska fourth in the poll corresponding to the final BCS Standings. However, the BCS Computers were, by design, not allowed to look at things like time of loss or conference championships. As such, they almost uniformly saw 11-1 Nebraska as better than 10-1 Oregon, with six of the eight computers putting Nebraska #2 and the other two putting them #3; while one of those two computers had Oregon #2 and three of the six that had the Huskers #2 had Oregon #3, the remaining four computers had Oregon with an average ranking of _#7,_ trailing 2-loss Texas, 2-loss Colorado, 2-loss Florida, a couple of computers putting them behind 2-loss Tennessee, and a couple putting them behind 2-loss Oklahoma. It's no coincidence that only two conferences are represented in that group (in fact, the Ducks finished ahead of 1-loss ACC and Big Ten champions on all eight computers), because it all came down to strength of schedule.
@@CyberchaoX you're full of crap and you know it. They had to make major revisions because of 2001 since it was seen as highly unfair- the conputers weighed heavy due to margin of victory (Nebraska loved their cupcakes), so don't try to justify things and just admit the Ducks were screwed. There's a big reason the BCS only lasted 15 years.
@@CyberchaoX ...which is why the BCS in those days was far better than human beings. Considering how conference championships mean absolutely nothing now for the CFP, they should bring the computers back instead of this lame oligarchical "committee" that runs FBS football like the mafia with no need to explain their biases or rankings. At least computers apply the rules fairly. Humans simply can't.
Would love to see a video on Washington’s recruiting penalties in the 90s, how nuehisel absolutely canned UW football program followed by tyrone willingham
@@dicktipton5912 my comment roots from the aftermath of the recruiting penalties Washington’s football team saw the following decade after BS penalties were put on the UW FB program, he mentioned rick nuehiesel but failed to mention UW had their worst seasons under rick - how he was coaching someone else’s team in 2004 & I added in willingham because he was just as bad as rick. In 2001 UW was top 10 in winning percentage all time, the 2010s were a hard time to be a UW alum
This is very similar to what happened in 1978 in the German Bundesliga title race when it comes to dumb tiebreakers. Both Koln & Borussia Monchengladbach were tied on points heading into the final game of the season & were the two best teams in the Bundesliga that season. They also had tied the two matches (both 0-0 draws) they played against each other. This led to the Bundesliga declaring that the team with the better goal difference after the final game would win the title. Koln had a 10 goal advantage over Gladbach heading into the final game which meant that Gladbach had to win by 12 goals (yes 12) in their final game in order to win the title. Somehow Gladbach managed to do this by beating Dortmund 12-0. However that still wasn't enough as Koln beat St Pauli 5-0 to win the title even though Gladbach had done what was required & had a better league record than Koln. This Bundesliga season is also notable in that Bayern Munich who have absolutely dominated the league in recent years finished the 1977/78 season in 12th their lowest league position in modern times & had gotten beat by a part time village team in the German Cup.
To be fair, I think soccer leagues around the world have always used goal differential as their first tiebreaker if 2 teams finished with the same amount of points. MLS used it as well until a couple seasons ago and now they use wins as the first tiebreaker. It sounds stupid to fans of American sports, because most of our sports use head to head results as a first tie breaker if two teams finish with the same record.
I love how he rants on and on about how Oregon was robbed but then just glosses over the fact that Washington, ranked higher than Oregon for good reason, beat Miami(FL), a much better team than Wisconsin. Regardless of the reasoning, Washington was the best team in the Pac-10 and deserved a Rose Bowl bid (if not a NCG invite).
I was gonna say, Bucky finished with a respectable 9-4 (4-4 B10) and finished in the top 25, but they weren't the team that won back-to-back Rose Bowls. They would finish 2001 with a 5-7 (3-5 B10) record FWIW, the last time Bucky had a losing season
@@JeffCirillo The Badgers. Bucky is the mascot and sometimes folks will refer to them as such. Folks will also call them Whisky because it's kinda sorta close to how Wisconsin is pronounced and our, uh, propensity for alcoholism and DUIs
I'm sure they wanted Washington to be the team in the Rose Bowl, since the Huskies were the best team that season, and just used a method that would get them there. The funny thing is that Washington probably would have been happy to play in some other major bowl and face a better opponent than 8-3 Purdue. They were in the national championship discussion but had several close wins over unranked teams. They needed one more high-profile win to go with Miami and Oregon State, but Purdue, ranked 14th in the nation, wasn't going to get it done. As it turned out, No. 1 Oklahoma won the Orange Bowl and finished 13-0, so it was all academic, but no one knew that before it all played out.
USC beat Cal in 2006 when they split the title with a 7-2 conference record. Same deal in 2007 when USC beat ASU when they split the title with a 7-2 conference record.
The only times I can see where teams didn't play each other (and there was a one-game difference) was Stanford/Oregon the prev year and Washington/Oregon the next--although UW which actually finished with a negative point differential no way in hell was beating UO. Granted Tom Hanson was a moron and a yes-man (although Larry Scott was completely on a different plane, and how interesting with him gone his two biggest enablers, USC and UCLA, are flying the coop), but at least he got a round robin schedule for the rest of the Pac 10's life.
The better way to break that tie back then was with the BCS rankings. Washington would've gone to the Rose Bowl Game anyway, sure, but using non-conference games to break the tie made no sense whatsoever.
Love how you talk about Oregon's loss to a #5 Wisconsin, then ignore that they lost 4 games afterwards, while Washington beat 1 loss Miami, and 1 loss OSU, with their only loss being Oregon. UW or OSU was the best team in the PAC that year.
Yeah. I hate when people use rankings at the time. 2012 USC was #1 in the preseason and finished 7-6. Rankings at the time do not tell you how good the team is. The end record/rankings do (although human pollsters have lost their minds recently; last year's rankings even at the end of the season were terrible: Tennessee and FSU got no respect whatsoever and LSU was ranked ahead of both of them until TAMU corrected the human error).
I worked on the telecast of the civil war game that year. Joey Harrington played terribly, throwing five interceptions. If the ducks won that game there’s no tie breaker. I live in Eugene , and hours after the game I saw Harrington walking home on crutches, by MacArthur Court, in tears.
In 2000, there was an odd bit of symmetry as the B1G had a 3-way tie too but it was easier to sort out. Purdue had beaten Michigan and Northwestern. All teams were 6-2. So no tiebreaker problems there.
I'm not convinced that the result was wrong, but I do agree the process was flawed. All 3 teams were great teams. One other thing, is that the Tournament of Roses Bowl has a long history of the second, third, and even fourth best schools in a conference going to the game. Check out the season in 1967 (?), when Indiana went to the Rose. They were in a 4-way tie for the B1G championship and went because the tie-breaker was the school that hadn't gone to the Rose in the longest period of time!
UW was at least the 3rd best team in the nation, beating Miami and OreSt, among others. Frankly, they could've finished #2 nationally, and the Beavers 4. That doesn't mean Oregon wasn't good; they were clearly a top 10 team. But they didn't get screwed here. Actually, Miami should've played for the Natty, UW finishing 2nd or 3rd, Ore St 4th or 5th at worst.
FSU was the right choice and had the best loss. Either FSU or Washington should have gone if you want to get transitive about it. Miami(FL) played in a joke conference and still lost to Washington.
Also Oregon came into the civil war game that year with a loss under their belt from earlier in the season I believe and check me if I'm wrong that they lost one of their first two games against Wisconsin so Oregon didn't get hosed they had two losses granted only one in conference with two losses overall and Oregon State and Washington only had one loss each ...so your theory that Oregon got hosed ...doesn't hold water
Huh? It’s not like Udub played cupcakes that season in the non conference that season they beat 4th ranked Miami and a really good Colorado team so yeah Udub played the FAR more difficult non Conference schedule they deserved to go through meanwhile Oregon played Wisconsin and LOST and that was the ONLY power conference team they played in the non conference while Udub played 2
This isn't even the dumbest tiebreaker in the history of the conference. Below in quotes is how Utah got in the Pac-12 championship game this past season (against USC) over Oregon and Washington. Utah, Washington and Oregon all had 7-2 league records. Washington beat Oregon, Oregon beat Utah, but since Washington didn't play Utah, head-to-head-to-head couldn't be used to break the 3 team's tiebreaker. It basically ended up being because Utah had a tougher conference strength of schedule (mainly by playing regular season champ, USC in the regular season, Oregon and Washington didn't play USC that season) "In the event of a tie between more than two teams, the following procedures will be used. After one team has an advantage and is seeded, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tie-breaker will repeat the multiple-team tie-breaking procedure. If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied. 1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not every tied team has played each other, go to step 2 (Utah didn't play Washington so on to step 2) 2. Win percentage against all common conference opponents (must be common among all teams involved in the tie) Oregon State (Utah W, Oregon L, Washington W) UCLA (Utah L, Oregon W, Washington L) WSU (Utah W, Oregon W, Washington W) Arizona (Utah W, Oregon W, Washington W) Stanford (Utah W, Oregon W, Washington W) Colorado (Utah W, Oregon W, Washington W) (Utah: 5-1. Oregon: 5-1. Washington: 5-1 so on to Step 3. 3. Record against the next highest placed common opponent in the standings (based on record in all games played within the conference), proceeding through the standings. a. When arriving at another group of tied teams while comparing records, use each team’s win percentage against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to that group’s own tie-breaking procedure) rather than the performance against individual tied teams. UCLA and Oregon State both have a 6-3 conference record, making them the highest-ranked common opponents among Utah, Oregon and Washington and invoking section 3(a). (Utah, Oregon, and Washington are all 1-1 against UCLA and Oregon State so on to step 4) 4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (ie, strength of conference schedule) Utah's conference opponents are a combined 38-43 in conference play (mainly thanks to being the only one of the 3 to play USC this season) Oregon's conference opponents are a combined 37-44 Washington's conference opponents are a combined 32-49 Utah wins the tiebreaker"
Sad fact of the matter is that UW and Oregon State were better than Oregon that year. Oregon State and UW were arguably the two best teams in the country, and while UW's lone loss was a 7 point defeat at Oregon, OSU put a BEATING on UO. Don't let the 10 point margin fool you, OSU was DOMINATE in that game, forcing SIX turnovers and gashing the Ducks for 471 yards of offense. Meanwhile, OSU's loss to UW was FAR more competitive, coming down to a missed 45 yard FG as time expired. Now, I'm obviously biased but in my view, the order of teams was very clearly UW-OSU-UO and the manner of tie breaker was largely irrelevant. Oregon had more losses than both OSU and UW, plus a H2H loss to OSU so Oregon was OUT. UW beat OSU so OSU was OUT.
You vastly overestimate Oregon State. They barely beat Eastern Washington (21-19) and New Mexico (28-20). Oregon State was not and likely has never been one of the top two teams in the country. There's a reason they didn't finish higher than 4. Sorry, but if you beat an FCS team by 2 points, you do not belong in the conversation. dominant* Learn English.
@@encycl07pedia- I found the Oregon fan! Listen bub, a win is a win. Notre Dame was considered one of the best teams in CFB in 2000, OSU beat them 41-9. OSU DOMINATED Oregon in the Civil War, forcing 6 turnovers. Had the UW been in Corvallis, OSU likely would’ve won as well. Oregon State OBJECTIVELY could’ve easily competed with any team in CFB that year. No one cares about a Week 1 result against an FCS school. What people care about is how the season ends. 12-1, PAC-10 Co-Champs, obliterated #10 ND by over 30 points, ended the season on a 7 game winning streak.
@@kylewilson2819 Wrong again. I'm a Florida State fan. I don't like Oregon at all, but you're insane if you think beating a 9-3 ND team is an achievement. I didn't even bring up nearly losing to 3-8 Cal in November. 38-32 against a team that is objectively terrible. Yikes. You got 6 turnovers and only won by 10 points? If anything that just proves that Oregon was better than Oregon State. OSU went +5 in turnovers (1 INT thrown). Any real team would win by at least 3 scores with that advantage. Exactly: it's an FCS school. EWU went 6-5 in 2000. They weren't even good. If it's close or a loss, it's embarrassing as the FBS team. It's also embarrassing bragging about a conference co-championship where you didn't even win the tiebreaker, but that's probably an achievement for Oregon State.
JG, you're gonna need to do a video on Oregon and how they were subject to a lawsuit by The Walt Disney Company #nightnight #sleeptight #dreamofchurrostonight
Hi. A LOT of big schools will play 1-2 “cupcake” opponents to ensure a bowl game. It’s not really right but $$$ talks. Non-Conference record was the ONLY fair way to do this. Yeah Oregon got screwed but they lost. I feel like Oregon State got screwed MORE with the same record!!! Alas Washington had higher computer grades…and that’s that.
Washington beat #2 Miami(FL) that season while Oregon lost to #23 Wisconsin. Washington was by far the better team, just like 2007 USC was better than Stanford despite the head-to-head result. I mean he's basically ranting about Oregon finishing 3rd in a tiebreaker instead of 2nd when it doesn't actually matter at all. I guess Washington should have finished 3rd because they had the toughest non-conference schedule... Oops. This is just his video about how Texas A&M had ***the same exact ranking*** but lost a few voter points one week after they won a game. It's utterly meaningless. "TAMU should be #6, not #6!" JG just likes to miss the entire point a lot.
Not sure what's dumb about non conference record being the tie breaker? Oregon had the worst overall record. Regardless the right team made the Rose Bowl.
You conveniently left out that while Wisconsin started #5, they finished a rather pedestrian 8-4, including 4-4 in the Big 10. Washington got the job done non-conference by beating eventual #2 Miami. Also, according to the Pac 10 rules, Washington would get the nod over Oregon State in terms of non-conference scheduling due to the Beavers playing a I-AA opponent. So that was indeed factored into the tie-breaking scenarios. You also fail to mention that if non-conference record hadn't factored into the tie-breaker, the next one on the list (total points scored) would have favored Oregon State. Bottom line: short of Oregon beating Oregon State (which they didn't), there was no tie-breaking scenario in which the Ducks would have made the Rose Bowl.
Sorry dude. This is not dumb. It may be unfair. But it's NOT dumb, The tiebreeakers are known before the season. And schedules are made years before. You might think you're scheduling a patsy in 1995 only to find out when you play the team in 2000 they are now a tough team or vice-versa. Also, an opponent might not be good when you play them. Players could be injured.
JG is full of it on this one. Wisconsin finished #23 at best. UW was undefeated OOC and beat #2 Miami(FL). By his "better OOC schedule = worse standing," UW should have been 3rd in the tiebreaker because they were "punished" for playing the toughest schedule of the 3.
If I were deciding tiebreakers after H2H, I'd start with point differential in head-to-head results. If THAT didn't work, I'd go with point differential in conference play, then higher AP/BCS rank
Every one of the examples you gave that they COULD have done are infinitely dumber than what they actually did. Always go with Ws and Ls over points scored. This is just 15 minute video for 30 seconds of bad opinion.
You think the 2000 season was the year the Ducks got screwed? Check out what happened to them in 2001! btw - i'm an Oregon fan & actually think the Pac10 got it right(regardless of how they decided). imo Washington was the best team having beat Miami & OrSt. Oregon State was 2nd having beat the Ducks & then went on to beat Notre Dame(& yes, that WAS the best beaver team of all time). Oregon would actually get a historic win against Texas in the Holiday Bowl that would springboard Harrington's Hiesman campaign & launch the Ducks into national prominence. It was such a good year for the pacific northwest. And just since both teams make an appearance in the video - i think the uniform combos that both Miami & Oregon were wearing in that era were some of the slickest threads ever. Sure woulda been nice to have seen'm on the same field together(thanks a lot BCS computers).
11:16 for one of our favorite catchphrases (though they calculate PR differently in college than in the NFL)
I waited so long for an “I’m sorry, What?” to come.
I believe until 1973 the Big10 Conference had a rule that no school to could to the Rose Bowl 2 years in a row. To this day the only Big10 School to win the Rose Bowl two straight years is Wisconsin (1998 and 1999) Back in 1973 the Athletic directors voted to break the tie between Michigan and Ohio State. I do clearly remember that season where both Oregon and Oregon State were worthy of the Rose Bowl. Excellent video. I thought they used the BCS Rankings but now I found out they did not thanks to your video
The reason why the conference did a vote, Ohio St. @ Michigan ended in a 10-10 tie
That's how Northwestern got a Rose Bowl bid in the late 40s. It would be another 30 or 40 years before they got their next bowl bid.
That's not dumb. What's dumb is when a Rose Bowl berth is determined by "last time played in the Rose Bowl," which I believe was the reason why at least one B10 team ended up playing in Pasadena instead of UM/OSU/PSU.
That happened in both 1993 and '95--Ohio State kind of got the shaft both times. In '93, they tied Wisconsin 14-14. In '95, they and Northwestern didn't play each other. But both teams had longer Rose Bowl droughts so they got the nod. Now, I said "kind of" got the shaft because OSU had chances in both season to win the B1G outright but got demolished by Michigan both times--those years were Peak Cooper in almost every way.
@@pronkb000 They also failed to beat Wisconsin, yet celebrated like they were already going to the Rose Bowl and multiple players were seen with Roses in their hands. Karma got them on that one.
UW's OOC went 19-15 with a win over Big East Champion Miami.
Oregon's OOC went 16-20 with their best win being Idaho.
Your argument doesn't work here.
Nick saban watching this video rn like “yea we gonna play Alaska a&m next season” 😂😂😂
A team with 1 conference loss ended up in the Holiday Bowl? Good lord what a joke.
While the team they beat with 1 conference loss? Played in the rose bowl
2000 had half a dozen 1 loss teams at seasons end! A playoff would’ve helped
Also your comparison is lacking the fact that I lament as well that college football schedules are often infect very often scheduled years in advance advance up to more than a decade
I love how you say "This punishes teams for playing tough opponents" when Washington played and beat a much better Miami(FL) team that season. Washington took care of business despite a tough OOC schedule. Oregon didn't. Just based on OOC results, rankings, and probably other metrics, Washington should have been in the Rose Bowl regardless.
There are other contenders (2003, 2006, 2007, 2008 and to a lesser extent, 2011) but 2000 was probably the weirdest season of the BCS era. Heading into the Bowls, Oklahoma was undefeated and the clear No. 1. 2-5 were Florida State, Miami, Washington and Oregon State. All were one-loss teams and Miami, Washington and Oregon State all a regular season win over the team ranked directly ahead of them.
What the duck.
A few years ago, my high school was involved in this kind of 3 way tie with only one team going through.
The league decided they’d break the tie by fewest points allows in the first half of head to head games.
It sounds silly, but it actually worked pretty well.
For what? A higher seed in the first round?
Playoff spot or season over believe it or not. At the time only the league champion (one out of 10 teams) qualified for the post season.
There was a situation in Texas high school football in the 1980's. There was a three-way tie for the district championship but only two teams from the district could make the playoffs. The three coaches from each school secretly met inside a truck-stop diner and each flipped a coin at the same time. Witnesses would make sure it was done right. Anyway, odd man out. If all the coins came out heads or tails, they would flip again. For whatever reason, that's how it was decided. The team with the best season at 9-1 got left out.
This is why you play conference championship games lol.
But also, UW was the best team of the three and they won the tiebreaker, so it worked out.
Ideally tho, tiebreakers should be:
1. Head to Head
2. Record against common opponents (take all teams that all three schools played against, and their record among those teams. Pac10 didn’t play every school in the conference every year, so this is often different from conference schedule)
3. Strength of conference schedule (ie, if one of these three teams avoided the fourth best team to arrive at their record, penalize them on that. Add up the conference records of all conference opponents of each team and the one with the toughest schedule wins it)
4. Point differential in conference play
5. Coin flip
There was a similar issue in 2008 when Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech went 7-1 in the Big XII South. Oklahoma won the tiebreaker based on a higher BSC ranking. This was for the right to represent the Big XII South in the Big XII Championship Game.
I remember at the time thinking that Oklahoma might have actually hurt itself by beating Texas Tech so badly. It was a 3-way tiebreaker but Texas Tech losing so badly (especially in the last game pitting 2 of the 3 teams in the tiebreaker) made it easy to just overlook them as viable and consider it a 2-way tiebreaker with Oklahoma and Texas.
Indeed. There's no denying that Oklahoma got the last laugh during the final part of that season. First they lost to Texas, which later Texas lost to Texas Tech and eventually Texas Tech lost to Oklahoma.
Should they had beaten the Sooners, the Red Raiders would had an outright division title and a berth to the Big XII title game and possibly a Big XII bowl tournament title and a spot for the national title against Florida
BCS*
It didn't hurt that Oregon State had Chad Johnson and TJ Houshmandzadeh
And Jonathan Smith -- who, before he became a great head coach for them, was a very good college QB.
This reminds me of a high school tournament I went to a couple of years ago. It was an 8 team tournament that was divided into two pools of 4. Each team played each other pool member once and your pool-play record would decide which placement game your team played. There was a three-way tie for first place in one pool with all 3 teams going 2-1. All three teams went 1-1 against each other and beat the 4th place team in the pool. Instead of going by margin of victory first in the tiebreaker process, they went with Free Throw percentage in Pool play before margin of victory. The team that played in championship game (85%) was defeated by the 2nd place team (70%) by 20, but beat the 3rd place team by 5. The 2nd place team lost to 3rd place team (67%) on a buzzer beater by one. The 2nd and 3rd place team would drop out the following year because of this rule
And then when you combine the Ducks getting screwed out of a national title game the next year because the voters had a hard on for Nebraska and you see why most of us Ducks fans are livid about the early 2000s
Miami would of destroyed oregon easily
@@justinalley3399 well we never got a fair chance to find that out or not, did we?
Nothing of the sort happened. The voters had Oregon second and Nebraska fourth in the poll corresponding to the final BCS Standings. However, the BCS Computers were, by design, not allowed to look at things like time of loss or conference championships. As such, they almost uniformly saw 11-1 Nebraska as better than 10-1 Oregon, with six of the eight computers putting Nebraska #2 and the other two putting them #3; while one of those two computers had Oregon #2 and three of the six that had the Huskers #2 had Oregon #3, the remaining four computers had Oregon with an average ranking of _#7,_ trailing 2-loss Texas, 2-loss Colorado, 2-loss Florida, a couple of computers putting them behind 2-loss Tennessee, and a couple putting them behind 2-loss Oklahoma. It's no coincidence that only two conferences are represented in that group (in fact, the Ducks finished ahead of 1-loss ACC and Big Ten champions on all eight computers), because it all came down to strength of schedule.
@@CyberchaoX you're full of crap and you know it. They had to make major revisions because of 2001 since it was seen as highly unfair- the conputers weighed heavy due to margin of victory (Nebraska loved their cupcakes), so don't try to justify things and just admit the Ducks were screwed. There's a big reason the BCS only lasted 15 years.
@@CyberchaoX ...which is why the BCS in those days was far better than human beings. Considering how conference championships mean absolutely nothing now for the CFP, they should bring the computers back instead of this lame oligarchical "committee" that runs FBS football like the mafia with no need to explain their biases or rankings. At least computers apply the rules fairly. Humans simply can't.
Washington should have went to the championship that year and Oregon State to the Rose Bowl
Nah. Florida State got in (and deserved it) because they had a better strength of schedule than Washington.
@@posysdogovych2065Washington beat Miami who beat Florida State and Virginia Tech
Dumb indeed, but fortunately irrelevant, as UW's out of conference opponents were superior to Oregon's anyway.
Oregon beat Washington. They also played and defeated a better team in their bowl than Washington and Oregon St in theirs. Weird fuckin’ season.
@@TigerWoodsLibido Oregon lost to Oregon State, too.
Would love to see a video on Washington’s recruiting penalties in the 90s, how nuehisel absolutely canned UW football program followed by tyrone willingham
Oh and Oregon is perfect? Cough cough Phil knight paying players... stay mad
@@dicktipton5912 I go to UW
@@dicktipton5912 my comment roots from the aftermath of the recruiting penalties Washington’s football team saw the following decade after BS penalties were put on the UW FB program, he mentioned rick nuehiesel but failed to mention UW had their worst seasons under rick - how he was coaching someone else’s team in 2004 & I added in willingham because he was just as bad as rick. In 2001 UW was top 10 in winning percentage all time, the 2010s were a hard time to be a UW alum
This is very similar to what happened in 1978 in the German Bundesliga title race when it comes to dumb tiebreakers. Both Koln & Borussia Monchengladbach were tied on points heading into the final game of the season & were the two best teams in the Bundesliga that season. They also had tied the two matches (both 0-0 draws) they played against each other. This led to the Bundesliga declaring that the team with the better goal difference after the final game would win the title. Koln had a 10 goal advantage over Gladbach heading into the final game which meant that Gladbach had to win by 12 goals (yes 12) in their final game in order to win the title. Somehow Gladbach managed to do this by beating Dortmund 12-0. However that still wasn't enough as Koln beat St Pauli 5-0 to win the title even though Gladbach had done what was required & had a better league record than Koln. This Bundesliga season is also notable in that Bayern Munich who have absolutely dominated the league in recent years finished the 1977/78 season in 12th their lowest league position in modern times & had gotten beat by a part time village team in the German Cup.
To be fair, I think soccer leagues around the world have always used goal differential as their first tiebreaker if 2 teams finished with the same amount of points. MLS used it as well until a couple seasons ago and now they use wins as the first tiebreaker.
It sounds stupid to fans of American sports, because most of our sports use head to head results as a first tie breaker if two teams finish with the same record.
Knowing how the PAC operates, I fully expected it to be a rock paper scissors games.
This is not a dumb tiebreaker. It is basically overall record. There is absolutely ZERO wrong with deciding it that way and it is still used today.
I love how he rants on and on about how Oregon was robbed but then just glosses over the fact that Washington, ranked higher than Oregon for good reason, beat Miami(FL), a much better team than Wisconsin. Regardless of the reasoning, Washington was the best team in the Pac-10 and deserved a Rose Bowl bid (if not a NCG invite).
UW was the better team flat out. We now know that Miami and Michigan were tougher opponents than Wisconsin, even if they were played at Husky Stadium
I was gonna say, Bucky finished with a respectable 9-4 (4-4 B10) and finished in the top 25, but they weren't the team that won back-to-back Rose Bowls. They would finish 2001 with a 5-7 (3-5 B10) record FWIW, the last time Bucky had a losing season
@@mkepioneet Bucky?
@@JeffCirillo The Badgers. Bucky is the mascot and sometimes folks will refer to them as such. Folks will also call them Whisky because it's kinda sorta close to how Wisconsin is pronounced and our, uh, propensity for alcoholism and DUIs
@@mkepioneet That's weird. I grew up in Madison and graduated from UW and have never once in my life heard anybody refer to the team as "Bucky."
These tiebreakers interesting
I think you could benefit from having an editor tbh. Get rid of some redundancies and confusion in the scripts
I'm sure they wanted Washington to be the team in the Rose Bowl, since the Huskies were the best team that season, and just used a method that would get them there.
The funny thing is that Washington probably would have been happy to play in some other major bowl and face a better opponent than 8-3 Purdue. They were in the national championship discussion but had several close wins over unranked teams. They needed one more high-profile win to go with Miami and Oregon State, but Purdue, ranked 14th in the nation, wasn't going to get it done.
As it turned out, No. 1 Oklahoma won the Orange Bowl and finished 13-0, so it was all academic, but no one knew that before it all played out.
Bout as dumb as when Cal, & SC in the mid-2000s had a goofy tiebreaker determine the winner since they didn’t play each other
USC beat Cal in 2006 when they split the title with a 7-2 conference record. Same deal in 2007 when USC beat ASU when they split the title with a 7-2 conference record.
The only times I can see where teams didn't play each other (and there was a one-game difference) was Stanford/Oregon the prev year and Washington/Oregon the next--although UW which actually finished with a negative point differential no way in hell was beating UO.
Granted Tom Hanson was a moron and a yes-man (although Larry Scott was completely on a different plane, and how interesting with him gone his two biggest enablers, USC and UCLA, are flying the coop), but at least he got a round robin schedule for the rest of the Pac 10's life.
The better way to break that tie back then was with the BCS rankings. Washington would've gone to the Rose Bowl Game anyway, sure, but using non-conference games to break the tie made no sense whatsoever.
Love how you talk about Oregon's loss to a #5 Wisconsin, then ignore that they lost 4 games afterwards, while Washington beat 1 loss Miami, and 1 loss OSU, with their only loss being Oregon. UW or OSU was the best team in the PAC that year.
Yeah. I hate when people use rankings at the time. 2012 USC was #1 in the preseason and finished 7-6. Rankings at the time do not tell you how good the team is. The end record/rankings do (although human pollsters have lost their minds recently; last year's rankings even at the end of the season were terrible: Tennessee and FSU got no respect whatsoever and LSU was ranked ahead of both of them until TAMU corrected the human error).
The tiebreaker was worse than if you spiked the ball into the ground every play
I worked on the telecast of the civil war game that year. Joey Harrington played terribly, throwing five interceptions. If the ducks won that game there’s no tie breaker.
I live in Eugene , and hours after the game I saw Harrington walking home on crutches, by MacArthur Court, in tears.
In 2000, there was an odd bit of symmetry as the B1G had a 3-way tie too but it was easier to sort out. Purdue had beaten Michigan and Northwestern. All teams were 6-2. So no tiebreaker problems there.
6:09 Ref eats it lol
I'm not convinced that the result was wrong, but I do agree the process was flawed. All 3 teams were great teams. One other thing, is that the Tournament of Roses Bowl has a long history of the second, third, and even fourth best schools in a conference going to the game. Check out the season in 1967 (?), when Indiana went to the Rose. They were in a 4-way tie for the B1G championship and went because the tie-breaker was the school that hadn't gone to the Rose in the longest period of time!
No wonder Oregon wants out of that joke of a conference! 🤣😂 They got screwed royally!
Anybody who propped up Larry Scott (usual suspects SC/UCLA/UW/Oregon) has no right to be trashing the conference now
Cupcakes to inflate your record? Sounds like another year in the SEC
Next video: the Silicon Valley Football Classic.
Specifically, the 2004 edition.
I meant BCS, not BSC.
UW was at least the 3rd best team in the nation, beating Miami and OreSt, among others. Frankly, they could've finished #2 nationally, and the Beavers 4. That doesn't mean Oregon wasn't good; they were clearly a top 10 team. But they didn't get screwed here. Actually, Miami should've played for the Natty, UW finishing 2nd or 3rd, Ore St 4th or 5th at worst.
FSU was the right choice and had the best loss. Either FSU or Washington should have gone if you want to get transitive about it. Miami(FL) played in a joke conference and still lost to Washington.
What the duck? 🤣🤣🤣
I have a better way to determine a champion. Go by strength of schedule. That way, the team with the toughest schedule wins the championship.
Also Oregon came into the civil war game that year with a loss under their belt from earlier in the season I believe and check me if I'm wrong that they lost one of their first two games against Wisconsin so Oregon didn't get hosed they had two losses granted only one in conference with two losses overall and Oregon State and Washington only had one loss each ...so your theory that Oregon got hosed ...doesn't hold water
Go Beavs! More Oregon State Content!!
you should do how Eastern washington almost cut football that year they on to win a fcs championship
Huh? It’s not like Udub played cupcakes that season in the non conference that season they beat 4th ranked Miami and a really good Colorado team so yeah Udub played the FAR more difficult non
Conference schedule they deserved to go through meanwhile Oregon played Wisconsin and LOST and that was the ONLY power conference team they played in the non conference while Udub played 2
This isn't even the dumbest tiebreaker in the history of the conference. Below in quotes is how Utah got in the Pac-12 championship game this past season (against USC) over Oregon and Washington. Utah, Washington and Oregon all had 7-2 league records. Washington beat Oregon, Oregon beat Utah, but since Washington didn't play Utah, head-to-head-to-head couldn't be used to break the 3 team's tiebreaker. It basically ended up being because Utah had a tougher conference strength of schedule (mainly by playing regular season champ, USC in the regular season, Oregon and Washington didn't play USC that season)
"In the event of a tie between more than two teams, the following procedures will be used. After one team has an advantage and is seeded, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tie-breaker will repeat the multiple-team tie-breaking procedure. If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied.
1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not every tied team has played each other, go to step 2
(Utah didn't play Washington so on to step 2)
2. Win percentage against all common conference opponents (must be common among all teams involved in the tie)
Oregon State (Utah W, Oregon L, Washington W)
UCLA (Utah L, Oregon W, Washington L)
WSU (Utah W, Oregon W, Washington W)
Arizona (Utah W, Oregon W, Washington W)
Stanford (Utah W, Oregon W, Washington W)
Colorado (Utah W, Oregon W, Washington W)
(Utah: 5-1. Oregon: 5-1. Washington: 5-1 so on to Step 3.
3. Record against the next highest placed common opponent in the standings (based on record in all games played within the conference), proceeding through the standings.
a. When arriving at another group of tied teams while comparing records, use each team’s win percentage against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to that group’s own tie-breaking procedure) rather than the performance against individual tied teams.
UCLA and Oregon State both have a 6-3 conference record, making them the highest-ranked common opponents among Utah, Oregon and Washington and invoking section 3(a).
(Utah, Oregon, and Washington are all 1-1 against UCLA and Oregon State so on to step 4)
4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (ie, strength of conference schedule)
Utah's conference opponents are a combined 38-43 in conference play (mainly thanks to being the only one of the 3 to play USC this season)
Oregon's conference opponents are a combined 37-44
Washington's conference opponents are a combined 32-49
Utah wins the tiebreaker"
Oregon lost 2 games the other 2 lost 1 not hard to understand
Sad fact of the matter is that UW and Oregon State were better than Oregon that year. Oregon State and UW were arguably the two best teams in the country, and while UW's lone loss was a 7 point defeat at Oregon, OSU put a BEATING on UO. Don't let the 10 point margin fool you, OSU was DOMINATE in that game, forcing SIX turnovers and gashing the Ducks for 471 yards of offense. Meanwhile, OSU's loss to UW was FAR more competitive, coming down to a missed 45 yard FG as time expired.
Now, I'm obviously biased but in my view, the order of teams was very clearly UW-OSU-UO and the manner of tie breaker was largely irrelevant. Oregon had more losses than both OSU and UW, plus a H2H loss to OSU so Oregon was OUT. UW beat OSU so OSU was OUT.
You vastly overestimate Oregon State. They barely beat Eastern Washington (21-19) and New Mexico (28-20). Oregon State was not and likely has never been one of the top two teams in the country. There's a reason they didn't finish higher than 4.
Sorry, but if you beat an FCS team by 2 points, you do not belong in the conversation.
dominant*
Learn English.
@@encycl07pedia- I found the Oregon fan! Listen bub, a win is a win. Notre Dame was considered one of the best teams in CFB in 2000, OSU beat them 41-9. OSU DOMINATED Oregon in the Civil War, forcing 6 turnovers. Had the UW been in Corvallis, OSU likely would’ve won as well. Oregon State OBJECTIVELY could’ve easily competed with any team in CFB that year. No one cares about a Week 1 result against an FCS school. What people care about is how the season ends. 12-1, PAC-10 Co-Champs, obliterated #10 ND by over 30 points, ended the season on a 7 game winning streak.
@@kylewilson2819 Wrong again. I'm a Florida State fan. I don't like Oregon at all, but you're insane if you think beating a 9-3 ND team is an achievement.
I didn't even bring up nearly losing to 3-8 Cal in November. 38-32 against a team that is objectively terrible. Yikes.
You got 6 turnovers and only won by 10 points? If anything that just proves that Oregon was better than Oregon State. OSU went +5 in turnovers (1 INT thrown). Any real team would win by at least 3 scores with that advantage.
Exactly: it's an FCS school. EWU went 6-5 in 2000. They weren't even good. If it's close or a loss, it's embarrassing as the FBS team. It's also embarrassing bragging about a conference co-championship where you didn't even win the tiebreaker, but that's probably an achievement for Oregon State.
@@encycl07pedia- You scored 2 points in your bowl game. Stfu
JG, you're gonna need to do a video on Oregon and how they were subject to a lawsuit by The Walt Disney Company #nightnight #sleeptight #dreamofchurrostonight
Hi. A LOT of big schools will play 1-2 “cupcake” opponents to ensure a bowl game. It’s not really right but $$$ talks.
Non-Conference record was the ONLY fair way to do this. Yeah Oregon got screwed but they lost. I feel like Oregon State got screwed MORE with the same record!!! Alas Washington had higher computer grades…and that’s that.
Washington beat #2 Miami(FL) that season while Oregon lost to #23 Wisconsin. Washington was by far the better team, just like 2007 USC was better than Stanford despite the head-to-head result. I mean he's basically ranting about Oregon finishing 3rd in a tiebreaker instead of 2nd when it doesn't actually matter at all. I guess Washington should have finished 3rd because they had the toughest non-conference schedule... Oops.
This is just his video about how Texas A&M had ***the same exact ranking*** but lost a few voter points one week after they won a game. It's utterly meaningless. "TAMU should be #6, not #6!" JG just likes to miss the entire point a lot.
Not sure what's dumb about non conference record being the tie breaker? Oregon had the worst overall record. Regardless the right team made the Rose Bowl.
You conveniently left out that while Wisconsin started #5, they finished a rather pedestrian 8-4, including 4-4 in the Big 10. Washington got the job done non-conference by beating eventual #2 Miami. Also, according to the Pac 10 rules, Washington would get the nod over Oregon State in terms of non-conference scheduling due to the Beavers playing a I-AA opponent. So that was indeed factored into the tie-breaking scenarios. You also fail to mention that if non-conference record hadn't factored into the tie-breaker, the next one on the list (total points scored) would have favored Oregon State. Bottom line: short of Oregon beating Oregon State (which they didn't), there was no tie-breaking scenario in which the Ducks would have made the Rose Bowl.
And barely at that. A team with Ocho Cinco, TJH, and Nick Barnett eked out a two point win over a 6-5 1 AA team (EWU)
Ok what about Oregon State
Sorry dude. This is not dumb. It may be unfair. But it's NOT dumb, The tiebreeakers are known before the season. And schedules are made years before. You might think you're scheduling a patsy in 1995 only to find out when you play the team in 2000 they are now a tough team or vice-versa. Also, an opponent might not be good when you play them. Players could be injured.
JG is full of it on this one. Wisconsin finished #23 at best. UW was undefeated OOC and beat #2 Miami(FL). By his "better OOC schedule = worse standing," UW should have been 3rd in the tiebreaker because they were "punished" for playing the toughest schedule of the 3.
UW should have been in the Natty anyways. Miami, FSU and UW all had 1 loss. Miami beat FSU and UW beat Miami.
Washington State is why I hate college football
Because of how hapless teams can be
Lions great, Joey Harrington
If I were deciding tiebreakers after H2H, I'd start with point differential in head-to-head results. If THAT didn't work, I'd go with point differential in conference play, then higher AP/BCS rank
Every one of the examples you gave that they COULD have done are infinitely dumber than what they actually did. Always go with Ws and Ls over points scored. This is just 15 minute video for 30 seconds of bad opinion.
Bro, how is this dumb. It's 2023 and the s.o.s is one of the main things they look at now... you must be a duck fan lol.... GOHUSKIES
You think the 2000 season was the year the Ducks got screwed? Check out what happened to them in 2001!
btw - i'm an Oregon fan & actually think the Pac10 got it right(regardless of how they decided). imo Washington was the best team having beat Miami & OrSt. Oregon State was 2nd having beat the Ducks & then went on to beat Notre Dame(& yes, that WAS the best beaver team of all time). Oregon would actually get a historic win against Texas in the Holiday Bowl that would springboard Harrington's Hiesman campaign & launch the Ducks into national prominence. It was such a good year for the pacific northwest.
And just since both teams make an appearance in the video - i think the uniform combos that both Miami & Oregon were wearing in that era were some of the slickest threads ever. Sure woulda been nice to have seen'm on the same field together(thanks a lot BCS computers).
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 GO DAWGS!
23 13....
.
I am an Oregon fan who grew up in this era and I never knew about this! Insane. One more reason to hate Trashington
You weren't a Oregon fan during this era if you don't remember this. Maybe uncle Phil will buy a natty soon?
#AhBowlFest!
👍👍
And Oregon state Beavers..WON THE CIVIL WAR 23 13 and Beat your beloved Oregon Deckers...Go Beavers..🦫🏈