Following the announcement of the 2006–07 BCS bowl matchups, BCS Coordinator Mike Slive held a national media teleconference to discuss the season’s selections, public reaction, and ongoing debate surrounding the Bowl Championship Series format.
The announced games included:
- BCS National Championship: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 2 Florida
- Rose Bowl: No. 3 Michigan vs. No. 5 USC
- Fiesta Bowl: No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 8 Boise State
- Orange Bowl: No. 14 Wake Forest vs. No. 6 Louisville
- Sugar Bowl: LSU vs. No. 11 Notre Dame
For readers interested in how previous postseason games unfolded, we maintain a complete list of BCS bowl results covering every matchup from the BCS era.
Slive, who also served as the Southeastern Conference (SEC) commissioner, reflected on the most competitive and unpredictable season of the BCS era and addressed several topics that would shape the evolution of postseason college football. Many of these issues fit into the broader BCS timeline and evolution, which shows how the system changed in response to public pressure and competitive balance concerns.
🏈 Key Takeaways from the 2006 BCS Coordinator Q&A
1. The Regular Season’s Value
Slive emphasized that the BCS had heightened the importance of the regular season, transforming regional matchups into nationally relevant events. He described the 2006 season as one of the most exciting in memory, citing its constant shifts in rankings and dramatic finishes.
2. Calls for Review and Improvement
While defending the BCS’s ability to produce marquee matchups, Slive also stated that annual review was essential to ensure fairness and balance. He acknowledged public debate over whether the postseason could be expanded while still preserving the value of regular-season games.
3. On the Harris Interactive Poll
Responding to questions about inconsistencies in voter ballots, Slive defended the Harris Interactive College Football Poll as a statistically valid system with more than 110 panelists from across conferences. He noted that its results typically mirrored other polls and that no changes were planned at that time, though all components of the BCS would continue to be evaluated annually.
4. Coaches’ Poll Controversy
The media questioned the USA Today Coaches Poll, particularly after Ohio State coach Jim Tressel abstained from voting in the final poll. Slive respected the decision, citing Tressel’s unique position as a potential participant in the national title game. He reiterated that the BCS did not influence how coaches voted but accepted results from the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA) as they were delivered.
5. Conference Champions and Rematches
Some reporters asked whether only conference champions should be eligible for the national title or if rematches between teams (like Ohio State and Michigan) should be avoided. Slive said the BCS did not impose such conditions, preferring to “respect the integrity of the polls” and avoid dictating how conferences determine champions.
6. Voting Motivations and Public Perception
When asked if voters might have chosen Florida over Michigan to avoid a rematch, Slive declined to speculate on individual motives. He emphasized that with nearly 200 total voters across the polls, the BCS had to trust each participant’s independence and perspective.
7. Considering Future Models (“Plus-One”)
Slive acknowledged ongoing discussions about whether the BCS could evolve into a “plus-one” model, in which the top four teams would compete for a championship spot. He said such proposals deserved serious consideration but cautioned that no postseason format would ever eliminate controversy entirely.
8. Inclusion of Boise State
The inclusion of Boise State (then from the WAC) in the Fiesta Bowl was highlighted as a positive development. Slive called it an “earned opportunity,” demonstrating that non-automatic qualifier teams could reach major bowls under the BCS criteria.
9. Balancing Roles as SEC Commissioner and BCS Coordinator
When asked about potential conflicts of interest, Slive clarified that the coordinator’s role was administrative and not decision-making. His duties were to manage the process and ensure fairness — not to select or influence which teams played in specific bowls.
10. The Future of the BCS
Slive concluded by expressing optimism about the system’s direction but encouraged continued examination of incremental improvements, suggesting that any future modifications would occur within the next contractual cycle (2010–2013).
🗓️ Context
The 2006 season was pivotal for the BCS era. The Florida Gators ultimately defeated Ohio State 41–14 in the national championship, beginning a stretch of seven consecutive BCS titles won by SEC teams. Meanwhile, Boise State’s upset victory over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl became one of the most memorable games in college football history — and further fueled arguments for playoff expansion.
🧾 Summary
| Topic | Key Points |
| System Defense | Regular season importance reaffirmed |
| Poll Integrity | Harris Poll upheld; annual review promised |
| Coaches Poll | Tressel abstention respected; transparency limited to final poll |
| Policy Debate | No restriction on non-champions or rematches |
| Reform Ideas | Consideration of “plus-one” model for future seasons |
| Cinderella Factor | Boise State inclusion seen as success for system |
| Coordinator Role | Slive described position as facilitator, not decision maker |
