RBR:

We've all read a hundred posts and comments about playoffs vs. the current system, and will likely read a hundred more. This post is a specific point regarding one particular article on the subject.

Over in one of the Jumbo Packages, this citation was included from a Stewart Mandell article:

<blockquote>While there have been just three seasons (1999, 2002, 2005) in which the BCS title-game matchup was deemed universally satisfying, there were only four in which the four-team field was controversy free.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/02/08/bcs-vs-four-team-playoff/index.html#ixzz1mKS7NfDf</blockquote>

According to this article, those four seasons "in which the four-team field was controversy free" were 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2006. My question is: how are these controversy-free?

2000:

Playoff: No. 4 Washington (10-1) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-0); No. 3 Miami (11-1) at No. 2 Florida State (11-1).

As Mr. Mandell pointed out, Miami had already beaten FSU, and Washington had already beaten Miami. 1 of 2 semifinal games WOULD HAVE been a rematch (Miami at Florida State). 1 of 4 possible BCSCGs would have been a rematch (Washington vs. Miami). This would also in the possibility of 2 of 3 playoff games being rematches, which would probably be rather controversial.

2001:

Playoff: No. 4 Oregon (10-1) at No. 1 Miami (11-0); No. 3 Colorado (10-2) at No. 2 Nebraska (11-1).

1 of 2 semifinal games WOULD HAVE BEEN a rematch of division opponents (Colorado at Nebraska). Nebraska would have had to play Colorado twice consecutively. Even as it really played out, there actually WAS a controversy, because Nebraska played for the National Championship without winning their division. If they can't even win their own division, much less their conference, how could they have claimed to be National Champions? This was ten years before Alabama played for the National Championship without winning their division.

2003:

Playoff: No. 4 Michigan (10-2) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1); No. 3 USC (11-1) at No. 2 LSU (12-1).

No rematches, but Oklahoma still didn't win their conference. As it actually played out, Oklahoma played for the National Championship without winning their conference. If they can't even win their own conference, how could they have claimed to be National Champions? This was two years after Nebraska played for the National Championship without winning their division, and eight years before Alabama played for the National Championship without winning their division.

2006:

Playoff: No. 4 LSU (10-2) at No. 1 Ohio State (12-0); No. 3 Michigan (11-1) at No. 2 Florida (12-1).

Also known as the SEC / Big Ten Classic, 2 of 4 possible matchups in the BCSCG would be a rematch of conference opponents (LSU vs. Florida; Ohio State vs. Michigan). On the other hand, 1 of the remaining 2 possible matchups would have featured a team that didn't win its division playing against a team that didn't win its conference (LSU vs. Michigan).

Let's look at a few of the other hypothetical plus-one playoff scenarios, just to see what might have happened:

1998:

Playoff: No. 4 Ohio State (10-1) at No. 1 Tennessee (12-0); No. 3 Kansas State (11-1) at No. 2 Florida State (11-1).

2 of 4 possible BCSCGs would have included a team that didn't win it's conference (Ohio State vs. K. State; Tennessee vs. K. State).

2004:

Playoff: No. 4 Texas (10-1) at No. 1 USC (12-0); No. 3 Auburn (12-0) at No. 2 Oklahoma (12-0).

Texas did not win their division, and 1 of 4 possible BCSCGs would have been a rematch between two teams from the same division (Texas vs. Oklahoma).

2005:

Playoff: No. 4 Ohio State (9-2) at No. 1 USC (12-0); No. 3 Penn State (11-1) at No. 2 Texas (12-0).

2 of 4 possible BCSCGs would have been rematches (Ohio State vs. Penn State; Ohio State vs. Texas). (Ohio State and Penn State were co-champions.)

2008:

Playoff: No. 4 Alabama (12-1) at No. 1 Oklahoma (12-1); No. 3 Texas (11-1) at No. 2 Florida (12-1).

1 of 4 possible BCSCGs would be a team that didn't win its conference playing a team that didn't win its division (Alabama vs. Texas), and 2 of the remaining 3 possibilities would be rematches between conference opponents (Alabama vs. Florida, Oklahoma vs. Texas), one of which would have been both teams' most recent game (Alabama vs. Florida), and one of which would have featured teams from the same division (Oklahoma vs. Texas).

2010:

Playoff: No. 4 Stanford (11-1) at No. 1 Auburn (13-0); No. 3 TCU (12-0) at No. 2 Oregon (12-0).

1 of 4 possible BCSCGs is a rematch between conference opponents (Stanford vs. Oregon), one of whom did not win their conference (I know this sounds silly, but remember that before conference championship games, co-champions were very common).

2011:

Playoff: No. 4 Stanford (11-1) at No. 1 LSU (13-0); No. 3 Oklahoma State (11-1) at No. 2 Alabama (11-1).

1 of 4 possible BCSCGs would be a matchup between two teams that didn't win their division (Stanford vs. Alabama). 1 of the remaining 3 possibilities would be a rematch between conference opponents, one of whom didn't win their division (LSU vs. Alabama).

Conclusion:

Had we had a plus-one playoff all fourteen years of the BCS, there would have been twenty-eight semifinal games, with fifty-six different possible BCSCGs. Two of those twenty-eight semifinal games would have certainly been rematches, one of those between teams from the same division of the same conference.

Of the fifty-six possible BCSCGs, ten of those possibilities could have been rematches. Of those ten, six could have been rematches between conference opponents. Of those six hypothetical BCSCG rematches between conference opponents, three could have been rematches between division opponents.

Of the fifty-six possible BCSCGs, nineteen of those possibilities could have included at least one team that didn't win its conference. Of those nineteen hypothetical BCSCGs in which at least team didn't win its conference, ten could have included at least one team that didn't win its division. Two could have been matchups wherein neither team won their conference. One of those could have been a matchup of two teams, neither of which won their division.

NOTE: I'm doing a lot of this from memory, and am not really taking any time to fact-check my memory, or to double-check my math. Please comment on any of my mistakes that you inevitably find, so that I can correct them.

NOTE 2: Please explain your votes in the comments.