By PETE THAMEL
Published: December 3, 2007
Mike Slive, the coordinator of the Bowl Championship Series, likes to refer to the skepticism surrounding the B.C.S. as the “annual nervousness.” Mike Tranghese, the commissioner of the Big East Conference, is not quite as diplomatic, calling the annual specter of controversy in college football “debilitating and wearing.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/sports...ei=5087%0A

(N.Y. Times yesterday. Same old story about a plus-one. The Pac10 and Big10 are against it but interesting read. hope the link works.)

God what a miserable compromise!!

Why not just play Rock-Scissors-Paper to determine the winner.

Is it just me or does anyone else think that the MAJOR problem with the current system is the inherently flawed and biased method of determining the top 2 teams? So how does the plus one or inverse model address that??? IT DOESN'T!!

Way to go fellas!

The problem is that there is just too much money involved. The ones in control of it now don't want to relinquish that control. It's a common malady.

Don't hold your breath.

Well then they are being short sighted because I tell you, there is going to be MORE money in a playoff!

Why does everyone seem to think it is an either-or proposition as far as playoffs and bowl games go? Why can't they incorporate the bowl games into the playoff structure? Maybe the game won't be in the exact same cities they are now and that may be the biggest drawback to a playoff. Cities like J'ville or Tempe et al might be out some money but what are we trying to solve - a national championship or propping up cities with cash once a year? And at what point do the cities realize that attendance numbers are down, the fans don't come like they used to and they aren't making the cash they expected?

Also, I wonder what attendance numbers are like and viewership numbers look like since the inception of the BCS? I have a feeling that a lot of the games are now less meaningful than they were years ago. Not saying that that old system was better than the current one but my complaint is that the BCS system has not improved anything and it did not fix the underlying problem that everyone was complaining about - a true national champion! This year could be a sign of what is to come if the parity continues.

el-toro Wrote:Well then they are being short sighted because I tell you, there is going to be MORE money in a playoff!

Even if there total $$$ are greater with an "official" NCAA Playoff...per NCAA bylaws...any and all $$$ have to be SHARED with all 119 Div I-A Teams...which means the BCS Teams total share might be LESS.

Right now...BCS Teams keep 94% of ALL Bowl $$$$ (91% when a non-BCS team crasher their bowl party like Hawaii is doing this year) and the BCS Teams do not have to share their Bowl $$$$$ with every Div I-A Team.

That's why the BCS Conferences will never approve a playoff system...as the BCS teams make MORE $$$$ in bowl contracts that THEY control...vs going to an official NCAA playoff system...which the NCAA will run/control...and decide who gets what in regards to $$$$$ as all 119 teams would receive a payout.

Forget a playoff system UNLESS you can make it so that the BCS Conferences will end up with even MORE $$$$$...even after paying off all the Div I-A schools.

you can do a playoff without it being a part of the official NCAA process. They can set it up with the bowls, the same way they did the BCS.

I just don't think it's feasible, personally, to ask 40k fans to travel to multiple locations back to back to back weeks with sometimes little or no notice.

The problem with playoff with bowl set up is the traveling by fans. How would fans react to week after week of traveling if their teams advance unless the games are played at the home stadiums. If all games (like D1AA) are played at home stadiums of higher ranked teams, then bowls become irreverent.

There are simply way too much money for these guys to change. We fans want a playoff but we are not going to get it due to cash. The Best we can hope for is a 8 team play off or a 4 team play off.

How can anyone tell me Virginia Tech is the #3 ranked team in the country? They would get smoked by many teams below them. Take OU vs. Virginia Tech, I think it would be a blowout if they played on the field today. Same as USC. WVU would blow Va Tech out.

to me if you dont win your conference then you have no business playing in a championship game.
So sorry Kansas and Georgia but you guys would not be considered for it in my book.

Cubanbull Wrote:to me if you dont win your conference then you have no business playing in a championship game.
So sorry Kansas and Georgia but you guys would not be considered for it in my book.

I completely agree. It hasn't stopped teams before, but that would be a rule if someone gave me the rulebook and some ink for the day.

Cubanbull Wrote:to me if you dont win your conference then you have no business playing in a championship game.
So sorry Kansas and Georgia but you guys would not be considered for it in my book.

But the SEC/ACC/Big 12 all play an extra game that makes it tougher.

el-toro Wrote:Well then they are being short sighted because I tell you, there is going to be MORE money in a playoff!

But the people who control that money from a playoff wouldn't be the same ones who control it now. THAT is the problem.

el-toro Wrote:Also, I wonder what attendance numbers are like and viewership numbers look like since the inception of the BCS? I have a feeling that a lot of the games are now less meaningful than they were years ago.

If you read the article the proposal for an inverse model would move the national championship back until after all the bowls have been played.

This way all the bowls, particularly the BCS bowls are meaningful with regards to determining the national champion. This way also you can weed out some of the pretenders because the top 8 or 10 would be beating up on each other.

For example:

Rose Bowl (OSU over USC)
Fiesta Bowl (WVU over OU)
Sugar Bowl (Hawaii over LSU)
Orange Bowl (Kansas over VT)

That would eliminate USC, OU, LSU, VT from the debate. Hawaii would have a legitimate claim for a #2 spot undefeated and victorious over then #2 LSU.

The BCS system would improve considerably if they eliminate pre-season polls, Coaches and AP (most likely to influence Coaches poll). No polls should come out until the 2nd week of October.

All they are considering is the plus one and it would not happen until 2011? It is just another tweak to the formula to make them feel better. Just like expanding the pool to 14, 22, 26. 30......whatever this year.

A plus one would not solve the issue this year. If you don't have a system that would at least allow Hawaii a shot at the title it is not a fair system.

I doubt anything real happens.. that being said I think the plus 1 model is the best we can ever hope for.. 1 plays 4 .. 2 plays 3.. and the winners play each other... Is it perfect?? NO!! is it good?? NO!! is it better than what we now have?? YES!! 90% of the time there is at most 3 or 4 teams that have legit arguments as to being a #1 or #2.. so 90% of the time U will have the top 2 in the country in the top 4.

I think a plus one model will be fine, but the way it is set up in the article is still an issue with me. The Non-BCS schools will still have no shot a title. If Hawaii were to beat Georgia using this year's matchups, you know the voters still wouldn't put Hawaii even in the Top 4. I think the most fair way to all is to still utilize the BCS bowls (5 of 'em). Then after the bowls are over, you simply match up the two team with the best record, so if Hawaii were to be undefeated including a win in a BCS bowl game, they have proven they deserve a shot. If by chance of the 5 winners that 2 or more had the same record, then you use a final BCS points to determine the matchup.

The problem with a '+1' model (as outlined and data compiled by Omnicarrier) is control of who gets in the 'semifinals'.

The Pac10 has already said they would walk away from the BCS if a +1 model was implemented:.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19985785/

and here's why. Most years - if just taking the 4 top BCS teams - you will have about 2/3rds of those teams coming from the SEC, Big10, and Big 12. However, if you only take the conference champions, you get a different set that is more favorable to the ACC, Pac10, and Big East.

Here is the data that shows the difference when Conference champions are used vs. just the Top 4 teams:

Going back all the way to 1998, if such a model were in effect then and forward:

Pac 10 teams 8 out of 10
SEC teams 8 out of 10
Big 10 teams 6 out of 10
Big 12 teams 6 out of 10
Big East teams 5 out of 10
ACC teams 5 out of 10

Utah once
Notre Dame once

Whereas if it had simply been the Top 4 BCS ranked teams, not limited to one conference representative in the semi-finals in a given year, this would have been the distribution:

Big 12 - 10 teams
SEC - 8 teams
Big 10 - 8 teams
Pac 10 - 6 teams
Big East - 4 teams
ACC - 4 teams

---> the Big 12, SEC, and Big 10 have 65% of the bids under a 'Top 4 BCS' scenerio.

No non-BCS representatives and no independents.

mpurdy22 Wrote:I think a plus one model will be fine, but the way it is set up in the article is still an issue with me. The Non-BCS schools will still have no shot a title. If Hawaii were to beat Georgia using this year's matchups, you know the voters still wouldn't put Hawaii even in the Top 4. I think the most fair way to all is to still utilize the BCS bowls (5 of 'em). Then after the bowls are over, you simply match up the two team with the best record, so if Hawaii were to be undefeated including a win in a BCS bowl game, they have proven they deserve a shot. If by chance of the 5 winners that 2 or more had the same record, then you use a final BCS points to determine the matchup.

IF Hawaii were to beat Georgia I agree that I they probably have shown they deserve a shot at the NC. While it is probably true that they don't have the talent of a top BCS school maybe they are the type of team that just knows how to win. That is what being a champion is all about. When teams like Utah and Boise State are winning their BCS bowl they certainly are making a statement for non-BCS schools.

The problem is that Hawaii wouldn't get the NC game even with a win. Two of the BCS teams winning their BCS bowl ranked ahead of them would get the chance. You could see the same thing happening to a BE team too down the road.

You need a set-up where every conference champion and highly rated non-BCS school at least has a shot.

Cubanbull Wrote:to me if you dont win your conference then you have no business playing in a championship game.
So sorry Kansas and Georgia but you guys would not be considered for it in my book.

So then UNC in ’05, Syracuse in ’03, Maryland in ’02, Kentucky in ’96 etc….. shouldn’t have won the basketball championships? I don’t think it should be mandatory to win your conference at all.

How about NFL teams such as the '06 Steelers or '00 Ravens who didn't win their divisions?