Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
Author Message
PirateMarv Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,508
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 191
I Root For: ECU
Location: Chicago and Memphis
Post: #1
Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
This is an article from the April 27, 2008, edition of the Chicago Tribune from a writer named Teddy Greenstein:

Jim Delany will arrive in Miami for the BCS meetings without devil horns. He also will leave the Grim Reaper costume back at Big Ten headquarters. Delany, frankly, is annoyed the pro-playoff college football crowd has labeled him and Pac-10 counterpart Tom Hansen "the axis of obstruction."

The Big Ten commissioner doesn't see it that way, and that's a point he's likely to express Monday and Tuesday when he meets with his fellow power brokers. He says he's simply trying to "protect and enhance" the sport while also protecting the interests of his beloved Big Ten. And besides, the vast majority of university presidents also oppose a playoff, by all accounts. "Our position has been crystal clear for the last 13 years," he said. "We're interested in helping the bowl system, helping our regular season and creating a 1 versus 2 game without going further. If someone has a new idea, they have to carry the burden."

The principle new idea—fairly new, anyway—is to adopt a Plus-One system. An unseeded Plus-One would create a championship game the week after the BCS bowl games are played. A seeded Plus-One would pit 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 in semifinal bowl games, followed by a winner-take-all extravaganza. Delany opposes both formats. A seeded Plus-One—a "misleading" euphemism for a four-team playoff, he said—would minimize the other three BCS bowl games and force a Big Ten team seeking a national title to win two de-facto road games played in warm-weather sites.

Delany is also certain it would lead to an eight- or 12-team playoff that would devalue the "every game counts" quality of college football's regular season. And what would it solve? Last year's final-season top four included Oklahoma and Virginia Tech—but not USC or Georgia. "I think you would double the number of unhappy teams," Delany said. An unseeded Plus-One has legitimate pluses. It could preserve the Big Ten vs. Pac-10 Rose Bowl and potentially give meaning to all five BCS bowl games, with winners getting a possible shot at the title game. But, again, fairness issues would abound. How would college football determine which of the five teams would advance? By vote? By a combination of vote and computer?

Kevin O'Malley, a sports television consultant who helped invent the current BCS formula, suggested this objective method: The highest-ranked teams that win their bowl games would advance. It might be the best idea out there. "The BCS would like to reduce controversy," O'Malley said. "Would it?"

Potentially. Plus the extra game, officials assume, would bring a richer offer from Fox, which has the rights to the non-Rose BCS bowls for two more seasons. If Fox passed, ABC/ESPN could jump in. "It would never eliminate the controversy," said Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese, who has some affection for a non-seeded Plus-One. "But it would make more money and add value [to the BCS bowls]." But any change to the current system still would have to clear some serious hurdles.

Delany and Hansen appear philosophically opposed to extending the season to 14 games. And their deal with the Rose Bowl and ABC/ESPN lasts six more years, although some say it could be amended for a new format. When people heckle Delany about his refusal to give up the Rose Bowl, he has been known to reply: "OK, then how about asking the ACC to give up its conference basketball tournament?"

"It's easy enough to blame us," he said. "I could put forward a revolutionary 16-team playoff idea that they couldn't support. Eliminate conference title games and go back to an 11-game schedule.
"Have four sites in the Midwest and four in the Sun Belt, and the higher-seeded team hosts games. You could have games in Madison or Michigan. LSU would have played at Ohio State [in the BCS title game]. And eliminate the bowl system. I can create a system that would probably have support in the public and one that they would reject." They would reject it, in part, because everyone agrees college football ain't broke. Attendance and regular-season TV ratings were up last season, and the streak of wild upsets (USC-Stanford, Ohio State-Illinois, West Virginia-Pitt) created an immeasurable buzz. But the BCS bowl games mostly fizzled, and ratings were down for four of the five.

Burke Magnus, ESPN's recently promoted senior vice president of college sports programming, will attend the Miami meetings and express ABC/ESPN's desire to compete for the TV rights to the entire BCS package of bowl games once Fox's deal expires after the 2009 season. "We're interested in it as it is today," Magnus said. "We're more interested if it goes to a different model. It's just levels of interest."

Many have assumed that Fox Sports President Ed Goren, whose company will have exclusive negotiating rights beginning in September, would make an even stronger push for a playoff. Not so, he said. "The talk-radio guys and the sports fans with the around-the-horn arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of a new format," he said. "And three years ago I would have been one of those bobblehead dolls. But I've either been brainwashed, or educated, to another side to this story." Goren said the current BCS system has given college football some of its greatest regular seasons. And because only one BCS bowl game determines the national title, players actually can enjoy the total experience. "Five teams go back to campus as champions," Goren said. "If you go into a different system, you have one winner and everyone else goes home a loser."
04-27-2008 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


CatsClaw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,170
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: The land of Winning
Post: #2
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
So, basically, the Big Ten (and Pac-10 by proxy) are saying that they will fight to maintain the status quo, with a little bit a tinkering here or there.
04-27-2008 05:47 PM
Find all posts by this user
PirateMarv Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,508
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 191
I Root For: ECU
Location: Chicago and Memphis
Post: #3
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
CatsClaw Wrote:So, basically, the Big Ten (and Pac-10 by proxy) are saying that they will fight to maintain the status quo, with a little bit a tinkering here or there.

I think that he is afraid that if this format is added, a B10 school may never make it to the Title game. I can not imagine what college football would be like if Ohio State was bludgeoned to death in a semi-final game, rather then in the Title game. Do I dare to dream?
04-27-2008 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user
TIGER-PAUL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,617
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 34
I Root For: PITT
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
The seeded formula seems to have no chance. The unseeded is basically the same we have now, just crunching the numbers for 1 vs 2 after the bowl games and playing an extra game. May be a slight improvement I guess.
04-27-2008 07:59 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


mpurdy22 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 700
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Miami (OH)
Location: Sandusky, Ohio
Post: #5
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
Would the following get a lot of opposition:

How about getting the bowl committees to bid for matchups of all Conference Champion matchups. First you agree to allow the Rose Bowl to feature Big Ten #1 vs Pac-10 #1 and put the rest up for bid.

Big East #1 vs ACC #1
Big 12 #1 vs SEC #1
C-USA#1 vs WAC #1
MWC #1 vs At-Large #1
SunBelt #1 vs MAC #1

The BCS is just a name, it is a matter of dollars that really matters. The bowl comittees that bid the higest for their matchup gets the teams. You can still use the BCS formula to rank, then the two highest ranking conference champions that win the bowl game matchup for the National Title.

Rose Bowl - Big Ten #1 vs Pac-10 #1
Orange Bowl - Big East #1 vs ACC #1
(New) Cotton Bowl - Big 12 #1 vs SEC #1
Fiesta Bowl - C-USA #1 vs WAC #1
Sugar Bowl - MWC #1 vs At-Large
Independence Bowl - SunBelt #1 vs MAC #1.

The Top Two Ranked winners of those games plays for the title. All other bowl matchups are placed as usual. It just makes more sense to matchup Conference Champions, then you select the top two teams after the bowl games. The At-Large team simply goes to the highest BCS ranked school that is not a conference champion.

The one problem I can see is that the fans from the likes of MAC, and WAC won't get to mathcup against a "Big Boy" if you will, but at least you are playing the champion of another conference. However, I think the Top-Ranked NON-BCS team gets matched up with the at-large team.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2008 07:31 AM by mpurdy22.)
04-28-2008 07:28 AM
Find all posts by this user
ccbfan Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 581
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation: 19
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
mpurdy22 Wrote:Would the following get a lot of opposition:

How about getting the bowl committees to bid for matchups of all Conference Champion matchups. First you agree to allow the Rose Bowl to feature Big Ten #1 vs Pac-10 #1 and put the rest up for bid.

Big East #1 vs ACC #1
Big 12 #1 vs SEC #1
C-USA#1 vs WAC #1
MWC #1 vs At-Large #1
SunBelt #1 vs MAC #1

The BCS is just a name, it is a matter of dollars that really matters. The bowl comittees that bid the higest for their matchup gets the teams. You can still use the BCS formula to rank, then the two highest ranking conference champions that win the bowl game matchup for the National Title.

Rose Bowl - Big Ten #1 vs Pac-10 #1
Orange Bowl - Big East #1 vs ACC #1
(New) Cotton Bowl - Big 12 #1 vs SEC #1
Fiesta Bowl - C-USA #1 vs WAC #1
Sugar Bowl - MWC #1 vs At-Large
Independence Bowl - SunBelt #1 vs MAC #1.

The Top Two Ranked winners of those games plays for the title. All other bowl matchups are placed as usual. It just makes more sense to matchup Conference Champions, then you select the top two teams after the bowl games. The At-Large team simply goes to the highest BCS ranked school that is not a conference champion.

The one problem I can see is that the fans from the likes of MAC, and WAC won't get to mathcup against a "Big Boy" if you will, but at least you are playing the champion of another conference. However, I think the Top-Ranked NON-BCS team gets matched up with the at-large team.


LOL, I'm sure their will be plenty of opposition from the Sugar bowl and the Fiesta bowl. I bet the two bowls would love their future destiny of becoming the heir apparent to the Liberty and Las Vegas bowls.

I bet the Capital One bowl and the Cotton bowl would love it though. Capital one basically becomes the new Sugar Bowl and Cotton Bowl basically becomes the new Fiesta bowl.
04-28-2008 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user
mattsarz Offline
TV Guide
*

Posts: 7,159
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation: 110
I Root For: SU, Ariz. St.
Location: Painesville, OH
Post: #7
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
CatsClaw Wrote:So, basically, the Big Ten (and Pac-10 by proxy) are saying that they will fight to maintain the status quo, with a little bit a tinkering here or there.

Yes, and that tinkering has to favor the Big Ten, PAC-10 and Rose Bowl. It is still the BCS bowl that has its own TV contract, doesn't pay a fee to be part of the BCS and has contracts in place to keep them from choosing non-BCS teams.
04-28-2008 09:34 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


mpurdy22 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 700
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Miami (OH)
Location: Sandusky, Ohio
Post: #8
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
ccbfan Wrote:
mpurdy22 Wrote:Would the following get a lot of opposition:

How about getting the bowl committees to bid for matchups of all Conference Champion matchups. First you agree to allow the Rose Bowl to feature Big Ten #1 vs Pac-10 #1 and put the rest up for bid.

Big East #1 vs ACC #1
Big 12 #1 vs SEC #1
C-USA#1 vs WAC #1
MWC #1 vs At-Large #1
SunBelt #1 vs MAC #1

The BCS is just a name, it is a matter of dollars that really matters. The bowl comittees that bid the higest for their matchup gets the teams. You can still use the BCS formula to rank, then the two highest ranking conference champions that win the bowl game matchup for the National Title.

Rose Bowl - Big Ten #1 vs Pac-10 #1
Orange Bowl - Big East #1 vs ACC #1
(New) Cotton Bowl - Big 12 #1 vs SEC #1
Fiesta Bowl - C-USA #1 vs WAC #1
Sugar Bowl - MWC #1 vs At-Large
Independence Bowl - SunBelt #1 vs MAC #1.

The Top Two Ranked winners of those games plays for the title. All other bowl matchups are placed as usual. It just makes more sense to matchup Conference Champions, then you select the top two teams after the bowl games. The At-Large team simply goes to the highest BCS ranked school that is not a conference champion.

The one problem I can see is that the fans from the likes of MAC, and WAC won't get to mathcup against a "Big Boy" if you will, but at least you are playing the champion of another conference. However, I think the Top-Ranked NON-BCS team gets matched up with the at-large team.


LOL, I'm sure their will be plenty of opposition from the Sugar bowl and the Fiesta bowl. I bet the two bowls would love their future destiny of becoming the heir apparent to the Liberty and Las Vegas bowls.

I bet the Capital One bowl and the Cotton bowl would love it though. Capital one basically becomes the new Sugar Bowl and Cotton Bowl basically becomes the new Fiesta bowl.


If the Fiesta wants a better matchup, then outbid the Orange Bowl. The Sugar bowl would most likely get a BCS school anyway- highest ranked school that isn't the conference champion is the at-large.
04-28-2008 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #9
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
I say screw the Big 10, the PAC 10, the Rose Bowl, and all others who wish to obstruct the path to a playoff for their own financial gain. This is the same attitude that has kept college football a poor 2nd class citizen in the northeast.
04-28-2008 01:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
CatsClaw Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,170
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 185
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: The land of Winning
Post: #10
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
The greed of these conferences are really started to show, especially in the case of the Big Ten.
04-28-2008 02:29 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #11
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
What do you mean starting? 03-banghead
04-28-2008 03:07 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Krocker Krapp Offline
Number 1 Starter
*

Posts: 4,701
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 55
I Root For: RU, SJU, UConn
Location: Worldwide
Post: #12
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
A seeded Plus-One will never happen. The Big Ten and Pac-10 will fight that idea to the death because they do not want to be seeded out of the Rose Bowl. Look for the BCS to adopt an unseeded Plus-One if anything happens at all.

Using such a format, the past season could have looked something like this:

SUGAR: LSU vs. Hawaii
ROSE: Ohio State vs. USC
ORANGE: Virginia Tech vs. Kansas
FIESTA: Georgia vs. Illinois (or higher ranked Arizona State)
COTTON: Oklahoma vs. West Virginia

Two winners would then play in the BCS TITLE GAME roughly a week later.


They will have no choice but to add another game, probably the Cotton Bowl, to the BCS and then continue to double host the BCS Title Game like they do now. Each bowl will double host every fifth year instead of every fourth year.
04-28-2008 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #13
RE: Big Ten Fights Postseason Changes
I say ignore the Rose Bowl as having any significance in the post season. Let it be relegated to the irrelevance it, and the affiliated conferences deserve.
04-28-2008 05:46 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.