http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ziegl...95039.html

...... Here is how this plan might work and why it is not only the best alternative, it may very well be the only one which can ultimately get enough votes to pass.

The "plus one"-system starts with restoring the major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta) to their old traditions before the BCS basically rendered all but one of them in any given year irrelevant. This means that the Rose Bowl would feature the winners of the Big Ten and the Pac-12 (as God originally intended), the Sugar would do the same for the SEC and Big 12 champions (which already have an agreement to start meeting). Meanwhile, the Orange and Fiesta could host the champions of the next two most worthy conferences (who knows which those will be once the realignment dust finally settles) against the two highest ranked "at large" schools as chosen by the current BCS computer system.

This would mean that going into the bowls eight teams (six conferences champions and two "at large" selections, though you could easily add the Cotton Bowl and two more "at large" schools, which might convince Notre Dame to go for the idea) would still be alive in the race for the national title. Then each of these four bowl games would be played, with staggered starting times, on New Year's Day (as God originally intended). Each would have meaning both from the standpoint of tradition as well as because they would serve as "de facto" semi-finals for the BCS championship game. It would be impossible to conceive of a scenario where at least three of these four games didn't have national championship implications. The bowl tradition would be saved/enhanced and the television ratings for each of them, which have been decreasing, would swell dramatically. ......

Heck, just let the winners of those 4 bowl games play off the next week, with those winners playing for the NC the following week. An 8-team playoff. Done. Six CCs included, plus highest ranked indy teams and non-CCs.

If you just follow this plan, it'll be the Rose Bowl winner vs. the Sugar Bowl winner almost every year.

(06-15-2012 05:14 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Heck, just let the winners of those 4 bowl games play off the next week, with those winners playing for the NC the following week. An 8-team playoff. Done. Six CCs included, plus highest ranked indy teams and non-CCs.

If you just follow this plan, it'll be the Rose Bowl winner vs. the Sugar Bowl winner almost every year.

I'd love an 8 team payoff. Admittedly, the plan I detail below is a hare brained idea that would never happen in the real world. If you are too grounded in reality to continue reading, I understand.

The college playoff would be 8 teams: the top 5 ranked conference champs (ranked teams, not conferences), and 3 at-larges selected by a committee.

Seven bowls would be used for the playoffs on a rotating basis: Rose, Holiday, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, other TBD. In other words, these 7 bowls would take turns being a quarterfinal, semifinal, and championship game.

The committee selects the 3 at larges. Then they pick the top 4 seeds. Each of these 4 seeds is then assigned to the the quarterfinal bowl games (which an be assigned on a regional or historical basis i.e. B1G/PAC to Rose). TV can do an hour selection show that would rival the NCAA basketball selection show.

Then, 24 hours later a second selection show occurs. Starting with seed #1, each team's athletic director gets to announce which of the remaining 4 seeds they would select to play. Then #2 gets to select from the 3 remaining, and so on until we have 4 quarterfinal games. Selection show #2 would be a huge TV draw.

Because they get to pick their opponent, there is good reason to play for as high a seed as possible in the regular season. For seeds 5-8, getting picked will put a huge chip on your shoulder. These game would be really compelling, and TV ratings would be huge.

Plus, each conference in the country has a chance to get their champion in. There is a viable mechanism for independents to make the field. The power conferences have a chance to get 2-3 teams in, increasing their prestige and bowl payouts. The games themselves would generate enormous interest, and you still leave room for a dark horse team to win it all.

It will never happen, but it would be awesome to see it all play out.

John Ziegler.

So now the guy is opining on college football too, huh?

I checked my thesaurus and Ziegler was listed under "nut job."

(06-15-2012 05:58 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  John Ziegler.

So now the guy is opining on college football too, huh?

I checked my thesaurus and Ziegler was listed under "nut job."

He is "infamous" here in "The Ville"...got fired in a very high profile "sexual case" before he headed to California.

(06-15-2012 06:06 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-15-2012 05:58 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  John Ziegler.

So now the guy is opining on college football too, huh?

I checked my thesaurus and Ziegler was listed under "nut job."

He is "infamous" here in "The Ville"...got fired in a very high profile "sexual case" before he headed to California.

And then didn't exactly keep his nose clean here in L.A. I don't recall the facts exactly but for a brief while, he was the darling of one of the highest rated stations in town, KFI640 "More Stimulating Talk Radio." IIRC, he filled in for others when they were on vacation and after a few months got his own night show. Wasn't drive time but he started building up a following until he went off on one of the hosts of KFI's highest rated show, which got him suspended, and then after a brief period he did something else really dumb and was shown the door. That must be five years ago and I don't think I've seen his name anywhere since. Glad to see that the guy has rehabilitated himself into a college football expert. (Wink, wink.)

With out a AQ the best thing for BE is 4 champs or 3+1. Otherwise we have just about 0% chance of ever being in champ game.

(06-17-2012 06:37 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  With out a AQ the best thing for BE is 4 champs or 3+1. Otherwise we have just about 0% chance of ever being in champ game.

I think that is a pretty fair model. The SEC could still end up with 2 teams in the playoff which is what they want. I think the Big East can sneak into this playoff every few years.

I'll go way out on a limb here and argue that the WORST thing for the BE would be a 4-team playoff involving the highest ranked champions of the Pac, the B1G, the SEC, the B12 and the ACC. Second worst would be a 4-team playoff involving the champions of the Pac, the B1G, the SEC and the B12. Just make sure neither of those scenarios becomes a reality and we should be OK until the playoff system inevitably expands to eight teams.

Just remember that this is a "4 Team" Playoff proposal and not a "4 Game" Playoff Proposal. I have read this thread and it appears as if some are under the assumption that this is a "4 Game" Playoff. Not so. So if it does come to pass, it will in fact be cutting our own throats to sign off on this BS.

Just saying.

The plus one will rely too much on polls, and the BE and usually the ACC and def any one from MWC/CUSA will be totally shut out.

This thing was contrived from the beginning by minds like Dodds, Slive, and Neinas. It was never intended to be fair.nFair in those guys' eyes has always been how to split the riches between as few institutions as possible. For the life of me I don't understand why things are so congenial. Conferences like the ACC, BE, MWC, and all the others should have formed a back room alliance from the get-go.

This whole thing is a disaster, wrapped in a plague, surrounded by a whirlwind, and drenched in inter-galactic cow manure.

If the interim commish is helping to facilitate this nonsense then he will live in infamy as a pariah and a fink.

(06-17-2012 09:42 PM)Cooglius Caeser Wrote:  This thing was contrived from the beginning by minds like Dodds, Slive, and Neinas. It was never intended to be fair.nFair in those guys' eyes has always been how to split the riches between as few institutions as possible. For the life of me I don't understand why things are so congenial. Conferences like the ACC, BE, MWC, and all the others should have formed a back room alliance from the get-go.

This whole thing is a disaster, wrapped in a plague, surrounded by a whirlwind, and drenched in inter-galactic cow manure.

If the interim commish is helping to facilitate this nonsense then he will live in infamy as a pariah and a fink.

Exactly. Baily should be showing up to these meetings with his new assistant---who would actually be the highest profile anti-trust lawyer avialable. Nothing says "congenial" like an attorney.

I wish the ACC and BE (along with whoever) would tell the ncaa to stick it and leave.

I know from a football perspecive it wouldn't be much of a loss but losing ACC and Big East hoops would be a huge blow to the ncaa...

(06-17-2012 07:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The plus one will rely too much on polls, and the BE and usually the ACC and def any one from MWC/CUSA will be totally shut out.

People keep repeating this as if it's gospel, but the problem hasn't been the ACC champ getting jumped by champs from other conferences, but rather that the ACC champ has had 2 or 3 losses (as opposed to 0 or 1 losses) for the past several years. There is no structural disadvantage to being in the ACC compared to anyone other than the SEC. Even Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 champs won't get the benefit of the doubt against the SEC champ with equal records. However, both the human and computer rankings haven't showed any consistent pattern of the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 schools jumping similarly situated ACC schools. There might be certain seasons where the computers love a particular conference (e.g. Big 12 last year), but that has been highly variable for everyone outside of the SEC year-to-year.

Do you think if you switched the name "Oklahoma State" with "Florida State" or "Miami" last year that Alabama would have still been playing in the national championship game? Outside of the SEC, it's marquee *teams* (NOT conferences) that receive the bias, and the ACC still has multiple marquee teams.

At the same time, FSU and Miami still had top 10 recruiting classes last year (even after Miami's scandal). Everyone that watches college football in an unbiased manner, such as NFL scouts, know that elite talent is there in the ACC. The ACC's issue has been one where its champ has underachieved relative to its talent level for the past few years. That's not a good thing, but that's MUCH different than saying that there is some type of structural disadvantage in playing in the ACC. A 1-loss FSU, Miami or VT team is going to get tons of credit on par with anyone in any other conference.

(06-17-2012 09:42 PM)Cooglius Caeser Wrote:  This thing was contrived from the beginning by minds like Dodds, Slive, and Neinas. It was never intended to be fair.nFair in those guys' eyes has always been how to split the riches between as few institutions as possible. For the life of me I don't understand why things are so congenial. Conferences like the ACC, BE, MWC, and all the others should have formed a back room alliance from the get-go.

This whole thing is a disaster, wrapped in a plague, surrounded by a whirlwind, and drenched in inter-galactic cow manure.

If the interim commish is helping to facilitate this nonsense then he will live in infamy as a pariah and a fink.

I stand in awe of you sir.

I agree Frank that the ACC has not had teams recently to get the high rank. I am strictly talking the top 4 in the polls, There is a bias towards schools and to a lesser degree conf. The perception now is there is a big 4 with ACC on the edge, the NBE over the edge and the rest don't matter. With that perception, (right or wrong) it will be very hard for the BE to crack that top 4 even with undefeated school.

(06-18-2012 08:49 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-17-2012 07:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The plus one will rely too much on polls, and the BE and usually the ACC and def any one from MWC/CUSA will be totally shut out.

People keep repeating this as if it's gospel, but the problem hasn't been the ACC champ getting jumped by champs from other conferences, but rather that the ACC champ has had 2 or 3 losses (as opposed to 0 or 1 losses) for the past several years. There is no structural disadvantage to being in the ACC compared to anyone other than the SEC. Even Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 champs won't get the benefit of the doubt against the SEC champ with equal records. However, both the human and computer rankings haven't showed any consistent pattern of the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 schools jumping similarly situated ACC schools. There might be certain seasons where the computers love a particular conference (e.g. Big 12 last year), but that has been highly variable for everyone outside of the SEC year-to-year.

Do you think if you switched the name "Oklahoma State" with "Florida State" or "Miami" last year that Alabama would have still been playing in the national championship game? Outside of the SEC, it's marquee *teams* (NOT conferences) that receive the bias, and the ACC still has multiple marquee teams.

At the same time, FSU and Miami still had top 10 recruiting classes last year (even after Miami's scandal). Everyone that watches college football in an unbiased manner, such as NFL scouts, know that elite talent is there in the ACC. The ACC's issue has been one where its champ has underachieved relative to its talent level for the past few years. That's not a good thing, but that's MUCH different than saying that there is some type of structural disadvantage in playing in the ACC. A 1-loss FSU, Miami or VT team is going to get tons of credit on par with anyone in any other conference.

yes but you gotta admit the ACC still is a step behind the Big 4

example...let's take 3 from each conference and compare:

Ohio State
Michigan
Wisc

Texas
OU
Ok St

Alabama
Florida
LSU

USC
Oregon
Stanford

FSU
Miami
Gtech


In my mind, while FSU/Miami/Gtech have brand value and are "names" they don't really stack up to the others...if you put the BE top 3 on there it's even worse.

This is why people see the ACC outside looking in along with the BE who is also outside, and even further away from the window than the ACC.

And that just "brand" or "name"...if you take actual onfield performance the ACC's is really outside looking in vs the others listed.