http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7908695
The 11 conference heads will meet to discuss the possibility of a "plus 1" format, with the top 4 teams being seeded. I'm not sure why the nonBCS conference guys were invited since they will be excluded if at all possible once this goes into practice, but whatever.
The UGA Pres is proposing an 8 game playoff:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3186232
What happens to the MAC in these situations? The MAC will never be one of the 4-8 best teams in football. Keep the status quo as to bowls? Should the mid-major conferences form a bowl coalition championship of their own? Include the MWC, WAC, CUSA, Sun Belt and CUSA? Move to the FCS subdivision?
It's all empty talk. The Big 10 and the PAC-10 have already recently said absolutely no to any playoff. Without them, it can't happen. They are the hardliners, along with a number of bowls, who simply will not entertain the possibility.
I predict that the BCS conferences will do the modified playoff even if the Big 10 and PAC 10 do not go along. They will just say that the participating conferences represent the best FB in the country anyway. Big 10/PAC 10 will have to fish or cut bait. Big 10 may have to invite WVU in order to enhance the strength of the conference.
If the Big10/PAC-10 gets left out, maybe the MAC and WAC can step in to fill those geographical voids. Make it happen, Rick Chryst.
How many times has there been a Big Ten or PAC 10 team in the BCS Championship game? The answer to that question is the reason there will be no playoff without them. What would be the purpose of a playoff not including 2-3 of the top 8 teams every year? None. It would be a meaningless dilution of the product and defeat the whole purpose of a playoff. All the BCS 6 conferences need to be on board or it will not happen, period. It will not happen until the B10, P10 and the Rose Bowl want it to happen, which is not in the foreseeable future.
axeme Wrote:How many times has there been a Big Ten or PAC 10 team in the BCS Championship game? The answer to that question is the reason there will be no playoff without them. What would be the purpose of a playoff not including 2-3 of the top 8 teams every year? None. It would be a meaningless dilution of the product and defeat the whole purpose of a playoff. All the BCS 6 conferences need to be on board or it will not happen, period. It will not happen until the B10, P10 and the Rose Bowl want it to happen, which is not in the foreseeable future.
Isn't the NCAA supposed to be the governing organization over college athletics? The NCAA needs to grow some balls and do what's best for college football, not what's best for the Big 11, PAC 10 and Rose Bowl. If the B11 and P10 don't want to play along, then IMHO, they can keep thier prescious Rose Bowl and not participate in the college playoffs. It's time for change. The system we have now makes me want to puke
. The Playoffs work great for all the other divisions, and there's no reason why it couldn't work in the top level of CFB. I'm not too thrilled about a +1 system either. Make it a 16 team playoff with the champions of each conference getting a shot. Instead of playing a bunch of meaningless bowl games in December, turn those bowl games into playoff games and have the NC game on Jan. 1st or shortly after. This isn't rocket science.
There is going to be some change to the system, too much money at stake.
The current system makes all bowls outside of the national title game not relevant. A system whereby all the bowl games are played then participants are selected for a national championship would preserve the Big Ten-Pac10 matchup of the Rose Bowl and make the remaining bowls more relevant.
Let's say for instance you had the following bowl matchups this year.
Rose: Ohio State v. USC (USC)
Fiesta: Oklahoma v. West Virgnia (WVU)
Sugar: LSU v. Hawaii (LSU)
Orange: Virginia Tech v. Kansas (Kansas)
Then you would probably have LSU vs. USC in the title game as they would have the best argument after beating Ohio State. USC in this case was #7 but vaulted all the way to #2 as teams #1, #3, #4 lost and Georgia beat a weaker Hawaii squad.
If you take the top 4 for a playoff then you don't have the opportunity #5, #6, #7 if they win their bowl game. A lot of the experts thought USC deserved to be in the title game as much as OSU.
The Rose Bowl is noted for its tradition but the biggest slander I've ever witnessed of the game is to take an Illinios team over Missouri.
The best system would be an 8 team playoff taking the top 8 conference champions ranked 20 or above.
Quarterfinals
Rose (OSU v. USC)
Cotton (BYU v. Oklahoma)
Sugar (LSU v. Hawaii)
Orange (WVU v. VT)
Semifinals
Fiesta (Oklahoma v. USC)
Capital One (LSU v. WVU)
Championship
Peach (LSU v. USC)
Do away with all the other remaining bowls and put more emphasis on conference championship games.
The system would produce a lot more money per participant and also could give conferences that don't participate a larger piece of the pie (MAC, CUSA, SBC) instead of losing vast sums on lower tier bowl games.
axeme Wrote:It's all empty talk. The Big 10 and the PAC-10 have already recently said absolutely no to any playoff. Without them, it can't happen. They are the hardliners, along with a number of bowls, who simply will not entertain the possibility.
exactly right.. all this talk will last aprox 30 secs and then voted down.. a playoff is not in the picture.
A play off means nothing. I could support a playoff system if and only if:
1- all of the D1 conferences had a playoff and only and only if the one conference champion from each conference goes to the tourney.
That means that every game played from the beginning of the season would mean something. The argument that we lost a couple of games early and we are the best team NOW at the end of the year is bogus. A national champ should be a champ for the season, not the month of December.
Now, if you buy into a 4 team tourney, the same corrupt system that votes on a mythical champ, is the same corrupt system to pick the 4 participants. Does it matter that the corrupt vote occurs 2 weeks before season end rather than 2 weeks later. The same arguments that I hear now are the same ones I would hear AFTER a playoff where the participants are limited and selected by writers and coaches.
The BCS in its wisdom has just about ruined the bowl system. The Rose Bowl does not hold the interest that it used to. Same for the Cotton, Same for the Sugar, same for the Orange. Let us go back to the bowl system, and let the bowls choose whom they want. Let the pundits and scribes vote on a final poll. Let the fans from various regions argue. That is not going to change anyway. WAKE UP AMERICA! THIS IS ALL A PLOT!
axeme Wrote:How many times has there been a Big Ten or PAC 10 team in the BCS Championship game? The answer to that question is the reason there will be no playoff without them. What would be the purpose of a playoff not including 2-3 of the top 8 teams every year? None. It would be a meaningless dilution of the product and defeat the whole purpose of a playoff. All the BCS 6 conferences need to be on board or it will not happen, period. It will not happen until the B10, P10 and the Rose Bowl want it to happen, which is not in the foreseeable future.
exactly right.. U pull those 2 out and any playoff is irrevolent. No matter what the bcs teams do.. all 6 rise and fall together..
Quote:exactly right.. U pull those 2 out and any playoff is irrevolent. No matter what the bcs teams do.. all 6 rise and fall together..
maybe that is exactly what should happen. the bcs as a group has done nothing but harm football, maybe they don't all agree and decide to split. I'm not getting my hopes up though.
a +1 is still as bad as the system now, so with the +1 who goes to the title game? lsu, georgia, usc? they can all make a case.
I'm for a 16 team playoff, the conrerence champion from each of the 11 conferences and 5 at larges chosen by a bcs type formula. Each conference is required to hold a conference championship to determine their representative. This makes the regular season mean something, both in conference (championship) and ooc, at larges.
this year for example, you have conference championships during the last week of november. the first round games the 15th of december, second round 22cnd, third round 29th, championship on the 5th. It still takes the same amount of time, after each game winning teams get their share of bowl money to pay for travel expenses. You use the major bowl games on a rotation as the final rounds, and you can still have the other bowl games which are allowed to pick in decending order by records like they do now. This would be similar to the NIT in bball.
the bcs and +1 system, even an 8 team playoff would be like the ncaa bball tourney denying teams like butler and gonzaga because they don't have as many fans or aren't affiliated with the correct conferences. It was because of their exposure when they had good teams on a national stage that they are now starting to become perennial powers, this same thing can happen for football if the NCAA grows some nuts. the revenue potential for the ncaa is huge, much larger than the current system.
cardinalcrazie Wrote:Quote:exactly right.. U pull those 2 out and any playoff is irrevolent. No matter what the bcs teams do.. all 6 rise and fall together..
maybe that is exactly what should happen. the bcs as a group has done nothing but harm football, maybe they don't all agree and decide to split. I'm not getting my hopes up though.
a +1 is still as bad as the system now, so with the +1 who goes to the title game? lsu, georgia, usc? they can all make a case.
I'm for a 16 team playoff, the conrerence champion from each of the 11 conferences and 5 at larges chosen by a bcs type formula. Each conference is required to hold a conference championship to determine their representative. This makes the regular season mean something, both in conference (championship) and ooc, at larges.
this year for example, you have conference championships during the last week of november. the first round games the 15th of december, second round 22cnd, third round 29th, championship on the 5th. It still takes the same amount of time, after each game winning teams get their share of bowl money to pay for travel expenses. You use the major bowl games on a rotation as the final rounds, and you can still have the other bowl games which are allowed to pick in decending order by records like they do now. This would be similar to the NIT in bball.
the bcs and +1 system, even an 8 team playoff would be like the ncaa bball tourney denying teams like butler and gonzaga because they don't have as many fans or aren't affiliated with the correct conferences. It was because of their exposure when they had good teams on a national stage that they are now starting to become perennial powers, this same thing can happen for football if the NCAA grows some nuts. the revenue potential for the ncaa is huge, much larger than the current system.
I agree 100%!
The big conferences benefit from the discussion and debates about who is #1. They are better off having 3-4 teams laying some claim to it than if they had one team who could say definitively that it is #1. They sell more tickets, sell more U gear, and keep the alums happy when they are in the big BCS mix. There is no reason for them to change the system because they are doing swimmingly fine right now. Why would they want to risk what they have on an unproven idea that might diminish their end of season pot of gold?
They really believe they were better off when the bowls picked their own teams and are more likely to go back to that, and some have said this, than to go to a more structured playoff system of some sort. The idea of fairness to smaller schools and what happens to the small money bowls is really irrelevant to them. They would prefer to get rid of the BCS rankings and let the bowls play out as they will. They they would have the polls and public debate settle who is #1. If people and the polls agree, fine, and if people and polls disagree, all the better for the heightened interest it creates.
The NCAA does not crown a FBS national champion. The BCS is not the NCAA. It is not really the NCAA's call.
As GFlash noted, a true +1 will continue to have problems. This year, who would have played LSU. Georgia, USC, WVU? Simply by going on the final BCS standings as someone noted earlier, USC would not have been in the pseudo tournament. Or, go back to 2005. USC and Texas were clearly the two-best teams in the country, but instead they would have had to have beaten Penn State and Notre Dame or Ohio State to get into the title game.
No system will be perfect. Even in a 16-team playoff, seedings and game sites will be ripe with controversy. If you have spent any time in Ohio during high school playoffs, you know how important locations are to people.