Future of the BCS & a +1

[WisconsinSooner]

Article is too long to post here but will post the link:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/the_bonus/01/02/bcs.future/index.html?eref=T1

No suprise that it's the Big X and Pac X holding up progress. Maybe it's because they know their conferences might not ever win another college football championship.

[Big D Sooner]

Umm... Isn't a Big X school playing in the National title game in about a week? USC would probably disagree with that as well.

[Paperclip]

Mike Tranghese is a jerk.

[KingDavid]

Great article. I like the idea of a pure plus one, with maybe a caveat or two in there. For instance, if #1 is facing #2 in one of the pre-championship games (regular BCS bowls), then there would be a system for trading teams to keep that from happening.

That would actually bring credibility back to all of the major bowls. And I think it might even give the big X and Pac X a better chance of keeping their champions from year to year. Under the current system, they've lost a conference champion something like 5 out of the last 6 years.

A pure plus one would get them better results than that, because it would be pretty rare for #1 & #2 to match up in the Rose Bowl (the only BCS bowl with automatic tie-ins from two leagues).

Another thing you could do in this set up, which would require the addition of one new BCS bowl (likely the Cotton), might be to rotate the automatic tie-ins for the other BCS league besides the Pac X and Big X. That way the fans would still get to travel to new destinations. I suppose the SEC and ACC might pitch a fit about not going to the Sugar & Orange bowls, respectively. But heck, we (the Big XII) conceded the auto-matic orange bowl tie-in to make the current system work; surely, there could be other leagues who are willing to flex.

Kind of crappy that two conferences and one bowl get to have this much say-so. They are living under the outdated (and untrue) belief that the Rose Bowl is the "grand-daddy of the them all." It may have been (arguably) at one point. Sorry guys: In the current system, the Rose Bowl is just another BCS bowl. You guys need to wake-up and join the rest of us in the land of reality, and be a part of the solution.

[JohnnyMack]

A seeded plus-one is exactly like it sounds -- the top four teams at the end of the regular season would meet each other (No. 1 playing No. 4, No. 2 playing No. 3) in two of the BCS bowls. (Because the BCS wants to remain at 10 berths, a fifth non-title game -- either a newly created one or an existing one like the Capital One or Cotton -- would likely need to be added.) The winners would advance to the championship game, which, conveniently, is already being played about a week after New Year's.

This is what I've been axeing for all along. I think we'll get it too.

[MextheBulldog]

"cross-watching" LOL

[MextheBulldog]

This is what I've been axeing for all along. I think we'll get it too.

YES! This is essentially a four team playoff. BRING IT ON. This is perfect.

Keeps the bowl system intact, keeps the season to its current schedule, and gives the top four teams a chance to win it on the field.

[NYC Poke]

"cross-watching" LOL

This is such an inane argument. There would still be "cross-watching" because you'd want to see who you're eventually opponent might be, and because there are always teams you want to lose, no matter who they're playing.

I think the plus-one will crash and burn because of the travel. Can you imagine going to Pasadena, winning, and then with less than a weeks notice, booking travel and accomodations to Miami for the next weekend? Even those that will be able to afford to do this have other time commitments to work and even family.

Few would treat bowls as the post-Christmas vacation that they do now, instead they'd zip in for the game and zip out just as quickly, diminishing the tourism impact for the bowls' host cities.

If someone wants to get a playoffs done, and do it independently of the current bowl system and, perhaps, the Big 10 and PAC 10. They would eventually come around for the right system.

[MextheBulldog]

You still have the same potential travel issues with a normal playoff system independent of the bowls.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

You still have the same potential travel issues with a normal playoff system independent of the bowls.

Not necessarily. Seed #1 and Seed #2 get to play at their home stadium like the nfl does, but do it in early to mid December. The losers of those two still get to play in a BCS game, and the winners of course go to the title game. It's not that difficult and the home team would always sell out...

[NYC Poke]

You still have the same potential travel issues with a normal playoff system independent of the bowls.


Not if you use the home stadium for the higher seeded team. Visitors would have to travel, but that would give them incentive to "cross-watch" and thus eliminate the "it would render the regular season meaningless" argument. Then the championship would be played at a neutral site just like the Super Bowl.

You just need deep enough pockets and good enough connections to get this to happen. It will never, ever happen within the current framework. The incentives are just too conflicting among the involved constituencies.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

:D beat you to it!

[NYC Poke]

:D beat you to it!


I'll have to fire my secretary for typing too slow.

[Dio]

Not necessarily. Seed #1 and Seed #2 get to play at their home stadium like the nfl does, but do it in early to mid December. The losers of those two still get to play in a BCS game, and the winners of course go to the title game. It's not that difficult and the home team would always sell out...

Where'd you hear that idea? :D

[MextheBulldog]

You just need deep enough pockets and good enough connections to get this to happen. It will never, ever happen within the current framework. The incentives are just too conflicting among the involved constituencies.

So let's compromise. And a plus one gives us a mini-playoff. And keeps the bowls happy. And glorious cross-watching remains intact across the land.

[WisconsinSooner]

Umm... Isn't a Big X school playing in the National title game in about a week? USC would probably disagree with that as well.

You are taking my comment out of the context of the article I posted. In a +1 system you can bet that Ohio State would face an SEC team in one of the two games. Ohio State is 0-8 against the SEC in bowl games. USuC would have a basis to disagree but considering they have made their living off beating up on the rest of the pac 10 & big 10 teams I'm not so convinced how'd they'd do in a +1 system. Plus I just hate the condoms.

[85sooners]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b358/paul--moore/bsflag.gif

[RedstickSooner]

Umm... Isn't a Big X school playing in the National title game in about a week?

That's the effing point, dude.

They're in because they, along with the Small East, have the easiest road to the championship game -- because they're giant girls, and don't play a CCG.

USC would probably do fine in a +1 system, but the Big 10 would have a very hard time fielding a "champion" that could survive two games in a row against quality opposition.

The Pac-10, for that matter, doesn't seem to have much faith in their ability to accomplish that feat, either.

[Big D Sooner]

I am not sure I would be calling it the "Small East" after Wednesday.

[Big D Sooner]

I agree that the Big 10 from top to bottom is weak, dude, but I'm not convinced that their refusal to conform to the plus one is anything more than the realization that there is a lot of tradition, and ALOT of money, tied into the Rose Bowl. The 75 year old millionaire donors probably don't want to see the precious Pac-10/Big 10 Rose Bowl match-up gone because of a new system.

[Crucifax Autumn]

What does the Rose Bowl have to do with it? Now they get the championship game every 4 years and in this scenario they'd have the championship game every 5 years and a semi-final every 2-3 years along with a big name bowl game on the other years.

[Big D Sooner]

It's about tradition. Alot of older individuals remember a time when every year the Rose Bowl was Big 10/ Pac-10. People don't like change.

[Lookyhere]

So ask yourself "who plays in the +1 game?" Did everyone agree on the same 2 teams? The +1 is bull, create a playoff system or just keep it as is because anything else is just a lateral move.

[OUMedMan]

The way I see it, the non-cooperation of the Big 10 and PAC-10 are possibly due to the Big 12 and SEC.

In 2001 (?) Nebraska, after getting clobbered by Colorado 62-36, is selected ahead of a much more deserving Oregon team and is embarrassed in the BCS national championship game.

In 2003, USC, which lost one game in the third overtime at their opponents home field and was ranked #1 in both the AP and UPI polls, were bypassed in favor of a team that had been humiliated 35-7 by Kansas State and by another team that had lost at home to Florida by 7 points.

Given those circumstances, why should the PAC-10 trust anything the BCS (and by extension, the SEC and Big-12) come up with?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

And if you exclude the Big 10 and PAC-10 from the BCS, the BCS loses all it's credibility. Last year there would have been a split national championship, with USC winning one poll and the Florida vs Michigan (???) winner being named in the other poll. This year USC and Ohio State would have again been matched up against LSU and Oklahoma(?) (or Georgia or West Virginia or Kansas or Virginia Tech, etc); this time USC probably would have been named NC regardless (on the basis of a stomping of Ohio State again) regardless of who won the so called "BCS NC game".

[Sam Bradford]

so are they working on a 4 team playoff?