sawemoff Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 The Bowl Championship Series is focusing on four main options for changing the system that determines college football's national champion, from minor tweaks of the current system to a full-fledged, four-team playoff at neutral sites, USA Today reported. According to a two-page memo obtained by the newspaper, the proposals are not the only options being considered, but have been the focus of discussion on how to change the system, which has been a topic of debate since its inception. The BCS' leaders are meeting April 24-26 in Hollywood, Fla. "There is no leader in the clubhouse ... and frankly, that's just fine at this stage," BCS executive director Bill Hancock told USA Today. Those supporting the BCS have insisted that a playoff would devalue the regular season and negatively impact the traditional bowl games and student-athlete academics. Critics have argued that the BCS has excluded deserving teams that are outside of the most powerful conferences, and has failed to reward teams for winning their conferences or going undefeated. Among the proposals in the memo is "four teams plus" -- an arrangement that would expand to six teams to account for the traditional Big Ten vs. Pac-12 rivalry embraced by the Rose Bowl, according to the report. In that scenario, if the top four teams in the BCS standings included teams from the Big Ten and/or the Pac-12, that team (or teams) would play in the Rose Bowl, while the other four highest-ranked teams would play in two other games. Finalists for a championship game would be chosen from among the three winners, according to the report. “There is no leader in the clubhouse ... and frankly, that's just fine at this stage.” -- Bill Hancock, BCS executive director The most radical departure proposed in the memo is a four-team playoff, with semifinals and a championship game, according to the report. The memo does not use the word "playoff" to describe the proposal, instead calling it a "four-team event." A wide range of options for a playoff are presented in the memo, including: • Playing all three games at bowls; • Playing the semifinal games at bowls and selecting a bowl game site for the title game; • Playing all three games at neutral sites and not branding the games as bowls; • Playing semifinal games at campus sites and selecting a bowl game site for the title game. The remaining proposals outlined in the memo obtained by USA Today include the "plus-one" formula that would select two teams after the bowl games for a championship game, and a slightly revamped BCS system that would change or eliminate the automatic qualifying status for conferences, except for contracts between conferences and bowl games. Furthermore, according to the memo, if a plus-one or playoff system were put in place, the BCS would consider having a committee select matchups for as many as 16 bowl games, "with the aim of providing the most evenly matched and attractive games that make geographic sense for the participants." My link I'm fine with a plus one, but the whole playoff thing just doesn't interest me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'd love to see four 16-team super conferences with a system similar to English soccer. If you finish in the bottom two, you're replaced for the next season. Also, no more independents. That whole concept is stupid and aimed at making money, not winning championships. Not realistic at all, but oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedCreek49 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Among the proposals in the memo is "four teams plus" -- an arrangement that would expand to six teams to account for the traditional Big Ten vs. Pac-12 rivalry embraced by the Rose Bowl, according to the report. In that scenario, if the top four teams in the BCS standings included teams from the Big Ten and/or the Pac-12, that team (or teams) would play in the Rose Bowl, while the other four highest-ranked teams would play in two other games. Finalists for a championship game would be chosen from among the three winners, according to the report. “There is no leader in the clubhouse ... and frankly, that's just fine at this stage.” -- Bill Hancock, BCS executive director I'm fine with a plus one, but the whole playoff thing just doesn't interest me. This is plain stupid! The Pac 10 and Big 10 had a chance to vote on a plus one several years ago along with other option and they would not support it. They were holding out for more of a sure thing. They wanted to be practically guaranteed a spot and will manipulate things to ensure they get one. You can be assured if the stupid idea of playing at ones home campus is inserted moat of the games will be played in Big 0 or Pac 12 country, at least the games they may not be favored in! I am not for a multiple team playoff. A Plus One is the most I would like to see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bordertown Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'd love to see four 16-team super conferences with a system similar to English soccer. If you finish in the bottom two, you're replaced for the next season. Also, no more independents. That whole concept is stupid and aimed at making money, not winning championships. Not realistic at all, but oh well. I 100% agree. I have posted similar thoughts in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Whatever they do will be dictated by the bowls....there's too much $$$$ involved for a logical solution.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WETSU Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'd love to see four 16-team super conferences with a system similar to English soccer. If you finish in the bottom two, you're replaced for the next season. Also, no more independents. That whole concept is stupid and aimed at making money, not winning championships. Not realistic at all, but oh well. I'm all for the 16 team conference idea... I don't care much for the bottom 2. It would make it interesting though. Those meaningless games between cellar dwellers would instantly become must see tv. Very gladiator like.... Fighting for survival. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'm all for the 16 team conference idea... I don't care much for the bottom 2 though. It would make it interesting though. Those meaningless games between cellar dwellers would instantly become must see tv. Very gladiator like.... Fighting for survival. Lol Exactly lol! I think this is what the BCS is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WETSU Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Exactly lol! I think this is what the BCS is all about. I agree, but not at the expense of knocking programs out of a conference because of a bad season. Maybe over a 5 year span or something would work better.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Exactly lol! I think this is what the BCS is all about. Unfortunately, the BCS is all about maximizing profit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 6, 2012 Author Share Posted April 6, 2012 Unfortunately, the BCS is all about maximizing profit.... Obviously, but I'm saying it's a win or die situation for most teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Whatever they do will be dictated by the bowls....there's too much $$$$ involved for a logical solution.... I see the Power Conferences dictating this. I would bet many of the lower tiered bowls would beg to have a better lineup in place than many of the teams that they are contractually obligated to field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 I agree, but not at the expense of knocking programs out of a conference because of a bad season. Maybe over a 5 year span or something would work better.... Vanderbilt has been a part of the SEC for 80 years, and they have never won an SEC Championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Only having 4 team playoff would be as much of a fiasco as the BCS bowl selections. There needs to be at least a 16 team playoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 7, 2012 Author Share Posted April 7, 2012 Only having 4 team playoff would be as much of a fiasco as the BCS bowl selections. There needs to be at least a 16 team playoff. How could 4 teams not be an improvement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WETSU Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 How could 4 teams not be an improvement? Because that 5th team has just as big of case as the 3rd team does now... In the end the solution is simple most years. You want to get in the national championship, win all your games. I understand how teams could be mad if they go 12-0 and then there more than 2 undefeated teams so they miss out, but I have no sympathy for teams that lose a game and complain about another team being in instead of them. You want a shot, win all your games. If we start getting too deep into this playoff system like having 16 teams, we will start getting some 2 loss teams in it. What I don't like is that if that happens your taking everything that is good about college football and changing it. We all grew up watching the bowl games. We all love the college game because every Saturday is a must win. There isn't any of this 9-7 teams winning a trophy business. You better be good from week 1 until week 14. That live or die mentality is what makes the college game much better than the nfl IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Keep the Bowls. Just have 8 teams qualify for the NC out of 114, about 70 if you only include the major conferences and ND BYU. I don't think that format is watered down. Play the bowls and then let the real games begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WETSU Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Keep the Bowls. Just have 8 teams qualify for the NC out of 114, about 70 if you only include the major conferences and ND BYU. I don't think that format is watered down. Play the bowls and then let the real games begin. Here is my thing, why not just do away with the mid majors. Let them play each other and create a new division with just the big time programs. That's 70 teams for 1 title. The problem is, it still doesn't help the playoff problem. The 9th team will still have a case. The only logical solution of we have to have a playoff is to create the super conferences and take the top 2 from each. And if we are going to do that then no OOC. It's watered down easy wins. 12 conference games. Now all that sounds like the best way to "crown a champion" to me, but I dont think its worth it. We are talking about completely altering what we all love about college sports. Tradition, rivalries, pageantry.... That will all change with a playoff. I for one am not a fan of altering something that's been done for nearly 100 years just because every 2-3 years a team gets mad because they feel they were more deserving than another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Keep the Bowls. Just have 8 teams qualify for the NC out of 114, about 70 if you only include the major conferences and ND BYU. I don't think that format is watered down. Play the bowls and then let the real games begin. This. The top 8 teams is a large enough sample to ensure the best team gets a shot at the title. To team number 9.....try harder next year. 16 or more would take too long. All of the current bowls could be maintained as is. Every team would still have bowls to shoot for. The problem with the Big 10 and PAC getting on board with this is they are afraid of losing their monopoly on the Rose Bowl....that is all they seem to care about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 7, 2012 Author Share Posted April 7, 2012 Because that 5th team has just as big of case as the 3rd team does now... You're giving that 3rd and 4th team a chance now, that is an improvement from leaving them out. As for No. 5, if you haven't proven you belong in the elite four by the end of the season, better luck next year. The thing I have with playoffs was apparent in the NCAA tourney. Duke, for example, beats Lehigh and Mizzou beats Norfolk State 9 times out of 10, yet their season is ruined by one game. Upsets are fun, sure, but be realistic. There isn't always going to be a Kentucky or Baylor that enters the tournament, clearly the best in the country, and avoids upsets all the way to the title. No one thinks for a second Norfolk State was better than Mizzou, this is proven in the final polls. So all that game did was take away one of the most talented teams in the country from the tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleDogDare Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 You're giving that 3rd and 4th team a chance now, that is an improvement from leaving them out. As for No. 5, if you haven't proven you belong in the elite four by the end of the season, better luck next year. The thing I have with playoffs was apparent in the NCAA tourney. Duke, for example, beats Lehigh and Mizzou beats Norfolk State 9 times out of 10, yet their season is ruined by one game. Upsets are fun, sure, but be realistic. There isn't always going to be a Kentucky or Baylor that enters the tournament, clearly the best in the country, and avoids upsets all the way to the title. No one thinks for a second Norfolk State was better than Mizzou, this is proven in the final polls. So all that game did was take away one of the most talented teams in the country from the tournament. In football, Oklahoma State, Stanford, Boise State and Houston all suffered single ruinous losses as well. It's nearly impossible to structure the regular or post-season of any sport in such a way that a given loss is not potentially devastating. I agree that 4 teams is a step in the right direction; probably should be more. Many leagues (NFL, NBA, NHL, some HS districts) qualify approximately 50% of teams for the post-season. This is overkill in my opinion and cheapens the regular season. In D1 football on the other hand, the regular season counts for everything as only 2 teams qualify for the post-season. From a statistical/mathematical perspective, I don't think 12 games each x 120 teams is a large enough sample to eliminate all but two teams - especially when schedules cannot possibly be balanced. For most sports leagues, somewhere between 1.7% (D1 football) and 50% of teams making the playoffs is the right answer. The exact number would depend on size of the league, length of season, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Here is my thing, why not just do away with the mid majors. Let them play each other and create a new division with just the big time programs. That's 70 teams for 1 title. The problem is, it still doesn't help the playoff problem. The 9th team will still have a case. The only logical solution of we have to have a playoff is to create the super conferences and take the top 2 from each. And if we are going to do that then no OOC. It's watered down easy wins. 12 conference games. Now all that sounds like the best way to "crown a champion" to me, but I dont think its worth it. We are talking about completely altering what we all love about college sports. Tradition, rivalries, pageantry.... That will all change with a playoff. I for one am not a fan of altering something that's been done for nearly 100 years just because every 2-3 years a team gets mad because they feel they were more deserving than another. No they won't. It won't be any different than March Madness when it was 64 teams. Sure it ### if you're a fan of team 65 or 9 in this case, but that's the way it is. A four team format would have allowed OSU and Stanford or Oregon into the mix last year. That's a good thing, eight teams is even better without diluting the process. The interest would be higher than what you get with the bowl system as is. How many people on this board watched the Pinstripe Bowl last year? Or the Meineke Car Care Bowl? A playoff system in college football would be a ratings bonanza for TV or cable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 7, 2012 Author Share Posted April 7, 2012 Agreed. I'm fine with non AQs being in BCS games, but if it's them or a team with the same record from a BCS conference, it's a no brainer, especially the Big 12 champ. Bama, LSU, OSU and Stanford would have been a great plus 1 final four. At the end of the day, coaches and players from schools that matter don't want a playoff. The only teams that want playoffs are the little guys who just want a shot at the giants to gain a little national attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 At the end of the day, coaches and players from schools that matter don't want a playoff. This is correct, except that it's coaches and AD's. I doubt what the players want has any bearing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted April 7, 2012 Author Share Posted April 7, 2012 This is correct, except that it's coaches and AD's. I doubt what the players want has any bearing at all. I was just saying. They enjoy their vacations and goody bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 I was just saying. They enjoy their vacations and goody bags. Oh yeah, I gotcha I'm agreeing totally. This very simple yet important concept seems to elude most college football fans. Not picking on Stoops, but I heard him say(several years ago) in an interview that he was NOT in favor of a playoff system. I think he was being quite honest, and of course the BCS system has worked out very well for OU....especially up to that point in time. I think most coaches feel the same way that Stoops does and I appreciated his candor on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now