AJC > Sports > Blog > Archives > 2008 > May > 08 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USShould BCS now consider a true “Plus-One?”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
The BCS commissioners told us last week that they are not ready to support a four-team playoff and that the current two-team format will be with us for the next six years.
But what if there was a baby step that we could take between what we have now and the four-team playoff? Just consider this:
There were rumblings last week that while four of the commissioners were flatly against a four-team playoff, a couple of them might be willing to consider a true “Plus-One” format to decide the national championship.
In the true “Plus-One,” we would go back to the old days when conference champions played in their traditional bowls: ACC (Orange), SEC (Sugar), Big 12 (Fiesta), Big Ten and Pac-10 (Rose). After those games are played, THEN the BCS formula picks two teams to play for the national championship.
This is not a new idea. Vince Dooley proposed it at least 15 years ago.
So if we can’t have a four-team playoff right now, then tell me why this wouldn’t work in the short term. Here are the rules:
After the conference champions are in place, the bowls then get to pick their second team in a pre-determined order, just like they do now. Last season the order was Orange, Fiesta, Sugar. The Rose is not in the rotation because both sides are filled.
The five Coalition conferences (Conference USA, WAC, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt) have the same access as they do right now. If one of their teams finishes in the top 12, they are in. Notre Dame keeps its access rule (top eight finish).
Here are two new rules that I have added:
A fifth bowl, the Coalition Bowl, will be created. This bowl will be a part of the BCS with the same revenue sharing that currently exists. The bowl will not, however, be a part of the national championship game rotation. After the other four BCS bowls are filled, the Coalition Bowl may choose any two teams from the remaining pool of qualifiers for its game. This rule keeps the available spots for BCS bowls at 10.
This is important. In order to implement this plan, the rule limiting a conference to only two teams in the BCS will be waived. Bowls must be free to put together the best possible match-ups regardless of conference affiliation.
Based on the final BCS standings last December and the selection order these would have been the likely bowl match-ups:
ROSE BOWL: No. 1 Ohio State (11-1 Big Ten champ) vs. No. 7 Southern Cal (10-2, Pac-10 champ)
ORANGE BOWL: No. 3 Virginia Tech (11-2, ACC champ) vs. No. 5 Georgia (10-2, SEC at-large)
FIESTA BOWL: No. 4 Oklahoma (11-2, Big 12 champ) vs. No. 9 West Virginia (10-2, Big East champ)
SUGAR BOWL: No. 2 LSU (11-2, SEC champ) vs. No. 6 Missouri (11-2, Big 12 at-large)
COALITION BOWL: No. 8 Kansas (11-1, Big 12 at-large) vs. No. 10 Hawaii (12-0, WAC champ at-large)
After these five games are played, the BCS standings come out one more time and the top two teams would play for the national championship.
You can shoot a lot of holes in this idea but there are two things it would definitely do:
1) It makes every bowl relevant to the BCS championship where now only one of the five game matters to the vast majority of the viewing public. If LSU can play its way from No. 7 to No. 2 on Dec. 1, why can’t Georgia play its way from No. 5 into the BCS championship game? Every game could potentially be sending its winner to the big game. Ratings for all the games would go up.
2) Because teams get to play in their traditional bowls, this system provides better match-ups across the board, which is something that was certainly lacking last season. It also all but guarantees a sellout for the games.
This process essentially adds a week to the regular season, which has been used as an argument against it. Given the quality of college football’s regular season, I would say that it is an argument FOR it.
It’s not perfect. Sooner or later No. 1 is going to end up playing No. 2 in a bowl. But the percentages are overwhelmingly against it. In the 57 years between 1936 and 1992 before the first version of the BCS, No. 1 played No. 2 in a bowl only eight times.
It’s not a four-team playoff but wouldn’t it have more drama than what we have now?
I’m not advocating for this position but I am asking: Would it be better than what we have now?
Tell me why this wouldn’t work.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By PTC DAWG
May 8, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this
The BCS is JOKE!
Anything determined by vote, is by definition, Ice Skating..
By baloney
May 8, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
Ice skating is for queers and w*******.
By Gust Askounis
May 8, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Tony, i thought you might like this:
The SEC as the Middle East:
By Roswell Ed
May 8, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
I don’t know Tony.
It still sounds like a popularity contest.
What if the #1 and #2 team all season long only wins by touchdowns and 3 n 4 win in complete blow outs.
It’s still a beauty padgent.
By newsflash
May 8, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this
please stop with the effen BCS articles. come up with something new/original to write and stop rehashing the same topic ad naseum. how ar eyou paid to do this ?
By MtP Dawg
May 8, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
Love it.
Preserves the regular season and bowl tradition but gives an extra step to prove the merit of the national champ while providing interesting match ups in the BCS bowls.
Where do I sign?
By CrystalRouge
May 8, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
Les Miles…a retard??…34-6 in 3 years at LSU…2 SEC East Championships…1 SEC Championship…1 BCS National Championship….I would like to see what genius Coaches in the SEC who can match Les’s record???
By Obama Boy
May 8, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
We need CHANGE! We need to CHANGE the way we play football. We need to CHANGE the rules in the game of football. We need to CHANGE the uniforms. We need to CHANGE our football stadiums. We need to CHANGE the teams schedule. We need to CHANGE the Bowls. We need to CHANGE on how to tailgate. We need to CHANGE “The Worlds Largest Cocktail Party”. We need to CHANGE the Soldier Boy Dance. We need to CHANGE student athletes. We need to CHANGE the BCS. Lawdy mercy we need to CHANGE Everthang!
By Glenn
May 8, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this
Gust Askounis-
That is classic!
By Fisher
May 8, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this
what would this accomplish? it wouldnt clear up any confusion for future matchups, and would just add more controversy and confusion to the process. Say this was in place last year using all the same bowl match ups (including the NCG, which i realize isnt exactly how the system would work). then you have UGA winning in a blowout against a crappy team, USC winning in a bigger blowout against a slightly less crappy team, LSU and WVA both winning big against good teams, and kansas winning a close one against a good team. now what?
your system doesnt make picking the two teams any easier, and guess what, even if it were in place UGA still wouldnt have made it to the championship game, as some combination of USC,LSU,or WVA most likely wouldve looked more impressive after the bowls. Stop trying to come up with systems that would retroactively somehow put uga in the 2008 championship game. No one outside this paper/athens thinks uga shouldve been there. again, if uga were in LSUs position last year and got jumped by a team that didnt win the conference, youd be screaming bloody murder. LSU was the right team to go. please please please please please let it go and stop acting like you had something taken from you.
By Festus
May 8, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this
Cristol Rooge…. ole Leslie Myles must be a myricle werker if he hais won two SEC East Titles. I thoughts he wers in the Waste Division. Yep hees a jeanous alrite!
By reservoirDAWG
May 8, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Gust, that was hilarious.
By Hunk Erdown
May 8, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
Gust
I like it except for one thing… South Carolina should be Turkey.
By jason
May 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Do you really need to feed the ego so much that you call yourself “Mr. College Football” and then toss up an article about a subject that’s been beaten to death more than Eight Belles?
By shane #1
May 8, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
Gust, I thought I was on the EDSBS site, what a hoot!
By Dave-SD
May 8, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Fisher is absolutely right. About the only thing a ‘true plus one’ does is gives the BCS conference champs and and a few at-large teams one more game against a presumably top-tier opponent.
It makes the situation worse when… 1 - A ‘traditional matchup’ is #1 vs. #2 (say, an Ohio State vs. USC Rose Bowl); no matter who wins, why should they have to play #3 a week later to confirm their title — or what if the writers and coaches agree the loser is still #2? 2 - There’s only one major undefeated team after the bowls (or only one one-loss team). We already know who #1 is in this case; why play another game? 3 - There are a lot of teams with the same best or second-best record going into the bowls (ala last year). We have no idea who #1 and/or #2 are in this case; who plays in the next game? 4 - BCS rules force a top-tier team out of the BCS, and they win a lesser bowl impressively (ala Missouri last year); do they get to be considered for the title game?
Moreover, a non-seeded plus one makes travel arrangements for the title game almost impossible unless you want to hold it two weeks after the bowls instead of one week after them, since nobody is going to be sure of even a 50/50 chance of getting to the title game.
By Dick Rod
May 8, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
What’s wrong? Despite the obvious mucking around with rankings - scenario above, OSU loses to USC, you have USC and the winners of the next three bowls at 11-2 or 12-2, and either 12-1 Kansas or 13-0 Hawaii; who do you pick, it’s no better than the current situation despite having an extra game - you also have the travel problem. Making plans to fill a championship game when the teams are unknown until 6 days ahead of time will fill you a bowl full of corporate hoo-has rather than true football fans. It works for the NCAAs cause they have more teams to pull from to fill seats in the early rounds, fewer seats to fill in each stadium, and three games to offer in three days on the weekend of the final. The NFL takes two weeks between the playoffs and the championship, allowing for a little better travel prep time. The NCAA can’t do that with a plus-one as it deviates too far from the current setup (going too far into the spring semester/quarter, and going up against the NFL if played on a weekend).
PS - what about 2004 - you wind up with: USC - Mich in the Rose Aub - Pitt/TX/Cal/UGA in the Sugar OU - Pitt/TX/Cal/UGA in the Fiesta VT - Pitt/TX/Cal/UGA in the Orange Utah - Pitt/TX/Cal/UGA in the Coalition (unless you really want to mess things up and bring in Boise St)
USC, Aub, OU all win out, who plays for the glass cojone?
By Big Orange in 08!!
May 8, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
What if USC goes undefeated, Wisconsin goes undefeated, Clemson goes undefeated, West Virginia goes undefeated, Oklahoma goes undefeated, You Name the SEC team that goes undefeated…
Is this what it would take to destroy the BCS and get the commissioners on board with something other than what we currently have? I’m not saying this type of playoff or that kind of playoff, but something different.
This is totally hypothetical, I know that the likelyhood of this happening is slim to none, so don’t rip me. I just wanted to see what anyone would think.
It would make it especially interesting if in that situation the PAC-10 and Big 10 were left out of the MNC. I wonder if their stance would change then.
By scott
May 8, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
Sorry Tony, this seems like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me. Lets say USC would beat Ohio St in your scenario, and UGA beats Va Tech. I would bet anything USC would move past UGA because they would get more respect for beating Ohio St then UGA would for beating Va Tech. So once again, its just the opinion of sportswriters determining the match up. CFB needs a playoff, anything else is a waste of time.
By AltamahaDawg
May 8, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
I think the positives to this format would be:
The bowls once again would be relavant. I’m puzzled to see how the current bowl committees love the idea of thier bowls meaning nothing now. Plus IF it has to be voting, why not have a system that maximizes the evaluation process?
Even if your team had a beef about a unfavorable bowl match up , AT least you would still have some control over your fate, by your performance in what would certianly be a game that had much more national attention than they do now.
By Wil Walton
May 8, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
These are all just a variation of what is already in place. Until some major changes take place, that’s all there can be, BCS 3.0, BCS 4.0, etc.
By addicted
May 8, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Since we are not getting anything different for the next few years, the least they can do is stop rewarding the Big 10 teams for setting up patsy schedules. If I see either Ohio St. or Mich. in one more NC game, I am gonna puke.
By Johnny Danger Dawg
May 8, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Tony, your system wouldn’t fix the 2004 season. USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn would play in 3 separate bowls. They would probably all remain undefeated, but only 2 of them would move on to the national title game. Auburn still gets hosed.
By dawgface
May 8, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
The very good benefits of a plus-one (traditional tie-ins & true relevance for each bowl) are also the same reasons NOT to do it, and in fact, scrap the whole BCS mess. You still have to rely on polling to determine the top two teams. Just chuck the whole thing, go back to the old bowl system, let the games be played and have the pollsters vote for #1 and stop perpetuating the inevitable subjective polling - just do it once and be done.
By Clifford Donaldson
May 8, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
By AltamahaDawg
May 8, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
scott, the point is that at least UGA did have some control in that situation. UGA would at least have had a way to get there. If USC had the same opportunity and did even no better, still got the votes, well, But what if UGA was much more impressive than USC. It’s an opportunity based on performance. And I think the country could accept the results much more so than now. I’d also think it gives the voters a chance to be more fair, without the pressure (such as XYZ having the right, even if several others were performing better at the time.) In this case the bowls have drawn the line. Regular season, previous head to head, conference totals have all been squared. This last vote is who it playing the best NOW. Obviously you would never remove all bias, but I think it would be closer to accurate voting.
What shot did UGA, Ok, KS, VT, USC have this year when it was OVER before the last matchups of the season were played.
By DrGroove
May 8, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this
Great idea,one that might actually get taken seriously by the powers that be.Another step I think should be implemented now is forcing all conferences to split & play a championship game.
By AltamahaDawg
May 8, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
dawgface, wouldnt the chances of of accuracy be doubled to “vote” for top 2 teams after the bowls, rather having to decide the top team. The country is never going to accept going back to a system of voting between two teams that didnt play to determine NC. Zero chance of that happening.
I think Tony’s point/question is framed within the reality of where we are today.
By Miles
May 8, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
Mr. Barnhart, email your suggestion to Mike Slive and John Swofford.
By Price
May 8, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
sounds like a good idea
By gt4ever
May 8, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
It amazes me that no one ever said a thing about the system until now when they feel there team has been left out. You mutts never said one dang thing and now all of a sudden everyone wants a change. Even with a new system there will always be problems.
By rick
May 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
I’ve heard about the plus one, but never really gave it much thought - I guess because I was thinking it was just adding a game to the existing BCS process, which was a ridiculous idea to me. But, Tony, the way you explain it, I really like this idea! I think it’s a great way to placate all parties involved. The snobby big 10 and pac 10 would (or should I say should) be happy because it preserves their precious Rose Bowl. All the other bowls would be happy because they don’t get watered down, and in fact, the other BCS bowls would benefit significantly because they would have matchups that would actually matter!! It also makes the regular season remain important (although I think that’s a ridiculous argument to begin with). Let’s do this. Make it happen, TB!!
By rlinaug
May 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
any step toward a playoff would be welcome and at least put major-college football on the slippery slope toward a real playoff. and if there’s ever a playoff, maybe the NCAA will drop that absurd “Football Bowl Subdivision” and just go back to calling it “Division 1A.”
By Nerd4Life
May 8, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
You’ve got to be kidding me gt(nerd)4life. UGA fans didn’t all of a sudden start complaining about the system this year. That fan base and the entire country has been upset with the format since it started. This ain’t the first year things have gone haywire and it won’t be the last. The BCS folks are loving all the discussion about the system because it generates interest in the sport. What other sport stirs up this much argument? The only way to fix things is to implement a playoff system and that won’t happen for at least another decade. Option 2 is to stop watching and force a change, and college football fans sure as heck ain’t gonna do that.
By gatormike
May 8, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this
I am a Gator, but I do like Vince Dooley’s idea. He is a very smart guy and a great coach. If the so called great teams took care of business on the field, they would not have to complain. My Gators blew it last year and they have only themselves to blame. They also need to cut all of the nonsense about a young defense. That is bull because they got torched. The facts are that the offense was great, but the defense did not support the team effort. This year will be different. The reality is that if a team wins all of its games, we do not need all of this nonsense. The biggest joke I have ever heard is UGA complaining that they did not get to play for the title last year. C’mon,they were not the SEC Champs and they lost to the gamechickens and Vols; therefore, they did not deserve it. What all of their politicing showed me is that the UGA President is goofy. At least Coach Richt is smart enough to stay out of that fracas. UGA is preseason #1 which is good for the SEC. I am curious to see how they handle it. I doubt if they will still be #1 on 02 November. My guess is that the USC Trojans will be scary good this year. That worries me more than the dawgs in the long run. Go Gators!
By JS
May 8, 2008 12:49 PM | Link to this
YES!
By JRL
May 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
We will never see a playoff - never. The powers to be realize what could happen - two SEC teams playing every year for the title. Suppose UGA and LSU meet in the SEC Championship next year - that would be the second game. They both advance to BCS Bowls and both win - then face each other for the NC - third game = bore.
By Cuz
May 8, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
Best idea yet to make the bowls relevant again and not consolation prizes.
And now for the lovely parting gifts, an invitation to the Rose bowl and a ride on a float in the annual Rose bowl parade. Thank you Monty Hall.
By MDawg
May 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Why didn’t they do this at the onset of the Bowl Coalition?!? Why haven’t they gone to this in response to all the plus one talk? It’s a good temporary solution which would be a good first step towards a playoff. At least all the games would be played before the championship game participants are determined. It’s looking like the Cotton bowl (when it starts playing in the new Cowboys Stadium) will eventually be added to the BCS, which would fill the spot of the Coalition Bowl that Tony mentioned. This would suffice & wet the fans appetite for a plus one in 2014 then with the success of that the growth on the playoffs using the bowls. If we can ever get to a plus one playoff scenario I think it’ll eventually grow into bigger playoff system. Which is problem part of the reason the school Presidents are fighting it so much. To me this is the most workable solution I’ve heard for the Bowl tradition & BCS mess.
By My name is Bill W.
May 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
Last!!!
By Screw the BCS
May 8, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
At least a 16-team playoff like Div 1-AA or nothing. People who argue the regular season would become irrelevamt or less relevant are ignorant. Teams would still be fighting for a top 16 finish all season long, so every game during the regular season, as well as conference championship games would be just as important as they are today with the BCS. The reality is that at least the top 16 teams in the country are as good as each other on any given Saturday, so they all deserve at least a chance to play for the national championship at the end of the season. Anyone who argues differently is saying that every other relevant sport in the country is WRONG and the only one that has it right is Div I-A college football. This is absolutely riduculous. This shouldn’t even be up for debate.
By Frankie Dee
May 8, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
If ESPN and other powers, including coaches want a playoff, they are going to HAVE to hit the naysayers where it hurts. Have the PAC-10 and Big-Televen left out of the NC picture. Be subtle but vote with the thought in mind that OSU doesn’t deserve another blowout at the end of the year. Stop putting these wannabes in the BCS and they’ll figure it out. Come one ESPN, put your media hype to work. Blackball the conferences that are too scared to get on board!
By tr
May 8, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
It makes perfect sense, which is why it will probably never happen!
By WestVaJoel
May 8, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this
You may have West Virginia seeded at #9 but at season’s end they were the fourth best team in the country. Buried #4 Oklahoma, and would have buried half the others on your list.
By Hoopie1
May 8, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this
BOYCOTT THE BCS GAMES
By dawgface
May 8, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
Altamaha, you make a great point that the chance of the pollsters actually picking the right #1 if they pick two teams to play is statistically doubled but it’s still highly subjective (#3 will always seem screwed). My point was to accept the subjective nature but only have to endure it once! Still, you’re doubtless right that in today’s climate, a total reversion to the old way isn’t realistic so I think a plus-one is as good as it can get. For the record, I don’t want a true playoff; I like that every single game in the regular season matters…a lot.
By Bravesfan79
May 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
By gt4ever It amazes me that no one ever said a thing about the system until now when they feel there team has been left out. You mutts never said one dang thing and now all of a sudden everyone wants a change. Even with a new system there will always be problems.
Where have you been man, people have been saying the BCS sucks for years, get with the program man! As a fellow GT fan i realize its really pretty pointless being a fan of any team not ranked in the top 10.
Look man, GT could have a dream season, win the ACC and dominate like VT did last year, and finish 3rd at best! You seriously think GT would get “voted” into the title game over traditional powers like USC, Ohio State, OU, Texas>?? Common man keep dreaming. Same goes for any ACC team not named FSU or Miami.
Time to get with the program gtforever….this isnt about any one season or program. Its about the worst postseason in the history of sports.
And dont give me “a playoff makes the regular season more meaningless” Well i guess Hawaii, Boise State, Auburn can argue that the regular season is pretty pointless currently. Any sport were a team can not loose a game, and still have no chance at a title….ISNT A REAL SPORT!
TONY you write all this and then at the end u state its not what your pushing for. Why not, what you waiting on? You obviously see somethings wrong with college football. Or maybe your just as stubborn as Terrance Moore and arent open to change.
By AltamahaDawg
May 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
agreed, but it does seem a shame to put such importance in the first game of the year then get to the bowls and those games are meaningless.
I bet this plan would produce far less legitamate #3 arguments, than what we have now. Now any number of teams can make claims. This way #3,4,5 had a chance to make thier claim (on a field)and just came up short. You are always going to have somebody who felt like there was bias, but by the time the NC game plays, #3 will be a faint localized gripe, and I think the country as a whole would have already filed that away, unlike now where there is still games left to cast even more doubt.
I just have a feeling if you had good matchup in the bowls, it would work out in the end. And you know what, even if several teams had valid claims after the bowls, at least they could be debated on equal footing. “we were #x, we beat #x by X number points.”
I also think the pollsters could be more apt to vote fairly leading up to the bowls, because they weren’t burdened with rematches, or regions, or conferences. The bowls reconcile all that.
Not perfect, but a lot better than now.
By Workinlkeadawg
May 8, 2008 6:05 PM | Link to this
Dr. Groove- I think your idea of all conferences splitting and playing a championship game would have to be implemented. This also applies the KISS principle.
By Matt
May 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this
This would have been the same result - a bunch of whiny UGA fans after USC passes them to play LSU in the NC game. Face facts, dude, you guys just weren’t good enough last year - you didn’t even win your division!
By AltamahaDawg
May 8, 2008 6:21 PM | Link to this
Well, its arguable that having a conference CG is an advantage as it give a team a chance to improve its stock VS a team in a conference not having one. Past 2 yrs the SEC has landed in the big game as a direct result of having a SECCG, (and wouldnt have had if the SEC champ was just based on records) so I say let those other conferences figure out what they want to do.
By chris
May 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Link to this
120 teams 10 12 team comferences Play everybody in the Comference 11 games + 1 Rival Then the Bowls could have meaning and decide a Champ. 2 Teams with the weakest record/schedual play for the bottom the best 8 Teams play for the chance at the National Championship.
By poopdawg
May 8, 2008 7:18 PM | Link to this
i agree with “screw the bcs .” Nothing less than a 16 team playoff. Cut the schedule to 10 games, such as don’t play georgia southern, western michigan games. They can still have there dam Rose bowl , i am pretty sure there will be a pac ten and big ten team not in the top 16 that can play there.
By poopdawg
May 8, 2008 7:19 PM | Link to this
i agree with “screw the bcs .” Nothing less than a 16 team playoff. Cut the schedule to 10 games, such as don’t play georgia southern, western michigan games. They can still have there dam Rose bowl , i am pretty sure there will be a pac ten and big ten team not in the top 16 that can play there.
By War Eagle
May 8, 2008 8:54 PM | Link to this
this is not feasible, its over for SIX years….BCS title game will be > Ohio State State vs UGA, LSU, Auburn, Tenn or Florida<.. Get use to it…
By jim
May 8, 2008 9:36 PM | Link to this
who is looking out for the student/athlete is all this. 40 years ago a football scholarship meant a 10 game season and if your team showed outstanding merit a bowl game. now its a 12 game season with a possible 13th game plus a bowl game and now calls for a 15th game.
a few years ago there was 8 bsc slots for 6 bsc conferences plus maybe nd and another non bcs team. now there are 10 slots.
here’s an idea. every bcs conference team/nd must play 10 bcs teams a season and no division 2 teams allowed and every non bcs team must play at least 2 bcs opponents a season. every bcs team must play 6 home and 6 away games.
implement those changes which are doable over the next several years and most conferences will be grateful they have an automatic conference bid to a bcs bowl game.
final point - if washington had beat hawaii (who only played one bcs team) last year the sugar bowl would have had a better matchup.
By doug
May 8, 2008 9:44 PM | Link to this
It would work great. A true 16 team playoff in college football would destroy the bowl system which has been with us for about 100 years. Your plan would restore traditional matchups and send a huge boost to ratings for the BCS games. I see no down side in the plan at all and I really can’t figure out why anyone would oppose this.
By bbtick
May 8, 2008 10:43 PM | Link to this
Tony…great post. I say let’s try it…it might not work, but we need to find that out. What we have now is not working, so let’s try something new. Since Daddy will not let us have a Final Four, let’s just keep tinkering with the BCmeS until we have something that at least points in the direction of a playoff. You are correct, more folks would watch and it would add meaning to the word “Series” in the BCS. One modification, let’s call the Coaliation Bowl what it would actually be…the Cotton Bowl. This much I can guarantee - if this idea were to be implemented and the Cotton Bowl did not become the 5th BCS Bowl, the state of Texas would secede from the Union.
By AltamahaDawg
May 8, 2008 11:19 PM | Link to this
jim, the other side of that was, 40 yrs ago, those football players didnt get near the academic help that they do today. Or the medical attention. Or the training. Or injury rehab. Scholarships were cheap and abundant, and I’m pretty sure many a player got used and discarded 40 yrs ago. I’d have to say as a whole they are treated far better today. There is certainly a lot more scrutiny of academics and player welfare now.
Not even to go into the potential benifits all this exposure has brought the current day player.
By Whopper Dawg
May 8, 2008 11:44 PM | Link to this
In the next couple of years, someone will sue the BCS and the BCS conferences for anti-trust. And win. That will break it up. Until then don’t hold your breath. Your theory is ok, but it is painfully obvious that it is simple to put in a playoff and they don’t want it because of the money they make now. Period. End of story. Sue’em.
By scribe
May 9, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
I think the SEC should pull out of the BCS-which is a blatantly unfair system
By ted
May 9, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
It would work fine and it would be an excellent precursor to a plus 4 using the same matchups.
By Spencer
May 9, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
This idea that the BCS is the only system that can preserve the importance of the regular season is based on faulty logic. True the BCS does do this, but so would a properly structured playoff system. The reason that the BCS makes the regular season so crucial is because of the limited number of slots available for teams to get in. They essentially have to win their conference or be a pretty damn good runner-up. The same could be said about an 8-team playoff with 6 auto bids to 6 conference champs. You would still have tremendous pressure to win every game cause one little slip and you could be out.
The other falsehood these BCS proponents preach is that it increases the level of fan interest because the stakes are so high right to the end. It’s like every week is a playoff game. Well, the problem is that for 90% of us fans out there, that means that likely our team has been eliminated from title contention by 8-9 weeks into the season and it’s usually down to 2-3 teams and their fans. Think of how many fans would be more engaged til the end if they truly thought their team still had a shot at the national title, via a playoff bracket..
I don’t by the BCS or any other version of it. To me it feels like they are trying to re-invent the wheel will corners on it. Take a lesson from common sense and lets settle this on the field.
By Dugout
May 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
Without a true playoff I like the idea of the “Plus 1” — but with this addition: force conferences that don’t have a conference championship game to have one. They should not be eligible for the BCS championship otherwise. This goes for Notre Dame, too (they can go 3-8 and still get votes for the Top 25!). Conferences that have conference championship games make you play one more quality opponent than teams from conferences that don’t. OK, maybe USC & Ohio State win those games in a cakewalk, but maybe they don’t and the picture clears up. At least they would be subject to the same pressure and risk of injury that schools who play the title games are. This would not exclude teams that finished second (or even third) in their conferences from the bowl + 1 and NC system because their conference had a title game. Whaddaya think?
By Dave-SD
May 14, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
Dugout, it’s completely illogical to force teams in conferences that play a true round robin (i.e. the Big East, Mountain West, Pac 10, Sun Belt, and WAC) to play a conference championship game. Except in the unlikely event that there’s a three-way (or more) tie, we know who won the conference at the end of the regular season (and divisional ties in the 12-team conferences produce more absurd results than 3+-way ties in the smaller conferences; only the Big Ten fails to play a round-robin and lacks a title game, and so can have a two-way tie that can’t be settled by head-to-head results). If you wanted to blow up the current conference structure and reset I-A, err, Division I Football Bowl Subdivision, to ten 12-team conferences, then that works.