Blog Entry

BCS headed toward plus-one, but still roadblocks

Posted on: January 13, 2012 5:15 pm
Edited on: January 13, 2012 5:19 pm
 
Posted by Bryan Fischer

INDIANAPOLIS -- The move toward a BCS plus-one has been gaining support following a commissioners meeting in New Orleans this week and was given a further shot in the arm with the support of NCAA president Mark Emmert on Thursday.

Still, roadblocks remain among the presidents controlling and ultimately the discussion about college football's postseason.

"I think that our position is we like the way the current system works," Oregon State president Ed Ray said. "The Rose Bowl is pretty damn special so we're pretty protective of that. I'm sure Larry (Scott) hasn't gone into considerations that there is an imperative to change. I understand the public feels that way but I don't. I think the most realistic change, if any, is the plus-one because the structure exists."

Representatives from the 11 BCS conferences met in New Orleans following the national title game to begin the process of re-working the system ahead of negotiations for a new contract that will start with the 2014 season. Although the general consensus amongst presidents and athletic directors at the annual NCAA convention is that there is likely a move to a plus-one with the new deal, there are plenty of skeptics of changing a system that, in their eyes, is working fine.

"I'm still not enamored with expanding the number of BCS games," said Nebraska channcellor Harvey Perlman. "I'm not in favor of a playoff, I have yet to hear a good reason why we would want one. I've spent a lot of time over the last several years as to why a playoff is bad. I'd like to hear one why it would be good and what it would accomplish. The only one I ever hear is that it would give us an undisputed national champion."

Arizona State president Michael Crow told CBSSports.com on Wednesday that he is supportive of an 8-team playoff run by the NCAA. While the position has not been formally proposed, it does appear to be on one extreme of the Spectrum where no two people are on the same page.

"I think (a playoff) would undermine the regular season or add games or undermine the bowls," Perlman said. "We don't need it. We have a regular season that is as much of a playoff as anything that could be constructed artificially. Why would you want it? Football isn't basketball."

"if there is a change, I think it will occur incrementally," Ray added. "The next incremental change would then be to make the plus-one structure to where you have two semifinals and a final. Beyond that I don't know but sometimes you get surprised."

There has been talk that the Cotton Bowl, thanks to Jerry Jones' money and the largess of Cowboys Stadium, would be in play as a fifth BCS bowl come 2014. Perlman doesn't believe that will be the case, with a more likely scenario of the BCS evolving into a #1 vs. #2 matchup and the rest of the bowls reverting back to conference tie-ins. That scenario is one that many think Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany would be supportive of.

"I don't think (Delany) is convinced yet," Perlman said of a plus-one. "We're all in conversations and I think we're going to have a teleconference soon. We'll have to see how it goes."

From the sounds of it, there could be a bumpy road to BCS change.

Comments

Since: Oct 20, 2011
Posted on: January 14, 2012 8:54 am
 

BCS headed toward plus-one, but still roadblocks

Hey Perlman, you want one good reason for changing the current bowl system? How about the fans are sick of the current one. Do colleges play football for the fans or are we just an afterthought? Get a life ya bum.



Since: Jan 13, 2012
Posted on: January 13, 2012 10:06 pm
 

BCS headed toward plus-one, but still roadblocks

I agree 100%.  It makes most sense for the bowls and the fans.  The only issue will  be how the #1 & #2 are selected after the bowls.  It must be by a method that is unbiased or we will continue to have schools "gaming" the system.



Since: Nov 19, 2006
Posted on: January 13, 2012 9:57 pm
 

BCS headed toward plus-one, but still roadblocks

I think that a "Plus One" will be installed, but not a 4 team playoff.  In order to do this, the BCS is going to have to create a 5th Bowl game.  Obviously the Cotton Bowl should be that game.  This bodes very well for the Fiesta Bowl, because with all of the Conference tie in's, the Big 12 would likely tie in with the Cotton Bowl, meaning that the Fiesta Bowl will get the first choice of teams not tied into games.  They can grab a one loss team that did not win, or even play in their Conference Championship, like both Alabama and Stanford did this season.  Remember that two BCS games this year were basically meaningless.  The Orange Bowl had two 3 loss teams, and the Sugar Bowl had two teams with 2 losses and neither team was a Conference Champion.



Since: Jan 13, 2012
Posted on: January 13, 2012 9:34 pm
 

BCS headed toward plus-one, but still roadblocks

Based on my analysis (see link above) of the 30 years of college football results prior to the BCS (1968-1997), I believe that an unseeded Bowl + One method of selecting the two top teams for the National Championship Game might really work.  The selection of the two teams would not be made until after the traditional bowl games had been played, using the current BCS Standings rankings, an “un-biased” selection committee (as is done for basketball), or some other procedure that the football-playing schools could agree upon.

Using the AP Poll as the unseeded B+1 selection method for each of the 30 years, I conclude:

1. The years of controversy, over who should play in the NCG, would have been relatively few (3).

2. It is much better to make the NCG selection after the bowl games because at least one of the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams, based on the end-of-season poll (as now done by the BCS) would have been different in most years (21).

3. A four-team playoff (seeded B+1), based on rankings taken after the regular season, could omit a “better” team because teams ranked from No. 5 to No. 7 in the end-of-season poll jumped to No. 1 or No. 2 in the final poll taken after the bowl games in several years (6).

4. Potential NCG teams could come from many different bowls, big and small, each year (with significant interest in those bowls) because 5 to 7 bowl games had at least one team ranked in the top 8 by the pre-final AP Poll in most years (22).

5. A possible downside to the unseeded B+1 would be the potential for rematch games from the regular season (6) or from a bowl game (4). A rematch of a regular season (or conference championship) game – such as LSU vs. Alabama this year, would probably be viewed as OK, whereas an NCG rematch of a bowl game, played a week apart, might not.  It would probably depend on how close the bowl game was.




Since: Sep 5, 2011
Posted on: January 13, 2012 7:50 pm
 

BCS headed toward plus-one, but still roadblocks

The current conference commissioners need to look at history.  As in NIT.

There was a time when the NIT tourney in New York was king.  And it did not see a need for change.  The NCAA started having a playoff tourney in regional locations.  If your team was in the NIT they could not be in the NCAA.  These days, the NCAA tourney is called MARCH MADNESS and the NIT is a very distant 2nd.

I would like to see a 16 team playoff like in the Football Championship Subdivision.  Which is not likely to happen.

I'm willing to settle for, and to support a 8 team playoff.  With the existing bowls bidding on hosting these playoff games.  And the 8 teams would be the highest 8 teams as ranked by computer.  The existing bowls would still host events - just not with the top 8 teams.
 

What is preventing a playoff are 2 major issues:
1 - conference tie-ins to existing bowls  (don't mess with our bowl money)
2 - 35 bowl games for 120 schools which are backed by local chamger of commerces


As long as fans are stupid enough to attend bowl games, like this year, where several teams were 6-6, the school administrators will see "no need to change" the current system.



whoandwhereami?
Since: Oct 18, 2009
Posted on: January 13, 2012 6:13 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com