Blog Entry

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

Posted on: December 7, 2011 6:47 pm
Edited on: December 7, 2011 6:58 pm
NEW YORK - On Monday, the Big 12's athletic directors took a straw poll and were in favor of a plus-one format, allowing the top four teams to play for a national title, reported.

On Wednesday, Stanford athletic director Bob Bowlsby went a step further, calling the plus-one model "inevitable" when the new BCS cycle begins in 2014.

"I happen to agree with my conference colleagues about the plus-one game," Bowlsby said Wednesday at the IMG Forum at the Marriott Marquis. "I think it's inevitable at this point."

While a panel of athletic directors mostly opposed a large playoff, similar to the one held at the FCS level, Washington athletic director Scott Woodward said he's in favor of the plus-one format and went as far to say he thinks it will eventually happen.

NCAA President Mark Emmert also said he is "confident some change (will happen) in the BCS format" in 2014, when the new cycle is implemented. He would not, however, give specifics and would not comment if he was in a favor of the "plus-one" model.

Category: NCAAF

Since: Aug 16, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:45 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

I completely agree, the Big East does suck and West Virginia is a joke.  They could add a top 12 clause or something.  Regardless of how they determine the teams, I think the format can work.

Since: Apr 20, 2009
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:44 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

msanders, i completely agree.  Even if they do a playoff system they will manipulate the polls to keep control of who plays.

Since: Apr 20, 2009
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:43 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

Sign the petition for a college football playoff system.


Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:40 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

You could keep the conference championship stuff if you like, but add a requirement that the auto berths be teams that win their conference AND finish in the top 12 of the ranking system.  However, I'll say again, unless the plan includes revamping the polling system, all we are really doing is wrapping the BCS in a different color wrapping paper.  The insides will still be the same.

Since: Apr 20, 2009
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:36 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

gamma, I like your model except that it continues to punish teams like Boise State and that is why we are getting these f'd up conferences.  Boise State, San Diego State, Houston, and SMU in the Big EAST!  Pathetic.  Forget the conference champion crap.  West VA has no right to take a spot from Boise State or Kansas State and we have situations like this every year.  I'm a Tarheel fan so of course I'm an ACC fan.  However, I know that there have been years that we didn't deserve to have a team in a top bowl.  If you don't earn your way to the big games/title with your performance then you shouldn't be there.  If you think that you should then you might as well be doing gymnastics where a judge decides who is the best (basically what Div 1 college football is right now).

Since: Aug 16, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:24 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

The solution is this:

keep the bowl system and change the BCS to the BCS Championship Brakcet, which is an 8 game playoff. (6 conference champs and 2 at-large) conference winners  The first round, the quarterfinals, is the week of Christmas, and the top 4 teams host a home game.  The semifinals will rotate each year between the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange and will be around January 1.  If Rose and Fiesta were semifinals one year, make either Fiesta or Sugar national title game the week later.  The remaing bowl that year that didn't get included in the BCS Championship Bracket will be the championship game the following year and will be the best non BCS bowl game that year. (9th and 10th ranked teams)

This system will add no more time, will only add 2 extra games for the teams that go to the finals and won't kill the "irrelavent but awesome" bowl system in place now.  People don't discuss how the current BCS bowl games are meaningless.  They're good entertainment for that day but add nothing to a school or program's legacy, put $$$. USC under Pete Carroll won't be remembered for the 3 Rose Bowls in a row, and rightfully so, they'll be remembered for winning a BCS Title (and buying Reggie Bush a house...but that's a subject for a different day).  Boise State beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl was the best game I ever saw, but at the end of the day it meant NOTHING.

This year would be LSU, Ok STate, Oregon, West Virginia, Clemson, Wisconsin,  and At-Large bids to Alabama and Stanford.  I know the argument can go on about Boise State or Kansas State instead of West Virginia because the Big East sucks, but whatever, I feel less sorry for the 9th team out than the 3rd team out (Ok State) that just raped Oklahoma on national televsion.  


Since: Sep 11, 2006
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:14 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:07 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

Unless there is a major overhaul of the polling process OR they do away with the polls completely (committee select the teams for the playoff) the end year "solution" will not be correct.  The foundation of this whole thing has to be changed.  Get rid of the coaches OR allow ALL coaches to vote.  Expose the computers and make everything 100% transparent.  Personally, I think the polls could work with some changes.

1.  Either don't put out an official poll until 4-5 weeks into the season (you know, after we have time to actually SEE what these teams are all about) OR assign a confidence level to each pool of the season, increasing the importance of each poll as we get more information.

2.  Make SOS and MOV a major part of the equation and unveil those numbers (especially SOS) at the end of the season.
3.  Make each poll about that week.  They rank the teams each week based on how they looked compared to EVERYONE ELSE that week.  No more of this "until X loses, they will be #1" crap.

Since: Oct 23, 2010
Posted on: December 8, 2011 9:44 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

So then they actually DIDN'T beat everyone by 20...

Since: Jan 19, 2007
Posted on: December 8, 2011 9:38 am

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

this is what most conf AD don't want , which is watered down regular season .
It would not water down the season. Every game contributes to your ranking, including the bowl games. Then there is a final championship determined among the top teams. +1 is much better than the current system.

As far as a playoff, I think we'll get ther if the +1 is successful. We should not have automatic bids for conferences. Shorten the season by 1 or 2 games. Take the top 8 ranked teams and have a 3 week playoff. This way, teams like Alabama (#2 ranked) would not be out of the tournament because they finished behind LSU in their division. Teams will still whine about not being ranked in the top 8, but if you are hovering in the 8-9 ranking, you have less of a gripe if you fall to 9 than teams who are ranked #3 now and don't have a chance to win the title.

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