Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
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, SI.com 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
Comments
ntarver0568
Since: Dec 12, 2006
Posted on: December 8, 2011 9:38 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Oct 15, 2011
Posted on: December 8, 2011 8:25 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

this is what most conf AD don't want , which is watered down regular season . The 66 teams in  college is bull . As is there conf tourney champ games . To many upsers , lets be like the NBA , let every team in start new in May



Since: Oct 26, 2006
Posted on: December 8, 2011 8:25 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

The whole concept of "best record" in the regular season and then a title game over 35 days after you last played is a joke.  Just get to a playoff and be done with it.  Just like every other major college sport, including Div II Football (or whatever they are calling it now).  The problem with a +1 could be the same as the current system.  Who's #4 vs #5.  What happens when numbers 4 is in dispute? 

At least with 16 teams (12 conference winners + 4 at large), everyone has a chance.  And a team like LSU would get a virtual first round bye if they had to play the C-USA champ or someone similar. 



Since: Jul 10, 2009
Posted on: December 8, 2011 8:23 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

"Plus-One" is a step in the right direction; but give this a thought when considering the possibility, no financial viability, of a true 8 or 16 team playoff in the BCS subdivision.  There could be enough bowl games spread over the four week holiday period from mid-Decermber until mid-January to support a 16-team playoff.  The only downside to using the current bowl system and giving exclusive rights to the BCS bowls for semi and final games is there will be fewer schools tasting the post-season money pie.  Of course, I'd rather see a top 10 team playing more than one game over the life of the playoffs than good ole' State U, at 6-6, playing alma mater, at 7-5.

Set up the playoff field of 8 or 16 to play over a four-five week period in 4-8 designated bowls.  Allow one week off before the final showdown to make room for all the revenue producing hype.  I'll plead ignorance on whether there are 8 BCS members at present.  If there isn't, there's still enough room at the cash trough to reach that number.  In any event, an 8-team playoff CAN be supported by the BCS actors on a rotation basis akin to the current "title" format.

I'm sure the NCAA and BCS moguls would have no trouble selling tickets and ad space as any one of 8 or 16 teams plays up to 3 extra games--the number that can be played by the old Division 1AA schools at present in the course of a title run.  I know I'd jump on the bandwagon of a playoff team if my favorite was not among those selected.

Of course, something also needs to be done to make the selection process more equitable.  There, I really have no answer--at present.



Since: Aug 24, 2007
Posted on: December 8, 2011 4:20 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

but I'm sick of the Alabama hate

Me too.  Try getting the majority of the rest of your fanbase, no, wait.  Try getting the SEC fanbase to start having some class, and then you might, just might, get some sympathy to you and your plight.  I could cite actual posts as to why ther might be some animosity tward your fanbase, but somehow, I really don't think that's really a necessity. 




Since: Sep 17, 2007
Posted on: December 8, 2011 1:57 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

Despite the fact that I wanted to see OSU get their shot at LSU, my head tells me that Alabama is definitely the better team and deserves to be in the Title Game. Bottom line, though, is we definitely need, at the very least, a plus-one system, if not a playoff.



Since: Oct 9, 2009
Posted on: December 8, 2011 1:06 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

Yeah but they still lost to a nonranked team. You can't base championships on "benefit of the doubt".




Since: Sep 11, 2006
Posted on: December 8, 2011 12:54 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

Saban, you certainly spell like an Alabama fan.  Go back to high school where you surely won't be the only 35 year old in there and actually pay attention and graduate this time. 



Since: Nov 22, 2007
Posted on: December 8, 2011 12:51 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

Oklahoma State got beat hours after a tragic accident took the lives of two of their schools own. To say they simply looked past ISU is to overlook the grief and chaos these kids had to deal with in that aftermath. 



Since: Dec 4, 2011
Posted on: December 8, 2011 12:42 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

"Does OSU have a much higher SOS? yes."
While osu's SOS is better, it's not comparing a non aq school to a BCS school. The SOS is no that different. So after saying that, it comes down to losses. Never has there been a participant in the BCS championship game that lost to a team without a winning record. OSU had their dreams in front of them. Win and go to New Orleans. Its that simple. You can nash teeth, and cry all you want. You had YOUR chance, and blew it. OSU looked ahead of iowas stae and got beat. Alabama needed help to get there, everybody knew it, osu, stanford, oklahoma, hell even oregon (because we all know that if it was oregon in a rematch, there wouldnt be NEAR the b**ching and moaning if that would have happened), had their shot. They all blew it. Case closed. Bring on the +1.


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