Blog Entry

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Posted on: August 13, 2011 1:37 pm
 
There was at least a "discussion" of a plus-one college football playoff system by Pac-12 and Big Ten ADs, CBSSports.com has learned.

The Seattle Times reported that a "consensus" had been reached by the ADs after a straw vote, favoring a radical departure from the current BCS system. The report said the consensus was nonbinding and not a recommendation. Any such official move would have to come from the BCS presidents.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told the Chicago Tribune Saturday that his conference's ADs do not favor a plus-one system. He called the Times report "erroneous". However, CBSSports.com has determined that the subject was at least raised during a meeting last week. Even a discussion about the subject would suggest a possible sea change in college football's postseason.

It could be simply a matter of semantics as to what went on in the room last week during a meeting in Newport Beach, Calif. The Pac-10 (now 12) and Big Ten have been in lockstep supporting their exclusive arrangement with the century-old Rose Bowl.

The Times said the proposed format would include adding a fifth BCS bowl, most likely the Cotton. Four bowls would then rotate a four-team playoff system with two semifinal winners meeting in a championship game. According to the Times, the Rose would not host semifinal games but would remain in a five-year championship rotation.

The current championship rotation is four years. In the past, adding a fifth bowl was seen as an impediment because it would be harder to lure bowl sponsors to a championship that would take place once every five years.

BCS executive director Bill Hancock was not immediately available for comment.
Category: NCAAF
Comments

Since: Jan 30, 2008
Posted on: August 17, 2011 9:45 am
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

To those of you who may not have considered East Carolina University as a fit for their conference, you really should take a look at this message from Terry Holland (the head of our Athletic Dept). It really should open some eyes of those around the country as to what we do here at ECU

https://www.ecu.edu/undaunted/



Since: Oct 23, 2009
Posted on: August 16, 2011 12:39 pm
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

FIRST:  18 Team post season (the bottom four teams play for the 15th and 16th  teams)
Conference Champions get in (11) leaving 7 to be selected at-large.

SECOND: Texas should be forced to leave the Big 12, into independance and not be allow a post season game.

THIRD:  Big XII changes it name and sells its "Big XII name" to the current Big Ten for tens of millions of dollars.

FOUR: MWC: gets Respect, BYU TCU rejoin to make a major league (7 total: BigTwelve, Big East, ACC, SEC, Former BigXII MWC, and PAC 12)

FIVE: 4 mid-major conferences (MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, Conference USA) of which must have at lwast two divisions and a conference championship to be garanteed a spot.

SIX: Independants At-Large qualification.  Independents, [1] must play a minimum of 10 Major conference teams at least 5 away, [2] they must win 8 of those games. [3] Of those 8 victorys over major conference teams: 5 of those teams must finish their league with 6 in-conference wins [4] 2 Other victorys coming from different Conference Affiliated teams that finished top three in their league. [5] 1 victory can come from a major conference team that finished its conference with at least 2 wins.  If an Independat wins 9, 10, or more they increase there chances of being an At-Large Team, even if they qualify they most be selected by a commitee over other potential At-Large Teams.

SEVEN:  No conference could have more than 7 teams, in the post season tournament in a two year interval. example: SEC 2013: LSU, Florida, Auburn, Alabama SEC 2014: Auburn, Florida, Arkansas, SEC 2015 can have four teams again.

EIGHT:  not sure on how the rest goes, like home games, and rose bowl does seem cool with Big 10(12) verses PAC 12.  (Rose Bowl 2012 Nebraska vs. Colorado haha that would be weird!)




Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: August 16, 2011 8:07 am
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

AD’S of the PAC-12 and Big-10 talking of a playoff. The bowl games, make each conference too much money to scrap them. Everyone seem to think you would be able to install a playoff system that would be equal between the conferences.

The conferences are not like a division of league, but an entity in itself making it’s own decisions as to the type conference schedule and the conference playoff if there is one in their conference.

I am oppose to a playoff system. Leave the bowl games the way they are. Let the teams play and the winner of the bowl game declare themselves #1

We currently have an excellent  playoff system, they play on Sunday and crown the champion by playing in the Super Bowl

“ONE MAN’S OPINION”





Since: Aug 22, 2008
Posted on: August 15, 2011 6:44 pm
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Using traditonal bowl sites as playoff sites, NO!
-----Would destroy the value of the Bowl Games (huge money would be lost).  Impossible for traveling fans, games would have 20K in attendance

I don't know about that. The traditional bowl games as they are right now, mean nothing, yet (at least at the BCS bowl level) they seem to sell out. Why would it mean less interest, attendance and money if, for example, last seasons Rose Bowl had been a game between Oregon and TCU and the Sugar Bowl had been between Auburn and Stanford for the winners of each game to have the right to play one another in the Fiesta Bowl for the NCG?


Using the BCS to determine who get a home-field playoff game, YES!
-----Wouldn't waste traditional bowls, could be in addition to the bowl games (more money).  The teams in the playoffs could be assigned to one of the major bowls after they are eliminated.  That way, the major bowls can still function as usual, have well-deserving schools competing, make even more money, and it wwould create more meaningful football.

This wouldn't be a bad idea either. Perhaps (using last seasons BCS top 4) you could have had Auburn vs. Stanford at Auburn and Oregon vs. TCU at Oregon. Then have the BCS NCG in one of the existing bowl game venues (rotating among the BCS bowls as is curently done).



Since: Aug 22, 2006
Posted on: August 15, 2011 4:33 pm
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Playoffs, YES!

Using traditonal bowl sites as playoff sites, NO!
-----Would destroy the value of the Bowl Games (huge money would be lost).  Impossible for traveling fans, games would have 20K in attendance
Using the BCS to determine who get a home-field playoff game, YES!
-----Wouldn't waste traditional bowls, could be in addition to the bowl games (more money).  The teams in the playoffs could be assigned to one of the major bowls after they are eliminated.  That way, the major bowls can still function as usual, have well-deserving schools competing, make even more money, and it wwould create more meaningful football.



Since: Aug 22, 2008
Posted on: August 15, 2011 4:14 pm
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

To those asking why they can't have a playoff in college, its due to money.

I agree, but for different reasons than you give. It's not so much the money (although that is a huge part) it's about the power. All of the power in cfb is with the BCS and the BCS/AQ conferences. Just about any credible person who has looked at it says that a playoff would make more money than the current system. However, the way the money (and power) was distributed would change.

The theory is the current system acts like a playoff during the regular season in that any lost games can potentially ruin your year. It gets fans involved from the early OOC's through the end of the year

And this increases fan interest how? Once a team loses a game or two and their fans figure that they now have no shot at the NCG, that would tend to lessen interest. If there was a playoff and a team dropped a game (or possibly 2) early in the season, then fan interest would likely remain or possibly even increase as the team fought to make a playoff and therefore, still have a shot at an NCG. Instead, it's basically "Darn, we lost. I hope we can still get a decent bowl game". Why do you think that many professional sports keep adding to the numbers of playoff teams? Hint: It's not to make fans less interested?

If you had playoffs many fans wouldn't tune in until they began (which happened to college basketball) and would reduce the TV side of money by quite a bit (or so they worry about anyway).

I disagree. I think it's the number of games. In cfb you have, at most, 13 regular season games. In basketball, it's 25+ regular season games, some of which are against the same team twice. It doesn't feel like you are missing as much if you miss a regular season game here and there (especially since you may well get to see your team against that same team later in the year). In football, if you miss a game, it seems like you're missing more because, not only do you miss that game, but you may not see that team for another couple of seasons.

You also get rid of the bowls as none want to be only a tier on a rung of a deeper system which would drop a lot more cash out of the equation for everyone. At least the elites that is.

Why would you get rid of the bowls. You can keep the bowls for the teams who have a winning record, but don't make the playoffs. Also, since most playoff proposals include using the BCS bowls, how much more important do those bowls become? There were a couple of seasons where I felt that USC was basically screwed out of an NCG appearance. The BCS bowls that we played in did not feel as "special" because I felt that we weren't in the bowl game that we belonged in. How much more important would those games have been if they had been a playoff game?


Even if you add a playoff you don't have a draft which leaves schools that traditionally get the good kids are still going to have them. You end up with the same schools as today in those finals, but making less money. What did you achieve?

Not necessarily. Suppose TCU or Boise were able to get into an NCG. What might that do to their recruiting? If Boise completes an NCG run a couple of years ago or TCU had done it last year, don't you think they'd get more interest from top recruits? Instead of going ino a kids living room and talking about being BCS busters, they can talk about that NCG they just played in and/or won.

And since even the BCS president agrees that a playoff would generate more money, even if you ended up with the same schools, they would not be making less money.



Since: Aug 22, 2008
Posted on: August 15, 2011 3:52 pm
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

 
A playoff like people are crying for would actually just be a tournament with subjective seeding.

Every playoff, in any sport at any level is a tournament with subjective seeding. So what? The point of a playoff is not to determine the best team, it is to determine a champion. It is just a better way to determine a champion. Currently, we get a vote and then the 2 teams that get the most votes, actually get to play a game.

What is wrong with taking the top 4 teams and having a playoff? Seems more legit than what we currently have. Look at some of what we may have missed in the NFL, if the Super Bowl participants were determined the same way that the college NCG participants were decided. We may have missed the Giants shocking an unbeaten Patriots team, we may have missed the Saints getting their first Super Bowl and how many Super Bowls might the Chargers have played in over the last several years if we just voted in the participants? I can think of at least 2 or 3 seasons when they were considered a favorite when the playoffs started.



Since: Sep 25, 2006
Posted on: August 14, 2011 9:23 pm
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

To those asking why they can't have a playoff in college, its due to money. The theory is the current system acts like a playoff during the regular season in that any lost games can potentially ruin your year. It gets fans involved from the early OOC's through the end of the year. Then comes the Bowls and their buckets of cash. 

If you had playoffs many fans wouldn't tune in until they began (which happened to college basketball) and would reduce the TV side of money by quite a bit (or so they worry about anyway). You also get rid of the bowls as none want to be only a tier on a rung of a deeper system which would drop a lot more cash out of the equation for everyone. At least the elites that is.

Even if you add a playoff you don't have a draft which leaves schools that traditionally get the good kids are still going to have them. You end up with the same schools as today in those finals, but making less money. What did you achieve?

Just saying, money drives this system and because of it there is no change coming any time soon. That's reality.  




Since: Sep 25, 2006
Posted on: August 14, 2011 8:03 pm
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Just add the 5th bcs bowl, throw the garbage teams like boise into it, and resume what we currently have.



Since: Jan 5, 2007
Posted on: August 14, 2011 7:52 pm
 

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

, this is a brilliant plan. I like the idea of regional conferences; it makes sense logistically and keeps rivalries in tact. I think this solutions satisfies the money issues and keeps the conferences.
 


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