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, 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, 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

Since: Aug 7, 2008
Posted on: August 13, 2011 10:45 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

It's about time! Everyone loves the playoffs. If that wasn't true then there would not be any wild cards in the NFL or MLB. 

Since: Jun 25, 2010
Posted on: August 13, 2011 10:21 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Playoffs are for second tier leagues who don't have any home attendance. First thing that would happen is loss of attendance as single games lose importance.

College Presidents are not in favor of playoffs so forget about it.

Since: Jan 13, 2007
Posted on: August 13, 2011 8:25 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Dodd once again is trying to stir up some bulls*** was just a little talk....thats

Since: Nov 9, 2008
Posted on: August 13, 2011 5:38 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Actually, my bachelors degree is from Ohio State, so I'm well aware of their situation. But, you have to remember that none of that happened until after the regular season. That scenario was "what would've happened had this system been in place last year". If it had been in place, Ohio State would've still qualified because their wrong-doing hadn't been uncovered in its entirety yet.

Since: Sep 30, 2008
Posted on: August 13, 2011 5:29 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

LOL. Ohio St???? You must have missed the news...........

Since: Jan 17, 2007
Posted on: August 13, 2011 5:16 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Benjimo, I agree with you that the BCS is horrible, but...there have been only a few unbeaten champions.  There have been several one-loss champions, and even a 2 loss champion (LSU).  Bad as it is, it's better than anything that preceded it, when the top teams were in different bowls because of conference tie-ins.  Be careful what you wish for.

Since: Nov 9, 2008
Posted on: August 13, 2011 5:16 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Sorry. Flip LSU and Boise State. So Ohio State vs. LSU and Stanford vs. Boise State.

Since: Nov 9, 2008
Posted on: August 13, 2011 5:14 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

I would do a 12-team playoff. Five automatic bids to BCS conferences (eliminating the bid for the Big East). Champions from non automatic-qualifying conferences can still get a bid using the method currently employed by the BCS, but I would allow up to 3 teams to qualify under those rules, instead of at most 1 (as it is now). I would also allow independent teams to qualify under this rule instead of having a separate rule for Notre Dame and no rule for other independents. The remaining spots would be filled using the BCS rankings.

The first round would consist of four non-BCS bowls (lets say the Capital One, Chick-fil-A, Cotton, and Holiday for this example, but there's certainly other suitable bowls). The second round would consist of the four BCS bowls. The semifinals and finals would be played at neutral sites.

The first round bowls would keep a tie-in with one conference (let's say Capital One=SEC, Chick-fil-A=ACC, Cotton=Big 12, and Holiday=Pac-10) and the BCS bowls would keep their tie-ins. If the champion of a bowl's conference tie-ins qualify for that bowl's round, that bowl would get that team automatically.

The top four conference champions (BCS or non-BCS) or independent teams would get byes to the second round. The rest would play in the first round. So, last year, the first round bowls might have looked like this (or some variation of this):

Capital One - Ohio State vs. Boise State
Chick-fil-A - Virginia Tech vs. Michigan State
Cotton - Oklahoma vs. Arkansas
Holiday - Stanford vs. LSU

Auburn, Oregon, TCU and Wisconsin would have received byes to the second round, with Auburn automatically placed in the Sugar and Wisconsin and Oregon automatically placed in the Rose.

Some other variation of this would also work (with different bowls, different conference automatic bids, or adjusted bowl affiliations to compensate for a major conference shift in the near future, if it happens), but I think the general format is pretty solid.

Since: Jun 25, 2009
Posted on: August 13, 2011 4:49 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

Just get rid of the bowl garbage and put in a 16-team playoff. Each conference gets one bid, and the rest can go to at-large bids. If you want to throw in a bid for Notre Dame if they do well, then that would be ok. And, if people still feel that they need these ridiculous bowls, invite non-playoff teams.

Since: Dec 2, 2007
Posted on: August 13, 2011 4:36 pm

Pac-12, Big Ten ADs discussed plus-one

I don't think it would be that hard to have a 3 week, 3 region, 8 team playoff...  We could replace the single national poll with 3 different regional polls...  A West, Midwest, and East...  And then 2 at large teams selected by the NCAA...  All you need to do is have the Top 2 teams of each region, plus the 7th and 8th teams, play the weekend around Xmas, then the Regional Champs would play a semifinal the weekend of most current bowls...  And the National Championship the following weekend, like it already is.  You end up with the "Top 8" playing the Championship tourney, and the regular Bowl Games taking everyone else... 

Teams would have an easier time climbing the polls if they were regional, instead of a single National poll, and if the voters were also regional (press/coaches) then they would be more likely to accurately place unexpectedly good teams in a higher position in the poll (instead of just ignoring them, if they're from the opposite coast).

By having two from each region you afford voters a chance to put non-BCS conference teams into the regional playoff game during exceptional years (or use the at large picks for the same).  Then teams like TCU, Boise, etc., finally get a chance to play their way into a championship.

Of course, like all the other ideas, the REAL problem is that the BCS Conference schools basically OWN the current system and have no incentive to allow outside teams the opportunity to play for big money.  So, we're screwed for the forseeable future if we want a playoff.

Seriously, who would say "NO" if the poll like the one in this story was worded:  "If it wouldn't take $6 million per school out of your conference's pockets, would you vote for a playoff system to have a real champion?"

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