Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: BCS rejects playoff proposal

  1. #1
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761

    Post BCS rejects playoff proposal

    HOLLYWOOD, Fla. -- Saying the BCS was in an "unprecedented state of health," ACC commissioner John Swofford announced Wednesday that college football will not change the way it determines its national champion as it prepares to begin negotiations for future television contracts that will probably run through the 2014 season.


    "We will move forward in the next cycle with the current format," said Swofford, who serves as BCS chairman. "I believe the BCS has never been healthier in its first decade."

    The decision, made during a five-hour meeting of 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Kevin White at an ocean-front hotel here, wasn't unexpected. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said earlier this week that he remained opposed to the plus-one format, which would have seeded the top four teams in the final BCS standings and match them in two semifinal games and the winners playing in a national title game.

    SEC commissioner Mike Slive made the plus-one proposal Wednesday morning but said there was little support among the commissioners. In fact, Slive said only he and Swofford showed much desire in seriously pushing forward the proposal.

    "There isn't support among the commissioners at this point to move forward with this proposal as we move into the next cycle," Slive said. "There's no doubt in my mind that the discussions had value and it's important that we know exactly what we're going to do with the next cycle."

    Big 12 commissioner Dan Bebee said his league's member schools voted in March not to support any changes to college football's postseason.

    "There's a strong feeling in the Big 12 that what we have is working well," Bebee said. "There's great satisfaction with the regular season and the postseason."
    .

  2. #2
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,982
    Oh good god man, do I still have to say it?

  3. #3
    Imperial Impotentate brembo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    crawlspaces
    Posts
    18,725
    In before Sava
    Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
    I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.

  4. #4
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    its all about the money and the bowl games... regardless of them rejecting it, there is still a need for a playoff system.

    in after brembo

  5. #5
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,982
    Meh, some people enjoy the bowl games.

  6. #6
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF View Post
    Meh, some people enjoy the bowl games.
    I don't mind them but there is no reason why they can't do a playoff system then have a few bowl games if they want. Fox really ticked me off last season with how they showed all the final big bowl games..they clicked to commercials before some plays were finished and didn't get back in time when some plays or other things were going on that people would like to watch. It was insane vs how ESPN showed the earlier small bowl games. If it stays the way it is..I sure as hell hope ESPN gets all of them from here on out.

  7. #7
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    69,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Sava700 View Post
    I don't mind them but there is no reason why they can't do a playoff system then have a few bowl games if they want. Fox really ticked me off last season with how they showed all the final big bowl games..they clicked to commercials before some plays were finished and didn't get back in time when some plays or other things were going on that people would like to watch. It was insane vs how ESPN showed the earlier small bowl games. If it stays the way it is..I sure as hell hope ESPN gets all of them from here on out.
    Hey ESPN doing somethign right, nice!

    Whatever as long as they dont all go to the NFL channel and then the NFL gets its wish to be on the basic cable lineup.

  8. #8
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761
    With college football thriving, BCS officials have no need for 'plus-one'

    HOLLYWOOD, Fla. -- With its luxuriant, two-level pool and oceanfront view, the Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa serves as a tranquil escape from the realities of everyday life.

    It was here in a third-floor conference room Wednesday that the commissioners of the 11 Division I-A conferences, along with Notre Dame AD Kevin White, reached a conclusion that for many college football fans does not jibe with their reality: That the oft-criticized BCS is fine exactly the way it is.

    "The thing that came through loud and clear in our discussions," said ACC commissioner and current BCS coordinator John Swofford, "is that there's a lot of satisfaction with where we are."

    Wednesday morning, SEC commissioner Mike Slive -- with the support of Swofford -- proposed to his colleagues the first-ever specific plan for a so-called "plus-one" system in which the top four teams at the end of the regular season would be seeded and pitted against each other in a pair of bowl games.

    The calendar of games would have remained largely unchanged. A fifth non-championship bowl would have been added to the rotation to retain the current total of 10 BCS berths. The two-bids-per-conference maximum as well as the top-12 requirement for non-BCS teams would have remained in place.

    To use a Congressional analogy, the bill stalled before it could even go to a vote.

    "Of the original six BCS conferences, it's fair to say that John and I were the only ones that were anxious to bring the model to our conference [presidents and athletic directors] for discussion," said Slive. "It was my hope that all of the conferences would do that. That didn't come to pass."

    The end result of the commissioners' discussion -- that the current BCS format will remain in place through at least the 2014 bowl games (an additional four years beyond the two remaining on the current contract) -- was hardly a bombshell. We'd known for some time now that at least two leagues, the Big Ten and Pac-10, adamantly opposed the plus-one concept.

    What came as a surprise, however, was finding out Wednesday just how little support there was for the model among the other conferences as well.

    Unbeknownst to even those in the room, the Big 12's presidents had already decided last month they would oppose such a change. "Our league is just not favorable to a playoff system at all and viewed this as a first step in that direction," said Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe.

    The Big East held no formal vote, but its commissioner, Mike Tranghese, echoed the same sentiments. "The seeded model that's been discussed looked like a playoff to us, and we don't think a playoff is in the best interest of college football," he said.

    Interestingly, last season's extraordinarily chaotic finish -- one that many felt might push the BCS over the edge toward change -- may actually have had the opposite effect. As Tranghese noted, a "Final Four" of No. 1 Ohio State, No. 2 LSU, No. 3 Virginia Tech and No. 4 Oklahoma would have been no more satisfying than the current system to those who felt Georgia or USC were more deserving.

    "We would have exchanged one piece of controversy for the other," he said.

    To the large segment of the public that have long clamored for college football to adopt a full-scale playoff, Wednesday's news will presumably cause only more furor. ("The fans who sent me e-mails after last year's game will send me e-mails again this year," said Tranghese.)

    It's important to note, however, that the commissioners have never been empowered to even discuss a playoff. As has been long chronicled, the vast majority of university presidents across the country -- the higher-ups to whom the commissioners ultimately answer to -- adamantly oppose a so-called "NFL-style" playoff and have made that abundantly clear to their respective commissioners.

    Slive, however, had received authority from the SEC presidents to at least "explore" the possibility of a plus-one game. His league suffered the indignity in 2004 of seeing its undefeated champion, Auburn, get excluded from the BCS title game, thus prompting his interest in the concept.

    Despite the long-stated objections of at least two commissioners -- the Big Ten's Jim Delany and the Pac-10's Tom Hansen -- Slive and his staff spent months researching and working on the plan he laid out Wednesday. At a meeting with reporters afterward, he seemed visibly dejected to see it go down in flames. "There's a bit of a letdown," he acknowledged.

    In the same breath, however, Slive espoused much the same message as the other commissioners, one that much of the public has a hard time digesting but is indisputably true: That in its first decade, the BCS has been very, very good for college football.

    TV ratings are up. Attendance is up. The sport is arguably more popular than at any time in its history.

    Amidst that backdrop, you might see why the BCS honchos don't necessarily feel any sense of urgency to rock the boat. Both Fox Sports president Ed Goren and ABC/ESPN senior vice president for college sports programming Burke Magnus made appearances this week, and both expressed their overwhelming desire to win the next BCS contract, regardless of format. The executives for all four bowls expressed their satisfaction with the system as well.

    Meanwhile, the BCS has stabilized itself dramatically since its earlier, "Wild West" days. The formula used to compile the standings, which the commissioners found themselves altering on a near-annual basis at first, has remained unchanged the past four years. And while there is cause for "controversy" nearly every year, it's also been four years since the last perceived "injustice" (Auburn).

    "The reality is there's unanimity [among the commissioners] that we've made a lot of progress in the past decade," said Delany. "College football has probably grown more in the past decade than any other sport."

    Much of that popularity can be attributed to the drama of the sport's regular season, much of which has been enhanced by the creation of a unified national-title game (how quickly we forget that prior to 1998, No. 1 vs. 2 bowl games were hardly an annual occurrence). Protecting the sanctity of that regular season remains an overriding concern among the commissioners and was cited by several in expressing their reluctance to embrace the plus-one.

    "College football has the best regular season of any sport anywhere," said Slive, "and you have to be very careful about that when you're thinking about the postseason."

    But does anyone -- even the commissioners themselves -- truly believe that adding one more game would in any way devalue the regular season? Of course not. And while they might not express it officially, it's no secret that the heads of all but the Rose Bowl would embrace a plus-one because they know it would double the chance of their game carrying national-title implications.

    Comments made Wednesday by Tranghese, Beebe, Delany and Hansen all carried a similar theme, one that should send the clearest message yet to all those who think college football should conform to the masses. That is, they really, really do not want a playoff, so much so they won't dare even touch this seemingly simple, four-team edition.

    "I have no doubt that if we adopted this seeded one vs. four/two vs. three, as soon as team five and six got left out, they'd be screaming to expand to eight, then nine would get left out and we'd be headed for a [16-team] playoff. Philosophically, we just don't believe that's in our best interest," said Tranghese. "I know that's not what a lot of fans want to hear, but they're not responsible for crafting what it is we have in college football."

    What we have is a sport that, by almost any quantifiable measure, is thriving. When 90,000 people are showing up to watch a scrimmage in April, you know something must be going right.

    What we also have is a flawed postseason that continually frustrates and angers a large segment of the fan base -- that then happily show back up on fall Saturdays, either in the stands or on the couch with their clicker.

    Like it or not, it's going to stay that way through at least 2014.
    .

  9. #9
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    its no surprise that the Big10 and the Pac10 are against it... they have more equal teams thus they rank higher pre season for a early jump and if your a team lucky enough to go to the end (OSU) then why would you want to change anything...you wouldn't. I think a playoff system would justify all teams in all conferences and then give them all a fighting chance to be #1 and not cause someone in BumEgypt ranked them real low at the start of the year and they go undefeated- Boise for example.

    Its all about money...

  10. #10
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761
    The Big 10 has 11 teams Sava so I don't get your point about them having equal teams?

    Also what does that have to do with pre-season rankings? A team gets ranked higher based on previous year results, returning players and yes in some cases history. That said the Big 10 or Pac-10 hardly gets more favoritism because they have as you put it "equal teams". The only 2 teams that have consistently been dominant from those 2 conferences the last 6 years or so has been USC and Ohio State.

  11. #11
    Ohh Hell yeah.. Sava700's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    24,052
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    The Big 10 has 11 teams Sava so I don't get your point about them having equal teams?

    Also what does that have to do with pre-season rankings? A team gets ranked higher based on previous year results, returning players and yes in some cases history. That said the Big 10 or Pac-10 hardly gets more favoritism because they have as you put it "equal teams". The only 2 teams that have consistently been dominant from those 2 conferences the last 6 years or so has been USC and Ohio State.
    Its back to same argument that its not fair to those guys playing THIS YEAR...not those that are not their from last year. They shouldn't be giving any rankings till at least a few games in. The Big 10 and Pac-10 have even teams for the most part. You take the ACC for example that you can't possibly put BostonCollege to the same level as Duke....it just doesn't happen. You have teams like Boise that go undefeated and don't get any chance at the big bowl games or a shot at the national title which they may have had a good chance had there been a playoff.
    Many regular joes that watch the games and go to these schools all say a playoff system would be better...but those that are voting from these schools are obviously getting some sort of payment to keep their mouth shut and stick with the BCS..prob Fox paying them for all we know.

  12. #12
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    30,761
    I see what you are saying, but the system gives no more of an advantage to the Big 10 and Pac-10 then it does anyone else. Teams with a history of football success will always benefit from that. I agree it's not necessarily fair, but it is what it is.

    I do agree with the article. The system is better now then it was before 1998 when you didn't even get 1 and 2 all the time.

Similar Threads

  1. Yahoo! says no go to Microsoft buyout proposal
    By Comtrad in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-14-08, 10:46 AM
  2. Updated BCS Standings
    By Roody in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 11-26-07, 11:54 AM
  3. Odds of BCS contenders
    By Sava700 in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-16-07, 09:59 AM
  4. CFB already have a playoff system? (good read)
    By Gixxer in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-11-07, 07:38 AM
  5. A Look at a possible first BCS poll
    By Roody in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-10-07, 07:10 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •