BCS Commisioners now open to Plus-1?

[mccoyrj]

Conferernce commissioners open to making big BCS changes - ESPN

"They have a lot of cans to kick down the road," Hancock said. "This will not play well on Twitter."Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott said ideas were neither ranked nor ruled out.

"I think people realize there are flaws in the current system and people are ready to think creatively about ways to improve it," he said.

One of the ideas is a four-team playoff called a plus-one model that would create two national semifinals and a championship game played a week later. The idea was proposed in 2008 by Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive and supported by the Atlantic Coast Conference's John Swofford, but it was emphatically shot down by the leaders of the Big Ten, Pac-10, Big East, Big 12 and Notre Dame.

This time, there will be a serious discussion about the plus-one.

I wonder how serious they are? ESPN's Colin Cowherd has an interesting opinion on this. He seems to feel that all the "Plus-1" scenario will do is move the belly-achers down from #3 to #5. For instance, look at the BCS rankings at the end of the last three years:

2011: Stanford would go above Oregon, who destroyed Stanford during the season.

2010: 11-1 Stanford would've gone ahead of 11-1 Wisconsin and 11-1 Ohio State, both teams that had many more NFL prospects.

2009: #4 Cincinnati would've gone ahead of #5 Florida, who destroyed the Bearcats in the Sugar Bowl that year.

I think he's right. Plus-1 one will do nothing to lessen the amount of belly-aching there is today.

 

[Ronnie-]

There will always be complaining no matter how far you go. You can move it to five, or move it to 9-17. Someone will bitch and moan about being left out. Look at the NCAA basketball tourney for example. 60+ teams, and there is still "controversy" nearly every year that someone got left out and had to go to the NIT.

I think the plus one would, in most cases, include nearly anyone with a legitimate claim that they should be included in the championship game as it is.
As for the others, let them complain. If it is not them, it is someone else.

 

[mccoyrj]

There will always be complaining no matter how far you go. You can move it to five, or move it to 9-17. Someone will bitch and moan about being left out. Look at the NCAA basketball tourney for example. 60+ teams, and there is still "controversy" nearly every year that someone got left out and had to go to the NIT.

I think the plus one would, in most cases, include nearly anyone with a legitimate claim that they should be included in the championship game as it is.
As for the others, let them complain. If it is not them, it is someone else.

True, but I believe his point was that going from two teams to four is like doing nothing. There are almost always more than two teams that feel left out, and when there isn't, the current scenario is good enough.

 

[yaz96]

True, but I believe his point was that going from the current two teams to four is like doing nothing. There are almost always more than two teams that feel left out, and when there isn't, the current scenario will work.

I think this ^^ also.

They need to make major changes, like go to 8-16 team playoffs, or might as well leave it the same.

 

[Mets82]

Im not going to pretend that I know a lot about college football or the BCS but I do interesting thought. Its funny how now the conferences and the commissioners are talking about a plus 1 and how they will look into it, AFTER people complained about it. So, if Oklahoma St. played in the BCS Title game, as many people wanted them to be in, there would be no complaints and this plus 1 wouldnt be discussed.
My point is why do you wait until a controversary happens to get something done? There should have been a plan in place years ago, and if there was, all this talk about how LSU and Alabama should be co-champions and how Oklahoma St. should be in the game could have been avoided.

 

[Ronnie-]

True, but I believe his point was that going from two teams to four is like doing nothing. There are almost always more than two teams that feel left out, and when there isn't, the current scenario is good enough.

I get it, but dont necessarily agree.
Who would you have put in this year? LSU and BAMA, OK State and Stanford IMO.
Yes, Oregon beat stanford, but they also lost two games. That to me, with all others having one loss would eliminate them.
Boise? You pretty much know my feelings on them. An undefeated Boise would have an argument, a one loss Boise does not. Not against the other contenders.
Houston is in the same boat, although I dont even think they would be considered even as an undefeated.
Arkansas? Nope, they lost two.

Thats pretty much it. I wouldnt see the controversy with leaving a 2 loss Oregon out of a four team playoff, even though they beat Stanford. And I see no other true contenders.
A plus one, IMO only, would have been a perfect solution for this seasons controversy.

 

[mccoyrj]

...A plus one, IMO only, would have been a perfect solution for this seasons controversy.

This year yes, 2009, not so much. You had Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and TCU, finish in that order...with 1 loss Florida at 5. All a Plus-1 would've accomplished that year was unnecessary games...Bama playing TCU and Texas playing Cincy. Based on how Florida crushed Cincy and TCU losing to #6 Boise St., those games would've been terrible...with Florida belly-aching that they should've been in the playoff.

IMHO, if you change it really change it, or leave it as is is.

 

[Ronnie-]

It wouldnt be perfect for sure, but as I said before, all you are going to do with any type of system in regards to controversy is move the moaning on down the line.
At some point, far enough is far enough.
Most years, for me, 4 teams is far enough.

My big problem with a larger playoff as most have presented it is it takes your conference champions, and sprinkles in a couple of at large teams.
I think this opens the possibility for even more controversy, because as bad as some dont want to admit it, all conferences (and their champions) are not created equal.
Of course, who gets left out would depend on how many teams you included and how many at large spots there are, but I cant imagine the champ of say a Conference USA, or even recently ACC or Big East should be in by virtue of winning a much easier conference over say an Alabama of this year (or even Arkansas, or Stanford, or USC, ect.)

 

[mccoyrj]

That's why you would go with the top 8 (or whatever is decided) in the final rankings. Eliminates the weaker conference champions and stops the "you didn't win your conference" charges. Use the existing bowls for the playoffs, allowing for the bigger ones to swap every year for the semifinals. Then have an extra game for the NCAA championship.

 

[Hart5150]

This year yes, 2009, not so much. You had Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, and TCU, finish in that order...with 1 loss Florida at 5. All a Plus-1 would've accomplished that year was unnecessary games...Bama playing TCU and Texas playing Cincy. Based on how Florida crushed Cincy and TCU losing to #6 Boise St., those games would've been terrible...with Florida belly-aching that they should've been in the playoff.

IMHO, if you change it really change it, or leave it as is is.

Florida would really have no beef, they lost to Alabama in the SEC Championship game. So, yes I think they were the 2nd best team that year but they had their shot. OSU and Stanford never got their "shot" this year. The Problem with 2009 was TCU, Boise and Cincy were all undefeated.

 

[Ronnie-]

Florida would really have no beef, they lost to Alabama in the SEC Championship game. So, yes I think they were the 2nd best team that year but they had their shot. OSU and Stanford never got their "shot" this year. The Problem with 2009 was TCU, Boise and Cincy were all undefeated.

And had TCU, Boise, and Cincy lost, Florida would have been back in the discussion, much like Bama this season. Although slight difference, Florida lost at the very end, so that changes it somewhat for the comparison.

 

[yaz96]

So, maybe they should start scheduling the powder puff games at the end of the season instead of the beginning.....

 

[Ronnie-]

So, maybe they should start scheduling the powder puff games at the end of the season instead of the beginning.....

By end of the season I meant in the Conference Championship game versus at some point during the season.
That essentially was their playoff game with the others undefeated. It was a win and you are in situation for that season.

Another season and the situation is different.

 

[yaz96]

By end of the season I meant in the Conference Championship game versus at some point during the season.
That essentially was their playoff game with the others undefeated. It was a win and you are in situation for that season.

Another season and the situation is different.

I get it, but as severe the drop in the polls at the end of the season for a loss, it might be better to schedule for sure wins.

I guess I was going off on a tangent.

 

[Ronnie-]

I get it, but as severe the drop in the polls at the end of the season for a loss, it might be better to schedule for sure wins.

I guess I was going off on a tangent.

With conference schedules the way they are, that is not the easiest thing to do for most teams, in most years.
It does happen, Bama has had a cupcake (surprisingly this years turned into one of our tougher games) scheduled the past year in the latter half of the season.
Other teams have as well. But it is not like they can replace a tough conference game with an easy OOCG.

 

[yaz96]

With conference schedules the way they are, that is not the easiest thing to do for most teams, in most years.
It does happen, Bama has had a cupcake (surprisingly this years turned into one of our tougher games) scheduled the past year in the latter half of the season.
Other teams have as well. But it is not like they can replace a tough conference game with an easy OOCG.

Well, right now, most cupcake games are early in the season.

 

[Bodo Fenrirsson]

How about the winners from the ACC,Big Ten,Big 12,Big East,Independent,PAC 12,& SEC Championship games(7 teams) + one representative chosen from the best of the C-USA,MAC,Mountain West Conference,Sun Belt Conference,& WAC combined(1 team) & then have an 8 team championship series.

 

[yaz96]

How about the winners from the ACC,Big Ten,Big 12,Big East,Independent,PAC 12,& SEC Championship games(7 teams) + one representative chosen from the best of the C-USA,MAC,Mountain West Conference,Sun Belt Conference,& WAC combined(1 team) & then have an 8 team championship series.

You're going to give Notre Dame or BYU an automatic spot ?

ANd 5 conferences only get 1 spot? They'll love that.

 

[Ronnie-]

How about the winners from the ACC,Big Ten,Big 12,Big East,Independent,PAC 12,& SEC Championship games(7 teams) + one representative chosen from the best of the C-USA,MAC,Mountain West Conference,Sun Belt Conference,& WAC combined(1 team) & then have an 8 team championship series.

I dont like it because in the case of this season you would have the team that won the BCS Championship left out for teams such as Clemson, West Virginia, whoever you sent as an independent, and a rep from the lesser conferences. And it is not just Bama that is obviously better than some of the "champions" or the "wild card" team.

 

[Ronnie-]

You're going to give Notre Dame or BYU an automatic spot ?

ANd 5 conferences only get 1 spot? They'll love that.

Yeah, it would be good to be ND or BYU every year in that scenario. lol