Posted on 04/30/2008 6:17:08 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. - If only the Big Ten and Pac-10 weren't so stubbornly loyal to the Rose Bowl, the BCS would be on its way to a playoff.
That's the perception - though not the reality - and it's allowed the other conferences like the SEC to be safely noncommittal about the possibility of turning the Bowl Championship Series into a four-team major college football playoff.
"I think the characterization of the Big Ten and Pac-10 being at one place and everyone else being at the other place, I don't think it's accurate," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told reporters Tuesday during a break in the BCS meetings at a beachfront hotel.
"Just because somebody says they're open-minded and interested in looking at other models doesn't mean they're committed to it."
Clearly the Rose Bowl and its separate TV contract with ABC is a major hurdle for the BCS to clear if it wants to adopt the so-called plus-one format. Delany and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen have said they do not support it.
One magazine even dubbed the Rose Bowl alliance 'The Axis of Obstruction."
(Excerpt) Read more at onlineathens.com ...
ping
The only way the Big Ten is going to get stronger in a top-to-bottom sense is to start focusing outward on a playoff. I have to laugh at all the Big Ten propaganda that I read when I’m following the ‘progress’ of Penn State.
Jim Delany’s power plays are well-documented.
The BCS exists simply to protect the status quo.
An NCAA playoff would rival the Super Bowl for ratings and revenue; with multiple games/weekends it would be an even bigger bonanza.
However - it might expose the shortcomings of the Big 10 so Delany will oppose it forever.
I would agree a playoff would be cool, but only like 4 teams should be allowed. Otherwise, the season is going to get ridiculously long.
4 are eliminated the first week of December
2 are elminated the next week
Championship Baby!!! And, only 2 extra games for the championship. All done in December. Even a 16 team playoff could be done before January classes start up.
I have little sympathy for that argument, simply because I-AA (excuse me, Division I Football Championship Subdivision) teams play fifteen games if they go to the national championship game. Appalachian State has played FORTY-FIVE games the past three years winning back-to-back-to-back national championships.
I-AA uses a sixteen-team playoff, played at home sites, except for the final which is always in Chattanooga. And it works. I know we’ll never get the arrogant I-A coaches and ADs to agree to it, but a similar playoff format in major college football would be an amazing event.
}:-)4
See now this poses a problem.
Exactly....Not only Div 1-AA, but Div II and Div III also have 16 team playoffs...
Why, if it’s not too “strenuous” on these schools, is it too much for the so-called majors???
It is the almighty dollar and ego....they just can’t and wont admit it...
There is a parity in the lower divisions that does not exist in 1-A. Also, the season starts with teams ranked based on last year’s performance and the projection of where sports writers think they should be. Some teams, even get ranked too high because there was a movie made about the life of a human tackling dummy. This is how you can end up with an undefeated team not being in the play-offs because they are not from The Hall of Dynasties. You want real play-offs? Do away with the Conferences. That will never happen.
I completely agree. My alma mater is in I-AA, and it works just fine, with the best teams all vying for a shot at the title. I-AA, or FCS, is good football.
One reason that it will be difficult to convince the conferences to go with a playoff system is because the conferences get loads of money from the bowl game when a team from their conference is competing. That money is then split among all the conference members. BCS games gave each conference 14-17 million dollars. Even the small bowl games contribute at least $500,000.
If the bowl games become playoff games, then money is concentrated in just a few conferences. It's the unsuccessful schools from lesser conferences that would suffer. If someone figures out how to financially help those schools out in the process, then those schools would go along with the play-off system.
I know this system amounts to socialism. I am not commenting that it is right or wrong. I am only trying to point out why the conferences resist the playoff system.
By the way, I used to be an assistant college football coach and these were the things that we talked about in regards to playoffs.
They are the weak conferences of the majors. Let them play for the Rose while the rest of play for a real championship.
LOL
I think you are series here.
I am willing to bet that the Big Ten and Pac 10 have a better combined BCS winning record then the combined record of ACC, Big 12, Big East and SEC and at least as many appearances per league.
Leave the pansies.. ump rose boys out of the play-offs!
USC has had a ride for the ages in these last few years, one unmatched by any team from the "better" leagues, since the 50's. It is a shame that those who hate USC were not able to enjoy it.
A lot of USC’s fame may have been because they didn’t have a lot of teams to beat them up. Sort of like Ohio St. getting into the championship 2 years in a row, only USC is more talented.
They have won 70 games in six years, no one else has done that in recent times (Texas is close with 65) sure there are a few patsies on the schedule, everyone has them. Texas for example, every year they play Rice and Baylor then mix in a few games against Houston or North Texas and you have a three wins for the season guaranteed.
“Some teams, even get ranked too high because there was a movie made about the life of a human tackling dummy.”
Eh eh. I just watched that movie the other night. I wish Hollywood would make more movies about College football
“USC has had a ride for the ages in these last few years, one unmatched by any team from the “better” leagues, since the 50’s. It is a shame that those who hate USC were not able to enjoy it.”
Yeah, Pete only sent ten of his boys to the pros this year. What a chockester!!
Four on the first round, three on the second. I know only one other school had as many as three on the first round (not sure on the second) and several had two. Pretty amazing actually. I was surprised Booty went as low as he did, he may be a sleeper.
With that much of a loss of talent one would expect them to not do as well this season. Should be interesting!
I guess it is a done deal for this year. The elite snobs turned down even a plus one.
Because we can:
2007
USC 50
ARK 14
USC 28
NEB 10
-------
2006
USC 49
NEB 31
-------
2005
USC 70
ARK 17
USC 38
TEX 41
-------
2004
USC 24
VIRG. TECH 13
USC 49
Colo. St. 0
USC 55
OKLA. 19
-------
2003
USC 23
AUB. 0
-------
2002
USC 24
AUB 17
USC 40
Colo. 3
USC 20
KANS. ST 27
USC 38
IOWA 17
“With that much of a loss of talent one would expect them to not do as well this season.”
Pete lost 11 guys to the 2006 draft and still went 11-2 that season - and was a touchdown away from going to the NC game
shhhhh!
That's called a set up. Later, when another poster rags on the Pac 10 in general or USC specifically, I can say "Well I predicted that they would not fare well".
And when they win another Pac-10 title I can then say "No one expected this!"
;)
“That’s called a set up”
Very Clintonian of you
I trust you say that with the same intent that I had when I made it, that being tongue in cheek.
The BCS Championship Game has done a pretty good job of that for the past two years.
Yup - I couldn’t resist and hope you got a laugh
I did, thanks.
I have a BCS playoff idea that I have not seen anywhere else.
I called it the pick-your-poison BCS playoff system.
The advantage of this system is that it retains the current BCS bowl games, and needed only a plus-one national title game to determine the national chimps, regardless of whether it starts with 8 or 10 teams, or 100 teams...
After the final BCS ranking has been determined, i.e. after the conference title games, etc, half the teams in the BCS-qualified group would “pick their poison”.
To get into the national title game (i.e. only 2 teams allowed from the 4 winners of the current 4 BCS bowl games), you have to beat the top-2 highest final-BCS-ranked teams that lost, you own ranking and that of any winning team does NOT matter (this is called the whom-you-beaten rule).
Your own ranking only matters in that the highest ranked team get to pick first, followed by the next highest team which have not picked or been picked.
Hence #1 could pick #2, then #3 will get to pick next, whereas if #1 picked #4, then #2 will get to pick next, and so on.
This way, #1 team cannot complain that they won their bowl game and yet did not go to the title game because they were stucked with #8 team. #1 team now gets to decide whom they want to risk with.
To determine their own destiny, they (#1 team) would have to pick at least the #3 team, or they could increase their chance of winning the bowl game by going with #4, and hope both #2 AND #3 don’t get upset. If #2 picked #3 (after #1 picked #4), then #1 still go to the title game if they beat #4 in the bowl game.
Or they could chance it and pick #5, and which means they go to title game by beating #5 if no upset happen to any other team regardless of how the other teams pick their bowl opponent.
With this pick-your-poison BCS playoff system, the BCS bowl games could retain some of its importance, be completed on Jan 1st, and then have the title game on Jan 8th at a new site (different each year like the Superbowl).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.