Online Now 1209

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Online now 2176
Record: 10904 (2/4/2012)

Boards ▾

The Front Row

The place to discuss inside information, the latest rumors and scoop on the Buckeyes

Around the 'Shoe

Anything and everything football related that has to do with your Buckeyes

The Best Damn Recruiting Board

If it's football recruiting, OSU-style, it's cussed and discussed here

Bucknutin' But Net

Talk a little Buckeye basketball with your fellow Ohio State hoopsters

Reply

The coming BCS Plus One (article)

  • Andy_Staples Andy Staples
    Going to be option 1, but read this from a smart writer. RT @frankthetank111: 4 BCS plus-one options bit.ly/uwwfQv
    9 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

    Andy_Staples Andy Staples
    @
    @frankthetank111 Too many conferences already on board with seeded. Plus, that's what TV wants.
    9 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

    This post was edited by buckeye9595 3 years ago

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Change is Coming: Four BCS Plus-One Options Under Consideration
    Posted: December 8, 2011 in Big East, Big Ten, College Football, Sports
    Tags: BCS Bowls, BCS system, college football playoff, Jim Delany, plus-one system, seeded plus-one, unseeded plus-one 6

    With Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany effectively stating that BCS automatic qualifying status is going to disappear in 2014, there’s some even more important related news. A couple of weeks ago, one of my contacts told me that the FBS conference commissioners were evaluating a plan for the BCS to only run the national title game and then revert back to the old system for all other bowl games. That proposal has since been reported by CBS Sports to have originated from Delany. This same contact is now telling me that the implementation of a plus-one system to determine college football’s national champion is gaining traction in principle. The issue is that there are differing opinions as to what that plus-one system will look like. Here are four main options under consideration by the conference commissioners (with my own advantage/disadvantage observations):

    Option #1 – The Slive/Swofford Plan: Seeded Plus-One* – A seeded playoff between the top 4 teams using the BCS bowls and what most people think of when referring to a plus-one system.

    Advantages: Taking the top 4 teams is the cleanest way to have a plus-one on paper. It’s simple for any sports fan to understand. From a conference perspective, the SEC, ACC and now Big 12 support this. ESPN also wants a seeded format.
    Disadvantages: Jim Delany and the Big Ten are explicitly against this, with presumably the Rose Bowl and Pac-12 in the same boat. Those entities carry a disproportionate amount of power within college sports, so any proposal without their approval will be almost impossible to pass. The bowls that aren’t semifinal games (particularly the Rose Bowl) would be diluted and drop significantly in value.
    (* As a reminder, Mike Slive is the SEC commissioner and John Swofford is the ACC commissioner. They jointly presented this proposal in 2008 to the rest of the conference commissioners and were promptly shot down.)

    Option #2 – The Delany Plan: Old School Unseeded Plus-One – All bowls (including the current BCS bowls) revert to the pre-BCS system of choosing teams and tie-ins. The national title matchup would then be determined using the BCS rankings after the bowl games are played. The BCS itself would only exist to run the national championship game.

    Advantages: Keeps and even enhances traditional tie-ins such as the Big Ten/Pac-12 matchup in the Rose Bowl (as their respective champions, even if they are ranked in the top 2 or 4, would always go to Pasadena again). Despite public proclamations that he is against a plus-one system, Jim Delany and the Big Ten would likely agree to this plan (if only because they may see the writing on the wall that some type of plus-one is going to be passed).
    Disadvantages: Not as clean as a seeded plus-one. Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowls still want a BCS designation (or something concrete to distinguish them from other bowls) in exchange for the payouts that they’re pumping into the system.
    Option #3 – Four BCS Bowls Semi-seeded Plus-One Compromise – Each of the 4 BCS bowls would retain the conference champs from their traditional tie-ins (Rose has Big Ten and Pac-12, Sugar has SEC, Fiesta has Big 12 and Orange has ACC). The Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowls would then select at-larges in the order of the BCS ranking of their respective tie-in. (For example, since the Sugar Bowl has #1 LSU as its tie-in, it would get the first at-large selection.) As with Option #2, the national title matchup would then be determined using the BCS rankings after the bowl games are played.

    Advantages: Possible compromise solution as it meets the Slive/Swofford and Delany Plans in the middle. The tradition of the Rose Bowl is maintained, while the other BCS bowls are able to simultaneously retain their tie-ins and get rewarded if they have high-ranking teams in any given year.
    Disadvantages: As with Option #2, not as clean as a seeded plus-one. This would also move the BCS system back down to 8 bowl slots from the current 10. None of the power conferences really want that, particularly the SEC and Big Ten (who have benefited the most from the 2 additional BCS bowl bids). When Mike Slive and Jim Delany agree on something, what they say usually goes.
    Option #4 – Five BCS Bowls Semi-seeded Plus-One Compromise – Same starting principle as Option #3 with the 4 current BCS bowls would retain the conference champs from their traditional tie-ins. The Cotton Bowl or a newly created bowl (which I’ll explain later, but the Cotton will be referenced as a placeholder under this Option #4) would be added as a fifth BCS bowl. Note that the Cotton (if it becomes the 5th BCS bowl) would NOT take the Big 12 tie-in from the Fiesta, as many people speculated would be possible.

    If a top 4 team is not a member of league that has a tie-in with a BCS bowl (in the current world, the Big East and the 5 non-AQ conferences), such team would go to the Cotton Bowl. In the event that there are multiple top 4 teams that are outside of the “Big 5″ conferences, such as 2009 with #3 Cincinnati and #4 TCU, the higher ranked team would be placed in the Cotton. The bowls would then select at-large teams in the order of the ranking of the respective “base” team that is either tied-in or allocated to them.

    If there are no top 4 teams meeting that designation, then the highest ranked conference champion would get a Cotton bid provided that it is ranked in the top 12 and one of the other 4 legacy BCS bowls does not want to select that team. In that situation, the Cotton would pick last after the other 4 BCS bowls for its at-large team.

    Finally, if one of the 4 legacy BCS bowls chooses the non-Big 5 team or no non-Big 5 champion is ranked in the top 12, then the Cotton can select any two teams ranked in the top 14 after the other BCS bowls make their selections.

    As the with Options #2 and #3, the national title matchup would then be determined using the BCS rankings after the bowl games are played.

    Advantages: Like Option #3, it’s a compromise plan that meets the Slive/Swofford and Delany Plans in the middle while maintaining the traditional tie-ins. It also keeps the current number of 10 BCS bowl bids. The conferences outside of the Big 5 will still get access to top bowls if their champs are ranked highly enough. Least amount of change to the current BCS system in terms of the teams that would actually be selected for bids compared to the other options, which is a plus in a college football world that has always engaged in incremental change.
    Disadvantages: Like Options #2 and #3, this is not as clean as the seeded plus-one.
    Some other overarching points that would apply regardless of which option is chosen:

    (1) AQ status will likely “go away” but traditional tie-ins are preserved – There is a strong desire among the conference commissioners to eliminate the concept at AQ status, but there’s also a concurrent interest to preserve the traditional bowl tie-ins. As I’ve stated in other posts, this seems like a matter of semantics where what used to be “AQ status” is now converted to being called “traditional tie-ins”, except that there’s no longer an automatic bid for the Big East or a mechanism for other conferences to achieve AQ status. The non-AQ conferences apparently have more of an issue with the class distinction between AQ and non-AQ more than being provided with a chance to move up to AQ status. This is somewhat understandable since if the Mountain West couldn’t move up after the successes that now former members TCU and Utah have had in the BCS system, there’s likely little hope for any of the non-AQ conferences to move up after the further raids by the Big East. Speaking of which, preventing further raids by the Big East is likely another motivating factor for the MWC and Conference USA since the people in Providence would’t make moves simply for AQ numbers anymore (although I still believe that any Mount USA Alliance member would still jump to the Big East even without AQ status).

    (2) Two team per conference limit to BCS likely eliminated – The Big Ten and SEC are likely getting their way on this issue with the BCS bowls being allowed to take 3 or more teams from a conference in a given year. Why would any of the other conferences agree to this? Let’s get to the next point…

    (3) Somewhat more equitable revenue distribution- The current non-AQ conferences seem to be willing to possibly give up some access to the BCS bowls in exchange for (a) a better shot at the national title game via a plus-one system and (b) mo money mo money mo money. Now, to be sure, the current AQ conferences would retain the lion’s share of BCS bowl revenue. You might see the current 90% control of bowl revenue by the power conferences move down to 85% or 80%. However, that’s mitigated by the anticipated increase in revenue from a plus-one game. As with anything dealing with financial issues, this sounds simple in theory, yet how the revenue is distributed is probably going to be the toughest issue to agree upon out of anything in a new BCS system (much more so than whether there’s a plus-one system in the first place).As an example of what’s being floated out there, my contact presented a revenue distribution proposal that replaced the AQ/non-AQ designation with an Equity/Participating model. A set percentage of BCS revenue (approximately 70%) would be in an “Equity Pool”. Each conference with at least 3/4ths of its members that were original BCS members (all current AQ conferences except for the Big East) would be an “Equity Member” and receive one equal share of the Equity Pool. Notre Dame would also be a Equity Member and receive approximately 1/12.4ths of a share of the equity pool. (The average Equity Member has 12.4 members, so that’s how the Notre Dame share was calculated.) After that, 10% of the BCS revenue would be in a “Participating Pool”. The 6 non-Equity conferences would be “Participating Members”, where each of those leagues would receive one equal share of the Participating Pool. Independents Navy, Army and BYU would receive proportional shares similar to Notre Dame, but only out of this Participating Pool. The remaining 20% would then be in a “Selection Pool” that would be divided into 10 equal shares, with 1 share awarded for each BCS bowl bid earned by a conference.Note that this is just one revenue sharing proposal, but it seems that the current AQ conferences may be willing to bend a little on revenue sharing in exchange for a more traditional approach to BCS bowl access. Of course, even under this proposal (which is coming from a non-AQ conference contact), the Big 5 could still receive up to 90% of the BCS money if they receive all of the BCS bowl bids.

    (4) New BCS bowl might be created instead of elevating the Cotton Bowl (or a different bowl like the Capital One) – The Cotton Bowl gets mentioned a lot as a fifth BCS bowl option since there’s an assumption that Jerry Jones can buy whatever he wants, but let’s remember that the bowl still only gets the third or fourth selection from the SEC and is behind the Capital One Bowl (which has a stadium that’s a complete dump despite the holiday vacation-friendly Orlando location) in the pecking order. So, Jerry Jones actually has very little power in college sports matters. (Heck, he’s only been able to buy one NFL playoff win in 15 years.) On the flip side, the Big 12 and SEC don’t necessarily want to give up the Cotton Bowl as one of the most prestigious non-BCS bowls, as they’d have to find other tie-ins that may not pay as well. As a result, one possible solution is to avoid elevating an existing bowl altogether and have the BCS create an entirely new bowl that can be auctioned off to a new corporate sponsor and venue (or even have it rotate to multiple venues). So, this new BCS bowl might still be played in Jerry World but would be entirely separate from the Cotton Bowl.

    So, there’s a ton to chew on here. My personal feeling is that Option #4 is going to happen – an unseeded format is really the only way you’ll get the Big Ten on board (and they’re necessary to push this through). While a lot of people characterize me as a BCS defender, that’s definitely not the case (as evidenced by the multiple proposals that I’ve written about on how to change the system over the years). I simply recognize the financial and access parameters in place that are fairly intractable, so the best that we can realistically hope for is incremental change. (Note that even “Death to the BCS” author and 16-team playoff proponent Dan Wetzel, who I don’t always agree with, largely comes to the same conclusion in this very level-headed and practical discussion with Stewart Mandel about the BCS and plus-one options. It’s definitely worth listening to as it also features an appearance by the great @DanBeebe.) Option #4 balances such change with traditions such as the Rose Bowl, so that would be a great place to start.

    (Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Interesting and possible except ND must either be dropped or join a conference. No way they belong at the table based on recent history.

  • Please tell me Delaney really wouldn't opt the B1G out, right? I mean no freaking way. This has to be some scare tactic by him.

    signature image signature image signature image

    My your liqueur be cold, your women be hot, and all your problems slide off like snot.

  • surfscoter said... (original post)

    Interesting and possible except ND must either be dropped or join a conference. No way they belong at the table based on recent history.

    I agree.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • In fact, I think it should be seed the top 4 conference champions. Conference titles have to mean something, and it allows you for a stumble or two.

    In the NFL, the 3 or 4 best teams may in the AFC (hypothetically), they still play the NFC champion in the Super Bowl.

    Add the Cotton Bowl & Jerry's World to the BCS games, and bid out the championship game to a city and tv network like the Super Bowl is. More money and fresh ad revenue.

    Let all the networks compete to show that game.

    The title game could be in Detroit Ford Field, Indy Lucas Oil, Cowboy Stadium, wherever.

    It always bugged me that certain schools got bowl advantages for title games. USC in Rose Bowl, Miami in the Orange Bowl in the 80's/90's, etc. LSU is playing for their THIRD title in the NEW ORLEANS SUPERDOME!! ALL THREE GAMES!! If its just a bowl game, so what, but certain teams should not be able to play for title games in certain stadiums in their proximity....

    Heck, bring Honeybagger and the boys up to Soldier Field in January and try to win a title!

    This post was edited by buckeye9595 3 years ago

    signature image signature image signature image
  • I think they should keep the 4 BCS bowls with the tie ins and create 3 separate BCS playoff games for the top 4 conference winners (2semi finals and a title game). If your conference has a team in the top 4 your second place team gets the traditional tie in spot. This would make the conference title games the first round of playoffs. This year LSU, Oklahoma St., Oregon and Wisconsin would be in. Delany would still get his Big 10 team in the Rose Bowl, there'd still be 3 at large spots in the BCS bowls and we'd still have the top 4 conference winners in a mini-playoff. I'd rather have an 8 or 16 team playoff but this would be a start.

  • buckeye9595 said... (original post)

    Please tell me Delaney really wouldn't opt the B1G out, right? I mean no freaking way. This has to be some scare tactic by him.

    I am with you, but the non-seeded plus one is better than nothing and only a first step to the inevitable, and definately better than the current the current nonsense. The cool thing though would be that every BCS game would be a playoff game. All ten teams trying to impress the voters they are one of the top two teams and should play in the title game.

    I think that would be cool to see at least once! But its all incremental, even if Delany has to die first, its coming...

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Brad Edwards, ESPN BCS GURU:

    With the Alabama Crimson Tide edging the Oklahoma State Cowboys by .0086 in the final BCS standings -- the closest margin between the No. 2 and No. 3 teams since the current formula was implemented in 2004 -- this will go down as one of the more memorable finishes in BCS history.

    So, naturally, I looked at a couple of formula-related factors to see whether something simple might have swung things in the other direction. If Alabama hadn't managed to hang on to its No. 2 ranking in a second BCS computer (either Sagarin or Wolfe), the Crimson Tide still would've finished ahead of the Cowboys by .0019. And if the 21 voters in the Harris and coaches' polls who ranked OSU either fourth, fifth or sixth on their ballots had all put the Pokes at No. 3 instead, that would have reduced Bama's margin to approximately .004 -- but not erased it.

    Pick every bowl game

    ESPN.com's free pick-the-winner game asks you to predict the outcome of all 35 bowl games -- and gives you the option of ranking them according to the confidence you have in each pick.
    College Bowl Mania

    I even plugged the numbers for both teams into the previous BCS formula that was last used in the 2003 season to see whether that would've had Oklahoma State higher than Bama. That formula had both a schedule strength factor (which I got from Jerry Palm of CollegeBCS.com, who hasn't yet deleted the old SOS calculation from his computer) and a quality win component, but the result was still Alabama by a nose. It might surprise some to know that the quality-win bonus actually favored Bama because both teams have one top-10 win, and the Arkansas Razorbacks are ranked higher than the Kansas State Wildcats.

    The one other thought I had that could have made the difference in the final BCS standings for Oklahoma State was the impact of the Nebraska Cornhuskers and Colorado Buffaloes leaving the Big 12 before this season and, therefore, eliminating the conference championship game.

    OSU would've played nine games against Big 12 competition either way, but having a 13th game and a second meeting with Nebraska or Kansas State (the Cowboys would then have to win that game, of course) certainly would have been enough to give the Cowboys a No. 2 ranking in every BCS computer.

    Although it's important to point out that the 2011 schedule for a 12-team conference would've required Oklahoma State to play road games against Nebraska, the Oklahoma Sooners and Baylor Bears, it's also worth noting that the three teams from the Big 12 North that OSU wouldn't have played are Colorado, the Missouri Tigers and Iowa State Cyclones. Yes, the only reason the Cyclones were on the Pokes' schedule this year was that political unrest within the Big 12 drove Nebraska and Colorado to leave the conference.

    But you won't hear Mike Gundy, T. Boone Pickens or anyone else representing Oklahoma State use that as an excuse. In fact, there have been very few gripes coming out of Stillwater, although there are plenty to be made. Mostly, they are the same gripes that have been levied against the BCS system for years.

    Here is a look at changes that should -- and in some cases could -- come to the BCS.

    The subjectivity issue
    One issue with the BCS, of course, is the subjective nature of the polls. Clearly, some voters have agendas, whether that's a person in the Southeast wanting to see an all-SEC championship game or someone in another part of the country wanting to see anything other than a rematch. And the potential conflicts of interest in the coaches' poll have been obvious for as long as the BCS has existed, yet that poll remains one of the few constants of the system.

    Just look at the final ballots of Alabama's Nick Saban and Boise State's Chris Petersen. Saban voted his team second, the Stanford Cardinal third and Oklahoma State fourth. Although he wasn't the only coach to rank Stanford ahead of OSU, there's no denying that his order could've been motivated by the desire to add one more point of separation between his team and his chief competitor in the BCS title chase. And who could blame him for taking advantage of the opportunity to do it?

    AP Photo/AAron Ontiveroz
    Chris Petersen exposed one of the main issues with the current system.
    Petersen came out Monday and pleaded guilty to manipulating his ballot for the benefit of his team. He voted Boise State fifth and the TCU Horned Frogs, who won at Boise and went undefeated through the Mountain West Conference, 18th. He did this knowing that if TCU didn't finish in the top 16 of the BCS standings, another at-large spot would be available to the BCS bowls, which would increase the chances of Boise State being selected. After explaining his vote, Petersen added, "So I probably shouldn't be a voter."

    The general belief is that by having an even dispersal of voters throughout the conferences, the biases will be offsetting. But only half (59 of 120) of the FBS coaches get a vote each season, and Oklahoma State's Gundy wasn't a voter this year, so he didn't have the opportunity to vote his team second and Alabama fourth. Likewise, TCU's Gary Patterson wasn't a voter, so he wasn't able to give his Horned Frogs a boost in the poll to help their cause.

    Aside from that particular problem that stems from not every coach having a vote, there's also the fact that the Harris poll panel consists of 115 voters, which means each coach's ballot has twice as much impact on the overall BCS average as a Harris ballot does. It's fortunate for everyone that personal voting agendas have yet to decide a race for No. 2 in the BCS standings. But if the system doesn't change, it's bound to happen sooner or later.

    A question of the subconscious
    Then there's the subconscious aspect of the subjective vote. I've been asked many times whether Oklahoma State would've still finished third if its jerseys said "Oklahoma." I wish I could answer a definitive "yes" to that question, but I can't. It's absolutely possible that some voters refused to buy into OSU as the second-best team in the nation because it has no history of competing for national titles.

    It's also possible that what turned out to be the Cowboys' two best wins -- against No. 8 Kansas State and No. 12 Baylor -- were devalued by voters because those teams came out of nowhere in 2011 after several years of playing bad to mediocre football. All season, the computers said the Big 12 was the nation's strongest conference, but when the top three teams ended up being Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Baylor, a lot of voters had a difficult time agreeing with that computer assessment.

    So, what about the computers?
    Yes, the computers also must be re-evaluated.

    Schedule strength is a factor in every computer, and the 10 teams in the Big 12 currently rank No. 1 through No. 10 in strength of schedule in the Sagarin ratings. In the Anderson & Hester rankings, the top nine schedules all come from that conference. The Colley Matrix gives its top eight schedules to teams from the Big 12.

    This stems from the Big 12 having only three losses out of conference this season, and all three were to bowl teams (Arkansas, Georgia Tech and Arizona State). Much like the RPI in college basketball, the foundation is laid in nonconference play, and whichever league emerges from that part of the season with the best profile will just get stronger and stronger as it plays more and more games against itself. That happened to an extreme level with the Big 12 this season.

    For us mere humans, it's tough to look at the schedules of the Big 12 teams and and identify even one of them that's more difficult than the slate LSU played. Yet, the combination of results such as Kansas State beating the 6-6 Miami Hurricanes, Iowa State upsetting the 7-5 Iowa Hawkeyes, and the doormat Kansas Jayhawks knocking off the MAC champion Northern Illinois Huskies led to this questionable computer analysis.

    Here's one other way of looking at it: The top 25 teams in the current coaches' poll have 10 nonconference losses between them. Five of those losses were to the SEC. Two were to the Big 12 (Baylor over TCU and Oklahoma over Florida State). There's no question that the Big 12 had a great out-of-conference performance, but not nearly as great as the computers made it out to be.

    The selection committee proposal
    How do we fix these issues with the polls and computers? The simple answer is a selection committee, much like the one used for basketball. For football, what makes the most sense is to gather a small group of former coaches and players, and -- here's the catch -- sit them in a room all day every Saturday to watch the top teams play their games.

    Many of us at ESPN do this each week, and I'm sure some other national media do, as well. Of course, we're getting paid to do it, so if you want to ask committee members to give up their weekends for one-third of the year, the BCS probably would have to pay them, too.

    With all of these games being televised, there's no excuse for the people making the ultimate judgments on the teams not to be watching. It's important, because you need to see what a team is like at its worst in addition to how it plays at its best. Just seeing the biggest games or catching the highlights on TV won't accomplish that mission.

    The chances of a plus-one model
    [+] Enlarge
    Thomas Campbell/US Presswire
    Brandon Weeden and the Cowboys had to fight history and the BCS.
    Of course, all of the above is just an improvement to the method of choosing the top two teams and doesn't change the fact that, in many seasons, more than two teams have a good argument for a spot in the national championship game. For quite a while, any type of college football playoff bracket has seemed to be more fantasy than near-reality, but there are rumblings that several AQ-conference leaders are now willing to have serious discussions about taking that step.

    In the summer, the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee and the conference commissioners will meet to discuss what college football's next postseason format should look like, and the frustration that many people have with the way the 2011 season ended is just one more reason for them to consider change.

    Conference expansion/realignment has been further proof that money is a huge factor behind the decisions of college football's leadership, and a four-team playoff (a seeded plus-one) would generate more revenue for the conferences and bowls. If the four BCS locations are used as rotating sites for the semifinals and championship game, each location would be guaranteed to have a meaningful game at least three times every four years rather than once every four years. To me, that sounds like it'd be good for business.

    The biggest hurdle, as always, will be putting together a plan that is satisfactory to the partnership of the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Rose Bowl. This was accomplished when the BCS was constructed in 1998, so there's no reason to think that it can't be done again.

    One of the big flaws in the current postseason structure is the ridiculous amount of time between the end of the regular season and the dates of the BCS games, but that could work to the advantage of the seeded plus-one. The Rose Bowl might agree to give up its semifinal game in exchange for the Big Ten champ versus the Pac-12 champ in seasons such as this one when neither of those teams is ranked in the BCS top four. A switch like that would be totally unrealistic with one or two weeks' notice, but with four weeks, it's certainly possible.

    Don't you think the Orange Bowl would gladly give up Clemson versus West Virginia to get an Alabama versus Oklahoma State national semifinal if the Rose decided a month in advance that it would rather have Wisconsin versus Oregon? That would mean LSU versus Stanford in the Fiesta in the other semifinal, and the winners would meet about a week later in the Sugar Bowl for the national championship.

    We might still end up with LSU against Alabama for the BCS title, but one thing would be different: Nobody would be complaining about the rematch.

    Brad Edwards covers college football for ESPN Insider, focusing on advanced stats and the BCS standings. An expert on the BCS formula, Edwards works for the ESPN Stats & Information group and appears regularly as an analyst across ESPN's television and mobile platforms. He is also the co-host of "College GameDay" on ESPN Radio. You can find his ESPN archives here and follow him on Twitter here.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • buckeye9595 said... (original post)

    In fact, I think it should be seed the top 4 conference champions. Conference titles have to mean something, and it allows you for a stumble or two.

    In the NFL, the 3 or 4 best teams may in the AFC (hypothetically), they still play the NFC champion in the Super Bowl.

    Add the Cotton Bowl & Jerry's World to the BCS games, and bid out the championship game to a city and tv network like the Super Bowl is. More money and fresh ad revenue.

    Let all the networks compete to show that game.

    The title game could be in Detroit Ford Field, Indy Lucas Oil, Cowboy Stadium, wherever.

    It always bugged me that certain schools got bowl advantages for title games. USC in Rose Bowl, Miami in the Orange Bowl in the 80's/90's, etc. LSU is playing for their THIRD title in the NEW ORLEANS SUPERDOME!! ALL THREE GAMES!! If its just a bowl game, so what, but certain teams should not be able to play for title games in certain stadiums in their proximity....

    Heck, bring Honeybagger and the boys up to Soldier Field in January and try to win a title!

    SO, under my proposal, seeding this years conference champions and taking the top 4, you would have:

    1) LSU
    2) Okie. St.
    3) Oregon
    4) Wisconsin

    LSU-Wisky winner vs. Okie. St.-Oregon winner

    Under the proposed seeded plus one, 1-4 in final BCS standings (no conference title requirement)

    1) LSU
    2) Bama
    3) Okie St.
    4) Stanford

    LSU-Stanford winner vs. Bam-OSU winner

    signature image signature image signature image
  • The Plus-One Idea

    No, you don't want this

    E-mail Pete Fiutak
    #CFBnews & #ColFootballNews

    - What if the BCS always had a plus-one?

    So you want a plus-one system because you don't like the BCS, right?

    Be careful what you wish for.

    A slew of the biggest and most powerful athletic directors met in New York on Wednesday and discussed possible changes to the way the business of college football is run. There's talk about switching around the BCS games and changing up the system. The idea of eliminating the automatic bids is on the table. And, creating the biggest splash, there might be some movement to change the way college football determines a national champion by using a plus-one system.

    In the end, though, the athletic directors and college presidents are doing everything possible to avoid a playoff, and along the way they're doing the major BCS conferences a huge solid.

    Everyone's under the misperception that no more automatic bids means more chances for the little guy. The only problem is that there won't be any more viable little guys once Boise State and TCU sit down at the adult table, going to the Big East and Big 12, respectively.

    If the BCS games aren't forced to take anyone, then take a wild guess who wins — the SEC. If there weren't any automatic BCS bids, the league would probably get four teams — LSU, Alabama, Arkansas and South Carolina — into the mega-money showcase games.

    For college football fans, though, this might be a positive. The BCS games are exhibitions, and outside of conference pride and a smart trophy, they don't matter — only the BCS championship does. If it means avoiding a 2010 Oklahoma-Connecticut Fiesta Bowl to get in another great SEC team, so be it.

    What does matter, though, is how this might affect a plus-one format.

    Would it be a true final four with BCS No. 1 playing BCS No. 4, and BCS No. 2 playing BCS No. 3? Or would there be four BCS games with the top two teams playing after all the dust settles? Either way, to paraphrase Clark Griswold: You think you hate it now, wait 'til you drive it.

    Take this year, for example. If it was a straight final four, LSU would play Stanford and Alabama would play Oklahoma State, meaning two teams that weren't even good enough to win their own conference divisions — Alabama and Stanford — would get the biggest break. Oregon played LSU in Week 1, while Stanford played San Jose State. Merry Christmas, Cardinal.

    Arkansas lost to BCS No. 1 LSU and No. 2 Alabama, meaning it theoretically could be the No. 3 team in college football. But they would be out, as would Wisconsin, which lost two road games on late bombs and avenged its loss to Michigan State in the Big Ten Championship Game.

    Alternatively, let's say there weren't any automatic BCS bids and there were four BCS games — Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta. How would they be set up to create a proper plus-one championship game after all the bowls were played? Would No. 1 LSU play No. 8 Kansas State in the Sugar? Would No. 2 Alabama play No. 7 Boise State, would No. 3 Oklahoma State play No. 6 Arkansas, and worst of all worlds, would No. 4 Stanford play No. 5 Oregon?

    What about Wisconsin? Clemson? TCU?

    Or, what if the BCS bowls got to choose anyone they wanted? Boise State would go bye-bye for Arkansas, West Virginia would get tossed for South Carolina and Wisconsin would be in over Clemson.

    What if there's some sort of a compromise that keeps the BCS league tie-ins as is, assuring the ACC, Big Ten, Big East, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC of at least one team being in, but still putting the top two teams on the board not to win a conference championship — this year, No. 2 Alabama and No. 4 Stanford — automatically in?

    And then what?

    What happens if the No. 5 team obliterates a No. 11 ACC champion? Can it still move up to No. 2 and reach the plus-one championship game? What if LSU won its bowl game, Alabama won its bowl and Oklahoma State blew away Stanford in the Fiesta? Or what if LSU lost on a late field goal and Alabama and Oklahoma State won, but weren't impressive and ... yup, you guessed it. A plus-one would create the exact same arguments we're having right now over Alabama and Oklahoma State, but it would be delayed by a few weeks.

    And yes, if you're lost and confused, that's sort of the point.

    Let's say the ADs are serious and they're not just talking a big game to quiet everyone down. The most likely of all plus-one scenarios would be a straight four-team playoff. The two play-in games would rotate among the BCS bowls — with the other two BCS games getting the four remaining top teams — and there would be a BCS championship at the end. The BCS wouldn't care because it would still get its games like before. The conferences would be a bit grouchy after losing two BCS spots, but the money would be made up by the teams that got to the title game.

    You really want to do this, athletic directors? You really want to see how this would look?

    You're right there. You have everything in place. Just take the extra step already, and give the nation an eight-team playoff with six conference champions, the top non-BCS league conference champion, and a wild card.

    Really, you'll feel better. Everyone will like you.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • The Plus-One Idea

    How would it work historically?

    E-mail Pete Fiutak
    #CFBnews & #ColFootballNews

    - No, you really don't want a plus-one

    If there was just a plus-one of the top four teams in the BCS, this is what it would’ve looked like historically. And if it seems like it would’ve worked fine before around 2004, that’s because the BCS formula used to work better when the computers were more involved. So here you go, and remember, there aren’t any restrictions on the non-plus-one BCS games.

    2011
    BCS No. 1 LSU vs. BCS No. 4 Stanford, and BCS No. 2 Alabama vs. BCS No. 3 Oklahoma State

    The Other Two BCS Games Would Be: No. 5 Oregon vs. No. 10 Wisconsin and No. 6 Arkansas vs. No. 8 Kansas State

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Oregon won the Pac-12 title and would be out because it played LSU and Stanford didn’t. Alabama and Stanford didn’t win their own divisions, much less their conferences.

    What Would’ve Happened? LSU would’ve beaten Stanford, Alabama would’ve beaten Oklahoma State, and LSU would’ve beaten Alabama for the national title.

    2010
    BCS No. 1 Auburn vs. BCS No. 4 Stanford, and BCS No. 2 Oregon vs. BCS No. 3 TCU

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Wisconsin vs. No. 7 Oklahoma and No. 6 Ohio State vs. No. 8 Arkansas

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Stanford, who didn’t win its conference title, would get in over a red-hot Wisconsin. The argument would be that the system would be perfect if just conference champions got in.

    What Would’ve Happened? Auburn would’ve beaten Stanford, Oregon would’ve beaten TCU, and Auburn would’ve beaten Oregon for the national title.

    2009
    BCS No. 1 Alabama vs. BCS No. 4 TCU, and BCS No. 2 Texas vs. BCS No. 3 Cincinnati

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Florida vs. No. 6 Boise State, and No. 7 Oregon vs. No. 8 Ohio State

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Boise State would go ballistic after going 13-0. Florida fans would go crazy at the No. 5 ranking after being No. 1 all year and losing to Alabama in the SEC title game. No SEC fan would buy Cincinnati at the three.

    What Would’ve Happened? Alabama would’ve beaten TCU, Texas would destroy Cincinnati, and assuming things played out as they did and Colt McCoy got hurt, Alabama would’ve beaten Texas.

    2008
    BCS No. 1 Oklahoma vs. BCS No. 4 Alabama and BCS No. 2 Florida vs. BCS No. 3 Texas

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 USC vs. No. 8 Penn State and No. 6 Utah vs. No. 7 Texas Tech

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: This would’ve been an all-timer. No. 5 USC would’ve broken something tasteful over being left out of the final four for the other one-loss teams, especially an Alabama squad that didn’t win the SEC title. Meanwhile, Utah senator Orrin Hatch would launch a federal investigation looking into a system that kept out an unbeaten Utah and a 12-0 Boise State for four one-loss teams. Meanwhile, Texas Tech, who finished tied with Oklahoma and Texas for the Big 12 South, would be left without a chair.

    What Would’ve Happened? Oklahoma would’ve beaten Alabama, Florida would’ve beaten Texas, and Florida would’ve beaten Oklahoma for the national title.

    2007
    BCS No. 1 Ohio State vs. BCS No. 4 Oklahoma, and BCS No. LSU vs. BCS No. 3 Virginia Tech

    The Other Two BCS Games:o. 5 Georgia vs. No. 6 Missouri, and No. 7 USC vs. No. 8 Kansas

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Only three teams finished with fewer than two losses. Ohio State was in, but No. 8 Kansas and 12-0, No. 10 Hawaii were out. West Virginia and Missouri went into December needing a win to play for the national title, but they’d be out after losing to Pitt and Oklahoma, respectively.

    What Would’ve Happened? Oklahoma would’ve beaten Ohio State, LSU would’ve beaten Virginia Tech, and LSU would’ve beaten Oklahoma for the national title.

    2006
    BCS No. 1 Ohio State vs. BCS No. 4 LSU, and BCS No. 2 Florida vs. BCS No. 3 Michigan

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 USC vs. No. 7 Wisconsin and No. 6 Louisville vs. No. 8 Boise State

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Actually, this one would’ve solved a slew of problems. USC would scream from the rafters that it belonged in over LSU, and it would’ve beaten Ohio State to get to the title game. Boise State would be made at 12-0, and one loss Wisconsin and Louisville teams would’ve been mad that a two-loss LSU got in. However, the argument for an Ohio State-Michigan rematch would’ve been settled.

    What Would’ve Happened? LSU would’ve beaten Ohio State, Florida would’ve beaten Michigan, and Florida would’ve beaten LSU for the national title.

    2005
    BCS No. 1 USC vs. BCS No. 4 Ohio State, and BCS No. 2 Texas vs. BCS No. 3 Penn State

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Oregon vs. No. 7 Georgia and No. 6 Notre Dame vs. No. 8 Miami

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: This would’ve been one of the cleanest of the bunch. There wasn’t any doubt about USC or Texas, Penn State was a lock, and Ohio State’s two losses came to No. 2 Texas and No. 3 Penn State. There would be some at Oregon arguing that the Buckeyes didn’t deserve to be in after losing to two of the teams, but no one would’ve bought in.

    What Would’ve Happened? USC would’ve beaten Ohio State, Texas would’ve beaten Penn State, and Texas would’ve beaten USC for the national title.

    2004
    BCS No. 1 USC vs. BCS No. 4 Texas, and BCS No. 2 Oklahoma vs. BCS No. 3 Auburn

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 California vs. No. 6 Utah, and No. 7 Georgia vs. No. 8 Virginia Tech

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: This is what Plus-One champions would’ve loved. There were three deserving teams – USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn –and the Tigers got left out of the national title. Problem solved. Urban Meyer’s unbeaten Utah team – led by Alex Smith – might have had a case, but Texas’ one loss came to OU.

    What Would’ve Happened? USC would’ve beaten Texas, Auburn would’ve beaten Oklahoma, and USC would’ve beaten Auburn – but some would later call for Auburn to be given the title after USC had to vacate the win thanks to Reggie Bush.

    2003
    BCS No. 1 Oklahoma vs. BCS No. 4 Michigan, and BCS No. 2 LSU vs. BCS No. 3 USC

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Ohio State vs. No. 6 Texas, and No. 7 Florida State vs. No. 8 Tennessee

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Oklahoma would’ve been in even though it got destroyed in the Big 12 title game. Texas would’ve had a mild complaint that it should’ve been in over Michigan, and some would’ve wanted to see 12-1 Miami University and Ben Roethlisberger get a shot, but the great USC BCS snubbing of 2003 wouldn’t have existed.

    What Would’ve Happened?klahoma would’ve beaten Michigan, USC would’ve beaten LSU, and USC would’ve beaten Oklahoma.

    2002
    BCS No. 1 Miami vs. BCS No. 4 USC, and BCS No. 2 Ohio State vs. BCS No. 3 USC

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Iowa vs. No. 6 Washington State, and No. 7 Oklahoma vs. No. 9 Notre Dame

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: 11-1 Iowa would’ve gone batspit crazy over 10-2 USC getting the No. 4 spot. 10-2 Washington State would’ve been even madder after beating USC and actually winning the Pac 10 title.

    What Would’ve Happened? Miami would’ve beaten USC, Georgia would’ve beaten Ohio State, and Miami would’ve beaten Georgia.

    2001
    BCS No. 1 Miami vs. BCS No. 4 Oregon, and BCS No. 2 Nebraska vs. BCS No. 3 Colorado

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Florida vs. No. 7 Texas, No. 8 Illinois vs. No. 10 Maryland

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Nebraska would get a rematch against a Colorado team that applied a stomping in the regular season finale. There would be some griping that Nebraska couldn’t win its own division and didn’t deserve to be playing for the national title. 10-1 Big Ten champion Illinois would’ve demanded a shot, but it finished stuck behind Florida and Tennessee in the BCS rankings. Nick Saban’s LSU shocked the Vols in the SEC championship.

    What Would’ve Happened? Miami would’ve beaten Oregon, Nebraska would’ve won the rematch against Colorado, and Miami would’ve won the national title.

    2000
    BCS No. 1 Oklahoma vs. BCS No. 4 Washington, and BCS No. 2 Florida State vs. BCS No. 3 Miami

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Virginia Tech. vs. No. 6 Oregon State, and No. 7 Florida vs. No. 8 Nebraska

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Virginia Tech’s lone loss came to Miami, but Washington beat the Canes. Oregon State might have a slight complaint, but its loss came to Washington. Florida State and Miami had already played with Miami winning.

    What Would’ve Happened? Oklahoma would’ve beaten Washington, Miami would’ve beaten Florida State, and Miami, who was playing stronger than anyone at the end of the year, would’ve beaten the Sooners.

    1999
    BCS No. 1 Florida State vs. BCS No. 4 Alabama, and BCS No. 2 Virginia Tech vs. BCS No. 3 Nebraska

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Tennessee vs. No. 6 Kansas State, No. 7 Wisconsin vs. No. 11 Marshall

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Kansas State got destroyed by Nebraska, but it still finished 11-1 and would’ve complained it should’ve been in, even though it didn’t deserve it. No. 7 Wisconsin was as hot as anyone in the country by the end of the year, but an early season loss to Cincinnati ended any argument.

    What Would’ve Happened? Florida State would’ve beaten Alabama, Nebraska would’ve held down Michael Vick and Virginia Tech, and the Huskers would’ve upset the Seminoles.

    1998
    BCS No. 1 Tennessee vs. BCS No. 4 Ohio State, and BCS No. 2 Florida State vs. BCS No. 3 Kansas State

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 UCLA vs. No. 9 Wisconsin, No. 6 Texas A&M vs. No. 7 Arizona

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: In a strange tie-breaker, Wisconsin represented the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl even though it didn’t play No. 4 Ohio State. The big fight would’ve been over No. 5 UCLA left out and Kansas State – who gagged away the Big 12 title game to Texas A&M – would’ve been in. Florida State ended the season hot, but it got blown away by a mediocre NC State team earlier in the year.

    What Would’ve Happened? Ohio State would’ve beaten Tennessee, Florida State – Marcus Outzen and all – would’ve beaten Kansas State, and Ohio State would’ve won the national title.

    - No, you really don't want a plus-one

    signature image signature image signature image
  • buckeye9595 said... (original post)

    The Plus-One Idea

    How would it work historically?

    E-mail Pete Fiutak #CFBnews & #ColFootballNews

    - No, you really don't want a plus-one

    If there was just a plus-one of the top four teams in the BCS, this is what it would’ve looked like historically. And if it seems like it would’ve worked fine before around 2004, that’s because the BCS formula used to work better when the computers were more involved. So here you go, and remember, there aren’t any restrictions on the non-plus-one BCS games.

    2011 BCS No. 1 LSU vs. BCS No. 4 Stanford, and BCS No. 2 Alabama vs. BCS No. 3 Oklahoma State

    The Other Two BCS Games Would Be: No. 5 Oregon vs. No. 10 Wisconsin and No. 6 Arkansas vs. No. 8 Kansas State

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Oregon won the Pac-12 title and would be out because it played LSU and Stanford didn’t. Alabama and Stanford didn’t win their own divisions, much less their conferences.

    What Would’ve Happened? LSU would’ve beaten Stanford, Alabama would’ve beaten Oklahoma State, and LSU would’ve beaten Alabama for the national title.

    2010 BCS No. 1 Auburn vs. BCS No. 4 Stanford, and BCS No. 2 Oregon vs. BCS No. 3 TCU

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Wisconsin vs. No. 7 Oklahoma and No. 6 Ohio State vs. No. 8 Arkansas

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Stanford, who didn’t win its conference title, would get in over a red-hot Wisconsin. The argument would be that the system would be perfect if just conference champions got in.

    What Would’ve Happened? Auburn would’ve beaten Stanford, Oregon would’ve beaten TCU, and Auburn would’ve beaten Oregon for the national title.

    2009 BCS No. 1 Alabama vs. BCS No. 4 TCU, and BCS No. 2 Texas vs. BCS No. 3 Cincinnati

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Florida vs. No. 6 Boise State, and No. 7 Oregon vs. No. 8 Ohio State

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Boise State would go ballistic after going 13-0. Florida fans would go crazy at the No. 5 ranking after being No. 1 all year and losing to Alabama in the SEC title game. No SEC fan would buy Cincinnati at the three.

    What Would’ve Happened? Alabama would’ve beaten TCU, Texas would destroy Cincinnati, and assuming things played out as they did and Colt McCoy got hurt, Alabama would’ve beaten Texas.

    2008 BCS No. 1 Oklahoma vs. BCS No. 4 Alabama and BCS No. 2 Florida vs. BCS No. 3 Texas

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 USC vs. No. 8 Penn State and No. 6 Utah vs. No. 7 Texas Tech

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: This would’ve been an all-timer. No. 5 USC would’ve broken something tasteful over being left out of the final four for the other one-loss teams, especially an Alabama squad that didn’t win the SEC title. Meanwhile, Utah senator Orrin Hatch would launch a federal investigation looking into a system that kept out an unbeaten Utah and a 12-0 Boise State for four one-loss teams. Meanwhile, Texas Tech, who finished tied with Oklahoma and Texas for the Big 12 South, would be left without a chair.

    What Would’ve Happened? Oklahoma would’ve beaten Alabama, Florida would’ve beaten Texas, and Florida would’ve beaten Oklahoma for the national title.

    2007 BCS No. 1 Ohio State vs. BCS No. 4 Oklahoma, and BCS No. LSU vs. BCS No. 3 Virginia Tech

    The Other Two BCS Games:o. 5 Georgia vs. No. 6 Missouri, and No. 7 USC vs. No. 8 Kansas

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Only three teams finished with fewer than two losses. Ohio State was in, but No. 8 Kansas and 12-0, No. 10 Hawaii were out. West Virginia and Missouri went into December needing a win to play for the national title, but they’d be out after losing to Pitt and Oklahoma, respectively.

    What Would’ve Happened? Oklahoma would’ve beaten Ohio State, LSU would’ve beaten Virginia Tech, and LSU would’ve beaten Oklahoma for the national title.

    2006 BCS No. 1 Ohio State vs. BCS No. 4 LSU, and BCS No. 2 Florida vs. BCS No. 3 Michigan

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 USC vs. No. 7 Wisconsin and No. 6 Louisville vs. No. 8 Boise State

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Actually, this one would’ve solved a slew of problems. USC would scream from the rafters that it belonged in over LSU, and it would’ve beaten Ohio State to get to the title game. Boise State would be made at 12-0, and one loss Wisconsin and Louisville teams would’ve been mad that a two-loss LSU got in. However, the argument for an Ohio State-Michigan rematch would’ve been settled.

    What Would’ve Happened? LSU would’ve beaten Ohio State, Florida would’ve beaten Michigan, and Florida would’ve beaten LSU for the national title.

    2005 BCS No. 1 USC vs. BCS No. 4 Ohio State, and BCS No. 2 Texas vs. BCS No. 3 Penn State

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Oregon vs. No. 7 Georgia and No. 6 Notre Dame vs. No. 8 Miami

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: This would’ve been one of the cleanest of the bunch. There wasn’t any doubt about USC or Texas, Penn State was a lock, and Ohio State’s two losses came to No. 2 Texas and No. 3 Penn State. There would be some at Oregon arguing that the Buckeyes didn’t deserve to be in after losing to two of the teams, but no one would’ve bought in.

    What Would’ve Happened? USC would’ve beaten Ohio State, Texas would’ve beaten Penn State, and Texas would’ve beaten USC for the national title.

    2004 BCS No. 1 USC vs. BCS No. 4 Texas, and BCS No. 2 Oklahoma vs. BCS No. 3 Auburn

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 California vs. No. 6 Utah, and No. 7 Georgia vs. No. 8 Virginia Tech

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: This is what Plus-One champions would’ve loved. There were three deserving teams – USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn –and the Tigers got left out of the national title. Problem solved. Urban Meyer’s unbeaten Utah team – led by Alex Smith – might have had a case, but Texas’ one loss came to OU.

    What Would’ve Happened? USC would’ve beaten Texas, Auburn would’ve beaten Oklahoma, and USC would’ve beaten Auburn – but some would later call for Auburn to be given the title after USC had to vacate the win thanks to Reggie Bush.

    2003 BCS No. 1 Oklahoma vs. BCS No. 4 Michigan, and BCS No. 2 LSU vs. BCS No. 3 USC

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Ohio State vs. No. 6 Texas, and No. 7 Florida State vs. No. 8 Tennessee

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Oklahoma would’ve been in even though it got destroyed in the Big 12 title game. Texas would’ve had a mild complaint that it should’ve been in over Michigan, and some would’ve wanted to see 12-1 Miami University and Ben Roethlisberger get a shot, but the great USC BCS snubbing of 2003 wouldn’t have existed.

    What Would’ve Happened?klahoma would’ve beaten Michigan, USC would’ve beaten LSU, and USC would’ve beaten Oklahoma.

    2002 BCS No. 1 Miami vs. BCS No. 4 USC, and BCS No. 2 Ohio State vs. BCS No. 3 USC

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Iowa vs. No. 6 Washington State, and No. 7 Oklahoma vs. No. 9 Notre Dame

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: 11-1 Iowa would’ve gone batspit crazy over 10-2 USC getting the No. 4 spot. 10-2 Washington State would’ve been even madder after beating USC and actually winning the Pac 10 title.

    What Would’ve Happened? Miami would’ve beaten USC, Georgia would’ve beaten Ohio State, and Miami would’ve beaten Georgia.

    2001 BCS No. 1 Miami vs. BCS No. 4 Oregon, and BCS No. 2 Nebraska vs. BCS No. 3 Colorado

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Florida vs. No. 7 Texas, No. 8 Illinois vs. No. 10 Maryland

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Nebraska would get a rematch against a Colorado team that applied a stomping in the regular season finale. There would be some griping that Nebraska couldn’t win its own division and didn’t deserve to be playing for the national title. 10-1 Big Ten champion Illinois would’ve demanded a shot, but it finished stuck behind Florida and Tennessee in the BCS rankings. Nick Saban’s LSU shocked the Vols in the SEC championship.

    What Would’ve Happened? Miami would’ve beaten Oregon, Nebraska would’ve won the rematch against Colorado, and Miami would’ve won the national title.

    2000 BCS No. 1 Oklahoma vs. BCS No. 4 Washington, and BCS No. 2 Florida State vs. BCS No. 3 Miami

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Virginia Tech. vs. No. 6 Oregon State, and No. 7 Florida vs. No. 8 Nebraska

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Virginia Tech’s lone loss came to Miami, but Washington beat the Canes. Oregon State might have a slight complaint, but its loss came to Washington. Florida State and Miami had already played with Miami winning.

    What Would’ve Happened? Oklahoma would’ve beaten Washington, Miami would’ve beaten Florida State, and Miami, who was playing stronger than anyone at the end of the year, would’ve beaten the Sooners.

    1999 BCS No. 1 Florida State vs. BCS No. 4 Alabama, and BCS No. 2 Virginia Tech vs. BCS No. 3 Nebraska

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 Tennessee vs. No. 6 Kansas State, No. 7 Wisconsin vs. No. 11 Marshall

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: Kansas State got destroyed by Nebraska, but it still finished 11-1 and would’ve complained it should’ve been in, even though it didn’t deserve it. No. 7 Wisconsin was as hot as anyone in the country by the end of the year, but an early season loss to Cincinnati ended any argument.

    What Would’ve Happened? Florida State would’ve beaten Alabama, Nebraska would’ve held down Michael Vick and Virginia Tech, and the Huskers would’ve upset the Seminoles.

    1998 BCS No. 1 Tennessee vs. BCS No. 4 Ohio State, and BCS No. 2 Florida State vs. BCS No. 3 Kansas State

    The Other Two BCS Games: No. 5 UCLA vs. No. 9 Wisconsin, No. 6 Texas A&M vs. No. 7 Arizona

    The Monster Controversy That Would Prove The System Doesn’t Work: In a strange tie-breaker, Wisconsin represented the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl even though it didn’t play No. 4 Ohio State. The big fight would’ve been over No. 5 UCLA left out and Kansas State – who gagged away the Big 12 title game to Texas A&M – would’ve been in. Florida State ended the season hot, but it got blown away by a mediocre NC State team earlier in the year.

    What Would’ve Happened? Ohio State would’ve beaten Tennessee, Florida State – Marcus Outzen and all – would’ve beaten Kansas State, and Ohio State would’ve won the national title.

    - No, you really don't want a plus-one

    I think this is why you see the conference champs and take the top 4.

    The thing is, 12 team divisional conferences with a title game is a joke.
    Need at least 14, probably 16 teams to make it meaningful.

    All you end up with is a rematch, a lopsided game, or a fluke upset costing a good team a chance at a conference title....

    Also, knowing that they are voting the top 4 for the playoffs, voters certainly would have voted differently knowing that the top4 make it. Right now, the top 2 make it.

    So, Fiutak's entire arugment is flawed by assuming the voters would have voted the same...under a plus one seeded system....

    signature image signature image signature image
  • buckeye9595 said... (original post)

    Please tell me Delaney really wouldn't opt the B1G out, right? I mean no freaking way. This has to be some scare tactic by him.

    remember the BIG and PAC were the last conferences to join the BCS, because for a few years before that they had a Bowl Coalition and we were left out.

  • davebucknut said... (original post)

    remember the BIG and PAC were the last conferences to join the BCS, because for a few years before that they had a Bowl Coalition and we were left out.

    That's right...it could have cost someone in the B1G a chance for national titile but was never an issue...

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Plus One is better than what we have now, and would hopefully start us down the road to an actual playoff

  • I hope not. Were going to have easy schedules for a while now that the B10 is split in half.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Well we know something is going to change the next round of bcs changes....incremental improvements, probably with the end result of an 8 team playoff with the bowl. Six conference champs plus two at large bids, or some variation of this. I think more than eight teams and it just dilutes everything too much. Keep conference champs and regular season relevant..

    signature image signature image signature image