clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

BCS Conference Commissioners to Discuss "And-One" Possibility

Wow...I am just on the writing binge today

So I am going to cut and paste an article just now appearing on about the possibility of expanding the BCS to an "and-one" game or a 4 team, seeded playoff.

Click 'Full Story' for article.

Final Four format for football would need to be seeded, commissioners say
By Joe Schad and Ivan Maisel

Updated: January 7, 2008, 1:28 PM ET

ACC Commissioner John Swofford and SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said Monday morning at an annual meeting of the Football Writers Association of America that they believe a "plus-one" format would have to be seeded.

The other possibility of the "plus-one" was considered to be playing an extra game after the BCS title game.

Each commissioner also stated that the SEC, ACC, Big East and Big 12 are open to discussing the "plus-one" format. The Big Ten and Pac-10 have been opposed to it.

Swofford, who is the incoming BCS chair, said the nature of the 2007 season and its weekly upheaval has motivated his presidents and athletic directors to reconsider a plus-one model.

"A lot of people look at it and say ... maybe it would be better if more than two teams had the opportunity to play for the national championship," Swofford said.

"There's a comfort level with what we're doing today," Swofford added. "In our conference, there's much more open-mindedness about the plus-one than there was two years ago. There's an interest in it ... and a willingness to discuss it in full."

Slive, the outgoing BCS chair, said one focal point of discussion will be discerning whether the 2007 season and its parity is an anomaly or "the beginning of something bigger."

"It's a little bit like turning a big battleship," Swofford said.

Further discussion will take place at meetings of the commissioners in Miami in April.

Swofford acknowledged a meeting of No. 1 vs. No. 4 and No. 2 vs. No. 3 in a Final Four of football could still leave out a team with a participation argument.

Slive acknowledged "logistics" and multiple television agreements will take efforts to work through for the possible format to become a reality. Two years remain in the current BCS contract with Fox Sports.

No changes are expected before the 2010 season.

OK, here are my thoughts.

#1 - At first, while not surprised at all that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are against this, I was prone to saying, "You know what, MAKE them for it."  That it was their fault we did not have a better system in place already because of their marriage to the damn Rose Bowl.  But then I got to thinking about it.  Take a minute...think back how the Rose Bowl and BCS Champ game are advertised.  In watching Bowl Week (to 10 days) on ESPN, think about how many Rose Bowl game ads you saw.  Think the same for ABC and anything they were showing in the past month.  Now, think about the number of ads you saw on Fox.  Did you even watch Fox in that time?  Get what I am aiming at here?

College football created the problem that is the Rose Bowl, both through their TV deals and their constant jamming of the "tradition" of it down the collective throat of America.  Rose Bowl officials had almost no other choice but to keep with tradition, for fear of upsetting this apple cart.  Hell, in one of the conversations on here last week, we talked about the bowl games and channels of the 80's, and how back then the Rose Bowl was the "Grand-daddy of them all" per the advertising.  It's been that way FOREVER, and who can blame the Pac 10 and Big 10 for, at this point, nothing more than going along with the ride and cashing the checks.

#2 - So let's take a look at the top 4 teams this year in the BCS per their rankings
1. Ohio State
2. LSU
3. Va Tech
4. OU

Now, not wanting to turn this into any sort of pissing match about where Mizzou deserved to be, but based on the system in place, you would have at least missed out on USC and UGA, both of whom dispatched with their (albeit weaker) teams. the end, three of these four teams are going to end up losing their bowl game, two of which to teams at #'s 8 and 9.  Would the top four really have fixed the problem this year?  I believe the screaming would have been just as high had this occurred this year and UGA/USC were "left out".  And yes, I realize hindsight is what it is in this case, but no one really considered either OU or Va Tech for earning any discussion as a potential #1 had they won their bowl games going into their respective losses.  However, USC and UGA were in that discussion, as minimal as it was.

Now, dont get me wrong.  Every year I PRAY for BCS Armeggedon to hopefully mess the system up enough to bring about some change.  I still think a 2-loss team winning the title (if LSU wins) may still do that, and for that I am thankful.  But let's be sure that while we are fixing it that we fix the problem, not just the symptoms.  Since I am pretty sure the current version of the system was to fix the symptoms before, and not that problem(s)

The problems (not all, just some off the top of my head)
* Teams being ranked at all before end of Sept scews where they end up in many cases
* The NCAA not being held accountable to how they allowed the Big 10 and Pac 10 to be positioned in all of this...two conferences should not be allowed to govern the masses, and that is basically what the NCAA allowed to happen.
* No one willing to step up and take control of the system itself, which is governed by no less than...I dont know...3 different groups? (TV, Bowl Sponsors, Conference Commissioners)