Chaos coming?

[News Bot]

I was listening to The Tim Brando Show today and he had Roy Kramer on to talk about the possibility of a new four-team playoff in college football. Kramer, the former SEC commissioner, is the father of the BCS.
He brought up some good points about the possibility that you would have to be a conference champion to play in the Plus-One Playoffs. One of them was that this system would not eliminate controversy.
The more I started to think about it, the more I realized it might actually create more controversy.
Think what would have happened this past season if conference champions were the only teams that could play (and they played the first games on campus sites). The playoffs would have looked like this with BCS rankings:
No. 7 Boise State at No. 1 LSU.
No. 5 Oregon at No. 3 Oklahoma State.
The teams that finished Nos. 2, 4 and 6 wouldn’t qualify because they didn’t win their conferences (neither did 8 or 9).
So let’s say they played it out and Oregon won the championship. How many AP voters would pick Alabama No. 1 if they blew out some team in the Sugar Bowl?
Sounds like a mess to me.

Source: GatorSports.com - Dooley's Desk

 

[DRU2012]

Source: GatorSports.com - Dooley's Desk

Yeah--THIS "solution" is anything but: A step BACKWARD, it'll make things WORSE, and is only and clearly designed to somehow "defang" the current run-away superiority of the SEC among the other "Major Conferences". Instead of forcing themselves to get better, they aim to limit our access, and give their own mediocrity more instead. The ONLY way to fairly include "Major Conference Champions" is to set up a playoff format where:
(1) these "Major Conferences" each have a Championship Game,
(2) these "Champions", plus a remaining group of "at-large" teams, all adding up to 8-teams, are seeded according to pre-bowl BCS standings,
(3) the "at-large" teams may include non-champions from the "Major Conferences" IF they are ranked highly enough to warrant it--ie. they outrank teams from OUTSIDE these "Majors", and the at-large teams then are lower-seeded and must play the highest ranked of the Championship-winners,
(4) These 8 "seeded teams" play in the 4 major "BCS Bowl Games" (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta and Rose), followed by a two-game semi-final weekend involving the 4 victors, still matched according to original seeding, and finally, the two emerging winners playing for a true "National Championship, "decided on the field" in a (by then) HUGE College Championship game.

This isn't the only way, obviously--but it IS a way, and one that uses existing "tried and true" procedures, including the biggest and most important of the traditional Bowl Games, plus the already entrenched and accepted BCS-approved mix of ranking-systems, to arrive at a "fair list" of the "top 8". It requires only the already-inevitable-in-its-fairness addition of Championship Games in the included-Conferences that do not yet have them, and what amounts to a "Plus 2", in order to make it happen.

 

[Escambia94]

I saw another version of the plus-one proposed that did not mandate conference champions. That scenario discussed on ESPN Radio would have played out as #1 LSU versus #3 Oklahoma State and #2 Alabama versus #4 Stanford.

The conference champion rule is stupid. So far, the "experts" are still split on that rule. Most I have heard do not want to go beyond plus-one due to the costs associated and potential loss of revenues. The next issue will be scheduling the extra games as away games for both teams or letting the higher ranked team have home field advantage and just pit the plus-one champions at a neutral bowl site.

 

[DRU2012]

I saw another version of the plus-one proposed that did not mandate conference champions. That scenario discussed on ESPN Radio would have played out as #1 LSU versus #3 Oklahoma State and #2 Alabama versus #4 Stanford.

The conference champion rule is stupid. So far, the "experts" are still split on that rule. Most I have heard do not want to go beyond plus-one due to the costs associated and potential loss of revenues. The next issue will be scheduling the extra games as away games for both teams or letting the higher ranked team have home field advantage and just pit the plus-one champions at a neutral bowl site.

While at least an apparent improvement on the proposed "Conference Champions-Only" stupidity, "4-teams, according to ranking, plus 1" (and I still don't follow why it wouldn't be a "#1 vs. #4, #2 vs. #3" arrangement, if it WERE to be adopted) will almost certainly lead to problems, frustration and anger almost immediately, I think. Why go "1/2-way"--unless it is another attempt to limit SEC-access? Arguments regarding the financial "risks" of a proper 8-team play-off are without merit: these games will be big-time money-makers ACROSS-THE-BOARD, no matter where they are held, especially when you factor in TV-revenues. "Home-stadium-of-higher-seeded" would guarantee sell-outs.
If a "plus 1" arrangement IS the best we can get, at this point, then the next question should be, "Is it in OUR (the SEC's) best interest to support it?" WE should study any such proposal VERY CLOSELY and in minute detail, consider its repercussions, its pros and cons for US, before going along.