November 29, 2007
BCS still pushing for "plus one" format
BCS coordinator and Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive says that the BCS is still pushing to implement a "plus one" format.
Under a "plus one" system, the BCS games would be "seeded" and played to produce a final pairing of the #1 and #2 teams, a system analogous to a four team playoff. The format as seen by many as a compromise between a playoff and the bowl system.
As he has said many times before, Slive said he was open to discussions about the BCS going to a plus-one format, which would match the top two teams in the country after the four major bowls are played.
The "plus one" format was explored in detail over the last few years but was ultimately not approved, due largely to the objections from the Pac 10 and from Big 10 commissioner Jim Delaney. Instead, the BCS elected to add a fifth game to the BCS - the BCS National Championship - that pairs the #1 and #2 teams from the standings prior to the bowls.
Slive says that the conferences should review the "plus-one" again this year.
"I have been open-minded about whether or not we could modify the format into something that's become known to be the so-called Plus One, and I reiterated that to the football writers last year, and I will reiterate it again on January the seventh, when I have the chance to talk with them," Slive said.
"If we [the BCS] were interested in doing that and other conferences were interested in doing that, we would have to sit down and see whether anybody else might be, under certain circumstances, depending on how it was configured. And if we all agreed, that would be terrific, if that’s what we wanted," he said. "And if we don't all agree, we will just see what happens."
The last part of that statement simply contains too much for me to even attempt to read between the lines. I don't **think** Slive is suggesting that the BCS could dissolve and/or continue to move towards the plus one without the Big 10 and Pac 10. I don't see that happening, simply because the product (the BCS) is too valuable. You start breaking it up into smaller pieces and you lose that value. So, as best I can determine, they are going to try to get along and -- if the can't -- everyone will go along to get along.
Given the two options of full-blown playoffs and full-blown bowls/BCS, I favor the bowl system 100% and twice on Fridays. But... you put the Plus One system into effect... well, that's just the be-all end-all in my book.
Comments:
Spartacus
posted on November 29, 2007 11:27 AM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse?
said:
I used to be against this. But, these days, with all of the parity taking place in college football - I'm very much for it. It is almost impossible now for a team to go unbeaten (from a BCS conference) - or to not have two defeats if they play any kind of a decent OOC schedule.
The Pac-10, Big 10 and Big East conference's would have to adopt the Championship game format. Those conference's could adopt a East/West or North/South division or simply place #1 vs #2 at the end of the year. Why not just go back to the "Big Four" Bowl game format (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar), let those eight teams play off, and then add that one "extra" NC Championship game? Two of the "winners" here would be excluded. What difference would it make if you still had five major bowl games and three of the winners were excluded. Oh, they'd make more money on one extra game. This system might be better - but it doesn't solve the problem still. Two to three other winning teams of major bowl games would still be excluded - therefore the debate will still rage on.Tommie Trojan
FanoftheGame said:
posted on November 29, 2007 11:39 AM — 198.211.223.194 — link — abuse?
Sometimes I think college football would be alot better off if we did away with the BcS and just went back to the old bowl system with only 10 to 12 bowl games. Lets just stop ranking the teams alltogether. Why the hell do we care who's ranked #1 if the teams aren't able to settle the argument on the field. Everyone knows that the National Championship is "Mythical". The rankings help to sell tickets and make money, but they are no more than guess, at best. To start with there are far too many polls that rank the teams. Even worse, the BCS rankings are an accumulation of several polls. What sort of logic is used when you take several contrevoursial polls and think by adding them together we would get a better result. Maybe its a little too simple minded, but I'm betting that 5 bad apples are only going to help make 1 bad apple pie.
I love college football, but we need to get rid of this virus called the BcS, thats killing the game. Either go back to the old bowl system and let whoever wants to, claim the National Championship, or settle it with some sort of playoff system, if we really want to know who is #1.
..my $.02
posted on November 29, 2007 12:25 PM — 205.188.116.136 — link — abuse?War Eagle Atlanta
said:
Fan: Too many NC selectors? I guess I should end my push for a fanblogs.com national championship? Darn!
I agree. Either or. Use the bowls as part of a playoff system, perhaps. Hell, use the bowls as preseason games if you have to. Just play the game out on the field.
And what's this 'plus one' nomenclature? If it's a de facto 4-team playoff, it's plus TWO games, right?
posted on November 29, 2007 1:56 PM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse? said:
#4) The plus one nomenclature refers to the idea of using the two of the currents BCS bowls as semi finals for a newly created national championship. The current bowl structure, plus one championship game.
#3) Obviously their is uncertainty in the ranking process of college football. Each pollster has biases/ agendas and each computer model neglects important factors.
The question is whether these biases/ weaknesses are independent or not. If the biases/ weaknesses are independent, then they can be treated mathematically as measurement error.
The BCS transforms each vote into a ranking, with an error of 0.5 ranking spots. Divided by the maximum of 25 points we get an expected error for a single voter equivelent to 0.02 BCS rating points.
The polls improve the estimate by increasing the number of pollsters, allowing the Central Limit Theorem to come into play. A poll of 40 pollsters of equal caliber should have twice the accuracy of a poll of 10 posters.
By using an average error of 0.5 per BCS pollster/computer, and the weight of the BCS components one can calculate an error of .000848 BCS rating points.
The 0.5 value for the average error per component is a lower bound. The BCS error is proportional to the error in this value.
posted on November 29, 2007 2:43 PM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse? said:
Note: If the BCS were one of its components the error generated by the transfermation is 1.05, indicating that the actual error is likely to be double what I stated above.
Thus a teams BCS rating is an estimate of the true underlying mean BCS score, with a standard error of the mean BCS score of 0.0017.
FromUVM said:
posted on November 29, 2007 3:05 PM — 76.30.254.215 — link — abuse?
Someone please tell me why the Big 10(11) Commissioner Jim Delaney is so against a plus one, or any kind of playoff. I have heard this is his stance for along time but have never heard his explanation why HE feels this way. Is this just HIS decision or is he actually backed by all the teams in the conference (or both conferences). It is interesting that the only two conferences that are against a playoff or plus one are also the only two BCS conferences without a conference championship game. That certainly makes it easier for a team from those conferences to make it to the Championship game right now.
What is the deal here?
Spartacus
posted on November 29, 2007 3:31 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
People:
Understand this: traditionally, the Rose Bowl generates more money than any other Bowl Game. That's a fact. The Big 10 and Pac 10 Conferences do not want to "change the arrangement". They want those two representatives to meet in that game as often as possible. Changing the "status quo" may have to involve losing some of that revenue. ALWAYS follow that money.
Tommie Trojan
Spartacus
posted on November 29, 2007 3:57 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
Also,
Michigan and Ohio State square off (in the last game of the season) to decide the conference champion - usually always or at least 3/4 of the time. Now, what if they had to turn around and play the same game all over again the following week? It would render the 1st game absolutely meaningless. I wonder if anyone would even show up for that? The alternative would be to move that game up earlier in the season. That breaks with all Big 10 tradition. The Pac 10 isn't encumbered to that extreme, although USC and UCLA always meet in the last game, and Oregon and California are just about always late games for USC. The Big 10 has more of a problem. They also have 11 teams - making it more difficult to divide the divisions. Could they add another team? Maybe, but it would have to come from the MAC. Do they want to share monies with that team? The answer would be an emphatic "NO WAY".
Tommie Trojan
Tom Blogical
posted on November 29, 2007 4:33 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
Porky (#9):
I hope you're joking. If not, get real.
FromUVM (#8):
What's the deal? Read this article, and your question is answered in the Money Matters section.
Just like Spartacus said, always follow the money--and I would add, andalways follow the contracts to see who has leverage.
FromUVM said:
posted on November 29, 2007 4:57 PM — 76.30.254.215 — link — abuse?
Guys, I know it's about money. I just want to know if Delaney has actually given a legitimate reason for HIS actions. Or if he has made a real statement about it other than something to the effect of "The current system works and there is no reason to change that". It's basically sounds like this guy is selfish because he has a deal with the richest bowl game. Is there any chance the Rose Bowl loses that position? I don't know.
From the article that Tom B linked
""If the public walks away from our games during the regular season and walks away from television during the regular season and walks away from the bowls, they're saying, We won't support this anymore. We want something else.' But I don't see them walking away from anything.""
This is an absolute ridiculous statement by Delaney. So the only way that the fans can indicate they want a playoff or are not happy with the BCS is to simple stop watching college football all together. What a joke. What a f@#$ing joke.
Eye of the Tiger said:
posted on November 29, 2007 5:10 PM — 138.163.0.44 — link — abuse?
TT,
How's this for a far fetched/great idea... Give the Pac-10 and Big-10 two more teams and make them a normal conference w/ a normal conference championship, then they can proceed to the plus one system with a normal Championship.
I think Fresno, and maybe Boise St. would be good additions to the PAC-10, and for the Big-10 maybe add Notre Dame and Iowea St.
FromUVM said:
posted on November 29, 2007 5:12 PM — 76.30.254.215 — link — abuse?
#15 add Notre Dame, sorry but hahahahahahahaha. They are more greedy than Delaney. They would join a conference if NBC didn't give them so much money already for the TV contract. I think we are more likely to have a playoff before Notre Dame football ever joins a conference.
Tom Blogical
posted on November 29, 2007 5:30 PM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse? said:
FromUVM (#14):
"What a joke. What a f@#$ing joke."
I couldn't agree with you more, and I couldn't have said it any better than that.
About Notre Dame...it's quite possible that if the Notre Dame program continues on its current path to destruction they'll be more open to joining a conference. However, the more irrelevant their program becomes, the more unattractive they are to said conferences also. They are fast becoming just like one of the Academies.
Spartacus
posted on November 29, 2007 5:53 PM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
Eye of the Tiger:
You know ND isn't joinin' nothing. They were able to have an outstanding 3-9 season - not playing in a conference. Guess what it would have been had they played in one? I think the Big 10 has to add a MAC team like Bowling Green or Ball State or Central Michigan.
As for the PAC - they have more options. Boise would be a great grab and Fresno is very competitive. The problem with Fresno is they have too small of a stadium and won't build a bigger one. I think that excludes them. BYU or Utah might be a better solution than Fresno in the long run. But, the PAC doesn't have to have twelve teams, they could just have a North/South divisions.North:
Oregon
California
Oregon State
Washington
Washington StateSouth:
USC
Arizona State
UCLA
Arizona
StanfordSomething like this.
Tommie Trojan
goodolnuma5 said:
posted on November 29, 2007 8:06 PM — 65.24.215.71 — link — abuse?
Playoff? Plus one? Not gonna happen.
How bout' this,...
Every top 10 team is mandated to play 1 team in the top 15-20 (not in their conference)for that calendar year. Every team, every year,...forever, and dont give me that 7 year schedule BS.
You could use preseason polls, they come out in June anyway.
posted on November 30, 2007 10:09 AM — 150.176.192.1 — link — abuse? said:
#16) If Notre Dame keeps up the trend they have been on, they might end up joining the Ivy League.
How long can NBC afford to support a losing team? Eventually the ratings will fall once the joy everyone gets watching Notre Dame becomes less of a novelty.
#15) One must remember the Big 10 has 11 teams, so only needs one team.
Spartacus
posted on November 30, 2007 11:16 AM — 72.25.84.228 — link — abuse? said:
I'm more in favor of a "plus two" system that would only require two extra Bowl games. Hell, we have forty already, right?
The conference winners of the six BCS conferences get an automatic invite to the four major Bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta) on January 1st. The four winners square off the very next week at some other venue or Rose II, Orange II, Sugar II or Fiesta II (if you prefer). The two winners of these games go on to the BCS National Championship game in the middle of January. How does this hurt anybody? Two additional slots are open for two at-large teams that finish in the Top 12 of the Final BCS standings. They can be conference runner-ups or very good teams from the WAC or Mountain West conferences (should they have one). I think that this is the fairest scenario. The Major Bowl games all stay intact, they could schedule a game for a rotating schedule for the very same Bowls (the same travelers would probably stay an extra week for the extra game - tons of money?), and a real playoff of only two extra games played would be established. How does this hurt any conference? I don't know if you even have to have a conference championship game under this scenario. So what would be the objection?Tommie Trojan
CFB Fan said:
posted on November 30, 2007 5:00 PM — 192.131.99.130 — link — abuse?
Assuming the top 8 remain the same after this Saturday, how about the following:
Saturday, December 8th, BSC top schools, seeds 1 – 4 host games.
#8 USC (PAC-10 champ) @ #1 Missouri (Big 12 champ)
#7 LSU (SEC champ) @ #2 West Virginia (Big East champ)
#6 Virginia Tech (ACC champ) @ #3 Ohio State (Big Ten champ)
#5 Kansas (At Large Birth) @ #4 Georgia (At Large Birth)Saturday, December 15th, Winners from the 1st round play in the semifinals with the highest ranked teams hosting the games.
BCS bowl games (Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar) using previous format, dates and rotating championship game between these four bowls.
The three remaining BCS non-championship bowl games will host 1st and 2nd round playoff losers, as consolation and reward for having been one of the top 8 schools during the season.
Minimizes layoff time between seasons end/play-offs, before the BCS Bowl Games on and around January 1.
What do you think?
Jon said:
posted on December 1, 2007 9:17 AM — 68.84.19.20 — link — abuse?
I personally will never stop bitching until they implement a 16-team playoff. As a Nole fan, after watching what Florida has done these past few games, I think they would mop the floor with anyones asses.. and have a good chance of coming out on top of a 16-team playoff.
What we need someone to do (mind you, someone who loves college football and is filthy rich) is take a few million dollars and start a pro-playoff organization that solicits donations from the fans and keeps the money in a fund...You take a portion of the money coming into the fund and use it for advertising to spread the word and keep the pressure on the NCAA. Upon the NCAA creating a 16-team playoff, the fund needs to be released to all the conferences to help support athletic scholarships.. It may not work in 1-year, and it may not work in 2-years, but eventually, the money in that fund would grow mighty large and slowly erode this idiocy and when the levy breaks, we will have our playoff.
MrGOP
posted on December 3, 2007 11:16 PM — 69.19.14.36 — link — abuse? said:
How about a simplified playoff that respects tradition? Here is how it would work. No more announcing who the BCS and Championship players are at the same time. Instead slightly revise the current system as follows. Rose Bowl is between the PAC 10 and Big 10 champs, no runner up, the conference champs only. Fiesta is Big 12 vs TBD, Sugar is SEC vs TBD, Orange is ACC vs TBD. The Big East Champ would play in one of the three bowls (so far little new) and the other 2 would be filled by a winner of the other bowls who also won in their respective conference. This would create two wild cards for the remaining 2 games. Eight teams, 6 as champs in the current BCS conferences and 2 wild cards. Notre Dame currently gets an automatic slot if in the top 8. In this scenerio they would also have to win a bowl in post season play. This would do several very good things but not reshuffle the deck in such a way as the powers that be would have cause to refuse it. Indeed they might just love it! Instead of the Rose Bowl having to settle for 2nd best in the Big 10 they still get USC vs Ohio State and the winner might just get the Championship as well. The wild cards would be the teams who won their conference and bowl and (if more than 2) use some computerized formula regarding win/loss ratio and ranking. Once the 4 bowls reduce the 8 teams to 4 you have 2 final games. Winner of Sugar and Orange play in the "Tang" (sugar with orange flavor) bowl and the winners of the Rose and Fiesta play another. Both "finals" are just a week later after the BCS bowls are done. Then, the Championship is between the 2 still standing. With this system you add only one game for a few and 2 games for a couple of teams. By mid-January you have a Champion who earned it!
Perhaps this limits the access of teams not in the 6 automatic conferences but those conferences control the BCS and they will never choose an outsider without this system. With this system you don't create a long second season which would take away significantly from the NCAA's academic goals. It allows a Hawaii (or Boise State or Fresno State or whoever is the phenomenen of the year) to go all the way and win against all comers. For fans of any of the teams in the 6 BCS conferences it allows your champion to win the national title regardless of a single loss.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Tom Blogical
said:
posted on November 29, 2007 10:51 AM — 24.95.77.153 — link — abuse?From the 3rd article linked:
"Or, the system would seed the teams No. 1 through No. 4 heading into bowl season and play them off. Slive hinted that he would favor the seeding."
If this isn't a tacit admission by Slive that the BCS is a terrible idea that'll never work as intended, I don't know what is. Then for him to suggest he's open to a system "analagous to a four team playoff", in order to "fix" it, is the height of irony. Then he "hints" at favoring a seeding system for the top 4 teams? Hello, McFly?!?!?!?!
The fact is, Delaney and the reps of the Pac 10 will have none of it. It won't happen.
From the 2nd article linked:
"Jim Delany, the Big Ten commissioner, considers the Plus One the first step toward a playoff system."
"Delany said the Big Ten’s reluctance to change was so strong, there was only a 5 percent chance that Plus One would be part of the next iteration of the B.C.S., beginning in 2011."
Slive is just talking to hear himself talk. This is all just freaking hilarious, and very, very sad all at the same time. Color me permanently disgusted.