Pac 10- We'd Leave B C S Over Plus-1

[MeanGreen61]

Pac-10: We'd leave BCS over plus-1

July 26, 2007

LOS ANGELES -- Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen, who supports bowl games and opposes a playoff system, told Sporting News Thursday his league will walk away from the BCS if the plus-one playoff model becomes a reality.

This offseason alone, conference commissioners from the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Big East have said they are intrigued by the plus-one model -- which would provide a championship game between the two highest-ranked teams after the bowl games -- and might be open to implementing such a plan when the new television contract is negotiated sometime over the next year.

The model, however, will go nowhere without Pac-10 and Big Ten support.

"Our presidents have no interest whatsoever in a plus-one model -- none," Hansen says. "It's a little annoying that my colleagues continue to float this idea as though it has merit. If they continue to push it, and try to push us into a corner ... "

Will the Pac-10 walk away from the BCS?

"Yes, no question."

Hansen's comments are the strongest yet from Pac-10 or Big Ten officials. He says Pac-10 university presidents are more concerned about protecting the sanctity of Rose Bowl than further tweaking the current system, which dilutes the Rose Bowl with a double-hosting model. Hansen says "many" officials within the league and within the powerful Rose Bowl committee want the game once again to pit the Big Ten champions against the Pac-10 champions -- with no BCS strings attached.

"What's the difference between what we use now and the plus-one? Nothing," Hansen says. "You're still relying on (the BCS points system) to determine who plays in the game after all the other bowls. What if three teams are close to each other after all the bowl games? Which two play in the (plus-one) game?"

The BCS television contract with Fox runs through the 2009 season. But the Rose Bowl has signed with ABC through the 2014 game, further complicating any discussion of a plus-one model.

The BCS could begin negotiations for a new deal -- which could be as short as four years or as long as eight, depending on the system in place -- by next spring. That deal would begin with the 2010 season.

Hansen's comments are yet another blow for playoff proponents. In May, Florida president Bernie Machen's playoff proposal was defeated roundly by his fellow Southeastern Conference presidents -- to the point that Machen proclaimed at the end of the league's spring meetings that the BCS was, "a very good way to go."

"(SEC presidents) are persuaded, and I am now persuaded, that the best way to proceed is to try to work within the BCS structure, to make some changes to make it better," Machen said.

[CMJ]

I'm sure Pete Carroll loves this since he's one of the biggest proponents of a playoff.

Edited July 27, 2007 by CMJ

[emmitt01]

I call BS on this one.

BCS- "We're going to a plus one model"

Pac10- "We'll leave the BCS then"

BCS- "Ok, less pie to have to split then"

Pac10- "We've got an idea. How 'bout a plus one model?"

[CMJ]

I call BS on this one.

BCS- "We're going to a plus one model"

Pac10- "We'll leave the BCS then"

BCS- "Ok, less pie to have to split then"

Pac10- "We've got an idea. How 'bout a plus one model?"

Not if they get the Big 10 with them. Those 2 leagues are lockstep. We'd be back to the Bowl Alliance or whatever it was called that preceded the BCS.

[Arkstfan]

The Pac-10 and Big 10 don't need the BCS

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2749584

[UNTflyer]

This is why the NCAA needs to step up and formulate a plan for a playoff system to crown an OFFICIAL NCAA College Football Champion.

No conference in their right mind would throw a tantrum and threaten to walk.

Form a 12th conference. Each conference would be required to hold a conference championship game, the winners getting an automatic bid into the tournament with 4 "at-large" spots that would be determined by either the polls (4 highest ranked non-conference winners) or some committee.

The minor bowls would become the new Conference Championship games, with the moderately popular bowls serving as quarterfinal games. The "major" bowls would host the "Final Eight" and "Final Four", culminating in an OFFICIAL NCAA College Football Championship game.

The downside to this is that the regular season would probably have to be cut back to 10 games.

Edited July 28, 2007 by UNTflyer

[CMJ]

And I don't see that ever happening.

[UNTflyer]

And I don't see that ever happening.

Why not? This would mean 27 playoff games. The major bowls would remain intact, and they could use a formula to divide the ENORMOUS revenues just like they do in the basketball tournament.

Edited July 28, 2007 by UNTflyer

[CMJ]

If the NCAA were going to step in and force it to happen, it would've done so decades ago.

[greenminer]

If the NCAA were going to step in and force it to happen, it would've done so decades ago.

If UNT had a big-time stadium donor, he would've...

nvm :/

[NT80]

Great! Break up the BC$!

[NorthTexan95]

Pac 10 wants to leave? Fine! Just tell them they can't play any teams in any BCS conference. They can fill their schedules with playing each other and I-AA teams.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

I actually agree with Hansen on the plus one playoff. It would be a sham. But for one person to stand up and dictate to the rest of the NCAA what they can or cannot do is wrong. He should have his ass kicked up between his shoulder blades.

It's fine to oppose something but they (Pac 10) need to go along with the majority of the NCAA. If they don't they should be booted out and, as far as I'm concerned, I'd help lead a boycott of any network that tried to undermine what the majority of the NCAA agreed upon.

If the mahority agree on a playoff, a plus one playoff, or strictly bowls, the Pac 10 needs to follow. Oherwise, be careful of the doorknob.

[BIG DAWG]

He (Hansen) is right, what would be the difference between that and what we have now?

You would still be relying on computers to determine who plays in the "and one" game, and they will screw it up just the same

[NT03]

Even if plus 1 was implemented last year , Boise would still of been left out in the cold.

Unless DI adopts something similar to DI-AA ( or whatever it is now called) the debates will never end.

[Arkstfan]

Why doesn't the NCAA step in and replace the BCS?

Two bodies set the policy for FBS post-season.

Management Council

18 votes for the BCS auto berth Conferences

8 votes for the other five conferences.

Board of Directors (final say) comprised of 6 presidents from the BCS auto berth conferences, 5 from the other conferences.

In the event of an override, one school, one vote

BCS auto berth 65 votes, rest 54.

Plus 1 requires authorizing an extension of the season and Board approval. Unless there is a massive share of the money trickling to the five non-auto members they've no incentive to vote for it and with lobbying from the Pac-10 can likely block it. If there is a massive share of money flowing down, it probably doesn't generate enough interest among those other five leagues to support it either.

The University president or chancellor is the most powerful element of the NCAA. Remember Florida's president publicly advocated a playoff. He went to the SEC presidents meeting and became a fan of the bowls. Remember that the conference commissioners and athletic directors on the Management Council adopted new FBS membership criteria that required 15,000 BIS every season and required 5 FBS home games. Once the presidents and chancellors saw what was happening they weakened those rules giving schools time to adapt, changing butts in seats to paid attendance and making attendance a once every two years element. If the commissioners and AD's ran the show, we'd likely have a playoff already and probably 75 to 100 schools in FBS, but the presidents run the show.

[Censored by Laurie]

This is why the NCAA needs to step up and formulate a plan for a playoff system to crown an OFFICIAL NCAA College Football Champion.

No conference in their right mind would throw a tantrum and threaten to walk.

Form a 12th conference. Each conference would be required to hold a conference championship game, the winners getting an automatic bid into the tournament with 4 "at-large" spots that would be determined by either the polls (4 highest ranked non-conference winners) or some committee.

The minor bowls would become the new Conference Championship games, with the moderately popular bowls serving as quarterfinal games. The "major" bowls would host the "Final Eight" and "Final Four", culminating in an OFFICIAL NCAA College Football Championship game.

The downside to this is that the regular season would probably have to be cut back to 10 games.

The best thing about college football is how much every regular season game means. Week 2 last year...if UT comes back to beat Ohio State, Florida kicks someone elses ass in the Nat'l Championship game. If you want to win the Nat'l Championship you have to be in playoff mode from Game 1...college football essentially has a 13 week playoff as it stands now...you add a playoff system at the end of the year and it becomes just like the NFL...you're disappointed by a loss, but it doesn't effectivly end your season.

what needs to be ammended is pre-season rankings...nobody ought to be ranked until atleast half-way through the season, I'm not just talking BCS rankings...I mean any ranking.

As for the plus-1 game...this is the first I heard of it...who would've played last year? Florida and USC or Florida and Boise St.? Maybe if there is a clear cut #1 you pit those vying for #2...USC vs. Boise...but who would really travel and pay good money or invest 4 hours of their time to say they finished second?

The system we currently have has definite flaws, but a playoff system ruins college football.

[Arkstfan]

The best thing about college football is how much every regular season game means. Week 2 last year...if UT comes back to beat Ohio State, Florida kicks someone elses ass in the Nat'l Championship game. If you want to win the Nat'l Championship you have to be in playoff mode from Game 1...college football essentially has a 13 week playoff as it stands now...you add a playoff system at the end of the year and it becomes just like the NFL...you're disappointed by a loss, but it doesn't effectivly end your season.

what needs to be ammended is pre-season rankings...nobody ought to be ranked until atleast half-way through the season, I'm not just talking BCS rankings...I mean any ranking.

As for the plus-1 game...this is the first I heard of it...who would've played last year? Florida and USC or Florida and Boise St.? Maybe if there is a clear cut #1 you pit those vying for #2...USC vs. Boise...but who would really travel and pay good money or invest 4 hours of their time to say they finished second?

The system we currently have has definite flaws, but a playoff system ruins college football.

And if you do like Auburn and end up undefeated with several others, playing a weak schedule to stay home and print money will cost you a shot.

[gksmith]

Regardless, we are stuck with the BCS as is for at least another 3-4 years (2010 or 2011).

Maybe a few years of getting screwed out of the championship or left out of the BCS bowl (see Wisconsin for the last 3 years) will soften their tone.

Wisconsin has been the third team in the B10. BCS can only take 2 teams max from a conference. Wisconsin finished 6th in the nation last season and went to the best non-BCS bowl for the 4th year in a row (Capirol One Bowl). Their only loss was to Michigan. They didn't play OSU last year.

Lets see what USC says when UCLA, Washington, Cal, and Stanford come around in a few years and USC ends up ranked in the top 12 but the thrid team out in the P10.

[UNTflyer]

The system we currently have has definite flaws, but a playoff system ruins college football.

My proposed playoff system still emphasizes the importance of every game. Automatic bids to the playoffs would go only to conference champions or to the highest ranked conference losers. I throw that caveat in to satisfy those who play in the top conferences.

On the flip side, should one loss really ruin your shot at the national title? There were some very good one-loss teams last year who didn't have a shot at the title: Michigan, Louisville, Wisconsin, Boise State (13-0)

[Arkstfan]

I don't like the current system, dislike a playoff even more but don't think a playoff ruins college football. The game is more about the Thursday before Labor Day to the first Saturday in December no matter what happens.

Personally I liked the old system. Big 10 vs. Pac-10 in the Rose, SEC in Sugar, Big 8/12 in the Orange, SWC in the Cotton and the remainder of the bowl scrambling for the best match-ups. Going into New Year's Day with 3 or more teams capable of crowing that they were national champs was fun. It wasn't uncommon for 1, 2, 3 not be playing each other. Normally you figured 1 just needs to win but other schools still had a shot.

I loved it.

Eventually dollars will trump tradition (can you say MLB wild-card) but when it happens I want a fair shot.

[PlummMeanGreen]

I don't like the current system, dislike a playoff even more but don't think a playoff ruins college football. The game is more about the Thursday before Labor Day to the first Saturday in December no matter what happens.

Personally I liked the old system. Big 10 vs. Pac-10 in the Rose, SEC in Sugar, Big 8/12 in the Orange, SWC in the Cotton and the remainder of the bowl scrambling for the best match-ups. Going into New Year's Day with 3 or more teams capable of crowing that they were national champs was fun. It wasn't uncommon for 1, 2, 3 not be playing each other. Normally you figured 1 just needs to win but other schools still had a shot.

I loved it.

Eventually dollars will trump tradition (can you say MLB wild-card) but when it happens I want a fair shot.

Absolutely...

I loved the first part of the week waiting to see if ABC-TV was going to put us on their following Saturday telecasts (which didn't happen enough at NT back in the day). I think the Mean Joe Greene era got us a couple of those ABC TV games post-Greene graduation, but our team had lost all its talent by then.

Tulsa vs NT was one of those broadcasts that I watched down in the Houston area while still in high school. I guess that would have been ABC TV affiliate channel 13?

I'm not sure about the long term ramifciations of a play-off as I smell the Big Boys using it to serve their needs while leaving out way too many non-BCS schools, but that is why I guess we all need to grow our programs (and fill as large a stadiums as we can build)?

I defer to the below "new" signature...

GMG!

Edited July 29, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I don't like the current system, dislike a playoff even more but don't think a playoff ruins college football. The game is more about the Thursday before Labor Day to the first Saturday in December no matter what happens.

Personally I liked the old system. Big 10 vs. Pac-10 in the Rose, SEC in Sugar, Big 8/12 in the Orange, SWC in the Cotton and the remainder of the bowl scrambling for the best match-ups. Going into New Year's Day with 3 or more teams capable of crowing that they were national champs was fun. It wasn't uncommon for 1, 2, 3 not be playing each other. Normally you figured 1 just needs to win but other schools still had a shot.

I loved it.

Eventually dollars will trump tradition (can you say MLB wild-card) but when it happens I want a fair shot.

----I really hated the old system.... for example you could have an undefeated team in Rose bowl and an undefeated team in the Cotton, Sugar or Orange Bowl or even in three of those Bowls. and their was no way they could play each other. Nothing was ever decided in the post season on the field. Even the AP poll did not consider Bowl games in their voting for " National Champion" Most bowl game teams had not played a game in over a month or since Thanksgiving and often did not really take practice much and or those games all that seriously. (at least when I was in college during the dark ages) I think it the 80's when the AP started considering Bowl games results in their voting. The AP coaches bowl had taken those games into account.

---The undefeated Rose Bowl winner was nearly always considered the champion in those situations.... Guess where the population centers were and were the voters were concentrated.?????? It was an awful system and beside at one time the Pac-10 and Big-10 did not send more than one team to a bowl and then only the Rose bowl. They rarely played Southern schools either. The North-East, Midwest and Far West still considered the Southwest and South as country-bumpkin schools. They still do somewhat on the US News college rankings.

---Space satellites, mass communication, and cables changed everything during the 80's regarding sports because of so much coverage and with respect to Bowl Games. I think your memory of what was happening is flawed... It often was not even possible for the top 3-4 to play each other because of conference tie-ins.

[CMJ]

The AP voted on a National Champion after the bowl games beginning in 1968. From '36-67 they did so before Bowls.

[gksmith]

What was the worst travisty of the old system was that BYU was a national champion. They played Michigan in the Holiday Bowl. A Michigan team that was 6-5 that year. The problem wasn't that they won the championship, it was that they played a soft schedule and played a bad team in the bowl game.

BCS is better then the old system...but still a far cry from what needs to happen.