BCS proposes radical changes

Discussion in 'Football: NFL, College, High School' started by A_3PO, Nov 18, 2011.

  1. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    39,327
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Wow! Read this.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football...ndling-national-championship-game-sources-say

    Sources: BCS proposes radical changes
    By Gene Wojciechowski

    Among a handful of suggested format changes being considered by Bowl Championship Series members is an informal proposal that would radically change the structure of the BCS and significantly alter the major bowl selection process.

    According to sources with direct knowledge of meetings held in San Francisco earlier this week, the suggested change calls for the BCS to sever its direct ties with the so-called BCS bowls -- the Allstate Sugar Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, Discover Orange Bowl and Rose Bowl Game presented by Vizio -- and concentrate solely on arranging a No. 1 vs. No. 2 national championship matchup.

    In addition, the BCS title game could potentially be bidded out to nontraditional sites, such as Jerry Jones' Cowboys Stadium.

    A proposed change to the existing BCS system could eliminate lopsided matchups like the 2011 Fiesta Bowl between Oklahoma and UConn.
    The proposal also would eliminate automatic BCS bowl qualifying status currently given to the six major conferences. All conferences would be free to make their own deals with the 34 other existing bowls.

    The reconfigured BCS would undergo significant change relative to its present revenue sharing system, too.

    "There's a lot of stuff being thrown at the wall," said one official who attended the meetings. "I think the people in the room really want to get it right. They're tired of getting beat up. So you'll probably see us go slow on this one."

    The most radical of those ideas is also the least complicated: the BCS would be responsible only for creating a national championship between the two top teams in the country.

    Under this format, the champions of the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big East and Big 12 conferences would no longer receive automatic entry into the bowls that currently make up the BCS rotation: Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange. That's because the BCS would no longer be required to provide teams for those four games.

    Instead, all 11 FBS conferences and their members, as well as football independents, would begin, in theory, each season with an equal chance of reaching the national championship game. And by eliminating the automatic qualifying clause, BCS officials hope that conference realignment and expansion -- in some cases, done in hopes of securing AQ status -- would subside.

    Equally intriguing in the proposed model is the possibility of opening bidding for the BCS Championship location and the absence of a two-team-per-conference limit in those major bowls. In other words, a world where SEC West rivals LSU, Alabama and Arkansas could find themselves, depending on rankings and record, in what are now referred to as BCS bowls.

    "I think it was an idea that was thrown out on the table," said a person who attended the meetings. "To run with it and say there was support for it, that that's the way we're going, is way premature ... I would be amazed if that's where we ended up."

    Said another conference official: "I would respectfully disagree. I think it has a chance. It really does. It truly does. I was very encouraged."

    It is not known how the proposed model would affect football independent Notre Dame, which now receives preferred revenue sharing and access to BCS bowls. Nor is it known if the BCS would continue using the existing BCS standings as the way to determine the No. 1 vs. No. 2 national title matchup.

    But if eventually recommended by the conference commissioners and approved by the BCS presidential oversight committee, the model would have a profound effect on the postseason, on the way the BCS does business, on TV and bowl partnerships, and on conferences themselves.

    "Why a 1-vs.-2-only is being introduced is to eliminate some of the issues and create a simpler, more straightforward format," said another conference official. "And then you forget about the rest of it."

    The "rest of it" being the present system, which is criticized for not providing equal access to non-AQ conferences such as the Mountain West Conference, Conference USA or the Western Athletic Conference. The BCS also has been ridiculed for BCS bowl matchups that were the product of conference automatic berths, such as last season's Fiesta Bowl: No. 7 Oklahoma of the Big 12 vs. unranked Connecticut of the Big East (final score: OU 48, UConn 20) and No. 4 Stanford of the Pac-12 vs. No. 13 Virginia Tech of the ACC (final score: Stanford 40, Virginia Tech 14).

    "There was a situation last year where arguably the Capital One Bowl had a better matchup (No. 16 Alabama vs. No. 9 Michigan State) than some of the BCS bowls," said an athletic director from a Top 25 program.

    Conferences such as the Big East, which are in danger of losing their AQ status, are trying to recruit successful football programs -- Boise State, for example -- to improve their standing. But according to a conference official familiar with the content of the BCS meetings, the Big East would be affected by any model that forces the league to forfeit its AQ standing.

    "It would hurt (it)," said the official. "They don't have the tradition and ticket sales reputation -- at least, a lot of their schools don't have -- to the major bowls."

    Also debatable is the affect such a format would have on programs from programs presently in non-AQ conferences, such as Boise State and Houston. Would those programs have more or fewer opportunities to play in a national championship game or a BCS bowl-level game?

    "If you have a highly-ranked team -- a Boise, a TCU, a Hawaii, a Utah -- I think in that kind of system there are probably ways those type of seasons would be recognized," said the BCS conference athletic director.

    But a conference official who also attended the BCS meetings said: "I think the bottom line is that Boise State-Oklahoma, Utah-Alabama, TCU-Wisconsin, Utah-Alabama, that those (bowl) games won't materialize in the future. I think it would clearly change the bowl lineup and the opportunity for a team like Boise State, or a MWC or C-USA team to play on the big stage."

    According to those who were involved in the meetings, this was just one of several format ideas discussed by the 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. A pure playoff model was presented, as was the familiar Plus-One model.

    There also were discussions that centered on keeping the core of the BCS system, but with additional tweaks. One such tweak would be to simply eliminate AQ status.

    Another idea called for the seeding of the No. 1 and No. 2 teams in the national championship game, and then creating an at-large and conference champion seeding. The BCS bowls, in a predetermined order, would then have the opportunity to choose a team based on traditional conference tie-ins (SEC and Sugar Bowl, for example) or go outside of those tie-ins. A second round of picks would allow the bowls to fill their remaining openings.

    Another possibility, if not likelihood: the BCS running the championship game itself, rather than piggybacking with an existing BCS bowl. This season, the Sugar Bowl will oversee both its bowl and the BCS Championship.

    "People are thinking out loud," said a conference commissioner.

    The more they think, the more it appears that BCS change is imminent after the present BCS cycle ends at the conclusion of the 2013 season. Another meeting of the commissioners and members of the BCS hierarchy is scheduled in early January in New Orleans. The commissioners are expected to make their final model recommendation to the presidents in June.

    "I think what we're doing is a natural progression," said a conference commissioner. "I think this is one of those milestones to start tinkering with (the BCS) again."

    Gene Wojciechowski is the senior national columnist for ESPN.com. You can contact him at gene.wojciechowski@espn.com. Hear Gene's podcasts and ESPN Radio appearances by clicking here. And don't forget to follow him on Twitter @GenoEspn.
     
  2. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    38,608
    Likes Received:
    2,430
    Can the NCAA step in finally and squash this nonsense?
     
  3. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    25,508
    Likes Received:
    1,395

    bwwaaaahahahaha

    have fun in the Big East, losers!
     
  4. ryan_98

    ryan_98 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,844
    Likes Received:
    114
    this proposal is missing something (well it was given half a sentence)...

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/p3-eavMSBnk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
     
  5. rockbox

    rockbox Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2000
    Messages:
    15,314
    Likes Received:
    798
    Just have a playoff already with the champs of all the major conferences and the 2 highest ranked team from the remaining field. We can even have a wild card game for the last two spots.
     
  6. moestavern19

    moestavern19 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 1999
    Messages:
    37,985
    Likes Received:
    1,973

    College Gameday, National Recognition, a Heisman Trophy Candidate, and a 9 TD performance on that piece of **** Rice team.

    I can't even imagine how this UH football season must feel for you.
     
  7. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    38,608
    Likes Received:
    2,430
    hur dur dur 73-34 losers lolololololooloolo
     
  8. DaDakota

    DaDakota Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 1999
    Messages:
    102,903
    Likes Received:
    4,504
    Just do a playoffs already...sheesh !

    DD
     
  9. spence99

    spence99 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    2
    Doesn't sound like radical changes to me - it's still just matching up #1 vs #2. When will these idiots ever realize there is major money to be made in creating a playoff? It's like they purposely want to come up with their own answer to try and look smarter than all other sports. But every other sport realizes a playoff brings the most money in. Hey idiots - create a playoff!
     
  10. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    39,327
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Tell me what isn't radical about junking automatic bids to the major bowls and making it a major free-for-all. The Big East would be nuked. UH may as well stay in Conference USA.
     
  11. DonnyMost

    DonnyMost Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Messages:
    38,608
    Likes Received:
    2,430
    The basketball and regular Bowl tie-ins would make the move worth it, even without the BCS.
     
  12. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    33,141
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    The ridiculous thing is that it seems to be designed to stop conference realignment, but the biggest schools affected (TCU, Utah, Boise, potentially UH) have already moved to BCS conferences. This seems like a move to prevent those schools from getting invited to big bowls now that they found routes to do that (especially Boise/UH, since they can roll through the Big East).

    Totally reactionary move at this point, though it does get rid of your silly 9-3 VaTech's getting into big bowls over a 10-2 Big12 or SEC team. So you'll probably have better "BCS" games, as long as as the best schools happen to all be big names.
     
  13. DieHard Rocket

    DieHard Rocket Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2000
    Messages:
    9,002
    Likes Received:
    423
    Is it really that f***ing difficult?

    Keep the BCS rankings and the bowls to keep everyone happy, do a 6 team playoff. #1 and #2 get a "bye". Only 6 teams because if you do any more it increases the amount of games drastically and that will get arguments from the academic side.

    For example:

    Round 1
    Orange Bowl: #3 vs #6
    Rose Bowl: #4 vs #5

    Round 2
    Sugar Bowl: #1 vs (lowest ranked winner of first round)
    Fiesta Bowl: #2 vs (highest ranked winner of first round)

    BCS Championship game: Winners of round two
     
  14. A_3PO

    A_3PO Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    39,327
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    I wonder if the Big East or one of it's new members might threaten a lawsuit to stop this train from leaving the station.

    You meant WVU, not VaTech. VaTech would be top 5 if they hadn't laid an egg against Clemson last month.
     
  15. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    33,141
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    Sorry - I wasn't referring to this year. Just the general notion that mediocre ACC like a 9-3 VaTech make it every year. Big East gets the same nonsense.

    I'm not sure if the BigEast would have a case for a lawsuit - the BCS renews every 3 or 4 years, but I don't think there's any longterm agreement beyond that period. So I think they have free reign to blow it all up everytime the agreement expires.

    In my ideal world, there would be a more limited rule - conference champions are guaranteed in as long they are top 15 or something like that. Gets rid of your crappy teams, but protects the weak brands.
     
  16. ascaptjack

    ascaptjack Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,690
    Likes Received:
    140
    God, you make it way too easy!
     
  17. Fyreball

    Fyreball Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    11,479
    Likes Received:
    2,924
    So correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems like all this is coming to the forefront now because TCU and Houston are re-aligning to AQ conferences, right? Basically, now that the smaller non-AQ teams have positioned themselves to be in AQ conferences, and found a way to beat the system, the BCS is trying to change the system on them?? A system that was put in place to block the smaller schools from BCS bowls in the first place?? Why again are they against a playoff system?? Wouldn't that solve EVERYTHING??
     
  18. Joshfast

    Joshfast Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2001
    Messages:
    6,036
    Likes Received:
    917
    Have fun continuing to pretend you went to Rice for your character on clutchfans. That schtick is old balls like your face yo.
     
  19. rrj_gamz

    rrj_gamz Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    15,401
    Likes Received:
    57
    Interesting, but I doubt it'll happen...

    Playoffs would be great, but I don't think they're is big time $$ for the schools so IMHO, that is why it never is an option...at least w/ bowl games, you have one big payday with sponsors/tv and you have a chance for alum/students to travel to a specific location...
     
  20. Ziggy

    Ziggy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 1999
    Messages:
    28,389
    Likes Received:
    2,042
    You can just attach playoff games to bowls.
     
Loading...

Share This Page