Playoffs don't seem to be reality at BCS meetings April 28, 2008 By Dennis Dodd
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. – Sorry playoff supporters, it seems that you'll have to wait a little longer.
While official word probably won't come until Wednesday at the earliest, the BCS structure looks like it is going to remain the same. Amid speculation that a modest plus-one playoff might be considered here, BCS chairman John Swofford didn't sound like a man ready to participate in ripping apart the college football landscape.
"I continue to sense a certain comfort level, if you will, with the current status of things with the BCS," Swofford said Monday at the conclusion of the first day of the annual BCS meetings.
The BCS will be validated when their mode of determining a "champion" becomes the norm across the landscape of sports. Since that's not likely to happen anytime soon, it's just going to have to remain the worst excuse for a "championship" in the history of everything, ever.
There is a reason they changed the name from IA IAA to BCS and FCS. BCS = Bowl Championship series and FCS = Football Championship Series. The BCS claims it is to determine the Bowls and the Champion from how they match up, while the FCS actually determines a football championship.
It'll happen. I dont know when or in what format, but too many want it for it to just die. It was about 90 yrs before rankings were completed after bowl games because fans complained, and then it took another 30+ yrs after that to come up with the BCS after fans complained. The problem I have with the complaining is that we all know the powers that be will screw it up regardless of what format is decided upon.
In the format currently being discussed, I know I'll be the first to say "I told you so" after the nation is ticked that an undefeated, clear #1 team, had to beat a #4 1 or 2-loss team in one BCS bowl and then loses to a #3 2-loss team in the "championship" bowl and said 2-loss team is crowned champion.
I would be okay with a "plus-one if needed" model, but that will truly never happen. The networks would hate that.
They're going to vote on the +1 system, but it requires a unanimous vote to overturn, and everyone is expecting the Pac-10/Big 10 commishes to vote against it, while everyone else votes in favor.
Free Bagel wrote:They're going to vote on the +1 system, but it requires a unanimous vote to overturn, and everyone is expecting the Pac-10/Big 10 commishes to vote against it, while everyone else votes in favor.
I'm trying to figure out a reason why the Pac-10/Big-10 would be against it.
Can you enlighten me? Or at least do you have any thoughts as to why?
Free Bagel wrote:They're going to vote on the +1 system, but it requires a unanimous vote to overturn, and everyone is expecting the Pac-10/Big 10 commishes to vote against it, while everyone else votes in favor.
I'm trying to figure out a reason why the Pac-10/Big-10 would be against it.
Can you enlighten me? Or at least do you have any thoughts as to why?
Tradition I guess.
This is actually old news. The BCS came out and said months ago that the +1 system was all but official to start in 2010 or 2011, at which point the Pac-10 and Big 10 commishes said they'd quit the BCS if that happened.
So, now they're going to vote on it, and there's no indications that that Pac-10/Big 10 have changed their minds.
Free Bagel wrote:They're going to vote on the +1 system, but it requires a unanimous vote to overturn, and everyone is expecting the Pac-10/Big 10 commishes to vote against it, while everyone else votes in favor.
I'm trying to figure out a reason why the Pac-10/Big-10 would be against it.
Can you enlighten me? Or at least do you have any thoughts as to why?
Because both conferences know if they have a plus one they are screwed
Free Bagel wrote:They're going to vote on the +1 system, but it requires a unanimous vote to overturn, and everyone is expecting the Pac-10/Big 10 commishes to vote against it, while everyone else votes in favor.
I'm trying to figure out a reason why the Pac-10/Big-10 would be against it.
Can you enlighten me? Or at least do you have any thoughts as to why?
Tradition I guess.
This is actually old news. The BCS came out and said months ago that the +1 system was all but official to start in 2010 or 2011, at which point the Pac-10 and Big 10 commishes said they'd quit the BCS if that happened.
So, now they're going to vote on it, and there's no indications that that Pac-10/Big 10 have changed their minds.
Bagel is correct, and I can answer Met's underlined question in two words: Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl is the single biggest reason why the Big 10 / Pac 10 will always vote against anything resembling a playoff system. This one game is holding the entire playoff process hostage. It is the reason the Big 10 refused to join the BCS in the 1990s (and why Michigan leeched a portion of Nebraska's 1997 MNC), and it will be the biggest hindrance to the playoff system while it still exists. Yes, there are other reasons, the biggest of these being the sportswriters digging having such huge amounts of control over this sport (I just listened to a writer expound on this on my drive home last night). I find the whole situation ridiculous, and I have nothing but contempt for this method of determining a "champion," but this is the system we have now, and for the forseeable future.
I figured it had to do with the Rose Bowl but even that tradition has changed, you don't see Pac-10 vs. Big-10 in the Rose Bowl every year. Remember Vince Young and Texas a few years back? Sure you do see the Pac-10/Big-10 conference winners matched up in a top bowl but the tradition of the Rose Bowl has lost a lot of luster. I think it's more about these conferences keeping their top bowl money they earn than the bowl itself.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by 
