College Football Headed to a Playoff?

[Pedro Cerrano]

http://www.nesn.com/2012/01/report-college-football-playoff-coming-as-part-of-next-bcs-contract.html

[SammyBirdland]

Assuming I'm not having an original thought, the BCS is slipping into irrelevancy for more and more fans. If your team is good enough to finish with a rank (lower than 1 or 2), they are being sent to an exhibition game where the outcome doesn't even matter.

They need to get this done. The article doesn't say when the current contract expires. Hopefully we're not talking about decades.

[CrimsonTribe]

Assuming I'm not having an original thought, the BCS is slipping into irrelevancy for more and more fans. If your team is good enough to finish with a rank (lower than 1 or 2), they are being sent to an exhibition game where the outcome doesn't even matter.

They need to get this done. The article doesn't say when the current contract expires. Hopefully we're not talking about decades.

The BCS as we know it has two more years to live. The current contract runs out after the 2013-14 bowls. I feel more confident than ever in saying that after that point, college football will have a four-team playoff to end the season.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/1/10/2696513/bcs-playoff-plus-one-sec-alabama-lsu

That whole post is pretty good regarding the potential for a playoff.

[CrimsonTribe]

Just remember that if it was up to the SEC there would already be at least a plus one. Mike Slive proposed it back in 2008 and was shot down by the Pac-10, Big-10, and Big-12. God forbid they give up the Rose Bowl.

The seeded plus-one would be a better start, ranking four teams into BCS bowls for championship semifinals to advance to the title game. Three years ago, only the ACC supported this proposal from SEC Commissioner Mike Slive. But Kramer's not high on that, either, and doesn't believe the Pac-12 and Big Ten would surrender the Rose Bowl to create equitable seeding.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/12/roy_kramers_rebellious_teenage.html

Saying the BCS was in an "unprecedented state of health," ACC commissioner John Swofford announced Wednesday that college football will not change the way it determines its national champion as it prepares to begin negotiations for future television contracts that will probably run through the 2014 season.

"We will move forward in the next cycle with the current format," said Swofford, who serves as BCS chairman. "I believe the BCS has never been healthier in its first decade."

The decision, made during a five-hour meeting of 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Kevin White at an ocean-front hotel here, wasn't unexpected. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said earlier this week that he remained opposed to the plus-one format, which would have seeded the top four teams in the final BCS standings and match them in two semifinal games and the winners playing in a national title game.

SEC commissioner Mike Slive made the plus-one proposal Wednesday morning but said there was little support among the commissioners. In fact, Slive said only he and Swofford showed much desire in seriously pushing forward the proposal.

"There isn't support among the commissioners at this point to move forward with this proposal as we move into the next cycle," Slive said. "There's no doubt in my mind that the discussions had value and it's important that we know exactly what we're going to do with the next cycle."

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said his league's member schools voted in March not to support any changes to college football's postseason.

"There's a strong feeling in the Big 12 that what we have is working well," Beebe said. "There's great satisfaction with the regular season and the postseason."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3375352

Sorry Oklahoma State and Stanford. Your own conferences did you in.

[Birds of B'more]

Just remember that if it was up to the SEC there would already be at least a plus one. Mike Slive proposed it back in 2008 and was shot down by the Pac-10, Big-10, and Big-12. God forbid they give up the Rose Bowl.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/12/roy_kramers_rebellious_teenage.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3375352

Sorry Oklahoma State and Stanford. Your own conferences did you in.

In full-disclosure for the Pac-12 (10), they turned down the +1 under a different leadership (the uber-stodgy Tom Hansen). Since hiring Larry Scott as commissioner it's become pretty clear that the conference is more forward-thinking and has a much different "per$pective on college $port$." And Scott has publicly said he'd favor a +1....although he and the CEO's still place a high value on the Rose Bowl, so it'll be interesting to see how that works.

[CrimsonTribe]

In full-disclosure for the Pac-12 (10)' date=' they turned down the +1 under a different leadership (the uber-stodgy Tom Hansen). Since hiring Larry Scott as commissioner it's become pretty clear that the conference is more forward-thinking and has a much different "per$pective on college $port$." And Scott has publicly said he'd favor a +1....although he and the CEO's still place a high value on the Rose Bowl, so it'll be interesting to see how that works.[/quote']

Big 12 is in favor of it now too I think. Guess it takes getting burned to make them change their minds. Delaney and the uber-traditional B1G are still up in the air.

[crissfan172]

I really hope this is true. We need a playoff in the worst way.

[BaltimoreTerp]

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/01/playoff-is-coming.html

It turns out all the screaming and protesting and brilliant takedowns of the BCS were not equal in power to the bored flipping of channels during the LSU-Alabama game.

[Birds of B'more]

The people have spoken. We all knew this was the only way change would happen.

[waroriole]

For all the "regular season devalued" people, what do you think about the Giants (9-7) possibly getting to the NFC title game over the Packers (15-1)?

I get that they play the game, BUT (as alot of folks have said) why should the Pack have to beat the Giants again to win it all. Especially after they finished 6 games ahead of them.

[Birds of B'more]

For all the "regular season devalued" people, what do you think about the Giants (9-7) possibly getting to the NFC title game over the Packers (15-1)?

I get that they play the game, BUT (as alot of folks have said) why should the Pack have to beat the Giants again to win it all. Especially after they finished 6 games ahead of them.

In the NFL, the regular season is all about positioning yourself for the playoffs. You can help yourself like Green Bay did by getting a week to rest and guaranteeing you'll play at home, but you have still have to win. Plus, the NFL doesn't spew slogans that lead anyone to believe that Super Bowls are won in the regular season. College football tells us one thing, then does another.

[waroriole]

In the NFL' date=' the regular season is all about positioning yourself for the playoffs. You can help yourself like Green Bay did by getting a week to rest and guaranteeing you'll play at home, but you have still have to win. Plus, the NFL doesn't spew slogans that lead anyone to believe that Super Bowls are won in the regular season. College football tells us one thing, then does another.[/quote']

I get that, but the point isn't changed. So many people were saying that Bama didn't deserve it b/c they already lost to LSU. Why do the Giants deserve it when they already lost to GB and finished 6 games behind them? The same applies to having any wild card team in the playoffs. Why do people not get up in arms about that?

BTW, it sickens me to defend Alabama.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I get that, but the point isn't changed. So many people were saying that Bama didn't deserve it b/c they already lost to LSU. Why do the Giants deserve it when they already lost to GB and finished 6 games behind them? The same applies to having any wild card team in the playoffs. Why do people not get up in arms about that?

BTW, it sickens me to defend Alabama.

This game wasn't chosen by fiat. Both teams won their divisions, and the Giants won a first round game to get to this one.

The NCAA decided that their regular season should matter above all else, except wwhen it shouldn't. Based on the ratings, they are paying the price.

[waroriole]

This game wasn't chosen by fiat. Both teams won their divisions, and the Giants won a first round game to get to this one.

The NCAA decided that their regular season should matter above all else, except wwhen it shouldn't. Based on the ratings, they are paying the price.

I don't know, or care, what that first sentence means. The Giants winning their division, with a 9-7 record, is your argument? So, if Alabama had played in Conference USA, but still lost to LSU, it would be OK?

Basically, the only argument I'm seeing is that the NFL doesn't say the "regular season really matters." Are we basing this all on a slogan?

[Birds of B'more]

I get that, but the point isn't changed. So many people were saying that Bama didn't deserve it b/c they already lost to LSU. Why do the Giants deserve it when they already lost to GB and finished 6 games behind them? The same applies to having any wild card team in the playoffs. Why do people not get up in arms about that?

BTW, it sickens me to defend Alabama.

Like I said, the NFL says the regular season is the regular season and the playoffs are the playoffs. College football says the season is one big playoff....except this year when a bunch of voters say arbitrarily said it wasn't.