iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
John Ziegler

GET UPDATES FROM John Ziegler
 

BCS Playoff: The 'One' Plan Which Can Pass and Save College Football

Posted: 06/14/2012 2:19 pm

The Lords of the BCS, college football's controversial system for determining a national champion, met again in Chicago and released a vague statement about the progress of their negotiations. It is widely presumed that they will eventually create some sort of a four-team playoff.

It also appears that most of the haggling is focused on the many details which would have to be worked out so that no one's interest would too dramatically harmed by this remarkable change, for which many college football fans have been hungering for many years. A final decision is expected by the end of the month.

The reason they haven't come up with anything yet is really quite obvious. There is just no way that a four team playoff will remotely please everyone involved. They are trying to force a round peg into a square hole.

The statement indicated that the committee members "value the bowl tradition and recognize the many benefits it brings to student-athletes." But no matter how they configure it, it is simply impossible to preserve the bowl system as a meaningful institution once you create three games of ultimate importance and place them outside of the bowls (calling a semi-final game the "Rose Bowl" and stripping it of any unique identity just isn't going to cut it).

Attempting to create a playoff system and preserve the bowls would be like trying to tell your wife that you are still married, but that you are now allowed to spend Christmas and New Year's Eve with other women. Good luck with that.

A four-team playoff will not only kill the big bowls it will also eventually destroy the entire bowl system (admittedly, the game could use having a few of the minor ones eliminated). This will have huge implications on college football as a whole because about 100 schools have no shot at ever playing for a BCS title and the bowls provide the incentive for their seasons to go on after they have lost a couple of games.

There is however one scenario, still apparently under consideration, which could possibly placate all of the diverse parties (schools, conferences, bowls, television, fans, etc), but, as of right now, this plan appears to be at least a 10-point underdog.

Known as the "plus one" option, it provides all of the benefits of a playoff (maybe even more) with almost none of the drawbacks. Here is how this plan might work and why it is not only the best alternative, it may very well be the only one which can ultimately get enough votes to pass.

The "plus one"-system starts with restoring the major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta) to their old traditions before the BCS basically rendered all but one of them in any given year irrelevant. This means that the Rose Bowl would feature the winners of the Big Ten and the Pac-12 (as God originally intended), the Sugar would do the same for the SEC and Big 12 champions (which already have an agreement to start meeting). Meanwhile, the Orange and Fiesta could host the champions of the next two most worthy conferences (who knows which those will be once the realignment dust finally settles) against the two highest ranked "at large" schools as chosen by the current BCS computer system.

This would mean that going into the bowls eight teams (six conferences champions and two "at large" selections, though you could easily add the Cotton Bowl and two more "at large" schools, which might convince Notre Dame to go for the idea) would still be alive in the race for the national title. Then each of these four bowl games would be played, with staggered starting times, on New Year's Day (as God originally intended). Each would have meaning both from the standpoint of tradition as well as because they would serve as "de facto" semi-finals for the BCS championship game. It would be impossible to conceive of a scenario where at least three of these four games didn't have national championship implications. The bowl tradition would be saved/enhanced and the television ratings for each of them, which have been decreasing, would swell dramatically.

Then, the day after those bowls (January 3 on years when New Year's Day is on a Sunday and the Rose Bowl and parade takes place on the 2nd) the BCS computers would choose two teams from those four winners to play in a national championship game. That contest could be easily played two weeks later on the night of Martin Luther King Day (an open Monday after the NFL season is over). The build up would be incredible without being anti-climatic (last year Alabama didn't play for a ridiculous six weeks before finally winning the title). Again, the ratings would likely increase, potentially by a lot.

The key to the "plus one" is that it allows the bowls to become relevant again while actually creating what is essentially an eight-team playoff, only with no actual semi-finals. The reason why the four-team playoff is not currently politically viable is that there are four BCS bowls and only three games within the playoff (thus the round peg/square hole theory). At least one is going to be left out and two are going to be permanently stripped of their traditions while taking a definitive back seat to another.

The reason why "plus one" solves the political problems of the currently favored playoff proposals is that it is the only plan which addresses the Rose Bowl dilemma. The "Granddaddy of them all," is not just a football game. It is also the most watched parade in the world and that parade is usually on News Year's Day (thus, making the Rose Bowl the championship game wouldn't work). The Rose Bowl also has the strongest conference tradition and both the Big Ten and Pac-12 have indicated that they will not part with that connection unless it is somehow very much worth their while to do so.

Quite simply, this is one of those rare situations where the only scenario which can work politically also happens to be the best one for each of the parties involved. The solution to all the major problems of the BCS is right there in front of them. Here's to hoping that they don't blow what is likely the last chance to save college football from itself for the long-term.

 

Follow John Ziegler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Zigmanfreud

FOLLOW SPORTS
The Lords of the BCS, college football's controversial system for determining a national champion, met again in Chicago and released a vague statement about the progress of their negotiations. It is ...
The Lords of the BCS, college football's controversial system for determining a national champion, met again in Chicago and released a vague statement about the progress of their negotiations. It is ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 9
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
02:14 PM on 06/26/2012
Who is (are) the BCS anyways?

College Football jurisdiction should be returned to the NCAA that provides Championships Playoffs in Football’s lower Divisions along with every other sport competed on the Collegiate Level.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phalanxman
Everything in Moderation
08:22 PM on 06/20/2012
Oh, yeah, this is sure going to work. Only six comments below this, and I can't find any common ground among them. Personally, I'd say do the traditional bowl games, then choose the top four schools and have a round of play-offs, with the two winners squaring off in a national championship. That is still not a perfect solution, but by having eight "contenders" going in, the field is enlarged, and underdogs from the "mid-majors" who have a great season get a better shot at the moon.
photo
bart4u
Concerned Citizen
02:56 AM on 06/18/2012
Get rid of the bowl system. Everybody in this country wants a playoff and a nation champion. The only people that want a bowl games are the rich people that profit off a game. This has to stop.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:36 AM on 06/17/2012
I have been to a bowl game and it was great. Bur it was an exhibition game, as are all bowl games, unless they 'designate' a game otherwise. The chance to be a 'Champion' is decided in a conference room as much as it is on the field.. A plus one won't change that.
The bowls are important to many, and having a playoff is just as important to others. This standoff between the two sides will be decided the American Way. A playoff is the most profitable, therefore that is what we will have in the end. The colleges are waking up to the fact that they do not need the bowls as much as the bowls need them. I think that the bowls may remain, but it will be in a severely neutered form, finance wise. If the college presidents are offered 20 million for a bowl game versus 30 million for their own game, It seems to me that they will take the bigger money.
I would not be surprised if we end up eventually with 8 teams in a championship tournament, and along with that the bowls will have exhibitions. As they do now
04:41 PM on 06/14/2012
If you think the SEC and Big 12 are going to commit to the Sugar Bowl you just haven't been paying attention. More than likely the Champions Bowl will be bid out and rotated among highest paying venues. IF (BIG IF) they opt to settle on one venue Jerry Jones will probably steal the show.

Traditional Bowl Committees have a snow ball's chance in Phoenix. SEC and Big 12 have already cut out the bowl committees on their spread sheets for planning. They are taking the bowl committee cut for themselves. NO SUGAR BOWL, NO COTTON BOWL, NO PEACH BOWL, its called the Champions Bowl for a reason No Bowl Committee gets a piece of the Pie.

The Plus one idea ends up being no different in outcome than what they have now, the only difference would be the Rose Bowl will be the Rose Bowl once again and the Big 4 will have essentially shot themselves in the foot by eliminating two prior to the final selection for the National Championship Game. The team in this scenario that is in the drivers seat will be the occasional 2011 Alabama, didn't win the Conference Championship but can pick and choose to their advantage who they will play in a bowl game. This is a substantial advantage over the Big 4 conference champions who will be knocking each other off and bruising each other up.

PLUS ONE = WORSE THAN WHAT THEY HAVE NOW.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:26 PM on 06/14/2012
I-AA college football has been succcessfully running a 16 team plyoff for a long time. the primary opponent to a 4 or 8 team playoff in January is MAJOR CONFERENCE GREED.
04:03 PM on 06/14/2012
- Sorry, for a minute there I thought Mr. Ziegler was headed in the right direction before it became apparent that he's a propaganda arm for the Pac-12 and BIG TEN (B1G). Mr. Ziegler's (& Mr. Delany's & Mr. Scott's, ...BIG TEN & Pac-12 Commissioners) proposal relegates the Orange & Fiesta Bowls to non-relevance as the championship participants will most certainly come from either the Rose &/or the Champions Bowls. Certainly starting the four (4) super conference arms race decimating the rest of the college football conference landscape.
- Although Mr. Ziegler is on the correct track by proposing eight (8) teams to begin the playoff, as it would best assure inclusion of the entire college football community. However, you must break up the [BIG TEN - Pac-12] and [SEC - Big XII] paradigm that would forever keep out all other conference representatives, and independent schools, from serious championship game consideration.
02:52 PM on 06/14/2012
Why does College Football need "Saved?" It was fine before all of these bandwagon fans jumped in and started whining for a playoff. As far as I, and many others are concerned, a playoff will only ruin the sport.
02:15 PM on 06/26/2012
It is not fine and, the BCS has ruined the game...every year, year after year.