• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked One more step to playoffs..

Status
Not open for further replies.

Here is the official press release:

Bowl Championship Series
Every Game Counts
Bill Hancock, Executive Director

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 26, 2012
CONTACT: Tracie Dittemore 913-341-8151


Statement by the Eleven Conference Commissioners and the Notre Dame Athletics Director​
“As part of our deliberations, we have carefully considered a number of concepts concerning the post-season structure for the BCS. From the start, we set out to protect college football’s unique regular season which we see as the best regular season in sports. We are also mindful of the bowl tradition and seek to create a structure that continues to reward student-athletes with meaningful bowl appearances.

“Having carefully reviewed calendars and schedules, we believe that either an 8-team or a 16-team playoff would diminish the regular season and harm the bowls. College football’s regular season is too important to diminish and we do not believe it’s in the best interest of student-athletes, fans, or alumni to harm the regular season.

“Accordingly, as we proceed to review our options for improving the post-season, we have taken off the table both an 8-team and a 16-team playoff.

“We will continue to meet and review the exact structure for what a new post-season could look like. We are making substantial progress. We will present to our conferences a very small number of four-team options, each of which could be carried out in a number of ways.

“We have discussed in detail the advantages and disadvantages of in-bowl or out-of-bowl games.
We have discussed in detail the advantages and disadvantages of campus sites or neutral sites. We have discussed in detail the advantages and disadvantages of various ways to rank or qualify teams.

“Our process is proceeding as we have planned and we look forward to further conversations.”


-30-​

About the Bowl Championship Series
The BCS is a five-game arrangement for post-season college football that is managed by the 11 Bowl Subdivision conferences and Notre Dame. Its purpose is to match the two top-ranked teams in a national championship game and to create competitive match-ups in the four other BCS bowl games. For more information, visit http://www.bcsfootball.org.
Click to expand...
 
yeah we'll have to wait a year or 2 before they go to 8 or 16 teams ...

Having carefully reviewed calendars and schedules, we believe that either an 8-team or a 16-team playoff would diminish the regular season and harm the bowls. College football’s regular season is too important to diminish and we do not believe it’s in the best interest of student-athletes, fans, or alumni to harm the regular season.
Click to expand...
 
Make no mistake, the choice to use either the Top 4 Teams or the Top 4 Conference Winners is a big one.

For 2011, here's what it would have looked like:
fb.png


Only two teams - LSU and Oklahoma State - were both a Top 4 Team AND a Conference Champion. The conference winner scenario gets even further muddied because Boise State was ranked higher (#7) than Wisconsin (#10).

Personally, I like the "integrity" of using only conference winners, however I see the strong negative backlash from including #10 Wisconsin, but passing over teams like Stanford, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas State and/or Boise State to get there.

My personal opinion? They need a caveat. Take the Top 4 Conference Winners, as long as those Conference Winners finish within the Top 6 of the BCS. The remaining spots (if any) are filled using remaining BCS-ranked teams. At-Large teams are automatically ranked below all the conference winners.

With my Top 6 BCS rule, you would see (#1 LSU v. #5 Oregon) and (#3 Oklahoma State v. at-Large Alabama). Personally, I think that those four teams were also the ones playing the best football last year.
 



DuckTownHusker said:
Make no mistake, the choice to use either the Top 4 Teams or the Top 4 Conference Winners is a big one.

For 2011, here's what it would have looked like:
fb.png


Only two teams - LSU and Oklahoma State - were both a Top 4 Team AND a Conference Champion. The conference winner scenario gets even further muddied because Boise State was ranked higher (#7) than Wisconsin (#10).

Personally, I like the "integrity" of using only conference winners, however I see the strong negative backlash from including #10 Wisconsin, but passing over teams like Stanford, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas State and/or Boise State to get there.

My personal opinion? They need a caveat. Take the Top 4 Conference Winners, as long as those Conference Winners finish within the Top 6 of the BCS. The remaining spots (if any) are filled using remaining BCS-ranked teams. At-Large teams are automatically ranked below all the conference winners.

With my Top 6 BCS rule, you would see (#1 LSU v. #5 Oregon) and (#3 Oklahoma State v. at-Large Alabama). Personally, I think that those four teams were also the ones playing the best football last year.
Click to expand...

DuckTownHusker, great breakdown. I agree that there will have to be a few caveats. First off, which conferences are you going to include? The obvious answers are the large conferences (PAC-12, B1G-10, SEC, Big-12, Notre Dame, and the ACC) but what about the remaining conferences (C-USA, M-West, MAC, Big East)? They could have an argument and finish high in the rankings as well.
 
Obviously, conference championships should have NOTHING to do with it, other than you should NOT be allowed to compete for a national championship if you could not win your conference.
 
B1GRedFootballFan said:
DuckTownHusker, great breakdown. I agree that there will have to be a few caveats. First off, which conferences are you going to include? The obvious answers are the large conferences (PAC-12, B1G-10, SEC, Big-12, Notre Dame, and the ACC) but what about the remaining conferences (C-USA, M-West, MAC, Big East)? They could have an argument and finish high in the rankings as well.
Click to expand...

There wouldn't be anything automatic for any of the power conferences, from what I've been reading. If a MAC champion goes undefeated, they'd have a decent shot at moving into the Top 3/4 just like Boise St and TCU were able to do from the WAC and MWC conferences, respectively
 
DuckTownHusker said:
Make no mistake, the choice to use either the Top 4 Teams or the Top 4 Conference Winners is a big one.

Personally, I like the "integrity" of using only conference winners, however I see the strong negative backlash from including #10 Wisconsin, but passing over teams like Stanford, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas State and/or Boise State to get there.
Click to expand...

I do too. But as you pointed out and your great graphic illustrated, that gives different results than the top 4 teams by rankings. The problem resolves (to a large extent but not completely) by doing this with 8 teams and almost entirely with 16 so the conference champions will work then.

The MNC playoff is likely to evolve further from 4 teams at some point in the future, so doing it "right" now by going with conference champions will set things up for a move to 8 or 16 teams later. Kind of like the current 2-team match-up now: it is a stepping stone.

If a conference has 2 or even 3 teams in the top 8, the conference champion only goes. Since they would have been chosen by the conference, in many cases as the result of a CCG, then the others failed to reach the MNC play-offs by their own fault. The conference champ was crowned fair and square by the conference. If that didn't work out "fairly", then it is the conference's issue, not the BCS' issue. If the conference champion falls in the MNC playoffs, then the conference teams that didn't make it in have nothing to complain about, since their own conference considered them less likely to win than the conference champion, in effect. If the conference believes their process of choosing a champion is good, then they and their member schools don't get to complain if their best school is beaten. Oh wait, we really should have sent a different school! That doesn't fly.

It will be interesting to see what effect the conferences adding/changing members across geographic lines will have. It currently seems to be making the rich richer (B1G, SEC) but those were the opening steps in the process so who knows. But if farther down the road the conferences continue realigning and things balance out more, it will make the conference champ play-off even more of a sound approach. If not then it really isn't any different than it is today in terms of end results; the MNC champ will still likely come from the SEC, B1G, Big 12(x), or PACx. So parity between conferences isn't likely going to effect things one way or the other.
 




B1GRedFootballFan said:
DuckTownHusker, great breakdown. I agree that there will have to be a few caveats. First off, which conferences are you going to include? The obvious answers are the large conferences (PAC-12, B1G-10, SEC, Big-12, Notre Dame, and the ACC) but what about the remaining conferences (C-USA, M-West, MAC, Big East)? They could have an argument and finish high in the rankings as well.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this scenario. However, to make ND equivalent to the conferences is not a good thing. Just including the big conferences may force their hand and drop independence.
 
If the playoffs expand to 8 or 16 teams, you'll have a hard time justifying conference winners. Yes, conference winners "earned it on the field," but can you really claim that the winner of the MAC or SunBelt was a better team than Wisconsin? Than Nebraska? Than Northwestern, even?

There are two arguments here - and both are valid. You either pick the conference winners, or you try to pick the "best" teams. For kicks, here's what a full blown 16-team playoff would look like using either Conference Winners or Top BCS Teams:

TOP 16 BCSConference Winners
#1 LSU#1 LSU (SEC)
#2 Alabama
#3 Oklahoma State (B12)
#3 Oklahoma State#5 Oregon (PAC)
#4 Stanford#10 Wisconsin (B10)
#5 Oregon#15 Clemson (ACC)
#6 Arkansas#18 TCU (MWC)
#7 Boise State#19 Houston (CUSA)
#8 Kansas State#23 West Virginia (East)
#9 South Carolina#UR Louisiana Tech (WAC)
#10 Wisconsin#UR Northern Illinois (MAC)
#11 Virginia Tech#UR Arkansas State (SUN)
#12 Baylor#UR BYU (IND)
#13 Michigan#AL Alabama
#14 Oklahoma#AL Stanford
#15 Clemson#AL Arkansas
#16 Georgia#AL Boise State

<tbody>
</tbody>


The duplicate teams are in bold - they'd make the cut no matter which option you choose. In other words, we can cancel them out. So which list would you rather see round out the bracket?

Kansas StateTCU
South CarolinaHouston
Virginia TechWest Virginia
BaylorLouisiana Tech
MichiganNorthern Illinois
OklahomaArkansas State
GeorgiaBYU

<tbody>
</tbody>
 
DuckTownHusker said:
If the playoffs expand to 8 or 16 teams, you'll have a hard time justifying conference winners. Yes, conference winners "earned it on the field," but can you really claim that the winner of the MAC or SunBelt was a better team than Wisconsin? Than Nebraska? Than Northwestern, even?

There are two arguments here - and both are valid. You either pick the conference winners, or you try to pick the "best" teams. For kicks, here's what a full blown 16-team playoff would look like using either Conference Winners or Top BCS Teams:

TOP 16 BCS
Conference Winners
#1 LSU
#1 LSU (SEC)
#2 Alabama

#3 Oklahoma State (B12)
#3 Oklahoma State
#5 Oregon (PAC)
#4 Stanford
#10 Wisconsin (B10)
#5 Oregon
#15 Clemson (ACC)
#6 Arkansas
#18 TCU (MWC)
#7 Boise State
#19 Houston (CUSA)
#8 Kansas State
#23 West Virginia (East)
#9 South Carolina
#UR Louisiana Tech (WAC)
#10 Wisconsin
#UR Northern Illinois (MAC)
#11 Virginia Tech
#UR Arkansas State (SUN)
#12 Baylor
#UR BYU (IND)
#13 Michigan
#AL Alabama
#14 Oklahoma
#AL Stanford
#15 Clemson
#AL Arkansas
#16 Georgia
#AL Boise State

<TBODY>
</TBODY>


The duplicate teams are in bold - they'd make the cut no matter which option you choose. In other words, we can cancel them out. So which list would you rather see round out the bracket?

Kansas State
TCU
South Carolina
Houston
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
Baylor
Louisiana Tech
Michigan
Northern Illinois
Oklahoma
Arkansas State
Georgia
BYU

<TBODY>
</TBODY>
Click to expand...

Obviously, the top BCS list humiliates the conference winners list. One more reason why considering using conference winners as a selection criteria is syupid.
 



Pops said:
yeah we'll have to wait a year or 2 before they go to 8 or 16 teams ...
Click to expand...

sad but true.

I have said all along that this was such an easy fix and should have been done from the start of the BCS. Taking the top 4 teams that finish in the BCS and playing them in a 4 team playoff is a win, win.

I know we have a few around here that will argue (to no point) that it isnt but it really is a win win. Look back over last 30 years and take a look at the AP and USA Today polls heading into the bowl season and you will find 3 or 4 really good teams that stick out above the rest. You will always have team 5 trying to make a case, Hell, you had team 65 crying that they didnt make the 64 in basketball.

The point is is that you will never please everybody but year in and year out you will find 3 or 4 teams that prevailed and stood out above the rest, those 4 teams will play a round and then the winners will play for the title. This is a great thing and will make college football better than it is today.
 
I still think what they could have done is take the winners of the four BCS Bowls and put them in a playoff. In essence, the BCS Bowls would then kick off the playoff season. Yeah, it adds a few more games to the season for a couple teams, but who wouldn't want that?

Under this system, LSU would have gone to the Sugar and probably beaten Michigan and/or Virginia Tech. You'd be looking at LSU, Oregon, West Virginia and Oklahoma State, which is another way to make a Top 4 that I can live with.

You'd be looking at a potential rematch of LSU/Oregon, and get a great Cinderella story in West Virginia who unexpected dominated Clemson in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma State would be the typical "bridesmaid" story line. Ton of great media write ups in that selection.

Also, it's a team from the SEC, PAC, Big 12 and Big East which I can deal with. Would like more B1G/ACC representation, but they didn't step up come bowl season.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top