Pac-12 leaders eye switch from BCS to playoff system

[Nexus]

LOS ANGELES - Leaders of the Pac-12 Conference agreed in principle Saturday to try to end college football's Bowl Championship Series, proposing its replacement with a playoff system that would allow only conference winners to play for college football's national title.
"I don't hear anyone saying business as usual is acceptable," said Edward Ray, Oregon State University's president and chairman of the Pac-12 universities' CEO group. "We need change."

Though a formal vote was not taken among the top Pac-12 university officials who attended Saturday, they expect that to occur at their next meeting later this year.

If the Pac-12 makes its formal recommendation as expected in June, it would come just before BCS bowls prepare late this summer to start negotiations on BCS contract renewals. The BCS contracts expire in early 2014.

The Pac-12 action is not unexpected. Arizona State University President Michael Crow advocated for the idea in Phoenix earlier this year. College football and the BCS have come under increasing criticism amid reports of lax financial oversight and administrative abuses and questions about the fairness of the bowl-selection system.

Continue Reading

 

[HuskerShark]

I like the addition that they put in: Only conference champions can be a part of a playoff.

 

[Nexus]

I like the addition that they put in: Only conference champions can be a part of a playoff.

In a 4-team playoff it makes sense. I don't think it's coincidence that they've set it up to favor the Pac-12, SEC, B1G and Big 12 conference champions. The Big East will be treated like a non-AQ conference in this scenario. Of course depending on how they lay out the rules in the new system, it's looking like the "Big 4" conference champions will benefit the most from it.

Had this system been in place for 2011, the following teams would've been seeded accordingly based on conference champions and week 15 AP poll:

1-LSU (1st AP)

2-Oklahoma State (3rd AP)

3-Oregon (5th AP)

4-Wisconsin (10th AP)

 

[Excel]

Bye ACC & Big East

 

[Nexus]

Bye ACC & Big East

Had the ACC had a team ranked higher than Wisconsin (in this case, Clemson since they were ACC champs), that would've eliminated B1G from playoff contention in 2011. That's the drawback to this playoff system being pushed by Pac-12.

 

[Excel]

Bye ACC & Big East

Had the ACC had a team ranked higher than Wisconsin (in this case, Clemson since they were ACC champs), that would've eliminated B1G from playoff contention in 2011. That's the drawback to this playoff system being pushed by Pac-12.

Oh no I understand that, I just think that more often than not the ACC would be fighting an uphill battle to get in and the Big East certainly won't make it.

 

[Nexus]

Bye ACC & Big East

Had the ACC had a team ranked higher than Wisconsin (in this case, Clemson since they were ACC champs), that would've eliminated B1G from playoff contention in 2011. That's the drawback to this playoff system being pushed by Pac-12.

Oh no I understand that, I just think that more often than not the ACC would be fighting an uphill battle to get in and the Big East certainly won't make it.

True. It's telling when you calculate the number of BCS bowl game appearances by conference:

B1G = 25 appearances - 11 at-large bids

SEC = 23 appearances - 8 at-large bids

Big 12 = 19 appearances - 5 at-large bids

Pac-12 = 17 appearances - 4 at-large bids

ACC = 15 appearances - 1 at-large bid

Big East = 14 appearances - 0 at-large bids

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

Bye ACC & Big East

Had the ACC had a team ranked higher than Wisconsin (in this case, Clemson since they were ACC champs), that would've eliminated B1G from playoff contention in 2011. That's the drawback to this playoff system being pushed by Pac-12.

Oh no I understand that, I just think that more often than not the ACC would be fighting an uphill battle to get in and the Big East certainly won't make it.

True. It's telling when you calculate the number of BCS bowl game appearances by conference:

B1G = 25 appearances - 11 at-large bids

SEC = 23 appearances - 8 at-large bids

Big 12 = 19 appearances - 5 at-large bids

Pac-12 = 17 appearances - 4 at-large bids

ACC = 15 appearances - 1 at-large bid

Big East = 14 appearances - 0 at-large bids

That tells me more about which teams bring more money with their at large bids.

 

[HuskerShark]

The problem I have is this:

The concept of a playoff should be brought about because teams like Boise State and TCU were not getting a fair shake in the old system. I think you have to take the 4 highest ranked conference champions in what is currently the BCS standings. Otherwise people will complain until we have a 16-team playoff, which IMO would be bad for college football. It still might happen...

 

[Husker John]

So what happens if an independant Notre Dame goes undefeated at the end of a regular season and is ranked #1 in both polls ?

 

[Nexus]

So what happens if an independant Notre Dame goes undefeated at the end of a regular season and is ranked #1 in both polls ?

I'm curious too. I read comments in the Chicago Tribune a couple months ago from Jack Swarbrick (ND's AD) saying he had assurances from both B1G and Pac-12 commissioners that regardless of the outcome of expansion or a playoff system, they would try to find a way to keep their rivalry games (Stanford, USC, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue) intact.

 

[Landlord]

If we had that kind of playoff system, last year's National Champions (Alabama) wouldn't have even made the playoffs :lol:

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I like the addition that they put in: Only conference champions can be a part of a playoff.

I don't, for a number of reasons, mainly related to the fact that a conference champion really doesn't mean much in terms of determining who the best team in the country is.

1) Conference sizes and strengths vary greatly. The SEC is nearly twice as big as the Big East and much much better, and that's not even considering the disparity between AQ and non-AQ conferences.. A few teams aren't even in conferences.

2) Conference championships are determined only by conference games, and totally ignore the non-conference games. There's no guarantee at all that the conference champion is the best team in the conference. Why would you eliminate a team based on only a subset of their games rather than their whole season?

3) Some conferences have more than one champion. Conferences with a smaller number of teams, which already puts its members at an advantage over teams fighting in larger conferences, don't have a championship game so they can declare co-champions. A larger conference with a championship game eliminates all but one team from consideration.

4) It doesn't solve a problem. Of all the BCS's flaws, Alabama playing in the championship wasn't one of them. What problem does it fix to leave them out?