Off the top of my head here, might thhis be a version of the BCS that could work? (Not perfectly, obviously, but in lieu of a playoff)

The power conferences don't want to give up the bowl system largely for the money and prestige that comes with it. Even if their take were to remain the same, why compromise your position just for the benefit of others? This leads me to belive those BCS conferences will ever keep their arrangement somehow.

While Stewart Mandel's assessment of how this post-season may have shaped up under various scenarios suggested the as proposed BCS model would provide the best match-ups, the Plus one model of a post-bowl championship would go further in defining a more deserving, if not clear, national champ.

So politically what we need is something that promotes the Plus-1 approach for a national title plus preservation of the existing bowl structure. So then, what if the BCS is reduced to just the championship game, to be played after the bowls?

What the presidents would say is it's too close to a playoff, which they fear for both the time frame, lack of controlled access and the appearance of a money grab. The time frame can't be argued as it'd be the same as the proposed 5 game BCS model. By removing the BCS label from the bowls themselves there'd be less stigma attached by having the old, established bowl-conference arrangements. This would allow the BCS conferences to indirectly control access to the championship game because the bowl games would count in the final "BCS" rankings. Thus North Texas might go undefeated but still play in the New Orleans bowl and suffer whatever fate may be fitting there performance. This same approach would also provide incentive for the bowls and their conference partners to maintain attractive matchups. Not only would those bowls become/remain the primary source of post-season revenue but the quality of opponent would contribute to the final score for gaining access to the championship game.

Unlike the Plus 1 model for the BCS, this wouldn't put a spin on who participates in the four major bowls, just the championship. The folks at the Orange, Fiesta and Sugar have suggested that would reduce the value of their bowl, but those sites could compete for the national championship game (likely getting it almost as often as they do now) while the conferences could recoup the cost via that national championship game.

When evaluating the Plus 1 idea, someone offered the final game could be worth $30-50 million. Even at the low end, that seems enough to offer each participant $3-4 mil plus travel, while every conference in 1-A gets another $1 mil. Somehow I assume it would work out that the BCS conferences would earn roughly the same amount of money and still command the lions share of bowl exposure and title game appearances.

For all I know this was discussed before and I missed it. I just want to gain help on the merits, possibilities and flaws of this as an alternative.

Okay, I'll stop now.

I'll opine.

I for one, don't understand the strong resistance to the 5 +1 (when compared to the upcoming 5 game scenario).

In the 5 + 1, OK, some BCS money would go to a bowl that is not currently part of the elite club of 4 (rose, sugar, orange, fiesta) - perhaps that is the problem. However the 4 bowl in control could phase in the extra cut to the newbie to hog more money for themselves.

The advantage of 5+1 is that all games are potentially more meaningful, as any of the 10 teams might potentially advance to the big game. Another advantage is that (since the +1 occurs later), this may offer more potential to retain the traditional match-ups that the Big 4 seem to prefer. Example: Perhaps the Rose Bowl could more often match the Pac-10 vs. Big 11 since a no.1 or no.2 is no longer immediately yanked out to wherever the BIG GAME is that year. All of this would seem to translate into greater interest (= more TV $), and perhaps the reversion to traditional match-ups gives the better ticket sales the the Bowls seek.

Also - the big 4 bowls could cut the newbie out of the picture, with regard to hosting the BIG GAME. Then they get to keep that money.

So what's up with the college presidents ? do they just go along with whatever the bowls dictate, based on kick-backs or what ? It seems that if the big 4 bowls are happy, then the college presidents will say that they are happy.

Maybe I mis-understand some of the basic issues....

opine away.

DON'T DO IT!!!!

If you think you have controversy now, wait until you get a +1 model. The top 2 are usually much more muddled after the bowls. The only way to avoid that would be to seed the bowls. But then you totally kill the traditional matchups. The only reason it sounds good now is because #1 and #2 are playing in a bowl.

i agree with bullet about the plus one model. it is a good idea, but you would most likely have to sacrifice traditional matchups and seed at least 1-4 for it to work.

2004 bcs w/o seeding (teams go to traditional bowls)
rose-usc v. michigan
fiesta- oklahoma v. utah
sugar- auburn v. texas
orange- va tech v. pitt

assuming usc and auburn win, you would still have 3 undefeated teams vying for the orange bowl

2004 bcs plus one w/ seeding 1-4
rose-#1 usc v. #4 texas (they were ahead of utah)
fiesta-#2 oklahoma v. #3 auburn
sugar- michigan v. utah
orange- va tech v. pitt

1/4 v. 2/3- orange bowl

this would provide for a more clear national champion, although i still think utah gets jipped, but it not only kills tradition, it makes the two non-seeded bowls seem especially pointless.

a bcs w/ seedings 1-8 wouldnt be any better because it would be like jumping from the quarterfinals to the championship game. seeds 3,4,5,6 would still have to watch and hope 1 or 2 loses in order to get a shot at the national championship, they would still have no way to earn it on the field.

Agree that without a fully seeded bracket, when you reach the point of determining participants in the #1 / #2 game, you are open to controversy.

You have that now.

I'm not advocating 5 + 1 as the ultimate fix. I would advocate a 16 team tourney, but we can see that is not going to fly in the near future, due to politics.

However I see the 5 + 1 as a system that is at least slightly better than what we have currently, and the BCS fat-cats at least brought it to the table last year, and I think ABC was pushing it hard as an idea that might be non-threatening to the bowls, and provided a little more importance to all of the first round games. The traditional match-ups could be implemented.

I'd say the big bowls shot it down, becuase they saw the 5 + 1 as a slippery slope to 4+2+1, or 8+4+2+1, and didn't seem assured of their place in that evolved structure.

Is 5 + 1 a good idea ? Again, it's no worse than the current framework, and has a chance of resolving a situation with 3 unbeatens, should one be upset in the first round game....

Dave, I'm afraid I don't recall a 5+1 model. Am I reading you coreectly in that this scheme would involve a) another bowl site added to the current 4 plus b) a post-bowl game championship?

In either case, I know the existing BCS bowls were against the addition of another bowl site that would force them to split the championship rotation and money 5 ways instead of four. Hence the 5 game model we have now. The presidents were the ones who protested any +1 model as being too close to a playoff.

Remember, I'm advocating what is essentially the disolution of the BCS in favor of the old bowl system, which just happens to include a championship tilt after the bowls as a way of making up for the BCS funds lost. Yeah, there'd be controversy, but that seems a given now for college football. Something that will rank alongside death and taxes, no?! In which case this simplifies things a bit, keeping the forced politics out of the bowls and condensed to just the one game.

I am certainly in the minority when it comes to the BCS. I believe that it is not a bad system and I would only change a few things about it...But I believe that Major College Sports are about as 'unlevel' as you can get. The better conferences get the better players...Only a handful of teams outside the top conferences are having success...Look at the NCAA bball tourney...The ACC, Big 10, 12, Big East, SEC, and PAC-10 get the most bids of all...teams like Gonzaga and St. Joes are becoming Major teams only because they have beat some of the top teams in the tournament which impresses a lot of good recruits....

The Mid and Low Major teams in Football will have to try their best to win out of conference games before they will be look at as a major team...Louisville is a good example...they have had a great deal of success in out of conference games in the past years...

Money is one of the most important factors when it comes to college football. I really think giving better access to all conferences is what will help level the playing field. The BCS should look at putting the top teams against each other in the BCS rather than just #1 vs. #2...I believe there should be a second set of bowls for other ranked teams to participate with other ranked teams...so essentially we could have the top 16 BCS teams playing against each other in 8 bowls with the top 4 BCS bowls earning 10-14 million and the next 4 bowls earning 5-7 million


1st tier (can select between #1-#12)

Rose
Fiesta
Sugar
Orange

2nd Tier (can select after 1st tier bowls and any team #16 and above)

Holiday
Capital One Citrus
Cotton
Outback

for example this could have been the selections for this years bowl games...

rose-cal/texas
fiesta-utah/georgia
sugar-auburn/va tech
orange-usc/ou

holiday-boise state/michigan
capital one-tennesee/florida state
cotton-lsu/louisville
outback-iowa/miami


You could still keep the other bowl tie-ins not associated with the BCS, this would still give other teams a chance for postseason play...

I think it would create better matchups and would interest more casual fans watching ranked teams play against each other...

Using this method it could bring 5-10 times more than a standard 750,000 dollar payout for "Non-BCS" Conferences, helping even the field and aiding those schools in many projects...

Gunner -

The 5 + 1 was an option discussed about a year ago, amongst the BCS power-brokers. It got shot down, in favor of the 4 with a 5th game a week later concept that will go into effect this coming year.

Basically the BCS dudes were feeling pressure to add some more at-large teams after the Scott Cowen lobbying and some congressional pandering. So they agreed that there would be 10 BCS teams admitted next year, which adds two more at-large berths, which a team like Boise State would have qualified for this year.

ABC liked the 5 + 1, which involved 5 first round games, and then a ranking afterward to determine who would participate in the title game afterward.

Here was the rub - the 5th first round game would let a 5th bowl into the BCS system. The BCS initally solicited some proposals and the Gator, Cotton, Capital One, Citrus, Holiday, maybe another submitted proposals and were licking their chops. Then the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta thought about it, and said, "ya know what ? Gees- OUR take might be reduced if we go splitting revenue with a 5th bowl !!!"

So they altered the plan to keep the 5th game within the family, and killed the idea of the game afterward, since "that just would lead us down that slippery evil slope toward a playoff, and we know how that would harm the integrity of the game and demand TOO MUCH from our fine student-athletes... [and, oh by the way, we're going to go to a permanent 12-game regular season, not that there is any hypocrisy there !!!]"

So ABC determined that the 5th game really added minimal interest, the BCS was shirking anything like a playoff. So they pulled out of bidding for the whole shooting match, although they had committed to continuing to televise the Rose for a few more years (2006 - ?).

Fox jumped in and took the other 4 games, without asking for any changes to the new format as proposed.

Too bad. Fox might have exercised some leverage that could have sent a message about improving the format, since something like a tourney would seem to generate much higher viewership and more TV $$$.

Dave, I appreciate the response but have to be honest, I recall all of that as being just a 5 game option. The idea of a plus one concept was the counter-offer ABC made early on that was scuttled by the presidents fearing the whole "playoff" bugaboo. As I recall, at the time it was just for the same four bowls and then assigning two teams to the championship.

When the BCS solicited interest from other bowls the offer then was simply for a fifth game at different site. This I know from friends who work with the radio station that carries the Peach Bowl, which lobbied HEAVILY for that honor. Then, as you said, the existing BCS bowls thought the wiser of sharing the pot 5 ways as opposed to 4.

All moot anyway and I'm not meaning to make a deal out of it. Bottom line is we've got the new set up for a few years. As you said, it's too bad FOX bought into the proposed model without at least attempting to tweak the thing.

Dear Gunnerfanoffline (I know you come from a long line of "Offlines") -

I had to prove to myself that I wasn't just imaging this "plus 1" stuff.

So I found a link that hadn't melted away over time.

Dennis Dodd story June 7,2004

link is:
http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/story/7399846

Or you can find it on this web-site by going to:

College Sports
College Football - General Forum (page 12 of 17)
5 BCS bowls !
reply #169 June 7, 2004

About half-way through the article..... (down where ther are some bullets):

Basically Dennis states that a 4+1 or 5+1 were among the formats considered, and were unlikely to fly, since the college presidents would whine that it was starting to resemble a [dreaded] playoff.

Dennis did not say so, but the 4+1 format also offered no new at-large berths, which was deemed a critical component to the re-formatting.

So it WAS considered.... (perhaps for only a milli-second).

Dave

Yes, we Offlines walk the line between stubborn and lazy very well, eh?!! :D

Bravo, Mr. Dave, for pulling out a legit reference. Your memory served you well!

If TCU goes undefeated would they get an invite to a BCS Bowl?

If they are in the top 6 in the BCS poll they will.

Just like Utah last year.

But without a playoff, who cares ?

The only BCS bowl that matters is the #1 vs. #2....
the other BCS bowls relegate you to also-ran status (well there was an exception was 2 years ago when there were 3 teams USC, OK, and LSU - LSU beat OK less impressively that USC won the Rose).

Last year, 3 schools "ran the table", and only USC got to claim anything, by virtue of having been in "the championship game". Auburn & Utah ? Undefeated... Untied... No possible way for them to lay claim to the title, yet, how much more could they possibly do ?

I think JoePa has had four (4) undefeated-untied teams over the years... 1968,1969,1973,1994 or thereabouts..... none of these teams won the national championships or had a shot at it, due to the bowl affiliations. It would have been nice to see such teams win or lose it on the field, and not in the polls.

That's why the vast majority of fans are screaming for a playoff.

Apparently its not a vast majority, or else we'd be seeing one now. I've no doubt that a majority of programs would prefer a playoff but until the fans of the most popular programs scream for such a system then I don't think one will come about.