Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,978

    BCS considers neutral-site proposal

    If Football Bowl Subdivision conference commissioners and the sport's other power brokers approve a four-team playoff to determine college football's national champion, the semifinals and the national championship game will be played at neutral sites and the BCS bowl games will be played closer to New Year's Day, a source familiar with the negotiations told ESPN.com on Tuesday.

    Commissioners of the 11 FBS conferences, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick and other network TV and college football officials are meeting in Hollywood, Fla., this week to discuss the future of the BCS.

    The source said he believed the commissioners "are too far out on a limb to turn back now," but said there were still many details yet to be finalized. A final decision on the BCS isn't expected this week, but the commissioners and other officials are expected to begin hammering out many of the details of a four-team playoff.

    The proposed changes wouldn't go into effect until the 2014 season. The current BCS system, in which the top two teams in the final BCS standings play in a national championship game at the site of one of the current BCS bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar), will remain in place over the next two seasons.

    "I don't know how they could walk back at this point, but they might," the source said. "I think because they're dealing in a world of compromise, I think there's a chance they could only tweak the current system and only deal with No. 1 versus No. 2. But I think they're too far out on a limb to turn back now."

    The BCS hopes to emerge from these meetings in Florida with no more than two or three football postseason proposals to be brought to conference leaders soon, BCS executive director Bill Hancock told ESPN's Joe Schad Tuesday.

    "They know this game is in the fourth quarter," Hancock said. "And it's time to get it done."

    A proposal to play the semifinal games at the home stadiums of the higher-seeded teams is all but dead, according to the source. The semifinal games will either be hosted by the existing BCS bowl games or opened for bidding. The source said it seemed almost certain that the national championship game will be opened to bidding by the existing BCS bowl sites and other cities such as Atlanta, Dallas and Indianapolis.

    The conference commissioners have reached a conclusion that some FBS schools' stadiums aren't large enough to host a national semifinal game and that many college towns don't have enough hotel rooms to accommodate bigger crowds.

    "What happens if TCU finishes No. 2 in the country and hosts a semifinal game?" the source said. "TCU finished No. 3 two years ago. Are they really hosting No. 3 Ohio State in a 45,000-seat stadium? Where are people going to stay if Oregon hosts a semifinal game? In Portland? As much as it would be great for the sport to see a game played in Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Ala., or Lincoln, Neb., some of the logistical issues are just too severe. I think that idea has come home to roost as far as these guys are concerned."

    The source said a proposal that would require teams to win their respective conferences to participate in a playoff is also all but dead. Under that proposal, Alabama, which didn't win the SEC last season but defeated No. 1 LSU 21-0 in the Jan. 9 Allstate BCS National Championship Game, wouldn't have been eligible for the playoffs.

    Conference commissioners are still debating about what to do with the Rose Bowl as well, according to the source. Rose Bowl officials repeatedly have said they prefer to keep their traditional matchup between Big Ten and Pac-12 teams; Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott also favor keeping the traditional tie-in intact. But if the Rose Bowl isn't willing to give up its affiliations with those conferences, it might fall out of a potential national semifinals rotation. However, the Rose Bowl would still be eligible to bid for a national championship game.

    The source said the conference commissioners also are eager "to take back New Year's Day." Last season, 35 college bowl games were played between Dec. 17 and Jan. 9. Of the traditional New Year's Day bowl games, only the Rose and Fiesta bowls were played on Jan. 2 (New Year's Day fell on a Sunday this year, a day reserved for the NFL). The Sugar Bowl was played on Jan. 3 and the Orange Bowl on Jan. 4.

    The source said the commissioners would prefer to play the national semifinal games on New Year's Day and have the winning teams play in a championship game about a week later.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7851441/source-bcs-exploring-neutral-site-4-team-playoff-format

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    18,062
    Seems like they are slowly going in the right direction.

    I also read somewhere that they are considering resetting the amount of wins you need to play in a Bowl game back to 7, which should eliminate a lot of these lower tier games nobody really cares about.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    43,264
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Seems like they are slowly going in the right direction.

    I also read somewhere that they are considering resetting the amount of wins you need to play in a Bowl game back to 7, which should eliminate a lot of these lower tier games nobody really cares about.
    They would have to get rid of the some of the bowl games then because just allowing teams with 7 wins wouldn't even give them enough teams to fill out the bowl spots in some seasons. Also how about the conference tie-ins and how moving it up to 7 would impact that as well.


    Marcus Mariota

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Boise State
    Posts
    4,859
    Eliminating wins against FCS teams entirely for counting toward bowl games would not be quite as drastic but still eliminate some of the bottom feeder bowls, and also force some ADs to reconsider scheduling choices to toughen up SOS rankings. Having some of the SOS trackers not counting FCS games artificially boosts SOS ratings for teams who play an easier schedule than what their ranking numbers show. Requiring SOS rankings to include FCS games (perhaps with a flat 125 rank regardless of performance) would bring some of that back in line with reality.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,978
    Quote Originally Posted by Seppuku View Post
    Eliminating wins against FCS teams entirely for counting toward bowl games would not be quite as drastic but still eliminate some of the bottom feeder bowls, and also force some ADs to reconsider scheduling choices to toughen up SOS rankings. Having some of the SOS trackers not counting FCS games artificially boosts SOS ratings for teams who play an easier schedule than what their ranking numbers show. Requiring SOS rankings to include FCS games (perhaps with a flat 125 rank regardless of performance) would bring some of that back in line with reality.
    Yeah I like that idea. If just for the simple fact that I hate hearing about teams that are 4-0 with all their wins against Eastern Illinois and South Central Louisiana State University Muddogs each year. It would balance schedules a little.
    Last edited by Jerry34; 04-30-2012 at 10:05 AM. Reason: Western Kentucky Rules!!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    43,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry34 View Post
    Yeah I like that idea. If just for the simple fact that I hate hearing about teams that are 4-0 with all their wins against Eastern Illinois and Western Kentucky each year. It would balance schedules a little.
    It doesn't take away from your point but Western Kentucky was actually a decent football team last year.


    Marcus Mariota

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,978
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityroller View Post
    It doesn't take away from your point but Western Kentucky was actually a decent football team last year.
    I was sort of throwing out random directional school names.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    18,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry34 View Post
    I was sort of throwing out random directional school names.
    I recommend using the South Central Louisiana State University Muddogs.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,978
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I recommend using the South Central Louisiana State University Muddogs.
    Done and done...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    43,264
    Mud Dogs gonna kick some names and take some ***.....


    Marcus Mariota

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    43,264
    Big 10 would rather remain in the Rose Bowl than have home playoff games.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--....SXTyzx3McvrYF


    Marcus Mariota

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,686
    ^ I absolutely love Ohio st and the Big 10 but sticking with the Rose bowl rather than playing the games at home is a horrible idea.

    Love the rose bowl, love the big 10 but don't agree with that idea.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    4,978
    I've always hated the Rose Bowl because it kept Penn State in '94 and Michigan in '97 from playing for the NC on the field. I always thought it was the dumbest tradition in sports. The stupid Rose Bowl, the grand daddy pointless game that nobody outside the Pac10 and Big10 really gives a **** about. This just adds to the lame tradition.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    16,468
    I don't know if this deserves it's own thread, but:

    The champions of the Big 12 and SEC conferences will meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season, the conferences said Friday in a news release.

    The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.
    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...year-bowl-game

    I don't know what this means for the Sugar/Fiesta Bowls.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    43,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Catfish1314 View Post
    I don't know if this deserves it's own thread, but:



    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...year-bowl-game

    I don't know what this means for the Sugar/Fiesta Bowls.
    This doesn't make any sense.

    (1) As you stated what the hell does this mean for the Sugar and Fiesta Bowl? I will tell you what this means that these conferences are gonna have a bidding war in 2014 between the Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl and any other Bowl interested in sponsoring this game.

    (2) They are saying that this is being done in case the SEC or Big 12 doesn't have a team in the 4-team playoff. When the hell is that ever gonna happen? Either a Big 12 or SEC team has been in the top 4 in the rankings every year since the start of the BCS.

    (3) This is gonna screw up all of the other bowl game alignments. Either the Sugar or Fiesta Bowl is gonna get left out of this deal. They will have to go elsewhere and that will start a big trickle down effect. It will really impact all the other bowls in these conferences because this game gets the choice of the next conference team over all the other bowls should a team from these conferences goes to the national championship playoffs. Come 2014 all the tradition bowl alignments are gonna get thrown out the window.


    Marcus Mariota

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •