New "Plus One" article - could happen in '11

[BullsFanInTX]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172007/sports/a_football_final_four_sports_lenn_robbins.htm

A FOOTBALL FINAL FOUR

NCAA COULD HAVE 'SEMIFINALS' BY 2011

July 17, 2007 -- NEWPORT, R.I. - The question has changed from, "Will There Ever Be a College Football National Championship Game?" to "How Soon Will It Happen?"

Sources in several conference offices, athletic directors and television networks told The Post that support is steadily growing for a "Plus-1," format in which there will be a national championship game following the playing of two "semifinal games."

The first title game could be played in 2011.

"There haven't been any official discussions among conference commissioners, but the overwhelming sense is that that's where we're headed," one conference source said. "There's simply too much money at stake and there's been too much debate with the current system."

Under the new format, the top four teams would be seeded, probably using a voter/computer formula similar to the current BCS system and a sixth major bowl game would be created.

The four top-seeded teams would play in two "semifinal" games, using the existing bowls - Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and the current BCS title game on a rotating basis - with the two winners meeting in a newly created bowl. Theoretically, it would leave less argument over who's No. 1.

"You'll probably never eliminate all the debate, but it's hard for me to imagine a team finishing fifth in the final ratings having a legitimate argument for No. 1," an ACC athletic director said. "Once you get below four, it's a hard sell."

According to several sources, no existing bowl, such as the Cotton, Gator or Outback, would be transformed into the championship game because no conference wants to lose an existing postseason opportunity for its member teams.

The money, more than fixing the current system which has led to almost annual debate over which team truly is No. 1, is the driving force behind the "Plus-1," format.

The BCS recently signed a four-year, $84 million deal with FOX that runs through the 2010 bowl games. The Rose Bowl signed a separate eight-year, $300 million deal with ABC which runs through 2014.

After a huge controversy ensued following the 2004 season, when undefeated Auburn didn't get a chance to play for the national championship, Bodog.com, a sports casino poker site, offered $50 million to sponsor a championship game. The offer was rejected, but that number left many in the college football business salivating.

"There's not going to be a playoff so you can forget that," said one TV executive who is attending the Big East Conference media gathering here. "But a 'Plus-1' is going to happen - sooner rather than later."

For a "Plus-1" to happen, the Rose Bowl would have to be willing to loosen its grip on matching the top Big Ten and Pac-10 representatives. That is considered the biggest stumbling block.

When the Rose Bowl announced its deal with ABC, the BCS was forced to make several concessions, including waiving the league's $6 million BCS entry fee.

The BCS also assured the Rose Bowl that it could retain its Big Ten/Pac-10 alliance, agreed not to require the Rose to accept a team from a non-BCS conference (think Boise St.) and guaranteed that the nation's oldest bowl game would keep its coveted late-afternoon time slot on New Year's Day.

"There's a lot of history in that game with those conferences," one source said. "I understand their position. But I think a 'Plus-1' is inevitable."

lenn.robbins@nypost.com

[Bulls 8_va]

Interesting, but I dont get it.  He made it kind of confusing...

There will be a BCS Championship game and a Plus-1 Championship game?!?!?!

Why don't they just say, the Sugar Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl are the Semis and the BCS Championship Game is the FINAL GAME!!!

[crambone]

Because that would be too easy?

[Joe]

This is great for college football. However, similar to the UF president's proposal it would remove all auto bids and conference maximums from the BCS. This could hurt USF.

[Guest]

Interesting, but I dont get it.  He made it kind of confusing...

There will be a BCS Championship game and a Plus-1 Championship game?!?!?!

Why don't they just say, the Sugar Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl are the Semis and the BCS Championship Game is the FINAL GAME!!!

Because that is not how it would work.

Under your scenario, there would only be 8 BCS slots instead of the current 10.  I don't see anyone moving backwards in terms of who has access to the BCS money.  So, that means you have to have the same five games, plus a national championship game.

Here is how I would see it working, let's say the Rose and Orange are semi-final sites and the Sugar is the national championship site:

Jan 1 - Rose Bowl (this would be the traditional bowl game - not part of the 'playoffs')

Jan 1 - Fiesta Bowl

Jan 2 - Sugar Bowl (this would be the traditional bowl game - not part of the 'playoffs')

Jan 8 - Orange Bowl (Semi Final #1)

Jan 8 - 5th Bowl Game (Semi Final #2 played in Pasadena)

Jan 15 - National Championship game (played in New Orleans)

Or they could even play the NC Game anywhere - like the Super Bowl... with cities bidding and the game moving around.

However, if they used the same four cities - which is what will really sell the Bowl Committees to sign on - each city would have a four-year rotation that included having only their Bowl Game one year, only a Semi Final one year, both their Bowl Game and a Semi Final one year, and both their Bowl Game and the NC game one year.  Each city would get 6 games in four years - three times it would be their ordinary bowl game, twice it would be a semi final game, and one national championship game.

This sounds REALLY complicated, I know.

But consider you have to allow the conferences to maintain access to the four BCS bowls, give some concessions to the four BCS cities, and find a solution that works with a total of 6 games.

[Guest]

This is great for college football. However, similar to the UF president's proposal it would remove all auto bids and conference maximums from the BCS. This could hurt USF.

Machen's might have removed the autobid... but I don't see how a plus one model would.

Consider the "seeding" of the four teams could be done after the BCS selections are made... the only issue might be if the "final four" could include non-champions... take 2006 for example, you could see Ohio State, Florida, Wisconsin, and Louisville as the four teams... or Michigan instead of the Badgers.  That could hurt a school like USF because it might be #4 in the BCS but not seeded #4 because of a 'selection' system.

[Joe]

Jim, It is my understanding that a plus one in this format would have no automatic bids, and payments would be reduced. That would include all BCS games. Instead you'd see the old traditional matchups when bowls aren't included in the big three. i.e. - rose as Pac 10-Big 10 or Sugar as SEC-At Large. Also there would be another city added, Dallas.

[BullsFanInTX]

This is great for college football. However, similar to the UF president's proposal it would remove all auto bids and conference maximums from the BCS. This could hurt USF.

Where does it say they will do away with auto bids.  I read into it that they will retain auto bids, but top 4 teams will go to 2 semifinal BCS bowls.

[Joe]

It is my understanding from 2 people. One a sports writer in Dallas that I grew up with. Another is someone who is an associate AD at an ACC school who I worked with in the past. Neither source thinks this has legs because its got too many hang ups. Either way the writer from the NY Post embellished this possibility knowing that people are starting to get that college football itch.

[BullDoug]

Imagine if the No. 5 team has beat one of the top four early in the season but has a late season loss to one of the other Top 4.  Then the team that was beat by No. 5 team wins it all.  Now we are back to ground zero and the debate starts again. This has got to be an 8 team tourney to be legit.  This month off before the champioship game must be rectified.  OSU was at a disadvantage this yr IMO b/c of it.  It wouldn't of changed the outcome but the game may have been closer.

Start the playoffs the first week after the season is over at the higher ranked team stadiums.  The second round is the same thing.  Make the championship game on Jan. 2.  The other 6 losers can play on New Years Day in the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar with one of them being the championship game.  Take the money out of the BCS bowl payouts to pay for the first two rounds because the BCS games are diminished w/a playoff.

My only suggestion is the if the Top nonBCS is ranked in the Top 12 BCS, that team should receive an autobid.  I would include this in the first TV contract only.  After 5-6 yrs of being included then they should be on thier own.