Swofford says "BCS has never been healthier" and rejects playoff idea

[JoltinJacket]

Well, that ends the playoff debate for a few more years.

And of course, it figures that the Big Televen would be opposed to the playoff. Their league has basically turned into Ohio State, Michigan and bunch of also-rans. tO$U has the easiest road to the title of any BCS team nearly every year.

Saying the BCS was in an "unprecedented state of health," ACC commissioner John Swofford announced Wednesday that college football will not change the way it determines its national champion as it prepares to begin negotiations for future television contracts that will probably run through the 2014 season. "We will move forward in the next cycle with the current format," said Swofford, who serves as BCS chairman. "I believe the BCS has never been healthier in its first decade."

The decision, made during a five-hour meeting of 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Kevin White at an ocean-front hotel here, wasn't unexpected. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said earlier this week that he remained opposed to the plus-one format, which would have seeded the top four teams in the final BCS standings and match them in two semifinal games and the winners playing in a national title game.

SEC commissioner Mike Slive made the plus-one proposal Wednesday morning but said there was little support among the commissioners. In fact, Slive said only he and Swofford showed much desire in seriously pushing forward the proposal.

 

[odw]

Swofford is a little girl so this coming from him is expected. Remind me again why we (the ACC) haven't ran him off yet?????

Also, of course the Big 10 is all for the current system. IIRC, like 2/3 of voters for the BCS are voters in Big 10 or Pac 10 areas. They come out like bandits in this system. Honestly, the Big 10 has been the worse major conference for about 3 years now, but you wouldn't know it, with the way the "experts" pump that conference up.

If we had a real commish, the ACC and SEC could ban together and pull out of the BCS. We could get the BE on board, and probably talk the B12 into leaving as well. Just start our own playoff system. 4 team playoff, made up of winner of each conference. Nice, clean and simple.

 

[gth816f]

If we had a real commish, the ACC and SEC could ban together and pull out of the BCS. We could get the BE on board, and probably talk the B12 into leaving as well. Just start our own playoff system. 4 team playoff, made up of winner of each conference. Nice, clean and simple.

Then we're back to a split national championship every single year. I'm not sure that's any better.

 

[GTKyle]

Then we're back to a split national championship every single year. I'm not sure that's any better.

Once the PAC-10 and BIG 11 realize they're losing out on millions of dollars because more people want to watch the playoffs than their stupid rose bowl they'd quickly jump on board.

Anyways, I'm against a playoff system. Why do we have to consistently change the BCS? Change doesn't always mean improvement...

 

[gsu_paintballer]

Once the PAC-10 and BIG 11 realize they're losing out on millions of dollars because more people want to watch the playoffs than their stupid rose bowl they'd quickly jump on board.

Anyways, I'm against a playoff system. Why do we have to consistently change the BCS? Change doesn't always mean improvement...

Consistency doesnt always equal the best option either. We were consistent under that one guy that used to coach use before PJ and we weren't happy

 

[gth816f]

Once the PAC-10 and BIG 11 realize they're losing out on millions of dollars because more people want to watch the playoffs than their stupid rose bowl they'd quickly jump on board.

Anyways, I'm against a playoff system. Why do we have to consistently change the BCS? Change doesn't always mean improvement...

The only problem with that is whether the playoffs would actually make more money or not. I have to think they wouldn't, because if they would the switch would have been made a long time ago...they may claim it's about academics, but it's really all about dollars and cents.

 

[odw]

The only problem with that is whether the playoffs would actually make more money or not. I have to think they wouldn't, because if they would the switch would have been made a long time ago...they may claim it's about academics, but it's really all about dollars and cents.

There's no way to really tell how profitable it would really be. That's why they would rather stay with what is already bringing in big bucks until its shows signs of slowing down, which it hasn't yet.

 

[SMoney]

One potential downside to a playoff system would be that it would possibly make it difficult for fans to get to games. Currently, under the BCS, you know a while in advance where you team will be playing if they make it into the BCS. In a playoff though, if the games are a week apart, it would be hell on people trying to book flights, hotels, etc. However, would mean more football to watch on tv, so I am good with that. Hopefully PJ can take us to the promised land, but not exactly like we have been in the BCS title hunt all that often anyways...

 

[77GTFan]

An interesting twist to the idea of ACC and SEC splitting off and maybe taking Big East would be to create two regions for the BCS - BCS South/East and BCS North/West. One group consists of ACC,SEC, Big East and all other BCS schools in that region. The other consists of Big 10, Pac 10, Big 12 and all other BCS schools in that region.

Imagine each "BCS" group has its own title game plus two other BCS games each year. That adds a BCS game, (more money). The winners of the two title games meet for the BCS National Championship. Thus, we get a four team playoff. Our group's three BCS sites would be Orange, Sugar, and Atlanta or Orlando or Jacksonville. Their group's three sites would be Rose, Fiesta, and either Dallas, St. Louis, or San Diego. With two more at-large teams the non-BCS conferences improve their chances.

In addition, lower tier bowls could make new contracts with conferences that keeps teams in their region - no more sending the ACC to west coast. The only complaint I think we'd see would be from Big 10 not getting their trips to Florida.

This would add $$$$ and extend season by only one game, keep bowls in play, and make lots of sense.

 

[ASimPerson]

One potential downside to a playoff system would be that it would possibly make it difficult for fans to get to games. Currently, under the BCS, you know a while in advance where you team will be playing if they make it into the BCS.

NFL playoffs don't seem to have problems selling seats...you can argue that maybe the NFL is a bigger deal, but I think if you're any sort of college football fan you'd find a way.

Also, unlike the NFL playoffs, I imagine they'd still be the few weeks between the end of the season and the start of the playoffs.

 

[gth816f]

NFL playoffs don't seem to have problems selling seats...you can argue that maybe the NFL is a bigger deal, but I think if you're any sort of college football fan you'd find a way.

Also, unlike the NFL playoffs, I imagine they'd still be the few weeks between the end of the season and the start of the playoffs.

The thing here is that the NFL playoffs are played at home venues until the title game. If D1A playoffs were played this way, as D1AA are, there would be no problem. However, that is a big no-no to any city hosting a BCS game. It also raises the problem of who gets home field advantage in the game. In the NFL, you have a set schedule and a very good way of measuring teams against one another by way of record. You don't have that in college football, and you are going to be left with deciding home field advantage based on votes and identical records.

If you leave all the sites neutral, then it becomes way too expensive for most fans to go to every game, and you are very likely going to have empty seats as you do in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA tournament.

 

[floridajacket]

My idea has always been have a six team playoff between the six BCS conference champions. Shorten the regular season back to 11 games and play the first two rounds the current conf. championship week and the week. The home field would be decided by the AP poll, BCS ranking, a board, whatever (It's better than the same method deciding the actual participants).

The championship will be rotated between the Rose, Sugar and Orange. The other two bowls that year would get their pick between the four losers.

I like this plan because it avoids all off-field methods for selecting a team. Sure, a very good team could have a bad conference championship, but that happens in the NCAA tournament all the time. And I'd like conference play to be a serious, do-or-die situation.

The biggest problem, though, is ND. First of all, they would have to join the Big Ten to participate. Second of all, the big three bowls wouldn't get to pick them if they didn't win the Big Ten. Either has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, but I can at least dream.