alternatehistory.com
2008 Off-Season
BCS Formula Change
At the 2008 meetings the powers that be in college football had much to discuss. First was the BCS rankings controversy, which hadn't faded with Virginia Tech putting up a good fight in the title game and Oklahoma's and Georgia's losses in the bowl games.
The BCS rankings had started, a bit experimentally, as a way to rank teams that didn't rely overly much upon subjective opinion. The voting polls were included, but so were (to various extents and not all at the same time) computer rankings, strength of schedule, quality win bonuses, and loss penalties. From an analytic mindset there were issues, for instance the strength of schedule metric used (opponents' record and opponents' opponents' record) wasn't the best and the weight it was given in the overall ranking was rather arbitrary.
But those sort of issues drew little interest from the common fan and from the press. The controversies arose whenever a team got into the title game that wasn't in the top 2 in the voting polls, despite the fact that the BCS formula was never supposed to be a simple rubber stamp of the polls. After USC in 2003 fell to 3rd in the BCS despite being first in the voting polls (and ultimately leading to a split title), the BCS formula was drastically overhauled to include only the 2 voting polls (which increased in importance to 2/3 of the overall ranking) and the computer polls. The 2007 controversy, which saw Virginia Tech 5th in the voting polls but 2nd in the BCS rankings, was the final straw for the attempt to provide a measure of objectivity in the rankings (and it would come back to haunt them in short fashion). Going forward the BCS would be a simple average of the Harris Poll and the Coaches' Poll, and by rank, not by percentage of points possible. The computer polls, which would still not be allowed to consider margin of victory, would be used only as a tiebreaker.
Unseeded Plus One
That was the easy part of the off-season meetings however. The BSC TV deals (with the exception of the Rose Bowl) were set to expire after the '09-'10 season and negotiations for a new deal would be starting soon. However they first had to consider what they would be offering TV. There was some support among fans for a playoff, but very little among the conference commissioners and school presidents and athletic directors. Even SEC commissioner Mike Slive, whose plan would amount to a back door mini-playoff, resolutely avoided using the “p-word”.
Slive's plan was termed the “Plus One”, specifically a seeded plus one. The plan was to add a 5th bowl to the 4 BCS bowl games, and have 2 of them match up the top 4 teams in the BCS rankings (1 vs. 4, and 2 vs. 3) and then play the title game from the winner of those 2 bowls. Slive's plan, perhaps put forth due to the SEC getting left out of the title game the last 4 years, was a bold plan. Too bold for most, as it drew only cautious support from the ACC, indifference from the smaller conferences, disapproval from the Big 12 and Big East which didn't want to risk the bowl setup, and complete rejection from the Big 10 and the Pac 10. Big 10 commissioner Jim Delaney was the spokesperson for the anti-playoff position and perhaps rightly, saw this plan as a playoff that would eventually grow and overturn the Bowl system. It also meant the Rose Bowl would lose out on it's Big/Pac matchup even more often.
It appeared the status quo would triumph when Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe proposed the unseeded plus one plan. It would also add another bowl to the BCS lineup. However, the 5 bowls would retain their conference affiliations all the time. The BCS would then release a final poll after the bowl games, after which the top 2 would then play in the title game. Thus more than just the top 2 teams after the regular season would still have a chance to be in the title game, such as Oklahoma, Georgia, and USC last season. Slive objected that selecting 2 teams after the bowls might not be easier than selecting 2 before the bowls, but Delaney liked the plan a lot as it avoided the semblance of the p-word and guaranteed the Rose Bowl could always have their Big 10 champion vs. Pac 10 champion matchup. With the Big 10 and Pac 10 on board, and the Big East once the Cotton Bowl was added with the stipulation that their tie-in would be the Big East champion, the smaller conferences were then brought in line and the unseeded plus one was adopted, to start with the new TV deal for the 2010-11 season.
If one squinted you could call it a playoff – one with 5 semi-finals for 2 spots in the final. A mess only college football could come up with.
Future BCS Structure:
National Title Game – as another money grab, the title game host wouldn't necessarily be at one of the BCS game sites, but would be put out for bid, similar to the Super Bowl. Though the first would be held at the to be complete Cowboys Stadium as part of the deal for the Cotton Bowl moving there, becoming a BCS bowl and accepting the Big East champion as their tie-in.
Bowls and tie-ins
Rose Bowl: Pac 10 champion vs. Big 10 champion
Cotton Bowl: Big East champion vs. at-large
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 champion vs. at-large
Sugar Bowl: SEC champion vs. at-large
Orange Bowl: ACC champion vs. at-large
At-large criteria – selection pool qualifiers in order of precedent, limit of 2 schools from a conference enforced – pool size minimum of 4
A. Top non-AQ conference champ if in top 12
B. Notre Dame if in top 10
C. Schools ranked 1 and 2 if not AQ champ or (AB)
D. Schools ranked 3 and 4 if not AQ champ or (ABC)
E. Top non-AQ conference champion if top 16, if not (CD) and (A) not used
F. Other schools in top 12, not (A-E)
G. Top non-AQ conference champ if in top 20 and not (CDF) and (AE) not used.
H. Other schools in top 16, not (A-G)
I. Other schools in top 20, not (A-H)
J. Top non-AQ conference champ if in top 25 and not (CDFHI) and (AEG) not used.
K. Other schools in top 25, not (A-J)
Notes: To his credit Slive did introduce the seeded plus one plan in 2008 despite in OTL the BCS working out very well for the SEC. It was shot down but is essentially the system we have now after ESPN gobbled up all the TV rights and pushed for it and complaints about SEC dominance and especially the LSU/Alabama rematch that left out 1-loss conference champion OSU (with the exception of having a committee instead of the BCS rankings and calling it a playoff). The unseeded plan was kicked around but was never adopted.
At the 2008 meetings the powers that be in college football had much to discuss. First was the BCS rankings controversy, which hadn't faded with Virginia Tech putting up a good fight in the title game and Oklahoma's and Georgia's losses in the bowl games.
The BCS rankings had started, a bit experimentally, as a way to rank teams that didn't rely overly much upon subjective opinion. The voting polls were included, but so were (to various extents and not all at the same time) computer rankings, strength of schedule, quality win bonuses, and loss penalties. From an analytic mindset there were issues, for instance the strength of schedule metric used (opponents' record and opponents' opponents' record) wasn't the best and the weight it was given in the overall ranking was rather arbitrary.
But those sort of issues drew little interest from the common fan and from the press. The controversies arose whenever a team got into the title game that wasn't in the top 2 in the voting polls, despite the fact that the BCS formula was never supposed to be a simple rubber stamp of the polls. After USC in 2003 fell to 3rd in the BCS despite being first in the voting polls (and ultimately leading to a split title), the BCS formula was drastically overhauled to include only the 2 voting polls (which increased in importance to 2/3 of the overall ranking) and the computer polls. The 2007 controversy, which saw Virginia Tech 5th in the voting polls but 2nd in the BCS rankings, was the final straw for the attempt to provide a measure of objectivity in the rankings (and it would come back to haunt them in short fashion). Going forward the BCS would be a simple average of the Harris Poll and the Coaches' Poll, and by rank, not by percentage of points possible. The computer polls, which would still not be allowed to consider margin of victory, would be used only as a tiebreaker.
Unseeded Plus One
That was the easy part of the off-season meetings however. The BSC TV deals (with the exception of the Rose Bowl) were set to expire after the '09-'10 season and negotiations for a new deal would be starting soon. However they first had to consider what they would be offering TV. There was some support among fans for a playoff, but very little among the conference commissioners and school presidents and athletic directors. Even SEC commissioner Mike Slive, whose plan would amount to a back door mini-playoff, resolutely avoided using the “p-word”.
Slive's plan was termed the “Plus One”, specifically a seeded plus one. The plan was to add a 5th bowl to the 4 BCS bowl games, and have 2 of them match up the top 4 teams in the BCS rankings (1 vs. 4, and 2 vs. 3) and then play the title game from the winner of those 2 bowls. Slive's plan, perhaps put forth due to the SEC getting left out of the title game the last 4 years, was a bold plan. Too bold for most, as it drew only cautious support from the ACC, indifference from the smaller conferences, disapproval from the Big 12 and Big East which didn't want to risk the bowl setup, and complete rejection from the Big 10 and the Pac 10. Big 10 commissioner Jim Delaney was the spokesperson for the anti-playoff position and perhaps rightly, saw this plan as a playoff that would eventually grow and overturn the Bowl system. It also meant the Rose Bowl would lose out on it's Big/Pac matchup even more often.
It appeared the status quo would triumph when Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe proposed the unseeded plus one plan. It would also add another bowl to the BCS lineup. However, the 5 bowls would retain their conference affiliations all the time. The BCS would then release a final poll after the bowl games, after which the top 2 would then play in the title game. Thus more than just the top 2 teams after the regular season would still have a chance to be in the title game, such as Oklahoma, Georgia, and USC last season. Slive objected that selecting 2 teams after the bowls might not be easier than selecting 2 before the bowls, but Delaney liked the plan a lot as it avoided the semblance of the p-word and guaranteed the Rose Bowl could always have their Big 10 champion vs. Pac 10 champion matchup. With the Big 10 and Pac 10 on board, and the Big East once the Cotton Bowl was added with the stipulation that their tie-in would be the Big East champion, the smaller conferences were then brought in line and the unseeded plus one was adopted, to start with the new TV deal for the 2010-11 season.
If one squinted you could call it a playoff – one with 5 semi-finals for 2 spots in the final. A mess only college football could come up with.
Future BCS Structure:
National Title Game – as another money grab, the title game host wouldn't necessarily be at one of the BCS game sites, but would be put out for bid, similar to the Super Bowl. Though the first would be held at the to be complete Cowboys Stadium as part of the deal for the Cotton Bowl moving there, becoming a BCS bowl and accepting the Big East champion as their tie-in.
Bowls and tie-ins
Rose Bowl: Pac 10 champion vs. Big 10 champion
Cotton Bowl: Big East champion vs. at-large
Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 champion vs. at-large
Sugar Bowl: SEC champion vs. at-large
Orange Bowl: ACC champion vs. at-large
At-large criteria – selection pool qualifiers in order of precedent, limit of 2 schools from a conference enforced – pool size minimum of 4
A. Top non-AQ conference champ if in top 12
B. Notre Dame if in top 10
C. Schools ranked 1 and 2 if not AQ champ or (AB)
D. Schools ranked 3 and 4 if not AQ champ or (ABC)
E. Top non-AQ conference champion if top 16, if not (CD) and (A) not used
F. Other schools in top 12, not (A-E)
G. Top non-AQ conference champ if in top 20 and not (CDF) and (AE) not used.
H. Other schools in top 16, not (A-G)
I. Other schools in top 20, not (A-H)
J. Top non-AQ conference champ if in top 25 and not (CDFHI) and (AEG) not used.
K. Other schools in top 25, not (A-J)
Notes: To his credit Slive did introduce the seeded plus one plan in 2008 despite in OTL the BCS working out very well for the SEC. It was shot down but is essentially the system we have now after ESPN gobbled up all the TV rights and pushed for it and complaints about SEC dominance and especially the LSU/Alabama rematch that left out 1-loss conference champion OSU (with the exception of having a committee instead of the BCS rankings and calling it a playoff). The unseeded plan was kicked around but was never adopted.
- Jasen777
- Word Count: 1.2k