BCS "Five Plus One" Discussions

[Ksyrup]

Can anyone explain why the Pac-10 (and the other conferences not specifically mentioned) are so adamantly against adding one game after the bowl games end? The only clue I get from this article is that the consensus is that college football should be a "one season" sport - as if playing a bowl game January 10th, as opposed to January 4th, makes a difference in what "season" we are in. That's about as bogus as the "educuatonal" argument against a playoff system.

This isn't intended to be a thread about the merits of the additional game (although fee free to take it in that direction if you want); I'm just trying to understand the arguments against it from the BCS/conference standpoint.



While ABC Sports tantalized the BCS commissioners Tuesday afternoon with the concept of a championship game after the bowls, the chair of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee said that the "plus-one" plans are dead in the water.


"I know of three and maybe four conferences where the additional bowl model would be the only one acceptable," said University of Oregon president David Frohnmayer, the committee chair, speaking from his office. "No one is authorized to agree to anything other than what we agreed to in Miami, and fine-tuned in Washington, D.C. last week."

Frohnmayer referred to the plan that he and Tulane president Scott Cowen announced last month in Miami that would add a fifth bowl to accommodate qualifying teams from the current non-BCS conferences. That plan would increase the amount of BCS revenue that goes to the smaller conferences from 5 percent to 7.5 percent.

ABC Sports vice president Loren Matthews met with the commissioners of the 11 Division I-A conferences Tuesday in Phoenix to present various plans using the "five-plus-one" concept, in which the BCS would include five bowls, plus a game between the top two post-bowl teams a week later. Matthews made no monetary offer concerning the five-plus-one proposals, nor did any of the commissioners ask him for an estimate.

"There was no talk of money at all," Big East commissioner Michael Tranghese, the BCS chairman, said Tuesday night. "Our interest is to develop an overview from the fifth game to the plus-one to the economic issues, and present it to the presidents."

Frohnmayer and his committee said in March that the presidents are against a "plus-one" concept because they believe that football should be a one-season sport. The added game would take college football as late as Jan. 10.

The Pacific-10 Conference has been adamant in its opposition to the additional championship game. However, another BCS official said that the presidents in the Big 12, the Southeastern, Atlantic Coast and Big East conferences favor it. While all members in the BCS are equal, there's also the knowledge that the Pac-10 and Big Ten can always withdraw to the Rose Bowl and be happy.

To this point, the conferences have never taken a vote on any issue. They have always reached a consensus. However, as if to underline the necessity of everyone being in agreement, Tranghese pointed out, "This is a voluntary association."

In March, Frohnmayer and Cowen said that the fifth bowl would be added "if the market supports it." However, by discussing the proposal, it's clear that ABC and the commissioners consider the fifth bowl a fait accompli. Before Matthews met with the commissioners, representatives of the four BCS bowls met and reiterated their opposition to adding a fifth game, which will dilute their franchise by 20 percent.

"They didn't say anything we hadn't heard already," Tranghese said. "The bowls are looking at it from a business point of view. They made the argument that it does not hold up. But we've been told to create more access."

The solution to creating more access and maintaining economic viability, Tranghese said, is the plus-one model. ABC clearly believes that the appeal of a five-plus-one plan in the commercial marketplace could be sufficient enough to override the presidential concerns.

"What we're going to have to do," Tranghese said, "is go back to them with how the five-game model can be done and what it would mean financially. I guess the presidents reserve the right to change their mind."

While Tranghese didn't go into detail, two people in the meeting said that ABC suggested moving one or two of the five games before Christmas in order to rake in the holiday advertising dollar. However, since the BCS participants are not determined until the first Saturday in December, the logistics of playing one of the games fewer than three weeks later are considered too daunting.

On Wednesday, the commissioners will begin discussing how to alter the BCS formula to avoid the dilemma of last season, when USC was No. 1 in both major polls and failed to qualify for the BCS championship game. Tranghese said Tuesday night that no decisions will be made Wednesday.

Ivan Maisel is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

[RPI-Fan]

Most years, the extra game would be even more controversial.

Say you have an 11-0 team, and a 10-1 team clearly the two best, and everyone else below them. The 11-0 and 10-1 play in the national championship game, and the 10-1 wins. Who plays in the 6th game?

Like was said on PTI last night, if you're going to have 6 bowl games, you might as well just go to a playoff, which is only 7 games.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by RPI-Fan

Like was said on PTI last night, if you're going to have 6 bowl games, you might as well just go to a playoff, which is only 7 games.

And it adds another week, and it adds an even greater sense of "distance" from the bowl games to the championships. These aren't necessarily slam-dunk arguments against a playoff, but I think the six-to-seven-games comparison is a little bit of sophistry on Mr. Tony's part.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

And it adds another week, and it adds an even greater sense of "distance" from the bowl games to the championships. These aren't necessarily slam-dunk arguments against a playoff, but I think the six-to-seven-games comparison is a little bit of sophistry on Mr. Tony's part.

Hey!

It was Wilbon.

[QuikSand]

My mistake. I actually saw it... but forgot it was Willy Buns.

[Buzzbee]

I'm kinda scratching my head trying to figure out how having an extra game after the BCS bowls will solve anything. It solves the revenue issues generated by including smaller conferences in a fifth BCS bowl, but I can't see how it would create a "National Championship" matchup any better than the plan already in place. It seems like it would only muddy the water. You would have 5 BCS bowl winners. Which two would play in the +1? I'm guessing you would match #1 and #4 in one BCS bowl, and match #2 and #3 in the other. However, I don't see how that will result in any less controversy.

[panerd]

Seems like the whole Rose Bowl thing really seems to lose more and more weight every year. Sure, 20 years ago people would probably still be really interested in the Rose Bowl. But nowadays if the Pac-10 and Big-10 try to take their ball and run will anyone outside of the northern midwest and Southern California give a shit?

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by panerd

Seems like the whole Rose Bowl thing really seems to lose more and more weight every year. Sure, 20 years ago people would probably still be really interested in the Rose Bowl. But nowadays if the Pac-10 and Big-10 try to take their ball and run will anyone outside of the northern midwest and Southern California give a shit?

I think that can be attributed to the birth of the BCS. Prior to the BCS there were four major bowls, the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Cotton. Of those, the Rose was the most prestigious. It is the Grandaddy because it was the first bowl. It also usually had two pretty good teams playing in it. Now with the BCS, the Rose has lost some of that prestige, IMHO of course. It is the top bowl only once every four years. As a result, there isn't as much interest these days about who is playing in the Rose bowl.

[On a side note, I think the Tournament of Roses parade also brought a lot of interest from those who ordinarily might not care. I believe that in todays world, the rose parade just isn't something that a lot of people make an effort to watch, whereas in the past I think they might have. Just another possible contributor to what I perceive as a deline in the Rose bowl's prestige.]

[judicial clerk]

One extra game is a bad idea. Just go to the playoff system used in Div. IAA, DII, DIII. It would be bigger than sliced bread.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yeah I can't help it. When I think Rose Bowl, I think Pac-10 vs. Big-10. When I think Cotton Bowl, I still think Southwest Conference champion verses whomever. But those days are gone. I still go to the Cotton Bowl every year, but seeing Oregon against Colorado or some such matchup is not the same to me as seeing (insert dead SWC team here) versus Notre Dame/Miami etc.

[sooner333]

What if the Big Ten team and the Pac 10 team are the only two undefeated teams in the nation, play in the Rose Bowl, then have to play in another game? Don't say its like a playoff, because in a playoff, the two highest seeds don't get matched up in the first round. It's not like this extra game could be played some years and then other years not. I think you go with the current system or just have a playoff. I think the only thing the BCS needs to do is put a margin of victory (with a cap at around 22 points) back in the computer polls. I don't think you need to lessen the CPU polls influence, but you could say that the coaches, the AP, and computers have equal influence and I wouldn't have a problem.