SoCalTrjn wrote:what makes anyone think a plus 1 is going to solve anything? It means that teams will have a month to prepare for a semi final game and then get ready for the biggest game of the year in 1 week... including travel.
Regardless of which format you use, you're going to have that issue. Most schools have finals during the month of December, and the university presidents, if they have an ounce of credibility remaining, won't allow games to be played during that time.
Either go with a 8-16 team playoff and NCCA created schedules or leave it alone
I myself prefer a 16-team playoff, and I think that's the inevitable long-term solution. Having said that, however, it may be too drastic a jump to arrive at that all at once. I see no reason for the NCAA to get involved in scheduling.
Also with a plus 1 you go from 10 teams making a BCS bowl back to 8, who does that kick out of BCS Bowls last year? LSU and Boise State.
Not necessarily. Remember, the current BCS system came about largely to keep the BCS out of antitrust litigation. It's much easier for a team from a non-BCS conference to qualify for the BCS now than it was in the past. I think the BCS retains that format, even in a Plus One. In that event, look for the BCS to add an additional bowl game.
You would have USC vs Ohio State in the Rose Bowl, Florida vs Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl, Oklahoma vs Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl and Michigan vs Louisville in the Fiesta Bowl.
which 2 Bowls winners get chosen?
Here's how I think a Plus One should work, incorporating the BCS.
Make the BCS championship game the Plus One game and add another bowl to the BCS mix. My suggestion is the Cotton Bowl, given the history involved in that game.
The BCS would be altered somewhat so that in the bowl round, 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3. The only exception is where one or both of these games produces a regular-season rematch, in which case I would make it 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 4 if those matchups did not create a regular-season rematch.
The semifinal games would be played in the bowl sites tied into the teams finishing 1 and 2, under the following schedule:
Rose Bowl: Big 10 champ or Pac-10 champ.
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ
Cotton Bowl: Big XII champ
Orange Bowl: ACC champ or Big East champ
Fiesta Bowl: Pac-10 champ (only if Big Ten champ and Pac-10 champ finish 1 and 2); Big East champ (only if ACC champ and Big East champ finish 1 and 2); any independent or non-BCS conference member finishing 1 or 2.
Any BCS conference team that finished 1 or 2 but did not win its conference championship would be tied into the bowl game ordinarily represented by its conference champion, unless the conference champion also finished 1 or 2. In that case, the conference champion would play in the bowl game with the conference tie-in, and the runner-up would play in the Fiesta Bowl.
Any bowl games not involved in the playoff would have conference tie-ins as set forth above, with one exception. The Fiesta Bowl would have no conference tie-ins in a non-playoff format, except where the Rose Bowl was involved in the playoff and the Pac-10 champion was not part of the playoff. In that case, the Pac-10 champion goes to the Fiesta Bowl.
The championship game would be played in one of the BCS sites on a rotating basis, so that each bowl game was guaranteed involvement in the process at least once in five years.
If you had a Plus One format last year, the BCS might have looked like this:
Rose Bowl: tOSU vs. LSU (semifinal game)
Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Michigan (semifinal game)
Fiesta Bowl: USC vs. Boise State
Cotton Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Notre Dame
Orange Bowl: Wake Forest vs. Louisville
Semifinal winners play following week at Fiesta Bowl.
There is nothing wrong with fixing the problem, but a plus one doesnt fix anything
Agree in part. Plus One has its flaws, and imho doesn't go far enough. But it's a step in the right direction.
