In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 591
Online now 558 Record: 4487 (2/14/2012)
The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports
Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports
The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners
The place to buy, sell or trade tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
BCS changes: Why now, and who wins and who loses?
By RALPH D. RUSSO Associated Press
CHICAGO - College football is headed toward a new era, with a four-team playoff to decide the champion that could start in 2014. As the conference commissioners have said repeatedly during the six months it has taken for them to come up with a playoff plan to present to university presidents for approval, "The devil is in the details."
Let's explore some of those details.
Why now?: For years, the Big Ten and then-Pac-10 were adamantly against a playoff. What changed? Well, the Pac-10 and its commissioner for starters. Larry Scott has pushed the league to be more progressive, and its members have reaped millions of dollars in rewards because of his bold moves. With Scott at the helm, the Pac-12 became less of an obstacle to progress.
"From our conference's perspective, historically we've been very conservative, protective of the status quo, but we've had a complete cultural transformation," Scott said Thursday.
In the Big Ten, as much as Commissioner Jim Delany has been against a playoff, he realized the BCS just wasn't worth fighting for anymore. "No system can stand that much criticism and be sustainable," he said Thursday.
Money, money, money... money!: BCS supporters would often boast they were leaving money on the table for the good of college football. Whether their motivation was quite so noble is debatable, but there was never any question that a playoff would bring in more money than the BCS, with its hit-or-miss bowl games and often controversial championship matchup.
Just in television rights alone, a playoff stands to bring in at least $300 million a year. The current BCS and Rose Bowl deals are worth about $155 million annually. Cha-ching!
What becomes of the bowls?: The bowl system will never be the same. The BCS championship game had already made the high-profile bowls less relevant. Now take the four best teams out of the bowls and put them in semifinals and a bowl bid will feel like even more of a consolation prize. Think of it this way: The LOSER of the Big Ten championship game is more likely to play in the Rose Bowl than the winner.
Winners: If it's college football, the Southeastern Conference must be winning. The playoff negotiations were no different. SEC Commissioner Mike Slive, whose teams have won the past six BCS titles, has been pushing for a playoff since 2008. It took a little longer than he would have liked, but he got his way.
Losers: As much as the BCS seemed stacked against the so-called little guys - those teams from conferences outside the six founding member leagues - a playoff-driven postseason could widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. Leagues such as the Mountain West, Conference USA and the Sun Belt will make more money in total but could get a smaller percentage of the pie. And if schedule strength is going to be emphasized for picking the playoff participants, how do those teams fortify their schedules to match what the teams from power leagues already have built-in?
Big Least: There have been six major conferences. The Big East, after being plundered by expansion, is on the verge of being demoted to second-tier status. How much less it gets in revenue from the playoff than the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC will be something to watch closely.
A few good men: So who will be on this committee given the task of picking the best four teams in the country? The commissioners aren't sure yet, though it will probably be similar to the basketball selection committee, which comprises commissioners and athletic directors. Of course, it is one thing to hand out 34 at-large bids to a basketball tournament and quite another to determine which 12-1 football team to leave out of a playoff.
The computers will need to be included in the picking of the four best teams IMO. It would be just as controversial if the "committee" picked teams outside the six or seven highest computer ranked teams as the current controversial BCS system. The computer guys aren't going to dismantle their programs just because the BCS no longer have them as a part of their weekly formula so they will be out there. I know the AP and other ranking groups would rather the computers go away but they need to stay to keep the humans somewhat honest.
This post was edited by gyrene 22 months ago
And SOS needs to be a consideration.
(I'm talking to you texas!)
...and the SEC.
How in the hell does ND keep wiggling into these discussions? Don't tell me about tradition because if that is the only reason then we should invite Yale and Army also.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports