During the Capital One Bowl, the annoying color analyst who always talks about food brought up the Plus 1 game fomula that would try and make there be a more true national championship. Here is how I would set it up:
First, there would need to be five BCS bowl games, as follows:
Rose-Big 10 v. Pac-10
Sugar-SEC v. at-large
Fiesta-at-large v. at-large
Orange-ACC v. Big East
Cotton-Big 12 v. at-large
The two best at-large teams would play in the Fiesta. The color analyst at the Capital One Bowl picked the Capital One Bowl as his fifth bowl game, which is stupid beyond belief. BCS bowls do not have sponsor names. Sure it is the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, but it isn't the Tostitos Bowl. No major corporate sponsorship should touch the sacred bowl names.
If this season had a Plus One set-up, it would look like this:
Rose-Penn St. v. USC
Sugar-Florida v. Texas Tech
Fiesta-Texas v. Alabama
Orange-Virginia Tech v. Cincinnati
Cotton-Oklahoma v. Utah
With this set-up, all bowl games are played on January 1st. I would predict the outcome would be like this:
Rose-USC>Penn St.
Sugar-Florida>Texas Tech
Fiesta-Alabama>Texas
Orange-Cincinnati>Virginia Tech
Cotton-Oklahoma>Utah
So they would do another BCS rankings which would end up looking like this:
1. Oklahoma
2. Florida
3. Alabama
4. USC
5. Texas
Oklahoma and Florida would play in the national championship game a week later. That's how it would work. Maybe it wouldn't make a big difference this year, but one upset could turn this into a playoff-like atmosphere.
Hilary Rhoda
Cheney Larschied
Did You See That?
Nation's Top Basketball Recruits
Comments (4) Add A Comment
I thought it was a terrible idea. Throw 10 teams in with the notion that the 5 winners have a shot to play for the title. You think having two teams arguing over the #2 BCS ranking is bad, wow, imagine 5 arguing over two spots. And what is the #10 team beats the #1 team. Do you dismiss the #10 team when trying to pick the "best two" teams from those five games? Idiotic.
cgj
Atlanta, GA
Total Comments (19)
People forget the original intent of the BCS. It was to ensure the #1 and #2 teams played by having the major conferences no longer "locked in" to certain bowls. The same poll controversies that people argued over before the BCS still occur today. As much criticism as the BCS gets, I'm glad there is a way that the "perceived" best two teams can actually play one another. Think when Ohio State and Florida met... before the BCS, Florida went to Sugar and OSU to Rose bowl OR last year with OSU vs LSU... same scenario. That was the purpose of the BCS - to make sure the ranked #1 and #2 can meet and play.
cgj
Atlanta, GA
Total Comments (19)
FN Playoff format #99...
I would expect the Fiesta to select the Big East or 1 of the conference champs from the Rose rather than 2 at large.
The next problem is the match-ups. Do you seed the bowls other than the Rose?
The next is getting support of all of the conferences. Do the B10 and P10 have to either give up the financial benefit and tradition of the Rose or face being the only bowl where 2 conference champs meet? Why would they agree to this over the exitin fformat?
How do you equate teams playing a virtual home game (USC or even some teams that play in the same state) to other bowl champs?
What exactly does the plus 1 resolve? In 2007, it is likely that if the East champ payed in a seperate bowl, you would hav had LSU, USC, WVU, OU, and maybe even VT or another 2 loss bowl winner. This year you can quickly narrow it to 4 teams with a viable claim - the plus 1 might add more teams than it eliminates. 4 or 5 candidates for the plus 1 champ resolves what?
You haven't resolved the argument over the at-large bids. It is not unrealistic that none or only 1 of the conference champs wins there bowl in a given year. You can also face regular season rematches, etc. - how is this better?
Then there is the ugly side - style points and margin of victory. Do we now see teams running up the score in their bowls to try to edge out the other 4 bowl winners? Gee, that's great for NCAAF.
You give up much of the financial argument - all you gain is another BCS bowl - you could add that now (though you would impact the other bowls by taking in the next 2 best teams).
In the end, no format change has a chance of getting the support of the majority of the programs in a majority of the conferences to get the ball rolling.
None currently have the support of a majority in any conference.
Your best chance would be a seeded 4 (that's not just a personal opinion, it is the opinion given by the ADs when they set aside the BS).
Prove It
Frellin Cold In, AK
Total Comments (6720)
It seems to be a moot point, not that I disagree that an improvement is needed. The current bowl system generates too many millions for the fat cats, and there is no way they are going to give that up. They care WAY more about the money than they do about having a true champion. All those arguments about tradition and ruining the regular season are BS. It's all about the money.
Besides, what would guys like Mack Brown and Pete Carroll do with all that whining expertise?
Boys Fan
Heart Of, TX
Total Comments (15)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.