Jump to content


Georgia proposes 8 team playoff


Guest Night Phantom
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Night Phantom

ATHENS, Ga. -- The president of the University of Georgia proposed an eight-team playoff system to determine the NCAA's national football champion.

 

Michael Adams, chairman of the NCAA executive committee, has opposed a playoff for 20 years but said Tuesday the current BCS system is "undercutting the sportsmanship and integrity of the game."

 

Adams wants the NCAA to seed eight teams into the four bowls. If one of the major bowls declines to participate, then another bowl could fill the void.

 

"I believe the season is already too long and demands too much of athletes and the universities that serve them," Adams said at a news conference. "But this year's experience with the BCS forces me to the conclusion that the current system has lost public confidence and simply does not work."

 

Adams would like a special NCAA committee to work out the particulars, but the plan calls for the winners of the four major bowls -- Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta -- to play semifinals at least one week later, with the championship game the following week.

 

In a statement posted on the NCAA Web site Tuesday afternoon, NCAA president Myles Brand said he would take Adams' request to the Division I board of directors Monday at the NCAA convention in Nashville. Brand said the structure of postseason football for the Football Bowl Subdivision rests with the presidents.

 

"The BCS has produced some exciting games since it came into existence, but there may be a feeling among some presidents, though not all, that there is need for structural changes. This is an issue that will be decided through presidential leadership," Brand said.

 

Georgia was ranked fourth in the BCS entering the last week of the season, behind Missouri, West Virginia and Ohio State. When Missouri and West Virginia lost, Georgia did not rise to second behind Ohio State but dropped to fifth in the BCS. Southeastern Conference champion LSU vaulted from seventh to second.

 

LSU defeated Ohio State 38-24 Monday night to win the BCS title. Georgia routed previously undefeated Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl, 41-10.

 

LSU coach Les Miles wasn't overly pleased with the timing.

 

"There's a time for proposals. There's a time for adjusting the schedule. It might not be today," he said Tuesday.

 

"Whatever the rules are is fine with me," Miles said of the plan. "I can tell you this, a year ago if we had an eight-team playoff, we might've fared pretty well. This might've been our second trophy. I look forward to whatever setup there is."

Even SEC commissioner Mike Slive, who essentially works for the university presidents, gave Adams a light slap on the wrist.

 

"I was disappointed that the story came out today. This is LSU's day and the Southeastern Conference's day," said Slive, whose two-year term as the BCS coordinator ended with Monday night's game.

 

Adams insisted he was prepared to advance the proposal even if Georgia had played in the title game.

 

"It is a matter of fairness and equity," he said.

 

Adams said he was influenced by players and coaches. He added that he would let Mark Richt speak for himself, but the Georgia coach had been "positive" in discussions about a playoff.

 

Adams is frustrated by the power of the television networks and of the commissioners of the bowls and conferences.

 

"The television networks ? have grown powerful in deciding who plays and when they play, and, indeed, whom they hire to coach," Adams wrote in a letter to Brand.

 

"The Bowl Championship Series has become a beauty contest largely stage-managed by the networks, which in turn protect the interests of their own partner conferences."

 

He said the commissioners of the conferences and the bowls are guilty of "closed-circle decision-making based on traditional contract alliances. It is time to take the ultimate power out of their hands and give it to the student-athletes on the field."

 

"The most visible element of our most visible sport has almost no presidential involvement," Adams added.

 

Adams said he understood the consequences of an extended the season.

 

"This would involve only four schools, and only two into the second week," he said. "To answer concerns about the wear-and-tear on the student-athletes, I would consider returning the regular season to an 11-game schedule."

 

Adams is the second SEC member president to advocate a playoff in the past year. Last year, University of Florida president James Bernard Machen -- whose Gators played in the BCS Championship Game and won the title -- said the time had come for a playoff system, but backed down from his position after conferring with his fellow SEC presidents.

 

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said on Tuesday that he is not a big fan of the playoff format.

 

"I would say this -- every year there has been a third team that probably felt wronged," he said to XM Sports Nation. "And if you wait around long enough every conference will have a third team [that felt wronged]. If you had four teams, within 10 years every conference would have a fifth team that didn't get in. And, in fact, if you look at the standings at the end of the regular season, Southern Cal and Georgia would not be in the four. How long would that last?"

 

On Monday, Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford and Slive said the ACC, SEC, Big East and Big 12 are open to a "plus-one" Final Four format in which the top four teams would be selected and seeded.

 

"In our conference, there's much more open-mindedness about the plus-one than there was two years ago. There's an interest in it ... and a willingness to discuss it in full," Swofford said.

 

The BCS is in the second of a four-year, $320 million contract with Fox that runs through the 2009 season and 2010 bowls. The BCS will begin negotiating with Fox on another deal in the fall. Fox has exclusive negotiating rights with the BCS.

The Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA), Division II and Division III all have a postseason playoff.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this story.

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A plus one is fundamentally retarted.

 

Either go to a full-borne playoff of at least 8 teams or save the trouble and keep the current broken system.

 

 

Not at all. In the plus 1 format, the 1 and 2 ranked teams do NOT play each other in the bowl games. For example it could have been Ohio State vs USC in the rose and LSU vs Kansas in sugar bowl, west viriginia vs oklahoma and georgia vs va tech. Once the dust settles in the 4 bcs bowls, then you take the two top ranked teams and have them play in a plus one.

 

This way several teams are invovled in the hunt for the title, and gives meaning to all the bcs games. The bowl format is not changed and essentially the two best teams will play in the plus one to determine the true champion. The chances of this happening over a full blow playoffs are a 100 times more likely imo. The reason being is that there still will be 5 bcs games, the rest of the bowls stay in tact, it doenst compromise the regular season and it doesnt make the season any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, a plus one looks great in years such as this one, where there is no clear cut national championship matchup. However in years like 2002 and 2006 what is the point of making UM/tOSU/UT/USC play another game? And in 2004, when you have 3 undefeated teams, what do you do then? Have the OU-USC matchup with the winner playing an Auburn team who doesn't have to play as strong of an opponent? Have all 3 undefeated teams play non-undefeated teams and then sort it out later? In 2001, what would have been the point of having Miami play the #2 team in the country, Oregon, in a national championship after the Rose Bowl? Or forcing Oklahoma to beat Miami in 2000 when they were the only undefeated team in the country after the bowl matchups?

 

A plus one may work some years, such as this one, when there is legitimate debate over who should be the national champion. But in most years you aren't going to get a much clearer of a picture than you would with the current (equally stupid) system.

 

The only good solution is a playoff. Everything else sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A plus one is fundamentally retarted.

 

Either go to a full-borne playoff of at least 8 teams or save the trouble and keep the current broken system.

 

 

Not at all. In the plus 1 format, the 1 and 2 ranked teams do NOT play each other in the bowl games. For example it could have been Ohio State vs USC in the rose and LSU vs Kansas in sugar bowl, west viriginia vs oklahoma and georgia vs va tech. Once the dust settles in the 4 bcs bowls, then you take the two top ranked teams and have them play in a plus one.

 

This way several teams are invovled in the hunt for the title, and gives meaning to all the bcs games. The bowl format is not changed and essentially the two best teams will play in the plus one to determine the true champion. The chances of this happening over a full blow playoffs are a 100 times more likely imo. The reason being is that there still will be 5 bcs games, the rest of the bowls stay in tact, it doenst compromise the regular season and it doesnt make the season any longer.

 

 

I cant imagine three teams winning handily in the games and one being left out of the title game with the same amount of losses as a team picked to play in the title game and being upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a plus one system is the best way to go...an eight team tournament would be too much and completely ruin the bowl games, and i think a plus one would be a better way than a four team tournament for the sake of the bowl games...

This year would make be complicated, being such a weird year and all, but previous years would make it a lot easier...

Here's how I would have it:

*If possible, try to work it into being essentially a four team tournament

*The Rose Bowl should always be Pac 10, Big 10, regardless of what happens, although if it would be better suited to switch the Pac 10 or Big 10 champion out for the sake of making it easier, and there's another team in the conference suited to take their spot in the Rose Bowl, then do it, so it would be a lot easier while keeping the Rose Bowl Big 10-Pac 10...If possible, make the other bowls so that the Fiesta Bowl involves the Big 12 champion, the Sugar Bowl involved the SEC champion, and the Orange Bowl involves the ACC and/ or the Big East Champion

*This is the only way short of an 8+ team tournament to give a non power conference team a shot at the championship...if a team can go undefeated in the regular season and then make it to and win their BCS bowl, then they deserve a shot

*A team should have to win their respective conference to play in the National Championship Game

This year's would be:

Rose Bowl: Ohio St. vs. USC

Sugar Bowl: Oklahoma vs. West Virginia

Fiesta Bowl: LSU vs. Hawaii

Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Kansas

Rose Bowl winner plays the Fiesta Bowl winner in the national championship game (since USC beating Ohio St. would be enough to catapult them ahead of the other teams, and if Hawaii were to beat LSU, that would be enough to earn them a spot in the championship game)...I think it would be a safe bet that the National Championship Game would be the same

Previous years:

2006/07:

Rose Bowl: Michigan vs. USC

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Wake Forest

Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Boise St.

Orange Bowl: Louisville vs. Ohio St.

You can switch up Boise St. and Ohio St., but still, the Sugar Bowl Champion would play the Orange Bowl Champion

2005/06:

Rose Bowl: USC vs. Penn St.

Fiesta Bowl: Texas vs. West Virginia

Sugar Bowl: Georgia vs. Oregon

Orange Bowl: Florida St. vs. Ohio St.

Rose Bowl winner plays the Fiesta Bowl winner...i put in Oregon instead of Notre Dame since there was no way Notre Dame deserved the BCS bid over Oregon that year

2004/05:

Rose Bowl: Cal vs. Michigan

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. USC

Sugar Bowl: Auburn vs. Utah

Orange Bowl: Pittsburgh vs. Virginia Tech

Fiesta Bowl winner plays the Sugar Bowl winner...I replaced Texas with Cal, since this was the only way with this format to keep the Rose Bowl Pac 10 vs. Big 10 and still allowing Oklahoma, USC, Auburn, and Utah to compete for the National championship

2003/04:

Rose Bowl: USC vs. Michigan

Fiesta Bowl: Kansas St. vs. Ohio St.

Sugar Bowl: LSU vs. Miami

Orange Bowl: Florida St. vs. Oklahoma

Sugar Bowl winner plays the Rose Bowl winner...since Oklahoma did not win their conference championship, they are not eligible

Oklahoma didn't win the conference that year, so they're out

2002/03:

Rose Bowl: Washington St. vs. Iowa

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Ohio St.

Sugar Bowl: Miami vs. Georgia

Orange Bowl: Florida St. vs. USC

Fiesta Bowl winner plays the Sugar Bowl winner

2001/02:

Rose Bowl: Oregon vs. Illinois

Fiesta Bowl: Colorado vs. Florida

Sugar Bowl: LSU vs. Nebraska

Orange Bowl: Illinois vs. Maryland

Rose Bowl winner vs. Sugar Bowl winner

2000/01:

Rose Bowl: Oregon St. vs. Purdue

Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma vs. Washington

Sugar Bowl: Florida vs. Notre Dame

Orange Bowl: Miami vs. Florida St.

Fiesta Bowl winner vs. Orange Bowl winner

1999/00:

Rose Bowl: Wisconsin vs. Stanford

Fiesta Bowl: Virginia Tech vs. Nebraska

Sugar Bowl: Alabama vs. Michigan

Fiesta Bowl: Florida St. vs. Tennessee

This got complicated...doing this like I did for the years above, we would wind up having Tennessee and Alabama, both SEC schools, in the Sugar Bowl, So I had to switch things up...so basically, the Fiesta Bowl winner would be in the National Championship game...If Florida St. were to win, then they would be in the national championship game as well...priority would go as follows (top two teams on the list that won their bowl game would be in the National Championship game:

1. Florida St.

2. Virginia Tech/ Nebraska winner

3. Wisconsin

4. Alabama

5. Stanford

1998/99:

Rose Bowl: Wisconsin vs. UCLA

Fiesta Bowl: Texas A&M vs. Ohio St.

Sugar Bowl: Tennessee vs. Florida St.

Orange Bowl: Syracuse vs. Florida

Rose Bowl winner vs. Sugar Bowl winner...Ohio St. and Florida can be switched up, but that point is irrelevant

Doing this allows a few things:

1. it allows to keep the bowl games as they should be

2. it allows, in most cases, an undisputed championship

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...