Blog Entry

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

Posted on: December 7, 2011 6:47 pm
Edited on: December 7, 2011 6:58 pm
  •  
 
NEW YORK - On Monday, the Big 12's athletic directors took a straw poll and were in favor of a plus-one format, allowing the top four teams to play for a national title, SI.com reported.

On Wednesday, Stanford athletic director Bob Bowlsby went a step further, calling the plus-one model "inevitable" when the new BCS cycle begins in 2014.

"I happen to agree with my conference colleagues about the plus-one game," Bowlsby said Wednesday at the IMG Forum at the Marriott Marquis. "I think it's inevitable at this point."

While a panel of athletic directors mostly opposed a large playoff, similar to the one held at the FCS level, Washington athletic director Scott Woodward said he's in favor of the plus-one format and went as far to say he thinks it will eventually happen.

NCAA President Mark Emmert also said he is "confident some change (will happen) in the BCS format" in 2014, when the new cycle is implemented. He would not, however, give specifics and would not comment if he was in a favor of the "plus-one" model.

  •  
Category: NCAAF
Comments

Since: Dec 4, 2010
Posted on: December 8, 2011 8:24 pm
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

As the restructuring of the BCS moves forward, I would like to see the NCAA require a more level playing field from conference to conference.

The SEC follows a scheduling approach that is easier than any of the other BCS conferences.   This makes it easier for SEC teams to compile good records and reach BCS bowl games.

SEC teams play only 8 league games.   Pac-12, Big Ten and other BCS leagues play 9 league games.

They use this extra non-confernce game to play an additional home game.  So SEC teams play 7 or 8 home games (out of 12 games).   Teams in other leagues play 6 or 7 home games.

In general (and yes there are exceptions) SEC teams only play one opponent from a BCS AQ conference in their non-conference scheduling.  (LSU was certainly an exception this year.. but check out Bama, Georgia, Auburn or Arkansas as examples.  They each played only one non-conference game against a team from a BCS AQ conference.)    

Contrast this with the Pac-12.   (Again, you can find exceptions but...)  The majority of Pac-12 schools played at least 2 non-conference opponents from BCS AQ conferences.   USC, for example, played all 3 of its non-conference games against teams from BCS AQ opponents.  

It's time to level the playing field. Require leagues with 12 teams to play 9 conference games -- and limit the number of home games to 7 games in a season.    
 



Since: Mar 12, 2009
Posted on: December 8, 2011 5:05 pm
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

The only way any type of playoff is to agree to a plus-one model first.  As soon as the schools see the increase in revenue from just that one playoff game, the gates will open.



Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 12:59 pm
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

I do not understand why so many people such as yourself simply refuse to admit the obvious.  The SEC is a powerhouse of a conference and the elite in the conference are nearly unmatched in their level of talent.  To make such wrongheaded statements like Arkansas did not deserve its rankings is foolish.  Arkansas lost 2 games this year.  They lost to #1 and they lost to #2.  Can any other 2 loss team say that?  No.  OKstate lost to an unranked team who barely made it to .500 with a cupcake schedule.  Oregon plays a cupcake schedule and got Blown out by the best team they played.  Stanford lost to a team who was barely ranked.  Michigan and VaTech?  Really???  I agree some sort of playoff is necessary, but no limits on how many teams from any one conference can be in the playoff.  There are 3-4 SEC Teams that would be candidates this year.
First, I don't have a dog in the fight.  I don't do the conference ra ra crap and I don't care what conferences the best teams come from.  With that said, I hear this kind of "defense" all the time.  Folks IMMEDIATELY go to the "quality loss" shtick.  I don't get it.  I think we can all agree that comparing the quality wins between two teams tells us more about them than the losses they each had.  Which team do we know more about in these two scenarios:

1.  Team A beat 5 of the top 25 teams and lost to 3 outside the top 25

      
;     &nbs
p;     &nb
sp;     &n
bsp;     &
nbsp;     
      
;     &nbs
p;    OR
2.  Team B beat 5 outside the top 25 teams and lost to 3 inside the top 25

I'd really like someone to explain to me what information of who GOOD a team is based on their losses.  It's mind boggling really.



Since: Nov 2, 2011
Posted on: December 8, 2011 12:22 pm
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

I personally don't want any form of a playoff, but with a 4-team playoff system, I would say seeds 1-3 must be conference champs, seed 4 would be the next highest rank (conf champ or not). With this, Stanford would be out, behind Alabama and because of Oregon. As soon as they open the playoff door, its going straight to 16 (or even 32) and become a completely different sport altogether. 



Since: Nov 8, 2010
Posted on: December 8, 2011 12:06 pm
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

No Auto Bids.  Top 8 teams Period!



Since: Nov 8, 2010
Posted on: December 8, 2011 11:59 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

I do not understand why so many people such as yourself simply refuse to admit the obvious.  The SEC is a powerhouse of a conference and the elite in the conference are nearly unmatched in their level of talent.  To make such wrongheaded statements like Arkansas did not deserve its rankings is foolish.  Arkansas lost 2 games this year.  They lost to #1 and they lost to #2.  Can any other 2 loss team say that?  No.  OKstate lost to an unranked team who barely made it to .500 with a cupcake schedule.  Oregon plays a cupcake schedule and got Blown out by the best team they played.  Stanford lost to a team who was barely ranked.  Michigan and VaTech?  Really???  I agree some sort of playoff is necessary, but no limits on how many teams from any one conference can be in the playoff.  There are 3-4 SEC Teams that would be candidates this year.



Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 11:08 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

I can't say I disagree.  They are product of the current hype machine the SEC has going on.  I mean, the SEC managed to even keep Auburn ranked...COME ON!  Anyway, part of the restructuring the polls would include either not ranking teams until 4-5 weeks into the season OR assigning a confidence level to each week's poll that increases as the weeks go on.  I doubt, that scenario, that Arkansas would have been ranked as high as they are right now, but you never know.



Since: Aug 16, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 11:00 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

I like your set up, the reality is the more you get rid of the Bowl Names and technicalities, the more these greedy bastards are going to resist.  Regardless, I like the structure you came up with.  The only problem with this years bracket, and I know every year there will be one or two teams that people argue about, is Arkansas.  They should also add a rule, if you get embarassed by 2 teams in the top 8 you should be eliminated...haha



Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:54 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

The method I outlined below also disallows the possibility of a team like UCLA (no offense to their fan base) from "sneaking" into a playoff when they clearly don't deserve to be there.  If they had beaten Oregon somehow, is there really anyone who thinks they deserve to be in any sort of playoff with 6 losses?



Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:51 am
 

Stanford AD says "Plus-One" model inevitable

If I were left to do this all by myself, this is what I'd do:

1.  Restructure the polls and fix the transparancy of them.
2.  I personally like an 8 team playoff, but the number doesn't matter a ton to me.  For my example I'll use 8 teams.  THe SEC, ACC, B1G, P12 and B12 would have an auto bid for their conference winner IF that team also finished in the top 12 of the new ranking system.  The other three spots would be filled by the top rated teams of the new ranking system.  If one of the conferences ends up with a champion that is outside the top 12, they don't get an auto bid and another at large spot opens up.  They'd have to hope for an at large.

I don't care how they fit things into the bowls because I think that's merely a technicality that they hide behind.  So we'll take this year as an example of how things would work (assuming the BCS is the new ranking system)

#1 LSU - Auto Qualifier
#2 Alabama - At Large
#3 OSU - Auto Qualifier
#4 Stanford - At Large
#5 Oregon - Auto Qualifier
#6 Arkansas - At Large
#7 BSU - At Large
#8 Wisconsin - Auto Qualifier

First Round:
#1 vs #8
#2 vs #7
#3 vs #6
#4 vs #5

Following rounds the highest seed to make it plays the lowest seed to make it.  With this method, we allow teams like BSU to have a chance and we put a focus on all the games of the regular season as well.  NOTE:  In this method, Clemson is NOT in the tournament because they didn't finish in the top 12 of the final rankings.  This actually puts credence to the "every game matters" talking point the BCS claims to do today, but really doesn't.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com