Blog Entry

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

Posted on: December 8, 2011 11:43 am
Edited on: December 8, 2011 1:16 pm
NEW YORK – For all the critics of the BCS, rejoice: it appears that the BCS automatic qualifying status format will be gone in 2014.

At least that’s the indication that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky gave during Thursday’s IMG Forum at the Marriott Marquis.

“Some of the people that don’t have (BCS AQ status), say they don’t want it,” Delany said. “Some of the people that do have it, don’t really care about it. Maybe it needs to be reconsidered. I’m not wed to it. I’m wed to the 1-2 game and I’m wed to the Rose Bowl. I’m not wed to the (BCS AQ) selection process or the limitations.”

The current BCS format expires after the 2013 season. There is growing speculation that when the new format is voted on and established in 2014, it could simply be reduced to only pitting the No. 1 and No. 2 teams in a bowl game or a Plus-One model (the top four teams would be seeded in the bowl games).

Either the Plus-One or without the Plus-One model would allow the other current BCS bowl games – Fiesta, Sugar, Orange and Rose – to simply align with whichever conferences they want and would not be required to select teams based on a BCS ranking.

"I feel strongly it’s been a negative driver from our perspective,” Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky. “I hope to be involved in a BCS we do it in a way where we can create a more happy BCS without these class systems. I think it’s possible to do it. In a competitive format that requires teams to be competitive teams in order to participate.”

Added Delany: “As long as I can go to the Rose Bowl, I don’t really care,” Delany said.

Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick isn't in favor of the Plus-One model, but expects change in 2014.

“(Without the BCS AQ format) takes so many forms, it's hard to draw a conclusion from that," Swarbrick said. "You could fashion a version which probably would be good. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to fashion a version that might not be good."


Since: Jan 26, 2011
Posted on: February 25, 2012 1:00 pm

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

personally, i'm not against doing away with AQ status, but think the BCS rankings should remain;

national championship should be determined in a +1 model playoff between the top 4 ranked teams;
(because honestly, while the system isn't perfect, usually it is #2, 3, and 4 who have a legitimate gripe about who should be #1)

and then the BCS bowl games; orange, fiesta, rose, and sugar, should add the cotton bowl to make 5 BCS bowls;

and do away completely with "conference tie ins" for bowls, but rather go on a 5 year rotation, with participants based SOLELY on BCS RANKING...

so +1 BCS championship playoff would be;
#1 vs. #4
#2 vs #3     &nb
sp;     &n
bsp;     &
*for an undisputed national champion... no questions, no excuses...

then 5 BCS bowls rotating on a 5 year plan would have playing;
#5 vs. #6
#7 vs #8
#9 vs. #10
#11 vs. #12
#13 vs. #14     &n

REGARDLESS of what confernce they hail from, to try to ensure the best, most evenly matched teams according to the BCS, to hope for the best and most exciting matchups and games...    &nb

Since: Nov 19, 2011
Posted on: December 18, 2011 1:10 pm

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

Totally Agree! They should have you in on the committee that will determine this!

Since: Mar 15, 2008
Posted on: December 12, 2011 6:13 pm

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

So would the Big Ten participate if Delany got outvoted and the other leagues
created a four-team playoff? "I don't think that we would,

since you have to have one of the top 4 teams in the country to participate it seems highly unlikely the Big 10 would be involved either way for many years.

Since: Dec 11, 2011
Posted on: December 11, 2011 7:09 pm

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

there is no contradiction. right now the ncg is rotated annually amongst the bcs bowls. if the rose bowl is ncg host, they still have the rose bowl a week prior. in a plus 1 system the 2 play-in games would be rotated annually amongst the bcs bowls and held a week prior to the actual bowl games themselves.

Since: Dec 11, 2011
Posted on: December 11, 2011 1:16 pm

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

Why so bitter? Maybe because you have a crook as a head coach and you aren't eligible for a bowl? Hmmm?

Since: Jun 3, 2007
Posted on: December 9, 2011 7:52 am

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

Unforseen..... Why do the Broncos deserve not to be in a BCS Bowl? Why do ANY teams that bust their butts and win the games on teir schedule, try to schedule top teams (that refuse to play them), and try to do it the right way deserve not to play in a BCS Bowl? Sounds like someone with short-comings that wants to lash out out good programs

Since: Mar 15, 2008
Posted on: December 9, 2011 6:23 am

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

No matter what they do, you will never please everyone
wrong ...a 8, 12, or 16 team tourney would please everyone under 70 who's not getting bribes from the bowl games

Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:40 pm

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014


You are absolutely right, get rid of the AQ and BCS. Go back to the bowl games and let 16 teams be happy.


Those that are yelling for a playoff , really don’t want a playoff. They want a watered down system where only the large schools would still have the upper hand. They want to place into the equation such things as strength of schedule and quality wins and losses. A late season loss is more important than an early season loss. A team that fail to win it’s conference would be allowed to play for the National Championship.

What the heck has that got to do with a 12-0 team and a team that lost a game. You may select any out of conference schedule you would want, If you don’t want a Boise State or TCU to be in the playoff then schedule them as an out of conference game in the first week of the season. If you beat then they have their loss. If there is a choice between this team and the team that won the head to head game would make the difference, not some stupid SOS.

Get rid of the AQ and while you are at it take the stupid BCS with you. If the SEC would want to keep the BS they should be allowed to do so. Their #3 team would be able to play a team in the sec that did not win it’s conference. They could then brag about how great and strong their conference is.

We don’t need a playoff system with all the variables where you are not able to point to a team and say they belong. The teams with the most wins and have won their conference championship game would play in any playoff. Screw who had the best SOS, the team that lost early in the season should be no better than a team that had a loss later in the season.

There would be many true college football fans that would watch a true National Championship game played by the best two teams according to wins as oppose to  the window dressing used to determine who play in the national Championship game. If you don’t like who is playing then don’t watch or attend. You can bet I will not be watching the coming national championship game this year.  

I have yet to see many conference presidents yelling for a playoff system.

The Rose Bowl would not give up it’s agreement with the Big-10 and PAC-12. This is a traditional game year after year, that is something we should consider in all the changes taking place. The Rose Bowl normally have h highest TV rating and have the best payout.


Since: Jul 28, 2008
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:37 pm

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

Bye bye Boise State, it was nice knowing ya! The Broncos are getting what they deserve, nothing. That program is as good as dead.

Guess what, there is not going to be a plus one. What there will be is a return to independent deals with bowl games and guess who won't be invited? 

Since: Dec 25, 2006
Posted on: December 8, 2011 10:01 pm

BCS AQ status likely gone in 2014

Totally agree with dcpirate and how do the Coaches Poll rank VT over Clemson?  Clemson beat them badly in Blacksburg and in the ACC Championship Game at a neutral site.

7 - 5 and 6 - 6 teams should not be rewarded with bowl games just because they are BCS AQ when non-BCS teams with much better records and teams go to far inferior bowls.

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