The New York Post says that a Plus-1 is on the way …
Sources in several conference offices, athletic directors and television networks told The Post that support is steadily growing for a “Plus-1,” format in which there will be a national championship game following the playing of two “semifinal games.”
The first title game could be played in 2011.
Music to our ears, even if it is just a rumor (and a few years away). Of course, the Plus-1 model has been kicked around for the last five years, and every time they say it might happen the college presidents say “No thanks.” So color us excited that more rumors are flying around, but we won’t hold our breath for the press conference announcing the games and how the Top 4 will be decided.
HT: The Big Lead.
July 17th, 2007 at 10:17 am
To the honored gentlemen that run this site, I respectfully disagree. This is step 1 into turning College Football into a mere shadow of its former self. It’s already lame when a coach starts openly begging for his team to be the #2 over some other team. What integrity will a national championship have if a #6 ranked school begs and complains their way to the #4 seed, then wins the whole thing?
You can’t say that they deserved it by winning on the field, because there are other teams that would have been left out of the mix ahead of them. For all the complaining about 2003 and 2004 (USC and Auburn) at least it was about teams that had a rightful claim to being apart of the discussion.
What about 2005 when there were clearly only two teams that deserved to play for the championship? Is it in the best interest of college football to say that after 12 or 13 games in the regular season USC or Texas still hadn’t settled all questions about their worthiness?
I can’t wait to buy my first t-shirt that says, “USC: 2011 NFL Development League Pacific Division Champions”. Cause that’s where we’re heading if we neuter the sport anymore.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:49 am
“College Football Puts Down Payment on Coffins in Anticipation of Taking Tradition and Pagentry Behind the Shed and Putting Them Down. Will hold online fan poll for what to write on headstone.”
I am 100% against any more tinkering with the BCS system. Plus 1 doesn’t fix anything. Look at last years proposed Plus 1 final 4 and you are immediately shown that a Plus 1 would have added controversies unending.
First, you have the potential for a OSU – Michigan rematch which no one wanted. Second, you have the potential for a LSU – Florida rematch, which i’m sure even less people wanted seeing as LSU didn’t win the SEC or even their division. Third you could have a LSU-Michigan championship. Two teams with 3 losses combined and not a single regular season conference trophy.
That’s the tip of the iceberg. Then USC would’ve been thrown into the overall discussion of being screwed over since they also had 2 losses, but were conference champions. The more they tinker with the system, the more then drive a stake further into the heart of college football and the more drama they end up causing.
I would only propose 1 change to our current format, only conference champions are eligible for the championship game. Call it the Big-12 rule since Nebraska and Oklahoma both snuck in without winning their conference.
July 17th, 2007 at 9:50 am
As a self proclaimed traditionalist, i think this is bad for the game… really there are numerous reasons why and here are a couple:
- to start, people forget that they are students still and adding another game into an already arduous season is not good for those involved.
- College football is passion oriented, it doesnt matter if there is a playoff or not, fans will still battle to the death to explain why their team should have been in the last 4… and beyond the personal, it will not change anything in terms of appeasing the media driven desire for controversy.. i mean hell.. if there was no controversy SporsCenter would have to go back to 1 hour and actually report all the game scores like they used to.
- In my opinion one of the greatest phenomenon and marks of a great team is a consensus national champion… when there is a team in the NCAA which all pundits can plainly see is a clear cut national champion, then that team goes down in the history of the game.
i realize this old guard way of thinking is on the outs as the trend is increasingly tipping towards absolute gratification.. however as is one mans opinion… the system should stay as it is or even go back to pre-BCS times
July 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
[...] Reader Jared writes to us of an exchange found in an SI.com story profiling Matt Leinart: [Kid at the Leinart’s Football Camp]:”What NFL player do you hate the most? [...]
July 18th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
[...] Jim Rome, from today’s show, regarding the recent hullabaloo about a potential Plus-One: Let me pick up the discussion once again about the NCAA possibly adopting a modified plus one playoffs and that we might even get it by 2011. Eeeeeasy NCAA … no need to be so hasty or to rush into anything. It’s not like anyone has a problem with the current BCS set up or is clamoring for a playoff or anything. Or has been for the last 20 years. And let me address the raps against a playoff: one, it will render the regular season meaningless. Wrong. Sure, the regular season means something now: but a playoff that determines a true national champion, on the field, means a whole lot more. Two, it would kill the bowl system as we know it. Fair enough … far be it for me to get behind anything that would jeopardize those 30 bowl games, 27 of which no one cares about anyway. So, I guess score one for that side. And finally, even if you have a final four, there will still be a debate over who you’re leaving out of the playoff. Fine, better to debate who’s number five every year, then who’s number one. Better to know that we’re getting the four best teams every year than praying that there are no more than two unbeatens or teams with one loss, and that if they did lose, they lost early enough to actually have a look at the title. Look, I get that university presidents aren’t about determining a champion on the field of play, but rather about getting paid. Fine: adopt the plus one: you’ll get paid even more and the rest of us will be one big step closer to what we want … a true national champion. Posted by gpen Filed in BCS, Rome’s Takes [...]
August 4th, 2007 at 11:12 am
[...] Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen has taken some heat recently for saying that the Pac-10 presidents would rather leave the BCS than support the Plus-One model recently rumored. Now, SI college football writer Stewie Mandel is calling Hansen’s bluff. Mandel believes that Hansen is just talking out of is a$$ and that the Pac-10 would compromise eventually, in order to guarantee that a Pac-10 team would have a shot at the national title instead of just playing in the Rose Bowl against a Big Eleven (soon to be Midwest 12?) opponent. [...]