GOLDEN FOOTBALL RANKINGS

Ways to setup a Plus One System

Plan 1: Bowls choose teams as in pre-BCS days; pit #1 vs #2 after bowls

Plan 2: Use BCS standings to pair 1-4, 2-3 in bowls chosen according to conferences of #1 and #2

Plan 3: Same as #2 but have preset rotation of bowls for semifinal games

Plan 4: Play 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 in mid-December at home stadiums of #1 and #2 teams; winners play at preset site in early January

Complete Analysis with Pros and Cons of Each Plan

Golden Rankings Home
BCS Changes Coming [4/12]

USA Today got hold of a two-page memo from the recent meeting of the BCS. The tone of it is that there will be a "plus one" or four team playoff. The question is how it will be implemented.

Shortly after the 2011 season ended, I explored here the possible scenarios. Here is a summary of the options as I saw them, in no particular order. (Read the entire article here with advantages/disadvantages of each approach ...)

  1. The bowls choose their teams as they did before the BCS was established.
    Rose pits Big Ten and Pac-12 champions; SEC winner goes to Sugar; Big 12 to Fiesta, etc.
    Essentially, this provides another round of games that are factored into the human and computer rankings to determine the two teams that play for the championship.
  2. The BCS standings at the end of the regular season are used to pair #1 vs #4 in one semifinal and #2 vs. #3 in the other in two bowl games.
    The 1-4 matchup goes to the bowl with the tie-in to the #1 team's conference. Similarly, the #2 team's conference bowl game hosts the order game.
  3. Same as plan #2 except that the bowls that host the semifinals rotate year by year as is done now with the championship game.
  4. The semifinals are played at the stadiums of the #1 and #2 teams before Christmas.

Let's take apart the BCS memo with my comments (in italics) on each point. (Read the full memo by clicking this link to USA Today, then taking the link to the memo ...)

  • The options being reviewed by the conference commissioners fall into two categories: "(1) Deciding the national champion and (2) enhancing the bowl experience by including other games."
    It's easy to see why objective #2 is listed. The Sugar Bowl is a prime example of an unhappy bowl, although it's partly their own fault for 2011. Someone at this year's game told me there couldn't have been more than 40,000 people in the stands. Yet the Sugar Bowl's stated reason for inviting Virginia Tech instead of Baylor is that the Hokies would bring more fans. Also remember that the Sugar Bowl couldn't select Arkansas because LSU and Alabama took the SEC's two BCS spots.
  • The first option is called "BCS with Adjustments."
    "Basically continue the current arrangement whereby no teams play more than one post-season game, with the following enhancements: (a) change or eliminate annual automatic qualification except for contracts negotiated between conferences and bowls, (b) eliminate the limit on the number of participants from each conference, (c) play the games nearer to January 1, (d) create a format that would accommodate different conference champions participating in different bowl games."
    This option is obviously aimed at placating the bowls by allowing them to return to the days when they picked their own participants. This would be closest to Plan #1 in my list above except that the bowl games don't have any bearing on determining the teams in the championship game. DON'T BE SURPRISED IF THIS IS THE OPTION THAT THE PRESIDENTS CHOOSE. The key part of the option are the words "no teams play more than one post-season game." My favorite whipping boy, Ohio State president Gordon Gee, has been an outspoken opponent of extending his scholar-athletes' post-season beyond one game. This plan would have allowed Arkansas, ranked in the Top Ten, to participate in a BCS bowl in 2011. The plan would seemingly attend to the criticism that has arisen in some years about a BCS conference champion (most notably UConn in 2010) taking a guaranteed spot despite not being ranked in the top 15. Of course, if, say, the Orange Bowl had a contract with the Big East that assured an invitation to the conference's champion, then a team like 2010 UConn would still take the spot. But the decision would be each bowl's, not the BCS management group.
  • Option #2: "Original 'Plus One'
    "After the bowl games are played, select two teams for the championship game."
    This is my option #1 above. In most years, it would probably be better than the current system but there would still be seasons when the three undefeated teams coming out of the regular season would play in three different bowl games and all would win. I suppose this would be better than what we have now because the top teams would be tested one more time before the Final Two are chosen. But there are other options that do this also without leaving open the possibility of all the top teams winning their bowl games.
  • Option #3: "Four-team event, with seeded semi-finals and a championship game." This scenario can be done in different ways.
    A. "All three games in bowls;"
    This is similar to my scenarios 2 and 3. This would certainly make the bowls happy but would cede much of the money to the bowls when plan D below would give all the semifinal money to the colleges.
    B. "All three games at neutral sites which would be selected through a bid process ... No neutral site games would be branded as bowl games ..."
    Presumbly the neutral sites would be cities that currently host bowl games. But since the games are not the bowls, this plan would require three bowl cities to host two games just as the championship game city does now, like New Orleans following the 2011 season. I WOULDN'T THINK THIS PLAN WOULD HAVE MUCH OF A CHANCE SINCE THE BOWLS WOULD PREFER PLAN A OR PLAN C, NEITHER OF WHICH REQUIRES THE SEMIFINAL CITIES TO HOST TWO GAMES.
    C. "Semifinal games in bowls, championship-game site selected through a bid process ... The championship game would not be branded as a bowl game ..."
    This is what I had in mind with my options 2 and 3. I assumed the championship game would continue as an event outside the bowl system.
    D. "Semifinal games at campus sites, championship-game site selected through a bid process ... The championship game would not be branded as a bowl game ..."
    This is my option 4. This is the smartest way to do it from the colleges' point of view because all revenue from the two semifinal games would go to the colleges (the participants in each game, their conferences, and - presumably - a certain percentage that is shared among all the other conferences participating in the BCS).
  • Option #4: "Four Teams Plus"
    "The four highest-ranked teams meet in two games except that the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions will always play in the Rose Bowl. If the Big Ten champion, the Pac-12 champion, or both are in the top four, that team (or those two teams) would play in the Rose Bowl and the other two games would be filled by the other four highest-ranked teams. Select two teams for the championship game after those three games have been played."
    This option is obviously included to placate the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten, and the Pac-12. My sense is that, if this more complicated option has been included in the list, then it will be seriously considered and could be adopted. If the Gordon Gees of the Big Ten are to get onboard with a plan that requires two teams to play two post-season games, then restoring the Rose Bowl as the home of the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions may be a necessary concession.

The rest of the memo deals with "ways to enhance the bowl experience for student athletes and fans ..." Here are the options listed.

  1. 10- or 12-Team Event
    "If No. 2, 3, or 4 above is adopted, create bowl opportunities for six or eight other teams in addition to the four in the semifinals. Matchups would be determined by committee with the aim of providing the most evenly matched and attractive games that make geographic sense for the participants. ..."
    Appointing a committee to determine the matchups would keep the Sugar Bowl from shooting itself in the foot by picking a lower-ranked team because it will "bring more fans." So this option would be more fair to teams like Baylor in 2011 that ranked in the Top Ten but didn't go to a "BCS bowl." The result would be more compelling bowl matchups.
  2. 20-Team Event
    Same as #1 except more teams would be involved.
    I suspect that the number of teams that would be included would depend upon how many bowls would be willing to cede the selection of their teams to the BCS committee.

My Final Thoughts

  • I'm certainly happy that discussions have gotten this far since any previous attempt - most notably SEC Commissioner Mike Slive's attempt to push a Plus One format (option #1 above) in 2008 - went nowhere.
  • All the options have the potential to improve what we have at present.
  • Perhaps the discussions haven't gotten that far yet, but I'd sure like to see a proviso that limits the participants in the semifinal games (however they are determined) to conference champions. That way, we wouldn't have a repeat of 2011 when the Game of the Year ended up giving the loser a huge advantage when the two teams played again in the Championship Game. From the beginning, the BCS has paid homage to the "sacredness of the regular season" where "every game is a playoff game." Well, that wasn't the case in 2011.
QUESTION TO PONDER
How would a "Plus One" BCS setup work in college football?

As a generic term, the "Plus One" system means that two teams would be selected to play in the BCS Championship Game after the bowl games. The bowls would add another round of games that provide data to the human poll voters and the computers or to a committee formed by the conferences to select the teams. If the present system of ranking teams were continued, then the BCS standings would be recalculated after the bowls and the top two teams, as now, would play in the championship game within two weeks at a predetermined site. The big breakthrough in this approach - which is a major stumbling block for many BCS presidents - involves two teams playing two post-season games (not counting the conference championship games).

At least four scenarios have been proposed. In no particular order, here they are.

  1. The bowls choose their teams as they did before the BCS was established in 1998. So the Rose Bowl pits the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions. The SEC winner plays in the Sugar, the Big-12 champ in the Fiesta, and the ACC titlist in the Orange. (Or the bowls could negotiate different arrangements with conferences.)
    Example: If this system were in effect this year, LSU might play Stanford in the Sugar Bowl and Alabama face Oklahoma State in the Fiesta. Oregon and Wisconsin would still meet in the Rose, and Clemson and West Virginia in the Orange.
    • Advantages
      The bowls would love this approach, especially the oldest, the Rose Bowl. They could return to their roots, so to speak, and not have to worry about BCS rules dictating which teams they invite. Also, two or more of the BCS bowl games (a name they might no longer have if this approach were adopted) would be relevant for determining the national champion. In the example cited above, both the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls would be widely viewed as semifinal matchups. However, if Stanford upset LSU, then the Rose Bowl winner might jump into the BCS Championship Game.
      The so-called "Non AQ" (Automatic Qualifying) conferences would prefer this system because their undefeated or one-loss champions would have a better chance of being selected by a major bowl. Under this scenario in 2011, the Sugar Bowl might pit Boise State against LSU if Stanford accepted a bid to the Fiesta or Orange Bowl. Even though Boise would bring fewer fans than Michigan or Virginia Tech, the game would generate more buzz because, if Boise upset #1 LSU, the Broncos might finish in the top two and play in the BCS Championship Game. All those who love underdogs would watch.
      For the same reasons just stated, the TV networks would like this system because fans who are not football junkies but follow just one team or one conference would watch more bowl games since more teams would have a chance at finishing 1 or 2.
      The system used to rank the teams does not have to be as precise. Boise State thinks it should be in the top four or top two? Fine, beat a higher ranked team in your bowl game. It's hard to compare Alabama and Oklahoma State because they played in separate conferences? Let them meet in a bowl game and settle the matter.
    • Disadvantages
      Depending on how the major bowls turn out, any controversy that existed before the bowls as to who the two "best" teams might still exist. Suppose this year, LSU beats Stanford in the Sugar, Alabama defeats Clemson in the Orange, and Oklahoma State upends Boise in the Fiesta. Then the argument over who's #2 remains where it was before the bowls. And if Stanford were to upset LSU, the only undefeated team, the picture would be muddied even more. There would be more of a chance of a "split championship" (as happened in 2003) with the AP voters selecting a team that won its bowl but finished third in the final BCS rankings.
      Will fans of the two finalists travel twice? Would a significant percentage of the followers of the top four teams stay home for the bowl game in order to save their money for the championship game? Or, vice-versa, will many go to the bowl, then stay home for the finals?

  2. The BCS standings at the end of the regular season (first Sunday of December after the conference championship games) are used to pair #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3 in two bowl games which become semifinals. The two winners then meet in the championship game, which is held, like the Super Bowl, at a predetermined location 10-14 days later. The 1 vs 4 semifinal is awarded to the bowl that has a tie-in with the #1 team's conference. The 2-3 contest would go to the bowl with a tie-in with the #2 team. If #2 was from the same conference as #1 (as would have happened this year), the game goes to the bowl with a tie-in with the #3 team's conference.
    Example: This year, #1 LSU would play #4 Stanford in the Sugar Bowl. #2 Alabama would play #3 Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl.
    • Advantages
      The confusion that might occur with plan #1 above is avoided. The argument over whether Alabama or Oklahoma State is #2 will be settled on the field of play.
      The so-called "sanctity" of the regular season would be preserved. Teams must finish in the top four to have a chance at the national championship. Plan #1 above would throw out a wider net in the sense that as many as eight teams might have at least a flicker of a shot at the championship game depending on how they perform in bowls.
      Obviously, two of the bowls will like this system every year when their tie-in conference's champion finishes 1 or 2. Two bowl games determining the teams in the final game is better than no bowls having an impact on the championship as in the present system.
      The non-AQ conferences would be pleased that their champions would have twice as good a chance to make the "Final Four" than in the current "Final Two" system. However, there's a negative side effect for these conferences also. (See below.)
    • Disadvantages
      The Rose Bowl, which wields more power than any of the other bowls, would be lukewarm at best toward this approach. Pasadena would host one of the semifinals if either the Big Ten or Pac 12 champion finished 1 or 2. But the other participant could come from anywhere. The Rose Bowl would be satisfied only if the Big 10 and Pac-12 champs ended the regular season 1 and 4 or 2 and 3. But that might happen once every five years.
      The Orange Bowl would be lukewarm toward this idea as well. The BCS Championship Game after the '99 season pitted Florida State of the ACC against Virginia Tech of the Big East. Since that year, no current Big East team has played in the championship game and, after FSU finished #2 in 2000, no ACC squad has cracked the top two either. So the chances of the Orange Bowl hosting a semifinal are slim.
      The non-AQ conference champions who didn't finish in the top four would have slim chances of being selected by one of the major bowls that is not hosting a semifinal. Those bowls would revert to the present model of selecting teams not so much on the basis of where they're ranked but rather on how many fannies they will put in the seats.
      Those who favor the status quo would say that all that's been done is to switch the controvery from "Who's #2?" to "Who's #4?" But others would say that's an improvement.
      The last disadvantage listed for plan #1 above applies here also: Will fans travel twice?
  1. Two of the bowls are semifinal games pairing #1 vs #4 and #2 and #3 in the final regular season BCS standings. However, the bowls that host the semifinals are predetermined according to a preset rotation (rather than assigning the 1-4 game to the bowl with a tie-in to #1's conference and the same for #2's conference for the other bowl). The championship game between the two semifinal winners would be the location of a third bowl, as preset.
    Example:
    Year 1: Final - Rose, Semifinals - Sugar, Orange
    Year 2: Final - Sugar, Semifinals - Rose, Fiesta
    Year 3: Final - Orange, Semifinals - Sugar, Fiesta
    Year 4: Final - Fiesta, Semifinals - Rose, Orange
    • Advantages
      Each bowl would host a semifinal at least once every three years and a final in one of the other years.       The Sugar Bowl, with its tie-in with the SEC, would probably host more semifinal games if the sites were determined by the conference bowl tie-ins of the #1 and #2 teams. With this plan, the Sugar Bowl would host a semifinal only on its turn.
      As in plan 2, seeding the teams provides the fairest way to determine the two teams for the title game. It also avoids the possibility of, say, three undefeated teams all winning their bowl games, therefore eliminating none of them, as could happen in Plan 1 where bowls would revert to their old conference tie-ins.
    • Disadvantages
      The Rose Bowl would be unhappy with this arrangement since the semifinal game they host might involve neither the Pac-12 nor the Big Ten champion.       However, this drawback could be ameliorated by the way the two games are assigned to the semifinal sites.
      Example: Suppose the Rose Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl are the semifinal games in a given year. Let's say the order of finish in the regular season is: 1. Oklahoma, 2. Oregon, 3. Alabama, 4. Florida State. Then the 2-3 game could be assigned to the Rose Bowl since Oregon is involved. Or the rules could be set so that the Rose Bowl, being the Granddaddy of Them All, can select the 1-4 or 2-3 game every time it is a semifinal host.
    • The BCS bowl that does not host a semifinal or final in a given year (or the two bowls if the Cotton Bowl is added to the mix) would not be able to select any of the top four teams to enhance the interest in its game. The positive aspect of this situation is that bowls might get a chance to invite teams that are normally off-limits to them. For example, let's say the Big Ten champion is not in the Top 4 in a year when the Rose Bowl hosts a semifinal. Then either of the two bowls that do not have the semifinals that year could invite the Big Ten champion, which can never happen under the current system because the Big Ten champion goes to the Rose Bowl if it is not in the Championship Game. The rules could be crafted so that the bowl that is not hosting either a semifinal game or the finals would have first picks for its participants.
      Will fans travel twice? This is the disadvantage of any Plus One system - the fear that attendance at the semifinal games will be disappointing because a significant number of fans will save their money to attend the finals. Or the finals will not fill the stadium because many fans have no money left after attending the semifinals.

  2. The next plan wouldn't seem to have much chance of adoption (not because it lacks merit but because of the mind set of the college presidents and ADs) but, since it's been proposed by a national publication, I'll include it.
    #1 plays #4 and #2 meets #3. However, these semifinal games are played in mid-December at the stadiums of the top two teams. The winners play for the championship at a predetermined site the first week of January.
    • Advantages
      Since they are not bowl games, the two semifinals would make much more money for their schools and conferences. This would be especially true for games played in 90,000+ stadiums at LSU, Alabama, Michigan, etc. Even assuming the gate would be split 50-50 between the two schools since this is a playoff game, the home team makes far more than it would for a bowl game. For one thing, ticket prices will be much higher than they are in the regular season, more comparable to what fans pay for BCS Bowl Games. So the income would be much larger than what is earned for regular season games (without considering the added TV revenue). And, above all, the schools don't cede the income from the games to bowl committees. Also, the visiting team travels to the site the day before the game, just as they do for the regular season. Thus, their expenses are far less than they are for a bowl game.
      Packed stadiums would be insured       because the games are hosted on college campuses. Imagine the demand for tickets for a semifinal game at LSU, Ohio State, Florida State, or USC. The BCS (or whatever organization replaces the BCS) would decide on how tickets are allocated. Presumably the visiting team might receive a higher percentage than the 10-15% they normally get for a conference game. Any tickets the home team fans don't want would be gobbled up by the visitors.
      The fans of the home team would not have to travel twice as in the other plans. When the semifinals are played as bowl games, fans must travel longer distances than they do for their team's home games (unless it's LSU in the Superdome or USC in the Rose Bowl, etc.). Then, if their team wins, they must do that again for the finals. In this approach, fans would pay more for tickets to the semifinal game their school hosts, but they'd do that with any of the plans that play the semifinals as bowl games. If the visiting team wins the semifinal game, its fans will have to travel again, but that's true in the other three Plus One approaches as well.
      The top four teams would not have to wait as long to play their semifinal games. In the present system, LSU and Alabama wait over a month before playing the championship game. Any momentum built up at the end of the regular season is lost. Also,
      The semifinals would be more like the regular season games. Under this system, Auburnwould have only two weeks to get ready for Oregon's high octane O, which for its part wouldn't accumulate rust from a month's layoff.
      The semifinal losers could play in a January 1 bowl game. This is not an essential part of the plan, but would be an enhancement that the bowls would welcome. If one semifinal had Alabama hosting Florida State, the Sugar Bowl could reserve a spot for the loser. Or one bowl could volunteer or be designated to host both semifinal losers.
    • Disadvantages
      The same ones that apply to the other plans: Opposition to any teams playing two post-season games; bowls not getting to select the top teams (although two of the four could still play in bowl games as indicated above), the Rose Bowl not assured of a Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup, worry that the finals will not be a sellout since fans must now budget for two post-season games, etc. But there are others that come to mind.
      The revenue boost assumes a school with a large stadium hosts each semifinal. Suppose Boise State with its 34,000-seat stadium finishes 1 or 2? Famed Autzen Stadium at Oregon seats only 53,800. Would the host school be willing to move the game to a neutral site to enhance revenue?
      Playing the semifinals at campus stadiums deprives the participating teams of the "bowl experience." Instead of traveling to the bowl site 5-7 days ahead of time to enjoy the hospitality and tourist sites of the host and receive bags of goodies from the bowl sponsors, the teams experience the same schedule they follow for regular season games. The home team gets no trip at all. Of course, the winners do get to play the championship game, which has all the perks of a regular bowl game. Also, as mentioned above, the losers could be allowed to play in a January bowl.
      Even more so than the other Plus One plans, this approach "professionalizes" college football even more than it already has been. The semifinals mimic NFL playoff games, which are always played at the stadium of the higher seeded team. So the amateur (?) college players and their coaches are placed under even more pressure to succeed in the regular season so their schools can enjoy the enhanced financial benefits of the Plus One system. Instead of having fun at a bowl, teams approach the semifinal as strictly business.
      Any Plus One system, by raising the payoff - financial and otherwise, increases the temptation to cut corners on enforcing NCAA rules. College football has already received black eyes from scandals involving recruiting violations and illegal benefits for players.

Top of This Page