Skip to content

Updated: BCS members finish two-day meeting on postseason change

BCS Championship Football AP

UPDATED 2/22 @ 1:50 p.m. ET: The BCS members released the following statement at the conclusion of their two-day meeting in Dallas. There really isn’t anything new, but feel free to check it out:

“In an effort to grow college football’s great popularity and success, we just completed two days of productive meetings in Dallas, Texas.

We have until the fall of this year to finalize any possible changes to our current structure. That’s when contractual obligations require us to begin negotiations with our television carrier for future coverage decisions. We have a self-imposed deadline of sometime this summer to decide what changes we will propose to our governing bodies for football’s post-season. It’s still early in our process and we will continue to meet with our conferences and review options.

Whatever we do, we want to protect college football’s regular season which is the best and most meaningful in sports. We want to preserve the great bowl tradition while making it better and more attractive. We also have heard the message about playing bowl games closer to or on January 1, the way it used to be.

As we proceed, we will evaluate the many pros and cons of numerous possible changes. Every idea has exciting up sides, as well as complicated consequences. From the realities of the calendar to the issues presented in terms of venues such as who hosts games, we have tremendous responsibilities and opportunities.

The bottom line is we will continue to talk about how to make a great sport even better for student-athletes, fans and everyone who loves college football.”


(Writer’s note: the lone reason behind the selection of our featured image is Nick Saban‘s attempt to smile. It’s awkward. Like, almost to the level of Dana Holgorsen awkward. Anyway…) 

Shortly before the 2011-12 college football season came to a close, the grumblings for a change in the postseason format of major college football grew to loud cries.

For once, the major power brokers in college football responded accordingly. A day after Alabama’s 21-0 BCS championship win over LSU, members of the BCS met to discuss how the current process of crowning the champion of America’s second most popular sport could be modified. BCS executive director Bill Hancock said after the Jan. 10 meeting that the 11 conference commissioners will likely meet 5-7 more times before July to discuss more than 50 ideas for change.

Today was one of those meetings. Well, one-half; all 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick are meeting in Dallas today and Wednesday as part of those series of meetings to begin the process of expanding upon and/or whittling down those 50-60 postseason ideas.

(Although, it should be noted Slive said all ideas were still on the table as of today

More definitive results, relatively speaking, will probably be announced tomorrow. Just don’t expect any drastic changes or signed declarations yet.

“It’s a marathon, not a race,” said SEC commissioner Mike Slive, with Hancock adding he would be “surprised if anything was announced before the summer.

That said, it sounds as though a plus-one model continues to gain serious momentum.

The primary concerns for the BCS members include, but are not limited to: protecting the regular season [/eye roll] and not interfering with finals, which extended from Dec. 2-21 last year.

Justified or not, that’s going to be attached to each and every conversation in regards to a possible change in postseason format. Trust me, if logic was involved in this in any way — and that isn’t to suggest the 12 BCS members somehow have an easy task in front of them — the BCS would have been gone a long time ago.

Permalink 22 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Posts
22 Responses to “Updated: BCS members finish two-day meeting on postseason change”
  1. imaduffer says: Feb 21, 2012 7:49 PM

    Like a bunch of sharks in a tank. Who’s for dinner?

  2. bozosforall says: Feb 21, 2012 8:07 PM

    Anything less than an 8-team playoff is a sham.

  3. jimr10 says: Feb 21, 2012 8:45 PM

    bozosforall says:
    Feb 21, 2012 8:07 PM
    Anything less than an 8-team playoff is a sham


  4. drummerhoff says: Feb 21, 2012 9:51 PM

    Any playoff that doesn’t involve a Seeding will be a sham.

    I really don’t want to see the winner of the big10/pac12 RoseBowl play the winner of the SEC/Big12 for the National Championship each and every year.

    If Jim Delany gets his way, that’s what the “8 team play-off” will look like.

  5. vincentbojackson says: Feb 21, 2012 10:04 PM

    The BCS works fine the way it is.

    The proof is the decision of the Olympic committee to copy the system for the Summer Olympics. This year all medals will be awarded based solely on computers and voting by writers and coaches. In addition, small countries may participate but will no longer be eligible for any medals whatsoever.

  6. eagles512 says: Feb 21, 2012 11:40 PM

    It continues to be a joke that such a great sport decides their champion in such an asinine way.

  7. tigersgeaux says: Feb 22, 2012 2:01 AM


    Great posting, poignant and funny, really funny!

    You could expand upon that concept of taking the BCS formula to other venues and sports.

    We could export it to the World Cup!

  8. dickroy says: Feb 22, 2012 8:23 AM

    An eight team playoff is the way to go. I hear some people saying that playoffs would take away from the regular season. This to me is idiotic! Tell me how it would. What takes away from the game is all of the useless, meaningless, bowl games. But I know its all about the money.

  9. dickroy says: Feb 22, 2012 8:26 AM

    After the regular season I watch one bowl game and thats the national championship game. You already know the winner can be only one of two teams, so why do they call it the BCS. Series championship, really!!! Its one game!!!

  10. fcmlefty1 says: Feb 22, 2012 9:23 AM

    Lots of stuff to work through yet, but appears to be getting on track. Thats a step in the right direction, even if its only baby steps at this point.

    Obviously, a seeded 4 team playoff is the best choice of what is apparently on the table.

    Lets use 2012 as the example of how this could look:

    Seems to me the best thing to do would be to kick off bowl season with the semi finals. That would mean they would be held on Saturday, December 22nd. One game should probably start at 3:30, and the other at 8:00. Of course, the 8:00 game would go head to head with an NFL game on NFL Network, but I’d almost be willing to bet that the College game would do better ratings, unless it was an absolute knockout of an NFL game.

    After these two semi-finals, the winners would be on plenty of rest before they played again on Saturday, January 5th. You could even have a bowl game on New Years Day that matched up the semi-final losers if you so desired (They are still the 3rd and 4th best teams in the country after all, and would do excellent both in attendance and TV ratings – one of the bowls would be wise enough to realize the potential in that game). The catch, of course, is that this is NFL Wild Card Weekend. This is where the NFL would have to throw the NCAA a bone and not put a game in the prime time Saturday night slot, and would instead have to play the standard 1:00 & 4:30 they use on the Sunday of divisional weekend. They used this set up for Wild Card Saturday for years – I’m sure they could be “persuaded” (i.e – $$$$$) to go back to it.

    The people stuck in the past can’t be too offended by this plan. They’d still get a full Bowl slate, less the couple of games that will go by the wayside if the bar is raised to 7-5 instead of 6-6. Losing those few games will allow the schedule to be condensed to allow for the semis + playing the champ game a tad earlier.

    One of the elephants in the room, the way I see it, is to convince the NFL to be in lockstep with the NCAA in TV scheduling and not in competition. Big Elephant, but since the NCAA is a free minor league for the NFL, the NFL should find a way to accomidate scheduling, shouldn’t they?

  11. woebegong says: Feb 22, 2012 9:39 AM

    You can bet that any changes agreed on will take a minimum of two years to be implemented. Each commissioner would most likely not agree to any thing without first, finding out how the member schools would agree to such a change.

  12. fcmlefty1 says: Feb 22, 2012 10:05 AM

    I thought it was well understood that nothing can possibly happen until the 2014 season. I was just using 2012 calendar as an example. It would be a moving target every year depending on how Christmas falls

  13. thefiesty1 says: Feb 22, 2012 2:39 PM

    Any talk of dropping the Big (L)east from AQ status? Should have been a priority.

  14. woebegong says: Feb 22, 2012 2:48 PM

    If I read it right, the BCS committee will not meet until after the 2012 season, and I am sure at the least, the AQ status of the big east will be discussed. If the NCAA decides on a playoff season, the point will be mute anyway, since it appears they are talking about a 4 team playoff at present.

  15. drexelvol says: Feb 22, 2012 2:53 PM

    ““It’s a marathon, not a race,” said SEC commissioner Mike Slive”

    Hahahaha, since when is a marathon not a race? I think you mean, it’s not a sprint, dumbass. No wonder stuff never gets done with knuckleheads like that running the BCS.

  16. bozosforall says: Feb 22, 2012 3:10 PM

    jimr10 says:
    Feb 21, 2012 8:45 PM
    bozosforall says:
    Feb 21, 2012 8:07 PM
    Anything less than an 8-team playoff is a sham


    Because a 4-team “playoff” is still rigged to benefit the few “haves”, dumbass.

  17. fcmlefty1 says: Feb 22, 2012 4:43 PM

    jimr10 says:
    Feb 21, 2012 8:45 PM
    bozosforall says:
    Feb 21, 2012 8:07 PM
    Anything less than an 8-team playoff is a sham


    Because a 4-team “playoff” is still rigged to benefit the few “haves”, dumbass.

    An 8 team playoff doesn’t solve that problem – it only takes care of 4 more “haves”

    Only solution that truly is fair to everybody is one that mirrors basketball: All conference champions gain a spot in the bracket. In this case, it would mean the 9 conference champions (I realize there are 11 conferences now, but it will probably be 9 by time 2014 rolls around and the MWC-CUSA teams are in one league, and the WAC ceases to exist as a football conference) and 7 at-large teams selected by an independent ranking service (something like the BCS computers/ basketballs RPI I suppose?). The independents access would come through one or more of these 7 spots.

    That said, we are decades away from getting anything similar to this.

  18. burntorangehorn says: Feb 22, 2012 4:55 PM

    I generally don’t buy into the playoff hype, because I think it cheapens the regular season (see: wildcards winning the Super Bowl or World Series, which is absurd). That said, I could be content with an eight- or ten-team playoff, but only under certain conditions.

    First, every team must have access to the playoffs. That is, if a team is in FBS, it should have a known path to the playoffs, and thus the championship. If a team goes undefeated, it should not be excluded from the playoffs under any circumstances. Any level of school that the NCAA or BCS doesn’t want to have such access to the playoffs needs to be sent to a level where it does have access to the championship system, i.e. FCS.

    Second, each conference that wants to participate in the national championship selection process must adopt a standard procedure for selecting its own conference champion. There would be two procedures. One would be for conferences under twelve teams, which would require a round-robin and uniform tie-breaking language. The other would be the same, except within divisions that would have round-robins (plus games against out-of-division teams) and then send their division winners to a conference championship game. The CCG winners would be the conference champions.

    Third, only conference champions will have access to the playoffs. No wildcards. If a team cannot win its conference, it should not have access to the national championship picture. If the argument is that such-and-such runner-up in one conference deserves to be in over the champion from another conference, then those two conference should not be playing in the same system, and the lesser one should be in FCS. The objective is to crown a champion, not to subjectively guess which team is better than the other. A conference’s champion shall be that conference’s entry into the national championship selection process (i.e. the playoffs).

    There are currently six AQ conferences in the BCS. If there were an eight-team playoff, then I would propose one of two options for filling those slots:

    1. Consolidating existing mid-majors into two conferences, sending some down to FCS if necessary, and giving those conference champions plus existing AQ champions the eight playoff slots. This might require locking conference alignments or even forcing some to restructure a bit, and putting a legally-vulnerable barrier to moving up and down between FBS and FCS.

    2. Keeping the mid-majors fluid, giving six slots to current AQ conference champions, and giving the final two slots to mid-major champions. First dibs would go to undefeated champions, and second dibs to the highest-rated (yes, using BCS formula or its successor) champions. This leaves open some remote possibilities that more than two undefeated mid-major champions could emerge, but there are fixes, including a provision for a play-in game if more than two undefeated mid-major conference champions exist. However, that would probably be a very rare occurrence, and most of the time there would be 0-2 undefeateds, so play-in games would be a very unlikely necessity.

  19. rubbernilly says: Feb 23, 2012 12:33 AM

    There’s that paradigm again… “the most meaningful regular season in sports”… repeated as if it were true.

    Leave aside for the moment that even if it were the “most meaningful” regular season in sports, it is currently ruined by the “most asinine” method of choosing a champion in all of sports.

    Let’s just talk how meaningful it is. “Every week matters”? Hardly. Any given year maybe 20 schools ever get mentioned in the NC hunt. That is about 1/6 of the schools that play at the top level. The rest? San Diego State vs. Wyoming matter?

    (Not a knock on either team; my point is that that game is *made* to not matter because neither school has a clearly defined path to the BCS title game.)

    “Every week matters”?

    Tell that to the undefeated Auburns, Utes, and Boise States who never got the chance to play in the title game. Or Michigan the year they lost to Appalachia State. Going into their game with Ohio State, they were poised to take over a place in the title game had they won. Does that mean that their (laughable) loss to App. State didn’t matter? Tell that to all the 1-loss teams left in the cold when BCS selection time rolls around.

    In college football, with regard to other sports, the regular season very nearly couldn’t matter *less*.

  20. rubbernilly says: Feb 23, 2012 12:39 AM

    I’m open to different systems of a playoff, but let’s be clear about something first:

    Let’s stop calling it a Plus-1. It’s a playoff. A Plus-1 would have 1 vs. 2, and 3 vs. 4, with the winner of each squaring off just to see if we got the seeding right. There’s no way an Alabama wins over LSU (#1 vs. #2) and then is asked to play again. If they go to 4 teams, it will be 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3, with the winners facing each other.

    That’s a playoff. (And the cracking of the logjam defense against “playoffs.”)

    Next, here are my requirements for a playoff system that I’m going to back:

    If the NCAA says that the conference is viable (ie, 8 teams), and it can produce a champion, that team deserves a shot in the tourney. Very simple. If you’re going to let them compete at this level, let them have a shot at the title game. If you’re not, then move them down to FCS or create a new mid-tier level for those programs.

    Given that as a starting point, 12 seems to be a nice number. Conference champions are automatically in, and the rest get filled out from ranking/selection. The four highest ranked Conference Champions get byes the first weekend. What’s not to like?

  21. thecrazyasianinseccountry says: Feb 24, 2012 2:39 AM

    I hate to be rude but you’re an IDIOT!!!
    Yeah that’s real fair for teams in the SEC, PAC XII or BXII. If going undefeated is all it takes to get an invite to the dance then why would schools like LSU, Bama, USC, OSU not just go ahead and each of them go join one of the weak conference each instead of staying within your conference and beat each other up. So if LSU joins conf USA and go undefeated we’ll be in the playoff according to your scenario.. Wow why wouldn’t LSU jump ship?
    This is why you do what you do and they do what they do. Dont think you were the first to come up with that idea. Only difference is others have thought about that and was wise enough to see the flaws in that argument.

  22. fcmlefty1 says: Feb 24, 2012 5:17 PM

    @rubbernilly – I think you have your timeline mixed up a bit. The 2007 Michigan team that lost to App. State was never in the title mix that season after that game. They went from #5 to unranked after the loss. They got drilled the next week by Oregon. They also picked up a 3rd loss vs Wisconsin before Ohio State handed them loss #4.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!