Srsly? Pac12 is anti-BCS, pro-Playoff!

Submitted by superstringer on March 12th, 2012 at 2:25 PM

First time I have heard anything like this -- a major player, no less than the entire Pac12 -- now going to vote AGAINST the BCS to move TO A PLAYOFF.  Mention is that only conf champs would be eligible.

http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/11/report-pac-12-university-presidents-unite-to-campaign-against-bcs/?sct=cf_t2_a5

I've always thought Pac12 and B1G sort of march in step, given Rose Bowl and now the agreement of cross-conf games year to year etc.  This would seem to be a break in that.

Comments

bnoble

March 12th, 2012 at 2:33 PM ^

The new(ish) Pac-12 commissioner has acquired a shake-things-up reputation already---and by and large that seems to have been good for the conference.  Add to that the Pac-12's pretty lame bowl tie-ins (the Rose plus a buch of games no one watches) and it's not hard to see that Playoff($) >> Rose-and-five-thorns($)---and if it is limited to Conference Champs only, that means that none of the other "power" conferences can ever have two, and depending on how you count that means even in a four-team playoff, the Pac-12 champ is almost certainly in.

wolverine1987

March 12th, 2012 at 2:39 PM ^

There is no consistyuency at all outside the (supposedely) PAC 12 to discard the bowl system or the BCS, including the B1G. And there is no one currently endorsing the idea of doing away with the BCS--even recent 4 team playoff advocates would have the championship game as the BCS title game.

Litt1e Rhino

March 12th, 2012 at 2:48 PM ^

I would love to see a playoff of every conference champion. Then either have some at large qualifiers or bye rounds to make it an even play off. The bcs is a joke. College basketball has it right (although for football that is way to many teams)

TrppWlbrnID

March 12th, 2012 at 2:57 PM ^

with the only conference champs stance (rhyme time!). if it takes the Pac 12 getting some heat to get this thing right for the next 15 years, then that is fine.

ChuckWood

March 12th, 2012 at 2:59 PM ^

That's because we, in the Pac-12, suck at sports.  If we were to be put into a pool of elite college teams, we would be exposed.  And by we, I mean ASU.  USC and Oregon are the top heavy good teams.  Everyone else, not so much.

Brayden09

March 12th, 2012 at 3:05 PM ^

And I for one am all for that. The polling system is possibly the most corrupt aspect of the bcs. There shouldnt even be an initial poll until week 8 or 9. We dont know how good any team is till they start playing in conference.

Allin4Blue

March 12th, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^

Rule #1 regardless of a playoff or BCS is a team that does not win their conference should not be allowed to play in the Title game (especially if that other team is in the same conference). 

g_reaper3

March 12th, 2012 at 3:11 PM ^

How does that work for Independents?  Say M loses to Ohio in the B1G championship game like in 2006 but is still ranked in the top 4?  Are they out and ND at number 5 gets in?  I would be okay with the Big 12 or ACC champion getting in but would be pissed if a lower ranked independent got in.  Why should teams in conferences have an additional hurdle?

Brayden09

March 12th, 2012 at 3:17 PM ^

M had their chance in 06 to put themselves in the title game by handling their own business and winning. It hurts whenever I think of it, but the bottom line is they didn't win the game and osu did.

yzerman19

March 12th, 2012 at 4:14 PM ^

agreed.  plus 2006 hurt extra bad becasue of the late hit called on shawn crable (or was it prescot burgess?) that wasn't late and wasn't helmet to helmet, and then the urban meyer whine fest that followed., and then this year's rematch brought all those painful memories back.  I am all for conference champs only, or in ND's case they have to be undefeated. 

 

Sons of Louis Elbel

March 12th, 2012 at 3:23 PM ^

Seems like the real fight will be over the home sites issue, and on that one, the Pac-12 has more in common w/the SEC than w/us. Not sure I buy the 'only conference champs' rule, especially in a 4 or 8 team playoff. It's one thing to say that OK St. should've gotten in over Bama (sorry, RDT), quite another to say that, e.g. the Big East champ should've. Plus, ND issues if they're ever good enough, etc.

lhglrkwg

March 12th, 2012 at 4:00 PM ^

I'm all for having all conference champions in the playoffs. My favorite thing about college basketball is all of the mid-major conference tournaments and how it gives the small school a chance to compete on the big stage. I want to see the MAC, WAC, Sunbelt, and CUSA champions in, otherwise, why even let them compete in a division where we completely exclude them from winning a championship?

EGD

March 12th, 2012 at 4:16 PM ^

I don't think anyone disagrees with that in principle.  But in hoops, you can play multiple games in a weekend.  The problem in football is that you are trying to have a meaningful playoff in as few games/weekends as possible.  In a realistic playoff system, you can really only expect to play about 3 or 4 games (if that).  So every team you admit comes at the cost of excluding some othe very good, and arguably "deserving" team.  And let's face it, if you take teams like the MAC champ or the Sun Belt winner, you can expect a lot of blow-outs and uncompelling first-round matchups.