Larry Scott talking Conference Champions Football Final Four

[omniorange]

http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/34987281

Scott also said that he agreed with the Big Ten's proposed model of playing semi-final games on the campuses of the schools involved while playing the championship game itself at a neutral location. Scott also supports the idea that only conference champions should be eligible for playing in any sort of playoff format.

“So much of the passion of a move to a playoff is to see it earned on the field,” Scott said. “What more clear way to have intellectual consistency with the idea of a playoff than to earn it as a conference champion? It would de-emphasize the highly subjective polls that are based on a coach and media voting and a few computers.”

ND may have some soul-searching to do if Scott gets his way.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[texascpa]

what two bcs conferences get left out in that scenario?

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

what two bcs conferences get left out in that scenario?

I would go to 8 teams, (6 champs, 2 at large) reduce the regular season by 1-2 games finish by Jan 10th or so, and eliminate spring practice. Let them be college students half the time.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

 

[IthacaMatt]

what two bcs conferences get left out in that scenario?

What's interesting is that conferences who perceive the risk are the ones speaking up about it. The Pac-12 without a strong USC or UCLA is a lot like the ACC without a strong Miami or Florida State.

The Big 10 has to be concerned because their teams keep underperforming in bowl games, despite the huge regular season crowds that they draw and their strong economic position.

As long as Texas and Oklahoma are Texas and Oklahoma, those schools and whatever they call their conference are safe. It's a matter of whether they can keep a strong enough slate of opponents who will accept second class citizenship in their conference to remain in the championship playoff discussion.

The Big East is no longer a major conference. It doesn't matter how many more C-USA schools they acquire, they ARE Conference USA now. So you're down to 5 BCS conferences competing for 4 spots, with the SEC arguing that they deserve two of them.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I would go to 8 teams, (6 champs, 2 at large) reduce the regular season by 1-2 games finish by Jan 10th or so, and eliminate spring practice. Let them be college students half the time.

Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk

all you need is 4 champs.

the ACC, the b1g, the b12 and pac12 will play each other.

the top 4 SEC will play each other.

then the final 2 meet and the SEC champ will beat someone silly.

 

[BORZAK]

nm

 

[orange79]

nm

Agreed

 

[Scooch]

what two bcs conferences get left out in that scenario?

I think what Scott proposed is being misinterpreted on that front. He just said that each of the 4 should be conference champs, he didn't say the bids should be automatic. So my take is that he's proposing that the top 4 "rated" conference champs go to the final 4. If the SEC has a #1 and #2 too bad, only the conference champ of the 2 gets the bid. If teams #4 through #7, for example, are all 2nd-place finishers in various conferences, but #8 is a conference champ, then that's the team that gets the last spot.

I don't like it, but I think that's what Scott is proposing.

I totally love Larry Scott though. He may end up being the most influential person in college football since Amos Alonzo Stagg,

 

[JacketFan]

The thing to realize about this model is that it helps the B1G, PAC-12, ACC and the smaller conferences. It hurts the B12 and the SEC, because they are right now the only conferences that consistently have two teams ranked high enough to qualify for the playoff. Also this model should help bring stability since it will reemphasize the importance of winning your conference, something more easily done not in the B12 and SEC. The biggest concern will be for the BCS bowls, that aren't the rose bowl. The Fiesta, Sugar and Orange will all need to find another opponent, which could really make the pickings thin. If the orange signed say the B1G, they could potentially get the third team in the conference after the playoff and the Rose.

 

[texascpa]

I think what Scott proposed is being misinterpreted on that front. He just said that each of the 4 should be conference champs, he didn't say the bids should be automatic. So my take is that he's proposing that the top 4 "rated" conference champs go to the final 4. If the SEC has a #1 and #2 too bad, only the conference champ of the 2 gets the bid. If teams #4 through #7, for example, are all 2nd-place finishers in various conferences, but #8 is a conference champ, then that's the team that gets the last spot.

I don't like it, but I think that's what Scott is proposing.

I totally love Larry Scott though. He may end up being the most influential person in college football since Amos Alonzo Stagg,

I understand that, but you will still have two BCS champs cut out of it and you can assume it's usually going to be BE and either Pac-10 or ACC. How long will that last? And the four are still determined by polls.

 

[KaiserUEO]

in all seriousness, the only way to do it is to model it like the NFL Conference Playoffs.

6 teams get in. in this scenario you have the 5 BCS Conf Champs and 1 Wild Card. top 2 teams get a bye. that way that 2nd SEC team or whoever, still gets in the fight.

the bigeast is dead. the only reason a lot of you folks said it was included is because the BCS didnt want to exclude the Northeast. well, the BCS has penn st, pitt, wv, boston college and Syracuse. the Northeast is covered. bigeast has been rendered useless.

 

[kingottoiii]

I think what Scott proposed is being misinterpreted on that front. He just said that each of the 4 should be conference champs, he didn't say the bids should be automatic. So my take is that he's proposing that the top 4 "rated" conference champs go to the final 4. If the SEC has a #1 and #2 too bad, only the conference champ of the 2 gets the bid. If teams #4 through #7, for example, are all 2nd-place finishers in various conferences, but #8 is a conference champ, then that's the team that gets the last spot.

I don't like it, but I think that's what Scott is proposing.

I totally love Larry Scott though. He may end up being the most influential person in college football since Amos Alonzo Stagg,

It actually wouldn't work out so bad. Last year was a weird year but the rest of the past years are normal. If they make it so you have to win your conference and have to be Top 10 in the BCS, then I think it would work out. IMO a selection committee would only choose a non BCS team if that team were ranked high AND undefeated. It would be hard to justify taking a 2 L BCS conf champ in that case.

 

[kingottoiii]

in all seriousness, the only way to do it is to model it like the NFL Conference Playoffs.

6 teams get in. in this scenario you have the 5 BCS Conf Champs and 1 Wild Card. top 2 teams get a bye. that way that 2nd SEC team or whoever, still gets in the fight.

the bigeast is dead. the only reason a lot of you folks said it was included is because the BCS didnt want to exclude the Northeast. well, the BCS has penn st, pitt, wv, boston college and Syracuse. the Northeast is covered. bigeast has been rendered useless.

I wish the B12 would die so we can have exactly an NFL style playoff. The 4 BCS champs make it in automatically. Then 2 WC teams. Texas is the only thing keeping that from happening IMO. If they were to agree then the P12, B1G, SEC, and ACC could all go to 16 by taking the B12 and BE appart.

P12 adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Okie St
B1G adds Iowa St, Kansas, Rutgers, and ND
ACC adds UConn and WV
SEC adds Louisville and Baylor
Left out K St, TCU, Cincy, USF, new BE teams

So only one school that was in the BCS in 2004 would be left out (K St).

 

[KaiserUEO]

I wish the B12 would die so we can have exactly an NFL style playoff. The 4 BCS champs make it in automatically. Then 2 WC teams. Texas is the only thing keeping that from happening IMO. If they were to agree then the P12, B1G, SEC, and ACC could all go to 16 by taking the B12 and BE appart.

P12 adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Okie St
B1G adds Iowa St, Kansas, Rutgers, and ND
ACC adds UConn and WV
SEC adds Louisville and Baylor
Left out K St, TCU, Cincy, USF, new BE teams

So only one school that was in the BCS in 2004 would be left out (K St).

the way to do it in your scenario is rutgers to the ACC and kstate to the b1g.

that way nobody who was BCS in 04 is left out.

storz is also a useless program. new england has bc. NYC has Syracuse, ND and rut.

fwiw: i cant see the big12 imploding now. lville and cincy will slide right in.

 

[SU2NASA]

I'd love to see it structured in some way that the Big Ten and Pac-12 could always have a semifinal for the Rose Bowl. Keeps the tradition while allowing a playoff.

 

[Scooch]

SEC adds Louisville and Baylor

Not to be snarky, but that's just hillllllarious. UL and Baylor to the SEC?! Ummm, probably not.

 

[kingottoiii]

Not to be snarky, but that's just hillllllarious. UL and Baylor to the SEC?! Ummm, probably not.

If the Big 4 all went to 16 and they also agreed to play nice and not try and raid each other, who else would the SEC take? The whole point would be for the Big 4 to be uniform in size.

It might be better for the Big 4 to all go to 14 or even 15. But it would be more difficult IMO because of politics.

With 14
ACC stays
SEC stays
B1G adds ND and KU
P12 adds Texas and OU
New teams left out UConn, WV, RU, ISU, Okie St, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Louisville

With 15
P12 adds Texas, Oklahoma, and Okie St
B1G adds KU, ND, RU
ACC adds UConn
SEC adds WV
New teams left out ISU, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Louisville

 

[texascpa]

in all seriousness, the only way to do it is to model it like the NFL Conference Playoffs.

6 teams get in. in this scenario you have the 5 BCS Conf Champs and 1 Wild Card. top 2 teams get a bye. that way that 2nd SEC team or whoever, still gets in the fight.

the bigeast is dead. the only reason a lot of you folks said it was included is because the BCS didnt want to exclude the Northeast. well, the BCS has penn st, pitt, wv, boston college and Syracuse. the Northeast is covered. bigeast has been rendered useless.

I agree with your last paragraph, but I can see lawsuits galore if this comes to pass.

 

[sufan]

I think what Scott proposed is being misinterpreted on that front. He just said that each of the 4 should be conference champs, he didn't say the bids should be automatic. So my take is that he's proposing that the top 4 "rated" conference champs go to the final 4. If the SEC has a #1 and #2 too bad, only the conference champ of the 2 gets the bid. If teams #4 through #7, for example, are all 2nd-place finishers in various conferences, but #8 is a conference champ, then that's the team that gets the last spot.

I don't like it, but I think that's what Scott is proposing.

I totally love Larry Scott though. He may end up being the most influential person in college football since Amos Alonzo Stagg,

-------------------

The idea of expanding to 4 teams allows for more opportunity to gain a consensus champion, but the selection criteria is challenging.

For whatever it is worth:

1) Including conference champions makes a lot of sense.

2) However, the conferences may vary in quality so the top 4 conference champions will likely be selected by ratings.

3) Now comes the politics of inclusion and exclusion, where ratings/champions may be inconsistant.

Conclusion:
a) Better to have the 5 major conference champions automatically involved
b) a safety valve for one additional highly ranked champion: ND/Big East/Mountain West
c) and/or 2/3 at large top ranked teams, with maximum of 2 teams from a single conference.


8 teams work better from a transparency, media payout, fan interest and "politics" perspective: which reinforces the conference race, involves all 5 major conferences, yet has a safety valve feature for top ranked teams and the other conferences and ND.


An alternative is to have a 6 team selection where teams 1-2 are seeded and teams 3-6 compete to qualify for the 4 team playoff. The top 5 conference champs qualify and team 6 is the top ranked of ND/ Big East/ MT West champion.

However, a 6 or 8 team payoff has implications for the bowl games that may create additional issues, or the conferences may decide it is in their financial interest to bypass the traditional bowls.

 

[Scooch]

If the Big 4 all went to 16 and they also agreed to play nice and not try and raid each other, who else would the SEC take? The whole point would be for the Big 4 to be uniform in size.

I'm not sold on the idea that conferences *want* to go to a 4X16 format.

I think conferences want to make as much money as possible, and some may go to 16 eventually, but I don't think it'll be due to a broader collective strategy to get there. Mostly because that strategy will harm several schools who are left out, and the litigation that comes from that will be prolonged and extremely expensive.

Rather I think you'll see things continue on "organically" for the foreseeable future.

 

[All4SU]

I think what Scott proposed is being misinterpreted on that front. He just said that each of the 4 should be conference champs, he didn't say the bids should be automatic. So my take is that he's proposing that the top 4 "rated" conference champs go to the final 4. If the SEC has a #1 and #2 too bad, only the conference champ of the 2 gets the bid. If teams #4 through #7, for example, are all 2nd-place finishers in various conferences, but #8 is a conference champ, then that's the team that gets the last spot.

I don't like it, but I think that's what Scott is proposing.

I totally love Larry Scott though. He may end up being the most influential person in college football since Amos Alonzo Stagg,

I love it. If you want to play for the national championship, win your conference and earn the right. All of those folks who say a playoff would trivialize the regular season are dead wrong if that is the requirement. IF conferences like the SEC feel that they are at too big of a disadvantage because their conference is so tough, and they have to make it through a conference championship game -- in a word, too damn bad. That's the conference you created. I would be fine with 6+2, in which you could take the champs and two at-large. But that's it.

 

[kingottoiii]

I'm not sold on the idea that conferences *want* to go to a 4X16 format.

I think conferences want to make as much money as possible, and some may go to 16 eventually, but I don't think it'll be due to a broader collective strategy to get there. Mostly because that strategy will harm several schools who are left out, and the litigation that comes from that will be prolonged and extremely expensive.

Rather I think you'll see things continue on "organically" for the foreseeable future.

But with 4x16 will there be litigation? With 6 playoff spots and 4 autos that leaves the window open for 2 spots. So the 60 non BCS teams are still "included" much the same way they are now in the BSC Bowls. And only leaving one team out that was a BCS team 8 years ago, do the new BCS schools really have an argument? In terms of litigation, IMO it is less likely when you have 4x16 and a playoff vs 5 BCS confs and a playoff.

 

[Scooch]

But with 4x16 will there be litigation? With 6 playoff spots and 4 autos that leaves the window open for 2 spots. So the 60 non BCS teams are still "included" much the same way they are now in the BSC Bowls. And only leaving one team out that was a BCS team 8 years ago, do the new BCS schools really have an argument? In terms of litigation, IMO it is less likely when you have 4x16 and a playoff vs 5 BCS confs and a playoff.

You can argue either way, that's fair.

Honestly, I just don't see any real appetite for 4X16. It seems to be the conspiracy theory of the Internet, but that's about it. Conferences can achieve their revenue goals without it, so why bother?

*edit* I should add... Could there be a day where there are 4 major conference of 16 members each? Sure. But I don't think there will be a strategic, cross-conference, proactive "plan" to get there.

 

[KaiserUEO]

I agree with your last paragraph, but I can see lawsuits galore if this comes to pass.

what basis can the bigeast sue on??

they received BCS status because they had miami, vatech, bc, pitt, wv and Syracuse. they are all gone. they kept it because lville and cincy were valid replacements. lville is likely gone and i bet cincy is gone to.

whats left is not a BCS conference, and its barely in the Northeast, which was maybe a reason to keep it BCS.

its all gone.

its over.

the bigeast is dead.

 

[BlazeOrange]

I love it. If you want to play for the national championship, win your conference and earn the right. All of those folks who say a playoff would trivialize the regular season are dead wrong if that is the requirement. IF conferences like the SEC feel that they are at too big of a disadvantage because their conference is so tough, and they have to make it through a conference championship game -- in a word, too damn bad. That's the conference you created. I would be fine with 6+2, in which you could take the champs and two at-large. But that's it.

Actually, having more than four conference champs competing for the playoff spots helps eliminate the main argument against it - that teams would no longer challenge themselves OOC if conference record is what is going to get you in. Instead, teams would want a challenging non-conference schedule to boost their resume.

Ultimately, I'd prefer an 8-team playoff, but going with four is an acceptable step forward. Just make it be the top four-ranked conference champions or independents (throws a bone to ND/BYU/etc. that we'll probably never have to worry about them catching unless they actually deserve it). Don't really care how they're ranked (BCS system, selection committee, etc.), as long as it's transparent.