Larry Scott Discusses Pac-12's Favored Playoff Model

[Darth Snow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/s...mat-that-would-scrap-the-bcs.html?_r=3&src=tp

Scott said that any variation of a two-team playoff would not be enough to mute the critics of the current system and that an eight-team playoff would be difficult to fit into the academic calendar, a priority for Pac-12 leaders. He would not say directly that he favors a four-team playoff, but his view appears to be in line with many of the top B.C.S. officials.
As for the potential playoff format, Scott agreed with the position of the Big Ten, first reported by The Chicago Tribune, which favored home sites for the semifinal games and a neutral site for the championship game. After a number of discussions with the N.F.L., Scott said, following its model made sense.

As for determining the final four teams, Scott said a notion that Roy Kramer, a former Southeastern Conference commissioner, expressed to CBSSports.com last week “resonated with me.” To keep the integrity of the regular season and the conference championship games, Kramer said, all of the teams in the playoff should be conference champions.

As to the # of Bowl Games:

“We need to get away from the societal trend of everyone getting a trophy,” he said.

As usual, the dude is all about revolution!

“I hope we can come up with a system that turns the bowl model on its head and improves it,” Scott said.

 

[sackman]

I'm not in favor of a plan that restricts the participants to conference champions. It makes it too likely that a crappy team from the ACC or Big East could sneak into the tournament at the expense of a clearly better team from a better conference.

 

[CUSoldier]

I'm not in favor of a plan that restricts the participants to conference champions. It makes it too likely that a crappy team from the ACC or Big East could sneak into the tournament at the expense of a clearly better team from a better conference.

Yes, because having a BCS champion who was not a conference (or division) champion this year gave me such a warm and fuzzy feeling that I wanted the BCS system to stick around FOREVER!

 

[sackman]

Yes, because having a BCS champion who was not a conference (or division) champion this year gave me such a warm and fuzzy feeling that I wanted the BCS system to stick around FOREVER!

The BCS got it right. Sorry, but Alabama was the best team in the country. In a system that is being proposed, Alabama - the best team in the country - wouldn't have had the chance to win a national championship. That's absurd.

 

[Darth Snow]

The BCS got it right. Sorry, but Alabama was the best team in the country. In a system that is being proposed, Alabama - the best team in the country - wouldn't have had the chance to win a national championship. That's absurd.

guess they shouldn't have lost their conference then. Don't win your conference, don't deserve to play for national championship. I'm ok with that.

 

[sackman]

Then this solves nothing. There will continue to be whining about who the best team in the country is every year. If you're OK with that, then I guess there's nothing I can say. I'd prefer a system whereby there is no doubt who the best team in the country is.

 

[Darth Snow]

Then this solves nothing. There will continue to be whining about who the best team in the country is every year. If you're OK with that, then I guess there's nothing I can say. I'd prefer a system whereby there is no doubt who the best team in the country is.

Dude, it will be better than the current system most years. And your problem is with college football, not the choice of which way we determine a champion. With a limited schedule and 120 teams, it is just too difficult to engineer a system wherein there is no controversy. All you can do is limit the controversy. Now get over your bama crush.

 

[neil29fp]

The BCS got it right. Sorry, but Alabama was the best team in the country. In a system that is being proposed, Alabama - the best team in the country - wouldn't have had the chance to win a national championship. That's absurd.

I think it's absurd to pretend that Alabama wouldn't have had a chance to win a national championship. Everyone started 0-0, right? Under this new system, Alabama would have had a chance just like any other team; they just were eliminated when LSU won the division.

 

[Darth Snow]

I think it's absurd to pretend that Alabama wouldn't have had a chance to win a national championship. Everyone started 0-0, right? Under this new system, Alabama would have had a chance just like any other team; they just were eliminated when LSU won the division.

mattslapped!

 

[DesertDawg526]

I don't think it's asking too much for a football national championship winner to either outright win their conference or at least share the conference title.

Either that or you need a minimum 16 team playoff. That might be hard to get due to politics...

 

[sackman]

mattslapped!

You've been just dying to say that, haven't you?

We can have this argument until we're all blue in the face. I have no special love for Alabama. I do think they were the best team in college football last year.

I'd much prefer a 16-team playoff that includes the existing bowl games as early round regional games. The academic schedule stuff is a load of bunk.

Short of a 16-team playoff, just get rid of the BCS altogether and go back to the traditional bowl season. We won't be getting rid of the arguments about the best team in the country with what is being proposed, so we might as well embrace the absurdity of the college football bowl system and be happy.

 

[neil29fp]

Scott said that any variation of a two-team playoff would not be enough to mute the critics of the current system and that an eight-team playoff would be difficult to fit into the academic calendar, a priority for Pac-12 leaders. He would not say directly that he favors a four-team playoff, but his view appears to be in line with many of the top B.C.S. officials.

I've always thought that this line of reasoning was bogus. Just look at basketball, where teams regularly play weekday roadies; where is the cry for academics in this situation? In the case of college basketball, 300+ teams play this type of schedule throughout the season, but if 8 college football teams extend their season by a week or two then THAT'S a problem. Give me a break.

 

[buff190]

The BCS got it right. Sorry, but Alabama was the best team in the country. In a system that is being proposed, Alabama - the best team in the country - wouldn't have had the chance to win a national championship. That's absurd.

I agree with CUSoldier that you should be a conference champion to get into the playoffs. I also agree that a team like UCLA this year should never be in a conference championship game in the new playoff system giving them a chance to win a national championship.

The best way to decide the teams for a conference championship game would be to not have divisions within the conference. Simply go by the conferences two best records and at the end of the season the best two teams will play for their conference championship. This way you won't have a bad team from a bad division in a conference championship game (i.e. UCLA). This way the PAC championship game would have been UO vs Stan, SEC would have been LSU/Alab, etc.

 

[Buffnik]

I think the future of college football is:

64 teams that make up a new Division One.

These 64 teams are divided into 4 conferences with 16 teams each.

Each conference is divided into 4 pods of 4 teams each.

Each season's schedule is 3 games against pod-mates + 2 teams from each of the 3 pods in your conference + 1 game against a team from each of the 3 other conferences.

Within each conference, the 4 pod winners play a 2-round playoff to determine a conference champion.

The four conference champions play a 2-round playoff to determine the national champion.

Bowl games go away.

Everyone ends up playing a 12-game schedule with the potential for 16 games if you make it to the national championship. Currently, the maximum is 15 games if you've got a road trip to Hawaii, play in your conference championship game and then play in a bowl game.

This setup could also work if we had 6 conferences of 14 teams each (84 total).

Conferences divided into two 7-team divisions. 6 games against your division, 3 against the other division (1 fixed rival, 2 rotating).

14-game schedule that has 5 additional games against each of the other 5 conferences.

All conferences play a championship game. The 6 remaining teams are seeded in a 3-round tournament with the top 2 seeds getting 1st round byes (or we have 2 wildcard teams).

Max games a team could play is 18 in a season, which is still less than an NFL season.

 

[MtnBuff]

No matter what system you come up with somebody is going to whine, that is simply the nature of the beast. No matter what number of teams you put in a playoff the team that thinks is was next in line is going to think they got screwed and should have been in instead of X team. Playoff to small and you get teams saying that they should have had a shot and lost out because of one bad call, injury, etc. Others will claim that they played in a tougher league or schedule and that a team with a weak resume got in. Make the playoff bigger and somebody gets upset by a team that already lost two games this year or wasn't a conference champ, etc. Then you get into the seeding and bad luck on bracketing, who plays who and where.

Despite the obvious flaws I happen to prefer the system the way it is, every game matters. This season had Okie light not managed to lose to Iowa State we would have had a completely different result, every game matters. If Stanford had run the table instead of slipping up, if OU had kept it together, etc. each week we see things that make a difference about who gets the title.

I don't have a major objection to the plus one format. Put the top four conference champs in two of the major bowl settings and let the winners play two weeks later at a nuetral site for the title. Not going to make everyone happy but no system will. Bama was a great team this year but they didn't win their conference. I don't see a team that can't win it's conference being the champ. If you do that then you get to the NFL system where a wildcard team that barely got in gets hot and wins it (Giants a few years ago.) Certainly not the best team that year but the hottest at the end. Lets not screw up what makes college football so much fun trying to be like the NFL.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

It's quite possible that the 2 best teams could happen to be in the same conference, so it's ridiculous to eliminate one of the from a playoff simply because one of them wasn't a conference champ.

If and when we get to a 4-team playoff then it should be the 4 best teams regardless of conference affiliation. Same thing if it's an 8-team playoff.

 

[Daaah]

It's quite possible that the 2 best teams could happen to be in the same conference, so it's ridiculous to eliminate one of the from a playoff simply because one of them wasn't a conference champ.

Yeah, but presumably conference play has already determined which is better.

 

[neil29fp]

Despite the obvious flaws I happen to prefer the system the way it is, every game matters. This season had Okie light not managed to lose to Iowa State we would have had a completely different result, every game matters. If Stanford had run the table instead of slipping up, if OU had kept it together, etc. each week we see things that make a difference about who gets the title.

That's the problem now, every game doesn't matter (see LSU v. Alabama Round 1). If every game mattered the national champion would be the last undefeated team standing; i.e. you lose, you're out. Unfortunately, there are so many variables (scheduling, strength of conference, etc.) that a perfect system for 120+ is impossible.

I personally feel that a 16-team playoff is as close to nirvana as we'll ever get with college football. Do I think it's the best way to determine a champion every year? Not necessarily, but I think a 16-team playoff is consistent. I also feel that a 16-team playoff would be the most entertaining means of crowning a champion. The Fiesta Bowl with Stanford v. OSU was fun, but at the end of the day it had no effect on crowning a champion.

 

[MtnBuff]

That's the problem now, every game doesn't matter (see LSU v. Alabama Round 1). If every game mattered the national champion would be the last undefeated team standing; i.e. you lose, you're out. Unfortunately, there are so many variables (scheduling, strength of conference, etc.) that a perfect system for 120+ is impossible.

I personally feel that a 16-team playoff is as close to nirvana as we'll ever get with college football. Do I think it's the best way to determine a champion every year? Not necessarily, but I think a 16-team playoff is consistent. I also feel that a 16-team playoff would be the most entertaining means of crowning a champion. The Fiesta Bowl with Stanford v. OSU was fun, but at the end of the day it had no effect on crowning a champion.

And here's the rub, go with a 16 team playoff and there is no stinkin way in the world that teams 12-16 deserve to be called the best team that year. Yes they might get hot at the end but to have a team with 2 or more losses win when another team went through the regular schedule (even if it was "weaker") undefeated or with a single loss to a quality team is an absolute joke.

If you go to 16 then immediately the cries start to make it 24 because after all team 18 can argue that they should be there instead of team 14.

Nobody is ever going to be completely happy but I love college football because it isn't pro football. Skip the "playoffs" and keep a good thing as it is.

 

[DesertDawg526]

If you go to 16 then immediately the cries start to make it 24 because after all team 18 can argue that they should be there instead of team 14.

There's less complaining that you didn't make the cut in a 16 team format though.

All BCS conference winners should have auto-bids.

A 4 team system where 2 or 3 teams from the SEC make it in means that the Pac winner, the Big X winner and the BigXII winner could be left out.

I agree there is no perfect system but the BCS is no better than before there was a BCS. A 4 team playoff is truly insufficient still.

If we want a championship game and not just voters, then there has to be a place to prove that. The BCS system doesn't do it. A 4 team playoff still wouldn't likely do it (what if you have an undefeated team from the SEC, Pac, BigX and BigXII plus other undefeateds).

Bottom line, every undefeated team deserves a chance (along with major conference champions). Doesn't bother me if a non-conference winner is griping. It bothers me when an BCS conference winner doesn't get a chance. Without a system that allows for this, there will never be a decisive winner. I doubt we'll ever have one, but that's just the way it is...

 

[Hank]

I think the future of college football is:

64 teams that make up a new Division One.

These 64 teams are divided into 4 conferences with 16 teams each.

Each conference is divided into 4 pods of 4 teams each.

Each season's schedule is 3 games against pod-mates + 2 teams from each of the 3 pods in your conference + 1 game against a team from each of the 3 other conferences.

Within each conference, the 4 pod winners play a 2-round playoff to determine a conference champion.

The four conference champions play a 2-round playoff to determine the national champion.

Bowl games go away.

Everyone ends up playing a 12-game schedule with the potential for 16 games if you make it to the national championship. Currently, the maximum is 15 games if you've got a road trip to Hawaii, play in your conference championship game and then play in a bowl game.

This setup could also work if we had 6 conferences of 14 teams each (84 total).

Conferences divided into two 7-team divisions. 6 games against your division, 3 against the other division (1 fixed rival, 2 rotating).

14-game schedule that has 5 additional games against each of the other 5 conferences.

All conferences play a championship game. The 6 remaining teams are seeded in a 3-round tournament with the top 2 seeds getting 1st round byes (or we have 2 wildcard teams).

Max games a team could play is 18 in a season, which is still less than an NFL season.

I would like that. It is essentially a 16 team playoff - with the "playoffs" beginning at the end of the "regular season." We can call it a 4 team playoff - but it's really a 16 team. Maybe that's how we sell it.

 

[Hank]

It's quite possible that the 2 best teams could happen to be in the same conference, so it's ridiculous to eliminate one of the from a playoff simply because one of them wasn't a conference champ.

If and when we get to a 4-team playoff then it should be the 4 best teams regardless of conference affiliation. Same thing if it's an 8-team playoff.

Not with what Buffnik posted. If you can't win your pod, then you don't belong. Constructing the 4 pods, on the other hand, will be a political nightmare. Would love AZ, ASU and Utah.

 

[dio]

Hope Larry Scott can make this happen - so tired of this system that produced one of the worst national championship games ever this past year

 

[CarolinaBuff]

Not with what Buffnik posted. If you can't win your pod, then you don't belong. Constructing the 4 pods, on the other hand, will be a political nightmare. Would love AZ, ASU and Utah.

Who's to say 2 of the best teams couldn't be in the same pod? Or that 1 pod winner could be a 7-5 team? That plan solves nothing. Put the 4 best teams in a playoff, regardless of conference, division, pod, or whatever the hell you want to call it.

 

[sackman]

Hope Larry Scott can make this happen - so tired of this system that produced one of the worst national championship games ever this past year

The game sucked, the teams did not. Semantics? Perhaps.

 

[somebody]

In my mind, Sacky, your "best team in the country" lost their chance when they lost at home to their conference champion. Only the ****ed up BCS, the same BCS that sent a humiliated NU team to the MNC, could salvage Alabams's failure.

Nik, great idea, but it won't happen in my lifetime, and I figure I've got a good 25 years left.

 

[sackman]

In my mind, Sacky, your "best team in the country" lost their chance when they lost at home to their conference champion. Only the ****ed up BCS, the same BCS that sent a humiliated NU team to the MNC, could salvage Alabams's failure.

Then, using your logic, there was nobody in the country good enough to play LSU. Everybody had at least one loss.

 

[Hank]

What many of you are bitching about happens all the time in pro sports. Sometimes the best team doesn't win. That's what makes a playoff system so great. If the BCS system is better than the playoff systems for all other sports, then why is the BCS under such scrutiny?

 

[CUFan]

To me it seems like the regular season in college football is so much more exciting. One loss, at any point in the season, can be a killer. In the NFL, I find I lose interest in the regular season, and I am not sure the reason. Maybe too many games. I am a big Bronco fan, but an 8-8 team makes the playoffs? Give me a break.

I don't really care how the college system is changed so long as the regular season remains exciting. While there are many issues with the current college system, I still like it quite a bit better than the NFL.

 

[Highlander]

I don't care what model they go with as long as they start the process towards something like Buffnik proposes. Plus 1 is a starting point and the easiest sell. Then it will become a 4 team playoff when people whine. The 4 team playoff forces the 16 team four superconferences. It will take awhile to get there, but it will happen. The wild card to the 4 superconferences is if a 16 team playoff wins out before the consolidation happens. If the 16 team playoff comes first, no need for superconferences.