Albama Arkansas Auburn Florida Georgia Kentucky LSU Mississippi State Missouri Ole-Miss USC Tennessee Texas A&M Vanderbilt
Latest News

And The Beat Goes On… Drive Toward A Playoff Gets Stuck In The Mud

Yesterday’s meeting of FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dame’s athletic director was not the kickstart to a playoff for which most everyone had hoped.  In fact, some viewed it as a reversal of field from the last commissioners+ND get-together.  Depending on who you read and how you read the comments coming out of Chicago, you might even say a playoff was thrown for a loss.

It’s becoming clear that the guys charged with covering this mess are, well, getting tired of covering this mess.  No wonder.  If the world wants a four-team playoff and most every coach, AD, president and commissioner seems to realize this… then how hard can it be to dream up a plan that will work?

Unfortunately, nearly 150 years of football without any type of FBS/Division I playoff should’ve told everyone that this might be harder to pull off than imagined.  Money hasn’t mattered in the past.  Egos have ruled the day.  To assume that everyone would just compromise and play nice this time around was pretty darned presumptuous.

That’s one reason, of course, that we continued to beat home the following line — “… a playoff (if there’s a playoff)” — until many got sick of reading it.  The other reason we’ve been writing it ain’t over til it’s over?  We never underestimate the stupidity of human beings (don’t take offense, we’re human, too).

But let’s take a look at the divergence of opinion coming out of yesterday’s meeting in order to form our own fresh opinion, shall we?

 

* First, the commissioners released a statement after the meetings that read:

 

“We made progress in our meeting today to discuss the future of college football’s post-season.  We are approaching consensus on many issues and we recognize there are also several issues that require additional conversations at both the commissioner and university president levels.

We are determined to build upon our successes and create a structure that further grows the sport while protecting the regular season.  We also value the bowl tradition and recognize the many benefits it brings to student-athletes.

We have more work to do and more discussions to have with our presidents, who are the parties that will make the final decisions about the future structure of college football’s post-season.”

 

The takeaway?  Notice how it’s made clear that the presidents will have the final call?  That’s not a promising sign because it’s been the presidents for more than a century who’ve said “no, thanks” to any type of top-level college football playoff.

 

* You can count Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com among those writers in the frustrated camp.  He states that yesterday’s meeting was a “regression, not progress.”  A source told him that “a bit of an impasse” has developed between the Hatfields (Big Ten/Pac-12) and the McCoys (SEC/Big 12).

“If the Big Ten and Pac-12 presidents had embraced the four-team playoff, then I think there would have been a place where everyone was on the same page, and then ready to fill in all the gaps,” Dodd’s source said.  One commissioner told him, “The Pac-12 is still dug in on some things that other people aren’t.”

Meaning?  Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman — supposedly speaking for all the Big Ten presidents — have made it clear they’d still be okey-dokey with a true Plus-One tacked on after the bowl games or even the status quo.  But the status quo has been ruled dead by most involved, so that means the hang-up is the Plus-One.

SEC/Big 12 = pro-playoff.  Pac-12/Big Ten presidents = pro-Plus-One, at least to some extent.

Dodd also points out the top dog of the BCS, Bill Hancock, said after April’s commissioners’ meeting that “seismic change” was on the way.  Yesterday he said “it could be a while before the future of the game is known.”  Buzzkill.

The writer sums things up with a pair of uh-oh quotes from a commissioner (“The presidents aren’t ‘rubber stamping’ anything.  The challenge is the commissioners have had eight or nine meetings.  We’ve been talking about it for 100 hours and then you can’t give it to the presidents and expect them to digest it in four hours.”) and from a source (“They’ll look at the four-team playoff and look at the Plus-One.”).

 

* Brett McMurphy of CBSSports.com doesn’t paint a pretty picture either.  He points out that the Pac-12′s Scott said “options, plural” would be presented to the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee on June 26.  Yep, that’d be versions of a four-team playoff and of a Plus-One.

According to McMurphy: “Numerous commissioners, however, told CBSSports.com that there is a real concern that the group will not have settled on which playoff formats to go forward with on June 20th.”  June 20th is the next commissioner’s meeting.  This tells us that very little was actually accomplished yesterday other than everyone staking out their own positions… something that had already been done publicly on numerous occasions.

A BCS source also told McMurphy: “I’m dead serious that we have a long way to go.  There are significant issues that must be resolved.”

Hancock even said that “everything is still on the table.”  (Everything, but the status quo, apparently.)

 

* Meanwhile, ACC commissioner John Swofford put happy face on the day’s work.  “We’ve made excellent progress.  There’s still a focus on a four-team playoff, and getting a consensus on how that will work.”  Well, Swofford’s speaking for the commissioners.  The presidents will examine the four-team playoff and a Plus-One, from almost all accounts.  Where their focus will be remains a question.

 

* Whaddya think SEC commissioner Mike Slive had to say?  Go on, guess.  “The First Amendment will be alive and well when the presidents meet, as it always is.  There will be discussions with different models, and obviously my focuse has been on a four-team playoff.  That will continue to be the Southeastern Conference’s full concern.”

If the most powerful commissioner in college sports talks in his sleep, I’ll bet he mumbles something to the effect of “The First Amendmenenntnenen….”

 

* So what about the recent bloggers who’ve flat-out stated that television will drive this playoff home?  Some have gone so far as to say that television executives would demand a four-team playoff with the four highest-ranked teams by offering more money for such a plan.  (Those assertions were quickly shot down by multiple college football reporters with multiple sources, by the way.)

Well, is television really in control here?  Not according to Hancock.  ESPN’s Joe Schad tweeted yesterday that Mr. BCS himself “Warns TV may not want package that is decided on.”

In other words, just because there’s more money in a four-team playoff… there’s no guarantee of a four-team playoff.  Yep, you’ve read that right here a hundred times.  Television execs have long drooled over the thought of a college football playoff.  And college football’s power brokers have long ignored their drool.  And their money.

Just because logic suggests people will jump at the cash doesn’t mean they will.  In issues involving power and egos, you can often forget logic.

 

* Which brings us to Andy Staples of SI.com.  One of our favorite football writers, Staples is a helluva lot more chipper about the state of things than other writers today.  Why?  Because he feels logic suggests that we’re too close to a playoff to turn back now.

Uh-oh.  Logic.

According to Staples, the powers-that-be will “figure it out.”  In his view, “They haven’t left themselves much choice.”  Take it away, Mr. Staples:

 

“Yes, there are differences of opinion between the Big Ten/Pac-12 faction and the Big 12/SEC faction.  Yes, those issues must get resolved.  They will.  The commissioners talked money on Wednesday, as in how they’ll split the revenue from the new postseason system.  They wouldn’t even broach the thorny topic of revenue sharing if they didn’t believe they could reach a consensus on the other details (where the semifinals will be played, which four teams will make the playoff and how those teams will be selected).

‘There will be something for everybody,” BCS executive director Bill Hancock said Wednesday, ‘but there won’t be everything for anybody.’

Hancock, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, ACC commissioner John Swofford, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick and Big 12 commissioner-elect Bob Bowlsby — he starts Monday — all made it a point to mention the presidents have final say in the new postseason format.  Scott said the commissioners will present ‘multiple options’ to the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee.  This presumably will happen before that group’s June 26 meeting in Washington, but it isn’t guaranteed.  So why feel confident these guys can avoid screwing this up?  Common sense.”

 

Ouch.  Common sense, huh?

Hey, reader, how many times in a day do you trust your fellow Americans or fellow citizens of Earth to use “common sense?”  Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Staples goes on to make some very logical points:

 

1.  No conference wants to be viewed as the league that killed a potential playoff.  (Though the Big Ten and old Pac-10 avoided joining the BCS for six seasons while everyone else took part in a Bowl Alliance and a Bowl Coalition.)

2.  The commissioners have spent too much time talking about a four-team playoff to turn back now.  (Didn’t the NCAA pass and then effectively un-pass the whole stipend-for-athletes thing that was discussed ad nauseum last year?)

3.  At least seven of the nine members of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee supported a four-team playoff in March.  (People’s opinions in a closed-door vote can differ from those they provide to the press months earlier.)

 

Finally, Staples finished up as follows: “If you have any doubts, simply repeat after me.  They aren’t that stupid.”  Only they have been just that stupid for generations.

 

Look, we’re not trying to play Debbie Downer and say that a playoff is definitely not on the horizon.  It may well be for all the reasons that Staples puts forth.  Again, if logic and common sense are to be trusted in this case, then a four-team playoff will come to pass.

We just think there’s still plenty of chances for egos, arrogance, power-madness and sheer stubbornness to derail the playoff train.  If anything, the news coming out of Chicago justified our — let’s not call them fears — our qualms about everyone suddenly getting smarter and more willing to compromise.

The next meeting comes next Wednesday.  Don’t be surprised if we don’t hear more of the same coming out of that meeting.  And eventually, all this will still have to pass through those presidents, too.

A playoff is still the favorite.  But it ain’t a sure-thing just yet.

 


3 comments
buddha22
buddha22

If they botch this it could have negative effects on fan support...nothing lasts forever. I'm betting that "sense" will break out.

USCTraveler
USCTraveler

John-

 

Great article.  

 

The fact that the BCS commissioners today are now talking about giving multiple options to the Presidents instead of one model and that they need the Presidents' involvement tells me that the two sides have dug in hard on Champs vs Top 4 and there is no progress towards consensus on a four team model. 

 

It looks like there's no agreement and that they think the June 20th meeting isn't going to produce any progress either.

 

Kicking it to the Presidents greatly increases the chance of a Plus 1, as the Presidents are the group that is least in favor of change.

 

A Plus 1 is a step forward, so they all get to say they did something big and moved CFB forward, but it keeps everything else as it is- minimal change, which is what a lot of the Presidents want. 

 

Some of the guys on the Presidential oversight group don't even want a playoff at all, so if they are being asked for input as opposed to rubber-stamping a deal, I think a Plus 1 becomes the most likely outcome.

 

Given the conflicts that are already in place between champs vs top 4, and whether to use a committee or not, a Plus 1 may be the fallback that everyone could agree to, as it would preserve the bowl system with minimal change while still being seen as a better system than the BCS.

 

It would make the PAC and BIG happy by protecting the Rose bowl better than any other model, and would place importance on winning your conference, as that's how you end up in the bowl in the first place.

 

The SEC-B12 bowl and the Rose would become even more valuable as de-facto semis, and if the Plus 1 payout was structured to give most of the the money to the participating conferences, it would essentially be a death blow for the ACC, as they wouldn't get a team in very often and wouldn't see much money. 

 

On the surface, a Plus 1 allows everyone access, but in reality, it would be a Rose winner vs B12-SEC winner in most years. 

 

In the short run, Slive and Bowlsby might not love it, as they'd feel the Rose winner had an easier path and it would prevent anyone from having a second team in the NC game in most years, but the long run benefits would be huge for the SEC and B12- huge increase in value for the SEC-B12 bowl game, destruction of the ACC, with the SEC and B12 picking up the good teams, huge $$$ for the Big 4, and an increase in the value and importance of each of the Big 4's CCGs.

 

In the long run, the round of 8 would be viewed as the Big 4 CCGs. Although not ideal, a Plus 1 would benefit the B12 and SEC so much in the long run that I could see them agreeing to it as a compromise if there is no consensus on a 4 team model, as the PAC and Big may fight to the death for a Plus 1 because of the Rose Bowl and the fact that it would make it a de facto "Champs Only" playoff.

 

With the SEC-B12 bowl lining up as the counterpart for the Rose, I don't think there would be a massive fan outcry if it's a Plus 1, as those two games will be must-see tv, with the winners usually meeting for the NC, and the NC being mostly settled on the field. There will still be the occasional Boise St or ACC outlier, but in most years, the winner of the NC game will be considered a true and undisputed NC. 

 

There might be some initial grumbling from B12 + SEC fans saying they have the harder road to the NC game, but it is a clear path that only involves winning- win your conference, win the bowl game and you are in the NC game if you are a B12 or SEC team, as the SEC-B12 winner would go to the NC every year.  

 

It won't take long for the Rose winner vs B12/SEC winner to become an accepted routine that people look forward to.  If this all goes down with a Plus 1, I think we'll see teams from the ACC doing anything and everything they can to get into the SEC, B12 or BIG. It will bring on superconferences once and for all.

 

 

WillieT
WillieT

John, this write up is a prime example of one of the reasons I enjoy dropping by MrSEC regularly. Thanks for all that you do.

 

Non-sense is much more common on planet earth than common sense.  And you can quote me on that.

Trackbacks

  1. http://pandorajewelryed.blogspot.com/

    And The Beat Goes On… Drive Toward A Playoff Gets Stuck In The Mud – MrSEC.com | SEC Football News | SEC Basketball News | SEC Football Recruiting | SEC Basketball Recruiting

  2. ybcwjquzn says:

    ybcwjquzn

    Agree with your mind. Hope you can keep update your post. I wanna back. thx!

  3. Trackback says:

    Great

    I am going to start a website in Australia but a website with same concept is already exist in UK and patented?

  4. Like it

    Can Blogger be a good place to post a webcomic?

  5. urlman cow says:

    The Birch of the Shadow

    I think there may perhaps become a few duplicates, but an exceedingly helpful checklist! I have tweeted this. Several thanks for sharing!

  6. fast lakota cash advance

    Visit my site and get fast lakota cash advance

  7. fast payday cash advance loans

    Visit my site and get fast payday cash advance loans

  8. HopHoang says:

    Great website

    [...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]…

  9. top article says:

    Superb website

    [...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]…

  10. Visitor recommendations

    [...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]…

  11. consumer electronics show

    My spouse and that i have already been now delighted that Albert could execute his studies as a result of the suggestions he had via your web content. It’s once in a while perplexing to just generally be freely giving measures which lots of people cou…



Follow Us On:
Mobile MrSEC