'Plus one' playoff would've solved little
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2008 7:46 PM
Due to the way the most recent season ended, talk of establishing a playoff has shifted into high gear.
An eight-team playoff bracket like the one proposed by University of Georgia president Michael Adams is too much of a leap and too harmful to the significance of the bowl system. But it’s not out of the question down the road. It’s more likely that a “plus one” scenario will serve as an intermediate step, following the 2010 regular season.
With that in mind, it makes sense to look at how such a scenario would have applied itself to the recently completed season. Would it have helped to clean things up? Judge for yourself and let me know.
First of all, I’ll make some logical assumptions:
1) The Rose Bowl, Pac-10 and Big Ten come to their senses and agree to play ball.
2) The current bowl system will be utilized in a respectful fashion.
3) Semifinal games will rotate among the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowls (in this example, it will be the Rose and Orange, determined by the fact that they are next in line to host championship games).
4) The championship game will rotate and be played at one of the bowl sites, much like in the current BCS format (in this example, the Louisiana Superdome).
5) Each of the four major bowls will have no role in the national championship bracket once every four years, after hosting the championship game the year before (in this example, it’s the Fiesta’s turn).
So after the 2007 regular season and the conference championship games, the seeding would have been (if you went by the final BCS Rankings):
No. 1 – Ohio State
No. 2 – LSU
No. 3 – Virginia Tech
No. 4 – Oklahoma
Notice that there’s no Georgia or USC, which were ranked fifth and seventh, respectively. Therefore, there’s already reasonable doubt that an agreed upon national champion would be determined.
But, let’s soldier on.
The top-seeded Buckeyes would have hosted fourth-seeded Oklahoma in the Rose Bowl, which, of course, retains its precious traditional ties to the Big Ten.
In the other semifinal, second-seeded LSU would have taken on third-seeded Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl. That is highly unappealing since the Tigers mauled the Hokies, 48-7, in the second week of the season. Virginia Tech was certainly a much different team at the end of the season, but in the grand scheme of things, that game would be something short of a credible national semifinal.
The Fiesta Bowl, since it would be the game with the least involvement in the “playoff” process, would likely get the benefit of the first non-bracketed selection in an attempt to maintain some sort of relevance. However, it probably would have to pair that team against the fourth pick.
Why?
Because the worst case scenario for this type of “plus one” concept is a series of events that tempt the voters in the Associated Press poll to vote for a team other than the one that won two postseason games, thus creating a split national title. They’ll never admit it, but the people that ultimately take control of this (and those currently running the BCS) don’t want the “other” games to be too attractive.
The Fiesta Bowl would jump out of its skin and choose USC. But it wouldn’t get to pair the Trojans against Georgia as many fans would have liked.
With the second pick, the Sugar would have taken the Bulldogs, satisfying its thirst for an SEC squad and guaranteeing a good gate … and, of course, lessening the chance of split title.
Georgia’s opponent would have likely been Big East champion West Virginia. As it turned out, that would have been a good game, and there wouldn’t have been any empty seats in the Mountaineer sections.
So, if qualification standards similar to what the BCS currently uses were utilized -- which would be wise in an effort to avoid pesky lawsuits -- USC would have been left with Hawaii, the undefeated WAC champ, in the Fiesta. Surely, the Warriors and Trojans would have closed their seasons in similar fashion to what actually occurred earlier this month in a pair of BCS yawners.
Granted, the 2007 season was messy and atypical, but you have to admit, the “plus one” wouldn’t have solved very much. So, to use it as example to invoke change is misguided.
Judging by the actual postseason, Ohio State and LSU would have likely continued on their collision course and there would have still been a lot of grumbling.
