I have been pretty ambivalent about a College Football play-off for a number of reasons. I like the way the system is now, when it works, because there is always some argument to keep things humming in the off-season so I am not inclined to favor a Plus-1format. But, there are times when the plus one format seems a bit intriguing, 2003 or 2004 would have been a great opportunity for a Plus-1 but since then things have hummed along nicely. The possibility of a lower seed beating a favorite has always had some appeal to the masses.
I guess I don't go nuts over it because in the end those that control the situation will do as they see fit and we as fans won't have a choice but accept it.Tuesdays New York Post has an interesting article on the possibility of a play-off.
The first title game could be played in 2011.
"There haven't been any official discussions among conference commissioners, but the overwhelming sense is that that's where we're headed," one conference source said. "There's simply too much money at stake and there's been too much debate with the current system."
Under the new format, the top four teams would be seeded, probably using a voter/computer formula similar to the current BCS system and a sixth major bowl game would be created.
The four top-seeded teams would play in two "semifinal" games, using the existing bowls - Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta and the current BCS title game on a rotating basis - with the two winners meeting in a newly created bowl. Theoretically, it would leave less argument over who's No. 1.
I'm not buying into that last line, as #5 would surely have something to say about it. The whole computer thing still leaves a lot to be desired as it has changed, seemingly almost every year. If they can actually fix the system to get the right teams into the title game then there would be no need to have a Plus-1 format.
Then there is Jim Rome's take. From our friends at Student Body Right. (Taken in its entirety)
Wrong.
Sure, the regular season means something now: but a playoff that determines a true national champion, on the field, means a whole lot more.
Two, it would kill the bowl system as we know it. Fair enough ... far be it for me to get behind anything that would jeopardize those 30 bowl games, 27 of which no one cares about anyway. So, I guess score one for that side.
And finally, even if you have a final four, there will still be a debate over who you're leaving out of the playoff. Fine, better to debate who's number five every year, then who's number one. Better to know that we're getting the four best teams every year than praying that there are no more than two unbeatens or teams with one loss, and that if they did lose, they lost early enough to actually have a look at the title.
Look, I get that university presidents aren't about determining a champion on the field of play, but rather about getting paid. Fine: adopt the plus one: you'll get paid even more and the rest of us will be one big step closer to what we want ... a true national champion.
Gotta love Romey and his irreverence. But, he does make some fair points
I'm inclined to leave it as it is, but I also realize that it is out of my hands so it will be interesting to see how it goes