Big Ten and pac 10 reject any BCS playoff or plus one game system

<TABLE class=tborder id=post1175039 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_1175039 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #2b295e 1px solid">BCS rejects four-team playoff proposal


Wednesday, April 30, 2008


[SIZE=-1]Associated Press[/SIZE]

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. – There will be no playoff for the BCS anytime soon.
Bowl Championship Series officials rejected a plan Wednesday to turn the controversial system for deciding a national champ into a four-team playoff, starting in the 2010 season.

"After a very thorough very good discussion among the groups, we have decided that because we feel at this time the BCS is in an unprecedented state of health, we feel it's never been healthier during its first decade," Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford said. "We have made a decision to move forward in the next cycle with the current format."

Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive presented a plan Wednesday to the other league commissioners for a plus-one format, matching the No. 1 team in the nation against No. 4 and 2 vs. 3 in the marquee bowl games. The winners would meet about a week later in the BCS national championship game.

"I'm not unhappy," Slive said. "There's no such thing as standing pat.

"I can't say I'm surprised."

The Big Ten and Pac-10 were dead set against the playoff or any plus-one game. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen have said repeatedly that they're concerned the four-team playoff or the plus-one creates would inevitably grow. Also, they believe their league's access to the Rose Bowl, already compromised by simply being involved with the BCS, could be further hindered by a plus-one.

.
In the end, only the SEC and ACC wanted to even continue the discussion.
The concern about a playoff among college football's leaders is that it would make football a two-semester sport and would lessen the importance of a regular season that now has a do-or-die feel to it from week to week.
Also complicating matters for the BCS is the Rose Bowl's separate TV deal with ABC, which runs through the 2014 bowls.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #2b295e 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #2b295e 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #2b295e 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #2b295e 1px solid"></TD><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #2b295e 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #2b295e 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #2b295e 0px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #2b295e 1px solid" align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Fucking idiots, all of them!%^_

As a Big Ten alum, I would love a playoff system or even a +1 system.

Its all about money Pac10 and Big 10 control the big TV markets and make a ton under the current rose bowl agreement they dont want to share the wealth with the other conferences.

Its all about $$$$$$ and not about what most people want to see

Johnny B said:

As a Big Ten alum, I would love a playoff system or even a +1 system.

Click to expand...

no you wouldn't. because than the little ten would get their ass kicked in the semi's instead of the final.

lapdance said:

no you wouldn't. because than the little ten would get their ass kicked in the semi's instead of the final.

Click to expand...

Would rather see good football and a true national champion than see "my" conference do well.

The ACC and the SEC should say "fuck these faggots" and start their own league and have their own championship. The same Big 10 and PAC 10 that don't have championship games for their conferences. Its BS and all they care about is money, not crowning a real champion.

Kenny B said:

The ACC and the SEC should say "fuck these faggots" and start their own league and have their own championship. The same Big 10 and PAC 10 that don't have championship games for their conferences. Its BS and all they care about is money, not crowning a real champion.

Click to expand...

Lol. That's awesome wording.

That being said, I'd be all for it.