College Football Playoff Will Rise In 2014: What the Pac-12 and Big 10 Must Do Now


That’s right folks, the BCS commissioners have reached their consensus on a 4 team playoff model which would be installed in the 2014 season. It is still contingent on the BCS presidential oversight committee accepting the terms of the system and there are still some big details that haven’t been hammered out, but the basics and the agreement that something in this direction needs to happen has been reached by all parties. 2 National Semi’s would be followed by a National Championship, giving 4 teams the legit opportunity to earn it on the field. A committee would choose the 4 teams, with consideration for strength of schedule and conference titles, among other criteria most assuredly to include final rankings.

Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott shed a little light on the current idea behind the current proposed playoff model:

"“I’m sure it won’t satisfy everyone,” Scott said. “Until you have an eight-team or 16-team seeded playoff, there will be folks out there that aren’t completely satisfied. We get that. But we’re trying to balance other important parties, like the value of the regular season, the bowls, the academic calendar.”"

A big perceived hang up going into yesterday’s meeting was that the Pac-12 and Big 10 had such strong ties to the Rose Bowl, that it was going to be tough to satisfy their needs to keep that alliance. As was the case when the original BCS was formed, neither conference wants to let that relationship evaporate, so the proposed model had to have some sort of give towards that. Apparently those conferences were willing to give a little bit too, as the current 4 BCS Bowl sites would rotate (I’m assuming in a 2 on, 2 off format with all bowl alliances remaining on years of a non-hosted playoff game) and the highest bidding city would host the Championship. The current bowls include the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange. It’s important to note that the oversight committee could still reject the proposal as it stands, until further detail is worked out. Also in their meetings next week they will be discussing other playoff options as well. For a full review of the proceedings, simply click this link to

Now that you know the details of the proposal, let’s talk about what this does for the Pac-12 and subsequently the Big 10. First and foremost, this eliminates the BCS system entirely, as it is currently modeled. Of course this creates more revenue for college football and all participating conferences would equally share in what’s thought to be around a $500 Million pot. But the other added bonus (and I think a huge reason why the Pac-12 and B1G decided it was worth the addendum to their championship system) is that with the BCS moving in a decidedly SEC favorable direction for championships, other conferences get the fair chance to knock them off.

I would be surprised (and as a Pac-12 fan utterly disappointed) if both conferences didn’t get unified in a push for their teams to always be in the Rose Bowl, should they make the final four and the Rose Bowl be in a year of hosting the tournament. It’s the home field advantage that the conferences have being part of the 4 major conferences, and I say wield that big stick! It’s time to understand that the SEC cannot run everything if we want our conferences to be fairly represented. Because of the declined option to just include the top 4 teams in the country, if a Rose Bowl playoff tie-in is not established it will be an excuse for “revenue sharers” to say that the Pac-12 “wouldn’t draw as big as X somewhere else”, making it possible that the current problem of the “wrong teams” getting in will continue for the sake of an extra dollar and a half. The Big 10 wouldn’t have quite the same problem because of the location of most of their schools, but the fact remains that their biggest money maker has always been and will always be The Rose Bowl.

I am also of the stark opinion that if either the Pac-12 or B1G have a team make the final four while the Rose Bowl is not a hosting site, that the second place team should then head to Pasadena to satisfy the tie-in. I know it’s a little biased but the 5 game BCS is history now and you’ll never make as much money with the “Granddaddy of Them All” as you do when these two conferences are represented in that game. We have the opportunity for once to use the money that we are bringing to the table as collateral, meaning we hold the cards. The other conferences would not suffer here either, because they could do the exact same thing with their tie-ins and everybody gets a fair shake. My agenda comes from the view of not getting screwed because we didn’t take the bull by the horns. So message to Larry Scott and Jim Delany: Own your bowl!

Well, here we go into the future I guess. I wasn’t a huge supporter of a playoff model but when I think about it deeper, that’s all the BCS has ever been, just without the extra game or games to give a fair shot to a deserving 2nd team (or in this case 4 teams). As long as the Pac and B1G stay in the Rose Bowl a majority of the time and the system doesn’t make me wait till the end of January to crown a champion I will not be disappointed.

Love to hear YOUR opinion on the topic!