College football playoffs starting to look like BCS 2.0

By Brian Murphy

While college football presidents and conference commissioners still have work to do on access and revenue distribution for the new postseason format, Big East Senior Associate Commissioner Nick Carparelli said he does not believe deserving conference champions will be cut out of the system.

"I don't believe any league is going to be squeezed out. There have been seven conferences represented in BCS games. Last year was the only year it wasn't and there probably should have been a seventh," Carparelli said.

Since the BCS expanded to five games for the 2007 postseason, at least seven conferences were represented each year until last year. In 2009, there were eight conferences represented in the five games with Boise State (WAC) and TCU (Mountain West) joining the six AQ conferences.

"Now we're seeing the system expand from 10 to 12. The purpose of that was for access for other deserving champions," Carparelli said. "The notion there is going to be less access is a false one."

In the BCS, the top-ranked conference champion from a non-AQ league was assured of a spot if ranked in the top 12. Carparelli said "at a minimum, we should expect that that line will remain."

"The national championship has evolved. The revenue has evolved. Full access for other conference champions will evolve," he said.

Other highlights:

— On bowl tie-ins: Carparelli said the Big East is in discussions with bowl games. "I'm confident that wherever our champion ends up, it will be a very high-quality location against a high-quality opponent," he said.

He added that the league is considering not having a specific tie-in for its conference champion given the geography of the league in 2013 and beyond. "Honing in on one location for our champion might not make sense for anybody," he said.

— On Boise State's decision: He said the league talked with Boise State throughout its process of withdrawing from the Mountain West. "Clearly Boise State needs to resolve the issue of where their sports other than football will play. We believe they have options," Carparelli said.

Carparelli said the league has considered the possibility of creating a "Western Division" for all sports, but that "a lot of strategic planning needs to be done."

— On the league's upcoming television negotiations: "We're very confident of the value that this conference brings to the table. All of the consultants in TV, the professionals that we have talked to, have echoed those positive sentiments," he said.

Playoffs starting to look like BCS 2.0

College football's newly announced playoff system, which will begin with the 2014 regular season, is starting to look very familiar.

The ACC and Orange Bowl announced a new 12-year agreement Tuesday, locking the league's champion into the bowl game as long as it is not playing in the four-team playoff. If that is the case, then a second ACC team will play in the Orange Bowl.

Sound familiar?

It sounds an awful lot like the despised BCS, which the new system was supposed to replace. So far five leagues have announced contracts with bowl expected to be part of the six top-tier games.

A selection committee will chose the four teams to participate in the playoff.

Rose Bowl: In some years, perhaps one of every three, the Rose will be a semifinal playoff game. In other years, it will host the champions from the Big Ten and Pac-12 — unless one or both makes the playoffs. In that case, the second-best team from the league will play for the Roses, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Champions Bowl: The Big 12 and the Southeastern conferences have announced a deal that will pit their football regular-season champions against each other in a New Year's Day bowl game for five years beginning in 2014, positioning themselves for the expected switch to a four-team playoff. ... If one or both of the league champions are selected to play in the playoff, another team would be selected for the Big 12-SEC bowl showdown on Jan. 1, according to

Orange Bowl: The Atlantic Coast Conference and the Orange Bowl announced a 12-year agreement that goes into effect in the 2014 seasons to tie the league and game together through 2025. The contract maintains the tie between the two entities that has been in place since 2006. Under the terms of the new deal, the ACC champion will play in the Orange Bowl if the school is not part of the playoff and the game is not hosting a national semifinal. ... In the years that the ACC champion is in a playoff and the Orange Bowl is not hosting, another representative from the conference will be selected, according to USA Today.

What it means is that the number of available spots in the top-tier bowl games will fluctuate depending on which bowls host semifinals and which conferences qualify teams for the playoff.

When the new configuration was announced, Idaho President Duane Nellis — a member of the 12-member BCS Presidential Oversight Committee that had to sign off on the changes — said the new format would allow more access for teams in other conferences.

"The other thing that to me is positive for schools that might be in the Mountain West or the WAC are the three additional bowls, in addition to the Champions Bowl, the Orange Bowl and the Rose Bowl. With the separate championship game, it will provide more access points," Nellis told the Idaho Statesman.

"Assuming rankings would have held, Boise State under this new format would have been in one of the bowl games this past year when they were closed out unfortunately. Based on the structure, according to this analysis, there are five (more) non-AQ schools in the last 12 years that would have made into in this new system assuming that things worked out with the selection process."

At this point, no defined access points have been announced for teams not in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 or SEC.

Boise State is scheduled to join the Big East – which was one of the BCS's six AQ conferences in the past — in 2013.

"The BCS Presidents made it very clear that there is still a lot of work to be done on the access issue. It's premature to assume that there won't be spots for other conf champions. The system was increased from 10 to 12 teams for that reason," Senior Associate Commissioner of the Big East Nick Carparelli tweeted Tuesday.

In the old BCS system, the top-ranked conference champion from a non-automatic-qualifying conference was guaranteed a spot in the BCS if it finished in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings.


This is from Stewart Mandel at on what the new system might have looked like had it been in place last year:

Let's assume, as a hypothetical, that the six wind up being: Rose, Sugar (Champions), Cotton, Orange, Fiesta and Chick-fil-A. And let's say, for this example, the Fiesta and Orange wind up hosting the first semifinals.

Here's what the lineup might have looked like using last season's field and the committee's anticipated criteria (strength of schedule, head-to-head, valuing conference champions, etc).

• Dec. 31, 1 p.m. Chick-fil-A: No. 11 Clemson (10-3) vs. No. 13 Baylor (9-3)

• Dec. 31, 4:30 p.m. Cotton: No. 9 South Carolina (10-2) vs. No. 10 Boise State (11-1)

• Dec. 31, 8 p.m. Fiesta: No. 2 Oklahoma State (11-1) vs. No. 3 Alabama (11-1)

• Jan. 1, 1 p.m. Sugar: No. 6 Arkansas (10-2) vs. No. 7 Kansas State (10-2)

• Jan. 1, 5 p.m. Rose: No. 5 Stanford (11-1) vs. No. 8 Wisconsin (11-2)

• Jan. 1, 8:30 p.m. Orange: No. 1 LSU (13-0) vs. No. 4 Oregon (10-2)

Obviously, it's impossible to say exactly how the committee's rankings would have differed from the BCS standings, but I elevated Oklahoma State (from No. 3 to No. 2), Oregon (No. 5 to 4), Wisconsin (No. 10 to No. 8) and Clemson (No. 15 to No. 11) for their conference championships and/or head-to-head wins over similarly ranked foes and downgraded Boise State (from No. 7 to No. 10) for poor strength of schedule. We also don't know if there would be an at-large selection order or a teams-per conference limit (the SEC placed four in this lineup).

Become a fan of the Statesman on Facebook.

So beat them about the ears.


You fry wants with that?

Delaney was threatening this very set-up

when everyone was complaining about the BCS. The only spots guaranteed are the top 4 (which will include rankings, conference champion considerations, and strength of schedule). This is the only shot for non big 5. You can't look back at the old ranking system and infer what that would have meant for non-AQ conferences. The ranks will be different and slanted even more in favor of the Big 5(plus Notre Dame).

The whole point of this exercise was to make it easier for the Big 5+Notre Dame to get more than one team into the big bowls. I don't know why people are surprised. I do expect Notre Dame to get the other Orange Bowl spot if eligible. There are your 6 votes out of 10. That is also why the Big East isn't needed anymore.

A Natural Fit

Now that BSU is an Eastern school in football, a great fit would be to have the Big East champ play in the "you want fries with that" bowl(formerly the Humanitarian Bowl).
This would remedy the fact that the Big East is not included in a major bowl and BSU has no chance of inclusion in the four team playoff which will be decided among the SEC (1 or 2 teams) the Big 10, Big 12 and Pac12.

BCS 2.0

Did you expect anything different??? Until, and that is a long while, Boise State will need to run the table and beat a Georgia, Michigan State and Nebraska.....all of them in one year to ever get that opportunity. Nothing has changed and never will. The only hope would be to get to the PAC 12 or Big 12 and the chances for that are slim and none!!!

Uh yeah ...

That is exactly what Cupcake State needs to do to be in any discussion of a BCS bowl or playoff. Beating a bunch of cupcakes and one decent team a year with 6 months to prepare for doesn't cut it. Gutless AD wouldn't schedule those games because they knew and hoped the best path to the BCS was to run the table against pathetic competition and hope teams that play real meat grinder conference schedules lose enough to sneak Cupcake State in - that won't cut it now. Chances for the Pac-12 aren't even slim - try none! Boo hoo nobody will play us because they are scared.

PS: What a shock - no big bowl wants to be associated with the watered down Big Least! Ha Ha!

I don't know how to spell

dipsheit very well. Depshipt. Deipshet. Someone want to help me out here with this turd?

It's spelled:

c r a i g j a m e s

My Franklin Spelling Ace says FICK


You fry wants with that?

I agree 100%. When BSU has

I agree 100%. When BSU has the schedule strength of a SEC team, I'll start giving them credit. Other wise they are doing nothing but sandbagging.

You mean the SEC teams that

You mean the SEC teams that play two Division II aka FCS schools a year and a Sun Belt team in their out of conference schedule. Then you look at the SEC which has maybe 4 good football programs, the rest are no better than any team from the Mountain West. But nice try at comparing.... BSU can't pick it's conference opponents, hence the move to the Big East. A step up in competition against larger schools.

Weak argument

Every SEC team schedules a patsy right before and right after a "strong" school. Or, they have a bye week. You won't find any SEC school that can boast a "week in, week out" gauntlet of strong opponents in a row. Even teams that scheduled Texas A&M last season were disappointed with how crappy the Aggies were. Yet, they'll use that same 6-6 regular season record as proof of a "tough schedule". It's a joke!

If a team ranked in the Top 25 ends up near .500 for the regular season, then NO amount of bragging you beat them can be used. Mississippi State and Florida and Auburn (the team Utah State almost beat) are other good examples of teams overranked based solely on their conference. Fact: they were crap!

Don't blame them because of the conference they're in

Florida, who you mentioned- played the following teams in consecutive games during the month of October: Alabama, LSU, Auburn, and Georgia

BSU, during that same stretch, played: New Mexico State, Toldeo, San Jose State, and Louisina Tech

You sir, have a very weak argument

Let's evaluate

10/1 Alabama - OK

10/8 LSU - There's 2

10/15 Auburn - Are you serious? A team that almost lost to Utah State, barely beat bottom feeder Mississippi State by 1 TD, let a 6-5 FCS team (Samford) score 16 pts on them, went on to get crushed by Georgia by 38 pts (a team we could've beaten by 21), and ended the regular season UNRANKED at 7-5? THAT Auburn?

10/29 Georgia - TWO weeks later?

So, Florida had two games back-to-back against very good competition, then played scrub Auburn, then had two weeks to prepare for Georgia....and think that's a "gauntlet"? BTW, Florida lost all 4 games. They are no longer an elite football team.

You are out of your mind!

Of the four teams you think Boise State played during that stretch, 3 were not even in the same conference. FYI, during this same timeframe, Boise State's schedule was:

10/1 Nevada
10/7 Fresno State
10/15 Colorado State
10/22 Air Force

Try to actually look at facts before passing on stupid information.

these are your words, right?

"Every SEC team schedules a patsy right before and right after a "strong" school"

Really? Florida played Alabama and LSU in a row, so right there, that shows that your statement is 100% completely false.

Sanford - which is a tougher schedule, A or B?

Schedule (A): Nevada (7-6) Fresno State (4-9) Colorado State (3-9) Air Force (7-6)


Schedule (B): Alabama (12-1) LSU (13-1) Auburn (8-5) Georgia (10-4)

FYI - Schedule A and B were played during the same time frame. Schedule A is BSU's and Schedule B is Florida's

Stay on target

Boise State is not the argument. Neither is the argument about total quality opponents. The argument is whether or not the SEC has a "week in, week out gauntlet" of games against top-notch teams. Alabama and LSU are TWO games back-to-back. But, the next good opponent is three weeks later? That does not make a stretch of quality teams. Now, add in schools like Tennessee, Ole Miss, Kentucky, and Vanderbilt. The whole "week in, week out gauntlet" argument falls completely flat.

So, to say that the SEC has solid competition throughout their conference is a crock of crap. THAT is what I am dispelling. The SEC has 3 great teams, a couple decent teams, and a bunch of scrubs. The idea that the entire conference is "so tough" is utter bulls**t, and you @#$%ing know it. Yet, you continue to act like the SEC shuld be crowned the toughest conference simply because it's the SEC. The fact is, the SEC isn't as good as homers like you seem to think.

yes, we agree - Florida played Alabama and LSU back to back

yet you still prescribe to the "Every SEC team schedules a patsy right before and right after a "strong" school" mentality, despite agreeing with me that I disproved that statement. What's funny is that you discredit an 8-5 Auburn, who Florida played right after playing Alabama and LSU, because Auburn didn't defend it's national title. Yes, Auburn lost 5 games, but look at who they lost to:

Clemson (10-4) ACC Champions
Arkansas (11-2) only 2 losses were vs Alabama and LSU
LSU (13-1) SEC West Division Champs and overall SEC Champs
Georgia (10-4) SEC East Champs - lost to LSU in SEC title game
Alabama (12-1) National Champions

One set of back-to back games for Florida?

And? What else? Two games back-to-back do not constitute a "gauntlet".

As for Auburn, you REALLY are reaching there. At the end of the regular season, they are 7-5, having squeaked by Utah State and an overrated Mississippy State. But, when they play decent competition, they choke hard. That is your argument?

Try again, Homey.

what's good for the goose is good for the gander

admit it, you'd love to see those teams on BSU's schedule, but would you want to see them all in the same month? No? I'm sure Florida didn't want them all in the same month either!

It's been real, and it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun. I'm done with this and I'm done with you. Try not to blow off your hand tomorrow!

New found land


You'd be bananas to feast in my mangroves.

the funny one

so much better than the foreign one.

Don't go to Gander, you'll get GOOSED.


You fry wants with that?

foie gras

banned, not goosed.

You'd be bananas to feast in my mangroves.

So the little 3rd grade word play game has you down, padre....

But I'll never tell any grape or elephant jokes. Against my beliefs.


You fry wants with that?

ah the foreign guy

from my perspective the furry one beats the foreign one every time. "you fry wants with that" is totally lame while the "feasting the mangroves" is downright hilarious. time for a new gag.

It's still not to late to schedule your

Football opening week vasectomy/surgery

And all HAIL!

Alcoholic ADHD

It's your day

PS My sig is AQ


You fry wants with that?

Funny ...

In one month Florida played a tougher group of games than Cupcake State has scheduled in 5 years. Boo hoo nobody will play us because they are scared!



Homer is on Team Duff, you knew that!


You fry wants with that?

***Please Do Us All A Favor***


We're waiting with bated breath for you to tell us what team you root for?

puny pony

Is a Michigan fan, so you can understand the frustration.

Six months to prepare

was what Oregon, Virginia Tech, and Georgia also had so that had no bearing on the outcome of those games. The better team won, and in two of the games won easily. A lot of fans here don't like our schedule either, but as you mention Boise State isn't getting into a major conference anytime soon. I, too, criticize our AD for not getting at least three top-tier non-conference games scheduled each season. However, Boise State is a top-notch program regardless of what their schedule is, and regardless of what idiots like you think. Name your team, and we will lobby for a matchup immediately!

No father around, Pony?

Raised without a father around? Beat'en up constantly as a child? Never picked to be on a team during grade school recess? Mother with boyfriends in & out, in & out, in & out all your life? Poor grades and therefore never applied yourself.

Except, in one field you excel.

You're a sad sack. A negative-nellie. Somebody who never has a good thing to say. An emotional vampire. You hate your life, so you try to suck the life out of successful others. Your posts are infused with jealousy, anger, frustration, lies & ill-construed facts. Were you that little boy that used a stick - always poking and prodding a neighbors little dog. Did you torture kittens when you were a child? Left alone all the time?
Did you like to start fires? Ever cut yourself over and over again?

Whatever the case, so very sad to be you. And, sad for you.

:( someone doesn't like the

:( someone doesn't like the Bronco's being called out.

§ Someone has a hammer

and just nailed it.

At least IT got nailed in nine years.


You fry wants with that?

Get your own Slim Jim, bucko!


You fry wants with that?

It only demonstrates

why all of the complaining about the BCS was pointless to begin with. Bowls are independent, private entities that can enter into contracts with whatever schools or conferences they want to. There is no constitutional or other right for some school or conference to have a chance to play in Bowl X anymore than you or I have a constitutional right to contract with Company X to build a home. People and entities can contract with whoever they want to. And the fact that the BCS allowed non-AQ conferences the chance to play in BCS bowls goes to show how much those bowls and conferences bent over backwards in the name of "fairness."

Unless and until the NCAA takes over the college football postseason entirely all that postseason consists of is a bunch of contracts.


are you really all that flabbergasted?

Selection Committee?

I was under the impression that the selection committee was to determine the pool of teams able to be picked up by the remaining 'access' bowls. If that's still accurate, would a Big 5 champion or runner-up need to be selected by this committee to be automatically placed in their respective bowl? Or are we now going to be seeing an unranked ACC runner-up automatically getting a bid to the Orange Bowl when a 9th ranked Boise State is on the outside looking in?

I thought the selection committee

Only picked the four playoff teams.

Playoff vs Access Bowls

According to

"The selection committee will also play a part in creating matchups for the games at the four sites that do not hold a semifinal in a given year."

I'm finding conflicting information - ESPN only mentions the committee picking the top 4 and CNN implies that the committee will choose every "at-large" with the exception of contract bowls (Rose, Champions, Orange). Seems like it either still needs to be worked out or is being misreported depending on the source.

That's my understanding.

That's my understanding.


that's basically what an ESPN analyst just said this afternoon.

But, who understands those ESPN analysts anyhow?


You fry wants with that?

I said it first, Murph

when I found out a "selection committee" was going to be organized. All this BCS2.0 stuff comes down while the Big East is without a commissioner and no one to speak up or guard our interests except for a temporary commish-standin. Looks like Providence and Seton Hall will only get concerned if a new commissioner is not in place by the time basketball season rolls around.

I always thought we would be shoved aside for a championship game, the Big East not withstanding, but now being blocked off from the major bowl games is totally unacceptable.

Mandel downgrades Cupcake State....

for poor strength of schedule - ya think? .... time to bake more cupcakes on the smurf turf..


is an arrogant, conceited east coast pundit who has never liked Boise State so that he can be loved by SEC fans. Him, and others like him, make the best case for a selection commitee for the four-team playoff that doesn't include biased writers.


If the other bowls outside of the 2 Semifinal games are chosen by a selection committee, there will be a lot of confusion! I actually liked the BCS rankings, i thought it did a much better job at getting a team the correct ranking than humans could. I wish they would stick to that formula when choosing the non-semifinal bowl game teams. But with all the tie-ins going on, i dont see how teams like Boise State would make it into a top 6 bowl game without having joined the Big East. I think them moving to the BE is a great move. We ALL know it wont last for long! For all we know, BSU could be playing in the National Championship game for the last year of the current BCS system (2013). Then maybe they just might get an invite for the PAC 12, which is a much better geographical fit. The Big East should get a tie in of some type allowing their Western Division football teams (Air Force- one day, Boise State, and San Diego State) to play in the Rose Bowl if they make the Top 10 and one of the conference Champions from the Pac 12 or B1G go to one of the semifinal games. I dont really care much for a 4 team playoff, and believe it will expand to more teams, but for right now its a start.

Expanded Playoff

The downside to an expanded playoff, particulally a 16 team playoff, is that it would force most major college teams to reduce their regular seasons.
It is not realistic to play a 12 game regular season and then get into a 16 team playoff that will add four more games for the final pairing.
A college team is not going to play an NFL season.

The other downside

Is that losses become less important and the regular season becomes less capitvating. College football isn't the NFL and I'm very hopeful we don't move too far in that direction and ruin a great thing.

I think a 4 team playoff is plenty, and at this point I have no desire to see college football move beyond that.