The Actual Intent of Roy Kramer's Playoff Proposal
Posted on February 28, 2012 by Jacob Bunn
+
1
Former Southeastern Conference Commissioner Roy Kramer was quoted by CBSSports.com as saying he believes the participants in a hypothetical plus-one college football postseason format should all be conference champions. Under his plan, the top four ranked teams would not necessarily be the ones competing for the championship in a national playoff. Instead, it would be the four highest ranked conference champions.
Current Pac 12 Commissioner Larry Scott also chimed in on the matter. Over the weekend, he was quoted by the New York Times as saying he agrees with Kramer's position that the four teams in national semifinal games should be the champions of their respective conferences. The actual quote from Scott is that Kramer's plan "resonated with me."
I am not convinced that Commissioner Scott will permanently adopt that proposal. After he reflects on it and gathers some feedback, I would not be surprised if he ends up on the other side of it.
Regardless, Kramer, who is the patriarch of the BCS, submitted this proposal. Therefore, it must be taken seriously.
There is another factor that should be included when considering who is running the BCS. Each conference gets a seat at the table, which means Mike Slive, Jim Delany, Larry Scott and the rest of the conference commissioner crew all have input. But what happens to a team that does not reside in a conference? Because of its independence, the Notre Dame athletic director is granted the same influence as the conference commissioners. Read the previous sentence once more and tell me that there are no issues with the BCS.
This brings up a very interesting and complicated question. If the four teams included in the postseason championship tournament must all be conference champions, what becomes of a team that has no conference? This is one reason that the plan is dead on arrival.
If this plan is implemented, there will be significant consequences for the sport. It will give considerably more prominence to conferences that do not deserve it. Last year, for example, Wisconsin would have been in a plus-one with a final ranking of 10. Does anyone think the Badgers could have even come close to Alabama, Stanford, Arkansas, or South Carolina? Considering they did not even defeat Oregon in the Rose Bowl, my answer would be a resounding 'no.'
I do not know exactly where this sort of thing is coming from. I know it was contrived by Kramer, but make no mistake about the fact that there are other college football power brokers who endorse it and desperately want to implement it. And believe me, the total focus of something like this is to reduce the supremacy of the Southeastern Conference.
It does not matter how it affects major college football conferences as a whole. If an opportunity to blow a hole in the SEC's dominance exists, there are certain influential individuals who are prepared to pounce on it.
Larry Scott did not waste much time in attaching his name to this proposal in a supportive manner.
If you take a comprehensive look at what the plus-one with only conference champions would have looked like during the years since the BCS came into existence (as I did on my latest show), you will find that one conference in particular would have enormously benefited from such a system.
I do not believe this idea will ever be taken seriously by a majority of the BCS decision makers. But, take notice of how quickly some with influence flock to a rule that could bring the SEC down.
Tweet Tweet this!
Email Jacob at jacob@bunnsports.com and follow him on Twitter at @JacobBunn
