From John Pruett

[SKCAUB 0]

From the Huntville Times', John Pruett....

Unless something changes, the current system - eight BCS teams playing in two bowls, with two of the teams meeting in a national championship game - will continue for only one more year. The so-called plus-one system - one additional game after the traditional bowl season to settle the national championship - is scheduled to begin in January of 2007. The Fox network has purchased the rights to televise that format for five years.

"Whatever happens in the future,'' Mike Slive said, "we need to try to make sure something like what happened to Auburn this year will never happen again - not just to a team in our conference, but any conference.''

Contact John Pruett at johnp@htimes.com

[Tigermike 2,606]

Plus One is a good idea if their intention is to arrive at a true championship game. Take this season for example. Unless they were to have AU, USC, OK & Utah play and then have the plus one game, nothing probably would have changed. If USC had gone to the Rose Bowl they would have beat Michigan. If OK had gone to the Orange Bowl & played anyone other than USC they might very well have won. AU goes to the Sugar and beats VaTech. Utah goes to the Fiesta and beats Pitt. In that situation they would have still chose USC & OK.

[SLAG-91 1,375]

Given the current conference champion bowl tie-ins and disregarding the current mandated 1-2 matchup, the BCS bowls might have looked like this:

Rose: USC (Pac-10) vs. Michigan (Big Televen)

Fiesta: Oklahoma (Big XII) vs. Utah (at-large)

Sugar: Auburn (SEC) vs. Texas (at-large)

Orange: Virginia Tech (ACC) vs. Pittsburgh (Big East)

There are a lot of very interesting scenarios that could have unfolded in those four games...but at least three of those games would have had meaningful impact as far as who plays in the +1 game, as opposed to the relative apathy that currently surrounds the non-title BCS games. If there is one thing above all others that I hate about the BCS, that is it: The championship game renders everything else damn near meaningless.

I think I would prefer going back to the old bowl tie-ins and playing a +1 game rather than what we have now.

Slightly off topic, but I don't see a true playoff ever coming around because the bowls are too entrenched in the 1-A landscape...1-AA and Divisions II and III do not have any such equivalent and I think that is the biggest reason why they have a playoff and 1-A does not.

[Eagle Eye 7]

I like the +1 system, and less controversy will go into it only if something like this year happened, and only 4 undefeateds. However the +1 system will still not solve everything. Say you have 5 undefeateds with the possibility of 3 undefeatedsi still up for the +1 game. Who goes, who doesn't? Also if you have less than only 2 undefeateds, do you match them both, thus only having one undefeated and then match them up with the next 1 loss team, or do you put both of them with a 1 loss team, and if one loses, then a plus one isn't needed really. But say that team loses and more than one, 1 loss team wins their bowls. Who goes, who doesn't? Sorry this probably sounds like rambling. It sounded convincing in my head before I started typing.

[TigerinBham 1]

The Plus One Game will now and forever be called: "The Thank Auburn For This Bowl"

[quietfan 233]

But is this a true "+1" system? I know there was some talk about the BCS adding a fifth bowl, but it would just be another regular bowl game, allowing them to put 10 teams into "BCS" bowls. That certainly wouldn't solve anything.

However, if this is to be a true "+1" championship matching the best two survivors from New Year's Day, I wouldn't think the BCS would have too much trouble adjusting the conference tie-ins to enable the top four teams to be matched up. They've already talked the conferences out of tie-ins to the extent of matching up the top two as it is.

And I agree, any such system arising in the next 2-3 years will have Auburn's name and 13-0 season referenced by commentators for years to come--much longer than we would be remembered nationally for an actual MNC title!

[rolltoomer 0]

This would have to be a very recent enactment. As of 12/21/04, there wasn't such.

http://www.onlinecasinonews.com/ocn/Remote...eed.asp?id=7057

(Read 4th paragraph.)

[Ranger12 42]

I think we talked about this before when the Fox deal was announces. The +1 game is not what you thought it was. It is still the #1 vs @#2 from the BCS poll, not an additional game to determine the champ after the bowls are played. They will still play the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta, but the #1 and #2 will not play in those games. However, the game will be played a couple of days later at one of those sites, rotating it every year like they do now. So every few years, one of the big four host sites will get to host two big games.

However, I am hoping that since the contract has already been signed for an extra game, that they system will change by 2007 and it will become a playoff type game.

[The Prowler 1]

Here's my take on all this.......There should be no Bowl Tie ins in the Top Two Bowls......the Matchups should be BCS #1 vs. BCS #3 in one bowl and BCS #2 vs BCS #4 in the other, then #1 vs. #2 from those two bowls.....That is the Only way to Finally have The National Champion, unless we have Five Undefeated/One Loss Teams......Then we'll be back to Square One......This Past year would've looked like this.....(BCS #1 oklahomer vs. BCS #3 AU) and (BCS #2 USuCk vs BCS #4 Texas).......Then (BCS #1 AU vs BCS #2 USuCk).......AU The National Champions........War "BY GOD" Eagle