Blog Entry

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

Posted on: February 25, 2012 3:56 pm
Posted by Tom Fornelli

With every passing day it seems that the idea of college football adopting a playoff system comes closer and closer to reality. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and former SEC commissioner -- and founder of the BCS -- Roy Kramer have both spoken publicly about the idea in recent weeks, and now the Pac-12's Larry Scott sounds as though he's in favor of a change as well.

Larry Scott talked of his preferences for college football's postseason with the New York Times.

Scott told the paper that while he isn't focusing solely on devising a system to determine a champion, he is thinking about changes to the entire bowl system, conference championships and even rankings.

"The more I think about it, the more opportunity for improvement I see," Scott told the paper.

Scott also said that he agreed with the Big Ten's proposed model of playing semi-final games on the campuses of the schools involved while playing the championship game itself at a neutral location. Scott also supports the idea that only conference champions should be eligible for playing in any sort of playoff format.

“So much of the passion of a move to a playoff is to see it earned on the field,” Scott said. “What more clear way to have intellectual consistency with the idea of a playoff than to earn it as a conference champion? It would de-emphasize the highly subjective polls that are based on a coach and media voting and a few computers.”

Thoughts that echoed the ones Roy Kramer told's Dennis Dodd last week.

"It makes the conference championship games bigger," Kramer told "It makes the regular season bigger."

An idea that likely must be heeded in order to satisfy both those that prefer a more concrete method of determining a champion, such as a playoff, and those who want to make sure college football's regular season doesn't lose its significance.

Now, while nobody can be sure exactly when or if a playoff will be instituted -- no matter the model chosen for one -- it is readily apparent that it will be coming at some point in the near future. An actuality that seemed impossible not too long ago.

Keep up with the latest college football news from around the country. From the opening kick of the year all the way through the offseason, has you covered with this daily newsletter. View a preview.

Get College Football updates on Facebook   

Since: Dec 29, 2006
Posted on: February 27, 2012 8:46 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

Ebony - There are many bugaboos in what Scott et. al. are suggesting. One, Oregon should not have played for the PAC12 championship. It should have been Stanford. Head to head has to be thrown out in favor of head to head and all other games. If a team is undefeated in conference, I can throw out the non-conference games (assuming no other undefeated team). But if two teams have a loss, you need to look at those non-conference games. You want the overall best team playing in the CCG. But here comes the rub. Last year Stanford was 11-1 and Oregon 10-2. What if UCLA upset Oregon (I know- no way in hell) but - UCLA isn't going anywhere and the higher rated team Stanford isn't going anywhere. I mean Georgia may have beaten LSU. That would mean Alabama isn't going anywhere, the eventual winner. I can see no two teams from the same conference in the final four, but all of the sudden the CCG is now an impediment. What if the Big10 champion had been 9-3? Oklahoma St would be in. Certainly Boise would have been a better choice than Georgia. But would they be a better choice than Stanford and Alabama that the CCG crap would have eliminated? Maybe we do force ND and BYU into conferences. BYU might return to the MWC. I can gaurantee you Scott and Delany are really thinking, PAC12/SEC/Big10/ and someone else, while the ACC and Big East are still thinking one of us. No one is thinking MWC or Sun Belt under any circumstances. That is the nature of the beast. But if you write a rrule that only conference winners can participate, you are leaving your backside three sheets to the wind, if something goes wrong.

Since: Jul 9, 2010
Posted on: February 27, 2012 8:10 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

There are many great comments and ideas in all the post on this subject of a football national championship playoff.  One of the big comments that all of us have heard over the years is: "if basketball can have a Major College Championship every year then Major College Football (FBS) can have a championship also".  Well let's disect this:  Major College is made up of all conferences, and there are no indepenent teams playing for the championship.  Do you see the picture I am putting together here for a FBS football champion ? There are presently four independents out there in FBS football right now, including Notre Dame, and they need to be in an FBS conference just like basketball to have a true champion.  I hope some of you understand my point, and thanks.

Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: February 27, 2012 7:51 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

I'd have to think more about "only" conference champions with a four team format. For this year, the fourth team would have been Wisconsin. To me that's a little hard to swallow if you have 3 teams in the SAME DIVISION with higher rankings than a team that gets in because of it won a conference that was down.
That's an interesting point, but considering that at the time they would have selected teams for a playoff, Wisky and Arkansas both had 2 losses, yet Wisky was far lower than Ark in the rankings.....why?  By that point in the season Wisky had beaten better teams than Ark as their only good win was South Carolina (10-2) and their next decent win was Auburn (7-5).  Meanwhile Wisky had beaten Michigan State (10-3), Nebraska (9-3),  and PSU (9-3).  The only edge Ark had was in the fact that Wisky lost to OSU, but does that top the fact that Wisky had far better wins than Ark?  I'd say no considering that K State also had the same number wins and a FAR better SOS than Ark and yet Ark was still the highest ranked of the 3:  Ark #6, KSU #8, and Wisky #10.   So for starters, Arkansas never should have been ranked higher than Wisky at that point--Bama and LSU yes, but not Arkansas. 

However, take UConn last year as the Big E champion, obviously they wouldn't have deserved a shot at the championship over many others, but if they're only talking a 4 team playoff the B1G, ACC, SEC, B12, and PAC make 5 possible teams even without the Big E, so I doubt UConn would have been one of them anyways.  This year's top 4 would have been Wisky (deservedly), LSU, Okie State, and Oregon.  Sorry, but Stanford, Bama, and KSU would have been left out, but they didn't win their conference--that's just the way it works with a 4 team if they expand it to 8 than 2 of them have a shot after the ACC and Big E champs. 


Since: Sep 18, 2006
Posted on: February 27, 2012 7:30 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

I apologize for the formatting problems below.  Would gladly edit if CBS provided that option

Since: Sep 18, 2006
Posted on: February 27, 2012 7:28 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

I like the top 3 conferences and 1 wild card idea as well.  It could be a 4th conference champ, or this year Alabama.

I also like the home site for the top 2 seeds.  Imagine the atmosphere at those sites in a doubleheader Final 4 night.

This will also be an incentive to schedule tough out of conference matchups as getting in would be one thing, hosting a semi final would be a huge advantage worth playing for.  
I also think a selection commitee should be appointed like basketball.  You can use the BCS rankings like basketball uses the RPI, but the ultimate decision comes down to the commitee.  The one wildcard also keeps Notre Dame in the picture if they win out. 

This year :   #4 Oregon plays at #1 LSU
;     &nbs
p;      #3 Okla St plays at #2 Alabama. 
The controversy here is Stanford was #4 and Oregon was #5 in the BCS. This will never go away, but Oregon did win the conference and won by 23 at Stanford.  

;     &nbs
p;  2010 -  #4 Stanford  at #1 Auburn
;     &nbs
p;     &nb
sp;     &n
bsp; #3  TCU at #2 Oregon     

      3 conference champs, Stanford the wildcard at #4, Wisconsin Big 10 champ on the outs at #5.  

;     &nbs
p;  2009   #4 TCU at #1 Alabama
;     &nbs
p;     &nb
sp;     &n
bsp;  #3 Cincinnati at #2 Texas  
  all conference champs, all unbeaten. Florida out at #5 with one loss to Bama, and Boise St #6 and unbeaten as well. 

;     &nbs
p;   2008     #4 USC at #1 Oklahoma
;     &nbs
p;     &nb
sp;     &n
bsp;   #3 Texas at #2 Florida    &nbs
   3 conference champs and Texas a wildcard.  This would be controversial as #4 in the BCS Alabama would lose out to Texas, and #6 and unbeaten Utah would be out.  

Controversy would never go away but the games themselves at the home sites would be amazing to watch.  As for where the title game is, I leave that up to all of you.  The best venue in my opinion is the Rose Bowl.  

Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: February 27, 2012 6:49 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

If you are gonna have a playoff, then have a playoff. Throw out all the garbage about highest rank and best team. The best team would win their conference.

If you fail to win your conference, then you don’t get a shot at the national championship game. We had that farce this past season where a team did not even win it division and was permitted to play in the national championship game.  

There will be times when a small school might win, but more than likely the favored team would win over 85% to 90% of the time. That is the nature of a play off. Let the chips fall where they might.

If there are schools that would want to be independent, so be it. If the criteria is that only conference champions would be able to compete for the national championship these teams that chose to be independent would have a decision to make.

The wild card would be the lowest ranked conference champion. Again if you don’t win your conference you don’t belong in the national championship game.

We have had enough of the polls. If everyone want to make the regular season count and the conference champions play a major role in the teams going to the national championship game this take all the guess work out.

It is understood what it take to get into the national championship game. Win enough games to qualify for your conference championship game. Then win your conference championship game. Ease as pie,  no polls necessary, n mo argument about Oklahoma state should have been in the game.
Rankings are biased based on the area you represent or live in. Get rid of them.

Since: Mar 12, 2008
Posted on: February 27, 2012 5:10 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

Having only conference champions in the 4 team system is going to be controvercial for sure. But one thing it will absolutely do is increase the quality of non-conference games. While a nonconference loss won't effect your chance at a conference championship, it may slightly effect the seeding you have versus another champion, but not enough to pass up big money, early season matchups. The fear of the polls may go away and less and less FCS schools will be scheduled in favor of premier games.

Instead of the goal for a season being that you never lose you: A)Win a big non-conference game or two. Win or lose you are now prepared to B) Win your division which will get you a spot in your C)Conference championship game. A win will then put you in a pool of several candidates (conf champs) who can then be voted into the top four spots. While polls still play a role, it will not be as big. I like it.

Since: Apr 23, 2007
Posted on: February 27, 2012 4:49 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

There should be no AQs, the top three conference champions should qualify, along with the highest-rated non conference champion (the wild card). However, if all the top 4 teams are conference champions, there shall be no wild card. If the semis are played at campus sites, and wild card must play a road game.

Since: Sep 20, 2006
Posted on: February 27, 2012 3:20 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

Or a Team like Notre Dame picks a conference they can win consistantly and almost assures themself of a post season berth.
Like what, the MAC or Sun Belt because those in touch with reality know they wouldn't win squat in the ACC, Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12 and they wouldn't have the stones to play SEC teams on a weekly basis.  Your point is a legitimate one though!

Notre Dame couldn't even win the Mountain West at this point.  They might get lucky and win the WAC, but I see Nevada beating them if they tried...Seriously, by how many points would Boise State throttle these guys?  I would LOVE to see them shut out of any lucrative conference as payback for not picking sooner...along with BYU.  They can be in the NAIA for all I care.

Since: May 24, 2010
Posted on: February 27, 2012 1:29 pm

Larry Scott talks postseason changes

Or a Team like Notre Dame picks a conference they can win consistantly and almost assures themself of a post season berth.
Like what, the MAC or Sun Belt because those in touch with reality know they wouldn't win squat in the ACC, Pac 12, Big 10, Big 12 and they wouldn't have the stones to play SEC teams on a weekly basis.  Your point is a legitimate one though!

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or