From the Chicago Tribune:

[LEFT]The Big Ten is not only ready to listen to proposals regarding a national four-team football playoff, league and school officials are kicking around an intriguing idea.

Sources told the Tribune that a Big Ten plan would remove the top four teams from the BCS bowl pool and have semifinal games played on the college campus of the higher seed. That would do away with the facade of “neutral” sites such as New Orleans, Miami and Pasadena, Calif., and ease travel concern for fans.

The championship game then could be bid out, like the Super Bowl.

The concept of the Big Ten even entertaining playoff proposals seemed laughable as recently as two months ago. But in the wake of a low-rated BCS title game that satisfied few outside the Southeastern Conference footprint, the conference is ready to study and contribute ideas.

“We have to listen to the fans; we cannot be tone-deaf,” said Northwestern athletics director Jim Phillips, who chairs the Big Ten’s Administrators Council. “The Big Ten is open and curious.”[/LEFT]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-big-ten-idea-a-college-football-playoff-with-home-games-20120206,0,4747499.story

I would love a step away from the "Neutral" site games for the SEC and other warm weather schools.

That's the main selling point for a +1 in my opinion.

Just some random banter, under this setup, the Big Ten would've had three home games (Georgia at Ohio State 2002, LSU at Ohio State 2007, Oklahoma at Ohio State 2008) and four away games (Ohio State at Tennessee 1999, Michigan at Oklahoma 2004, Ohio State at USC 2006, Michigan at Florida, 2007) in the past fourteen years.

That plan wouldn't eliminate the SEC, or ANY conference, from getting 2 teams in the BCS Title game. If anything it would increase the odds of it happening.

But in the wake of a low-rated BCS title game that satisfied few outside the Southeastern Conference footprint, the conference is ready to study and contribute ideas.

Ha! When talking about not watching the BCSNC game, I was mocked on here when I said the low ratings will lead to talk about a playoff. I'm pretty bored, I might even go back and find the quotes

Big Gain;1077778 wrote:That plan wouldn't eliminate the SEC, or ANY conference, from getting 2 teams in the BCS Title game. If any thing it would increase the odds of it happening.

So what?

SportsAndLady;1077787 wrote:Ha! When talking about not watching the BCSNC game, I was mocked on here when I said the low ratings will lead to talk about a playoff. I'm pretty bored, I might even go back and find the quotes

The only people that would knock that idea are the ones who are just being antagonistic. I know you, myself and others were mocked for it (sadly we're also grouped with Sleeper in this instance). But when it comes down to it, it's all about the money.

I wouldn't strain yourselves too much patting yourselves on the back given there was talk about a +1 quite awhile before the MNC, but anyway. Since when has it been about what the fans want anyway? Since Delany lost his biggest ally. Why bring it up now? Because it's a convenient excuse for not claiming the only reason is the potential for an extra money grab should a B1G team be up for it and not just blindly go along with "neutral" sites. The devil's in the details and I would bet the B1G would see fit to revenue share that/those games with the conference.

Any teams south of the Mason-Dixon are sure to pitch a fit, they will not want anything to do with the potential temperatures below fiddy. Bet dollars to donuts we see them lobby for games held at neutral site (lol) or at the very least dome stadiums.

Mulva;1077812 wrote:So what?

You didn't read the link. THE reason this is a topic of discussion now is because of the low ratings the BCS Title game got. REPLAY, 2 teams from the same conference.

I have a hard time seeing the SEC (and possibly even the PAC 12) signing up for semifinal games being played on the college campus of the higher seed. Just can't see the SEC traveling up North.

Big Gain;1077911 wrote:You didn't read the link. THE reason this is a topic of discussion now is because of the low ratings the BCS Title game got. REPLAY, 2 teams from the same conference.

The Super Bowl was a rematch too. People still watched because the 2 teams replaying earned their way in through a playoff.

If LSU would have beaten Stanford and Alabama had beaten Oklahoma State, nobody would have complained about the rematch. The people who wouldn't have watched would have done so out of hatred for the SEC or lack of interest due to the low scoring 1st game. The rematch itself wouldn't be the issue.

Mulva;1078516 wrote:The Super Bowl was a rematch too. People still watched because the 2 teams replaying earned their way in through a playoff.

If LSU would have beaten Stanford and Alabama had beaten Oklahoma State, nobody would have complained about the rematch. The people who wouldn't have watched would have done so out of hatred for the SEC or lack of interest due to the low scoring 1st game. The rematch itself wouldn't be the issue.

No, because many people didn't agree with the procedure of how those two teams got to the game. A lot figured why would one team automatically get another chance while an outsider has no chance whatsoever.

In a +1, if a team wins that semifinal to make the title and setup a rematch, they proved it once again on the field that they deserved it.

In a Top 4 setup, LSU would host Stanford and Alabama would host Oklahoma State.

Ergo, Stanford and Oklahoma State would have 'their shot' to claim the title. If they lose, it'd be seen as definitive proof that LSU/Bama were better. Instead, we just don't know.

And a +1 that uses three bowls (two for semis and one for the final) would cause financial problems because fans may not be able to travel for both. Some might hold off from going to the semifinal in hopes that their team will make the title. The 'top seed hosts' would make it very easy for a packed house. And an amazing atmosphere.

I'm failing to see how you disagree with Mulva, Sykotyk? Maybe I'm tired, but you two seem to be in complete agreement.

Always a slippery slope and I worry it would just expand. The NCAA BBall tourney did not start at 68 teams and has slowly expanded over years.

I would never want a situation where it becomes OK for your team to lose 2-3 regular season games, because you will still make the playoffs. It would ruin what makes college footballs regular season the best in my opinion.

Zoltan;1079483 wrote:I would never want a situation where it becomes OK for your team to lose 2-3 regular season games, because you will still make the playoffs. It would ruin what makes college footballs regular season the best in my opinion.

I agree with that, but I would also like to see some of the smaller schools get a shot at the title.

Big Gain;1077778 wrote:That plan wouldn't eliminate the SEC, or ANY conference, from getting 2 teams in the BCS Title game. If anything it would increase the odds of it happening.

But they would have to play their way in.

Zoltan;1079483 wrote:Always a slippery slope and I worry it would just expand. The NCAA BBall tourney did not start at 68 teams and has slowly expanded over years.

I would never want a situation where it becomes OK for your team to lose 2-3 regular season games, because you will still make the playoffs. It would ruin what makes college footballs regular season the best in my opinion.

A 4 or 8 team playoff isn't going to have any team with 3 losses in it, and few with 2. And how about that LSU-Bama regular season game this year? Did it make a difference? Only if someone recorded it and used it to let them fall asleep on a flight.

Manhattan Buckeye;1081867 wrote:A 4 or 8 team playoff isn't going to have any team with 3 losses in it, and few with 2. And how about that LSU-Bama regular season game this year? Did it make a difference? Only if someone recorded it and used it to let them fall asleep on a flight.

This line of thinking is wrong, IMO. It did make a difference. Alabama dropped in the rankings. But what ALSO made a difference was the teams that were then ahead of Alabama losing, allowing them to get back into the title picture. The title game would have had just as low of numbers had there been a +1 system.

As far as the Big Ten's idea, as stated before, I don't see the Pac 12 or SEC signing off on this. Hell, when USC plays Notre Dame in South Bend, the game is in the middle of the season so that USC doesn't have to play when it is too cold.

Here is a possible (probable?) scenario for you assuming the Big 10 proposal were adopted and the +1 games are 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 at the higher seed's home site:

I am a sports writer and I vote in a poll that counts toward the final BCS standings. In my next to last poll, I voted an undefeated Alabama team as #1. I had a one-loss tOSU team as my #2 and a one loss Southern Cal as my #3 team, but they were close. Nothing else matters. All three teams convincingly win their conference championship games. Now, I will be covering the 2 v 3 game live so my final vote will be: #1, Bama, #2, USC and #3, tOSU. It's would be easy to make the argument regarding switching positions (USC "looked" better, had a better opponent, etc.) and who in their right mind would rather cover a ballgame in Columbus in January versus a game in LA? There are reasons the bowl games are in warm-weather locations and it has little to do with the game itself.