The Playoff Isn’t The BCS 2.0

While the new four-team playoff won’t be in effect until 2014, the reaction has been in full force since the announcement was made last week . There has been no shortage in the plethora of opinions. Once the smoke settled from the celebration, reaction from the new playoff system turned into the notion that it is just the BCS 2.0.

The one problem with that argument is the playoff itself is nothing like the BCS. Sure, the bowl system outside of the playoff is close to how the BCS operated, but the four teams to be selected by a committee, don’t have a sure shot chance due to an AQ based off of conference affiliation. Not to mention, the system of “elite” teams will grow from 10 to 12.

There has been plenty of people who have said this system will make access harder for teams outside of the five major conferences (Big 12, Big 10, Pac-12, SEC, ACC), but the fact remains, there’s still plenty to be worked out as far how teams will gain access to the top tier bowls outside of the playoffs.

The Big East is on everyone’s radar in terms of being left off the radar. The questions remains; how will the new Big East fair without a contract tie in with a top tier bowl?

The Big East has received a bad wrap the last two seasons for their BCS representatives. Of course, it’s hard to take an unranked Connecticut (2010) and No. 23 (2011) West Virginia seriously in a BCS bowl, but as Andrea Adelson points out, the Big East has had five of its last seven representatives finish in the Top 12 of the final BCS standings. While many people slam the Big East for not being a competitive football conference, it’s actually the ACC that has fared much worse. Since 2006, ACC BCS representatives have only finished in the top 12 in the final BCS standings twice.

By the time the playoff system is implemented, the Big East will look considerably different with Rutgers, Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, Temple, Connecticut, Houston, Memphis, SMU, UCF, Boise State and Navy (2015). Will it be harder for these teams to gain the favor of the selection committee? Probably, just ask Boise St., but with strength of schedule being a possible asset teams will need to gain access into the playoff, these teams might have an easier time scheduling tougher teams. Although, the question still remains; will teams from the top conferences find enough value in scheduling Boise State, USF etc?

It’s understandable to think that the Big East will have a difficult time gaining access to the new system. Heck, they’re now the only big conference that doesn’t have a tie-in to the new bowl system. But look no further than Big East Senior Associate Commissioner Nick Carparelli for a sense of comfort.

“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.

Take it a step further. Had the playoff been around in 2009, look at what would’ve happened. The Big East and Mountain West would’ve each had a team in the final four. Then in 2010, the Mountain West would’ve had TCU again in the final four.

Interim commissioner Joe Bailey made some comments in an interview Friday that should help ease some of the uncertainty with the selection process.

“No. 1, the decision was made to create a selection committee, so whoever will be on that selection committee will no longer watch teams once or twice a year. They will be focused on these teams constantly. The measure of competency of teams, in my opinion, will be much more accurate and it will be based on meritocracy, not necessarily AQ, or IQ or EQ. That is all you can really hope for.”

With many details still needing to be ironed out, the uncertainty of access for certain teams and conferences outside of the five majors (Big 12, Big 10, Pac-12, SEC, ACC) is understandable, but the new playoff system is not a modified version of the BCS.