January 10, 2012; New Orleans, LA, USA; BCS executive director Bill Hancock with the coaches trophy during a press conference at the Marriott Convention Center Hotel presenting the championship trophies from the 2012 BCS National Championship game between the Alabama Crimson Tide and LSU Tigers. Mandatory Credit: Derick E. Hingle-USA TODAY Sports

On Monday morning, the Football Writers Association of American convened at the Harbor Beach Marriott in Ft. Lauderdale, to give out various awards for writers and athletes, and to look ahead into the future of the industry. The highlight of the event came when Bill Hancock, the executive director of the new playoff series, spoke about the still under-construction system for college football that will replace the BCS system after the 2013 season.

“We are committed to a high level of transparency,” Hancock said of the new playoff committee. It will consist of 15-18 members which include representatives from each conference, as well as two or three at-large members. Hancock also noted that the committee could even include a former college football writer.

Hancock stressed that there is much to be decided and finalized before the playoff is put into practice, and he thinks that even with a playoff, there will be those who long for the BCS model back because this new one still does not give the fans everything they want. In spite of that, the committee strives to have a system similar to that of NCAA hoops, as Hancock formerly headed the Final Four committee for 13 years.

The committee plans to announce the first championship site before they announce those for the semifinals, said Hancock. That announcement will come some time before April as the committee has between 12-15 locations to consider as possible hosts. The semifinal games will all be held either on New Year’s Eve or New Years Day going forward, with the Championship game always being held on Monday. Pasadena, New Orleans, and Miami are guaranteed to be in the cycle of cities for the semi-final games, while 12-15 other cities have also expressed interest. Like in the NFL playoffs, the new NCAA playoffs will not rule out “cold-weather” cities as possible semi-final sites, such as those along the upper east coast.

Unlike the current BCS model, the new format will not continue the BCS rankings, something that Hancock has reservations about. “We absolutely know the value of the BCS standings,” Hancock said. There has been no decision yet as to what kind of ranking system will be used going forward, but it will place more emphasis on conference championships and head-to-head match-ups.

But without the BCS rankings, what does that mean for the Coaches’ Poll trophy?

The crystal ball trophy is one of the most iconic awards in sports, but its role in college football could change going forward. Hancock even joked that the crystal ball could be replaced with the “iconic kicking tee or something.” On a serious note, the executive director stressed that they do not yet know what trophy the new system will feature, and that is one of the major “balls in the air” that still needs to be fielded.

Another issue to work out is how the teams will be paired in the semi-final games. The prevailing idea is that the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds will never be at a home crowd disadvantage, though the pairings will be geographically based on the best match-ups. So, for example, a No. 1 USC team would not have to face a No. 4 LSU team at the Sugar Bowl, as that would provide LSU with a home-field advantage. Hancock also made it clear that two teams from the same conference will not be excluded from the playoffs solely because they represent the same conference. So, if Texas and Oklahoma are No. 1 and No. 4 respectively at the end of a season, both get a spot in the playoffs.

The one thing Hancock is especially concerned about with the new playoff is the fan experience. Ticket allotment would likely change in the new playoff system, with less being given to the schools for either the semifinal or the championship game. That being the case, more corporate sponsorships will be created, which suggests less of a fan presence and more of a business one. “97-percent of the people present will care about the game tonight,” Hancock said of the BCS National Championship set to kickoff later Monday evening. “We have got to keep that.”

There are still many kinks to be worked out before the new playoff makes its debut in 2014, but Hancock and his committee are working tirelessly to create a system that addresses the flaws in the BCS systems and tries to rectify them. In the coming months we will know more about the format, and how it will impact the landscape of college football going forth into the future.

Derick E. Hingle-US PRESSWIRE

As reported on Wednesday, NCAA presidents will meet to discuss the consensus agreement of the conference commissioners that entails to having a college football playoff system in 2014, based on the long proposed plus-one model.

Let’s look at the pros & cons in a two-part series, starting with the pros:

Four is the perfect number. More often than not, four teams is roughly the number of teams that are in the fight for the National Championship at the end of the year. If you look at 2011, you would have had LSU, Alabama, Oklahoma State and Stanford, with little argument that those were the four best overall teams. It tends to work that way, time and time again. We’ve seen plenty of times where one team gets snubbed, but outside of 2008 when Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and USC all had title-esque runs, never have we seen several teams snubbed.

More revenue is always a good thing. Let’s face it, a playoff, albeit the plus-one, will bring a ton of revenue. Essentially, there is one more game on the docket, and a major bowl game at that. Television rights will go through the roof, as will a bidding system to host the games. All four schools in the field would profit greatly on Final Four garb, in addition to having National Championship merchandise should they win the national semifinal. It ends up being a cash cow not only for the four schools, but the NCAA, the networks and even the hosts of the conference championship games, as their importance can be further stressed, should the plus-one require that only conference winners participate.

We’ll get the best Title Game possible. Much was said about the snooze fest of the Alabama-LSU rematch, but with the proposed playoff system, the odds lessen that blowouts or dull affairs would take place. Sure, there’s no guaranteeing that two defensive teams don’t play each other, but using the 2004 season as an example, one would think that USC wouldn’t beat Oklahoma 55-19 in the final if the playoffs were implemented. The chance of a team laying an egg is lessened, as in theory, those teams not prepared to play in the Final Four, would be eliminated in the national semifinal, and not make it to the National Championship Game.

We get an undisputed winner. Just as four teams represent a solid number of legitimate contenders, the odds of there being any dispute as to who the clear-cut national champion is essentially reduced to zero.

US Presswire

ESPN’s Joe Schad has tweeted some of the finest words to ever hit Twitter this afternoon, signalling that College Football will indeed have playoffs in 2014, pending approval from university presidents.

The commissioners announce they formally support a four team college football playoff

— Joe Schad (@schadjoe) June 20, 2012

College fb fans: unless the presidents overrule commissioners who have spent hundreds of hours on this, the playoff is coming in 2014 — Joe Schad (@schadjoe) June 20, 2012

Playoffs? PLAYOFFS?!?!

While it seems unlikely that college presidents would turn down the opportunity to play one more game(think about all of that ‘Final Four’ merchandise revenue that could be made), knowing the NCAA and the stubbornness of the college presidents, anything is possible.

According to Adam Rittenberg of ESPN, the presidents, including USC President C.L. Max Nikias, will meet on June 26th to decide the fate of the proposition, and will also consider other models to the playoff system.

Now, what happens to the BCS? Dennis Dodd of CBS reported yesterday that the BCS name and branding would cease to exist with the emergence of a 4-team playoff, and following today’s summit, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott echoed that sentiment and then some, per Schad.

Larry Scott: Presidents will look into and discuss the selection committee

— Joe Schad (@schadjoe) June 20, 2012

Having a selection committee is really going to be an interesting concept. Does it work in basketball? Predominantly yes, given that there’s 68 teams making the NCAA Tournament and therefore more room for disagreement that lessens the blow of a snub.

With a 4-team playoff, how will a committee react to having two teams from the same conference in the running, or perhaps a rematch of an early season showdown? Given the discrepencies in postseason philosophy across the board, a committee can either be the greatest thing for college football or the worst.

Let’s be real, while the BCS system allowed for just two teams and thus was flawed, it still gave us two teams and it did its job in that sense, without biases or predjuices due to the computer rankings. Did it choose Nebraska over Oregon and Oklahoma over USC? It sure did. But it did so by sticking to its core criteria. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

So, now we wait. We wait for confirmation and approval, look forward to the next round of debates: home games or predetermined sites.

Majority of BCS commissioners still favor committee to pick teams, predetermined Final Four bowl sites

— Joe Schad (@schadjoe) June 20, 2012

Oh, so that answers that.