BCS Football Playoff Model Leaked
Eugene, Oregon - In an effort to suppress growing discontent for the current "method" of selecting college football's Division-I national champion, BCS president David Frohnmayer addressed a possible playoff system for the nation's top football programs. Forced into action after details were leaked by Kirk Herbstreit on ESPN's website, Frohnmayer hastily assembled a press conference in order to correct possible inaccuracies in the premature report.
"While we certainly would like to see a definitive answer to the often controversial results the current BCS system produces, we can, in no way, support the model currently drifting across the electronic media outlets" said a confused and agitated Frohnmayer.
"Our playoff model is a work in progress and will develop over a reasonable time frame. For a working model of the system to leak out only serves to fan sensitivities against the the current system".
A glimpse at the leaked "working model" reveals the eleven conference champions, plus Notre Dame if ranked higher than number 10 in the final rankings, or the University of Southern California if Notre Dame is not ranked inside the to 10 and is not the Champion of the PAC-10, will meet along with four "at large" selections. In the event that Notre Dame is ranked in the top 10 and USC is not the PAC-10 champion, USC would receive the first "at large" bid.
In addressing the "at large" bids Frohnmayer commented "We're certainly looking at ways to be inclusive of deserving teams and that might involve the top 16 teams in the final rankings or four "at large" bids going to the four highest ranked teams outside of the conference champions."
The report showed that, in the event that Notre Dame is ranked in the top 10 and USC is not the PAC-10 champion or ranked in the top 16, USC would receive an "at large" bid if USC is ranked inside the final top 25.
"We don't see a scenario where USC would be included under that model" said a miffed and short-tempered Frohnmayer "and certainly don't support that. They are a great program and we expect to see them there at the end. Any playoff would benefit from the inclusion of USC and we'll continue to look at plausible ways to have them involved through the "at large" assignments should they fail through other avenues".
Looking further at the report revealed that if Notre Dame is ranked in the top 10 and USC is not the PAC-10 champion or ranked in the top 16 or ranked inside the final top 25, the Rose Bowl could be resurrected as a "play in" game with USC meeting an opponent from the Big 10 that is not the conference champion or in position to receive one of the "at large" bids. The winner of the Rose Bowl would receive one of the four "at large" bids.
"It's the granddaddy of all bowl games and there's no place we'd rather be than Pasadena" said Pete Carroll by phone from his off season retreat off the southern coast of France. "We've been punished long enough for losing one game a year, albeit to unranked opponents that finish the season unranked, then playing out a weak, three bi-week schedule with no conference championship from there, but how long can this go on?
"We're consistently the best team playing at the end of the year, regardless of some perceived mid-season failure."
"It's not going to happen—I repeat, not going to happen," fumed Frohnmayer as paramedics were placed on standby for a possible unhealthy spike in blood pressure. "Under our model there is no scenario whereby the Rose Bowl would be played, regardless of USC's standing in the final Top 25 poll!"
A closer inspection of the now widespread premature report revealed that if Notre Dame is ranked in the top 10 and USC is not the PAC-10 champion or ranked in the top 16 or ranked inside the final top 25, the Rose Bowl is resurrected as a "play in" game with USC meeting an opponent from the Big 10 that is not the conference champion or in position to receive one of the "at large" bids and loses that game, USC could still receive the final "at large" bid if Kirk Herbstreit vouches for them.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?