Obama Wants Playoffs

Bill Hancock said that the Big 12′s losses to the Big Ten and Pac-10 earlier this summer won’t influence the BCS.

“As far as the BCS’s future and operation, there’s no effect,” Hancock, the BCS executive director, said at the Mid-American Conference Media Day. Nebraska will leave for the Big Ten in 2011 and Colorado will exit for the Pac-10 in 2012.

Hancock also said — while not in favor of a playoff system for college football — any potential playoff system would have to include 16 teams.

“A 16-team playoff in the only way to have a playoff because it would include all of the conferences.” he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2010-07-31-bcs-hancock-big-12-playoff_N.htm

Bowl Championship Series executive director Bill Hancock has responded to Capitol Hill as Congress possibly looks to take action regarding a college football playoff. In a letter to Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Hancock says higher education officials should be responsible for decisions on college athletics.

“I believe that decisions about college football should be made by university presidents, athletics directors, coaches and conference commissioners rather than by members of Congress,” Hancock wrote.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/05/bcs-executive-director-bill-hancock-responds-to-capitol-hill/1

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said he would love to meet with President Obama and lay out his case for why a playoff would be bad for college football.

“I think it would be way cool,” Hancock said Wednesday. “If the opportunity presented itself, we would go in a minute. But he has so much else to do, and I don’t mean that in a negative way. He hasn’t said anything about it since Florida went to get its trophy (in 2009).”

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/04/bcs-boss-would-love-a-face-to-face-with-obama.html

With the Bowl Championship Series meetings set to begin tomorrow in Scottsdale, Ariz., I had a chance to catch up with executive director Bill Hancock to ask about what is on the agenda and how conference expansion would affect the BCS.

Hancock said expansion was not a topic on the agenda, though that all could change. The Chicago Tribune reported an accelerated timetable for Big Ten expansion has emerged. High-ranking Big Ten officials were expected to meet Sunday afternoon in Washington D.C. to discuss expansion. If they came out of those meetings with a mandate to expand, commissioner Jim Delany could use the BCS meetings to notify other conferences of their intentions.

Hancock was mum on his expectations for expansion, but did say, “I don’t think conference expansion will change the attitude of the schools about a playoff. It’s very clear that the schools and conferences are not moving toward a playoff and I just can’t see expansion changing that.”

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2010/04/bcs-chief-bill-hancock-expansion-wont-change-attitude-toward-playoff.html

Don’t expect Congress to act anytime soon to outlaw the increasingly unpopular BCS, but many insiders say the effort by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) to pass legislation leading to a college football playoff system will eventually succeed.

President Obama, who wants to see a playoff system, remains ready to sign a bill. Aides admit it’s not a big priority, but Obama nonetheless sees the BCS as unfair to smaller schools in lesser conferences and supports efforts to scrap the BCS.

“The BCS has been unpopular from the start, but now the public finally realizes that it’s nothing but a house of stacked decks. Depending on which poll you look at, the BCS’ approval rating is as low as 10%. To quote one of my favorite American statesmen, ‘When you get that low, you’re down to paid staffers and blood relatives,’” said Matt Sanderson, who runs Playoff PAC, a nonpartisan outfit committed to dumping the BCS.

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — The new BCS executive director officially began his tenure Thursday by saying the often-criticized postseason represents a consensus among the 120 schools that play major college football.

Bill Hancock said a playoff at college football’s highest level would lead to more injuries, conflict with final exams, kill the bowl system and diminish the importance of the regular season.

“I know this is not completely popular, but I believe in it,” Hancock told reporters Thursday at the Football Writers Association of America awards breakfast. “I believe it is in the best interest of the universities.

“College football has never been better and I believe the BCS is part of that.”

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4805271

A new political action committee plans to run ads this week pushing for a playoff system for college football.

Playoff PAC says it will run the ads in Dallas, Salt Lake City and Boise, Idaho ahead of Thursday’s national championship game between Texas and Alabama. The ad highlights the fact that two undefeated teams, TCU and Boise State, are not getting a chance to play for the title. The two schools face off Monday night in the Fiesta Bowl.

The ad also includes comments from Bill Hancock, the executive director of the Bowl Championship Series, saying not everyone can play in a championship game.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=9474749

Video: http://www.playoffpac.com/media/

Georgia head football coach Mark Richt was once asked why he supported the Bowl Championship Series instead of a playoff. “I think college football has the most exciting regular season of any sport because there is not a playoff system,” he answered. “The whole season is a playoff system.”

Perhaps the best reason for supporting the BCS can be summed up in three words: Every game counts. Since teams know they have to fight during the regular season for a spot in a bowl game, there are no games off. One loss and postseason chances are diminished. Every play and every game count every year.

As a result of this emphasis on the regular season, college football is more exciting, more popular and more successful than ever.

http://www.star-telegram.com/1021/story/1853019.html

In October, Hancock was asked by the conference commissioners he had worked with over the past four years as the administrator of the Bowl Championship Series to serve as the event’s first executive director. They wanted someone who knew the BCS well, who could tell the event’s story aggressively from the side of those who believe in its virtues, who could defend the most highly controversial postseason in all of sports against a tidal wave of vociferous critics.

The commissioners chose Hancock, 59, a man with a gentle smile and a congenial tone. Dressed in a plaid shirt and jeans, Hancock spent two hours one recent afternoon inside a barbecue restaurant over a lunch of pulled pork and beans explaining why his latest promotion wasn’t the gulag sentence it appeared to be. He understands the vitriol with which many college football fans view the BCS, but he attributes much of it to misperceptions and the prolonged inaction of those who run the event.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/21/AR2009122103146.html

Think the BCS is just some faceless computer selection process hell-bent on angering and refusing to listen to college football fans who prefer a playoff system to a preordained No. 1 vs. No. 2 national championship game?

Think again. The BCS done gone social. And it wants you to know it’s here to listen.

On Nov. 17, the BCS announced it was promoting Bill Hancock to the title of executive director. That same day, it launched a Facebook page. Three days later, a Twitter account — Inside the BCS — launched. On Saturday, Hancock announced the BCS had hired Ari Fleischer Sports Communications, a public relations firm, to help highlight the positive aspects of the BCS. Fleischer is most famous for his previous role as the press secretary of former President George W. Bush. This week, the BCS launched a Web site spelling out the problems of a playoff system, aptly named playoffproblem.com.

Phew, that’s a lot. So why is it suddenly on the offensive?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/thelife/news/story?id=4694320