Link: Dan Wetzel: cfb plus one isn't perfect

[RJ YellowHammer]

Link

I like Wetzel's take on most aspects of the plus one games. Specifically, I agree with him on taking the top four teams and why the top two seeds should host.

 

[KrAzY3]

I don't like how he seems to be claiming near unanimous support for a +1 and doesn't seem opposed to a larger field than that.

I can stand against the idea of home field for a +1, because my argument is that #4 hasn't ever earned a spot... so at least rewarding #1 with a home game would make #1 mean something. However, I just can't give into giving #4 a spot and I do know that a +1, particularly a home field one would be bad for the bowls. I'd prefer it stay the way it is, but at least my top 3 +1 would lead to only one additional game instead of two.

I agree with opening the championship game up to a bid as well, but that was primarily part of a current change I'd like to see to the BCSCG. I'd like to see it broken away from the other bowls completely, and the game opened up to bidding. I'd hope the increased autonomy would help, but it seems we've lost our chance to salvage that anyway.

As to his points about it needing to the top 4 teams and about the other commissioners preferring conference champs to stifle the SEC? That part is spot on...

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

A home game for the top two seeds doesn't have to harm the bowls. If you played the semi's early enough, like the 2nd or 3rd week of December, the losers could still go play in a bowl game.

 

[GrayTide]

He makes a good point when he says after the two bowls hosting the top 4 teams none of the other bowl games matter. 10 bowl games hosting the top 20 teams is enough IMO.

 

[KrAzY3]

A home game for the top two seeds doesn't have to harm the bowls. If you played the semi's early enough, like the 2nd or 3rd week of December, the losers could still go play in a bowl game.

I edited my post because I said can't instead of can... anyway, the current discussions for a +1 seem to be placing the game the week prior to the championship. I think a lot of that has to do with the academic schedules, there is only so much they have to work with here.

Having said that, the BCS has already diminished the bowls. The "resolution" of making an additional game seems to have only made that problem worse, as it's a not bowl game at a bowl game site. It's something that can't be resolved. The bowls and the championship can't co-exist in a completely healthy environment. That's why I was in favor of breaking the BCSCG completely away from the bowls, just release 1 vs 2 to play in a game at a site that's bid on. Yes, it harms the bowls a bit but there's no way around it. The conference championship games harmed the bowls as well, as they provide another late season spectacle for the fans that put fans closer to burn out (potentially shelling out for an expensive conference championship ticket, then traveling to a bowl game a few weeks later).

A +1 will put a whole new level of harm into place for the bowl games. It will make a game, no matter when you play it or where, that will alter and have a negative impact on the bowl season. For instance, in the past once you won a bowl game you were Sugar Bowl champs or what ever. It was the cherry on top of a great season. National Champs or not, you went out winners and champions in your own right. Now, either they make a bowl game a semi-final, which diminishes that, or the bowl game becomes a consolation game. Either way, the importance of that game is lessened. I think a +1 puts the bowl games on life support, anything more than that and we might as well call them the NIT...

 

[RedStar]

He makes a good point when he says after the two bowls hosting the top 4 teams none of the other bowl games matter. 10 bowl games hosting the top 20 teams is enough IMO.

I dunno, why not leave the other bowl games the way they are? What harm does it cause?

There were 35 bowl games this year. Featuring 70 teams. That's a lot of extra revenue for the cities that host the games and the teams that play in the games. It does a lot of good. If you don't want to watch one of those games in particular, all you've got to do is not turn to that channel.

I've seen a lot of people upset with how many bowl games there are now, but I'm not sure I understand why. From a fan standpoint, what's the downside of having so many games?

 

[KrAzY3]

I've seen a lot of people upset with how many bowl games there are now, but I'm not sure I understand why. From a fan standpoint, what's the downside of having so many games?

I just degrades the whole process. It becomes a participation trophy and it also leads to some absurd bowl selections. The question I guess is do you want bowl games to mean something or not? If you want them to mean something, you want less. If you only view it as a meaningless exhibition game, then you would probably argue for more, I mean why not, right?

I want less bowls, less FBS teams and less conferences. This would make the post season much simpler, and bring more clarity to the regular season. In my perfect world, going undefeated in the FBS would mean something, winning a conference would mean something, and going to a bowl game would mean something.

 

[RedStar]

I just degrades the whole process. It becomes a participation trophy and it also leads to some absurd bowl selections. The question I guess is do you want bowl games to mean something or not? If you want them to mean something, you want less. If you only view it as a meaningless exhibition game, then you would probably argue for more, I mean why not, right?

How does is it degrading to the system? How does FIU vs. Toledo in the Papa Johns Bowl degrade anything? How does it affect you?

All bowl games, outside of the BCS Championship game are exhibitions. If going to the New Orleans Bowl helps keep the Kent State's and the Marshall's of the world happy, then I'm all for it. It literally doesn't affect you or I in any way whatsoever.

The only game that matters is the Championship Game. It's always been that way.

I don't want more or less bowl games because it doesn't affect me.

I want less bowls, less FBS teams and less conferences. This would make the post season much simpler, and bring more clarity to the regular season. In my perfect world, going undefeated in the FBS would mean something, winning a conference would mean something, and going to a bowl game would mean something.

It pretty much does right? Rarely will a team from a top conference go undefeated and not get a chance to play in the National Championship Game, (Outside of Auburn in '04.)

 

[TideFan in AU]

I dunno, why not leave the other bowl games the way they are? What harm does it cause?

There were 35 bowl games this year. Featuring 70 teams. That's a lot of extra revenue for the cities that host the games and the teams that play in the games. It does a lot of good. If you don't want to watch one of those games in particular, all you've got to do is not turn to that channel.

I've seen a lot of people upset with how many bowl games there are now, but I'm not sure I understand why. From a fan standpoint, what's the downside of having so many games?

Thank you - Thank you - Thank you! GrayTide and I have been arguing about this for years, and I feel like you do. People who think like this are deeming teams "unworthy" of a bowl game, but there is a market for it, and people like me watch everyone of them I can. If you don't want to watch them, fine - but leave them alone for those of us who do. The month of December and early Jan is the last hoorah for CFB for the year, and I say the more the merrier. I don't watch any other sports that time of the year, and its nice to something to watch most of the way through December. Luckily for me, it is making lots money, so it is likely to continue. I still don't understand why a CFB fan would want to cut 25 games out of the post season...

 

[KrAzY3]

How does is it degrading to the system? How does FIU vs. Toledo in the Papa Johns Bowl degrade anything? How does it affect you?

If you view college football as an eco-system, each action causes a reaction. The bowl season has become too spread out, and features too many meaningless games. The lower attendance and ratings has been cited as one of the reasons that the BCS needs to change. From my perspective, yes that does have an impact on me. I also don't like the notion of rewarding a team like Toledo, that might not have beaten anyone, might not have broken 20K at a home game all year, and generally stunk things up with a bowl game. I'd like to reward them with a trip to the FCS if I could.

The only game that matters is the Championship Game. It's always been that way.

There hasn't always been a championship game. I already said that the BCS has diminished the bowls, there's no way around that. However, there's no need to be downright indignant towards them. Let them have some value again, make them mean more again. Or, we can continue strangling them until they are college football's version of the NIT. I like that the bowl games hold some significance, but let me assure you, they will hold very, very little with the way things are going.

It pretty much does right? Rarely will a team from a top conference go undefeated and not get a chance to play in the National Championship Game, (Outside of Auburn in '04.)

Sure, deserving undefeated teams are all but certain to play for a championship. But, once again it's the Utah, TCU's (cited as a reason for no home games in a +1 by the way), and Boise State's that are mucking things up. They are a constant force against order in college football. Due to the perpetually expanding, let everyone in NCAA, we will continue to see more and more play nobody undefeated and even with a +1 we will hear the constant claims that they somehow earned something. Heck, we might even see these #6 nobodies in a +1.

Let me put it another way. If we had less than 100 FBS teams, less than 20 bowl games and at least two less conferences, I doubt we'd be talking about a +1 right now. Furthermore, if we were, we would be looking at a much clearer picture of how things would be.

 

[TideFan in AU]

I just degrades the whole process. It becomes a participation trophy and it also leads to some absurd bowl selections. The question I guess is do you want bowl games to mean something or not? If you want them to mean something, you want less. If you only view it as a meaningless exhibition game, then you would probably argue for more, I mean why not, right?

I want less bowls, less FBS teams and less conferences. This would make the post season much simpler, and bring more clarity to the regular season. In my perfect world, going undefeated in the FBS would mean something, winning a conference would mean something, and going to a bowl game would mean something.

Yet you oppose the +1 system.

 

[RedStar]

If you view college football as an eco-system, each action causes a reaction. The bowl season has become too spread out, and features too many meaningless games. The lower attendance and ratings has been cited as one of the reasons that the BCS needs to change. From my perspective, yes that does have an impact on me. I also don't like the notion of rewarding a team like Toledo, that might not have beaten anyone, might not have broken 20K at a home game all year, and generally stunk things up with a bowl game. I'd like to reward them with a trip to the FCS if I could.


There hasn't always been a championship game. I already said that the BCS has diminished the bowls, there's no way around that. However, there's no need to be downright indignant towards them. Let them have some value again, make them mean more again. Or, we can continue strangling them until they are college football's version of the NIT. I like that the bowl games hold some significance, but let me assure you, they will hold very, very little with the way things are going.


Sure, deserving undefeated teams are all but certain to play for a championship. But, once again it's the Utah, TCU's (cited as a reason for no home games in a +1 by the way), and Boise State's that are mucking things up. They are a constant force against order in college football. Due to the perpetually expanding, let everyone in NCAA, we will continue to see more and more play nobody undefeated and even with a +1 we will hear the constant claims that they somehow earned something. Heck, we might even see these #6 nobodies in a +1.

Let me put it another way. If we had less than 100 FBS teams, less than 20 bowl games and at least two less conferences, I doubt we'd be talking about a +1 right now. Furthermore, if we were, we would be looking at a much clearer picture of how things would be.

I wont discuss this anymore after this post because it's obvious we're at an impasse.

Tidefan in AU said it perfectly. In late December when it's cold outside, I like coming in on a Tuesday night and turning on the TV to watch Central Michigan vs. Temple in a meaningless Bowl Game. It's great. It's much better than watching the same King of Queens on TBS for the 40th time.

Any College Football is good, I don't care who's playing the game. I can't get enough. It's an addiction.

If you think there's too many games, just turn the TV off, the solution is as simple as that. It's not affecting you. But if they went from 35 Bowl Games to 10 or 15 Bowl Games, it would affect me and those of us who just can't get enough college football.

That's my last post in this thread because I can see this argument going in circles fast.

 

[TideFan in AU]

If you view college football as an eco-system, each action causes a reaction. The bowl season has become too spread out, and features too many meaningless games. The lower attendance and ratings has been cited as one of the reasons that the BCS needs to change. From my perspective, yes that does have an impact on me. I also don't like the notion of rewarding a team like Toledo, that might not have beaten anyone, might not have broken 20K at a home game all year, and generally stunk things up with a bowl game. I'd like to reward them with a trip to the FCS if I could.


There hasn't always been a championship game. I already said that the BCS has diminished the bowls, there's no way around that. However, there's no need to be downright indignant towards them. Let them have some value again, make them mean more again. Or, we can continue strangling them until they are college football's version of the NIT. I like that the bowl games hold some significance, but let me assure you, they will hold very, very little with the way things are going.


Sure, deserving undefeated teams are all but certain to play for a championship. But, once again it's the Utah, TCU's (cited as a reason for no home games in a +1 by the way), and Boise State's that are mucking things up. They are a constant force against order in college football. Due to the perpetually expanding, let everyone in NCAA, we will continue to see more and more play nobody undefeated and even with a +1 we will hear the constant claims that they somehow earned something. Heck, we might even see these #6 nobodies in a +1.

Let me put it another way. If we had less than 100 FBS teams, less than 20 bowl games and at least two less conferences, I doubt we'd be talking about a +1 right now. Furthermore, if we were, we would be looking at a much clearer picture of how things would be.

Really? There have been split NC's since the beginning of CFB because of the lack of "clearer picture" of who is actually the best team at the end of the year.

 

[TideFan in AU]

I wont discuss this anymore after this post because it's obvious we're at an impasse.

Tidefan in AU said it perfectly. In late December when it's cold outside, I like coming in on a Tuesday night and turning on the TV to watch Central Michigan vs. Temple in a meaningless Bowl Game. It's great. It's much better than watching the same King of Queens on TBS for the 40th time.

Any College Football is good, I don't care who's playing the game. I can't get enough. It's an addiction.

If you think there's too many games, just turn the TV off, the solution is as simple as that. It's not affecting you. But if they went from 35 Bowl Games to 10 or 15 Bowl Games, it would affect me and those of us who just can't get enough college football.

That's my last post in this thread because I can see this argument going in circles fast.

It always does...

 

[KrAzY3]

Really? There have been split NC's since the beginning of CFB because of the lack of "clearer picture" of who is actually the best team at the end of the year.

I'll let RedStar go, because we're generally in agreement and he doesn't want to continue.

You on the other hand
I've written about this at length. RedStar can vouch for that. I am not anti-BCS. I think the BCS provides an important role. I've previously explained that the 85 scholarship limit reduction immediately resulted in an influx of FBS teams and an influx of meaningless undefeated teams. I think it went something like this, from the time they made D1 in the 70s, until they dropped the scholarship limit to 85 (I'd have to look this all up again), there was not a single undefeated team that went without a single selector declaring it national champion. In other words, even with split champions every single undefeated season mattered. There was also, I believe less split champions for a while to. But, as the new limits took hold, parity set in, and new programs showed up, the picture became increasingly muddled. You had more split champions and this brought about the BCS predecessor.

I can both see a clear picture, and I can show it in numbers to (I have before). When they created D2, they purged a lot of meaningless programs. This made deciding a national champion much simpler, but the scholarship limits (and seemingly unenforced and outdated attendance requirements) undid a lot of that and now we're back where we started. If you drop the BCS into the 1980s for example, what you'd see is that BCS would have likely settled and lingering disputes about who was national champions. The 1980s didn't seen any split national champions among the major selectors as it was.

So yes, I'll reiterate that I think there are too many teams, conferences and bowl games and in my mind they are all part of the inclusion over excellence trend that puts us on the verge of a +1 that could have the #6 team playing for a championship.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

I guess I'm just not old enough, even though I'm 33, to have this attachment to bowl games. I honestly don't care if this new 4 team playoff harms the bowls because I think they do more harm then good, most of them should be stripped of there non profit status IMO. It's been proven over the past year in books and many articles throughout the sports world that the bowls are financially ripping CFB off. Most teams are lucky to break even and many lose money over bowl games even after the payouts. I think it is time for a fundamental change to the bowl system and how they operate. I think the NCAA should step in and take control of this "playoff" away from grey haired ceo's who's only real interest is getting more money for themselves. The NCAA controls the post season in every other sport and in football in all the other divisions yet they continue to allow the bowls and this BCS committee to hold the FBS post season hostage.

I still can't decided if I'm for or against the semifinals being hosted by the top 2 teams but I like Wetzel's arguments for it. I also think the "not enough hotels" argument is incredibly dumb and short sighted.

 

[TideFan in AU]

I'll let RedStar go, because we're generally in agreement and he doesn't want to continue.

You on the other hand
I've written about this at length. RedStar can vouch for that. I am not anti-BCS. I think the BCS provides an important role. I've previously explained that the 85 scholarship limit reduction immediately resulted in an influx of FBS teams and an influx of meaningless undefeated teams. I think it went something like this, from the time they made D1 in the 70s, until they dropped the scholarship limit to 85 (I'd have to look this all up again), there was not a single undefeated team that went without a single selector declaring it national champion. In other words, even with split champions every single undefeated season mattered. There was also, I believe less split champions for a while to. But, as the new limits took hold, parity set in, and new programs showed up, the picture became increasingly muddled. You had more split champions and this brought about the BCS predecessor.

I can both see a clear picture, and I can show it in numbers to (I have before). When they created D2, they purged a lot of meaningless programs. This made deciding a national champion much simpler, but the scholarship limits (and seemingly unenforced and outdated attendance requirements) undid a lot of that and now we're back where we started. If you drop the BCS into the 1980s for example, what you'd see is that BCS would have likely settled and lingering disputes about who was national champions. The 1980s didn't seen any split national champions among the major selectors as it was.

So yes, I'll reiterate that I think there are too many teams, conferences and bowl games and in my mind they are all part of the inclusion over excellence trend that puts us on the verge of a +1 that could have the #6 team playing for a championship.

I've probably read the vast majority of your posts on the subject, I just don't agree with some of what you "explained". You have a tendency to state your opinion as fact sometimes. Please don't take that as an personal insult or that I am bashing you, because I enjoy your posts, and more often than not I agree with you. You are passionate about your opinions, and I certainly respect that because I'm the same way. There are too many variables to prove who is right or wrong in many of these subjects, and ultimately this is what we think is correct in our own minds. I do agree that there are too many teams in FBS that don't belong and it is my opinion that there will never be a perfect system. If you cut out some of the teams, you'd have less bowls, and some confusion would go away, but football is and always has been too top heavy for the picture to be truly clear at the top. There's normally 2 or 3 very good teams and everybody else is a ways behind. Taking out the UAB's and Toledo's will not change that in any way. Every system has its flaws and every system will benefit AND hinder you in certain situations. If the Coaches/UPI poll still awarded the NC after the regular season, CNS would have 4 NC's. If the Coaches/UPI didn't award the NC before the bowl, Coach Bryant would have also only have 4 NC's. If the +1 system was in place and they had OT, Coach Bryant would probably have 7 or 8 NC's. If OU instead of OSU had been 12 - 1 at the end of last season, CNS would still only have 2 NC's. There has never been clarity at the top, but the +1 will do as good of a job as any system we've had, and hopefully it will back off the people trying to sue/dissolve the BCS and bowl system altogether. I think the +1 is the only compromise that will not drastically alter the game we all love.

 

[cmmiller711]

Here's my system for a 4 team play off... Top 4 teams get in... Semi finals at home, 1v4 2v3, and if theres one (or more) undefeated teams outside of the top four, they get an automatic bid if they're in the top 8. Seem fair?​

 

[GrayTide]

Thank you - Thank you - Thank you! GrayTide and I have been arguing about this for years, and I feel like you do. People who think like this are deeming teams "unworthy" of a bowl game, but there is a market for it, and people like me watch everyone of them I can. If you don't want to watch them, fine - but leave them alone for those of us who do. The month of December and early Jan is the last hoorah for CFB for the year, and I say the more the merrier. I don't watch any other sports that time of the year, and its nice to something to watch most of the way through December. Luckily for me, it is making lots money, so it is likely to continue. I still don't understand why a CFB fan would want to cut 25 games out of the post season...

I am shocked beyond belief that you would say that you and I have argued for years over this topic.:wink: Of course we are both right. I watch fewer and fewer bowl games each year, but what others do is up to them. This is my opinion only, but I do believe that 35 bowl games with 6-6 teams waters down the significance of getting a bowl bid and eventually some will fold due entirely to lack of attendance and the ever present lack of revenue. Until then let everyone enjoy as much or as little of the bowl fest as they want.
Still friends?

 

[Crimson1967]

No system is going to be perfect.