Make The Bowls Great Again!

Submitted by bighouse22 on January 23rd, 2019 at 10:34 AM

The title is inspired out of humor - no political position!

The narrative for the bowls being meaningless has been established by the players not participating and the media backing that narrative.  It seems to me there are a couple of actions the NCAA could take In order to provide incentive for player participation.  One of which has already been discussed and an additional item brought up to me by a friend (perhaps discussed in the media, but I haven't heard it directly).

(1)  Creating an 8 Team Playoff - 5 Conference Champions, 3 At Large Teams.

  • Benefits 
    • Eliminates the notion/bias of the eye test, which would have led us to believe that Alabama was the greatest team in our lifetimes.
    • Eliminates the notion/bias of the eye test, which had many in the media claiming a 2 loss Georgia team should have been in the 4 team playoff because of the bias of the SEC.  Even after the outcome of the bowls the power of personal bias was still in full force when several in the media refused to back off the position that Georgia should have been in - in spite of the evidence presented on the field.
    • Nick Saban is against expanding the playoff.  Let's analyze why?  He currently has a monopoly on bias, mostly justified.  However, there is now a narrative that a 2 loss Alabama would get in whether they won their Conference or not.  He can sell to every recruit they will be in the playoffs every year they attend his school and provides a recruiting advantage.  No other team can claim that they would be in even if they didn't win their Conference - hence #1 classes for the foreseeable future.
      • Consider an 8 team playoff with Conference winners getting in every year.  This means the best teams in each conference can now make the same claims.  It opens up the opportunity to complete at the highest level in the playoffs for more schools and more players.
    • Conferences now get to prove it on the field not in the imagination of the CFB Committee or media.
    • More players competing for something meaningful, means less leaving their teams to prepare for the NFL.
    • More bowl games become meaningful by adding 4 more meaningful games.

(2)  Pay all players that participate in the Bowl Games a bonus above and beyond their scholarship benefits.  Make it a substantial enough sum that they would be willing to get a benefit financial beyond the regular season.

My belief is that the actions above are a way for College Football and the NCAA to save the sport and provide incentive.  

jg2112

January 23rd, 2019 at 11:38 AM ^

Why not go the other route and provide every FBS team a 13th game (at minimum) at the end of the season? Make the season from August to January, and build in a December break of two weeks.

The idea the teams that need practice the most are locked out of December and January team development has always seemed elitist to me.

Sopwith

January 23rd, 2019 at 11:43 AM ^

FU if you think I'm giving up the Cheez-It and Gasparilla bowls. 

First they came for the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl, and I said nothing. Then they came for Meineke Car Care Bowl, and again I said nothing.

Then they came for yada yada yada 

NIHILIST ARBY'S BOWL 2020

WE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN

TheBlueAbides

January 23rd, 2019 at 11:57 AM ^

I like the expanded playoff idea, but to improve the bowls they need to get rid of about 60% of them. I know the Rose Bowl is different than the Bahamas Bowl, but Bowls aren't rare and even average players and teams can go to four or five of them.

A Lot of Milk

January 23rd, 2019 at 12:03 PM ^

Bowl games suck. Post-season college football doesn't have to suck

Make playoff games campus sites before the last four or the championship game. You want people to watch and get excited about your product? Have Georgia come up to Ann Arbor in December. Make OSU go to Bama. You don't think these games would be infinitely more popular than having these teams play in desolate, awkward arenas in Glendale, Arizona?

UofM626

January 23rd, 2019 at 12:07 PM ^

Pay the player - oh ok so a potential 1st round pick w get paid the same amount of $$ as the 3rd string QB. I just don’t see how this works as I am all for the money being the same across the board.

StephenRKass

January 23rd, 2019 at 12:11 PM ^

Do not want. However, what I want or don't want doesn't really matter. I'll just say that imhe, this definitely WON'T make bowls great again. There are so many issues. The problem is different constituencies. For me, I loved when there were maybe 5 - 6 important bowls (Rose, Orange Cotton, Fiesta, Sugar) scattered over New Year's Eve and Day, over different TV networks. I could gorge on football for a day and a half, definitely watch whatever bowl Michigan was playing in, and watch part of several other bowls. I could (theoretically) go to any of those bowls, because New Year's (and the day before) were holidays. When games are spread out, it is much more difficult to make them. But there is more than that. Imagine the game between the number 1 and number 8 seed. You have to travel, quite likely an expensive ticket. If you are a fan of the 8 seed, you know you are likely going to be killed. If you are a fan of the 1 seed, you know you are likely going to have 2 more games. Why would you want to go to a quarterfinal when you can likely go to a semifinal or final game? The NFL model is different. You are playing at the home field of a team, all the way until the final game. What that means is you have a built in fanbase until the very end. With the possible exception of Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, Michigan Stadium would be full of Michigan fans. Same with any top 20 team. But that's not the college model. More than that, college stadiums aren't designed like NFL stadiums, which are better equipped to deal with games in December and January. For these reasons and others, I'd prefer to go back to no playoff: just two teams in the championship, rotated between the 4 or 5 major bowls. If there were 5 games between NY Eve and Day, with one of them being the championship game, I think it could help. Some kids would still opt out, but I think it would be more meaningful than the current setup, or even worse3, an 8 team playoff.

Desert Wolverine

January 23rd, 2019 at 12:27 PM ^

Here's a contrarian view, I think the Playoff is destroying everything that is special and good about college football.  The bowls were set up as a reward to teams and players for quality seasons, and were tied in to greater community events.  The tournament of roses only tried another football game after the debacle of the 1901 game because chariot racing didn't draw enough interest in 1916, hence the "Granddaddy of them all".  Years ago the King Orange Jamboree was a spectacle of interest along with the Bowl game.  There was a benefit to a much wider sphere then the gambling/Television cabal that is running things now.  When the concept of 8 or 16 team tournaments come up, I just see the completion of the divorce of football programs from the schools.  In the past there was actual excitement about getting a bowl bid as the students scrambled to see if they could get to the game or not.  With a 3 or 4 week post season schedule, I expect very low student interest.

My proposal would be a reversion to the old bowl system with the tie-ins (PAC12-BIG in Rose, SEC v invite Sugar, Big 12 v Invite Orange etc) played around Jan 1.  If you really need a championship game then take the top 2 teams and play a neutral site game in a week.  This has several advantages from my perspective.  It restores the tradition and excitement of the bowls.  As the bowl bids come from conference championship it eases the situation now where almost every game all season long is an elimination game allowing teams to schedule tougher more interesting non-con games as they do not affect the bowl bid.  As far as the "championship game" there were very few years in the past where after the bowls there were more than two teams with a legit claim.  This system would eliminate the bitching about non-power 5 undefeateds being unjustly excluded due to schedule weakness.  They would get a bid to play in a significant bowl, and if they made it through then they could still make the championship. 

I realize this doesn't conform to the "decide it on the field" mentality driving the playoff system.  But I think it is healthier for the game

SFBlue

January 23rd, 2019 at 1:11 PM ^

I believe that the playoff has killed the bowl system. The old system of traditional match-ups and mythical championships based on subjective criteria was far more interesting. Expanding the playoff exacerbates the problem. Maybe siphoning off 1 versus 2 for an ad hoc match-up where it works out is OK. But what was "great" about the bowls was the tradition, the fact that each game was the destination, and the way that it was the capstone for a season. If you expand the playoff, the playoff becomes what every team is playing for rather than a bowl, and it will only heighten the lack of interest for teams that do not make it. I think one of the worst things about the present system is that it expands beyond the holiday season, and that classic games (like last year's Rose Bowl with OU and Georgia) are preliminary and just footnotes. 

BoHarb

January 23rd, 2019 at 1:27 PM ^

There isn't anything wrong with the current bowl system. If it is morphed into an 8 team playoff, then the issue remains of the devotion of teams and teammates to the non-playoff bowl games, just like now.  The notion that a non-playoff bowl is meaningless is frankly asinine, given that it counts towards season win/loss and player stats.  The overwhelming majority of talented NCAAF players who are going to the NFL still played in their team's "meaningless" bowl games..... 

Going too far down the road of "lets not play in a non CFP bowl game" will lead to "lets not play in regular season games if they arent a launchpad to the CFP".  With the BCS, how was it any different, other than the fact that there was only 1 "CFP" game?  

It's the issue of players sitting out and/or leaving college altogether (ex bosa) to prepare/mitigate injury before going to the NFL.  That is the only thing that has changed.  Any examples of players voluntarily sitting out of anything 10 years ago solely to preserve their health for the NFL rather than choosing not to let down their teammates?

stjoemfan

January 23rd, 2019 at 2:56 PM ^

Next thing you know fans are going to want to have instant replay on pass interference.

Once crap like that starts you can not undo it. IMHO leave it at 4. 

Truth be told my vote would be to just go back to the way it used to be. There was as much controversy then. I also guarantee an 8 team tourney would just cause MORE controversy. Because people are never happy with what they have.

Go for two

January 23rd, 2019 at 6:53 PM ^

Best proposal I saw was to eliminate conference championship games, play the bowl games then select the 4 best teams. Players would not sit out if they have a chance at the CFP and the games mean something. One extra week for two teams, but no conference championship games.

2morrow

January 23rd, 2019 at 11:31 PM ^

8 team playoff.
All conferences play an equal number of conference games.
An FCS school counts as a loss.

Five Power-5 conferences champions and 3 at-large teams chosen by the old computerized BCS system. (Top 3 teams not a conference champion). (Use the old BCS computerized system to also rank all 8 teams).

Round 1 - mid December
#1 vs #8 at the home of the #1 seed
#2 vs #7 at the home of the #2 seed, etc.

Round 2 - January 1 bowl games
Winners of the Round 1 games square off in bowls just like now.

 

chatster

January 23rd, 2019 at 11:31 PM ^

Eight ten-team conferences in what would become Division One, or the Premiership, or La Liga, or the Bundesliga, or Serie A, or Ligue Un, or whatever other name they'd want to give it (Prince of Wales and Campbell excluded).  Round-robin schedules in conference; alternate between five-home/four-away schedules each season; three games against teams from other Division One conferences.

Eight ten-team conferences in what would become Division Two.  The remaining FCS teams not selected for Division Two would compete in conferences of up to ten teams each in a Division Three.

Divisions Two and Three can decide on their own playoff systems, but they would not play in any of the traditional “bowl games” that would be available only to Division One teams.

Top team in each Division One conference goes to the top-tier playoffs; runners up in each conference go to a second-tier tournament; conferences have uniform tie-breaking system to determine conference champion and runner up.

All seven top-tier playoff games are played on consecutive Saturdays. First round is played at the higher seed’s stadium. Semi-finals and finals are in domed stadiums to eliminate risks of weather delays.  All seven second-tier playoff games are played on consecutive Fridays of the weekends when the top-tier playoffs are played and those semi-finals and finals are held in the same domed stadiums as the top-tier playoffs.  Seedings done by an independent committee.

That takes care of 16 teams and 14 “playoff-bowl games” for Division One.  Add up to 12 “non-playoff bowl games” in Division One for up to an additional 24 teams.  That takes care of up to 40 teams and 26 “bowl games” out of the 80 teams in Division One.

Teams that don’t make the playoffs or other “bowl games” have the option of holding up to fifteen additional post-season practices PLUS scheduling an extra game (if they can find a willing opponent from either its division or the division below it) between the end of the regular season and the start of the college football playoffs.  A Division One team could schedule a game against a Division Two team; a Division Two team could schedule a game against a Division Three team.