Plus-1 Playoff Support Growing

#1
Big Slick

Big Slick

Outdrawn
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
188
Likes
0
#1
It looks like there's more and more support for a plus-1 system, and now it's even coming from some conference commissioners and ADs.

Dan Wetzel, anti-BCS crusader and exposer of bowl hypocrisy, has a summary on how a plus-1 could work:

Support grows for football Final Four - College Football - Rivals.com

One smaller wrinkle of this that interests me: I would love for meaningful football games to be played on New Year's Day again.
 
#2
#2
as soon as a 4 team playoff (plus 1 whatever) happens, I will officially change my username to BCSused2suck
 
#3
#3
the SUPPORT has always been there, from many sources. But until a financial plan that suits the university presidents and regents is presented, things will remain the same.
 
#6
#6
Slive proposed this several years ago. Nobody (except for the ACC) even listened. Something tells me a certain couple of conferences likes their Rose Bowl a little too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
Weezy said:
Slive proposed this several years ago. Nobody (except for the ACC) even listened. Something tells me a certain couple of conferences likes their Rose Bowl a little too much.
Click to expand...

the other part of that is the Rose bowl has publically said they would not be a part of any playoff format or even a plus 1. So to appease them would be that the Rose Bowl would be the NC game every year which puts all the others (Sugar, Fiesta, Orange) into a next level catagory which is probably the hold up.

What people fail to remember is that the bowls are entirely independent of each other. Their objective is to maximize their revenue, not any other bowls. If even one of the major bowls - Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange - say no, the whole plus 1 and even playoff falls apart.

Any change in the current system has to benefit the schools, the conferences, and the bowls financially. If any of those three cannot get the same amount of benefit they currently receive or more then it doesnt matter what people want. To date, no plan has been presented that satisfied this. Theres alot of guesses it might work but guessing in a billion dollar empire doesnt work.
 
#8
#8
Why are the bowls automatically linked to the conferences, besides tradition? I see no reason why the bowls, if they want to hold the sport hostage, shouldn't be sent packing.
 
#9
#9
Weezy said:
Why are the bowls automatically linked to the conferences, besides tradition? I see no reason why the bowls, if they want to hold the sport hostage, shouldn't be sent packing.
Click to expand...

conferences are linked to bowls, bowls are not linked to conferences. They have a contract between each other and can end the relationship whenever they want. Music City Bowl used to be SEC v Big 10 then shifted to ACC. ACC is a better fit for the MCB as their objective is to get as many fans in to their stadium as possible. Theres been plenty of switches over the years. At one time the SEC even had ties to the Aloha Bowl and the Sun Bowl.
 
#10
#10
Hardwood_fanatic said:
the SUPPORT has always been there, from many sources. But until a financial plan that suits the university presidents and regents is presented, things will remain the same.
Click to expand...

Anyone with his head above the sand knows that any playoff would result in a better financial plan.

So, I don't think that's the reason it's taken so long.
 
#11
#11
ukvols said:
Anyone with his head above the sand knows that any playoff would result in a better financial plan.

So, I don't think that's the reason it's taken so long.
Click to expand...

answers like that are the reason people never understand the true complexity of the bowl system.
 
#13
#13
GreveHaller said:
the other part of that is the Rose bowl has publically said they would not be a part of any playoff format or even a plus 1. So to appease them would be that the Rose Bowl would be the NC game every year which puts all the others (Sugar, Fiesta, Orange) into a next level catagory which is probably the hold up.

What people fail to remember is that the bowls are entirely independent of each other. Their objective is to maximize their revenue, not any other bowls. If even one of the major bowls - Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange - say no, the whole plus 1 and even playoff falls apart.

Any change in the current system has to benefit the schools, the conferences, and the bowls financially. If any of those three cannot get the same amount of benefit they currently receive or more then it doesnt matter what people want. To date, no plan has been presented that satisfied this. Theres alot of guesses it might work but guessing in a billion dollar empire doesnt work.
Click to expand...

The plan in the article gets around this, basically by making the Rose part of the plus-1 only every fourth year. It could stage its Big Ten-Pac 12 matchup every year and keep the TCUs and Boise States of the world away from Pasadena.
 
#14
#14
ukvols said:
Anyone with his head above the sand knows that any playoff would result in a better financial plan.

So, I don't think that's the reason it's taken so long.
Click to expand...

If Houston hadn't lost, they would have likely won an at large bid to a BCS bowl game, and 13 million dollars for their conference. If a playoff system were in place, what kind of revenue would they receive if the game were in a neutral site? Even if the game were at Houston, one games ticket and concession sales hardly equal what they would receive from the BCS cut.

Powerhouses from each conference that regularly play in BCS bowl games, you think they would rather trade their yearly shot at a BCS payout for a playoff? Coaches, players and fans of course would like a playoff, but the presidents and regents who are responsible for the financial plans of universities know which side of the bread is buttered. So, until congress intercedes or a playoff plan is presented that would at least compete monetarily speaking, chances are it will not change all that much.

Perhaps I am rambling on a bit here about a "full playoff" when this thread is about the +1 format. You could in theory still have the BCS system and the +1 format, but I'm speaking more about a true playoff system.
 
#15
#15
When Ohio State can lose money on a trip to the Rose Bowl, I think it's fair to say that bowls do not necessarily equal big profits for the participants.
 
#16
#16
GreveHaller said:
answers like that are the reason people never understand the true complexity of the bowl system.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't have time to go into details.

If anyone wants to learn more about bowl games and the BCS, read Dan Wetzel's columns on Yahoo. He has written several gems. The complexities of the bowl system have been revealed by Wetzel several times.
 
#18
#18
ukvols said:
Sorry, I didn't have time to go into details.

If anyone wants to learn more about bowl games and the BCS, read Dan Wetzel's columns on Yahoo. He has written several gems. The complexities of the bowl system have been revealed by Wetzel several times.
Click to expand...

and yet the next reason you dont know anything about the bowl structure. Wetzel has one purpose - to sell books. His so called plan is so full of flaws that I too cant go into it. The biggest flaws in his plans are (a) if 1 bowl says no to it the whole house of cards falls and (b) he never addresses what happens if a playoff system does not generate as much as what the conferences are pulling in now. His assumption is that it will work and we know what happpens when you assume.
 
#20
#20
milohimself said:
I'd be fine with that if it was determined on the field.


But how you going to convince other conferences? All the others want to know is how do you make the SEC less dominate. And the only way to do that is move away from a playoff.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top