College football: Raising bowl eligibility would come at a cost
Some in the college football bowl business want to raise the standards. They believe 6-6 teams should not be in bowl games. They have many compelling arguments, and Brett McMurphy of cbssports.com wrote an interesting piece on it, which you can read here.
Short version: requiring teams to have a winning record and/or seven wins would make bowl games more meaningful and almost surely would cut down on the number of bowl games. Several bowls would go out of business, because of a lack of teams available. In the past two seasons alone, 27 teams have reached bowl games with just six wins.
But it’s a bad idea. For one simple reason. Raising the bowl requirement would be one more reason for teams to dumb down their regular-season schedules. One more reason to schedule three or four cupcakes in non-conference, then take your chances within the league.
Think about it. If you’re Kansas State, why in the world would you risk a home-and-home series with Miami, if you need seven wins to reach a bowl? Go 2-1 in non-conference, and that means you’d need a 5-4 Big 12 record to quality. If you’re Ole Miss, why would you play home-and-home with Texas? Go 3-1 in non-conference, and the Rebels would have to go 4-4 in the SEC to qualify for a bowl.
If you’re Arizona State, why play home-and-home with Missouri, when losing would mean at least a 5-4 Pac-12 record to go bowling?
This sport needs more incentive to play good non-conference games. Raising the bowl standards would create less incentive.
I don’t like the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl any more than you do. A 6-6 Illinois vs. 6-7 UCLA matchup, with both schools having fired their coach, is bad football. The glut of bowls hurts the television ratings. Cut down on the number of bowls (35 in the 2011 season), and you increase the strength of the remainder.
But again, why are trying to nurture the bowls? When is someone going to express concern for the regular season. I hope you guys don’t get tired of me preaching about the regular season, but that’s what must be fixed in college football. That’s what must be restored.
If you want to go back to the old rule that games against I-AA opponents don’t count, great. I’m all for it. That would shrink the market for purchased victories and make schools decide just to suck it up and play more real games.
Let’s do a little research. You know I’ve told you this before, but in the 1970s, OU played 40 non-conference games. Thirty-six were against schools that we would now consider to be in BCS conferences. In the decade of 2000-09, OU played 37 non-conference games; 13 were against BCS-conference schools. So the Sooners went from 90 percent of their non-conference games being against similar-level schools to three decades later 35.1 percent. And the Sooners generally are considered way ahead of the curve for their willingness to schedule quality games.
Let’s look at some other schools. Ohio State. In the 1970s, the Buckeyes played 26 non-conference games. All 26 were against BCS-level opponents. Let me repeat. Ohio State in the 1970s did not play a mid-major. The Buckeyes played Oklahoma and Penn State and UCLA and SMU and Colorado and California and Syracuse and Missouri. In the first 10 years of the 2000s, Ohio State played 37 non-conference games, and just like OU had only 13 against BCS-conference foes.
In the 1970s, Texas played 32 non-conference games; 25 came against BCS-level foes, 78.1 percent. From 2000-09, only eight of UT’s 36 non-conference games were from the major conferences, 22.2 percent.
Alabama: 32 of 42 in the ’70s, 76.2 percent; nine of 36 in the ’00s, 25 percent.
You want to go try some non-bluebloods? OK.
Oklahoma State: 24 of 40 in the ’70s, 60 percent; six of 36 in the ’00s, 16.7 percent.
Washington: 26 of 38 in the ’70s, 68.4 percent; 16 of 33 in the ’00s, 48.5 percent.
Mississippi State: 13 of 45 in the ’70s, 28.9 percent (the Bulldogs were pioneers in the art of dumbing down a schedule); six of 36 in the ’00s, 16.7 percent.
Purdue: 22 of 29 in the ’70s, 75.8 percent; 17 of 36 in the ’00s, 47.2 percent.
Well, you get the picture. It’s changed for virtually every school. And college football is the poorer for it. Let’s work to make it better, not worse.
-------------Berry Tramel can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including AM-640 and FM-98.1. You can e-mail him here and follow him on Twitter @BerryTramel. Visit Berry's website here.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
We should both eliminate the rule that victory against FCS opponent’s don’t count, and introduce a new rule that — for BCS AQ members only — only one victory against a non-BCS AQ team counts per season. (Non-AQ teams will play their conference schedule against other non-AQ teams, and that shouldn’t count against them for bowl eligibility). That would remove the incentive for premiere teams to schedule more than one soft non-conference games a season entirely.
Rather than have a winning season/7 wins, add the caveat that you have to have a winning record in your conference. In this way, Ole Miss going 3-1 doesn’t hurt them, or even going 2-1 or 2-2, as either way they must finish 5-3 (or 5-4 if the SEC goes to a 9 game schedule) in conference to go to a bowl.
The 2006 Independence Bowl OSU won 34-31 featured 6-6 OSU and 6-6 Alabama. The official attendance was over 45,000. The place was relatively full with large contigents from both schools, somewhat more from OSU. The event was a success financially, attendance-wise and entertainment-wise. And prestige-wise it was just simply important to both schools, especially Oklahoma State, in terms of trying to build their football programs.
There’s a certain quid pro quo in FBS football. Schools want to be FBS, because being FBS is a notable way of saying to prospective students and the rest of the world them that hey, our school is a big time school. If a school can average 15,000 or better for home games over two years – for which you have to have genuine support – they can be FBS. And, there are enough non-BCS but still FBS schools out there that need the money and the attendance boost from playing BCS-FBS schools that needs on both sides can be fulfilled by playing such games.
And some of those BCS-FBS non-BCS-FBS games are interesting, hard fought games.
Any school that can consistently average 15,000 paid attendance per game has to be somewhat significant as competition. Thus, any BCS league team that played 8 or 9 BCS-league games out of 12 total and the rest against FBS-level competition and still got to 6 wins could be considered some kind of good. It’s true, many wouldn’t want to consider it that way, but it’s also true many others still would – and not unreasonably. And if the fan bases of applicable schools wanted those bowl games – and proved it by supporting them – who is it that wouldn’t want them then? Fair-weather fans of traditional elite schools who resented any other schools getting to share the extra training, experience and improved motivation from participating in some kind of bowl ? Not hardly a reason for schools that thought they benefitted from reasonable third tier bowls to say ok, just take those bowls away from us even if they are financially feasible. Especially when, like the 2006 Independence Bowl was for OSU, these minor bowls were important stepping stones to later greater success.
Here’s a thought: like the capitalists say, let the market decide. If there are too many bowls, let the ones that have to be subsidized too much too often go broke and go away. And, if some schools’ fan bases won’t sufficiently support their teams in bowls, then maybe let it affect as it already does what bowls feel like they can invite those schools or choose some other team even with not as good a record. Then, besides having to get to 6 wins – which is no gimme for most BCS-league teams – we’re left with what a market determines is significantly worthwhile. When you consider it, a very American way to determine things …
Have a playoff system. Let 16 teams in. That would enhance the regular season because strength of schedule would help you. You could have 3 losses and still make the playoffs if you play a good enough schedule. Would make the regular season much more exciting and less 72-20 games.
Let’s go to a “conference-winner only” BCS format, and seed the teams according to rankings AND strength of schedule. That will reward teams for playing tough non-conference foes, and not disqualify them for a BCS bowl if they lose those games.
Berry, no major college teams plan their schedules around a possible fifth-tier bowl as a fallback position. Eliminating bottom-feeder bowls would have no effect on schedules for the FBS Big Boys.
Not sure if you read these Berry but the same would happen if you reduced the number of bowl games. If you drop it from 35 to 25 then a 6-6 record likely won’t get you in so it doesn’t really solve the problem. I would be all for not counting 1AA wins. Also, how about making it so that whoever you schedule it must be a least a 2-1. 2 home games to 1 away game. Bluebloods like OU and alabama do not want to play at Ball State or Tenn-Chatt. If you did this most schools might seek out a higher opponent so when they play on the road at least it’s on TV.