Dan Wetzel's latest call for "Death to the BCS"
It may not be news exactly, but a reminder of how messed up the current system truly is never hurts...other than the hurt of it existing in the first place.
2 days ago
NYBroncosFan
6 comments
0 recs |
Comments
Egads. Dan hates the BCS as much as Bronco Nation!
The man is absolutely correct. With the millions and millions of $$$ being passed among the elite few, I don’t see it changing any time soon. Even with LSU v Alabama rematch, the payouts to the lessers will shut them up rather than upend the entire system. Too bad. Way too bad.
"Grateful to the friends and the circumstances that enabled me to be a Bronco. I'm just glad I lived to see these days." SeniorChief
by boiseblues on Nov 30, 2025 9:13 PM PST reply actions
I am going to boycott the game this year.
I will find something else to watch and I just read the results the next day.
Anyway, the championship will have been completed this weekend.
Alabama vs. LSU, LSU vs. Arkansas and now LSU vs. Georgia
Who really needs to see the rematch? I would feel differently, if it was a rematch at the end of a 16 team play-off. You wouldn’t be able to keep me from watching.
You here that ESPN/CBS/ABC et. al? This BCS stuff sucks tail pipes.
by Doug Weems on Nov 30, 2025 9:37 PM PST reply actions
I read his book
It’s a good book, and I recommend it for anyone. It contains a lot of good information about how corrupt and ugly the system actually is. There was one major disagreement I had with him in the book (how he distributed the money in his proposed playoff), and one or two minor disagreements, but otherwise it was a great read.
I hadn’t really thought about it before, but I must presume that ESPN supports the BCS in part because it’s in their own interest to do so. If there was a playoff, they might have to shell out more money just to keep the five BCS games that they already have. ESPN and related channels (ESPN2, ESPNU, ABC) televise 33 of the 35 bowls, including all of the BCS bowls.
As a realist, I think that any playoff system will have to incorporate the bowls in some way. It’s not great but it might be the only way to get it done. I think it should be for first-round contests in a 16-team tournament.
I’m not sure there’s anyone who publicly hates the BCS more than Wetzel.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
Recommended reading: Death to the BCS
by mdak06 on Dec 1, 2025 7:03 AM PST reply actions
I read it too
I don’t actually remember how he was distributing the money…
Incorporating the bowl games is a tricky matter and likely is one of the things that has made playoff creation tricky…I agree with Wetzel that most of the playoff games would be best in teams’ home stadiums, except for the championship game. However, he has stated that the bowl games (the big ones anyway) could still be played as consolation prizes…I don’t know if that would really work. The Sugar Bowl loses a lot of appeal if it’s two teams that missed the playoffs, no matter how good the teams are or how big their fanbases are. Asking fanbases to travel to multiple neutral sites within a few weeks would be ridiculous, so it’s hard to work many bowls into the playoff itself. I think this is a major reason that the “plus one” is considered more plausible than a 16 team scenario…the bowls would still be played and it’s just a matter of adding one extra game.
Personally I love the sixteen team format that includes all conference winners…logistically it may be difficult to do though.
BSU at Rutgers or UConn? I am SO there.
by NYBroncosFan on Dec 1, 2025 9:40 AM PST up reply actions
Wetzel's money distribution was very simple (and very wrong)
Wetzels’ plan was basically “each team gets an equal share for every game they play in.” It sounds simple and fair, but it really makes for a big problem (in my opinion).
Wetzel’s plan (simplified): Let’s say a playoff has $450 million to distribute (he used $750 million in his example but I’m being conservative). In a 16-team playoff, that means 15 games, which means $30 million per game, which means $15 per team per game. It sound great, except what it essentially means is that if one - just ONE - play costs a team a game, whether it is a missed FG, a dropped pass, a blown call by an official, a missed coverage assignment, whatever - it’s a $15 million mistake. That’s a horrible idea and it places far too much undeserved pressure on everyone involved.
Realistically, I don’t think a playoff will be established without involving the bowls, and I’m also not convinced it could happen with all 11 FBS conferences receiving an automatic bid (unless there were at least 20 teams in the playoff, similar to the FCS tournament).
My idea is that yes, we should create a playoff with 16 teams (I don’t think a straight jump to 20 is possible). The eight best conference champions (regardless of conference) should make the playoff as automatic bids. After that, there would be eight at-large bids - no more than two per conference (in part to prevent biases from allowing one or two conferences to dominate) - to fill up the 16 spots. Another possibility is 9 automatic and 7 at-large (still with only two at-large per conference), but I think the 8 & 8 has a higher probability of being accepted by the “power” conferences.
Play the first round (the round of 16 with 8 games) entirely at the bowls in late December / early January. Allow the bowls to “bid” to be one of the eight locations for a 1st-round game (probably best to do this before the season starts and have selection priorities determined too). After that, rounds 2 & 3 (quarterfinals & semifinals) are at the higher-seeded team’s home. The championship game (college football’s “super bowl”) is at a neutral site. It would extend the season a bit but it would still be finished before the end of January.
It’s not perfect, but it is far FAR better than anything we have now.
Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
Recommended reading: Death to the BCS
by mdak06 on Dec 1, 2025 1:30 PM PST up reply actions
You're right about the money distribution problems
If teams get paid per game, not only is it too much pressure on young kids, but it messes up the balance of power in CFB even more than it is currently. The money made by the teams that advance the furthest would be so much that after a couple years, two or three schools would have so much money that no one else would ever have much of a chance as far as competitive balance goes. I think some sort of revenue sharing would need to be in place, but teams (and their conferences) could be rewarded based on playoff participation to some extent…maybe the teams shouldn’t be rewarded based on how far they advance…
It would be tricky, but one thing is for sure. As you said:
It’s not perfect, but it is far FAR better than anything we have now
Actually, I would argue that if the teams played out the tournament playing water polo, it would still be a better system than what we have now.
BSU at Rutgers or UConn? I am SO there.
by NYBroncosFan on Dec 2, 2025 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.

- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!




















