- Increase Bowl ratings to make the television networks happy
- Protect them from government interference
- Stop the little conferences from their continued attempts at trying to get more of the BCS money
If fans got a playoff and were happier, that was an ancillary benefit.
In recent years the BCS bowl games have gotten increasingly poor ratings and with matchups like Cincinnati vs Boise State, is it any wonder? These teams have complained for years to be included in the BCS but the truth is when they do make it, no one cares. These schools don't have big alumni or nationwide fan bases and the ratings and attendance for these games show that. A few years ago UConn had to pay over 1 million dollars to attend the Fiesta bowl because many of their fans didn't buy the 20,000 tickets allotted to them at $100 face value despite it being their first appearance ever in a bowl game.
Money has always made the bowl system work and it works because of the symbiotic nature of a few fans willing to travel to see their teams. This gives every school with a winning record a nice experience to end the season despite the result on the field. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, players, and fans all like the system and despite the clamor for a national playoff, most would hate any system that totally elminated the bowls.
As falling television ratings have shown the BCS to be a failure, what could the conferences commissioners do to make everyone happy. Their biggest issue is bowls only work for the schools in the major conferences and while many were arguing about different playoff methods, they dealt with this reality.
Their solution is simple in its brilliance. Get rid of the BCS and return to the 70s with one simple change. Create a committee that will work with the bowls to place 4 teams with the expectation that the winners would play in the national championship game.
They haven't gone into details but my expectation is certain bowls will be put into the rotation to be included. Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Rose, and Cotton with the possible addition of the Outback as Orlando has become a major destination since the bowls were first set up.
Think about what that does. Let's say the top 4 teams are Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, and USC. The committee could place those 4 into the Rose and Cotton respectively. What if it were last year's Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma State, and Oregon. My expectation would have been LSU-Oklahoma St in the Cotton and Alabama-Oregon in the Fiesta/Orange. Wisconsin would have played Stanford in the Rose Bowl.
The beautiful thing in the above example is that the Rose and Cotton would be included if both the B1G/P12 or B12/SEC both had teams in the top 4. If one league were excluded then the secondary bowls would be used instead. If there were a system like proposed they could also avoid a situation where LSU would be forced to play a team they'd already faced like what happened with both Oregon and Alabama last year. A committee could make sure the matchup is best for TV.
The key is the bowls along with the committee would determine the matchups. The part that most people are missing is beyond the bowls chosen for the semi's, the bowls are individual organizations and can invite whomever they want. Since these are individual enterprises they can invite whoever they want and exclude the little guys. That protects them from government interference and better yet, makes it easier for the big conferences to keep a lion's share of the money.
In the end this system should be great for college football. It makes the end of the regular season more important, bowl matchups will be better due to going to a system based on people instead of math, and the government/small conferences won't be able to complain.
It's win/win/win as long as you are in a big conference.
No comments:
Post a Comment