Chuck Klosterman Page 2 Argument against Div 1A Playoff

[albionmoonlight]

For discussion fodder:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/070103

Most public debates do not end through resolution. Most public debates end through unspoken concession. It is rare that everyone universally will agree that any specific theory is true; what happens more often is that the controlling majority slowly will concede that no one still believes said theory's opposite (and the argument consequently disappears). For example, no one still believes that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. No one still believes that "Sgt. Pepper" is the best record of the rock era. No one still believes that global warming isn't happening. These are debates the world has generally stopped having. And a similar phenomenon has happened in Division I college football: At this point, no one still believes the NCAA shouldn't create a collegiate playoff.



Except, I guess, me.


I am against a playoff system for major college football. I feel crazy even typing that sentiment, because I've been socialized to believe that holding this philosophical position is akin to arguing that Shawn Kemp is gay. But the more I think about it, the more I believe I am right. A playoff system would be bad for the sport, it would makes things no more "meaningful" than the way things are now, and -- somewhat selfishly -- it would significantly decrease the value of my own existence.


I realize no one else feels this way. I do not care.


While waiting for Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, I sat in my parents' basement and watched Hawaii play Arizona State in the Aloha Bowl. Hawaii's Colt Brennan (who throws with more velocity and accuracy than any QB in the country, including Brady Quinn) passed for 559 yards and five touchdowns. The evening before, I had watched Utah run a hook-and-ladder off a bubble screen versus Tulsa. As I write this very column, Kentucky has attempted a fake punt against Clemson (inside its own 20) and Missouri's tight end has just thrown a 29-yard touchdown pass against Oregon State.¹ And you know what? I am interested in all of these teams. I can't explain why, but I am. And I know that being able to watch 20 or 30 bowl games just like these is better than finding out who the "true" the national champion is, particularly since a playoff merely would allow the best team in the country to win the national championship about 49.9 percent of the time.²


Watching college football on television is probably the best thing about my life. This is not as depressing as it might seem. There are certainly better things in the world than watching football, but they all have a cost: They either require money or energy or emotional compromise, or they further compound the damage on the internal organs I need to remain alive. But watching college football on television is a bargain; all I have to do is wake up. It's always entertaining. It always makes me happy, even in August. And I know this wouldn't be the case if the NCAA had a playoff structure. College football is the only American sport that is unilaterally intriguing -- the season's beginning is as good as its middle, which is often as good as its end. Here is an abbreviated list of college football games from 2006 that I was obsessed with watching:

1. Ohio State vs. Michigan
2. Ohio State vs. Texas
3. LSU vs. Arkansas
4. Rutgers vs. West Virginia
5. Rutgers vs. Louisville (which I missed)
6. West Virginia vs. Louisville
7. Florida State vs. Miami (this was extremely early in the season)
8. Florida vs. LSU
9. Michigan vs. Notre Dame
10. USC vs. UCLA



All 10 of these games were meaningful (or at least profoundly meaningful on the date they were played). This is because there is no playoff, which means it's ALWAYS the playoffs. But if there were an eight-team playoff, I could have ignored all of them. Even if there were just a four-team playoff, the hyper-anticipated Ohio State-Michigan game would have mattered only to all the Schnapps-guzzling goofballs in Columbus and Ann Arbor who love burning couches in the street. How, exactly, are three exciting weekends in December better than four or five months of weekly sweeping consequence? Why jam an entire season into 21 days? And don't compare this to NCAA basketball, because basketball is different; the premise of going undefeated in modern basketball is unthinkable. The nature of basketball is always tournament-oriented, even if the players are 6-year-olds. But football is event-oriented. Every game is autonomous and the schedule is shorter, so the expectation of a champion going undefeated is wholly reasonable. I love that Ohio State always needed to win this year. Always. I can't think of any other major sport where that's a reality.


Yet this is not the only reason I'm against a playoff.


The other reason is that I really, really enjoy bowl games. Occasionally, I will overhear some pseudo-acerbic small-time TV sports announcer rhetorically ask questions like, "Who really cares about the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl?" My eternal answer is always, "Me." I love the way offensive coordinators unload the insanity within their playbooks, and I love seeing otherwise unheralded players from mid-major schools kill themselves during the only nationally televised game they will ever experience. Now, I realize playoff proponents always say these games still could exist if the eight best teams were bracketed into a championship pool. But it wouldn't be the same. Somehow, these minor bowls would start to seem like the NIT tournament (which I never watch). If these games lack credibility as things currently stand, I can't imagine how they would feel to audiences if they essentially became exhibitions.


I like college football. I like college football as an entity more than I like knowing who is (supposedly) "the best" amateur football team in the United States. People used to bemoan the thought of a mythical national champion, but it all seems mythical to me. It still does, and it always will. I don't need to pretend that I know the unknowable. If you want a playoff system, it might just mean you want to feel as though football has a clear sense of order. You probably enjoy feeling as though you know who is No. 1, because that's what really matters to you. But maybe you like college football as an experience a little less than you think.


<HR align=left width=150>


¹ Later this evening, Texas Tech will come back from a 35-7 deficit against Minnesota to win the Liberty Bowl. This event occurred on the same day that Saddam Hussein was executed in Iraq. All things considered, I think Saddam had a better day than Glen Mason.

² As is generally the case in college basketball. It seems like the NCAA hoop squad with the best overall talent and coaching staff wins the title about half the time … but not quite half the time.

[KWhit]

Can't say I agree with anything he wrote there.

[st.cronin]

I agree with him completely. I also get the feeling that it's mostly the media that wants a playoff, not really the fans.

[Poli]

Conferences changed over the years. Nebraska, Missouri, and the ilk were in the Missouri Valley. Tennessee, Georgia, and GT were all in the Southern.

Nebraska, Mizzou, and the like eventually kicked out the likes of "Washington, MO" and formed a new conference, the Big 6. Which of course, became the Big 7, to the Big 8, then the Big 12.

Heck, the Big 10 wasn't even ten strong for about 20 years until Michigan State joined in. Now they've got 11 teams.

Bowls have changed. Names of the bowls, the number of bowls. The way teams get into bowls. In 1990, the year I really began to watch college football, the year was closed out with 18 bowl games. 36 teams went bowling that year.

Fast forward to today, where some 32 bowl games mean 64 teams got into the "post season".

The way teams get into the bowls have changed. For years, the only team to play in a bowl game out of the Big 10 was the champion.

It might be hard to believe, but Notre Dame didn't even play in a bowl until January, 1, 1970. The 1971 (12 bowl games that year) squad finished 8-2 and didn't go bowling either.

That's refreshing considering number of teams with 6 losses that went bowling this year, much less the teams that went 7-5.

When I took a closer look on it, the argument of tradition sure doesn't make much sense. There's only a handful of bowls that have/had any real tradition in them, anyway.

The argument of money is a better argument, because with 32 post season games right now, the NCAA would be hard pressed to get 64 teams into any playoff. Heck, it would be difficult enough for them to lay down a format that gave them 32 playoff games total.

Maybe that's what pro-playoff types like myself need to do. We should put together some sort of financial forecast for the NCAA showing they'd make much more money going to the playoff system.

Forget the Top 8 or 16 going to a playoff, they want something else.

Show them the money.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Mr. Klosterman, you are not alone.

[MJ4H]

Ohio State always had to win. What did Boise State always have to do?

[JonInMiddleGA]

What did Boise State always have to do?

Cash their check & stay out of the way of teams people actually give a damn about.

[VPI97]

What did Boise State always have to do?
Schedule tougher OOC games.

Don't say no one will play them, either...Georgia played them last year and beat the hell out of them.

[Hammer755]

Aren't the majority of the pre-New Year's Bowls considered the NIT already?

[Young Drachma]

Nebraska, Mizzou, and the like eventually kicked out the likes of "Washington, MO" and formed a new conference, the Big 6. Which of course, became the Big 7, to the Big 8, then the Big 12.




I didn't realize Wash U was in a conference with the big boys back in the day. Makes sense, but I guess I never realized that.

[Young Drachma]

I think the playoff issue goes beyond a Boise State and deals with schools with slightly more pedigree and have been overlooked for one reason or another.

I mean, an undefeated Boise State is one thing. But an undefeated Auburn? Louisville? Gasp...Rutgers?

I guess I'm tired of all of the subjective arguments over "oh, you didn't beat anyone good, yadda." That's what a playoff would end once in and for all. There would be a consensus champion and ultimately, everyone would feel like their team had at least a shot to get there.

Right now, it's arbitrary and slanted heavily in favor of schools like Notre Dame that haven't proven it on the field for a long time and if a pro league was run this way and not subsidized the way college football is, it would've gone bankrupt long ago.

[molson]

One of my sports pet peeves that has emerged over the last 20 years or so is this idea that only championships and champions matter, and that everyone else sucks and is irrelevant.

There seems to be less people that actually are interested in the game itself. If it doesn't "matter", it's worthless. In the bigger picture though, why do any of these games "matter"? If you're disappointed with anything but a championship for your team, you're going to be disappointed a lot. A perfectly average NFL team, for example, should win the whole thing once every 32 years.

[TroyF]

I think I disagree with just about everything written in that article. I usually like the guy. one of my favorite writers. But I don't see a thing there that changes my mind a bit.

Sorry.

[st.cronin]

One of my sports pet peeves that has emerged over the last 20 years or so is this idea that only championships and champions matter, and that everyone else sucks and is irrelevant.

There seems to be less people that actually are interested in the game itself. If it doesn't "matter", it's worthless. In the bigger picture though, why do any of these games "matter"? If you're disappointed with anything but a championship for your team, you're going to be disappointed a lot. A perfectly average NFL team, for example, should win the whole thing once every 32 years.

Yep. I was ecstatic with Wisconsin's season, they got to go out on top - Capital One Bowl Champs again. Not that it wouldn't be nice to play in the Orange Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl, but it's a hell of a lot better than losing in a playoff.

[KWhit]

One of my sports pet peeves that has emerged over the last 20 years or so is this idea that only championships and champions matter, and that everyone else sucks and is irrelevant.

I thought the goal of a sports league was to compete to be the best. If champions and championships don't matter, why even keep score?

[flounder]

I don't think everyone thinks that it's only championships that matter. They just want everyone to have an equal shot at winning the championship. A playoff system obviously won't meet that ideal, but it will at least be closer.

[KWhit]

Yep. I was ecstatic with Wisconsin's season, they got to go out on top - Capital One Bowl Champs again. Not that it wouldn't be nice to play in the Orange Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl, but it's a hell of a lot better than losing in a playoff.

You're kidding me. You'd rather win what amounts to an exhibition game than to lose a playoff game?

[st.cronin]

You're kidding me. You'd rather win what amounts to an exhibition game than to lose a playoff game?

Absolutely.

[VPI97]

Absolutely.
100% me too.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I agree with what he wrote. I don't mind the current system. I enjoy pretty much all the bowl games, big and small. I don't feel the need for a playoff.

One of the things I actually like about college footbal are all the "subjective arguments". I like arguing about which conference is better, which team would have beaten which other team.

[Young Drachma]

Yep. I was ecstatic with Wisconsin's season, they got to go out on top - Capital One Bowl Champs again. Not that it wouldn't be nice to play in the Orange Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl, but it's a hell of a lot better than losing in a playoff.

I can agree with this. As a Wyoming alum, we've never going to win a national title in football. If they can win a bowl game each year or every couple of years, I'd be cool with that.

Losing a playoff game stinks and is a huge letdown.

[st.cronin]

I think most fans don't mind the current system. If your team has a good year, you get a bowl game, and if you've got the dough, usually it's a pretty decent place to spend a weekend.

I think the media nearly unaminously hates the current system, since it's different from everything else they cover.

[Senator]

For example, no one still believes that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

I do.



No one still believes that "Sgt. Pepper" is the best record of the rock era.

I do.

Strike three on this column.

[Poli]

I don't mind the bowls (for the same reason as cronin and VPI), but I'd love to see the playoff.

[Desnudo]

I would love to see a play-off. Maybe it's a difference between casual fans (me) and avid followers (him).

[Warhammer]

The BCS changed me from a avid follower of college football to a casual follower. I absolutely detest the system. If you want to have a true champion, have a playoff. If you want to preserve tradition, do away with the BCS.

If you wanted debate, I preferred the old system where if #5 won big against #2, #3 lost, and #1 was unconvincing against #12, and #4 barely beat #6 the #5 team could become #1. I enjoyed that intrigue. Now all the intrigue is in getting to the big game, and there is so much politicing that shouldn't be in there that it is disgusting.

[MJ4H]

Cash their check & stay out of the way of teams people actually give a damn about.

I guarantee a heck of a lot of people give a damn about Boise State right now. They just made a fan for life out of me.

[Poli]

BrockForsey4Heisman??

[Poli]

Seriously, I had a roommate in 1997 from Boise, who talked me to death about the blue turf.

We played NCAA whatever-it-was-back-then as Boise more than I played as Tennessee.

[TroyF]

I would love to see a play-off. Maybe it's a difference between casual fans (me) and avid followers (him).

I'm a pretty avid follower. I watch a lot of football on a yearly basis and enjoy watching all teams. Even watch a lot of bowl games. Hell, I watch High School football or the lower college divisions.

I want a playoff. Badly.

I think there are plenty of avid fans who want a playoff, even if we aren't seeing them in this thread.

Of course only IMTG and Huck know about football here anyway, so until they chime in with their opinions, this thread is worthless.

[DolphinFan1]

I would love a playoff.

How far do you think Boise would have gone this year if there was a playoff after their big win the other night?

[Young Drachma]

I would love a playoff.

How far do you think Boise would have gone this year if there was a playoff after their big win the other night?

I think they'd have had a harder time getting up for a playoff game or replicating that success, say in an 8-team playoff. They needed the one-time, big-game payoff of a game that sends all of these messages. So, they might have been focused and won, but..I think it wouldn't have had that impact that their game the other night did.

[st.cronin]

Of course only IMTG and Huck know about football here anyway, so until they chime in with their opinions, this thread is worthless.

That's a good point.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Just to chime in, I don't really care how the system is. To me, it's fine now, it was fine before, and it'd be fine with a playoff. Even as a Tulane fan, I wasn't upset when they went undefeated several years ago and ended up stuck in the Liberty Bowl. I guess I just don't care enough. I like watching college football, but all this stuff about postseason just doesn't matter much. Maybe if I or someone in my family had gone to a D-1A school, I might think about it more.

I wonder if I'm just in another category. It seems like there are the people who want a playoff, and there are the people who want something closer to the current system. Personally, I'm OK with "either."

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guarantee a heck of a lot of people give a damn about Boise State right now.

Seen the ratings for their bowl game? Off a bit from last year's OSU/ND matchup, although a still decent 8.3 in the overnights (should improve somewhat in the full national numbers). Meanwhile, Louisville vs Wake numbers were down around half of last year's PSU/FSU matchup & appears likely to be one of the least watched BCS games ever while last night's ND/LSU pairing was better than the previous night's Orange but to put that in perspective there were more people watching Univision & the CW combined than were watching the Sugar. (a sign that the bloom is off the ND rose somewhat? Or a rejection of their opponent? Or both? who knows)

Point being this. No matter how good a game BSU/OK might have been, the impact is limited by how many people were interested enough to watch in the first place.

It made for decent conversation the morning after, it was an entertaining finish, etc. But BSU could reincarnate Red Grange & still not draw anything near the viewers that you'd get with 9-2/8-3 matchups of established powers.

[Young Drachma]

Funny thing is, when I went to a D3 college, I wanted them to have a bowl system. Because especially in D3, there are so many schools that will play in conferences that are perceived as weak and are thus, just one-bid. Even with an expanded system, tons get shut out each year.

It's far from perfect and it would likely cause a lot of the same drama we get with the NCAA tourney in basketball each year. But the media does seem hellbent on pushing this playoff thing one way or another.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I can agree with this. As a Wyoming alum, we've never going to win a national title in football. If they can win a bowl game each year or every couple of years, I'd be cool with that.

Losing a playoff game stinks and is a huge letdown.


A) Wyoming would still play a normal bowl game. Almost all of the D1A playoff proposals I've ever seen involve 6-10 teams with everyone else playing bowl games just as they do now. I doubt we're going to see Wyoming in the top 10 any time soon.

B) Even if you did have a 64 team playoff, try telling George Mason that they should have just played an exhibition game against Kent State so that they wouldn't have to suffer the huge letdown of losing to Florida in the Final Four.

[MikeVick7]

Watching college football on television is probably the best thing about my life.

This is my favorite line of his entire column. It's almost as if I wrote it. :)

BTW...I too wanted a playoff system up until this year, but the drama of the week-to-week do or die mentality has changed my thinking on it.

[KWhit]

Seen the ratings for their bowl game? Off a bit from last year's OSU/ND matchup, although a still decent 8.3 in the overnights (should improve somewhat in the full national numbers). Meanwhile, Louisville vs Wake numbers were down around half of last year's PSU/FSU matchup & appears likely to be one of the least watched BCS games ever while last night's ND/LSU pairing was better than the previous night's Orange but to put that in perspective there were more people watching Univision & the CW combined than were watching the Sugar. (a sign that the bloom is off the ND rose somewhat? Or a rejection of their opponent? Or both? who knows)

Sounds like an indictment of the current BCS system to me. I guarantee that if those were playoff games the ratings would have been much better.

[bronconick]

I'd rather take the chance of an "undeserving" two loss team winning the national championship then having an undefeated team left out. And frankly, given some of the non-conference scheduling these days, if say, a 10-2 LSU team ran the table in an 8 team playoff beating Notre Dame, USC, and Ohio State, those 3 wins in consecutive weeks on top of what they had to do just to reach the top 8 makes them as legitimate as any previous national champion I can think of.

[cuervo72]

It made for decent conversation the morning after, it was an entertaining finish, etc. But BSU could reincarnate Red Grange & still not draw anything near the viewers that you'd get with 9-2/8-3 matchups of established powers.

I thought ND/LSU was a matchup of established powers?

Again, I'm a casual fan of the NCAA. But I tuned into the BSU/OU game because it was an underdog matchup. I didn't tune into LOU/WAKE because they were both teams that could be considered "underdogs". Pit them each against traditional powers and I'd probably watch.

The rest of the bowls, heck, I can't even remember who even played outside of the Rose Bowl, and Rutgers/K-State.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sounds like an indictment of the current BCS system to me. I guarantee that if those were playoff games the ratings would have been much better.

That's iffy at best. Remember, with basketball "Cinderella" is cute & cuddly up to about the Sweet 16 but beyond that there appeal dips below the averages.

And the games would have looked just lovely in front of the empty seats that many playoff scenarios are certain to provide.

Meanwhile, for cuervo (just to avoid an unneeded dola) -- I don't believe LSU fits into the category of "established powers" at all. Ranked 10 times in the past 20 seasons, and top 10 in only 3 of those same 20. That's not meant as a knock on them (you'll know those when you see them), that's just not the sort of standard I'm referring to. Frankly, not many teams have that sort of cachet.

[TroyF]

I'll just chime in on what cuervo said.

I watched Michigan/USC because it was two national powers.
I watched Boise/OU to see how the "mid major" would look against a major conference team.

I watched only a handful of Wake/Louisville
I watched ND/LSU because I wanted to see ND get pounded. Honestly, no other reason for it at all.

I'd have MUCH rather seen Wake/LSU and Louisville/ND. I'd have watched both instead of one of those games.

[kcchief19]

Seen the ratings for their bowl game? Off a bit from last year's OSU/ND matchup, although a still decent 8.3 in the overnights (should improve somewhat in the full national numbers). Meanwhile, Louisville vs Wake numbers were down around half of last year's PSU/FSU matchup & appears likely to be one of the least watched BCS games ever while last night's ND/LSU pairing was better than the previous night's Orange but to put that in perspective there were more people watching Univision & the CW combined than were watching the Sugar. (a sign that the bloom is off the ND rose somewhat? Or a rejection of their opponent? Or both? who knows)
So, I have to aske -- doesn't this argue FOR a playoff? The current system doesn't seem to be generating any new interest. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that FEWER people are interested in the college postseason than ever before. So might that suggest the system is broken?

The Wall Street Journal had a great article last week about bowl game ticket sales and attendance. A lot of the non-BCS bowls were far from sell outs. The New Mexico Bowl avoided a catastrophie by getting a New Mexico team to play -- before that, ticket sales were sucking ass. Almost every non-BCS bowl game had to give away tickets -- Missouri gave free tickets to students who wanted to go to El Paso and put together a subsidized transportation and accomdation plan so students could go for just $100. At this point, the bowls exist only for television which has figured out how to make money on any old bowl game regardless of whether or not any tickets are sold. At the rate we're going under the current system, there is no reason for any team to not play in a bowl game. We might as well just put together 60 bowls and be done with it.

A columnist in The Kansas City also had a great column this week about how meaningless the bowls have become. Who cares who wins or loses? The only thing the schools care about is the money. Coaches only care about getting in a bowl for extra practice time and recruiting. Fans don't really care at all. Notre Dame has lost nine bowl games in a row. What does it matter?

The bloom is off the rose for the bowls as is. No way a playoff changes that. The only thing is that a playoff means the BCS schools have to share the revenue with everybody just like the the basketball tournament, and they have no interest in that -- even if it's better for them in the long run.

[MJ4H]

Seen the ratings for their bowl game? Off a bit from last year's OSU/ND matchup, although a still decent 8.3 in the overnights (should improve somewhat in the full national numbers). Meanwhile, Louisville vs Wake numbers were down around half of last year's PSU/FSU matchup & appears likely to be one of the least watched BCS games ever while last night's ND/LSU pairing was better than the previous night's Orange but to put that in perspective there were more people watching Univision & the CW combined than were watching the Sugar. (a sign that the bloom is off the ND rose somewhat? Or a rejection of their opponent? Or both? who knows)

Point being this. No matter how good a game BSU/OK might have been, the impact is limited by how many people were interested enough to watch in the first place.

It made for decent conversation the morning after, it was an entertaining finish, etc. But BSU could reincarnate Red Grange & still not draw anything near the viewers that you'd get with 9-2/8-3 matchups of established powers.

I understand your point. I just think it is nonsense. The fact that ratings and popularity are in a discussion about who should be the champion basically makes my point for me.

[st.cronin]

A columnist in The Kansas City also had a great column this week about how meaningless the bowls have become. Who cares who wins or loses? The only thing the schools care about is the money. Coaches only care about getting in a bowl for extra practice time and recruiting. Fans don't really care at all. Notre Dame has lost nine bowl games in a row. What does it matter?


I care if my team wins or loses a Bowl game. I think most fans do. As far as Notre Dame, if Ty Willingham had won a bowl game, don't you think he might still be coaching there?

[cuervo72]

Meanwhile, for cuervo (just to avoid an unneeded dola) -- I don't believe LSU fits into the category of "established powers" at all. Ranked 10 times in the past 20 seasons, and top 10 in only 3 of those same 20. That's not meant as a knock on them (you'll know those when you see them), that's just not the sort of standard I'm referring to. Frankly, not many teams have that sort of cachet.

Ok, I'll give that on LSU. But they're certainly very good.

What teams do have that sort of cachet now? Penn State used to (IMO...well, couple decades ago maybe), but doesn't anymore. Miami and FSU do, though a couple more years like they've had and they might not. Some might say Alabama, but they seem to be pretty pedestrian over the past couple decades. Nebraska isn't what it once was. Besides Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Texas and Okalahoma, who we talking here? (and as a disclaimer: I can't really much stand any of these teams)

(I'm sure regionally some will say UGA, Tennessee, and probably every SEC school except Vandy. In the past 20 seasons, I can't say any stands out any much more in my mind than LSU though.)

[JonInMiddleGA]

So, I have to aske -- doesn't this argue FOR a playoff? The current system doesn't seem to be generating any new interest. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that FEWER people are interested in the college postseason than ever before. So might that suggest the system is broken?

You seem to be falling into the trap of equating "broken" with "playoff", and I don't buy that for an instant.

Remember, I'm not a BCS fan particularly, I wish they'd go back to a non-BCS bowl system completely. It was more interesting overall, as well as more entertaining.

As for the bowl attendance, home/close draws have always played a factor. Before the BCS, during the BCS, and after the BCS.

As it is now, the minor bowls (the ESPN, et al games) pull ratings in the somewhere in the 1's & 2's, which is pretty weak on the one hand. On the other hand, every game that aired on ESPN this bowl season drew higher ratings than their major league baseball package. In other words, they are lucrative in their own right.

A playoff reduces the bowls to NIT status p.d.q., their death would soon follow. And as it stands now, the current bowl system is a better bet to generate more total ratings (and therefore more total dollars to both the networks & trickling down to the schools) than any of the playoff systems.

[cuervo72]

I care if my team wins or loses a Bowl game.

This is part of my problem where it comes to college sports - there is no "my team" for me.

[MikeVick7]

I care if my team wins or loses a Bowl game. I think most fans do. As far as Notre Dame, if Ty Willingham had won a bowl game, don't you think he might still be coaching there?
Bowl games, no matter what the size, can be huge for recruiting too because it gives a lot of these teams a chance to be on national TV for possibly the first time all year.

And even for established teams like my Huskers. The win against Michigan in the Alamo Bowl was huge after struggling through 2005.

[digamma]

What Klosterman said.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I had a pretty similar viewing pattern as Troy, except I watched Michigan/USC because Michigan was playing and didn't see any of Wake Forest/Louisville. It had no appeal to me at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What teams do have that sort of cachet now? Penn State used to (IMO...well, couple decades ago maybe), but doesn't anymore. Miami and FSU do, though a couple more years like they've had and they might not. Some might say Alabama, but they seem to be pretty pedestrian over the past couple decades. Nebraska isn't what it once was. Besides Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Texas and Okalahoma, who we talking here? (and as a disclaimer: I can't really much stand any of these teams)

(I'm sure regionally some will say UGA, Tennessee, and probably every SEC school except Vandy. In the past 20 seasons, I can't say any stands out any much more in my mind than LSU though.)

Actually, Penn State against the right team (such as the Paterno/Bowden Bowl last year) still has that ability to draw. Miami & FSU haven't lost it yet. Alabama & Nebraska are probably good examples of teams in need of a good run to hang onto/regain their status. Florida does fine, as does (to my disgust) UGA. Tennessee less so in terms of television nationally (and your Vandy example also forget the two MS schools & Kentucky).

There's also a study by the Wall Street Journal last year that showed Oregon & Texas A&M as above average TV draws for bowl games. However that study seemed to have omitted details about who those teams were playing in those bowls -- a list that included, guess who? Yep.
Texas, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, and FSU.

This year's most-watched regular season games probably provide some insight.

Michigan/Ohio State ... OSU/Texas ... Cal/USC ... FSU/Miami ... ND/Michigan State (as a regional game) ... ND/GT ... OSU/Iowa. The only other game to draw an audience over 5 million? Penn State/ND.


Full disclosure -- WVU/Louisville just missed that list, drawing a Thursday night record for ESPN with 4.9 million viewers. But that seems to argue in favor of a BCS bid meaning more than a lot of us think as much as anything else.

Primetime for several of those games certainly didn't hurt their numbers, but primetime on the least watched TV night of the week (Saturday) doesn't help them all that much either compared to something like Mon night vs Mon afternoon.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Bowl games, no matter what the size, can be huge for recruiting too because it gives a lot of these teams a chance to be on national TV for possibly the first time all year.

And even for established teams like my Huskers. The win against Michigan in the Alamo Bowl was huge after struggling through 2005.

And if you had a 4-6 team playoff, you would still have had the bowl game and the win over Michigan. I just don't see how a limited playoff takes the bloom off of the bowl games for the other teams that don't make it into the playoff. It would seem to me to best of both worlds. In addition, regular season games would still be huge because it may only take one loss or two to knock you out of a 4-team playoff for instance.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Not that I'm complaining, but I wonder which topic gets brought up more; is it college football's postseason or Michael Vick?

[albionmoonlight]

Not that I'm complaining, but I wonder which topic gets brought up more; is it college football's postseason or Michael Vick?

They have something in common. They both share this sense of having the potential to be great, but somehow being just a little bit broken and ending up as merely "pretty good."

And they both have the sense of being easily improved, but when you really start to examine them, you can't quite put your finger on something that is 100% guaranteed to make them better. That greatness is always just out of reach, but tantalizing you just the same.

[Pumpy Tudors]

They have something in common. They both share this sense of having the potential to be great, but somehow being just a little bit broken and ending up as merely "pretty good."

And they both have the sense of being easily improved, but when you really start to examine them, you can't quite put your finger on something that is 100% guaranteed to make them better. That greatness is always just out of reach, but tantalizing you just the same.
Oh, you mean like Alyssa Milano! I got it!

[Izulde]

I love the bowl games.

When you win a bowl game, your season feels like it was a pretty darn good one, all in all.

When you lose a playoff game, there's always a gray cloud hanging over everything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

These aren't complete (hard to find them all in one place right now it seems) but I thought since we talked about the audience sizes for various games I'd add these to this thread. I clipped out some Disney stuff but left a couple of non-college football items in the list just to add some perspective

Rankings for the top 15 programs on cable networks as compiled by Nielsen Media Research for the week of Dec. 25-31. Day and start time (EST) are in parentheses.

1. NFL Football: N.Y. Jets vs. Miami (Monday, 8:30 p.m.), ESPN, 7.26 million homes, 11.08 million viewers.

2. College Football: Texas vs. Iowa (Saturday, 4:29 p.m.), ESPN, 5.52 million homes, 7.79 million viewers. Note: This sets a new viewership record for bowl games on ESPN, breaking the mark set by the Alamo Bowl last season featuring Michigan vs Nebraska.

3. College Football: Georgia vs. Virginia Tech (Saturday, 8:06 p.m.), ESPN, 4.4 million homes, 6.47 million viewers.

4. College Football: Florida St. vs. UCLA (Wednesday, 7:54 p.m.), ESPN, 4.13 million homes, 5.59 million viewers.

5. "Sportscenter" (Saturday, 4:11 p.m.), ESPN, 4.01 million homes, 5.39 million viewers.

6. College Football: Texas A&M vs. California (Thursday, 8:07 p.m.), ESPN, 3.78 million homes, 5.04 million viewers.

7. College Football: Navy vs. Boston College (Saturday, 12:59 p.m.), ESPN, 3.56 million homes, 4.57 million viewers.

9. "Monday Night Countdown" (Monday, 8 p.m.), ESPN, 3.23 million homes, 4.93 million viewers.

11. College Football: South Carolina vs. Houston (Friday, 4:36 p.m.), ESPN, 2.99 million homes, 4.09 million viewers.

12. College Football: Purdue vs. Maryland (Friday, 8:21 p.m.), ESPN, 2.75 million homes, 3.78 million viewers.

14. College Football: Oklahoma St. vs. Alabama (Thursday, 4:24 p.m.), ESPN, 2.73 million homes, 3.55 million viewers.

[cthomer5000]

The ludicrous Sgt. Pepper argument aside, Im kind of in the camp that i think most "true" college fans dont really want a playoff system.

[Kodos]

Now we'll get to the bottom of this!

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=55834

[Cork]

Yep. I was ecstatic with Wisconsin's season, they got to go out on top - Capital One Bowl Champs again. Not that it wouldn't be nice to play in the Orange Bowl or the Fiesta Bowl, but it's a hell of a lot better than losing in a playoff.

I am about one of the biggest Badger fans around and I would trade the ability to actually compete for a national championship over playing in a crappy meaningless bowl game 1000% of the time. If they lose in a playoff, so be it. At least they got to take their best shot.

I wonder if the bowl game supporters would be in favor of scrapping the NCAA college basketball tournament and just letting the top 2 ranked teams play for the chanpionship?

-Cork

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm a pretty avid follower. I watch a lot of football on a yearly basis and enjoy watching all teams. Even watch a lot of bowl games. Hell, I watch High School football or the lower college divisions.

I want a playoff. Badly.

I think there are plenty of avid fans who want a playoff, even if we aren't seeing them in this thread.

Of course only IMTG and Huck know about football here anyway, so until they chime in with their opinions, this thread is worthless.


I agree with everything you said in this post. I consider myself an avid fan, although I certainly follow the bigger conferences the most. I also want a playoff badly. I won't reiterate the reasons why as I think they are mostly detailed here. Also, I honestly don't think the playoffs would decrease my enjoyment of other bowl games. However, I admit that I never watch the NIT but watch every NCAA tournament game that my work schedule allows.

[VPI97]

I wonder if the bowl game supporters would be in favor of scrapping the NCAA college basketball tournament and just letting the top 2 ranked teams play for the chanpionship?
If that would happen, I might actually watch regular season college basketball games. As it stands now, they're all virtually meaningless.

[st.cronin]

If that would happen, I might actually watch regular season college basketball games. As it stands now, they're all virtually meaningless.

Again, we agree. I don't actually start to pay attention to college basketball until the conference tourneys start. I pay attention to college football every month of the year.

[Eaglesfan27]

That's iffy at best. Remember, with basketball "Cinderella" is cute & cuddly up to about the Sweet 16 but beyond that there appeal dips below the averages.

And the games would have looked just lovely in front of the empty seats that many playoff scenarios are certain to provide.

Meanwhile, for cuervo (just to avoid an unneeded dola) -- I don't believe LSU fits into the category of "established powers" at all. Ranked 10 times in the past 20 seasons, and top 10 in only 3 of those same 20. That's not meant as a knock on them (you'll know those when you see them), that's just not the sort of standard I'm referring to. Frankly, not many teams have that sort of cachet.

While I respect your opinion in matters of TV ratings, I disagree. I strongly believe that a 8 or even 16 team playoff in college football would generate HUGE ratings as every game where there are significantly more casual fans than college basketball. Now, if college football went to a 64 team tournament or even a 32 team tournament I think that would dilute the importance of the regular season too much and would hurt ratings for regular season games. However, a 4, 8, or even 16 team tournament would have a lower percentage of teams making the tournament and would aid in retaining the importance of the regular season while making for an exciting (very likely) high rating post season.

[Cork]

There is definately room for an 8 team playoff and plenty of regular bowl games. We pretty much have this now with the BCS bowl games and the non-BCS bowl games. The only thing that needs to be done is to link the BCS bowls games together to form a National Championship tournament.

-Cork

[Izulde]

I am about one of the biggest Badger fans around and I would trade the ability to actually compete for a national championship over playing in a crappy meaningless bowl game 1000% of the time. If they lose in a playoff, so be it. At least they got to take their best shot.

I wonder if the bowl game supporters would be in favor of scrapping the NCAA college basketball tournament and just letting the top 2 ranked teams play for the chanpionship?

-Cork

No, because it's an entirely different sport. With over 300 teams in D-1 college basketball vs 119 or thereabouts for college football, a tournament is pretty much a necessity.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

If that would happen, I might actually watch regular season college basketball games. As it stands now, they're all virtually meaningless.

But that doesn't translate to football. With a very small playoff system (4-6 teams), the regular season still means a ton because one or two losses in the regular season could knock you out of the playoff.

[VPI97]

But that doesn't translate to football. With a very small playoff system (4-6 teams), the regular season still means a ton because one or two losses in the regular season could knock you out of the playoff.
4-6 team playoff system wouldn't stop people from complaining that mid-majors were getting the shaft. I thought that was the big beef with the current system.