Bowl Games: Do we really still need them?, by DaSkeeza

This winter, 32 bowl games will be played between the middle of December through January 8th's BCS Championship game. Teams have competed throughout the fall to be among the 64 teams selected to play in a bowl game. No doubt, this is a wonderful accomplishment, and all the players, coaches, and fans have every right to be proud of it. But with the questions about the bowl system, BCS voting, and the like raging through the minds of angry Michigan fans, elated Florida fans, and filling the TV and sportstalk airwaves, maybe a thoughtful inspection of how the bowl system came to be in the first place can provide some perspective on why it exists in its current form and whether it really is still necessary given modern conventions.

The Rose Bowl was the first of college bowl games. If you read the history, the Pasadena Tournament of Roses began in 1890. The townspeople of Pasadena basically got together and said, "You know what, all our friends and family back east are covered in snow, and here our flowers are in bloom and fruits are bearing. Let's give those east coasters the bird by having a parade and floral pageant to show them how much our place rules and their place sucks!"

Thus was born the Pasadena Tournament of Roses. And even then, football wasn't a part of it from the beginning. The first game wasn't held until 1902. Even then, the organizers thought the sport too violent for the tone of the festival. Football did not return as part of the festivities until 1916 (when a certain excellent Ivy League university was invited to play after a stellar season).

Throughout its history, the Rose Bowl was a unique opportunity for a western team to play an eastern team. As college football grew in popularity, regional powers emerged, and the bowl game proved to be an excellent arena to settle all the gossip floating around each region and its superior teams.

In the end, that's really what a college bowl game accomplishes. Its goal is to bring together two teams that otherwise would not play each other. Furthermore, it is also an opportunity for fans from one region to inspect teams from another region, together with its own fans and traditions.

It has since evolved into a substantial moneymaker. Host cities expect millions of tourism dollars from the two competing schools and traveling fans. The payouts to the schools and conferences are quite substantial (and if you're Notre Dame, you don't have to share that money with a conference). Television and sponsorships make the bowl system even more of a cash cow. In the end, just about all the participants seems to make a nice payday from the bowl system, and therein lies the largest obstacle to starting a playoff in the Bowl Subdivision*.

Today, with television, radio, and Internet pervading sports media, seeing teams far from one's home region is much easier. It is now possible to see games thousands of miles from home on a weekly basis. Fans today know more now about teams from other regions than their predecessors, and as a result, the bowl game may very well prove little in the way of exposing people to new teams and traditions.

This knowledge, however, now manifests itself in the ongoing debate as to which two teams should be given the honor of playing for the "national championship." Given whatever you think about the decision to match Florida with OSU instead of Michigan (or whether Notre Dame belongs in the BCS at all, if you read my distinguished colleague's piece on this site), you cannot deny that all the voters in the polls had access to every single minute of game film of both teams this season. In some ways, that makes it easier to come to a decision, given full information. But what's missing though, is perhaps key. In a game between Florida and Michigan, who would win?

Given the sports fan's desire to settle matters on the field, as well as the concept of the bowl game no longer filling its original purpose, perhaps a playoff system is a accurate reflection of the fact that we now have full information on the abilities of any team in the country, and thus can accurately select a group of teams to participate in a short championship tournament.

*In as much as I have served on the staff at several NCAA Championships, I feel it necessary to inform you that Division I-A (the division with the BCS), is no longer referred as Division I-A, but rather the Division I Bowl Subdivision. Division I-AA has since been renamed the Division I Championship Subdivision, thus changing the name of the I-AA tournament to the "NCAA Division I Football Championship.

Click here for entire post.

Are We Really Any Closer to a BCS Playoff?, by Kevin Parker

With Troy Smith winning the Heisman Trophy we can finally put an end to this year’s college football regular season. Which means, of course, that our thoughts can now turn to candy canes, latkes, and zawadi*. But alas, before we can settle into the holidays we have to first have our annual debate about that great quagmire of college sports – The BCS System. This year, like so many others, has us left with one clear #1 but no clear #2. How then do we decide who should play in our BCS Championship Game?

It looked like it was going to be easy. USC, after rolling through a Notre Dame team that thought itself in the championship hunt (for more on that read here), looked destined to go to its third straight BCS Championship Game. The week after beating up on the Irish, USC jumped Michigan in both polls to go to #2 and had a virtual lock on a spot in the BCS Championship – all they had to do was beat their six-and-five cross-town rivals, UCLA. But, in decidedly non-USC fashion, USC stumbled and left us with a bit of a problem. In the wake of USC’s collapse who would play OSU now? One-loss Florida (who had just won the SEC Championship) or one-loss Michigan (who hadn’t played for the last two weeks)?

When the final polls came out we got our answer. Once again, Michigan fell behind a team when they didn’t even play a game, losing a shot at the BCS championship in the process.

Of course this much we all already knew, and writing up a history of the last few weeks of this year’s football season wouldn’t make much of a column. The question that is interesting is this – Does this mean that we should reexamine the BCS and finally have a playoff? Plenty of people think that Michigan may well be the second best team in the country, shouldn’t they then get a chance to play the consensus #1 in the National Championship? The pollster said no, you don’t get a second bite at the apple. And they were right.

I don’t think that anyone can complain about the outcome of this year’s BCS slate (with the possible exception of wondering what Notre Dame is doing playing in the Sugar Bowl). OSU-Florida will be a great championship game. Furthermore, USC-Michigan has the chance to be an even better game. The Granddaddy of Them All has a matchup more than worthy of its storied tradition. Sure, Michigan would rather play in the National Championship Game, but these kids have also all grown up with dreams of playing in the Rose Bowl as well.

Yes, a playoff would be great. There have been years when I have been furious with the BCS (Oregon's 2001 snub in particular comes to mind). However, it was a result of that 2001 year that the BCS was reweighted in order to give more preference to the polls. And this year the pollsters did their jobs. Like a good NCAA selection committee they looked at the body of work, the matchups, and gave us a good championship game. That is something that we can all enjoy.









* Gifts that are “enriching” and part of a Kwanzaa celebration.

Click here for entire post.