We have wasted too much ink (or electrons in the case of the Internet) on the issue of whether we should abolish the current college football bowl system and adopt an NCAA playoff as we have in every other college sport. The arguments have all been raised and re-raised on both sides of the issue -- although admittedly there is very little by way of reasoning to support the status quo. Polls repeatedly show by overwhelming numbers the public's clear preference for a playoff system. A Quinnipiac survey showed 63 percent favored a playoff system, while only 26 percent wanted to keep the bowls as they were. Ninety percent of respondents to a Sports Illustrated poll wanted to dump the BCS.
One would normally think that such overwhelming numbers would suggest that change was in the offing. We are a country fixated on change. We elected Barack Obama because we wanted change; we elected a Republican majority in the House of Representatives two years later because we wanted more change. We can't watch one television show for more than a few minutes without changing the channel. Half of all marriages end in divorce; two-thirds of second marriages end in divorce. In the recent past, one out of five Americans moved every year.
Yet we can't get rid of the Bowl System.
Four decades ago, the NCAA news featured a debate about whether the association should sponsor a football playoff system, much as it did in basketball, in lieu of the bowl system. The Athletic Director at Tennessee, Bob Woodruff, explained that any playoff system would interfere with a college's final examinations schedule, a lame excuse then as now. He worried that any change would make the football season too long. Of course, this year the season started before Labor Day and will end next Monday night, January 10.
Much of the controversy over the years has focused on the fact that a national championship should be decided on the field and not based on polling. The BCS system has addressed that concern in large measure. This year's game between Auburn and Oregon will determine the championship with great deal of legitimacy, although my friends in Fort Worth who love the Horned Frogs might wish to differ on that issue.
My concern is a different one -- and it is not based on the fact that with sponsorships run amok we all had the opportunity to enjoy the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl (won by San Diego State over Navy 35-14).
There is no more brilliant brand in college sports than the NCAA's national basketball tournament. It is fun for the regular and occasional fan and for the non-fan as well. The brackets have invaded every workplace. Sure, we enjoy watching the ranked teams show off their stuff on the court, but every year each regional features some Cinderella team. Every game is meaningful because your picks rise and fall based on that last second three-pointer. We "adopt" colleges as our own. College basketball is great fun and made even more so because of March Madness.
Did anyone receive the same joy from watching the bowls involving two teams with which they had no connection? Some of the games were great, but, for the most part, they were meaningless. I sure would have liked to see the victors in week one play one another in week two.
It just seems so obvious. Apparently, however, it is the bowls -- aided and abetted by the BCS -- that have the power of inertia, even if a playoff system would generate higher profits and greater public interest. Obviously, the bowls could benefit from the change to a playoff. The games in each week of the playoffs would be hosted by the existing bowls and sell-outs would be the norm and not the exception. Folks who are not alums or obsessive college football fans would be glued to the tube. (No channel changing except during commercials.) That last-minute field goal could turn my bracket into a winner!