Broken Bowls
Why College Football's Postseason Has Failed
– And How it Can Be Fixed
Patrick Triplett
If you are a football fan and have a son, you will likely at some point in your lifetime be asked the question, “Dad, why don't they have a playoff in college football?” You could take the easy way out and say something like, “It's complicated. No one knows for sure.” Or you could take the time to give him the longer version, the one that goes back to the game's roots, how it evolved, and where it went terribly wrong. It goes something like this:
College football originated in the East in the second half of the nineteenth century as a cross between several sports, including rugby, lacrosse and soccer. The first “organized” contest was held in 1869 between Rutgers and Princeton. Other Eastern schools soon followed suit, with Harvard and Yale emerging as the top two teams annually, staging a game each year where the winner was considered the unofficial champion of football.
Eventually, the sport spread to the Midwest where teams like Minnesota, Michigan, Chicago and Northwestern dominated. Michigan, in an effort to establish its program on the same level with the eastern powers, dubbed itself “Champions of the West,” which still remains part of their fight song to this day.
By the turn of the century most major Universities in the East and Midwest fielded football teams, and were content to play each other without having to travel long distances. Teams played an average of four to five games annually, almost exclusively against opponents within their own region.
Games were held in pastures in front of a handful of fans who lined the perimeter of the playing field. The rules varied and were loosely officiated. The dimensions of the playing fields also varied, as did the goal posts and even the balls. Players were not equipped with helmets or pads. Fights frequently broke out, causing injuries and games to be suspended.
In 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt helped establish the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in an effort to organize the sport with a standard set of rules and equipment. Conferences were established with teams settings scheduled games annually in stadiums with standard size playing fields.
In 1902 the Tournament of Roses Committee decided to do something unique, inviting Michigan to travel to Pasadena, California to play Stanford in an exhibition contest following the New Year's Day parade. The established power from the Midwest annihilated their less experienced counterpart 49-0. The game was so lopsided that the committee chose to abandon the idea the following year. But the seeds were planted, and thus began the concept of postseason college football in America.
As the sport grew in popularity throughout the Country, the “Tournament of Roses Game” was resurrected in 1916, and eventually called “The Rose Bowl”, deriving its name from the bowl-like shaped stadium. It would remain the only postseason game until 1934 when New Orleans decided to follow suit. Borrowing from the template that gained success in Pasadena, right down to the name “Bowl”, the inaugural Sugar Bowl was played between the “host” southern team Tulane against the “visiting” team from up north, Temple.
Other bowl games originated over the next several years, all following the same formula. Cities with warm climates invited teams, their fans, and their money to vacation over the New Year's Holiday in an effort to increase revenue, and, almost as an afterthought, play a football game.
The Cotton and Orange Bowls originated soon after, creating the “Big Four” bowl games. Other bowls sprang up throughout the South and West over the years. But since the two main voting polls, the AP (sportswriters) and UPI (coaches), selected a National Champion at the end of the regular season, the bowl games remained nothing more than exhibitions.
The first major change to the postseason occurred in 1965 when the AP decided to wait until after the bowl games to conduct its final poll. The UPI followed suit several years later. It totally changed the landscape of college football, transforming New Year's Day into the biggest single day in college football.
The period between the mid-sixties and late-seventies were vintage years for the bowl games. The TV networks covered the four major bowls, (Cotton, Sugar, Orange and Rose) spreading the games out so as to provide fans a full day of meaningful and sometimes classic match-ups. National championships often hung in the balance and weren't decided until the outcome of the final New Year's Day bowl game.
Unfortunately, the overwhelming success led to the inevitable – an over-saturation of bowl games. By 1980 the number of bowls had ballooned to 20 and assigned conference winners to commit to certain bowls. At-large teams with huge fan bases were often invited before the regular season concluded. As a result, the New Year's Day games were no longer confined to the best teams playing each other in the four major bowls.
The controversial changes hit rock bottom in 1984 when undefeated and No. 1 ranked WAC champion BYU was forced to play in the Holiday Bowl in December due to its conference commitment. BYU won the game, thereby securing the National Championship before the New Year's Day games were even played. Suddenly the bowl concept was being second-guessed by fans who wanted something more.
The decade of the '90's saw several attempts to put together something that resembled determining a true champion on the field. “The Bowl Coalition” was created in 1992 which attempted to pit the No. 1 team against the highest ranked team that was not committed to a bowl. In 1995 “The Bowl Alliance” replaced the Bowl Coalition but was equally unsuccessful, mainly due to the bowl committees' refusal to break away from conference tie-ins. While the Cotton, Orange, Fiesta and Sugar Bowls agreed to match the No. 1 team with the highest ranked at-large team, the Rose Bowl refused to give up its long-standing tradition of matching the Big Ten vs. PAC ten winner, thus making the odds of having a true championship game virtually impossible.
Despite the best intentions of the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance, the 1992 and 1997 seasons created even more controversy. In '92 Miami and Washington were clearly the top two teams in the Nation, but due to conference tie-ins could not play one another to decide the true championship on the field. The result was a split vote between the two polls. In '97 Michigan and Nebraska finished the regular season as the only two unbeaten teams, and once again were committed to play in separate bowls. Both teams won their game, resulting in another split vote and creating growing unrest among fans who wanted to see the two teams play it out to determine an undisputed champion.
The following year a man named Roy Kramer hatched an idea that he thought would solve the problem. The former SEC Commissioner created the “Bowl Championship Series” (BCS), by convincing the commissioners from the top six conferences, the Big Ten, PAC Ten, SEC, Big Twelve, ACC and Big East to agree to a “championship game” where the top two teams in the final regular season poll would play each other in one of the major bowls. The other three bowls would continue to invite their respective conference winners and would take turns selecting at-large teams to fill the spots. The Bowl committees, including the Rose Bowl, reluctantly agreed to the idea.
The top two teams were determined through a complicated computerized formula created by the BCS which included the AP and UPI polls. The Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl and Fiesta Bowl would host the major BCS games, rotating the site of the championship game each year.
The majority of the football nation accepted the idea with open arms. There would no longer be a situation like in '92 and '97. The two best teams in the Country would actually get to play each other. The national championship would be decided on the field rather than in the polls. It seemed like the perfect solution.
The first BCS bowls were played following the 1998 season. Tennessee, UCLA and Kansas State all ended the regular season undefeated, which caused immediate concern for the BCS. Fortunately for them, UCLA lost on the final weekend which would have made for a perfect setup for a title game. However, Kansas State also lost later that same day, resulting in one unbeaten team and several one-loss teams. The BCS had no choice but to vote one of them to play undefeated Tennessee for the national championship. The final computer poll declared Florida State as the No. 2 team, and the controversy ensued.
The following year produced what the BCS had hoped for as the only two undefeated teams, Florida State and Virginia Tech met for the title game. But the next several years were not so kind to the BCS, causing an uproar among fans who protested that the computer poll was flawed and that the system simply wasn't working. The 2004 season created the worst case scenario imaginable for the BCS when USC, Oklahoma and Auburn all finished the season undefeated. They had no choice but to leave one team out of the championship game. Auburn was the unlucky victim, causing an uproar among not only the Auburn faithful but from fans across the Country. The AP chose to break any ties with the BCS from that point on and conduct its own poll.
The 2005 season temporarily saved the struggling system by producing a match-up of the undisputed two best teams, USC and Texas, and provided one of the all-time classic postseason games. In 2010, The BCS was again successful when the only two unbeaten teams, Oregon and Auburn met in the title game.
But for the most part, Roy Kramer's plan had become an unmitigated disaster. The system has sparked as much controversy as closure. Thanks in part to the TV networks, the major bowl games have been spread out over a week's time rather than on the traditional New Year's Day, creating further dissent among college football purists. To add salt to the wounds, the BCS recently instituted a fifth game, played a week after the other major bowls, dubbing it the “BCS National Championship,” further extending the postseason into the second week in January.
No one can be blamed for having originated the initial bowl concept. It was simply designed to reward teams and their fans who had successful seasons by enjoying a few days partying in a warm weather climate and getting to see their team play against an opponent outside their region. The only thing at stake was bragging rights. And that sufficed for nearly half a century.
The decision on the part of the AP to count the bowl games in determining a national champion was a two-edged sword. While it definitely enhanced the importance of the New Year's Day bowl games, it also created an uneven playing field where the “host” southern and western teams had an annual home field advantage over the visiting opponent. As the level of play continued to improve in the SEC and PAC Ten conferences, the balance tipped in their favor over the once superior Big Ten and eastern powers who had to travel each year.
In short, the NCAA attempted to establish a playoff-like scenario while still maintaining the current bowl system. The result was like trying to use a snow-thrower to cut grass. Instead of using a lawnmower, they continued to think up ways to modify the snow-thrower.
Any attempts to do away with the bowl system and replace it with a playoff were immediately blocked by the bowl committee chairmen, conference commissioners and college presidents, all of whom spoke of preserving the integrity of the game while in reality were simply unwilling to risk changing something that guaranteed money in their pockets.
The chairmen of the major bowl committees rejected the notion of a playoff because they feared losing fans and potential revenue by having the same teams play more than one game and not spending their time and money in one place.
College presidents took the stance that a playoff would extend the season to the point where it would affect academics. They rejected any ideas for creating a playoff by stating that it would turn college football from an amateur sport to a professional one.
The Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition attempted to improve the postseason but faced insurmountable odds due to the bowl committee's refusal to do away with conference tie-ins, which insured millions of dollars annually to the major conferences, the conference commissioners and the television networks who covered the games.
The BCS seemed at first to be the best solution short of a playoff. But in envisioning the perfect scenario, the system failed on several levels. In years where there weren't two obvious teams deserving of the title the BCS did little more than what the AP and UPI had done for years. The only difference was that instead of voting one team as the national champion, the BCS voted for two teams to play for the national championship.
The BCS also miscalculated how their system would affect the other bowls. By declaring one game for the championship, it virtually rendered all of the other games irrelevant. By 2011 the number of bowls had grown to 32. All but one had become no more meaningful than the exhibition games of sixty years ago. The third ranked-team in the Country could win its bowl game 50-0 and it wouldn't matter. At least not to the BCS.
And last but not least, the marriage of the BCS and television networks resulted in moving the major games from New Year's Day and spreading them out over a week in prime time, forever ending a tradition which had become synonymous with college football.
By now you will no doubt be asked the inevitable follow-up question, “Is there anything that can be done to fix things?” Fortunately you can say “yes,” and present a rational, logical concept that could work for everyone.
Play the four major bowls (Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange) maintaining the current conference tie-ins. However, in order to qualify for a spot the team must be ranked in the top eight in the final BCS poll. No more eighth-ranked Oklahoma vs. unranked Connecticut. If you can't make the top eight you are relegated to a lower-tier bowl and replaced by a more worthy at-large team. The bowls will rotate each year as to who gets to pick first if that becomes necessary.
Make New Year's Day meaningful again. Bring back the tradition of college football's biggest day. Play one of the major bowls on New Year's Eve and the other three on New Year's. Start the first game at noon, the next game and 3:30 and the final game at 7:00. Limit the halftime extravaganzas to twenty minutes. Make the 28 hours between New Year's Eve and New Year's night a football feast. It's hard to fathom that television ratings would suffer significantly with a package like that.
Play an extra game for the national championship only when necessary. If the jury is still out as to who the best team is after the bowl games, then stage an extra game one week later at a neutral site to determine the undisputed champion. If everyone agrees who the best team is following the bowl games then end the season there. There is no need to manufacture a championship game when it's not needed. The additional game should only be played when there are two teams equally deserving of the title. Granted, having more than two teams in the mix after the bowls would be a possibility, but it would be a remote one considering the bowl games would be matching the top eight teams.
So who would argue with such a system? Certainly not the fans, who would be treated to the closest thing to a playoff while still maintaining the current bowl system. Certainly not the four major bowl committees, who would if anything benefit from being insured of matching two top eight ranked teams, increasing attendance, national interest and television ratings.
The conference commissioners would likely balk at first over the rule that allows only the top eight teams to compete. However, with the exception of the Big East, who may not even exist as a major conference in the near future, would the commissioners of the Big Ten, PAC Ten, SEC, Big Twelve and ACC be that concerned that their conference winner would not finish the season ranked in the top eight? Voting against it would be admitting that your conference isn't as good as the others.
That leaves the biggest hurdle, the college presidents. They have stated again and again that they would be opposed to extending the season and to any sort of playoff. But this system would only involve at most having two teams play one extra game. Currently teams already play an additional game prior to the regular season, such as the Kickoff Classic in held August, or playing in Hawaii following the end of the regular season. Thus the prospect of two teams having to play one extra game to decide the national championship would likely not be a major concern.
So, you've done your job. You have explained how things got to the way they are, why we don't have a playoff, and what can be done to improve the current system. Maybe the next generation, maybe someone like your son, can finally do something to make postseason college football one of the most exciting events in sports.