As a diversion from all the recruiting rumblings happening right now, I wanted to make a post about my thoughts after watching this college football bowl and playoff season unfold. I heard a lot of nostalgic chatter from commentators this year, talking about the days before major conference expansion and a more unified postseason (pre-early 1990s). Obviously, this was before my time, but it seems in those days there was much more emphasis on winning your conference championship and playing in a major bowl game rather than the national title hunt. Comparing those times to now, the landscape of college football has changed drastically.
The sport really changed in the early 90s when major conference expansion started taking place, and the Bowl Coalition was established. Before this, the major conferences were small, exclusive leagues with round-robin scheduling and no need for championship games. You win your conference, you get an invite to your affiliated bowl game and play another top team. Independent football was awesome (just look up the list of independents from the late 80s/early 90s). Much more frequent top regular season games and rivalries came from this freedom of scheduling, and games almost had a major boxing PPV feel and hype to them (big Miami/ND games, and the bidding war between major bowls for Miami and Penn State in 1986, both independents at the time, for a de facto national title game.) All the major bowl games were played on New Years Eve and New Years Day, and whoever the polls ranked number 1 the next day claimed a stake at the mythical national title. If you happened to get a share at the title, great. If not, you won your conference and bowl. Having split national titles also lead to a lot of controversy and debate.
Fast-forward to now, and conferences have become overcrowded due to the explosion of TV and the financial windfall from television deals and conference networks. Now, you don't even get to play all of the teams in your league, and even conference championship games now seems like a nuisance for teams looking ahead to the playoff. A lot of once great rivalries have been diminished in frequency or discontinued altogether. Major bowl traditions have been rendered as consolation prizes for not being one of the top four teams. Just this season, the B1G title and a Rose Bowl berth was an afterthought to OSU making the playoff. Everything has become a financial and recruiting arms race for making the playoff above all else.
Just wanted to start a discussion on how the sport has changed in the past 20+ years, and whether diminishing the tradition and significance of major bowls and conference titles is a good thing for the sport. I don't want to start another endless discussion on most deserving teams/conference champions getting bids for the playoff, but rather is the current format better than what we had before the major changes in the early 90s.
Comments
As someone who lived through this, I would disagree. Tech was an independent after leaving the Southern Conference in the 1960's until the time that we joined the Big East in 1991 (as a football-only member). Tech was snubbed for ACC membership in 1971 in lieu of Georgia Tech (after South Carolina left the ACC), and again in the late 1970's. Our football scheduling was very difficult. We had games with Florida State, WVU & Clemson, but they were always the highlight games, with most of the schedule being comprised of state foes VMI, Richmond, W&M, and of course, LOLUVA. I remember some of the other opponents being Duke, Kentucky, the occasional directional Michigan team, and so forth. We were operating with a football schedule and team that was the equivalent of a middle of the pack MAC level program. Because of scheduling like that, combined with a much more limited bowl schedule, we were able to go 9-2 my senior year, and didn't go to a bowl game. We had a much more difficult time getting recognition as an independent. One of (if not the) best things that Beamer did for the school was conference affiliation. We didn't take off as a football team until we joined the Big East.
From our perspective, I completely agree. Joining the Big East helped take our program to a new level. The greatest thing about conference expansion was making the playing field more even with the blueblood brands and allowing for more exposure for a greater amount of programs. We undoubtedly benefited from this to a large degree.
However, imagine the original SoCon existing today. Whew, what a conference.
Indeed. It was essentially the SEC + ACC.
I assume you mean prior to 1933, when 13 schools split to form the SEC (10 of whom are still there, plus Georgia Tech, Sewanee, and Tulane). Not knowing much about the conference's history, I find it insane that it consisted of 23 teams up until that point, and I'm not surprised that 13 of the higher-profile teams decided to split off to condense the wealth a little bit and save money by reducing the travel footprint.
How much must the current admins at GT and Tulane hate their historical predecessors?
Only if they long to supplant Vanderbilt as the SEC's whipping boy.
GT with a lifetime of SEC money and hype would be better than Vandy easily. Tulane would just enjoy the money.
GT might have tougher admissions standards than Vandy. You could throw all the money you want at them, they aren't recruiting at a level to complete with the rest of the SEC.
Didn't GT win a NC?
Yes, the year I saw GT beat an undefeated UVA at Lane North. As one of the only GT fans at the game, it was awesome.
In 1990, by going undefeated in an FSU-less ACC. There's no way they'd survive the arms race of the BCS in the SEC.
Your looking at them with current money, coaches etc. how different would hey be after spending 50 plus years in SEC?
They also beat VT their second game, at GT 6-3 on a 4th qtr FG.
That title was shared by Colorado which was awarded the Natty by the AP.
My how CFB has changed......
Fifth down!
Bobby Dodd & Bobby Ross were both top flight GT coaches.
See that's the problem with Paul Johnson. His name isn't Bobby.
makes it all the more enjoyable that Vandy beat UT this year.
My freshman year was 1990, and though I did keep tabs on VT football in the late 80s, our schedule was actually quite good in 90. My first ever home game was South Carolina-that year we also played NC State, WVU, So Miss (with Brett Favre), UVa (who in those days were no automatic win), Maryland, FSU (top 5 then). However, joining the Big East in 91 (we didn't play a BE schedule until 92) really did push us into the next level. In 1993 we won 2 games, and it looked certain that CFB would be fired....our AD at the time (Dave Braine) kept the faith and the rest is history. I often think of what would've happened had Beamer been fired and who would've replaced him-those with better memories might know the answer to this, but I doubt the results would've been as good. We went 9-3 in 1994 and that year really propelled us into the limelight of college football. We've been to a bowl every year since.
The "tear-away" jerseys from the 70's and 80's were pretty cool.
Good perspective and topic. The one thing I'd add is that around the birth of the BCS came the major expansion of the 2nd / 3rd tier bowls and sponsorships. It seems that 20+ new bowls were added so that everyone gets to go with 6 wins. Bowl games used to be awarded to the best teams to go to warm weather cities (which was why the bowl streak used to be touted a lot more, IMO) - now everyone but loluva gets to go to a bowl, noting that many are in less than desirable winter locations. Its really diluted the post season for the fans.
I get your point, but I'm just glad the standards haven't completely eroded to the point of letting the wahoos go bowling. May this never change...
This is one thing I hate about bowl season, and it makes it less special IMHO. Nobody wants to watch Central Michigan play North Texas in the Head-On-Apply-Directly-To-The-Forehead Headache bowl...and combine that with the fact that everybody besides that plays in Lane North gets to go to a bowl, geez. It's the whole "I get a participation trophy for trying" mentality in my opinion and:
Really the only good aspect of the ridiculous number of bowls is keeping track of each conference's bowl W/L record. Although it doesn't really amount to a whole lot, it's a great gauge of the strength and depth of each conference. ACC had a huge showing this year from it's 11 teams, and there will be a lot of media narratives on the rise of the ACC as a strong football conference because of it.
Speak for yourself there were some great lower level bowls this year.
Air Force Reserve Celebration Bowl:
Grambling vs. North Carolina Central
R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl:
Southern Mississippi vs. Louisiana Lafayette
Dollar General Bowl:
Troy vs. Ohio
Just a few examples of the lower level bowls that no one cares about. I'm not saying that they're all bad, but plenty of them are just there because money.
As a lover of college football, I care about all of them. Any bowl game is better than the college football available to watch for the next 7 and a half months.
Is that a bad thing though? Now lower tier schools can get pieces of the pie due to the many bowl games. In your example Troy, a team that's been in the FBS tier for only 15 years just got $750,000 for playing in that bowl game. I highly doubt they get a large amount of donations from fans. That's a lot of money for a small school that doesn't put an emphasis on it's football team.
Sure, we can scoff at how money runs the world and has fueled this bowl mania system, but is that really a bad thing from the small schools perspective?
That bowl's actually become a fairly big deal. There's a lot of history between the two I-AA HBCU conferences.
There are interesting story lines in every game if you look closely enough
HBCU national championship
Close to both schools. The G5 Louisiana schools are fun to watch in this bowl
Troy gave up like 3 sacks all season and Ohio had the best pass rush in the MAC.
FWIW, your "HBCU National Championship Game" does not contain an HBCU.
Grad degree from an HBCU and most folks are VERY protective of that title.
Can you explain the distinction? I'm genuinely curious. Every list of HBCU I pull up has both of those schools, and a quick visit to the Grambling website describes themselves as a historically black university. The bowl's website mentions "The event's mission is to provide the schools, alumni, fans, and sponsors with a first-class bowl experience while continuing to celebrate the heritage, legacy, pageantry and tradition of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. "
Obviously, bowl marketing does not make something so, but I'm curious as to the original point. Is there an official membership list? Requirements?
I mean, if you want the official response, here is what the DoE says.
Your TL;DR is established prior to 1964 with it's mission, both former and ongoing, primarily being the education of Black Americans. There's also a very crappy logo list of schools with no formatting whatsoever.
My mistake, I read the listings incorrectly thinking he indicated the RL Carriers bowl as the HBCU game, not the game listed above it... Yes, Grambling and NCCU are both HBCUs. I just read the list presented backwards.
Actually, Grambling is the defintion of HBCU.
And the in-laws are all HU (the real HU) or NCCU. They consider Central to most definitely be a HBCU. As well as one of the more healthy HBCU's financially, and academically at that.
I'm going to assume you misread the post and thought the description was listed before the game instead of after.
If that's not the case, though, I believe you are incorrect. Both Grambling State and North Carolina Central University are HBCUs by anyone's definition that matters.
Yes, I misread the layout of the list...My error. Yes, Grambling and NCCU are both HBCUs as we played NCCU in conference (MEAC)
I side with Fireman on this one. I love coming home from work on the Tuesday before Xmas, and being able to put on a football game. If anything has made bowls 'less special', it's the playoff.
Not every issue conforms to whatever your problem with society happens to be at the moment. There are a multitude of reasons (mostly financial, probably) and literally none of them have anything to do with feeling the need to give kids participation trophies.
The bowl scene is oversaturated, but with the advent of the Bowl Alliance, and subsequently the BCS and the NY6, I feel like there is now a clear dileneation between the upper echelon bowls and the "conciliation bowls." The bowls that matter are still there, we just also get a glut of exhibition games purely for our entertainment. Also consider that situations such as VT's 2016 season in a stacked ACC can result in very good teams falling into lower tier bowls.
As for conferences, gone are the days of round robin scheduling. However, today's divisions are basically the conference's of yesteryear, with the championship games really acting like a traditional bowl game. I don't think this change has been good or bad, just a different setup.
The biggest flaw with the current system isn't a focus on the national title. The preeminent programs have always had their eyes on that prize, even on the AP poll days. The mistake the CFP made was to deemphasize conference championships in their four team setup. If you're going to determine a champion of the P5 (and let's be honest, G5 teams do not have have access to the playoffs), then every conference needs to be represented by its champion. Does that mean a 7-5 team that eeks out a win in its conference championship should get a spot at the table? Yes, because that's how it works in literally every other sport with a championship tournament.
Five conference champions, three at large berths. Include the highest ranked G5 team if you want. But what we have now is the worst of both worlds, the bias of the BCS after the human pollsters revolted against the computers, masquerading in a tournament form that doesn't value conference results.
Don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction, and the best system we've had thus far. However, it's also a still a bad system.
I woke up this morning thinking "hey, I really hope someone starts the 'conference championships should matter more' argument on TKP today. It's been way too long since we've torn into that particular mess." So, thanks, Illinois Hokie, for making my day.../s
I view the current state of NCAAF as an inevitable evolution away from the "good old boy" system when the bowl games controlled all postseason play and the Natty was a beauty contest that the AP writers got to decide. Schools like VT almost never had a chance in that system.
I want to see the P5 conferences move towards a playoff system (with or without the other FBS conferences) that mirrors the FCS. While some will argue that such a change will make NCAAF more like the pros, I would disagree that it is a bad idea. The more teams with a shot at the Natty means more fun for us fans, more profit for the NCAA, and gives the non-blue blood schools like VT a better shot at earning the golden lipstick tube.
The bowls can rot, play the playoff games in the school stadiums so that the schools can benefit and the athletes travel less. Sell the semis and/or the championship to the highest bidders and don't require schools to sell a minimum amount of tickets. Let the players determine the champion on the field, get opinion out of the equation as much as possible. (Looking at you tOSU)
I really hate the NFL/NBA playoff seeding system in the sense that virtually half the teams make the playoffs and have a shot at winning it all. I am not a fan of the 8-8 or 7-9 wildcard teams winning the super bowl and claiming "The best team of *insert year here*". I would really be upset if cfb went this route. I do not mean to discredit their super bowl wins (i.e The New York Giants) because that's how the NFL system works and they took advantage of it, I just dislike like that system way more than I dislike cfb's current system.
More money for the NCAA? perhaps...but less money overall for all the schools. I'm not talking the Clemsons and Bamas, but the Troys and Bowling Greens of cfb. Troy got $750,000 for playing in their bowl game...that's a huge chunk of cash that your system would be taking away from them without any compensation on the basis of "hey, now you have a better chance at winning the natty title". How much of an increase to their chances is that really though? And if they or no one in their conference makes the playoffs...absolutely no money from the postseason now. the Bowl system the way it is now allows smaller schools with no emphasis on football to still get money for their athletic departments.
I also disagree with having a P5 playoff and intentionally leaving out the G5. I know they're probably not going to make the playoffs, but that shouldn't mean we intentionally just leave them out with the wording of the rules of the system.
That's literally never happened.
True but the idea of it potentially happening I am not a fan of. 8-8 teams have made the playoffs so on paper they have a clear shot at winning it all
Teams that are 7-9 and 8-8 have made the playoffs in the past, a total of 14 times or so. IIRC, they've all lost
in the first roundbefore the conference championship games. Also, only once has a 9-7 team gone on to win the Super Bowl, and that was the 2011 Giants who brought down the Patriots, and there was much rejoicing.Do you also believe that Holy Cross shouldn't have been able to play in the NCAA Tournament in March at 14-19 even though they won their conference tournament? What about FGCU in 2013, whose 24-10 record was inflated by playing in one of the worst conferences in basketball? They became the first 15-seed to win two games in the tournament, and they were exciting to watch.
At least when it comes to college sports, I like the inclusion of the low-level conference champions, as it gives recognition to their championships and gives them a chance to play against the big boys. Also, they're almost certainly not going to "win it all" unless they have a good team to begin with.
The last 2 teams that made the playoffs with a 7-9 record won their first round game. Seattle in 2011 (Beast Quake) against New Orleans and Carolina (though they were 7-8-1) in 2013 against Arizona.
You right. Legged and fixed.
I don't like it. I know that that is the system college basketball goes with. but i don't like it. And to be honest it's almost BECAUSE of the bowls that I'm okay with having the current cfb playoffs at 4 teams. In that way good/great teams or teams that win conferences/go 6-6 still can get quality postseason play while still having the best 4 playing for it all.
And the record thing has less to do with it as much as the half of the total number of teams make the playoffs, but I was corrected in that it's only 12 teams that make the NFL playoff so my argument has lost some of it's merit based on that.
If I were to pick my current favorite postseason system between NFL, NBA, NCAAB, FCS, and FBS, I'd go with the FBS system of 4 teams picked by the committee and bowl mania. NBA too many teams make it, NFL/NBA/NCAAB teams can have teams that weren't that good in the regular season get hot in the playoffs and win it all, and FCS has no bowl system. If the FBS had no bowl system I'd be more against the 4 team playoff. But maybe it's cuz I've always been on bad sports teams and I'm just happy that we always make bowl games that I put a ton of value into making one.
I see the entertainment value in the other systems, obviously a team getting hot, ala the New York Giants or the Uconn Huskies, at the right time can make some exciting games and really draw fans into it, but I dont put as much of an emphasis on the entertainment perspective as you do I feel like.
I know Tom Brady and the Pats probably have few sympathizers outside of the Patriot fan base but I feel kind of bad that they did all that work to go 16-0 in the regular season just to lose it all because of one game to a team that was not in the top 5 of best teams for the regular season.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Pats fan, I'm a Browns fan. pls dont mock me, my team is insult enough
"I really hate the NFL/NBA playoff seeding system in the sense that virtually half the teams make the playoffs and have a shot at winning it all."
I honestly think that that's what's better about the pros. The team that was playing the best at the end of the season gets to be champion. This hypothetical 7-9 superbowl champion would have to go 4-0 against "better" teams to win it all, and that would be an impressive feat no matter how you look at it.
Your point is valid, I guess it's just a difference of opinion and what entertains us more.
Let's not lump the NFL in with the NBA's money and attention grab of a playoff system.
16 of 30 NBA teams go to the playoffs. 53.3%
12 of 32 NFL teams go to the playoffs. 37.5%
Bit of a difference there.
My mistake, I thought the NFL was 14 out of the 32
The thing is, it's not the wildcard teams that are 7-9. The teams with losing records that make it into the playoffs are the division winners. Maybe an 8-8 team can slip in as a wildcard, but I don't think there's ever been a case of a team with a losing record getting a wildcard spot (even when there were 3 WCs on either side).
You're right, I shouldnt have mentioned the wildcard part as it kind of discredits what I'm trying to say since it's rare that an average record wildcard team will make the playoffs, its when a specific division is really weak that an 8-8 team can make the playoffs
I once read a comment on TKP (can't find it, don't know who posted it, but I distinctly remember it) that said (paraphrasing):
I do find it hard to believe that, in 2001, not even a local affiliate was broadcasting every VT game. Regardless,It's crazy to think how much our viewing habits and technology have changed in such a short time. I can't imagine going a season without WatchESPN.Some other thoughts:
Keep in mind, UConn had just transitioned up to D-1A level at that time. I distinctly remember those days when there was no way to watch every VT game on television. FCS games definitely were not televised, and then usually the Big East conference game with Temple wasn't televised either. Amazing how much television coverage has changed college football and the effect this has had on stadium attendance.
I distinctly remember watching that UCONN game at a bar in the Outer Banks, but yes, it used to be hard to get on TV back then (and it's not exactly THAT long ago)...ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU all existed back in those days.
I think my senior year (2005 season) was the first time that the entire season was televised, and it came down to an almost last minute decision to put the Homecoming game on ESPN2 (the back half of the season had two Thursdays plus Miami, UVA, and UNC, so we pretty much knew all of those games were going to be on) . I think that was the last year before ESPN360 (now ESPN3) launched, so all of the games were actually on TV. (I think since then, there have only been two seasons where you could watch every game on TV - 2014 and 2016.)
Looking at Hokiesports, it looks like it's only been since 2009 that we've consistently gotten every game televised or streamed. Of course, what has helped greatly is the extra options for broadcasting. Not just streaming, but ESPN added ESPNU and now the SEC Network (and utilizing ESPNEWS for lesser games), which expands the available timeslots. Fox got into the college game, and then launched FS1, providing even more options.
I think that game was televised, but only on DirecTV's pay-per-view service at the time. I recall getting a season subscription to that package because I was living in Ohio at the time and it was my only way to get to see the Hokies play. If memory serves me, most of our games were available this way during that season.
The geography comment is a good idea, but probably shouldn't be set in stone as a rule. What if Maine wanted to jump to FBS in football? Do they have to wait for someone in New Hampshire to make the jump too? I think good old fashioned common sense would be preferable to hard-and-fast rules.
I'm fine with his conference restrictions, it still allows for my dream Pan-American Conference 12 (ignore the fact that PAC-12 is already taken, please):
Army
Temple
Marshall
Old Dominion
Middle Tennessee State
Arkansas State
Tulsa
Colorado State
Wyoming
Idaho State
Nevada
San Diego State
We get ALAB-FSU to open this season, which may be #1 vs #2. AD's are slowly adjusting to the importance of SOS. It is going to take some time given how far out these games are scheduled and teams swapping games to improve their matchups. One big out of conference win can line you up for a shot in the playoff even with an in conference loss and no conference championship, look what happened with OSU this year. The playoff seems to have created 2 directions an AD can take, schedule at least one difficult OOC opponent to give yourself a longer leash if you take a loss (OSU), or schedule cupcakes and try to run the table (Baylor). Personally, I think most of the typically top 40 should and will eventually choose the former.
I think you may be underestimating the $EC's aversion to high risk OOC games.
You're right. Alabama will not play a high-profile OOC game unless it's at a neutral site within reasonable travelling distance for their fanbase. I think their home-and-home with Penn State 6-7 years ago was the last time they played at another team's stadium, and PSU was not really that good at the time.
It was 2011, and PSU was #23 for that game.
Also, the year before they played at Duke.
Prior to that, you have to go all the way back to 2002 to find another regular-season OOC game played at an opponent's home stadium, and that was against #2 Oklahoma.
So I thought this was interesting, as I never mentioned home and home vs neutral site, but taking a look at that point for a minute I decided to take a look through the SEC's future schedules.
Future meaningful OOC games at opponent's stadium, also leaving out rivalries:
Florida - Nada
Georgia - 2017 at ND, 2025 at UCLA
Kentucky - Nada
Missouri - 2018 at PUR, 2019 at Wyoming, 2020 at BYU, 2021 at BC, 2023 at MEM
USCe - Nada
TENN - 2022 at PITT, 2026 at NEB
VANDY - 2019 at PUR, 2020 at K State, 2021 at CSU, 2023 at WAKE, 2024 at STAN, 2026 at CSU, 2028 at NCST
BAMA - Nada
ARK - Nada
AUB - 2017 at CLEM, 2021 at PSU, 2023 at CAL
LSU - 2019 at Texas, 2021 at UCLA, 2026 at ASU, 2027 at OKST
MSST - 2018 at KSU, 2020 at NCST, 2021 at MEM, 2022 at Arizona, 2026 at MINN
Ole Miss - 2017 at CAL, 2019 at MEM, 2022 at GT, 2024 at WAKE
A&M - 2017 at UCLA, 2019 at CLEM, 2021 at COLO, 2023 at Miami, 2025 at ND
SEC has 4 pretty meaningful games at the opponent in 2017, 2 in 2018 (I'm leaving Purdue out), 4 in 2019, 3 in 2020, and 6 in 2021. In particular, A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, and AUB have a pretty decent slate, which also ignores Auburn's neutral site against Washington in 2018 and Oregon in 2019, LSU's neutral site against BYU in 2017 and Miami in 2018, and Ole Miss' neutral against Baylor in 2020.
I think there is a tendency to apply the fact that Florida won't leave the state and BAMA wants all its tough OOC games to be neutral site to the entire SEC.
And now I've wasted a bunch of time looking into a conference I don't like.
Kentucky and Louisville are rivals so you can take that off the list.
Updated
I think the comparison to boxing goes much deeper here, and that it's an excellent comparison to make. Boxing used to be the king of PPV, but nowadays it's lost out to MMA because the old way of doing thing wasn't engaging enough to the larger crowd. College football is similar in that it's had to change with the times.