SEARCH BLOG: FOOTBALL
I guess my objection is not so much to the regular schedule... which has been extended over time, but the proliferation of bowl games. When you have a bowl game for 6-6 Illinois versus 6-7 UCLA, I think the concept of bowl games may have been stretched to the breaking point. A quick glance at some of the bowls shows that many of them exist as TV filler only. The stadium stands are empty; the only cheering seems to be from the 12 cheerleaders. The list at ESPN shows 35 bowl games. Can football fans be that hungry for games?
And then you get to the final weekend before the national championship game and you have the BVAA Compass Bowl [I give up; what's that?] and the Godaddy.com Bowl between teams that never made the national sports news during the year. What a waste of a sports weekend!
Maybe it's time to watch figure skating with my wife. Nah, I'll check the lake to see if the ice is thick enough to fish on. That's more exciting.
What would I do differently?
That's 13 bowl games over 4 weeks. Seems enough. Selections via BCS or coaches poll or something different. In order to implement a 4-weekend playoff, the conference/non-conference schedule would have to be limited to 10 games... maximum. This would include conference championship games. This doesn't solve the problem of an excessively long season, but solves the problem of an excessively long list of bowl games. The playoffs could be limited to the top 8 teams with a 3-weekend playoff. Along with the other limitation would keep the total maximum schedule to 13 weeks for the playoff participants.
Naturally, there are two very strong objections to this scheme:
- Significant loss of income to the NCAA, NCAA schools, and advertising media.
- Significant loss of football viewing time by really crazy people.
Besides, there are professional football teams to watch as well as basketball and hockey... or figure skating.