College football kinda sucks now
We’re stuck between a 4 team “playoff” (lol) and 38 other bowls that have been rendered meaningless to many.
These bowls feature watered down versions of teams that most likely won’t be motivated to play as the common theme in bowls is now having one team that doesn’t care.
The ticket prices for watered down teams and games certainly don’t reflect it.
We have Clemson-Alabama XLVII for the national title game with ticket prices
Conference title games are broken and just money grabs at this point to watch a superior team kill an inferior one because divisions are unbalanced.
Commercials.
How/will this be fixed or is the sport just gonna continue to get worse? Is the next step guys sitting out against WMU and SMU to avoid injury in a bodybag game?
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:26 AM ^
I can't upvote but this is the answer... college football sucks right now because the end of our year sucked. College football would be great if we had beat OSU and won the Big 10. Even if we didn't win our playoff game as long as we didn't get stomped our fanbase would have been happy with the year.
However that was not meant to be so here we are.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:20 AM ^
I think if we had a 16 team play off...... Clemson would be playing Alabama on Monday.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:30 AM ^
TING!
We wound up exactly where everybody thought we would wind up before the season even began.
The entire college football season - the ups and downs, the upsets and blowouts, the big games and buy-games - was all pretty much pointless.
We could have just had Alabama play Clemson as the first and last game of the season in August, and then sent everybody home. Save some time.
Eat at Arby's.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:04 AM ^
Yep just like everyone thought Michigan would play Villanova in the NC game.
I know this hard to fathom just because the odds are favorable that Clemson and Bama would play doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. College athletics is extremely unpredictable week to week
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:11 AM ^
Different sport chap and with 64 (actually 68) teams in the mix every year you get far more upsets and unpredictability than you do with football and four teams.
You're kinda making the OP's point here.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:32 AM ^
I’m 100% not making his point and you just made my point. More teams means more upsets. Crazy thought
January 2nd, 2019 at 11:09 AM ^
I wish there was a way to run a simulation of this to see if it shows true variability.
The "different sport" tag does apply -- basketball requires a relatively few number of athletes per team, so the number of good athletes gets spread around more than in football; a great player in basketball can influence team outcome more in basketball than in football, for both good or bad; all it takes is a few players to shoot lights-out to produce an upset in basketball (see 1984 Villanova vs. Georgetown, where Villanova shot 82% from the floor).
Yes, those kinds of things can happen in football as well, but the variability is less. Run 100 simulated Michigan v Alabama football games and Alabama wins 90 or more of them. Run 100 Michigan vs. Villanova (last year's championship) and Villanova wins perhaps 65 or 70 of them.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:26 AM ^
Having worked as a corporate financial analyst for some time, I can tell you that if something like bowl games happens year after year, somebody is making money off of it.
It may not be in the traditional way like general public ticket sales, but it is happening in other less traditional ways . . . networks are hungry for live sports content, mandatory ticket block buys from the schools, tax write-offs, chamber-of-commerce funding, corporate sponsorships ("Redbox" was mentioned on this blog a hundred times, it might be a joke to us, but we were all reminded what it is and where it is), etc.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:50 AM ^
I agree ... someone is making money. People won't run crappy bowl games as a charity.
But I'll be darned if I can figure it out. I posted a diary entry on the bowl attendance, and I cited the Arizona Bowl as an example of a bowl the finances for which I just don't understand -- lower-tier teams playing to a mostly empty stadium in a town that generally doesn't care about football.
Benefit to the local businesses? Some, but the estimated actual attendance was something like 10,000, which for Tucson (a city of nearly a million in the metropolitan area) that's not much of an impact. Plus -- and here's the key -- that would imply a mis-match between those who benefit (the local businesses) and those who pay to organize the bowl. See: nobody does this for charity.
I don't get it.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:29 AM ^
Yeah, I would like to see those books. I can tell you for sure that somebody is making money somewhere, but I have no idea exactly how.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:24 AM ^
Advertising and naming rights are where the money comes from. That money goes to the networks, the networks pay the teams, the conferences pool the money from their teams and distribute.
https://theoutline.com/post/2632/college-football-bowl-sponsorship-business?zd=1&zi=sur26cxg
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:29 AM ^
Ditch the playoffs and championship games altogether. Go back to the old way where the championship was mythical and based on polls. That will take a lot of the greed out of the system and encourage the return of true student athletes. The BCS and playoffs era has ruined college football
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:31 AM ^
4 team playoff is working fine. Don’t think a move to 8 helps anyone, wouldn’t fight against it. Though if you move to 8 teams, the first round should take place at the higher seeds home field....too much travel for fans if it’s all bowl games.
In regards to bowl attendance, this isn’t a bowl/playoff issue. Attendance is an issue all over the country, mainly due to the rise of conference TV networks allowing all games to be televised. Not sure how you fix that at a macro level....each school and conference needs to manage that.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:57 AM ^
March madness began with 16 teams, and no one complains now that it is 68 teams.
The key is expanding the CFP is to have 1st round games take place at local stadiums ... which could happen immediately after the regular season. This also might require playing 11 regular season games, but having another potential home game at Michigan Stadium (or any football stadium) would be a sellout and also TV $$$.
Go Blue!
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:56 AM ^
Plenty of people complained about going from 64 to 68 as a shameless money grab and the most people still refer to 64 as round 1.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:32 AM ^
I honestly believe letting kids go straight to a professional league out of high school will greatly improve the product for both college football and basketball. Being back parity please, only two schools having a chance every year is hurting CFB.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:21 AM ^
The main reason why this does not happen is because, unlike basketball, players are generally not physically ready for the pros. They need a year or two in the weight room to get up to a weight and physical size that will ensure they are not killed in the NFL. I think this is why, for quite some time, freshman players were not allowed to play in college their first year.
Not saying all players require this seasoning any more (since training in high school appears to have gotten better), but I do believe this has been a major reason.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:32 AM ^
Will someone please explain to me why bowl games used to be meaningful and are suddenly not thanks to the playoffs? Because it gets repeated a lot and I don’t really understand how. In any given year, for all of college football history a maximum like 3 bowl games mattered at the end of the year. Or the exact situation we have now
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:45 AM ^
Because the number of games was reduced to the top teams and, subsequently, the quality of the competition was significantly improved. Not all, but most of us, still retain some semblance of a conscience...and at some point there is a saturation that even the most pathological fan succumbs to.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:02 AM ^
So the problem isn’t the playoffs it’s the number of bowl games. You’re just arguing that only 9 win teams instead of 6 win teams should be in a bowl.
Thats a completely different argument than the playoffs have ruined bowls.
i think the reality is that bowls reveal that Michigan is a second tier football school and not top tier. We can’t win 10 games against shitty big ten teams and claim top 5 finishes anymore.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:09 AM ^
Bowls have always been meangingless and most are awful to watch. It’s just taken this long for people to realize it.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:12 AM ^
I believe it is both-plus more. The number of bowl games and the (over) saturation is a large contributor to the apathy but so is the (over) concentration of talent-that is the reality of today's organization.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:21 AM ^
It was also because the "big 4 bowls" (Rose, Cotton, Sugar, Orange) were all played on New Years Day and as teams got upset in the earlier games the later games would immediately take on greater importance. There was an element of unpredictability under the old system that made all the big games special. That has all been lost with first the BCS and then the playoffs.
Edit - yes, I left out the Fiesta because it didn't get big until the mid-80's when they started paying big bucks to get the two highest ranked teams available which was the harbinger of the BCS bowl game. I'm also dating myself.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:58 AM ^
How would upsets impact the meaningfullness of later games? That is only true if an undefeated team lost in the rose bowl and 1 loss team was playing in the sugar later. And even still that would make only 2 bowl games matter. The idea that the playoff made bowls less meaningful is a fanciful romanticazation of the past, not based on reality or logic.
January 2nd, 2019 at 11:31 AM ^
It mattered because everything was subjective. It was all about votes. So other bowls that implied "strength of schedule" and "who we think could beat who" also mattered.
When we played Auburn in the 1983 season Sugar Bowl they believed they had a claim on being voted #1. But the way that we held the great Bo Jackson completely out of the end zone, coupled with Miami's exciting last play win over Nebraska, catapulted the Canes from #4 to #1.
On paper, the Sugar Bowl was not an NC matchup. But it impacted the NC votes.
Many years were like that.
The Cotton, Rose, Orange, Sugar, and later the Fiesta bowl, all on New Years day, mattered a great deal.
They were the defacto playoff.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:06 AM ^
The meaningless bowl games were always meaningless.
When Michigan beat Alabama on Brown-to-Kolesar's daring 4th down pass in the 1988 Hall of Fame Bowl, Keith Jackson said "I don't know what it proves, but it sure was fun watching it."
You watched those bowls for fun. You watched them to see oddball team and player and conference matchups that you don't get to see during the regular season.
I thought a lot of this season's bowl games were quite fun, even if they were meaningless.
Just because something is meaningless does not mean it's not fun. That's why video games exist.
What is getting diluted is the bowl games that previously were meaningful. The ones that added to the argument about who was #1.
The Rose Bowl gets by on pageantry, but bowls like the Fiesta have become an afterthought.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:56 AM ^
I'd add one other thing -- back in the day (I'm thinking the 70's into the 80's) there just wasn't many televised college games. One per week on ABC. Seeing "your team" on TV was a big thing. If "your team" was in a televised bowl, it was a very big thing.
Now there's dozens of games every weekend, and the with conference networks it's possible to see "your team" every week. In that scenario, what's one more televised game at the end of the year, particularly if the outcome doesn't mean much for "your team?" Answer: not a lot.
January 2nd, 2019 at 11:02 AM ^
When did more than one or two of the big bowl games matter? If an undefeated Bama was playing in the Sugar bowl and and a 1 loss Florida State was playing in the Orange and a 3 loss Michigan was playing a 2 loss Washington in the Rose that rose bowl mattered the exact same amount under the old system as it did this year. The only difference is the games that matter actually have equal stakes for both teams making those games even more compelling. The number of games that matter hasn't changed and the games that matter, matter even more and do a better job of matching teams up based on more than conference tie ins. In every way the system is better.
January 2nd, 2019 at 11:41 AM ^
See my "It mattered because everything was subjective . . . " post above. It extended beyond just the bowls with the #1 or #2 teams in them.
This year, you could flat out ignore the Rose Bowl result as far as who should be #1. Because everything is clear cut.
Back then it was subjective, based on many people's votes. What happened in the Rose Bowl added to people's impressions of who was the top team, even if it did not directly involve the top team.
January 2nd, 2019 at 12:01 PM ^
But your are essentially arguing the bowl games meant more because none of them meant anything since it was all just arguing. The implication is that arguing about the sport is more enjoyable than watching it being played.
For me one of the worst things about sports is the culture around it for many fans and a lot of fans who will shit on college kids, get racist, etc. The idea that the joy in the sport is from arguing with crazy football fans from Bama about how beating ND is more valuable than beating Ole Miss because ND won a bowl game against a team neither team played is confusing to me.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:14 AM ^
I’d be interested to hear the rational for this as well. The bowls are a relic from a bygone era and have always been a money grab. The serve no purpose other than tradition, additional practices and a “reward” for the players who get the bowl experience.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:34 AM ^
Pay the players?
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:34 AM ^
The product is degraded, part of the wider crapification/monetization of everything. I don't see any way to reverse this. To bow to the inevitable and pay players because that's the logic of the system, because the contradictions are so glaring, isn't going to magically fix the sport. But when we're down to two or three major conferences and a semi-pro game it could be that a lot of people will tune out once and for all.
I'm trying to give it less of my attention. And--not sure why--but I've begun to take more pleasure in hoops. No people breaking each other's necks, a little more flow and--for me--less angst-ridden.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:35 AM ^
The length of games with excessive replays and commercials has pushed me to be more of a TV watcher (versus going to games) and channel flipper.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:35 AM ^
College athletics is mostly outside of the larger purposes of "college"...football in particular. Something should be done to address the lack of parity here. It would not be that difficult for the NCAA to invest in a player rating system-or use ones currently in place...then set a ceiling on the number of "points" a university can recruit in a class...or an average per recruit in a class. The players would still have plenty of good choices and there would be a higher level of competition. There is even the possibility that the partisan idiots would develop some objectivity and that the entertainment level for the fans would be enhanced. Here, at least, a 16 team play-off would be appropriate...the arguments against such an expansion are specious-and that is being kind.
Hope springs eternal.
January 2nd, 2019 at 10:09 AM ^
All of you are only looking at it this way because we have no chance of ever getting into the Championship game.
January 2nd, 2019 at 11:16 AM ^
thanks for creating an account specifically to bitch. well done.
January 2nd, 2019 at 11:41 AM ^
Thank You!
January 2nd, 2019 at 12:51 PM ^
Personally, your premise could not be more incorrect. Otherwise, perhaps you have a point?????
January 2nd, 2019 at 4:58 PM ^
I am curious to hear from whomever negged this...for their reason(s). The real danger to D1 football is the lack of parity/fairness. If you simply do not appreciate my lack of tact-fine. Otherwise, the general apathy will continue to grow. Maybe it is fine if the erosion continues...die-hards hanging onto shallow, petty preferences will not win the day here. Make the necessary adjustments if the purposes of playing the game are valid.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:38 AM ^
beat your rival and it will mean something
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:38 AM ^
Speak for yourself. I can't wait to stay up until 1:00 a.m. on a weeknight to watch Bama-Clemson!
I get that they're trying to copy basketball with the Monday night thing - but did they stop to consider that basketball games are over in two hours, and football games aren't?
January 2nd, 2019 at 11:02 AM ^
The game is on Monday night because the NFL First Round games would destroy the ratings of the CFP Championship game. NFL has 2 games each on Saturday & Sunday.
The only options for the CFP are Friday night, Saturday noon and Monday night. They picked Monday because a lot more people watch TV on Monday than on Friday, and noon EST isn't exactly West Coast friendly.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:41 AM ^
All these takes are funny, because they would be markedly different if Michigan were on the same level as Alabama, Clemson or even OSU.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:52 AM ^
You have a point. However the same could be said for every fan-base...both for and against the current system. And this is why the NCAA should revamp the whole thing and try to bring all the idiots along...you know, the "rising tide" thing.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:55 AM ^
Exactly! Had we made it in, no one would be talking about how silly the CFP is.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:45 AM ^
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:49 AM ^
I agree. The game has lost most of its amateurism and the good teams are SO good that it takes a perfect storm to beat them. It also seems like the “middle class” is disappearing and it’s just the super elite followed by the “pretty goods”. I have cut down my football watching, that’s for sure.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:57 AM ^
That’s how it has always been! I would even argue as a whole the parity has been better as a whole over the past 15-20 years.
January 2nd, 2019 at 9:52 AM ^
We would love it if Michigan could actually win more meaningful games.