What's to Become of College Football?
So... Bob Stoops retired today. For those of you who don't know who that is, he was the head football coach at Oklahoma since 1999. Won a national championship in 2000, won consistently at a high level, and is still relatively young- between 55 and 60.
I bring this up because it has become very rare for a college football coach to stay at one place for so long, and never leave for another job or get fired. The standard for what is considered success has become near impossible to meet.
When I was growing up, as a Georgia Bulldog fan, what was considered success was quite different. The expectation was that the Dogs would win 7 or more games, get to a bowl game (which was MUCH more difficult then), and occasionally win the SEC, but consistently be in the hunt for the conference crown. With the advent of the BCS- the Bowl Championship Series, all that changed.
Before the BCS, the national champion was "decided" by the AP poll, or one of various other polls that existed throughout the years. The drawback, of course, was that the champion was, most times, not decided on the field. The SEC champion played in the Sugar Bowl, the Big 8 champion played in the Orange Bowl, the Southwest Conference champion played in the Cotton Bowl, and the Big 10 played the PAC 10 champion in the Rose Bowl. There were several other tie-ins, but those were the big bowls. Obviously, unless #1 or #2 was an independent, like Notre Dame or Penn State, or played in a different conference, like Clemson, then there could be several teams with legitimate claims to #1. However, there were 2 main advantages to this: half of the bowl teams went home happy, because they ended their season on a win, and it was a heck of a lot of fun arguing which team was the best. In fact, several board and early computer games sought to answer this very question by allowing you to match up teams that never played, like 1960 Minnesota vs. 1970 Nebraska.
With the advent of the BCS, and now the playoff, much has changed. While, for the most part, we can claim that a championship has been decided on the field, the downside is that for the 129 teams that don't "win it all", their season is considered a failure. On top of that, only a handful of teams, maybe as much as 10, have a legitimate chance of doing just that. If a coach at one of these schools wins a lot, but doesn't ever make the BCS championship game, or, nowadays, make the playoff, fans are ready to fire him (see Mark Richt) and hopefully get a coach who can take them to the promised land. Even coaches who have won it all are subject to the "what have you done lately" crowd (see Les Miles or Philip Fulmer or Gene Chizik). Just winning 9 or 10 games, your bowl game, and the conference title every once in a while isn't enough. You're either the champion, or you're a loser.
One of the criteria for making it into the playoffs is strength of schedule. This is important, but there are inherent problems with this. First, most out-of-conference games are scheduled several years in advance. What may look like a great matchup today could be a patsy 3 years down the road, and vice versa. Even traditionally great programs have down years (see Texas, Notre Dame, et al.), and traditional patsies can have a great run for a few years. There was a time when Florida, Oregon, and FSU were terrible teams, year in and year out. Granted, that was many years ago, but the point is that things change. Anyway, one of the criticisms of teams from the group of 5 conferences (AAC, MW, Sun Belt, Conference USA, and the MAC) is that they don't play enough of the Power 5 conference teams. Meanwhile, the Power 5 are criticized for playing Group of 5 teams (they're also criticized for playing lower division teams, but that's an argument for another day). We can't have it both ways.
A solution to this is to expand the playoffs so that EVERY conference champion gets in, all 10. You either do that by creating a 12 or a 16 team tournament, with the other slots being filled by wild cards and independents, such as Notre Dame. However, this creates a whole new set of problems. Now the regular season becomes diluted, you have 11 or 15 unhappy teams when it's over instead of 3, and the season becomes way too long. The one advantage that I can see is that the playoffs would then be more equitable, and every team would legitimately have a chance to get in, not just a handful. Win your conference, and you're in. This would also do more to help recruiting for all the "other" schools; they can now tell a student athlete that if they come to Texas St, or Georgia Southern, or any other place, that they have a chance to play in the playoffs, and perhaps for a national championship. Every team would be on equal footing.
I believe what will eventually happen is that the top level of 130 teams will split into 2 divisions of roughly 60-70 teams, and there will be 2 sets of playoffs, just like there are in every other division. I predict that this will happen within the next 10 years.
May your day and your loved ones be blessed!
I bring this up because it has become very rare for a college football coach to stay at one place for so long, and never leave for another job or get fired. The standard for what is considered success has become near impossible to meet.
When I was growing up, as a Georgia Bulldog fan, what was considered success was quite different. The expectation was that the Dogs would win 7 or more games, get to a bowl game (which was MUCH more difficult then), and occasionally win the SEC, but consistently be in the hunt for the conference crown. With the advent of the BCS- the Bowl Championship Series, all that changed.
Before the BCS, the national champion was "decided" by the AP poll, or one of various other polls that existed throughout the years. The drawback, of course, was that the champion was, most times, not decided on the field. The SEC champion played in the Sugar Bowl, the Big 8 champion played in the Orange Bowl, the Southwest Conference champion played in the Cotton Bowl, and the Big 10 played the PAC 10 champion in the Rose Bowl. There were several other tie-ins, but those were the big bowls. Obviously, unless #1 or #2 was an independent, like Notre Dame or Penn State, or played in a different conference, like Clemson, then there could be several teams with legitimate claims to #1. However, there were 2 main advantages to this: half of the bowl teams went home happy, because they ended their season on a win, and it was a heck of a lot of fun arguing which team was the best. In fact, several board and early computer games sought to answer this very question by allowing you to match up teams that never played, like 1960 Minnesota vs. 1970 Nebraska.
With the advent of the BCS, and now the playoff, much has changed. While, for the most part, we can claim that a championship has been decided on the field, the downside is that for the 129 teams that don't "win it all", their season is considered a failure. On top of that, only a handful of teams, maybe as much as 10, have a legitimate chance of doing just that. If a coach at one of these schools wins a lot, but doesn't ever make the BCS championship game, or, nowadays, make the playoff, fans are ready to fire him (see Mark Richt) and hopefully get a coach who can take them to the promised land. Even coaches who have won it all are subject to the "what have you done lately" crowd (see Les Miles or Philip Fulmer or Gene Chizik). Just winning 9 or 10 games, your bowl game, and the conference title every once in a while isn't enough. You're either the champion, or you're a loser.
One of the criteria for making it into the playoffs is strength of schedule. This is important, but there are inherent problems with this. First, most out-of-conference games are scheduled several years in advance. What may look like a great matchup today could be a patsy 3 years down the road, and vice versa. Even traditionally great programs have down years (see Texas, Notre Dame, et al.), and traditional patsies can have a great run for a few years. There was a time when Florida, Oregon, and FSU were terrible teams, year in and year out. Granted, that was many years ago, but the point is that things change. Anyway, one of the criticisms of teams from the group of 5 conferences (AAC, MW, Sun Belt, Conference USA, and the MAC) is that they don't play enough of the Power 5 conference teams. Meanwhile, the Power 5 are criticized for playing Group of 5 teams (they're also criticized for playing lower division teams, but that's an argument for another day). We can't have it both ways.
A solution to this is to expand the playoffs so that EVERY conference champion gets in, all 10. You either do that by creating a 12 or a 16 team tournament, with the other slots being filled by wild cards and independents, such as Notre Dame. However, this creates a whole new set of problems. Now the regular season becomes diluted, you have 11 or 15 unhappy teams when it's over instead of 3, and the season becomes way too long. The one advantage that I can see is that the playoffs would then be more equitable, and every team would legitimately have a chance to get in, not just a handful. Win your conference, and you're in. This would also do more to help recruiting for all the "other" schools; they can now tell a student athlete that if they come to Texas St, or Georgia Southern, or any other place, that they have a chance to play in the playoffs, and perhaps for a national championship. Every team would be on equal footing.
I believe what will eventually happen is that the top level of 130 teams will split into 2 divisions of roughly 60-70 teams, and there will be 2 sets of playoffs, just like there are in every other division. I predict that this will happen within the next 10 years.
May your day and your loved ones be blessed!
Comments
Post a Comment