Even with players that can’t keep their mouths shut or there feet to themselves
…I’m getting giddy. It’s just about that time again.

Thank You Lord!

We’ve just about made it to kickoff.

College football is almost upon us and which means we are less than three months away from the annual argument over why we should or should not have a playoff in college football. I think that everyone agrees that for some reason, it has to boil down to money but it is also hard to see how a playoff could not be wildly successful. How could it not overcome what is made by the bowls. Here is my new theory on maybe why this could be true.

From the start…I will have some friends that won’t like this but I’m still not sure that it is not true.

1) The BCS as is assures the Big East, Big Ten, and ACC spots in the major bowl games

2) The geographical footprints of these three conferences cover 7(or of the top 11 metropolitan areas in the USA (see below).

3) These three conferences are a combined 16-25 in BCS appearances; the PAC 10 has 9 wins but 6 of them come against Big Ten teams that are a combined 8-11 in the BCS and 6 of the Pac 10′s wins come from USC the other teams are a combined 3-3.

4) The SEC, PAC 10 and Big 12 are a combined 28-18.

So…I think that maybe the BCS could have possibly hurt the drive toward a playoff. The Big East isn’t a football conference and it will never really be a consistent factor and I think the BCS has exposed the ACC & Big Ten. I really wonder how many championships the Big Ten would have had prior to the BCS era if the BCS had been in place. They get a lot of coverage and votes because of more media coverage in the north/northeast.

The SEC, PAC 10/USC (I really mean USC here.) and Big 12 consistently produce the teams that have a shot at winning it all and if USC is having an off year, you can take the PAC 10 out. The SEC has been the leader by far in the BCS era winning 5 of 11 championships and have a 12-5 record overall.

So, what I think is going on is this. If Big 10, Big East or ACC teams get knocked out early in a playoff system…which if BCS history would continue forward, could happen often. You could possibly lose 7 of the top 11 media markets and have a playoff that could go 1-3 weeks depending on the number of teams without a presence from these areas. Would their media outlets cover the tournament as strongly then? Will people in those areas really tune in to watch SEC, Big 12 and Pac 10/USC consistently when their teams are out?

That’s my theory. I think it really is about money & the NCAA and the networks are working to keep as many people watching as possible because TV is where the money comes from. The SEC while the most dominant in the BCS area doesn’t have a huge metropolitan area base. Now viewership should increase with the new ESPN contract. In a nutshell, a playoff system would further expose the Big Ten, Big East and ACC thus turning off interesting games to fans in huge markets which will result in smaller TV viewership.   

—– > Population Centers in the USA: New York (#1 in population), Boston (#10), Philadelphia (#5), Chicago (#3), Washington D.C (#9), Detroit (#11), Miami (#7) and if you count Atlanta (#8). Seven or even eight of the top eleven population centers in the USA are in the footprint of conferences that haven’t shown much BCS success.