NCAA Bowl Game Changes: Don't Count on it Any Time Soon

Are your frustrated with the dearth of entertaining bowl games on the NCAA football slate?  Have you gotten sick of seeing some 7-5 Conference USA team battle a 6-6 MAC team in some meaningless Dec. 20 game from Detroit?  Are you tired of waiting for the excitement of the BCS games to begin on New Year, only to sit back on your couch disappointed, as you witness a series of blowouts? 

Unfortunately, these problems do not appear to be coming to a conclusion at any point in the future as the NCAA refuses to stop the current madness that has become the bowl season. 

There are a number of problems with the current system, and since no solution (i.e. a playoff) appears in to be in the cards, let's dissect the current problems with the system.

The first of these problems is the entire situation with Notre Dame football.  Sure, it's more economically practical for them to remain an independent, but it's also screwing with the bowl system.  Notre Dame was horrible last year, but take the 2006 season as an example of how Notre Dame unfairly benefits from the system. 

Notre Dame did go 10-2 in the regular season, but were smoked by the only two BCS worthy teams they played that season, as they lost 47-21 at home to Michigan, and then fell at USC 44-24. 

Still, because they were somehow ranked sixth after that loss to the Trojans, they automatically qualified for a BCS game even though they had not defeated anybody of that caliber.  Not shockingly, they were over-matched in a game that they should never have played, as LSU utterly destroyed Notre Dame and its horrid secondary, 41-14 in the Sugar Bowl.

Notre Dame's putrid performance in recent bowl games though extends back to the mid 1990s, as they have not won a bowl game since 1994, and of their nine consecutive losses since the 1994 Cotton Bowl, only two have come by less than 10 points. 

This can largely be attributed to Notre Dame's "contracts" with bowls like the Gator Bowl, agreements which allow the Fighting Irish to play in a certain bowl if they reach a certain win plateau, regardless of whether their schedule or performance merits acceptance to such a bowl.  As a result, Notre Dame often plays in bowls for which they are not qualified, and, not shockingly are blown out of the water.

But the Fighting Irish are not the bowl system's only problem.  Another dilemma comes from the traditional Big Ten/PAC-10 match up over which the Rose Bowl committee obsesses. 

Take three of the past four years as examples over how this system needs revision.  In the 2005 game, Michigan was pitted against Texas, who gained the bid over California despite the pleas from Cal Coach Jeff Tedford.  Texas A&M eventually trounced Cal in the Holiday Bowl, and the supposedly "undeserving" Longhorns kicked a last second field goal to defeat Michigan 38-37 in a great game. 

The next year was the BCS Championship game, so the Rose Bowl committee had no way to enforce its Big Ten/ PAC-10 game. The past two Rose Bowls, though, shed light on the problem with following tradition, as the Rose Bowl committee insisted on preserving a Big Ten/ PAC-10 match up. 

In the 2007 game, USC handled Michigan 32-18, and while Michigan did not show up for the game, they did deserve to play in a BCS game, as their only loss that year came at the runner-up Ohio State Buckeyes. 

The 2008 game was different story, though, as "The Committee" insisted on a Big Ten/ PAC-10 showdown, and the game was not even close.  USC trounced an over matched and undeserving Illinois squad 49-17.  Illinois certainly should not have played in that game, as the Illini (9-3 entering that game) had lost in their opener to a Missouri team that went 11-2 in the regular season and lost in the Big 12 title game. 

Such scenarios represent the Rose Bowl committee's stubborn refusal to sacrifice its conference ties for the best game possible.

As if these weren't enough reasons to criticize the BCS, the likelihood of such a change seems small just because the NCAA already missed its best opportunity to change the system. 

Remember back in the 2004 season when Oklahoma, USC, and Auburn all finished the year undefeated? 

Auburn got snubbed by the BCS system and was left playing Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl.  Most people forget that season's events as an example of the system's flaws, because USC drubbed Oklahoma 55-19 in the Orange Bowl, and Auburn only defeated the Hokies 16-13.  Still, the Tigers went undefeated and deserved some sort of shot at winning the national championship, even if they would likely have been over matched against such a talented Trojans squad.

Another issue is the egregious number of bowl games already in order.  Remember when going to a bowl was actually a privilege?  That's not the case anymore. 

Last season there were 32 bowl games, and two more have been added to the schedule this year for a total of 34.  68 teams will be needed to fill these slots, and last year there were "only" 71 bowl-eligible teams. 

Consider this relative to 1995, when there were just 18 bowl games and thus only 36 teams went to bowls.  Those were the days when playing in a bowl game actually carried some merit. 

Still, as large as this number has become, don't expect it to drastically shrink, if it even does at all.  The schools have too much to gain by playing in these games, and thus the number is not likely to fall.

Certainly NCAA football is one of the most entertaining organized sports in the nation, but come post-season time the excitement does not reach its maximum potential.  The current system is flawed in a number of ways, as noted above, but the financial benefit for the schools and conferences continues to out-weigh the flaws. 

And as long as we fans continue to watch these games, what's to stop the NCAA and its components—schools, conferences, and TV networks—from continuing to operate with this system?  Not much, considering the NCAA is still profiting from this flawed system.