BY KEN W PACZAS
People ask me all the time. .
”Why do you hate Boise State? They are the little team that could and everyone loves an underdog story.”
Well to me, this just isn’t the case. Boise St. is a fraud to the system that I hold dear, and here are four reasons why Boise St. will never play for the national title.
#1 - The College Football Establishment has too much to lose
The BCS is controlled, almost entirely, by the "Big Six" conferences. Those leagues have the most direct path to the championship, and they take the biggest slices of the revenue pie. The BCS is a finite universe - for every team that gets in, many get left out.
A national championship means millions of dollars for the University and Conference. Since the BCS went to the five game formats, with the exception of the Big XII last year, every conference represented in the title game has also had a team playing in one of the traditional BCS bowls. The inclusion of Boise State likely means one of the existing BCS conferences loses the prestige and revenue of an extra BCS assignment. Going back to 2001, at least one of the conferences represented in the national championship game was also represented by an extra BCS team. These are millions of dollars on the line for some school and conference.
Selecting a team like Boise State (or TCU) for a "traditional" BCS game carries less danger. A non-BCS league team has been included in five of the last six BCS years and multiple bids were still preserved for other conferences. Last year a deserving Florida team sat home while TCU and BSU played under the brightest lights. There was a feeling that the BCS would do it "this time" with the hope that putting two in this one time would placate the critics and preserve the status quo. Now the status quo might be turned on its head, and the prize on the line is the only one the BCS leagues absolutely do not want to give up.
If 2009 was the year of realignment, it's not that hard for 2010 to be the summer of Independence. Some of these concerns are overblown - not everyone can go independent. In fact, there is room for less than a handful of independent programs that compete on a truly national level. Some programs could make that decision, however, and follow the BYU model to financial and competitive independence. Schools like Texas, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, LSU, USC and others who believe they should be on a "championship level" every year can reassess the situation, take a disproportionately higher payout from an agreement with a cable network, and craft for themselves a competitively easier road to the title. If Boise State can play for a title after playing a two-game schedule, why can't Texas? Why shouldn't Texas? The folks in the league offices know this, and they have everything to lose. Make no mistake, any league is significantly devalued if their marquee program decides to go it alone, and those marquee programs are precisely the ones who are in a position to make that kind of move.
If, on the other hand, the existing forces rally to tell Boise State those two games just isn't good enough - that the rigors of two games can't compare to the gauntlet of the SEC or Big Ten - then the incentive to go it alone is significantly reduced.
The conferences know that the big BCS money exists not because of schools like BSU and TCU - ESPN won't pay this kind of money for them - but because of the national interest in programs like Texas, Ohio State, Florida, USC and the "power" leagues. Giving them a shot (and potentially a title) means the leagues have to give away what is rightfully earned by them - big money. They have everything to lose.
#2 - The Public Backlash
College Football is extremely provincial. The popularity of the sport exists not because of generic national interest, but because of more traditional interest centered on individual schools and conferences. Sure, there is bandwagon fans that ship their allegiances from school-to-school, coast-to-coast based upon the fortunes of a given season, but by and large college football is tied to home. Unlike the NFL, whose support is based somewhat more on generic support for the league and game in general, college football fans are more likely to group themselves according to more specific allegiances.
The hardcore sports geeks - the guys calling into afternoon sports talk - want the best possible matchups. The bulk of the viewership, however, is tied to a team or league in a much more specific way. While college football, on the whole, far outdraws the NFL at the turnstiles, TV viewership is but a fraction of what the pro game enjoys. The generic "watch whoever is playing" draw is much less significant amongst college fans. They want to watch their team and the teams they are most familiar with, not an upstart from far away whom they know relatively little about.
Right now there is an element, amongst the media, of playing the story. Boise State brings controversy and a passionate response - look at reaction of MSU fans to the thought of being excluded because of BSU - and controversy drives ratings. At some point, however, pissing off the bulk of college football fans will prove to be an inefficient method of driving ratings. As the public sentiment, centered on the big leagues that drive the big ratings, turns, and so will the commentary out of Bristol and elsewhere. Once that turns, the Harris voters and Coaches will be impacted.
#3 - The System Won't Allow It
The BCS formula is comprised of computer polls, the Harris Interactive Poll, and the Coaches poll.
BSU will always take a lump in the computers for the very reason people are opposed to their admission to the title game. They play a weak schedule and pay a penalty for it.
The Coaches Poll is the wild card here. Will the Coaches give a chance to an up-start, or will they vote for their own provincial interests?
The most recent list of voters I could find is several years old. It was 63 names long. Of those 63 voters, greater than 2/3 of the voters come from the traditional BCS leagues. When the coaches (read: SID's) sit down to complete their ballots, who are they likely to over value and under value? A team whose interests are aligned with their own (and those of their league) or those of a league of less prestige?
Lower coaches ranking combined with a penalty in the computer polls could doom Boise State.
#4 - ESPN
The college football world takes a dramatic turn this season. In the past, the loudest opinion in the room was a bystander when it came to title time, just like the rest of us. Now ESPN has a vested financial interest in the championship game. They have ratings to deliver, ads to sell, and impressions to deliver to advertisers. They must do this while convincing the college football audience that they are a proper steward of the game's biggest stage.
Right now, the BSU storyline drives ratings. It gets folks from Tuscaloosa to Texas excited and upset. At some point, however, ESPN will realize where their interests are.
The TV ratings for games involving non-BCS league teams have historically been very low. Last year the TCU/Boise State game was the 2nd lowest rated game of the BCS (behind small-state Iowa and no-fan base Georgia Tech). The year before, Utah's appearance in the BCS also attracted the second-lowest rating in the BCS, less than half the viewership for the title game and only about 2/3 the viewership of the other games. (Va Tech/Cincinnati attracted the smallest audience in BCS history that year). In 2008, Hawaii's BCS appearance set the low-water mark for the year, while the Boise State-Oklahoma game that everyone remembers as the ultimate David-vs-Goliath BCS story was the second lowest rated game of its season. In 2005, Utah's appearance was the lowest rated game of the year by some distance.
In the history of the BCS, the highest rated game involving a "non-AQ" team was the 8.4 rating delivered by the BSU/Oklahoma game. I can't find hour-by-hour (or better yet, quarter-hour) number, so my suspicion that the ratings skyrocketed late in that game is without support. Meanwhile, the lowest rated title game is the 13.7 earned by the USC/Oklahoma game in 2005.
Considering the history of non-AQ teams in the BCS, and BSU in particular, there is little reason to believe that BSU vs. anyone would pull the kind of ratings ESPN needs to deliver in year one of its new BCS contract. Remember, however, their goal isn't to deliver whatever they can - it is to deliver the maximum audience possible. Disney has paid a large fortune for these games, and the way they make money on the deal is by having the highest rated game possible. Almost any title matchup without BSU (or TCU) would outdraw any title matchup with them.
The BCS is controlled, almost entirely, by the "Big Six" conferences. Those leagues have the most direct path to the championship, and they take the biggest slices of the revenue pie. The BCS is a finite universe - for every team that gets in, many get left out.
A national championship means millions of dollars for the University and Conference. Since the BCS went to the five game formats, with the exception of the Big XII last year, every conference represented in the title game has also had a team playing in one of the traditional BCS bowls. The inclusion of Boise State likely means one of the existing BCS conferences loses the prestige and revenue of an extra BCS assignment. Going back to 2001, at least one of the conferences represented in the national championship game was also represented by an extra BCS team. These are millions of dollars on the line for some school and conference.
Selecting a team like Boise State (or TCU) for a "traditional" BCS game carries less danger. A non-BCS league team has been included in five of the last six BCS years and multiple bids were still preserved for other conferences. Last year a deserving Florida team sat home while TCU and BSU played under the brightest lights. There was a feeling that the BCS would do it "this time" with the hope that putting two in this one time would placate the critics and preserve the status quo. Now the status quo might be turned on its head, and the prize on the line is the only one the BCS leagues absolutely do not want to give up.
If 2009 was the year of realignment, it's not that hard for 2010 to be the summer of Independence. Some of these concerns are overblown - not everyone can go independent. In fact, there is room for less than a handful of independent programs that compete on a truly national level. Some programs could make that decision, however, and follow the BYU model to financial and competitive independence. Schools like Texas, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, LSU, USC and others who believe they should be on a "championship level" every year can reassess the situation, take a disproportionately higher payout from an agreement with a cable network, and craft for themselves a competitively easier road to the title. If Boise State can play for a title after playing a two-game schedule, why can't Texas? Why shouldn't Texas? The folks in the league offices know this, and they have everything to lose. Make no mistake, any league is significantly devalued if their marquee program decides to go it alone, and those marquee programs are precisely the ones who are in a position to make that kind of move.
If, on the other hand, the existing forces rally to tell Boise State those two games just isn't good enough - that the rigors of two games can't compare to the gauntlet of the SEC or Big Ten - then the incentive to go it alone is significantly reduced.
The conferences know that the big BCS money exists not because of schools like BSU and TCU - ESPN won't pay this kind of money for them - but because of the national interest in programs like Texas, Ohio State, Florida, USC and the "power" leagues. Giving them a shot (and potentially a title) means the leagues have to give away what is rightfully earned by them - big money. They have everything to lose.
#2 - The Public Backlash
College Football is extremely provincial. The popularity of the sport exists not because of generic national interest, but because of more traditional interest centered on individual schools and conferences. Sure, there is bandwagon fans that ship their allegiances from school-to-school, coast-to-coast based upon the fortunes of a given season, but by and large college football is tied to home. Unlike the NFL, whose support is based somewhat more on generic support for the league and game in general, college football fans are more likely to group themselves according to more specific allegiances.
The hardcore sports geeks - the guys calling into afternoon sports talk - want the best possible matchups. The bulk of the viewership, however, is tied to a team or league in a much more specific way. While college football, on the whole, far outdraws the NFL at the turnstiles, TV viewership is but a fraction of what the pro game enjoys. The generic "watch whoever is playing" draw is much less significant amongst college fans. They want to watch their team and the teams they are most familiar with, not an upstart from far away whom they know relatively little about.
Right now there is an element, amongst the media, of playing the story. Boise State brings controversy and a passionate response - look at reaction of MSU fans to the thought of being excluded because of BSU - and controversy drives ratings. At some point, however, pissing off the bulk of college football fans will prove to be an inefficient method of driving ratings. As the public sentiment, centered on the big leagues that drive the big ratings, turns, and so will the commentary out of Bristol and elsewhere. Once that turns, the Harris voters and Coaches will be impacted.
#3 - The System Won't Allow It
The BCS formula is comprised of computer polls, the Harris Interactive Poll, and the Coaches poll.
BSU will always take a lump in the computers for the very reason people are opposed to their admission to the title game. They play a weak schedule and pay a penalty for it.
The Coaches Poll is the wild card here. Will the Coaches give a chance to an up-start, or will they vote for their own provincial interests?
The most recent list of voters I could find is several years old. It was 63 names long. Of those 63 voters, greater than 2/3 of the voters come from the traditional BCS leagues. When the coaches (read: SID's) sit down to complete their ballots, who are they likely to over value and under value? A team whose interests are aligned with their own (and those of their league) or those of a league of less prestige?
Lower coaches ranking combined with a penalty in the computer polls could doom Boise State.
#4 - ESPN
The college football world takes a dramatic turn this season. In the past, the loudest opinion in the room was a bystander when it came to title time, just like the rest of us. Now ESPN has a vested financial interest in the championship game. They have ratings to deliver, ads to sell, and impressions to deliver to advertisers. They must do this while convincing the college football audience that they are a proper steward of the game's biggest stage.
Right now, the BSU storyline drives ratings. It gets folks from Tuscaloosa to Texas excited and upset. At some point, however, ESPN will realize where their interests are.
The TV ratings for games involving non-BCS league teams have historically been very low. Last year the TCU/Boise State game was the 2nd lowest rated game of the BCS (behind small-state Iowa and no-fan base Georgia Tech). The year before, Utah's appearance in the BCS also attracted the second-lowest rating in the BCS, less than half the viewership for the title game and only about 2/3 the viewership of the other games. (Va Tech/Cincinnati attracted the smallest audience in BCS history that year). In 2008, Hawaii's BCS appearance set the low-water mark for the year, while the Boise State-Oklahoma game that everyone remembers as the ultimate David-vs-Goliath BCS story was the second lowest rated game of its season. In 2005, Utah's appearance was the lowest rated game of the year by some distance.
In the history of the BCS, the highest rated game involving a "non-AQ" team was the 8.4 rating delivered by the BSU/Oklahoma game. I can't find hour-by-hour (or better yet, quarter-hour) number, so my suspicion that the ratings skyrocketed late in that game is without support. Meanwhile, the lowest rated title game is the 13.7 earned by the USC/Oklahoma game in 2005.
Considering the history of non-AQ teams in the BCS, and BSU in particular, there is little reason to believe that BSU vs. anyone would pull the kind of ratings ESPN needs to deliver in year one of its new BCS contract. Remember, however, their goal isn't to deliver whatever they can - it is to deliver the maximum audience possible. Disney has paid a large fortune for these games, and the way they make money on the deal is by having the highest rated game possible. Almost any title matchup without BSU (or TCU) would outdraw any title matchup with them.
I’m not a hater against Boise, but I know what’s best for college football. A one loss Alabama, or Ohio St., still should go over this Boise team. It’s why Boise St. will not play in the national title game.
Now sit back and wait for Jan 10, 2011. The Championship Game will be on TV. Maybe you can fly to Boise and watch it with the Broncos.
Now sit back and wait for Jan 10, 2011. The Championship Game will be on TV. Maybe you can fly to Boise and watch it with the Broncos.
No comments:
Post a Comment