In Defense of the Bowls

Division 1 Bowl Subdivision is the only division in any NCAA sport that does not determine their National Champion by a playoff. Many hate this. Many think that the way the sport is decided is unfair, biased to a region or institution, or simply inadequate. All these arguments are fair and have merit. However, I would like to spin another angle that may change the minds of those people who hate the bowl system.

From the dawn of college football... ok, so I don't know if it is that long ago, but from early CFB to now the sport has been incredibly popular. It was far more popular than any professional football until the 1970's. So the powers of the institutions and the powers of warm weather cities decided that the teams could match up in post season exhibitions that would not be seen elsewhere on conference and regional schedules.

It was a win-win-win. The cities got a unique matchup that brought dollars to their area. The insitutions got a lot of money for attending. The players got treated to vacations, the best lodging, media attention, and free goods and services. Further, it exposed them to new areas around the country and new media outlets where they could show off their talents. In short, the amateur players, for one week a year while not attending classes were treated like professional athletes.

That's exactly right. During the height of "amateurism" the powers that be decided it was completely acceptable for the collegiate football players to be treated as professionals. The bowl gift packages have to players have monetary limit, but the week does not. Hotels, resorts, tourism, free food, free clothes, free travel are all included.

Often, the BCS is eviscerated because the head of the BCS says the Bowl system is a reward for the players. The presidents of the universities have not voted for a playoff because it is widely understood that the bowls produce so much money for the schools that a playoff would take away that money from those who currently get it and place it in the hands of the NCAA.

Both are true and valid arguments. Yes, these players who work their asses off all year (some in the classroom, too), many who are not paid bags of cash like a recent Heisman Trophy winner, get a chance to live a life of ease at the end of their year. In fact, these players don't belong to major college football programs either. How many times have we looked at lesser tier bowls and the teams playing in them and think, "wow, this bowl is terrible" or "holy crap, why are these teams in a bowl game?... and why is it played in Shreveport, St Petersburg, or El Paso?"

Because the money is so great. Presidents of big time colleges take a gamble and pump money into programs in hopes of big TV dollars and big bowl payouts. Small time programs most likely lose money, but because of the bowl system they can get an influx of cash at the end of the year, it's pooled and shared among conference members, and then given to universities.

I am not arguing that the BCS is not a flawed system. Nor am I arguing that these programs make an incredible amount of money on 18-22 year olds in a system that has no market competitor. But I am saying that the Bowl system allows football players, many who will never ever sniff the NFL, a chance to be rewarded through gifts and cash equivalents.

Yes, the BCS is bad. The system before it was worse. But a playoff would very likely undermine a system that allows for what we call for all the time: college football players to receive compensation.