Golden Football Rankings: Football Opinions 4

Recently Oklahoma's football program was severely punished by the NCAA Infractions Committee for failure to monitor the phony employment of players at a car dealership.

Beyond noting the incongruity of the AD at Miami, Paul Dee, being head of the committee, I want to focus on one aspect of the committee's response.

There, in a nutshell, is the problem with Division IA college football. This is the only sport in the NCAA Pantheon whose postseason play is not sponsored by the organization. For once, I don't want to get into any playoff-vs-bowls argument. Instead, I want to speculate on what the words "the NCAA does not regulate bowl games" imply. Did the Infractions Committee mean to say that the NCAA doesn't care about bowl games so that teams can do what they want in post-season play? Can colleges play ineligible players in bowl games and the NCAA couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it? Is it up to each conference to enforce its own eligibility rules for bowl games? But a conference team is always playing another conference's representative in a bowl game. So why wouldn't a conference let the teams use all their players regardless of their academic status?

Recently Matt Hayes of the Sporting News weighed in on why Florida president Bernie Machen's plan for a national football playoff – or any similar plan – had no chance. [Read the article. Also read the readers' comments at the bottom.] The article doesn't so much give his opinion (although it is clear from his previous writing that he isn't interested in any kind of football playoff) as the reasons why the BCS presidents won't consider it. The reasons he cites are:

The only one of these three arguments that makes sense is the second. A 16-team playoff would most certainly dilute the regular season. True, it would make games in the Mountain West, MAC, and other non-BCS conferences more meaningful if each conference champion were guaranteed a playoff berth (to get the approval of the NCAA membership). However, non-BCS conference games don't have the national interest that BCS games do. So increasing their importance might allow a regional network to bid more for games in the Mountain West, MAC, etc. but would not make the national spenders (Fox, ABC/ESPN, CBS, possibly NBC) pony up more for the regular season.

On the other hand, an 8-team playoff would presumably include just the top teams in the BCS rankings with some provision for a non-BCS conference champ ranked, say, in the top 10 or top 12 (to obtain NCAA approval). Such a setup might lessen the regular season. I'd have to study past seasons to determine if that's the case. For example, would the Ohio State-Michigan clash attract as much national attention if it was clear, as it would have been last year, that the loser as well as the winner would be in the playoff? So even an 8-team playoff might mean that TV networks would not bid as much for regular season games because (a) BCS games might not be as meaningful and (b) the big spenders would save some money to bid for the playoff games. Also the BCS conferences now control the TV revenue from their Bowl Championship Series. An NCAA-sponsored playoff would require that some of the money be distributed in some way to all conferences.

However, the main comment I want to make about Hayes' article is that nothing he says applies to the Plus One idea that has been proposed by, among others, SEC commissioner Mike Slive. First, if you had a championship game after the bowl games, the BCS conferences would still get their 5-8 bowl spots plus, almost every year, two BCS teams would play a second game for the championship. Secondly, the regular season would not be diluted but rather enhanced because now at least four teams would have a legitimate shot at the championship depending on the bowl results. And, thirdly, the little guy would have a better chance at making the championship game. Consider Boise State last year. If they had jumped to #2 after the bowl games (as they did in the Golden Rankings), they could have played Florida for the title.

ABC/ESPN just released many changes for its announcer teams on its 2007 college football games. Here are my views on some of them.

Ron Franklin continues to move down from Saturday night feature games several years ago – I like Ron but he's showing his age.
Mike Gottlieb has dropped even further than his onetime partner Franklin – again, getting old.
Brad Mussberger remains the play-by-play voice on ABC's Saturday night package – why? Contractual obligations? Brad Nessler is far better; yet he does only the main regional afternoon game.
Bob Davie moves to ESPN2's Saturday primetime series – I'm probably prejudiced against him from his Notre Dame days but he doesn't add much to the broadcast for me.
Bob Griese remains with Nessler on the main Saturday afternoon ABC game – I've never been impressed by Griese so I'm glad Kirk Herbstreet's on the primetime game and not Bob.
Pam Ward – no mention of a change for her; so I assume she'll still do early Saturday games. I just hope she continues to be part of the crew because I like her understated style very much.

There has been much discussion this spring about an early signing date in NCAA football as there is in basketball and baseball. Coaches are weighing in on both sides of the controversy: keep the current system which has only the first Wednesday of February as the National Letter of Intent signing date. Others want an alternate date as early as August or as late as mid-December. Maize and Blue gave his hearty endorsement in his 6/4 posting. I have mixed feelings on the matter. On the one hand, I like the idea that a senior can sign a letter of intent in August or early September and enjoy his senior year. On the other hand, football is a more perilous sport than basketball or baseball. A major injury in his senior year would not deprive the player who signed early of his scholarship. However, it complicates the recruiting process for the colleges. And it is harder to project a football player's ability after his junior year than it is a basketball or baseball player's potential. I can come down off the fence to say this: it makes no sense to set a mid-December date as the ACC has recommended. What's the point? Either set an alternate signing date in late August/early September or stay with the February date only.