When you pay that kind of money, ESPN has more than enough reason to tell college football what to do (insert AA idiot commenters bitching about a playoff being needed).

I think a lot of it has to do with the teams involved as well. Nobody cares about Cincinnati and Virginia Tech but people want to see Utah upset Alabama and face it, whenever you have Texas playing Ohio State, people are going to watch.

That being said, there is something to be said for the increase in ratings for almost all of their bowl games. I think what happens next year will dictate if ESPN decides to push for a playoff or not.

I think as long as the regular season ratings remain strong, there will be little incentive to change from the status quo. If the playoff system were implemented, I would bet with certainty that fewer people would tune in to watch a Okla-Tx Tech Saturday night game.

In fact, I would argue since Fox is losing the rights, there is actually LESS motivation to change. It would reason that only a party like Fox or another network who has minimal exposure to regular season games would they want to erode regular season ratings in favor of a back end payoff. But now ESPN/ABC would only be cannibalizing themselves, no?

Let's be honest. The real issue here is work. Everyone on all sides is just being fucking lazy. Everyone makes too much money with too little effort with the current system.

http://tr.im/4zbm

JFein,
you're an idiot. GUARANTEE you predicted an Alabama blowout of Utah and didn't think the Utes even belonged in the game.
Hindsight is 20/20!
Of course, people like seeing it AS IT HAPPENED, but no one thought it was possible and would've nixed the game if possible.
i bet you predicted all the NFL home teams would win this past weekend too.

@ Anon @ 2:00: I always love being judged based on one sentence...

And frankly, I did NOT think that Alabama was going to blowout Utah. I thought that Bama would win, yes, but I thought it would be a close game and not a blowout. I can't speak for the rest of America, but I am always very intrigued by the BCS bowl consisting of the unbeaten non-BCS team vs. the 1 or 2 loss BCS school. Besides the National Championship game, that's always the game I look most forward to watching.

And I absolutely thought Utah belonged in that game. Hell, I thought that unbeaten Boise State belonged against Texas instead of Ohio State. And judging based on how poorly Texas played for most of that game against The Overrated State University, there isn't a doubt in my mind that Boise would have hung in there right with them.

And no, I did not predict all NFL home teams would win this week. I had San Diego beating Pittsburgh. Don't believe me? Check out this blog post from January 9th.

http://fireandyreidnow.blogspot.com/2009/01/divisional-round-preview-san-diego.html

Christ on a cracker!

If you want to criticize a AA regular, Anon 2:00PM, make it more thought out and at least put your name there or register to blogger.com... Utah belonged in the BCS, and earned it by beating seven bowl teams for crying out loud. The reason ratings were up was because of that Utah factor.

Two years ago, no one expected Boise State in the BCS either, but the beat Bob Stoops, who still cannot win a BCS Game for his life.

Unseeded plus-one. The bowls go back to traditional tie-ins, followed by a championship game after New Year's Day.

I've wanted that for a while and had never heard it from ESPN. Then on New Year's Day, Kirk Hebrstreit, Todd Blackledge and the studio (Rece, Fulmer, May & Holtz) all made pitches to put the games back the way they were with a plus-one.

It just seemed like too much of coincidence for them all to agree on something like that. Only Fowler expressed any sort of disagreement to that plan.

I'd say that's the plan in 2015 for a four- or five-year rotation. If that fails, THEN we'll see a playoff in 2020. Yep, 2020.

Regardless of the boost in ratings for most bowls, I still think half of them need to go. There are too many bowl games.

Under the current system, teams like Utah will never get a opportunity to win a national championship.

There's not a true national champion until any deserving team can possibly win it.

The media's role is not, repeat NOT, in any way to advocate for any changes in what they cover. Would it be okay for Katie Couric or Brian Williams to pound their desk during the nightly news and say "WE MUST HAVE GAY MARRIAGE/PRAYER IN SCHOOLS/WHATEVER NOW!!!!"? Of course it wouldn't. ESPN covers the BCS. That means they can't use their heft to advocate one way or the other. Just imagine promos like "And on Thursday night, tune into the worthless non-playoff snoozefest between Pitt and Marshall! Only on the Deuce!"

It is always wrong when journalists (yes, ESPN counts) inject themselves into what they are covering.

Look at the bowls that saw big decreases when compared to previous years. Also, keep in mind demographics. More people will care about a bowl game that features Penn State, Ohio State, or Michigan because they are teams that are more heavily featured in the Northeast and Rust Belt where the largest concentration of people are. Programs like Florida, Miami and FSU drive in ratings because of their acceptability by the folks up North. Georgia is not considered a watchable program by the Northern viewer because they are a school that is not viewed as acceptable. Georgia vs. Michigan State's ratings suffered because of demographics. Nobody cares about any other team than Florida in the SEC in the money maker states (Northeast and Rust Belt). Then again most folks in the money maker states are casual fans and most likely did not attend the athletic powerhouses, hence these areas care more about pro sports. The BosNYWash area doesn't care about college football or college sports for that matter. It's always embarrassing that the Preseason NIT is always half-full or that any college game at the Garden has a poor attendance.