Weekly Affirmation Archive: Guest Columnist Jarod Daily

Part I: Bowl Game Architecture: Ways To Reshape The Process


Raising the Level of Second-Tier Bowl Games


By Jarod Daily, Guest Columnist – Special to CFN


Find and follow Mr. Daily on Twitter: twitter.com/jadaily



The doling out of BCS berths isn't the only place where college football could use a little flexibility. Years ago, all of the other bowl games locked themselves into static agreements that on occasion led to stagnant matchups between mediocre teams from automatic-qualifying conferences, while great teams from non-autobid conferences — and sometimes excellent teams from some of the less-respected members of the AQs — had to settle for second- or third-tier postseason bowl matchups against vastly inferior opponents. In a few cases, this has led to an inflated postseason record because all of a conference's teams played against consistently overmatched opponents rather than teams of equal quality (see the Big East and Mountain West bowl records over the past half-decade).



After the five BCS games, a handful of other bowl games are rich in prestige, history, respect, payout, game date, and usually the quality of both teams. The Cotton, Capital One, Outback, Gator, Chick-Fil-A and Holiday bowls definitely fall into this category, and the Alamo Bowl seems to have made some power plays aimed at moving into that respectable second tier of bowl games. Also, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the Sun Bowl, with its history (as old as the Orange and Sugar bowls, and older than all others but the Rose, including the Cotton) ought to be considered at that level too, if only it could secure better matchups a bit more often.



But every year, one or more of that handful of bowls gets a stinker of a game. Now, with high choices out of the SEC and the Big Ten, the Capital One Bowl shouldn't have that problem, but the Jan. 1, 2010, edition of the game was a pretty ugly affair between LSU and Penn State. And let's not forget — though we may want to — the Dec. 31, 2008 Sun Bowl between Oregon State and Pittsburgh, a 3-0 snoozer won by the Beavers. The previous Sun Bowl wasn't much better; Oregon trampled South Florida 56-21.



The problem is that these bowls have extended contracts, with few or no exceptions, involving conferences that can vastly fluctuate in quality from year to year. If there's an 11-1 or 12-0 team from the WAC, Mountain West, Conference USA, MAC or Sun Belt that doesn't get in the BCS — and it looks rather likely that the loser of the Boise State-Nevada and TCU-Utah games, and perhaps also the winner of the latter, will fall into this category this year — those teams are locked into lower-tier bowls with low payouts against inferior opponents before Christmas. Meanwhile, the Outback Bowl is able to get a 7-5 SEC team into its January 1 spotlight against a 10-2 Big Ten team. Why can't we see some deals like this: Let’s say that TCU is 11-1 or better and ranked in the top 15. The Cotton Bowl can invite the Horned Frogs instead of either a Big 12 or SEC team (provided that no 10-win team is available from one of those conferences)? Or maybe, as an option, one could put a Boise State, Nevada or BYU that qualifies into the Sun or Holiday? Similarly, could we place a strong C-USA champ into one of the East Coast bowls like the Outback, Chick-Fil-A or Gator?



There's actually a pretty simple way to solve this: partially imitating the very same BCS system that makes us argue so much throughout the season. It's time to group some of the second- (and third-) tier bowls by quality, prestige, and other measures, and ensure that good teams play other good teams in good bowl games. One should focus on that second tier of bowls listed above (Capital One, Outback, Gator, Cotton, Chick-Fil-A, Sun, Holiday, Alamo), but ideally we might be able to set up several tiers with the same concept. Take those eight bowls (the exact configuration would certainly be up for discussion), give them each an "anchor" conference (or perhaps two choices for an anchor; for example, the Capital One could pick either a Big Ten or an SEC team as its anchor team when it comes time to extend bowl bids, or the Cotton could go with the Big 12 or the SEC, so it can have dibs on Arkansas as an old Southwest Conference team) and leave the other berth in each game as an at-large spot. Then stipulate that at-large bids should generally be extended to ranked teams with 10 or 11 wins before they go to any 8- or 9-win teams from the AQ conferences.


We can call this system the Bowl Alliance... er, Bowl Coalition... um, well, we'll have to work on the name. But like those BCS predecessors, it would be a pretty loose grouping. Payouts would not be pooled; the process would have fairly simple and pretty fluid selection rules; and bowls would simply be encouraged to promote the best possible games, while being contractually obligated to not leave the very best teams, regardless of conference affiliation, to play grossly inferior opponents, creating poor matchups for fans, viewers, and sponsors.



This way, we might see something like Stanford-Nevada in this year's Holiday Bowl, TCU-Texas in the Cotton Bowl, or Utah-Arizona in the Sun Bowl. You can't say there aren't plenty of people out there who want to see some of those matchups. Also, this system would allow a 9-3 or 10-2 Notre Dame (or the Big East runner-up) a better game than the Champs Sports Bowl.



This would also ensure we don't get a stinker like Nevada-Central Michigan in the Humanitarian Bowl or TCU-Arizona State in the Las Vegas Bowl. It would help some of those next-to-the-top-tier bowl games avoid being obligated to pick 7-5 teams just because that's all a conference has left. Looking into the crystal ball, it's tough to see the SEC — if it gets two BCS berths — having enough really good teams to fill its bids for the Chick-Fil-A, Capital One, Outback, Cotton and Gator bowls without turning to at least one 7-5 team (Auburn played in last year's Outback Bowl at 7-5 and won an instant classic over 8-4 Northwestern). None of these bowls would be stuck with a 7-5 team under this system.



Anyway, it's just a thought, one that could improve the quality of each bowl game and boost ratings. Actually, it's just one of several potential solutions. Bottom line: The rigidity of college football extends to all facets and corners of the sport, and it really keeps this American cultural treasure from surpassing even its current levels of greatness.