Over the past several years, college football has undergone significant transformations, reshaping the landscape of the sport. From the replacement of the computer formula determining the National Championship game to the introduction of a 13-person committee and a 4-team playoff in 2014, and the more recent approval of the name, image, and likeness (NIL) policy, the dynamics of college football have evolved. Additionally, the transfer portal has allowed athletes to make one-time transfers without facing a one-year penalty, empowering them to choose the best path for their careers.
While these changes have been hailed by the pro-player college football fanbase, they have not been without their criticisms. One prominent argument is that these modifications have led to a proliferation of seemingly meaningless bowl games in the postseason. The controversy surrounding teams like Georgia and Florida State, dropping from the College Football Playoff due to unexpected setbacks, highlights the unpredictability and challenges that have emerged in the current system.
In a stark example, the Orange Bowl between Georgia and Florida State, which could have been a clash of two disrespected teams, turned into a lopsided 63-3 victory for Georgia, the largest margin of victory in bowl history. Similar situations unfolded in other matchups, with numerous key players opting out of bowl games, significantly impacting the competitive balance on the field.
Georgia's coach, Kirby Smart, expressed frustration after the Orange Bowl, emphasizing the need for a reevaluation of the system. The question now becomes: What is the solution? Suggestions range from adjusting the timing of the transfer portal to exploring sponsorships that financially incentivize players to participate in postseason games. However, each proposal comes with its own set of challenges and potential drawbacks.
While some argue for revenue sharing in college football, others contend that shifting the transfer portal's timeline could interfere with academic enrollment for the following semester. The primary obstacle, however, remains the unchanged financial landscape of college football. As long as the revenue model remains unaffected, significant alterations are unlikely to materialize.
Contrary to the narrative of college football being a "dying product," recent statistics suggest a different reality. The 2023 season was the most popular in history, with impressive TV viewership numbers during bowl season. The Rose Bowl between Alabama and Michigan attracted 27.2 million viewers, while even the controversial Georgia-Florida State Orange Bowl garnered 10.3 million viewers, marking the largest Orange Bowl audience since 2017.
Bowl games, often criticized as "meaningless," continue to be valuable assets for TV networks. The Pop-Tart Bowl, a first-ever event, averaged 4.31 million viewers on ESPN, surpassing the viewership of the NBA's five Christmas Day games. This underscores the enduring appeal of college football bowl games, regardless of the controversies surrounding them.
Looking ahead, the introduction of the 12-team playoff next year could potentially address some of the current issues. Championship potential bowl games might mitigate the opt-out problem, and first-round matchups on campus could generate heightened fan demand. Despite the concerns voiced by fans and coaches alike, the financial incentives tied to an anticipated $2 billion-plus annual media rights deal for the expanded playoff may ultimately shape the future of college football, keeping things largely unchanged.
In the realm of college football, the bottom line remains clear: as long as the money continues to flow, the status quo is likely here to stay. While fans may express their discontent, the financial considerations that drive the sport will ultimately dictate its trajectory, ensuring the continued prominence of bowl games and the broader college football landscape.
