05-16-2012, 10:21 AM
Wait a minute. To all of those who question the need to crown a college football champion...
I seem to remember many a Stanford fan beating their chest about winning so many NCAA championships. If there is no champion crowned in D1A football, why should there be one crowned in women's water polo or women's soccer, or men's gymnastics or basketball? Wouldn't it be better to argue over who the best team is?
And why stop there? Why even bother with a scoreboard during games? Why not have everyone just play for the exercise? This may sound a bit silly, but the reality is the single most critical factor in determining interest in sports is uncertainty of outcome, in the context of that certainty being settled on the field of play. In other words, keeping score and crowning the champion is what drives interest in sports.
It isn't possible to make a winning argument that a college football playoff will yield less interest and in turn less revenue, than any other structure. Suggesting otherwise is to deny the laws of sports sociology, and in direct contradiction to all available facts. There simply is no way leaving the champion up for debate is going to create the most revenue for colleges and universities, and that is their imperative almost universally.
One can argue there shouldn't be a playoff to crown a champion, for reasons other than what will create the most interest and revenue. However, given the economic realities of 2012, it's tough to argue the luxury exists to exempt college football from market forces.Â
I seem to remember many a Stanford fan beating their chest about winning so many NCAA championships. If there is no champion crowned in D1A football, why should there be one crowned in women's water polo or women's soccer, or men's gymnastics or basketball? Wouldn't it be better to argue over who the best team is?
And why stop there? Why even bother with a scoreboard during games? Why not have everyone just play for the exercise? This may sound a bit silly, but the reality is the single most critical factor in determining interest in sports is uncertainty of outcome, in the context of that certainty being settled on the field of play. In other words, keeping score and crowning the champion is what drives interest in sports.
It isn't possible to make a winning argument that a college football playoff will yield less interest and in turn less revenue, than any other structure. Suggesting otherwise is to deny the laws of sports sociology, and in direct contradiction to all available facts. There simply is no way leaving the champion up for debate is going to create the most revenue for colleges and universities, and that is their imperative almost universally.
One can argue there shouldn't be a playoff to crown a champion, for reasons other than what will create the most interest and revenue. However, given the economic realities of 2012, it's tough to argue the luxury exists to exempt college football from market forces.Â