Perhaps no American sport has benefited from the internet and cable television more than college football. The internet provides never before seen access to teams, coaches, players, recruits and fans and cable television gives viewers the ability to watch games from all across the country. Especially now with DVR technology, you could probably spend an entire week watching nothing except college football games. These are probably the 2 biggest factors in the sport's growth over the past 20 years, neither of which involve the BCS. Yet, in chapter 13 and 14, the authors try and claim that the BCS is either solely claiming credit for the sport's growth (which it hasn't) or is an extreme hindrance in the continued growth (which it isn't because much of this growth has happened with the BCS present). The chapters do provide nice histories to both phenomena, but that is the extent of the value.
The internet has done amazing things for college football and has no doubt helped increased its popularity in conjunction with many other factors. Not only do you have endless stats and records at your fingertips with a simple click, you keep up with the recruits your team is going after and watch highlights of their high school games. If you live away from your school, you can access a team's sports website, the city's local paper and often the school newspaper in a matter of minutes. It is no secret that the internet has changed the way and speed with which we can accumulate information, and nothing feeds a fanatic like more information on a favorite team. The BCS came along around the same time that the internet really started drastically affecting college football, and all parties have benefited in a symbiotic relationship. The BCS feeds the beast because every team strives to be #1. If there was a playoff, there would be no need to aim for the top spot, and that would be tragic because it has always been a part of college football. However, the authors claim that the BCS credits only itself for the spike in popularity is simply not true, and this is evident because they can't even back it up with a quote from anyone. Fan interest has increased due to internet access, and the BCS has probably helped, but the BCS has never tried to take credit for the fanaticism that has arisen in the internet age.
Chapter 14 is about the influence of the ESPN show College Gameday which may be the single most important TV show in the history of college football. The authors do a great job of giving a history of the show and everything it entails. Gameday has done an incredible service to the college football community by delivering the passion of the sport into your living room. Coupled with the internet, the rise of the sport's popularity was inevitable. Yet again, the authors assert that the BCS claims sole credit for the growth of the sport. A quote is not provided, and if you search the internet, you will not find a quote. The BCS is not shy in saying that their system may have helped the growth, and it probably has in many ways, but never does it claim that the BCS is the only reason for the explosion. They do cite a TV executive that says a college football playoff would get good ratings, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it would be good for the game. Lots of bad things get good ratings, like Glenn Beck and Jersey Shore. Most would agree that those programs are not helpful in any way. Thus, there is no correlation between ratings and quality of product. College football has always been about a season-long journey to the #1 ranking, which we have now, and that journey is the main reason that TV companies are shelling out billions in order to broadcast the sport's regular season.
The chapters tell nice stories about 2 very important factors impacting the recent growth of college football. They claim that the BCS is dismissing these factors and claiming the growth is because of the system they installed. Yet, throughout both chapters, they fail to provide one quote from a BCS person making this claim. This book is filled with quotes from players, fans, media personalities, coaches, and even a coach's wife, yet that can't scrap up one measly quote to support a point they are using in 2 chapters. While I know the authors are not trying to be objective, it would be better if they could be truthful.
No comments:
Post a Comment