Although I enjoy most college sporting events, I have long maintained that the structure of major-college football in the US is fundamentally flawed (related post here). Along those lines, this NY Times article reports on a lucrative market that has evolved from the NCAA’s regulation of major college football — less successful football programs selling the opportunity to be a sacrificial lamb to the more successful programs:
The University at Buffalo football team went 1-10 last season and did not score a touchdown until the fourth game. For nearly a decade, it has been considered one of the worst teams in college football.
Buffalo is just the kind of opponent some of the nationís top-ranked teams are looking for ó and are paying rapidly rising prices to play this season. The Bulls will travel this coming season to play Auburn, a national title contender, and Wisconsin, a perennial Big Ten Conference power. Although Buffalo appears destined to be humiliated, the university will receive a $600,000 appearance check for each game.
Scheduling easy victories is a tradition as timeless in college football as fight songs and homecoming. But after the National Collegiate Athletic Association approved the addition of a 12th regular-season game for the coming season, the appearance fees began climbing in a bidding war for games against college footballís flotsam and jetsam.
Buffalo became such a hot commodity in the off-season that it broke contracts with West Virginia and Rutgers because Auburn and Wisconsin were offering at least double the money. Troy State of Alabama will receive $750,000 from Nebraska to play in Lincoln this season. Louisiana-Lafayette will get the same amount from Tennessee next year.
In fact, demand for sacrificial lambs has become so great that the supply of lambs is running out:
With the weakest teams in Division I-A becoming more expensive, top programs are stooping lower for competition. Iowa, a Big Ten favorite this year, wooed Montana, a Division I-AA program, for $650,000.
Texas A&M and Texas have bought into the sacrificial lamb market big-time. Get a load of A&M’s non-conference schedule: Citadel, Louisiana-Lafeyette, Army and Louisana Tech. Other than the Ohio State game, Texas’ non-conference schedule is about as bad — North Texas, Rice and Sam Houston State.
Interestingly, in the structure of the major college sport that football should be emulating — baseball — there is little incentive to play sacrificial lambs because playing better competition enhances a team’s post-season tournament prospects and seeding. Would such a structure work in major college football? Sure, but it’s going to take courageous and creative leadership from the university presidents of the top major college football programs to effectuate such a change, and that type of leadership in academia is in short supply these days.
Rice plays @ UCLA and Florida State, and “home” at Reliant against UT. I like to consider this more opportunities for upsets. Apparently, these school could not get a lesser team like the Texans to play them.
Obviously, a playoff would solve this by providing incentive to a team for playing a tougher schedule. However, I think you miss a crucial detail that the NCAA, in itsí infinite wisdom, failed to address when it approved the twelfth game while not allowing an extra week to play those games. There are many schools that now will play an entire season without an off week, particularly this year when teams had little time to prepare their schedules. Therefore, these rent-a-wins serve another purpose, namely the ability to rest starters, stay fresh, and recover from injuries. Yes, it is another in the long line of excuses that those around college football will use, but it is a valid excuse. Ultimately, college football will not change until either a playoff is created or the NCAA takes over the assignment of teams to bowl games (which might as well be a playoff).
Buford, I agree with you except when you assert that more regulation by the NCAA will help solve the problem. Rather, my sense is that such regulation is precisely what has turned major college football into a minor league for the NFL, which is contrary to much of the purpose of intercollegiate competition in the first place. True reform will occur only when the university presidents force the NFL to capitalize its own minor league system to develop players who are not suited for intercollegiate athletics. That, plus instituting a playoff system, will go a long ways toward turning college football into true intercollegiate competition.
Thanks for reading HCT.
I guess we are looking at two sides of the same coin. I’m looking at it from the standpoint of improving the game as it exists and you are looking at it from the standpoint of what is best for the true nature of collegiate sports. As a fan of college football, I would hate to see a structure similar to baseball because the quality of play would decrease significantly (although one could argue that my distaste for college baseball is entirely due to aluminum bats, but that is a completely different subject). However, I agree wholeheartedly that the only way college football (and basketball) will ever return to its original intent is by removing the NFL minor league aspect. Additionally, universities could return to being known for educating (a truly revolutionary concept) instead of what happens on the weekends in stadiums or arenas.
The $64,000 question is will university presidents give up the cash cow that is intercollegiate football and basketball? My guess is probably not. I would say that sooner or later universities will become tired of the hypocrisy from the NCAA, but considering that the NCAA is a formation of university presidents, well that doesnít seem likely.
I enjoy the blog a lot. I have been reading for about five or six months. Hopefully you donít mind me dropping a thought or two from time to time.
Buford, although I’m sure there would be a decline in the quality of play in college football if it were structured similar to college baseball, I’m not sure that it would be all that much of a decline. Let’s face it — very few college football players get drafted each season (about 225) and fewer still actually make an NFL roster. Yes, there would be some good players who bypass college — just as there is in minor league baseball — but I doubt that the decline in talent would hurt the competitive nature or the entertainment value of collegiate athletics. It sure hasn’t hurt college baseball, which has become very popular in the warm weather regions of the US. By the way, I agree with your distaste for aluminum bats.
You are correct that it is going to be difficult for the presidents of the top 25 or so football factories to take the risk of re-structuring college football. But the reality is that the vast majority of major college programs make a nominal amount of money or lose money altogether on intercollegiate athletics (look at both UH and Rice, which lose money each year). Do the UT’s and A&M’s of the world really want to be subsidizing minor leagues for the NFL? Seems to be contrary to their academic mission.
Again, thanks for reading HCT and taking the time to comment.