ALL STAR GUEST BLOGGER: THE BCS!

Commentary:

I grew up as an avid consumer of football. Literally, entire weekends were dedicated to playing and watching it at the high school, collegiate, and professional levels. I loved, and still love most things about it: intense competition, strategy, top level athleticism, success of teams over "stars"; mostly, I love throwing, catching, hitting people in sandlot games. I've played with as many as 20 kids to a side (think 1990's style human waves from the Iraq/Iran wars), and with as few as 3 total (with an automatic 4 second pass rule in lieu of a pass rush). I read histories of Chuck Bednarik, Red Grange, Johnny Unitas, etc. and watched with a touch or regret as Joe Namath handed the reigns over to younger and better players.

In cutting what was considered to be the greatest broadcast deal at the time, Pete Rozelle indelibly made football "America's game" because he was willing to tailor the format, and in some cases the rules, to fit with the broadcasters needs; they, in turn, made sure that detailed market research was done into the continuum of consumer segmentation (corporate suite purchasers vs. people who buy season tickets vs. TV watchers) and price/value points, ancillary consumables (Jersey's, trading cards, etc.), export status (Europe, Japan, Canada have their own secondary leagues, and/or weakly accept exhibition games). The core point here that no one should contest, is that football, led by the sanctioned NFL monopoly, has been VERY successfully packaged as an American product and lifestyle.

While younger than baseball, football (not just professional) has used their more truncated legacy to their advantage. Baseball is saddled with break-even-at-best farm teams, while universities serve that role, efficiently and profitably for football. People accept you can more easily change rules in football than in baseball without perverting the comparability of outcomes. In a longer season, on a different playing surface (goal posts back of the endzone, largely artificial turf and indoor stadiums) with different equipment (yup, the ball of today is narrower than of 30 years ago), different rules (too many to enumerate here) and greater inter and intra-game competitive intelligence, people generally accept the legitimacy of comparing the 2007 Patriots perfect season with that of the 1972 Dolphins.

In a world of huge ego's and profits, all the children here seem to play nicely in the sandbox together. Sure, there are some issues: rampant recreational drug use, gangster-style behavior on and off the field, performance enhancing drug use, sub-20% graduation rates for student-athletes, etc. But, Professional Management, University AD's, Union labor, and marginally paid labor (student-athletes) have sliced the pie up well enough in a growing market for everyone to be happy. And, just like the adaptable rules on the field, the NCAA is now proposing to allow Universities to profit off of player profiles and likenesses. There is a rich vein to be mined beyond jersey's if University officials can swallow hard and admit that they, like the airlines, have product inventory with limited (4 years of eligibility) shelf-life, and they can either "sell" it or watch it expire. Watching Heisman trophy winners, or BCS bowl champion quarterbacks endorse products (burgers, balls, or the University itself) would certainly bring in more money, and no doubt the student-athlete's cut would either be put into a trust-fund for the little darlings dotage, or given to his proud mom and dad (like Hollywood child actors). Outside of the Ivy League and the military academies, the charade of the student athlete has long ago been cast aside; this rule change will be quietly and conveniently accepted.

So, what does this say about the game last night, or even the past season? Not a thing. It was a great game between two very well coached teams that could have gone either way. Much as I would have liked to see USC steam roll their way to a third (Vince Young shenanigans to the contrary) championship, I loved the game and the season. Think about how many times the "Number 1 ranked team" changed this year, and the diversity of teams ( the Mizzou Mudbloods had a shot at the championship late in the season) For me, this is just evidence of an abundance of talent, well-distributed among top-tier teams, coached by dedicated professionals. The LSU Tigers were fun to watch, unpredictable, winners. Tip of the hat to the team that could have imploded with the Michigan denial, or knowing the defensive coach was moving on to Nebraska at seasons end. They beat challenges on and off the field, and they are truly deserving champions.

Respectfully submitted this 8th day of January 2008 by Sargeant at Arms Douglas C. Niedermeier.