SMQ: The FBS postseason and the history of bowl games

ARLINGTON, TX - JANUARY 12: The Ohio State Buckeyes kick off to the Oregon Ducks during the College Football Playoff National Championship Game at AT&T Stadium on January 12, 2015 in Arlington, Texas. (Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images)
ARLINGTON, TX - JANUARY 12: The Ohio State Buckeyes kick off to the Oregon Ducks during the College Football Playoff National Championship Game at AT&T Stadium on January 12, 2015 in Arlington, Texas. (Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
7 of 8
Next
(Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images)
(Photo by Tom Pennington/Getty Images) /

Shifting from the BCS to the College Football Playoff and New Year’s Six

After nearly two decades, the BCS could no longer hang on as the system for determining a national champion and the best games of a given season. The move in 2014 toward the College Football Playoff increased the number of bowl games perceived as elite, the number of teams invited to play for a national title, and the number of bowl games more generally available to an ever-expanding FBS table of teams.

Not only did more opportunities open up for top teams, but more opportunities also opened up throughout the bowl game schedules. In 2014, as the College Football Playoff came online, five new bowl games were added to the calendar in Miami, Boca Raton, Mobile, Detroit, and the Bahamas. All but the Miami game remain in existence.

Last year, the bowl calendar hit a new record with spots for 80 teams in the postseason. Without a significant expansion of the number of FBS teams, we might just about be hitting peak bowl schedule. The addition of the Frisco Bowl in Texas was countered by the loss not only of the Miami Beach Bowl but also the Poinsettia Bowl in San Diego. For the first time in several years, there were more bowl-eligible teams with six wins than there were bowl slots to fill.

Bowl games continue to draw crowds to communities across the country. Not all bowls are created equal, however, and the costs versus the benefits continue to be weighed by schools both big and small. At once the system creates greater access for mid-majors while further entrenching power at the top.