That's four years in a five-year period without a Big Ten vs. Pac-10 match-up, plenty of time to weaken the bond between Big Ten/Pac-10 fans and the Rose Bowl. Fortunately, it hasn't been enough to sever that bond, and four subsequent Big Ten/Pac-10 matches have helped. Under the current system, though, a Big Ten/Pac-10 match is not guaranteed, continuing the weakened bond. Under the system I propose, it would be guaranteed, restoring the strong bond.
The big reason why bowls can't co-exist with a playoff is people's financial inability to make two days-long trips in less than one month's time. Bowls attract large, lucrative crowds because they are vacation destinations, in addition to game sites. In a playoff, the bows' importance would be lessened, and people would travel for the game only, if that.
Furthermore, if the Rose Bowl is no longer the final game of the season featuring top teams from the Big Ten and Pac-10, then it won't command the fee it currently gets from TV, reducing its ability to subsidize the Rose Parade. Throw in fewer visitors from out of town, and LA loses its multi-million economic impact and the parade dies.
And, oh yeah, there's no guarantee that a playoff would include the Rose Bowl or that it would play on Jan. 1.
Other than that, yeah, gutting the Rose Bowl Game for a playoff won't have any affect on the parade or the Tournament's economic impact on the region. :-)
Now, I'll concede that the parade will have to do more than strengthen its ties to the Big Ten/Pac-10 if it is to reverse its ratings slide. It needs the Big Ten to expand into another major media market. It needs to attract bigger name celebrities and corporate brands. It also needs to find a "weenie," an attraction at the end of the parade that will encourage viewers to sit through the whole thing. (The Macy's Parade has Santa Claus in this role.)
Due to the logistics and timing of the parade and the game, the two teams' bands can't play this role for the Rose Parade, they need to be at the front so that they can get to the stadium in time for pre-game shows.
But further weakening or abolishing the game and conference tie-ins certainly will seal the fate of the parade.
Downscaling it back to a parade rather than an overproduced television show facsimile of a parade wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Given how the economic impact of these types of events is "measured" it might even be a good thing for Pasadena and the surrounding area for that to happen. Inglewood for all intents and purposes lost the Forum when Staples Center was built, but benefited in the end by not being so dependent on it. See http://controller.lacity.org/LAfinalRpt.pdf
And I disagree that the game held in Pasadena would be a lower level game than it is now. The Rose Bowl is one of them most prestigious bowls and I doubt the BCS would overlook that.
I guarantee that if the BCS goes to a tournament the parade will happen same as always with very little difference in the economic bottom line.
Currently there are 4 BCS bowls. Currently only one of those sites gets to host 2 games. An 8 team playoff would allow all but one to host 2 games during the playoffs. The odd man out could be rotated yearly, much like the location of the current BCS bowl is now. All other bowls prior to the playoff bowls could still be played. And the locations of the current bowls can be kept where they are now, preserving the "vacation spots", and allowing half the fans of the round one winners to stay for a second game the following week. Just an idea, lol. One that didn't take much time to think of (I'm sure there are holes). I can't believe there aren't ace economists and accountants out there to consult with that can come up with a truly beneficial system.
Many playoff supporters wish to believe that the significant economic benefits of the bowl system do not exist. Or that people would travel to lower round playoff games, and spend the same amount of money, that they now spend on bowl games and festivals. Unfortunately for that argument, the benefits do exist, and the fact that the NCAA basketball tournament ranks *below* the Rose Bowl alone for economic impact suggests that a playoff cannot guarantee a higher return than the bowl system.
It is interesting question to suppose how the Rose Parade might go forward with half its budget eliminated. But why should that question have to be entertained, when we have a functional system now in place that could become even stronger with a few tweaks? Why go looking for trouble?
And if football fans think a playoff will eliminate controversy over the selection and seeding of teams... keep dreaming, folks. That controversy's a given, and cannot be avoided, so long as more than a dozen or so teams play D-1 ball. So why not go with a proven system that delivers hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits to colleges and communities?
From a reader at 72.44.97.173 on January 6, 2010 at 4:38 PM
How can you say the Rose Bowl has weekened ties with the Big 10 and Pac 10? The last time a big10/pac10 team didn't participate in the Rose Bowl was 2002. The last time both conferences weren't represented was 2006. In the last 20 years, only 5 teams out of 40 were from a conference other than the pac 10 or big 10.There is absolutely no reason that a playoff system can't exist along with the bowls. The 5 BCS bowls can exist as a national championship and runner up bowls without a problem. As every other sport has shown, people travel to playoff games.