Cowherd is correct in his understanding of what is good for a sport. For college football not to be relegated to the level of regional sport, like NASCAR and I would argue, like the NHL despite teams in Florida and Cali, college football needs teams on the coasts to be a lot better, most notably USC and UM. The Big Ten will always be popular but outside of oSU, no team has had any impact nationally in decades. So all we have had for 10+ years in college football has been SEC, Clemson (which geographically is the SEC), and oSU. That is bad for ratings and bad for national interest.
Say what you will about Cowherd but he understands and discusses the need for specific teams to be good which elevate an entire sport while the rest of the media act likes a national championship for Georgia is just as relevant for colleg football ratings as a national championship for USC and UM. Nonsense. Tell me one casual fan outside of Georgia or Alabama fans who watched last year’s national championship game.
Just as elections are decided by independents, ratings are driven not by die hard fans but by casual fans. The Bulls attracted casual fans to their TV’s to see Michael Jordan. The Canes, and USC and yes even ND, attract fans to their TV’s in college football.
