After wading through Kevin Scarbinsky’s fellating of Nick Saban, I wonder if college football shouldn’t save us all a lot of time and trouble and just set up a four-team playoff to determine Alabama’s opponent in the title game.
Monthly Archives: June 2012
Yeah, you made it. Today’s buffet, no surprise, features plenty of playoff seasoning.
- Heismanpundit gets mocked here on occasion, but I don’t see anything wrong with his post decrying the creeping NFL-ization of college football.
- Here’s a preview of the Georgia-Florida game from the Gator perspective. Somebody hasn’t heard of Artie Lynch.
- Is there more to winning football games than running the ball, stopping the run and being on the plus side of giveaway-takeaways?
- Hopefully you’re not this naive, but if you’re still wondering who’s really driving the conference expansion bus, let Chuck Neinas clue you in: “Our television partners agreed that the only new member that would enhance the Big 12 value for television was Notre Dame.”
- Mark Richt is okay with a four-team playoff.
- You can have a four-team playoff with deserving teams, or you can have a four-team playoff with Big Ten participation. But evidently you can’t have both.
- Ivan Maisel has two reasons why that 12-year playoff time commitment may not be as strong as they’re trying to make it sound: “You have to think that the need for more money will arise in that time. And after a few years of team No. 5 screaming about being left out, the need to quell controversy will arise, too.”
- Gus Malzahn grabs another former SEC running back.
- Mack Brown thinks the new playoff money is another good reason for increasing player stipends.
This seems like such a no-brainer for Saturdays in Athens.
If you can’t bring “Dooley’s Junkyard Dogs” back, you could do a lot worse than “Atomic Dog”. It’s better than 90% of the stuff they pump out on the Sanford Stadium PA.
And how great it would be to hear 90,000+ going “bow wow wow” – get on it, McGarity.
I mentioned that while the money fight from the new postseason would get most of the attention, the selection committee would be the place where the real action is.
It turns out that the two may be joined at the hip. Per Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick,
The most notable revelations from Swarbrick on Wednesday were the criteria ND must meet to qualify for consideration for the top tier of bowls in years the Irish fall short of the Final Four, and that a selection committee will be charged with not only designating the four teams to play for the national title, but creating weekly standings of what it considers to be the top 20 teams from midseason on.
Twenty teams? Why so, when only four qualify for the national playoff? Well, because it’s the teams that show up in the next eight slots that will be eligible as at-large schools to play in the top bowls. And that’s big.
But because there are six bowls that will rotate as hosts as the national semifinals and because of bowl tie-ins with the Rose, Champions and Orange bowls, there may be years with very limited at-large spots available.
“Because of the complexity of the Rose and Champions bowls and the Orange Bowl,” Swarbrick said, “it’s impossible in any year to say it’ll be ‘X’ spots available for teams 5-12.”
If you’re a school not in one of the big five conferences, your window of opportunity has just shrunk. I’m amazed Swarbrick signed off on this. If the day comes when Notre Dame has to join a conference, you’ll probably be able to point to this as why.
All this is all the more reason the selection process itself has to be transparent. With this much at stake, financially speaking, being placed on it, there will be tremendous pressure to see certain schools’ appearance.
Publishing weekly results is nice, but if nobody knows how the results were tabulated and the committee isn’t required to explain them, it’s hardly going to matter. The way the BCS results flipped in 2007 after West Virginia lost in the last game of its regular season left a bad taste in a lot of Georgia fans’ mouths. That kind of unexplained reshuffling by a selection committee won’t sit any better – at least not with the public.
There is an old joke about Jewish folks of a certain generation and their ability to see the world solely through the single lens of “yes, but is it good for the Jews?”. No matter how insignificant or how secular any matter might be, its sole justification to exist for those folks was a positive response to that question.
I mention that only because I think I’ve discovered a similar mindset in the world of college football.
As I do with everything he writes, I read this Chris Brown post about the meaning of being crowned a champion and, more specifically, how a playoff contributes to that with interest. And I agree with his main point. A single elimination tourney isn’t about determining the best team. It’s about producing some finality to a sports season.
But I don’t buy into his conclusion, at least not completely.
… Which is really the issue here. No one has any idea what being “National Champion” ought to mean — especially in college football where you have over a hundred D-1 programs and no team can come close to playing all the others. A playoff would simply lay some ground rules people could follow. As it stands, without a playoff, everyone may mount their high horse and argue past each other.
First of all, we’ve got a playoff, but I doubt there are a huge number of people who think the arguments are going to end. Some are going to be dissatisfied with the structure itself (the eight or sixteen teams would be better crowd), some are going to be unhappy with the selection process itself (I suspect I’m going to wind up in this bunch, but I’m keeping an open mind for now) and some are going to be unhappy with the results of which schools qualify and which don’t at the third and fourth spots.
Second, the smaller you commit to keeping the postseason field, the more likely it is that you keep one of Chris’ shortcomings – “some clunker teams can be crowned, some historically great teams will get the relative shaft” – at bay. Now we can argue about what the appropriate number is, but it’s hard to see how a four-team playoff is going to do a worse job of that than a sixteen-school field. (Of course, if you like Cinderellas, then this is more a bug than a feature.)
But the third thing that bothers me isn’t about the method to a college football playoff. It’s about the motivation behind it. And history tells us that has nothing to do with finality or quality of the playoff field. It’s just about the money. Which leads me to my second quote:
But here’s the problem, and no, this is not a defense of the BCS, which history will find was merely a precursor to what comes next. The problem is that the power has now shifted to the big football schools, and when they find that four teams are not enough of a playoff structure, it will shift that way even more.
And the real argument will not be four teams, or eight teams, or 16 teams, or who picks them, anyway. It will be, as it has always been, how the money gets split, and the betting is as it has always been, that it will be split among the 64 or so members of the 2Big22SeCPac Conference, not among the more general populace, and not among the bowl committees.
We’re not getting a playoff because there’s been some miraculous consensus that we fans have been cheated out of quality national title games. The BCS is far from perfect, but it was better than the process it replaced and judging from the sport’s increasing popularity during its existence, it did more good than harm. Nah, we’re getting a playoff because several commissioners were dismayed at a national title game that excluded every conference in the country but one and because there was a down tick in the viewership and attendance numbers for the last postseason. Now ask yourselves what difference a four-team playoff will make the next time those circumstances crop up. Honesty should compel you to admit probably not a damned thing.
I also read a couple of posts from Spencer Hall and Luke Zimmerman yesterday that suggest my angst is misplaced. As the latter succinctly put it, “Never forget: it’s not the football that makes college football great, it’s the rules and regulations that govern the football. Rest in peace, college football.”
And, in a way, I get where they’re coming from. The sun came up this morning. The football is still oblong-shaped. The field is still 100 yards long. A touchdown still counts for six points. There are still eleven men to a side. But you know what? I can say the same things about the NFL. None of that changes that pro football bores me to tears while college football matters enough to me to blog about it for five-plus years.
I know I’m treading dangerously into old fogeyism here, but what dismays me about the sport I love is the rapid pace its keepers are maintaining in the money race. A year ago, Jim Delany was railing like an Old Testament prophet about the dangers of a four-team playoff. Yesterday, he was a grinning fool about a four-team playoff. The presidents made short shrift of a decision we’d been warned could take a much longer period of time.
And that’s just a part of the picture. Conference realignment and expansion have proceeded at a dizzying pace, as well. TCU jumped in and out and in two new conferences in a matter of weeks and nobody batted an eye (in fact, the Big East is being mocked for suing the school over its departure). Patrick Vint and I snickered a little bit during last night’s podcast over Georgia’s SEC East opener in Columbia, Missouri because the geographics are somewhat ludicrous. Except Mike Slive and the presidents don’t really care about that, because it was part of a necessary step to obtain more TV revenue.
I’ve tried to figure out a way to express where things are going for a while and I’m still struggling with it. What I feel is that if you look at football’s appeal on an axis with the purely local pull of high school football at one end and the national appeal of the NFL on the other, college football, which once sat in the middle (call it regional appeal, for want of a better word), finds itself sliding towards the NFL end of the line. The money is too attractive for them. The results are not likely to be so much for us.
That’s why I find news like this,
Don’t look for news any time soon on Georgia’s future football scheduling – SEC and otherwise.
Georgia athletics director Greg McGarity said everything is essentially in a holding pattern, thanks in large part to Tuesday’s news that college football is going to a four-team playoff starting with the 2014 season.
The importance of strength of schedule in deciding those four teams is unknown, and McGarity said that will be key for SEC teams as they put together their non-conference schedules.
… both expected and depressing all at the same time. The media pulls us that way, the money pushes the decision makers that way, the coaches accept the new conditions and seek to manipulate them to their advantage (see, for example, Les Miles and Steve Spurrier on conference scheduling) and the rest of us follow along as best we can.
I think what’s bothered me the most all along about the playoff debate isn’t the notion of a playoff itself. It’s the “it’s so easy” mentality that so many bring to the debate, which in essence boils down to two things: one, that the game is fairly indestructible, and two, that ultimately the people in charge are as rational as playoff supporters imagine themselves to be. Sorry, but as much as people like Slive, Delany and Scott are lionized, they aren’t geniuses. They’re powerful, they may or may not be shrewd, but what they really happen to be are people lucky enough to have been entrusted with the stewardship of something that matters very much to a large number of enthusiasts. That’s no guarantee they won’t fuck things up. And there’s very little in their bodies of work to suggest otherwise.
So, I look to hold on to what I love as long as I can. I hope I’m wrong about my misgivings, but I fear I’m right. Time will tell.
As much as I prefer the freewheeling nature of the comments section here at the blog, I have to admit that I’m getting tired of being GTP‘s cop on the beat. I find that I spend way more time than I’d like going through comments to make sure I’m not being played by posters employing sockpuppets to reinforce their point of view. (I’m also getting tired of a couple of very clever spammers who’ve figured out how to get around WP’s antispam stuff.) Judging from the steady flow of e-mails I receive, there are quite a few of you who are also unhappy about the sockpuppetry.
A lot of you make very clever use of monikers and I’d hate to lose that, but I’m not sure I’m willing to pay the price for that any longer. WordPress gives me some options: I can require that commenters have to register first before they can comment and I can also set things up so that no comments can appear without either my prior approval of the poster or ongoing approval of each comment. (The last seems like even more trouble than what I’m already doing, to be honest.)
Anyway, I haven’t decided what to do yet, and in any event, I wanted input from you guys before I did something. So I’ve embedded a poll to get your opinion on my options. Please give me as much feedback on it and in the comments as you can.
It’s worth saying at this point that I appreciate all my readers and commenters. You make GTP what it is. And thanks for your help with this.