I expect rushing yardage drubbings like that when an SEC team plays a cupcake game, but in a conference championship meeting? Just, damn, ‘Bama.
Penn State fans booed Jim Delany at his Big Ten Championship Game. They booed him long, they booed him loud, they booed him until he stopped talking during the Nittany Lions’ ceremony after a remarkable run and 21-point comeback to the Big Ten title.
Delany’s crime? Earlier in the day on ESPN’s College GameDay, he explained he thought 13-0 Alabama and 11-1 Ohio State — the team the 11-2 Nittany Lions beat on their way to the Big Ten crown — have separated themselves and should be in the College Football Playoff.
“I don’t know why they booed,” Delany said on the field Saturday after Penn State’s thrilling 38-31 victory over Wisconsin. “I don’t know what that was for. Just fans being fans. It’s cool — all good.”
They booed because Delany didn’t make a case for Penn State on national television while supporting Ohio State. He wouldn’t make the case when pressed late Saturday night.
“I’m not going to dissect it,” Delany said. “That’s their job, not mine. … We wanted the human element in this process and regardless of what happens, I’ll be supportive of the outcome.”
It’s one thing to listen to pundits without any skin in the game engage in this silly debate. It’s quite another to watch the Big Ten commissioner devalue what should be the crown jewel of his conference’s season.
This is what comes of trying to marry an objective standard of naming conference champions with a subjective process of constructing a national playoff field. Add to that a pointless selection committee show for weeks that exists for the sole purpose of giving ESPN broadcast product and you wind up with the perfect shit storm.
It’s not that college football is in chaos. It’s that the people running college football are idiots.
Judging from this, that remake of Georgia’s offensive line into a powerhouse is gonna take some time. And by “some time”, I mean “more time than we thought”.
*Hot take a week ago:
Unfortunately for ol’ Herbie, Washington crushed Colorado in the Pac-12 championship game and finished the regular season with a 12-1 record. That should be it, then, right? I mean, only one loss and a conference title ought to count for something, right?
Not so fast, my friend.
Oh. Man, what was I thinking of?
Oh, yeah, that.
UPDATE: GameDay, for the win.
Sure. I mean, why not?
I have to admit my favorite part of the ongoing debate here about the inevitable growth of the college football playoff — inevitable to me, at least — is the insistence by some that there is some unique natural barrier that exists to limit the size of the postseason field because… well, because college football.
Never mind the history of organized sports in this country, which clearly demonstrates that it is in their nature to grow their postseasons because it’s a money making choice. Never mind that the NFL above and the FCS below have both expanded their playoffs on several occasions, despite playing with smaller rosters.
And never mind the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, even though the same movers and shakers who have steadily pushed to enlarge it also direct the future of the CFP, because that’s basketball, and who in their right mind could possibly think that the one sport could be taken seriously as a template for the other?
Yet the shelf life of the championship game barely lasts much longer than basketball conference tournament title games leading into the NCAA Tournament pairings. For many people in the public, the football championship game is viewed now as another data point for playoff consideration, though CFP Selection Committee protocol does say conference championships should be considered when comparing similar teams.
“There’s no question football is becoming like basketball,” [Ohio State AD Gene] Smith said. “We’re all talking about who’s in the playoffs, and the kids have done this magnificent thing of running through the regular season and the championship, and we don’t put that on the pedestal.”
If you doubt the truth of that, all you have to do is circulate on the Internet today looking at reports about Washington’s win over Colorado last night and note how many more of the takes from that are about Washington clinching a spot in the national semi-finals than about winning the conference, which, historically speaking, was a big deal for the Huskies. That’s of a piece with the reaction to Auburn’s loss to Georgia, which ended the Tigers’ shot at the playoffs and somehow diminished the Iron Bowl in the eyes of many.
But it’s Smith’s conference that’s the real canary in the coal mine now. As I mentioned the other day, Jim Delany’s evolution on the playoff has been something to watch. As Big Ten Commissioner, he’s gone from vehemently opposing a college football playoff in any form, to opposing one that didn’t strictly exclude non-conference champions, to being reduced to a walking shrug on the issue.
And why not? Neither of the two schools playing for the Big Ten title today will make the CFP field, regardless of which wins. Meanwhile, Ohio State, which isn’t playing in it, is widely considered a shoo-in to make the national playoff and Michigan, which also isn’t in the championship game, still has a chance for the semis, too. So the logical question to ask after today is how much does a championship game matter, anyway? And you don’t have to look any farther than college basketball to answer that.
Thus, the follow up isn’t whether the national playoffs will expand to eight — the inevitable bickering that will result from whatever comes of today, along with the extra money from another round of games make that a when not if matter — but how long it takes for the people running the game to take the postseason field past eight.
That’s why you should read the rest of Solomon’s article. It seems likely that the eight-team playoff itself will have repercussions on how the conferences decide to manage their regular seasons in its wake and that the changes to come will further serve to weaken the regional bonds on college football that are the real source of its unique appeal. The more the game’s focus shifts to a national one, the easier it is to sell a larger postseason.
Again, don’t take my word on that. Just listen to what Gene Smith is saying and what every other postseason field has done. If you can.
An alert reader — thanks, Raleighwood Dawg — sent me this piece posted by ESPN’s Public Editor, who takes some time to explain the thinking behind the network’s ongoing experiment with off site announcers. You can read the whole thing, but the dynamics involved are summarized in this one paragraph:
No one I talked to at ESPN — neither executives nor talent — suggested that remote broadcasting was an optimal experience. And sources within ESPN say the company has pulled back on the use of remote announcers in the past year. But because of the associated financial savings, the practice is unlikely to be discontinued.
Honestly, this isn’t one of those end of the world issues for me. While there are announcers who do enhance the viewing experience, there are more who make me want to mute the audio because they’re little more than an annoying distraction. It would be helpful if Mickey could allocate his precious resources with that in mind, but who am I kidding here? In today’s world, a chatterbox announcer is often seen more as a feature than a bug.
It’s a shame this experiment by NBC more than thirty years ago didn’t catch on.
I remember watching that game broadcast live (yes, because of the gimmick) and came away enjoying the experience. Just sayin’, WWL.