Dave Crosses Over To The Dark Side

by Addicted to Quack on May 7, 2008 10:06 PM PDT in Football

(What I'm about to say is not likely to be popular. It may seem seem like a devolution to some, but I feel enlightened by it)

As you've undoubtedly heard, a plus-one playoff format was rejected by the conference commissioners last weekend. With all the fan calls for a playoff system like we have in EVERY other sport, you may be thinking that the commissioners dropped the ball by not giving the consumers what they want.

Me? I breathed a sigh of relief.

For years, I've advocated for a playoff. I've advocated on this blog many times that I wanted a playoff. As a lifelong Duck fan, there is no doubt in my mind we win the 2001 national championship with a playoff. But although I know that my newfound views won't exactly be popular among many of the Duck faithful, I have indeed crossed over to the dark side.

Its not as if one day I just woke up and decided that I don't want a playoff anymore. It was a process, and I remember some of the steps distinctly. Its also not as if I've stopped believing that a playoff is the fairest way to determine that it is. It undoubtedly is. And the players probably deserve one. But, asking what's fair and what's the best thing for college football and, more specifically, the college football fan, is much different.

I started having these thoughts early on last football season. I'm sitting there watching the Cal-Tennessee game in week one. And I started thinking to myself: why the hell am I watching Cal-Tennessee. If it's a basketball game, there is no way I'm watching Cal-Tennessee. Yet I watched every minute of that game. And I watched Oregon State-Cincinnati. And USC-Nebraska. Oh, and not just Pac-10 games. I watched West Virginia-Rutgers. And Oklahoma-Missouri. And basically football every minute of every Saturday all fall.

I thought about it during the Cal-Tenn game, but didn't really think much more about it until the NCAA tournament, which is my favorite weekend of the year. I love the NCAA Tournament. As a sporting event, it is perfect. But it also made me realize a reality--I didn't watch a single college basketball game not involving the Ducks all year. I'll watch every Duck basketball game that I can because I'm a die hard, but I won't watch other teams until the tournament.

And it has nothing to do with football vs. basketball, because I like the sport of basketball a hell of a lot more than I do football. But the regular season games in basketball matter very little compared to football. In football, so many games affect the championship picture that I feel I can't miss anything. The games are too compelling, the drama too much. The first game of the season can have a profound effect on the national championship.

I've really found that college football is bigger than just the games themselves. Part of the fun of the game is the rankings, and the unknowns, and the debates. In basketball, nobody gives a damn if their team is in the top ten six weeks into the season. In football, your team damn well better be.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that college basketball isn't the same as college football. I've already said that I love the tournament. Also, I'm not sure my wife would stick around if I put as much time into the college basketball season as I did the college football season. But I've also come to realize that its okay for one sport to be different. And, guess what America, most of the evidence says that you do, too. You ever see a college basketball game get the ratings that a football game does?

With a playoff, I don't care about Cal-Tennessee. I don't care about any team other than Oregon. I watch the Duck game, then mow the lawn and clean out the garage. Because, while the playoff would be great, there would just be no reason to watch the other weeks.
The drama would be gone.

Saturdays in Autumn are an all day party. The Duck game may be the steak, but the potato and the salad and the bread make the dining experience all that much better. You won't watch half as much college football that you do now if there were a playoff.

Yes, I know that I have just joined the Empire. But I think that Saturdays are worth saving. I can't watch a baseball game not involving the Mariners. Nor NBA games not involving the Trail Blazers. But in college football, I must see it all.

Commissioners Hansen and Delany--thank you for saving my Saturdays.

[Ducking flying tomatoes aimed at head]

GO DUCKS!!!

--Dave

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

The games would still matter

Every supporter of the BCS brings up this argument, BUT, in football, the playoffs would only include 4, 8, or at the most 16 teams. Therefore, the games would STILL count. If the NCAA adopted a plus one, then it's not like everybody is going to make the playoffs. The Cal-Tennessee game would still matter because both of them likely wouldn't finish in the top 4 at the end of year.

The reason the basketball games don't matter as much is because there are so many teams in the tournament each year that teams can take weekends or games off and still make the tournament. I agree with you there, but football would not be like that.

by whitmanduck on May 7, 2008 10:18 PM PDT 0 recs

You think there's an east coast bias now...

With a playoff the polls would dictate more than they already do. With the only assurance of a NCG birth being an undefeated season (and not even, Auburn) a projected playoff birth team in the plus-1 model would have 1 loss, add teams to that playoff and the number keeps going up. The thing about the system, as flawed as it is, is that NO game is an acceptable loss.

Would tOSU and Michigan '06 be nearly as intense if both teams were virtually assured of a playoff birth? What if Troy Smith got hurt? Would fans have called for Tressel's head wrapped in his vest? I think so.

The Pac 9 would never sniff the crystal football if one loss SEC team, one loss BIG 10 team, one loss BIG 12 team and an undefeated were in the top 10. We can't get a BCS at-large bid as it is!

Speculate with me for a moment; the Beavers are 11-0 ranked #1 with a 1 loss tOSU at 2, 2 loss LSU at 3 and 2 loss Oklahoma at 4. A respectable Ducks team (say 9-2 #17 so a loss would not drop them out of the top 4) field the starters while the Beavs sit everyone of importance and concede defeat. Then in the playoffs they go on to dominate and win the national championship in a rout, who gets state bragging rights?

by jessenumber1 on May 7, 2008 11:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

That's quite a scenario

and seems (to me) no where near as bad (and less likely) as when one 1 loss team plays in the National championship games and one doesn't.

by bradLL99 on May 7, 2008 11:31 PM PDT up 0 recs

umm...

First, with the respect that Oregon and the Pac-10 got last season, can we drop the East Coast bias crap for at least 1 year? Thanks.

Also, how a playoff picking system would work would be much different than the BCS at-large, which is based on making money, location, etc. It is not based on quality of football.

As far as rivalry's not being intense, that COULD happen, but it's doubtful. OSU/Michigan would still be as intense in the scenario you listed.

Also, for every game that loses importance, and a few would, about 20 games GAIN importance. Did you watch Wake Forest/Georgia Tech in the ACC championship a couple years ago? If one of them had made the playoffs you might have.

by jtlight on May 8, 2008 6:18 AM PDT up 0 recs

Not to mention the number of regural season games

30ish is much bigger than 12. If there were only 12 regular season basketball games they would be MUCH more important and watched that much more.

by bradLL99 on May 7, 2008 11:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yep

I agree with what others have said. Regular season basketball games "mean less" because there are so many of them AND because so many teams make the conference. Losing a handful of games (or even almost half of your games) is not enough to completely knock you out of a potential playoff berth. I don't think anyone here is arguing for a similar format for a football playoff. Rather, a football playoff would only consist of a small number of teams. Given that each football team plays only 12 regular season games, I don't see how the importance of each game would be lessened. A team loses twice, they are probably out of the picture -- similar to how the BCS is now.

by ntrebon on May 8, 2008 8:21 AM PDT up 0 recs

Here's why I disagree

With the NCAA basketball tournament pretty much every team in the top 1/2 of a BCS conference makes the tournament.

In a 4 or 8 team college playoff scenario, pretty much only the TOP team of a BCS conferences make the playoff. In a 4 teamer, not even then. So really, the importance of each game is still huge. You could say that non-conference games would lose importance, but conference games become even more vital.

In all likelihood, games will take on the importance that they did when the Rose Bowl was the ultimate prize for Pac 10 teams. If you're just watching Cal-Tennessee because it's like Russian Roulette right now, you may not continue to watch it. But I think that if those games were devalued, we may see better football played in the non-conference schedule. Teams would be willing to take risks. I would still watch those games because I love football, and watching the best college football possible.

There is a line between having too much importance placed on the regular season, and not enough. In my mind, an 8 team playoff would be perfect. let in the 6 BCS conference champions, and 2 others (determined by a committee, not polls). This would put tremendous importance on the conference schedule, which is the way it should be, and some teams would take more non-conference chances, and we'd see better football.

by jtlight on May 8, 2008 6:24 AM PDT 0 recs

Format

I do like Jared's proposed format of the six BCS champions plus two at large teams decided by a committee. That leaves things open for the non-BCS schools. And, for a runner up team to get an at large bid, having some impressive non-conference wins would go a long ways...

by ntrebon on May 8, 2008 8:22 AM PDT up 0 recs

Look at DI-AA

You can't tell me that those schools vying for a birth in a field of 16 don't place importance on every game. Moreso inconference but playing for a DI-AA school I knew that anytime we slipped up that lessened our chances for post season play. Here in DI a .500 record gets you bowling. Wheres the urgency in that?

If you took a 8 or even 16 team playoff you can't tell me that each team that has a shot to make the tourney will not play their asses off each regular season game, knowing that one slip could mean being on the outside looking in.

I know that there is always going to be controversey, but at least give them a way to settle it on the field and not by computer or polls.

by DuckinNC on May 8, 2008 7:02 AM PDT 0 recs

Good arguement Dave

I liked Dave's arguement;

"In football, so many games affect the championship picture that I feel I can't miss anything. The games are too compelling, the drama too much. The first game of the season can have a profound effect on the national championship."

The sense of urgency is always there and will always be there, playoff or not. I think that it will be tough for a playoff to be pushed through because of the TV deal that the Rose Bowl has with the Pac 10 and Big 10. Fox won't be able to swing a deal because the contracts expire in different years. There is too much of a money factor for all involved in the BCS to make a change.

College football is exicting to watch. We all will argue who the best team is or the best conference, but as Dave said, that is most of the fun. That is what bring us back, sucks us in and makes us the FANS we are. A playoff is the only way we have those answers; but maybe it's better off not knowing the answers. We get bragging rights for a year and then trash talking all the way through the next. I think everyone just likes the speculation of what would have been. Such as life, in the end all we get is nostalgia of what we did, and what would have been.

by 071903 on May 8, 2008 8:42 AM PDT 0 recs

Playoff

I love Justin Myers suggestion that we have a 16 team playoff populated by the 12 conference champions plus four at large teams. That makes the regular season extremely important and encourages teams to schedule tougher out of conference games to prepare for the conference season and the playoffs. Since most rivalries are in conference that would perhaps even heighten the intensity. Imagine UM v OSU for the BIG-10 title and a guaranteed spot in the tourney. Plus that would encourage the almighty Notre Dame to join a conference and quit living in the 1950's. The at large teams can whine if they're left out of the four at large selections but the response will always be...win your conference. Once in the tourney it becomes all about seeding which once again puts a heightened sense of urgency on the regular season. Imagine how incredible that would be...BSU upsets Okalahoma and moves on to face maybe USC. Imagine that drama!

by Samurhino on May 8, 2008 8:55 AM PDT 0 recs

Nice post dave

I think your crazy, but you did get discussion going

by bradLL99 on May 8, 2008 10:56 AM PDT 0 recs

Consider a tomato flung.

Even worse than caving to the money-grubbing BCS commissioners, Dave, you actually THANKED Tom Hansen for something. Are you going to invite Rick Neuheisel over for a home-cooked dinner and let Kobe Bryant date your teenage daughter next?

Duck Life!

by GustyJ on May 8, 2008 11:36 PM PDT 0 recs