![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
penfield"The well-meaning contention that all ideas have equal merit seems to me little different from the disastrous contention that no ideas have any merit."
- Dr. Carl Sagan
This past Sunday on 60 Minutes, prize-winning journalist Steve Kroft squandered 35 years of professional integrity by closing out his interview with President-Elect Barack Obama on mothers-in-law, puppies and college football. This five minutes of People-style puffery was an excruciatingly awkward end to what had been an otherwise illuminating segment. It bordered on fawning, and reminded me a little of this.
As if that weren't shameful enough, the bit about college football was a transparent follow-on from Obama's last-minute appearance with Chris Berman on Monday Night Football. In a perfect world, Obama's last interview before election day would have been conducted by Charlie Rose or the disembodied spirit of Tim Russert or something. In a slightly less crappy world, he would have at least been interviewed by respected sports journalist Bob Ley rather than fat-faced sports personality Chris Berman.
But apparently people genuinely care about Obama's armchair sports analysis. (I sincerely wish he had talked a little bit about pharmaceutical abuse, nationwide physical fitness or corporate welfare in the form of taxpayer-funded stadiums gift-wrapped for billionaire team owners, all of which I see as legitimate subjects for federal oversight.) But he decided to hold forth on college football. If Steve Kroft and others think enough of it to chime in, I might as speak my own opinion.
I should disclaim up front that I have little personal stake in college football, since my alma mater's football team is a charter member of the Nobody Cares Conference within the Nerdlinger Division. They would probably struggle against my old high school's squad -- and I'm referring here to the marching band.
But as an interested viewer, and the boyfriend of a major-college alumna, I oppose the institution of a college playoff. In my view, the regular season is already like a playoff. A single loss can be devestating and two losses almost assuredly cost you the chance at a title.
Everyone talks about how a college playoff system would leave no room for debate about who should be champion. Well, sort-of. There would still be plenty of room for debate about who was the best team. If a hypothetical No. 8 seed were to squeak into the playoff field with two losses and somehow beat the undefeated No. 1 seed, the No. 8 seed would be the champion and possibly even a feel-good story, but would they be regarded as the best team? Should they?
We could have a philosophical argument here about whether the whole "point" is to (a) determine a champion, (b) determine the "best team," or (c) entertain the fans with whatever happens. I don't think there's a clear-cut answer. In an ideal scenario, all three would happen at once, but this is rare. (The 2004 Boston Red Sox are a good example.) Ultimately, each observer has to make up his or her mind about what is most important. For the teams themselves, (a) is most important. For purists, (b). For provincial die-hards, (c).
Personal predilections notwithstanding, I generally favor meritocracies. The current BCS system, for all its flaws, works in that the two "best" teams usually play for the championship.
I know what you're probably saying -- does that mean you're against playoffs in all sports? Well, I couldn't care less about professional basketball or hockey; they could be having playoffs now, for all I know. Professional baseball and football have the advantage of parity (and tradition), making the playoffs as good a method as any for determining the title. The NCAA basketball tournament is perhaps the most popular playoff system, but is so large and so long (and so dependent on the mysterious seeding process) that the regular season has become practically meaningless.
As for those flaws: yes, the reliance on polls throws too much subjectivity into the mix. Enormous differences in team schedules and conference rules make for asymmetrical comparisons. The entire college athletics system is diseased with corruption and misplaced priorities. I don't know how to fix these problems, though I suspect it all comes down to money and power.
But I favor trying to resolve these known, existing problems rather than building another layer of process on top of it. To do otherwise would be like fixing the tax code by instituting a lottery.
- Dr. Carl Sagan
This past Sunday on 60 Minutes, prize-winning journalist Steve Kroft squandered 35 years of professional integrity by closing out his interview with President-Elect Barack Obama on mothers-in-law, puppies and college football. This five minutes of People-style puffery was an excruciatingly awkward end to what had been an otherwise illuminating segment. It bordered on fawning, and reminded me a little of this.
As if that weren't shameful enough, the bit about college football was a transparent follow-on from Obama's last-minute appearance with Chris Berman on Monday Night Football. In a perfect world, Obama's last interview before election day would have been conducted by Charlie Rose or the disembodied spirit of Tim Russert or something. In a slightly less crappy world, he would have at least been interviewed by respected sports journalist Bob Ley rather than fat-faced sports personality Chris Berman.
But apparently people genuinely care about Obama's armchair sports analysis. (I sincerely wish he had talked a little bit about pharmaceutical abuse, nationwide physical fitness or corporate welfare in the form of taxpayer-funded stadiums gift-wrapped for billionaire team owners, all of which I see as legitimate subjects for federal oversight.) But he decided to hold forth on college football. If Steve Kroft and others think enough of it to chime in, I might as speak my own opinion.
I should disclaim up front that I have little personal stake in college football, since my alma mater's football team is a charter member of the Nobody Cares Conference within the Nerdlinger Division. They would probably struggle against my old high school's squad -- and I'm referring here to the marching band.
But as an interested viewer, and the boyfriend of a major-college alumna, I oppose the institution of a college playoff. In my view, the regular season is already like a playoff. A single loss can be devestating and two losses almost assuredly cost you the chance at a title.
Everyone talks about how a college playoff system would leave no room for debate about who should be champion. Well, sort-of. There would still be plenty of room for debate about who was the best team. If a hypothetical No. 8 seed were to squeak into the playoff field with two losses and somehow beat the undefeated No. 1 seed, the No. 8 seed would be the champion and possibly even a feel-good story, but would they be regarded as the best team? Should they?
We could have a philosophical argument here about whether the whole "point" is to (a) determine a champion, (b) determine the "best team," or (c) entertain the fans with whatever happens. I don't think there's a clear-cut answer. In an ideal scenario, all three would happen at once, but this is rare. (The 2004 Boston Red Sox are a good example.) Ultimately, each observer has to make up his or her mind about what is most important. For the teams themselves, (a) is most important. For purists, (b). For provincial die-hards, (c).
Personal predilections notwithstanding, I generally favor meritocracies. The current BCS system, for all its flaws, works in that the two "best" teams usually play for the championship.
I know what you're probably saying -- does that mean you're against playoffs in all sports? Well, I couldn't care less about professional basketball or hockey; they could be having playoffs now, for all I know. Professional baseball and football have the advantage of parity (and tradition), making the playoffs as good a method as any for determining the title. The NCAA basketball tournament is perhaps the most popular playoff system, but is so large and so long (and so dependent on the mysterious seeding process) that the regular season has become practically meaningless.
As for those flaws: yes, the reliance on polls throws too much subjectivity into the mix. Enormous differences in team schedules and conference rules make for asymmetrical comparisons. The entire college athletics system is diseased with corruption and misplaced priorities. I don't know how to fix these problems, though I suspect it all comes down to money and power.
But I favor trying to resolve these known, existing problems rather than building another layer of process on top of it. To do otherwise would be like fixing the tax code by instituting a lottery.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Two losses
Date: 2008-11-18 02:18 pm (UTC)Actually, three two-loss teams have won the MNC this very decade:
LSU in 2007
Oklahoma in 2003
USC in 2002
Meanwhile, I find the "is the champion the best team" debate fascinating. The Patriots were the best NFL team last season, after all. But the goal is to be champion, which is what the Giants became.
Re: Two losses
Date: 2008-11-18 02:33 pm (UTC)