Thursday, September 01, 2005
Why I Love College Football
Tonight marks the beginning of a wonderful time of year: the college football season. I don't fancy myself a huge sports fan, but I do pay close attention to college football and the NBA (I've decided that's because those are the two sports where I have clear-cut favorite teams). So the summer is always a little slow and boring, as I don't have anything important to follow except whom the Jazz are trading for (Greg Ostertag?!?!), and how BYU's football camps are going. Tonight, the ball gets rolling.
I enjoy being a Jazz fan, but I enjoy being a BYU football fan even more, and I'll tell you why.
Being a BYU fan makes me an anti-BCS fan, and that makes everything that happens in the college football world relevant. During the NBA season, hundreds of games are played that don't involve the Jazz. And while I will always choose to root against the Lakers, when, say, the T-Wolves are playing the Raptors, I really don't care. But I have a vested interest in just about every single college football game played all season. When USC travels to Hawaii this weekend, I know whom I'm cheering for. Central Florida at South Carolina tonight? No question.
Here are the rules I abide by that make every college football game important to me (and there is an order of priority here--that is, if Rule #3 and Rule #4 conflict, as they did last year, follow Rule #3):
1) When a team from a BCS conference plays against a team from a non-BCS conference, always root for the non-BCS team.
2) Starting about halfway through the season, always root for an undefeated non-BCS team.
3) Root for BYU.
4) Root for Boise State (try it--it's fun!).
5) When a game involves at least one ranked team, root for the lower-ranked team to win.
6) Root for a Big East team to lose.
7) Root for whatever scenario will cause havoc with this year's version of the BCS formula. This may include, as has happened in years past, a team that didn't even win its conference winding up playing for the national championship, undefeated teams at the #1 and #3 spots--but not the #2 spot--in the BCS poll, or three or more undefeated BCS teams.
Yes, I know. Essentially, my rules can be summed up thus: Root for the underdog (especially BYU and Boise State). Following these rules does often result in disappointment. But it's the hope they bring to me that makes it so much fun.
My goal in all this is to bring down the BCS. It's evil. But I don't think it's evil for the same reasons I think most people think it's evil. Most people want the BCS to die because they want the national champion determined on the field, not by some silly computerized formula. A national playoff, just like they have in every other sport--college and professional--would accomplish that. And I am certainly in favor of a playoff. That would obviously be the best way to have the best games, and to determine the best teams, rather than relying too much on past years' performance, tradition, and conference affiliation. I support this rationale for abolishing the BCS.
But the main reason I want the BCS to die is simple discrimination. The BCS has stated that members of six of the eleven I-A conferences are better than the other five. Just because. That stinks of conference-ism, if you ask me. Yes, it's true that in a given year, Miami is probably going to be a better team than Tulane. But that's because Miami is a good team, not because Miami is a member of the ACC. Baylor certainly isn't better than Fresno State, but the BCS says it is.
The label "mid-major conference" is an insulting epithet. There is nothing mid-major about the non-BCS conferences. They are all Division I-A, and they are all major.
The BCS is ruining college football because it's creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because the BCS simply doesn't allow a non-BCS team to play for the national championship, what talented young football player will sign with a non-BCS team when he has the option of going to a BCS team? The BCS teams are all guaranteed to earn buckets of money simply by being in one of those six conferences (even Temple earns gobs of money from the BCS bowls!). Increased exposure also brings in increased revenue. This extra money allows a BCS team like Florida to steal a great coach from a non-BCS team like Utah, making Florida better and Utah worse. It allows the construction of better facilities, an so on. If everyone were on a level playing field, the teams would be more evenly matched across the country, and the games would be better.
So although a playoff (with qualification and seeding based on individual team performance, not conference affiliation) would be the ideal scenario, I would support a version of the BCS that includes all eleven I-A conferences. A six-game BCS with eleven automatic bids and one at-large bid would work for me. If you say that would leave a lot of great teams out, then I say let's do away with any automatic bids. Earn it. That would be even better.
I know my aspirations will never come to pass. The BCS is evil and sick, and has to keep tweaking itself to stay alive, but it will stay alive for a long time yet.
But to me, the underdog spirit of cheering against it is part of the whole fun.
I enjoy being a Jazz fan, but I enjoy being a BYU football fan even more, and I'll tell you why.
Being a BYU fan makes me an anti-BCS fan, and that makes everything that happens in the college football world relevant. During the NBA season, hundreds of games are played that don't involve the Jazz. And while I will always choose to root against the Lakers, when, say, the T-Wolves are playing the Raptors, I really don't care. But I have a vested interest in just about every single college football game played all season. When USC travels to Hawaii this weekend, I know whom I'm cheering for. Central Florida at South Carolina tonight? No question.
Here are the rules I abide by that make every college football game important to me (and there is an order of priority here--that is, if Rule #3 and Rule #4 conflict, as they did last year, follow Rule #3):
1) When a team from a BCS conference plays against a team from a non-BCS conference, always root for the non-BCS team.
2) Starting about halfway through the season, always root for an undefeated non-BCS team.
3) Root for BYU.
4) Root for Boise State (try it--it's fun!).
5) When a game involves at least one ranked team, root for the lower-ranked team to win.
6) Root for a Big East team to lose.
7) Root for whatever scenario will cause havoc with this year's version of the BCS formula. This may include, as has happened in years past, a team that didn't even win its conference winding up playing for the national championship, undefeated teams at the #1 and #3 spots--but not the #2 spot--in the BCS poll, or three or more undefeated BCS teams.
Yes, I know. Essentially, my rules can be summed up thus: Root for the underdog (especially BYU and Boise State). Following these rules does often result in disappointment. But it's the hope they bring to me that makes it so much fun.
My goal in all this is to bring down the BCS. It's evil. But I don't think it's evil for the same reasons I think most people think it's evil. Most people want the BCS to die because they want the national champion determined on the field, not by some silly computerized formula. A national playoff, just like they have in every other sport--college and professional--would accomplish that. And I am certainly in favor of a playoff. That would obviously be the best way to have the best games, and to determine the best teams, rather than relying too much on past years' performance, tradition, and conference affiliation. I support this rationale for abolishing the BCS.
But the main reason I want the BCS to die is simple discrimination. The BCS has stated that members of six of the eleven I-A conferences are better than the other five. Just because. That stinks of conference-ism, if you ask me. Yes, it's true that in a given year, Miami is probably going to be a better team than Tulane. But that's because Miami is a good team, not because Miami is a member of the ACC. Baylor certainly isn't better than Fresno State, but the BCS says it is.
The label "mid-major conference" is an insulting epithet. There is nothing mid-major about the non-BCS conferences. They are all Division I-A, and they are all major.
The BCS is ruining college football because it's creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because the BCS simply doesn't allow a non-BCS team to play for the national championship, what talented young football player will sign with a non-BCS team when he has the option of going to a BCS team? The BCS teams are all guaranteed to earn buckets of money simply by being in one of those six conferences (even Temple earns gobs of money from the BCS bowls!). Increased exposure also brings in increased revenue. This extra money allows a BCS team like Florida to steal a great coach from a non-BCS team like Utah, making Florida better and Utah worse. It allows the construction of better facilities, an so on. If everyone were on a level playing field, the teams would be more evenly matched across the country, and the games would be better.
So although a playoff (with qualification and seeding based on individual team performance, not conference affiliation) would be the ideal scenario, I would support a version of the BCS that includes all eleven I-A conferences. A six-game BCS with eleven automatic bids and one at-large bid would work for me. If you say that would leave a lot of great teams out, then I say let's do away with any automatic bids. Earn it. That would be even better.
I know my aspirations will never come to pass. The BCS is evil and sick, and has to keep tweaking itself to stay alive, but it will stay alive for a long time yet.
But to me, the underdog spirit of cheering against it is part of the whole fun.
Comments:
Boise State proved (since they did not lose many, if any significant players) that they do not belong, nor ever did belong in the BCS. They finally got their shot at a tough opponent on the road and the truth was left on the field and reflected on the scoreboard. No team has ever benefited so much from a cupcake schedule of rollover opponents and stacked home field advantages (8 games last year alone). Their demise in the updated polls is more than justified. So Boise State, not surprisingly abbreviated as BS, which is what they have been the last 3 years, Go home to the smurf turf and beat up on mediocracy and stop whining about the snubs.
I admit I'm embarrassed by BSU's (don't forget the U!) performance this weekend, and it certainly proved the critics--like you--right. Still, given the current state of the BCS system, what can you expect? The good players and coaches don't go to WAC schools like BSU because they don't have a chance to do anything more significant than play on the Smurf Turf in the Humanitarian Bowl. Whoopie. Give everyone a shot, and perhaps games like that one would be a bit closer.
You mentioned, though, that Boise State does "not belong, nor ever did belong in the BCS." My whole point is that there shouldn't even BE a BCS. Georgia proved they are a far superior team to Boise State. But that doesn't make Boise State a second-class team. Just a bad one. The moment you say "Here's a category of teams who are by definition better than this other category of teams," basing your judgment on something as irrelevant as conference affiliation, you've demeaned the entire league. We should not be arguing about who "belongs" and who doesn't. We're all Division I-A. Let's just play the games and see which individual teams are better than others.
Incidentally, another thing I love about college football is that anything can happen. You go in expecting BSU to at least put up a decent fight against Georgia, or for Oklahoma to waste TCU. Every weekend is full of surprises!
(Anonymous, are you the same commenter who would knock Boise State in the comments of every post I made last fall? You must be a friend of mine. If not, I'm immensely flattered that you're back. Either way, I look forward to more verbal sparring with you over the course of this season (of course, I may have to choose TCU instead of BSU as my beacon of hope.))
You mentioned, though, that Boise State does "not belong, nor ever did belong in the BCS." My whole point is that there shouldn't even BE a BCS. Georgia proved they are a far superior team to Boise State. But that doesn't make Boise State a second-class team. Just a bad one. The moment you say "Here's a category of teams who are by definition better than this other category of teams," basing your judgment on something as irrelevant as conference affiliation, you've demeaned the entire league. We should not be arguing about who "belongs" and who doesn't. We're all Division I-A. Let's just play the games and see which individual teams are better than others.
Incidentally, another thing I love about college football is that anything can happen. You go in expecting BSU to at least put up a decent fight against Georgia, or for Oklahoma to waste TCU. Every weekend is full of surprises!
(Anonymous, are you the same commenter who would knock Boise State in the comments of every post I made last fall? You must be a friend of mine. If not, I'm immensely flattered that you're back. Either way, I look forward to more verbal sparring with you over the course of this season (of course, I may have to choose TCU instead of BSU as my beacon of hope.))
be flattered. Would it be best for you if TCU beats your BYU so another outside team has a shot at the BCS (since UL joined the Big East). If so, it would make 3 teams (TCU, Utah and BSU) that needed to beat your team to make a statement against the BCS. At what point do you stop sacrificing your team?! I understand your disdain of the BCS, but part of it is that you are not from a BCS conference like I am (Go SEC). The top teams from the BCS conferences are better than any given cinderella. When the middle teams of the lessor conferences begin constantly beating the top teams of the BCS schools then we'll rewrite the automatic entries. Your point that the money, ratings and such are going to BCS schools is somewhat mute because it always has gone to BCS schools. Now it is just more brash and in-your-face that it is going to BCS schools.
Quite frankly, I stop sacrificing my team when it's worth it to stop. Yeah, BSU and Utah both beat BYU last year en route to making anti-BCS statements, but if you took a look at BYU's overall season, we didn't have much hope anyway. Especially against Utah--by that time, BYU had already thrown in the towel and had nothing to play for anyway.
I'll actually unconditionally cheer for BYU to beat TCU this year (as I cheered against BSU last year), because they play very early in the season (Sept 24, I think). But if our hated rival Utah again remains undefeated until the time they meet BYU in the last game of the season, my attitude will be determined by what BYU is playing for. If a BYU win means a conference championship and/or a bowl game, I'm all for BYU. But if, like last year, BYU will gain nothing by winning, but will gain $1M of BCS money by losing, I will sit by and watch the game as a detached observer (I can't bring myself to actually root for Utah!).
Oh, and as I've stated before, I don't deny that most SEC teams are better than most MWC teams. But the reason is not (well, should not be) the fact that they are members of the SEC. Every team should earn its stripes. You can't argue that Pitt deserved the bowl game it played in last year more than Cal did, can you?
Post a Comment
I'll actually unconditionally cheer for BYU to beat TCU this year (as I cheered against BSU last year), because they play very early in the season (Sept 24, I think). But if our hated rival Utah again remains undefeated until the time they meet BYU in the last game of the season, my attitude will be determined by what BYU is playing for. If a BYU win means a conference championship and/or a bowl game, I'm all for BYU. But if, like last year, BYU will gain nothing by winning, but will gain $1M of BCS money by losing, I will sit by and watch the game as a detached observer (I can't bring myself to actually root for Utah!).
Oh, and as I've stated before, I don't deny that most SEC teams are better than most MWC teams. But the reason is not (well, should not be) the fact that they are members of the SEC. Every team should earn its stripes. You can't argue that Pitt deserved the bowl game it played in last year more than Cal did, can you?
