Morning Coffee Loves Unforgettable Championships
by PB @ BON
on Feb 4, 2008 9:02 AM CST
in Quick Hits
Waco aftermath. Kirk Bohls has a solid post-Baylor recap column which touches on a lot of the big points of Texas' huge 80-72 win on Saturday. One point which Andrew noted as well is that this Texas team continues to limp along from the free throw line, missing 10+ free throws for the second straight game and sixth time on the season.
Good bye, football. The end of college football season is a special kind of sad, but the pro game does a decent job of softening the landing. At least this year we were treated to a thrilling Super Bowl. And to such a great story.
First, there's New York, Eli Manning, not-Tiki Barber, that catch by Tyree, and... Tom Coughlin? Talk about a storybook season.
And then, of course, New England. This loss? Karma. The Pats just had this one coming. The Trojan-esque talk of their immortality. 19-0 t-shirts. Columnists wondering (aloud!) about their place in the pantheon of Boston greatness. And maybe more than anything else, the fanbase: a big, obnoxious core, with an outer ring of bandwagoneers. Oh so ironically, they'd become the New York Yankees of football.
And yes, Pats fans: the rest of us were damn happy to see the Evil Empire lose.
Don't put words in my mouth. As a proponent of a playoff for college football, I'm not looking forward to the anti-playoff crowd telling me that this year's Super Bowl is a reason I should not want one for college football. Let me just get a couple of my counterpoints on the record now:
Did the 'best' team win the championship? No, if you're asking who had the best regular season. But does that delegitimize New York's championship in any way? Not especially. New York won three games on the road, then another on a neutral field. They're anything but undeserving, in that context. (You could make an argument that a playoff field shouldn't include New York at all and I wouldn't necessarily object, but that's a different story.)
But more than all that, it's an uninspiring analogy. NFL teams practically play a round robin; by the time the regular season is complete, you can pretty fairly evaluate who the top two teams are. A playoff advocate wouldn't have much to gripe about had New England and Dallas been pitted in a winner-take-all at the conclusion of the regular season. Dallas beat Green Bay straight up in the regular season, after all. And New England beat everyone, including their nearest competitors in the AFC, the Colts.
That's of course not the case in college football, where the top competitors for 'best team' in all likelihood have not played one another. How do we compare two-loss LSU and two-loss USC? No straight up competition. No common opponents. Just an arbitrary calculus with imcomplete input and a meaningless output: namely, LSU's better.
What's the downside? The playoff haters purport to worry about the meaningfulness of the regular season, but for the life of me, I cannot get this argument. If you take the number of games which become "meaningless" (because, presumably, one team has already locked itself into a playoff berth), and the number of games which have added import (because one or both teams are fighting for a playoff berth), I'm certain you'll find far more of the latter.
Unforgettable. The one bit of Bill Simmons' 'Whoops' column that stood out to me?
It's true. Winning championships is exciting no matter what; winning a championship in a game like that is something else altogether.
--PB--
0 recs |
37
comments
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
Caught an oversight...
I think I caught an edit here....
The Trojan-esque talk of their immortality to The season-long ESPN Rusty Trombone, AKA the Championship Kiss of Death (TM)
Fixed.
(If it's a group effort by ESPN, does that make it the latest single by Rusty Tromboner?)
by DC Trojan on Feb 4, 2008 9:30 AM CST 0 recs
The Yankees of Football
That's just wrong. They're the Red Sox of football. Because while everyone was fooled into thinking the Red Sox were the David to the Yankees Goliath, and were the hero to the common man, they were really two sides of a similar coin. The only difference being, if you think Yankees fans are obnoxious, you've never met a Sox fan.
by Meekrob on Feb 4, 2008 9:54 AM CST 0 recs
The regular season loses its meaning because...
The Giants lost to the Cowboys twice in the regular season, they lost to the Packers (at home), and lost to the Patriots (at home). If you want a true playoff, just scrap the regular season completely and have a 5 round, 32 team tournament. It's completely out of the question, but would truly decide the championship on the field.
For all of its purported flaws, I believe the BCS does the best job of any post-season mechanism of crowning the most deserving champion. Are the most deserving teams always the best teams? Not necessarily, I believe Oklahoma (at its best) was a better football team than Ohio State this year and would've challenged LSU more than the Buckeyes. However, I believe the Buckeyes and Tigers were two teams that deserved to be there the most. Also, the chances are pretty good that the two most deserving teams are also the two best teams.
The NFL playoffs crown the hottest team for the month of January and one week in February. Under this system, you're more likely (but far from guaranteed) to end up with the two "best" teams playing in the championship game. Sometimes, these teams do happen to be the two most deserving (regarding their regular season accomplishments), but more often than not, (at least) one of the Super Bowl participants is a team that caught fire in late December or early January.
In the end, I suppose it's a matter of preference. Personally, I like the BCS model in that it does the best job of giving us the two most deserving championship candidates. I can't blame anyone for supporting a playoff though, because a playoff provides a sort of closure that many college football fans clamor for at the end of each season.
by Sweed4Heisman on Feb 4, 2008 9:56 AM CST 0 recs
Playoffs and Super Bowl
PB touches on something that's been lost in the pro scheme -- the element of the unknown. I'm dating myself (again), but I remember the old Super Bowls, AFL vs. NFL, two champions that had never met on the field. The modern SB is more likely to be a rematch and, as PB points out, both teams will have played common opponents. Crazy as it can be, the BCS system (not just the CG, but the BCS bowls as well) tends to avoid rematches, and common opponents are much less likely.
I agree with Sweed4 that the pro playoff system renders the regular season virtually meaningless -- you just have to win enough to get in. Home field can be valuable, sure, but overall the playoffs are just a series of rematches.
by NYCHorn on Feb 4, 2008 10:28 AM CST 0 recs
No question
by Sweed4Heisman on
Feb 4, 2008 11:09 AM CST
up
0 recs
its not 'meaningless'
The regular season is not meaningless. Home field matters, even though the Giants dispelled that this year. The Steelers did as well in '05, winning 3 straight road games. However, history proves that you play at home, you have a better chance at winning.
Furthermore, in the NFL, where games are decided by such tiny margins (just a few plays here and there usually), regular season games give teams great opportunities to see what works and what does not against particular opponents. Game planning and coaching are a much bigger part of the game than at the college level, where the team with the best horses usually wins.
Finally, I'm not sure how to say this coherently, but I was reminded of this by my 5th grade basketball team that I coach (don't laugh). The team has lost 2 games by a total of 2 points. The team will be the third seed in the tournament. With no playoff, we would be out of the picture for a title. That would be sad because the team is just a fraction of a hair worse than the other two teams ahead of it. With a few adjustments based on the regular season experience, the team has a very legitimate shot at 'getting hot at the right time'.
My point is that so often theres such a tiny difference between the very good and the just pretty good teams. Records don't tell enough of the story at times imo. You play the regular season to compete and learn about yourself and your opponents. Then there's a tournament where the stakes are elevated and pressure becomes a bigger part of the game. What's wrong with that? Don't you remember when you competed? Did you feel like you were lightyears behind the teams/players in front of you and that you didnt deserve another shot down the road after seeing what it takes to compete with the best?
It's no different in many walks of life. The closing argument for attorneys is important, but so is the legwork that comes before it. Horse races are often decided at the end when an unlikely entrant surges late to win even though one of the horses was leading the pack for 98% of the race. Salesmen have to close the door on a sale, but they also have to introduce themselves and their product in a trustworthy intriguing manner from the get-go.
by Blitzburgh on
Feb 4, 2008 1:58 PM CST
up
0 recs
Playoffs and Bowls
The playoff haters purport to worry about the meaningfulness of the regular season, but for the life of me, I cannot get this argument. If you take the number of games which become "meaningless" (because, presumably, one team has already locked itself into a playoff berth), and the number of games which have added import (because one or both teams are fighting for a playoff berth), I'm certain you'll find far more of the latter.
First off, I want a small playoff. Really I think the BCS is right the majority of the time (say 51%) and the vast majority of the rest of the time I think could easily be fixed by adding a +1, and just seed the top 4.
The BCS system makes me care about every single game of my team, and it also makes me have a deep interest in many many out of conference games. I think the best example was two years ago, before we dropped our last two games. We were in the hunt, and it made the Florida vs South Carolina game a monster for us, and I watched it with near the same emotion as I would if the Burnt Orange was on the field. Or this year, who watched OU's final games with great interest?
I think you would have that to some extent with a large playoff, but I dont feel like it would be to the same extent.
I always equate it more to college basketball than to the NFL. I enjoy watching all of Texas games, but at the same time, it doesnt really matter if we lose some. And at the same time, I only have a passive interest in out of conference games over the course of the season.
Anyway a 4 seed, +1 always seems like the most reasonable solution. No Auburns get left out without a chance, and hardly any more football has to be added for the lame academic excuse we always hear.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Feb 4, 2008 10:40 AM CST 0 recs
Plus One System
Certainly a plus one would've been perfect for the 2004 season, and would've worked well in several other years.
However, in years like 2002 (Miami/OSU) and 2005 (USC/Texas) I would have had a problem with it. In 2005, everyone knew that USC and Texas were clearly the two best and two most deserving teams in the nation. Why then should they have to play an extra game before facing each other? If you gave one loss Penn State a crack at Texas, wouldn't you then be devaluing the regular season? They didn't play each other in the regular season, but Texas clearly accomplished more than the Lions that fall. I know I sure would've been pissed had Texas had to play Penn State before they got a shot at USC and lost.
Another example would be this past season. In a plus one, #2 LSU would've had to play #3 Virginia Tech (the same VT that they beat by 41 in September)again and would devalue the regular season. Why should LSU have to beat VT twice where VT would've had to win only one of the two for a shot at the national championship?
Every college football season is an animal of its own, and I don't believe that any post season system maintains the importance of the regular season in every scenario. Sometimes a plus one is the answer, and sometimes the current system is fine. I am BCS proponent mainly because the regular season is ALWAYS crucial to crowning the national champion. In a year like 2004, the BCS certainly wasn't an adequate system to determine the national champion, but I'm willing to bet that we won't have a season with 5 undefeated teams (after the regular season) for about another 100 years.
by Sweed4Heisman on
Feb 4, 2008 11:27 AM CST
up
0 recs
you need to read my playoff proposal
see PB's most recent post for the link.
by billyzane on
Feb 4, 2008 11:54 AM CST
up
0 recs
A flex system would work 100% of the time...
... I just don't think that it would ever happen.
by Sweed4Heisman on
Feb 4, 2008 12:39 PM CST
up
0 recs
Any Playoff
by nature can allow for the non-best team to win, thats the whole point of letting them prove it on the field.
We still had to play a big 12 championship game even though no one thought our dominance of the conference was ever in question.
We would have destroyed Penn State in 2005.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Feb 4, 2008 12:11 PM CST
up
0 recs
Relief
As a die hard Cowboys fan, I've always hated the Giants as much as I hate the Redskins and almost as much as I hate the Eagles. And until this year, I never really cared about the Patriots one way or another--at least until they got caught cheating. But when the sportscasters and sportwriters launched off on this "greatest team ever" and "best player ever" kick, my stomach began to churn. The nonstop Pat worship got so bad, that I almost passed up watching the Superbowl. But thank goodness the football gods came to my aid. Can you imagine what it would be hearing about the "perfect" team all next season? Can you imagine all the Ton Brady commercials? Can you imagine the idolizing of the sainted coach and the majestic owner? So Giants, I owe you one. I no longer hate you quite as much as the Redskins.
by Caradoc on Feb 4, 2008 10:56 AM CST 0 recs
Playoff
Although my proposal for a college football post-season does sometimes incorporate a "playoff," I admantly don't consider myself a "playoff proponent." And as someone who's generally anti-playoff, I certainly in no way think that the Giants' championship is somehow deligitimated because they had 6 losses in the regular season and the Patriots had none. There were rules for winning the NFL championship and they won according to those rules. There's nothing illegitimate about it, just as there's nothing "mythical" about a college football championship that was won according to the rules for winning. What does get a little delegitimized is the system for determining that champion. I'll defer to my longer work about what makes a system for determining a champion "legitimate," but suffice it to say that I'm not a big fan of the NFL's.
Regardless, on the "meaninglessness" of regular season games, I don't totally agree with you Peter. Certainly, there will be more teams with more to play for in a system that offers lots and lots of playoff berths. But in a small playoff system, which as per my understanding is the kind you most favor, it's the same teams competing for the BCS championship game under the current system as would be competing for spots in a 4-team playoff. So if you're the #1 team in the country under the current system and you lose at the end of the season, you're probably out of the national championship game. But if there's a guaranteed 4-team playoff and you lose, it sucks, but you'll probably still make the playoffs.
So you might have 1 or 2 more teams competing for the 4-team playoff than would be competing for the current 2-team playoff, and the games would matter more for them, but the results for most of these teams would become far less important than they are now.
by billyzane on Feb 4, 2008 11:39 AM CST 0 recs
Possibly
Two points to consider.
First, let's say we had a flex system. A team might not even know whether its losses would ultimately exclude it from a playoff berth. On a few rare occasions, I suppose it could.
Second, for every game that loses a little luster because a team's locked into a playoff berth, there's a series of games which take on added importance because a potential playoff berth is still a possibility.
And finally, I'm just not convinced that these games would diminish much in value, anyway. Would the Texas-OU game mean less to you because you knew that we could still get a playoff berth if we lost? Maybe a tiny bit? Maybe? I find it hard to imagine caring about that game less simply because I know the national title hopes aren't totally squashed if we lose. Hell, it's already the case in the current system that you can lose a game and remain in the hunt. You're never really sure.
I find the argument that these regular season games are suddenly going to be diminished in value to be basically a restatement of the dangers of a too-large playoff system. But that's not what I'm advocating.
It doesn't concern me at all.
by PB @ BON on
Feb 4, 2008 11:48 AM CST
up
0 recs
Not quite what I meant
I didn't mean that the OU game would have any less meaning for us. College football rivalries are one of the great things about college football. Nothing will ever diminish them. But let's take a non-rivalry game like, say, against Missouri next year. I don't know when it is, but let's say it's in November and we're undefeated going in. We're undoubtedly in the top 2-3 if we're undefeted in November. The anticipation is going to be equally high whether we have a playoff or not. People are still going to tailgate, talk about the game all week and cheer just as hard. That I concede.
But what of the outcome of the game? The outcome of the game means less to us if there's a playoff. It just does. If we win, great. Higher seed in the playoff. If we lose, that sucks, we'll be a lower seed in the playoff if we win out. It certainly doesn't suck the life out of a regular season game (though a larger playoff might to a greater extent), but it certainly tempers the excitement of a win and cushions the agony of a loss. And that's what I don't want to go away.
by billyzane on
Feb 4, 2008 12:05 PM CST
up
0 recs
Hindsight bias
In hindsight, the losses' meaning will be softened. In real time, they'll still seem devastating. Not just as fans, but as we keep our eyes on the national title prize. Though the loss to Missouri might wind up costing us nothing, it won't be clear until later. At least if the playoff system is exclusive enough, as I'm advocating.
by PB @ BON on
Feb 4, 2008 12:24 PM CST
up
0 recs
at the very least
it will always be in the back of your mind. and i personally think it will be in the front of your mind. but whatever.
What we i think agree on is that any playoff system will diminish the importance of the regular season to some degree. Hell, even the current 2-team playoff diminished the importance of the regular season a little bit (i.e. the champion isn't awarded based solely on the results of the regular season). The question is how much of that are we willing to put up with. You have to strike a balance. But it's not true that it doesn't diminish the regular season at all.
by billyzane on
Feb 4, 2008 1:36 PM CST
up
0 recs
To me...
Its not the meaning of Texas games that it affects, so much as it is the meaning of non-Texas games. Every year there are some non-conference, or even interconference games, that I watch and root with near the same intensity as if Texas were on the field, South Carolina Florida in 2006 comes to mind, or Missou/OU, Tech/OU this year.
As long as the playoff is small though, it should not be a big deal.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Feb 4, 2008 12:13 PM CST
up
0 recs
sorry, PB
but you can't say everyone was happy to see the Pats lose.
Some of us are sick and tired of hearing about the '72 Dolphins.
by Beergut on Feb 4, 2008 11:42 AM CST 0 recs
Goosebumps
Wow... I still get goosebumps when I see that 4th and 5 play. The crescendo of that roar on the TV broadcast is phenomenal. I have a friend that bailed in the 3rd quarter when USC was up two scores on us. He went to the Hancock HEB to get some groceries. He said that as he was leaving the store and walking through the parking lot to his car he heard a literal "roar" rise up from the city, and he immediately said "Shit...I missed it." He regrets it to this day.
Anyway, Vince rules and Keith Jackson is a Horn hating douche.
by Bombilla on Feb 4, 2008 11:47 AM CST 0 recs
if Jay Bilas
thinks y'all are a Final Four type squad, he hasn't watched you play too much.
The first time you run into a team with a strong inside game in the Dance, y'all are done.
by Beergut on Feb 4, 2008 12:29 PM CST 0 recs
a team like Wisconsin
or A&M
or Missouri.
Personally, I think the UCLA game was a fluke, and doesn't look like anything special when you combine it with the Wisconsin loss.
You won one game on a fluke last second shot, and you lost a game on a fluke last second shot. This makes you good how?
I don't see this team making it past the Sweet 16, unless you get an incredibly favorable draw, and end up facing Cinderella in game 3.
by Beergut on
Feb 5, 2008 12:45 AM CST
up
0 recs
When the truth does not support your arguement
just disregard it.
Nice aggie logic.
by Wells on
Feb 5, 2008 5:57 AM CST
up
0 recs
actually, the evidence the rest of the season
supports my argument.
texas lost to Missouri, Wisconsin, and A&M.
They beat UCLA.
billyzane is trying to use the anomaly to disporve my point.
I said your team isn't a Final Four squad b/c they have a weakness against teams with a strong inside game.
The results of the Mizzou, Wisconsin, and A&M games back me up on that.
by Beergut on
Feb 5, 2008 10:44 AM CST
up
0 recs
I would like to make some excuses...
- Mizzou beat us with outside shooting, and our poor defense. Not inside play. We were leading at half time, and only 10 of their 59 second half points were scored under the basket.
- We outscored aTm by 6 over the last 3/4 of the game. Combine that with the worst start ever, and its a loss.
- Wisconsin is really good, and horribly underrated when we played them, we lost by 1 in a game that was close throughout.
- MSU flat out beat us in a well played game. They played better team D than we did.
- Quality wins at UCLA and neutral Tennessee. UCLA may even be a more obnoxious a venue than aTm.
Call me a homer, but I dont see evidence that its not possible for us to hang with any non #1 seed team. I see evidence that we fail to start strong at times, we have failed to close at times, but that is indicative of any young team.
Heres to hoping for a little more consistency in March, and the final 10 games.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Feb 5, 2008 11:33 AM CST
up
0 recs
Mizzou? Wisconsin?
Did you even watch these games? Go back and look at the box score in both, Texas out rebounded Mizzou by 10 and while Wisconsin had one more rebound than Texas (hardly indicative of big man dominance) Texas had 5 more blocks than Wisconsin.
The difference in both of those games and the UCLA game has nothing to do with big men, it has to do how many points were left at the free throw line.
The only game that supports your theory is the A&M game.
by Wells on
Feb 5, 2008 11:46 AM CST
up
0 recs
So in short,
Your argument is as follows.
"You played two top 10 teams tightly, and you matched up poorly with both of them. This makes you good how?"
I think if I took a logic course at A&M my brain would shut down to preserve itself.
by Meekrob on
Feb 5, 2008 7:51 AM CST
up
0 recs
Wisconsin
had yet to beat a ranked team, was playing without their leading scorer, was unranked, and was playing on the road when they played beat y'all.
Nice revisionist history to say you lost to a top 10 team.
by Beergut on
Feb 5, 2008 10:49 AM CST
up
0 recs
Revisionist History?
They're 8th in both major polls. It's true. Look it up.
by Meekrob on
Feb 5, 2008 11:11 AM CST
up
0 recs
You try, you really do.
But you just have this thing where you get somet idea in your head and you refuse to admit any alternative possibilities, ignoring all facts to the contrary.
You remind me of someone....
by billyzane on
Feb 5, 2008 9:20 AM CST
up
0 recs
A&M, Missouri, Wisconsin
please explain to me how texas' performance in those games points to a team that will do well against teams with a strong inside game.
by Beergut on
Feb 5, 2008 10:50 AM CST
up
0 recs
KSU, A&M
Tell me how Texas' performance in those football games points to a team that will do well against a Pac-10 team.
Pearl Harbor, Dunkirk
Please explain to me how the allies' performance in these battles points to the side that will win the war.
And just in case you don't get it yet:
Patriots at Colts, Patriots own Dallas
Please explain to me how the Patriot's performance in these games points to a team that will lose the Super Bowl to the Giants.
by Horn Brain on
Feb 5, 2008 6:32 PM CST
up
0 recs
Aaron Ross
What a great ending to a rookie season.. not only does he play on highschool championship team, BCS Champs at UT and now a SuperBowl ring his first year in the NFL..
by LadyLonghorninOK on Feb 4, 2008 5:20 PM CST 0 recs
I have to concur...
with you regarding with Aaron Ross. He almost had a few chances to get the interception especially, in the last possession from Brady when just a 10-15 sec. left for the game. He threw a long pass and if Ross looks back for the ball in a million sec. earlier, he could catch that ball.
Me and my classmates have rewinded the tapes for a few times to see where Ross almost has a few chances to catch the ball for interception. If he has one, what a name he will make for the Longhorns if either Joe Buck or Aikman mentions his college as Texas Longhorns in front of 97.5 millions viewers + who knows how many viewers around the world.
What a Texas Pride he can make for himself if he gets an interception in that critical last 10 sec. to seal the game!
Hook'em!
by Horns98 on
Feb 5, 2008 1:00 PM CST
up
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
