Debunking the Myth of the "Mythical" National Championship
No sooner had I heaped richly deserved praise upon Sunday Morning Quarterback than he turned right around and said his piece on the central subject upon which we disagree . . . namely, the wisdom, vel non, of a Division I-A college football playoff.
Writes SMQ:
That part of me that wishes I had majored in English (yes, "majored in English"; an English major is a British army officer) is moved to reply with a pair of poems:
by Richard Wilbur
I read how Quixote in his random ride
Came to a crossing once, and lest he lose
The purity of chance, would not decide
Whither to fare, but wished his horse to choose.
For glory lay wherever turned the fable.
His head was light with pride, his horse's shoes
Were heavy, and he headed for the stable.
by Robert Frost
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I---
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
The point is clear; the decision not to decide is itself a decision. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, which is younger than the Rose Bowl and only about 30 years older than the Associated Press poll, could crown a champion, yet it chooses not to do so. Is it unreasonable to assume that this is so primarily because most of us are perfectly comfortable with the existing method of choosing a champion?
Moreover, Sunday Morning Quarterback's criticism of the "mythical" national championship---which exists only because we agree to acknowledge that it does---applies to many things in life, not least of all the N.C.A.A.
The problem that the N.C.A.A. was created to combat a century ago no longer exists; just as the raison d'etre of the Republican Party was fulfilled with the passage of the 13th Amendment, the purpose for which the N.C.A.A. exists was accomplished once the forward pass was legalized.
The perpetuation of the organization occurs because those involved allow it to occur, not for any other or better reason. N.C.A.A. sanction is like fiat money; it is real only because we accept its legitimacy . . . and, like the dollar, the currency of the N.C.A.A.'s credibility has been devalued. Were the college presidents to stop recognizing the authority of the N.C.A.A., it would prove every bit as ephemeral, every bit as "mythical," as the 70-year-old institution of the A.P. poll.
Why, then, does it matter whether the N.C.A.A. grants or does not grant its imprimatur to a particular method of crowning a champion? Other athletic events are sanctioned by the N.A.I.A. without any involvement from the N.C.A.A.; the N.C.A.A. tournament exists alongside a separate basketball tourney that produced an N.I.T. champion that had swept the "official" national champion during the regular season; N.C.A.A. member institutions sometimes even file lawsuits against the organization to which they belong.
There is, in short, nothing so special about the N.C.A.A. that its approval should confer special status. Besides, if we are going to criticize coaches and sportswriters for their bizarre quirks and asinine rationalizations, shouldn't we also acknowledge that the N.C.A.A. is itself the fountainhead of much that is ludicrous?
Finally, the N.C.A.A. may keep itself at one remove from Division I-A college football's postseason structure, but its involvement is undeniable and its approval, while tacit, is tangible. The N.C.A.A. licenses and determines eligibility criteria for bowl games and lists national championship poll results in the record book. The N.C.A.A. may be able to claim that the system of bowls and polls was born out of wedlock, but that system's paternity is not in doubt, even if no formal legitimation proceeding has been commenced.
Go 'Dawgs!
6 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You've probably seen this
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56174
by lisa on Dec 19, 2006 5:39 PM EST reply actions
Gather ye Rose Bowls while ye may...
However, if SMQ's point is that a OSU win doesn't settle the future BSC-Bowl-Playoff debate, he is correct (it merely buys "the Man" more time). As someone who favors a bowl-playoff blend, I don't think the current BSC system is perfect (or close to it). While I respect Kyle and some of the others who want the status quo, I do disagree with them.
2. Like Kyle, I have very little praise for the NCAA. I think that they are fickle hypocrites and part of me would like to see a mass withdrawal from the organization to see what would happen (but I know that it never will). I try to give a little mercy for mistakes, but when it seems a conscious decision to make mistakes without ever claiming responsibility, that well of mercy runs dry pretty quick.
To be clear...
I would express some surprise at Kyle's idea of accepting a system because "most people agree," which seems like sentiment in direct opposition to conservatism, but I'm wary of the possibly very lengthy recriminations. My libertarian-infused conservatism isn't the same as what I regard as Kyle's more traditional, institutional variety. But this road is not one I want to travel, as it were. My point here is that I don't regard agreement, regardless of its unanimity, as the direct basis for an athletic distinction that is properly earned on the field. We'll get to why I believe a playoff of three rounds or more fits this criteria but a single game doesn't later in the offseason.
I agree with foto and Kyle about problems with the NCAA. I don't mean to defend the NCAA, which even NCAA officials agree deserves reform, but, without writing a treatise, it does remain the sanctioning body of the sport under which its members voluntarily participate, and anything outside of its auspices is unofficial by definition. Or should always come with the full title, i.e., the Associated Press National Champion, or the Dunkel Power Index National Champion, whatever the case may be. to distinguish the fact that it is only a certain group of people using their own methods and opinions to determine this, and these groups can and do regularly disagree. There is no be-all, end-all opinion. I'd probably accept the results of a non-NCAA-organized playoff as legitimate to name a champion, which will be the format if there is to be a playoff, I imagine (the BCS will sort of morph into a playoff structure over time). If there was a 'mass withdrawal' from the NCAA, I'd say the same thing regarding sanction of whatever organization took its place. If there was no organization in its place, well, that would be interesting. But the problems of sanction and champion by opinion would only be magnified unless the new entity was small enough to do it right, round-robin style.
We don't need to get too in-depth here, though. We can save that.
by smq on Dec 20, 2006 1:10 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks for the clarification, SMQ
Naturally, I disagree with the underlying premise of the author you cited; I think Florida has no claim whatsoever to the 1984 national championship, because the Gators cheated, period.
They were stripped of the S.E.C. title (which is, to this day, listed on conference records as "vacant") and denied the opportunity to compete in a bowl game. (Since we both agree that postseason play is important to determining a champion, surely a team that spent the holidays at home has no legitimate argument.) Perhaps Washington has a claim, but not Florida.
As for my more traditionalist conservatism---which is a fair characterization---I don't see a contradiction. I am not taking a populist position in favor of all expressions of opinion; I am defending votes by smaller, more select groups: sportswriters, coaches, BlogPollsters. I view that as quite analogous to the system of representation we find in the houses of Congress.
In any case, though, I appreciated your stopping by and I will look forward to hashing this out with you in full in the future!
you sob
You both forgot to mention 1994 in which Nebraska was crowned National Champs everywhere but Happy Valley, where it is my undderstanding that they crowned themselves National Champions.
Wait, maybe SMQ forgot to mention that.
And how many times do I have to mention it? The ACCEPTANCE OF A PLAYOFF/BOWL MIXTURE WILL DESTROY college football, and yes, I mean to scream.
It won't happen, and if it does, you can count on riots. Home-field advantage, or NO Playoff!!!
Screw you guys, I'm going home.
http://www.cornnation.com
by cornnation @ Dawg Sports on Dec 19, 2006 11:11 PM EST reply actions

by 















