You Have Meddled With the Primal Forces of Nature, Mr. Herbstreit, and I Won't Have It

by SMQ on Nov 28, 2007 8:38 PM EST in News

Do Kirk Herbstreit's bosses know what he's writing?

In my opinion, Ohio State could do more about [improving] the image people have of its program by playing a talented USC team that right now is as hot as any in the country ... I promise you, if Ohio State goes into the Rose Bowl, everyone is going to be saying, 'USC is going to kill Ohio State.'

... Ohio State will gain more respect if it plays USC in the Rose Bowl and wins that game, than if it goes and beats West Virginia and wins the national title. From an image standpoint, Ohio State would score more points going to the Rose Bowl than by going to the national championship game. If you can believe that, that's the truth.
- - -

Openly question the value of playing in the BCS Championship game? That's a Buckeye!
- - -

Well, here's the thing re: cynical capitalist motivation: Herbstreit's WWL/ABC/Disney employers are still broadcasting the Rose Bowl and therefore have every reason to hype it at the expense of the mythical championship game, hosted by Fox. Herbstreit bows to no Australian gazillionaire. He also sets up his alma mater nicely - Missouri loses and clears the way for the Buckeyes into the championship game? Great! Win it all, boys. Missouri and West Virginia win and OSU gets sent to the Rose Bowl instead? Also great! Haven't been there in a decade, and it's just as meaningful a game in the long run. So make of that what you will, you skeptic, you.

But the subversive idealist in me smiles beneath the wizened exterior, because at least the idea is out there, that the "National Championship Game" is not actually the national championship game, but a corporate ratings con that carries no more legitimacy than any opinion poll ever has. Herbstreit doesn't go this far, and I think he's only responding to the current situation, not thinking systematically about the BCS as an inadequate system that makes no sense, decides nothing and should be junked. He's not college football's Howard Beale. I'm pretty sure he was on this week defending the Series against a playoff, actually, in response to a WWL fan poll in which 70 percent of respondents were in favor of some kind of tournament. He's the same guy who lobbied way too hard and foolishly for an OSU-Michigan rematch last year at the exclusion of Florida. And this stuff about everyone picking USC to kill Ohio State in a hypothetical Rose Bowl clash of titans - he's drawing on supposedly lingering perceptions of OSU's athleticism against high-end opponents from last year's debacle against Florida - is fairly ridiculous; the Trojans would be slight favorites at best in the mind of anyone who's paid attention, if that.

But this remains the only time I'm aware of that a well-known, mainstream talking head has suggested there is a greater reward than being selected for the concocted championship. USC got a little sympathy in 2003 with the AP vote, but that didn't seem to dent the myth of a real, be-all, end-all championship. I don't remember anyone on ESPN in 2004 arguing that Auburn should be considered on par with USC for its 13-0 season. The Tigers were just screwed. Sorry, guys, and better luck next time.

This is the kind of thinking/external force that will drive the inevitable evolution of the BCS into a lamentable "plus-one" model and then a real playoff, when pundits and fans stop thinking of the "championship game" as such and start looking at the big picture in exactly the same way they did before the BCS attempted to shoehorn a happy medium a decade ago. Maybe Bernie Machen and his alleged $100 million in hypothetical playoff loot can start some kind of public relations campaign - the championship fiasco won't change until people start recognizing it for what it is.

- - -
Hat tip: Mountaineer blogger Charley West of West By God Virginia, who does not agree with me, and in fact thinks Herbstreit is even crazier than Les Miles.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

AP Poll

Or, perhaps it's a preemptive announcement of sorts to AP voters that hey, you don't have to vote for the BCS title game winner as your #1! Ohio State would prove more by beating USC than WVU, so if they do play and beat USC, they've proven more than Missouri did by playing WVU!

As it is, if that lingering perception about Ohio State lacking athleticism persists (and it does, exacerbated by the loss to the spread-running Illini), how better to disprove it than by defeating the spread's inventor on the game's grandest stage? After all, White and Slaton were the guys who out-sped the Speedy SEC's Georgia two years ago. Ohio State has plenty to prove by beating West Virginia and putting the whole "OSU is a plodding team that can't beat the spread" thing to rest.

by Year2 on Nov 28, 2007 10:46 PM EST 0 recs

As a Buckeye fan...

Not to be crass or overly simplistic, but uh, I'll take the fucking trophy any day of the week. Plus we're playing USC the next two years; I'd rather get some variety in there than play the Trojans 3 times in the next 21 months...

by Jack on Nov 28, 2007 11:10 PM EST 0 recs

Look at Herbie...

...with the glassy-eyed stare. Dude clearly has been spending time with fellow OSU alum Reggie Germany and his 0.0 GPA. Either that or hanging with Ricky Williams in Amsterdam.

Because really, only someone using really good drugs or intellectually bankrupt would suggest that playing in a glorified exhibition game - even if it is the Rose Bowl - is preferable to playing for the freakin' national title. I don't buy the idea that Kirk's just shilling for ESPN, because that would imply a level of intelligence I'm not entirely sold he possesses.

by sodakboy93 on Nov 28, 2007 11:16 PM EST 0 recs

Brand Management

As for Herbstreit's premise of Ohio State gaining more by beating USC in the Rose Bowl than winning the national championship speaks to the modern sports condition of brand management. Sacrifice the title this year for more brand equity to help you weather bad-looking losses in the future for better poll position for future champion.

I can understand where he's coming from, but he's overthinking the concept. Nothing gives your program more brand equity than championships, regardless.

by Year2 on Nov 28, 2007 11:22 PM EST 0 recs

That is a fascinating point of view on this

I don't necessarily agree with it, and I would still take the trophy right now rather than the begrudging "respect" of the CFB community at large, but still: helluvan interesting way to look at Herbie's comments.

by Jack on Nov 29, 2007 8:22 AM EST up 0 recs

Re:

A "National Championship," as mythical as you think it may be, still resonates years and decades past a good bowl win. As it's setup now, without the AP involved, Ohio State would have no chance at the championship if they won the Rose Bowl. People might think they're better, and they might be, but only for a little while. After that, all they have is the Rose Bowl trophy. The National Champion has all the trappings of the best team in the country, no matter who they beat. For a program, with raising money, selling merchandise, and attracting recruits, the National Championship is the holy grail.

Now, of course, it means infinitely more to WVU than it would Ohio State, since we've never won it. But still, it would mean more to Ohio State than a Rose Bowl win. Maybe not the week after, but down the road.

by Charley West on Nov 28, 2007 11:58 PM EST 0 recs

I'm arguing

Ohio State should still be eligible for the national championship if it wins the Rose Bowl. I stress 'eligible.'

by SMQ on Nov 29, 2007 9:09 AM EST up 0 recs

Re:

I guess I can't get behind the counter-culture, undermine the BCS end of this argument. Do I like the BCS? Of course not. But right now, that's the system in which we're forced to play.

And in any system, isn't the ultimate prize the national championship? I realize that you're arguing that Ohio State should be eligible for the national championship if they beat USC, but they won't be. Even if there was still the possibility of a split national championship, it wouldn't happen. In the human polls, Ohio State is too far behind.

So, I think Herbstreit and Ohio State should be more concerned with seeing Missouri lose than wishing for something that just can't happen.

by Charley West on Nov 29, 2007 11:17 AM EST up 0 recs

'They won't be'

They will be. The AP can still vote OSU number one.

by SMQ on Nov 29, 2007 11:52 AM EST up 0 recs

And so can a dozen other polls out there

The points is that the BCS stamp doesn't make it a legitimate national championship.

by SMQ on Nov 29, 2007 11:53 AM EST up 0 recs

Yes it does

Of course it does. Maybe not in your mind, but in the annals of college football history, the winner of Missouri-WVU would be the legitimate national champion.

by Charley West on Nov 29, 2007 12:58 PM EST up 0 recs

The annals of college football history

The AP champion would also be the legitimate national champion. That's what we call a 'split.' It happened four years ago and could have happened again the year after that.

I don't think that will happen this year, but it should be given a lot of thought. It should be an option. Don't be brainwashed - the 'champion' will never be legitimate the way it is in every other sport until it's won in a playoff. I'd like to see the NCAA sanction it, too, as it does in every other sport, including DI-AA/II/III football. As it stands, anybody can just hand out "national championships" based on whatever criteria it wants. Real championships in sports aren't arbitrary.

by SMQ on Nov 29, 2007 1:07 PM EST up 0 recs

Not exactly the same

4 years ago, the AP poll was used as part of the BCS rankings. As 1 of the 2 human polls the BCS used, when the AP chose not to drop USC out of the #1 slot it had already held in BOTH polls, the "split" championship was created. The AP voted USC, UPI voted (as they were contractually required to do) LSU. Following that debacle, the AP pulled its participation and is no longer a part of the BCS system.

The AP still names a #1 team, so the issue of whether there is one true nc without a playoff is viable. I just don't think the situation is identical to the 2003 year (nor was it the same for Auburn, since they weren't #1 in any of the major polls when they were left out).

by Defender90 on Nov 29, 2007 4:24 PM EST up 0 recs

Yeah, it's the same

There's a team on the outside with no signficant difference from the two playing for the championship, but no chance to win it based on the arbitrary machinations of polls and computers. The system that left Auburn out in 2004, I can't recognize that. It's inadequte.

by SMQ on Nov 29, 2007 5:50 PM EST up 0 recs

Same as in system still sux, but not same sitch

For Auburn's situation to be literally interchangeable with USC's, Auburn would need to have been holding the #1 ranking going into the BCS games week. That was not the case.

If your point is both teams got shafted by the BCS (although the AP still was in the BCS system so USC got a trophy out of it), then yeah, it's the same.

by Defender90 on Nov 30, 2007 4:49 AM EST up 0 recs

Both teams got shafted

Yeah, that's the point. They deserved a chance. And if there's a one-loss team from a BCS conference left out of this year's MNCG, that team will be shafted, too, just like Ohio State (1998), Miami (2000), Oregon (2001) and the teams mentioned above. It's a consistent pattern - more than two teams deserve an equal opportunity.

by SMQ on Nov 30, 2007 9:33 AM EST up 0 recs

That's a Buckeye!

"Openly question the value of playing in the BCS Championship game? That's a Buckeye!"

After last year, any Buckeye would have to question the value of playing in a BCS Championship game. There is little value to getting whupped. Certainly it set the image of their program back significantly.

by Mergz on Nov 29, 2007 8:33 AM EST 0 recs

The downside

of loosing to West Viriginia is far greater and more damaging to the brand name going forward than loosing to USC.

Conversely, as SMQ argues, a win over USC perhaps should, and, depending on other developments, may, result in a national championship. USC will be able to attest to that, the protests of LSU fans notwithstanding.

by marcillac on Nov 29, 2007 10:28 AM EST up 0 recs

yes, an image problem, but ...

It did set the image of our program back considerably -- but a significant part of that is media goofiness. OSU has played for the national title twice in the last 5 years, and gone 1-1 in those games. OSU is also tied with USC for the best bowl record in the history of the BCS, having appeared in 5 BCS games and won 4 of them. Under those circumstances, an "image problem" based on one game is goofy. Oklahoma lost by a greater margin in the 2004 title game than OSU did in 2006. And they've lost all of their last three appearances in BCS bowls. What has that done for their image as an elite program? I don't remember either fact being mentioned a couple weeks ago when they were in the thick of the 2007 title hunt.

by TallBill on Nov 29, 2007 10:38 AM EST 0 recs

image problem

There are two bad things a team can do in a 'title game' - it can get upset (Miami) or it can get routed (Oklahoma.) Both will be forgiven in a couple of years, assuming the program continues at a high level (otherwise it can be seen as a foreshadowing of decline). Ohio State caught the double whammy - plus a near-simultaneous devaluation of its marquee win - and that will take a bit longer to shake off.

If you want to blame media goofiness, start with Herbie and the other commentators who did their level best to convince the country that Ohio State was the unquestioned heavy-weight of the CFB world last year.

by peachy on Nov 29, 2007 1:55 PM EST up 0 recs

Maybe I missed something...

But I totally agree with what Herbie said.

USC holds more clout nationally than West Virginia, because the athletes at USC are perceived to be better than those at West Virginia. At the root of all of this is still a tinge of bias, just an ever-so-slight question of legitimacy, when the Big East is mentioned. Whatever pollsters, pundits, etc. may say on the surface, there still belies a hint of Big LEast thinking.

Herbie's comments don't necessarily reflect a discord with playing in the BCS championship game as much as they do a bias against the Big East.

If there is a belief out there that Ohio State is slow, overrated, whatever, then beating a West Virginia team that people have subconscious reservations about anyway won't do anything to change that. However, beating the media darling (the team Herbie and crew crowned as the Greatest Team Like EVA! a few years ago), and the team everybody thinks is the best in the country (or at least thinks is playing the best in the country) would go a long way to changing that tune.

After my diatribe, it seems silly to say, but I think you are reading too much into his comments. I don't think he is saying Ohio State would be better off in the Rose Bowl. I don't think he is saying the BCS Championship game is illegitimate. He is just saying that beating USC would do more for Ohio State's street cred than beating West Virginia... hence the "From an image standpoint" qualifier. And I agree.

by imarealist on Nov 29, 2007 1:52 PM EST 0 recs

What's the difference

between 'street cred' and polls? What is the standard the AP uses? Polls are perception, and if beating USC in the Rose Bowl will help Ohio State's perception more than beating West Virginia in the MNC, it stands to reason it will help them in the polls.

Again, the main point here is that he's not treating the MNCG as the end-all, definitive game, which is virtually unprecedented.

by SMQ on Nov 29, 2007 3:22 PM EST up 0 recs

Polls?

He never mentions polls once. You read that into his comments.

Street cred differs from the polls in that street cred carries over to next year. Ohio State was ranked #2 at the end of last year, but they fell to #11 in the preseason this year and have had their accomplishments second-guessed all year. Clearly, the vote in the polls last year didn't matter all that much to this year, but the beat-down by Florida (and the diminished street cred as a result) was a clear factor in how the team has been perceived all year. Do you seriously think that a one-loss Ohio State team would be kept out of the national title game in favor of Missouri and West Virginia had Ohio State not taken a beating by Florida last year? That's the difference.

As for the polls, the winner of West Virginia-Missouri will certainly earn the AP's vote, as would the winner of West Virginia-Ohio State. You wouldn't get into a split national title until you added a 2-loss team, who subsequently beat Ohio State.

by imarealist on Nov 30, 2007 12:15 PM EST up 0 recs