Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: News And Other Updates Leading Up To Pats-Giants

A Brief Word on the Mythical Championship

In which SMQ indirectly addresses "SEC speed" while pretty much shattering at least one of his resolutions already. So sue him.

Back in November, SMQ and Peter Bean from Burnt Orange Nation volleyed back and forth a series of dispatches which dealt in part with semantically striking down the notion of "better" or "the best" as an inherent trait rather than a cumulative assessment of inconsistent and often flatly contradictory performances. At the time, just after OSU's three-point win in Columbus, there wasn't much friction against the conventional wisdom that Ohio State and Michigan were clearly "the best" two teams in the nation. Tuesday, Peter asked SMQ to revisit that idea in the wake of the Big Ten titans' overwhelming January demise:

...based on last night's performance, everyone will say that the Gators are "clearly" better than Ohio State. They beat them by a huge margin, statistically and on the scoreboard. There are no arguments about whether a one-loss Ohio State team deserves some sort of rematch, and there exist no sane fans wondering whether the voters who placed Florida in the title game over Michigan made a mistake. Yet, on December 4th, this was not the case. On that date, of course, there was great debate about which two teams were the 'best' in the country. Looking further back, Florida was damned fortunate to beat South Carolina in Gainesville this season. Watching last night's game, though, you'd have thought the 2006 Gators probably just came off one whale of a regular season in which they waxed everyone and everything in their path. What gives?

Doesn't last night's result give us reason to embrace even more strongly a holistic, resume-based approach to team evaluation? I mean, we can't honestly say that Florida's four touchdowns better than Ohio State. I don't even think you could say Florida would win that game eight times out of ten. So as everyone races to rubber stamp this season and the teams within, maybe it's time to revisit those ideas about how we conceptualize 'better' and 'best.'

First rule of order, as it were: recognition and celebration that sometimes this game makes no sense. Maybe we're fools for attempting to impose decorum on entertainment fundamentally fueled by its predilection for shock and anarchy.


Certain truths emerge which cannot be reconciled with any other existing facts or theories.
- - -

But we try to make coherent the naturally disordered anyway, even as our efforts at methodically synthesizing disparate facts are repeatedly mocked. In some way, then, method must account for anarchy, or inevitably succumb to it. Because this isn't science; sometimes this game makes no sense.

The bowl season - not only the mythical championship game, but also the Rose and Fiesta bowls, most prominently - vindicated the November conversation and SMQ's resume argument in myriad ways, primarily by broadcasting live to a stunned nation unmitigated dismantlings of the two teams it was repeatedly assured were "the best" and had only a little more than a month earlier engaged in a timeless struggle of wills for unquestioned supremacy rather than put on just another entertaining, emotional shootout on the same level of play as, say, Louisville-West Virginia.

But what SMQ would most like to point out in light of Monday's merciless pantsing of the team officially earmarked as the "best" in America through the three-month regular season is not that Ohio State was "exposed" or that Florida "proved" to humbled skeptics the indomitable essence that dwells eternally in its collective soul of souls. Rather, he'd like to defend the conviction that Ohio State really was, in fact, the "best" team in the nation from September through November, in the sense the Buckeyes' cumulative performance over that span deserved by all available evidence to be considered superior to that of any other team, and offer the untimely demise of that perception Monday as evidence there is nothing dwelling in the blood pumping through a team's metaphorical veins that can tell us anything about any single performance outside of itself; that is, what occurred in the championship game, like any other, was representative only of the championship game, and should inform our opinions about its participants only as an addition to the months-long whole. A prominent addition, of course, but by no means the all-defining one or, very importantly, one that can be extrapolated to prove great inner truths about certain conferences or larger trends within - unless, of course, you're willing to argue the relative merits of Ohio State's "speed," however that is supposed to be measured, and by extension that of Michigan, Iowa, Penn State and Texas, in relation to the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence of Vanderbilt and South Carolina, which each fared exponentially better against the Gators than the Buckeyes. Sometimes this game makes no sense.

Somewhere in there is a defense of Troy Smith, a terrific player probably inevitably doomed to history as the latest in a long line of Most Outstanding™ speed bumps in the path of ferocious championship defenses. SMQ spent all season straining to keep in perspective the irresistible Smith bandwagon, finally stuck a toe on it after his heady, composed performance against previously-infallible Michigan, and was instantly burned. By a great Florida defense? By a a fast Florida defense? Yes. But by one that many times greater than Michigan's, or of Texas'? That many times faster? Many forces combined Monday to slow and stunt Smith's decision-making and his offensive line's ineffectiveness, forces strategic, psychological and, yes, physical, extending from an early injury to one of his top weapons to the ability of Florida's alignment and coverage to force double-clutching indecisiveness and the Gator line's frothing ability to exacerbate and exploit the disarray. And the extent of this dominance had virtually zero precedent. Over three full months, a dozen games apiece, hundreds of snaps involving championship-caliber athletes, no one saw such overwhelming dominance in the cards. It was decisive, but not typical.

It's also all we have of Florida vs. Ohio State, of any game that can call itself the benefactor of a championship, mythical or otherwise. Once the opinions and machines merge perceptions in unholy union, there is but one night, and the night belonged to the Gators. The very same Gators who would not be considered for any such distinction, would not have had any opportunity whatsoever to "prove" their awesomeness, if similarly awesome USC doesn't bite the bit for no discernible reason against the nation's most enthusiastic embodiment of mediocrity. It's only with the most improbable help Monday's greatness could have ever existed.

The point being that - because games aren't rematched next week, there are no seven-game series - there is nothing, ever, "clear" at the top levels about which collection of 18-22-year-old men is "better" than any other. All such conceptions are confined to the wild inconsistencies of the prevailing system. What matters are the games. And the games, sometimes, make no sense. And once the real thrill has finished, the strategy, psychology, emotion and peak physical execution of the battle having receded to memory and its accompanying myths and revisions, it's the anarchy that makes the sport so fascinating to untangle. Perhaps that's part of what mentally doomed Ohio State once it became clear it didn't have exclusive rights to any title, after all. If the season lasted another month, does Florida still emerge "the best"? Would the Gators beat Ohio State again? Without a 50-day layoff? In Columbus? In a series? Was Boise State dealt a grave systematic injustice? Is UF "clearly" better than USC? After a tumultuous season that had featured but one single, reigning constant, did Monday's crescendo make sense?

You have eight months to show your work.

Comment 8 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Conv. wisdom and expected performance vs. reality
When it comes down to it, predicting the outcome of contests between relatively small numbers (sample size) of humans is a crap shoot with shaved dice. You can be fairly certain of the outcome over a large number of repetitions, but accurately predicting one contest is a shot in the dark. (Well, maybe dusk....)
One would expect these young men to be both capable of awe inspiring, gravity defying, emotion fueled greatness and hubris fueled lethargy/malaise...
This game seems to be an apt example of the old axim "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but rather the size of the fight in the dog" that matters (on occasion). Do we rely too much on outliers in assigning relative strengths to teams?...Perhaps we should toss out the two best and two worst games for each team and compare the rest......Did being seen as an interloping underdog bring out the spirit/fight in UF? Did believing their OMG shirtless pub after the Mich game lull tOSU to sleep? Do we actually risk money on 18-22 yr old males performing/behaving as expected? Even a playoff system won't much more to determine pecking order with any degree of certainty.
Apologies for the rambling stream of consciousness, now back to your regularly scheduled programming.....

by PSU Guru on Jan 10, 2007 11:28 PM EST reply actions  

rambling stream of consciousness IS rsp...
This post, for once, had nothing to do with playoffs. I don't risk money, but I love these upsets because everyone's so sure of themselves when in reality - like you said, Guru - there's no way to know what's really going to happen. You Penn State folks, after the Outback Bowl, should know better than anyone how quickly fates can turn on a single, random play.

by SMQ on Jan 11, 2007 1:18 AM EST up reply actions  

And the sun broke through.......
Ah, yes......as Tenn marches inexorably downfield, intent on breaking the 10-10 deadlock, and I look around and comment on the gathering clouds and darkening atmosphere......suddenly the clouds part, the sun shines through, and the DB picks up a most fortunate fumble and drives a stake through the hearts of the Orange faithful. The first thought that comes to mind is "Is that roses I smell? And what am I doing in this bucket??.....

by PSU Guru on Jan 12, 2007 4:31 AM EST up reply actions  

it would help
if we didnt have at best under-informed and worst completely wrong early season polls, complete with most BCS teams playing a completely meaningless first month of the season

OSU's supposed glory was fueled by their win at Texas, who clearly wasn't the #2 team in the country, and in fact may not have even been the best UT

http://www.royalsreview.com

by Freneau on Jan 11, 2007 1:21 AM EST reply actions  

Agreed-ish
Everything stated is true. The game sometimes doesn't make any sense. College age males are slightly unreliable (I know this as a college age male). Sometimes, even often, what happened on the field isn't representative of the general case.

It's a scary slippery slope, though. One you've said that the games aren't necessarily representative of reality, then it's a small step to say that you know better than the games themselves. That way lies mythical power rankings. That was lies conjecture>reality. That way lies madness.

by Erik T on Jan 11, 2007 9:05 AM EST reply actions  

There is no reality but the games
That's the whole point. I think we totally agree: the constant threat of upset at any point and the subsequent argument against claiming any team is "the best" is an argument against a claim one knows better than the games, and against conjecture. And madness is inherent.

by SMQ on Jan 11, 2007 9:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Taking a stab...
... at your question (or at least my interpretation of your question or questions), over at my blog.
http://sauriansagacity.blogspot.com/

Mergz

by Mergz on Jan 11, 2007 12:33 PM EST reply actions  

"Best" or "Champion"
These are revised and extended remarks from what I commented at Saurian Sagacity...

Of course the nature of the game dictates that the "best" team won't always win. In a physically brutal sport like football you can't play 3 or 4 times a week like you do in college baseball or 2-3 times a week like in college basketball. So seasons must be short with a lot of time (relatively speaking) between games.

Professional baseball is the sport with the largest sample sizes (probably why statistics geeks tend to gravitate towards it). In a 162-game season it usually becomes plainly obvious who the best team is. That doesn't mean the best team wins the world series. That's because the sample sizes in the playoffs are much much smaller than in the regular season. A team that finished 20 games ahead of its playoff opponent can see all that work go up in smoke in a first round, 5-game series.

That's because dynamics of game change when moving from baseball's regular season into the playoffs. You are willing to pitch pitchers on short rest because "there's no tomorrow" and do other things that you would never do in the regular season.

Case in point. The World Champion St. Louis Cardinals had the 13th best record in the major leagues. It's safe to say that they were not the best team in baseball in 2006. But as a sports culture we have accepted the idea that at some point it comes down to a single 7-game series to decide who is "best" among two teams that had played, to that point, at least 169 games.

So there's a bigger question here. Will a playoff in college football answer the question of who is "best"? The answer is obviously no.

But here's the thing it will create a legitimate champion that fans can accept.

In fact, I could argue that a playoff in college football will create a more legitimate champion than the World Series does.

The reason is because football is a winner take all sport. You can't lose today and know you are going to line up against the same team tomorrow and the day after that with a chance to win 2 out of 3. A single loss for a college team is a set-back that can almost rule you out of the championship picture (even with a playoff). The idea of single elimination tournament in football dovetails nicely with the "one and done" culture of the sport. In other words it's a war of attrition rather than the war of accumulation that pro baseball is.

College football teams already play out their seasons on the razor's edge. Playing in a tournament environment is a naural extension of that where as a short playoff series is not a natural extension of the way pro baseball is played.  A playoff won't prove which team is the best but will provide a sense of finality and legitimacy to each season.  

The question then becomes how many teams and how do they get selected to participate.  Ideally you would want a small field but not so small so that teams with a realistic chance of winning the tournament are excluded.  

A playoff format is coming.  It's just a matter of time.  As much of an abomination as the BCS has been it has incrementally moved us much closer to a playoff than ever before.  You could say that we currently have a 2-team playoff.  The talk is of a "plus one" coming as soon as 2010 (if not sooner). That, boys and girls, is a 4-team playoff.  We are creeping closer to ending one the most argued debates in sports.

Next: The designated hitter.

by Henry Gomez on Jan 11, 2007 1:42 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed