Every year there seems to be a debate over who the best
teams in college football are and who should be playing in the National
Championship game. SportsCenter devotes
hours throughout football season having expert analysts argue about who the
best team in the country is, and complain about the BCS ranking system. So why do we continue to put up with this
every fall, there has to be a better way to decide about something as simple as
college football rankings right? For those
of you that don’t quite get what I’m talking about this clip helps explain the
BCS Bowl system and what the argument against it is.
To try and make sense of this I
thought I would try and link college football to the conversation between Crito
and Socrates. To make things clear the
BCS ranking system represents the Athenian government, Crito’s argument for
Socrates to escape represents the argument to change the BCS system, and
Socrates argument to stay and accept his fate represents the argument to
continue with the current ranking system. Hopefully this correlation will help decide
what college football should do with the BCS and possible what Socrates should
have done as well. So if these two Greek
thinkers were arguing over college football instead of the Athenian justice
system what would they have to say?
Some main points Crito would have
argued for would have been…
·
“The opinion of the many must be regarded,” and
that if people are calling for a playoff system then we must consider it.
·
“You are not acting out of regards to me and
your other friends… I should say that you are betraying your children.” Meaning that by not changing the system he is
doing an injustice to football and the teams (aka friends and kids) by not
providing them with what they want and that being good football and a clear
national champion.
·
Crito would make points about sticking with the
current system being the easy way out and not trying to come up with a system
that really works. Keeping the BCS is
all about making money and a change is what he knows to be the right thing to
do.
Socrates would counter these
arguments by saying things such as…
·
“We ought not to retaliate or render evil for
evil to anyone.” That controversy is bound to arise no matter what system is in
play look at college basketball for example.
They have a playoff yet we always argue about teams that did and didn't make the tournament. ESPN has to fill up
air time somehow.
·
We have been provided a system that that has
given us a lot of dramatic bowl games and high stakes regular season games that
has entertained us every fall. We should
be thankful for what the BCS has given us and the tradition it preserves that
makes college football so great instead of complaining about it. Changing
the system could create unforeseen consequences that could ruin the reputation
of college football.
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteImagining Crito and Socrates' opinions is definitely an interesting twist on the BCS argument. This season Northern Illinois is playing in a BCS bowl and #7 Georgia who just last week were playing for a spot in the National Championship didn't get a bid to a BCS bowl. It is clear that the system is flawed. Crito's argument that you present seems to be mostly about pleasing people and fans. While pleasing fans is important, this is football. One team always has to lose and fans will always be upset. I think that what socrates has to say is right, “We ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone.” I believe the BCS system is flawed, but the alternative is just as flawed. The tournament style championship works for the most part for basketball. But preparing for a football game takes a week to learn all the offense and defense (or recover from hits in the last game), it would be more difficult to have frequent games in a tournament without extending the season. The top four tournament will cause the same anger that the BCS causes with teams getting shut out when they deserve a spot, then this same Crito/Socrates would have to take place again when people demand that the top 4 becomes a top 8 or a top 16.
It is interesting to look the two sides of this argument between Crito and Socrates. Both have valid points just as people who support and oppose the BCS have valid points as well. In the end, I would say I would agree with Crito and say that we shouldn't stick with the current system, we should find one that really works. However, I'm not sure at the current time that we have new system that won't have its own flaws.
There is no system out there that is without flaw. The unfortunate fact of nature is that things can and will go wrong, and we cannot always prepare for them. Think back to 2007, it was Michigan vs Appalachian State. A traditional division 1 powerhouse, top-tier school against a division 2 school, who was good for division 2, but had no place on the field with Michigan. The team knew it, the coaches knew it, the fans knew it, hell, and even the other team probably knew that Michigan had this one wrapped up before they even started preparing for the game. But, things go wrong; Michigan was shocked by a school that was put on the schedule to beat up on. Things go wrong, and sometimes there is just nothing to stop it. Now that I have given my long explanation about why things will always be flawed, I agree with Crito. Roll the dice, we are unsatisfied with the current system, change it. And if we find out down the road that the BCS was better than the future playoff system, we can change back. Plato could have, and maybe should have saved himself, and if he actually encountered the negative life that he worried about, could have gone back and turned himself in. Everything is flawed, so anyway the story turned out there would be flaws or regrets, but it just comes down to the willingness to try something new.
ReplyDeleteJoshua,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting take on the dialogue between Socrates and Crito. I respect the arguments that Socrates (the BCS supporter) makes, but I will have to side with Crito (the BCS critic) on this one. While I do agree that no system will come without flaws, I still think a change is necessary. As you pointed out, football fans have been distressed with the BCS system for a long time. It is simply time for a change. Yes, it is possible that the new four-team playoff system will be just as flawed and the fans will be frustrated yet again. However, they would have complained nonetheless if we continued with the current system. The fans may never be completely happy, but that doesn't mean we should keep a bad system for the sake of avoiding failed expectations. Give the new system a chance. The results may surprise us.
This is perhaps the most interesting post I have stumbled upon thus far. I must admit, i had to go back and do a little bit of research on the dialogue between Crito and Socrates. I just as you, decided that it was apropos to represent the current BCS supporter with that of Socrates, and the new playoff system with that of Crito, and reluctantly, would have have to side with Crito. In an argument such as this, it is important to recognize first of all that pleasing all is not an option. We must pick which method will work better in answering the question at hand. Just like Crito says numerous times throughout the excerpt, may people are calling for a [football] revolution, and we should answer to these people. The current system is nothing more than a contest of who can bring in the most money, and that is a problem. Leaving it the way it is would be (just like Crito argued to Socrates) taking the easy way out. I am excited to see the changes coming down the line, and I love how you were able to capture these changes through a piece of political theory.
ReplyDeleteI am always a fan of innovative ways to incorporate the themes we cover in class to the real world, and this is one of the strongest, most applicable connections that I have seen on this blog. I really liked the way you were able to give Crito and Socrates identities in a contemporary example like the BCS vs. Playoff debate. I think you could have further expanded a bit on how the NCAA has chosen to move to the playoff system in 2014 and how this move jeopardizes the sanctity and status of bowl games like the Rose Bowl. However, in the meager space we are provided to write these posts, I think you did a great job providing information regarding both sides of the argument and relating these positions to those of Socrates and Crito. Your post was informative, intriguing, and relatable, qualities that are sometimes hard to create in these blog posts due to the archaic nature of our some of our readings. Great job!
ReplyDeleteJosh,
ReplyDeleteReally like your post. I like that I'm not the only person on this blog that refers to sports. Politics and Sports and intertwined! Anyway, you provide an interesting case. Crito is clearly right in this sense. There should absolutely be a playoff system of more than 8 teams. The plus 1 format that will go into effect soon is a good step, but their needs to be more. If Socrates idea of just obeying happened, then our society would never change. Crito is clearly right in this case, and in general.
The FBS is the only sport in division 1 athletics that uses an outside party to award its national championship. There are 35 bowls, and about half the teams that go to bowls lose money going. Not to mention problems selling tickets (cough 2013 Orange Bowl cough). Then Ads talk about concern for athlete’s health, and while I get that, they are lying through their teeth. While I'm definitely for a playoff system, you asked the question of why don't we change? The answer is money. There is more money in the BCS.
There is no reason in my mind why the NCAA can’t just eliminate half of the bowls, and then use the bowls and sites as locations for playoff games. An eight-team playoff really isn’t a lot to ask for. They have the whole month of December after the regular season to stage a playoff. Think about how much money and time is spent on the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament, and a real football playoff would double it. Crito is right for change, and I think he would support a playoff. Great article man.
-Matt McCool
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post! You broke down the BCS argument perfectly with this piece and I think that it is no coincidence that these match perfectly. At this point in Socrates life, he seems to have assumed the mentality of every old board member we know - don’t change the present because we don’t know what's going to happen in the future.
I think that I agree with Crito on this one. I think that Socrates' decision to remain complacent with the current situation is never the right move. Crito attempts to explain to Socrates that he is has people who depend on him, but I think that Socrates is making the point that his fate is the result of his own actions.
As far as the BCS is concerned, I think we should go to a playoff system. However, I think that Socrates has the truest comment of them all when he says that “We ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone.” If a playoff system was in place, I foresee much more controversy than there is currently. Michigan wouldn't make the playoffs for a long time with the competition of the powerhouse SEC teams and the rules that would be in place for playoff spot qualifications. I digress.
Great Post