SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com » Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisBill James supports BCS boycott
Thanks to Dr. Saturday for the pointer to this Slate article, in which Bill James articulates his reasons for not liking the BCS.
I don't have time to comment on all the items in the article that deserve comment, so I'll just say that, like everything Bill James has ever written, it's worth a read. I do have a question, though, for those out there who are a bit more in touch with what James has been doing for the past decade or so:
When did James start to refer to himself as a statistical analyst?
Twice in this article, he makes it clear that he does in fact consider himself to be one. My (possibly erroneous) recollection is that James has always specifically denied that, opting instead for something along the lines of, "I'm not a stat guy. I'm simply a guy who likes to ask questions, and then exhausts all possible avenues (some of which might happen to be statistical) of answering that question." Can any of you serious sabermetricians --- I know you're out there --- shed some light?
This entry was posted on Thursday, January 8th, 2009 at 11:05 am and is filed under BCS, College, Non-football. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I like Bill James' writing and I agree with most of what he said. I also think some kind of playoff would be better than what there is now. However, I find it suspect when he claims not having one clear-cut champion is "unnatural."
Perhaps the public's views have changed to where most people want a playoff, but that doesn't mean it's because it's unnatural not to have one.
How long have there been college football games? 130 years? During all of this time if it was so unnatural it probably would have been remedied by now.
I don't think it is necessarily unnatural. I'm not nearly old enough to remember but they've been playing the Rose, Orange, Cotton and Sugar Bowls since 1940. Have people been clamoring for a playoff for the last 68 years? My sense is no.
Although the toothpaste is probably out of the tube, we shouldn't restrict our imaginations to thinking there's only one way things must be because it is claimed to be natural. History says otherwise.
PWS, I'm always wary of claims that something shouldn't be done because it is "unnatural." It is a logical fallacy: first it's difficult to define "natural" versus "unnatural," and second it does not follow that "natural" equals "good, moral, right" and that "unnatural" equals "bad, immoral, wrong."
"Natural" and "unnatural" are rhetorical choices, not any logical argument for policy. Perhaps that's especially true for arguments about sports, since sports human-made activities with invented rules.
Let's go further. In the paragraph where James uses "unnatural," he says "It is inherent in the nature of sports to seek a clear resolution of the competition." I'd say...maybe. But what, precisely, is the "nature" of sports? Kids often play lengthy athletic "games" that have no real goal or outcome, no clear resolution, no properly defined winner or loser (couldn't you play tag, like, forever?). Most of our sports are competitive games between two or more entities to define a winner. But some games in some sports do end in ties--is that an unnatural resolution? If an individual golfer plays alone just to beat his best score, is he still playing a "sport"?
As a literature teacher, I might quibble further. In that paragraph, James reduces a lot of situations to "either/or" scenarios. He says "That's just the way it is, whether it's Shakespeare or schlock." I suppose a reductive mind could look at the complex world and reduce it to a bunch of either/or scenarios, but Shakespeare? Shakespeare? I suppose there are plot points that are either/or ("either Hamlet dies at the end or he doesn't"), but you're really going to reduce the titan of the English language and human insight to an either/or scenario with clear resolution? Shakespeare's plays are filled with ambiguity and complexity--they're no simple stories in which we say "either this happens or that happens." In "schlock," that may happen, but not in Shakespeare--can James distinguish that?
God, I'm far off the topic of sports here--it's winter break and it's been too long since I argued about literature.
As to what is natural. If there were a playoff. Is there any chance it would ever go back. I don't think so. To me that implies that it is the more natural solution. For example, do you think the NFL would remove pass interference, of course not, because having a penalty for it is natural.
Interesting point Ken and I think you're right. I guess part of my point is that if we haven't already crossed over (i.e., eventually a playoff is inevitable), let's talk about the virtues of the pre-playoff days a bit and not just write them off as "unnatural."
I liked a lot of things about the old system; the rivalries; the uncertainty of the final poll after the Jan. 1 games, etc. and I think a lot of other people did too. But apparently society is changing. Anyway, right now we've got the worst of both worlds: no playoff and we've lost the virtues of the old system (e.g., Pac-10 doesn't always play Big 10 in the Rose Bowl.)
No such thing as a college football championship. It's just BS.
Probably 75-80% of the teams don't even have a chance at being crowned champion no matter how well their season ends up. Same problem every year, but Utah going 13-0 and whipping Alabama just happens to give us a sterling example this year.
If Utah and those other 80-some-odd schools aren't considered to be in the same metaphorical "league" as the Floridas and Texases then wtf are they doing in the same literal "league"--what's it called now FBS?--in which what reporters and coaches who don't see every game "consider" is what matters more than anything else. It's a joke.
College football games are great, most of the student athletes are enjoyable to watch, but it's all really nothing more than: 1) a minor league for the NFL; 2) a massive drain on our country's resources; 3) a way for the rich old white men who have any real say in how it all unfolds to compete with each other and entertain themselves.
Bill James' discussion of problem 4 is interesting. James says the true origin of the BCS was due to "self-righteous avarice of the smaller and less committed schools."
Is this good history? It sound to me like conservative ideology.
BlueStarDude is pretty much correct in that you can't have real champion because too many teams are de facto out of the running because of them being in a minor conference. If they are to have a playoff, then their may have to be more regulation of out of conference contests. Of course, we could look at the former Division IAA and Division II level for more evidence.
My question regarding the BCS and James' 1st problem is this: what exactly is the goal of a playoff in any sport? We don't want to know who the "best" team is (in the Platonic ideal sense) in baseball or basketball any more than we do in college football. We want to be entertained and given the illusion of resolution. The BCS isn't lacking because it doesn't give us a resolution, because no sport truly does; it's lacking because it doesn't provide the *perception* of resolution.
Super Bowl XLII may be the ultimate example of this phenomenon: Clearly the New England Patriots were the best football team on the planet in 2007, there’s really no argument about it. Conversely, the New York Giants spent the majority of 2007 as a very mediocre team, before getting “hot” at precisely the right time. And we all know what happened — the "perfect" Pats lost to the G-Men. As a result, the majority of fans now believe, on the basis of one 2:42 drive, that the 2007 Giants were in fact a better football team than the Patriots, despite 18 or 19 other games of evidence that suggest otherwise. But because the Giants’ win over NE *happened* to come in February, this somehow invalidates that entire 5-month body of evidence. So, really, what’s the point in even crowning a “champion” at all? In the past few years, we’ve seen these undeserving champions invalidate the playoffs in MLB (Cardinals), NFL (too many to count, but the 07 Giants take the cake), and NHL (it seems like some underdog wins the Cup every year). In fact, the NBA is probably the only major US pro sport where the correct outcome occurs more often than not. The only difference between these sports and college football is that they created the illusion of a resolution at the end of the season -- but they no more decided the best team, a true champion, than the flawed BCS.
Then again, if we accept the random nature of sports (and life, for that matter), would they even have meaning anymore? I mean, if it’s all a crapshoot, why should we even care? So perhaps those who still buy into the “clutch” phenomenon are happier and more fulfilled in the end, because they actually believe the superior team always wins (if not superior in talent, then at least superior in grit). It’s a necessary coping mechanism to avoid facing the reality of life’s randomness, because accepting that reality would deprive existence of all meaning. And that's why we need at least the perception of a resolution at the end of the year, to give us some sense of order instead of chaos.
Steve - I agree with you that the NFL playoffs aren't delivering us the "best team". But that doesn't mean the playoffs aren't a resolution to the season, that's exactly what they are, not a concoction like the BS.
The point in crowning a champion? The same as the point in crowning a winner to a game. The best team doesn't necessarily win any given game either, that doesn't invalidate the game, doesn't mean you don't play it or watch it and cheer like hell for your team. You play to win the game, and you play an organized season schedule to win the season (incl. post-season) and be the "world champions."
Besides the cynical but true fact that the NFL post-season generates a lot extra dollars for the league's owners, it's also a heck of a lot of fun.
Winning and having fun: the point to playing sports (who thought it was about self-enrichment?) and having a rooting interest. I suppose some might find the BS mess fun because they love to argue and manipulate facts and use or abuse or dismiss stats, but what Florida has now is a paper title decidedly not determined on the field. And what the NCAA has is about 80 teams that should feel completely alienated, but then again most if not all of them don't actually have the integrity it would take for that either.