Why I'm Okay Without an FBS Playoff

I don't know what it is. Maybe it's the fact that it's about 70 degrees outside in the New York metro area and it's only a couple days shy of December. Maybe it's the Bieber Fever. Perhaps it's the staggering amount of money that the latest installment in that dreadfully annoying Twilight movie series is pulling down. Or maybe even it's the fact that Tim Tebow is 5-1 as a starting quarterback in the NFL.

Or maybe I'm just getting old. Yeah. I think that's probably it.

Seemingly since the dawn of time, I - like most college football enthusiasts - have lobbied for an NCAA Division I/FBS playoff as the most appropriate method for determining the sport's champion at the conclusion of each season. At the very least, my fervor on this subject strengthened to a considerable degree upon formation of the Bowl Championship Series, the selection system utilized to rank the top two teams nationally after the conclusion of regular-season play.

Few entities in life have been more roundly, and probably rightfully, criticized than the BCS system, with the possible exception of Herman Cain, Crystal Pepsi, and the jury that acquitted Casey Anthony.

And I would be about as forthcoming as Jerry Sandusky during the Bob Costas interview if I tried to peddle to you the notion that I've not been one of the BCS' most vocal critics.

But recent reflection, primarily through the close observation of how the 2011 season has unfolded coupled with intelligent point-counterpoint discussions with a few of my well-informed fellow College Football junkies, has me thinking differently about this topic.

First off, let's not kid ourselves: A well-constructed and researched by-the-seeds bracket will always be the most traditional and bulletproof convention for narrowing down any competing group of teams/individual athletes as it applies to organized sport.

But as we all know, Division I-A college football - oh wait, I'm sorry, FBS football - has never subscribed to that 'bracket' construction in the first place. And I know this sounds as if it's headed for the same 'defenses' territory proposed by opposers of a playoff, but it also happens to be a true statement - this is what makes this particular sport so unique and enthralling for those who hang on the edge of their bleacher seats each weekend with an eye on the games that have the most across-the-board, high stakes implications.

What I've come to realize, more than anything, is that the best approach to take here is the idea that each weekend, what you have on tap is at least a couple, if not a handful, of games that are essentially 'mini-playoff' contests. I used to scoff at this notion, often propounded by defenders of the current FBS system, merely tossing it off as an over-reaching argument made to preserve the already-in-place platitudes of tradition and history within the sport. Simply a defense rooted in laziness and resistance to alter the status quo rather than a firmly-held belief that change would do more harm than good.

And I'm not sure exactly why I'm thinking about it differently suddenly now. Maybe it's because more hours on the couch this fall (even more so than usual for me, which is a lot) due to home and family time with my wife and bubbly infant son have provided me with the benefit of more rigid observation. But whatever it is, what I can say with much certainty is that I've enjoyed this season as much as, if not more so, than any other in recent memory. I cannot think of a Saturday (or in the case of Oklahoma State, a Friday) that hasn't involved a plethora of televised games that have held some sort of broad appeal in terms of the final outcome.

As much as it pains me to say it, and as much as it may annoy you to read it, an 8-team or 16-team bracket ultimately detracts from this drama. It just plain does, and you can't tell me otherwise.

Also, does anyone who lobbies for a playoff really believe that many of the same politics and major conference biases wouldn't also negatively influence the construction of these brackets each season? I could make a fairly strong case for why undefeated Houston or one-loss Boise State should be sitting at home while the big bangers from the six major conferences duke it out in an 8-team playoff (a simple 'strength of schedule' argument, for one), but that's a separate discussion. Okay, so maybe Houston or Boise deserves a spot instead of the Big East champion. Either way. The point is - the same type of debates would be in play whether there's a bracket system or the current one.

I could live with a plus-one, and I've not yet heard anyone who has even the slightest gripe with that idea. This would help eliminate the concerns of those who cry foul when a perceived third deserving team is left on the outside looking in at Numbers 1 and 2 playing for the ultimate prize. The only possible criticism goes like this: Team No. 1 gets an extra weekend of rest while Team Nos. 2 and 3 knock heads for the right to play Team No. 1. Okay, but then I can point out how teams with long layoffs or coming off bye weeks in first-round playoff scenarios often come out rusty and with a lack of momentum.

So basically, the arguments are never going to end.

But all the pontificating and debating and pollstering is what makes this stuff so juicy. In a certain way, a bracket system reduces any sort of drama or fun. Draw up your 8, 12 or 16 spots, slot your teams in and let it all rip. And don't talk to me about a 4-team playoff. That's just dumb. Either go all-out with this or don't do it at all.

Okay, so you've got your bracket drawn up now. Why should I care about the Bedlam game this Saturday pitting one-loss Oklahoma State against two-loss Oklahoma? They're both most likely making a 16-team bracket. Who even cares who wins the conference?

Why should I have given a damn about Michigan vs. Ohio State this past Saturday if I didn't have a rooting interest for one of those teams? Ohio State has had, by their standards, a sub-par season. Reasons for that aside, it's clear they're not making a playoff and Michigan is. Why watch the game? If it's all about the destination and not the journey, why pay any attention to the journey? I may as well give up Saturdays watching any of these games, and just gloss over the AP Rankings and BCS Standings on Monday morning to get a feel for who's got a shot at the title and who doesn't.

The best example of all - would No. 1 LSU vs. No. 2 Alabama earlier this year have garnered nearly as much attention if it was basically predetermined (and it was) that the Tigers and Crimson Tide were both bracket-bound? Hell to the No!

It's so much more enjoyable to have the perspective of following the sport closely throughout the year and being able to pick out which games are essentially 'playoff' games and which ones aren't. Honestly, it's not even that difficult to do this either. You don't even have to be a junkie (though it helps).

This weekend's conference championship contests are the final chance for teams at or near the top to sway voters into tallying schools into their best possible destination. An extension of those 'playoff' games previously mentioned.

Should No. 1 LSU still play for a title even with a loss to Georgia this weekend in the SEC title game? Should No. 3 Oklahoma State leap-frog idle No. 2 Alabama with a convincing victory over their in-state rival Sooners? These are the questions the CFB junkies are waiting to have answered. It's fairly clear that the championship game will likely involve 2 of these 3 teams. LSU's overall body of work this year has been impressive enough to likely garner it a spot in the title game, even with a loss to the 9-2 Bulldogs. This is where it gets a bit complicated, because if this weekend's game is a 'playoff' - then how can LSU lose but still be rewarded with a chance to be called the best team in the country? I have a feeling the Tigers won't let that debate happen. This might be LSU's best team ever, and that's saying something. I also can't see Oklahoma State leap-frogging 'Bama, having lost to an unranked opponent, even though it was in double-overtime. If you can't kick a 37-yard field goal for a clinching victory in regulation, you're probably not the best team in the country.

Here's hoping my current 'okay with a playoff' stance doesn't come back to bite me in the tookus someday. Right now I'm fine with it.

PENN STATE

The Penn State scandal has been attacked, covered, dissected, taken apart, put back together and re-disassembled about 20 ways until Tuesday by now. But I'd be remiss if I didn't offer my thoughts on this, since it's by far one of the most polarizing, attention-grabbing sports-related stories in a long time. Still unbelievable is how many are describing it.

Having grown up less than an hour and a half from the university and having many friends and family members who have been lifelong supporters of JoePa and the Blue and White, this whole event has impacted many of us in a way that's difficult to put into words. First off, I'm not, nor have I ever been, a Penn State fan. I don't know - maybe it's how much it was shoved down my throat by everyone around me from a young age, turning me off even more. Maybe it's my reluctance to support a guy who, though universally revered in the college game, seems ultimately resistant to change and alternative ideas. Let's face it, if Penn State didn't always play like it's still 1975, maybe they could have been in more national championship discussions over the past 20 years or so (I nearly fell over in disbelief when I saw the Nittany Lions become the Nittany ‘Wildcats’ a couple weeks ago).

But beyond that, I've never been one to get too far behind any institution that browbeats so heavily about off-the-field model behavior. We've all heard jokes about athletes at schools like Miami or USC, and some of the stuff that is overlooked. But at least those schools aren't purporting to uphold values that they ultimately don't in reality.

For all of JoePa's morality and talk about 'The Great Experiment,' Penn State often proves to be no different than any other huge university in a small town. There is a culture of drinking and partying (PSU has been at or near the top of the 'party schools' lists that pop up every year) among the students who hypocritically claim their undying love and support for a man who upholds morality above all else. And as we found out, that guy most likely failed to act appropriately when learning that some of the most despicable behavior a person can commit was happening right under his nose.

The illusion that everything is A-okay in Happy Valley has always bothered me, even before we learned that there was a defensive coordinator who was allegedly a serial child molester.

The students love the ultimate moralist behind their institution so much that they riot and overturn vans when he's fired for malfeasance, flying directly in the face of what their beloved father figure would want them to do in the first place. People bought into the misguided notion that student-athletes in Happy Valley are somehow more noble or moral than their counterparts in other geographic regions of the country, as if Centre County, Pa. has some sort of magical vapors in the air that make the college football players there superior human beings. Most of all, people went all in on the idea that one man could symbolize everything they believed about being a model citizen, an ideal person, and a leader of young men.

As we learned a few weeks back, there are no more surprises left. Nobody is above reproach. And there is no such thing as a person who doesn’t make the occasional mistake.

I guess that's one of the reasons I always liked the 'Michigans' of the college football world. I don't see a whole lot of romanticizing going on. Just the desire to win games. Every program has its problems, for sure. But the fall from grace isn't as far when you don't hoist yourself up so high in the first instance.

For example, I wonder if a school like LSU would trade the two national championships it’s won in the past decade (and chance for a third in about 6 weeks) for Penn State’s legendary media reputation, institutional figurehead coach and zero titles since 1986, scandal aside. I think I know the answer. And if you think football fans in the SEC aren’t as crazy for their teams as Blue-and-White supporters are for Penn State, take a trip down south one fall Saturday, please, and report back to me.

As for the actual incident, I'd prefer to allow all the facts to come out before saying anything further. But if it's all true, I can only hope the victims find some peace in this world, in one way or another.

Why the Eagles Won't Win Super Bowl XLVI

Don't be fooled. I'm not.

I've been a Philadelphia Eagles fan long enough to know better.

The Eagles' 34-7 dismantling of hated division rival the Dallas Cowboys Sunday night has everyone back on 'The Dream Team' paddywagon once again.

You know, our 24/7 reactionary sports news cycle is like a bunch of 10-year-olds with ADD.

"Hey look, they beat the crap out of a 3-3 team with a hot-and-cold QB, they're the best team in the NFC behind Green Bay!"

Not so fast my friend (props to Lee Corso).

True, Sunday night's performance at The Linc was probably the most complete all-around four quarters of football the Green Men have compiled thus yet in the 2011 season. But when you put it up against their other efforts, that's like saying it's the most polished turd in a punch bowl filled with barely polished turds.

Also, any joy that Philly fans are feeling should be tempered by the fact that this victory came against the very definition of a 'Jekyll and Hide' football team. On one given day, Tony Romo hustles his squad down the field late in the fourth quarter in San Francisco like a crafty vet, sporting a cracked rib or two all the while, to hand the suddenly daunting 49ers their only loss of the season. In other tight games (see NY Jets), he has been decidedly un-heroic during the late moments when his team had a chance to win. But then, this is typical Cowboys - flooded with talent but inconsistency personified.

Had that thorough butt whipping by the Eagles come against Green Bay, Detroit or San Francisco, I would be admittedly slightly more encouraged. Although even then, I would still like to see this sort of potential realized on a more regular basis. There is still a ton of work to do in order to be one of the top 3-4 teams in the NFC, and a 2-4 start through the first six games unfortunately leaves little margin for error going forward.

Here's a quick breakdown of what I do and don't like about these 2011 Philadelphia Eagles:

PROS list: Diverse, multi-talented offense; the ability to move the ball/score against most any defense when play-calling and execution are fully realized; Two of the best pass-rushing defensive ends in the game (Trent Cole, Jason Babin) and three of the most skilled defensive backs (Nnamdi Asomugha, Asante Samuel, Dominic Rodgers-Cromartie); Veteran coaching staff; Noticeable improvement in the offensive line play this season due primarily to the addition of veteran O-line coach Howard Mudd.

CONS list: Weak spots on defense (linebackers, safeties) that can be badly exposed when attacked properly (run/pass plays up the middle, over the middle); Downgrade in kicking game since the start of the season (losing David Akers in the offseason - Akers was one of the most consistently reliable field goal makers in the game - for rookie Alex Henery); Always one of the most penalized teams in the league (this year is no different) often contributing to losing efforts; Turnover ratio has regressed compared to last year (Michael Vick alone has 8 interceptions through the first 7 games of this season but finished with a total of 6 INTs in 2010); Andy Reid still has a tendency to mismanage the clock inside of 2-3 minutes left in the half; The decision to move former o-line coach Juan Castillo to defensive coordinator has been a questionable move, to say the least, and appears to have a lot to do with the considerable defensive deficiencies; Michael Vick is more injury/concussion prone than ever before.

I could go on with the 'Cons' list, but I think you get the point. There's a lot more this team has done/is doing wrong than right, even with Sunday's juggernaut showing taken fully into consideration.

The Eagles are kind of like an impressive fireworks display. Every now and then they wow you, but they go away quickly and you pretty much forget it/them. Their weaknesses are always exposed when they do make the playoffs, and perhaps most troubling of all, they display a baffling inability to make crucial game-time adjustments when the predetermined plan of action just isn't working.

Championship teams can adjust on the fly and adapt to the strengths/weaknesses of their opponents. The Eagles play their own brand of football, and everything else be damned. They have their own rope, and it will always either hang the opposition or hang the Eagles. But they'll never throw their own rope to the side and look for a new one when it just ain't happening for them.

When you play that style of football, you need a variety of factors to go your way to get that big prize - in this case, The Lombardi Trophy.

What would have to happen for the Eagles to do this? Well they would need a lot of help from the opposition since they most certainly won't stop making their own mistakes. They need to stay healthy (kind of obvious, right?) In other words, they're not going all the way with a half-hearted Michael Vick. They need that toughness, swagger and mojo that they seemed to have in the early part of the 2000s, when they made 4 straight NFC Championship games and one Super Bowl. I'm just not sure this current coaching regime inspires that.

Many of the current players have all gone on record about how much they love and support Reid, and will go to battle for him under any circumstances. I guess it's easy to feel that way about a coach who never chews you out or gets pissed off, even when things look miserable.

Reid is the ultimate 'me' guy. He's always quick to blame himself and never his players when things go wrong, but he never seems to have a response for how to fix it. Improvements only come in the form of the Eagles being better than future opponents by default of their talent or game plan. And that's exactly why they can't make that next-level jump and beat the truly elite teams.

You know what I'd love to hear from Andy after a bad loss, just once? Instead of "It all starts with me, it's all my fault" ... I'd love to hear him adopt the Bill Belichick or Rex Ryan approach of "We stunk today. We got beat. We were outcoached and under-prepared."

Notice the word that begins each of those last three sentences. It's two letters and it starts with a 'W.'

It's perfectly acceptable to make everyone accountable for a bad loss. Just like players do not alone lose a game, neither does the coaching staff. It's got to be shared for it to truly play as a team dynamic. How can the Eagles' players truly feel 'on the hot seat' when they're never really culpable for their actions, save for some heat by the fans? (You'll always have that though, especially in Philly).

By all accounts, Reid is a wonderful guy. You can tell he's just too goddamn nice to lay into any of his players, no matter how serious their infractions might be. But all that leniency has to vanish and be replaced by a greater sense of urgency if the Eagles are really going to be champions one day.

I hope that day comes sooner rather than later.