Whit Watson's Playoff Take
Sunday, June 3, 2007 at 06:46PM Friend of CFR Whit Watson wrote something good and juicy about the ongoing playoff argument that I advise you to read.
Before we go further let me say a few unsolicited kind words about Watson. He's the world's least-annoying Cornell grad. If you've ever watched The Office, the Andy Bernard character is a Cornell grad and makes sure you know it several times an episode. With Watson, the education reveals itself in his writing, intellect and mastery of the various television formats he's worked in. It says something about a person when he can write about the seemingly uninteresting Orlando Magic several times a month and make it a compelling read to a strict college football fan like myself. Put more plainly, the man is one of the nation's top sports personalities and I wish more than the fine people of Florida had a chance to enjoy his work.
As a bonus he's worked with me before in discussing the Artists vs. Mechanics concept. Perhaps it's time for a 2007 revisit?
Getting back to Watson's thesis ...
His theses:
1)It's all about the money
2)The conversation about playoffs has shifted from logistics (can we do it?) to ethics (should we do it?). The fact that he was kind enough to plug my plea against a playoff requires nothing less than a professional response.
what's the real worry about a playoff? Not for fans, media guys, and bloggers, but for those who have the power to make it happen -- the aforementioned conference commissioners, bowl organizers, and university presidents? What are they worried about?
Money.
I agree, it is about the money when it comes to the powers that be approving or denying playoff measures. However, my intention in writing about the issue isn't so much to convince them as to provide to the college football public information about the dangers of a playoff and the weaknesses behind many of the arguments in support of a change.
The turmoil of 2003 and 2004 seems to have tipped the debate for the worse. In place of reason came the noisy twin turbines of anger and frustration, emotions that scar quickly, heal slowly and often impair sound judgment. Perhaps in the frustration of it all the public overlooked the very roots of the greatness of this game, roots that could be exposed and easily damaged by the very same playoff framework the public clamors for.
the final, most important question: We know we can, but should we?
I haven't decided on an answer yet. But at least we're discussing the correct question.
You know my response: we shouldn't. The prudent man that he is, Watson respectfully presented arguments for and against a playoff and it's worth reading his take on the tug-of-war in his mind.
At a more fundamental level, I find some disagreement with Watson about whether we can implement a playoff. Get The Picture has an even better read than myself on the dollars and cents of it all and shakes his head at the idea that the money's there for a playoff.
Second, if you really intend to win these people to your side, you need to remember the maxim “Money talks, bullshit walks”. The announcement at the meeting that over $10 million would be distributed to each SEC member, of which approximately three-quarters was derived from football, was not coincidental in its timing. The contrast between cold hard cash and Bernie’s “I know a couple of guys who used to be in TV who say we could get a lot more money with a playoff” shtick could hardly have been more extreme. I don’t know about you, but if I were the President of, say, the University of Kentucky and I was holding a $10.2 million check in my hand while listening to Machen talk about a bankrupt company’s proposal to pay billions as proof that schools are leaving money on the table, my first thought would be what is this guy smoking?
All of which would explain Machen's thorough defeat before an otherwise interested audience.
Anyway, I again advise you to read Watson's entry and anything else he writes. His man-on-the-fence approach here is honest and he's doing his best to reason with the very important fundamental issues at work here.
Reader Comments (1)