OH OH OH... My Turn! Sad Big Ten Bloggers are Sad

by Slate Quicksilver

A hissy-fit turned slapfight has broken out in the parking lot that is the 7-11 of the internet (/metaphor'd):  sports blogs.  With all of the SEC threat-speak and the Big Ten's midwesterner-approved humble, yet firm, blockage of a college football playoff, one of the resident bloggers at ESPN's Big Ten college football blog weighed in on the situation.

Let's meta this bitch, fire Joe Morgan style (pours one out):

B1G's Playoff Position (pay attention, SEC)
Right off the bat, the title goes for the jugular in a midwestern-Methodist kind of way.  This isn't 50 Cent dropping a dis track on Rick Ross nor is it T. Boone Pickens slapping Drake around... no.  This is a middle aged Father scolding a neighborhood boy for showboating during a driveway basketball game against his daughter.  "Now pay attention, Rondell..."


For a league that prides itself on superior on-field speed, the SEC seems pretty slow in grasping the Big Ten's playoff position. 
SEC commish Mike Slive just lolwhat'd for a second time and we're only one sentence in.  Of course the SEC has grasped the Big Ten's playoff position:  ROSE BOWL UBER ALLES!

Then again, SEC folks seem to bristle at anyone who doesn't pay homage to their greatness, kiss their feet and fall in line with their view.
I was at very pro-Big Ten bar last night and someone didn't kiss my recently playing softball feet.  I had my royal guardsman, Stone, break a pool cue over his neck for his insolence.  We had to leave, with haste, so I left a few pieces of gold on the bar and we proceeded to burn the establishment down with kerosene after barricading the door on the outside.  We had to cleanse the earth of these unclean miscreants who dare question the true power of the SEC.

What puzzles me are the claims by SEC coaches -- and some of the pom-pon-toting media in Destin, Fla. -- that the evil Big Ten continues to cling to a plan that would send only conference champions to a playoff.
At this point it's become clear that this guy either understand college football like a passing seagull understands the car that it just shit on's combustion engine or he is just like those "pom-pom toting media in Destin" except his hair has Big Ten ribbons in it.  J'Accuse!!!

It's easy and quite frankly a bit lazy to place the Big Ten and Delany in the antagonist role, the counter to all things good and just about the SEC's plan.
Things that are also easy to say because they are true:




Puppies are cute
There are few things more refreshing than a cold beer after yard work
John Stamos is a good looking man for his, and any, age
Denard Robinson would be a slot receiver in the SEC
The Big Ten and Jim Delany are in the antagonist role



Yes, the Big Ten favors playoff access for conference champions. Yes, Delany has made some silly comments in recent weeks, including his recent remark to the Associated Press about teams that don't win their divisions having playoff access.
Ah yes.  The old debate strategy in which you prove your opponent's stance for them thus undermining what little initiative or ground you may have gained.  Nailed it!  But please, go on...

But at the Big Ten spring meetings just two weeks ago in Chicago, Delany and the league's athletic directors were very clear in favoring a mix of conference champions and wild-card teams (or an independent like Notre Dame) in a four-team playoff. Delany reiterated this several times, but it's clearly not registering in SEC country.  
Of course it's not registering in SEC country.  The SEC left the phone at home, got in the car and just drove, man, you know, sometimes you just gotta unplug to see the world better when you plug back in.  And they've been gone for a while.  They haven't watched TV, they haven't read a newspaper.  They just went to the lakehouse and just unplugged.

Pay attention, please ... 
Now you see, Rondell, this is why you have to let other people shoot the basketball.  It's about teamwork, not about individuals.  Basketball is about crisp passes and bedrock fundamentals.  Steve Alford comes to mind, Rondell.  Also, remember that this is Preston's basketball and Preston's basketball hoop and she should be allowed to shoot once in a while even if she isn't the most skilled player.

Delany favors a "hybrid model" with a "quality-control cap" for selections: where the best conference champions are "honored" but allowances are made for elite teams that haven't won their leagues and/or divisions, as well as top independents like Notre Dame.
Sometimes when you get deep in to an opinion piece you get trapped in your own logic.  One time I wrote about this trip to Disney World with my Mom and Dad.  I said I had the best weekend evar (sic).  But the lines were super long and my favorite ride, Thunder Mountain, was broken down and I didn't get to see Chip and Dale, who were my favorites.  Really, it sucked, but I couldn't fight the logic of my original stance that I had "the best weekend evar (sic)."  Also, I was 6 and the piece was actually written in Crayola crayons with poorly drawn pictures.

So with this article, it has to be asked:  Does the author not understand how abjectly stupid that idea is?  There are 4 teams.  Ostensibly there will be 6 big conference winners.  That means that 2 will be left out no matter what.  And what if there are 2 clearly superior teams that are conference winners and 4 stinkers?  And when would we slot Notre Dame over another team?  And what the hell are you talking about with allowances made for elite teams that haven't won their leagues and/or divisions?  Isn't the point to keep them out if the didn't win?  Man... that sounds like a mess.  Maybe we need this ranking system that is unaffected by humans to do it.  It will be objective and its word will be final.  We'll call it, the BCS: Best Champions System!  Problem, solved.


The Big Ten's view is spelled out pretty clearly.
Things more clearly spelled out than the trainwreck displayed above:
Middle East Peace Plans
Derivated-based hedge fund protocols
Words that don't sound like how they are spelled like "Ennui"
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis
Actual Trainwrecks

So just breathe, SEC people.
Just keep on moving, people. Nothing to see here.  Just a double bukkake-cult ritual double regicide here.  No need to ask questions or take pictures.  CSI: West Lafayette will be here shortly to dust for prints and get tens of floppy disks worth of information.  We should have an answer to the motive in the next few years as long as their Tandy 200 isn't in the shop again.
 
As for the "best four teams" argument, I think it sounds nice and simple, but it brings more problems that people acknowledge. In most seasons, there's a much bigger difference between No. 2 and No. 4 than between No. 4 and No. 5.
This second sentence is a masterpiece of weasel-sentence crafting.  Let's dissect it: 

First we have the "in most seasons."  No specifics are given like teams, years, examples or even, at this point, what sport we talking about.  This is why weasel sentences are awful.  It's like a middle schooler:  "Nobody likes you, Slate."  Is that really true?  Seriously did nobody like me?  It wasn't me who blasted a fart during the algebra test!  I swear!  It was the smelly kid who did it I SWEAR! 

Sometimes, when you make an argument, you have back up that argument with a cogent fact.  Example:  "Nobody likes you, Big Ten blogger.  Me, Blutarsky, Spencer Hall... we all don't like you.  No go cry in the band room percussion closet!  This is going to take a few years to get over."

Next we move on to the "much bigger difference between X and Y than between Y and Z."  I know we can't go back in time and tell this guy to think before he speaks.  He was probably rushing to meet a deadline and he had to pump out his final conclusion and we all know what happens when we rush:  we make absolutely no logical sense.  What does he mean by "much bigger difference?"  Let's look at the 2011 BCS standings just before the bowls started that lead to the LSU-Alabama 2.0 game:
1.  LSU
2.  Alabama
3.  Oklahoma State
4.  Stanford
5.  Oregon
Was Alabama that much better than Stanford at this point in time... the point in time where we had to decide who was/was not going to the national championship game?  Let's look at what happened.  Stanford lost to Oklahoma State in the Fiesta Bowl because their kicker shit his pants.  Oklahoma State was the team that missed the NC game by .0086 points in the BCS standings.  So that's #2 vs. #4.  That's not an earth shattering difference.  What about #4 vs. #5?  Well lookie, here.  Stanford was #4 and Oregon was #5.  Oregon beat Stanford in the regular season but it was a loss to LSU (#1) in the first week that really did them in.  So was the difference between Alabama and Stanford the Grand Canyon and the gap between Stanford and Oregon a backyard stream?

Oh, and are you confused by that last paragraph?  Good!  His weasel sentence is one of those sentences that are not expected to be proven and when they are, it's incredibly difficult to untangle the mess.  Thus, the statement-maker makes the statement on the assumption you would take it at face value and not try to dive in and unravel the mess.

Count me among those who can live with a No. 5 conference champion being in a playoff ahead of a No. 4 non-champion. No. 5 Oregon over No. 4 Stanford in 2011? No problem. No. 5 USC over No. 4 Alabama in 2008? No problem. Again, it's not the same as leaving the No. 2 team out in favor of the No. 7 team.
Now we get to some nebulous examples.  Last year's #5 Oregon over #4 Stanford?  Two loss team vs. one loss team.  Doesn't matter that that the two loss team was the only team that beat the one loss team.  2008 Alabama vs. USC?  Team A steamrolled everyone in the toughest conference in the country until the conference championship where they met a bigger, more Jesus-backed, steamroller.  Team B beat everyone is super weak conference except a super weak 4 loss team (in the same super weak conference).  So even the examples given are trivial and pointless, at best.

And what is this last sentence about?  When would the #2 team be left out in favor of a #7 team?  When?  How?  Who?  Should Boise State (#7) have been above Alabama (#2)?  No!  Boise State's kicker wouldn't allow that.  (Side note:  Their kicker may be the best college football troll of all time)

I don't expect the SEC to waver on its "best four" plan. But it'd be nice if there was some actual understanding of the Big Ten's playoff position.
The closing remark here shows he probably just wanted to end this blog entry and go stew in his own anger at being stuck having to write from a position of weakness.  Debate class is fun, but only if you get to argue from the position of strength.  Arguing for the rights of minorities to go to school with white kids is easier than arguing against it unless you live in Mississippi.

It isn't about understanding the Big Ten's playoff position.  The Big Ten's playoff position, and proposition to fix it, is almost as flawed as the system we have now.  The SEC understands it.  The SEC understands it clear as a bell.  This position says that the Big Ten knows that between the SEC, Big12, Pac12, Big Ten, ACC and Big East, it can get in the top 4 in any given year if you looked at the conference champions.  It also knows that if it were the top 4 teams, period, it would be left out in most years.  In fact, it hasn't been since 2007 that the Big Ten had anyone in the Top 4 of the BCS at the last week of the season before the bowls. 

If that doesn't show the position of weakness that the Big Ten is arguing from...  I don't know what does.  And that's why they are sweating bullets over the SEC proposal.  If a blogger is this up-in-arms...  what about Jim Delany?  It might cause someone, in an ego-driven power play, to up-end actual progressive talks whose goal is to amend a completely broke-ass system.