Semi-OT: High Expectation Football Programs
Over on the Chris Petersen forum thread, Space Coyote commented that Petersen will get at Washington a program he can build as he wants "and isn't required to get 9-10 wins every year."
This is something I've been thinking about lately ... that is, the disparity in expectations among major college football programs, and whether the 4-team playoff coming next year increases the pressure for coaches at high-expectation schools.
It's simply a fact some programs have much higher football success expectations than other programs. Persistent losing is rarely tolerated, but there are plenty of programs where 9-win seasons keep everyone happy. Washington is probably one of those programs. But for places like Ohio State, Alabama, Florida, Texas, USC, Oklahoma ... the expectation is much higher.
So my question is this: Does the new 4-team playoff structure create more pressure on those high-expectation programs? Or less?
I'd argue more. My reasoning is this: today there's an escape hatch for high-performing programs that don't get into the BCS title game. It usually takes a perfect season and some luck to get into the BCS title game. A 10-2 or even 11-1 season won't always get you there, but it's still a great season and coaches can make that argument and generally it'll be accepted.
But with the new playoff system the expectation will be to get into that playoff. Winning it all will be great, of course ... but failing to get into the playoff will be a greater magnified shortfall.
Now there'll be four slots, so the competition is going to be fierce to be in the top 4. Four slots is twice as many as two, and the "perfect season and some luck" argument is diminished. "We finished 10-2!" the coach will argue. "Yeah, but you didn't get into the playoff so you fell short!" will be the counter-argument.
Some programs won't play that game ... preferring instead to play their game and if the record is 8-4 or 9-3 with no playoff, then okay. But the high-expectation schools are going to go all out to make the available playoff slots. Thus my argument that things get more intense, not less.
Thoughts?
December 6th, 2013 at 2:28 PM ^
Conference championship games make is so now there can only be a single conference champion, where before there could be multiple. Now, if you aren't getting to the playoff, you aren't being successful. It's harder even than winning a BCS bowl, which isn't enough for some programs already, let alone making a BCS bowl, let alone making a respectable bowl, etc.
Society as a whole is getting more "what have you done for me lately" and immediate-success-driven. This enhances that. Add to it increased parity and all that other jazz, but my feeling is it's a bit too much from the high expectation fanbases, particularly when in today's age I believe it is much, much more difficult to be deemed successful than it was in the past (this isn't just talking Michigan and the current staff, though some will take it that way, it really relates to much of college football, college sports, and sports in general all the way down to some high schools).
December 6th, 2013 at 2:45 PM ^
It is an interesting question, to be sure.
If I had to guess, I would think that teams which perennially vie for their own conference championships and typically (at least in recent history) have found themselves in the BCS discussion probably will consider making an extra push - somehow - to get them in regular contention on the playoff system. That probably doesn't cover a lot of programs, of course.
Now, there's another layer of programs that could - with some minor modifications, if you will - be in that top tier as well, so they might also double their efforts as best they can. One thing that I have thought may come out of the new system is some informal stratification of expectations as the playoff system evolves as teams see what the first several years are like. There might be a small group of teams that expect to be within reach of one spot, say, 2 out of every 3 or 4 years, another wider group that knows they could do it now and again, and then an even wider group that could compete in their conference but would see a playoff trip as something special indeed. This is a guess, of course, but it is something I have thought about.
December 6th, 2013 at 2:58 PM ^
question Don, as SC states, this culture of "get me results yesterday" will drive up expectations, but for how many programs. My question then to follow up on yours, is this, what is better, to have sky high expectations, or to be like Washington...
December 6th, 2013 at 3:03 PM ^
The future of college football will be four mega-conferences, with the conference champions as the four playoff teams. Conference championship games will essentially be play-in games of their own.
I've heard this scenario kicked around for years. A big shakeup is coming to college sports, beyond simply the four-team playoff.
If this came to pass, I think the conference championship games will become a much bigger deal. Winning your division and playing in these games will be a benchmark of success, with records in the playoff stratifying those successful teams even further.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^
At its essense, this is an 8 team playoff, with the field limited to teams in the four conferences. Your "conference" could have 10 or 11 teams in a division, with those teams all playing a round robin. So a total of 88 ish teams could be involved.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^
What was traditionally your conference is now your division. Winning your division puts you in an effective bowl game against the other conference division winner, with that champion advancing.
Unfortunately, this makes the Big Ten East into its own separate conference, relegating four traditional Big Ten powers with three (or more) outsiders.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:11 PM ^
Yeah, it's been kicked around for years, because people want to imagine patterns and orderliness. That won't happen without a centralizing influence to force order to come from chaos. The NCAA is not that influence.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:12 PM ^
The centralizing influence is always money. If conferences/schools can make more money by breaking off than they can in the NCAA's system, they will break off as soon as they can.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:23 PM ^
That's a colossal if. A much bigger one than it's ever given credit for. People tend to assume it's a given that the big-power schools can make more money by leaving the NCAA, but duplicating the necessary infrastructure is not cheap. Everything from new rulebooks to compliance manuals to layers upon layers of bureaucracy to 30-odd new national championship tournaments - and it apparently takes two years just to leave a conference, so surely it will take longer to split from the NCAA. Especially when you have to create all that new crap from scratch, or at a minimum delve through the layers and decide what you need to change right away. Even issues like, do we all leave as a conference or do we use the opportunity to kick a few unwanteds to the curb? And then you're also expecting everyone to agree on the idea in the first place - because it's not gonna happen without a critical mass.
In short, there are hundreds of decision makers each looking to do what's best for their school. All those stars have to align before this schism occurs. It would take a lot for that to happen.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:35 PM ^
I agree there are barriers to a new governing structure. Nobody is going to accomplish that without a lot of agreement among some really big players.
Perhaps another thing to ask is this: given the pressure, will the NCAA morph to become this new model for the super schools? In a sense we've seen that -- the severity of penalties seems to have ratcheted down of late (OSU, Miami, Oregon).
December 6th, 2013 at 3:46 PM ^
I think the most likely outcome - not that I'm doing anything but opinionating - is that a "Division 0" is created for what we now call the BCS teams and what next year we'll call the Power Five or whatever. Those teams do have a considerable amount of leverage and are probably tired of D-I continuing to add schools like Incarnate Word and Grand Canyon just because nobody will rewrite the rules to make it more exclusive. And the more of those schools, the less voting power they have. Totally get that part of the argument of why there'll be a schism. But I think the obstacles are larger than their collective will to try and overcome them, and the concession they'll wrest from the Indiana States is a new football division with different rules.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:58 PM ^
The new barriers will be football-only, I'd assume. The conference divisions will create rough "conferences" for football within your own division, with the larger conference umbrella there for other sports and finances.
Redoing all of this stuff really isn't as big of a job as you might think. The NCAA, when you get down to it, really doesn't do all that much.
Rulebooks and compliance documents largely stay the same, except for those big changes people are hoping for and stripping out the fluff.
National championship tournaments are easy to run, with current procedures for booking facilities, referees, et cetera. If Michigan/MSU can book neutral site games at the Joe, and the Big Ten can book the Xcel Energy Center for a conference tournament, College Super Conference can do the same thing.
Scheduling is already done on a conference and school basis anyway.
Television rights and large contracts are done on a conference basis, and any NCAA-controlled contracts can simply be negotiated or renegotiated with the conference broadcasting partners.
It could be done in a summer if people solely focused on it.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:03 PM ^
Eventually they will grow the playoff to 8 and then 16 when enough of the "high expectation" programs don't make it each year.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
At some point, there will be a team that makes the 4 team playoff like 3 out of 5 years, but won't win it. That coach will be critized for "not being able to win the big one."
December 7th, 2013 at 7:08 AM ^
That's nothing new. Believe it or not, Bo was taking some heat in '73-'74-'75 because "he couldn't win the big one," meaning he couldn't beat OSU.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^
If anything increases pressure I think it'll be the extra losing. Playoffs force everyone to end the season on a down note, except for one team. Fans of teams that get to a BCS bowl and then win it will feel better than fans of teams who get to the playoff and lose. It's the bronze-medal phenomenon.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:14 PM ^
This is what the conference championships will try to fix. Sure, you lost your playoff game, but you're the Big Ten champion! Or, Big Ten division champion!
December 6th, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^
December 6th, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^
I really don't think it changes the amount of pressure and actually think it is another accomplishment to boast about.
It's the weird thing like in college basketball, you finish in the final four and you get a banner...even if you came in fourth.
I see football being the same way. I mean you're still going to have to win your conference (except the SEC) to get into the playoff so those expectations for a school like Michigan will remain high.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^
Let's say the pressure for some schools goes sky-high ... how do those programs respond to the pressure? We're already in a kind of arms-race over facilities at the top programs.
I've often wondered if we'll see a tipping point where the big programs go all-in ... most notably by rejecting NCAA governance and setting up their own standards. Then how many programs will join ... and how many will be allowed to join? (That is, is there the possibility of a single super-conference forming of just the very top elite teams, with everyone else left out?)
nmumike wrote: "what is better, to have sky high expectations, or to be like Washington?"
Play the various scenarios out and that really does become the question, doesn't it? Some programs won't be able to afford to play the game. Do they just accept that and move down into MAC (or AAC) status?
December 6th, 2013 at 3:27 PM ^
Agree that having multiple chances (currently 4 ) at the NC means greater pressure - just like when expansion of playoff opportunities in most of the pro-leagues made it less tolerable to be good and not great. It won't reach the situation like in the NFL where right now teams just one win above 0.500 are contending for a playoff spot but the numbers will rise - first to 8 and then 16. Four round (16, 8, 4, final) means eliminating most pastsies from the schedule and playing 7-8 conference games.
December 6th, 2013 at 3:39 PM ^
I think it's incorrect to assume that programs not in the elite few have significantly lower expectations. I heard this argument about RR and Arizona. Many Arizona fans will not be satisfied until (1) they win or play for a conference championship or (2) they go to a rose bowl. (2) means they can die happy, yes, but 8-win seasons, no matter how many of them, are never going to satisfy completely (especially with loses to rival teams).
I think it's accurate to say there are very few fan bases who would be satisfied with consistent 8-win seasons.
I also think it's accurate to say that, since there are so many fan bases with high expectations, being a football fan is generally disappointing.
December 6th, 2013 at 4:33 PM ^
I think winning creates the desire to win more.
There are some programs that have been below-average for so long that a 7-5 season is a big thing. But string several of those together and suddenly it's no good any more ... then the expectation is 8, then 9, etc.
The key there is consistency ... an occasional winning season with a reset to historic average means the program remains content with merely good.
In my mind the jury is still out with Arizona (and I live in Tucson so I see up-close how the team is embraced). I just don't sense that much buzz -- good or bad -- with two straight years of 7-5. I think RR could bubble around 7-5, 8-4 and people here would be perfectly happy. Give them the occasional win over ASU and a Rose Bowl every 10 years and people are fine. The buzz about town mid-season was more about the upcoming basketball season than football. The stadium here is rarely sold out; tickets are readily available and advertised on billboards ... in short, Arizona is a program that's relatively happy with 8-4.
Now, give it two or three years of 9-3 and I'm sure the expectations ratchet up to "let's win 10."
December 6th, 2013 at 5:04 PM ^
part of the school record in the past 50 years, the pressure certainly will increase. I doubt those that have not won one have high expectations for a NC and therefore look to other criteria in judging the school success.
All of us know that winning records are don't stand for much because AD's can schedule cupcakes for all games that are non conference. We need to look no further than Michigan's last two seasons. Though the teams had winning records, by any other measure they were very mediocre.
December 6th, 2013 at 5:47 PM ^
Matter of time until the football playoff is at sixteen teams if not more and at that point there will be a lot less pressure than there is today. At the beginning of this though with only four teams there will be more pressure.
December 6th, 2013 at 6:52 PM ^
December 7th, 2013 at 2:01 AM ^
Someone go tell Jim Lambright (Don James' DC--first orchestrator of the G defense of Va. Tech fame) that he doesn't need to win 9-10 games every year at Washington. Dude went 44-25 in 6 seasons (that's an average of 7-4, folks) and got canned. At which point they hired Rick Neuheisel, who took Lambright's players to a 2001 Rose Bowl win in Neuheisel's 2nd season, then started the Husky program down the slippery slope it's still trying to climb out of.
Pedersen will likely be given some rope (as SC suggests), but if he ever makes the playoff, he'll probably face the same type of pressure that Lambright did.
Expectations don't come with geography, they come mostly with recent and very high levels of success.
December 7th, 2013 at 7:16 AM ^
Your central point is 100% correct, but I'd go you one further and say that the pressure on Peterson will be intense right away specifically because he's seen as an elite coach. He'll undoubtedly be paid a boatload of money, and the expectations surrounding him will be similar in nature to those RR faced when he came to Michigan. It goes like this:
"Whoa, look at what (Peterson or RR) did at (BSU or WVU) with two-and three-star players that nobody wanted! Now that he can get four- and five-star players because of the tradition and legacy of (UW or UM), he'll have us in the National Championship in no time!"
In reality, it's not that easy or that automatic.
December 7th, 2013 at 8:43 AM ^
Yesterday, while reading the Chip Kelly thread, I kept thinking about how Chip had over a decade to experiment and perfect his offensive style at New Hampshire. I wondered how will future OCs improve and become offensive geniuses with the current win now or else football culture. Even the smaller schools seem to have higher expectations and more frequent coaching changes. This can't be good for college football, so I hope the playoff doesn't increase expectations other than a few major football programs.