NCAA Approves New Taunting Rule for 2011, Brace Yourselves for Controversy

The NCAA recently announced its new rule changes to college football. Starting in 2011, taunting penalties will actually result in the loss of points if the penalty occurred before the points were scored. What the NCAA is hoping to prevent with this rule are incidents in which players high step into the endzone or dive with no one around them, or any other obvious shots at the opposing team. Once again, the NCAA is ignoring the basic human nature of the game of football and is poised for some major controversies when the rule is put into place.

It seems that every year there is some controversy when it comes to taunting. The reason for this is because there is no set standard for what constitutes as taunting. Referees have to try to interpret what the intent of certain celebrations is in order to determine whether it is deliberately aimed at the other team. It is the dumbest rule in the rule book, but it really only has been a minor annoyance thus far since points were rarely taken off the board. One taunting penalty in particular, however, cost Washington its game-tying drive against BYU. In 2008, Washington quarterback Jake Locker ran into the endzone with 2 seconds left to go in the game. Thinking he had just tied the game Locker threw the ball up and celebrated the dramatic comeback with his teammates. Locker was called for an unsportsmanlike penalty, the extra point was moved 15 yards back, and was then blocked by BYU who walked away with a 28-27 victory. To say the penalty had no affect on the outcome is absurd. It took away some of the momentum of Washington, it changed the extra point from a 20 yard kick to a 35 yard kick which changes the whole dynamic of the play, and it allowed BYU more time to prepare to block. If that penalty is not called I do not think BYU blocks that kick.

What's even more infuriating about that play is that Locker did nothing wrong. He was not intending to mock or taunt the other team, he was excited because he just capped an 18 play drive with a game tying touchdown! What are players expected to do in that situation? I completely understand the desire to take away taunting other teams, but when you score a big play and are excited, your first thought is not, I better place the ball gently on the ground to avoid a penalty. Players aren't thinking at all! Anyone who has ever played sports or anyone that is a fan of sports knows that feeling. When a big play happens and you just won the game, you jump around and yell and scream and half the time you don't even remember what you're saying or doing because you're not thinking about it! Ok, so Terrell Owens was thinking when he took the pen out of his sock and signed a football. Chad Ochocinco is thinking when he does everyone of his celebrations, and I understand the NCAA's desire to not let that happen in college football, but you can't watch the replay of the Washington/BYU game and tell me what Locker did was unsportsmanlike. Football is an emotional game and to try to take the emotion out of it is stupid.

The point to this rant is that now, by allowing referees to take points off the board, this will be much worse. What constitutes taunting? What I think is taunting is different than what someone else thinks is taunting. Every year there is controversy over a number of taunting penalties because the guidelines for what constitutes taunting are so vague that even celebrations that aren't aimed at the other team are flagged. Yet, we now want points taken off the board for a completely subjective rule? If a player is all alone running the ball into the endzone to win the game for his team and he lifts his free hand up in celebration, boom, penalty. You might not think this is taunting, but another referee might. If a player is so far away from everyone else that he starts to jog into the endzone, penalty. One ref may think he was slowing down as a jab to the other team. You may be telling yourself that refs aren't going to be making these calls in big situations, but that sure didn't seem to stop them from ruining the game for Washington. What this rule will do is eliminate obvious high stepping and taunting from show boaters, but it will also ruin the amazing plays of genuinely excited players. When you're about to score a touchdown to win the game at the end of regulation or in overtime, you're excited! It's only natural and its not unsportsmanlike or wrong at all. What's wrong is telling him that it's not ok to be excited. It's not ok to celebrate your amazing play because one referee may decide to ruin your game. That's what this rule does. It gives the referees the ability to ruin the game. Points are never guaranteed, ever. By allowing referees to take them off the board for such an objective call is perhaps one of the dumbest ideas in college football since the BCS.

Football is not a game that can be played without emotion. When you see players listening to music before a game, they aren't listening to "Puff the Magic Dragon" or "If You're Happy and You Know it Clap Your Hands." They are listening to music to get themselves pumped up. Let these players celebrate their amazing accomplishments and plays. They shouldn't have to worry about how they look while they are running the ball into the endzone. What if a referee determined that when Cal returned the epic kickoff against Stanford in the most exciting play in college football history, that by jumping into the endzone they were actually taunting Stanford? What if a referee saw a Boise State player celebrating just before they took the ball into the endzone for the two point conversion that beat Okalhoma in one of the greatest games every played? In 2011 we will see far too many games ruined by referees and that truly will be nothing to celebrate.

Expanding March Madness Part 2

Two rounds deep into the March Madness tournament, and the debate to expand the tournament is heating up. Because of unthinkable upsets like Northern Iowa over top seeded Kansas, St. Mary's over number two Villanova, and Cornell over both Temple and Wisconsin, support for adding more teams into the fold is gaining. If those lower seeds can compete and win, why not add them in?

Another argument points to the exclusivity of college basketball. A 65 team tournament allows approximately 19% of division one teams into the postseason. This is lower than the playoffs of the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. To raise this would not really be opening the flood gates when college basketball is the most exclusive sport in America.

These are impressive arguments, but if you look at this tournament there are other important numbers you should take into account as well. Here is the breakdown of how many teams made the tournament from the major conferences: 6 out of 12 from the ACC, 6 out of 12 Big 12 teams, 8 out of 16 Big East teams, 5 out of 11 Big 10 teams, 2 out of 10 Pac 10 teams, and 4 out of 12 SEC teams. Clearly an off year for the Pac 10 who usually boasts major national competitors in UCLA, Stanford, and Arizona. For the most part, however, you have a little less than half of major conferences making the field, which is where you want it. Most ideas for expansion say 96 teams, so lets add the 32 teams from the NIT into this field. Now you have 9 out of 12 from the ACC, 7 out of 12 from the Big 12, 13 out of 16 from the Big East, 7 out of 11 from the Big 10, 3 out of 10 from the Pac 10, and 6 out of 12 from the SEC. While more of the mid majors will be in, this will allow far too many from the big conferences.

When talking about percentages, you are assuming a competitive level roughly equal across the league. Of course every sport has their "groups of death" and their weaker divisions (the Kansas City Chiefs and the Oakland Raiders in the same division?), but the level for professional teams is still relatively equal. That is just not true in college sports. The Big East isn't slightly better than the Big Sky, there's a huge gap. This doesn't mean teams from the Big Sky can't compete come March, we've all seen the upsets. What it does mean, however, is that any increase in the playoffs doesn't simply allow the mid majors more slots, it also gives more slots to the conferences that already have around half of their teams heading to the post season because of their high level of competition. Making the tournament for those teams ceases to be an accomplishment and becomes a necessity for coaches to keep their job, even more so than it is now. When 13 teams from the Big East are making the tournament, you better not be one of the 3 who aren't. March Madness will become what the bowl system is for college football; making it alone means very little, not making it at all means a lot.

When considering the percentages, keep in mind that while a 96 team tournament will have approximately 28% of division one teams playing, 62% of the big conference teams will be in, and that's based just on the numbers this season, it could be more. In the current 65 team set up, teams still have to earn their spot. To expand the tournament gives a huge advantage to all teams in the major conferences before the season even begins. North Carolina made the NIT with a 5-11 record in the ACC and a 19-16 overall. Texas Tech was 4-12 in the Big 12 and 19-16 overall. UConn was 7-11 in the Big East and as low as 19-16 overall. So for these teams it doesn't matter how bad you are in the conference as long as you are in one of those big conferences and stay above .500 overall. Deserving teams that are snubbed would be in, but it also dilutes the pool with teams like UConn who have a .542 win percentage. Is that really a deserving team?

Any expansion of the tournament would have to take into account the vast difference in competition among the conferences. Don't be fooled by the low overall percentages. This drag down the tournament with teams that really don't deserve to be there. Don't ruin the magic of the tournament by forcing in more possible "Cinderellas" or the clock may strike midnight on the excitement of March.

Expanding March Madness?

The Washington Post printed an interesting article talking about how many basketball enthusiasts want to see March Madness expanded. No doubt there are numerous brackets and systems people have created hoping that this will come to fruition. A larger bracket means more teams reaching the big stage who would otherwise not have much of a shot, such as William and Mary who will not make it unless they win the CAA tournament despite a great season with wins over Wake Forest and Maryland. The biggest reason, of course is money; more games means more money.

Before the NCAA runs to the bank, however, is this something that needs to happen? Why mess with success? College basketball does not suffer from the same problem as college football does. Everyone seems satisfied with the current system of deciding a national champion and while some people may have ideas of how they can make it better, there is no national movement to see this changed. If there is a criticism, it is the debate sparked by all the bubble teams that feel snubbed every year. Apart from the conference champions, there is no real system for deciding who gets an at large bid. Basically a bunch of people sit down and decide that team a is more deserving than team b for whatever reason. The diversity of the different teams and conferences as well as the random non conference scheduling really makes a definitive playoff system such as that which we see in pro sports impossible. Adding more slots will obviously allow for those bubble teams to comfortably make the tournament. This takes a lot of excitement from the push for March. It's a lot more exciting to see Notre Dame and Virginia Tech push themselves at the end of the season to hopefully get themselves across that threshold. Would people really tune in to watch William and Mary or Mercer push for that last 80th, 90th, or 100th spot? That would probably get about as much attention or even less than the play-in game between #64 and 65 currently does.

The more spots that are available, the less prestigious it is to earn one of those bids. The fact is that in a field of 65, it is huge for those mid major teams who win their conferences to make it to March madness. Those conference tournaments lose a lot of their luster and importance if multiple teams are already going to receive bids. That's why fans of the ACC or Big East are asking themselves why we have conference tournaments at all while fans of the CAA or Patriot League are watching every dribble. I understand the reasoning behind expanding the post season for many sports, but college basketball already has a 65 team playoff and every single team gets a chance to wipe the slate clean at the end of the season and qualify for March madness by winning their conference. To expand it any further would put more money in the pockets of those in charge but would decrease the importance of qualifying. That's not a fair trade in my book.