Root, Root, Root, Against the Home Team?

I am conflicted. After seeing the terrific display of ineptitude last Saturday in South Bend, I don't know what to think about my beloved Fighting Irish. On the one hand, I always want to see Notre Dame succeed, and I am always going to be disappointed if they don't, but on the other hand, it was become quite clear to me that this team is not going anywhere under Charlie Weis, and I don't want a couple of meaningless (in the grand scheme of things) wins to muddle the situation. This brings up a larger question: Is it ever acceptable to root against your favorite team?

On the positive side, you can never be sure about what the future holds, and a true fan would never hope for his team to fail. You continue to root on your boys every game and trust that everything will work itself out in the end. On the opposite end, there is The Old Yeller Theory. You are still hoping for the best for you team, but you realize that wins in the present might hinder the change necessary for long-term success, which generally comes in the form of a coaching/administration change. So you take Old Yeller out behind the woodshed and put him out of his misery, which in this case means hoping for you team to lose. Both sides certainly pose strong arguments. This is a toughy...

As angry and disappointed as I am with Charlie Weis right now, I cannot bring myself to root against Notre Dame. I wish that Weis could just be fired now, but that simply isn't an option. All of the coaches that Notre Dame would consider are under contract at another school (Yes, I am aware that this rules out Jon Gruden), and promoting an interim coach from within would only complicate the situation further. ND Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick is a smart guy, and I have to trust that he saw exactly what I saw against Navy, a team that got outcoached and a coach that knew it. The most frightening thing is that instead of admitting his own failures, Weis preached "accountability" while throwing his team under the bus. Irony anyone? Charlie Weis has become so blinded by ego that he is no longer fit to run this team. So tonight when the Irish take the field against Pittsburgh, I will play Iago to Charlie Weis' Othello, hoping for success while ultimately plotting his demise...

Solving the Problems with Overtime Football

My beloved Fighting Irish lost today in overtime to Pittsburgh. I’m not making excuses, but the way Pitt won reminded me of one of the biggest problems with the college overtime format. Notre Dame missed a field goal on its possession in the fourth overtime, leaving Pitt needing only a field goal to win the game. Good thing for the Panthers; they get to start with the football inside realistic field goal range. Now, this turned out to not be a factor, as Shady McCoy reduced the field goal to a mere chip shot, but this does not excuse the problems with the college overtime system. How to handle overtime has always been one of the most debated issues in football. The college and professional ranks have taken diverging paths, with professional choosing a more traditional format and college going with a more out-of-the-box alignment. From my point-of-view, the college overtime is much closer to the way things should be, but at this point, nobody has gotten it right. The tough thing is that with so many facets factoring into the outcome of a football game; it is damn near impossible to integrate all of them into a condensed overtime period that is fair for both teams. The ideal overtime format is pretty obvious. Do it like every other sport, just play another 15-minute period. Whichever team leads at the end of those 15 minutes wins the game. Why does this seem too easy? Because it is. The issue with this format is that it puts too much strain on the players. Unlike other sports, every single play in a football game takes a tremendous toll on the players, and it’s really not fair to put both teams through an additional quarter of punishment, if it can be avoided. Players would never agree to this format, nor should they, so for all intents and purposes, it is not a viable option. Of the current techniques, the NFL format is the truest to the game, but it doesn’t give both teams an equal shot. Unless Marty Mornhinweg is involved, the outcome of the game generally rides on a coin flip. An argument can be made that the loser of the coin flip should be able to get a stop on defense, which is true, but in a regulation game, there would never be a scenario where one team would be on defense the entire time, with no opportunity to answer on offense. If the team on defense makes a stop, then the NFL’s overtime becomes perfect. Each team is forced to play offense, defense, and special teams; first team to score wins. Obviously, there is no way to guarantee a stop, and alas, the NFL overtime format is fatally flawed. The college overtime format is certainly more innovative, but it is far from perfect. As I alluded to earlier, the big problem with college overtime is that the offense gets the ball too close to the end zone. A team should not be rewarded with a field goal opportunity if they can’t move the ball. The idea of giving both teams an equal shot is well founded, but poorly executed. Starting at the 25-yard line cripples the defense and gives the offense a better parachute than an AIG executive. Without a huge negative play, it is nearly impossible for the defense to force a 3-and-out and the offense almost always has an opportunity for a makeable field goal. In the current system, offenses are encouraged to play conservatively and mediocrity is rewarded. The solution is simple, back the offense up 15 yards. It puts the offense out of field goal range and forces aggression on both sides of the ball. If the offense can’t make a first down, they are forced to either go for it on fourth down, or try an extremely difficult field goal. If the defense can stop the offense from converting a first down, they can get off the field and give possession back to their offense without allowing any points. Starting from the forty keeps the offense close enough to ensure sufficient scoring to end the game quickly, but gives the defense an opportunity to get off the field without forcing a turnover. This is the only format that ensures that offense, defense, and special teams all remain as integral cogs in deciding the football game. It does omit the punting/field position aspect of the game, but hey, nobody’s perfect. Honestly, I don’t think that the NFL will ever waver from its current format, but I do think that there is a chance for college to change. So write a letter to your local conference commissioner: Starting Overtime from the 40…Change We Can Believe In!

Wait, where have I heard that before….