For the reading given to us last Monday, we focused on Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the first two chapters on his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Thousands of examples could show his theory in practice, from the State of Nature to Rousseau’s “Civil Society” to the inequality and vanity that follows. So, what I was trying to ask myself the past week was, what is something that serves as a perfect representation of Rousseau’s model? It was literally right in front of me on the television screen: organized college football.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, football was gaining popularity across America, far before conferences like the Western Conference (now the Big Ten) and the Southeastern Conference had been started. I envision this period of time as a very unserious setting for the games- there was no real reward for winning and rivalries were basically nonexistent. By researching the schedules of Michigan football from when it started in 1879 to before it joined the Western Conference in 1896, the Wolverines had no real formal schedule and many games were played against athletic clubs and even alumni teams. I believe Rousseau would identify this period of college football as the State of Nature.
 |
| The 1888 Michigan Wolverines |
Now, put into place the conferences. After years, rivalries began to be formed and winning teams began to emerge as powerhouses. The teams deemed the leaders in their conferences started to amass much more money for their programs than teams that were not as strong, which went to paying for top-of-the-notch coaches and grander stadiums. After time, it was expected that these leaders would continue to have winning seasons and generate more and more money for their programs.
This began a system of college football hierarchy- for the inferior teams in a conference would have much less of a chance of beating a powerhouse. The conferences can clearly be associated with Rousseau’s Civil Society, which promotes inequality among the teams of a given conference. A sense of vanity also exists among them as well, in terms of teams doing their best to preserve their reputation against others.
I believe conferences to be only a small part of the inequalities that exist in college football, however. The main culprit of Civil Society in the sport is the BCS.
The Bowl Championship Series was created as a means to decide on the top teams of the country in a given year, by providing a national championship game between the top two BCS ranked teams regardless of what conference they are in, as well as four other bowls that would be played by the leaders of the six power conferences against other highly ranked teams. It’s widely known and accepted that teams are chosen to play in the games are based on how much revenue they will make for the BCS, specifically by bringing the widest fan base to fill the stadiums and stay in hotel rooms.
This system of choosing teams has come under much scrutiny since the BCS pays the teams that make it to the top matches. Because teams that aren’t in one of the six power conferences do not have a guaranteed spot, it is much more unlikely that they will make it to a BCS bowl, and therefore lose out on millions of dollars. The BCS is also looked upon badly for bypassing much higher ranked teams for teams that would bring in more revenue. A great example of this is the 2012 Sugar Bowl where #13 Michigan faced #11 Virginia Tech, angering many for passing up on many higher ranked teams based solely on the fact that these two schools would bring in the most money for the BCS.
The Bowl Championship Series has generated outrage from many, perhaps most notably by US Senator Orrin Hatch, for its discrimination against non-power conference teams. As a result of the many disagreements, the BCS has promised to begin a playoff system to decide the bowls, but there are still specific details that haven’t been determined.
I believe there to be a great amount of inequality that exists in college football as a result of the BCS’s policy of favoring teams that will make them the most money. It really can’t be used as an accurate measure of ranking because of this emphasis on wealth, which could be equated to Rousseau’s concept of property.
Do you think that the college football conferences and the BCS are an accurate representation of civil society in Rousseau’s context?
Or is the BCS a fair and accurate system of ranking college football teams?
I really enjoyed your connection between Rousseau and the BCS because I think it is a perfect, modern day example. However, I think that, to a certain degree, the BCS is an accurate system for ranking college football teams. There is certainly no way to do it perfectly, but the BCS must account for conference strength and strength of overall schedule. That's just the way it is, even if it isn't fair. A playoff system will certainly help people tolerate the BCS more because teams won't be excluded as much (the #5 team will be angry, though). The BCS is just the way things are today, with the power conferences taking in all the revenue and attention.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the BCS method of ranking teams. I believe that there are always going to be arguments about what team is ranked where and who deserves to be there. The BCS is an effective way to sort this out. However, I do not think it BCS or the "computers'" faults for the choosing of the bowl games. This focus on revenue comes from people in high leadership roles. However, I like the connections made and the incorporation of football.
ReplyDeleteThe BCS has been keeping college football from being fair for years now. I completely agree with you. The BCS unfairly gives an advantage to teams in the big conferences simply because money becomes involved. The size of the school or amount of wealth that they can contribute to profits for promoters shouldn't be a factor in determining whether or not their football team gets a chance to be a part of a big bowl game. It's unfair and takes away opportunities every year. Rousseau would be appalled.
ReplyDeleteI think your connection between college football conferences and Rousseau's civil society is very interesting and I believer this connection is very accurate, but at the same time, I do not think there is much that can be done to change this. Furthermore, you claim that the conferences promote inequality, but there is no way every conference can be a powerhouse because it comes down to athletic ability. There is always going to be hierarchy in sports because the best players want to play for the best teams and it is hard to make a weaker conference better because that's how society works. I do think the BCS is the most accurate possible way to rank teams and there is not a better way to make this more "fair". I also believe that many athletes simply just have a love for the game of football and want to continue to play no matter where there athletic ability allows them to play which might mean this isn't technically a hierarchy, but rather a way for athletes to continue to play the sport they love with them knowing they will never be in the spotlight or in a BCS championship game. Finally, I think implementing a playoff system for the BCS would be more fair, but I think it would be very complicated because of the numerous amount of football teams that would want to be in the playoffs.
ReplyDeleteWell played, Evan, well played. I happen to agree with your connection between the BCS and Rousseau's civil society. Everyone roots for the underdog, but I feel like the same 30 teams are always encompassing the top 25 rankings. I refuse to acknowledge Notre Dame as a team, ever, so disregarding them, it always seems the inequality lies in the same few teams. Alabama, Oregon, Florida, Georgia, LSU, etc, are always in the area to be the best. There is such inequality throughout Division I football that certain teams mine as well save their money and not have a team. Does anyone see the bucking Western Michigan Broncos making a run for the championship anytime soon? I also see solid proof of what you said from the beginning of college football. Your picture is reason enough; does that look like a championship team today? Just look at what the drive to outdo everyone else has done to what a football player looks like. Teams of what, 13 dudes versus teams of like 60 who are all in top physical shape? The only thing you may have been lacking is the 'trigger' of the transfer from the state of nature to civil society (unless money was yours, then kudos cause that makes sense to me).
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this comparison because according to Rousseau, there are always going to be some natural inequalities, but when thrown into the state of nature and being compared to people, it seems like you're always going to be less or more than someone else. In the BCS, it is true that essentially, no matter how good or bad your record is or how highly you're ranked, it could be possible that you won't or will be in a bowl game. It's unfair to teams in smaller conferences like the Mountain West conference that includes Boise State, for example. Boise State could be a better team than Michigan, beat more teams, be ranked higher, but since Michigan is a more prestigious university with a bigger football team, a much bigger fan base around the country, and brings a lot more money in and WILL bring a lot more money in through a bowl game, they're chosen as the "next best team" to compete in these bowl games. Basically, no matter how good you are, if you're in a smaller conference you most likely won't go to a bowl game. Is this fair to these smaller teams in smaller conferences? Hell no it's not because they could work their tails off in winning games and fighting to be one of the best teams and still not get rewarded for it because the inequalities there are keeping them from doing so. No matter how hard they work, it's likely that their efforts just won't be efficient enough for a BCS bowl game. Right off the bat, the BCS is pretty much saying "ya can't hang with the big dogs no matter how hard you bite."
ReplyDeleteI actually disagree that nothing can be done to change this. I think there could be a fair playoff system that could be implemented that involves all conferences, with each conference leader facing one another until the championship game. Although it wouldn't bring in as much money if a smaller school made it to the end, the system would at least be officially fair. I just don't believe the current BCS system to be fair because of its dependence on football team revenue.
ReplyDeleteBut I really don't think there would ever be a reason for the BCS to adopt the playoff system that I talked about, because it is a company that needs to make money. Just a thought.