Read Bleacher Fan’s argument that the NCAA should institute a mercy rule. Read Sports Geek’s argument the NCAA should not institute a mercy rule.
Have you ever been watching a college football game on TV when the game quickly got out of hand? Maybe Florida is beating up on Charleston Southern, who plays in the FCS. Perhaps you see a note that says Tennessee had 657 yards of offense in a thrashing of Western Kentucky. Or perhaps you come across a story online reporting that Stephen F. Austin defeated Texas College 92-0. Scores like this continue to be the trend in college football, especially when there is a total mismatch between the two teams (which was the case in the aforementioned games). This tends to happen early (and often) in the season, when some BCS schools schedule “cupcakes” for their first couple of games. <br>
The Georgia High School Association (GHSA), as listed in its constitution and by-laws, has a mercy rule in effect for high school football games. This was put in place a few years ago at the encouragement of coaches. Essentially, the game has a continuous clock in the second half if the score differential is thirty or more points at halftime. If the margin of difference in the score exceeds 30 points in the second half, the continuous clock begins during the next possession. Unfortunately, my alma mater in Georgia has been on the short end of this a couple of times already this year (but we have been on the other end several times in the past).
Little league baseball is another example of an organization that has a mercy rule in place.
Today, we are focusing on college football. The Sports Debates is going to debate whether or not the NCAA should put some type of mercy rule in place.
Bleacher Fan is going to argue that the NCAA should institute a mercy rule in its football games. Meanwhile, Sports Geek will argue that the NCAA should not institute a mercy rule.
The clock is running… show no mercy in your debates!
[...] College Football Mercy Rule Debate – Show Some Mercy Read the debate intro, Bleacher Fan’s argument that a mercy rule should be put in place, and Sports Geek’s [...]
Are you kidding? If a team is so poor that they cannot be fairly matched against other teams in the division, then they need to be moved to Division II or III. This is the problem with NCAA football. One or two good teams in a “cupcake” conference excel and then get ranked higher than teams from real conferences, who have been duking it out like men in almost every game, but don’t have as high a ranking. Get rid of the cupcakes, make sure every team in the division can really play, and then let the boys really compete. Put the teams that can’t cut the mustard in a different division, where they can play their hearts out, too, and see something for their effort.
In real life, there is no mercy rule. When you’re talking about immature high school teens, sure, a mercy rule is fine. They’re still learning about life. But college is the place where “kid” is beaten out of you and “man” hopefully replaces it. It doesn’t teach the boys on the losing team anything to not fail all the way. Failing is a good lesson. Being protected from “too much” failure when everyone in the stadium, everyone at home, knows how badly you are playing is nothing but humiliation. Worse humiliation than just failing.
When a runner falls or is injured or is just so bad that he falls drastically behind the rest of the pack, we do not suggest that the leaders slow up so the last runner won’t be so embarrassed. They run their hearts out, and the whole crowd urges on the man in last place, willing him to have the guts to finish out the whole race like a man. He finishes it, not because he has a hope of winning, and not because he wants to avoid embarrassment, but because it is right to do so. Let the so-called “cupcake” teams retain the dignity to play their hearts out to the very end because it is right to do so.
Thanks for the comment Miriam, but I have to respectfully disagree with you.
Dropping a school into D-II or D-III does not resolve the issue of blowout games, and would not improve competition in the NCAA. There are still blowout games, even between two “powerhouse” teams. As an example, Cal (who was ranked #6 in the country) lost to Oregon by 39 points. Does that mean that they should be bumped into D-II? I don’t think so.
In fact, the 92-0 blowout referenced within this debate took place between a D-IAA and NAIA school. It’s not like Stephen F Austin is going to be threatening Florida, Texas, or Alabama for a shot at the national championship soon.
My point is that games can get out of hand. It has nothing to do with the talent levels or division worthiness of the schools involved. It just means that football games can reach a point where the lead is insurmountable.
At that point, it makes no sense to continue a game and put athletes at unnecessary risk for injury. The point of a game is to determine a winner. Once the game is CLEARLY decided, then I see no benefit from continuing the play.
Consider the 2008 Ohio State Buckeyes. During the third quarter of their game against Youngstown State, a game they would go on to win by a score of 43-0, their star running back, Chris “Beanie” Wells, injured his toe and ended up missing the game against USC the following weekend. Had the game been called because it was CLEARLY evident by that point that Youngstown State had NO chance of winning, Wells would not have been injured, and may have been able to make a difference against the Trojans.
Lastly, you talk about letting the “cupcake” teams retain their dignity… Where’s the dignity in having to walk back onto the field after already trailing by 50 points at halftime. What could possibly be dignifying about knowing that you are about to get your butts whooped AGAIN, for ANOTHER 30 minutes? There is no dignity in that. The dignity is allowing them to save face and not have to put a 92-0 loss in their record books.
While I understand your point about how dropping teams into lower divisions would not solve all the problems, I do have to respectfully disagree with the idea that making a losing team walk back out onto the field and finish out a hopeless game is somehow less dignifying than for the game to be called. All I can say is that if I’m that team, I’d much rather say, “Yeah, they beat us by 60 points,” then say, “Yeah, we were so totally unable to play against their team that they actually had to stop the game.” Or, worse, “They beat us so badly the ‘mercy rule’ had to come into effect.” The first is humiliating, yes, but the second two are absolutely mortifying. The dignity is not in how many points you lost by, but in holding your heads up and playing well no matter what.
As to the issue of injuries, injuries are a risk in any game. That’s part of the uncertainty that you sign up for when you choose to play football. Yes, we try to minimize injuries whenever possible, but the guys are learning something about giving their very best both for their team and for the simple rightness of doing the best they can at whatever they put their hand to do. Risking injury is part of that. Do we really want to say, “it’s only worth trying your best if you think you can win.”? “If you’re not doing well enough, just give up?”
With your Buckeyes example, I understand the damage to the Wells’ injury caused. I guess my question would be, if Wells and his coaches were so certain that their win was in the bag, why didn’t they pull a star player like that and save him for the next game? That’s was their choice to be stupid, and they paid for it in the next game. Decision making is part of what can change everything in the NCAA, and poor decision making on that day was a boon for the Trojans.
Finally, what about the psychological value of such an immense loss to both the winning and the losing teams? What about a team that has struggled, as Tennessee has in the last few years. Who can say the value to the new, young players with their relatively inexperienced new head coach in having beaten Georgia and Memphis by large margins this year? Granted, neither of those margins was quite as large as the ones you are talking about, but Memphis was quite close, especially in the first half. Now that the Vols are headed towards ‘Ole Miss, a team that’s been playing quite well, those two big wins are a way of saying, “you CAN do this.” And even in the Memphis game, the Tigers rallied a little after the second half, playing better, scoring 21 more points and keeping the Vols to only 14 more points. Being crushed in the first half clearly inspired them to work harder in the second. How many times has a team gotten beaten up in one game, and the coaches have used it to rally them in the next?