Read the debate intro and Sports Geek’s argument that the NCAA should NOT institute a ‘Mercy Rule’.
Why do two teams step onto a football field to play a game?
The answer is to determine a winner – it’s that simple. There are no style points in football, no judges to impress, and a one-point victory holds the exact same value as a 100-point victory. At the end of the game, one team gets to put a notch in their ‘W’ column, the other notches their ‘L’ column. That is all that matters, and it is the ONLY part of the game that anyone will remember!
Once a game has reached a point where the scoreboard is so lopsided that determining the winner has become a foregone conclusion, there is absolutely no reason for the game to continue! The winner has been decided, and anything else just becomes a formality. With that formality, the balance shifts and any benefits from allowing the game to proceed become far outweighed by the risks involved.
The Risks Just Aren’t Worth It
Perception is a very important issue that must be considered. For the program on the winning side of a blowout, the criticism that comes from “running up the score” can be very damaging in terms of public opinion. For the losing program, the issue of excessive embarrassment must be considered. Even if it comes against a top-tier program from a major conference, a 60-point loss reflects very poorly on the program, and severely damages recruiting opportunities.
A greater risk, though, is the potential for unnecessary injury during the game. It is true that most coaches will pull their ‘superstars’ from the game (unless they really ARE trying to run up the score), but there are still kids on the second and third strings giving their all in complete futility. Players, fans, and coaches alike all know that the continuation of the game is meaningless. If there were any chance of benefit, whether competitive, financial, or statistical, I would understand the risk. The problem is that those benefits just do not exist.
No Competitive Benefits
Since the creation of the NCAA in 1905, no team has ever come back to win a game when trailing by a deficit of greater than 35 points (Nevada had a 35-point comeback against Weber State back in 1991, and Michigan State repeated the feat against Northwestern in 2006). In more than 100 years of college football, though, no team has ever overcome a greater margin than that. Why, then, should a game be allowed to continue if the difference in the score is 40, 50, or even 60 points?! Historically, it has been proven that some leads are insurmountable. I agree that a team theoretically COULD come back when trailing by that much, but if no team has come back when trailing by 36 points, why should a game be allowed to continue when the point-differential is TWICE that amount?
A fair number to set for a mercy rule would be 50 points. The NCAA could take into account the possibility that a team COULD come back from a greater deficit than 35 points by allowing the cap to be set two full touchdowns higher than the current record. If, by some miracle, teams begin to prove that a 4o or 50-point lead can be CONSISTENTLY overcome, then the NCAA can investigate the possibility of increasing or lifting the cap altogether. Until then, stop wasting everyone’s time!
No Financial Benefits
There are two areas where financial benefit can be gained during a single game. Those areas are within the stadium (i.e. ticket-holders) and the potential television audience.
The college or university hosting the event has already realized the majority of benefit from the ticket-holders via the ticket office. I recently attended the game between The University of Akron and Morgan State, which ended in a 41-0 rout by the Akron Zips. The game was a sellout, but by the time the score reached 31-0 in the third quarter, the stands were already half-empty.
Once the rout is on, there is only minimal benefit to keeping the fans in the stadium. Most have already left the stadium in order to beat traffic. As for those remaining, do you REALLY think they are going to rush out and buy a t-shirt when their team is losing by 75 points?
Media outlets, on the other hand, are concerned with televising games that are intriguing and competitive. When a game reaches blowout status, and fans start leaving the stadium in droves, the broadcasting network is concerned that fans at home are doing the same by changing the channel. In order to preempt the inevitable channel-change, those stations will switch to air a more competitive matchup, hopefully keeping the home viewer interested.
In either case, the financial benefits that can be gained from that game have already been maximized.
No Statistical Benefits
There is no category in college football to measure the margin-of-victory. In the very short-term, margin-of-victory can have a minor effect. Usually, though, that effect is seen when a team that SHOULD blowout a much lower-caliber team but fails to do so (for example, Ohio State dropped in the rankings despite winning their game against Navy, because they didn’t win by enough points). The good news is that in those cases, the game will continue since it is not a blowout!
I have never heard of a team, though, that failed to reach the national championship game because they “only beat team XXXX by 45 points instead of 55 points”. Over the course of an entire season, a team’s margin of victory has virtually no bearing on their final rankings. Instead, it boils down solely to wins and losses.
The fans have left the game, the television stations have moved on to another game, history has PROVEN that there is virtually no chance of a comeback being realized, and the winning team has already been decided. Stop wasting everyone’s time, show a little mercy, and let us move on with our lives!
Clearly, the NFL and MLB shows no mercy rule!They still televise the Browns and Indians!