In Which I Agree With The President-elect

I've already told you I won't discuss politics here, so really there's only one thing this could be about. For those of you who don't remember, Obama commented on the need for playoffs in college football just prior to and then again shortly after the election: "If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system...I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this."

While I'm not sure that every fan of college football agrees, I certainly do. This year shows, once again, why the current system is not enough. Yes, we are guaranteed to have the top two teams play each other at the end of the season, which is far beyond where we were at the beginning of the 90's, but determining which two teams play is still problematic. Is there anyone who can reasonably argue for complete exclusion of Texas, Texas Tech or Oklahoma from title contention? The newest BCS ranking place Oklahoma above both of the other teams (including Texas, who beat them by ten points), meaning that it will require near-miraculous circumstances to allow either of the other Big XII schools into the title game. In addition, three teams from mid-major conferences (Utah, Boise State and Ball State) have gone or are looking to go undefeated, but none of them will make the title game and likely only Utah will get to play in one of the BCS bowls. Should these teams not have a shot? The only way to make sure everyone has a reasonable chance at winning the title is by having playoffs.  

How would I do it? I'm hardly breaking new ground here, since just about every fan has his or her own plan, but here are the rules I would use.

The playoff would be a 16-team, four-round playoff, just like the FCS  (or Division I-AA, if you prefer) uses. 

All teams must be a member of a conference. (Sorry Notre Dame, Army and Navy. Go join the Big 10, Big East and Big East, respectively.)

All conferences will institute a championship game.

Each school will play 11 games in the regular season (meaning 12 if they are in the conference championship).

The first 6 spots in the bracket will be filled by the winners of the current BCS conferences. This can be evaluated in the future, but at this point these conferences have proven that they deserve to be in the running every year, while the winner of a mid-major conference like C-USA may not.

The remaining 10 spots in the playoffs will be filled by the next 10 highest ranked teams. The BCS rankings as currently established could be used, but adding the Associated Press poll back into the formula would be beneficial. This system would assure that any mid-major team ranked within approximately the top 16 would be given a spot in the playoffs.

There is no reason to eliminate bowl games. Any team not advancing beyond the first round, including those with a winning record who did not make the playoffs, would be eligible for a bowl game. This will serve as a reward at the end of the season just as it does now. Optionally, larger bowl games such as Cotton, Rose, Sugar and Orange can be used as the late round playoff games.

Other ideas which would be helpful, but which would require further work include expansion to a 20-team playoff, as is planned for the FCS, and conference reconfiguration: There are 120 teams in the current FBS, a number perfectly suited to 10 conferences containing two six-team divisions. This would require some current conferences to contract, some to expand and one to be eliminated (sorry Sunbelt).

I know. I can already hear the same exact complaints that come up every time someone suggests a playoff. 

"It's already a playoff that starts in August. Every game counts and it wouldn't if you had playoffs." First, if you think that every game counts right now, just ask Texas about how much the Oklahoma game counts. Second, a limited playoff system would not mean that every other game doesn't count. You would only be playing 11 games prior to the playoffs and losing even one would dramatically impact where your team would land in the playoffs. Every game would still count, but your ability to make up for a mistake (the team's or the voters') would increase.

"I love the bowls and the tradition." Really? A big fan of the EagleBank Bowl are you? There is no reason to eliminate all the bowls if people still want them. There is no reason not to integrate them with the playoff, in fact I'm all for that. But even if bowls had to go away completely, the only thing you'd be trading is one game with a name for an unnamed game that has much more meaning. the argument for tradition in bowl games went out the window when I had to watch the OS/2 Fiesta Bowl. 

"These are student athletes, and a playoff would extend make them play too many games." I honestly don't know how to respond to that one other than to call it a complete lie. The playoff system I described requires an 11-game season (one less than the current season) followed by a conference championship game and a four-round playoff. That is a maximum of 16 games. While a few schools would play more games, most would play the same number or possibly one less. In addition, the FCS currently has a four round playoff after teams play schedules of up to twelve games. So, if playing 16 games is too much for these student athletes, why isn't it too many for the ones in lower divisions? Is their academic progress less important?

"It won't make enough money." Go talk to the people in charge of the NCAA basketball tournament and see if the playoff system there is making them any money. Does anyone really believe that you can get a company to sponsor a bowl game between the 4th ranked team from the WAC and the 7th ranked team from the Big 10, but you won't get any money from playing a series of games featuring the top 16 teams in the country? The issue isn't about whether it will make money. The issue is that the people making the decisions are predominately from BCS conferences and they are afraid that a playoff means that more money will go to someone else, and they won't make a move until it is absolutely forced.

Like I said, this is hardly breaking new ground. It's just one fan's ideas, but I believe the ideas are sound. So, Mr. President-elect, if you are going to "throw your weight around a little bit" and get this done, and you need somebody who has thought about this a little too much, I'm your man. Of course, you could always go with someone who's actually qualified instead.

I Guess I Should Be Glad They Weren't Talking About Twilight

Recently, I was sitting in my office and, as is often the case, was being subjected to the loud conversations of other people in my lab. They were discussing Madagascar 2 and what was and was not better than the first movie. By far the strangest part of this was the intense discussion of who ended up with whom and why things should have ended differently. People had very strong feelings on which zoo animal should pair up with which other zoo animal. After hearing the conversation, I fully expect to see some sort of fanfic about this.

Some days, I really wish my office had a door instead of just a doorway.

Quickly...

Have I mentioned my adoration for Mental Floss here in the past? I don't think I have. It's both informative and fun. You never really know what you're going to learn from one day to the next. Take, for example, today's article about Thomas Crapper. In addition to being full of facts about pretty much anything, there are quizzes and a daily brain game. I highly recommend checking it out.

How Blizzard and World of Warcraft Ruined Everything1

No matter how you feel about World of Warcraft, there is no denying that it is now the ultimate power in the (gaming) universe. No, wait. Let's back up a bit first.

Waxing Nostalgic

I've been playing video games and role playing games for long time now. When I first got a Nintendo, I played Mario Bros. just like everyone else, but I never beat it. No, while everyone else was busy rescuing the princess from a hammer throwing dinosaur, I was busy helping Lord British or fulfilling the prophecy regarding the light warriors^2,3. It wasn't long before I was playing any RPG I could get my hands on. I played them on consoles and PCs; I played them when I should have been doing homework and when a young person with any social skills would have been doing...I don't know, something social. I spent time walking across the Clouds of Xeen and then across to the Darkside. (Pause for a year and a half to play Doom and Doom II.) This has continued on over the years and moved into more recent RPG series like Neverwinter Nights or KOTOR. While I have supposedly matured, my love for video games in general-and specifically the RPG-has continued. No matter what system a game was played on, no matter when it was played, my favorites have always been those which had a solid story and more freedom to make choices.

Logging On

Games like World of Warcraft are hardly the first roleplaying games to be played by multiple players using a network. By the early 1990's more and more people were connecting their computers to the internet, and bringing games with them. Most of us weren't connected to the internet proper, but rather to horrible (by current standards, at least) services like Prodigy⁴ and AOL or maybe to a local BBS. Nevertheless, there were online games even then. When I was in college in the mid-90's, I played a bit on various Multi-User Dungeons, or MUDs. I never got too into these games, however as they were not nearly as complex as free-standing RPG options and despite being entirely text-based, these were the 2400-9.6K (or 28.8 if you were lucky) modem days, so lag was still a problem. As online technology improved at an exponential rate, a crop of new games emerged that incorporated the same principles of multi-user dungeons but with impressive graphic interfaces, and the MMORPG as we know it was born. There have been several generations of MMORPGs now, but none have hit the mainstream jackpot like WoW. It's influence can been seen everywhere from other games to television to, potentially, the movie theater.

Changing Landscapes

So, what's the problem? Games are now online. This is a good thing, right? Yes and no. The allure of these games is easy to understand, but they are not without their faults.⁵

-One of the great strengths of the MMORPG is people, but the anonymity of being online does funny things to people (John Gabriel has a theory about this, but I'll let you look that one up on your own). Lack of knowledge in any facet of the game is likely to get you branded as a noob and excluded from the cool kid's club, as is disagreeing with another player or simply be around to take the blame when things go wrong. If you didn't enjoy being mocked for what you wore in elementary school, it's highly unlikely that you'll enjoy being mocked for what you wear (or wield) in a game. Even worse, I do make mistakes from time to time, and the last thing you ever want to do in one of these games is make a mistake where someone else can see it.

-Even when players aren't openly trashing other players, there is still the non-stop chatter. Sometimes it is harmless, though both irritating and ignorant. Other times, it is simply unbearable. (Playing a game with public chat on during election time is only slightly preferable to a knife to the eye.)

-Believe it or not, sometimes I like to do a quest on my own. It's great that quests and other parts of games are designed so that people can work cooperatively, but for many of us standing around asking for other people to join is not exactly the most enjoyable activity, so needing to find those other people can be frustrating.

-Time. Seriously, time. I'll spend a lot of time playing a game if I like it, but I do have other things to do like work or sleep. In most MMORPGs, I'm automatically playing catch-up if I didn't have a game on its release date and every minute I'm not grinding or farming is putting me further behind. Since having better gear and more experience allows you to get better gear and earn more experience, the differences only increase over time. Soon, those who play non-stop have tremendous advantages and there is little skill or decision making involved. They may be against the rules, but it's easy to see why people create and use bots in these games.⁶

-Story is another part of the game that really suffers. If people are going to come back to a game day after day, it's hard to create a storyline that continues to advance and be interesting for that long, so the main choices are to abandon any sort of real story for a little background and quest-related stories or to have a story that goes for a while, but may end months or years before a player stops playing. Neither of these are really ideal, but I don't think anyone has found a better way to solve this problem yet.

-And of course, it wouldn't be right to talk about these games without fees. Fees suck, there's no doubt about it. No one wants to pay for one more thing, especially not now. Even more than that, I don't need something charging me $15 a month and making me feel guilty if I don't use all of my leisure time to get my money's worth. I already have a Netflix membership for that.

The biggest problem that I personally have with these games is one that becomes evident when you look at the shelves of the gaming store. When a company considers making a new game, they can create a game and sell it to lots of people or they can sell it to lots of people and then charge them to play it. As much as I hate the idea, I can't really blame them for choosing the gift that keeps on giving. The problem is that the options for non-online gaming are disappearing. Everyone always copies the most popular games. Look at the number of life simulation style games that have come up after the success of The Sims, or the rapid proliferation of "play an instrument" games, and i have a feeling we're only at the beginning of that curve. It is to be fully expected that when a game is as successful as World of Warcraft, that others will want to follow, and that is without a doubt what it happening. I said in the title of the post that World of Warcraft is ruining everything, but in reality it is their success and the desire of other companies for that same success that is changing the landscape. There is no denying, however, that the traditional RPG as a computer game is dying. Search the stores, you know it to be true. There may be some series hanging on because they have been around forever and there may be new games, but more and more of them are disappearing or coming out with new MMO versions of their games (or they may evolve into Hack'n'Slash platforms which is definitely not the same). The genre will not go quickly, but it has already become a shadow of what it once was. Soon, there will be nothing left for the nostalgic RPG player to do but break out the 12-sided die and head on over to The Android's Dungeon, but for now I'm still raging against the dying of the light.

One final note: After much of this post was written, I found this article over at Wired, which doesn't say all the same things, but certainly says some of these things more succinctly.


¹ Ok, about the title. I was a little worried that, despite the fact that it was said facetiously, it might distract people from the main post. I had at one point decided to say they "changed" rather than "ruined" everything, but decided to go back to the original. Either people will detect the tongue-in-cheek tone of the title and read on or they won't.

²Timelines compressed for convenience and to fit childhood memories.

³ I was almost certainly playing computer role playing games prior to this. One could make an excellent argument that despite not fitting many of the rules (experience points, gaining levels, etc.) King's Quest was an early rpg. You played the role of Graham, were faced with near-infinite options and a long story with many side-quests. (Man, I loved that game.) Even if you consider that an adventure game, there were also the roguelike and text-based RPGs.

⁴Seriously, let's not even discuss how much time I spent on Prodigy discussing various epic fantasy series. Let's just say it was a lot and leave it at that. But if anyone out there used Prodigy in the early 90's and used to be involved in discussion groups for The Wheel of Time...Hi. Long time, no see.

⁵This is where I think it's important to be clear that I'm not pointing out WoW flaws, but genre flaws which may or may not be applicable to every game. WoW is simply the biggest game in a large genre. I do however think that the success and size of WoW is responsible for my final and primary complaint.

⁶Cheating, hacking, gold selling and several other things can and probably should be considered in a list of complaints about the genre, but this post has taken long enough to write and those could take forever.

The Heat Will Be On

I just found out that Fine Living Network is showing episodes of the original Iron Chef.  How did I not know this? I'd had the TiVo search for it before, but at the time all it found was Iron Chef America. Mock all you want (and I know you will), but I've missed this show: the music, Ohta, the absurd incredibly expensive secret ingredients, Fukui-san,  and my favorite Iron Chef, Chen. It's kind of silly, but just hearing that familiar whoosh sound they play when going to or coming back from commercial made me happy. I have a feeling the TiVo will soon be full of these episodes.

Life on Mars (the TV show, not the search for)

I never got to see the British version of the show Life on Mars, but I've watched a few episodes of the US remake. I'm not exactly committed, but I do enjoy it when I watch. I understand that this is a show with a mystery that they don't intend to fully explain for a while, but there are some things I don't get. We can be expected to believe that a guy was in 2008 and somehow was sent back in time to 1973, but do they really expect us to believe that when this cop was on his way to try to rescue his kidnapped girlfriend (in 2008, before being sent back), he was listening to David Bowie on his iPod?

Remember, Remember, The 4th of November

That sounds kind of familiar...almost like I've used it something like  364 365 days ago. (Edited to correct for leap year.) Oh well.

Just wanted to remind everyone that today is the 4th of November. As you know, today is a very important day, a day where you make a choice that has potential to change the future. You can choose hope and try to gain back what was stolen away from us several years ago, or you can choose to continue on in the same rut we've been in.

I'm speaking, of course, about the release of Bender's Game, the third of four Futurama movies. The show has been cancelled for several years, but the releases of the first two DVD movies have been extremely successful. If this success continues, 20th Century Fox may decide that there is still money to be made, and if there is still money to be made, then there is a possibility that the show may return again either in more movies or in a new season. When you purchase Bender's Game, you aren't just buying a movie; you're buying the future. 

Today, you get to choose: Hope of a better future for all animated television or just more of the same failed jokes of the current administration?

Obligatory disclaimer that states the obvious: I don't really need a disclaimer, right? We're all aware of the concept of satire, aren't we? Good.

Good News, Everyone

I saw this on the front page of Best Buy earlier today, and it struck me as mildly amusing.