Let them play: End football's postseason ban

For more than 50 years, the Ivy League has banned its football teams from playing in the postseason.

There are two exceedingly frustrating aspects to this: one, many students fail to realize the ban exists; and two, because of the rule, Ivy football teams can't play in the postseason.

Things, however, might be changing. A few weeks ago, the USG followed the Ivy Council and passed a resolution insisting that President Tilghman and the other Ivy League presidents repeal the contentious ban. Since then, Harvard has done the same and Penn is soon expected to follow suit.

Now that the official student bodies have done their part, it is time for the students themselves to take a greater interest in the repealing of this nonsensical ban. The issue needs to be one that is not simply pushed aside by the administration.

Here's why: the ban makes no sense.

First, let's dispel any myths that there are objective justifications for it. The Patriot League, a conference with an emphasis on academics similar to our own, had the same ban in effect until 1997, and the following year Colgate became the first school to enter the I-AA playoff from that league. In every year since, the Patriot League has sent a team to the playoffs yet has seen no drop off in its teams' academic performance.

The argument that a playoff will interfere with exams is just plain inconsistent. Granted, if a team were to advance to the later rounds, teams at some Ivy schools — though not Princeton or Harvard, which both hold exams after break — would be away during exam period.

Even so, there are countless precedents of teams traveling during exam period in other Ivy sports. If teams were prohibited from competition whenever there was an academic conflict, I assure you, there would be no Ivy League athletics.

One of President Tilghman's worries is that a playoff system will inevitably lead to a need for physically bigger players.

"By competing only within the Ivy League in football, we have been able to avoid the escalation in intensity (and player size) that has swept the rest of the country," Tilghman said in an email.

This argument, however, fails to be supported by fact. Right now, with no need to qualify for the playoffs, Princeton's lineman are listed at six foot, four inches, 310 pounds; 6'4", 275 and 6'4", 265. In comparison, starting lineman from last years I-AA champions Appalachian State are 6-5, 300; 6-6 285; and 6-3, 295. Average height difference: less than an inch. Average weight difference: 10 pounds.

Further evidence that the team is just fine with its present size: the Tigers went 2-1 against non-conference opponents this year, all three of which are playoff eligible and have qualified in the past.

Quite simply, banning postseason play is a terribly roundabout way to keep the game within the image desired by the Ivy administrations. There are far easier ways for these presidents to have things their way. A direct approach would be actual regulation of player size, a ridiculous suggestion.

There is clearly no tangible basis for keeping the football team from the playoffs. But there is talk from decision makers about the tradition of Ivy League football; the special rivalry that exists; that the climax of the season happens every weekend of the schedule. Hardly.

Firstly, a climax, by definition, only happens once. So there is nothing climactic about the schedule to begin with.

There is of course a tradition — one manufactured by the eight presidents of the Ivy League — of banning postseason play. These administrators should be applauded for inventing such a clever ploy. But even this tradition has flaws.

Traditions that readily come to mind include putting up a Christmas tree, toasting shots and burning piles of wood after beating Harvard and Yale. The common element here: doing something extra. The ban, however, is a tradition of inaction. There is a name for something like this: a bad habit.

Incidentally, the players, coaches and athletic directors are overwhelmingly in favor of going to the playoffs. Their comments are too numerous to include in this column — just Google "Ivy League postseason ban." With the USG resolution, the students have taken a step toward showing that they want playoffs as well.

The reason why seems obvious to all but a few. Every other sport in the Ivy League and every other I-AA conference in the country let their teams go to the postseason.

This school should understand why better than most; Princeton probably receives more mainstream exposure in the three weeks during March Madness than the rest of the year combined. And that is for a victory — a playoff victory — now a decade old.

A more recent example? Just recall the women's soccer team's Final Four run last year. Some might remember that the commentators laced descriptions of slide tackles with those of seniors' theses. Princeton could not have paid for better coverage. The football team would surely make equally strong ambassadors.

And if fans think Princeton-Harvard is a good game, or if last year's Princeton-Yale contest was exciting, consider what the matchup would be if a playoff spot was on the line. It would be that much better at no expense to tradition.

The prospect of postseason play will do nothing but enhance the great rivalries that already exist because no longer will bragging rights be all that is on the line. The best rivalries in sports — Red Sox-Yankees; Ohio State- Michigan; Penn-Princeton — are the best precisely because of this.

And what about the alumni. I can think of no better way for an alumnus in some somewhere like Youngstown, Ohio who has lost touch with the University, to reconnect again than by the Tigers playing in his hometown against the I-AA Youngstown State Penguins in the tournament. It would give said alumnus the chance to wear that atrocious orange plaid suit in front of thousands of people who have no idea of the schools many other rich traditions.

The administrators who uphold this ban are also worried about the potential escalation of the game that would occur if playoff competition were allowed. The game, however, is already as intense as it can get. Players practice year round and, in the spring and summer, sometimes twice a day. There is not much room to go up. If adding three weeks to the season is too much to ask, then ban spring league. I'm sure the players would welcome the tradeoff.

More accurately, escalation of the game and playing in the postseason are wholly separate entities. Currently, moratorium rules limit the total number of days a team can practice while school is in session. The existence of such a regulation proves that it is easy to write a rule limiting the amount of practice time without mentioning anything about postseason play. Furthermore, the specific number of days agreed upon is arbitrary. If the administrators were afraid that things are getting out of hand, they can simply impose another equally arbitrary rule without affecting playoff competition in any way.

But maybe none of this is sinking in because it is not in the language understood by administrators. What analogy would they understand? How about this one: imagine if we only shared our academic research within the Ivy League. Inevitably, there would be major outcry from just about everywhere. That's because Princeton has superb talents and realizes everyone is better off when those talents are shared. The football team should be no different.

To me, this ban reeks of elitism. Are non-Ivy opponents not good enough for us? Maybe we practice a more enlightened version of football? If that is the case, then this ban might be our attempt to remain coddled inside the safe gates of the Ivory tower. I know, this sounds weak, but I have reached the ends of all reason for holding onto this ban. It is very ironic that a group that prides itself on being one of the most progressive bodies of thought in the world is so consumed with clenching its fists around this one illogical thread.

With the USG resolution passed, the onus is now on the administration to show it is responsive to its students' desires. A step in the right direction may be to send a ballot to all alumni and let them vote on the issue. The alumni are certainly familiar with the school's tradition; some might venture to say that none understand it better. So who better to decide if the administration has a legitimate point than past Princetonians.The football team must be allowed to play in the postseason. Start the debate that will get this ban overturned. The school needs it and the league needs it.

It is, after all, an alarmingly isolationist policy from a school that prides itself so dearly on being in the nation's service.