With the official start of my 3L year two days away, and the start of my third college-football season as an “Irish Trojan” two weeks away, it’s time to ponder a dilemma more than two years in the making, a question I’ve pondered since I first enrolled at Notre Dame, a quandry thrown into sharp relief as the 2006 college-football landscape has taken shape…
If Notre Dame were to play USC with a national title-game berth on the line for the Irish, and nothing at all on the line for the Trojans, would I still root for USC?
The Trojans are, of course, my favorite team, being that USC is my undergrad alma mater and all. The Fighting Irish are, I always say, my second-favorite team. As I told the Washington Post: “I root for USC always. I root for Notre Dame when they’re not playing USC.” But could there be an exception to that rule?
Imagine, if you will, the following scenario. As November 25 dawns, Notre Dame is undefeated and ranked #1 in the country. Texas is also undefeated and ranked #2. Ohio State has one loss — to Texas — and is ranked #3. Nebraska, the surprise of the season since stunning USC on Sept. 16, has one loss as well — also to Texas — and is ranked #4. Ohio State’s season is done; Texas and Nebraska are done except for a rematch in Big 12 championship game on Dec. 2.
USC, meanwhile, is 8-2. The Trojans stunningly dropped their first two games, to Arkansas and Nebraska, but have rattled off eight straight wins since then, and have already clinched the Pac-10 championship. They’re undefeated with one conference game to go — against UCLA on Dec. 2 — and the Bruins already have at least two losses in conference, so the Trojans are headed to the Rose Bowl no matter what.
That sets up the following situation: the USC-Notre Dame game will have absolutely no impact on the Trojans’ postseason fate. (There is no possible way for the Trojans to earn a berth in the national title game; Ohio State and the Texas-Nebraska winner are clearly going to finish ahead of them. There is also no possible way for the Trojans to drop out of, or shift around within, the BCS picture; they’ve already clinched a Rose Bowl berth.) To the extent that a USC-ND game can ever be meaningless, it is meaningless for these hypothetical 9-2 Trojans. For Notre Dame, on the other hand, this is the single most important game in the last 18 years. It means the difference between a spot in the national championship game and a consolation berth in some other BCS bowl. Win and they’re in, for the first time since ‘88; lose and the season comes to a crushing, disappointing end.
So, who do I root for? My favorite team, which doesn’t “need” the win at all, or my second-favorite team, which “needs” it desperately?
When I started school at Notre Dame, a scenario like this seemed like an awfully distant possibility. The Trojans were starting Year 3 of their historic dynasty (counting Carson Palmer’s senior year, when the Trojans finished 10-2, as Year 1), while the Irish were mired in the muck of the Willingham era. No way would Notre Dame be the one coming in with national-championship aspirations to any USC-ND matchup in the foreseeable future. Still, the thought did cross my mind, and several of my classmates asked me about it. Would I root for Notre Dame in such a situation? Back then, my answer was a reluctant yes. I love my Trojans, but in a situation like that, I figured I’d be pragmatic and root for the Irish.
Now, before someone screams “bandwagon,” let me clear about this. I’m not suggesting that I’d consider rooting for Notre Dame in such a scenario because the Irish are better. If Notre Dame was 8-3 and USC was 2-8, there’s no question I’d root for the Trojans. It’s not about who comes into the game with a better record — it’s about who has something (indeed, everything) to gain, and who has absolutely nothing to gain. Just as David rooted for his second-favorite team, USC, over his favorite team, Washington, last year — because the Huskies’ season was a lost cause anyway and a win would gain them nothing, whereas USC needed the win to continue their title run — so too I figured I would root for the Irish over the Trojans is such a situation.
But, note the past tense. I “figured” I would root for Notre Dame. My, how things have changed in the last two years.
Somewhat paradoxically, being a Notre Dame student has caused me to both a) grow to love the Irish, and b) grow to hate the Irish, vis a vis USC games. :) Well, no, not “hate” — but “intensely root against,” to be sure. I care much, much more about the USC-ND rivalry now than I did two years ago.
When I was at USC, I considered UCLA to be the Trojans’ main rival. Frankly, I never paid much attention to the rivalry with the Irish. I suppose that’s partly because it was more fun to pay attention to the UCLA rivalry, given that USC lost to Notre Dame my first three years, whereas my freshman year marked the end of a nearly decade-long run of Bruin dominance and the beginning of a Trojan streak that continues to this day. It’s also largely because of scheduling: I never actually went to a USC-ND game during my time at ‘SC, because they were always either over Thanksgiving (and thus I was out of town) or in South Bend.
But being a Trojan at Notre Dame has caused me to become intensely involved, really personally invested, in the rivalry between the two teams. I mean, for heaven’s sake, the rivalry has become an aspect of my identity. Around the law school and campus, I’m the USC guy, the one who routinely wears cardinal-and-gold shirts and gets sh*t from his friends about the Trojans. And on the Internet, of course, I’m the “Irish Trojan.” So it’s a vast understatement to note that I now care about the USC-ND rivalry. It’s the biggest game of the year for me, bar none. That was cemented last year with the incredible October 15 game, which I am fairly certain will never be surpassed as the greatest single sports-related experience of my life. If I wasn’t totally caught up in the Irish vs. Trojans whirlwind before that game, I certainly was by the time it was over. And of course, since I’m a Trojan fan first and foremost, being caught up in the whirlwind means rooting like hell for USC.
There’s also the matter of the anti-USC and, well, anti-me and anti-Becky nonsense that I’ve had to endure from some of Notre Dame’s less savory fans, on this and other blogs and, especially, on ND Nation, in the wake of that October 15 game. I’m not talking about good-natured ribbing, I’m talking about mean-spirited attacks, all stemming from our presence in the student section at that game, which some Irish fans found totally intolerable (notwithstanding the minor detail that I’m a Notre Dame student). Don’t get me wrong: the vast majority of ND fans (present company included) are great — indeed, I think it’s one of the most wonderful, good-natured, classy fan bases in the country — and we were treated exceptionally well by Irish fans in the student section at that game. And I don’t mean to whine; I realize that, by putting myself out there on the Internet, I give idiots lots of openings to say idiotic things. I can take the heat. But still, nothing will get you psyched for a battle like having to deal with mean-spirited crap from a small group of morons on the other side. That applies to politics, and it applies here as well. How could I possibly root for Notre Dame over USC, under any circumstances, when I know it would give those pricks at ND Nation the satisfaction of beating me? Not to mention, vindicating their “Bush Push” nonsense and so forth?
The bottom line is that, for a variety of reasons, I now care more about USC beating Notre Dame than I do about pretty much any other game. It would be an exaggeration to say that I’d rather see the Trojans finish 1-11, with a win over the Irish, than see them go 11-1, with a loss to the Irish — but it’s not that far off. After the loss to Texas last year, I wasn’t as utterly devastated as many USC fans were, in part because I figured “we had to lose eventually,” and I’d rather the loss come at the hands of an equal, like Texas, rather than a rival playing out of their minds, like Notre Dame last October. The Irish are my second-favorite team overall, but they’re my least favorite team to see USC lose to (with the possible exception of UCLA).
Which brings me, in a very long-winded and convoluted fashion, back to my question. If Notre Dame played USC with a national title-game berth on the line for the Irish, and nothing at all on the line for the Trojans, would I still root for USC? Once upon a time, I would have said the answer is no. But now, the answer is clearly yes. I’m simply way too invested in the rivalry to ever favor the Irish over the Trojans.
That makes me a little sad, in a way, because it’s hard to really be a Notre Dame fan this year — given the sky-high expectations coming into the season — knowing that, when push comes to shove, I’m going to end up rooting against the Irish in the biggest game of the year. Last year, the USC game was at mid-season, so I could still root for the Irish in the home stretch — plus, nobody was expecting them to contend for a national title anyway, so it was perfectly plausible to root for them to have a successful season but lose to the Trojans. And the year before that, the team was so bad that the USC game was really more of a footnote. In both cases, being an Irish fan who was going to root against the Irish in the USC game didn’t feel like that much of a contradiction. But this year, pretty much the entire freakin’ season is built up in anticipation of that November 25 game. So it feels a little… subversive, almost… to root for ND to keep winning and winning up until that point, only to then lose at the bitter end. But, oh well. Such is the life of an Irish Trojan. :)
The rivalry, it should be noted, is what sets this hypothetical dilemma apart from the quandry David faced last year, re: the Huskies vs. the Trojans. Because while that USC-UW game was truly meaningless for the Huskies, at the end of the day there is no such thing as a meaningless USC-ND game. It doesn’t matter how good or bad the teams are; the game has a great deal of intrinsic meaning, even moreso in the wake of last year’s classic. If I were a “Trojan Husky” (like David but in reverse) or a “Cardinal Trojan” or a “Trojan Duck” or whatever, the calculus would be different, and I might well root against USC in the sort of scenario posed here. But rooting for a Trojan loss to their archrival, even though that archrival happens to be my second-favorite team, is just totally beyond the pale at this point. I simply couldn’t do it.
This is what I call the Brendan Loy Nightmare Scenario. Rooting for the Trojans to ruin the Irish’s season, without really gaining anything for themselves, would not be nearly as much fun as watching a game where both teams have everything to play for. The Brendan Loy Dream Scenario would be a matchup of unbeatens, #1 vs. #2, with a title-game berth on the line. I’m fairly certain the entire world of sports would spontaneously grind to a screeching halt if such a matchup were to occur, due to the overwheming, possibly unprecedented levels of hype. I doubt it will happen; my off-handed guess is that the teams will arrive at the Coliseum on November 25 with one loss apiece, Notre Dame’s to a school from Michigan and USC’s to a school from Arizona. But man, it’d be freakin’ awesome if they were both unbeaten. Holy crap.
Anyway, to clarify any confusion created by the title of this post, let me just say: GOOOOOOO TROJANS, BEEEEEEEAT IRISH!!!!! :)
But more immediately: Fight on, Trojans! Beat the Razorbacks! And Goooooo Irish, Beeeeeat Jackets!
August 19th, 2006 at 2:49:51 am
This should be an entertaing year for this game.
I look forward to the chaos between the two programs in the country with the most national titles. (ND being #1, and USC being one behind at #2.) Very cool that the two teams with the most national titles also happen to be intense rivals and play each other yearly. It’d be sort of like JoePa and Bowden playing each year - the two winningest coaches in big time college football. And you thought the bowl game was intense! The only way it could get more intense is if JoePa and Bowden met once more upon the field of battle . . . with JoePa having a great few years (man, will either of them ever retire? Or even die for that mater? I wonder if those two are really immortal - they just haven’t bothered to tell the rest of us yet - JoePa went hiking up Mount Nittany, for pete’s sake!), and tying the record up - and both Florida State and Penn State going to a bowl together - and having them play for the lead! Now THAT would be a game, and one that is unlikely to happen. If it were to happen, though, then both should retire after that game. You just can’t beat that, and it would be a great ending: “The winner of this game gets the record, the loser forever gets second place.” That’d draw more viewers than the BCS game.
Dude, if it WERE the BCS game, it would make it even more perfect - but it is unlikely. After all, JoePa has to gain on Bowden, which he can’t do if they both go unbeaten. ;) Still, its a fun scenario to play with.
August 19th, 2006 at 9:33:27 am
That is a very interesting scenario you put out there. Not having gone back to grad school yet, I tried to put myself into your position by thinking about one of my two second choice teams…my parents’ Texas or my fiance’s Georgia. If ND were to play either team at the end of the season, no matter what the implications, no matter if it propelled either UT or UGA into a national championship position, I would still cheer for ND. Therefore, I can totally respect your stance on the season-ending game this year (but still hope that the Irish come in undefeated and leave after that game the same way :-) )…
That being said, I think the only difference in your scenario versus my fictious scenario is the magnitude of the rivalry between ND/USC and the lack thereof of an ND/UT or ND/UGA rivalry. However, if these rivalries did also exist, I think I would still feel the exact same way that you do.
August 19th, 2006 at 11:39:54 am
I see only one problem with your scenario. There is no way that Texas is goign to go undefeated this year. They were good last year, but we all saw that the only reason they went undefeated was Vince Young and now they have NO expereince at quarterback. Oh they will do well, probably even win their conference, but not undefeated. The fact that they play #1 Ohio State in the second game of the season makes me think it will be a 1 loss season atleast pretty early on :)
August 19th, 2006 at 11:46:39 am
David, don’t hate.
August 19th, 2006 at 12:59:08 pm
Dude, it would be much easier to root for ND if they weren’t a bunch of pussies. ;)
August 19th, 2006 at 1:15:31 pm
If I won the lottery, I would buy a gaudy shirt from every opposing school ND plays at home just to be able to wear it in the student section and laugh sinisterly while recalling the glory of watching tens of thousands of hearts break around me when Leinart tromped into the endzone like a six-year-old girl running through a field of spring daisies…or maybe pansies would be more appropriate. Mwahahahaha.
Honestly, I feel like it’s impossible to cheer for Notre Dame as a USC fan. I just can’t bring myself to do it. So I cheer for individual great efforts and a general love of the game. I mean, I can overlook the fact that Brady Quinn is throwing the pass if it’s just a freakin awesome pass. And since I generally don’t give a flying fart about these stupid midwestern schools, I could not care less about cheering for Notre Dame against bumblefuck state or Michigan. ;)
Now, unlike Brendan, I have no dilemma about who to cheer for when ND and USC go head to head. I do, however, ponder if I should cheer for UCLA or Notre Dame. After all, they are both huge rivals. Would I rather see the Bruins or the Irish humiliated? That’s a tough question! And it’s also like Christmas has come early with that game because SOMEONE has to LOSE!!! If only they could both lose. How beautiful would that be?
God, I love football!
And in a misanthropic, sadistic way, I think I will cheer for ND until Thanksgiving. It will be so much sweeter to watch them lose to USC if they’re undefeated.
August 19th, 2006 at 2:24:46 pm
Just as I predicted Isreal already
violating the peace in Lebanon.Just
a trap!!!!More raids to come
August 19th, 2006 at 3:05:56 pm
David, it doesn’t matter whether the team in my scenario is Texas or someone else. The only thing that matters is that there are at least two teams who are guaranteed to finish ahead of the Trojans in the BCS regardless of what happens in the last two weeks of the season.
August 19th, 2006 at 4:09:53 pm
Not hating Vince, just sayin taht without you as their star player they are going to have an adjustment period. :)s
August 19th, 2006 at 4:11:54 pm
Would I rather see the Bruins or the Irish humiliated?
I too am torn, my Pac-10 loyalties lean towards the hated fUCLA bruins, but as a good Catholic i should root for Notre Dame. Likely i woudl cheer for Notre Dame during the regular season and for UCLA if it were a bowl game. Unless UCLA winning somehow benefited the Trojans or Huskies (knocking ND out of a BCS spot in favor of them, or improving their rankings standings etc).
August 19th, 2006 at 7:43:04 pm
You’ve done a nice job in the past week of coming to realize that taking a principled position is necessary in most, if not all, aspects of a life well-lived.
First, you figured out the utter vacuity of the Democrat Party leadership (which is to say the PARTY ITSELF), and now you realize one can never truly affiliate with more than one tribe.
This latest post is wonderfully analogous of those who claim to be “moderate” politically. Given that the power in this country is essentially bifurcated, one either supports the GOP, or one supports the Dems, in any vote one makes.
The bottom line in the coming election is that if the Chocola’s of the world are thrown out, the Pelosi’s and Reid’s will dictate a retreatist policy in the face of the Islamic menace. The judiciary committees will be run by those who prefer outcome-based law (see the latest NSA decision).
There is deep meaning behind every indecision. Your football loyalty indecision piece is a fun, yet instructive, essay.
Go Irish!
August 19th, 2006 at 9:22:15 pm
The fUTLA vs. Domer scenario is a no-brainer: You root for the fellow Pac-10 conference team. Beating Charlie Weis would be less satisfying if he wasn’t such an arrogant prick.
August 20th, 2006 at 7:05:26 pm
sounds to me like you’re really a Trojan and the Irish part is just an after thought….. otherwise how could you root against the Irish in the biggest game of the year….regardless of who it’s against.
August 20th, 2006 at 7:31:17 pm
Anonymous, what a dumb comment. You aren’t grappling with the issue of having dual loyalties at all. Think about what you’re saying: “otherwise how could you root against the Irish in the biggest game of the year….regardless of who it’s against.” Well, let’s take that in reverse, shall we? I’m a USC alumnus — how could I root against the Trojans in the biggest game of the year….regardless of who it’s against?
Under your narrow view of sports loyalties, it is only possible to have one loyalty, and everything else is “just an after thought.” After all, it will always be the case that, if you have a #1 favorite team, then you will end up with a dilemma if your #2 or #3 favorite team plays your #1 favorite team in the “biggest game of the year.” According to you, this means it is impossible to be a fan of the #2 or #3 team at all, simply because of this dilemma or the possibility that it might arise.
What about my friend Alex at the ND law school who attended Ohio State for undergrad? He’s a loyal and enthusiastic Irish fan, but last year he was faced with the unexpected prospect of rooting against ND in “the biggest game of the year” because they were playing his undergrad alma mater. Does that mean his loyalty to Notre Dame is, and always has been, “just an after thought”? Or could it simply be that Notre Dame is his second-favorite team, and he will always root for them except when they play his favorite team, whether that happens to be in “the biggest game of the year” or not?
(Incidentally, just in case you weren’t aware: I’m the same boat as Alex. I attended USC for undergrad, and I now attend Notre Dame for law school. If you can’t understand how that could result in me having dual loyalties, well, I’m afraid I can’t help you.)
Ed, your comment, unlike Anonymous, isn’t stupid, because it actually grapples with the issue instead of basically dismissing it out of hand. However, I still think you’re entirely wrong. You say I now “realize one can never truly affiliate with more than one tribe.” I don’t believe that’s true at all. In terms of college football, I have a primary tribe and a secondary tribe. I have always been clear about the order of those tribes in my allegiances — #1 USC, #2 ND — and this post doesn’t change that. It simply brings into sharp relief the sometimes difficult reality of having dual loyalties. But that doesn’t translate to the conclusion that dual loyalties are impossible, as you apparently believe. It simply translates into the conclusion that ultimately, you have to have a primary loyalty and a secondary one, at least if the teams play each other. And that’s nothing new.
I also disagree with your conclusion about politics. You say “one either supports the GOP, or one supports the Dems, in any vote one makes.” That assumes that the “essentially bifurcated” nature of modern politics is inevitably permanent, and moreover, that the two parties who currently occupy the two sides of the bifurcation are inevitably permanent occupants of those positions. History proves this is false; although our political system has always had two dominant parties, which is virtually inevitable unless we change the structure of the system, the identities of those parties have changed several times in our nation’s history, and there is no reason to believe they can’t change again — unless everyone adopts your approach, in which case there will certainly be no change along those lines. In other words, yours is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Also, consider: Perot supporters in 1992 did more than just affect the balance of power between the Dems and GOP (though they certainly did that too). They also caused the two major political parties to substantially alter their stances, such that much of the Perot platform was ultimately adopted during the Clinton years! That is a result of Perot votes which is neither supportive of the GOP or the Dems. The same thing can happen again, even if a third party doesn’t ultimately ascend to replace the Dems or the GOP.
In addition, protest votes (or principled refusals to vote) can shape politics by forcing the parties to shift their policies in such a way as to get those supporters back to the polls. In other words, if a Republican votes for a Libertarian candidate, or a Democrat votes for a Green candidate, they aren’t merely “supporting” the opposite party by doing so. They are also potentially forcing their own party to become more responsive to their concerns in the future — making them earn their vote. Your approach results in a system where the two parties have no incentive to earn the votes of people who somewhat prefer them over the other party. According to you, if I think the GOP is slightly better than the Democrats, I should vote for the GOP every time, even if I don’t really find them acceptable either, because after all, the only thing my vote can possibly do is help either the GOP or the Democrats. But that’s simply not true. If I find both parties unacceptable, I can cast a protest vote, which may “help” one party or the other in the short term, but in the long term can force one or both parties to be more responsive to my needs in order to earn my vote!