Friday, January 16, 2009

Wait, do you even *like* sports?

In a long article bemoaning the fact that the playoffs have been so unpredictable since the NFL realigned into 4 team divisions, Kerry J. Byrne from writes one of the dumbest statements to ever make it into print:
Quite frankly, the widely criticized BCS offers a better system than what the NFL has given us since 2002.

It's hard to fathom what kind of logic can make this statement possible. In what world are disputed national championships super awesome? I guess it's conceivable that there are people out there would rather, say, see the AFC and NFC championships and then vote on which victor they think is better to determine the Superbowl Champion... but I never thought they'd get to write an article for SI. Why would you want a playoffs where top seeds always win? Why are surprise teams like the Cardinals something we want to avoid?

It's a very strange argument, not least because the fact that the Cardinals BEAT THE BEST TEAMS to get where they are. If they had lost by 30 points in the first round, then OK, maybe it's not fair they got a spot for winning a terrible division while a better team stayed home... but they went out and proved they belong. Is it the NFL's fault that home teams choked? What more reward for performance should there be than playoff games in front of your fans and a week off? You want them to get spotted two touchdowns 'cuz they won an extra game or two against possibly inferior competition?

The system seems to be working pretty fine to me and I think most fans... the only people who are up in arms seem to be gamblers. Not to say that changes couldn't be made to seedings and who makes it or not, but it doesn't appear to me that there is a good case for doing something drastic.

No comments:

Post a Comment