Updated throughout the day with quick takes from staff.
On the occasion of Utah's stellar Sugar Bowl win over Alabama and the start of the NFL playoffs today, ye old B.C.S. debate has smoldered anew. Matt Hinton (no bludgeoner of the standard "give me playoffs or give me death!" talking points) notes the irony in the "success" of this particular bowl: it will get the BCS and its masters good ratings, but it really exposes the core problem with the so-called two-team playoff.
ESPN loves a good segue, and SportsCenter anchor Dari Nowkhah used the unfortunate circumstance of the 12-4 Colts opening the postseason at 8-8 San Diego to somehow argue playoffs are not inherently fair, and therefore no solution for college football. Of course, Nowkhah asserted all this in 10 seconds and followed the talking point with, "Hey, I'm just sayin'," which is a phrase that legally absolves you of using logic or sense in an argument. No foul, man. No foul.
Just in case someone offers this argument again today and doesn't excuse himself* from adult conversation with an "I'm just sayin'" cop-out, please note that this is the worst kind** of false equivalence possible. Utah, USC and potentially Texas will be disappointed to not be given opportunities to play for the title. In Utah's case, there is nothing more the team could have done -- the Utes won every single game it played. That is not in the same solar system as the venue of the Colts-Chargers game. The NFL equivalent would be for the Super Bowl to be set right now, between New York and Tennessee. If the NFL worked like the B.C.S., Indianapolis would currently have no shot at the Super Bowl. The Colts would be in Glendale playing the Cowboys and each team's season would be over Monday, win or lose. That's a bit different than the wild card weekend venue situation.
And while I apologize for the seemingly obvious rant, I note that it would not be necessary if folks in some of the most visible jobs in sports -- ESPN anchors -- would restrain from making completely illogical, borderline stupid arguments on my TV.
* Women are too smart to make such a ridiculous argument.
** By "worst kind" I mean "worst kind pertaining to something as wholly unimportant as sports."
This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.
3 comments
2
4:07p
3
May 15
44
May 11
3
May 11
14
May 10
8
May 9
Comments
"just sayin’" is only the second worst cop out.
"whatever" is by far the worst.
by psudrozz on Jan 3, 2009 1:48 PM EST reply actions
A single-elimination tournament in a complex game like football will be dominated by upsets. It will give us a final winner, but will never settle the question of who is actually the best. It will always be a "Beauty Pageant" with or without a single-elimination tournament. That is why the whole question of "National Champ" or "Number One" is a complete waste of time. I’m all for such a tournament just so that people like you who think it will actually prove something will stop fuming about it.
by Mental Wanderer on Jan 3, 2009 2:31 PM EST reply actions
Hey Mental Wanderer, I think you’re wandering. It’s the only sport IN THE WORLD!!!! without a playoff. Using the "logic" you just layed out, there is never a legitimate champion in ANY sport.
As long as they keep adding Joe’s Pizza Slice.com bowls, and allowing every 6 win team into the so-called "bowl season", the irrelevance of EVERY bowl game will continue to grow. As I have stated on here several times in the past, sometimes tradition NEEDS to be trampled on.
by J Bone A on Jan 5, 2009 2:54 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed