Monday, December 08, 2003

Nout much to say about it. It seems like USC ought ot be in the title game, and that Oklahoma gave up its chance, but what do I know?

I have a larger point -- why does there have to be a "National Championship Game" anyway? And why can't college foot ball games end in ties? Why do they need this carnival-like overtime to settle things?

I guess I don't understand why USC, if it beats Michigan, can't just celebrate a great one-loss season with a conference championship. Why the emphasis on being #1, on being better than every other team in the country? Yes, I know every game is about being better than the other team on that day, and that's fine. But why doe we need to crown a "national champion" in college football?

Some suggest adding a playoff, which would do to the concept of "student-athlete" what same sex marriage would do to marriage being a lifelong, faithfil commitment for the transmission of life.

And does a playoff game really settle things? I love a good playoff game. But raise your hand if you really think the Florida Marlins were the best baseball team last year. Syracuse the best basketball team? Anaheim the second best hockey team? They got hot at the right time, and rode a hot player to the title. Nothing wrong with that, but don't tell me it settles the question of who the best team is.
Post a Comment