I still plan on writing about the new NCAA playoff format and how it's going to cause more problems than it creates.
For now, I will mention it among six other sports arguments that I consider to be among the stupidest. This will likely have a slight Chicago lean, as I have listened to many an argument about sports from friends and strangers alike.
Here's the list of arguments that I consider to be among the most pointless.
7. Tebow - There's no way to have a reasonable debate on Tim Tebow. He's such a polarizing sports figure that you may as well discuss your stance on abortion, gun rights and gay marriage and be more productive in talking. His critics (such as myself and anyone who likes their quarterbacks to be accurate and good) will never convince his fans (who love what he stands for and his ability to win close games) that he sucks, and his fans will never convince his critics that he is the greatest quarterback of all time. I'm convinced that ranking systems like NFL Networks Top 100 players (ranked him 95th best player in the league) and NFL Films (ranking him the 7th best Heisman winner in NFL history - a ranking that was to measure the career accomplishments of Heisman winners) were just to grab attention and ratings. Anyone who thinks Tebow has accomplished more in his short career (one in which he hasn't started a complete season) than Earl Campbell (8th) and Marcus Allen (9th) is smoking the kind of crack I'd like to smoke if I was into that sort of thing.
6. Comparing Michael Jordan to anyone - There are way too many times people want to compare the best players of the day to MJ. I discussed this in a blog almost two months ago with Kobe and how he and Lebron are often brought up by people who want to discuss today's players with the best of all time. No reasonable person would argue that these guys are better than MJ. Many times, this argument, at least from my observations, is usually addressed by the folks who are so hard for MJ that they can't wait to bring his name up anytime Kobe or LeBron does something good. "Kobe's good, but he's no MJ" or pictures of MJ flaunting his rings asking LeBron about his rings are just a few of the examples that pop up when people want to remind the world that MJ is the best. I don't think we need these comments/pictures posted on FB all the time to know that MJ is better than both of them. Let it go.
5. Old champs vs. new champs - Media and public folks do this a lot. How would (current champ) do against (some old great team), with most of the folks who are on the elderly side of the debate usually arguing for the latter. The most recent example of this was Kobe being asked if he thought this current collection of Olympians could beat the Dream Team in a game, with Kobe answering affirmatively. Did everyone expect Kobe to say, "No, you know what, I think we'd get killed." It's not in Kobe's DNA to admit that he can't do something, even if his heart of hearts believed that his current squad would have no chance. In one game, sure, this collection of guys may be able to win, but the Dream Team, whose player composition included all but one Hall of Famer, would likely win most matchups. But you know what? You can't possibly know what would happen because it can never happen. Therefore, these type of arguments are deemed pointless in my eyes.
4. Best running back ever - I've heard this many times argued among friends and on TV alike. There's only a few names that I would even consider being reasonable to discuss in the equation - including Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, OJ Simpson, Earl Campbell, and of course Walter Payton. Living in Chicago, the most common debate I heard was Payton being the best, with a few of my Dallas friends arguing Emmitt's case. It may not be the worst argument in sports, but with the way I've heard it argued, it usually turns into an ugly conversation. Perhaps that's more of a reflection of my friends arguing it than the argument itself. Since I am not old enough to have seen (or remember) many of these guys play, I can only go by statistics to say who was the best. And I don't think that's fair to the debate. I've always contended that Jim Brown was the best ever. Take a look at his stats and accomplishments if you get the chance to understand why I would think this. I'd rather not get into this argument, so I'm going to stop now.
3. BCS - For most of its existence, people have denounced the BCS as a crappy way to crown a college champion. The truth is - there is no perfect way to do this. Since there are many conferences and there's no way that teams can play completely balanced schedules, there will always have to be a human element involved with deciding who should be considered for the right to be champion (or at least play for the championship). The system that preceded the BCS was straight up voting, with many seasons in NCAA history ending without the two best regular season teams facing each other based on how the Bowl system would place teams into specific Bowls. Instead, the winner was voted on in polls before the BCS. At least with the BCS, you have almost always had two of the top 2-4 teams in the nation playing for the national championship. This new 4-team playoff is going to cause more problems than it will solve and will likely become one of its own top 2-3 dumb sports arguments out there. Whenever a selection process is used to decide who will make a playoff (as this playoff will be), you will hear about at least 2-3 teams a year (if not more) who got screwed out of a chance to play.
2. NCAA Tourney snubs - Speaking of NCAA and selection committees, one of the dumbest arguments I hear on a yearly basis is the teams who were left out of the NCAA March Madness tourney. Every year, a big part of ESPN and CBS broadcasts on Selection Sunday is devoted to the teams who barely squeaked in and the teams who just missed the tourney. Cases are made for each team who didn't make it (teams who are roughly 18-12 and lost in the second round of their conference tourney) as if they were leaving out the best team in the nation. It's gotten so bad with the tourney that they've even expanded the tourney several times in our lifetimes and people still complain about the last team who didn't make it. If you can't convince people that you are not one of the best teams in the nation when you have an 18-12 record and you don't win an automatic bid, you can't complain when you leave your team's postseason fate in the hands of a committee. The screams for the last team in are bad with the NCAA tourney - imagine how bad it will be when football gets around to their 4-team playoff.
1. All Star snubs - And the grand champion for stupid debates for me is All Star snubs. And this is by far the stupidest for me. While baseball is fresh in my mind, this also applies for the other sports who host an annual All-Star game. However, the bickering over baseball All Stars is probably the loudest (and definitely the most annoying). Even with expanding rosters, you could always find an idiot who says "My guy should have made it". Yeah, he could/should have, but who cares? In some ways, I'd rather have my guy rest for 3-4 days than go to a glorified exhibition game that most fans (at least the ones I know) don't care who wins. Even with the White Sox making a run towards the postseason, I have given little thought to the fact that they would be travelling for Game 1 of the World Series if they were lucky enough to make it that far because a collection of AL players lost 8-0 the other day. The new rule of adding a World Series stipulation to the game inspired the slogan "This Time, It Counts" from Fox for the longest time, inspiring even more annoying banter among people who say their guy should have made it and been able to help their league out in what should be a meaningless All-Star game. The emotion that is wasted when one gets sad or angry about their guy being left off a roster should instead be used to cheer that player on after the All-Star break ends. At the end of the day, the All Star game is an exhibition, whether the MLB's WS stipulation tells you or not.
