Ric Flair says: “To be the man, you’ve got to beat the man.”
My colleague Jmac views last night’s Super Bowl as a good argument against a college football playoff. I don’t agree with him, but I must admit it’s a nice piece of quick abstract thinking to make the connection. He writes:
Granted, the Giants played a great game against the Patriots, but are we really to believe that New York is the best team in pro football? Or a Patriots team which broke every record in NFL history which happened to play its worst game out of 20 this season (and beat the Giants just a month ago)?
[examples of other teams that didn't prove anything by winning in the postseason]
And the Giants aren’t the best team in football this season … the Patriots are.
Rooting for the underdog may be fun, but when they win all it does is cheapen the whole season.
(The snarky Tennessee fan in me wants to bring up that Georgia seems to win more hypothetical championships than any other college football team.)
It’s the nature of a contest that the team perceived to be the best entering the game doesn’t always win. There would be no reason to play the games if the favorite always won.
Yesterday the Giants beat the best team in the league when it counted the most. That makes them the best team in the league.
The real argument against a playoff comes from some of the lousy Super Bowls we’ve had to endure in the past. On paper, it looked like this one might turn out the same. If you want to use this game to argue against a playoff, describe it as the exception that proves the rule; a game that ended up being worth watching in spite of itself.
Quick two cents about Bill Bellicheck: walking off the field before the game was over was a no-class move.
I actually thought it was an argument FOR a playoff system - ya know, the Giants didn’t win their division. Heh.
I heart Radical Georgia Moderate! You bring up Georgia on this blog more often than many Georiga fans do on theirs.