[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 22:13:36 02/20/17 Mon
Let me say as many positive things about the tournament as possible:
(1) If we're going to have a tournament at all, a four-team tournament is far preferable to an eight-team tournament. Restricting the field to four teams at least makes the "Who will win the fourth spot?" discussion a fun bit of speculation and a meaningful competition, whereas an eight-team field would render the regular season even less meaningful.
(2) Since having the tournament at all is motivated in part by the desire to have "fun," holding the men's and women's tournaments in the same locale and at the same time increases the fun. But this precludes rewarding the #1 seed with home court advantage, except by coincidence, and that's too bad.
(3) One nice thing about the invention of Facebook is getting periodic, though irregular, invitations to be friends from the smoking hot girls in high school, cheerleaders and majorettes, who at the time would not deign to expand their circle of friends beyond the starting backfield of the football team. I just received one tonight and I'm already standing a little taller and a little prouder. Also caught a little wood, too.
(4) I don't define the winner of the 14-game tournament as "best;" I define them as most deserving. Your point, mrjames, is that random variance affects both a 14-game sequence as well as a 2-game sequence, neither of whom are absolutely, positively guaranteed to identify the pure "best" team. **ALL** of sports is not about identifying the "best" team; it's about identifying the most deserving. If the Atlanta Falcons had kicked the 40-yard field goal with two minutes left in the Super Bowl, they still would not have been the best team in the NFL, just the most deserving. As it turned out, they ended up neither.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]