Posted by Dr Fro 10:07 PM

I wonder if any Dallas Cowboy fans are making the argument tonight that a single-elimination playoff is the best way to crown a champion? You beat the Giants 2 of 3 times, but they are still in the playoffs, and you are not. To boot, they play Green Bay, another team a) you had a better season than and b) you beat.

Anybody (outside of NY) think this is a good way to crown a champion?

4 Comment(s):

Posted by  Anonymous, at 7:29 PM, January 14, 2008  

While I commiserate with you (I've been a Cowboys fan since '77), you can't fault GB and the NYG for performing when it counts.

We all know regular season stats and info don't count for anything in the playoffs. What matters is that the newsmakers and playmakers perform when it matters.

This is the second year in a row Romo hasn't performed when his team need him to. And taking a vacation on the bye weekend is just stupid, to boot. There was unfinished business, but he and the teammates that went with him told us loud and clear that the playoffs aren't important enough to them.

They got their big paychecks for their work in the regular season, so winning the trophy isn't as important to them.

Is it any wonder why Parcells left? I don't think this team has the heart, drive, or even desire to win the trophy, and Parcells probably realized that.

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Dr Fro, at 10:52 AM, January 15, 2008  

While I agree on your tangential points, the post was about whether or not a single-elimination playoff is the best method of determining a champion. On that, you replied "you can't fault GB and the NYG for performing when it counts"

Yours is, of course, a circular argument, because having a playoff necessarily means that the playoff is "when it counts". OTOH, not having a playoff means that the regular season is largely "when it counts"

So while I agree that the crown should go to the team that perfoms when it counts, the question is, "when should it count?"

Should it count over the course of largely over 16 games or over a small handful after those games?

ps, I am most definitely not a Cowboys fan, I just chose them to make a point.

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Anonymous, at 10:06 AM, January 17, 2008  

When the team wins, the system is great. One down, 2-3 games to go to win the trophy.

When you lose, especially after losing to a team you already beat twice in the regular season, then yes, one could blame the format. But the "weakness" of the format is also its strength - you have one game each week to prove you deserve to go on to the next round. No excuses - get it done, or go home.

Overall it works. Unlike college football, people tend to praise the winner/blame the loser. But almost nobody blames the format.

__________________________________________________

Posted by  Dr Fro, at 10:19 AM, January 18, 2008  

"But almost nobody blames the format"

I am not sure if populous appeal justifies anything. In my experience, most people are stupid, so if anything, populous appeal increases my skepticism.

I think people like the format because they find it exciting, which it is. I agree. But exciting is not synonymous with fair.

__________________________________________________

Post a Comment