Thursday, December 30, 2004
Feed The Talking Heads
So, in the past few years, "talking head" sport shows have gotten out of the control. There's "Pardon The Interruption" with Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon from the Washington Post, which kind of paved the way. This show is actually entertaining and sometimes insightful. But there now are all these little spin-offs and stolen bits, such as "The Hot Seat" and "Fact or Fiction" and "You're Wrong, Dumbass!" Often, these shows offer very little insight into the sport itself (as opposed to listening to Peter Gammons talk for two minutes, or interviewing Peyton Manning about his technique), but are full of bluster and shouting, without any real content.
One of the reasons these shows lack substance is because they thrive on controversy. When there is controversy, everyone's talking about it, so they beat it into the ground, a la the Pistons-Pacers brawl. When there's no controversy, they have to make up something to argue about, as if the sports they're discussing aren't compelling enough to stand on their own. So there's this never-ending machine of programming that needs content. The latest bit of idiocy (which is being propagated beyond TV and into every sports opinion writer's column) is how horrible the NFC is in football, and how a sub-.500 team might make the playoffs, and how this would be a disaster of unfathomable consequence.
Let me explain a bit, if you're unfamiliar with how the NFL playoffs work. The 32 teams are split into two conferences: the AFC and the NFC. Each conference has four divisions, with four teams apiece. In each conference, the four division winners make the playoffs, as well as two wild card teams (based on best record). So, that's six teams from each conference. Now, in the NFL, unlike in, say, baseball, each team plays a full quarter of its schedule (four games) against teams from the other conference. This year is a strange case, because the AFC has some fantastic teams (five are 10-5 or better), whereas the NFC...does not (two at 10-5 or better). In the inter-conference play, the AFC has basically been beating the tar out of the NFC. Therefore, thanks to the wild card, it's reasonable likely that there will be a 10-6 team in the AFC that does not make the playoffs, while a 7-9 does make it. And then CHAOS WILL ENSUE!
So that's what these talking heads have been yapping about: This is so unfair. This needs to be fixed. This is a black eye on the NFL. No, it's not. It's just the way things worked out this time. That's what happens when you have only four teams in a division (so it's more likely that a 8-8 or 9-7 teams wins it), and conferences play each other so often (allowing on conference to "steal" all the wins from the other one). But it's not a bad thing. In fact, one of the possibly 7-9 teams, Carolina, may actually be better than some of the AFC playoffs teams. What's that, you say? Well, Carolina started the season 1-7. Since then, they've gone on a tear, and even if they end up at 7-9, that means they won 6 out of their last 8 games, and are playing quite well. Do they deserve to make the playoffs? If they qualify, then you betcha. Of course, in the AFC, the Bills have done pretty much the same thing, starting out 1-5, and now having won 6 in a row. They may end up with a 10-6 record and not make the playoffs. Do they deserve to make the playoffs? Well, not if they don't qualify. That's the point - you set up your rules, and then you play by them.
Now, some might argue that the rules don't make sense. I think it's silly to have just one result that you don't like (a sub-.500 team making the playoffs) and then change things drastically. But that's what some of these talking heads have been suggesting: This situation needs to be fixed. Well, nothing's really broken. I don't think the man on the street cares one bit about some 7-9 team making the playoff if he gets to see good football. Well, maybe if they guy's on the street in Buffalo he does, but to him, I say that had his team picked it up a bit at the beginning of the season, there would be no problem. Some people have suggested that the wild card teams should come from either conference, so that the four total wild card teams could come entirely from the AFC this year. Of course, that would mean the playoffs would be a mess, with NFC and AFC teams meeting in the first round. Honestly, this problem would likely go away if you just reduced the number of inter-conference games. Then the NFC would have enough wins to go around. Of course, you could still get a strange situation in which all the teams were about equal except for the division winners, thus still allowing an 7-9 playoff team in, but so what? You need to be one of the top 6 teams in your conference to go to the playoffs - those are the standards.
Maybe the solution is just to have one big 32-team division. The top 12 make it, and the bottom 20 stay home. No conferences. Heck, with inter-conference play, do the conferences really mean anything? Forget divisional-rivalries - we're a global community anyways, right? Then everything would be fair and square. Except them some teams wouldn't face each other, so some lucky team would sneak by against weaker opponents. That would be unfair too! Maybe there should be a 31-game schedule so each team plays every other team once. But what about injuries? I mean, some team could be strong at the beginning of the season and weak at the end, so a team could still skate by, getting lucky by facing only stronger teams at their weaker moments. Gosh, I don't know what to do. Life in the NFL is just so unfair.
One of the reasons these shows lack substance is because they thrive on controversy. When there is controversy, everyone's talking about it, so they beat it into the ground, a la the Pistons-Pacers brawl. When there's no controversy, they have to make up something to argue about, as if the sports they're discussing aren't compelling enough to stand on their own. So there's this never-ending machine of programming that needs content. The latest bit of idiocy (which is being propagated beyond TV and into every sports opinion writer's column) is how horrible the NFC is in football, and how a sub-.500 team might make the playoffs, and how this would be a disaster of unfathomable consequence.
Let me explain a bit, if you're unfamiliar with how the NFL playoffs work. The 32 teams are split into two conferences: the AFC and the NFC. Each conference has four divisions, with four teams apiece. In each conference, the four division winners make the playoffs, as well as two wild card teams (based on best record). So, that's six teams from each conference. Now, in the NFL, unlike in, say, baseball, each team plays a full quarter of its schedule (four games) against teams from the other conference. This year is a strange case, because the AFC has some fantastic teams (five are 10-5 or better), whereas the NFC...does not (two at 10-5 or better). In the inter-conference play, the AFC has basically been beating the tar out of the NFC. Therefore, thanks to the wild card, it's reasonable likely that there will be a 10-6 team in the AFC that does not make the playoffs, while a 7-9 does make it. And then CHAOS WILL ENSUE!
So that's what these talking heads have been yapping about: This is so unfair. This needs to be fixed. This is a black eye on the NFL. No, it's not. It's just the way things worked out this time. That's what happens when you have only four teams in a division (so it's more likely that a 8-8 or 9-7 teams wins it), and conferences play each other so often (allowing on conference to "steal" all the wins from the other one). But it's not a bad thing. In fact, one of the possibly 7-9 teams, Carolina, may actually be better than some of the AFC playoffs teams. What's that, you say? Well, Carolina started the season 1-7. Since then, they've gone on a tear, and even if they end up at 7-9, that means they won 6 out of their last 8 games, and are playing quite well. Do they deserve to make the playoffs? If they qualify, then you betcha. Of course, in the AFC, the Bills have done pretty much the same thing, starting out 1-5, and now having won 6 in a row. They may end up with a 10-6 record and not make the playoffs. Do they deserve to make the playoffs? Well, not if they don't qualify. That's the point - you set up your rules, and then you play by them.
Now, some might argue that the rules don't make sense. I think it's silly to have just one result that you don't like (a sub-.500 team making the playoffs) and then change things drastically. But that's what some of these talking heads have been suggesting: This situation needs to be fixed. Well, nothing's really broken. I don't think the man on the street cares one bit about some 7-9 team making the playoff if he gets to see good football. Well, maybe if they guy's on the street in Buffalo he does, but to him, I say that had his team picked it up a bit at the beginning of the season, there would be no problem. Some people have suggested that the wild card teams should come from either conference, so that the four total wild card teams could come entirely from the AFC this year. Of course, that would mean the playoffs would be a mess, with NFC and AFC teams meeting in the first round. Honestly, this problem would likely go away if you just reduced the number of inter-conference games. Then the NFC would have enough wins to go around. Of course, you could still get a strange situation in which all the teams were about equal except for the division winners, thus still allowing an 7-9 playoff team in, but so what? You need to be one of the top 6 teams in your conference to go to the playoffs - those are the standards.
Maybe the solution is just to have one big 32-team division. The top 12 make it, and the bottom 20 stay home. No conferences. Heck, with inter-conference play, do the conferences really mean anything? Forget divisional-rivalries - we're a global community anyways, right? Then everything would be fair and square. Except them some teams wouldn't face each other, so some lucky team would sneak by against weaker opponents. That would be unfair too! Maybe there should be a 31-game schedule so each team plays every other team once. But what about injuries? I mean, some team could be strong at the beginning of the season and weak at the end, so a team could still skate by, getting lucky by facing only stronger teams at their weaker moments. Gosh, I don't know what to do. Life in the NFL is just so unfair.
Comments:
Post a Comment
