Friday, December 12, 2008

random sports ramblings

And, so, it's that time of year again.

You know it, you who follow college football even remotely. It's the strange time, that strange three or so weeks between the end of the regular season and New Years, when the so called BCS bowls begin being played.

And why are those games such a big deal? After all, how many of them really mean anything? Only one, maybe two, are of any importance to the championship.

And how did two championship teams get to that game?

Let's be fair, and admit that both Florida and Oklahoma have played well enough to deserve their places in that game. The problem is, so have other teams.

Texas, Texas Tech, Penn State, USC, and Alabama can make strong claims to being just as worthy, not to mention some of the teams not in BCS conferences but who went undefeated (and if you think they aren't for real, just remember the lesson Oklahoma learned from Boise State a couple of years ago).

But they won't have a chance to play for that title. They have to be content to play simply to win a bowl game. Games essentially meaningless and worthless, except as money-making tools.

So, like last year, I'm going to propose again a way the fans can effect this situation. It may be a kind of counterintuitive way, but it's perhaps the only real way to do it, because it effects the main reason such bowl games are still going on--the money.

And my solution is, simply, don't spend money for these meaningless bowls. Fans of Texas, Texas Tech, Penn State, USC, and Alabama should simply stay home. These teams deserve a real shot at the title, but are being denied it by a system that simply isn't set up to find a real champion, so their teams are being done wrong. The system is not worthy of being supported any more.

If those meaningless BCS games were played before empty stands, the BCS powers-that-be would get the message very quickly, and we'd likely get a playoff in no time.

Sometimes, listening to sports talk radio is almost too revealing.

I've noticed something in recent times. I've noticed when I've heard sports people seem to be either bored or even actively against a team like the San Antonio Spurs making it again to the NBA Championship, or when they may as well be cheering for the Red Sox because no one cares about a Philadelphia and Tampa Bay World Series. Or when they may as well have already have had Lebron James leaving the Cav and going to the Knicks (who happen to be in New York).

I'm not sure what to label it. Maybe it's arrogance, or maybe it's a sense of putting their business before the games, or maybe it's them wanting what they perceive to be best for the sport (and for their business), but it's distasteful to me.

Because I wonder, "Why do they even want small-market teams?"

After all, if for them it's best for New York and Los Angelas to have the best teams, why have any others? Maybe Chicago can keep theirs, and maybe Houston, and Boston and Atlanta and Dallas, but real, why have any others? If having small markets teams be good and keep large markets from getting in playoffs and championships is so bad for the sports and for business, than why should those teams even exist?

Are they only poor relations, there to bring in the small-town fans and maybe add the occasion bit of drama and nice story (like Tampa Bay this passed year)? But who betide them if they happen to go toe-to-toe with the Red Sox and have the gall to actually win their playoff series, because in the end, the main thing isn't to determine the best teams and best players, it's to have as many people watch the series as possible.

Yeah, I guess that qualifies as arrogance.

No comments: