So the New York Giants, a team that doesn't play a single game, home or away, in New York, a team that was a mediocre .500 after 7/8ths of the season and that snuck into the playoffs mostly on the incompetence of their division rivals, are the Champions of the Football World.
Three months earlier the St. Louis Cardinals, a team that had a good but not great season, failed to win their division and snuck into the playoffs largely on the late-season incompetence of a rival, became Champions of the Baseball World.
Which followed by seven months the University of Connecticut's elevation to the pinnacle of the college basketball world following up-and-down play and low expectations entering their post-season tournament.
I don't know how much of this narrative applies to the Dallas Mavericks or the Boston Bruins, though I don't believe either team was considered the kings of their sport until they won their respective titles. But I do know that results like these leave me cold.
It appears that the purpose of post-season play has devolved into a stand-alone tournament designed to crown a victor, but not necessarily to decide anything, or bring a satisfying resolution to their season of play. (Voice in my head: Don't be an idiot: the purpose of post-season play is to create entertainment products of value to TV networks that sell advertising time to beermongers and truck peddlers.) In my youth, there were two separate baseball leagues and the sachems of each squared off to determine who was the best team that year. It was the same with the NFL championship and the early Super Bowls. "Champion" meant "best."
In 21st century sports, after months of play some multiplicity of teams start all over in a tournament that often requires different strengths than the regular season and elevates the importance of luck to or near the forefront.
The upshot of elongated playoffs has been threefold:
1. The regular season's value has diminished. Its main purpose is to earn the minimum requirements for a playoff spot.
2. The best teams are less likely to emerge victorious.
3. More teams participate, which gives more fans a rooting interest.
Factor #3 has dominated all the discussions, but I am very troubled by the dilution of the championship. The Giants and Cardinals seem to me more like the last man standing than like "champions." They endured the winds of fortune that buffet all teams in a tournament better than their competitors, but I don't feel like we have crowned a "best team" or even determined who that is.
With respect to baseball, a seven-game series is such a lottery that adding more of them (or even shorter series, like the one-game variety now proposed) makes a mockery of the 162-game schedule. So forgive me for having difficulty generating much excitement about Super Bowls and Stanley Cups and NCAA Finals and even -- gasp -- World Series. They just don't, in my mind, serve much of a purpose.
Other than inspiring some pretty clever ads.
b
No comments:
Post a Comment