The burning question on everybody’s mind, as we approach Final Four weekend, is this: is the Big East the best conference if they don’t win a title?”
The answer: who cares? Why is the entire sports world all a-twitter about this stupid idea, comparing one conference to another?
To even ask the question is to ask the nonsensical. Here’s why: in actual games, conferences don’t play each other; teams do. Srsly!
Therefore, comparisons between teams can be settled on the court, which is the only comparison that matters.
Plus, if conferences did play each other, there’d be like 60 or 80 players on each side. The court would be as crowded as a Tokyo subway car.
Fouls would get totally out of control. You’d need, like, 18 refs. They’d probably just call three seconds on every possession anyway, with all those players out there, clogging up the lane all the time.
And the substitutions! What a nightmare. Coaches would have to send in 10 or 20 guys at a time. I’m not sure how you’d keep it all straight.
Clearly, not workable.
Yet every time we turn on ESPN, or listen to sports talk, or read articles and blogs on the web, this question about which conference is “better” gets brought up. Over and over and over again.
OK, just for fun, let’s play along for a minute. If a definitive answer to this burning question could be found, what would it change?
Um, nothing. Teams would still play other teams, and sometimes teams from one conference would win. Sometimes, the other. Some years, more teams from one conference would win. Other years, the other.
Starting to see a pattern yet? Me too.
So what all this tells me is that a whole bunch of supposedly smart people like to argue about dumb, meaningless stuff on TV, the radio, and on the Internet.
Hard to believe, isn’t it?