[NU Sports] LOL

[Eric West]

The specific argument aside (after all, it might be moot as early as 
next week, and likely will be by the end of the season), I'd like to 
address one oft-repeated point in these debates:

Arthur Miller wrote:
> ...playoffs...are no better at determining the best team 
> over the course of an entire season than a poll system.

That's because there's no such thing as "the best team." It's an 
arbitrary and ultimately meaningless designation, and I've rarely seen a 
pro-playoff person worry too much about that myth in the first place.

Some people like to argue about whether Team A or Team B is "the better 
team," and others prefer to watch them actually play a game and see who 
wins. Similarly, some people like to argue about who "the best team" is, 
and others would prefer to see the teams actually play some games and 
see who gets the championship. Lots of people might even like both 
(though perhaps in chronological order).

It's true that just as winning one game does not always make one team 
"the better team," winning a championship does not always make one team 
"the best team." But when has that ever really mattered, and why would it?


Eric West
e-west at northwestern.edu