The NCAAF Conference Division Structure Debate Verdict

September 17, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer.

Today I have been tasked with deciding whether or not the Big Ten did the right thing during the recent realignment by putting Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions. Of course, I was hoping to be the judge for the “Should a conference with 11 (soon to be 12) teams be called the Big Ten?” debate, but I’ve been told that we’ll be waiting on that debate until we start themathdebates.com. I believe that would be an easier verdict to write, but I’ll play the hand that I’ve been dealt and decide whether or not the Big Ten made the right decision.

As both writers alluded to, rivalries are an integral part of the college sports experience and they are very important to fans at all levels of athletics. Given that, I don’t think there is any way Big Ten leadership could have made a decision that would have pleased all the Michigan fans and/or all the Ohio State fans, let alone college football fans around the country that look forward to the Michigan-Ohio State tilt every season. However, my verdict is not allowed to say “They were hosed either way, so officials did the best they could.”

Bleacher Fan makes some interesting arguments as to why the Big Ten’s decision to put Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions was the wrong one. He thinks the Big XII’s model, to put its historic rivals in the same division, is the way to go. His best point brings up the possibility that Ohio State and Michigan could meet in the last week of the regular season in a completely meaningless, vanilla game because they know they’ll be matched up against each other the following week in a meaningful conference championship game. While any big-time, historic rivalry will probably always have a bit of fire in it, several consecutive years of back-to-back Ohio State-Michigan games would wear on the teams, fan bases, pundits, and recruits.

However, Bleacher Fan loses me when he writes about “an Ohio State-Michigan game for all the marbles.” Perhaps it would be for all marbles in the eyes of Ohio State and Michigan fans, but nationally it would probably, over time, devolve into a division championship game. Also, in the conference’s thinking, an Ohio State-Michigan “divisional championship” game might take the luster off the cash cow they hope the conference championship game will be for them. Bleacher Fan definitely made compelling arguments for and against his position.

Loyal Homer, true to his character, believes the Big Ten made the right decision in splitting its major rivals across divisions. He is a fan of the SEC model where care seems to have been taken to split nationally significant rivalries across divisions. He confirms the point inadvertently made by Bleacher Fan that putting your rivals in the same division can lead to a lackluster conference championship game, at least from a national standpoint. While this may seem like an insignificant issue to the fan bases of the two rival teams, in the grand scheme of conference alignment it may be the most important issue. He correctly points out that the Big XII championship game, in the eyes of many, is played in October between Texas and Oklahoma rather than in December.

This is a tough verdict. Honestly, I am not sure I like a lot of the consequences of conference realignment and I see and understand both arguments here. However, Loyal Homer wins the argument because history has dictated Ohio State and Michigan are often the two best teams in the Big Ten. If they can eliminate each other before the championship game, is there really any point to having a championship game at all? Congrats, Loyal Homer, and enjoy your prize – a pair of Denard Robinson’s shoelaces!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAAF Conference Division Structure Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Optimist Prime

The NCAAF Conference Division Structure Debate

September 16, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer.

This summer, as college football stood on the precipice of arguably the most significant conference realignment in its history, many fans wondered what such realignment would do to their favorite rivalries across the nation. Whether you are a fan of a team possibly involved in the shake-up or whether you are a fan of great college football, it is interesting to debate which team belongs in which conference, which part of that conference, and why. Although the realignment fires have cooled for this year, we at TSD would like to rekindle the debate about how a conference should set up its divisional structure to encourage its rivalries.

Loyal Homer believes that the SEC’s model of trying to split big rivalries (such as Georgia-Auburn and Florida-Alabama) across divisions is the optimal way to align a conference. The SEC has been a leader, for better or worse, in many changes throughout college athletics, and Loyal Homer thinks they got it right here as well.

Bleacher Fan, however, believes that the Big XII’s model of putting its big rivals in the same division is the way to go. If playing for championships is exciting, why not add a divisional crown to stoke the flames of rivalry football?

Who captures your vote? Read and decide – before I do!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAAF Conference Division Structure Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Optimist Prime

The NCAAF Conference Division Structure Debate… Turning Something Into Nothing

September 16, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

Rivalry is arguably the most fascinating relationship that mankind has ever developed because it is the one relationship that can fuel the two strongest of human emotions – love and hate – at the exact same time.

They have led to our greatest triumphs, our greatest tragedies, and only a rivalry can make a person a hero and a monster at the exact same time.

The greatest of politicians were part of the greatest rivalries – John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. And rivalry is the foundation for some of the most well known fictional works – The Montagues and the Capulets, Gryffindor and Slytherin, The Tortoise and the Hare, Superman and Lex Luthor.

Fortunately, as civilization has advanced, rivalry has advanced with it (sort of). Feuds that once were responsible for bloody wars and horrible atrocities have been moved off the battlefield and into more peaceful forms of conflict. The Hatfields and the McCoys, who once ventured across Tug Fork on the Kentucky/West Virginia border to murder and steal from each other, now battle it out in venues such as TV’s Family Feud game show.

But the best stage for rivalries today is undeniably sports, and the one sport in America where that sense of rivalry thrives more than any other is college football.

So, with the Big Ten conference (which boasts some of the game’s greatest and longest running rivalries) undergoing reorganization, officials had to grapple with trying to determine the best way to divide the conference without damaging those great (and very lucrative) rivalries.

The options were to pit rivals in the same division where they would be guaranteed to face off once each season, allowing that game to dictate division/conference standings (similar to how the Big XII has aligned divisions), or to have those rivals in separate divisions, where there is a possibility of having a rivalry matchup in the conference championship (as modeled by the SEC).

Unfortunately, the Big Ten got it WRONG!

I have been very opposed to the Big Ten adding a Conference championship to the format for the reason we are arguing today. In fact, one of my first arguments on our beloved site was about this situation more than a year ago. Nobody listened to me at the time, and now we are in the situation we have today, where some of the best rivalries in all of college football teeter precariously on the verge of irrelevance forever more.

I told you so! *Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

Anyway, conference commissioner Jim Delany, along with the other leaders of the Big Ten, felt that the best way to preserve the integrity of the conference was to position its rival teams in separate divisions.

Now I will concede that an Ohio State-Michigan (since it is generally regarded as the top rivalry in the conference, I will use them as my running example) conference championship would be tremendous to watch. But the possibility of a rivalry matchup being played in a conference championship is not nearly enough compensation for what is going to be lost through the Big Ten’s decision to split rivals up.

Part of what makes rivalry games so special, especially in the Big Ten, is that they often have much more at stake than a simple notch in either the win or loss column. So when Ohio State and Michigan face off in the final game of the season each year, there is almost ALWAYS more on the line than simple bragging rights. In fact, over the last decade it has had conference (and even national) championship implications every single season (1999 was the last season where these two teams played and neither had a shot at the Big Ten title, although Michigan was only one game out of contention).

By putting Ohio State and Michigan in separate divisions, much of the drama from that final week matchup between these two perennial conference powerhouses is lost. Each school’s standings are independent of the other, and this becomes just another non-division game.

Had Ohio State and Michigan been placed in the same division, the programs would still be racing for the division crown each season, as well as a shot at the conference championship. Sure, the stakes would be diminished slightly, but that is a small concession to make in order to preserve the excitement of an entire season spent building up to the payoff of an Ohio State-Michigan game for all the marbles.

Part of what made the game so exciting as the final game of the season was to watch the two teams first battle it out week after week in the standings. Only then could speculation be cast aside when the teams could FINALLY duke it out on the field, each with their own opportunity to punctuate their argument as being the best in the conference.

Instead, what we will see is Ohio State jockeying for position against Illinois or Purdue, while Michigan simultaneously is trying to climb in standings against Northwestern or Minnesota.

Kinda takes away some of the magic from the buildup to the game, doesn’t it?

And here is something else to consider – In order for the two rivals to meet in the conference championship (the alleged payoff), their regular season matchup MUST be completely irrelevant.

Think about it. If Ohio State and Michigan are scheduled to play each other as the last game of the regular season, and then they meet AGAIN in the conference championship, that means that division standings were already locked in and decided BEFORE the regular season finale. One of the teams MUST lose during that regular season game, so if they can STILL make the conference championship after LOSING that game, they didn’t need to play it at all.

So what was the point of having that regular season game?!

Then, when the teams DO play the second time around (one week later), it is only the winner of THAT game that reaps any reward. If Ohio State wins game one, then Michigan wins the conference championship, it is Michigan who gets the title, EVEN THOUGH Ohio State already beat them just one week prior. There is no tiebreaker, even though they split the two games at 1-1, and the championship is awarded not necessarily to the BEST team, but to the team with the better TIMED victory.

What the all too likely outcome of this poor choice for a division structure in the Big Ten will actually result in is that these great rivals will almost never actually face off against each other in the conference championship, no matter how exciting the prospect of that matchup may be. And when they do face off on that grand stage, it will come just one week after they already played each other in a worthless game that was nothing more than a timewaster for everyone involved.

Congratulations Big Ten leaders, you have just made the biggest rivalry/rivalries in sports completely meaningless!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAAF Conference Division Structure Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The NCAAF Conference Division Structure Debate… Follow the SEC’s Lead

September 16, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

The Big Ten has finally decided to join the big boys of college football and have a conference championship game in football. With the upcoming addition of Nebraska, the conference will now have twelve teams, thus allowing an opportunity for a conference championship game. The first conference championship game will be held next year at Lucas Oil Field in Indianapolis.

The Big Ten recently announced the division alignment for next year. Obviously, much of the attention was centered on where Michigan and Ohio State would end up. Would they end up in the same division, or would they be in separate divisions? As it turns out, they are in separate divisions. In one division, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Michigan State, and Northwestern reside. On the other side, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Illinois, and Indiana reside. Basically, this means you could have arguably the conference’s signature programs (Ohio State and Michigan) play each other twice (regular season and conference championship), and I think that is the best overall result for the conference. You know the conference did everything they could to make this happen and they could benefit long-term.

Look at how the SEC is currently structured. It’s set up geographically, but it also luckily puts Alabama and Florida in separate divisions. Now these two teams don’t play every year as they aren’t natural rivals (they play only twice every six years thanks to the rotating schedule… inter-divisional rivalries include Georgia-Auburn, LSU-Florida, Alabama-Tennessee, etc.), but both Alabama and Florida have played each other in the SEC championship the past two seasons, with the winner going on to win the national championship game. They are favorites to both make it to Atlanta again this season as well. And for the first time since 2006, the Tide and the Gators play in the regular season, thus setting up the possibility of a rematch in Atlanta in December.

Then there is the Big XII. Seemingly, the Big XII is decided in October when the Longhorns and the Sooners get together in Dallas for the Red River Rivalry. That isn’t always the case, but that’s certainly been the case of late. And why wouldn’t it be? Look at the teams in the Big XII South as opposed to the Big XII North. Odds are the winner of the Big XII championship game is going to be screaming “Boomer Sooner” or “Hook Em Horns” because the Big XII North features very little in terms of competition as of right now. The last eleven seasons the South has been represented by either Texas or Oklahoma. Obviously these things go in cycles, and who knows what will happen in the future now that Nebraska and Colorado are moving on. The point is that the Big XII Championship game often lacks that championship game feel because the two best teams in the conference are rarely in it. It’s almost a letdown, from a national standpoint, from the Red River Rivalry.

The Big Ten is moving in the right direction. By placing its two marquee programs in opposing divisions, it brings more attention to the conference and more potential for big games. Perhaps an Ohio State victory in the conference championship over a good Michigan team could propel it to a spot in the national championship game. That’s something that perhaps a victory over a mediocre team might not do. That’s what puts it a step above the Big XII situation right now, and that’s why it was the right decision by the Big Ten.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favoritesBookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAAF Conference Division Structure Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The 2010 National League MVP Debate… Pujols Continues to Reign Supreme

September 15, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Loyal Homer.

The Holy Grail of hitting in Major League Baseball is to win the Triple Crown as the league’s leading hitter in home runs, runs batted in, and batting average, all in the same season.

Usually by this time each year, hopes of seeing the first Triple Crown hitter since 1967 (when Carl Yastrzemski became only the 16th player in history to do it) have been long since forgotten. This year, though, there is not only a possibility of one player contending for the Triple Crown – We actually get to enjoy a race between THREE of the best hitters in the National League!

Albert Pujols, Carlos Gonzalez, and Joey Votto each have a genuine opportunity to close out the 2010 baseball season by winning the first Triple Crown in over 40 years.

These three hitters each stand with a very real chance to earn the greatest hitting accomplishment in baseball, and have created baseball’s most exciting LEGITIMATE batting race (sorry Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds, your races just don’t count anymore in my book) since Pete Rose chased Ty Cobb’s career hit total.

It will be fun to watch, and we can only hope that one of these three players can accomplish the seemingly impossible.

But that is not the only race that Pujols, Gonzalez, and Votto have created. As a side effect of this quest for possible baseball immortality, another very real competition has been formed between Pujols, Votto, and Gonzalez that is far more relevant to the context of baseball today. That is the race for the National League MVP.

Obviously, if any one of the three is able to pull off the Triple Crown, they should be a shoe-in for the MVP award. But let’s assume that things will play out in similar fashion to where they stand right now, and once more a season passes by without a Triple Crown winner.

Who wins the MVP award then?

While each can stake a claim for the crown, the clear frontrunner for the award in 2010 is once again Albert Pujols.

Pujols is already a three-time winner of baseball’s highest individual season honor, and has reigned uninterrupted as the National League MVP since the close of the 2008 season, and with good reason. No player has meant more to his team, and to the game of baseball, than has Albert Pujols.

Triple Crown statistics are one thing, and they already speak very highly of Pujols’ individual performance over the 2010 season. He leads the NL in homers and RBIs with 39 and 104 respectively, and has the fifth best batting average in the league.

But that is only the tip of the iceberg when you are discussing Pujols’ contributions to his team. There are other areas, arguably more meaningful to a team in the game of baseball, where Pujols also sets himself apart as being far more valuable than Votto or Gonzalez.

For starters, Pujols is not an all-or-nothing hitter. Some batters may swing for the fences with each at bat. Sure, they get their share of homeruns, but they also fail to have their share of quality at bats, often striking out in their quest for big hit glory.

Albert Pujols is different.

Compare his homerun and strikeout numbers to those of Votto and Gonzalez. Joey Votto has 34 homeruns and 112 strikeouts so far this season, and Carlos Gonzalez has 32 homeruns with 122 strikeouts.

Basically, Votto and Gonzalez are good for nearly four strikeouts to go with every one homerun they hit.

So where does Pujols fall? With his aforementioned league-leading 39 homeruns, Pujols has struck out only 69 times this season. That is less than two strikeouts for every homerun hit!

Now, let’s add walk totals into the mix – Once again, it is Pujols at the top with 85 walks, leaving Votto (83) and Gonzalez (33) trailing.

How about extra-base hits? You guessed it. Pujols leads the NL with 74, while Gonzalez (72) and Votto (66) once more fall short of Pujols’ exceptional standard.

Oh yeah, he also happens to lead the league in runs scored with 100 so far in 2010.

All of those numbers point to one single fact – Pujols is by far the most productive hitter in baseball. He is extremely smart at the plate, and is good for considerably more QUALITY at bats than either of his two likely MVP competitors.

So allow me to sum up the 2010 National League MVP race for you:

Albert Pujols has hit for more homeruns and bases than any other batter in the National League. He has personally crossed home plate more than anyone else, and has driven more teammates across the plate than anyone else. Even when he DOESN’T hit the ball, he manages to make it on base more than just about anyone else in the league.

Contrarily, Joey Votto and Carlos Gonzalez strike out almost twice as often as Pujols, walk less, and produce much less offense.

If my team is down to their last out, and I can pick the one person I want stepping up to the plate, I am going to take Albert Pujols every single time.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 National League MVP Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The 2010 National League MVP Debate… Votto Edges Out Contenders

September 15, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer.

Joey Votto doesn’t lead any key statistical category in the National League. But, he should absolutely be awarded the NL MVP. That logic may appear, on the surface at least, to be counterintuitive. But, Votto’s impact on his team – and the league as a whole – has been different than his primary MVP competition, Colorado Rockies’ outfielder Carlos Gonzalez and St. Louis Cardinals’ first baseman Albert Pujols. Votto has brought an edginess back to Cincinnati that the Queen City hasn’t seen since the days of the Big Red Machine.

Okay, so Votto isn’t throwing at opposing players or anything crazy like that (“that” meaning Rob Dibble, of course). But, he is also not letting his disdain for intra-division teams and players off the hook during the All-Star break either. While most players named to the All-Star game generally enjoy the atmosphere and the opportunity to participate when named to the team for the first time, Votto pulls no punches.

Chicago Cubs’ outfielder Marlon Byrd played a major role in winning the All-Star game for the National League this season. In fact, that win could really benefit the Cincinnati Reds, should the team make it far enough into October to be in a position to host the World Series. Said Votto, “I don’t like the Cubs. And I’m not going to pat anybody with a Cubs uniform on the back. But because he made that really cool play, it turned out to be a really cool experience. I’m really glad we got the win today.”

Edge. The Reds regressed in recent seasons, becoming the league’s patsies and an afterthought team in the NL Central rivaled only by the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Reds lacked attitude. Votto’s intensity is a huge boost to the team, as evidenced by the team’s division leading record and the third best record in the NL.

The nice thing about Joey Votto is that he has improved at channeling his attitude and relentless tenacity into borderline brilliant performance on the baseball diamond. He has put together a statistically impressive season in 2010 with an NL best .422 on base percentage and an NL best 1.011 OPS. Votto is also third in home runs with 33, second in RBI with 102, third in walks with 83. The list goes on, but the point is that he’s put together an outstanding season that stats just reinforce.

For the particularly geeky among you loyal readers, check out the Runs Created stat. Votto leads this category by six runs. Runs Created is a new stat that measures how many of the team’s runs a player is responsible for. When deciphering an ever-growing list of statistics it is crucial to wade through the clutter and find the bits of information that are most revelatory. It is hard to imagine a more worthwhile stat that Runs Created when determining how valuable a player is to a team, and a league.

Let’s not forget that Votto is also performing incredibly well on what is suddenly one of the best National League teams, and one of the best overall teams in baseball. The Reds are 82-62 and lead the NL Central by six and half games at this writing. It seems unlikely that the Reds will collapse down the stretch, and Votto’s steady performance is a big reason that statement comes across as fact instead of guesswork.

As the old saying goes… no guts, no glory. Votto – with his attitude and play – has brought the guts back to Cincinnati. His ability to help deliver glory will be determined at a later time. But his performance is noteworthy in all of MLB this season, and it is definitely the most valuable in the entire National League.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 National League MVP Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The 2010 National League MVP Debate… An MVP Run in The Mile High City

September 15, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Sports Geek.

It is September, and the Colorado Rockies are once again making one of their patented runs towards a playoff spot. Despite losing their last two games to the first place San Diego Padres, the Rockies sit just three and a half games back in both the National League West race and the NL Wild Card race. And they have made their charge largely on the shoulders of one man – Carlos Gonzalez.

Both Albert Pujols and Joey Votto have had outstanding seasons in their own right, and Gonzalez is arguably the lesser known and lesser established of the three players. However, all three players have spent their majority of their summer chasing the Triple Crown, and today it is my job to focus on CarGo (I’ll let my colleagues focus on the merits of those other two guys).

Gonzalez’s numbers for the 2010 season are outstanding. After last night’s game, he is currently hitting .340 with 32 home runs and 104 runs batted in. That batting average leads the league by a fairly significant margin at this point (though Braves second baseman Omar Infante may eventually come into play, and will likely provide a challenge for him). He is fourth in the league in home runs, and tied for the lead in RBIs with Mr. Pujols (he also hit for the cycle earlier this year). He is what manager Jim Tracy likes to call a “six-tool” player.

What is truly amazing about Gonzalez is the tear he has been on the second half of the season, which has coincided with the annual run the Rockies seem to always make towards a postseason berth.

Ironically, his surge began after he was snubbed from the All-Star team and lost out on the final fan vote to Votto of all people. Since the All-Star break, he has hit .375 with 15 home runs and 41 RBIs, with an extremely high slugging percentage of .735, and an on-base percentage of .418. That, my friends, is lighting it up. Compare those second half numbers to those of his main competitors for the MVP award.

Albert Pujols, in the second half of the season, is hitting .307 with 18 home runs, 40 RBIs, a slugging percentage of .623, and an on base percentage of .378. Votto, meanwhile, is hitting .332 with 12 home runs, 43 RBIs, a slugging percentage of .596, and an on-base percentage of .422.

It is not like any of them have slumped down the stretch, but neither has kept pace with Gonzalez’s performance (and Pujols’ team has certainly faded a little).

It is going to be a dogfight these last two and a half weeks to see who takes the lead in this battle for the MVP award. All three guys have had outstanding seasons, but Carlos Gonzalez literally came out of nowhere the second half of the season, and brought his team along for the ride. That is what puts him at the top and that is why he gets my vote for National League MVP.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share
<br

Leave a Comment » | The 2010 National League MVP Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Is NASCAR A Sport Debate Verdict

September 15, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Loyal Homer.

Growing less than an hour away from a major race track, I have always been surrounded by NASCAR. From local racing festivals, to NASCAR themed amusement park rides, to professional baseball teams named in honor or NASCAR greats, racing seems to permeate life in my part of the country. With the new NASCAR Hall of Fame now in my backyard it seems I could not have picked a more NASCAR friendly area to live in. Yet, despite my close proximity to all things NASCAR, I never really embraced it.

In fact I have never been to a race or even watched one in its entirety on TV. It’s fair to wonder how NASCAR fandom eludes me. Part of the reason may be my hang-ups over the status of the activity in general. Much of the public, myself included, does not know exactly what to make of NASCAR.

Is it a sport? Is it just a unique high speed form of entertainment? Is it both? With so many questions and so few answers, I turned to my friends here at The Sports Debates for help, and Loyal Homer and Optimist Prime were more than happy to provide their take on the issue.

Loyal Homer took the affirmative side declaring NASCAR was indeed a sport. He began his case by clearly defining the term “sport” as “an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature.” While I may not buy Loyal Homer’s argument that NASCAR drivers are world class athletes, I recognize that a similar critique could be made of participants of my favorite sport – baseball. The bodies of players like Prince Fielder, David Ortiz, and my namesake Babe Ruth were not exactly modeled after Michelangelo’s David, but no one can doubt they are among the most skilled batters in baseball. And with that in mind I recognize that the precision, timing, vision, and focus that NASCAR drivers display qualify them as extremely skilled. And similarly, there is no denying that NASCAR is extremely competitive. Drivers risk life and limb in pursuit of winning each race. They drive, they wreck, and sometimes even cheat in pursuit of the all important win.

So, skilled? Check. Competitive? Check. It looks like Loyal Homer is building a solid case. But Optimist Prime did not just pull over and let Loyal Homer cruise to the victory, he brought his own argument to the track as well.

Optimist Prime’s argument focused on questioning the validity of NACAR. He claimed that “races are manipulated, in a way to send the fans home happy.” He focuses much of his argument on phantom debris cautions, which he felt excessively interfere with the outcome of races. While I do not necessarily subscribe to the theory myself, I understand where meddling with the officiating of a race in attempt to make it more interesting would undermine its integrity. And a sport without integrity can hardly be counted as a sport for long.

But in contrast to Optimist Prime’s statements, other sports – which have an undisputed status as legitimate – have sometimes intervened into the competitive nature of the game to increase the drama and appeal of the game. In baseball, better hitters sometimes seem to be afforded wider strikes zones than their less proven counterparts, possibly because baseball depends on the thrill of the long ball. In ultimate fighting, champions and proven veterans are given more time to work their way out of compromising position when a lesser contenders fight may have already been stopped. From time to time even basketball referees seem to ignore blatant fouls or call miniscule violation in close contests to add to the drama of the game. While these criticisms fall more in line with the ravings of conspiracy theorists than well documented analysis, it still goes to show that similar questionable calls are frequently second guessed in other main stream sports without invalidating those competitive activities status as sports.

Although no one can deny NASCAR’s national and international appeal, as well as its profitability, there are many other arguments against its status as a sport that one could have made. Optimist Prime could have criticized NASCAR’s reliance on machine rather than muscle for the substance of its competition, or he could have questioned the over-commercialized nature of racing where the competitors more closely resemble billboard advertisements than they do athletes. But, alas he did not. And so, it is because Loyal Homer provided evidence that NASCAR met the minimum competencies for qualifying as a sport (skill and competitiveness), and Optimist Prime failed to negate that argument, I award this victory to Loyal Homer.

Loyal Homer, I believe a victory lap is in order.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Is NASCAR A Sport Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Is NASCAR A Sport Debate

September 14, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Loyal Homer.

With the NASCAR Chase beginning this weekend, The Sports Debates breaks new ground by exploring an age old question: Is NASCAR really a sport?

We all know that NASCAR is a billion dollar industry that draws millions of fans to events each year. But does that make it a sport? Professional wrestling does nearly the same thing, and probably involves more athleticism, yet it acknowledges its place in the sports world by embracing the label of sports entertainment. Does NASCAR fall into the same category?

Optimist Prime believes it does. He knows, like the Olympic Committee, that while NASCAR may have an extremely large following, that is not the sole criteria for being a sport. If Danica Patrick can compete (and I use that word loosely) on the same playing field as men, it can’t really be a sport, right?

Loyal Homer, however, believes that the motorsport is exactly that – a sport. He will argue that NASCAR is a competition with winners and losers, where human skill is a vital aspect of determining the outcome. And if curling and ice dancing receive the status as sports, then NASCAR deserves some love too.

The green flag is about to drop on this debate, and with that said… gentlemen, start your keyboards.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Is NASCAR A Sport Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Is NASCAR A Sport Debate… Competition Makes NASCAR a Sport

September 14, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime.

I must admit I was a late bloomer to the SPORT of NASCAR. I didn’t really start watching NASCAR till about 15 years ago, and I really didn’t take off with it until Dale Earnhardt, Sr. won his first and only Daytona 500 in 1998. I used to think, “This is so stupid. All they do is ride around in circles. Why would someone pay to watch this?” But then I took a closer look and realized how fascinating NASCAR was and that it really is a sport.

According to its website, NASCAR is number one spectator sport. It has more of the top 20 highest-attended sporting events in the U.S. NASCAR races are broadcast in more than 150 countries and in 20 languages. NASCAR fans are the most brand loyal in all of sports, and, as a result, more Fortune 500 companies participate in NASCAR than any other sport. The governing body sanctions over 1,200 races across 30 states, Canada, and Mexico. Obviously, there is some “competition” going on in this sport. In fact, the dictionary specifically defines “sport” as “an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature.” That is the perfect definition for NASCAR, and it most certainly describes NASCAR drivers.

There’s definitely much more to NASCAR than getting into a car, putting the seat belt on, and seeing who can go around a two-mile oval the fastest. It’s not like going to your neighborhood go-kart track where all you have to do is push your foot down on the gas and hope you get one of the good cars, which I never seem to get. There are other things to consider, like tire wear, fuel mileage, drafting and horsepower in a motor. Countless tests are run to test the productivity of these factors. It’s not like everyone just shows up on the weekend to race. A crew of often hundreds work together to achieve one goal, and that’s to take the checkered flag before anyone else.

NASCAR is often called a “redneck” sport due to its deep Southern roots, and perhaps that’s a fair assessment due to its heritage. But it’s become a thinking man’s sport. Besides, four-time defending champion Jimmie Johnson is hardly a redneck. He was born and raised in California. In fact, Bleacher Fan labeled him the athlete of the year in 2009.

These drivers are athletes also, and they are in some kind of shape. It’s one thing to drive down the interstate in your family mini-van going 75 mph for three hours. That’s probably no big deal to you, right? Try going upwards of 200 mph with a fireproof jumpsuit, a helmet locked on your head, and your body squeezed into a race car that has very little wiggle room. The drivers love it and it’s obviously not too intolerable or they wouldn’t be doing it. But they actually do go through workout regiments to make it through the season. They also do this knowing one wrong move on the track could cause an accident, or even worse.

In NASCAR, the drivers compete in the regular season to gain position for the Chase for the Cup, which begins this Sunday in Loudon, New Hampshire. Ten drivers will compete in a ten-race format in order to win the Sprint Cup. If it’s a competition, then surely it’s a sport, right? In fact, the Chase format, through all of its tweaks, has been successful enough that the PGA Tour adopted a similar model for golf when it developed the FedEx Cup.

The easy answer is to say NASCAR is NOT a sport. But if you break it down, it really is a full-throttle competition in all aspects.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

6 Comments | The Is NASCAR A Sport Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.