Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.
Do you remember the Sesame Street game and corresponding song “One of these things is not like the other things One of these things just doesn’t belong?” I used to LOVE that feature on the show, and am going to give you a challenge á la Sesame Street right now. Which of the following just doesn’t belong?
1) Visiting the Dentist
2) Brussels Sprouts
3) Michael Jordan
4) Mock Drafts
Did you guess “Mock Drafts?” If so, you are the winner!
The quality that visits to the dentist, Brussels sprouts, and Michael Jordan all have (but Mock Drafts lack) is that they are three things that I genuinely despise. Nonetheless, I am able to acknowledge the substantial value they hold. As for Mock Drafts, they are different because I not only dislike them, but I am also unable find any value in them. Congratulations to Loyal Homer for winning this debate.
Going to the dentist, for example, is one of my least favorite things to do. Between the scraping, drilling (although none was necessary on my last visit, thank you very much!), and judgment that I will undoubtedly be subjected to (no I HAVE NOT been flossing regularly, so just BACK OFF with the Grand Inquisition already and let’s get on with the fluoride rinse!), the dentist’s office is one of the few places that I genuinely dread. However, I recognize the fact that proper oral hygiene is very important, and thusly subject myself semi-annually to their pseudo-sadistic rituals. Likewise, the overall health benefits of Brussels sprouts cannot be denied, regardless of my personal distaste for them.
Finally, as a Cleveland Cavaliers’ fan in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was no person in basketball I hated more than Michael Jordan. Thanks to his regular habit of success at the dream-crushing expense of my beloved Cavs, I was one person who could confidently say that I did NOT want to be “Like Mike.” Once again, my personal disgust for #23 (and #45) does not preclude my ability to recognize the role he played in the NBA. I may not have liked him, but he was clearly of value to the NBA.
With each of those examples, a distinction must be made between the subjectivity of my personal preference, and the objectivity of assessing their very real and genuine value. From that same objective standpoint, Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless were challenged to demonstrate the value (or lack thereof) from the Mock Draft.
Babe Ruthless claims that the value of Mock Drafts can come from an attempt at bringing order to disorder, and that they serve both the purpose of entertaining and informing. The problem is that Babe Ruthless then refutes his own claims (albeit unintentionally) by making statements that mock drafts are nothing more than educated guesses, and that they make no difference at all when Roger Goodell reads the REAL selections on draft day. To quote Babe Ruthless’ own argument, “What’s the point?”
Loyal Homer further refutes the validity of Mock Drafts by highlighting the fact that they are far too inconsistent (even when provided by the same analyst), and fail to account for draft-day trades, which are a very real part of the draft experience. I agree that it is difficult to predict which teams will pull the trigger on a draft-day trade, but is it any harder than trying to predict which player they will draft if they decide to hold onto their pick? I don’t think so.
This debate leads me to the conclusion that Mock Drafts are to sports what shows like Maury Povich and Jerry Springer are to television. Both are little more than substance-lacking fluff pieces designed for nothing more than the purpose of filling time and space.
If the analysis went no further than a team-by-team breakdown of their upcoming needs and the draftees who would best fit within their organization, I would see immense value. There is nothing wrong with discussing the various talents (and benefits) that particular players can bring around the NFL. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with gauging the likelihood of a player to be drafted in the first round, etc. I cannot see the value, though, in donning Carnac the Magnificent’s turban on the arrogant assumption that you can successfully predict the outcome of a three-day chess match played out by the collective brain-trusts of 32 different professional organizations.
Mock Drafts are not realistic, and the result is that they are not a piece of viable sports analysis.
Today’s debate was brought to you by the number “2” (which is the number of correct picks that most mock drafts will only be able to boast) and the letter “X” (which will be placed next to ALL of the other picks on those same mock drafts).
Posted by Bleacher Fan 
