When a strong contender that effectively earned 50 percent of the vote is rewarded with zero percent of the opportunity, the system has failed.
The above quotation, taken from Dr. Saturday's latest anti-BCS diatribe, succinctly sums up why I oppose a playoff as, quite literally, un-American.
Re-read that quotation. Has the U.S. Constitution failed when the electoral college awards the White House to one presidential candidate in a closely-contested election rather than installing co-chief executives in the Oval Office? Under our system of government, a strong contender effectively earning 50 per cent of the vote but being rewarded with zero per cent of the opportunity is a phenomenon that occurs routinely, which serves as an affirmation of the system, not an indictment of it. Indeed, it is what allows the system to function.
There are reasonable arguments in favor of a playoff, and Matt Hinton regularly offers many of them. This is not one of them, as 225 years of American constitutional history confirm.
Go 'Dawgs!
5 months ago
T Kyle King
1 comment
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Much mischief is hidden in the word "effectively"
He sees uncertainty and says “let’s play more games.” I see the same uncertainty and say “Let’s argue about this for years and years, because no matter how many more games we play, we could always get a more certain champion by playing more games.”
I like all the uncertainty. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
by first and thom on Dec 30, 2011 10:10 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
