Add new comment

The water looks warm.  I'm in.
Hey Steen, 
1. We do get pretty "tongue-in-cheeky" around here, I will admit.    But unless that tone has been set, referring to somebody as a "moneyed parasite" generally indicates particular view about that individual in general.  It may also indicate a general worldview.  That would be a safe interpretation, I believe.  But since we have no previous indication of how you see the world, I will avoid that interpretation for now (see below). 
2. I believe the Field Gull article referred to playoff expansion as "objectively" wrong.  How can it be "objectively" wrong.?  How can it be demonstrably wrong, without inserting some personal bias.  No can do, I think.  
3. The author of that article states that the current playoff situation "can not" be improved (with the current divisional set up).  Then he whips out a ton of numbers that are merely means of interpreting the the NFL.  Hey, WAR is a way of interpreting MLB players, but it is only that.  It isn't A squared + B squared = C squared.  It is a subjective evaluation, not objective.  If an expanded playoff generates $X million more for the league how is that "objectively" wrong.  Not from the league's perspective.  Wait......they are all moneyed parasites, aren't they.  OK, you didn't really say that.  I get it.
4.  As for a guy running his business on a "shoestring budget," well...it is his business.  Is Lew Wolff, who is co-owner of the Oakland A's, a "moneyed parasite," too? Being a spendthrift makes his a parasite?  Is that an objective or subjective truth?  And by the way, I believe your post was the first to use "class warfare" around here.  You are the only one bandying it about.  You also used "profit" and "avarice" in a way that seems to link the two. But alas, my reading much into all of that would be somewhat subjective.  I will refrain. I will point out that you did say of Doc that he had a "a pretty consistent penchant for interspersing (his) worldview with sports commentary" and that you  "could be so bold to assume (his) opinion... because (*he*) tend(s) to share it."  Should we suppose you are not "interpersing" your world view with your sports commentary?  If so, can we assume your opinion?  
5. You say that you will gladly stay on the "side" that desires a football championship decided by skill and not "luck."  Are you advocating no divisional playoffs?  Or even a 4-team playoff?  The fewer teams in the playoffs the less that one bounce of the ball, "luck", decides winners and losers.  Or are you advocating a longer season, one that generates even more profit for the "parasitical" owners?  A longer season would indeed reduce the impact of "luck."  In for a penny, in for a pound, right?  
6.  The 1-game playoff exists in baseball.  That is objective.  It is here.  How is a team's pursuing that with some passion (or a fan pushing for it) somehow "watering down" the quality of play.  A team's interest, given the opportunity, should be to maximize its playoff opportunity this year without severely damaging its playoff opportunity next year.  Or something like that.  Almost everybody here at SSI has argued for the M's to do that.  We've offered a variety of opinions (certainly subjective) on just who we should trade for (or not) to accomplish that goal.  But avoiding the focused pursuit of that WC spot, as some writers have seemed to suggest, seems weird considering the likelihood that we get to throw Felix or Kuma in that one game.  Isn't that one of the points of sporting competition, the "one-game for it all" test?  
7.  I believe that Doc did not suggest "correct" was an empty idea.  My read is that he did suggest that in the context of the NFL playoffs it is a subjective idea. The author of the Field Gull article argued that it was demonstrably objective.   
Just sayin'
Glad to see you here at SSI.  
Will welcome your commentary, Steen.
Power to the people!  Down with the man!
moe