SPORTS
Point-counterpoint: Winless or Undefeated
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kevin Hagstrom and Ben Voelkel:
- PCP: Most ridiculous bowl sponsor (December 5, 2007)
- Point-counterpoint: New Olympic sport (November 28, 2007)
- Point-counterpoint: Best way to replace axe (November 14, 2007)
- Point-counterpoint: Winless or Undefeated (November 7, 2007)
- Point-counterpoint: Spookiest sports costume (October 31, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Ko walks on in spectacular fashion (October 26, 2004)
- Grapplers primed to pull pair of conference upsets (February 17, 2006)
- All about 'D': 1st to 1 wins (October 20, 2006)
- Worst Sport Ever (September 20, 2006)
- Purdue returns to Madison searching for payback (October 21, 2005)
by Kevin Hagstrom and Ben Voelkel
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
What's more difficult, going undefeated or going winless? That's like comparing a marathon to a walk from Vilas to Humanities. Seriously, we're debating this?
Not winning a game doesn't take any effort. Essentially, we are talking about the difference between Rocky Balboa's anal retentive workout routine and a Richard Simmons "let's have fun" one. To go unbeaten you have to work extremely hard, maybe even shed some blood every time out, whereas to avoid going winless, you have to merely go through the motions ("up, down, up down, come on now!").
Week in and week out, a team that's trying to remain perfect must come to play. There's little room for error. Week in and week out, you don't even have to show up to go winless. Tell me that that's strenuous.
To back up my argument with facts, there are very few exceptions to this rule. The 1976 Buccaneers would be one. They had to try real hard to go 0-14 in their inaugural season and 0-26 before picking up their first win.
However, look at how many teams have been on the lip of perfection, but fall short. Any of the NFL's top teams in recent years, particularly the Colts, are perfect examples of this. Injuries, resting players up for the playoffs, what have you, great teams are still going to lose — it's the nature of the game. No team since the 1972 Dolphins has gone undefeated in the professional ranks on any of the four major sports levels.
Pretty much college football and basketball are the most likely of sources to find an undefeated team. Even in basketball, it doesn't happen often. The last NCAA hoops team to go undefeated was again in 1976, when Bobby Knight's Hoosiers went 32-0. That was 31 years ago. College football is understandably different because although a handful of teams go unbeaten during the course of the year, a handful also doesn't win a game.
It's pretty clear that losing is easy. If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't have written anything.
Point: Perfection doesn't come easy.
A little more than halfway through the NFL season, two teams are on track for perfection.
The undefeated Patriots and the winless Dolphins not only share a division, but also a potential date with destiny when the two play Dec. 23. Should both maintain their current ways, that game would be the latest game in NFL history between some diametrically opposite teams.
That backdrop begs the question: Is it harder to lose ‘em all or win ‘em all?
On the surface it seems like a slam-dunk answer: Of course it is harder to win every game you play.
Dig a little deeper, however, and you will see the error in your ways.
Sure, winning every week takes copious amounts of effort, talent and luck, but so too does losing. When you win like it’s your job, teams give you their best shot. Similarly, losing every time out gives teams a reason to more or less take a game off when they play you. Even Screech, universally recognized as probably the biggest loser ever to grace the planet, got Lisa to soften up a little bit and see the good in the curly-haired nerd.
If being the best at losing wasn’t such a difficult task, why would NBC focus an entire series around seeing who could be the biggest loser? It just doesn’t make sense.
Plus we’re not talking about tanking here. Legitimately trying and losing every time out is a near mathematical impossibility. Sooner or later, a bounce will go your way, the opposing team will have a bad game and you will win.
Plus, you’re talking about hard? Losing all the time is about as hard to handle as anything.
When it comes down to it, going 1-0 just doesn’t hold a candle to 0-1.
Losing. Count it.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
