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.