Wrong. And a weak attempt at debate on your part if I'm being honest. Look up how the EPL, the most popular regular season sport in the world, determines champions. You won't find a donkament there, will you?

I fundamentally disagree with this. The value in having Jamaal Charles on the Chiefs was in seeing Jamaal Charles do Jamaal Charles things wearing a Chiefs uniform. It didn't end up with him getting a Super Bowl bonus but I don't root for people's incomes, I root for sporting event outcomes. I did find that Jamaal Charles provided value, pure entertainment value which is what sports are for, and I disagree that since he never got a Super Bowl payout that his presence in the organization was a "waste of time".

Fans should be able to say whatever they want, within reason to opposing professional players. They paid the ticket and it is for entertainment purposes. Racial slurs or going after players family is where the line gets drawn.

You bring up the one exception to the rule, which isn't in America, BTW, while also failing to mention that Champions League use a tournament to determine a champion.

What a loser mentality from you.

Tournament format is the worst way to crown any champion. Its just exciting.

I guess he was the only thing worth watching on the Chiefs for a while, I'll agree with you there. But to have the best RB in franchise history during the worst stretch in franchise history is definitely a waste of talent.

The tournament rules were changed recently.

I don't disagree- if it was about awarding the two best teams from a sport in a regular season, everything would be like MLB was back in the day when the AL and NL winner would make the WS without any other teams competing for a title. But we don't live in that world anymore and no one gives a shit that the 2001 Mariners or 2007 Patriots had great regular seasons without winning a title.

Titles are all that matter.

I understand your viewpoint but I disagree. I don't think the last game of the season as contrived by owners and TV networks incentivized to maximize income are necessarily the most important games. I never have the money to go to the big championship game anyway, so it means particularly little to me, though I do have the money to see some games along the way.

Stop and smell the roses some time along the way, man. The ultimate place we all go to is the grave. Enjoy the moment.

And they still haven't made the postseason since the postseason was expanded or when the postseason in 2020 was expanded to 16 teams LMAO

It's pretty rich to have a Rams fan lecturing me, a Chiefs fan, about the postseason. You're running your head into a brick wall, friend.

But baseball is fundamentally NOT a tournament sport. You can put on a tournament after the 162 games but you'll never convince me that the team that was the best after 162 games got "exposed" in a 3 game postseason series.

Do you just buy into any hype that your television tells you about? Rams fan?

I need to change my username at this point as it's no longer accurate.

And no, I do not buy the hype of everything. I know the postseason is flawed and realistically the regular season and postseason should be shortened.

But in a team sport, acting as if not winning a title isn't failure, is shortsighted.

4. Enrico Palatzo preventing Reggie Jackson from killing the queen of England.

When I go to a game in May, what happens come November doesn't affect my level of enjoyment. It's weird to me that that's how you operate.

If costs were equal, would you rather be attending an Angels victory over the A’s in May or an Angels Game 7 WS win in October?