[Goose]

Sports is about crowning winners. 

Wow, just wow. That statement couldn't be more wrong.

No, it couldn't be more correct. Name a sport beyond what was D1 college football before the playoff that doesn't have a tournament or contest to determine an ultimate winner.  I'm not even considering the process and experience, etc. That's a whole other topic not at all related to how sports always are contested to determine an ultimate winner.

It's your right to prefer sports not crowning a champion. Just don't claim sports aren't organized to do this.

Your argument is flawed in so many ways. First, the existence of a championship game does not ipso facto mean that a sport was "organized" (brought into existence under a common set of rules) mainly or solely to crown a champion. You have to show that it is "essential" some other way. Secondly, there are obviously may NCAA sports that played and thrived for many years without a "championship game" or anything like it. How could that be if such a game is a "requirement"? Third, there are many NCAA schools that play sports in which they have never even competed in a championship game and almost certainly never will. How is the existence of such a game a prerequisite for these schools playing the sport? Fourth, since the NCAA has divisions, there is no "ultimate" championship game. How is this possible if there must be exactly one "winner" for an NCAA sport to exist?

As an aside, I am pretty certain that most fans would agree that the "best team in the country" often doesn't win the championship game. Ditto the Super Bowl, FWIW. The single elimination format provides many paths to anomalous outcomes. These "championships" are fun to watch and to argue about, but they "prove" very little in many cases. Their actual important purpose in our society at present is to make money, which they do well.

Yes, you play to win the damn game. Every one of them, from opener to the championship (if you get there). But you do not vanish into thin air if you do not.

[Goose]

Sports is about crowning winners. 

Wow, just wow. That statement couldn't be more wrong.

No, it couldn't be more correct. Name a sport beyond what was D1 college football before the playoff that doesn't have a tournament or contest to determine an ultimate winner.  I'm not even considering the process and experience, etc. That's a whole other topic not at all related to how sports always are contested to determine an ultimate winner.

It's your right to prefer sports not crowning a champion. Just don't claim sports aren't organized to do this.

Your argument is flawed in so many ways. First, the existence of a championship game does not ipso facto mean that a sport was "organized" (brought into existence under a common set of rules) mainly or solely to crown a champion. You have to show that it is "essential" some other way. Secondly, there are obviously may NCAA sports that played and thrived for many years without a "championship game" or anything like it. How could that be if such a game is a "requirement"? Third, there are many NCAA schools that play sports in which they have never even competed in a championship game and almost certainly never will. How is the existence of such a game a prerequisite for these schools playing the sport? Fourth, since the NCAA has divisions, there is no "ultimate" championship game. How is this possible if there must be exactly one "winner" for an NCAA sport to exist?

As an aside, I am pretty certain that most fans would agree that the "best team in the country" often doesn't win the championship game. Ditto the Super Bowl, FWIW. The single elimination format provides many paths to anomalous outcomes. These "championships" are fun to watch and to argue about, but they "prove" very little in many cases. Their actual important purpose in our society at present is to make money, which they do well.

Yes, you play to win the damn game. Every one of them, from opener to the championship (if you get there). But you do not vanish into thin air if you do not.