[Goose]

When I say sports are about winning, I'm thinking about it through the prism of those who organize and sanction the competitions, not those who participate in them. 


You are thinking about sports through the prism of those who participate in competitions.



All sports competition organizers set up a system that determines an overall winner where they have jurisdiction. All sports competitors want to be the best and will compete even if the odds against them winning are infinitesimal, because they love the process and the competition even if they lose.

We are getting closer, but I still disagree. First, all sports competition do not set up systems that determine an overall winner. There are other factors involved. For many, many years the NCAA had both the NCAA championship and the NIT. Which one crowned the "winner"? People back in the 40s and 50s liked the NIT better because it allowed lots more teams that they wanted to see. Often the "best" teams went there. The NCAA tournament was definitely second fiddle. Before air transport was common, having 64 team tournaments was very difficult and would take forever. When that became possible, the NIT receded into history. Sports leagues set up competition systems that "work". As has been pointed out, soccer leagues have multiple "champions". Even NCAA football doesn't insist North Dakota State play Georgia to be a "champion". What leagues do IMHO is set up a system the public "likes". Today, they add the constraint that it maximizes revenue.

One could (and many have) argued that the "regular season" should crown the champion, and in leagues that are small enough, it often does. NCAA sports are generally too big for that, so we end up with a "post-season" that decides the championship. In football, it wasn't always that way. The powers that be felt multiple bowl games worked better at maximizing profit and the public "liked" it. There used to be few bowl games. Only league champions went. However, TV made it possible to play bowl games that could make significant money even though they didn't draw a big enough crowd at the stadium to do so. Subsequently, it became clear a "national championship" would make big bucks, even though it really wasn't representative of the entire NCAA college football scene. That was done for one reason. Money. The previous system worked just fine and grew the sport. It existed for years without an "ultimate game" and still does in that there are divisions of NCAA football. Obviously the current system is not an inevitable consequence of the NCAA existing. It is about the money.

[Goose]

When I say sports are about winning, I'm thinking about it through the prism of those who organize and sanction the competitions, not those who participate in them. 


You are thinking about sports through the prism of those who participate in competitions.



All sports competition organizers set up a system that determines an overall winner where they have jurisdiction. All sports competitors want to be the best and will compete even if the odds against them winning are infinitesimal, because they love the process and the competition even if they lose.

We are getting closer, but I still disagree. First, all sports competition do not set up systems that determine an overall winner. There are other factors involved. For many, many years the NCAA had both the NCAA championship and the NIT. Which one crowned the "winner"? People back in the 40s and 50s liked the NIT better because it allowed lots more teams that they wanted to see. Often the "best" teams went there. The NCAA tournament was definitely second fiddle. Before air transport was common, having 64 team tournaments was very difficult and would take forever. When that became possible, the NIT receded into history. Sports leagues set up competition systems that "work". As has been pointed out, soccer leagues have multiple "champions". Even NCAA football doesn't insist North Dakota State play Georgia to be a "champion". What leagues do IMHO is set up a system the public "likes". Today, they add the constraint that it maximizes revenue.

One could (and many have) argued that the "regular season" should crown the champion, and in leagues that are small enough, it often does. NCAA sports are generally too big for that, so we end up with a "post-season" that decides the championship. In football, it wasn't always that way. The powers that be felt multiple bowl games worked better at maximizing profit and the public "liked" it. There used to be few bowl games. Only league champions went. However, TV made it possible to play bowl games that could make significant money even though they didn't draw a big enough crowd at the stadium to do so. Subsequently, it became clear a "national championship" would make big bucks, even though it really wasn't representative of the entire NCAA college football scene. That was done for one reason. Money. The previous system worked just fine and grew the sport. It existed for years without an "ultimate game" and still does in that there are divisions of NCAA football. Obviously the current system is not an inevitable consequence of the NCAA existing. It is about the money.