Last Sunday morning, I woke up to a re-run of Saturday Night’s College Football Scoreboard. ESPN decided for the 1,134th time (1,134 too many in my opinion) to do the “courtroom debate” gimmick. The topic: whether home field advantage in college football has an impact on the game.
The “lawyers” were Lou Holtz and Mark May. Despite him being painful to listen to, I’m almost always on Holtz’s side (because Mark May speaks in a proper voice but says things so painfully idiotic that I nearly throw the remote at the TV). This time, however, Holtz was making the argument that home field advantage was not, in fact, an advantage. (I guess they only call it that for fun.)
Dr. Lou’s argument was that visiting players are so focused, they don’t get affected by the noise and can more effectively concentrate on the gameplan. While I hate to come off trying to sound smarter than a “doctor,” the phrases “letdown game,” “hangover game,” and even “upset” wouldn’t exist if focus wasn’t lost from time to time.
Even Mark May – a man on FnB’s Top 5 “Must Mute” list – made the incredibly logical, “the defense rests” point of saying that gambling lines are set based on the very premise of home field being an advantage. FnB realizes that ESPN basically forces its analysts into taking stances on certain topics to fill air time, but this one flat out insults its viewership.
Click here for more