Why is everyone so obsessed with figuring out the "best" of everything?
What do we keep hearing after Pittsburgh's thrilling victory in Sunday's Super Bowl?
- Was James Harrison's 100-yard interception return better than David Tyree's catch -- which was last year's best Super Bowl play ever?
- Was Ben Roethlisberger's game-winning drive better than the one Eli Manning put together a season before?
- Was this Super Bowl better than last season's Super Bowl, which pundits had declared the best Super Bowl ever played?
Why do we try to answer these questions? Are they even possible to answer?
Ask a Steelers' fan you get one answer. Ask a Giants' fan you get another. Ask a neutral observer and ... ah, who really cares?
Does arguing about this stuff really matter? Of course not. It just fills time, takes up newspaper space, TV air time and Internet bandwidth.
The knee-jerk reaction is always -- yes, always -- that the last 'great' moment you see is always the 'best' great moment. We are emotional creatures -- even reporters and columnists. That's just how we are.
Over the years we have seen many great Super Bowls, and many great plays. What about Marcus Allen's incredible reverse-field touchdown run? Joe Theismann's intercepted screen pass? Joe Montana to John Taylor against the Cincinnati Bengals? Scott Norwood's wide right? Len Dawson to Otis Taylor? The Jets beating the Colts?
Were these moments any less dramatic or less thrilling than what we have seen the past two seasons? Probably not. Our memories of them have just dimmed over the years.
Let's just be thankful we have had two great Super Bowls in a row. At least great games give us stuff to argue about.