Not only good at basketball, but safe if they suddenly decide to go deer hunting.

If a college tournament basketball game can be prolonged for six overtime periods, why can’t the National Football League let the occasional game run a little longer, instead of clinging desperately to the much-maligned coin-toss, sudden-death, first-score-wins system?

I still think professional football — marketing aside — is not as bad as its critics think; in fact, one need only look to this year’s Super Bowl (usually somewhat disappointing) for evidence of what a great game it still is. A stifling defense against a fiery, flashy offense… and a close, back-and-forth game to boot! It’s heads above the professional level of any other full-team sport (and here I ignore baseball, because the rhythm and dynamics are so unique to it), and every game truly means something (as opposed to pro hoops or stickball, where the vast majority of more than 100 games are relatively meaningless), and so-called “stars” still can’t showboat without the help of their teammates (see Owens, Terrell).

But the overtime rule needs to be changed — TV schedules be damned.

P.S.: The classic post by my friend (which itself references a classic post by a wonderful writer and rabid NFL hater) referenced in the title is here.

UPDATE: In hurriedly posting this, I forgot to mention another sporty post by a political commentator, Daniel Larison. It’s here, and takes a look at that peculiar American tradition of mocking, hating and berating soccer. He (and I) both think it absurd, to hold so strongly a matter of preference as absolute fact. But, as one of his commenters notes:

Every year, by the way, I ask my composition students to name the two most controversial, divisive topics in America today. They guess abortion. War. Etc. I let them go for a while until I say, “Soccer. And WalMart.” They sit there stunned for a second. Then one person opens his mouth and… BOOM.

It has almost come to fisticuffs. Twice.

Seriously, it’s a good read. Check it out.