Pardon me?

Unlike all you Jonathan-Come-Latelies, I've been a Tony Kornheiser fan since I was knee-high to a grasshopper and he was doing his original show on ESPN Radio. I'm talking back in 1999, with the Know Your Heads game show (featuring Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 heads) and interviews with the WaPost movie critic every Friday. Those were the days. Simpler days. Now that he's hit the big time with his TV show, I feel like I don't even know the guy any more. He doesn't talk about his kids ad nauseum, he doesn't return my calls, and I can't even remember the last time we played golf together.

Actually I like PTI. I don't get to see it like I used to listen to his radio show, but he and Wilbon have intelligent and entertaining discussions and I rarely have a reason to go off on them on SRAM (in fact, this is their first mention). But yesterday during the toss-up segment they not only stepped into a couple of mudpuddles of idiocy, but also it was related to SRAM's latest thread, so I figured, the time has come.

The first toss-up was the old chestnut "Who would you rather have to win a football game: Peyton Manning or Tom Brady?" The question featured very little debate. Tom Brady, of course! went the chorus. Sure, Manning's got the stats, but Brady's got the rings, and also, I'm quoting Wilbon here not once but twice, "Until Manning can beat him, you've got to go with Brady."

Okay, let's add another entry to the Sports Reporters Hall of Fame of Meaningless Cliches. How many times have you heard that? "Until so-and-so proves he can beat such-and-such (or win thus-and-such), you have to go with such-and-such." But this makes no sense. It's like saying, "The Patriots are the NFL champs until they lose in the playoffs." Well, duh. And then at that point they will no longer be the champs. The whole point is, who's going to be the champ? I didn't ask you who was last year's champ.

I mean, suppose all of Brady's receivers and offensive linemen were to break their legs. Gone for the year. Do you still go with Brady, because hey, you have to go with him until he loses?

SRAM has already been down this path over and over. I can't believe that reporters continue to think they can get away with saying, for example, "Well hey, Peyton didn't beat Brady back in September. QED." Do I really have to point out that Peyton was going up against New England's defense, while Brady was going up against Indianapolis' defense? Does anybody really think that if Tom Brady were in charge of Indianapolis' offense, that they would have a better record? Or if Peyton was in charge of New England's offense, that they would have a worse record? Por favor.

But that's only the first half of PTI's idiocy. Because the very next toss-up was, "Who would you rather have, LeBron or Kobe?" Tony comes out and spouts some nonsense about how he'll take Kobe as soon as Kobe "learns to be the team leader" or "handle his new role" or whatever. Wilbon fires back with some stats: LeBron is shooting 48% (actually 47%) versus only 39% for Kobe. Rebounds is 8.6 to 6.3. Etc.

What, suddenly stats are king now? It's been a grand total of 30 seconds, and now suddenly we're paying attention to the numbers! And oddly enough, no mention of Kobe's rings. I seem to recall him having a few. "Ah, but Kobe had Shaq." Oh, so now it's a team sport again!

But there's no arguing with Conventional Wisdom, which has decreed that Brady shall be better than Manning because of The Rings, but when it comes to LeBron versus Kobe, well, that has yet to be settled, so feel free to use whatever arguments (intelligent or otherwise) you need.