One more brief step up to the lectern, as the always-thoughtful SMQ hits another home run. Or scores another touchdown. Or... yeah, that's just bad writing.
Anyway, I turn your attention to this terrific post in which SMQ responds to the Highfalutin `Pologist's most recent "work" ranking the best conferences.
(Before reading further, take a wild guess which conference he ranks the highest? That you already knew the answer was the Pac 10 validates everything everyone gripes about the `Pologist, and makes the recent flurry of discussion on blogger biases relevant.)
Anyway, I'm not here to bash the `Pologist. In fact, this post is a bit of a mea culpa for the last time around, when I got dragged into a nasty spout with him. I instead wish to call attention to SMQ (which I, and others, have been doing a lot lately, for damn good reason; he's phenomenal).
Reading SMQ's measured response to HP's totally ad hoc rankings serves as a valuable lesson for how we should approach HP's, or anyone else's, arguments that may strike us as ridiculous. Pointing out shortcomings in reasoning, or lack of reasoning altogether, can be done constructively; or, perhaps more accurately, less destructively. It's much easier to say, "HP is a retread!" than it is to explain, with some amount of insight and detail, why the particular arguments are to be ignored.
Anyway, kudos to SMQ for his thoughtful deconstruction and his avoidance of ad hominem attackery.
[If conference ranking is your bag, give Bruce Feldman's take ($) a try. His rankings, in order: SEC, Big 10, ACC, Big 12, Pac 10.]