I hesitate to immediately bestow it that honor, however, while recognizing that the game was certainly an exciting one.
My main concern? The recency effect. The psychology term is used to explain the fact that people remember items at the ends of lists more clearly than those in the middle. There is also a primacy effect, which explains why items at the beginnings of lists are also remembered more readily.
A quick experiment, with answers at the bottom of this post:
Name the first three presidents. Name the last three presidents. Name the 13th through 15th presidents. Name the first three Super Bowl winners. Name the last three Super Bowl winners. Name the 13th through 15th Super Bowl winners. I can guess what set was most difficult to recall.
Essentially, it's easier to remember either sides of these lists because when remembering information, we have to start somewhere. Our brains need some sort of touchstone, and it is easy to understand why the most recent Super Bowl would be the simplest to remember. We can then work backwards from there fairly easily. (I can get through the last 15 or so, because the first Super Bowl I remember caring about was between Denver and Green Bay, in 1997).
If I gave you some more information -- like, Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president -- you will use that as a touchstone, and perhaps work backwards from there. It's much easier than starting at No. 1 and working your way up, or starting at No. 44 and working your way back.
All this to say, that I think the media is suffering from the recency effect when so quickly labeling the Steelers-Cardinals game as the best Super Bowl ever. As ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons wrote the day after the game:
(Note to anyone playing the "greatest ever" card -- we quickly overrate the Super Bowl every time it's good. Settle down. The fourth quarter wasn't any more exciting than the Panthers-Pats game. Fitzgerald's long TD wasn't any more or less exciting than Isaac Bruce's long TD that won the Rams-Titans game. The ending wasn't any more dramatic than Bills-Giants or Niners-Bengals II. Let the record show that this game sucked for three solid quarters except for the Harrison play.)
I disagree with Simmons on the point that the game sucked for three solid quarters except for the Harrison play, and may elaborate in a later post. Simmons' broader point, however, is a good one. (He does accidentally, however, suggest that while individual pieces of this year's Super Bowl can be compared to those in past games, that the collective whole may be incomparable.)
If we could substitute any worthy candidate of "The Best Super Bowl Ever" designation with Sunday's Super Bowl, our opinions would likely change. A strong example? Imagine if we had just witnessed the Rams defeat the Titans 23-16 with Tennessee wide receiver Kevin Dyson futily reaching toward the end zone as time expired. Would that certainly not be considered the best Super Bowl ever, with the Steelers-Cardinals fourth-quarter shootout 10 years in the past?
I do need to point out that the most recent Super Bowl could indeed be the most exciting ever. Simply because it is the most recent doesn't change the nature of the game itself. I am just offering the idea that we need to approach the subject with a little more caution. I will follow my own advice, and offer up my personal opinion at a time further removed from the actual event.
Recency effect answers:
First three presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson
Last three presidents: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton
13th through 15th presidents: Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan
First three Super Bowl winners: Green Bay Packers, Packers, New York Jets
Last three Super Bowl winners: Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, Indianapolis Colts
13th through 15th Super Bowl winners: Steelers, Steelers, Oakland Raiders
No comments:
Post a Comment