Sport Science doesn't even need to use science

The 'evil four letter' (ESPN), as they are known as on Fox Sports, has a segment that pops up from time to time that examines athletes and the science behind their skills and abilities. It sounds like a great way to get people and, most likely, kids involved in science. Take something they enjoy and add a learning element so that it's not just mindless entertainment. The show has won Emmy's so there is some merit behind it and I like the premise. Not enough kids are in the sciences these days.

But - and a big J-Lo butt - sometimes you don't really need science to figure things out.

For example, I remember watching a segment related to Super Bowl catches. They looked at David Tyree's and Santonio Holmes' of the Giants and Steelers, respectively. Then they wanted to find out which catch required the least amount of force. If you remember Tyree's catch, and how could you not, you'd remember there were guys all around him pushing and shoving, trying to knock the ball loose. And if you remember Santonio Holmes' catch, a not so memorable catch from an otherwise memorable game, you'd know he was barely touched.

When they first mentioned the catches I immediately knew Tyree's required more force. And that's from a high school understanding of physics. Why spend an entire segment on this? I assure you that most people knew the answer before the end of the question. It just seems like a waste of space.

Here's the segment: [note the video is titled Fox Sports, but it's actually from ESPN] You don't need to watch the whole thing, it's just here for reference.