I don't get to watch SportsCenter much any more. While I stay up as late as ever (and get much less sleep than I did pre-Max), I spend that late-night time doing something productive (reading, writing, watching movies) rather than engaging in the mindless pleasure of pureed sports.

But last week, I did catch a little segment called "Fact or Fiction." This is where an anchor poses a statement to a panel of "experts" and asks them if the statement is, well, fact or fiction. One item was "Kansas State can beat Oklahoma: Fact or fiction." Both morons said "fiction."

I don't call these guys morons because they were sure Oklahoma would beat Kansas State in the Big 12 title game. Hey, I thought Oklahoma would win, though I sure didn't agree with the 14 point spread Vegas put on the game. I'm more concerned with the actual wording of the statement. Look at it again: "Kansas State can beat Oklahoma."

Of course Kansas State could beat Oklahoma. I say this not because my parents went to K-State and I have a soft spot in my heart for the guys in purple (unless they're playing Missouri), or because the underdog has a better record in the Big 12 title game than the favored team or because I watched the Wildcats's 35-7 thrashing of the previously unbeaten, #1 Sooners on Saturday night. I say this because if you put the statement "Army can beat Oklahoma" to me, I would have to say "fact." Never mind that Army went 0-13 this year--despite playing such perennial powers as Tulane, Rutgers, UConn and Alabama-Birmingham--and is probably the worst division I football team in the country. Anybody can beat anybody else. The proper way to phrase the statement is "Kansas State will beat Oklahoma."

Listen, I know this is a somewhat frivolous complaint. Like just about everybody, I improperly use "can" instead of "may" most of the time. But it seems to me that this situation is a bit different. I've seen the "Fact or Fiction" segment a few times, and the folks always use "can" instead of "will." Maybe they think this sounds better. Maybe they think the word choice makes their opinions sound more authoritative. Maybe they've all been listening to a bit too much Rush Limbaugh. I don't know the reason. Maybe it's a combination of all those plus a few personal idiosyncrasies.

But these sorts of puffed-up authoritative attitudes sure do get deflated easily. The announcers of the KSU-OU game were quite prolific in their praise of Oklahoma, especially after the Sooners raced (literally) to a 7-0 lead. Their banter in the first quarter sounded like an attempt to keep listeners tuned in to what would become a blowout. Well, it did. Just not the way they expected.

I watched one other game on Saturday: Missouri's death-defying 63-58 win at Indiana. The sport this time was basketball, but once again, the announcers made all sorts of silly, absolutist comments. When Indiana took a 15-point lead and held it for most of the game, the talk was all about how exciting the young Indiana players were and how overrated Missouri was. Then, after the Tigers went on a 21-2 run at the end of the game to win by five, there was a discussion of Missouri as a serious national title contender. Well, you know, the team is ranked in the top 5. I suppose it's possible. It's also December. Arkansas beat Missouri by 50-something points in December 1994. Missouri went on to go undefeated through the Big 8 season (something that had never been done, and never will be done again now that the Big 12 is in existence) and made a run to the national quarterfinals before finally losing to a solid Arizona team.

When I was in school (1991 or 1992, I can't remember which), #1-ranked Missouri went to Notre Dame and lost to a bad Irish team by more than 30. I'm sure if the boys on SportsCenter had run a "Fact or Fiction" on that, everyone would have said it couldn't happen. But it did. A few weeks back, seven of the eight last-place teams in the NFL won on the same Sunday--many of them beating division-leaders. Could it happen? Of course. Would any sane person have predicted it? Of course not. That's why I watch sports. There's all sorts of strategy speculation, and if you've followed a sport for a while you come to have a feeling about what's going on, but as one of my fellow SUIT columnists said a while back, the simple fact is you never know.

I know, I know, to some extent this is a picky grammar thing. But really, it's not. It's about arrogance and stupidity, all wrapped into one easy target. No one can predict the future, and the only person I know with enough hubris to claim such a gift is Donald Rumsfeld. And we all know how his prognostication career is going. When it comes to things that have yet to pass, folks should speculate on what will happen.

Because anything can.

Jon Worley can write, though this column isn't necessarily solid proof.