It seems that a lot of "why" questions are not good questions.
Here are a few, for example:
- Why do the captains of the New England Patriots not wear captain patches?
- Points are given in tennis 15-30-40. Why 40?
- Why are forfeits in baseball scored as 9-0?
- Why is FIFA against adding instant replay to the game?
- Why are large MLB contracts backloaded?
"Why do the captains of the New England Patriots not wear captain patches?" Answer: I guess because Bill doesn't want his players to.
"Points are given in tennis 15-30-40. Why 40?" Answer: A guess about clock positions. A better question would have been about history, rather than motivation.
"Why are forfeits in baseball scored as 9-0?" Answer: A quote from the rule book ("In the event of forfeiture, the score is recorded as "9 to 0"). But that didn't satisfy the asker. They wanted to know the history.
"Why is FIFA against adding instant replay to the game?" Answers were given, but every one turned into an argument in the comments. Trying to guess motivations of organizations, even relying on their own comments, is just inviting debate.
"Why are large MLB contracts backloaded?" This is an economics question, not a sports question.
My point is "why" questions tend to be bad questions. They invite speculation and debate. They ask questions the asker isn't really interested in. They ask things that are off topic.