Myths/Misconceptions - Sports Edition

[jp the roadgeek]

The ball that went through Bill Buckner's legs was the only reason why the Red Sox lost Game 6 in 1986.  If he makes the play, the game moves on to the 11th and who knows what would have happened after that.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

The ball that went through Bill Buckner's legs was the only reason why the Red Sox lost Game 6 in 1986.  If he makes the play, the game moves on to the 11th and who knows what would have happened after that.

Yep. It's unfortunate how pitchers Calvin Schiraldi and Bob Stanley have gotten off scot-free for blowing the lead.

[Takumi]

Similarly, the Steve Bartman game was game 6. The Cubs had to lose game 7 as well.

[bing101]

Raiders wanted to move back to Los Angeles after the Oakland stadium deal failed.

[Roadgeekteen]

Brett Hull's goal in the crease was game 6 so the Sabres would still have to win that game in OT and win game 7 in Dallas.

[triplemultiplex]

The field goal vs going for it late in that game is just the last peanut in the turd that was getting 3 gifts served on silver platter from Crybrady and then doing jack shit with them.  That is the stupid legacy of the 2021 NFC Championship.

[thspfc]

The field goal vs going for it late in that game is just the last peanut in the turd that was getting 3 gifts served on silver platter from Crybrady and then doing jack shit with them.  That is the stupid legacy of the 2021 NFC Championship.

You fit right in with Alps.

[Roadgeekteen]

The field goal vs going for it late in that game is just the last peanut in the turd that was getting 3 gifts served on silver platter from Crybrady and then doing jack shit with them.  That is the stupid legacy of the 2021 NFC Championship.

CryBrady won the super bowl.

[1995hoo]

My wife, thinking that the 2 Minute Warning meaning the game will be over in two minutes. 

No, it means "go now because the restroom lines are about to get really long."

[OCGuy81]

My wife, thinking that the 2 Minute Warning meaning the game will be over in two minutes. 

No, it means "go now because the restroom lines are about to get really long."

Right? Not to mention the long line of cars leaving the parking lot if you're at a game in person.

At home, it means "slowly start getting ready. We'll leave here in about 15."

[TheHighwayMan3561]

My wife, thinking that the 2 Minute Warning meaning the game will be over in two minutes. 

No, it means "go now because the restroom lines are about to get really long."

Right? Not to mention the long line of cars leaving the parking lot if you're at a game in person.

At home, it means "slowly start getting ready. We'll leave here in about 15."

I'll always have a small grudge against my dad because we went to a Packers/Vikings MNF game in 1999 where he made us both go to the bathroom before halftime and we missed a bomb TD to Randy Moss.

[Alps]

The field goal vs going for it late in that game is just the last peanut in the turd that was getting 3 gifts served on silver platter from Crybrady and then doing jack shit with them.  That is the stupid legacy of the 2021 NFC Championship.

You fit right in with Alps.

as fans of not cheating? cool 

[texaskdog]

Punting is always a smart move.
Consecutive points and unanswered points are the same thing.
Soccer is fun.

[texaskdog]

Similarly, the Steve Bartman game was game 6. The Cubs had to lose game 7 as well.

The way he was treated still sickens me.  They blew a big lead AFTER that happened and the guy who blunders and errors points at Bartman and receives no blame.  Hated the Cubs ever since. 

[OCGuy81]

I thought of another one, with the Olympics coming up.

The 1980 "miracle on ice" with the US beating the Soviets was Team USA winning it all.

Nope, that was just to advance to another round, and I believe it was Sweden they subsequently lost to.

[thspfc]

Punting is always a smart move.
Consecutive points and unanswered points are the same thing.
Soccer is fun.

Nobody has ever said that punting is always a smart move.
Can you restate your opinion on soccer again?

[CNGL-Leudimin]

I agree about association football. We have it all the time in the media here in Spain, as if it was the only sport in existence.

[1995hoo]

I thought of another one, with the Olympics coming up.

The 1980 "miracle on ice" with the US beating the Soviets was Team USA winning it all.

Nope, that was just to advance to another round, and I believe it was Sweden they subsequently lost to.

They didn't lose the next game. They beat Finland to win the gold medal. The Olympic hockey that year didn't use a bracket. There was round-robin play in two six-team groups. The top two teams from each group then advanced to the final round and played a round robin against the teams from the other group (the result against the other team advancing from your own group carried over).

So the USA had tied Sweden in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USSR had beaten Finland in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USA played the USSR and Finland, in that order, and won both games to finish with 5 standings points (2 for each of those wins and 1 for beating Sweden earlier). The USSR lost to the USA and then crushed Sweden 9—2 to finish with 4 points (2 for beating Finland earlier, 2 for beating Sweden, 0 for losing to the USA). Sweden tied Finland and then, as noted, lost to the USSR; they finished in third place with 2 points (1 for the tie with Finland, 1 for the earlier tie with the USA, 0 for the loss to the USSR). Finland, as already noted, tied Sweden and lost to the USA and finished fourth with 1 point.

If the USA had lost to Finland, they would have finished with three points and Finland also would have finished with three. The USSR would have won gold by beating Sweden. I assume Finland would have taken silver on a head-to-head tiebreaker and the USA would have taken bronze, but who knows–Europeans tend to have strange rules for tiebreakers and I assume the format for the tournament was designed by the IIHF.

[OCGuy81]

I thought of another one, with the Olympics coming up.

The 1980 "miracle on ice" with the US beating the Soviets was Team USA winning it all.

Nope, that was just to advance to another round, and I believe it was Sweden they subsequently lost to.

They didn't lose the next game. They beat Finland to win the gold medal. The Olympic hockey that year didn't use a bracket. There was round-robin play in two six-team groups. The top two teams from each group then advanced to the final round and played a round robin against the teams from the other group (the result against the other team advancing from your own group carried over).

So the USA had tied Sweden in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USSR had beaten Finland in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USA played the USSR and Finland, in that order, and won both games to finish with 5 standings points (2 for each of those wins and 1 for beating Sweden earlier). The USSR lost to the USA and then crushed Sweden 9—2 to finish with 4 points (2 for beating Finland earlier, 2 for beating Sweden, 0 for losing to the USA). Sweden tied Finland and then, as noted, lost to the USSR; they finished in third place with 2 points (1 for the tie with Finland, 1 for the earlier tie with the USA, 0 for the loss to the USSR). Finland, as already noted, tied Sweden and lost to the USA and finished fourth with 1 point.

If the USA had lost to Finland, they would have finished with three points and Finland also would have finished with three. The USSR would have won gold by beating Sweden. I assume Finland would have taken silver on a head-to-head tiebreaker and the USA would have taken bronze, but who knows–Europeans tend to have strange rules for tiebreakers and I assume the format for the tournament was designed by the IIHF.

Oh wow! I didn't know all this.  Thanks!

[NWI_Irish96]

I thought of another one, with the Olympics coming up.

The 1980 "miracle on ice" with the US beating the Soviets was Team USA winning it all.

Nope, that was just to advance to another round, and I believe it was Sweden they subsequently lost to.

They didn't lose the next game. They beat Finland to win the gold medal. The Olympic hockey that year didn't use a bracket. There was round-robin play in two six-team groups. The top two teams from each group then advanced to the final round and played a round robin against the teams from the other group (the result against the other team advancing from your own group carried over).

So the USA had tied Sweden in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USSR had beaten Finland in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USA played the USSR and Finland, in that order, and won both games to finish with 5 standings points (2 for each of those wins and 1 for beating Sweden earlier). The USSR lost to the USA and then crushed Sweden 9—2 to finish with 4 points (2 for beating Finland earlier, 2 for beating Sweden, 0 for losing to the USA). Sweden tied Finland and then, as noted, lost to the USSR; they finished in third place with 2 points (1 for the tie with Finland, 1 for the earlier tie with the USA, 0 for the loss to the USSR). Finland, as already noted, tied Sweden and lost to the USA and finished fourth with 1 point.

If the USA had lost to Finland, they would have finished with three points and Finland also would have finished with three. The USSR would have won gold by beating Sweden. I assume Finland would have taken silver on a head-to-head tiebreaker and the USA would have taken bronze, but who knows–Europeans tend to have strange rules for tiebreakers and I assume the format for the tournament was designed by the IIHF.

Yes, this pretty well describes it. Before the TV networks took over sports, round robins were more common than knockout tournaments for deciding championships. The Soviet Union had to play Sweden after the US had already beat Finland to clinch the gold. Today, when everything is shown live, this kind of thing doesn't fly because nobody would watch that last game. In 1980, the US-USSR game wasn't even shown live. People who were out in their cars or otherwise listening to the radio earlier in the day heard a "breaking news" interruption announcing the historic upset. People who were at home watching TV or anyone not having listened to the radio got to watch the game later in the evening unspoiled.

[texaskdog]

Punting is always a smart move.
Consecutive points and unanswered points are the same thing.
Soccer is fun.

Nobody has ever said that punting is always a smart move.
Can you restate your opinion on soccer again?

I think the punting misconception is going away
I mean "soccer is fun" is a misconception

[texaskdog]

I thought of another one, with the Olympics coming up.

The 1980 "miracle on ice" with the US beating the Soviets was Team USA winning it all.

Nope, that was just to advance to another round, and I believe it was Sweden they subsequently lost to.

They didn't lose the next game. They beat Finland to win the gold medal. The Olympic hockey that year didn't use a bracket. There was round-robin play in two six-team groups. The top two teams from each group then advanced to the final round and played a round robin against the teams from the other group (the result against the other team advancing from your own group carried over).

So the USA had tied Sweden in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USSR had beaten Finland in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USA played the USSR and Finland, in that order, and won both games to finish with 5 standings points (2 for each of those wins and 1 for beating Sweden earlier). The USSR lost to the USA and then crushed Sweden 9—2 to finish with 4 points (2 for beating Finland earlier, 2 for beating Sweden, 0 for losing to the USA). Sweden tied Finland and then, as noted, lost to the USSR; they finished in third place with 2 points (1 for the tie with Finland, 1 for the earlier tie with the USA, 0 for the loss to the USSR). Finland, as already noted, tied Sweden and lost to the USA and finished fourth with 1 point.

If the USA had lost to Finland, they would have finished with three points and Finland also would have finished with three. The USSR would have won gold by beating Sweden. I assume Finland would have taken silver on a head-to-head tiebreaker and the USA would have taken bronze, but who knows–Europeans tend to have strange rules for tiebreakers and I assume the format for the tournament was designed by the IIHF.

Oh wow! I didn't know all this.  Thanks!

I'm sure in the movie version it was the Championship

[NWI_Irish96]

I thought of another one, with the Olympics coming up.

The 1980 "miracle on ice" with the US beating the Soviets was Team USA winning it all.

Nope, that was just to advance to another round, and I believe it was Sweden they subsequently lost to.

They didn't lose the next game. They beat Finland to win the gold medal. The Olympic hockey that year didn't use a bracket. There was round-robin play in two six-team groups. The top two teams from each group then advanced to the final round and played a round robin against the teams from the other group (the result against the other team advancing from your own group carried over).

So the USA had tied Sweden in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USSR had beaten Finland in the preliminary round and that carried over. The USA played the USSR and Finland, in that order, and won both games to finish with 5 standings points (2 for each of those wins and 1 for beating Sweden earlier). The USSR lost to the USA and then crushed Sweden 9—2 to finish with 4 points (2 for beating Finland earlier, 2 for beating Sweden, 0 for losing to the USA). Sweden tied Finland and then, as noted, lost to the USSR; they finished in third place with 2 points (1 for the tie with Finland, 1 for the earlier tie with the USA, 0 for the loss to the USSR). Finland, as already noted, tied Sweden and lost to the USA and finished fourth with 1 point.

If the USA had lost to Finland, they would have finished with three points and Finland also would have finished with three. The USSR would have won gold by beating Sweden. I assume Finland would have taken silver on a head-to-head tiebreaker and the USA would have taken bronze, but who knows–Europeans tend to have strange rules for tiebreakers and I assume the format for the tournament was designed by the IIHF.

Oh wow! I didn't know all this.  Thanks!

I'm sure in the movie version it was the Championship

Not sure which movie version you're talking about. In the 2004 version with Kurt Russell as Coach Brooks, it was pretty clear that there was a game against Finland after the USSR game.

[webny99]

I just realized I've been seeing the Atlanta Hawks logo in reverse... almost like a monster with its mouth open. 

[DandyDan]

Myths - Sports Edition

Chargers fans

I actually work with one here in Iowa. He grew up in Orange County, CA, and he said there were always some Charger fans there when he grew up.