Minor things that annoy you-sports edition

[webny99]

It makes more sense to me for people to start cheering for a team that's winning a lot.  Forget about your emotional attachment to this team or that team for a minute, and ask yourself:  doesn't it make sense to cheer for a team that plays well?  If "your" team stops playing well, isn't it understandable to lose your enthusiasm for them?

If my favorite band stops producing music I like, then why should I keep buying their albums?  If my favorite TV series replaces the best actors and writers with mindless drivel and lackluster acting, then why should I keep watching it?  Similarly, if my favorite sports team stops playing their sport well, then why should I keep supporting them?

As for cheering for faraway teams rather than your local team...  For me...  Unless I personally know someone on the team, then I'm watching the sport for the sake of the game, not for the sake of the city.

Bands and TV shows are fairly one-dimensional: you watch or listen to them for entertainment. Sports can be entertaining too, certainly, but it's really all about the competition. And if you just support whichever team is doing best, or is the most fun to watch, that to me suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of (a) the purpose of sports, and (b) how competition works.

Rooting for a team even when they're bad or mediocre, and watching them pull of wins as the underdog, is a big part of what makes sports exciting! Being loyal to a team also builds a sense of comradery and community, and even identity in a way that consuming something for pleasure does not, and that is what sets sports apart from other forms of entertainment.

[Max Rockatansky]

It makes more sense to me for people to start cheering for a team that's winning a lot.  Forget about your emotional attachment to this team or that team for a minute, and ask yourself:  doesn't it make sense to cheer for a team that plays well?  If "your" team stops playing well, isn't it understandable to lose your enthusiasm for them?

If my favorite band stops producing music I like, then why should I keep buying their albums?  If my favorite TV series replaces the best actors and writers with mindless drivel and lackluster acting, then why should I keep watching it?  Similarly, if my favorite sports team stops playing their sport well, then why should I keep supporting them?

As for cheering for faraway teams rather than your local team...  For me...  Unless I personally know someone on the team, then I'm watching the sport for the sake of the game, not for the sake of the city.

Bands and TV shows are fairly one-dimensional: you watch or listen to them for entertainment. Sports can be entertaining too, certainly, but it's really all about the competition. And if you just support whichever team is doing best, or is the most fun to watch, that to me suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of (a) the purpose of sports, and (b) how competition works.

Rooting for a team even when they're bad or mediocre, and watching them pull of wins as the underdog, is a big part of what makes sports exciting! Being loyal to a team also builds a sense of comradery and community, and even identity in a way that consuming something for pleasure does not, and that is what sets sports apart from other forms of entertainment.

I've often heard that in Europe and a lot of other places that dynastic teams are far more revered than in the United States.  I suppose it makes sense given there long standing club soccer teams that probably drive that mindset.  Can anyone confirm that this is the case in places like Europe?

[Bruce]

I've often heard that in Europe and a lot of other places that dynastic teams are far more revered than in the United States.  I suppose it makes sense given there long standing club soccer teams that probably drive that mindset.  Can anyone confirm that this is the case in places like Europe?

The old greats are respected, but resented because they can suck up all the talent in the league thanks to the looser financial restraints in European soccer. The worst ones are the "new money" giants like Manchester City who "bought" their way to titles.

[Buck87]

Watching today's pregame promo reminded me of one:

People who either outright say or heavily imply that the Titans would have won the Super Bowl against the Rams had they scored on the game's final play that came up a yard short. Things like "we were 1 yard shy of winning it all"

No. It was a 7 point game.
Had Tennessee scored on that play it would have been 23-22, with the Titans having a major decision to make: either try to send the game to overtime, or try win it in regulation by going for the gutsiest 2 point conversion in NFL history. Only one team entered the game's final play with a chance to secure the victory based solely on the result of that one play, and they were the ones celebrating after its conclusion.

There is a similar thing with "The Fumble." It's often heavy inferred that the Browns would have gone to the Super Bowl had Earnest Byner not fumbled at the 1 yard line late in the 1987-88 AFC Championship game in Denver. Well, maybe, but it was far from guaranteed. That was also a 7 point game, and there was a little over a minute left. So to win it after the assumed Byner TD + PAT the Browns would have still needed to stop Elway from getting into mile high FG range with a minute to work with in a 38-38 game, and then win it in sudden death overtime.

[Billy F 1988]

I think what annoys me the most is how NASCAR just ripped the purism out of itself when the Chase was introduced. A lot of purist fans were really hot (read: ticked off) that Brian "Brainless" France thought this would make it more exciting. Well, it kinda was, that is until the big boys with Ring in the Fishbowl, okay, TOYOTA, began running rough shod. And, of course, Kurt Busch's radio tirades while he was at Penske, and the Jeremy Mayfield drug test debacle. That really irked me.

[Max Rockatansky]

I think what annoys me the most is how NASCAR just ripped the purism out of itself when the Chase was introduced. A lot of purist fans were really hot (read: ticked off) that Brian "Brainless" France thought this would make it more exciting. Well, it kinda was, that is until the big boys with Ring in the Fishbowl, okay, TOYOTA, began running rough shod. And, of course, Kurt Busch's radio tirades while he was at Penske, and the Jeremy Mayfield drug test debacle. That really irked me.

As opposed to most years when someone would just run away with the championship?  Proposals for something like a playoff started popping up after Terry Labonte one the Winston Cup Championship in 1996 being uber consistent with Top 5s and Top 10s. 

[spooky]

I think what annoys me the most is how NASCAR just ripped the purism out of itself when the Chase was introduced. A lot of purist fans were really hot (read: ticked off) that Brian "Brainless" France thought this would make it more exciting. Well, it kinda was, that is until the big boys with Ring in the Fishbowl, okay, TOYOTA, began running rough shod. And, of course, Kurt Busch's radio tirades while he was at Penske, and the Jeremy Mayfield drug test debacle. That really irked me.

NASCAR introduced the Chase in 2004. A Toyota driver did not win the championship until 2015. That is hardly "running rough shod".

[1995hoo]

The unintended consequence of having that system is that you'll have the top teams playing even more creampuff schedules than they do now.  Group of 5 teams will be playing all their nonconference games against FCS opponents just to increase their chances of being undefeated.  The only way I would approve of expanding the playoff to 8 teams is to impose the following conditions.

1) To be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 12 FBS opponents.  An exception can be made for a team that scheduled 12 FBS opponents but had one game cancelled due to weather.

2) For a Power 5 team or ND to be eligible for the playoff, you must play at least 10 other Power 5/ND teams.  Again an exception can be made for a game cancelled due to weather.

Since all P5 Conferences play at least 8 Regularly Scheduled Conference games, and have a Championship game, that is at least 9 P5 games against other members of your conference, with at least 8 different opponents, as Championship games can be repeat opponents

The way I read 2), is not just 10 games vs others in the P5, but 10 unique opponents. Assuming the Conference Title game is not a Rematch, many of the P5 Conferences already do this...SEC is sticking to 8 SEC games and the Big 12 has to have a repeat Title Game opponent since they play a Round Robin Football schedule. Pretty sure Big Ten, ACC, and Pac 12 are already here

The ACC requires every school to play at least one non-conference game against a "Power 5" team. Notre Dame and BYU count as "Power 5" under ACC rules. So do ACC teams–two schools can schedule a game against each other outside the regular eight-game conference schedule if they want. Wake Forest and Chapel Hill did that this past season. The game didn't count in the conference standings.

[hbelkins]

The ACC requires every school to play at least one non-conference game against a "Power 5" team. Notre Dame and BYU count as "Power 5" under ACC rules. So do ACC teams–two schools can schedule a game against each other outside the regular eight-game conference schedule if they want. Wake Forest and Chapel Hill did that this past season. The game didn't count in the conference standings.

Aren't most of those either in-state rivalries or something TV wants? Kentucky-Louisville was, for years, played early in the season. UK always closed its year out with Tennessee. Tennessee played Vandy to close its season the following week. When Louisville joined the ACC, TV interests got the game moved to the season finale, and the Tennessee game comes closer to the middle of the season now.

In North Carolina's case, do they have any Power 5 in-state options that aren't in the ACC? Clemson has South Carolina to play every year. Georgia Tech can play Georgia. And I presume Florida State, Miami, and Florida all play each other every year like they used to.

[1995hoo]

The ACC requires every school to play at least one non-conference game against a "Power 5" team. Notre Dame and BYU count as "Power 5" under ACC rules. So do ACC teams–two schools can schedule a game against each other outside the regular eight-game conference schedule if they want. Wake Forest and Chapel Hill did that this past season. The game didn't count in the conference standings.

Aren't most of those either in-state rivalries or something TV wants? Kentucky-Louisville was, for years, played early in the season. UK always closed its year out with Tennessee. Tennessee played Vandy to close its season the following week. When Louisville joined the ACC, TV interests got the game moved to the season finale, and the Tennessee game comes closer to the middle of the season now.

In North Carolina's case, do they have any Power 5 in-state options that aren't in the ACC? Clemson has South Carolina to play every year. Georgia Tech can play Georgia. And I presume Florida State, Miami, and Florida all play each other every year like they used to.

Chapel Hill does not have an in-state Power 5 opponent other than ACC schools (this year, I know they have a game against Auburn in Atlanta in early September). Among other ACC members, neither do UVA (I know we play Georgia in Atlanta on September 7), VPI (I believe they host Penn State this year), Boston College, or Syracuse. Notre Dame provides an automatic Power 5 opponent every two or three years (as part of their deal to join the ACC for everything except football and hockey, they committed to playing five ACC football opponents every year).

FSU and Miami are permanent cross-division opponents in the ACC. I know FSU and UF play every year. Don't know whether Miami and UF play regularly. (Edited to add: Miami won't play UF this year. Their big non-conference game is at Michigan State on September 26.)

[formulanone]

FSU and Miami are permanent cross-division opponents in the ACC. I know FSU and UF play every year.

FSU and Miami also play each other every year, usually around the 6th or 7th week; it dated back when both were independents. UF and FSU square off traditionally on "rivaly week"; either the weekend before or after Thanksgiving.

Don't know whether Miami and UF play regularly. (Edited to add: Miami won't play UF this year. Their big non-conference game is at Michigan State on September 26.)

That used to be a bigger rivalry, and it mostly ended after 1987. It's been an on-again/off-again deal where they play each other a few times, and then not again for 5-10 years. Gator fans say Miami had to prepare for more in-conference play once they joined the Big East, and Miami fans say UF wants a weaker schedule.

[1995hoo]

FSU and Miami are permanent cross-division opponents in the ACC. I know FSU and UF play every year.

FSU and Miami also play each other every year, usually around the 6th or 7th week ....

That's what "permanent cross-division opponents" means. Since the ACC expanded to 14 teams split into two seven-team divisions, the scheduling model has you play all the other teams in your division every year (that's six games), one permanent opponent from the other division that you play every year, and one rotating opponent from the other division.

[texaskdog]

FSU and Miami are permanent cross-division opponents in the ACC. I know FSU and UF play every year.

FSU and Miami also play each other every year, usually around the 6th or 7th week ....

That’s what "permanent cross-division opponents" means. Since the ACC expanded to 14 teams split into two seven-team divisions, the scheduling model has you play all the other teams in your division every year (that’s six games), one permanent opponent from the other division that you play every year, and one rotating opponent from the other division.

which is why in the SEC you get BS like Alabama playing Tennessee while Auburn has to play Georgia.

[Verlanka]

I think what annoys me the most is how NASCAR just ripped the purism out of itself when the Chase was introduced. A lot of purist fans were really hot (read: ticked off) that Brian "Brainless" France thought this would make it more exciting. Well, it kinda was, that is until the big boys with Ring in the Fishbowl, okay, TOYOTA, began running rough shod. And, of course, Kurt Busch's radio tirades while he was at Penske, and the Jeremy Mayfield drug test debacle. That really irked me.

NASCAR introduced the Chase in 2004. A Toyota driver did not win the championship until 2015. That is hardly "running rough shod".

Toyota did win a lot starting in 2008 or so.

[Eth]

FSU and Miami are permanent cross-division opponents in the ACC. I know FSU and UF play every year.

FSU and Miami also play each other every year, usually around the 6th or 7th week ....

That's what "permanent cross-division opponents" means. Since the ACC expanded to 14 teams split into two seven-team divisions, the scheduling model has you play all the other teams in your division every year (that's six games), one permanent opponent from the other division that you play every year, and one rotating opponent from the other division.

which is why in the SEC you get BS like Alabama playing Tennessee while Auburn has to play Georgia.

There have been rumblings lately of potential changes in this scheduling model. I think the Big 12's recent reintroduction of its championship game while eschewing the divisional structure is leading to other conferences reevaluating their setups.

Personally I like the idea (in a 14-team conference) of everyone having five designated annual opponents (which should be plenty to preserve any remotely important conference rivalries) and facing the other eight teams once every two years (so four each year) as part of a nine-game schedule. Helps to balance things out a little bit more (being the only Coastal Division team that has to play Clemson every year really sucks) and also means anyone who stays a full four years gets to play in every stadium in the conference.

Most of this has all just been speculation or wishful thinking so far, but I swear I saw something about a week ago suggesting that the SEC in particular was starting to look into the idea. I don't remember where I read that though, so my brain could just be making that up.

[SP Cook]

RE:  NASCAR, Brian "Baby"  France, and the idiotic chase.

Before the idiotic chase, the season championship was ONE MEASURE of who had the best year.  ONE THING.  There were other things, including the historic events, wins, popularity.  Et al.  Then Baby listened to empty suit network execs who had no understanding of NASCAR and contempt for the type of people who liked NASCAR.  And hence the idiotic chase.  Before it, "who won the race"  was what was important, every week.  The championship was not really discussed until the last week or two.  Now, the results of the race DO NOT MATTER.  All that matters is qualifying for an idiotic chase to be held months later in a different part of the country.  An idiotic chase which, despite yearly changes to its idiotic format, produces a RANDOM "champion"  with no relationship to who had the best year.

Told that the race results do not matter, and combined with other idiotic changes (head in a harness, no racing back to the caution, spec cars with no relationship to stock and no dissimilarities from one another other than a few stickers, unqualified rich kid drivers, "rovals" , segments, etc) the fans stayed away.

In the history of sport NO OTHER SPORT has suffered a decline in TV terms and live gate terms like NASCAR has.  NO OTHER SPORT EVER.  Because its wounds are self-inflicted.

And, sadly, even with Baby gone to DUI purgatory, the crew running things still do not get it and continue with the idiocy.

[roadman]

This past weekend demonstrated one thing that bothers me about NFL football.  The winning team gains possession of the ball with well over a minute left to go, and they declare the game over and let the clock run down.  And this happened not once, but twice.

Is it TOO much trouble to require the teams to actually play the full length of the game?

[Max Rockatansky]

RE:  NASCAR, Brian "Baby"  France, and the idiotic chase.

Before the idiotic chase, the season championship was ONE MEASURE of who had the best year.  ONE THING.  There were other things, including the historic events, wins, popularity.  Et al.  Then Baby listened to empty suit network execs who had no understanding of NASCAR and contempt for the type of people who liked NASCAR.  And hence the idiotic chase.  Before it, "who won the race"  was what was important, every week.  The championship was not really discussed until the last week or two.  Now, the results of the race DO NOT MATTER.  All that matters is qualifying for an idiotic chase to be held months later in a different part of the country.  An idiotic chase which, despite yearly changes to its idiotic format, produces a RANDOM "champion"  with no relationship to who had the best year.

Told that the race results do not matter, and combined with other idiotic changes (head in a harness, no racing back to the caution, spec cars with no relationship to stock and no dissimilarities from one another other than a few stickers, unqualified rich kid drivers, "rovals" , segments, etc) the fans stayed away.

In the history of sport NO OTHER SPORT has suffered a decline in TV terms and live gate terms like NASCAR has.  NO OTHER SPORT EVER.  Because its wounds are self-inflicted.

And, sadly, even with Baby gone to DUI purgatory, the crew running things still do not get it and continue with the idiocy.

You're all aware that the point system in what became Winston Cup (Grand National) changed frequently before the 1970s?   I thought that I'd throw that out there because everyone seems to be under the impression that point systems in NASCAR have ever had Historic stability.  The longest NASCAR ever had a consistent point system is from 1975 to the Chase era when the modern points system was adopted first with Chase itself and then in 2014.  The biggest issue NASCAR and all Motorsports have now is they having an aged viewership.  Younger people tend not to be into Motorsports like Baby Boomers and the Gen-X crowds were.  At this point it's pretty much inevitable that NASCAR will return to being a niche sport. 

What I did like about the 1975 point system is that it rewarded finishing well and punished bad race results.  That's how Jeff Gordon ended up losing to Terry Labonte in 1996, he had a ton of wins but kept having bad finishes too.  I'm all for adding extra points for a win but things certainly had an sense of legitimacy in terms of who the champion was before the Chase era. 

[texaskdog]

This past weekend demonstrated one thing that bothers me about NFL football.  The winning team gains possession of the ball with well over a minute left to go, and they declare the game over and let the clock run down.  And this happened not once, but twice.

Is it TOO much trouble to require the teams to actually play the full length of the game?

No taking a knee in the last two minutes, I love it.

[GaryV]

This past weekend demonstrated one thing that bothers me about NFL football.  The winning team gains possession of the ball with well over a minute left to go, and they declare the game over and let the clock run down.  And this happened not once, but twice.

Is it TOO much trouble to require the teams to actually play the full length of the game?

No taking a knee in the last two minutes, I love it.

So take the snap and "fall down by mistake" instead.  Yeah, that'll work.

[kurumi]

This past weekend demonstrated one thing that bothers me about NFL football.  The winning team gains possession of the ball with well over a minute left to go, and they declare the game over and let the clock run down.  And this happened not once, but twice.

Is it TOO much trouble to require the teams to actually play the full length of the game?

If there are about 11 to 15 minutes of actual play, how about having a game be 15 minutes long. Clock starts at the snap. There's a separate 20-30 second clock where you need to get to the next snap or have a delay of game; but that clock is not the game clock.

It would change the game a lot though.

[SP Cook]

You're all aware that the point system in what became Winston Cup (Grand National) changed frequently before the 1970s? 

Yes, they changed it many times, until coming up with the perfection that was the legitimate points system of the Winston Cup era.

The longest NASCAR ever had a consistent point system is from 1975 to the Chase era when the modern points system was adopted first with Chase itself and then in 2014.

In other words, the era when the sport grew from rural southern obscurity into a national sport second only, by some measures, to the NFL? 

The biggest issue NASCAR and all Motorsports have now is they having an aged viewership.  Younger people tend not to be into Motorsports like Baby Boomers and the Gen-X crowds were.  At this point it's pretty much inevitable that NASCAR will return to being a niche sport. 

Winners, win; and losers make excuses.  Nope.  NOTHING about the unprecedented in the entire history of all sports (NASCAR has bled about 3/4ths of its fan base in less than 20 years) is "inevitable" .  Rather it is self-inflicted.  Idiotic changes to a system that WAS NOT BROKEN. 

The "generational"  excuse is nice.  Except there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.  Rather than "dying off"  the vast majority of previous NASCAR fans have simply walked away from rovals, heads in harnesses, segments, spec-mobiles, races where the winner does not matter, no racing back to the caution, unqualified rich kid drivers, and, most of all, the idiotic chase.  The worst idea in the history of motorsports.

[Buck87]

This past weekend demonstrated one thing that bothers me about NFL football.  The winning team gains possession of the ball with well over a minute left to go, and they declare the game over and let the clock run down.  And this happened not once, but twice.

Is it TOO much trouble to require the teams to actually play the full length of the game?

I don't see a problem here. Possession control and clock management are part of the game, and if a team if a team is in a position to run out the clock and secure victory why shouldn't they be able to take advantage of it?

What are you suggesting they be forced to do instead?

[Max Rockatansky]

You're all aware that the point system in what became Winston Cup (Grand National) changed frequently before the 1970s? 

Yes, they changed it many times, until coming up with the perfection that was the legitimate points system of the Winston Cup era.

The longest NASCAR ever had a consistent point system is from 1975 to the Chase era when the modern points system was adopted first with Chase itself and then in 2014.

In other words, the era when the sport grew from rural southern obscurity into a national sport second only, by some measures, to the NFL? 

The biggest issue NASCAR and all Motorsports have now is they having an aged viewership.  Younger people tend not to be into Motorsports like Baby Boomers and the Gen-X crowds were.  At this point it's pretty much inevitable that NASCAR will return to being a niche sport. 

Winners, win; and losers make excuses.  Nope.  NOTHING about the unprecedented in the entire history of all sports (NASCAR has bled about 3/4ths of its fan base in less than 20 years) is "inevitable" .  Rather it is self-inflicted.  Idiotic changes to a system that WAS NOT BROKEN. 

The "generational"  excuse is nice.  Except there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.  Rather than "dying off"  the vast majority of previous NASCAR fans have simply walked away from rovals, heads in harnesses, segments, spec-mobiles, races where the winner does not matter, no racing back to the caution, unqualified rich kid drivers, and, most of all, the idiotic chase.  The worst idea in the history of motorsports.

What other forms of Motorsports are doing well in the United States right now in terms of getting national attention?  20-30 years ago racing leagues line the IRL, CART, F1, and NHRA all some form of national following they border on main stream.  I would argue that open wheel racing was bigger than NASCAR until the 1980s even.  I'm not saying the whole thing is generational but it's undeniably a factor with Motorsports in general.  NASCAR attracted a lot of fans by being a rough around the edges sport that wasn't filled with politically correct drivers.  The problem is now all the drivers are carbon copies of each other and it's boring to get behind any of them as a fan.  It definitely doesn't help that there was crap like the movie to completely spec cars that shunned the people who actually had a stake in what the automakers were doing.  Yeah the Chase isn't great but it's just a part of an overall problem with NASCAR and Motorsports I general. 

[hbelkins]

which is why in the SEC you get BS like Alabama playing Tennessee while Auburn has to play Georgia.

Why is that BS? Alabama and Tennessee are huge border-state rivals. Most UT football fans I know hate 'Bama more than any other team -- more than UK, more than Vandy, more than Georgia or Florida.

You're all aware that the point system in what became Winston Cup (Grand National) changed frequently before the 1970s? 

Yes, they changed it many times, until coming up with the perfection that was the legitimate points system of the Winston Cup era.

The longest NASCAR ever had a consistent point system is from 1975 to the Chase era when the modern points system was adopted first with Chase itself and then in 2014.

In other words, the era when the sport grew from rural southern obscurity into a national sport second only, by some measures, to the NFL? 

The biggest issue NASCAR and all Motorsports have now is they having an aged viewership.  Younger people tend not to be into Motorsports like Baby Boomers and the Gen-X crowds were.  At this point it's pretty much inevitable that NASCAR will return to being a niche sport. 

Winners, win; and losers make excuses.  Nope.  NOTHING about the unprecedented in the entire history of all sports (NASCAR has bled about 3/4ths of its fan base in less than 20 years) is "inevitable" .  Rather it is self-inflicted.  Idiotic changes to a system that WAS NOT BROKEN. 

The "generational"  excuse is nice.  Except there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.  Rather than "dying off"  the vast majority of previous NASCAR fans have simply walked away from rovals, heads in harnesses, segments, spec-mobiles, races where the winner does not matter, no racing back to the caution, unqualified rich kid drivers, and, most of all, the idiotic chase.  The worst idea in the history of motorsports.

"Days of Thunder" probably had a lot to do with NASCAR's rise in popularity. I wasn't into the races back in 1989, but became a fan in the early 90s. My dad had started watching NASCAR so I watched the races with him on Sunday afternoons. But I agree, the on-track product isn't the same anymore. I much preferred how it was before the Chase. I have never been able to figure out whether it's the on-track product or the economy that's caused so many empty seats at the tracks. It's a combination of both. Once upon a time, hotels as far away as Pikeville and Prestonsburg filled up on Bristol weekends. Now, even the famous night race isn't a sellout. But when cheap motels in the tri-cities area charge $300 a night with a two-night minimum, what do you expect?