Unpopular Opinions (sports edition)

[1995hoo]

Geographically illogical fans are irritating.

I'm not entirely sure I follow your point. Are you saying if somebody moves to a different city, you think he should immediately change his allegiances to the local teams and stop rooting for the teams he has followed so far? That doesn't make sense to me and I'd view that sort of person as being not much of a fan. My brother grew up here in Fairfax County but moved to Louisiana a few years ago. He still roots for the Nationals (and MLB.tv makes that easy). Why would he change teams? (Recognizing New Orleans has no baseball team, but even if they did, I still see no reason why he'd change.)

Or are you referring to people who grow up in a given area but root for a team from somewhere else, like someone from the DC area who roots for the Dallas Football Team just to be contrarian?

[JayhawkCO]

Geographically illogical fans are irritating.

I'm not entirely sure I follow your point. Are you saying if somebody moves to a different city, you think he should immediately change his allegiances to the local teams and stop rooting for the teams he has followed so far? That doesn't make sense to me and I'd view that sort of person as being not much of a fan. My brother grew up here in Fairfax County but moved to Louisiana a few years ago. He still roots for the Nationals (and MLB.tv makes that easy). Why would he change teams? (Recognizing New Orleans has no baseball team, but even if they did, I still see no reason why he'd change.)

Or are you referring to people who grow up in a given area but root for a team from somewhere else, like someone from the DC area who roots for the Dallas Football Team just to be contrarian?

Agree with you.  I was born in Minnesota and I'm stuck being a Twins and Vikings fan whether or not I want to be.  I have started following the Nuggets because they're super fun to watch and I was never much of a T-Wolves fan anyway.  I was a North Stars fan when I was a kid, but they moved to Dallas so I feel my Avalanche fandom is justified.  The only time I can see allegiances changing is for colleges.  I cheered for the University of Minnesota growing up as a kid, but I went to the University of Kansas, so that's my team.

Chris

[1995hoo]

I could potentially see getting into a new team if you lose interest in a team you once followed for whatever reason and later you regain interest in the sport via another team. I know several people who stopped following the Dallas Football Team when Jerry Jones bought the franchise because they were furious about the low-class way he handled firing Tom Landry, I know quite a few people who have turned against the Washington Redskins because they can't stand Dan Snyder, and of course there are a lot of people in the DC area who turned against Baltimore because of Peter Angelos's disparaging comments about DC baseball fans and who then adopted the Nationals when the Expos moved here. I don't have any objection to that sort of thing. (My parents grew up in Brooklyn, so certainly they understood turning against the former home team!)

[formulanone]

Outside or at the fringes of the typical sports markets; sometimes people were just fans of the first team (probably the winning one) they saw on TV or in person. Or they moved.

I've heard some interesting first-hand accounts why people root for teams that would otherwise be rivals, and they aren't all meat-headed or contrarian reasons.

[Scott5114]

Schools of any type have no business sponsoring sports teams. (We had a good discussion about this in another thread somewhere on this forum.)

[SP Cook]

Are you saying if somebody moves to a different city, you think he should immediately change his allegiances to the local teams and stop rooting for the teams he has followed so far?

No. 

Or are you referring to people who grow up in a given area but root for a team from somewhere else, like someone from the DC area who roots for the Dallas Football Team just to be contrarian?

More that.  Not necessarily "contrarians" but just bandwagoners.    People who have never been NEAR the city in question, and have no relationship to it whatsoever.  Just decide to be fans of some then winning team. 

Give you the most extreme example.  Around here (you guys know I live in WV) we have this guy who painted his house yellow with green shutters, has a yellow and green Mini with a U of Oregon front plate, flies an Oregon flag, even has an Oregon football helmet mail box.  Shows up at sports bars in a vast wardrobe of Oregon sports gear, to talk about "us" and "we".

The man has never been in the state of Oregon, never attended the University of Oregon, has no family members that have any connection to the state or college, etc.

People mostly just laugh, but it is irritating.

[1995hoo]

Heh, I hear you. I know a guy who roots for the Reds, the Flyers, the Pittsburgh Football Team, and I don't know about the NBA (never discussed it). He's a year or two older than I am and he freely admits, "OK, you can tell how I picked my teams when I was a kid in the 1970s–but give me some credit, I still root for them after all these years." (To his greater credit, he is a rabid UVA fan, which he should be since he played college baseball for UVA.)

[hbelkins]

I blame Ted Turner and the old WTBS Superstation Channel 17 in Atlanta for the proliferation of Braves fans in territories that traditionally belonged to other teams. This always was Reds country, but the number of Braves fans who came of age in the late 70s and early 80s watching more Braves games on TV than Reds games is obvious.

My dad said that before the Cincinnati Bengals were created, most NFL allegiances in this area were to the Cleveland Browns. A former co-worker of mine was a huge fan of Da Bears. His son turned out to be a Dallas Cowgirls fan. I don't know how that happened.

I continue to be amazed at the number of Louisville fans that can be found in rural Kentucky. But not vice versa, because the largest UK alumni chapter around is in Jefferson County.

[texaskdog]

NASCAR
Underrated- MATT KENSETH, Aric Almirola, Ryan Newman, Greg Biffle, Jamie Mcmurray.
Overrated- Dale Jr, DANICA PATRICK (she was not the most impressive female in the sport..), Kyle Petty, Carl Edwards (!) etc.

And I think MJ and his new team is being overhyped.

Did Danica EVER win a race?

[kenarmy]

NASCAR
Underrated- MATT KENSETH, Aric Almirola, Ryan Newman, Greg Biffle, Jamie Mcmurray.
Overrated- Dale Jr, DANICA PATRICK (she was not the most impressive female in the sport..), Kyle Petty, Carl Edwards (!) etc.

And I think MJ and his new team is being overhyped.

Did Danica EVER win a race?

Nope.
I have to give it to her though, she was a decent IndyCar Racer and i think she won there. But nobody seems to remember that and her NASCAR resume that is supposedly impressive is shoved down our throats. Kyle Petty said it best, she's a marketing machine. I was rooting for Hailie Deegan but it turns out she's a problematic racist so ig we'll just have to wait.

[Big John]

NASCAR
Underrated- MATT KENSETH, Aric Almirola, Ryan Newman, Greg Biffle, Jamie Mcmurray.
Overrated- Dale Jr, DANICA PATRICK (she was not the most impressive female in the sport..), Kyle Petty, Carl Edwards (!) etc.

And I think MJ and his new team is being overhyped.

Did Danica EVER win a race?

She won once in Japan in an Indy race: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/danica-patrick-becomes-first-woman-to-win-indy-race#:~:text=On%20April%2020%2C%202008%2C%2026-year-old%20Danica%20Patrick%20wins,born%20on%20March%2025%2C%201982%2C%20in%20Beloit%2C%20Wisconsin.

[Big John]

A former co-worker of mine was a huge fan of Da Bears. His son turned out to be a Dallas Cowgirls fan. I don't know how that happened.

Lots of marketing calling themselves "America's team".  My brother fell to the evil empire too.

[texaskdog]

To me the starting a runner on 2nd in extra innings thing feels too much like little league or slow pitch softball, when you just want the game to be over already because you've got another game waiting to use the same field. Yay, I'm glad it benefitted my Brewers yesterday, but there will come a game at some point where it will go against them.

Also, speaking of rules that were tested out in last year's shortened season, I do agree with not making the DH permanent in the NL. I prefer the tradition of the pitcher batting for himself, and all the strategy that goes along with making a pitching change. Like sending up a pinch batter, moving position players around in the field, etc. You don't get all that with the DH in place. You just get 40 year old guys like Nelson Cruz still playing who otherwise wouldn't have a position anymore still going up to bat.

No team wants to burn up their bullpen in a 15+ inning game. The runner on 2nd rule is designed to prevent that. I don't like it either, but I understand why it exists. I'd be fine with doing away with the runner on 2nd and calling the game a tie after 10 innings, but they're never going back to what it used to be.

well back in the day sometimes a starter finished the game.  if they didn't all have to follow their pitch counts they wouldn't waste the bullpens.

[gr8daynegb]

To me the starting a runner on 2nd in extra innings thing feels too much like little league or slow pitch softball, when you just want the game to be over already because you've got another game waiting to use the same field. Yay, I'm glad it benefitted my Brewers yesterday, but there will come a game at some point where it will go against them.

Also, speaking of rules that were tested out in last year's shortened season, I do agree with not making the DH permanent in the NL. I prefer the tradition of the pitcher batting for himself, and all the strategy that goes along with making a pitching change. Like sending up a pinch batter, moving position players around in the field, etc. You don't get all that with the DH in place. You just get 40 year old guys like Nelson Cruz still playing who otherwise wouldn't have a position anymore still going up to bat.

No team wants to burn up their bullpen in a 15+ inning game. The runner on 2nd rule is designed to prevent that. I don't like it either, but I understand why it exists. I'd be fine with doing away with the runner on 2nd and calling the game a tie after 10 innings, but they're never going back to what it used to be.

well back in the day sometimes a starter finished the game.  if they didn't all have to follow their pitch counts they wouldn't waste the bullpens.

I also remember back in the day when hitters had a shift put on them they adjusted to punish that defense.  Right now those rules seem to be Covid related, so hope that this runner on 2nd thing doesn't stick

[NWI_Irish96]

Here's my unpopular opinion: Sports in general are constantly involving, and mostly get better with each generation. Fans, especially older ones, tend to romanticize the a certain era, usually coinciding with childhood or early adulthood, and rationalize very irrational reasons as to why things were better "back in the good old days"

[JayhawkCO]

Here's my unpopular opinion: Sports in general are constantly involving, and mostly get better with each generation. Fans, especially older ones, tend to romanticize the a certain era, usually coinciding with childhood or early adulthood, and rationalize very irrational reasons as to why things were better "back in the good old days"

The amount of people that think today's stars wouldn't have succeeded in previous eras is laughable.  We constantly get better at things.  LeBron vs. Jordan in their primes, it's not a contest; LeBron wins.  Those same two in their prime compared to others in their era?  That's the real conversation.

Chris

[gr8daynegb]

Here's my unpopular opinion: Sports in general are constantly involving, and mostly get better with each generation. Fans, especially older ones, tend to romanticize the a certain era, usually coinciding with childhood or early adulthood, and rationalize very irrational reasons as to why things were better "back in the good old days"

The amount of people that think today's stars wouldn't have succeeded in previous eras is laughable.  We constantly get better at things.  LeBron vs. Jordan in their primes, it's not a contest; LeBron wins.  Those same two in their prime compared to others in their era?  That's the real conversation.

Chris

But would they play with the same set of rules?  Twenty years ago in NFL could do all the grabbing in first five yards you wanted. Also if you did a crossing route over the middle you kept your head on a swivel as that was asking to get blasted as you got hit.  Same good football hit 20 years ago is a 15 yard penalty today.  LeBron never had to worry about the Jordan Rules defenses MJ did.....and people still thought MJ got away with everything

[formulanone]

NASCAR
Underrated- MATT KENSETH, Aric Almirola, Ryan Newman, Greg Biffle, Jamie Mcmurray.
Overrated- Dale Jr, DANICA PATRICK (she was not the most impressive female in the sport..), Kyle Petty, Carl Edwards (!) etc.

And I think MJ and his new team is being overhyped.

Did Danica EVER win a race?

Nope.
I have to give it to her though, she was a decent IndyCar Racer and i think she won there. But nobody seems to remember that and her NASCAR resume that is supposedly impressive is shoved down our throats. Kyle Petty said it best, she's a marketing machine. I was rooting for Hailie Deegan but it turns out she's a problematic racist so ig we'll just have to wait.

I don't think anyone's seriously calling her "great at NASCAR", unless they're sorting by gender. There was just a lot of over-exposure and a lot of interest, but after a season-and-a-half, her talent plateaued in NASCAR.

They're different disciplines but there was more fame to be found there than F1, after her stint in Indycars, so you can't blame her for trying. There's not a lot of drivers who've found success in switching (Tony Stewart being a notable exception).

[texaskdog]

I don't cheer for the Browns success. 

[texaskdog]

NASCAR
Underrated- MATT KENSETH, Aric Almirola, Ryan Newman, Greg Biffle, Jamie Mcmurray.
Overrated- Dale Jr, DANICA PATRICK (she was not the most impressive female in the sport..), Kyle Petty, Carl Edwards (!) etc.

And I think MJ and his new team is being overhyped.

Did Danica EVER win a race?

Nope.
I have to give it to her though, she was a decent IndyCar Racer and i think she won there. But nobody seems to remember that and her NASCAR resume that is supposedly impressive is shoved down our throats. Kyle Petty said it best, she's a marketing machine. I was rooting for Hailie Deegan but it turns out she's a problematic racist so ig we'll just have to wait.

I don't think anyone's seriously calling her "great at NASCAR", unless they're sorting by gender. There was just a lot of over-exposure and a lot of interest, but after a season-and-a-half, her talent plateaued in NASCAR.

They're different disciplines but there was more fame to be found there than F1, after her stint in Indycars, so you can't blame her for trying. There's not a lot of drivers who've found success in switching (Tony Stewart being a notable exception).

you'd always see the top 10 then "23-Patrick" every time

[Alps]

Here's my unpopular opinion: Sports in general are constantly involving, and mostly get better with each generation. Fans, especially older ones, tend to romanticize the a certain era, usually coinciding with childhood or early adulthood, and rationalize very irrational reasons as to why things were better "back in the good old days"

The amount of people that think today's stars wouldn't have succeeded in previous eras is laughable.  We constantly get better at things.  LeBron vs. Jordan in their primes, it's not a contest; LeBron wins.  Those same two in their prime compared to others in their era?  That's the real conversation.

Chris

You say that and I doubt you.

[CoreySamson]

Here's my unpopular opinion: Sports in general are constantly involving, and mostly get better with each generation. Fans, especially older ones, tend to romanticize the a certain era, usually coinciding with childhood or early adulthood, and rationalize very irrational reasons as to why things were better "back in the good old days"

The amount of people that think today's stars wouldn't have succeeded in previous eras is laughable.  We constantly get better at things.  LeBron vs. Jordan in their primes, it's not a contest; LeBron wins.  Those same two in their prime compared to others in their era?  That's the real conversation.

Chris

You say that and I doubt you.

Maybe today's stars wouldn't beat yesterday's stars, but I'd bet the worst players in today's sports leagues would absolutely cream the worst players back in the day. Just look at Babe Ruth's era. He was above and away the most prolific home-run hitter of his day, and no one at the time came close. Today, we have a couple sluggers who can put up nearly as many home runs as he did, but the 10th place on today's home run list would above and away clean the floor with the 10th place slugger from Ruth's era. Athletes just train and practice more these days (didn't pro players hold 9-to-5 weekday jobs back in Ruth's day?), plus there's more competition.

[texaskdog]

BASKETBALL:
- The NBA is vastly less popular than ESPN tells you it is.

SOCCER:
- Soccer is the sport of the next generation, four generations and counting.

COLLEGE GENERALLY:
- If you did not go there, it is not "we", it is "they".

COLLEGE FOOTBALL:
- People that say there are too many bowl games need to buy a remote.  If two 7-5 teams play on a random Tuesday in December, you are not harmed.

Yes
Especially on "we"....goes double for local sports teams unless you played for them.

[SP Cook]

Here's my unpopular opinion: Sports in general are constantly involving, and mostly get better with each generation. Fans, especially older ones, tend to romanticize the a certain era, usually coinciding with childhood or early adulthood, and rationalize very irrational reasons as to why things were better "back in the good old days"

The major point here is societal.   Prior to the mid-80s, players made upper middle class wages, today players make inter-generational wealth.  This frees them from all concerns except practicing.  Prior to the mid-70s, college student-athletes were expected to take college seriously, today it is a ruse, and in the case of basketball, so is HS.  This frees them for all concerns except practicing.  Prior to the late 60s, virtually nothing was known about sports medicine.  Today, armies of nutritionists, surgeons, and others allow players advantages previous generations never knew.  And, "poor" in the USA today is a relative term.  Everyone has enough to eat, good health care, etc.  People in past generations knew, and were stunted by, real want.

[hotdogPi]

And, "poor" in the USA today is a relative term.  Everyone has enough to eat, good health care, etc.

No, not everyone has good health care. Some people have to pay thousands of dollars in deductibles.