- NBA players have too much power.
- Excluding cheer as a sport is tired. Like what's the point of arguing against it?
- Ken Miles is underrated
- Dodge was the best brand in NASCAR.
- John Force's resume> your fav athlete's
- Retiring Numbers is perfectly fine.. as long as it's above the high school level.
- The Jets will always suck.
- Franchises should be given a new name if they move states. Like wtf is the Utah Jazz?? New Orleans should be the only one with that name.
- The Browns shouldn't have been revived.
- The Jets deserve the axe.
- The WNBA isn't doing justice for female basketball players. It's like watching something worse than XFL be held out to us.
- Everton FC is a good team. Idk anything about them I just like the name lol
- ALLYSON FELIX IS UNDERRATED AND SHE IS LEGENDARY AF
- Michael Johnson is the superior MJ.
- Hating on Naomi Osaka bc she beat Serena should be left behind.
- Brock Lesnar is overrated, even outside of WWE.
- Bowling> Boxing.
you should literallyyyy add to the list.
- Washington Football Team should be referred to as "the" Football Team, much like any other teams are named by their nicknames.
- This is more personal, but also sports related: Orienteering courses should end with control no. 100 or, more recently, 200.
- Hala Madrid.
MLS-style penalties (from 35 yards with a dribble) are better than conventional penalty shootouts. Fairer and funner.
MLS teams should stick to American-style names, with few exceptions.
Soccer is a big league sport in the U.S., get over it. It's going to keep growing in key demographics despite being shafted by traditional media.
The tradeoff of fewer commercial breaks for a few ads plastered on the sidelines and jerseys is well worth it.
Adidas jerseys are garbage.
I don't think Ken Miles is underrated at this point. He was essentially the focal point of one of the best racing movies to come along in a long time in Ford vs Ferrari.
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- The Jets will always suck.
-The Jets will make the playoffs this season
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- Franchises should be given a new name if they move states. Like wtf is the Utah Jazz?? New Orleans should be the only one with that name.
Agreed for the most part. Although Jazz is
much more egregious than other examples. Most names could transcend state boundaries with a little more grace than Jazz.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on March 31, 2021, 03:12:26 AM
- Washington Football Team should be referred to as "the" Football Team, much like any other teams are named by their nicknames.
I'm fine with The Football Team, Football Team, or just Washington. I will insist, however, that WFT is not used. That looks ridiculously ugly, not to mention the fact that it's way to easy to confuse with WTF.
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 09:44:27 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- The Jets will always suck.
-The Jets will make the playoffs this season
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- Franchises should be given a new name if they move states. Like wtf is the Utah Jazz?? New Orleans should be the only one with that name.
Agreed for the most part. Although Jazz is much more egregious than other examples. Most names could transcend state boundaries with a little more grace than Jazz.
How does the "Los Angeles Lakers" make any sense as a team name. It made sense when they were in Minnesota.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 31, 2021, 09:53:35 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 09:44:27 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- The Jets will always suck.
-The Jets will make the playoffs this season
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- Franchises should be given a new name if they move states. Like wtf is the Utah Jazz?? New Orleans should be the only one with that name.
Agreed for the most part. Although Jazz is much more egregious than other examples. Most names could transcend state boundaries with a little more grace than Jazz.
How does the "Los Angeles Lakers" make any sense as a team name. It made sense when they were in Minnesota.
You think that's bad, The Los Angeles Angels translates to The The Angels Angels.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 31, 2021, 09:53:35 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 09:47:46 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- Franchises should be given a new name if they move states. Like wtf is the Utah Jazz?? New Orleans should be the only one with that name.
Agreed for the most part. Although Jazz is much more egregious than other examples. Most names could transcend state boundaries with a little more grace than Jazz.
How does the "Los Angeles Lakers" make any sense as a team name. It made sense when they were in Minnesota.
That's another extreme one, but at least there are lakes everywhere and lakes aren't necessarily associated with a particular state/region like Jazz is.
I don't know how many of these are unpopular per se:
- Professional hockey teams should not be in cities that receive less than 6" of snow per year
- College basketball should work like college football where, if you play in college, you need to be there for three years
- Three point line should be moved back since shooters are becoming so much better (thanks Steph/Dame)
- Boxing results should be verified by an independent council and if a judge has completely screwed up a result, never be a judge again
- Men's college basketball should go to quarters instead of halves
- The NCAA basketball tournament should go back to 64 teams
- The NCAA basketball tournament should be played in college arenas instead of massive stadiums
- College baseball should use wooden bats (obviously they'd need revenue to supplement the cost. NCAA makes plenty)
- NCAA players should be able to be paid since they're clearly employees
- Players shouldn't have to wait a year if they transfer if their coach left
Chris
Unpopular opinions threads are taking over the forum. :-D
As for this one, I think no state should have more than one team in the NBA. For example, there shouldn't be both a New York Knicks and a Brooklyn Nets.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 12:31:16 PM
As for this one, I think no state should have more than one team in the NBA.
California has 1/8 of the US population. Are you saying that the entire state only gets one team? If Los Angeles has a team, what happens to the Bay Area?
Except in tournament, and other similar, situations, overtime should not exist. If you didn't win in regulation, then you didn't win at all.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 31, 2021, 12:33:21 PM
Except in tournament, and other similar, situations, overtime should not exist. If you didn't win in regulation, then you didn't win at all.
I would even go further – in basketball and football, if it's tied at the end, whoever reached the current score first wins. (Hockey and soccer have too many 0-0s, and baseball could work if "reached the current score first" is by inning number and number of outs instead of what time it is.)
1. Sports are way overrated, watching them on TV is a waste of time, and sitting through an entire game of any sport takes too long.
2. There should be a rule that at least 60% of the members of a team have actually lived in that area for a certain number of years.
3. Olympians should not be allowed to compete under a different country's flag, except in certain rare circumstances.
4. Baseball and football are some of the most boring sports out there. Give me tennis, hockey, or lacrosse any day.
5. Britain, you need to get over yourself. There's more than one open golf tournament, so stop calling yours "The Open".
6. College football is way more interesting than pro. High school basketball is more interesting than college or pro.
7. Every jersey should have the person's name on it.
8. The Tour de France should bring back some old rules from the past, like having to carry their own supplies and do their own maintenance. Sag wagons have sissied the sport.
9. It's perfectly acceptable to cheer for both the Cubs and the White Sox.
10. Extracurricular sports teams have no place in schools.
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 12:49:12 PM
2. There should be a rule that at least 60% of the members of a team have actually lived in that area for a certain number of years.
I'm of mixed feelings about this one. It would be very complicated to implement, and would disadvantage the smaller markets.
A player could also potentially claim local status
by virtue of being on the team after a certain number of years. Take Tom Brady, for example. Does it really matter anymore that he wasn't born in New England? He's still a legend there and has lived there for close to half of his life.
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 12:32:42 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 12:31:16 PM
As for this one, I think no state should have more than one team in the NBA.
California has 1/8 of the US population. Are you saying that the entire state only gets one team? If Los Angeles has a team, what happens to the Bay Area?
What would be wrong with that, though? The NBA teams are the same size regardless of population. And why is the Utah Jazz not called the Salt Lake City Jazz or the Indiana Pacers called the Indianapolis Pacers then?
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 01:10:46 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 12:32:42 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 12:31:16 PM
As for this one, I think no state should have more than one team in the NBA.
California has 1/8 of the US population. Are you saying that the entire state only gets one team? If Los Angeles has a team, what happens to the Bay Area?
What would be wrong with that, though? The NBA teams are the same size regardless of population. And why is the Utah Jazz not called the Salt Lake City Jazz or the Indiana Pacers called the Indianapolis Pacers then?
You're saying that only one of Los Angeles and San Fransisco can have a team, but both New York City and Philadelphia can each have one, solely based on where state lines are drawn.
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 01:14:58 PM
You're saying that only one of Los Angeles and San Fransisco can have a team, but both New York City and Philadelphia can each have one, solely based on where state lines are drawn.
And? I fail to see the point you're making here or why exactly it's wrong. Again, the NBA is not population-based, only the number of teams per state is.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 01:14:58 PM
You're saying that only one of Los Angeles and San Fransisco can have a team, but both New York City and Philadelphia can each have one, solely based on where state lines are drawn.
And? I fail to see the point you're making here or why exactly it's wrong. Again, the NBA is not population-based, only the number of teams per state is.
New York City is 85 miles from Philadelphia.
Philadelphia is 90 miles from Baltimore.
You would allow 3 separate teams here (no change from before).
Los Angeles is over 300 miles from the Bay Area, and they can't have two separate teams. In any other state except Texas, 300 miles would be very likely cross a state line.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 01:14:58 PM
You're saying that only one of Los Angeles and San Fransisco can have a team, but both New York City and Philadelphia can each have one, solely based on where state lines are drawn.
And? I fail to see the point you're making here or why exactly it's wrong. Again, the NBA is not population-based, only the number of teams per state is.
The NBA is 100% population based. It's based on the size of the media market. Hence why NY can have two teams but ND doesn't have any.
Chris
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 01:14:58 PM
You're saying that only one of Los Angeles and San Fransisco can have a team, but both New York City and Philadelphia can each have one, solely based on where state lines are drawn.
And? I fail to see the point you're making here or why exactly it's wrong. Again, the NBA is not population-based, only the number of teams per state is.
It doesn't make any sense, financially or otherwise, to limit states with multiple large metro areas to a single team.
Since you mentioned the Nets and Knicks, maybe your issue is with two teams being in the same metro? That I could maybe understand. But if one team was in Buffalo instead of Brooklyn, I don't see the issue (at least not for the purposes of this discussion - whether an NBA team could be successful in Buffalo is another subject).
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 12:57:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 12:49:12 PM
2. There should be a rule that at least 60% of the members of a team have actually lived in that area for a certain number of years.
I'm of mixed feelings about this one. It would be very complicated to implement, and would disadvantage the smaller markets.
A player could also potentially claim local status by virtue of being on the team after a certain number of years. Take Tom Brady, for example. Does it really matter anymore that he wasn't born in New England? He's still a legend there and has lived there for close to half of his life.
I'm fine with smaller markets being at a disadvantage.
If a player has lived in an area for ten years by virtue of being on a team, then he is a transplant to that area. That's his home now. No problem with that. But, moving forward, he shouldn't be allowed to play for some other city just because he likes that team's offer better. He should represent where he's from–whether he's lived there all his life or for _____ years.
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 01:33:18 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 01:14:58 PM
You're saying that only one of Los Angeles and San Fransisco can have a team, but both New York City and Philadelphia can each have one, solely based on where state lines are drawn.
And? I fail to see the point you're making here or why exactly it's wrong. Again, the NBA is not population-based, only the number of teams per state is.
It doesn't make any sense, financially or otherwise, to limit states with multiple large metro areas to a single team.
Since you mentioned the Nets and Knicks, maybe your issue is with two teams being in the same metro? That I could maybe understand. But if one team was in Buffalo instead of Brooklyn, I don't see the issue (at least not for the purposes of this discussion - whether an NBA team could be successful in Buffalo is another subject).
Similarly, what if the Nets moved back to Jersey? Problem solved?
Chris
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 01:38:51 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 12:57:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 12:49:12 PM
2. There should be a rule that at least 60% of the members of a team have actually lived in that area for a certain number of years.
I'm of mixed feelings about this one. It would be very complicated to implement, and would disadvantage the smaller markets.
A player could also potentially claim local status by virtue of being on the team after a certain number of years. Take Tom Brady, for example. Does it really matter anymore that he wasn't born in New England? He's still a legend there and has lived there for close to half of his life.
I'm fine with smaller markets being at a disadvantage.
If a player has lived in an area for ten years by virtue of being on a team, then he is a transplant to that area. That's his home now. No problem with that. But, moving forward, he shouldn't be allowed to play for some other city just because he likes that team's offer better. He should represent where he's from–whether he's lived there all his life or for _____ years.
I personally disagree with your viewpoint, but I could see something like English soccer where you have to have a certain amount of domestic players on your roster. It does have the negative impact of inflating those players' values a.k.a. the English tax.
Chris
Quote from: 1 on March 31, 2021, 01:24:52 PM
New York City is 85 miles from Philadelphia.
Philadelphia is 90 miles from Baltimore.
You would allow 3 separate teams here (no change from before).
Los Angeles is over 300 miles from the Bay Area, and they can't have two separate teams. In any other state except Texas, 300 miles would be very likely cross a state line.
Exactly. My opinion is that it should be more about the state than the city. And what does distance have to do with it? New York is 85 miles from Philadelphia, but the culture of those two cities have don't have much more in common than do LA and SF which are 300 miles apart. The reach of the culture of California is comparable to the reach of Northeast culture, even though California is one state and the Northeast is many.
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 31, 2021, 01:26:20 PM
The NBA is 100% population based. It's based on the size of the media market. Hence why NY can have two teams but ND doesn't have any.
Chris
I was referring to the actual games and the size of teams.
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 01:33:18 PM
It doesn't make any sense, financially or otherwise, to limit states with multiple large metro areas to a single team.
Since you mentioned the Nets and Knicks, maybe your issue is with two teams being in the same metro? That I could maybe understand. But if one team was in Buffalo instead of Brooklyn, I don't see the issue (at least not for the purposes of this discussion - whether an NBA team could be successful in Buffalo is another subject).
Well the Knicks and Nets are a particularly strong example of why there should only be one team per state. People in Brooklyn are represented by both teams, in the same city. But with the Lakers and Warriors, people not living in LA or SF could feel represented by both of those teams as well, even with the greatly larger distance. It doesn't really make sense.
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 31, 2021, 01:39:24 PM
Similarly, what if the Nets moved back to Jersey? Problem solved?
Chris
You bet.
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 01:38:51 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 12:57:54 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 31, 2021, 12:49:12 PM
2. There should be a rule that at least 60% of the members of a team have actually lived in that area for a certain number of years.
I'm of mixed feelings about this one. It would be very complicated to implement, and would disadvantage the smaller markets.
A player could also potentially claim local status by virtue of being on the team after a certain number of years. Take Tom Brady, for example. Does it really matter anymore that he wasn't born in New England? He's still a legend there and has lived there for close to half of his life.
I'm fine with smaller markets being at a disadvantage.
If a player has lived in an area for ten years by virtue of being on a team, then he is a transplant to that area. That's his home now. No problem with that. But, moving forward, he shouldn't be allowed to play for some other city just because he likes that team's offer better. He should represent where he's from—whether he's lived there all his life or for _____ years.
If it's a good enough reason to move for any other job, why isn't it here? It seems that all this would do is reduce player salaries and force them to endure work conditions that they might not like.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 01:48:21 PM
It doesn't really make sense.
This comment is perhaps a bit more self-referential than intended. :-D
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 31, 2021, 01:50:33 PM
If it's a good enough reason to move for any other job, why isn't it here? It seems that all this would do is reduce player salaries and force them to continue to endure work conditions that they might not like.
That's a good question. I guess I view a team as actually representing its city, in a way I don't view other jobs. When Olympians compete under their country's flag, they compete on behalf of
their country, and I have the same mentality toward pro sports. It's kind of like requiring a politician to be from the area he or she represents, although that's obviously not a perfect comparison.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 01:48:21 PM
Well the Knicks and Nets are a particularly strong example of why there should only be one team per state. People in Brooklyn are represented by both teams, in the same city. But with the Lakers and Warriors, people not living in LA or SF could feel represented by both of those teams as well, even with the greatly larger distance. It doesn't really make sense.
I wonder what your view is then of English soccer. My team (Tottenham) is about four miles away from our main rival (Arsenal) both in London. Does London only get one team? The proximity creates one of the best rivalries in sport.
Chris
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 01:33:18 PM
It doesn't make any sense, financially or otherwise, to limit states with multiple large metro areas to a single team.
Since you mentioned the Nets and Knicks, maybe your issue is with two teams being in the same metro? That I could maybe understand. But if one team was in Buffalo instead of Brooklyn, I don't see the issue (at least not for the purposes of this discussion - whether an NBA team could be successful in Buffalo is another subject).
Well the Knicks and Nets are a particularly strong example of why there should only be one team per state. People in Brooklyn are represented by both teams, in the same city. But with the Lakers and Warriors, people not living in LA or SF could feel represented by both of those teams as well, even with the greatly larger distance. It doesn't really make sense.
That's fine, but it's not a reason why there should only be one team per state. Having two teams to choose from (especially if you don't live near either city) isn't a bad thing.
Dale Jr. was the sequel to Kyle Petty: famous last name, started off at the family team but eventually left, showed a bit of promise before injuries and never really lived up to the hype.
Sebastian Vettel's titles were all the car.
NBA:
* fouls are called based on helping the most popular players and teams win
* the Knicks should be disbanded and replaced by an entirely new team/ownership and history post-Ewing should be erased
* entirely overpromoted by ESPN
NHL:
* entirely underpromoted by ESPN
* the OT is a farce and should be played 5 on 5 for a full 20 minute session, even in regular season
* games should end in a tie after 20 minutes, no shootouts
* either abandon the loser point in OT or go to a 3-2-1-0 scenario. 2-2-1-0 favors teams going to OT.
MLB:
* too much money in salaries now, it's hyperinflating
* the minor leagues didn't need what was done to them, this is sad and wrong
* Aaron Judge will never have a full season again
NFL:
* fouls are called based on helping the most popular players and teams win
* entirely overpromoted by everyone
* too much money in salaries now, it's hyperinflating
* is a monopoly that causes all other leagues to fail, even development leagues, and should be broken up
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 31, 2021, 01:52:44 PM
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 01:48:21 PM
It doesn't really make sense.
This comment is perhaps a bit more self-referential than intended. :-D
I stated the way things are right now, and then slapped "it doesn't make sense" on the end. Call it what you will. :cool:
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 02:36:58 PM
That's fine, but it's not a reason why there should only be one team per state. Having two teams to choose from (especially if you don't live near either city) isn't a bad thing.
Why should people have to choose between supporting two different parts of their home state?
Quote from: jayhawkco on March 31, 2021, 01:54:18 PM
I wonder what your view is then of English soccer. My team (Tottenham) is about four miles away from our main rival (Arsenal) both in London. Does London only get one team? The proximity creates one of the best rivalries in sport.
Chris
I can't really answer that, to avoid being incorrect since I don't know anything about English sports teams. :hmm:
The NCAA's football targeting rules are unnecessary and are overkill. They weaken the sport and penalize what for years were legitimate plays.
The "flagrant 1" and "flagrant 2" rules in college basketball are also overkill.
All levels of football put too much emphasis on protecting the quarterback.
It should be possible in every sport for both teams to lose. Not a tie (which I'd also like to see happen more often), just a situation in which neither side can claim victory or that they fought a hard-fought battle against a superior foe. Just straight, undiluted disappointment for everyone. Would give you something to root for when two teams you hate play each other.
When you win a certain number of championships in a rolling period (either as a team or an individual player), you get retired like a 90's
Wheel of Fortune contestant. If one team or player is so much better than the rest of the league that they keep winning, that's boring. (They can come back after a season or two. Maybe it's permanent, in the case of an individual player. "You beat basketball! Congratulations!")
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 31, 2021, 01:50:33 PM
It seems that all this would do is reduce player salaries and force them to endure work conditions that they might not like.
They could resign and become an air conditioner salesman like anyone else would have to do.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 03:47:07 AM
It should be possible in every sport for both teams to lose. Not a tie (which I'd also like to see happen more often), just a situation in which neither side can claim victory or that they fought a hard-fought battle against a superior foe. Just straight, undiluted disappointment for everyone. Would give you something to root for when two teams you hate play each other.
There are definitely situations in soccer where a tie costs both teams their place in the league/group standings (since it's worth 1 point compared to 3 for a win) benefiting a third team that overtakes them.
Shootout victory's in the NHL are a farce. Ties or just continuing until someone gets a real goal would be a more legitimate result. The shootout loss is even more of a joke given that a point is still awarded.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2021, 09:52:27 AM
Shootout victory's in the NHL are a farce. Ties or just continuing until someone gets a real goal would be a more legitimate result. The shootout loss is even more of a joke given that a point is still awarded.
I think they should just go back to ties myself. Shootouts should be eliminated. I love the no shootouts in the playoffs so you get epic games like the old Penguins/Rangers game that Petr Nedved scored in the 7th OT.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 01, 2021, 09:57:37 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2021, 09:52:27 AM
Shootout victory's in the NHL are a farce. Ties or just continuing until someone gets a real goal would be a more legitimate result. The shootout loss is even more of a joke given that a point is still awarded.
I think they should just go back to ties myself. Shootouts should be eliminated. I love the no shootouts in the playoffs so you get epic games like the old Penguins/Rangers game that Petr Nedved scored in the 7th OT.
Chris
Agreed, I know that was a fear that a monster long game would result in regular season play. The tie had a consequence given both teams got a point and I see no issue with a playoff game going multiple overtime's.
The NBA needs to do something about every player only wanting to go to LA and NY.
The Clippers should move to San Diego or Seattle
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 01, 2021, 10:01:26 AM
The NBA needs to do something about every player only wanting to go to LA and NY.
The Clippers should move to San Diego or Seattle
The NBA has a problem with really good players wanting to build mega teams. The Nets and Lakers just happen to be where those players are accumulating at the moment. Not too long ago it was the Warriors and Heat that were building mega teams. I doubt the NBA is really inclined to do much about it given they star filled teams have been their traditional big draw.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2021, 10:07:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 01, 2021, 10:01:26 AM
The NBA needs to do something about every player only wanting to go to LA and NY.
The Clippers should move to San Diego or Seattle
The NBA has a problem with really good players wanting to build mega teams. The Nets and Lakers just happen to be where those players are accumulating at the moment. Not too long ago it was the Warriors and Heat that were building mega teams. I doubt the NBA is really inclined to do much about it given they star filled teams have been their traditional big draw.
The core for Golden State (Curry, Thompson, Green) were all drafted by the Warriors. They won before adding more start to their superteam (those stars being KD and post injury Demarcus Cousins). Their success came form drafting and developing more so than winning trades (though KD did significantly help).
The Lakers basically got LeBron after a couple down years and he brought a bunch of friends.
The Clippers couldn't do anything with their original core (CP3, Blake, DeAndre Jordan) and all of them left in free agency or trade. Then Kawhi/PG decided to move in when the team looked like it would struggle, and now the team is full of league veterans.
Brooklyn existed in mediocrity until very recently, now they're the heart of the east.
The Knicks are out of the basement (but still the laughing stock of the league) and would have a playoff spot if the season ended today.
Summary: 3/4 LA and NY teams are now superteams by basically trading the entire roster, getting a star or two, and attracting more stars. Golden State, Milwaukee, Boston got a lot of their success from the draft and player development.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2021, 10:01:20 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 01, 2021, 09:57:37 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2021, 09:52:27 AM
Shootout victory's in the NHL are a farce. Ties or just continuing until someone gets a real goal would be a more legitimate result. The shootout loss is even more of a joke given that a point is still awarded.
I think they should just go back to ties myself. Shootouts should be eliminated. I love the no shootouts in the playoffs so you get epic games like the old Penguins/Rangers game that Petr Nedved scored in the 7th OT.
Chris
Agreed, I know that was a fear that a monster long game would result in regular season play. The tie had a consequence given both teams got a point and I see no issue with a playoff game going multiple overtime's.
Yeah, overtime just for playoffs. You'd have too many injuries if they did it in the regular season.
Chris
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 09:44:27 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- The Jets will always suck.
-The Jets will make the playoffs this season
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- Franchises should be given a new name if they move states. Like wtf is the Utah Jazz?? New Orleans should be the only one with that name.
Agreed for the most part. Although Jazz is much more egregious than other examples. Most names could transcend state boundaries with a little more grace than Jazz.
The Jazz MUST keep their name!!!! How can I watch Baseketball again if they aren't the Jazz anymore? :awesomeface: :popcorn:
I have no problem with NCAA schools being in different conferences in different sports.
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 01, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 09:44:27 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- The Jets will always suck.
-The Jets will make the playoffs this season
Quote from: kenarmy on March 31, 2021, 01:58:06 AM
- Franchises should be given a new name if they move states. Like wtf is the Utah Jazz?? New Orleans should be the only one with that name.
Agreed for the most part. Although Jazz is much more egregious than other examples. Most names could transcend state boundaries with a little more grace than Jazz.
The Jazz MUST keep their name!!!! How can I watch Baseketball again if they aren't the Jazz anymore? :awesomeface: :popcorn:
I don't even think that I can come up with a better name for the Jazz that fits Salt Lake City. Maybe for Utah on the whole but not really Salt Lake City.
Quote from: CoreySamson on April 01, 2021, 12:25:19 PM
I have no problem with NCAA schools being in different conferences in different sports.
I don't mind it for "minor sports", but having basketball and football different just seems to make it so rivalries are diluted.
Chris
Conference names should relate to some factual basis. (The Big Ten should have 10 teams; the Atlantic Coast Conference teams should all be in coastal states, etc.)
Quote from: Alps on March 31, 2021, 06:00:15 PM
NHL:
* entirely underpromoted by ESPN
* the OT is a farce and should be played 5 on 5 for a full 20 minute session, even in regular season
* games should end in a tie after 20 minutes, no shootouts
* either abandon the loser point in OT or go to a 3-2-1-0 scenario. 2-2-1-0 favors teams going to OT.
Maybe it's just because I was just a kid and the Whalers had potential, but it seems the NHL peaked in the mid-80s. 80 games, balanced schedule, a tie was a tie dammit, no shootouts, no points for losing. The median record was .500. If you were above that, you were at least average bordering on good. Today, the standings suffer from grade inflation.
Back on topic, some unpopular opinions:
* I guess Tom's not just a system quarterback
* mad respect for LeBron, he's a good person and GOAT contender; but I'll root against him forever, to hell with him
* big-time sports colleges are pro teams, pay your players
* if my home team isn't in it (which is NCAAM most of the time, and CFB all the time) then I'm interested only in upsets, sorry
* "FBS" and "FCS" are annoying, go back to Div 1 and Div 1-A
* UConn's early Div 1 success was a fluke (NFL-caliber QB and RB), and they'll never reach that level again
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 03:47:07 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 31, 2021, 01:50:33 PM
It seems that all this would do is reduce player salaries and force them to endure work conditions that they might not like.
They could resign and become an air conditioner salesman like anyone else would have to do.
Of course, but I don't think that's enough to make it okay.
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 12:53:18 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 03:47:07 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 31, 2021, 01:50:33 PM
It seems that all this would do is reduce player salaries and force them to endure work conditions that they might not like.
They could resign and become an air conditioner salesman like anyone else would have to do.
Well, that makes it okay, then.
Amusingly my Grandpa actually was offered a playing contract by the Detroit Tigers. He turned them down to manage a lumber yard instead because it paid way more. Hard to say he was wrong given it worked there for almost 40 years and retired with a kick ass pension. Something like that is essentially unfathomable with modern professional sport salaries.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2021, 12:56:25 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on April 01, 2021, 12:53:18 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 01, 2021, 03:47:07 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 31, 2021, 01:50:33 PM
It seems that all this would do is reduce player salaries and force them to endure work conditions that they might not like.
They could resign and become an air conditioner salesman like anyone else would have to do.
Well, that makes it okay, then.
Amusingly my Grandpa actually was offered a playing contract by the Detroit Tigers. He turned them down to manage a lumber yard instead because it paid way more. Hard to say he was wrong given it worked there for almost 40 years and retired with a kick ass pension. Something like that is essentially unfathomable with modern professional sport salaries.
Someone else who was drafted by the Detroit Tigers--Patrick Mahomes. Yes, that's right, Detroit's baseball team has drafter more Super Bowl QBs than their football team.
Quote from: interstatefan990 on March 31, 2021, 06:15:32 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 31, 2021, 02:36:58 PM
That's fine, but it's not a reason why there should only be one team per state. Having two teams to choose from (especially if you don't live near either city) isn't a bad thing.
Why should people have to choose between supporting two different parts of their home state?
They don't
have to, they
get to. It's not a bad thing, especially in a state with millions of people that are separated by hundreds of miles.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 01, 2021, 12:29:39 PM
I don't even think that I can come up with a better name for the Jazz that fits Salt Lake City. Maybe for Utah on the whole but not really Salt Lake City.
Just don't ask the people who chose the name of Wichita's new baseball team...
Today's unpopular opinion: WHY THE REDACTED are they still doing runner on 2nd in extra innings? Play the damn game!
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2021, 05:28:53 PM
Today's unpopular opinion: WHY THE REDACTED are they still doing runner on 2nd in extra innings? Play the damn game!
Is this a Yankees fan complaint after they got the 0-1 start due to it today? :-D
Quote from: SectorZ on April 01, 2021, 06:40:23 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2021, 05:28:53 PM
Today's unpopular opinion: WHY THE REDACTED are they still doing runner on 2nd in extra innings? Play the damn game!
Is this a Yankees fan complaint after they got the 0-1 start due to it today? :-D
Or the Twins.
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2021, 05:28:53 PM
Today's unpopular opinion: WHY THE REDACTED are they still doing runner on 2nd in extra innings? Play the damn game!
I think that's a popular opinion with many. If they are set on putting a runner on then put them at first and still make a team earn it.
Can thank the HR or bust nature of the game has taken from 90's until current day. Miss watching a George Brett/Tony Gwynn/Wade Boggs AB from back in the day
Or as a Brewers fan watching a Robin Yount, Cecil Cooper, Paul Molitor AB
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 01, 2021, 06:52:11 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 01, 2021, 05:28:53 PM
Today's unpopular opinion: WHY THE REDACTED are they still doing runner on 2nd in extra innings? Play the damn game!
I think that's a popular opinion with many. If they are set on putting a runner on then put them at first and still make a team earn it.
Can thank the HR or bust nature of the game has taken from 90's until current day. Miss watching a George Brett/Tony Gwynn/Wade Boggs AB from back in the day
I miss those days as well. Growing up watching Boggs was a thing to behold. Now the Red Sox have a DH that whines that he can't hit anymore because he can't see video of his prior at bat. What a time to be a baseball fan...
I suppose this can be unpopular. Most overrated sports stars:
MLB: Clayton Kershaw
NFL: Ezekiel Elliott
NBA: Kyrie Irving
NHL: Patrick Kane
World Soccer: Paul Pogba
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 01, 2021, 09:06:24 PM
I suppose this can be unpopular. Most overrated sports stars:
MLB: Clayton Kershaw
NFL: Ezekiel Elliott
NBA: Kyrie Irving
NHL: Patrick Kane
World Soccer: Paul Pogba
Chris
I pretty much agree, except I would put Neymar instead of Pogba for soccer.
Quote from: CoreySamson on April 01, 2021, 09:11:38 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 01, 2021, 09:06:24 PM
I suppose this can be unpopular. Most overrated sports stars:
MLB: Clayton Kershaw
NFL: Ezekiel Elliott
NBA: Kyrie Irving
NHL: Patrick Kane
World Soccer: Paul Pogba
Chris
I pretty much agree, except I would put Neymar instead of Pogba for soccer.
Neymar is nasty when he's healthy, but he's up there just because of that history and his relative lack of production because he was hurt.
Chris
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.
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 01, 2021, 09:06:24 PM
I suppose this can be unpopular. Most overrated sports stars:
MLB: Clayton Kershaw
NFL: Ezekiel Elliott
NBA: Kyrie Irving
NHL: Patrick Kane
World Soccer: Paul Pogba
Chris
Kershaw is not overrated compared to some. How about the new contract the Mets just handed to Lindor?
Quote from: kenarmy on April 01, 2021, 11:49:06 PM
Overrated- ... DANICA PATRICK
I don't think there's any
popular belief, past or present, which claimed she was "very good".
Maybe after she won her Indycar race (because that's when tongues wag the most about a driver), but that's about it.
I don't see how Patrick Kane is overrated either. As a Hawks fan that's seen him play a lot I think Kane is pretty good and not overrated.
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 01, 2021, 09:06:24 PM
I suppose this can be unpopular. Most overrated sports stars:
MLB: Clayton Kershaw
NFL: Ezekiel Elliott
NBA: Kyrie Irving
NHL: Patrick Kane
World Soccer: Paul Pogba
Chris
As a Celtics fan I can concur with Irving.
For me, MLB would be Bryce Harper, NFL would be Matthew Stafford
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.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 02, 2021, 08:25:15 AM
I don't see how Patrick Kane is overrated either. As a Hawks fan that's seen him play a lot I think Kane is pretty good and not overrated.
Admittedly I don't follow hockey as closely as the other sports, but let me change my choice then.
Matt Duchene. Met the guy, kind of a turd.
Chris
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 02, 2021, 09:01:16 AM
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.
SPORTS, GENERALLY:
- Geographically illogical fans are irritating.
- Unions have no place in sports, unless the union is going to do what real unions do, which is collectively decide how much everyone makes.
- Trying to get people in other parts of the world to like other parts of the world's sports is futile and arrogant. Be happy with your continent(s).
BASEBALL:
- Rob Manfried is an empty suit.
- People that think baseball lasts too long or needs rule changes don't like baseball.
- People that judge Latin players for expressing themselves are wrong.
- The vast over-claim map that has places "belonging" to as many as 6 teams is dumb, if a team cannot show real "home team" support on the ground the claims should be cancelled.
- Braves fans who grew up watching TBS outside the South are irritating.
- Cubs fans are in a cult.
FOOTBALL:
- The NFL is going to eventually go to the $$ well one too many times.
- Sunday Ticket is the most over-rated entertainment product there is.
BASKETBALL:
- The NBA is vastly less popular than ESPN tells you it is.
- The average NBA fan age is 12.
NASCAR:
- In an alternate universe where Brian France and his amen chorus of idiots refused to make the changes to the rules 2005-date, NASCAR is still as popular as it was, in fact more so.
SOCCER:
- Soccer is the sport of the next generation, four generations and counting.
HOCKEY:
- Gary Bettman is the best commissioner in sports.
- The expansion of the NHL into "warm" states is the greatest, and most under appreciated, sports business move in my lifetime.
COLLEGE GENERALLY:
- If you did not go there, it is not "we", it is "they".
- If you did not go there and want to be a fan, fine. But the quality of a college as an educational institution is not proportional to the quality of its sports teams, even among state colleges in the same state, and if you make snide comments about another college's academics, you are out of bounds.
- NIL will K I L L college sports. It must be stopped.
COLLEGE BASKETBALL:
- Duke is the archetype of what is wrong with college sports. Spoiled rich kids watching players perform for them, who would be arrested if they walked on campus if not on the ball team.
- Women's basketball is less popular because its less popular. Stop interfering in the marketplace.
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 02, 2021, 12:46:39 PM
Cubs fans are in a cult.
True, but it ain't just the Cubs.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 02, 2021, 12:46:39 PM
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?
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 02, 2021, 05:55:24 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on April 02, 2021, 12:46:39 PM
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
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!)
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.
Schools of any type have no business sponsoring sports teams. (We had a good discussion about this in another thread somewhere on this forum.)
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 02, 2021, 05:55:24 PM
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.
Quote
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.
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.)
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.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 01, 2021, 11:49:06 PM
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?
Quote from: texaskdog on April 03, 2021, 10:10:34 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 01, 2021, 11:49:06 PM
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.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 03, 2021, 10:10:34 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 01, 2021, 11:49:06 PM
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.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 03, 2021, 09:31:42 PM
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.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 02, 2021, 10:03:47 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 02, 2021, 09:01:16 AM
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.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 03, 2021, 10:47:40 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 02, 2021, 10:03:47 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on April 02, 2021, 09:01:16 AM
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
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"
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 05, 2021, 01:24:11 PM
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
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 05, 2021, 01:40:02 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 05, 2021, 01:24:11 PM
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
Quote from: kenarmy on April 03, 2021, 10:29:12 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 03, 2021, 10:10:34 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 01, 2021, 11:49:06 PM
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).
I don't cheer for the Browns success.
Quote from: formulanone on April 05, 2021, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 03, 2021, 10:29:12 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 03, 2021, 10:10:34 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 01, 2021, 11:49:06 PM
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 :P
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 05, 2021, 01:40:02 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 05, 2021, 01:24:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Alps on April 05, 2021, 06:56:08 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 05, 2021, 01:40:02 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 05, 2021, 01:24:11 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 02, 2021, 12:46:39 PM
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.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 05, 2021, 01:24:11 PM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 06, 2021, 11:23:25 AM
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.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 06, 2021, 11:23:25 AM
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.
First of all, not everyone has enough to eat and good health care. Secondly, the lowest level of food security and health care in America, while far greater than that of the poorest countries in Africa, is shockingly low compared to the GDP of this country.
When you say "people in past generations knew, and were stunned by, real want" what is actually true is that in past generations, even people who weren't systematically discriminated against knew real want, and were stunned that their privilege didn't prevent it.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 06, 2021, 11:47:13 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on April 06, 2021, 11:23:25 AM
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.
First of all, not everyone has enough to eat and good health care. Secondly, the lowest level of food security and health care in America, while far greater than that of the poorest countries in Africa, is shockingly low compared to the GDP of this country.
When you say "people in past generations knew, and were stunned by, real want" what is actually true is that in past generations, even people who weren't systematically discriminated against knew real want, and were stunned that their privilege didn't prevent it.
Are you saying that white people in the Great Depression sat around lamenting their poverty because they were white, expecting that they shouldn't be poor because of skin color?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 03, 2021, 07:08:12 AM
Schools of any type have no business sponsoring sports teams. (We had a good discussion about this in another thread somewhere on this forum.)
Yes. I think I remember it being the first thing you agreed with me about.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 06, 2021, 11:23:25 AM
And, "poor" in the USA today is a relative term. Everyone has enough to eat, good health care, etc.
I have health insurance now?
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 06, 2021, 11:47:13 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on April 06, 2021, 11:23:25 AM
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.
First of all, not everyone has enough to eat and good health care.
But if he doesn't say something like this first, he won't be able to follow up later with "Food deserts are a myth." You gotta let him complete the cycle of unnecessary disparagement.
Fact: There is enough food and health care for everyone.
Fact: It is distributed inequitably.
Fact: This is about sports. Please stick to sports.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 06, 2021, 11:23:25 AMAnd, "poor" in the USA today is a relative term. Everyone has enough to eat, good health care, etc.
* Laughs at this *
Quote from: Alps on April 06, 2021, 07:38:43 PM
Fact: This is about sports. Please stick to sports.
This. So here is another: It should always be specified which kind of "Football" one is talking about. Most of the World understand "association" football by that term, not "American" football.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 05, 2021, 01:24:11 PM
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"
500% true. All of the Murderer's Row Yankees and 90s Bulls truthers are so annoying. No player, team, or dynasty from outside of the last 20-30 years deserves to be talked about as one of the best all-time, because things are just different now. The old-timers don't like it, but that's how it is.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 05, 2021, 03:48:13 PM
I don't cheer for the Browns success.
Also agree. One wild card season and a victory over a slumping team in a game you almost legendarily choked away doesn't elevate them off the bottom of the league. Sure, they have reasons to be optimistic, but the level of disillusionment from their fanbase is off the charts.
All of you are probably going to be annoyed by me because I'm a Cowboys fan living in Wisconsin. Well, I'm here to make my case: literally nobody cares. Get over it.
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:45:33 AM
All of you are probably going to be annoyed by me because I'm a Cowboys fan living in Wisconsin. Well, I'm here to make my case: literally nobody cares. Get over it.
Honestly, I don't see a problem with that either. It's only annoying when people are just doing it to bandwagon or change teams often.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 07:59:34 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:45:33 AM
All of you are probably going to be annoyed by me because I'm a Cowboys fan living in Wisconsin. Well, I'm here to make my case: literally nobody cares. Get over it.
Honestly, I don't see a problem with that either. It's only annoying when people are just doing it to bandwagon or change teams often.
It's only annoying if you're a Cowboys fan, a Yankees fan and a Lakers fan (and yes, I know one such person).
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:45:33 AM
All of you are probably going to be annoyed by me because I'm a Cowboys fan living in Wisconsin. Well, I'm here to make my case: literally nobody cares. Get over it.
Better than being a Packers fan. I'm a Chicago sports fan living in Michigan and nobody really cares. The Detroit sports fans around here don't bother me at all.
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 06, 2021, 11:47:13 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on April 06, 2021, 11:23:25 AM
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.
First of all, not everyone has enough to eat and good health care. Secondly, the lowest level of food security and health care in America, while far greater than that of the poorest countries in Africa, is shockingly low compared to the GDP of this country.
When you say "people in past generations knew, and were stunned by, real want" what is actually true is that in past generations, even people who weren't systematically discriminated against knew real want, and were stunned that their privilege didn't prevent it.
Well, back when I was a kid poor people didn't have cable TV and went without things. Nowadays a lot of poor people have cable, smart phones, their kids get everything, it is very different.
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 05, 2021, 03:48:13 PM
I don't cheer for the Browns success.
Also agree. One wild card season and a victory over a slumping team in a game you almost legendarily choked away doesn't elevate them off the bottom of the league. Sure, they have reasons to be optimistic, but the level of disillusionment from their fanbase is off the charts.
The fans got free beer because they won a game a few years ago. They should've held a victory parade for winning a Wild Card game.
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 05, 2021, 03:48:13 PM
I don't cheer for the Browns success.
Also agree. One wild card season and a victory over a slumping team in a game you almost legendarily choked away doesn't elevate them off the bottom of the league. Sure, they have reasons to be optimistic, but the level of disillusionment from their fanbase is off the charts.
Detroit says "Hello." When the Lions won a whopping two games in a row in October last year, fans and especially local sportswriters heralded it as The Big Turnaround 60 years in the making, and got the playoff talk started. (Lost 8 out of 10 after that, and finished 5-11.)
On that note.
- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
- We don't need a Bears, Bengals, and Browns..
- Drew Brees> that brady guy.
- Duplicate colors should be gotten rid of. There's too many damn colors for them to choose navy blue :-/.
- We should normalize watching tennis. I know a ton of people that only watch when Serena plays.
- Carmelo Anthony deserves more praise.
- MMA is boring.
- Major League players going down to the minors is funny.
- We should normalize playing sports after college unprofessionally!
- International games should happen more often in any league.
- TEAMS SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN STADIUM
- NBA has too many games.
- The NFL draft needs to be eliminated.
- There should be "4-pointers" in NBA
- Bowling> Golf.
- Washington Football Team isn't that bad of a name. Better than the "Bengals"
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 05, 2021, 03:48:13 PM
I don't cheer for the Browns success.
Also agree. One wild card season and a victory over a slumping team in a game you almost legendarily choked away doesn't elevate them off the bottom of the league. Sure, they have reasons to be optimistic, but the level of disillusionment from their fanbase is off the charts.
They're certainly elevated from the very bottom of the league. This the best season/offseason they've had in several decades. I'd say let the fans enjoy it.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
- Washington Football Team isn't the bad of a name.
That's not an unpopular take. If it was, they would have found a new name by now.
^ Really? I still see a ton of people complaining about it.
^^they had a recent call for ideas from fans to rename the team
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 07, 2021, 04:43:40 AM
It should always be specified which kind of "Football" one is talking about. Most of the World understand "association" football by that term, not "American" football.
Rugby.
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:45:33 AM
I'm a Cowboys fan living in Wisconsin. Well, I'm here to make my case: literally nobody cares.
They do care, but they don't bring it up for fear of what you might do to them. Being a Cowboys fan outside of Texas is a lifestyle choice, and who knows what that sort of person might do if they insult them? It isn't worth the risk.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
With the exception of Minnesota, absolutely. State names are for colleges, city names are for pro teams.
Quote
- We don't need a Bears, Bengals, and Browns..
I'm 95% sure that when the Bengals' lease is up, they will decamp. Cincinnati is not that big a market, the Bengals never developed the deep regional fan base the Reds have, and the Brown family just doesn't care about winning.
Quote
- Duplicate colors should be gotten rid of. There's too many damn colors for them to choose navy blue
True.
Quote
- International games should happen more often in any league.
Why? People in different parts of the world like different things. Be happy with your own continent(s).
Quote
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.
Agree 100%. More broadly, the whole internet "you are a girl" theme is sad. I cannot win an argument, so I called you a girl. Works in 2nd grade in 1960, maybe. Yes, slightly more than half the people on earth are female. Their opinions, actions, ideas, wants, desires, etc, are no less valid. The middle ages have been over for some time.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
How do you feel about teams named after multiple states or a region? (Looking at you, Panthers & Patriots)
Quote from: kphoger on April 07, 2021, 11:22:39 AM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on April 07, 2021, 04:43:40 AM
It should always be specified which kind of "Football" one is talking about. Most of the World understand "association" football by that term, not "American" football.
Rugby.
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:45:33 AM
I'm a Cowboys fan living in Wisconsin. Well, I'm here to make my case: literally nobody cares.
They do care, but they don't bring it up for fear of what you might do to them. Being a Cowboys fan outside of Texas is a lifestyle choice, and who knows what that sort of person might do if they insult them? It isn't worth the risk.
Thanks for enlightening me
Quote
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.
Yeah, that one is going to fall on deaf ears. The fact that it's disrespectful is only half of it - the term has really just been watered down to the point of being used exclusively by people who really don't follow the NFL and think they're making a funny, original joke. A lot of people will continue to make that joke until the end of time.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 07, 2021, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
How do you feel about teams named after multiple states or a region? (Looking at you, Panthers & Patriots)
I dislike these the most. Carolina is understandable, but New England is just- no.
Also, I am ok with our continent I just think that international events are fun.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
On that note.
- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
- We don't need a Bears, Bengals, and Browns..
- Drew Brees> that brady guy.
- Duplicate colors should be gotten rid of. There's too many damn colors for them to choose navy blue :-/.
- We should normalize watching tennis. I know a ton of people that only watch when Serena plays.
- Carmelo Anthony deserves more praise.
- MMA is boring.
- Major League players going down to the minors is funny.
- We should normalize playing sports after college unprofessionally!
- International games should happen more often in any league.
- TEAMS SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN STADIUM
- NBA has too many games.
- The NFL draft needs to be eliminated.
- There should be "4-pointers" in NBA
- Bowling> Golf.
- Washington Football Team isn't that bad of a name. Better than the "Bengals"
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.
NBA 4 pointers? Do you want to kill paint play and make every shot just chucked up?
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 07, 2021, 11:43:20 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
How do you feel about teams named after multiple states or a region? (Looking at you, Panthers & Patriots)
I dislike these the most. Carolina is understandable, but New England is just- no.
Also, I am ok with our continent I just think that international events are fun.
The ONE thing that drives me crazy is when a team uses the state name when there is more than one team in that state. I'm fine with Arizona, Colorado, and Minnesota; but the Florida Panthers when you have Tampa Bay and the Golden State Warriors when you have 2 other LA teams and Sacramento drives me nuts. The only exception I tend to allow is Texas Rangers, because Dallas Rangers just doesn't sound right. New England Patriots is fine because there are no other teams in New England, plus Foxboro is far enough away from Boston (and closer to Providence) to not have to use Boston (at least they didn't use "Bay State" as they proposed for the first couple weeks while the old stadium in Foxboro was being built).
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 11:51:22 AM
Quote
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.
Yeah, that one is going to fall on deaf ears. The fact that it's disrespectful is only half of it - the term has really just been watered down to the point of being used exclusively by people who really don't follow the NFL and think they're making a funny, original joke. A lot of people will continue to make that joke until the end of time.
I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 07, 2021, 12:58:19 PM
The only exception I tend to allow is Texas Rangers, because Dallas Rangers just doesn't sound right.
I'm surprised you wouldn't rather they change
both words.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 07, 2021, 12:50:54 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
On that note.
- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
- We don't need a Bears, Bengals, and Browns..
- Drew Brees> that brady guy.
- Duplicate colors should be gotten rid of. There's too many damn colors for them to choose navy blue :-/.
- We should normalize watching tennis. I know a ton of people that only watch when Serena plays.
- Carmelo Anthony deserves more praise.
- MMA is boring.
- Major League players going down to the minors is funny.
- We should normalize playing sports after college unprofessionally!
- International games should happen more often in any league.
- TEAMS SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN STADIUM
- NBA has too many games.
- The NFL draft needs to be eliminated.
- There should be "4-pointers" in NBA
- Bowling> Golf.
- Washington Football Team isn't that bad of a name. Better than the "Bengals"
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.
NBA 4 pointers? Do you want to kill paint play and make every shot just chucked up?
At that point the three point contest would become the four point contests and it would be called an exhibition game
Being fouled while making a 3-point shot and making the free throw can be considered a 4-point play.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 07, 2021, 01:15:50 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 11:51:22 AM
Quote
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.
Yeah, that one is going to fall on deaf ears. The fact that it's disrespectful is only half of it - the term has really just been watered down to the point of being used exclusively by people who really don't follow the NFL and think they're making a funny, original joke. A lot of people will continue to make that joke until the end of time.
I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.
For what it's worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 07, 2021, 01:15:50 PM
I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.
For what it's worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .
Parts of Ohio and Indiana (the states, not the universities) are much closer to the University of Kentucky than areas like Paducah or even Owensboro.
Quote from: 1 on April 07, 2021, 05:43:16 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 07, 2021, 01:15:50 PM
I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.
For what it's worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .
Parts of Ohio and Indiana (the states, not the universities) are much closer to the University of Kentucky than areas like Paducah or even Owensboro.
Which is in part why geographic definitions of who is allowed to be a fan of a certain team and who is not are stupid. Sorry, but bandwagon fans are a part of sports. Think about the NFL. What teams have the least fans, and are, in turn, the least valuable franchises? They're the same teams who are bad year after year after year. The Jaguars, Bengals, Browns, Cardinals, Lions, Chargers, and others. There are some teams, such as the Giants and Jets, who have been bad for the majority of the last decade, but retain their value because of their huge markets. But the Chiefs, Packers, Seahawks, and Steelers have a lot of fans because they've been pretty good for the last decade or so. The Buccaneers are rapidly gaining fans while the Patriots are losing fans. If bandwagoning didn't exist, the competitive structure of the NFL, and all sports leagues around the world, would be destroyed. If everyone remained loyal to the team that they grew up closest to, there would be little incentive for team owners to do anything, because they wouldn't be gaining any extra fans or selling any extra merchandise no matter how good the team gets. Are bandwagon fans annoying? Sure. But in a way, they are the lifeblood of the national NFL following.
Quote from: 1 on April 07, 2021, 05:43:16 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 07, 2021, 01:15:50 PM
I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.
For what it's worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .
Parts of Ohio and Indiana (the states, not the universities) are much closer to the University of Kentucky than areas like Paducah or even Owensboro.
I lived in Jeffersonville/New Albany, IN for 10 years and in that area, fans were split about 40/40/20 for Indiana/Kentucky/Louisville
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 05:59:43 PM
Which is in part why geographic definitions of who is allowed to be a fan of a certain team and who is not are stupid. Sorry, but bandwagon fans are a part of sports. Think about the NFL. What teams have the least fans, and are, in turn, the least valuable franchises? They're the same teams who are bad year after year after year. The Jaguars, Bengals, Browns, Cardinals, Lions, Chargers, and others. There are some teams, such as the Giants and Jets, who have been bad for the majority of the last decade, but retain their value because of their huge markets. But the Chiefs, Packers, Seahawks, and Steelers have a lot of fans because they've been pretty good for the last decade or so. The Buccaneers are rapidly gaining fans while the Patriots are losing fans. If bandwagoning didn't exist, the competitive structure of the NFL, and all sports leagues around the world, would be destroyed. If everyone remained loyal to the team that they grew up closest to, there would be little incentive for team owners to do anything, because they wouldn't be gaining any extra fans or selling any extra merchandise no matter how good the team gets. Are bandwagon fans annoying? Sure. But in a way, they are the lifeblood of the national NFL following.
I agree with you for the most part, but I would never include the Chiefs, Packers, or Steelers in a bandwagon categorization. Obviously more fans jump in when they're good, but those teams, good or bad, have huge followings no matter what. Chiefs fans were still Chiefs fans when they had Matt Cassel. Packers fans were still Packers fans when they had Don Majkowski. Steelers fans were still Steelers fans when they had Tommy Maddox.
Chris
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 07, 2021, 08:11:24 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 07:59:34 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:45:33 AM
All of you are probably going to be annoyed by me because I'm a Cowboys fan living in Wisconsin. Well, I'm here to make my case: literally nobody cares. Get over it.
Honestly, I don't see a problem with that either. It's only annoying when people are just doing it to bandwagon or change teams often.
It's only annoying if you're a Cowboys fan, a Yankees fan and a Lakers fan (and yes, I know one such person).
Red Wings?
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
On that note.
- Franchises should always be named after a city, not a state.
- MMA is boring.
- TEAMS SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN STADIUM
- The NFL draft needs to be eliminated.
- There should be "4-pointers" in NBA
- Bowling> Golf.
- Washington Football Team isn't that bad of a name. Better than the "Bengals"
- Calling the "Cowboys" the "cowgirls" is unnecessarily disrespectful.
No sports team should ever be named "FC".
If a team leaves a city they should always have a new name.
MMA fighters fight twice a year. How manly are you when you only have to fight twice a year? Why not monthly?
Cleveland is an expansion team, there is no gap.
Agree with all these!
How about if a team doesn't win a championship in 32 years they are free to move anywhere...without the name. All the stink on the Lions, Cardinals, Bills, Vikings, Falcons, Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Bears.
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 05:59:43 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 07, 2021, 05:43:16 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 07, 2021, 01:15:50 PM
I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.
For what it’s worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .
Parts of Ohio and Indiana (the states, not the universities) are much closer to the University of Kentucky than areas like Paducah or even Owensboro.
Which is in part why geographic definitions of who is allowed to be a fan of a certain team and who is not are stupid. Sorry, but bandwagon fans are a part of sports. Think about the NFL. What teams have the least fans, and are, in turn, the least valuable franchises? They’re the same teams who are bad year after year after year. The Jaguars, Bengals, Browns, Cardinals, Lions, Chargers, and others. There are some teams, such as the Giants and Jets, who have been bad for the majority of the last decade, but retain their value because of their huge markets. But the Chiefs, Packers, Seahawks, and Steelers have a lot of fans because they’ve been pretty good for the last decade or so. The Buccaneers are rapidly gaining fans while the Patriots are losing fans. If bandwagoning didn’t exist, the competitive structure of the NFL, and all sports leagues around the world, would be destroyed. If everyone remained loyal to the team that they grew up closest to, there would be little incentive for team owners to do anything, because they wouldn’t be gaining any extra fans or selling any extra merchandise no matter how good the team gets. Are bandwagon fans annoying? Sure. But in a way, they are the lifeblood of the national NFL following.
Agreed. Why is there such value in following an awful team? If the Cowboys stink why am I obligated to watch. When my favorite TV show has a bad season I stop watching. I haven't watched WWE since 2009. If it improves I will watch again. Do I have to watch the bad years to be a real "fan"? Is it bad to like a team that is doing well? Very snobby to have that attitude about "bandwagoning fans" that some people have.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:09:08 AM
No sports team should ever be named "FC".
Europe's sports naming traditions far precede our own. I'll defer to them as far as "what's allowed".
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:09:08 AM
If a team leaves a city they should always have a new name.
Agreed.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:09:08 AM
MMA fighters fight twice a year. How manly are you when you only have to fight twice a year? Why not monthly?
CTE.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:09:08 AM
Cleveland is an expansion team, there is no gap.
Eh, the fanbase didn't move. Art Modell did. I think they should keep their traditions.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:09:08 AM
How about if a team doesn't win a championship in 32 years they are free to move anywhere...without the name. All the stink on the Lions, Cardinals, Bills, Vikings, Falcons, Bills, Jets, Dolphins, Bears.
I mean, any team is allowed to. Whether or not they should is a different story. It's not easy to move to a new metro area and earn as much money on merchandising with no tradition.
Chris
I don't understand the hate for out-of-region fans. If a team is consistently good, then why wouldn't someone grow to like that team? It seems only natural. Now, being an out-of-region fan of a
bad team, though... That makes no sense.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:09:08 AM
If a team leaves a city they should always have a new name.
Hmm...... I have mixed feelings about that. In a way, it's kind of like requiring a family to change their name if they move to a new city, or requiring a company to change its name if it relocates to a new headquarters. After all, it's still the same team. But I also dislike team names that don't make any sense for their new location. The Tennessee Oilers would have been a bad name, but the Athletics works just as well in Oakland as in Kansas City or Philadelphia.
On the other hand, I think the Browns should have chosen a different name for their 1999 reboot. They're not the same team, so they shouldn't get the same name.
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 09:24:44 AM
Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though... That makes no sense.
When the Cubs got to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016, almost everyone wanted them to win.
Quote from: 1 on April 08, 2021, 09:26:16 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 09:24:44 AM
Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though... That makes no sense.
When the Cubs got to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016, almost everyone wanted them to win.
Not me
I like Michigan football but don't hate the Buckeyes like the rest of the fans. My dad is a full blown diehard Michigan fan and hates ohio state. Every time I'm in Ohio county clinching he asks me why I'm there lol.
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 08, 2021, 12:32:24 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:09:08 AM
No sports team should ever be named "FC".
Europe's sports naming traditions far precede our own. I'll defer to them as far as "what's allowed".
Key word is "Europe". "FC" has a meaning. In Europe. As do terms like "United", "City", "Inter", "Dynamo", and "Sporting". In Europe. Further many are tied up in ethno-religious, political, or social divisions. In Europe.
The words are applied, in North America, as an affectation. To places with totally different histories.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 08, 2021, 10:17:48 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on April 08, 2021, 12:32:24 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:09:08 AM
No sports team should ever be named "FC".
Europe's sports naming traditions far precede our own. I'll defer to them as far as "what's allowed".
Key word is "Europe". "FC" has a meaning. In Europe. As do terms like "United", "City", "Inter", "Dynamo", and "Sporting". In Europe. Further many are tied up in ethno-religious, political, or social divisions. In Europe.
The words are applied, in North America, as an affectation. To places with totally different histories.
I think it's also time to realize that every possible "predatory animal" and "dynamic masculine role" has been exhausted for U.S. sports teams. Some of them do sound silly; if there's four teams out of 28 in a league with "F. C.", some of the meaning gets lost.
Can't wait to see the Parkersburg Antivivisectionists and the Peoria Caterpillars battle it out for the big match tonight on ESPN/7 ("The Virgule!").
Quote from: 1 on April 08, 2021, 09:26:16 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 09:24:44 AM
Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though... That makes no sense.
When the Cubs got to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016, almost everyone wanted them to win.
I don't equate
rooting for an underdog team for a few games to
being a fan.
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 09:24:44 AM
I don't understand the hate for out-of-region fans. If a team is consistently good, then why wouldn't someone grow to like that team? It seems only natural. Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though... That makes no sense.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:09:08 AM
If a team leaves a city they should always have a new name.
Hmm...... I have mixed feelings about that. In a way, it's kind of like requiring a family to change their name if they move to a new city, or requiring a company to change its name if it relocates to a new headquarters. After all, it's still the same team. But I also dislike team names that don't make any sense for their new location. The Tennessee Oilers would have been a bad name, but the Athletics works just as well in Oakland as in Kansas City or Philadelphia.
On the other hand, I think the Browns should have chosen a different name for their 1999 reboot. They're not the same team, so they shouldn't get the same name.
Technically, the 1999 reboot
is the same team. Part of the agreement with Modell moving his franchise to Baltimore is that it would be considered a new franchise, all the team records would stay in Cleveland, and that there would be a new franchise in place by 1999. Essentially, the franchise was considered dormant for 1996-98. Another situation was the Charlotte Hornets/New Orleans Pelicans. The original Hornets franchise moved to New Orleans along with the name, and a couple years later, a new franchise, the Bobcats, started. As part of an agreement, the records of the New Orleans franchise from the Charlotte days, along with the nickname, would be given to the Bobcats, and the New Orleans franchise would be renamed the Pelicans and keep all records subsequent to the move to New Orleans.
I'm surprised the Sharks do not have the records of the California Golden Seals. After the Seals moved to Cleveland and became the Barons, they folded and many of their assets and players were absorbed by the then Minnesota North Stars. Part of the agreement was that if a new team returned to the Bay Area, that team would be allowed take players from the North Stars. So when the Sharks became a franchise, the NHL held a dispersal draft from which they chose several North Stars players, in addition to the traditional expansion draft. However, the Seals/Barons records were not part of that.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on April 08, 2021, 11:38:35 AM
Technically, the 1999 reboot is the same team. Part of the agreement with Modell moving his franchise to Baltimore is that it would be considered a new franchise, all the team records would stay in Cleveland, and that there would be a new franchise in place by 1999. Essentially, the franchise was considered dormant for 1996-98.
Yeah, well. Did it have the same owner, coaches, players?
I disagree. The Browns team that moved to Baltimore is the same team regardless what happened to any of the records. If Art Modell wanted to move to Baltimore he should have sold the Browns and Baltimore should have been the city to get an expansion franchise not Cleveland. I mean seriously over a new stadium? It's not like moving into Memorial Stadium in Baltimore for a few years would have been much different than staying at Municipal Stadium for a few years, but then again the new stadium in Cleveland was built on the same property as the old stadium but still look at the White Sox, Mets, Yankees and other teams that have built new stadiums right next to the old one. If Cleveland still hates Art Modell I don't blame them.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 08, 2021, 11:53:45 AM
I disagree. The Browns team that moved to Baltimore is the same team regardless what happened to any of the records. If Art Modell wanted to move to Baltimore he should have sold the Browns and Baltimore should have been the city to get an expansion franchise not Cleveland. I mean seriously over a new stadium? It's not like moving into Memorial Stadium in Baltimore for a few years would have been much different than staying at Municipal Stadium for a few years, but then again the new stadium in Cleveland was built on the same property as the old stadium but still look at the White Sox, Mets, Yankees and other teams that have built new stadiums right next to the old one. If Cleveland still hates Art Modell I don't blame them.
Exactly. The Texans weren't allowed to have the Oilers name even though it wasn't being used. Had they been allowed to, it's still not the same team. The Browns history is in Baltimore with the winning team, the new team is a different team. Cleveland fans can pretend all they want.
Quote from: 1 on April 08, 2021, 09:26:16 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 09:24:44 AM
Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though... That makes no sense.
When the Cubs got to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016, almost everyone wanted them to win.
Not me, still pissed about what they did to Steve Bartman. That was ridiculous.
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 05, 2021, 03:48:13 PM
I don't cheer for the Browns success.
Also agree. One wild card season and a victory over a slumping team in a game you almost legendarily choked away doesn’t elevate them off the bottom of the league. Sure, they have reasons to be optimistic, but the level of disillusionment from their fanbase is off the charts.
They're certainly elevated from the very bottom of the league. This the best season/offseason they've had in several decades. I'd say let the fans enjoy it.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
- Washington Football Team isn't the bad of a name.
That's not an unpopular take. If it was, they would have found a new name by now.
Washington FC
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 12:00:04 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
- Washington Football Team isn't the bad of a name.
That's not an unpopular take. If it was, they would have found a new name by now.
Washington FC
Virginia Woolves
Maryland Crabs
Not sure if this is unpopular, but baseball has some terrible rules. The dropped third strike rule needs to be axed. The overcomplicated foul tip rule also needs to be simplified. If a player catches a ball after it touches the bat but before it touches the ground, the batter is out. Doesn't matter if the ball went forwards, backwards, or sideways, doesn't matter if he smashed it or barely hit it at all. It should be that simple. But no, baseball is so obsessed with tradition and trying to return to its glory days that it is going to be completely irrelevant in the American sports scene by 2050.
Unpopular sports opinion:
If sports teams want taxpayer money for stadiums, then in exchange, the city the team plays in gets 51% ownership of the team.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 08, 2021, 05:36:21 PM
Unpopular sports opinion:
If sports teams want taxpayer money for stadiums, then in exchange, the city the team plays in gets 51% ownership of the team.
Does that opinion extend to other, non-sports venues such as performing arts centers?
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 06:34:56 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 08, 2021, 05:36:21 PM
Unpopular sports opinion:
If sports teams want taxpayer money for stadiums, then in exchange, the city the team plays in gets 51% ownership of the team.
Does that opinion extend to other, non-sports venues such as performing arts centers?
If it did, maybe Oklahoma City would have a functioning Stage Center rather than a vacant lot.
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 06:34:56 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 08, 2021, 05:36:21 PM
Unpopular sports opinion:
If sports teams want taxpayer money for stadiums, then in exchange, the city the team plays in gets 51% ownership of the team.
Does that opinion extend to other, non-sports venues such as performing arts centers?
[purple]
Take it to the Unpopular Opinions (performing arts) Thread
[/nurple]
Quote from: cabiness42 on April 07, 2021, 06:03:35 PM
Quote from: 1 on April 07, 2021, 05:43:16 PM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 05:37:30 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on April 07, 2021, 01:15:50 PM
I don't use that term to insult the team. I use it to insult their bandwagon fans who live in another team's geographical market but still root for them. Yes, there are other teams in all sports for which that happens, but Dallas fans are the most obnoxious, followed closely by Duke/North Carolina/Tennessee fans who live in Kentucky and have ties to none of those schools.
For what it's worth, the same could be said of Kentucky basketball fans who live outside of Kentucky . . .
Parts of Ohio and Indiana (the states, not the universities) are much closer to the University of Kentucky than areas like Paducah or even Owensboro.
I lived in Jeffersonville/New Albany, IN for 10 years and in that area, fans were split about 40/40/20 for Indiana/Kentucky/Louisville
I don't disagree about the out-of-territory people, and I know there have been a lot of bandwagon fans that have come along because Calipari's thick with Drake and LeBron and a bunch of other pop culture notables in the past few years.
Part of Kentucky's fandom can also probably be attributed to television markets. (SP Cook will know something about this.) The Louisville TV market encompasses a bunch of Indiana counties, so they're going to be exposed to outsized UK coverage. (And remember that years ago, before ESPN and the SEC Netowrk, schools had their own TV networks for showing non-conference games, and conferences had their own networks too, and it was common for UK games to be tape-delayed and shown at 11:30 p.m. if they weren't picked up for live conference network or national network TV.) The Cincinnati market covers a big swath of northern Kentucky so they had to provide UK coverage. And the Huntington/Charleston TV stations get a huge chunk of eastern Kentucky, from the upper Licking River valley and Pike County all the way to the Ohio River. Hoosiers, Buckeyes, and West Virginians were all exposed to UK basketball because stations in Louisville, Cincinnati, and Huntington/Charleston were UK network affiliates.
And consider this ... a former co-worker of mine graduated from UK, and like many others in the state, is a UK fan. Her son is a freshman at Baylor this year. So naturally she's going to root for Baylor.
Quote from: texaskdog on April 08, 2021, 11:59:10 AM
Quote from: 1 on April 08, 2021, 09:26:16 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 09:24:44 AM
Now, being an out-of-region fan of a bad team, though... That makes no sense.
When the Cubs got to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016, almost everyone wanted them to win.
Not me, still pissed about what they did to Steve Bartman. That was ridiculous.
Really not much different than what Red Sox fans did to Bill Buckner.
Agree with everything HB said. When I was a kid, the only live college sports we got regularly was UK and SEC syndication out of WSAZ in Huntington. WVU (which is much further away than UK is) didn't produce games until the early 80s and then they were on PBS, it was later in the decade before they were on commercial TV. If Ohio State/Big 10 had any TV deals, they were not on in Huntington. People that got the Bluefield station got ACC syndication.
Side story. Two WV related people were big in the early days of syndication of college sports. One was a guy known as Dan Shoemaker, who was a local school teacher in Huntington. He figured out that satellite uplinks made production and syndication of games much easier. He started with Marshall and moved to a lot of schools around the upper south. He called his company "Creative Sports" because he was creative in how to finance the deals, getting odd ball local sponsors and such. He sold it to ESPN where it formed the basis of ESPN's college inventory. He worked for Disney until he died a couple years ago. The other guy was Bray Cary, who figured out about the same thing and worked with first WVU and then Virginia Tech and then some others. He sold his company to Disney as well and went to work for NASCAR, where he rode the wave and got rich. Returned to WV about 10 years ago and bought a bunch of TV stations, which he ran into the ground and had to sell. Now is "senior advisor" to the governor and heir apparent.
Quote from: SP Cook on April 02, 2021, 12:46:39 PM
SOCCER:
- Soccer is the sport of the next generation, four generations and counting.
Us missing out on the World Cup in 2018 killed that narrative. Strong performances in Qatar next year and on our turf in 2026 might change things though.
Makes me remember the NASL slogan: "Soccer–The Sport of the '80s."
Curious if this would be a popular opinion or not for NFL. If your team wins the Superbowl you get to host the game for the following season(or two years after if feeling there needs to be a gap in-between to help city/state prepare).
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2021, 06:41:50 PM
Curious if this would be a popular opinion or not for NFL. If your team wins the Superbowl you get to host the game for the following season(or two years after if feeling there needs to be a gap in-between to help city/state prepare).
The problem is the NFL has rules about who can host a Super Bowl based on climate (basically if you don't have a dome or don't play in CA or FL, you're out). They made an exception for NYC, but that's because they're NYC.
^^ Also they have rules on minimum number of lodging rooms in the metro area.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 13, 2021, 06:45:18 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2021, 06:41:50 PM
Curious if this would be a popular opinion or not for NFL. If your team wins the Superbowl you get to host the game for the following season(or two years after if feeling there needs to be a gap in-between to help city/state prepare).
The problem is the NFL has rules about who can host a Super Bowl based on climate (basically if you don't have a dome or don't play in CA or FL, you're out). They made an exception for NYC, but that's because they're NYC.
Let's for the sake of this argument pretend that minimum hotel requirement isn't there. It's apples and oranges but let's treat in more in line with how MLB, NHL, and NBA treat championships without having the hotel requirement(yes I am aware of the winner take all vs best of format difference).
Quote from: Big John on April 13, 2021, 06:53:08 PM
^^ Also they have rules on minimum number of lodging rooms in the metro area.
Other than Green Bay, there isn't any NFL city that couldn't handle hosting a Super Bowl if it weren't for the weather, but aside for that one-time NYC exception, nobody really wants an outdoor Super Bowl in the cold.
I do think there should be a more equitable rotation of host cities though. Indy got one, and everybody seemed to like it there, but there have been several in Miami, New Orleans and Phoenix since then without going back to Indy.
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2021, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 13, 2021, 06:45:18 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2021, 06:41:50 PM
Curious if this would be a popular opinion or not for NFL. If your team wins the Superbowl you get to host the game for the following season(or two years after if feeling there needs to be a gap in-between to help city/state prepare).
The problem is the NFL has rules about who can host a Super Bowl based on climate (basically if you don't have a dome or don't play in CA or FL, you're out). They made an exception for NYC, but that's because they're NYC.
Let's for the sake of this argument pretend that minimum hotel requirement isn't there. It's apples and oranges but let's treat in more in line with how MLB, NHL, and NBA treat championships without having the hotel requirement(yes I am aware of the winner take all vs best of format difference).
That leaves you with the climate issue, which the other leagues sidestep by playing indoors and/or not in the winter. The Packers, Bills, Browns, Steelers, Broncos, Bears, and Patriots could have weather issues with hosting Super Bowls in the winter.
Similar issues with when they host conference championships, but those are one-day affairs vs. the week-long extravaganza the NFL wants for Super Bowls.
Quote from: oscar on April 13, 2021, 07:46:44 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2021, 07:19:52 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 13, 2021, 06:45:18 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2021, 06:41:50 PM
Curious if this would be a popular opinion or not for NFL. If your team wins the Superbowl you get to host the game for the following season(or two years after if feeling there needs to be a gap in-between to help city/state prepare).
The problem is the NFL has rules about who can host a Super Bowl based on climate (basically if you don't have a dome or don't play in CA or FL, you're out). They made an exception for NYC, but that's because they're NYC.
Let's for the sake of this argument pretend that minimum hotel requirement isn't there. It's apples and oranges but let's treat in more in line with how MLB, NHL, and NBA treat championships without having the hotel requirement(yes I am aware of the winner take all vs best of format difference).
That leaves you with the climate issue, which the other leagues sidestep by playing indoors and/or not in the winter. The Packers, Bills, Browns, Steelers, Broncos, Bears, and Patriots could have weather issues with hosting Super Bowls in the winter.
Similar issues with when they host conference championships, but those are one-day affairs vs. the week-long extravaganza the NFL wants for Super Bowls.
Add Seahawks, Bengals, Football Team, Ravens, Eagles, Chiefs and maybe Titans to those where climate is going to be a problem.
The biggest difference between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl is that conference championship games are mainly attended by fans of the home team, and those fans will go regardless of weather. The Super Bowl is highly attended by corporate sponsors, and those people that drop hundreds of thousands on tickets, stadium suites, hotel suites, catered meals, etc, don't wan't to attend games in the cold.
A Super Bowl in Buffalo would be wild. Buffalo and Green Bay are probably the top two worst winter climates for a Super Bowl host city.
I'm old enough to remember the Freezer Bowl that was the AFC Championship between the Bengals and the Chargers in January 1982. That was move-in day for the second semester of my junior year in college. I left home early enough to get my TV and most of my stuff packed up to my room and watched that game on TV in the dorm.
Quote from: webny99 on April 13, 2021, 08:03:49 PM
A Super Bowl in Buffalo would be wild. Buffalo and Green Bay are probably the top two worst winter climates for a Super Bowl host city.
Chicago wouldn't be too pleasant either.
Super Bowl in London would be cool.
(probably not a good idea though)
Las Vegas has the most hotel rooms in the country and they now have an NFL team perhaps they could host a Super Bowl.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 13, 2021, 10:25:08 PM
Las Vegas has the most hotel rooms in the country and they now have an NFL team perhaps they could host a Super Bowl.
New Orleans, Tampa, and Vegas are the three main contenders to host Super Bowl 58 in 2024. Of those three, Vegas seems like by far the most logical choice. The Superdome is getting outdated fast, and Tampa just had the Super Bowl.
^^ New Orleans originally was granted the 2024 SB, but it conflicted with Mardi Gras, so it was moved to 2025. 2024 currently is unassigned.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 13, 2021, 10:25:08 PM
Las Vegas has the most hotel rooms in the country and they now have an NFL team perhaps they could host a Super Bowl.
2022 is Los Angeles and 2023 is Arizona, so possibly 2024.
Quote from: thspfc on April 13, 2021, 10:59:09 PM
New Orleans, Tampa, and Vegas are the three main contenders to host Super Bowl 58 in 2024.
(Edit: As just noted) I believe New Orleans is hosting in 2025.
Quote from: Flint1979 on April 13, 2021, 08:35:17 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 13, 2021, 08:03:49 PM
A Super Bowl in Buffalo would be wild. Buffalo and Green Bay are probably the top two worst winter climates for a Super Bowl host city.
Chicago wouldn't be too pleasant either.
Not to mention it has the lowest seating capacity of any stadium at just 61,500.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 13, 2021, 09:28:33 PM
Super Bowl in London would be cool.
(probably not a good idea though)
It would be chilly, but not the kind of bitter cold you can get in the northern US.
Not only the Super Bowl, but the college bowl games played outdoors north of, say, I-40, are dumb.
Through a form of greed driven calendar creep (the first Super Bowl was played on January 15th) the NFL has pushed the deal into the dead of winter. It dodged a bullet in NYC that year, the weather was mild, but that is just luck. This is a nation with plenty of warm weather cities and several northern domes. Plenty to rotate among.
As to colleges, bowls are supposed to be a reward. Unlike the regular season, where it is businesslike in-and-out travel with no foolishness, bowls are held during semester break and the players get a reward. But why play in Boise? NYC? Boston? Annapolis?
Boise?
Boise, Idaho?
More or less put out that Superbowl thing as something to have allowed more northern based franchises to have their area get some of the business hosting a superbowl would bring. Money cities like Green Bay or Buffalo in their communities wouldn't see. Packers trying to host an NFL draft as that seems to be as much as they could hope for
Would playing a Super Bowl in Vegas have any effect on sports betting? I may not be accurately remembering this, but it seems like I heard years ago that betting was not allowed on UNLV basketball games.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 14, 2021, 02:05:26 PM
Would playing a Super Bowl in Vegas have any effect on sports betting? I may not be accurately remembering this, but it seems like I heard years ago that betting was not allowed on UNLV basketball games.
Betting on Raiders games is allowed in Nevada, so I don't see why the Super Bowl would be impacted.
Also, sports betting became legal in Indiana last year and betting on Colts and Pacers games is allowed.
Probably other states as well.
Quote from: hbelkins on April 14, 2021, 02:05:26 PM
Would playing a Super Bowl in Vegas have any effect on sports betting? I may not be accurately remembering this, but it seems like I heard years ago that betting was not allowed on UNLV basketball games.
They changed the rule in Nevada in 2001, but you do remember correctly. You cannot bet on Rutgers games in New Jersey.
Chris
I'm sorry, but I don't buy this bullshit that some NFL cities aren't suitable to host a Super Bowl. If they can accommodate all the people coming in for playoff games then they can certainly accommodate the final playoff game. If there is a problem, it's not with Buffalo or Cleveland or Green Bay, it's with the absolute circus the Super Bowl has become.
With the NFL's billions of dollars, they could make the Super Bowl work in Antarctica if they wanted to. It's they're own damn fault the game is in February to begin with; they keep adding more games to the schedule. Take out that stupid bye week between the championships and the Super Bowl. It's lame. Maybe players wouldn't "need a week to heal" if you quit adding games, dummies!
Why does the halftime show need to be so elaborate anyway? It's all just crazy nonsense set to recorded music America has heard a billion times. I call bullshit that you can't have a bunch of douchebags in onsies dance around with glow sticks in the winter. Hey maybe if the Super Bowl was in a northern city, then those pussy rich fucks will bow out and a few tickets only cost one month's salary rather than three month's salary. Anything to break the cycle of the Super Bowl increasingly becoming a thing only to be seen in person by the elites and a few charity cases.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on April 20, 2021, 07:08:31 PM
Anything to break the cycle of the Super Bowl increasingly becoming a thing only to be seen in person by the elites and a few charity cases.
What makes you think that wasn't done intentionally?
- IDC, Division Champions shouldn't get an automatic playoff berth.
- Poker shouldn't be displayed on ESPN.
- Twin cities should never be considered when naming a team.
- Horse racing is boring and tacky.
- Professional sports leagues should redraft players at certain intervals, every five or ten years or something.
- Professional sports should allow marijuana.
- Those rings dont define you as a goat. *glares at tom brady fans*.
- Referees should be inducted in the hall of fame.
- Joe Namath is grossly overrated.
- If you fish as a sport or watch it, please seek help!
- I might be crazy but I enjoy watching netball more than football.
Quote from: kenarmy on May 12, 2021, 02:18:26 PM
- Poker shouldn't be displayed on ESPN.
Preach it, brother! Amen!
Quote from: kenarmy on May 12, 2021, 02:18:26 PM
- If you fish as a sport or watch it, please seek help!
I forget now who said it: Fishing isn't a sport, it's a form of alcoholism.
The E in ESPN stands for Entertainment, so I think poker belongs in that aspect.
Quote from: Big John on May 12, 2021, 05:38:20 PM
The E in ESPN stands for Entertainment, so I think poker belongs in that aspect.
like wwe?
The problem is ESPN (and other sports nets) don't have enough "major sports" content to fill 24 hours. So that's how you end up with bowling, poker, darts, outdoors shows, etc. These things are also extremely cheap to produce, and more people than you think are interested in the outdoors programming.
Poker is just as much a competitive game of skill as anything else on ESPN, and arguably more so because a poker player isn't limited by things like injuries, gender, or limits of their own genetics (in most cases). Most people think of "sports" as being only physical activities, but there's really no other good term for them, and nowhere else good on TV to put "competitive skills contests that aren't physical activities", like poker, chess, and e-sports.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 12, 2021, 06:54:07 PM
The problem is ESPN (and other sports nets) don't have enough "major sports" content to fill 24 hours. So that's how you end up with bowling, poker, darts, outdoors shows, etc. These things are also extremely cheap to produce, and more people than you think are interested in the outdoors programming.
I'd rather watch some of these obscure sports rather than Skip Bayless talk about Lebron vs Jordan for 5 hours.
Quote from: gr8daynegb on April 13, 2021, 06:41:50 PM
Curious if this would be a popular opinion or not for NFL. If your team wins the Superbowl you get to host the game for the following season(or two years after if feeling there needs to be a gap in-between to help city/state prepare).
Great idea, you earn one. And there are no real dynasties anymore. Winning earns you a future super bowl sounds great!
Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 02:27:00 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on May 12, 2021, 02:18:26 PM
- Poker shouldn't be displayed on ESPN.
Preach it, brother! Amen!
Quote from: kenarmy on May 12, 2021, 02:18:26 PM
- If you fish as a sport or watch it, please seek help!
I forget now who said it: Fishing isn't a sport, it's a form of alcoholism.
Throw bowling in there too.
And no one should ever watch others bowl, fish, or play golf.
Quote from: kenarmy on May 12, 2021, 02:18:26 PM
- Those rings dont define you as a goat. *glares at tom brady fans*.
What about being almost number 1 in passing yards (already 1 by a longshot if you count playoffs)? Or the 3 MVPs?
Quote from: texaskdog on May 12, 2021, 09:53:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 12, 2021, 02:27:00 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on May 12, 2021, 02:18:26 PM
- Poker shouldn't be displayed on ESPN.
Preach it, brother! Amen!
Quote from: kenarmy on May 12, 2021, 02:18:26 PM
- If you fish as a sport or watch it, please seek help!
I forget now who said it: Fishing isn't a sport, it's a form of alcoholism.
Throw bowling in there too.
And no one should ever watch others bowl, fish, or play golf.
I grew up watching bowling. It's a sport. Just because you suck at it doesn't make it illegitimate.
There are many sports where you don't have to be a great athlete to play them, bowling, fishing, and golf among them. I'd call those activities more of a sport than say, gymnastics or figure skating. Bowling, fishing, and golf your outcome at the end of the game or tournament is entirely dependent on your performance. Now gymnasts and figure skaters might be superior athletes to bowlers, fishers, or golfers, but the outcome of their competition isn't based purely on your own performance, it is based on judging, and therefore open to interpretation.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 12, 2021, 11:15:25 PM
There are many sports where you don't have to be a great athlete to play them, bowling, fishing, and golf among them. I'd call those activities more of a sport than say, gymnastics or figure skating. Bowling, fishing, and golf your outcome at the end of the game or tournament is entirely dependent on your performance. Now gymnasts and figure skaters might be superior athletes to bowlers, fishers, or golfers, but the outcome of their competition isn't based purely on your own performance, it is based on judging, and therefore open to interpretation.
I'm kind of confused by your take. Could you succinctly say what's the difference between a sport and a non-sport activity?
Quote from: kphoger on May 13, 2021, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 12, 2021, 11:15:25 PM
There are many sports where you don't have to be a great athlete to play them, bowling, fishing, and golf among them. I'd call those activities more of a sport than say, gymnastics or figure skating. Bowling, fishing, and golf your outcome at the end of the game or tournament is entirely dependent on your performance. Now gymnasts and figure skaters might be superior athletes to bowlers, fishers, or golfers, but the outcome of their competition isn't based purely on your own performance, it is based on judging, and therefore open to interpretation.
I'm kind of confused by your take. Could you succinctly say what's the difference between a sport and a non-sport activity?
I was trying to say a non-sport activity is one where the outcome is based not solely on your own performance, like say bowling a higher score than your opponent. But one like gymnastics or figure skating where the outcome is based on a judge's opinion on your performance. Gymnasts and figure skaters are given ratings based on a judge's opinion, and there have been controversial results in the past based on judge's ratings in the Olympics. Bowling, or many other sports, your score is your score, and there is no disputing that.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 13, 2021, 09:54:03 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 13, 2021, 09:45:07 AM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on May 12, 2021, 11:15:25 PM
There are many sports where you don't have to be a great athlete to play them, bowling, fishing, and golf among them. I'd call those activities more of a sport than say, gymnastics or figure skating. Bowling, fishing, and golf your outcome at the end of the game or tournament is entirely dependent on your performance. Now gymnasts and figure skaters might be superior athletes to bowlers, fishers, or golfers, but the outcome of their competition isn't based purely on your own performance, it is based on judging, and therefore open to interpretation.
I'm kind of confused by your take. Could you succinctly say what's the difference between a sport and a non-sport activity?
I was trying to say a non-sport activity is one where the outcome is based not solely on your own performance, like say bowling a higher score than your opponent. But one like gymnastics or figure skating where the outcome is based on a judge's opinion on your performance. Gymnasts and figure skaters are given ratings based on a judge's opinion, and there have been controversial results in the past based on judge's ratings in the Olympics. Bowling, or many other sports, your score is your score, and there is no disputing that.
This would mean that chess is unquestionably a sport, and poker almost certainly is (while randomness is introduced into the process by the cards, the skill being tested is how to effectively manage that randomness, e.g. by choosing not to play when one receives unfavorable cards).
Chess is not a sport because it requires no physical activity.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 03:29:35 PM
Chess is not a sport because it requires no physical activity.
Same for racing automobiles.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 03:29:35 PM
Chess is not a sport because it requires no physical activity.
That could actually make it more competitive, though–how many skilled athletes are forced to retire because of injuries that make them unable to continue playing?
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 13, 2021, 04:16:41 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 13, 2021, 03:29:35 PM
Chess is not a sport because it requires no physical activity.
Same for racing automobiles.
Take away HVAC, throw in many more curves, remove 80% of the suspension movement, tackle turns at 2-4 times the forces of gravity, brake 3-4 times sooner, triple your typical commuting speed, make 50 gearshifts every 90 seconds, and compete against 20-40 others who want your job at the same time...just like your daily commute, right? You don't realize the best drivers get a good workout over the event
because they're athletes.
A sport is always a game, but a game is not always a sport. Chess and poker are games. They're not sports. I would make motorsports its own category, separate from regular sports.
And I'm thinking if they give competitive eating and spelling bee as much coverage as they do then I've alright with poker lol
They used to show Magic: the Gathering tournaments between 1997 and 2000. The issue with that one is that not everyone knows how to play.
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 14, 2021, 09:25:03 AM
And I'm thinking if they give competitive eating and spelling bee as much coverage as they do then I've alright with poker lol
and cornholing
Quote from: 1 on May 14, 2021, 09:25:53 AM
They used to show Magic: the Gathering tournaments between 1997 and 2000. The issue with that one is that not everyone knows how to play.
I don't know how to play poker
Quote from: texaskdog on May 14, 2021, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: 1 on May 14, 2021, 09:25:53 AM
They used to show Magic: the Gathering tournaments between 1997 and 2000. The issue with that one is that not everyone knows how to play.
I don't know how to play poker
But much quicker to learn that than Magic: The Gathering.
Chris
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 14, 2021, 09:25:03 AM
And I'm thinking if they give competitive eating and spelling bee as much coverage as they do then I've alright with poker lol
Competitive eating is a sport. If you haven't done it, you don't get it.
Quote from: formulanone on May 14, 2021, 07:06:07 AM
Take away HVAC, throw in many more curves, remove 80% of the suspension movement, tackle turns at 2-4 times the forces of gravity, brake 3-4 times sooner, triple your typical commuting speed, make 50 gearshifts every 90 seconds, and compete against 20-40 others who want your job at the same time...just like your daily commute, right? You don't realize the best drivers get a good workout over the event because they're athletes.
Them drivers sure don't
look like athletes. Bunch of scrawny dudes who look they stepped out of your average cubicle.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 17, 2021, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: formulanone on May 14, 2021, 07:06:07 AM
Take away HVAC, throw in many more curves, remove 80% of the suspension movement, tackle turns at 2-4 times the forces of gravity, brake 3-4 times sooner, triple your typical commuting speed, make 50 gearshifts every 90 seconds, and compete against 20-40 others who want your job at the same time...just like your daily commute, right? You don't realize the best drivers get a good workout over the event because they're athletes.
Them drivers sure don't look like athletes. Bunch of scrawny dudes who look they stepped out of your average cubicle.
An adage from years ago was:
"I remember when the drivers were fat and the tires were skinny." On the other hand, pro drivers of the past didn't need a manager/agent to help run their careers and schedules; they carried around their own nerves of steel.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on May 17, 2021, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: formulanone on May 14, 2021, 07:06:07 AM
Take away HVAC, throw in many more curves, remove 80% of the suspension movement, tackle turns at 2-4 times the forces of gravity, brake 3-4 times sooner, triple your typical commuting speed, make 50 gearshifts every 90 seconds, and compete against 20-40 others who want your job at the same time...just like your daily commute, right? You don't realize the best drivers get a good workout over the event because they're athletes.
Them drivers sure don't look like athletes. Bunch of scrawny dudes who look they stepped out of your average cubicle.
Yeah, unlike golfers.
Quote from: thspfc on May 14, 2021, 08:44:44 AM
I would make motorsports its own category, separate from regular sports.
Well, then, just call it "auto racing" or just "racing", period! Do we have to bitch and gripe about whether or not this one category is a sport or a game?! If chess is a game, call it a game. If E-Sports is not a sport, then call it gaming. If basketball is a sport, call it a sport. I mean, dadgum! Just call whatever that sport or game as it is! I thought that debate was settled years ago as to what certain activities would be known as, whether it's a game or a sport.
NASCAR isn't racing. It's racin'.
IMHO,
- Judged things, like gymnastics or figure skating are simply not sports. Someone has decided that there is some "correct" way to turn a flip or roll about on the floor. OK. If that is a "sport" then someone could decide a "correct" way to unload a truck and judge that. Not a sport.
- Motorsports are motorsports. It is a different category all its own.
- Golf, tennis, bowling, et al, are certainly sports. They meet every possible criteria for being a sport. Just because a person does not look like a Greek statue does not make them not athletes. Ever seen a football lineman?
NASCAR is boring and much worse than even baseball, tennis, or volleyball. The only sport less interesting is golf.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 25, 2021, 03:51:14 PM
NASCAR is boring and much worse than even baseball, tennis, or volleyball. The only sport less interesting is golf.
What's funny is on TV the cautions are the most boring. When you attend it gets really boring to where you want a restart to kick things up again.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 25, 2021, 04:09:13 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 25, 2021, 03:51:14 PM
NASCAR is boring and much worse than even baseball, tennis, or volleyball. The only sport less interesting is golf.
What's funny is on TV the cautions are the most boring. When you attend it gets really boring to where you want a restart to kick things up again.
With all those I would always put "boring watching on tv", football in person to me is kinda boring.....on TV with all that extra stuff not boring
Guarantee for the driver NASCAR is not boring lol
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 25, 2021, 03:51:14 PM
NASCAR is boring and much worse than even baseball, tennis, or volleyball. The only sport less interesting is golf.
I would rank those five in this order:
Least interesting: Volleyball, I've never liked it much.
4. Baseball: Cool when you're actually at the ballpark, but impossible to watch on TV without immediately realizing that you're wasting four hours of your time watching the pitcher fool around.
3. Nascar: Not really my thing but watching it does make time pass.
2. Tennis: Long rallies are exciting, watching them bounce the ball to themselves for five minutes straight is not. I would enjoy it more if they simplified their scoring system. Get rid of "sets" and "games". First to 50 points wins. Serve alternates every 5 points.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""Most interesting""""""""""""""""""""""": Golf, I guess? Sundays of major tournaments are very exciting. Everything else is boring.
Quote from: thspfc on May 25, 2021, 09:25:04 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 25, 2021, 03:51:14 PM
NASCAR is boring and much worse than even baseball, tennis, or volleyball. The only sport less interesting is golf.
I would rank those five in this order:
Least interesting: Volleyball, I've never liked it much. ...
I actually like playing volleyball, maybe just because it's one of the few sports I'm not terrible at.
I don't have a strong take on how interesting it is to watch, but it is certainly not the least watchable sport. It's fast-paced and there's usually plenty of exciting moments.
Yeah, ditto about volleyball being really fun to play. My favorite thing to do is block spikes (so satisfying!), and otherwise be a menace in the front near the net since I'm pretty tall. Although I did get a hard spike to the face a couple months ago (surprisingly, my glasses didn't break).
I suspect this opinion is unpopular: basketball is very boring (both to watch and to play).
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 25, 2021, 10:02:37 PM
Yeah, ditto about volleyball being really fun to play. My favorite thing to do is block spikes (so satisfying!), and otherwise be a menace in the front near the net since I'm pretty tall. Although I did get a hard spike to the face a couple months ago (surprisingly, my glasses didn't break).
I suspect this opinion is unpopular: basketball is very boring (both to watch and to play).
If you are talking the NBA I'd agree due to how WWF/WWE it has become over the years for watching the product......along with many athletes and coaches getting all preachy on social issues, yet they don't practice what they preach(this part doesn't make it boring, but kills interest in watching quickly).
If it's college basketball I would disagree, get two closely enough matched teams watching teams play all out for the 40 minutes or more is exciting, compared to NBA teams only flipping the on switch at certain times
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 25, 2021, 10:02:37 PM
Yeah, ditto about volleyball being really fun to play. My favorite thing to do is block spikes (so satisfying!), and otherwise be a menace in the front near the net since I'm pretty tall. Although I did get a hard spike to the face a couple months ago (surprisingly, my glasses didn't break).
I suspect this opinion is unpopular: basketball is very boring (both to watch and to play).
Too many fouls in the NBA. Not much defense. Seems like every possession has four possible outcomes:
- Free throws
- Made 3 pointer
- Missed 3 pointer
- Layup
Quote from: thspfc on May 26, 2021, 11:58:18 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 25, 2021, 10:02:37 PM
Yeah, ditto about volleyball being really fun to play. My favorite thing to do is block spikes (so satisfying!), and otherwise be a menace in the front near the net since I'm pretty tall. Although I did get a hard spike to the face a couple months ago (surprisingly, my glasses didn't break).
I suspect this opinion is unpopular: basketball is very boring (both to watch and to play).
Too many fouls in the NBA. Not much defense. Seems like every possession has four possible outcomes:
- Free throws
- Made 3 pointer
- Missed 3 pointer
- Layup
Yes basketball has too many fouls.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2021, 01:10:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 26, 2021, 11:58:18 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 25, 2021, 10:02:37 PM
Yeah, ditto about volleyball being really fun to play. My favorite thing to do is block spikes (so satisfying!), and otherwise be a menace in the front near the net since I'm pretty tall. Although I did get a hard spike to the face a couple months ago (surprisingly, my glasses didn't break).
I suspect this opinion is unpopular: basketball is very boring (both to watch and to play).
Too many fouls in the NBA. Not much defense. Seems like every possession has four possible outcomes:
- Free throws
- Made 3 pointer
- Missed 3 pointer
- Layup
Yes basketball has too many fouls.
Bring back the old European model of getting 3 chances to make 2 free throws rather than just 2 free throws. Would be more disincentive to foul.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 26, 2021, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2021, 01:10:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 26, 2021, 11:58:18 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 25, 2021, 10:02:37 PM
Yeah, ditto about volleyball being really fun to play. My favorite thing to do is block spikes (so satisfying!), and otherwise be a menace in the front near the net since I'm pretty tall. Although I did get a hard spike to the face a couple months ago (surprisingly, my glasses didn't break).
I suspect this opinion is unpopular: basketball is very boring (both to watch and to play).
Too many fouls in the NBA. Not much defense. Seems like every possession has four possible outcomes:
- Free throws
- Made 3 pointer
- Missed 3 pointer
- Layup
Yes basketball has too many fouls.
Bring back the old European model of getting 3 chances to make 2 free throws rather than just 2 free throws. Would be more disincentive to foul.
That would just slow the game down more.
How do people watch other people bowl?
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2021, 01:10:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 26, 2021, 11:58:18 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 25, 2021, 10:02:37 PM
Yeah, ditto about volleyball being really fun to play. My favorite thing to do is block spikes (so satisfying!), and otherwise be a menace in the front near the net since I'm pretty tall. Although I did get a hard spike to the face a couple months ago (surprisingly, my glasses didn't break).
I suspect this opinion is unpopular: basketball is very boring (both to watch and to play).
Too many fouls in the NBA. Not much defense. Seems like every possession has four possible outcomes:
- Free throws
- Made 3 pointer
- Missed 3 pointer
- Layup
Yes basketball has too many fouls.
I'd love a rule to get rid of all the fowling in the last two minutes.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 26, 2021, 02:06:00 PM
I'd love a rule to get rid of all the fowling in the last two minutes.
So they need to stop being chickens?
Quote from: texaskdog on May 26, 2021, 02:05:19 PM
How do people watch other people bowl?
Well when we are at bowling alley we drink beer, and if I'm watching on tv at home it's #1- a lazy day and #2- sadly it would be the most interesting thing on tv
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 26, 2021, 02:18:31 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 26, 2021, 02:05:19 PM
How do people watch other people bowl?
Well when we are at bowling alley we drink beer, and if I'm watching on tv at home it's #1- a lazy day and #2- sadly it would be the most interesting thing on tv
I understand, I have ESPN 3
Never thought I'd be entertained watching men cornholing.
Quote from: 1 on May 26, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 26, 2021, 02:06:00 PM
I'd love a rule to get rid of all the fowling in the last two minutes.
So they need to stop being chickens?
As a Bucks fan if Giannis would make his free throws they'd stop the fowling as well........although I wish refs would call a foul the same whether you're LeBron James/Michael Jordan or guy #11 or 12 in the rotation.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 26, 2021, 02:05:19 PM
How do people watch other people bowl?
It's fun, as a bowler. I think it's always easier to watch a sport you know.
If you do something out of the ordinary people seem to pay attention. I myself barely through a hook but lanes say when I roll 23-26mph, so when I throw strikes that creates a sound that gets peoples attention lol.
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 26, 2021, 07:28:29 PM
If you do something out of the ordinary people seem to pay attention. I myself barely through a hook but lanes say when I roll 23-26mph, so when I throw strikes that creates a sound that gets peoples attention lol.
My God, what weight ball do you use? On a 15 or 16, I can throw about 17 mph. Fastest I can throw is 20 but with no control.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 26, 2021, 02:06:00 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2021, 01:10:30 PM
Quote from: thspfc on May 26, 2021, 11:58:18 AM
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 25, 2021, 10:02:37 PM
Yeah, ditto about volleyball being really fun to play. My favorite thing to do is block spikes (so satisfying!), and otherwise be a menace in the front near the net since I'm pretty tall. Although I did get a hard spike to the face a couple months ago (surprisingly, my glasses didn't break).
I suspect this opinion is unpopular: basketball is very boring (both to watch and to play).
Too many fouls in the NBA. Not much defense. Seems like every possession has four possible outcomes:
- Free throws
- Made 3 pointer
- Missed 3 pointer
- Layup
Yes basketball has too many fouls.
I'd love a rule to get rid of all the fowling in the last two minutes.
What? That would be chaos. You mean that literally nothing would be a foul in the last two minutes? A much better solution would be to run 30 seconds off the clock for every foul committed by the losing team in the final two minutes.
Quote from: 1 on May 26, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 26, 2021, 02:06:00 PM
I'd love a rule to get rid of all the fowling in the last two minutes.
So they need to stop being chickens?
Going to be hard for Atlanta or New Orleans to win any games.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 25, 2021, 11:44:36 AM
NASCAR isn't racing. It's racin'.
Oh, right. Sadly, I think it's lost its Southern charm for quite some time.
Quote from: Alps on May 27, 2021, 12:57:38 AM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 26, 2021, 07:28:29 PM
If you do something out of the ordinary people seem to pay attention. I myself barely through a hook but lanes say when I roll 23-26mph, so when I throw strikes that creates a sound that gets peoples attention lol.
My God, what weight ball do you use? On a 15 or 16, I can throw about 17 mph. Fastest I can throw is 20 but with no control.
I use a 16 lb ball. Helps too that I'm 6 ft 6 inches tall with long arms. I can be in the 21-21.5mph range and still maintain control of where I bowl regardless if good or bad day. If I have an in the zone day then can do 22.5-23mph on those days. Anything after 23+ is anyone's guess lol.
I roll a straight ball, assuming yours you throw a hook?
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 28, 2021, 01:53:47 PM
Quote from: Alps on May 27, 2021, 12:57:38 AM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on May 26, 2021, 07:28:29 PM
If you do something out of the ordinary people seem to pay attention. I myself barely through a hook but lanes say when I roll 23-26mph, so when I throw strikes that creates a sound that gets peoples attention lol.
My God, what weight ball do you use? On a 15 or 16, I can throw about 17 mph. Fastest I can throw is 20 but with no control.
I use a 16 lb ball. Helps too that I'm 6 ft 6 inches tall with long arms. I can be in the 21-21.5mph range and still maintain control of where I bowl regardless if good or bad day. If I have an in the zone day then can do 22.5-23mph on those days. Anything after 23+ is anyone's guess lol.
I roll a straight ball, assuming yours you throw a hook?
A relatively more mild hook than some, but it's there. I have a straighter older ball that's 16 but my thumb doesn't fit quite right so I can't get enough speed off of it.
I'll bowl with any ball I can get my giant fingers inside of. Usually there's like 3 at a typical bowling alley. :-/
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 04, 2021, 04:49:04 PM
I'll bowl with any ball I can get my giant fingers inside of. Usually there's like 3 at a typical bowling alley. :-/
Hence why I bought my own ball. Only my own germs to deal with, and I know I always will have a ball to use. :bigass:
In the NFL, the following teams should switch divisions:
Miami Dolphins to the AFC South
Indianapolis Colts to the AFC North
Baltimore Ravens to the AFC East
Dallas Cowboys to the NFC South
Carolina Panthers to the NFC East
This would solve the two biggest issues with the current divisions, which is the Cowboys are too far west/south to be in the NFC East, and the Colts being in the AFC South despite being located north of the Bengals.
This would also mean that all three Florida teams are in a South Division.
:popcorn:
Quote from: webny99 on June 12, 2021, 12:53:29 PM
In the NFL, the following teams should switch divisions:
Miami Dolphins to the AFC South
Indianapolis Colts to the AFC North
Baltimore Ravens to the AFC East
Dallas Cowboys to the NFC South
Carolina Panthers to the NFC East
This would solve the two biggest issues with the current divisions, which is the Cowboys are too far west/south to be in the NFC East, and the Colts being in the AFC South despite being located north of the Bengals.
This would also mean that all three Florida teams are in a South Division.
:popcorn:
But rivalries.
Quote from: Alps on June 12, 2021, 01:55:14 PM
Quote from: webny99 on June 12, 2021, 12:53:29 PM
In the NFL, the following teams should switch divisions:
Miami Dolphins to the AFC South
Indianapolis Colts to the AFC North
Baltimore Ravens to the AFC East
Dallas Cowboys to the NFC South
Carolina Panthers to the NFC East
This would solve the two biggest issues with the current divisions, which is the Cowboys are too far west/south to be in the NFC East, and the Colts being in the AFC South despite being located north of the Bengals.
This would also mean that all three Florida teams are in a South Division.
:popcorn:
But rivalries.
Rivalries would be biggest obstacle. Cowboys vs Falcons, Saints, and Bucs doesn't feel quite same as Cowboys vs Washington, NYG, and Eagles. The Cardinals not so much from the days of old lol
TV would be the biggest obstacle as to the NFC realignment. The networks like having Dallas in the same division with three big-market East Coast teams, although one could quite reasonably dispute Washington's relevance in recent years (last year's division title notwithstanding). Arguably, putting Dallas in a division with Tampa Bay and New Orleans might generate more interest, at least until a certain quarterback in Tampa retires, but a rational league doesn't realign over one player.
The league is never going to give up the Cowboys 2x a year rivalries with the other three NFC East teams, nor the Dolphins rivalries with their old AFL rivals in the Northeast.
Plus, geography doesn't mean as much when you only travel to 8-9 games per year, as opposed to the much more travel heavy NBA, NHL and MLB, where you really need to keep geographical alignment as tight as possible.
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 14, 2021, 05:21:14 PM
TV would be the biggest obstacle as to the NFC realignment. The networks like having Dallas in the same division with three big-market East Coast teams, although one could quite reasonably dispute Washington's relevance in recent years (last year's division title notwithstanding). Arguably, putting Dallas in a division with Tampa Bay and New Orleans might generate more interest, at least until a certain quarterback in Tampa retires, but a rational league doesn't realign over one player.
Think that would depend on how good the Saints, Bucs, and Falcons would have been in this scenario. Those cities fanbases show up good when their teams are winning, but disappear once they are mediocre or worse. The NFC regardless of years their fanbases are reliable most of the time to show up in thick and thin.
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 05, 2021, 03:48:13 PM
I don't cheer for the Browns success.
Also agree. One wild card season and a victory over a slumping team in a game you almost legendarily choked away doesn't elevate them off the bottom of the league. Sure, they have reasons to be optimistic, but the level of disillusionment from their fanbase is off the charts.
They're certainly elevated from the very bottom of the league. This the best season/offseason they've had in several decades. I'd say let the fans enjoy it.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
- Washington Football Team isn't the bad of a name.
That's not an unpopular take. If it was, they would have found a new name by now.
They plan to change it early next year. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/10/washington-football-team-will-unveil-new-name-and-logo-in-early-2022/
Quote from: Big John on July 10, 2021, 05:09:01 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2021, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: thspfc on April 07, 2021, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on April 05, 2021, 03:48:13 PM
I don't cheer for the Browns success.
Also agree. One wild card season and a victory over a slumping team in a game you almost legendarily choked away doesn't elevate them off the bottom of the league. Sure, they have reasons to be optimistic, but the level of disillusionment from their fanbase is off the charts.
They're certainly elevated from the very bottom of the league. This the best season/offseason they've had in several decades. I'd say let the fans enjoy it.
Quote from: kenarmy on April 07, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
- Washington Football Team isn't the bad of a name.
That's not an unpopular take. If it was, they would have found a new name by now.
They plan to change it early next year. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/10/washington-football-team-will-unveil-new-name-and-logo-in-early-2022/
Last year they were planning to change it this summer. Not going to happen. I think that keeping "Football Team" for all eternity would be silly, but I wouldn't mind "Football Club" or "Football Franchise" .
Quote from: thspfc on July 10, 2021, 07:43:41 PM
Last year they were planning to change it this summer. Not going to happen. I think that keeping "Football Team" for all eternity would be silly, but I wouldn't mind "Football Club" or "Football Franchise" .
Football clubs play association football, not American football.
the Washington Silly Nannies.
I don't care about the Olympics.
Quote from: Takumi on July 26, 2021, 12:32:58 AM
I don't care about the Olympics.
considering was a 5 million viewer drop from previous Olympics this became a somewhat more popular stance lol
Quote from: gr8daynegb on July 26, 2021, 09:05:48 AM
Quote from: Takumi on July 26, 2021, 12:32:58 AM
I don't care about the Olympics.
considering was a 5 million viewer drop from previous Olympics this became a somewhat more popular stance lol
No fans at games, covid issues among athletes, the events being at awkward times.
Quote from: gr8daynegb on July 26, 2021, 09:05:48 AM
Quote from: Takumi on July 26, 2021, 12:32:58 AM
I don't care about the Olympics.
considering was a 5 million viewer drop from previous Olympics this became a somewhat more popular stance lol
I haven't watched any of it live. Watched some soccer highlights, but with barely any stars playing it's hard to get into.
Sports events should be labelled the year they actually take place. Looking at you, Euro 202(1) and Tokyo 202(1).
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 26, 2021, 02:55:39 PM
Sports events should be labelled the year they actually take place. Looking at you, Euro 202(1) and Tokyo 202(1).
Next you'll say that a vehicle's model year should be the year it's first sold, and that a magazine's publication month should be the month the magazine is actually published.
Seriously, I'll give your two examples a pass. They probably have a zillion dollars of 2020-branded merchandise to unload.
Quote from: thspfc on July 26, 2021, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: gr8daynegb on July 26, 2021, 09:05:48 AM
Quote from: Takumi on July 26, 2021, 12:32:58 AM
I don't care about the Olympics.
considering was a 5 million viewer drop from previous Olympics this became a somewhat more popular stance lol
I haven't watched any of it live. Watched some soccer highlights, but with barely any stars playing it's hard to get into.
The men's soccer tournament is not for senior national teams. It's a U-23 tournament with up to 3 overage players allowed. Europe, South America and North America had/have continental championships this summer that took priority over the Olympics.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 26, 2021, 03:43:09 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 26, 2021, 02:55:39 PM
Sports events should be labelled the year they actually take place. Looking at you, Euro 202(1) and Tokyo 202(1).
Next you'll say that a vehicle's model year should be the year it's first sold, and that a magazine's publication month should be the month the magazine is actually published.
Seriously, I'll give your two examples a pass. They probably have a zillion dollars of 2020-branded merchandise to unload.
I like your examples also.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 26, 2021, 03:43:09 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 26, 2021, 02:55:39 PM
Sports events should be labelled the year they actually take place. Looking at you, Euro 202(1) and Tokyo 202(1).
Next you'll say that a vehicle's model year should be the year it's first sold, and that a magazine's publication month should be the month the magazine is actually published.
Not all countries do “model year”. Japan is one of them. In Japan you can buy a 1999 Honda S2000, for example, but in the US the earliest model year for the S2000 is 2000 even though the cars started production for both markets simultaneously.
And that poster is pedantic enough that yes, he probably does think both those things.
LOL, why I would say that? As long as something labelled with a certain time frame happens or is sold within that same frame I'm fine. So I don't mind product released ahead of time. But if something is delayed so that would miss the time frame intended, then it should be changed. Thus, I consider no Euro 2020 or 2020 Summer Olympics to have ever taken place, instead they are Euro 2021 and 2021 Summer Olympics respectively.
^^ I was making a joke, folks. Guess I wasn't clear.
Quote from: Takumi on July 26, 2021, 11:46:00 PM
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 26, 2021, 03:43:09 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 26, 2021, 02:55:39 PM
Sports events should be labelled the year they actually take place. Looking at you, Euro 202(1) and Tokyo 202(1).
Next you'll say that a vehicle's model year should be the year it's first sold, and that a magazine's publication month should be the month the magazine is actually published.
Not all countries do “model year”. Japan is one of them. In Japan you can buy a 1999 Honda S2000, for example, but in the US the earliest model year for the S2000 is 2000 even though the cars started production for both markets simultaneously.
And that poster is pedantic enough that yes, he probably does think both those things.
Sometimes the Japanese-market vehicles get a year or so in their own market before importing them overseas, but I think that's become less common, especially as so many more are home-grown in the States. Maybe if the vehicle wasn't originally intended for the North American market, then that occurs nowadays.
I think the shift in model year expectation occurred in some Madison Avenue boardroom, probably post-WWII. Apocryphally, I've heard that years ago, most new vehicle sales in the Midwest (the hub of auto manufacturing) were just after the fall harvest. The farmers and the local economy had more money and to entice sales late in the year, the model year was advertised for the upcoming year. There's usually an exception for an all-new vehicle design or model; if they start production as early as January, they can get away with selling it as the next model year in that case.
A common example of that was the 1982 Corvette was the 3rd-generation model and the all-new 1984 Corvette was produced in 1983...there were no 1983 model-year Corvettes manufactured. Dealerships probably didn't want batches of vehicles that appeared "old" so they decided that June 30th was the last production date for that model year, and subsequent production starting on July 1st was the next model year, since it might take a 2-3 months from assembly to sale (add a month for import sales).
...and now back to you in the booth!
Quote from: Takumi on July 26, 2021, 12:32:58 AM
I don't care about the Olympics.
I used to think that was rare, but I'm becoming more and more aware of people who don't watch the Olympics at all.
For my wife and me, the Olympics are one of only two times we ever watch live TV (the other being tornado warnings). In fact, we just subscribed to Peacock right before the Olympics started this year, and I'm sure we'll ditch it after they're over.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on July 26, 2021, 03:43:09 PM
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 26, 2021, 02:55:39 PM
Sports events should be labelled the year they actually take place. Looking at you, Euro 202(1) and Tokyo 202(1).
Next you'll say that a vehicle's model year should be the year it's first sold, and that a magazine's publication month should be the month the magazine is actually published.
Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on July 27, 2021, 04:28:16 AM
LOL, why I would say that? As long as something labelled with a certain time frame happens or is sold within that same frame I'm fine. So I don't mind product released ahead of time. But if something is delayed so that would miss the time frame intended, then it should be changed. Thus, I consider no Euro 2020 or 2020 Summer Olympics to have ever taken place, instead they are Euro 2021 and 2021 Summer Olympics respectively.
That works for a vehicle's model year, because it is produced throughout the year. But what about, say, the Rand McNally road atlas? The 2021 RMN road atlas was published on 23-APR-2020. That's a one-time event, and at least some of the information will be out of date by the time 2021 rolls around.
Last weekend, I returned from leading VBS (Vacation Bible School) in Mexico. As part of the first day's lesson, I was teaching about how each one of us has unique interests that isn't necessarily like the rest of our peers. I asked a few of them to share something they like but no one else does, or something they don't like but everyone else does. In that vein, I said in front of about 60 Mexican kids (plus adults) that soccer and baseball are both boring.
Holy cow, you should have seen the reaction! :wow:
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2023, 01:02:24 PM
Last weekend, I returned from leading VBS (Vacation Bible School) in Mexico. As part of the first day's lesson, I was teaching about how each one of us has unique interests that isn't necessarily like the rest of our peers. I asked a few of them to share something they like but no one else does, or something they don't like but everyone else does. In that vein, I said in front of about 60 Mexican kids (plus adults) that soccer and baseball are both boring.
Holy cow, you should have seen the reaction! :wow:
Next time tell them tacos really aren't that good.
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2023, 01:02:24 PM
Last weekend, I returned from leading VBS (Vacation Bible School) in Mexico. As part of the first day's lesson, I was teaching about how each one of us has unique interests that isn't necessarily like the rest of our peers. I asked a few of them to share something they like but no one else does, or something they don't like but everyone else does. In that vein, I said in front of about 60 Mexican kids (plus adults) that soccer and baseball are both boring.
Holy cow, you should have seen the reaction! :wow:
You could follow up by quoting Galatians 4:16 :-)
Quote from: thspfc on June 17, 2023, 01:34:41 PM
Next time tell them tacos really aren't that good.
Well... I do think hot sauce doesn't belong on fresh fruit or Cheetos...
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2023, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 17, 2023, 01:34:41 PM
Next time tell them tacos really aren't that good.
Well... I do think hot sauce doesn't belong on fresh fruit or Cheetos...
Neither Mountain Dew! Yuck!
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2023, 01:02:24 PM
Last weekend, I returned from leading VBS (Vacation Bible School) in Mexico. As part of the first day's lesson, I was teaching about how each one of us has unique interests that isn't necessarily like the rest of our peers. I asked a few of them to share something they like but no one else does, or something they don't like but everyone else does. In that vein, I said in front of about 60 Mexican kids (plus adults) that soccer and baseball are both boring.
Holy cow, you should have seen the reaction! :wow:
Well, it is pretty boring right now if you're a Mexico fan.
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2023, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 17, 2023, 01:34:41 PM
Next time tell them tacos really aren't that good.
Well... I do think hot sauce doesn't belong on fresh fruit or Cheetos...
You are wrong about all of this
Quote from: Alps on June 18, 2023, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2023, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 17, 2023, 01:34:41 PM
Next time tell them tacos really aren't that good.
Well... I do think hot sauce doesn't belong on fresh fruit or Cheetos...
You are wrong about all of this
You don't like ketchup on your ice cream, either???
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on June 19, 2023, 02:11:30 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 18, 2023, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2023, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 17, 2023, 01:34:41 PM
Next time tell them tacos really aren't that good.
Well... I do think hot sauce doesn't belong on fresh fruit or Cheetos...
You are wrong about all of this
You don't like ketchup on your ice cream, either???
Mike
Bruh! No! The heck is with y'all thinking of all these weird food combinations these days? I can't stand hot sauce flavored Doritos or Takis!
Quote from: kphoger on June 17, 2023, 03:31:36 PM
Quote from: thspfc on June 17, 2023, 01:34:41 PM
Next time tell them tacos really aren't that good.
Well... I do think hot sauce doesn't belong on fresh fruit or Cheetos...
Well... I do think hot sauce doesn't belong.
Pineapple, mango, jicama, and cucumber spears in chamoy/tajin are a great combo.
Quote from: kurumi on June 24, 2023, 01:47:14 PM
Pineapple, mango, jicama, and cucumber spears in chamoy/tajin are a great combo.
Tajin, yes. Chamoy, no.