|
The thing that I, and this is just me personally here, don't like about dominance in sports, is this: I feel that it undervalues and fails to acknowledge the dominance the men and women in our armed forces have had over the western world since world war two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
To be honest part of the reason I don't care for the NBA as much as other sports is I feel like there are really only 1 or 2 contenders every year (Golden State and San Antonio this year) and who cares about the 4v5 matchup in the East when it is clear that neither of these teams have a prayer of winning the title? Contrast with with other sports like football, hockey, and baseball where while there are certainly favorites and underdogs, no one will be absolutely shocked to see an underdog win a championship. I don't really think it has much to do with the teams or the leagues, just that I believe there is less variance in basketball than other sports simply because there are more scoring plays so variance is reduced. I mean look at the list of champions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions Look how many 1 seeds win the championship, sometimes it's a 2 or 3 seed. Meanwhile a #8 seed recently won the Stanley Cup, wild cards have won the World Series and Super Bowl, etc. Mind_Taker fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
zakharov posted:Auriemma made the point that golf's ratings soared when Woods was crushing everyone and there wasn't nearly as much whining. Or, you know, the Warriors this year. People like dominance until women are involved hmmmmm UConn has been much more dominating than either of those. It's not their fault. But it's a reality that there isn't much of a reason to watch these days. They just won a Sweet 16 game by 60 points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Basketball's less random but it makes up the difference aesthetically
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Yeah, Woods at least had competition from people like Mickelson and Garcia, the UConn women are pretty much alone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:To be honest part of the reason I don't care for the NBA as much as other sports is I feel like there are really only 1 or 2 contenders every year (Golden State and San Antonio this year) and who cares about the 4v5 matchup in the East when it is clear that neither of these teams have a prayer of winning the title? Contrast with with other sports like football, hockey, and baseball where while there are certainly favorites and underdogs, no one will be absolutely shocked to see an underdog win a championship. The flipside is that most of the regular season in hockey doesn't really mean jack poo poo since half the league is in the playoffs and anyone can happen to catch good health and a hot goalie at the right time. OTOH there's baseball where the playoffs are exciting because the champion is essentially random, but that does tend to undermine the 162 game regular season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah, Woods at least had competition from people like Mickelson and Garcia, the UConn women are pretty much alone. Garcia as in Sergio Garcia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Metapod posted:Garcia as in Sergio Garcia? Yeah, and granted when I say "competition" in the context of Sergio, I mean 'competition' until an astoundingly reliable meltdown around the 13th hole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Mind_Taker posted:I don't really think it has much to do with the teams or the leagues, just that I believe there is less variance in basketball than other sports simply because there are more scoring plays so variance is reduced. It's more a combination of that and seven-game series. Look at the NBA first-round vs March Madness first round. Also, having the best player is about equal to having the best quarterback except he's involved in 3/4 of the plays in a game instead of half.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
zakharov posted:Auriemma made the point that golf's ratings soared when Woods was crushing everyone and there wasn't nearly as much whining. Or, you know, the Warriors this year. People like dominance until women are involved hmmmmm This is insane. If the Warriors won every game of the NBA Finals by 30-50 points, people would loving hate them too. It's not even a comparison. Or for a more accurate comparison, how do you think the men's tourney would do if Duke was cruising to their 83rd title in a row winning every game by those margins? I don't think SAS would be fond of it edit: It is very likely that in a week or so UConn will have: Won 6 of the past 8 national championships (Settling for defeats in the final 4 the other two years) With a combined record of: 295-12 It's an incredible accomplishment, but it definitely takes almost any drama and excitement out of the entire season outside of 'I hope UConn loses this time' Marquis de Pyro fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
The only way to stop them is apparently a once in a lifetime center the size of an NBA forward
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
zakharov posted:Auriemma made the point that golf's ratings soared when Woods was crushing everyone and there wasn't nearly as much whining. Or, you know, the Warriors this year. People like dominance until women are involved hmmmmm To be fair, Shaunessy is exactly the sort of killjoy who would hate the Warriors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure people just hate watching women's college basketball because it's really boring and are looking for any excuse to explain why they're doing better things with their time. I wish we lived in a society where men could act like men and go on twitter and just say "Dunks are loving sweet don't waste my time with things that aren't dunks" without the superego interfering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Marquis de Pyro posted:This is insane. Plus its insane when there's examples of women sports dominance that were treated positively, for instance when Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh obliterated literally everything flung into their path for like 12 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Plus its insane when there's examples of women sports dominance that were treated positively, for instance when Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh obliterated literally everything flung into their path for like 12 years. That's different. If you don't like seeing your country completely destroy the competition in the Olympics then 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Metapod posted:That's different. If you don't like seeing your country completely destroy the competition in the Olympics then Yes, where the US wins the medal count and gold medal count and you look at the totals like "only eight more golds than China? This is unacceptable."
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Plus its insane when there's examples of women sports dominance that were treated positively, for instance when Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh obliterated literally everything flung into their path for like 12 years. And maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall ever hearing anything negative about Ronda Rousey before she lost. Many people genuinely believed that she would never lose and didn't have a problem with it at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
I think people treat individual sports dominance differently than team sports for whatever reason
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:I think people treat individual sports dominance differently than team sports for whatever reason
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Last College sports game I tuned into specifically because it was supposed to be a absolute drubbing was Boise State v Oklahoma and welp, guess I got to watch the best college football game ever. It may have been the first college game I tuned into and has been the last.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 05:56
|
|
HOTLANTA
|
OctoberBlues posted:And maybe I just missed it, but I don't recall ever hearing anything negative about Ronda Rousey before she lost. Many people genuinely believed that she would never lose and didn't have a problem with it at all. It was never super loud, and most fight fans liked Rousey. But there was definitely a contingent of people (myself included) that thought her dominance was more related to the general weakness of her division than her skills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:It was never super loud, and most fight fans liked Rousey. But there was definitely a contingent of people (myself included) that thought her dominance was more related to the general weakness of her division than her skills. hey that's Serena Williams' music
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
It's likely an issue for a lot of women's sports,the more I think about it. International soccer is basically the US, Germany, France and Brazil (maaaybe Japan) and then an enormous gap to the next level. Women's hockey might as well be just the US and Canada right now. Rousey's a hell of a fighter, I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but the criticism of the depth of the rest of the womens divisions was pretty legitimate. Granted, that's not Rousey's fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Has Japan been riding a wave of abnormally high talent? Because two silvers and a gold over the last five years seems like more than "maybe" top tier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
Noctone posted:Has Japan been riding a wave of abnormally high talent? Because two silvers and a gold over the last five years seems like more than "maybe" top tier. It seems that way. As memory serves they were mostly an also-ran until recently, but it sounds like after their World Cup upset of the states, that was the peak. This year they got to the finals largely by having a good draw (and Australia shocking Brazil in the knockout round), and their depth past this point is kinda questionable. The US is a drat good team but for them to beat the absolute brakes off Japan this past summer was a shock to everyone. Still, they're far from a bad program. E: Billy Haisley can't write but he does describe this a lot better than I can. Short version is they showed up on the world stage in 08 and geared up for one huge run, but it's likely not sustainable in the big picture. DJExile fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Marquis de Pyro posted:This is insane. If the Warriors won every game of the NBA Finals by 30-50 points, people would loving hate them too. It's not even a comparison. Are there only like 5 teams in women's basketball that put any effort into recruiting on a national level? I've just always wondered what made the talent disparity so wide, you always have UConn who's 40 points better than anyone else, but then you also always have a second tier of about four or five teams (rotation of Baylor, Notre Dame, Stanford, etc.) who are about 25 points better than everyone else. Other than just a few of the very elite, do women just tend more go to the school that they want to go to for non-basketball reasons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
DJExile posted:It's likely an issue for a lot of women's sports,the more I think about it. International soccer is basically the US, Germany, France and Brazil (maaaybe Japan) and then an enormous gap to the next level. Women's hockey might as well be just the US and Canada right now. yeah, most women's sports are like this for fairly obvious reasons. As noted, women's tennis also suffers from having a fairly shallow pool when compared with the men. Not nearly as bad as hockey, fighting, basketball, soccer, etc, and Serena is a legit stud, but it is an entirely fair criticism. That being said, I thought it was pretty clear his argument was that the dominance makes an already fringe sport even more unwatchable due to the lack of talent across the board, not that UConn should start sucking or anything. Geno is also an insufferable moron. This is like Gawker vs Hogan levels of poo poo vs poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:I think people treat individual sports dominance differently than team sports for whatever reason I think it's seen as more impressive, because if you succeed, it's all on you. Wheras you can be a scrub in team sports and end up with a bunch of championship rings on the work and talent of others. It's kinda interesting and troubling how much of a objectivist streak there is in sports media.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
El Gallinero Gros posted:It's kinda interesting and troubling how much of a objectivist streak there is in sports media. I think it's fans in general who are objectivist about sports (heroic ideals, lack of empathy, defending the act of making GBS threads on athletes through economics, and personal happiness above all else) and it's just that sports media is increasingly taking on the attributes of their viewers as dive further into hot-take lowest common denominator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
how the hell is liking a dominant player objectivist
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ringer/status/714520529000988672 I kind of like this guy, his stories come from unexpected angles. He did the big "Seahawks commit PI on every play" story from two years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
The NFL is demanding the NY Times retract their story calling out the NFL for using bad data to dismiss the link to CTE
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Toilet Mouth posted:Are there only like 5 teams in women's basketball that put any effort into recruiting on a national level? I've just always wondered what made the talent disparity so wide, you always have UConn who's 40 points better than anyone else, but then you also always have a second tier of about four or five teams (rotation of Baylor, Notre Dame, Stanford, etc.) who are about 25 points better than everyone else. The gap between the elite and the pretty good is far more pronounced, in terms of talent, team building, and coaching. Both men and women have teams that are expected to be in the hunt every year, but while the men have a strong secondary tier that's capable of hanging with the top and is acceptable as champions (Villanova, UConn, basically what the Big East has become hth), the women's game simply doesn't have that depth. As you said it's UConn at god tier, then Notre Dame and Stanford. Baylor's a hair below that and South Carolina's effectively replaced what Tennessee was after Dawn Staley's hiring/Pat Summit's retirement. I'd imagine a lot of it depends on the amount of money put into the programs as well. Women's Basketball is the only women's sport that seems to draw money and even that's not the case universally. (Yes I know in some places gymnastics draws and women's soccer at like UNC but those are outliers). If you treat a program like it's a Title IX requirement and put in the minimum effort you'll get minimum results; throw some more cash into the pile and wins should follow provided you don't gently caress it up. e - that's a new word filter, haven't seen that one before
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
DJExile posted:The NFL is demanding the NY Times retract their story calling out the NFL for using bad data to dismiss the link to CTE That's a hilariously empty threat because then the Times would get to go hog wild during discovery
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:That's a hilariously empty threat because then the Times would get to go hog wild during discovery Yeah, I get the NFL wanting to actively respond to things like this but holy hell what a dumb card to play. E: then again I guess they don't really have any others, but come on now
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:That's a hilariously empty threat because then the Times would get to go hog wild during discovery
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
DJExile posted:The NFL is demanding the NY Times retract their story calling out the NFL for using bad data to dismiss the link to CTE Imagine if this was ESPN - they would have folded immediately, and then have their ombudsman say "while mistakes were made, there is no evidence the NFL threat forced the pulling of the story" six months later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
midwat posted:Imagine if this was ESPN - they would have folded immediately, and then have their ombudsman say "while mistakes were made, there is no evidence the NFL threat forced the pulling of the story" six months later. ESPN never would have put the article out in the first place. They're way too cozy with the NFL to ruffle feathers. Good on the TImes. I'd love for the NFL to try and take them to court over this. It would be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
The NYTimes has responded to the lawfirm of the NFL by asking them to suck it Last line: While your earlier letter to The Times called the tobacco industry "perhaps most odious industry in American history," you somehow fail to mention in either letter that it was your firm that represented Philip Morris in that RICO case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
Kalli posted:The NYTimes has responded to the lawfirm of the NFL by asking them to suck it oh my god 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 21:04
|
|