An honest question (eventually)
Last night, I joined Stanicek and a buddy of his for a drink at Wow! to watch the Poinsetta Bowl (thank you TCU for garnering me 32 points in my bowl pool right off the bat). As expected, with that many TVs on around us and that many sporting events on the air, our discussion turned to sports.
The buddy and I disagreed on a variety of things - and it must be pointed out that I found it amazing that he was, in one fell swoop, a Yankees fan, a Duke basketball fan, an Indiana basketball fan and a Michigan football fan ... I was dying to know if he somewhere harbored a secret love for the Lakers as well - most namely over whether or not Florida belonged in the BCS Championship Game.
Obviously, he opted for Michigan, relying on the somewhat tired, but always reliable argument of 'well everyone knows they're the second-best team.' And I, as I have before, argued the Gators were the more deserving team.
So we debated why each other felt their pick was the most deserving. My argument, as in the past, relied on the Gators' strength of schedule and the quality of the opponents they have defeated, contrasted with the Wolverines'.
His relied, primarily, on his belief that Michigan was simply 'better' because he had seen both teams on TV and was more impressed by the Wolverines than the Gators. This is where I had some issues with his argument - namely that on one hand he decried the human voters for allowing personal opinion and 'politics' (which I freely admit played a significant role in this), but then the almost-sole justification for his argument was his own personal opinion (including the use of the phrase 'I don't care about strength of schedule or statistics or all of that ...').
But that's not even what I'm here to talk about ... the real thing is an open-ended question to the public:
What is a 'worse' scenario for a fan of a team?
During a 25-year stretch, your team is in contention for the playoffs or a good bowl 75 percent of the time, including a national title or world title, say, four or five times, but happens to lose in a spectacularly disappointing fashion?
Or during a 25-year stretch, your team is never in contention and is stuck in the middle or bottom of the pack year after year with no hope of getting better?
The buddy and I disagreed on a variety of things - and it must be pointed out that I found it amazing that he was, in one fell swoop, a Yankees fan, a Duke basketball fan, an Indiana basketball fan and a Michigan football fan ... I was dying to know if he somewhere harbored a secret love for the Lakers as well - most namely over whether or not Florida belonged in the BCS Championship Game.
Obviously, he opted for Michigan, relying on the somewhat tired, but always reliable argument of 'well everyone knows they're the second-best team.' And I, as I have before, argued the Gators were the more deserving team.
So we debated why each other felt their pick was the most deserving. My argument, as in the past, relied on the Gators' strength of schedule and the quality of the opponents they have defeated, contrasted with the Wolverines'.
His relied, primarily, on his belief that Michigan was simply 'better' because he had seen both teams on TV and was more impressed by the Wolverines than the Gators. This is where I had some issues with his argument - namely that on one hand he decried the human voters for allowing personal opinion and 'politics' (which I freely admit played a significant role in this), but then the almost-sole justification for his argument was his own personal opinion (including the use of the phrase 'I don't care about strength of schedule or statistics or all of that ...').
But that's not even what I'm here to talk about ... the real thing is an open-ended question to the public:
What is a 'worse' scenario for a fan of a team?
During a 25-year stretch, your team is in contention for the playoffs or a good bowl 75 percent of the time, including a national title or world title, say, four or five times, but happens to lose in a spectacularly disappointing fashion?
Or during a 25-year stretch, your team is never in contention and is stuck in the middle or bottom of the pack year after year with no hope of getting better?
posted by Jmac at 6:52 AM
18 Comments:
Clearly the former.
(Also, clearly, one's answer depends on the particular team one is a fan of.)
As I argued last night...there is nothing quite so disheartening, as soul-sucking, so depressing as knowing each and every year that the team you love in the sport you worship has postively, absolutely NO chance of competing. As an Orioles fan I know of which I speak. I would trade my left pinky for my squad to be in contention year in and year out, no matter what the ultimate outcome. And trust me...being surrounded by Braves and Red Sox fans who constantly whine and lament about how awful it was "that we were so awesome this year but lost in the World Series/ALCS/NLCS" does little to comfort those of us who just want their teams to be relevant in September.
And as for the Michigan thing - as I said last night - if you asked the AP voters "who are the best 2 teams" the majority would say "Ohio State and Michigan" as was evidenced by the poll the week before the SEC Championship Game...so the ONLY reason Florida is in the BCS Title Game is political, the voters didn't want to see Ohio State play Michigan. The BCS failed...if it was meant to place the two best teams in the title game, it failed.
OK then, how about trying this analogy ...
In the 1990s, Georgia struggled with a series of 5-6 and 6-5 records, often missing out on a bowl or being stuck in a less-than-stellar one. I can't look back at any of those games and think 'gosh ... that 47-point loss to Florida was so crushing.'
However, since the success of the past five years, I can look back and remember how painful the close loss to Auburn in 2005 was ... or the Sugar Bowl defeat to West Virginia last year was.
When you know your team is dealing with mediocrity, I don't see how it's more disheartening than, say, a last-second loss in pivotal contest.
Does it matter why your team has no chance at competing? That is, obviously the Orioles can complain that they're being outspent like mad (and they are), but does the fact that they've been horribly mismanaged make it easier or more painful?
Honestly, I can't imagine more pain than not only having your team go to the playoffs every year and lose, generally in the last game, but also having the stadium full of horrible opponents' fans and having the media beat up on your team and its fans the entire time. At least the Red Sox get some press love. Even the AJC hates the Braves half the time.
But if people really think that Michigan is the second best team, then they should have put them in there. People are fickle, and polls of their opinion are similarly fickle.
Look, if you're a playoff advocate, then what we are more closely approximates a playoff. Regardless of whether Michigan is better than Florida, they already got a shot at the #1 seed and lost. Like when Duke and Kentucky would play for their Regional championship in, say, 1992 or 1998. They both should have made the Final Four year that year, as far as pure desert, but the brackets just didn't set up that way. But, regardless, in the end they did play one another and the team that lost fell out of contention, no matter what round it was actually in. Michigan already had their shot. They lost. We need fresh blood to sacrifice to the Buckeyes, or Sweatervest will grow angry and will smite us.
I think this question raises interesting psychological themes -- namely, the people who pick mediocrity and knowing your team has no chance may be different than people who prefer their teams get to the big games and lose. The qualities of the choice may apply to broader themes in the person's life.
(aside: whenever I comment on a blogger blog with the word verification it NEVER works the first time even if I triple check to make sure I entered the letters correctly! anyone else have this problem?)
I'd be willing to bet that the people who choose mediocrity have a higher anxiety sensitivity and so prefer the stability of knowing in advance that their team is mediocre. I'd also bet that they are not risk takers in general and they prefer routine and safety in areas of life unrelated to sports. The people who would rather see their team get to the big games and lose in upsetting ways are those likely to thrive on situations that the mediocrity choosers find bizarre and unattractive. The thrill of excitement leading up to the big games would be similar to the highs one gets from sensation seeking due to having lower anxiety sensitivity. They cope with uncertainty better than the mediocrity choosers and are more adaptive in unexpected situations.
I could see it working that way. It would be interesting to confirm this through some sort of research.
We are talking about two entirely different types of pain...having a great team that loses one game in the playoffs brings on an acute searing pain, supporting a team that has no chance from day one is a long horrible depression, the kind that makes you just want to lie in bed all day and not face the world. I for one would much rather have the one or two day searing pain as opposed to a nine year bout with misery.
And Johnathan...it's not mediocrity I am talking about, I would KILL for the Orioles to mediocre. Even in the 1990s there was an inkling of hope for Georgia teams...at some point in the pre-season people thought there was a chance that they could compete. What I am talking about is absolute bar-none futility. The kind of futility that breeds nine straight years of fourth place, sub .500 finishes. You have NO idea what that feels like...and really that is the point, you just won't know what it feels like until it happens to you.
And as for the Braves Hillary - I will acknowledge that they are a unique case as Atlanta is the worst pro sports town in America, easy. That must be frustrating. And as for your question about mismanagement...it makes it muuuuch worse.
I would posit that neither situation could be categorized as "worse" than the other. The pain is purely subjective. After 25 years in either scenario, one would be conditioned to expect a certain outcome (the status quo). Conversely, I would also suggest it would be impossible to extract from which scenario the most "joy" would come in the case of a breakthrough (a championship, for instance).
I'd also like to mention that I use words like "posit" in the hopes that I will be thought of as more than the Guy Who Drank 20 Ounces Of Cold Gravy On A Dare.
I think this question raises interesting psychological themes -- namely, the people who pick mediocrity and knowing your team has no chance may be different than people who prefer their teams get to the big games and lose. The qualities of the choice may apply to broader themes in the person's life.
Except, of course, that one's answer, as pointed out above, depends on the team one is a fan of, which is usually determined by nonrational factors, such as where one lives.
Isn't the question which is worse subjectively to each person answering (if you had to choose, which situation would you choose)? That's why my psychological posturing works -- there is an explanation for why a certain individual would choose one situation as preferable over the other.
I never did answer the question, either. I would choose the team who comes close but gets bitch-slapped in the big game over mediocrity every time for most of the reasons Tim would choose the same.
there is an explanation for why a certain individual would choose one situation as preferable over the other
Yes, but it's most likely crap. The real reason is dependent on your team (and, secondarily, how much of a martyr you like to portray yourself as).
Hillary: Right, but the question is if you could choose your preferred team's performance would you choose expected mediocrity for 25 years or good teams but big let-downs for 25 years.
It doesn't matter what team you pull for or the reasons you pull for it -- you're not choosing a team based on their actual performance, you're choosing your preferred team's (whatever it is) performance in order to lessen your distress.
Would you rather your team (whoever it is) lose consistently for 25 years knowing that they are going to lose or would you rather they do well but get to and lose big games?
Am I the only person who sees Jmac's post as asking this question in this way?
I suppose you could debate which is better objectively, but that's not the question (and probably not possible which is why my explanation works -- it says *why* the people choose the way they do).
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
It's not team dependent at all. It doesn't matter who you pull for at all.
It's like asking "would you rather me tap you on the forehead for a month straight every year or punch you as hard as I can in the nose once or twice per year?"
It's like asking "would you rather me tap you on the forehead for a month straight every year or punch you as hard as I can in the nose once or twice per year?"
It's like that IF I've mostly experienced one or the other. How can I decide if it's more painful to be tapped on the forehead or punched in the nose if I've only been punched in the nose (and had my identity shaped by that experience)?
Find me one person who answers the opposite from the relatively recent situation of his/her team (that is, says that the way things have been recently for his/her team [or are characteristically for that team] is less painful), and I will consider changing my mind.
Ok, now I get what you're saying. And it makes sense. I wasn't quite grasping what you meant by the person's team mattering in the equation. The person's team matters, but only regarding if they are in one or the other situation. Eureka!
Wouldn't the Braves qualify? In the 80s they sucked, but they had that streak in the 90s when they were winning and got to the World Series and lost a couple times. Not 25 years, but which Braves team hurt the Braves fans less?
I'm spending way too much time on this topic given that I know little to nothing about sports.
How old am I? I barely remember the suckiness. I had no TV.
No memories of Andres Thomas?
How about Derek Lilliquist hitting two home runs in a game in 1990?
Faint memories of David Justice, for whom they would play the Dragnet theme, and of some dude named Presley. This from a game I went to.
Post a Comment
<< Home