^^ luckily, none of those teams cross paths frequently (which influences why I picked who I did in the first place). When they were talking about LSU-Umich in a BCS game, I almost fainted. In the event that they DO cross paths though, I just pull for a damned good game and no bad injuries.

it also affects retarded shit. Like if I'm playing NCAA Football with Michigan, I won't schedule non-conf games with those other schools, or recruit players that are also interested in em. Y'know, retard stuff like that. I'm a big enough fan of those schools, but you ain't seen jack til you see me play every game AGAINST USC just so they go 0-11.

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 12:30 AM. Reason : *]

5/7/2007 12:27:03 AM

that's way to fucking many, i can see a team in each sport probably, but not 4-5 and then half a dozen more....

just one team is a little obsessive

5/7/2007 11:13:33 AM

Quote :

"if you take enough of the best players to make 32 teams, then obviously one of those teams is going to win, there's nothing incredible about it. "

What if your favorite player happens to play for that team. What if that team is YOUR home team. Yeah, obviously one team is going to win it all...even in the NCAA's. Thats a dumb argument. Now i see what you're saying...if someone has 16 favorite teams out of 32...yeah there's nothing incredible about "their" team winning it.

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 11:37 AM. Reason : ]

5/7/2007 11:37:45 AM

there's nothing incredible about an nfl team winning the superbowl b/c the nfl is a league structured to keep the teams as close as possible in regards to talent.

let me try to compare it to european soccer. if i'm wrong, then tell me b/c i don't know a whole lot about soccer, but here's how i think it works: teams are individual entities outside of their league, and the leagues have multiple tiers that they can be moved up and down through. there is no draft or anything like that, and player development starts in the clubs' youth academies. then you have the champions league that is a tournament made of teams from different leagues all over europe.

if i have that right, then that is something to be impressed by winning. that makes the nfl look like an everybody-gets-a-trophy teeball league, in regards to relative difficulty of winning. and so does the ncaa.

5/7/2007 11:49:54 AM

your logic is flawed though. Not everybody gets a fucking trophy. One team wins the superbowl. If it happens to be your team, why is that not something to be excited about? I've been a panthers fan since they came to Charlotte. If everyone wins the fucking superbowl, then why dont we have a trophy yet?

5/7/2007 12:43:14 PM

when being a team that has never won a superbowl puts you in the minority, it's not impressive to me.

just my opinion, no need to get hot.



btw, what were the chances of this?

wolfAApack
All American
7733 Posts
user info
edit post

simonn
All American
3344 Posts
user info
edit post


[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 12:47 PM. Reason : ehh? a little scary?]

5/7/2007 12:46:08 PM

^The NFL gives teams a level playing field for the amount of money they can spend on players. It's not like they assign the teams identical players. They equalize the resources, not the product. Look at the Raiders, for instance. One of the most painful offenses to watch ever last year, this year they have the #1 pick. They blow it on a guy who had to fight to start for LSU lsat year, a guy who doesn't appear to know the difference between triple coverage and wide-open.

Other than having the same salary cap, the way the NFL tries to help the bad teams is by giving them higher draft picks and giving them 2 games against other teams that finished last in their division. The affected schedule is 1/8th of the season, not a huge deal IMO. As for the higher picks, over the years the draft pick with the highest ratio of production-to-cost has been around 24th overall. The higher draft picks cost too much to justify their bust frequency. These "parity boosters" are not as effective as they might seem.

Instead of teams competing to have the most money, you have teams competing to see who can put together a better team. If teams were always around 8-8, and did not consistently win (patriots) or lose (lions) for a long string of years, your point about the NFL would be valid.

I'm definitely not saying you have to like the NFL, but I would reconsider just how special winning a super bowl is. I personally think a team that wins a championship among 32 equally-resourced teams is more impressive than a team that wins a championship against teams that had significantly less resources to begin with.

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 12:52 PM. Reason : ,]

5/7/2007 12:51:59 PM

^^nice


All I'm saying is that there are plenty of other reasons not to like pro sports...that one isnt a good reason imo. /discussion


^that about sums it up.

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ]

5/7/2007 12:53:59 PM

i still think they're meaningless.

^ this isn't a rant on why i don't like pro sports, per se, but a rant on why i don't care who wins a superbowl (unless it's philip rivers).

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM. Reason : i hope priv is SUPERBOWL MVP!]

5/7/2007 3:18:16 PM

Quote :

"As for the higher picks, over the years the draft pick with the highest ratio of production-to-cost has been around 24th overall"

Where did you find this? I'm not bustin your balls or sayin it isnt true, just wondering where you got it.

5/7/2007 3:24:52 PM

^I believe that...late first round picks are usually good players that end up with good teams...and end up in a situation that fits them the best. Plus, the cost part of that equation....you have a good player in a good situation with a good team and you're not paying him top 10 money.

5/7/2007 3:56:29 PM

Quote :

"there's nothing incredible about an nfl team winning the superbowl b/c the nfl is a league structured to keep the teams as close as possible in regards to talent."

I think it's the exact opposite: because the teams have a much higher level of parity, the team that manages to dominate is much more impressive. In college, you have programs that just continually outrecruit others due to media hype/money/whatever, giving them a constant advantage.

The draft and salary cap do more to prevent dynasties than even things out in any given year.

5/7/2007 5:19:42 PM

^^^I don't remember, but upon googling it I found http://www.nysun.com/article/12343 .. which actually says the 43rd pick overall is the best value, but doesn't have a link to their research

5/7/2007 5:47:36 PM

Quote :

"you can "like" several teams, but only truly support one per sport. unless you're mormon."

apparently I missed something. what the hell does this mean?

My teams are the Panthers and State. I like to see the 'Canes and Bobcats do well. After that, I kinda go by players and their teams. For example, being a State alum, I pull for the Chargers--but probably will care less when Phil goes to another team. I also like Peyton Manning. I would like to see these individuals do well, but if playing the Panthers, I still hope we win.

[Edited on May 7, 2007 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

5/7/2007 8:28:38 PM

I admit that I like more than 1 team in a few sports

College sports: #1 NC State
MLB: #1 Mets (like: Giants)
NBA: #1 Knicks, #2 Nets, #3 Warriors (like: Bobcats)
NFL: #1 Giants, #2 Jets, #3 Panthers (like: 49ers)
NHL: #1 Rangers, #2 Devils, (like: Islanders, Hurricanes, Sharks)

I was rised a NY/NJ fan in every sport (minus Yankees and Buffalo teams)
But, I was born and raised in CA, and liked the home teams (SF Giants, GS Warriors)
Also, now that I live in NC, i root for my new home teams

Overall, for the teams i ranked, I will root for them till the bitter end every year.
But for the teams that i just "like", i'll root for them casually if all my other teams are not playing.

5/7/2007 9:22:09 PM