To fans of the Cleveland Browns: shut the hell up.
Tonight the Browns got a huge win over the Defending Super Bowl Champion New York Giants on Monday night football. The Browns were hurting for a win badly, coming in with a 1-3 record with their only win an ugly affair over winless bottom dweller Cincinnati. Then, in the waning moments of tonight's game, we heard that stupidest of chants coming from the Browns fans:
OVERRATED!!! (clap clap clap clap clap)
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.
This is the NFL. There are no "ratings". Whatever ratings there are mean absolutely jack squat since the NFL actually has playoffs to decided everything.
The Browns are now 2-3. They have a long way to go to get anywhere near playoff contention. Enjoy the victory over the previously undefeated champs. Don't spoil it with that stupid chant.
Showing posts with label overrated rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label overrated rants. Show all posts
Monday, October 13, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Rank
College Football Revolves around rankings. Every major sport has rankings them in one form or another, but only in Division 1 college football do they actually make a substantive difference in championship and bowl game match ups. While my hatred for the whole ranking system, and its corrosive monopoly on the psyche of college football, is well documented, I concede that rankings are still an important part of our (flawed) system.
Nevertheless, I am perpetually perturbed by the inanity and logical inconsistencies of the ratings culture. For example, while watching a game recently, the announcers were discussing the upcoming Alabama-Georgia game that night. They quickly reached agreement that Georgia coach Mark Richt should motivate his players by telling them that "they deserve to be #1". The Bulldogs entered the game ranked as "only" # 3, a horrible travesty which needed to be corrected. I'm not sure if Coach Richt included this in his pregame speech, but whatever he said didn't really take. The Bulldogs were down 31-0 at the half to the Tide and ended up losing 41-30 at home. In the new poll today they are #11.
The point of all this is simple: stop whining about ratings. You were "only" # 3, a mere 4 weeks into the season? Tough. Win your games, take care of your business, and I promise you at the end of the year you'll get your just rewards. (Note: promise does not apply to Auburn). Your team being #1 now means nothing. It may sound nice, it may make you feel good, but its worth bupkis.
Extending this train of thought, we hear a lot about conference strength and strength of schedule arguments based on rankings. "The SEC has 5 teams in the top 10!" "So and So team beat the #N and #Y teams!". The problem with these kind of appeals is simple: after those 5 top 10 teams finally play each other, some will lose (in fact, the probably all will lose), and then will fall, so they will no longer be ranked so high! Of course, losing team X will still get to say that they only lost to highly ranked team W, so their ranking won't suffer too much. Similarly, Team W will rise in the rankings, because they beat still fairly highly ranked team X. Its all very zen.
Similarly, after you beat a team, they no longer have the ranking they previously had. So how should we compare these types of wins (and losses)? If you played a team ranked # n, and beat them, and then they fall and keep falling, did you really beat # n? If a team you played suddenly starts to rise in the rankings long after you played them, does your fate link to theirs? Good luck finding a straight answer from most fans.
Another thing that bothers me is the unspoken rule that losses much automatically drop teams in the rankings. Granted, most of the time it makes sense: if you lose, you probably weren't as good as your ranking suggests. Maybe. Most of the time. But consider the following example from this week as it relates to this norm:
Penn State, ranked # 12, hosted Illinois, ranked # 22, on Saturday night. Penn State is having a great year, blowing out every team they played so far. The Fighting Zooks put up a good fight against a hostile environment but ultimately fell 38-24, the final margin widened by some late scoring as the Nittany Lions put the game away. As a result of their success, Penn State rocketed up the rankings to # 5. Illinois, because of their loss, fell out of the top 25.
To me, this seems logically inconsistent. If Penn State really is a top 5 team (and I think they are), then why should Illinois be punished for losing a relatively competitive game on the road against them? Considering they have two losses, both to current top 5 teams, isn't it logical that they could still be worthy of the #22 ranking they had? Isn't it also possible that the #22 team could lose this kind of game to the #5 team. On the flip side, if the Zooks really don't deserve to be ranked, then why should Penn State be pushed up so far for the win?
The answer, of course, is easy: the polls are done but hundreds of busy, under informed voters who basically take a look up and down the sports pages on Sunday morning, make a note of who won and who lost, and "re-position" teams according to the lazy standard of "win goes up, loss goes down".
I'm certain that I'm tilting at windmills here with my plea for rankings sanity, a unified theory of ranking if you will. I only hope that, since we are tied down to this craziness for the foreseeable future, maybe we can inch towards a more coherent system of thinking about and ranking teams. Let's do it for Auburn. Think of the tigers.
Nevertheless, I am perpetually perturbed by the inanity and logical inconsistencies of the ratings culture. For example, while watching a game recently, the announcers were discussing the upcoming Alabama-Georgia game that night. They quickly reached agreement that Georgia coach Mark Richt should motivate his players by telling them that "they deserve to be #1". The Bulldogs entered the game ranked as "only" # 3, a horrible travesty which needed to be corrected. I'm not sure if Coach Richt included this in his pregame speech, but whatever he said didn't really take. The Bulldogs were down 31-0 at the half to the Tide and ended up losing 41-30 at home. In the new poll today they are #11.
The point of all this is simple: stop whining about ratings. You were "only" # 3, a mere 4 weeks into the season? Tough. Win your games, take care of your business, and I promise you at the end of the year you'll get your just rewards. (Note: promise does not apply to Auburn). Your team being #1 now means nothing. It may sound nice, it may make you feel good, but its worth bupkis.
Extending this train of thought, we hear a lot about conference strength and strength of schedule arguments based on rankings. "The SEC has 5 teams in the top 10!" "So and So team beat the #N and #Y teams!". The problem with these kind of appeals is simple: after those 5 top 10 teams finally play each other, some will lose (in fact, the probably all will lose), and then will fall, so they will no longer be ranked so high! Of course, losing team X will still get to say that they only lost to highly ranked team W, so their ranking won't suffer too much. Similarly, Team W will rise in the rankings, because they beat still fairly highly ranked team X. Its all very zen.
Similarly, after you beat a team, they no longer have the ranking they previously had. So how should we compare these types of wins (and losses)? If you played a team ranked # n, and beat them, and then they fall and keep falling, did you really beat # n? If a team you played suddenly starts to rise in the rankings long after you played them, does your fate link to theirs? Good luck finding a straight answer from most fans.
Another thing that bothers me is the unspoken rule that losses much automatically drop teams in the rankings. Granted, most of the time it makes sense: if you lose, you probably weren't as good as your ranking suggests. Maybe. Most of the time. But consider the following example from this week as it relates to this norm:
Penn State, ranked # 12, hosted Illinois, ranked # 22, on Saturday night. Penn State is having a great year, blowing out every team they played so far. The Fighting Zooks put up a good fight against a hostile environment but ultimately fell 38-24, the final margin widened by some late scoring as the Nittany Lions put the game away. As a result of their success, Penn State rocketed up the rankings to # 5. Illinois, because of their loss, fell out of the top 25.
To me, this seems logically inconsistent. If Penn State really is a top 5 team (and I think they are), then why should Illinois be punished for losing a relatively competitive game on the road against them? Considering they have two losses, both to current top 5 teams, isn't it logical that they could still be worthy of the #22 ranking they had? Isn't it also possible that the #22 team could lose this kind of game to the #5 team. On the flip side, if the Zooks really don't deserve to be ranked, then why should Penn State be pushed up so far for the win?
The answer, of course, is easy: the polls are done but hundreds of busy, under informed voters who basically take a look up and down the sports pages on Sunday morning, make a note of who won and who lost, and "re-position" teams according to the lazy standard of "win goes up, loss goes down".
I'm certain that I'm tilting at windmills here with my plea for rankings sanity, a unified theory of ranking if you will. I only hope that, since we are tied down to this craziness for the foreseeable future, maybe we can inch towards a more coherent system of thinking about and ranking teams. Let's do it for Auburn. Think of the tigers.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Conference of Crappiness
The Pac-10 was (almost) a total embarrassment this weekend. USC may have deflected a lot of criticism with its 35-3 disemboweling of the Buckeyes on national television, but even the sweet musk from that stellar performance can't cover up the retched stink that wafted from the rest of the conference. First, the good:
USC was fantastic in their rout of OSU. They are undoubtedly the favorites for the BCS title game and the road is open for them. Just about the only downside for the Trojans is that their conference is so bad that any slip up will be toxic.
Oregon, sans starting QB and on the road, staged a mighty comeback against Purdue, finally wining in double overtime. Bully for them. At this point Oregon is the only legit contender in the Pac-10 for SC, though that may change.
Oregon State, after embarrassing losses to Stanford and Penn State (the latter a real pummelling), manages to beat up on lowly Hawaii, 38-7. Hey, a wins a win, and if beating up on the Warriors is good enough for Tebow and the Gators its good enough for the Beavers. They need some confidence, since Pete Carroll is bringing the Boys up to Corvallis next week.
Now, for the bad:
Washington, coming off an emotional 28-27 loss to BYU last week, was absolutely destroyed by Oklahoma, 55-14. At home. Just terrible. The Sooners are playing as well as any team in the country right now, so don't be surprised if they are in the BCS title game picture at the end of the year.
But really, Washington losing is not a suprise, especially not to a powerhouse like Oklahoma. Lets get to some real shockers:
New Mexico 36, Arizona 28. What?
Washington State 17, Baylor 45. Baylor? The Baylor Bears? I know Wazzu sucks, but damn. Baylor?
Stanford 14, TCU 31. Ok this isn't a huge suprise, and apparently it was a close game for a while.
# 23 California 27, Maryland 35. Huh? The sad thing is the Bears had to rally just to make it this close.
# 15 ASU 20, UNLV 23 OT. WHFHDJKFHDSJKFDS!!!!!!!! A ranked ASU lost, at home, to an unranked MWC team. This is what Dennis Erikson has for us? This is the mighty Sun Devil Resurgence?
But really, all these games, shocking and upsetting as they are for a Pac-10 fan, pale in comparison to this next atrocity. Small children and those with weak stomachs should stop reading now. I can't be held responsible for any injury that may occur.
BYU 59. UCLA 0.
That's right.
I checked.
I double checked.
That was the score.
I was out and about when this game was played so I checked in on my phone. I didn't believe it. I still don't believe it, having seen no video highlights. Maybe this is all a big misunderstanding. The game was played in Utah after all, maybe the pony express riders who brought in results got it wrong.
But I doubt it.
First, I wanna say that I half expected a bad loss this week. As I said in my previous UCLA post following the Tennessee win, the Bruins are an up and down team prone to wild mood swings. But this is even worse than I imagined. I don't even know how this is possible. UCLA has (had?) a decent defense. Or at least we thought they did. So how did they give up 59? They also had an offense that didn't look like a bunch of monkeys running in circles. So how did they score 0? Could they not even get any garbage points? This just boggles the mind.
UCLA's loss is a blemish on the whole Pac-10. I know that they will win more games, including conference games. Any team that loses to them will have the shame of losing to a team that lost 59-0 to a non-BCS team. Maybe BYU is great: they do have the nation's longest winning streak (dating back to last years loss against... UCLA!). They are ranked high and could run the table and make a BCS game.
59-0.
I just can't make sense of it.
But I can rant about it.
Yesterday's results are a perfect example of why the whole rankings/overrated/underrated thing in college football is stupid and meaningless. UCLA beat Tennessee, a pretty decent team from the undisputed best conference in college football. They had defense, toughness, heart, a QB who was on fire and a new flashy coach who put it all together. They were on top of the world, bold, brash and ready for all comers. The press fawned over them. The Bruins were back, baby, and whoa to BYU who was their next victim.
BYU on the other hand, won a close and controversial game against a very poor Washington team. They were lucky, they were vulnerable, they were maybe... overrated?
59-0.
So maybe Washington actually is pretty good then?
55-14.
So maybe Tennessee isn't that great then, since they lost to UCLA?
The jury is still out, since all they have is a 35-3 drubbing of lowly UAB. We'll have to wait for next week's Florida game to see. But what if they play it close against Tebow and co? Or even win? What are we to make of the "ratings" then?
Nothing, because there's nothing to them.
Football is a fluid game. Football teams constantly change, from year to year, month to month, game to game and even series to series. The problem with trying to "rate" football is that the small sample size gives us only momentary glimpses of how good or bad a team really is, and only during a very small window. UCLA beats Tennessee at one moment in time. A lot of things happen, and they lose 59-0 at another moment. A lot more things will happen, and then they'll have another moment.
The semi-point of all this is that rating teams continues to be a fool's errand. But despite this, rankings are all we have and so they'll continue to be the lifeblood of the media, fans, and Internet message boards for the foreseeable future.
USC was fantastic in their rout of OSU. They are undoubtedly the favorites for the BCS title game and the road is open for them. Just about the only downside for the Trojans is that their conference is so bad that any slip up will be toxic.
Oregon, sans starting QB and on the road, staged a mighty comeback against Purdue, finally wining in double overtime. Bully for them. At this point Oregon is the only legit contender in the Pac-10 for SC, though that may change.
Oregon State, after embarrassing losses to Stanford and Penn State (the latter a real pummelling), manages to beat up on lowly Hawaii, 38-7. Hey, a wins a win, and if beating up on the Warriors is good enough for Tebow and the Gators its good enough for the Beavers. They need some confidence, since Pete Carroll is bringing the Boys up to Corvallis next week.
Now, for the bad:
Washington, coming off an emotional 28-27 loss to BYU last week, was absolutely destroyed by Oklahoma, 55-14. At home. Just terrible. The Sooners are playing as well as any team in the country right now, so don't be surprised if they are in the BCS title game picture at the end of the year.
But really, Washington losing is not a suprise, especially not to a powerhouse like Oklahoma. Lets get to some real shockers:
New Mexico 36, Arizona 28. What?
Washington State 17, Baylor 45. Baylor? The Baylor Bears? I know Wazzu sucks, but damn. Baylor?
Stanford 14, TCU 31. Ok this isn't a huge suprise, and apparently it was a close game for a while.
# 23 California 27, Maryland 35. Huh? The sad thing is the Bears had to rally just to make it this close.
# 15 ASU 20, UNLV 23 OT. WHFHDJKFHDSJKFDS!!!!!!!! A ranked ASU lost, at home, to an unranked MWC team. This is what Dennis Erikson has for us? This is the mighty Sun Devil Resurgence?
But really, all these games, shocking and upsetting as they are for a Pac-10 fan, pale in comparison to this next atrocity. Small children and those with weak stomachs should stop reading now. I can't be held responsible for any injury that may occur.
BYU 59. UCLA 0.
That's right.
I checked.
I double checked.
That was the score.
I was out and about when this game was played so I checked in on my phone. I didn't believe it. I still don't believe it, having seen no video highlights. Maybe this is all a big misunderstanding. The game was played in Utah after all, maybe the pony express riders who brought in results got it wrong.
But I doubt it.
First, I wanna say that I half expected a bad loss this week. As I said in my previous UCLA post following the Tennessee win, the Bruins are an up and down team prone to wild mood swings. But this is even worse than I imagined. I don't even know how this is possible. UCLA has (had?) a decent defense. Or at least we thought they did. So how did they give up 59? They also had an offense that didn't look like a bunch of monkeys running in circles. So how did they score 0? Could they not even get any garbage points? This just boggles the mind.
UCLA's loss is a blemish on the whole Pac-10. I know that they will win more games, including conference games. Any team that loses to them will have the shame of losing to a team that lost 59-0 to a non-BCS team. Maybe BYU is great: they do have the nation's longest winning streak (dating back to last years loss against... UCLA!). They are ranked high and could run the table and make a BCS game.
59-0.
I just can't make sense of it.
But I can rant about it.
Yesterday's results are a perfect example of why the whole rankings/overrated/underrated thing in college football is stupid and meaningless. UCLA beat Tennessee, a pretty decent team from the undisputed best conference in college football. They had defense, toughness, heart, a QB who was on fire and a new flashy coach who put it all together. They were on top of the world, bold, brash and ready for all comers. The press fawned over them. The Bruins were back, baby, and whoa to BYU who was their next victim.
BYU on the other hand, won a close and controversial game against a very poor Washington team. They were lucky, they were vulnerable, they were maybe... overrated?
59-0.
So maybe Washington actually is pretty good then?
55-14.
So maybe Tennessee isn't that great then, since they lost to UCLA?
The jury is still out, since all they have is a 35-3 drubbing of lowly UAB. We'll have to wait for next week's Florida game to see. But what if they play it close against Tebow and co? Or even win? What are we to make of the "ratings" then?
Nothing, because there's nothing to them.
Football is a fluid game. Football teams constantly change, from year to year, month to month, game to game and even series to series. The problem with trying to "rate" football is that the small sample size gives us only momentary glimpses of how good or bad a team really is, and only during a very small window. UCLA beats Tennessee at one moment in time. A lot of things happen, and they lose 59-0 at another moment. A lot more things will happen, and then they'll have another moment.
The semi-point of all this is that rating teams continues to be a fool's errand. But despite this, rankings are all we have and so they'll continue to be the lifeblood of the media, fans, and Internet message boards for the foreseeable future.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Our Team Sucks! Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb!
As I've mentioned previously, I hate it when sports fans lean on the rhetorical crutch of calling a player or team "overrated". Nevertheless, I understand why its so appealing. Its a simple but unmistakable insult. Its vague and therefore hard to really refute. Most of all, there are a lot of peripheral things in sports which are subjectively determined: all star selections, MVPs, HOF inductions. When making the case that your favorite athlete deserves such honors, its almost necessary to state that others are "overrated" and therefore undeserving.
However, one thing I can't understand is that stupidest of sports chants:
"OVER-RATED!!!! *clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*!!!"
For those unfamiliar, this chant usually makes an appearance at the end of an upset victory, shouted loudly and moronically by the fans of the victorious underdog. From North to South, sea to shining sea, you need only stumble upon an unexpected win and your ears will be assaulted by this catch ditty. It is, for the most part, a phenomenon limited to collegiate and high school level sports, where subjective rankings are often matters of life and death to die hard fans. Fans of professional sports are prone to several dumb behaviors, including shelling out $9 for a plastic cup of Miller Lite, but at least they mostly avoid this chant.
The idiocy of the "overrated" chant is as plain as day. If the team your team just beat really is "overrated", then your victory is diminished. In effect, these joyous fans are taking what should be a moment of celebration and crapping all over themselves by declaring in unison: "Your team sucks, and as proof, you just lost to US!" It logically follows that their team also sucks.
Perhaps the worst part about this cheer is when its used during a victory which is largely the result of bad luck on the part of the losing team. One example especially sticks out in my memory. This last season I was watching college football, Oklahoma at Texas Tech. At the time the Sooners were ranked high in the BCS polls and had a pretty good shot at a bid to the national championship game if they could win all their remaining games. Tech was unranked but it was a conference home game so they were up to play.
On the very first series of the game, starting Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford suffered a blow to the head, resulting in a concussion. Rules of safety and common sense meant that he was done for the evening, turning the offense over to the inexperienced hands of his backups. Anyone who follows football knows the value of an experienced starting QB, especially in a hostile road game. Tech took advantage of Bradford's absence, feeding off the energy of the home fans and building a large lead. The Sooner offense finally got on track later in the game and staged a rally, but time ran out on them and the Red Raiders took the game by a TD, 34-27.
For a college football fan like me it was a great game to watch. And then I heard it through the TV, coming from the joyous Tech fans: "OVER-RATED!". I was stunned by their stupidity. Not only were they discounting their own team's hard fought victory, but they didn't even acknowledge the huge gift handed to them when Bradford had to leave the game. The Sooners with their starting QB were one of the best teams in college football. Indeed, after Bradford healed and returned to the lineup, and the Sooners went on to win their Conference. But the idea that they were the same team after having their star knocked out and replaced by an inexperienced backup was asinine. I'll try to express it as a mathematical model:
(Highly ranked team)-(vital star player) = (No longer highly ranked team)
To top it all off, the backup eventually found his bearings and staged a decent 4th quarter rally, forcing Tech to hold on by their fingernails to secure the win. Had Bradford been able to play, its fair to say that the Sooners would have played a lot better prior to the 4th quarter and probably would have taken the game. His injury was a godsend for Tech, and here their fans were too stupid or arrogant to acknowledge this stroke of good fortune.
So please people, ditch this chant. I know its tempting, in the heat of the moment, as your favorite team of scrappy underdogs pulls one out against the hated powerhouse rival and the thrill of victory is rushing through your veins, to join in and shout it out at the top of your lungs. But please resist, you're only denigrating yourself.
If anything, fans should try a 180 on the whole thing and start an "Under-Rated" chant. The reasoning is simple: "That team there, our opponent, they are clearly underrated! # 8 in the country you say? Pfft! What a farce! They are easily top 5, and if those voters had a collective brain between them they'd be #2! I demand they be given their rightful ranking! And since they are # 2 in the nation, judging by the scoreboard of this match, which shows our side clearly ahead, it must be that our boys are the true #1! Huzzah!" This could work people.
However, one thing I can't understand is that stupidest of sports chants:
"OVER-RATED!!!! *clap*clap*clap*clap*clap*!!!"
For those unfamiliar, this chant usually makes an appearance at the end of an upset victory, shouted loudly and moronically by the fans of the victorious underdog. From North to South, sea to shining sea, you need only stumble upon an unexpected win and your ears will be assaulted by this catch ditty. It is, for the most part, a phenomenon limited to collegiate and high school level sports, where subjective rankings are often matters of life and death to die hard fans. Fans of professional sports are prone to several dumb behaviors, including shelling out $9 for a plastic cup of Miller Lite, but at least they mostly avoid this chant.
The idiocy of the "overrated" chant is as plain as day. If the team your team just beat really is "overrated", then your victory is diminished. In effect, these joyous fans are taking what should be a moment of celebration and crapping all over themselves by declaring in unison: "Your team sucks, and as proof, you just lost to US!" It logically follows that their team also sucks.
Perhaps the worst part about this cheer is when its used during a victory which is largely the result of bad luck on the part of the losing team. One example especially sticks out in my memory. This last season I was watching college football, Oklahoma at Texas Tech. At the time the Sooners were ranked high in the BCS polls and had a pretty good shot at a bid to the national championship game if they could win all their remaining games. Tech was unranked but it was a conference home game so they were up to play.
On the very first series of the game, starting Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford suffered a blow to the head, resulting in a concussion. Rules of safety and common sense meant that he was done for the evening, turning the offense over to the inexperienced hands of his backups. Anyone who follows football knows the value of an experienced starting QB, especially in a hostile road game. Tech took advantage of Bradford's absence, feeding off the energy of the home fans and building a large lead. The Sooner offense finally got on track later in the game and staged a rally, but time ran out on them and the Red Raiders took the game by a TD, 34-27.
For a college football fan like me it was a great game to watch. And then I heard it through the TV, coming from the joyous Tech fans: "OVER-RATED!". I was stunned by their stupidity. Not only were they discounting their own team's hard fought victory, but they didn't even acknowledge the huge gift handed to them when Bradford had to leave the game. The Sooners with their starting QB were one of the best teams in college football. Indeed, after Bradford healed and returned to the lineup, and the Sooners went on to win their Conference. But the idea that they were the same team after having their star knocked out and replaced by an inexperienced backup was asinine. I'll try to express it as a mathematical model:
(Highly ranked team)-(vital star player) = (No longer highly ranked team)
To top it all off, the backup eventually found his bearings and staged a decent 4th quarter rally, forcing Tech to hold on by their fingernails to secure the win. Had Bradford been able to play, its fair to say that the Sooners would have played a lot better prior to the 4th quarter and probably would have taken the game. His injury was a godsend for Tech, and here their fans were too stupid or arrogant to acknowledge this stroke of good fortune.
So please people, ditch this chant. I know its tempting, in the heat of the moment, as your favorite team of scrappy underdogs pulls one out against the hated powerhouse rival and the thrill of victory is rushing through your veins, to join in and shout it out at the top of your lungs. But please resist, you're only denigrating yourself.
If anything, fans should try a 180 on the whole thing and start an "Under-Rated" chant. The reasoning is simple: "That team there, our opponent, they are clearly underrated! # 8 in the country you say? Pfft! What a farce! They are easily top 5, and if those voters had a collective brain between them they'd be #2! I demand they be given their rightful ranking! And since they are # 2 in the nation, judging by the scoreboard of this match, which shows our side clearly ahead, it must be that our boys are the true #1! Huzzah!" This could work people.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Ratings don't matter!
I'm a huge sports fan. Football most of all, but really any kind of quality competition can draw my interest. Baseball, Basketball, Golf, occasionally Soccer, Hockey, Iron Chef, whatever. High school, college, pro, international, I'll probably find a reason to watch or at least check out the highlights. As a sports fan and consumer of sports culture, I'm exposed to a large number of viewpoints about athletes and teams. Opinions about their talent, place in the sport, their deviant sexuality, or whether or not an indictment on spousal battery charges should disqualify them from sainthood.
I accept all these opinions and viewpoints as part of being as sports fan. Its fun to discuss the game, the players, to trash talk a bit after your team came out on top. But there's part of this discourse I've grown to truly hate, the go-to insult from message boards to the corner bar: "he's overrated".
Calling an athlete or team "overrated" is boring and meaningless. It is the hollowest of critiques. "Ratings" don't really exist in sports, with a handful of exceptions. College football has its polls. But they only ever really matter for 1 game a year. Usually its pretty easy to figure out which two teams should be chosen for that game, and when its not easy then there is really no solution in which someone doesn't get shafted. Some tournaments have seedings which are subjective, though still based in the reality of past results. That is to say, a #1 and # 2 seed may be interchangeable, but there are no #13 seeds which, pre-tourney, can really gripe about not being a #1. Boxing has "rankings", but pro boxing has long been a corrupt circus. The point is, even in these areas in which rankings are important, the games still have to be played, so the rankings are eventually meaningless as the results sort things out.
Teams and athletes are what they are. Any "rating" they have are the result of media and fan perception. Change the "rating" all you want, it won't make them any better or worse. The true, underlying value of each player or team is unaffected. Furthermore, "overrated" doesn't necessarily mean they aren't still awesome. For example, recently a poll of MLB players asked them what players were the most overrated in their sport. # 1 was Derek Jeter. # 2 was A-Rod. That's right, two guys who are already practicing their speeches for Cooperstown are "overrated". I hate the Yankees, and even I'll concede that Jeter is a great SS and A-Rod is perhaps the best baseball player in the entire world.
So please, find a better criticism of those athletes you hate. Cite their spotty defense. The high strikeout rate. Or poor turnover/assist ratio. Or the fact that their rap sheet is longer than "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner". But let's can that over hyped, overexposed and overused cliche once and for all.
I accept all these opinions and viewpoints as part of being as sports fan. Its fun to discuss the game, the players, to trash talk a bit after your team came out on top. But there's part of this discourse I've grown to truly hate, the go-to insult from message boards to the corner bar: "he's overrated".
Calling an athlete or team "overrated" is boring and meaningless. It is the hollowest of critiques. "Ratings" don't really exist in sports, with a handful of exceptions. College football has its polls. But they only ever really matter for 1 game a year. Usually its pretty easy to figure out which two teams should be chosen for that game, and when its not easy then there is really no solution in which someone doesn't get shafted. Some tournaments have seedings which are subjective, though still based in the reality of past results. That is to say, a #1 and # 2 seed may be interchangeable, but there are no #13 seeds which, pre-tourney, can really gripe about not being a #1. Boxing has "rankings", but pro boxing has long been a corrupt circus. The point is, even in these areas in which rankings are important, the games still have to be played, so the rankings are eventually meaningless as the results sort things out.
Teams and athletes are what they are. Any "rating" they have are the result of media and fan perception. Change the "rating" all you want, it won't make them any better or worse. The true, underlying value of each player or team is unaffected. Furthermore, "overrated" doesn't necessarily mean they aren't still awesome. For example, recently a poll of MLB players asked them what players were the most overrated in their sport. # 1 was Derek Jeter. # 2 was A-Rod. That's right, two guys who are already practicing their speeches for Cooperstown are "overrated". I hate the Yankees, and even I'll concede that Jeter is a great SS and A-Rod is perhaps the best baseball player in the entire world.
So please, find a better criticism of those athletes you hate. Cite their spotty defense. The high strikeout rate. Or poor turnover/assist ratio. Or the fact that their rap sheet is longer than "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner". But let's can that over hyped, overexposed and overused cliche once and for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
