Sports Questions

1. Is it better when fans can’t remember from year to year who was in the championship game/series (see NFL, MLB) or when the same two competitors reach the finals every time (Nadal, Federer)?

* * *

2. Is it better that the general public thinks that everyone in your league is on cocaine, or that everyone in your league is on steroids?

* * *

3. Does the 76ers’ roster sound like the lineup of a ’70s funk band?

  • Andre
  • Andre
  • Thaddeus
  • Samuel
  • Willie
  • Elton
  • Lou
  • Reggie
  • Royal
  • Marreese
  • Theo
  • Donyell
  • Kareem

4 Replies to “Sports Questions”

  1. I think the thing about sports teams is that it isn’t the single-champions but the lack of continuity between years. I was a big Bears fan when I was a kid and from the ages between 12-17 years old I got to see them go from being terrible to having this fearsome defense to going toe to toe with the Raiders in one of the most violent games ever played to upsetting the ‘Skins in the playoffs and then being pummeled by the 49ers to going all the way. Given the eventual outcome, every step on the way is a great memory now.

    Similarly, watching the Pistons claw their way to a championship must have been like that for those fans.

    There are some teams now that have that kind of build — I guess the Colts would apply, but most teams roar out of nowhere. I suspect Florida Marlins fans didn’t have half the fun that Big Red Machine fans had or the We Are Family Pirates fans did.

  2. That’s my point. It seems to me like there’s more joy in watching your team scrap its way up the ranks over a couple of years than the “parity” way where almost any team can get hot and make it to the finals, like this past Arizona team, or the Tampa Rays. Now, the NBA does allow for insane one-season transformations (like the incredible changeover the Kings made in 1999 when they replaced their entire starting lineup and became a competitive squad for 5 years, or when the Nets added Jason Kidd and immediately went on a back-to-back Finals run), but there’s still only been a handful of teams to win the championship in the last 30 years. Outside of that Nets team, we rarely see an NBA team come out of nowhere to reach the finals. This Arizona Cardinals run would be tantamount to one of those first-round-and-out Washington Wizards teams suddenly catching fire and going to the finals; ain’t gonna happen.

    So, I find the current rivalry in men’s tennis, where Federer dominated for years, and Nadal had to climb higher and higher to reach his level (and Roger started to decline a little), more storyline-satisfying than the Tigers coming out of nowhere to reach the World Series, then disappearing.

  3. I’m a little frustrated by the Nadal/Federer thing because Pete Sampras is maybe my least favorite all-time athlete ever — his main rival was Andre Agassi, whom he beat like a drum, and in a wooden racket era he wins nothing. (In fact, if you want hilarity, look at the murderer’s row of Agassi grand slam finals opponents. And by murderer I mean journeyman.)

    I think there’s a quality opponent facet to it, too. But yeah, we’re in total agreement. The Miracle Mets were a miracle. Now it’s like the Expected Mets.

  4. I remember that Agassi’s first title came against Ivanisevic, a human serving machine who couldn’t do a thing if you just returned his 140mph serves. Since Agassi was a great return-man, it was a silly finals.

    Lendl’s another weird case, in that he had no major competitor during his insane run, but I don’t know if that detracts from how good he was.

    While I was happy to watch that NJNets run, at no point did I feel that they deserved to be in the finals, and both of their western opponents demonstrated that I was correct.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.