Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

SPORTS


JakeHolman
 Share

Recommended Posts

That play reminds me of "The Miracle of the Meadowlands", in which Joe Pisarcik bungled a handoff which was returned for a winning touchdown, when all he had to do was take a knee to win the game. This was on a MUCH bigger stage, however.

I remember that play.  Wasn't it Herman Edwards who returned it for the game-winning TD?  I think the final score was 10-9 for the Eagles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the only ones losing any MONEY are the FOOLS who BET on it.  The players will all remain millionaires, even the ones on the losing team.

 

Now, it may be the old CYNIC in me, but that whole play looked too well COREOGRAPHED to me!  I'd look more into THAT. :ph34r:

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the Super Bowl hubbub has died down, I turn my interests to the NCAA Basketball Tournament.  Conferences are coming down the home stretch as teams jockey for position for their post-season tournaments.  The tension builds for the smaller schools who know they have to win their conference tourney to have a chance to make the big show, unlike bigger schools from more prestigious conferences who can make the field of 68 with a paltry 18-12 record (as an example), while a 26-4 team from a weaker conference sweats out Selection Sunday to see if they made the cut, even though they won the regular season title, but lost in their conference's semi-final round.  Pretty gripping stuff!

 

Kentucky is the lone unbeaten team in the country, and there are two teams that remain winless with precious few games left to play (Florida A & M and Central Arkansas).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the Super Bowl hubbub has died down, I turn my interests to the NCAA Basketball Tournament.  Conferences are coming down the home stretch as teams jockey for position for their post-season tournaments.  The tension builds for the smaller schools who know they have to win their conference tourney to have a chance to make the big show, unlike bigger schools from more prestigious conferences who can make the field of 68 with a paltry 18-12 record (as an example), while a 26-4 team from a weaker conference sweats out Selection Sunday to see if they made the cut, even though they won the regular season title, but lost in their conference's semi-final round.  Pretty gripping stuff!

 

Kentucky is the lone unbeaten team in the country, and there are two teams that remain winless with precious few games left to play (Florida A & M and Central Arkansas).

Since "one and done" has become a lot more prevalent, I've lost much of my interest in college hoops. The NBA gets most of my attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wife and I are just waiting for the 2015 MLB season to begin so that our Colorado Rockies can once again flop and disappoint us.  Maybe the KC Royals will rise up again this year and give us a little solace from the heartless trauma of being Rockies fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wife and I are just waiting for the 2015 MLB season to begin so that our Colorado Rockies can once again flop and disappoint us.  Maybe the KC Royals will rise up again this year and give us a little solace from the heartless trauma of being Rockies fans.

 

In professional sports I'm big on the 'window of opportunity' theory;  The basic point being that when a team is very 'good' it only last for a few years,  and therefore the team has to prevail (win it all) in this short window of opportunity.   

 

The Rockies clearly had a window from around 2007 - 2010.   The fact they couldn't win it all, at least once, during that 4 to 5 season period is missing the window. 

 

Of course some teams like the Patriots have very long windows,  but while theirs was about to close they were able to win it all.   A team like the Seahawks is in the mist of their window but at least they got that one championship.  So even if they don't win another in their current 'window' they are not failures. 

  

Some teams like the Atlanta Braves also have very long windows but since they only won the world series once during that very long window they didn't capitalize on their window of opportunity as much as I feel they should have.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not looking for ANYthing!  I really don't even CARE about the superbowl!

 

It's just that's how it LOOKED to me! 

 

 

Sepiatone

 

How about this instead:  I think you're seeing hobgoblins that don't exist. 

 

To me, in that prior post you implied there were something sinister going on as it relates to that play and the final outcome.

 

I agree with Roverrocks;  Hogwash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In professional sports I'm big on the 'window of opportunity' theory;  The basic point being that when a team is very 'good' it only last for a few years,  and therefore the team has to prevail (win it all) in this short window of opportunity.   

 

The Rockies clearly had a window from around 2007 - 2010.   The fact they couldn't win it all, at least once, during that 4 to 5 season period is missing the window. 

 

Of course some teams like the Patriots have very long windows,  but while theirs was about to close they were able to win it all.   A team like the Seahawks is in the mist of their window but at least they got that one championship.  So even if they don't win another in their current 'window' they are not failures. 

  

Some teams like the Atlanta Braves also have very long windows but since they only won the world series once during that very long window they didn't capitalize on their window of opportunity as much as I feel they should have.  

The salary cap and free agency has pretty much eliminated dynasties in sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In professional sports I'm big on the 'window of opportunity' theory;  The basic point being that when a team is very 'good' it only last for a few years,  and therefore the team has to prevail (win it all) in this short window of opportunity.   

 

The Rockies clearly had a window from around 2007 - 2010.   The fact they couldn't win it all, at least once, during that 4 to 5 season period is missing the window. 

 

Of course some teams like the Patriots have very long windows,  but while theirs was about to close they were able to win it all.   A team like the Seahawks is in the mist of their window but at least they got that one championship.  So even if they don't win another in their current 'window' they are not failures. 

  

Some teams like the Atlanta Braves also have very long windows but since they only won the world series once during that very long window they didn't capitalize on their window of opportunity as much as I feel they should have.  

 

I'm not a die-hard Charger fan but I live in the area. Their window was probably around 2004-2009. That devastating loss to the Pats in Schottenheimer's last year ('06) was probably the most excruciating Agony of Defeat I have ever experienced as a fan. I am admittedly a fair weather fan ... but if the Bolts are doing well and have a chance for the prize I become obsessed with the possibility and become a fan par excellence. I have always hoped that they might win a Super Bowl before I die ... but it ain't lookin' good.

 

Someone mentioned that the Super Bowl hubbub is dying down on this thread but I am still mentally and emotionally scarred. I would be positively giddy had has Seattle simply played percentages and won the game. I think my affliction (hatred) goes back to that wretched game in 'o6. I have been in glow of the Thrill of Victory with those two splendid Supers from '07 and '11 when the upstart kid brother managed in most unlikely fashion to upend the Nemesis. Don't worry about the Pats anymore, I thought, they have had their ultimate comeuppance. Their legacy is forever scarred with those two losses. Now look, they're calling the Pats day sports' greatest ongoing dynasty with their four Super's since '01. Can't win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The salary cap and free agency has pretty much eliminated dynasties in sports.

 

Just ask other teams about these teams; New England Patriots,  San Francisco Giants,  San Antonio Spurs. 

 

I think those other teams would disagree with you!

 

And please don't site the Boston Celtics of the 60s.   One key reason they won it all so often was that there were way less teams in the NBA.

 

So what the 3 above teams have done in their sport is even more amazing given the salary cap, free agency,  the addition of more playoff teams (e.g. having a wildcard), and the increase in the number of overall teams in a sport.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One constant with any of these dynasties  is  having very good, savvy management. Their ability to properly evaluate talent  that complements one another and then get the most out of those people.  I have been thinking about  Tom Brady and the success he has had over his  long career.  Somewhat like the great Bill Russell;  the roster of teammates for both  men changed  greatly over their careers but they enjoyed success  all the same.  Of course no one is in the same class as Russell, 11 championships in 13 years (13 in 15 counting college ball).  And just because there were fewer teams in the league in Russell's day is irrelevant, the level of talent on each team in the league was much higher in those days (lesser teams, less diluted talent pool). And players as a whole made much less money (and no guaranteed contracts) so there was more incentive to play harder (to keep your job and make that bonus playoff money).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One constant with any of these dynasties  is  having very good, savvy management. Their ability to properly evaluate talent  that complements one another and then get the most out of those people.  I have been thinking about  Tom Brady and the success he has had over his  long career.  Somewhat like the great Bill Russell;  the roster of teammates for both  men changed  greatly over their careers but they enjoyed success  all the same.  Of course no one is in the same class as Russell, 11 championships in 13 years (13 in 15 counting college ball).  And just because there were fewer teams in the league in Russell's day is irrelevant, the level of talent on each team in the league was much higher in those days (lesser teams, less diluted talent pool). And players as a whole made much less money (and no guaranteed contracts) so there was more incentive to play harder (to keep your job and make that bonus playoff money).

 

Well we can agree to disagree that the number of teams in a league doesn't impact the odds of winning multiple championships over a limited period of time.   First there is just the basic math.  That can't be disputed.  There are many other factors;  As DGF noted the lack of free agency, but even when a player's contract allowed them to go to another team,  with less teams in the league the odds increase that player will stay on with their existing team.    Sorry but to say these multiple factors are irrelevant is illogical. 

 

Russell is indeed one of the greatest basketball players of all time but it appears you felt my comments were a knock on him or the Celtic dynasty in some way.  One couldn't be more 'off' there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we can agree to disagree that the number of teams in a league doesn't impact the odds of winning multiple championships over a limited period of time.   First there is just the basic math.  That can't be disputed.  There are many other factors;  As DGF noted the lack of free agency, but even when a player's contract allowed them to go to another team,  with less teams in the league the odds increase that player will stay on with their existing team.    Sorry but to say these multiple factors are irrelevant is illogical. 

 

Russell is indeed one of the greatest basketball players of all time but it appears you felt my comments were a knock on him or the Celtic dynasty in some way.  One couldn't be more 'off' there.

One need look no further than the NHL.  Since the expansion started in '67 I believe, with the inclusion of the St, Louis Blues, then all the OTHER teams over the years, to greatly add to the number of teams in the league, far surpassing the "original 6"  number, it seems Montreal's often Stanley Cup wins have been greatly reduced.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just ask other teams about these teams; New England Patriots,  San Francisco Giants,  San Antonio Spurs. 

 

I think those other teams would disagree with you!

 

And please don't site the Boston Celtics of the 60s.   One key reason they won it all so often was that there were way less teams in the NBA.

 

So what the 3 above teams have done in their sport is even more amazing given the salary cap, free agency,  the addition of more playoff teams (e.g. having a wildcard), and the increase in the number of overall teams in a sport.   

Of the 3, the Giants are not a dynasty. Aside from the 3 world series wins in alternate years, they haven't been successful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the 3, the Giants are not a dynasty. Aside from the 3 world series wins in alternate years, they haven't been successful. 

 

Well this Dodger fan thinks the Giants are very close to being a dynasty especially in this modern age.    3 world series in 5 years is dynasty territory IMO.       

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've also got to be close to the top in the years you don't win the championship.

 

I don't know about that. In days of yore, dynasties were like that, probably because most teams had the same players every year (more or less), so they probably were near the top if they didn't win. I think that requirement can reasonably be dropped in our own time. If not, then dynasties will all be non-existent, for baseball anyway. The Giants have very few players now than they had the first of the three WS wins. The Yankees of the late 90s won WS three times from '96-'99. It might be good to define 'dynasty.' The Yankees won 12 pennants and 9 World Series from '49-'64, a feat that will never be duplicated with the elaborate playoff system that exists today. It's possible that the very term "dynasty" is obsolete and should be retired because the game is so changed since those days when dynasties were so obvious. If  not. the current Giants are certainly making a bid in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. In days of yore, dynasties were like that, probably because most teams had the same players every year (more or less), so they probably were near the top if they didn't win. I think that requirement can reasonably be dropped in our own time. If not, then dynasties will all be non-existent, for baseball anyway. The Giants have very few players now than they had the first of the three WS wins. The Yankees of the late 90s won WS three times from '96-'99. It might be good to define 'dynasty.' The Yankees won 12 pennants and 9 World Series from '49-'64, a feat that will never be duplicated with the elaborate playoff system that exists today. It's possible that the very term "dynasty" is obsolete and should be retired because the game is so changed since those days when dynasties were so obvious. If  not. the current Giants are certainly making a bid in that direction.

 

I don't agree with DGF as it relates to 'You've also got to be close to the top in the years you don't win the championship' as it relates a team being a dynasty.      While I don't have a fixed formula definition of dynasty,  to me if one wins over 50% of the championships over a time period,  they are clearly making a bid in that direction (and maybe already there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. In days of yore, dynasties were like that, probably because most teams had the same players every year (more or less), so they probably were near the top if they didn't win. I think that requirement can reasonably be dropped in our own time. If not, then dynasties will all be non-existent, for baseball anyway. The Giants have very few players now than they had the first of the three WS wins. The Yankees of the late 90s won WS three times from '96-'99. It might be good to define 'dynasty.' The Yankees won 12 pennants and 9 World Series from '49-'64, a feat that will never be duplicated with the elaborate playoff system that exists today. It's possible that the very term "dynasty" is obsolete and should be retired because the game is so changed since those days when dynasties were so obvious. If  not. the current Giants are certainly making a bid in that direction.

Interestingly, on this morning's "Mike and Mike", they were talking about the best active coaches. The 3 Pro coaches mentioned were Belicheck, Popovich, and Bochy, of the Patriots, Spurs, and Giants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the recent deaths of three sports figures I became familiar about in my childhood (Ernie Banks, Billy Casper, Dean Smith), I was struck by the coincidental fact that all of them were 83 years old at the time of their passing!  Now, I'm sort of ambivalent about the "deaths come in threes" theory.  Sometimes it seems to happen and sometimes it doesn't, but the fact that these three who would be pretty well known by any sports fan of a particular age, died within days of each other and shared the same age is kinda, well, eery  :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...