The Worst Things in Sport
-
A few things have happened in the last few days that I believe are among the absolute worst aspects of sports. Here is a partial list of a some of the worst things in sports:
A. Shootouts. It is an absolute stupid way of deciding a sporting contest. Used mostly in Olympic Hockey and soccer. Shootouts are a freeking gimmick and is no way to decide an important sporting event. The USA has been on both sides of this situation, (like winning last night....and losing before). It is like taking a baseball game into extra innings and then having a home run derby after 10 innings to decide the game. Or having a basketball game decided by a 3 point shooting contest..... Assinine
B. In similar vain, the College Football overtime rules are just as big of a stupid, fooking gimmick. Play football....not this bastardized crap that the colleges do.
C. Vacating wins, titles, awards. This is just an ignorant, vindictive way to punish a team for past transgressions. Like the Louisville thing. They want to vacate their 2013 NCAA title for what reason? Because some assistant coach was bringing poontang into a dorm room....or because one or more of their coaches took some under the table money from Nike or whoever? WTF does that have to do with what happened on the goddamned court in those games? There was no allegation that the integrity of the way the game was played was violated. It was just that someone gave the kids hookers or got some money. NO ONE can ever say that Louisville didn't win that title. The kids playing those games won them fair and square as far as I know.....even if they got blow jobs afterwards or something. And, like Reggie Bush having his Heisman award vacated? Shmuck that....he won it...you can't go back now and undo it. I mean....if someone cheats, fire their asses. I believe Pitino, the AD, the asst. coaches....everyone else is outta there. Fine the school big money. But don't deny the results of the competition on the floor......or deny the award that was given.
D. Tanking games. I understand why this happens....teams think they have to get terrible to get better. But to have teams tank games just for a better draft position is putrid. As I understand it, there may be as many as a third of NBA teams that essentially may be trying to tank games. What a quick way to lose your customer base..........a couple of ways perhaps to stop that: 1. Put EVERY team in the draft lottery. Give the Champion and the teams that go a long way in the playoffs just as much chance to get the higher picks as the bad teams that try not to win. or: 2. Relegation! Just like in English soccer.....If you completely suck butt.....you get to compete in the minor leagues the next season. The bottom 3 teams get to go play in the AAA league. This would be good for all the sports here. Of course, it would mean that the NBA and the NFL would have to develop a minor league similar to what basketball and hockey have. But, it would sure as hell stop the tanking by ownership/management if you knew if you were so bad you would become a minor league team the following year.
So...those are a few of the horrible things about some sports. Feel free to add your own.
-
D*mn who pizzed you off this morning.
Yes those are annoying especially the tanking but in the pros it's the result of being a very high priced business.....can't risk the players for some "meaningless" game, OH screws up the FLs too!!!
And shootouts are to eliminate OT periods #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, yes those have happened, hard on the players.
Vacating titles is so unfair to the players who left their blood, sweat and tears on the field, not fair to the fans either.....jail time for coaches?
-
Regarding tanking for draft position I have always thought the draft position should be on a 3-5 season cumulative record. It would eliminate the Colts scenario of 10+ wins for a decade and then suck for luck.
-
Regarding tanking for draft position I have always thought the draft position should be on a 3-5 season cumulative record. It would eliminate the Colts scenario of 10+ wins for a decade and then suck for luck.
Regarding tanking for draft position I have always thought the draft position should be on a 3-5 season cumulative record. It would eliminate the Colts scenario of 10+ wins for a decade and then suck for luck.
Interesting.
Of course, like I said, Relegation would solve that problem. No sucking for Luck if you're headed for the minors if you do. If we had relegation, the Browns would have been in the minor Leagues for a decade. On the other hand, if you had that.....you would not have owners who only cared about making money and not about winning.
-
Regarding tanking for draft position I have always thought the draft position should be on a 3-5 season cumulative record. It would eliminate the Colts scenario of 10+ wins for a decade and then suck for luck.
Regarding tanking for draft position I have always thought the draft position should be on a 3-5 season cumulative record. It would eliminate the Colts scenario of 10+ wins for a decade and then suck for luck.
But it's how we got the #1 pick two years in a row, I like the current way. From 0-16 to division champs the next year. Save this post.
-
I don't like shootouts, but I don't see any other solution. In soccer, after 120mins of playing time, players are exhausted and at risk of suffering an injury. It has to end some way or another (plus it's a heck of an intense way to decide an eliminatory match). It might not be fair to a team if they "played better". But if you are better, you should simply score more.
Continuing with soccer, I hate there's a lot of diving and complaining to the referees. I've always defended that getting kicked with those boots (or a hit with the elbow to the head on a jump) is really painful and it is a tough sport, but they have reached an embarrasing point exaggerating stuff.
-
I don't like shootouts, but I don't see any other solution. In soccer, after 120mins of playing time, players are exhausted and at risk of suffering an injury. It has to end some way or another (plus it's a heck of an intense way to decide an eliminatory match). It might not be fair to a team if they "played better". But if you are better, you should simply score more.
Continuing with soccer, I hate there's a lot of diving and complaining to the referees. I've always defended that getting kicked with those boots (or a hit with the elbow to the head on a jump) is really painful and it is a tough sport, but they have reached an embarrasing point exaggerating stuff.
I don't like shootouts, but I don't see any other solution. In soccer, after 120mins of playing time, players are exhausted and at risk of suffering an injury. It has to end some way or another (plus it's a heck of an intense way to decide an eliminatory match). It might not be fair to a team if they "played better". But if you are better, you should simply score more.
Continuing with soccer, I hate there's a lot of diving and complaining to the referees. I've always defended that getting kicked with those boots (or a hit with the elbow to the head on a jump) is really painful and it is a tough sport, but they have reached an embarrasing point exaggerating stuff.
Actually.....there is a very easy simple solution to it in soccer: Eliminate the "Offsides" rule. That rule fuyucks up that game sideways and over.
In a shootout....you just have mano a mano...with the goalie against the (not sure what you call it) the "striker" Have those mano a mano matchups during the course of the game organically. Now the offside rule basically says that there must be one defender AND the goalie between a player who is on the offensive. Screw that. Any time it seems that you have something exciting going on....that rule gets called to slow the whole game down. What is that goalie there for....to be a potted plant? If there is a breakaway scoring opportunity.....goddamn it, let it happen. Let the goalie do his job!
I mean....that would be like saying that a football (not futbol) player is not allowed to score a TD unless there is a defender between him and the goal line at all time. Or like the same in basketball...the you could not have a fast break
What do you have to lose by doing this? You would have more scoring, more excitement....more of what you get in the shootouts in the flow of the regular game. Now....soccer is a drag...a boring pile of manure. Eliminate offsides. Over here there were/are "indoor soccer leagues". Played on a smaller surface in an arena. The ball would bounce off the walls and still be in play....and there was no offsides. It was a much faster, more entertaining version of the sport. (I also think there were fewer players "on the pitch").
And FYI....in NHL hockey....at least in the playoffs, there are no "shootouts"....you play til someone scores. Even if it goes to quadruple OT.
As for the "Preening Pansies"....as my English Cousin calls them that you have in soccer....maybe their penalty for that should be a swift kick in the balls.
-
A Snippet of an MISL game....the Cleveland Force. They would often outdraw the Cavaliers.
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball)......... MORE IN LINK.........
*SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball)......... MORE IN LINK.........
*SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball).........
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball).........
SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
For one the game has changed a lot since the 70s, it is much faster paced.
Have you ever heard of HIIT training? It’s an extremely intense form of cardio where you sprint for a short period of time, then jog. Then repeat. Extremely taxing on the CNS. Soccer is like that for 90 minutes straight.
-
B. College OT was much better than the old NFL rules. Now it is just a little better.
C. They cheated in a way to get recruits. Which meant better players. Which meant better on court performance.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
I don't like shootouts, but I don't see any other solution. In soccer, after 120mins of playing time, players are exhausted and at risk of suffering an injury. It has to end some way or another (plus it's a heck of an intense way to decide an eliminatory match). It might not be fair to a team if they "played better". But if you are better, you should simply score more.
Continuing with soccer, I hate there's a lot of diving and complaining to the referees. I've always defended that getting kicked with those boots (or a hit with the elbow to the head on a jump) is really painful and it is a tough sport, but they have reached an embarrasing point exaggerating stuff.
Actually.....there is a very easy simple solution to it in soccer: Eliminate the "Offsides" rule. That rule fuyucks up that game sideways and over.
In a shootout....you just have mano a mano...with the goalie against the (not sure what you call it) the "striker" Have those mano a mano matchups during the course of the game organically. Now the offside rule basically says that there must be one defender AND the goalie between a player who is on the offensive. Screw that. Any time it seems that you have something exciting going on....that rule gets called to slow the whole game down. What is that goalie there for....to be a potted plant? If there is a breakaway scoring opportunity.....goddamn it, let it happen. Let the goalie do his job!
I mean....that would be like saying that a football (not futbol) player is not allowed to score a TD unless there is a defender between him and the goal line at all time. Or like the same in basketball...the you could not have a fast break
What do you have to lose by doing this? You would have more scoring, more excitement....more of what you get in the shootouts in the flow of the regular game. Now....soccer is a drag...a boring pile of manure. Eliminate offsides. Over here there were/are "indoor soccer leagues". Played on a smaller surface in an arena. The ball would bounce off the walls and still be in play....and there was no offsides. It was a much faster, more entertaining version of the sport. (I also think there were fewer players "on the pitch").
And FYI....in NHL hockey....at least in the playoffs, there are no "shootouts"....you play til someone scores. Even if it goes to quadruple OT.
As for the "Preening Pansies"....as my English Cousin calls them that you have in soccer....maybe their penalty for that should be a swift kick in the balls.
Actually.....there is a very easy simple solution to it in soccer: Eliminate the "Offsides" rule. That rule fuyucks up that game sideways and over.
In a shootout....you just have mano a mano...with the goalie against the (not sure what you call it) the "striker" Have those mano a mano matchups during the course of the game organically. Now the offside rule basically says that there must be one defender AND the goalie between a player who is on the offensive. Screw that. Any time it seems that you have something exciting going on....that rule gets called to slow the whole game down. What is that goalie there for....to be a potted plant? If there is a breakaway scoring opportunity.....goddamn it, let it happen. Let the goalie do his job!
I mean....that would be like saying that a football (not futbol) player is not allowed to score a TD unless there is a defender between him and the goal line at all time. Or like the same in basketball...the you could not have a fast break
What do you have to lose by doing this? You would have more scoring, more excitement....more of what you get in the shootouts in the flow of the regular game. Now....soccer is a drag...a boring pile of manure. Eliminate offsides.
The offsides was invented because if you eliminate offsides, you have 20 people in a 80-100 meters, whereas with offsides you have 20 players in 60 meters (considering the goalkeepers stay in the goals)
That makes a huge difference, because without offsides most of the game would consist on 'covering the distance' with the rival's defense waiting and no midfield, and playing in a smaller area (but being able to make a deep pass behind the defense) makes more important strategy, positioning and sprinting.
I tell you this because I feel like your reasoning is the following: "I've seen offsides that have prevented an offensive action from happening, thus if there was no offsides, I would have seen more offense." And that's not correct at all, because it assumes that the defense would play the same way, when in fact it wouldn't.
I have to say that I love both football and soccer and it is all about the mindset and pacing. I have to switch my mindset when watching one or another because they are really very different in the pacing. For a soccer fan (including me when I started watching football) it is HORRENDOUS the amount of pauses there is on football. It takes 3 and a half hours for 20 minutes of playing time.
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball)......... MORE IN LINK.........
*SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
Nowadays, midfielders (who are the ones that cover a bigger area of the field) cover between 10,000-12,000 meters, defenders 8,000. I won't check the rest of the data but that stat alone shows that it is outdated.
The thing is not that "no man can play soccer for longer than 120 minutes". The question is that they train and play almost everytime for 90 minutes, so prolonguing the activity it's taking them to 'unknown territory'. They train their body like in any other sports for a specific activity with a specific playing time. After that time, the body plummets.
And I can say that because it makes a huge difference when two teams face each other and one of them has played an OT in the last match. Those extra 30mins make it much harder to recover for the next game.
-
Eh, well a guy once tried to pull that "90 minutes of hell" stuff on me many years back it was during the Olympics or was it the FIFA WC? Doesn't matter I only follow the USA in both -but- so I decided to do my very unscientific study of the USA and other games. GUESS WHAT I discovered most of the guys on one side of the field, goalies included, were standing around waiting while the ball was near the other goal! EUREKA! No 90 minutes of hell.
I also tracked all of the scores (no names) and posted them daily, 0-0, 0-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-1......and the occasional blowout thriller 4-0
Summary: for me at least soccer is boring as hell but probably good exercise. Or recess for big kids. Oh he had no comeback for the 90 minutes thing.
But the hell with me how about a more scientific study: https://www.active.com/soccer/articles/how-far-do-you-run-during-a-soccer-game-872900
.......The first time-motion study over a full season was done on Everton FC (Liverpool, England) in the mid 1970s and the estimated distance covered was just under 8,800 meters per game.
Movement speeds were walking, jogging, cruising ('running with manifest purpose and effort'), sprinting and backing.
About 2/3 of the distance was covered at the low intensities of walking and jogging and around 800 meters sprinting in numerous short 10-40 meter bursts.
A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball).........
..........A player was in control of the ball for an average of 200 meters for a whopping total of 90 seconds (that means you spend 88.5 minutes trying to get or keep someone from getting the ball).........
SO don't try and confuse soccer with running any marathon regardless of the distance, naturally. And we won't compare it to baseball either which is close to birdwatching.
For one the game has changed a lot since the 70s, it is much faster paced.
Have you ever heard of HIIT training? It’s an extremely intense form of cardio where you sprint for a short period of time, then jog. Then repeat. Extremely taxing on the CNS. Soccer is like that for 90 minutes straight.
For one the game has changed a lot since the 70s, it is much faster paced.
Have you ever heard of HIIT training? It’s an extremely intense form of cardio where you sprint for a short period of time, then jog. Then repeat. Extremely taxing on the CNS. Soccer is like that for 90 minutes straight.
I'll agree most all if not all major sports have changed from the 70s, 80s even 90s from rule tinkering to the nutrition, conditioning, coaching, training and overall performance of the current athletes from high school on up.
The dimensions of the fields may be the same but it is a different game.
-
Do away with refs and umps altogether. Let the players call the games as they play. They all know when they have been fouled, held, thrown out, or clipped. Players would all simply be on the honor system to call only the obvious fouls. In baseball, catchers would call balls and strikes and i am sure they would be more accurate and consistent.
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
I played competitive hockey and no offsides would be worse there than in soccer. I'll explain later.
-
I don't understand why a tie can't be a valid outcome. Sure it sucks. Losing sucks too. Some kids play sports without keeping score. Then they're taught that there MUST be a winner or loser.
No wonder people get confused easily anymore.
-
I don't understand why a tie can't be a valid outcome. Sure it sucks. Losing sucks too. Some kids play sports without keeping score. Then they're taught that there MUST be a winner or loser.
No wonder people get confused easily anymore.
I don't understand why a tie can't be a valid outcome. Sure it sucks. Losing sucks too. Some kids play sports without keeping score. Then they're taught that there MUST be a winner or loser.
No wonder people get confused easily anymore.
"A tie is like kissing your sister"
At various times attributed to Duffy Daugherty, Bear Bryant and Darrell Royal
(Of course in Arkansas this is a turn on)-
-
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Soccer needs shootouts. After 90+ minutes of continuously running, and an additional 30+ minutes of overtime it starts to get dangerous. This is coming from a lifelong competitive soccer player.
Don’t know enough about hockey to comment on it.
Then let the "shootouts" come naturally within the course of the game. Allow the fielders to attack the goal without worrying that he has to make sure that some slower less skilled defender is in between him and the goal.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login