15 replies to this topic

[NewMarketSean]

I can't see how they are, but I guess they are?

 

High profile, winning teams bring audiences, whether it's to watch them lose, or watch them win.

 

High profile, winning teams also create bandwagon fans who provide eyeballs.

 

The media goes overboard to follow these teams, even agonizing over the smallest detail surrounding them. But, then again, they provide ratings.

 

The NBA was never more popular (it seemed) than when Jordan was winning titles. I guess there was some of that with the Lakers and Bryant. Seems to be some of that with LeBron and now the Warriors.

 

Everyone knows baseball is better when the MFY are winning titles.

 

And if someone disagrees, they're bitter. They're jealous.

 

It's not so much that I want MY team to win more titles -- who doesn't -- it's just that I want to see DIFFERENT teams win every now and then. Having these same teams win all the time is like watching another Stark get butchered on Game of Thrones. We get it. They're good. We should be excited and thrilled to witness greatness. Sorry for not being excited and thrilled.

 

I'm exhausted by the Patriots. Beaten into a submission. I'm tired and I'm sore from their winning. It's boring. I don't care anymore. I can't even root against them because it's become useless. I felt the same way about the Yankees back in the 90's and 00's. The Red Sox are getting back there too.

 

I'm also over all the hyperbole and story lines. I wish the world would just unite and forget SB51 even happened. The Patriots coming back down from 28-3 is not "shocking" or even "exciting". It's predictable. Tom Brady is the GOAT. Of course he would bring them back to win. The Falcons doing that to the Patriots? That's exciting. That's shocking. The Giants beating the Patriots when they were 16-0 and needing a crazy Eli Manning avoiding sacks and throwing a prayer to David Tyree who catches the ball on his helmet? That's shocking and exciting. This was par for the course.

 

Anyone else agree? Or am I just bitter?

 

Bump this thread when the Red Sox win the WS and when the Patriots win the next 5 Super Bowls.

[bnickle]

You're full on Trea circa 2009 with this Pats/Boston stuff. Entertaing though.

[NewMarketSean]

You're full on Trea circa 2009 with this Pats/Boston stuff. Entertaing though.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

[Mike B]

I really  lose no sleep over the Patriots or anyone else winning consistently.  I hate New England more because I hate their arrogant fans.

All that said, what happened yesterday was just unbelievable.  Brady is terrific..that can not be denied, but I read an article saying he played the greatest game ever.  I will grant that he played the greatest 20 minutes ever, he was magnificent, but the first 40 minutes of the game, frankly he was mediocre.

The hype of the dynasty is what makes non dynasty fans aggravated.

Excellence in sports is rarely achieved, so good for them.

[NewMarketSean]

I really  lose no sleep over the Patriots or anyone else winning consistently.  I hate New England more because I hate their arrogant fans.

All that said, what happened yesterday was just unbelievable.  Brady is terrific..that can not be denied, but I read an article saying he played the greatest game ever.  I will grant that he played the greatest 20 minutes ever, he was magnificent, but the first 40 minutes of the game, frankly he was mediocre.

The hype of the dynasty and the media over exaggeration, IMO, is what is bad for the sport.  

 

Maybe I need some perspective. Maybe it's too soon.

 

But it was just another "Brady being Brady" example to me. The guy could have hunted down and killed OBL with his bare hands and I would have shrugged.

[Mike B]

I know nothing about women's BBall, but the dynasty of UConn, has elevated the game some.  As the winning streak of the UConn women grows, the woman's game gets some notice.  That is good for their sport.

[BaltBird 24]

It's all fixed. 

[SportsGuy]

I think they are great for sports.

[NewMarketSean]

I think they are great for sports.

Says the Duke fan.

[Mike in STL]

Dynastys are good when accomplished a certain way. I don't think there are many ill things you could say about the 70s Steelers, or 80s 49ers, or the Vince Lombardi Packers. But when your dynasty is built on cheating and lying and conspiracy... Well, the only way that's good is it makes for good vs. evil. Which is good for movies. Doesn't have to be present in sport.

[mweb08]

The NBA is an interesting example of this. Some say there is no point of watching it until deep into the playoffs because the Finals matchup seems pretty much destined to happen. However, the 80's featuring the Lakers-Celtics rivalry is often considered the heyday of the league even though for a stretch, those teams were pretty much like the Warriors and Cavs now. The Bulls title run as Sean mentioned is also a time people look back on fondly despite how likely it was that they would win each year.

 

So it does seem like dynasties have been good for the NBA, but at the same time, some complain about their effect on the regular season and even much of the playoffs, and there are actually people who fall into both of those groups. 

 

I think more variance is better for regular seasons and probably better in the short-term in general, but dynasties are remembered more fondly and discussed more fervently. 

[NewMarketSean]

I guess people will look back at the Patriots dynasty as the good old days when teams like the Lions and Texans win a title and no one cares. Like you said, they do it with the Lakers, Bulls, Niners and Cowboys. I guess many people think these are the good days, with the same teams winning each year and Brady setting records. I know Ken Rosenthal probably does when he was berating fans for wanting someone other than the Yankees or Red Sox in the WS when it was Texas/Giants in 2010.

 

I just don't know how it's great for the whole sport when you've got 2-3 teams winning titles each year with 28 or so other teams and their fans with basically no chance. Sure, the title games get eyeballs and the media loves to hype up the dynasty teams, but I don't see how that is great for everyone else.

[SportsGuy]

Says the Duke fan.

But also says the hater of the Red Sox, Yanks and Pats.

Whether it's an individual or a team, dynasties make sports...people want that "bad guy".

[RShack]

But also says the hater of the Red Sox, Yanks and Pats.

Whether it's an individual or a team, dynasties make sports...people want that "bad guy".

I agree with that, but I don't think each dynasty should last very long... long enough for people to expect them to win and maybe hate them for it... but after a period of that, there oughta be a phase when they get knocked off their high horse enough to get humbled... meanwhile somebody else gets a turn...


p.s. Back when the Orioles were good all the time, they didn't generate much hate... much more respect than hate... people mainly thought they were just very, very good... and they played the game right...

The characters who comprised the big names made them much more respect-worthy than hate-worthy... Brooks, Frank, Palmer, Boog, etc... who's gonna say something bad about them? Almost nobody, even at the time... (except for Earl... but even he was more of an entertaining character than he was hate-worthy... he just got on some peoples' nerves... plus, they loved booing him when he had a fit in their ballpark).

[NewMarketSean]

But also says the hater of the Red Sox, Yanks and Pats. Whether it's an individual or a team, dynasties make sports...people want that "bad guy".

I agree with that, but I don't think each dynasty should last very long... long enough for people to expect them to win and maybe hate them for it... but after a period of that, there oughta be a phase when they get knocked off their high horse enough to get humbled... meanwhile somebody else gets a turn... p.s. Back when the Orioles were good all the time, they didn't generate much hate... much more respect than hate... people mainly thought they were just very, very good... and they played the game right... The characters who comprised the big names made them much more respect-worthy than hate-worthy... Brooks, Frank, Palmer, Boog, etc... who's gonna say something bad about them? Almost nobody, even at the time... (except for Earl... but even he was more of an entertaining character than he was hate-worthy... he just got on some peoples' nerves... plus, they loved booing him when he had a fit in their ballpark).

It was probably a lot harder to hate teams back then, when they weren't on national tv every night and the sports media were slobbering over them. But I bet Weaver annoyed a lot of other teams fans. Re: the Pats, they're just so easy to despise, for so many different reasons. Combine that with being equally good, and that's why I hate them more than any other team.

[RShack]

It was probably a lot harder to hate teams back then, when they weren't on national tv every night and the sports media were slobbering over them.