I lost interest in watching sports when I reached about 17 or 18. I've been watching the Lions play this season and getting some enjoyment out of it, though.
Printable View
I lost interest in watching sports when I reached about 17 or 18. I've been watching the Lions play this season and getting some enjoyment out of it, though.
Yes. It would certainly increase my interest. Teams that are behind would be forced to get back into the game with excellent play and not by turning the contest into a snail-paced farce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezee E
I'm with Al Pacino. Television ruined sports.
I'm thinking about that idea more, and while it certainly would make the losing team have to work harder for the win, I think the drama would actually lessen as tams would be able to just simply hold onto the ball more. Pass it in easy, and just hold onto the ball. The game would end.
That may be, but "Sports Night" was awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by number8
There are things besides sports that can provide one's life with excitement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watashi
On the contrary, late-game comebacks would almost never happen, and all excitement at the end of a close game would be pretty much gone because the leading team would just hold on to the ball in the corner and dribble it out. Is that really more exciting than watching a guy attempt free-throws under pressure? Is it really more exciting than when said guy inevitably misses the second one and team behind grabs a tough board and sends it to their point guard for one last possession coming down the floor with <10 seconds left? Christ, that's the best part of the game. I'll say it again: intentional fouling at the end of a close game is part of the game and has been for a long-ass time now, and it's not going to change because you have no patience. This 'snail-paced farce' hyperbole is ridiculous. How much basketball have you even watched?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal
Also, KF: there is an enormous difference between fouling at the end of a game because there's not enough time left on the clock for a come-back to be possible otherwise and fouling a sub-50% free-throw shooter in the middle of the second quarter because your defense isn't able to handle what the offense is giving you. A big difference.
I've watched over 30 years of basketball. I don't know what patience has to do with it. It's a sense of fairness. A team that is losing should not be let back into the game simply to make it more exciting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Joe
The reason why basketball rules haven't changed is because people like you buy into this falsely constructed drama as legitimate. It's not. It's a flaw in the sport. You have a fairly interesting sport for 40 minutes or so and then the last 8 turn into something utterly different. The losing team is expected to break the rules in order to have a better chance at winning the game. It makes no sense. No other sport has this problem.
To say that fairness and an expectation that the losing team actually earn its comeback would make the game less exciting is just not true. Perhaps teams would play harder throughout the game if they knew how important it was not to fall behind. All you have to do is look at football. You can't commit a personal foul in football, force the opposing team to kick two 35-yard field goals and then get the ball back with an opportunity to score a touchdown. You can't call a time out and then magically get the ball at the opponent's 40-yard lline without working the ball up the field. You have to earn your points in the same way as you did in the first quarter. And yet, there is no shortage of excitement in football. Basketball is, quite simply, a decent idea for a sport with crippling flaws.
This is not hyperbole. This is an opinion that is different than yours.
Here's your hyperbole. The "snail-paced farce" you're talking about only occurs in the last minute of game-time. At most, it makes up about 10-15 minutes of a 2 1/4-2 1/2 hour game. And then, it's not really "something utterly different"—it's the exact same game, just with more pauses in between the action. And most of that slowness has to do with the time-outs. Even if you got your wish with intentional fouls, do you also suggest not allowing teams to take time outs at the end of games to draw up plays in order to execute most efficiently in the little amount of time left? You can call it an expectation that the players earn the victory themselves. If you've watched basketball for 30 years and you still have this problem, maybe you should consider not watching it. I'm willing to bet that 99% of the players or coaches in the league would disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal
How can you say that teams don't earn their comebacks in basketball, when it happens? The only thing they don't earn is an outright steal, which is presumably what you mean when you say "excellent play," but of course, teams already always go for the steal before they attempt the foul! Sometimes it happens, most of the time it doesn't. Players play hard enough. I, uh, think they realize that it's "important not to fall behind." You make it seem like teams are routinely coming back from 10 point deficits by fouling, or something. "It doesn't matter if we score now, we can always foul in the last minute of the game!" Ridiculous.Quote:
To say that fairness and an expectation that the losing team actually earn its comeback would make the game less exciting is just not true. Perhaps teams would play harder throughout the game if they knew how important it was not to fall behind. All you have to do is look at football. You can't commit a personal foul in football, force the opposing team to kick two 35-yard field goals and then get the ball back with an opportunity to score a touchdown. You can't call a time out and then magically get the ball at the opponent's 40-yard lline without working the ball up the field. You have to earn your points in the same way as you did in the first quarter. And yet, there is no shortage of excitement in football. Basketball is, quite simply, a decent idea for a sport with crippling flaws.
You can't compare completely different sports and expect it to mean anything. Football is, quite simply, a kind of nauseating idea for a sport with crippling flaws. You know how you feel about the last minute of a basketball game? That's how I feel about the entire runtime of a football game. I guess that's what you meant by different opinions.
Now, if you wanted to bring up the refs and how much control they have over the outcome of close games, that might actually be a discussion worth having...
What I love about this thread is that a post about hating sport has evolved into an interesting discussion about the details of a particular sport! Viva la Kitchen Sinko!
As a sports fan in general, all I know is that if I see a basketball game within 6 points in the last 2 minutes, I change the channel.
But you'd watch the 102-84 game? Weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan
I was talking about the big picture - most people don't get invested in sports for the sports alone. If a sport doesn't have an audience, it dies. Or at least - the top level dies... I'm not really interested in the amateur weekend football games and such. There has to be some level of competitiveness involved, whether it's rooting for your local football team against a team from a different city, cheering your national tennis team in the Davis Cup on, or a marathon runner you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Qrazy
As a sports fan in general, all I know is that if I see a basketball game, I change the channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duncan
I know I'm stealing this from somewhere, but it's still true - just start the game at 100-100 and play 5 minutes.
As a non-sports fan in general, the only sport I watch/and play is basketball and on tv solely NBA/WNBA games. I've tried to watch college games multiple times and can't get into the style of play. I watch 99% of the Suns games on tv (the local team) and all the televised Lakers games (my favorite team) and I'll stop and watch a WNBA game when it's on.
The only big change I'd make with the NBA especially after watching the FIBA games last month is I'd switch to that style of referring when it comes to calling fouls. They call less touch fouls and it lets the defense be on more even ground with the offense.
Intentional fouling is ludicrous but gives the league more time for ads and sponsorships, so it will never go away. It's like the two-minute warning.
What's even more ridiculous than intentional fouling is the team calling a timeout after a made basket and being able to advance the ball to halfcourt. For no other reason than to make the game more competitive.
People watch the WNBA?
Sounds to me like the biggest problem with sports is that they have rules.
Pro Wrestling's best matches are when there are no rules. Hmm... You might be right.Quote:
Originally Posted by number8
MJ, you may think my opinion is ridiculous, but you'll notice that multiple people commenting in this thread know what I'm talking about and agree with me. People who are sports fans and watch basketball. The prosecution rests.
Milky Joe is the David Stern of Match Cut.
"This is a non-issue."
I also don't think you should be rewarded a bonus point for taking a longer, lower percentage shot. But I don't expect to be backed up on that one.
I'd watch a game of Calvin Ball.
You're not being rewarded for that. The other team is being penalized for preventing you from taking a shot that could net you an extra point, hence the term foul. You are given free throws, since the defender did not allow you to complete your shooting motion without interfering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinal
A person, to be more specific. I only know of EyesWideOpen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezee E