Monday, November 19, 2007
Being the bully (no Ultimate content)
Disclaimer: My two favorite teams are the Redskins (remember 52-7?) and Indianapolis. I have argued (and continue to argue) for Manning in the endless Manning vs. Brady debates. I pretty much hate the Pats, although I certainly admire them.
So... the 10-0 Patriots are running up the score. Everybody's favorite Monday morning water cooler topic, it seems. So, what up?
Firstly - the argument that they are running up the score because "you gotta play your starters for three quarters" is bullshit, plain and simple. Belichick is a very smart guy and has a well documented history of behaving in unconventional ways (going for it on 4th all the time, drastically differing schemes for different games, using players both ways, using more starters on special teams, et cetera) and would have absolutely no problem rolling out the second string in the third quarter if that was what he thought was best for his team.
Furthermore, there's an obvious reason why he should roll out the reserves - injuries. You have to look no further than the arch-rival Colts, whose chance to derail the Patriots year of destiny seems to have shattered along with Dwight Freeney's midfoot (and a tidal wave of other injuries). They looked nearly as spectacular as the Patriots when they were dismantling Jacksonville 5 weeks ago, but now they are playing a 6th string tackle and can barely eke out victories against average teams. Injuries are a fact of life in the NFL, and aside from a few relatively unimportant players, the Patriots have skirted them so far. The earlier you get your key guys off the field, the less risk you incur.
Add to the concern that, if anything, the risk of injury is even greater in a blowout. It's easy to imagine a Jets defender diving into Randy Moss's knees when he makes a catch with a 40 point lead. (And holy crap, what a shit storm that would cause.)
The reality, which seems blatantly obvious to me, is that Belichick and the Patriots have made a conscious decision to run up the score, in spite of at least one very good reason to not do so. The question then becomes, why did they make that choice? As I see it, there are two reasons, one for the other team, and the other for the Patriots.
1) Intimidation. It works, plain and simple. It's psychological warfare. Not for the game they are playing, which is already effectively over, but for the next game and the game after that. Most teams have already lost the game in their minds when they take the field against the Pats. They aren't playing to win; they just don't want to be embarrassed. It's an extra edge, and if there's anything we know about Belichick, it's that he is always looking for an extra edge, no matter how much of an edge he already has.
2) The legacy. These Patriots want all the records. They want Brady to shatter (not just break, but shatter) Manning's TD record and passer rating record. They want Moss to break Rice's receiving TD record. They want to break the record for most points by a team in a season. They want to break the record for average margin of victory. They want to be the first team to go 19-0.
Here's the thing: why the heck not? Why should they settle for winning games by 20, resting the starters and losing their last game, and just taking home the title without extra fanfare? If you had already won 3 titles in the last six years, and you had a chance to put a giant stamp on the history books, so that nobody would EVER forget to mention your team when they discussed the all-time greats, then why wouldn't you? Why should they feel bad about this?
I know that if I was a Pats fan, I'd be loving every garbage time toss to Moss. I know that I wish Peyton had piled on another 10 TDs on his record in 2004. If you don't think he could have, look at the game logs. Only 1 of the 49 could be reasonably considered a garbage time throw. He didn't play the second half in the blowouts. I guess he really didn't care about the individual stuff that much. But these Patriots, as a team, clearly do. They consider the numbers to be part of their legacy.
Belichick, a football history buff himself, recognizes this and plays into it. He does pull the starters, but only after they have put the exclamation point on the game and he's past the point of having even the slightest argument that they're not running up the score. There have been some pretty hilarious press conferences this year where Belichick has tried to argue that they weren't piling on.
I guess this is really the only thing about the situation that annoys me (other than the fact that it's a team I generally root against) - the denials and the fact that they are taken seriously. I wouldn't expect Belichick to do anything other than dodge the question, as that's the best way to minimize scrutiny. I just don't know why the media either questions whether they are running up the the score (they clearly are), or questions why they are (the two reasons above).
I think both of the reasons they are running it up invite criticism - nobody likes a bully, and you're "supposed" to only care about winning as oppose to stats. But again, if I were a Pats fan, I'd be loving it.
So... the 10-0 Patriots are running up the score. Everybody's favorite Monday morning water cooler topic, it seems. So, what up?
Firstly - the argument that they are running up the score because "you gotta play your starters for three quarters" is bullshit, plain and simple. Belichick is a very smart guy and has a well documented history of behaving in unconventional ways (going for it on 4th all the time, drastically differing schemes for different games, using players both ways, using more starters on special teams, et cetera) and would have absolutely no problem rolling out the second string in the third quarter if that was what he thought was best for his team.
Furthermore, there's an obvious reason why he should roll out the reserves - injuries. You have to look no further than the arch-rival Colts, whose chance to derail the Patriots year of destiny seems to have shattered along with Dwight Freeney's midfoot (and a tidal wave of other injuries). They looked nearly as spectacular as the Patriots when they were dismantling Jacksonville 5 weeks ago, but now they are playing a 6th string tackle and can barely eke out victories against average teams. Injuries are a fact of life in the NFL, and aside from a few relatively unimportant players, the Patriots have skirted them so far. The earlier you get your key guys off the field, the less risk you incur.
Add to the concern that, if anything, the risk of injury is even greater in a blowout. It's easy to imagine a Jets defender diving into Randy Moss's knees when he makes a catch with a 40 point lead. (And holy crap, what a shit storm that would cause.)
The reality, which seems blatantly obvious to me, is that Belichick and the Patriots have made a conscious decision to run up the score, in spite of at least one very good reason to not do so. The question then becomes, why did they make that choice? As I see it, there are two reasons, one for the other team, and the other for the Patriots.
1) Intimidation. It works, plain and simple. It's psychological warfare. Not for the game they are playing, which is already effectively over, but for the next game and the game after that. Most teams have already lost the game in their minds when they take the field against the Pats. They aren't playing to win; they just don't want to be embarrassed. It's an extra edge, and if there's anything we know about Belichick, it's that he is always looking for an extra edge, no matter how much of an edge he already has.
2) The legacy. These Patriots want all the records. They want Brady to shatter (not just break, but shatter) Manning's TD record and passer rating record. They want Moss to break Rice's receiving TD record. They want to break the record for most points by a team in a season. They want to break the record for average margin of victory. They want to be the first team to go 19-0.
Here's the thing: why the heck not? Why should they settle for winning games by 20, resting the starters and losing their last game, and just taking home the title without extra fanfare? If you had already won 3 titles in the last six years, and you had a chance to put a giant stamp on the history books, so that nobody would EVER forget to mention your team when they discussed the all-time greats, then why wouldn't you? Why should they feel bad about this?
I know that if I was a Pats fan, I'd be loving every garbage time toss to Moss. I know that I wish Peyton had piled on another 10 TDs on his record in 2004. If you don't think he could have, look at the game logs. Only 1 of the 49 could be reasonably considered a garbage time throw. He didn't play the second half in the blowouts. I guess he really didn't care about the individual stuff that much. But these Patriots, as a team, clearly do. They consider the numbers to be part of their legacy.
Belichick, a football history buff himself, recognizes this and plays into it. He does pull the starters, but only after they have put the exclamation point on the game and he's past the point of having even the slightest argument that they're not running up the score. There have been some pretty hilarious press conferences this year where Belichick has tried to argue that they weren't piling on.
I guess this is really the only thing about the situation that annoys me (other than the fact that it's a team I generally root against) - the denials and the fact that they are taken seriously. I wouldn't expect Belichick to do anything other than dodge the question, as that's the best way to minimize scrutiny. I just don't know why the media either questions whether they are running up the the score (they clearly are), or questions why they are (the two reasons above).
I think both of the reasons they are running it up invite criticism - nobody likes a bully, and you're "supposed" to only care about winning as oppose to stats. But again, if I were a Pats fan, I'd be loving it.
# posted by Tarr : 11/19/2007 09:38:00 PM
Comments:
Among the major US sports, the natural level of parity between the best team and the worst team is football>basketball>hockey>baseball. The idea of the Reds beating the Red Sox in a given game is totally believable, but the Niners beating the Pats, even if they had 10 tries, seems almost impossible to imagine.
Not really related to the point, where do you think ultimate falls on this spectrum? I'd say somewhere between football and basketball.
One should also consider the possibility that Belichick considers the controversy a positive - more bulletin board material, for a team known to thrive on it.
<< Home
I don't break down game film quite enough to state this decidedly, but there's probably a third reason: misdirection.
It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the Pats deliberately run plays in garbage time as a smokescreen for the following week.
It's true that more time on the field heightens risk of injury, but by how much? I wonder how much the risk decreases when the intensity of the game declines (as it does with a 4 TD lead). Informal review of my off-the-top-of-my-head data reveals that key injuries happen far more often when guys are fighting for that extra 7 feet to the first down marker than during the casual drive to extend the lead to 5 TDs.
I'm with Belichick on this one. Go ahead and encourage the players to do something special, while only slightly increasing the possibility of a key injury. Hang the carrot or risk losing players to an equally impairing condition: boredom.
It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the Pats deliberately run plays in garbage time as a smokescreen for the following week.
It's true that more time on the field heightens risk of injury, but by how much? I wonder how much the risk decreases when the intensity of the game declines (as it does with a 4 TD lead). Informal review of my off-the-top-of-my-head data reveals that key injuries happen far more often when guys are fighting for that extra 7 feet to the first down marker than during the casual drive to extend the lead to 5 TDs.
I'm with Belichick on this one. Go ahead and encourage the players to do something special, while only slightly increasing the possibility of a key injury. Hang the carrot or risk losing players to an equally impairing condition: boredom.
You think that the "casual drive" is less injury prone, I think there's an increased risk of a pissed-off defender taking a cheap shot. Either of us could be right, but I don't think either factor is extremely large. We can probably safely approximate the heightened risk of injury by how much longer they were out there. So, if they were on the field for 80% of the game in stead of 50%, that's a 60% increase in injury risk.
I've heard the smokescreen argument before, and I think it's crap for several reasons:
- Belichick changes game plans more from game to game than any coach in the league. Anyone who read anything into what they were doing differently in the fourth quarter is just not paying attention.
- Moreover, it's simply against Belichick's nature to give more information. He's all about denying the opponents any clue about game plans. Note the injury report games the Patriots play.
- What the Pats are doing on offense is not really that complex anyway, it's basically "we've got too many weapons in the passing game; we'll take the one you give us". I'm not trying to denigrate their offense at all, I'm just saying that it's not based on a whole mess of trick plays that you scheme for as a defensive coach.
I've heard the smokescreen argument before, and I think it's crap for several reasons:
- Belichick changes game plans more from game to game than any coach in the league. Anyone who read anything into what they were doing differently in the fourth quarter is just not paying attention.
- Moreover, it's simply against Belichick's nature to give more information. He's all about denying the opponents any clue about game plans. Note the injury report games the Patriots play.
- What the Pats are doing on offense is not really that complex anyway, it's basically "we've got too many weapons in the passing game; we'll take the one you give us". I'm not trying to denigrate their offense at all, I'm just saying that it's not based on a whole mess of trick plays that you scheme for as a defensive coach.
There's one other reason, also psychological.
1. Running up the score makes you feel superior to the teams you pay against.
2. Belichek tears his players down every week.
You need to have a way to release that steam. To feel good about everything. To feel like what you're doing is still fun. You can see that the Patriots are having fun, even as they joke and talk about how touch Belichek is, they're smiling and slapping fives and grinning every weekend.
It's like when you play at fun tournaments like Poultry Days or Fool's Fest or whatever and you're on one of the good-ass teams. You can do whatever you want to score 15 points. You'll have a great time. the only difference is that with Belicheck you don't HAVE to keep scoring, whereas in ultimate you do. But scoring is FUN. Go score more goals. Put more points up. It truly is just MORE FUN. Celebrate your achievements.
And for such a brutal sport, I can't really argue with that. I would need to have fun too.
On the ohter hand, if you look at it from teh standard prespective, he's just a jerk-off coach on a jerk-off team. I'll wager that the reason no one takes cheap-shots is because on the inside every player wishes he was on the patriots and doesn't want to ruin his chances.
Doesn't everyone on that team look like they're having a blast? Don't you think you'd want to be on that team? Training so hard and getting so much back? I know I would.
1. Running up the score makes you feel superior to the teams you pay against.
2. Belichek tears his players down every week.
You need to have a way to release that steam. To feel good about everything. To feel like what you're doing is still fun. You can see that the Patriots are having fun, even as they joke and talk about how touch Belichek is, they're smiling and slapping fives and grinning every weekend.
It's like when you play at fun tournaments like Poultry Days or Fool's Fest or whatever and you're on one of the good-ass teams. You can do whatever you want to score 15 points. You'll have a great time. the only difference is that with Belicheck you don't HAVE to keep scoring, whereas in ultimate you do. But scoring is FUN. Go score more goals. Put more points up. It truly is just MORE FUN. Celebrate your achievements.
And for such a brutal sport, I can't really argue with that. I would need to have fun too.
On the ohter hand, if you look at it from teh standard prespective, he's just a jerk-off coach on a jerk-off team. I'll wager that the reason no one takes cheap-shots is because on the inside every player wishes he was on the patriots and doesn't want to ruin his chances.
Doesn't everyone on that team look like they're having a blast? Don't you think you'd want to be on that team? Training so hard and getting so much back? I know I would.
Good point, that's probably a factor as well. In some sense, Belichick's demanding attitude almost requires that they run up the score if they can.
It's certainly fun to score more, and moreover it's just hard to turn the competitive switch off as long as you're playing. I know that if I'm up 13-1 in a league game, I still want to deny every scoring chance and play good offense. This remains true even if the cap is approaching and we could win by repeatedly dropping the pull and taking 70. It's just the way competitive athletes are wired.
Of course, the way to avoid this is to pull your starters, and the "standard perspective" is that you do this if you are sportsmanlike. The Patriots, basically, are not sportsmanlike, and are generally conducting themselves like jerks. I guess part of the point of my post was that I don't really care that they are acting like this, and if I rooted for the Pats, I would actively support it.
I mean, it's great that some players really DO only care about winning, and have chivalrous feelings of mercy when a game is out of reach. I think it's sweet that Addai doesn't celebrate touchdowns until the offensive line catches up to him. I just think that we should accept human nature and realize that most people like the individual accomplishments too. LT wanted to score every last SD touchdown last year. Why not? Is it so wrong to want the record? I don't think so.
I'm not sure I know why the cheap shots haven't been coming, but I doubt desire to get picked up by the Pats is a large factor. I'd guess that the culture of the NFL discourages it, both between the players and through league fines/suspensions.
It's certainly fun to score more, and moreover it's just hard to turn the competitive switch off as long as you're playing. I know that if I'm up 13-1 in a league game, I still want to deny every scoring chance and play good offense. This remains true even if the cap is approaching and we could win by repeatedly dropping the pull and taking 70. It's just the way competitive athletes are wired.
Of course, the way to avoid this is to pull your starters, and the "standard perspective" is that you do this if you are sportsmanlike. The Patriots, basically, are not sportsmanlike, and are generally conducting themselves like jerks. I guess part of the point of my post was that I don't really care that they are acting like this, and if I rooted for the Pats, I would actively support it.
I mean, it's great that some players really DO only care about winning, and have chivalrous feelings of mercy when a game is out of reach. I think it's sweet that Addai doesn't celebrate touchdowns until the offensive line catches up to him. I just think that we should accept human nature and realize that most people like the individual accomplishments too. LT wanted to score every last SD touchdown last year. Why not? Is it so wrong to want the record? I don't think so.
I'm not sure I know why the cheap shots haven't been coming, but I doubt desire to get picked up by the Pats is a large factor. I'd guess that the culture of the NFL discourages it, both between the players and through league fines/suspensions.
I think the other factor is practice. Even though the Bills aren't as good as the Patriots, they're much better than the Patriots' scout team, or probably even than the Patriots' defense plays in practice. So going for it on 4th and 1 is practice for when it's important, better practice than doing it on Wednesday.
We can see this in ultimate too. When a good team is at Regionals, in the first game of the bracket, they don't stop trying when they're up 10-2. You can't lose focus, and you have to continue to get better.
I should confess at this point that I'm a Pats fan, and that I was disappointed that they didn't let the 2nd stringers go for it on 4th down at the end of the game. I think that's an indication that Belichick isn't doing it for intimidation, because wouldn't it be more intimidating to keep marching it down the field, even with your second (or third) string?
We can see this in ultimate too. When a good team is at Regionals, in the first game of the bracket, they don't stop trying when they're up 10-2. You can't lose focus, and you have to continue to get better.
I should confess at this point that I'm a Pats fan, and that I was disappointed that they didn't let the 2nd stringers go for it on 4th down at the end of the game. I think that's an indication that Belichick isn't doing it for intimidation, because wouldn't it be more intimidating to keep marching it down the field, even with your second (or third) string?
I've heard the "practice" argument before, and I hold it in roughly equal esteem to the "misdirection" argument - that is, I think it is more or less a load of crap. As far as practice goes, NFL teams have seperate offensive and defensive teams. They can practice in full pads against each other as much as they like. Of course they reduce full pad practices during the season, to reduce injury risk and wear and tear, but that's sort of my point.
Running up the score against an overmatched defense late in the game is not really much of a practice for the Patriots. It's somewhat analagous to an elite teams in ultimate finishing out the near-shutouts against the lousy teams at sectionals. Most of these teams regard those games as a waste of time where they could be practicing in stead, against themselves.
I agree that you can't "stop trying" when you are on the field. That's why you pull the starters. It's silly that some commentators take issue with the fourth down attempts or the deep throws or the like. You can't expect the Pats to avoid calling the best plays for a given situation when they are out there. The only way you let up on a team is by putting in the second string.
I don't think NOT going for it on fourth down with the second team means anything, other than Belichick thinking that there was a pretty good chance that they wouldn't make it.
Running up the score against an overmatched defense late in the game is not really much of a practice for the Patriots. It's somewhat analagous to an elite teams in ultimate finishing out the near-shutouts against the lousy teams at sectionals. Most of these teams regard those games as a waste of time where they could be practicing in stead, against themselves.
I agree that you can't "stop trying" when you are on the field. That's why you pull the starters. It's silly that some commentators take issue with the fourth down attempts or the deep throws or the like. You can't expect the Pats to avoid calling the best plays for a given situation when they are out there. The only way you let up on a team is by putting in the second string.
I don't think NOT going for it on fourth down with the second team means anything, other than Belichick thinking that there was a pretty good chance that they wouldn't make it.
Running up the score against an overmatched defense late in the game is not really much of a practice for the Patriots. It's somewhat analagous to an elite teams in ultimate finishing out the near-shutouts against the lousy teams at sectionals. Most of these teams regard those games as a waste of time where they could be practicing in stead, against themselves.
I think this is overestimating the Patriots. For example, at Sectionals this year, Boston Ultimate played the finals against a team (New Noise) that was composed entirely of people who wouldn't make Boston. And that game was closer than the other games Boston played, and they seemed to be taking it seriously. The blowouts are against teams with a much larger disparity of talent.
Compare this to the situation with the Pats/Bills game (or the Pats/Cowboys game, perhaps). A significant percentage of the Bills are good enough to play for the Patriots, just because that's how the NFL is structured. So I think the argument that it couldn't be practice isn't as strong as you make it out to be.
I think this is overestimating the Patriots. For example, at Sectionals this year, Boston Ultimate played the finals against a team (New Noise) that was composed entirely of people who wouldn't make Boston. And that game was closer than the other games Boston played, and they seemed to be taking it seriously. The blowouts are against teams with a much larger disparity of talent.
Compare this to the situation with the Pats/Bills game (or the Pats/Cowboys game, perhaps). A significant percentage of the Bills are good enough to play for the Patriots, just because that's how the NFL is structured. So I think the argument that it couldn't be practice isn't as strong as you make it out to be.
It's certainly true that there is a vastly greater overlap in the talent spread of the Pats and the Bills (and certainly the Pats and the Redskins) than there is between Boston and New Noise. This probably remains true even if we only consider the "starting 28" - i.e. only the guys who play impoirtant time on the starting offense and defense - as that's all that matters in the question of whether to pull the starters or not. There's probably only a handful of Bills who would start for the Pats, but there are some. That said:
- Football and ultimate are emphatically not the same. The dynamic of ultimate, where one team holds the disc and cannot have it physically taken away, allows an inferior team to hang in and collect some O points. In Football, the physically superior team can walk over the physically inferior team, even if the gap is smaller.
Among the major US sports, the natural level of parity between the best team and the worst team is football>basketball>hockey>baseball. The idea of the Reds beating the Red Sox in a given game is totally believable, but the Niners beating the Pats, even if they had 10 tries, seems almost impossible to imagine.
- The Pats defense is as talented as the Redskins defense, and more talented than the defense of every other team they've blown out. So they still get as good or better work in practice.
- That the Pats take the end of the game seriously, as Boston does against New Noise, is not relevant. I consider taking the game seriously a sign of respect, not disrespect. The only question is whether the frontline players should be in there, as oppose to putting in the second string.
The bottom line is that I just don't believe they get any additional sharpness in running their plays by driving for a sixth TD. The only benefits are the psychological ones. And Belichick has decided that these outweigh the physical risks (injury) and the distractions associated with the running up the score controversy.
- Football and ultimate are emphatically not the same. The dynamic of ultimate, where one team holds the disc and cannot have it physically taken away, allows an inferior team to hang in and collect some O points. In Football, the physically superior team can walk over the physically inferior team, even if the gap is smaller.
Among the major US sports, the natural level of parity between the best team and the worst team is football>basketball>hockey>baseball. The idea of the Reds beating the Red Sox in a given game is totally believable, but the Niners beating the Pats, even if they had 10 tries, seems almost impossible to imagine.
- The Pats defense is as talented as the Redskins defense, and more talented than the defense of every other team they've blown out. So they still get as good or better work in practice.
- That the Pats take the end of the game seriously, as Boston does against New Noise, is not relevant. I consider taking the game seriously a sign of respect, not disrespect. The only question is whether the frontline players should be in there, as oppose to putting in the second string.
The bottom line is that I just don't believe they get any additional sharpness in running their plays by driving for a sixth TD. The only benefits are the psychological ones. And Belichick has decided that these outweigh the physical risks (injury) and the distractions associated with the running up the score controversy.
Among the major US sports, the natural level of parity between the best team and the worst team is football>basketball>hockey>baseball. The idea of the Reds beating the Red Sox in a given game is totally believable, but the Niners beating the Pats, even if they had 10 tries, seems almost impossible to imagine.
Not really related to the point, where do you think ultimate falls on this spectrum? I'd say somewhere between football and basketball.
One should also consider the possibility that Belichick considers the controversy a positive - more bulletin board material, for a team known to thrive on it.
I'm not so sure it would be easy to pin down where Ultimate would fit between major US sports in terms of overall parity. It's apples to oranges: none of us are full-time, paid athletes. There are athletically superior players, but as time goes on we'll see the overall athleticism of all teams rise.
But really, there are very few teams that are clearly cut above all the rest. You have to pick a group to look at, which is easy for the other sports--they each have an obvious league composed of the top teams--but not so easy for us. Club Nationals this year arguably did not represent all of the top teams in the country, so I don't think it is very comparable to the NFL or MLB, which certainly comprise the best teams for their sport. Regionals definitely can't compare to the various conferences: you've got college teams making it to the strongest region (Berkeley in NW). There's too much turnover in the teams that compete each year, and not enough "league play" to even determine parity, which is why we so often see upsets.
Even if you tried to compare these things, I think Ultimate as a sport is changing too quickly to get anything useful out of the comparison. The landscape is going to be vastly different in 5 or 10 years, whereas the NFL will still be drafting the top college players, colleges recruiting the top high school players, etc. Ultimate does not yet have that kind of structure, so club teams don't necessarily have the most skillful and experienced players around. You can't play in the MLB without having proven yourself through years of college and league competition, you can't pick up with the local NBA team, and you almost never see the local, athletically gifted dude walk on to the hometown NFL team. In Ultimate, it's possible.
But really, there are very few teams that are clearly cut above all the rest. You have to pick a group to look at, which is easy for the other sports--they each have an obvious league composed of the top teams--but not so easy for us. Club Nationals this year arguably did not represent all of the top teams in the country, so I don't think it is very comparable to the NFL or MLB, which certainly comprise the best teams for their sport. Regionals definitely can't compare to the various conferences: you've got college teams making it to the strongest region (Berkeley in NW). There's too much turnover in the teams that compete each year, and not enough "league play" to even determine parity, which is why we so often see upsets.
Even if you tried to compare these things, I think Ultimate as a sport is changing too quickly to get anything useful out of the comparison. The landscape is going to be vastly different in 5 or 10 years, whereas the NFL will still be drafting the top college players, colleges recruiting the top high school players, etc. Ultimate does not yet have that kind of structure, so club teams don't necessarily have the most skillful and experienced players around. You can't play in the MLB without having proven yourself through years of college and league competition, you can't pick up with the local NBA team, and you almost never see the local, athletically gifted dude walk on to the hometown NFL team. In Ultimate, it's possible.
Sam, good point about using the controversy to breed an "us-against-them" mentality. Belichick is a good motivator and is surely aware of this effect.
As far as Ultimate's place in the parity list - I'd say between basketball and hockey (which is the largest gap on that list). Let's do a 4th vs. 14th analysis, just for kicks. I used some random rankings from the 'net, and the finishing spots at the championship.
Packers vs. Vikings
Celtics vs. Raptors
Goat vs. Doublewide
I'm more confident in picking the winner of the first two than the last one.
As far as Ultimate's place in the parity list - I'd say between basketball and hockey (which is the largest gap on that list). Let's do a 4th vs. 14th analysis, just for kicks. I used some random rankings from the 'net, and the finishing spots at the championship.
Packers vs. Vikings
Celtics vs. Raptors
Goat vs. Doublewide
I'm more confident in picking the winner of the first two than the last one.
And you never revisted your blog to say how sweet it was to see them finish 18-1?! :) Hey Adam, not sure if you will even get this comment, but can you leave me your email address in a comment if you do? Thanks, Kevin
Post a Comment
<< Home
