Poll: Sports, whats your opinion?

[w9496]

I like some sports. I really like football a lot, and boxing is alright too, but I despise soccer, baseball, and basketball.

Not a fan of Rugby either. Reminds me of soccer with hands.

 

[Tropicaz]

Love sports. Play football, used to play rugby before an injury, play basketball.
Love watching sports too, spent hours watching the olympics.

 

[Rawberry101]

Snip Tuesday

ESPN, to me, always seems to be interested in conferences that have powerhouse teams with a history of winning. Since USC had been flagging in strength for the past few years it seemed like the PAC-12 wasn't getting nearly as much attention as the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10. Oregon was great but they haven't been historically great so it seemed like most of the pundits didn't really give them much time or consideration relative to say LSU or Oklahoma. Although part of that was the loss to LSU as far as last year went.

This is the worst thing about college football in my book. If you are not one of the 15 or so teams that ESPN has seen fit to cover, you will not be covered at all for the entire season. College Gameday will never visit you, you will never see one of your players get a special segment, you might be a 30 second "this team was decent last week" mention if you're lucky. You will get shafted in all rankings and bowl appearances regardless of how well you did. Stanford's been lucky enough to be in that group once every couple years, but Stanford's not a "real member" of that group.

Exactly, Stanford finally seemed to be gaining some recognition in football last year. I mean, how many times can you win 10 games and go to a BCS bowl and not be mentioned? Stanford was even ranked in most preseason Top 25 lists this year which is nice. With Andrew Luck at the helm Stanford finally meant something in the rankings. Although without him I doubt we'll get much coverage unless we can beat USC and Oregon. ESPN is a cancer on college football and I could go into a long list of things they are doing that are changing the sport for the worse, but I'll save that for another day.

I'm curious, what college football team(s) do you follow?

 

[Launcelot111]

Snip Tuesday

ESPN, to me, always seems to be interested in conferences that have powerhouse teams with a history of winning. Since USC had been flagging in strength for the past few years it seemed like the PAC-12 wasn't getting nearly as much attention as the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10. Oregon was great but they haven't been historically great so it seemed like most of the pundits didn't really give them much time or consideration relative to say LSU or Oklahoma. Although part of that was the loss to LSU as far as last year went.

This is the worst thing about college football in my book. If you are not one of the 15 or so teams that ESPN has seen fit to cover, you will not be covered at all for the entire season. College Gameday will never visit you, you will never see one of your players get a special segment, you might be a 30 second "this team was decent last week" mention if you're lucky. You will get shafted in all rankings and bowl appearances regardless of how well you did. Stanford's been lucky enough to be in that group once every couple years, but Stanford's not a "real member" of that group.

Exactly, Stanford finally seemed to be gaining some recognition in football last year. I mean, how many times can you win 10 games and go to a BCS bowl and not be mentioned? Stanford was even ranked in most preseason Top 25 lists this year which is nice. With Andrew Luck at the helm Stanford finally meant something in the rankings. Although without him I doubt we'll get much coverage unless we can beat USC and Oregon. ESPN is a cancer on college football and I could go into a long list of things they are doing that are changing the sport for the worse, but I'll save that for another day.

I'm curious, what college football team(s) do you follow?

Virginia and Northwestern for various reasons. Both are exceedingly solid programs who make mid-level bowl games semi-regularly, but they're non-factors in BCS standings, so I'll never hear a word about them outside of local papers. Hell, Northwestern was pushing their QB as a dark horse Heisman contender last season, and ESPN just treated it as a quaint little joke in comparison to the newest product of the Alabama running back mill. Northwestern's passing game is one of the best around, but not a single analyst will tell you that.

 

[Slayer_2]

I think pro sports are a huge waste of money and time, but whatever floats your boat I guess. Everything else is cool, staying fit is important.

 

[StBishop]

I earn my income from student allowance and scholarships for studying Physical Education and Sport Science. I earn a supplementary income coaching Basketball. I spent Saturday morning helping to coach a highschool middle distance team.

I like sports.

I especially love Basketball and combat sports/martial arts.

 

[MasterMasamune]

With the exception of martial arts, I hate playing sports. I've played tennis, basketball, and a few other sports, and I hated all of them.

Watching sports, on the other hand, I enjoy quite a bit, though that depends on the sport. Drag me to an American football game or tennis match and I'll fall asleep. Hockey, baseball, and MMA, on the other hand, I actually like. My thoughts on association football and basketball pretty much boil down to "meh, whatever".

 

[Starik20X6]

Not that interested, though more interested in some more than others. I'll happily watch MotoGP, F1 or Football (soccer), but others get a resounding 'meh'.

 

[KefkaCultist]

I like watching Soccer, Hockey, or any form of martial arts but I don't really have any favorite teams/people. I don't care about pretty much anything else

 

[Rawberry101]

I'm curious, what college football team(s) do you follow?

Virginia and Northwestern for various reasons. Both are exceedingly solid programs who make mid-level bowl games semi-regularly, but they're non-factors in BCS standings, so I'll never hear a word about them outside of local papers. Hell, Northwestern was pushing their QB as a dark horse Heisman contender last season, and ESPN just treated it as a quaint little joke in comparison to the newest product of the Alabama running back mill. Northwestern's passing game is one of the best around, but not a single analyst will tell you that.

That is a rather strange collection of teams to root for. If you lived in Illinois or Virginia it'd make sense to root for either Northwestern or Virginia but not both. I have to say I do respect both programs. I have a buddy who is going to Northwestern this year so I'll probably follow the games a bit more closely now. As for Virginia, I like their program and believe they can establish themselves better on TV with a few more 8-9 win seasons. After Stanford played VA Tech in the Orange Bowl I pulled for Virginia in the rivalry game last year.

 

[Lionsfan]

One thing that kind of annoys me is anytime someone refers to their favourite team as "we." Imagine if fighting fans referred to their favourite fighters as "I."

"Oh, man, I hope I manage to cut weight for the Welterweight Championship fight."
"I swear, I'm not using 'roids. I can't wait to see myself beat the crap out of that other guy!"

When it comes to "we" in sports, that's because for most people the team represents their city/area, and the fact that we pay their salaries leads people to say we. College teams are a no-brainer as well

Since when has ESPN been dumping on the PAC-12? I always thought that with how good the Californian teams have been been in the past it was fairly well regarded.

Also, I curious how you reacted to the news that The Melk man got caught with steroids.

ESPN, to me, always seems to be interested in conferences that have powerhouse teams with a history of winning. Since USC had been flagging in strength for the past few years it seemed like the PAC-12 wasn't getting nearly as much attention as the SEC, Big 12, or Big 10. Oregon was great but they haven't been historically great so it seemed like most of the pundits didn't really give them much time or consideration relative to say LSU or Oklahoma. Although part of that was the loss to LSU as far as last year went.

But from a Stanford fan perspective, the sports media in general ignored us for the most part. Every week my dad and I would eagerly watch the BCS standings and would repeatedly sigh as teams of questionable records move ahead purely because of their conference affiliation. Also, the snubbing of Andrew Luck, not to mention Toby Gerhart, by the Heisman voters was a tough pill to swallow.

And Melky Cabrera...I was saddened by the news but it makes sense. Spikes in performance like that need to be closely monitored nowadays.

I'll give you Toby Gerhart, but there's no way Andrew Luck deserved to win the Heisman over Robert Griffin III

As for the question itself, I'm a huge sports fan. Detroit teams and Michigan is where most of time is spent cheering, and I love to play just about everything

 

[Wadders]

I really only care about football, which is sadly lacking in the States. Go on, guess my favorite club.

I support Les Bleus internationally, and I support New York in the US league, mostly because Henry plays for them.

Arsenal FC perhaps

I have a soft spot for Arsenal for some reason. They jsut seem less obnoxious than some of the other London clubs..

Chiefly I like Football (soccer) but I'll also watch international Rugby League game, especially the 6 nations. I also have a passing interest in international Cricket, supporting England in both of those sports.

My teams are Shrewsbury Town FC and Manchester City FC. People say you cant have two football teams, but why not? I have legitimate reasons to support both of them; Shrewsbury is my hometown and so they are my local team. My fathers side of the family are Mancunians and City fans, and so that has also been a part of my life, and it's in the family. Plus it means you can go and watch twice the amount of football

 

[Rawberry101]

I'll give you Toby Gerhart, but there's no way Andrew Luck deserved to win the Heisman over Robert Griffin III

You sir, are out of line. Andrew Luck was so much better of a pure quarterback than Robert Griffin. "RGIII" won 9 games in the regular season with much better wide receivers and a more athletic offense overall, most of his 'bombs' were chucked in the air and the receiver just beat the defense to it. Also, many of his 50 yard touchdowns were 20 yard passes that were ran for 30 extra yards. Luck played the QB position better and smarter than anyone else in 2011. He won 11 (should have been 12) games in a conference of similar difficulty. He rarely threw very long passes and when he did they were insanely accurate, not just a toss into the sky. Luck commanded the field and ran all varieties of plays. Heck, Stanford only called passing plays 40% of the time and Luck has comparable numbers to RGIII, and that's a real stat. Doesn't sound like the pass happy, inaccurate, and undeserving Bob Griffin.

The real failure was in the media. They don't have any respect for humble players anymore. RGIII had a phenomenal year and should be commended but he was a media darling. Robert Griffin was all big plays, flash, and 'swag'. And if you tell me there isn't an east coast bias (in football this obviously extended to the south)...well you clearly don't experience it to our extent.

Although, I would love to hear a Detroiter's perspective on East Coast bias.

 

[GrimTuesday]

As for the question itself, I'm a huge sports fan. Detroit teams and Michigan is where most of time is spent cheering, and I love to play just about everything

I have to say that I've always had a soft spot for the Tigers, maybe its because I love Ty Cobb (no clue why but I love that crazy racist bastard) and he played for Detroit (also the D is awesome). If I had to pick a team that wasn't Seattle to say was my favorite, it would be the Tigers. I hope that Miguel Cabrera wins the MVP this year, if only to deny the Angel's fans their delusions of grandeur. Of course, Verlander will have to take a back seat to Felix for the Cy Young this year.

 

[Lionsfan]

I'll give you Toby Gerhart, but there's no way Andrew Luck deserved to win the Heisman over Robert Griffin III

You sir, are out of line. Andrew Luck was so much better of a pure quarterback than Robert Griffin. "RGIII" won 9 games in the regular season with much better wide receivers and a more athletic offense overall, most of his 'bombs' were chucked in the air and the receiver just beat the defense to it. Also, many of his 50 yard touchdowns were 20 yard passes that were ran for 30 extra yards. Luck played the QB position better and smarter than anyone else in 2011. He won 11 (should have been 12) games in a conference of similar difficulty. He rarely threw very long passes and when he did they were insanely accurate, not just a toss into the sky. Luck commanded the field and ran all varieties of plays. Heck, Stanford only called passing plays 40% of the time and Luck has comparable numbers to RGIII, and that's a real stat. Doesn't sound like the pass happy, inaccurate, and undeserving Bob Griffin.

The real failure was in the media. They don't have any respect for humble players anymore. RGIII had a phenomenal year and should be commended but he was a media darling. Robert Griffin was all big plays, flash, and 'swag'. And if you tell me there isn't an east coast bias (in football this obviously extended to the south)...well you clearly don't experience it to our extent.

Although, I would love to hear a Detroiter's perspective on East Coast bias.

You can't really compare the team's seasons. That's not fair to either player. Yes, Stanford won 11 games (12 with good coaching) and Baylor only won 9, but what you're leaving out is defensive performance. Football Outsiders [http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feidef2011] (one of the better ranking sites) ranked Stanford as having the 13th best defense in the country, while Baylor is....well not so high. They come in at 86, below such powerhouse teams like Army, Bowling Green, and Eastern Michigan (hell even Akron at 0-11 had a better defense statistically than Baylor). Using team records as a case for the Heisman isn't right, and if we chose to do that we can cut out Toby Gerhart having any chance at the Heisman, since 2009 Alabama (14-0) > 2009 Stanford (8-5)

Second, Andrew Luck had 404 passing attempts [http://www.cfbstats.com/2011/team/674/passing/index.html], and Robert Griffin had 402 attempts [http://www.cfbstats.com/2011/team/51/passing/index.html]. So there goes your argument that Stanford only passed 40% of the time. I mean they may have done so, but passing wise they're still equal to what Baylor was doing. They're completion % was basically the same and they both threw 37 TD's.

But then things start to shake up dramatically. It starts off easy, with Luck avg 8.7 per attempt, and Griffin 10.7 (throwing out 50 yard bombs point), but then it diverges. Griffin (on the same amount of attempts) was making better passes for more yards, and with less interceptions. I'll give you that he had better receivers, and Luck did a better job spreading the ball out, but when you compare the 2 teams receiving statistics, Baylor receivers [http://www.cfbstats.com/2011/team/51/receiving/index.html] averaged 14.88 ypc and Stanford receivers [http://www.cfbstats.com/2011/team/674/receiving/index.html] averaged 12.20

When you compare their QB ratings, Luck has a great 169.68, but Griffin has a greater 189.47.

And that's just passing. I don't think we need to go into the Rushing Difference between the 2


As for the East Coast Bias, it's annoying to a degree. Hockey is huge here, but never gets any coverage from MSM but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Besides ESPN shilling "THE SEC IS THE GREATEST CONFERENCE IN THE HISTORY OF EVER!!!!!111!!!!11!!!!"

As for the question itself, I'm a huge sports fan. Detroit teams and Michigan is where most of time is spent cheering, and I love to play just about everything

I have to say that I've always had a soft spot for the Tigers, maybe its because I love Ty Cobb (no clue why but I love that crazy racist bastard) and he played for Detroit (also the D is awesome). If I had to pick a team that wasn't Seattle to say was my favorite, it would be the Tigers. I hope that Miguel Cabrera wins the MVP this year, if only to deny the Angel's fans their delusions of grandeur. Of course, Verlander will have to take a back seat to Felix for the Cy Young this year.

I'm up in the air about the MVP. If Miggy wins it I'll love it, but if Trout ends up getting it I won't mind too much. His defense is better than Miggy's, and that's what I can see putting him over the top.

And JV has been solid this year, but yeah not like last years JV (last years JV had taken a huge step forward from "Solid Starter" to "Top 3 Pitcher", so a regression this year was somewhat expected). Also I'm kind of dreading October (if we make it there), because it's got all the signs of the past 2 playoff appearances. JV is a workhorse in the regular season, goes 6+ innings every start, throws 110+ pitches per game and then by the time the postseason starts, he's exhausted and sucks; 14 ER's in '06 (21.2 IP) and 12 last year (20.1 IP) for a career 5.57 ERA in the postseason is not going to help this team out one bit

 

[Rawberry101]

I'll give you Toby Gerhart, but there's no way Andrew Luck deserved to win the Heisman over Robert Griffin III

My Take snip

You can't really compare the team's seasons. That's not fair to either player. Yes, Stanford won 11 games (12 with good coaching) and Baylor only won 9, but what you're leaving out is defensive performance. Football Outsiders [http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feidef2011] (one of the better ranking sites) ranked Stanford as having the 13th best defense in the country, while Baylor is....well not so high. They come in at 86, below such powerhouse teams like Army, Bowling Green, and Eastern Michigan (hell even Akron at 0-11 had a better defense statistically than Baylor). Using team records as a case for the Heisman isn't right, and if we chose to do that we can cut out Toby Gerhart having any chance at the Heisman, since 2009 Alabama (14-0) > 2009 Stanford (8-5)

Second, Andrew Luck had 404 passing attempts [http://www.cfbstats.com/2011/team/674/passing/index.html], and Robert Griffin had 402 attempts [http://www.cfbstats.com/2011/team/51/passing/index.html]. So there goes your argument that Stanford only passed 40% of the time. I mean they may have done so, but passing wise they're still equal to what Baylor was doing. They're completion % was basically the same and they both threw 37 TD's.

But then things start to shake up dramatically. It starts off easy, with Luck avg 8.7 per attempt, and Griffin 10.7 (throwing out 50 yard bombs point), but then it diverges. Griffin (on the same amount of attempts) was making better passes for more yards, and with less interceptions. I'll give you that he had better receivers, and Luck did a better job spreading the ball out, but when you compare the 2 teams receiving statistics, Baylor receivers [http://www.cfbstats.com/2011/team/51/receiving/index.html] averaged 14.88 ypc and Stanford receivers [http://www.cfbstats.com/2011/team/674/receiving/index.html] averaged 12.20

When you compare their QB ratings, Luck has a great 169.68, but Griffin has a greater 189.47.

And that's just passing. I don't think we need to go into the Rushing Difference between the 2


As for the East Coast Bias, it's annoying to a degree. Hockey is huge here, but never gets any coverage from MSM but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Besides ESPN shilling "THE SEC IS THE GREATEST CONFERENCE IN THE HISTORY OF EVER!!!!!111!!!!11!!!!"

Alright we may have to just agree to disagree. Normally I would never bring out wins in a season to determine who was a better player. It's really not a fair metric in any sport. It certainly wasn't fair to Toby Gerhart but that's how it goes in sports media. The reason I did was because I think QB's have more of a direct influence on the score than say WR's, RB's, TE's, etc.

You pulled out some interesting stats,some of which I admit I've never seen before. Baylor was clearly stymied on defense and may have finished with a better record with a top 10 ranked defense. You point out that the receivers had more yards per carry when both of us previously established that RGIII had better receivers so naturally they'd have more yards. Which would certainly increase his QB ranking.

With rushing it was no contest RGIII was better but that's because...well...Luck didn't run. If he was forced to run of course he would but he'd always run for the first down then slide down to avoid injury. One of my favorite plays, it's probably on youtube, is when Luck is forced out of the pocket and pushes over a Cal defender. The famous USC tackle is also a highlight. I was at both games yay!!!! And it was awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4_w-puInqY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5STc2_bM7k

RGIII and Andrew Luck are both extreme talents but I saw the guy play at least 15 games and he was the greatest QB I've ever seen. I withhold the right to say he deserved the Heisman as a fan of Stanford and of the game.

Let's go back to talking about baseball ok? So...how bout that American League?

 

[Lionsfan]

I'll give you Toby Gerhart, but there's no way Andrew Luck deserved to win the Heisman over Robert Griffin III

My Take snip

snip

snap

Let's go back to talking about baseball ok? So...how bout that American League?

I guess that's the beauty and downside of College Football. On the one hand, there's so many good players and teams you could debate all day about it, and on the other hand there's so many good players and teams that we don't get a chance to see everyone and how they compare against each other.

As for baseball, who do you have for MVP/Cy Young?

 

[Rawberry101]

As for baseball, who do you have for MVP/Cy Young?

Well the Giants don't really have anything to offer this year, which disappoints me greatly. I know some people are saying Posey for MVP but I don't think he's quite there yet. Certainly the best hitting catcher in the league, especially with Molina hurting.

For the NL MVP I think McCutchen should get it. The Cy Young is sorta difficult for the NL. I'd be fine if it went to Cueto, Zimmerman, Dickey, ugh Kershaw. It'd be nice if Cain or Bumgarner would get 15+ wins, then they'd be in serious consideration. Also Strasburg is looking good but if they shut him down that'll probably end the issue.

In the AL it looks like most people are saying Trout or Miggy. I'd be fine with either one, Cabrera is on my fantasy team so that'd be nice if he won. Cy Young looks like a 3 horse race between Weaver, Verlander, and Felix. I think it would have been easier for Weaver if he hadn't blown up the last few starts.

In not so many words, McCutchen/Cueto for the NL, Cabrera/Weaver AL

 

[Random Argument Man]

I love sports! I love getting in shape and play a few games of...whatever sports. A tip to people who want to get into a sport is to do fantasy *insert sport here*. Beleive me, it gets you invested.

However, If there's no Hockey this year due to a lockout, I'll shall probably know of a torment similar to having your most anticipated game cancelled while their developpers comes to your house and they kick you in the balls.

 

[Lionsfan]

As for baseball, who do you have for MVP/Cy Young?

Well the Giants don't really have anything to offer this year, which disappoints me greatly. I know some people are saying Posey for MVP but I don't think he's quite there yet. Certainly the best hitting catcher in the league, especially with Molina hurting.

For the NL MVP I think McCutchen should get it. The Cy Young is sorta difficult for the NL. I'd be fine if it went to Cueto, Zimmerman, Dickey, ugh Kershaw. It'd be nice if Cain or Bumgarner would get 15+ wins, then they'd be in serious consideration. Also Strasburg is looking good but if they shut him down that'll probably end the issue.

In the AL it looks like most people are saying Trout or Miggy. I'd be fine with either one, Cabrera is on my fantasy team so that'd be nice if he won. Cy Young looks like a 3 horse race between Weaver, Verlander, and Felix. I think it would have been easier for Weaver if he hadn't blown up the last few starts.

In not so many words, McCutchen/Cueto for the NL, Cabrera/Weaver AL

I'm pretty much the same here, except I think Felix win's the Cy Young over Weaver. He's got a better ERA, has pitched more innings, and I think the Perfect Game might push him over the top