on underdogs: a clarification

So I’m not sure I was really that clear in my last post.  You see, I think what I was getting at is that in some situations (for example, the one I used), the ‘underdog’ is only that by virtue of being worse in the games prior to the one in question.

This is different from the NCAA tournament, where some teams are actual underdogs – they have less revenue, smaller gyms, less program prestige, less famous coaches, etc.  They are at a disadvantage given their circumstances; they’re not on a level playing field.  Butler/Gonzaga/George Mason/UW-Milwalkee/etc. are at a distinct and obvious disadvantage against Duke/UNC/Indiana/Kansas/Kentucky/etc.

However, in a professional setting, where there isn’t some uplifting narrative (player/team overcomes serious adversity, ranging from…say, a star’s devastating injury to something more “real life serious”), actual disadvantage (as an example, baseball, where there’s no salary cap*), or legitimate reason to dislike the other team (and no, their own success is not an adequate reason) cheering for ‘the underdog’ is really just ‘cheering for the team that isn’t as good.’  Which probably takes some of the fun out of it, huh?

 

[*it could be argued that this is actually not a disadvantage, as everyone abides by those no-cap rules, but then you could also say that there's no cap on athletic department budgets, so there aren't underdogs in college hoops without the conditions I listed, which seems a slippery slope.]

Filed under: Uncategorized

on underdogs

The (Mostly) Unrelated Preamble:  Everything is stressful right now, but to what end?  Two tests the past two days, three more by three on Wednesday, not to mention a rough draft; however, I think I’m going to make it.  As of tonight, I have decided that I can afford to take a break for a bit – two of those tests down, it’s gorgeous outside, and the Cubs beat the Cards coming from behind today.  All those things considered along with the fact that I slept for only five hours last night mean I’ve decided I can take time for more than just short form, takes-two-seconds microblogging, whether that be twitter or tumblr.  Pretty great stuff has been happening lately, from realizing a couple friends have similar post-graduation plans to me, to taking to Caleb about said plans, to a couple of friends getting jobs they wanted (albeit jobs that will take those guys pretty far from me =/ ).

Amanda comes back from Ireland soon; visiting her on SB was great, etc.

Anyway, I wanted to write, so I cracked open the notebook with the “Things to blog about:” list, and here’s what’s coming – my take on cultural love affairs with underdogs.

To make a long story short, I don’t really get it.

Take, for example, this year’s Super Bowl.  The vast majority of unbiased fans, it seemed to me, decided to cheer for the Arizona Cardinals.  Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that, I just wonder why they came to that conclusion.  You see, the Cardinals entered the game as pretty significant underdogs.  They weren’t even supposed to be there in the first place, by most accounts, after they only went 9-7 during the regular season.  The Steelers, on the other hand, had been a great team all year (it’s worth noting about here that I’m a Colts fan, so any bias would probably lend itself to support the Cardinals, if I was operating like a stereotypical Colts fan), going 12-4 during the regular season.

Now, I realize that…
1.  The Steelers are constantly on TV, because they’re good nearly every year, and “familiarity breeds contempt,” as the kids say,
2.  The Steelers’ quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger, made a really numskull move once upon a time by recklessly riding and crashing a motorcycle he was forbidden to ride,
3.  The Cardinals have one of the most talented and fun-to-watch players in football, wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald,
4.  The Cardinals’ quarterback, Kurt Warner, has been a sort of rags-to-riches everyman since he played for the Rams a decade ago, and
5.  The Cardinals throw the ball a lot and hope it’s enough to win (a style that is prone to creating big plays, thus fun to watch), whereas the Steelers (this year, at least) depended on their defense largely, which is not especially fun to watch for your average football fan (or even serious football fans) because, well, it results in a lot of punts.

Even still, I can’t imagine that a minor fan, someone who watches out of curiousity/attempts at cultural relevance, or your mom, who always picks winners by uniforms (of which the Steelers are much better, I think most can agree) would really process all those things and think, “for those reasons, I want the Cardinals to win.”  No, I think that we culturally favor underdogs, even when, as is the case with this game, the underdog is where they are because they are simply the inferior team.  Thus, by cheering for the underdog, we’re implicitly acknowledging that we don’t actually value one team’s track record of success, and in fact, some begrudge them their success.

Most importantly, what does this say about Americans (all westerners?) culturally?  Maybe it is simply psychologically connecting with the underdog, looking at them and saying, “we can do it too!”  But what about the opposition?  Are they not where/what we all strive to be?  I’ll admit, there are athletic teams I like to see lose, to stay within the realm of my chosen example, but often, this is because my favorite team is a rival to them and can gain an advantage by their failure, not just out of pleasure in watching the mighty fall.

Watching the underdog win when they are the underdog simply by dint of size, or media notoriety, or geographic snobbery, or randomly overlooked and cheering is understandable to me.  Same with wanting to see a giant, crushing opponents with sheer girth, fall (especially if they were always haughty to begin with).  But when it’s all a fabrication, and “cheering for the underdog” is really just “cheering for the team with less talent, poorer coaching, and less of a track record of success” over the team that has proven its worth all year, I think we need to reexamine our priorities.  Ask why.  Why are they the underdog?  Why do I hope they win?  Is that reasonable?  Personally, in the given example, I feel it’s a bit of a relief that the team that had been better all year proved it was better during the last game of the season.

 

[sorry if this is incoherent.  i feel it's applicable outside of the traditional realm of "underdog/favorite" (sports), and thus worth contemplating, at the very least because it says something about what we value.]

Filed under: Uncategorized

title

If you’re not getting your fix enough, point your browser over to the tumblelog – it’s updated nigh daily. Format-wise, it’s different from this, but probably a bit more fun.

I usually only speak up strongly and loudly about something when I have an opinion, or when I just have questions.  In the former case, I would do well to speak softly and kindly better than I currently do.

It’s not that I am unwilling to admit that I’m wrong in such cases (though I have been told I come off that way).  It’s that I wouldn’t even speak so boldly unless I had an opinion, and I’m placing the burden of proof on any opposed.  But I probably ought to be more tactful, especially when it’s with folks who could be classified “elders.”

Better to figure this out now than later, I suppose.

Filed under: Uncategorized