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
