So, I was having this conversation with Byron the other day:
When watching games for which my allegiances are neutral, I don’t typically pull for underdogs.
As I see it, the “overdog” is the favorite a reason, typically because they have the better record. And, usually, the better record points to a number of things that I appreciate as a sports fan, i.e. smarter coaching and play, better practice and preparation, more talent, etc.
I suppose I’d argue that the overdog deserves to win, in a sense, and that I’d rather see a team that deserves to win beat a team that – for whatever reason – couldn’t get its shit together than vice versa. It’s actually a fairly simple meritocratic principle that is often overlooked in the underdog romanticism that is very prevalent in sports and especially in March.
So, as March brings us two basketball postseasons for which my allegiances are decidedly non-neutral, I’m more than happy to pull for the two favorites who guaranteed their regular season titles and #1 seeds this weekend: in the ACC tournament, the UNC Tar Heels and, in fantasy basketball, my Two Men And a Baby.
If you ask me, both deserve to win.
Question of the Week:
Underdogs or overdogs?
Posts
QoW:
ReplyDeleteThough I'd hate to admit I'm a front runner, my allegiances to the Lakers and UNC would suggest just that. On top of that I too would rather see a team that has been consistently better win a game, that I don't give a crap about than some underdog...I guess why I was pulling for George Mason this weekend instead of Joey Rrrrrodriguez and VCU. On the flip side I will be pulling for the Back Door Black Mambas in my quest to sweep Fantasy Sports this year.
Sometimes I hate it when the underdog wins because I feel like they don't deserve it. Like when the Saints beat Peyton Manning. Poor Peyton
ReplyDeleteLet's see if the Tar Heels got a few more wins in them. No one cares about conference titles anyways
ReplyDelete