PDA

View Full Version : Underdogs in PRO Sports?


Scottiehaswheels
01-24-2007, 03:09 PM
Help me out here or argue with me.. Either way...

Anyways, I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the existence of underdogs in pro sports... My contention is there is no such thing anymore... In the day and age of free agency, drafting, and salary caps in certain sports I think the idea of underdog has been wiped away. (Incidentally my friend was rooting for the Saints) I was of the contention that the idea of an underdog is gone because the strength of a team is drawn from its front office/owner/scouts. Cinderella teams certainly exist but underdogs do not.

The front office can either bring a good team together or tear one apart. The owner might not be willing to spend the money to bring in the talent to create a contending team. And the scout system might be so poorly trained that the draft picks are terrible. But every team has the ability to improve all facets of the product put on the field by being willing to spend the money. I'm sure none of us consider teams like the Royals/Marlins to be underdogs, they don't perform well because the owner isn't willing to spend the money. Cubs stink because their front office/owners really don't care what they put out there and scouts draft poorly.

Contending teams are the ones that are willing to spend the money on players/scouting. And thus are rewarded for their efforts with quality teams.

Anyways, I just had to rant somewhere cuz it was driving me nuts.

jenn2080
01-24-2007, 03:20 PM
Help me out here or argue with me.. Either way...

Anyways, I was having a discussion with a friend of mine about the existence of underdogs in pro sports... My contention is there is no such thing anymore... In the day and age of free agency, drafting, and salary caps in certain sports I think the idea of underdog has been wiped away. (Incidentally my friend was rooting for the Saints) I was of the contention that the idea of an underdog is gone because the strength of a team is drawn from its front office/owner/scouts. Cinderella teams certainly exist but underdogs do not.

The front office can either bring a good team together or tear one apart. The owner might not be willing to spend the money to bring in the talent to create a contending team. And the scout system might be so poorly trained that the draft picks are terrible. But every team has the ability to improve all facets of the product put on the field by being willing to spend the money. I'm sure none of us consider teams like the Royals/Marlins to be underdogs, they don't perform well because the owner isn't willing to spend the money. Cubs stink because their front office/owners really don't care what they put out there and scouts draft poorly.

Contending teams are the ones that are willing to spend the money on players/scouting. And thus are rewarded for their efforts with quality teams.

Anyways, I just had to rant somewhere cuz it was driving me nuts.


Come on you can't really believe that. They are cursed because of the goat. You should know this by now. :D:

WhiteSox5187
01-24-2007, 03:26 PM
When I think of underdog, I think of teams that are heavily favored to lose. So yes, there are underdogs, there are teams that are heavily favored to lose. And every now and then they manage to win.

As for good teams being the ones that spend money or scout right, I think every now and then a team can get lucky or hot at the right time to have a fairly good season. Whether or not they can make it to the playoffs is up for grab. The 1977 White Sox were not, the 1998 Cubs were (though, with the help of the Wild Card). It's all such a crapshoot.