DIPSET last edited by DIPSET
Super Bowl tonight.
Making some scotch bonnet wings and some honey sriracha wings and a big pot of rigatoni with meatballs. I never host because my apartment isn't great but the Super Bowl is a tradition that supersedes putting on airs for your guests. We're just here to eat good food, watch a great game, and have a good time.
I put $115 on the SF 49ers Moneyline @ 2.05 odds. I'd prefer KC Chiefs to win but I don't believe Mahomes can carry the whole team.
Great season in 2019. I hope this is a great Super Bowl too.
Shoulderguy last edited by
keir last edited by
Didn't watch the Super Bowl because I've basically been on Australian time (weird as a Brit) because of the Australian Open.
So happy to see Novak, the greatest ever, lift another trophy.
I saw a pretty good game yesterday. Canes beat the Canucks in shootout.
Look I get why it is this way but I just can't bring myself to care about any sport where the championship isn't decided in a best of 7 or some similar format
keir last edited by
Best of 7s and stuff like that seems specific to American sport. Personally think it’s much better when there’s a singular final like grand slams, heavyweight championship of the world, champions league final, World Cup final.
Often semi finals in football are two legs, one at one ground and one at the other. The final is then on a neutral ground.
I usually like best of 7 too but NHL and NBA have waaaaay too much fat on the playoffs with the first round being pretty much useless. I like that only the very clear best of the best make the playoffs in MLB and NFL. Those are two sports where the best are usually solidified by their ability to even get into the playoffs and their decisiveness is shown in the subsequent close games.
@DIPSET That's similar to an issue affecting the european championship of nations in soccer football, for me. Before, only 16 teams qualified from the qualification stage to the final tournament, and 8 through from the group stage (2 teams from every 4) to the knock-out stage. From 2016, they changed it to 24 teams, and now 3 from each group qualify to the knock-out stage of 16. The World Cup of nations will be expanded as well, starting in 2026, and I feel like in its current format it already has some teams that shouldn't be there in terms of quality.
I liked the Euros more before because there was a certain tightness and momentum in the tournament, teams had to step up to go through the group stage. Now a team can get through the group stage without winning any match, which is the example of the current champions.
@irongrey Yeah I haven't followed in years, but my friends have been complaining to me about this.
@dipset NBA? Yes. Especially those brutal Warriors vs. Cavs years.
NHL? I'm not so sure. The Blues were third in their DIVISION last year and the President's Trophy winner rarely wins the cup. Although one thing I would say is that it can sometimes dumb down the hockey in the playoffs where lower seeds start playing super tight defence and win a bunch of 1-0 games.
I don't disagree with MLB playoffs being super intense but can you imagine playing 162 games, being 30 games over .500 and not getting in? Not saying it should change but man that would suck.
I think Kings in 2013-2014 is another example of the lowest seed actually winning but in terms of quality, the first round of the NHL playoffs is very sloppy normally.
@dipset I think that was 2012 and the only reason I remember is because I'm from Vancouver :(
Toronto Raptors are on a 12 game winning streak which is the longest streak in Toronto professional sports history. The next closest was the Toronto Blue Jays 11 game win streak in 1993 when they won the World Series.
Gotta say, its been a privilege watching the Raps last season and surprisingly this season as well. Marred by injuries, this team is still entirely entertaining and 2nd place in the East.
There was an absolutely ridiculous game tonight between the Canes and Leafs, with an emergency backup goalie stealing the show in the best way possible.
...and of course I missed all but the last few minutes because of work. Just my luck.
@hanabi not to mention Ovi hit 700 goals today
My buddy works with the backup goalie. He’s the building manager for the Ryerson University athletic centre (former Maple Leaf Gardens).
He apparently takes shots in practice for the Leafs when they’re resting the goalies between games but that’s infrequent and he’s 100% an Average Joe.
Made $500 betting on the Wilder vs Fury II fight. That was an absolute beating and it reached scary territory. Glad Wilder is ok in the end.
Is anybody else done with VAR? Besides the ref from the Chelsea vs. Tottenham game?
The majority of the offside calls that lines...persons (?) are missing are even tough to tell on VAR. And if they need to check the replay, that often means it was close to the point of being negligible. Strikers are often half a step ahead because they start their run before the defender reacts and chases. I'm all for diagonal runs and perfect through balls but sometimes the ball over the top is there and I'm ok if the attacker notices it before the defender and so gets one toe ahead.
This is not to mention the excitement factor. Every time anybody scores a goal now, everybody is afraid to get excited because you know they're going upstairs. We had this kind of thing one year in hockey where any foot in the blue ice meant no goal so just about every single goal was reviewed and a whole ton were disallowed. And it sucked so they got rid of it (after the Stanley Cup winning goal was scored with a foot in the blue paint).
I know it's a crooked sport and cameras are supposed to help us avoid biases but this is too much. Thoughts?
MiserablePerson last edited by
@e_zed_eh_intern I'm about done with replay in all sports, which would shock a 2005 version of myself who was eager to see the creep of replay. It simply isn't applied correctly in most situations and only serves to make decisions murkier, slows the game, and drains energy.
I’m for video review but at a certain point you gotta just trust the call on the field. It’s getting really out of hand and slowing everything down to a crawl. In the NFL, video replay of catches is turning into this philosophical discussion about what constitutes a “catch” physically.
I saw a touchdown get overturned by video replayed because in slow motion, he caught it, hits the ground, doesn’t bobble it, but it’s only loosely held by his fingers and they ruled that it wasn’t catchy enough to be a catch. I could understand if he bobbled it and dropped it but he caught the damn ball and nobody would think differently if they didn’t spend 10 min looking at the replay frame by frame.
There’s a time and place for modern cameras and replay systems but they shouldn’t taint the game or slow it down to a crawl. Maybe just check scoring plays and that’s it. Case to case in every sport.
It definitely gets out of hand at points, there was a game a few days ago where a goal got waved off because the net flew off and it seemed pretty open and shut but they spent like ten minutes reviewing it only to come to the same conclusion they started with.
or maybe I'm just salty because that game was already a blowout at that point anyway
I do think it does more good than harm but at the same time they need to just chill sometimes.
Guest last edited by Guest
@E_Zed_Eh_Intern I like the video assistance referee, I think football has definitely improved since its inception. There were so many wrong calls that it kind of spoiled the fun in the game, players would cheat or the referee made a wrong decision and couldn't know what we all could see through the television. I think there's room for improvement, but I already like it as it is in the Premier League, without the referee going to have a look on a screen off-field. Let VAR overrule wrong decisions by itself.
If anything, the VAR exposes some failings in the offside rules, but in my view this is just a great chance to finally tweak said rules and allow the game to run more smoothly.