Sport 'traditions' that annoy you

[Megatron]

While I'm quite a big sports fan, there's always 'traditions' that bother me and I feel make the game less entertaining, although some are strategic. Here's some examples:

The Extra Point I'm too lazy to look up when the EP was instituted, but this is the most pointless play in football. Why bother making a play when they are converted 99 times out of 100? I'd throw this out and make teams go for two from the 3 yard line. It puts more pressure on the players that play a majority of the game and is more entertaining than a play that I can make right now (an 18 yard FG).

Playing for a FG Now I should clarify on this. I'm talking about at the end of the game, when a team barely sneaks into FG range (close enough to attempt a 47/48 yarder) and then sits on the ball for the last 1:30 and puts their faith into the kicker to make a kick that is far from easy. Why not try to get another first down and make it 37/38 yards, giving you a much higher probability of making the kick? I know it's 'strategic' because either you'll win or you're going to OT, but it's also safe and not completely 'playing to win'.

College Football OT Rules While I like both teams getting a shot, 2 things should be changed:

1) Start at the 50. Don't put teams in automatic FG range right away, especially since then the team that gets the ball last can sit on it and have decent odds of making a 40/42 yard FG.
2) Force teams to go for 2 right away. Why wait until the 3rd OT when, again, the EP is about the most reliable play in all of sports (although it is less reliable in college)? Plus it ends the game earlier and could save kids from the extra 5/10 blows that they'd get from another possession.

One and dones They should either be allowed to jump to the NBA or have to stay in college for 3 years. It'd improve both the college and the pro game tenfold, since the players would be more mature and teams would get to see how a player plays against better competition.

Lack of Instant Replay in Baseball Believe me, I don't want MLB games going on an extra half hour or an hour as much as the next guy, but reviewing only home runs isn't enough. Give a manager 3 challenges (1 for every 3 innings) to use throughout the game to question things like fair/foul, safe/out, catch/trap plays. And, if you want to punish a manager for failing on a challenge, make every lost challenge = 1 out lost for the next inning. Sure there are some slight loopholes (someone using it during the 9th when they likely won't have any more AB's), but there's ways to fix that, if needed.

Possibly only allow it for the first 8 innings and then from the 9th on it's up to the umpires to deem if it is reviewable (in vein to the 2 minute warning rule in the NFL). Still, there's been too many times where I've seen missed calls and have had to live with it when it could've been fixed by a quick 1 minute replay look. I know umpiring keeps the game at its roots and the human element, but it's time to move a bit forward.

Now I've covered quite a bit, and while some of these are 'rules' and not 'traditions', feel free to add your own. I know I'm not the only one who has some complaints about the games we love to watch.

 

[agentmichaelscarn]

I agree with all of yours but your Extra point thing and playing for a FG got me thinking about something that I never understood. It's not so much a tradition but a strategy that I never agreed with and that is say you score a TD late(like say under 5 min left) to make it a 7 point lead why don't more coaches go for 2 in that situations? If you kick the XP like every one of them do it puts you up 8 and it's still a 1 possession game, but if you go for 2 and convert you are up 9 and 2 possessions which basically ends the game. I think the reward far outweighs the risk there. The worst case scenario is you miss it and you're only up by 7, still the worst that can happen is a tie and OT.(since very rarely do teams go for 2 when down 7 and the XP would tie the game) Where as the reward is you seal the game by making it 2 possessions. It seems like a no brainer to me, especially if you have a stud RB or are good in shorter yardage situations.

 

[NSL]

How about the Icing rule in hockey? I mention this, because it leads to several needless collisions, increasing the risk of injury to (sometimes) star players. The powers-that-be have noticed this as well, and are using this potential rule change in talks for a new CBA.

I strongly support the suggested new rules, which would call icing as the puck passes the face-off dots, so players aren't going full-speed to the endboards, where the most violent collisions happen. This rule change wouldn't only be useful in avoiding collisions either. It'd change the way some of the offenses play. Some of the larger teams use a "dump and chase" philosophy. With this new rule, they'd be forced to carry the puck in, where they may not be most comfortable.

Players will then become generally smaller, and faster, and the fans will get the offense they've been wanting...

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Hockey

The point system. Some games end up handing out 2 points and other games 3 points. I get wanting to have a winner but I hate that playing for OT seems to be a strategy. I would give 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT or SO win, 1 point for and OT or SO loss and no points for a regulation loss. Makes me think teams with play harder to win regulation.

Football

The coin toss does not need to be an event for all to see. I know Vegas bets on it but do we really need to see this. It is so counter to what football is all about.

Basketball

This is just me, but I love the jump ball. If I'm the NBA I have more jump balls. It totally changes the strategy of the game and feel like it makes the center position that much more valuable. Earning more possessions would make the game more interesting and make the biggest and best jumpers even more valuable.

I could be wrong about this one, but I'd like to see how it works.

Baseball

Is great but has too many annoying things to get in to just one:

- manager trips to the mound
- "unwritten" rules
- all the warm ups and the length of warm ups
- pick offs
- time between pitches
- the Astro center field pole and hill
- the Green Monster (no, not John Cena)
- pay roll discrepancies
- DH differences between leagues, one or the other please
- cross town rivalries getting extra interleague games (your welcome St. Louis)
- the ESPN Yankees/ESPN Red Sox rivalry

 

[NSL]

Hockey

The point system. Some games end up handing out 2 points and other games 3 points. I get wanting to have a winner but I hate that playing for OT seems to be a strategy. I would give 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT or SO win, 1 point for and OT or SO loss and no points for a regulation loss. Makes me think teams with play harder to win regulation.

This is something that's been tossed around by the GMs, and there's literally no support. When the league was locked out, it was in the original rough draft of the current CBA, and had to be removed before they'd even consider signing it. Every year, at their meetings, it comes back up, and it goes nowhere. Hockey analyst Pierre LeBrun did the math, and found it didn't change the standings much at all. For instance, this year, it would only shuffle New Jersey and Ottawa in the East, and in the West it would swap Colorado for San Jose in the West. If there would be a drastic difference from year to year, it'd have a shot.

Also, no game awards 3 points. It's 2 for a win, no matter what, and 1 for a SO/OT loss.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

This is something that's been tossed around by the GMs, and there's literally no support. When the league was locked out, it was in the original rough draft of the current CBA, and had to be removed before they'd even consider signing it. Every year, at their meetings, it comes back up, and it goes nowhere. Hockey analyst Pierre LeBrun did the math, and found it didn't change the standings much at all. For instance, this year, it would only shuffle New Jersey and Ottawa in the East, and in the West it would swap Colorado for San Jose in the West. If there would be a drastic difference from year to year, it'd have a shot.

Also, no game awards 3 points. It's 2 for a win, no matter what, and 1 for a SO/OT loss.

Appreciate the response but I'm not looking to change the standings, just the game. I want to see teams taking more chances and working harder towards the end of regulation. To me it feels like teams are playing for OT and that hurts the game. If I'm playing out of conference it seems like I would choose a strategy towards the end to get me to OT if the game is close instead of playing to win.

When I mention 2 points vs. 3 points I mean in aggregate to both teams, not just one. Anything going to OT is going to get 3 total points (2 for the winner, 1 for the loser).

 

[NSL]

Appreciate the response but I'm not looking to change the standings, just the game. I want to see teams taking more chances and working harder towards the end of regulation. To me it feels like teams are playing for OT and that hurts the game. If I'm playing out of conference it seems like I would choose a strategy towards the end to get me to OT if the game is close instead of playing to win.

I understand you're not looking to change the standings, but a change to the points system would ultimately do just that. Because of that, none of the owners or GMs are willing to talk about it, because of the risk their team would be taking. The way it stands now, there's races to make the playoffs, and win your respective division, and there's less than a week to play. That means higher TV revenue, and higher attendance at the games. Maybe once hockey has completely climbed out of the hole they put themselves in, they'll reconsider a change to how points are awarded.

When I mention 2 points vs. 3 points I mean in aggregate to both teams, not just one. Anything going to OT is going to get 3 total points (2 for the winner, 1 for the loser).

Ahhhhh...I see now...

 

[Davi323]

Here is something to consider when it comes to hockey's point system...

The NHL season is 82 games. If you win 20 of those games, but lose the remaining 62 games in OT/Shootout, you would end up with 102 points, and probably make the playoffs. Think about that for a second. You can lose 3/4 of your games, and still make the playoffs. Tell me there isn't something wrong with that. In the NFL, if you lose in OT, it counts as a loss, period. You don't get half credit for not losing in regulation. You don't get credit for losing in extra innings in baseball, you don't get half credit for losing in OT in the NBA either. Only in hockey can you lose 3/4 of your games, and still have had a great season, depending on HOW you lost. No other sport cares about the circumstances, just the end result.

 

[Big Sexy]

I'm not a huge fan of the NHL point system either and with shootouts being in place it would be very easy to adjust the point system. If a team loses in any fashion then they do not deserve a point and if a team has to go all the way to a shootout to win then I don't think they should get the 2 full points. An easy fix would be this:

Regulation Win or OT Win = 2 points
Shootout Win = 1 point
Loss in any fashion = 0 points

Just to show an example, right now in the Southeast division Florida has a 3 point lead on Washington. Florida also leads the league in non regulation losses with 17, basically giving them 17 free points for losing games. Under my point system Washington would have an 8 point lead on Florida in the standings, a swing of 11 total points. In fact Tampa Bay who is currently 4th in that division would move up to second ahead of Florida, and Winnipeg would be tied with Florida in third place.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Here is something to consider when it comes to hockey's point system...

The NHL season is 82 games. If you win 20 of those games, but lose the remaining 62 games in OT/Shootout, you would end up with 102 points, and probably make the playoffs. Think about that for a second. You can lose 3/4 of your games, and still make the playoffs. Tell me there isn't something wrong with that. In the NFL, if you lose in OT, it counts as a loss, period. You don't get half credit for not losing in regulation. You don't get credit for losing in extra innings in baseball, you don't get half credit for losing in OT in the NBA either. Only in hockey can you lose 3/4 of your games, and still have had a great season, depending on HOW you lost. No other sport cares about the circumstances, just the end result.

Not necessarily, you wouldn't, because the league instituted the ROW rule (Regulation, Overtime Wins), which would mean that despite your 102 points, you'd be trumped by any teams tied with you who had more ROW wins.

I'm not a huge fan of the NHL point system either and with shootouts being in place it would be very easy to adjust the point system. If a team loses in any fashion then they do not deserve a point and if a team has to go all the way to a shootout to win then I don't think they should get the 2 full points. An easy fix would be this:

Regulation Win or OT Win = 2 points
Shootout Win = 1 point
Loss in any fashion = 0 points

Just to show an example, right now in the Southeast division Florida has a 3 point lead on Washington. Florida also leads the league in non regulation losses with 17, basically giving them 17 free points for losing games. Under my point system Washington would have an 8 point lead on Florida in the standings, a swing of 11 total points. In fact Tampa Bay who is currently 4th in that division would move up to second ahead of Florida, and Winnipeg would be tied with Florida in third place.

This is the exact system I want to employ too.

Losses, under any circumstances, should never be rewarded/awarded anything. If 3-2-1 can't be put into place, then 2-1-0 needs to be with the kicker being that the losing team gets 0.

--

And since this is a "Sports Traditions That Annoy You" thread, I'm adding this in, despite the controversy:

The singing of any national anthem before a game not played on a national scale. That means if the Rangers and Canadeins play one another there is NO NEED for either the U.S. or Canadian national anthems. Zero. Zilch. This is not Team USA v. Team Canada. This is not country v. country.

Both teams have both American and Canadian players, as well as a slew of Czechs, Norwegians, Swedes, Russians, etc. Why the fuck aren't all their anthems played, too?

 

[Davi323]

Not necessarily, you wouldn't, because the league instituted the ROW rule (Regulation, Overtime Wins), which would mean that despite your 102 points, you'd be trumped by any teams tied with you who had more ROW wins.

Obviously there would be exceptions...but generally speaking, 102 points gets you in, similar to an 11-5 NFL season. There could certainly be exceptions, but a team getting 102 points in an NHL season is going to be a playoff team far more times than not.

But, let me add to the example...in NHL logic,

With the point system the NHL uses, 20-0-62/102 points (.243%) is a better record than 50-32-0/100 points (.609), so a tiebreaker wouldn't even come in to play if the two teams were fighting for the same playoff spot.

I can't think of a single logical explanation that would get anyone to conclude that a team with 20 wins is better than a team with 50 wins in the same season, yet, in NHL logic, that is exactly what we would have to conclude.

I am a huge Red Wings fan, not anti-NHL or anti-hockey in the slightest...but the points system is flat out stupid. It's illogical. Just let the W/L records be based on W/L, not conditional based on circumstances. You either win or lose, end of story.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Obviously there would be exceptions...but generally speaking, 102 points gets you in, similar to an 11-5 NFL season. There could certainly be exceptions, but a team getting 102 points in an NHL season is going to be a playoff team far more times than not.

But, let me add to the example...in NHL logic,

With the point system the NHL uses, 20-0-62/102 points (.243%) is a better record than 50-32-0/100 points (.609), so a tiebreaker wouldn't even come in to play if the two teams were fighting for the same playoff spot.

I can't think of a single logical explanation that would get anyone to conclude that a team with 20 wins is better than a team with 50 wins in the same season, yet, in NHL logic, that is exactly what we would have to conclude.

I am a huge Red Wings fan, not anti-NHL or anti-hockey in the slightest...but the points system is flat out stupid. It's illogical. Just let the W/L records be based on W/L, not conditional based on circumstances. You either win or lose, end of story.

I have no issue with that, man. Read up. I'm all for 2-1-0.

Regulation or overtime win? 2 points.
Shootout win? 1 point.
Loss, of any kind? 0 points.

Stop awarding points to losers. I fucking HATE the loser point.

 

[Davi323]

But, then why strip away the point for a team that wins in a shootout? My point is that the entire thing is stupid. However, I would also remove the shootout entirely. Hate it. Overtime should be 4-4 until someone wins. With 4-4 hockey, SOMEONE is going to score at some point. Ice is too wide open not to. Maybe not in the 1st five minutes, but someone will score.

I just want wins and losses to count exactly the same regardless of how they were achieved, like every other sport ever.

 

[shattered dreams]

I don't mind "the point for a loser" in hockey. It isn't a point for losing the game, it is a point for not losing in regulation. That seems fair in a game like hockey. The overtime and shootout are not the same as regulation. If they were then I could see the case for having only a winner. It just isn't realistic to have playoff style hockey every night in the regular season. Ending in a tie is boring so they force a winner and add some excitement at the end of the game for an extra point for someone. I do see the issue with calling an overtime win the same as a regulation win though. However, I don't think 3,2,1 correctly solves that. 2,1.5,1 maybe but people hate fractions.

Generally, I am not a fan of stalling for the win at the end of a game. I don't see how it can be avoided but I prefer organic action rather than the correct strategy in such situations. Shot clock is way too long in college basketball and all the fouling at the end I just don't find interesting. I can stomach playing for the field goal but I hate when teams start running the clock every play just to take time off in general.

One and dones are really hurting college basketball but I doubt the NBA gives a fuck. It is nice for them. At least make them stay two if you are going to make them go.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

But, then why strip away the point for a team that wins in a shootout? My point is that the entire thing is stupid. However, I would also remove the shootout entirely. Hate it. Overtime should be 4-4 until someone wins. With 4-4 hockey, SOMEONE is going to score at some point. Ice is too wide open not to. Maybe not in the 1st five minutes, but someone will score.

I just want wins and losses to count exactly the same regardless of how they were achieved, like every other sport ever.

Because the team failed to win the game. They had to resort to a skills competition based on the skill/luck of individual shooters or goaltenders, which is not team-based.

Yes, penalty shots can win a game, but they are also only awarded under the most extreme circumstances, so I also fail to see the correlation there (if that was going to be your reply).

The way I see it, winning a game in regulation or OT should always be worth the full 2 points, because it would always have been done (minus the rare penalty shot, or even rarer penalty shot in OT) with the TEAM on the ice.

 

[Peoples_Champ]

I've loved hockey all my life, but the 2-1-0 stipulation is killing me. I would rather they move to the soccer route and give three points for a win and one point for an OTL

Related to hockey, one tradition that is starting to annoy me is where the players raise their sticks in the air to salute the fans. This isn't born from tradition, it just randomly started happening within the past couple of years and now players do it randomly when their coach tells the to do so. It feels so fake and forced.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I've loved hockey all my life, but the 2-1-0 stipulation is killing me. I would rather they move to the soccer route and give three points for a win and one point for an OTL

Related to hockey, one tradition that is starting to annoy me is where the players raise their sticks in the air to salute the fans. This isn't born from tradition, it just randomly started happening within the past couple of years and now players do it randomly when their coach tells the to do so. It feels so fake and forced.

No, it was born from tradition, in Europe. European clubs have saluted their smaller crowds from center ice for decades, and the Rangers and Red Wings (I believe) brought it to North America with predominantly European rosters.

 

[Jericho-79]

I don't like how people chant that "Olay Olay Olay Olay Olay" during soccer games.

Since I'm American, I don't know what that chant is supposed to do.

 

[JamJam]

Not really a tradition or anything but during a game in the NBA when a ball gets away from the opposing team who has to take it out, the opposing player doesn't return it. Now I know this is ideal so that they can set up their defense but we gotta get this action going on. Haha. And as I say this, Blake Griffin does this, oh boy. Delay of game!

 

[Davi323]

I just realized something regarding the points system discussion...

The Detroit Red Wings and St. Louis Blues both have an actual W/L record of 48-32 with 2 games left to go. The Blues have already clinched the division, even though it's possible that the Red Wings could finish the regular season with more wins. If that doesn't illustrate what is wrong with the points system, what will? Two teams play in the same division, and hypothetically, the 2nd place team ends up with more wins than the 1st place team? That should never, ever happen. The points system sucks.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I just realized something regarding the points system discussion...

The Detroit Red Wings and St. Louis Blues both have an actual W/L record of 48-32 with 2 games left to go. The Blues have already clinched the division, even though it's possible that the Red Wings could finish the regular season with more wins. If that doesn't illustrate what is wrong with the points system, what will? Two teams play in the same division, and hypothetically, the 2nd place team ends up with more wins than the 1st place team? That should never, ever happen. The points system sucks.

The Blues are 48-21-11, with 44 regulation or overtime (ROW) wins.

The Red Wings are 48-27-5 with 39 ROW wins.

That is why the Wings are behind the Blues. They won less of their games as a hockey team, and more in the shootout than the Blues.

I have zero issue with this. I've said from the start that the shootout is already too much of a factor into determining the standings at the end of the year. No reason to make it even more of one by re-awarding teams that win in them those points back.

 

[Davi323]

The Blues are 48-21-11, with 44 regulation or overtime (ROW) wins.

The Red Wings are 48-27-5 with 39 ROW wins.

That is why the Wings are behind the Blues. They won less of their games as a hockey team, and more in the shootout than the Blues.

I have zero issue with this. I've said from the start that the shootout is already too much of a factor into determining the standings at the end of the year. No reason to make it even more of one by re-awarding teams that win in them those points back.

I wasn't referring to the current standings...I was referring to a hypothetical situation should Detroit end up winning more of their remaining two games than St. Louis does, ie, Detroit/St. Louis finishes 2-0/1-1, or 1-1/0-2. In each case, Detroit would finish with more wins (50/49 or 49/48) yet still finish 2nd. St. Louis has already clinched the division, Detroit is mathematically prevented from winning. That is why the points system is ridiculous. Detroit could finish with 50 wins, St. Louis could finish with 48, yet would still be the division champion.

In terms of actual W/L, Detroit could hypothetically be 50-32, while St. Louis could be 48-34...and Detroit would still finish in 2nd place behind them.

50-32 > 48-34.

That is the problem right there. The team that finishes with more wins should ALWAYS finish above a team with less wins. The NHL is the only sport where the standings are determined more by the losses rather than the wins.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I wasn't referring to the current standings...I was referring to a hypothetical situation should Detroit end up winning more of their remaining two games than St. Louis does, ie, Detroit/St. Louis finishes 2-0/1-1, or 1-1/0-2. In each case, Detroit would finish with more wins (50/49 or 49/48) yet still finish 2nd. St. Louis has already clinched the division, Detroit is mathematically prevented from winning. That is why the points system is ridiculous. Detroit could finish with 50 wins, St. Louis could finish with 48, yet would still be the division champion.

In terms of actual W/L, Detroit could hypothetically be 50-32, while St. Louis could be 48-34...and Detroit would still finish in 2nd place behind them.

50-32 > 48-34.

That is the problem right there. The team that finishes with more wins should ALWAYS finish above a team with less wins. The NHL is the only sport where the standings are determined more by the losses rather than the wins.

Yes, because the Blues have more REGULATION or OVERTIME wins — where the team has to win the game, not individual scorers or goaltenders. I have no issue with that aspect of the system whatsoever.

If a team with 60 wins wins 30 of them in the shootout, why are they more appropriate for the playoffs (where, thankfully, the shootout dies) than a team with 58 wins that won only 10 in the shootout?

 

[King Patrick Star]

Singing at a BaseBall game at the 7th inning stretch.
Why are we doing this again?? Why don’t we do it in the middle of the 5th inning instead?? Make it a half time show.

All-Star Games.
The Players in these games are supposed to be the best of the best from the respective leagues. I feel that it lacks something. Now, I don’t like how the MLB gives the winning Conference Home Field Advantage, as I think that should be left to the best record in BaseBall for that given year. I do however wish the players put regular season to post season effort in these games. I think all All-Star Games (Pro Bowl for the NFL) should be played as the first game of every season, selecting the All-Stars from based on their performance the year prior. I think the Conferences should play for something. I just can’t think of what to play for. How about we give them a cash incentive??

Dallas Cowboys and Detroit Lions playing every Thanksgiving.
This is just annoying, especially if your favorite team is in the same division as the Cowboys or Lions. I’m an Eagles fan. It’s 2012. Rotate the schedule already!!

National / American Conference / League.
I prefer the East / West format, but that’s just a preference. Go GREEN…during playoffs!!

 

[Davi323]

Yes, because the Blues have more REGULATION or OVERTIME wins — where the team has to win the game, not individual scorers or goaltenders. I have no issue with that aspect of the system whatsoever.

If a team with 60 wins wins 30 of them in the shootout, why are they more appropriate for the playoffs (where, thankfully, the shootout dies) than a team with 58 wins that won only 10 in the shootout?

Because 60 wins is better than 58, maybe? You are stuck on the METHOD of victory or defeat. I am talking about actual wins and actual losses. I don't give a shit how the wins and losses occurred. The NHL uses a shootout to determine a victor if it's not settled in OT or regulation, fine, whatever. I fail to see why those wins/losses should count differently than any other win or loss. If the 2008 Detroit Lions had lost all of their games in OT during their 2008 0-16 season, they would still be 0-16, because regardless of whether it was in regulation or OT, it's still a loss. If a baseball team loses in the 15th inning, it's still just a loss. If an NBA team loses in the 6th OT, it's still just a loss.

In each case, the loss counts exactly the same as if they had lost in regulation. Which is exactly as it should be.

There should be no distinction between winning/losing in regulation, OT or a shootout. At the end of the day, there are only two possible outcomes. You either won, or you lost. How you accomplished either outcome should be completely irrelevant to your actual record...and as such, the points system the NHL uses is ridiculous, because it rewards losses as long as the loss occurs during a certain point in the game.

Win in regulation = Win.
Lose in regulation = Lose.
Win in overtime = Win.
Lose in overtime = Lose.
Win in shootout = Win.
Lose in shootout = Lose.

End.