NFL 2020: Vanity of Vanity; All is Vanity

[DanteGabriel]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Growing up our family's summer vacation was 1-2 weeks in Cape Cod.  Shamefully, my brother and I, diehard Yankee fans, grew up loving and craving Cape Cod clam chowder.

There's no shame in loving our hot, creamy chowdah.

I actually think it's kinda silly to have some kind of rivalry between cities. What criteria are you supposed to use? Per capita income? Wanting to live there? Amenities? I have no problem admitting that New York is a larger, richer, more culturally and politically influential city than Boston. I wouldn't choose to move out there.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Ha!  While you have a point on the lack of consistency (the Sawks in particular seem to oscillate from shitty to champs the past decade or so), arguing football rivalries "have more weight" than the Yanks-Sox rivalry is simply not a legitimate statement.  Please surrender all sports fan credentials.

The violence of football certainly puts it over the top in my book given the pussy pitchers can throw at people and not have to bat.

Make. Them. Bat!!!

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

You're both partially right so it delights me to Solomon your arguments. Ravens-Steelers can't be the biggest rivalry in sports this century because they have both been looking up at the Patriots for 20 years. Certainly it's the biggest rivalry in the AFC North, but it's hard to say either one has really been a rival with the Patriots since the Ravens didn't consistently meet the Pats in the playoffs  (2-2 in the playoffs against the Brady Pats) and because Pittsburgh couldn't beat Brady. Denver has been a more consistently difficult opponent for the Pats in the last 20 years.

But I do side with Tywin that baseball rivalries don't carry as much currency as football rivalries any more. Maybe the first ten years or so of the century, while the Sawks breakthrough was a little more current. But I just don't think people care enough about baseball any more.

The Pats exist in an odd space. They don't have any real rivals. Their division sucks and that's where most rivalries are born. What they have is Manning v. Brady, and that doesn't feel quite the same.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

There's no shame in loving our hot, creamy chowdah.

I actually think it's kinda silly to have some kind of rivalry between cities. What criteria are you supposed to use? Per capita income? Wanting to live there? Amenities? I have no problem admitting that New York is a larger, richer, more culturally and politically influential city than Boston. I wouldn't choose to move out there.

Are there really that many though, at least if we just look at out of state city rivalries? Boston v. NYC is the obvious one, but after that I think a lot of the rivalries are in state, which makes more sense, or I guess university rivals and then the city is more a proxy for the school than it really being the two cities pitted against one another. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Are there really that many though, at least if we just look at out of state city rivalries?

I agree with Dante it's silly - I've actually spent much more time in Boston than NYC over my lifetime.  But why exactly are we distinguishing between inter vs. intrastate rivalries?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

I agree with Dante it's silly - I've actually spent much more time in Boston than NYC over my lifetime.  But why exactly are we distinguishing between inter vs. intrastate rivalries?

Because the former, IMO, is overstated and the latter is more interesting? If I had to choose, I'd much rather read about the history of intrastate rivalries like Kentucky v. Louisville or Alabama v. Auburn than Boston v NYC. But I also agree it's all kind of silly. So much about sports that doesn't directly happen within the game itself is idiotic. 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If I had to choose, I'd much rather read about the history of intrastate rivalries like Kentucky v. Louisville or Alabama v. Auburn

Well, sure, but those are schools.  I was asking about cities.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, sure, but those are schools.  I was asking about cities.

I did say in a previous post that I was using schools as proxies for cities. There really aren't many great city v city examples to be honest. Take CA. LA and the Bay Area are the two titans, but outside of Giants v Dodgers, they don't really care much about one another from a sporting perspective. The intracity rivalries matter a lot more, as do the collegiate rivalries. Then if you just to TX, again, the major cities don't care much about one another. I can't think of any real rivalries there. Cultural differences between Dallas and Houston is probably the biggest rivalry if we're sticking just to cities. And then to FL, which you can speak more about than me, but my understanding is people from Miami, Orlando, Tamp and Jacksonville really don't actually think much about the others except when their drunk at clubs and bars. So I think when looking at intrastate rivalries, it's better to look at the schools because that allows people to then hate on the city they're in.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I did say in a previous post that I was using schools as proxies for cities. There really aren't many great city v city examples to be honest.

Right, that's why I was asking about cities.  Obviously there's tons of intrastate rivalries between schools, but not much in terms of cities - as you detailed.  Even the Giants/Dodgers mostly dates back to both of them being from NYC more than them being intrastate cities.  Hell, SF and LA are almost twice as far away as NYC and Boston.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right, that's why I was asking about cities.  Obviously there's tons of intrastate rivalries between schools, but not much in terms of cities - as you detailed.  Even the Giants/Dodgers mostly dates back to both of them being from NYC more than them being intrastate cities.  Hell, SF and LA are almost twice as far away as NYC and Boston.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see you ask specifically about cities, just this:

4 hours ago, DMC said:

I agree with this.  The problem is the Yanks-Sox rivalry transcends being just a baseball rivalry.

If you want to swap out Yanks-Sox for NYC-Boston, then okay. I think both markets, rather than necessarily cities, have reasons to be jealous of one another, and that's before you consider pretty clear cultural and racial cleavages. 

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see you ask specifically about cities, just this

I don't know why you're belaboring the point, but the question I asked was here:

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I've actually spent much more time in Boston than NYC over my lifetime.  But why exactly are we distinguishing between inter vs. intrastate rivalries?

 

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If you want to swap out Yanks-Sox for NYC-Boston, then okay.

I don't.  The discussion about intercity rivalries is tangential to the Yankees-Sox rivalry being, rather inarguably, the biggest rivalry in American professional sports.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know why you're belaboring the point, but the question I asked was here:

I'm not, but you are distorting the timeline a bit.

Quote

I don't.  The discussion about intercity rivalries is tangential to the Yankees-Sox rivalry being, rather inarguably, the biggest rivalry in American professional sports.

It's only the biggest rivalry in sports if you have some stakes on it. Baseball matters less and less every day, and the peak of that rivalry is over a decade old. I can make an argument that 49ers-Seahawks has been more interesting over the last decade than Yanks-Soxs, just to keep it within the spectrum of teams you like.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not, but you are distorting the timeline a bit.

The fuck you talking about?  Jesus just drop it, I was agreeing with you on the larger point.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's only the biggest rivalry in sports if you have some stakes on it.

Yeah, and those stakes were incredibly high in 2003 and 2004.  They also met in the ALDS two years ago en route to the Sox winning another championship.  That's three times they've met in the postseason this century, only one less than the Ravens-Steelers.  The Yanks-Sox did have a lull between 2010 and 2016, but hell, the Ravens and Steelers haven't made the playoffs at the same time since 2014.  In fact, they've made it at the same time 5 times since 2000 compared to the Yankees/Sox's 7.  Even since 2010, it's just 3-2 in favor of Ravens-Steelers.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

The fuck you talking about?  Jesus just drop it, I was agreeing with you on the larger point.

I know you agree, I'm just Kalbearing you. 

Quote

Yeah, and those stakes were incredibly high in 2003 and 2004.  They also met in the ALDS two years ago en route to the Sox winning another championship.  That's three times they've met in the postseason this century, only one less than the Ravens-Steelers.  The Yanks-Sox did have a lull between 2010 and 2016, but hell, the Ravens and Steelers haven't made the playoffs at the same time since 2014.  In fact, they've made it at the same time 5 times since 2000 compared to the Yankees/Sox's 7.  Even since 2010, it's just 3-2 in favor of Ravens-Steelers.

So what you're saying is basically it's a wash record wise. Great. So the edge obviously goes to the sport where rivalries are far more punishing. 

I know you love baseball and the Yankees, but you're wrong here. And honestly, I would think it would be someone from the Red Sox side that would dig in about the rivalry. The Yankees aren't just the big brother to the Red Sox, they're their daddy, even if it hasn't gone that way lately. If anything you're discussing a fall from grace. Ravens-Steelers is a constant blood sport. 

[DMC]

35 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So what you're saying is basically it's a wash record wise. Great. So the edge obviously goes to the sport where rivalries are far more punishing. 

Uh, I'm saying your argument that "stakes" gives Ravens-Steelers the edge is largely bullshit.  Especially when you take into account the stakes of the 2003 and 2004 ALCS'.  The Ravens and Steelers only met in the conference championship once - in 2008 - so in that regard the Yanks/Sox clearly win in terms of stakes.  As for the edge going to the sport that's more "punishing," that's about the dumbest criterion I could fathom.

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know you love baseball and the Yankees, but you're wrong here.

LOL, no, you're clearly wrong here.  Run a poll about important rivalries, even isolated to this century, and Yanks-Sox is gonna kick the shit out of Ravens-Steelers.  You're also qualitatively clearly wrong about stakes while quantitatively it's largely a wash in both stakes and consistency, the two points you raised.

And I actually prefer football to baseball, and obviously agree with the fact that football is much more popular than baseball (and has been this entire century).  This has nothing to do with my Yankees fandom.  If anything it has more to do with my annoyance with Steelers fandom.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Uh, I'm saying your argument that "stakes" gives Ravens-Steelers the edge is largely bullshit.  Especially when you take into account the stakes of the 2003 and 2004 ALCS'.  The Ravens and Steelers only met in the conference championship once - in 2008 - so in that regard the Yanks/Sox clearly win in terms of stakes.  

Your need to cling to two years is hilarious. And we are comparing two entirely different sports. 
 

Quote

As for the edge going to the sport that's more "punishing," that's about the dumbest criterion I could fathom.

I sincerely doubt you played much varsity ball then, because you felt a thousand times worse after a football game than you did a basketball or baseball game. 

Quote

LOL, no, you're clearly wrong here.  Run a poll about important rivalries, even isolated to this century, and Yanks-Sox is gonna kick the shit out of Ravens-Steelers.  You're also qualitatively clearly wrong about stakes while quantitatively it's largely a wash in both stakes and consistency, the two points you raised.

Oh my, media bias galore. And the Cowboys are still America's team despite the fact they've sucked for the last 25 years. What a shitty measurement tool for someone such as yourself to rely on.

And stakes in football matter significantly more than they do in baseball. 

Quote

And I actually prefer football to baseball, and obviously agree with the fact that football is much more popular than baseball (and has been this entire century).  This has nothing to do with my Yankees fandom.  If anything it has more to do with my annoyance with Steelers fandom.

Double biases at play here. Again remove yourself from your fandom. Feel nothing for or against the teams. And quit trying to electrocute your nipples with a car battery.

Save the whales.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Your need to cling to two years is hilarious. And we are comparing two entirely different sports. 

It's not clinging to "two years," it's using your own argument - stakes.  Obviously, one facet of stakes would be if the two teams met at the highest level in their respective playoffs, no?  That seems to be a pretty damn objective aspect of stakes.  And in that case, the Yanks-Sox beat the Steelers-Ravens 2-1.  Moreover, the qualitative stakes of the Sawks trying to break the curse - and going through the Yankees to do so - is a significant consideration to any reasonable person.

The rest of your response is so idiotic it doesn't even warrant a response.  One thing I must ask, though, "stakes in football matter significantly more than they do in baseball."  What the fuck does that even mean?

[Nictarion]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

Uh, I'm saying your argument that "stakes" gives Ravens-Steelers the edge is largely bullshit.  Especially when you take into account the stakes of the 2003 and 2004 ALCS'.  The Ravens and Steelers only met in the conference championship once - in 2008 - so in that regard the Yanks/Sox clearly win in terms of stakes.  As for the edge going to the sport that's more "punishing," that's about the dumbest criterion I could fathom.

LOL, no, you're clearly wrong here.  Run a poll about important rivalries, even isolated to this century, and Yanks-Sox is gonna kick the shit out of Ravens-Steelers.  You're also qualitatively clearly wrong about stakes while quantitatively it's largely a wash in both stakes and consistency, the two points you raised.

And I actually prefer football to baseball, and obviously agree with the fact that football is much more popular than baseball (and has been this entire century).  This has nothing to do with my Yankees fandom.  If anything it has more to do with my annoyance with Steelers fandom.

I always knew you were good people. 

[unJon]

1 hour ago, Nictarion said:

I always knew you were good people. 

Let’s go Steelers!

I’m a bit of an odd Steelers fan. I actually like the Ravens and root for them whenever I think it won’t impact the Steelers adversely. One of my favorite playoff runs was the 2000 Ravens.

I don’t mind the Browns either and I hope they make a wildcard. The Bengals can go fuck themselves. 

[Nictarion]

46 minutes ago, unJon said:

Let’s go Steelers!

I’m a bit of an odd Steelers fan. I actually like the Ravens and root for them whenever I think it won’t impact the Steelers adversely. One of my favorite playoff runs was the 2000 Ravens.

I don’t mind the Browns either and I hope they make a wildcard. The Bengals can go fuck themselves. 

Aren’t they all?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

It's not clinging to "two years," it's using your own argument - stakes.  Obviously, one facet of stakes would be if the two teams met at the highest level in their respective playoffs, no?  That seems to be a pretty damn objective aspect of stakes.  And in that case, the Yanks-Sox beat the Steelers-Ravens 2-1.  Moreover, the qualitative stakes of the Sawks trying to break the curse - and going through the Yankees to do so - is a significant consideration to any reasonable person.

Again, focusing so much on two years in a twenty year window misses the point. Ravens-Steelers has been consistently good over that timespan. You can't say the same for Yanks-Sox. Perhaps the latter's high point is better, but in a pervious post you basically spelled out how the rivalries are basically a wash matchup wise, and in that case, the football rivalry pretty obviously wins out unless you're being a biased fan, which is exactly what's happening here.

Quote

The rest of your response is so idiotic it doesn't even warrant a response.  One thing I must ask, though, "stakes in football matter significantly more than they do in baseball."  What the fuck does that even mean?

Scarcity of games. It's why baseball is a dying sport. Individual games outside of the playoffs typically don't mean anything in baseball. They can be life and death in football.