Matthew Yglesias (January 21, 2007)

With Pat Riley "on leave" from the Miami Heat, the Colts and the Patriots are now the two most loathsome teams in professional sports.

Hello? The New York Yankees?

Posted by dj moonbat | January 21, 2007 1:32 PM

The Yankees have many bad qualities. Nevertheless, people in Boston hate them, and I hate Bostonians, so I give them something of a pass. Also I don't care enough about baseball to really hate any MLB teams.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 21, 2007 1:34 PM

The Friday set has a bizarrely wonderful low-light blurriness. It all suggests the third pint experience quite nicely.

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2007 1:42 PM

Other than put together an efficient football-winning machine, what have the Pats done wrong? I know you don't like gleeful New Englanders, but it's hardly the Pats' fault that we're the ones rooting for them. And besides the Red Sox fan spillover, are Pats fans that bad? They're certainly not as in-your-face as Steelers fans, for one. On character grounds, I don't see what there is to dislike about the Pats. Would you rather pull for the Bengals, when they have enough guys out of prison to field a squad?

Posted by J-Dub | January 21, 2007 1:52 PM

Rooting for the Patriots is like rooting for McDonald's, or vanilla.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 21, 2007 1:59 PM

many injuries? you jerk.

Posted by marty coyne | January 21, 2007 2:01 PM

many injuries? you jerk.

Many painful injuries.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 21, 2007 2:12 PM

I second J-Dub, your hatred here seems pretty irrational. It's not just Brady but the whole team that gets credit of, as you say, knowing "how to win big games." This can be an extremely annoying meme, I grant you, but that's because it is overused and generally false. But isn't it in fact true here? Do they not have an extraordinary record that goes well beyond luck? Have they not several times (12-1? 13-1?) beaten teams clearly superior to them in talent (Pitt, StL, Indy, now SD) by playing a particular type of football that intelligently accounts for the likelihood of pressure-induced mistakes by opposition?

I guess this pure NY snobbery exacerbated by the time you spent there, which is fine as far as it goes. (I'll always remember being in Kenmore Square after the first Superbowl win and seeing a guy screaming at the sky: "Yankees Suck!" I realized then that the Boston fan was just too weird to relate to.) But you generally use just this kind of situation to engage your brain.

Posted by nolaboyd | January 21, 2007 2:13 PM

Dallas is still the Dallas of the National
Football
League.

I suspect they will be for a long time.

I don't get the vanilla analogy.

As overexposed as PMann is, he really is remarkably good in pretty much all of those ads. Not that their frequency isn't annoying or that he isn't ARod. Both of those are true.

Most loathsome teams in pro sports (a partial list in no particular order):
Yankees
Dallas [Cowboys]
Real Madrid
Man U
Redskins
Notre Dame Football

Posted by ed | January 21, 2007 2:14 PM

GO SAINTS!!

To hell with media oversaturation. We really, really need this.

Posted by nolaboyd | January 21, 2007 2:16 PM

This complaining about the Patriots is not in keeping with your moneyball proclivities. I'm guessing you don't know the game well enough to engage with it on anything other than a personal level.

Posted by Wade | January 21, 2007 2:24 PM

I fail to see how the Patriots are more loathsome than the Cowboys or Lakers. I think it would be extremely boring to watch them win another Super Bowl, but not loathsome. Though really the best case scenario is for the Colts to win today, in another subpar game for Manning, and then for him to have the worst game of his career in losing the Super Bowl.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | January 21, 2007 2:31 PM

I like both of the AFC coaches -- Belichick (perhaps the best NFL coach of all time) and Dungy (who I felt a little sorry for after Gruden took his Tampa team to the championship). The quarterbacks? not so much.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 21, 2007 2:36 PM

Do they not have an extraordinary record that goes well beyond luck? Have they not several times (12-1? 13-1?) beaten teams clearly superior to them in talent (Pitt, StL, Indy, now SD) by playing a particular type of football that intelligently accounts for the likelihood of pressure-induced mistakes by opposition?

Yes, and it gets incredibly annoying, and I wish some other team's fans could have similar good luck. Also, Pitt was never superior to them in talent.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | January 21, 2007 2:56 PM

GO SAINTS!!

Seconded. I've never rooted against a Boston team, but I'm hoping for a Saints victory over the Pats two weeks from now.

Posted by J-Dub | January 21, 2007 3:08 PM

Seventy-nine, Matt? We are all humbled.

Posted by trey | January 21, 2007 3:17 PM

What's football?

I said before the season that the Mavericks could be a 70 win team. I suspect everyone laughed. They won't make it, but if they had started in form, and won 3 of those first 4, it would have been possible. 20/21, 34/38. Tough road wins look easy.

When do we start comparing this team to Classic Bulls, Lakers, Celtics?

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 21, 2007 3:37 PM

"When do we start comparing this team to Classic Bulls, Lakers, Celtics?"

After they win at least one championship?

Posted by Petey | January 21, 2007 3:40 PM

the Colts and the Patriots are now the two most loathsome teams in professional sports.

More loathsome than a Brian Billick coached team?

Hardly.

The playoffs are already a huge success since they were bounced last week - even if it had to be done by that creepy, porn-mustachioed, be-wigged 6'5" quarterback with a laser, rocket arm (a fact which makes the Colts more loathsome than the Pats.)

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 21, 2007 3:42 PM

In fact, it's kind of a shock that Brian Billick didn't make the "50 most loathsome people" list linked on your sidebar.

Huge oversight.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 21, 2007 3:46 PM

I'm hoping for injuries. Many, many injuries.

It will really take only one injury: Peyton Manning is knocked out of the game early for the rest of this game (and the Super Bowl) and the Colts go on to win it all. It would screw up Manning's head forever if Jim Sorgi came in and won the big games. (I did not even know Jim Sorgi was the backup, I had to go look it up. I have no idea who he is.)

Posted by Antid Oto | January 21, 2007 3:48 PM

It will really take only one injury: Peyton Manning is knocked out of the game early for the rest of this game (and the Super Bowl) and the Colts go on to win it all. It would screw up Manning's head forever if Jim Sorgi came in and won the big games.

That would be the best playoff outcome imaginable.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 21, 2007 3:52 PM

Do they not have an extraordinary record that goes well beyond luck? Have they not several times (12-1? 13-1?) beaten teams clearly superior to them in talent (Pitt, StL, Indy, now SD) by playing a particular type of football that intelligently accounts for the likelihood of pressure-induced mistakes by opposition?

A bit of a tension here--they've beaten superior teams sometimes by playing well, and other times by luck. The tuck rule being just one example.

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 21, 2007 3:54 PM

Also, refusing to hate the Yankees because of your irrational hatred for Boston is just wrong. And the Cowboys? Isn't it every good American's obligation to hate the Cowboys?

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 21, 2007 3:55 PM

Replace NBA on ABC with Arsenal-ManU, and yes, this is a great day for sports.

Posted by moriarty | January 21, 2007 3:58 PM

I have to go with DJ Moonbat on this one. I don't hate the Pats because they are successful, I hate them because they are dull. They play the most unispiring, bland football imaginable. I hate the Cowboys as well, but at least when they were winning championships, they were fun to watch.

Pats vs. the Bears in the Super Bowl is my personal vision of Hell.

Plus, Belichick is, how do I put this nicely, an asshole. He is notoriously not only a sore loser, but a sore winner as well.

Posted by Samba00 | January 21, 2007 4:07 PM

The injuries line isn't funny.

Posted by Bill Gardner | January 21, 2007 4:18 PM

In the list ed posted above he had two critical omissions:

Dallas [Cowboys]
Real Madrid
Man U
Redskins
Notre Dame Football
Lakers
Yankees

I would leave off the Redskins, because they have forever been a bridesmaid to the Cowboy's Bride as the number one corporatist, media-whore team in the NFL. Still I think that list is probably as comprehensive as it gets.

For instance I niether watch or care for baseball or college football, yet I can instantly tell you through exposure to their media pollen and drone-like fans that the Yankees and Notre Dame football represent all that is evil and soul steeling in sports. I also happen to be a fan of ManU, but I can understand why they are hated for reasons beyond their record.

Posted by pisomojado | January 21, 2007 4:19 PM

The injuries line isn't funny.

Sure it is.

The "wishing injury" taboo is self deluding hypocrisy when it comes to a sport like football.

It's like being a fan of strip clubs and lap dancing yet being offended by pornography.

Posted by pisomojado | January 21, 2007 4:28 PM

I would leave off both the Redskins and Notre Dame until they start winning again. Who hates a perpetual loser?

Posted by Antid Oto | January 21, 2007 4:40 PM

I would leave off both the Redskins and Notre Dame until they start winning again. Who hates a perpetual loser?

Notre Dame should be at the top of the list because they are so consistently overrated.

Posted by a | January 21, 2007 4:54 PM

I agree re: Notre Dame.

They should stay on the list until their alumni/fans shut up about how they're too important (or too big a draw) to be part of a conference, and how they deserve their NBC contract.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 21, 2007 5:03 PM

That Notre Dame-NBC contract probably did as much to make Notre Dame hated as did anything else. Especially when they wrote in the part about Notre Dame BASKETBALL being included.

Posted by pisomojado | January 21, 2007 5:08 PM

Dallas [Cowboys]
Real Madrid
Man U
Redskins
Notre Dame Football
Lakers
Yankees

Replace one of the soccer teams with Juventus.

Posted by Thlayli | January 21, 2007 5:24 PM

i don't understand the notion of hating a team just because they win: i mean, if people want to hate the yanks because of george steinbrenner, fine i get that.

if they want to hate the lakers because the showtime lakers were just, so, showy, or because of the year with karl malone and gary payton, fine, i get that.

if they want to hate juventus because they cheated, or chelsea because abramovich is a russian oil billionaire (meaning his money is almost certainly dirty), or real madrid because the galacticos concept was so un-team, i get that.

but hating the pats because they have cracked the code to winning in the free agency era? (to be fair, btw, i should acknowledge that i was at wesleyan with coach belichick, leading to my desperate question to all my football-watching friends when the pats are in the post-season: who looks older, belichick or me?)

and pisomojado, speaking as a man u fan, i don't understand hating them at all: they play the most attractive, attacking soccer in the known world. (i mean, i get that arsenal or liverpool fans might hate 'em as an old rival, and that bayern fans might hate 'em cause of '99, but not the normal fan. and while i don't want to give away the results to anyone who might be planning on watching a recorded version of man u - arsenal, moriarty, but it was a great match, wasn't it?)

Posted by howard | January 21, 2007 5:34 PM

My defense of the earlier injury comment aside, your latest storm analogy was truly ugly.

Posted by pisomojado | January 21, 2007 6:14 PM

your latest storm analogy was truly ugly.

That's a simile, punk.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | January 21, 2007 6:20 PM

howard,

I think the answer to your question about ManU is the same one for all of those teams on the list. It's not a winning tradition or myth that makes them hated, its the media saturation and the deliberate, hit-you-over-the head marketing of that myth over and over and over, even when its not been true in years.

Its the sports equivalent of "if you're not with us you're against us" marketing that questions your credentials and your patriotism while trying to lay on the brainwash. There is something naturally repugnant about it.

Anyway, I think ManU have earned a reprieve in the Prem with Abramovich driving Chelski these days.

Posted by pisomojado | January 21, 2007 6:26 PM

The problem with the Patriots and Bears is that they're basically the Riley Knicks/Popovich Spurs of the NFL: boring, grind-it-out football, limited offensive skills (though Brady is very good). Whether you're sick of the Saints over-saturation or not, they do play exciting offensive football and that's what I was cheering for more than the "wounded city rallies around a team" story. I'd much rather see teams copy the Saints' misdirection offense than see teams copy the Bears' huge investment defense and incompetent quarterback.

Posted by Andrew | January 21, 2007 6:35 PM

Say what you will about the Pats, but you can't beat Belichik's sweat shirt with the cut off sleeves. Almost makes you nostalgic for Tom Laundry.

Posted by mert7878 | January 21, 2007 6:42 PM

That party looks like fun. Not.

Posted by Martin | January 21, 2007 7:00 PM

Dude, that update is both dick and wrong. It has nothing to do with the players and everything to do with the city. I just got back from New Orleans yesterday, and there are a lot of people more excited about the Saints season than about just about anything else in the last year. And it's not a fair-weather thing at all -- back in the summer, after a 4-12 season, anybody with a good set of lungs could get a Who Dat going at the drop of a hat. I'm not a big believer in the "sports as healing" thing, but this was different. Maybe for the players it's just a team like any other, but for a lot of people in New Orleans it was about knowing that the spirit of the city couldn't be destroyed. I know you were just being flip, but you're way off base.

In other news, the Pats just went 35 yards on a 4th down in the first quarter. What do they have to do to win even gruding approval?

Posted by J-Dub | January 21, 2007 7:12 PM

From the update: The Bears just hit N.O. like a category six football storm: Woo!

You're clearly drunk, Matt.

Posted by dj moonbat | January 21, 2007 7:39 PM

"The "wishing injury" taboo is self deluding hypocrisy when it comes to a sport like football. It's like being a fan of strip clubs and lap dancing yet being offended by pornography."

A point well taken. But it doesn't make the line funny.

Posted by Bill Gardner | January 21, 2007 8:36 PM

You know what would suck? The Patriots winning while Manning has an excellent second half...

Posted by Scott Lemieux | January 21, 2007 9:22 PM

and while i don't want to give away the results to anyone who might be planning on watching a recorded version of man u - arsenal, moriarty, but it was a great match, wasn't it?)

I'm somewhat amused by someone not wanting to spoil the result of a Premiership match. It *was* a good game, as have been most (all?) of the big Arsenal-ManU-Chelsea showdowns this year.

Posted by morairty | January 21, 2007 10:04 PM

I think the category six "simile" is pretty damn funny. MY isn't laughing at the suffering of the city; he's mocking the sentimentalism-run-amok of the sportwriters. The Saints don't REALLY have anything to do with New Orleans. Other than the Green Bay Packers (locally owned by the community), no professional team has any intrinsic connection to its host city. And if Green Bay was wiped out by a tornado, it still would be silly to track the victorious march of the Packers through the playoffs as if it demonstrated anything at all about the spirit of Green Bay.

MY's comment is shockingly mean, but that doesn't make it any less funny.

Posted by wilbur | January 21, 2007 10:25 PM

The problem with the Patriots and Bears is that they're basically the Riley Knicks/Popovich Spurs of the NFL: boring, grind-it-out football, limited offensive skills (though Brady is very good).

There must be more than one team named the Patriots, because that sure doesn't describe the one from New England.

Posted by moriarty | January 21, 2007 10:28 PM

I'm somewhat amused by someone not wanting to spoil the result of a Premiership match.

As a matter of fact, I HAVE TiVo'd the match and am about to watch it, having had stuff to do this morning and watched the two NFL games this afternoon and evening. So, to howard, THANKS!

Posted by Al | January 21, 2007 10:39 PM

Not to mention the return of - and the move to Sunday night of - BSG

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | January 21, 2007 10:48 PM

al, to tell ya the truth, the reason i was extra careful was...you earlier this year tipped off the west ham upset of man u before i had seen a recorded version, and that, moriarty, is part of why i'm careful: the other part is that my local soccer pub generally shows the big matches twice and ones that are on satellite and not on fox that i'm interested in i sometimes don't get to see until the evening, so i have to be very careful to avoid results.

Al, enjoy the match!

wilbur, my new orleans-residing mother-in-law never gave two hoots about football until this year, when the saints provided one of the few commonalities in the city. i agree that there's no "real" connection there, and if the right circumstances arose, as a business matter, the saints would leave in the blink of an eye, but still: the saints may not be intrinsically connected to the city, but the city is connected to the saints....

Posted by howard | January 21, 2007 11:01 PM

I certainly understand why so many people dislike the Colts... what with the team sneaking out of Baltimore in the middle of the night, and the ridiculous media overexposure of Peyton Manning.

That said, I was an 8 year old living in Indianapolis when the Colts came to town, so I'm a bit biased. Indianapolis is a small market that has never won a pro sports championship in anything ever. You gotta love the plucky small-market teams, right? And hey, it may be a Red State, but Indianapolis and Marion County went for Kerry. They're good people.

We suffered through something like 9 losing NFL seasons in the first 10 years. We watched the Pacers lose to MJ's Bulls in 7 games and lose to the Knicks on a ridiculous 4-point play. We've watched the Colts choke repeatedly in recent years. Surely you all can begrudge us one lousy Vince Lombardi Trophy after all these years of suffering.

Oh, screw it. Why am I trying to be all fair and balanced? SUCK IT, New England Bitchez!

Colts! Colts! Colts!!!!!!!

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 21, 2007 11:56 PM

There must be more than one team named the Patriots, because that sure doesn't describe the one from New England.

I'll admit that I don't watch a lot of Patriots games, as I don't live on the East Coast. However, I think the Pats first Super Bowl was the very definition of a grid-it-out football victory. It was defense- and turnover-filled, with one last drive to win it. I feel that the divisional game was the same way, turning on fumbles and penalties. They've historically had the large defensive players that enable them to rough up opposing offenses. They've gotten the illegal contact rules changed/more stringently enforced, much like how the NBA disallowed handchecking to open up the offenses. Obviously, it's not an exact metaphor, but there's several similarities.

Posted by Andrew | January 22, 2007 12:35 AM

Say, Matt. I might note that it's only out-of-towners that spout that stuff about the Saints. Our local coverage is about football tactics and performance. Only tools like Joe Buck sit around blathering about Cinderella. We're not hanging in bars saying how we deserve to win because of the storm.

On the same note, we don't really waste much time talking about the storm either. It's only visitors who want to bring it up.

Posted by Kiril | January 22, 2007 6:11 AM

If you're looking for loathsome, it's hard to beat Ferrari with Michael Schumacher. I'm looking forward to hard times for the sign of the Prancing Horse now that the real-life equivalent of Snidely Whiplash is in retirement tooling 'round the American Southwest on his Harley.

As for the coming hypefest with a football game attached, I think Indy will win but they're lucky that they have a two-week lay-off; the Bears would have been coming in with some serious momentum.

Posted by Shrike58 | January 22, 2007 8:04 AM

you earlier this year tipped off the west ham upset of man u before I had seen a recorded version,

I wasn't aware that I'd ever posted about soccer here, let alone mentioned results.

Posted by moriarty | January 22, 2007 10:01 AM

moriarty, take a look back: i said that al had tipped me off, not you!

andrew, putting aside that there is nothing wrong with grind-it-out football, the pats have always had a very diverse offense, spreading the ball to a variety of receivers, mixing in a nice blend of draws and screens, and, of course, always trying to establish the run.

whaddya want from 'em? calling reverses and double reverses and flea flickers and statue of liberty plays? the point of the game is to win....

Posted by howard | January 22, 2007 10:55 AM

The Patriots, like all Boston-area teams, have some of the most annoyingly homerist fans ever. Really. I challenge anyone to read Bill Simmons and his smug-filled smugosity for more than 15 minutes and disagree with me.

They're so bad they've made me retroactively go back to 2004 and root for the Yankees. And at the time, as a Cubs fan, I was pulling for them every single night.

These same fans can't simply come out and say, we were lucky to get past a superior San Diego team after we gave the game away with a retarded 4th down interception. And they were. Watching Brady throw that interception against Indy made me laugh and laugh and laugh. Brady "Just wins." Manning "Just chokes."

I gleefully look forward to the entire NE fanbase and media complex calling for Belichek's head, Brady being cut, etc for the next 8 months.

Posted by dbt | January 22, 2007 12:11 PM

al, to tell ya the truth, the reason i was extra careful was...you earlier this year tipped off the west ham upset of man u before i had seen a recorded version

Ack. Sorry!

andrew, putting aside that there is nothing wrong with grind-it-out football, the pats have always had a very diverse offense, spreading the ball to a variety of receivers, mixing in a nice blend of draws and screens, and, of course, always trying to establish the run.

Exactly right. The Pats are not, in fact, a grind it out team. They have always had a good passing attack. Indeed, over this entire championship run they've had, they've rarely had backs good enough to really have a grind it out offense. Their backs are good enough in their diversified offense, but you could never depend on their backs to carry the team independent of their excellent passing attack.

Posted by Al | January 22, 2007 12:33 PM

moriarty, take a look back: i said that al had tipped me off, not you!

Sorry, I misread that.

And it appears we three Premiership fans are in agreement regarding the Pats. I don't like them, but they are as dynamic a team as there is in the NFL. They'll come out five wide in the first series and do nothing but throw. I've seen them throw 20 times in a row. In other games, they'll run the ball. Defensively, they flip from 3-4 to 4-3, go with 2-man fronts, play a WR at DB, etc. They're all over the place.

Posted by moriarty | January 22, 2007 2:05 PM

al, don't worry about it: things happen. my general philosophy is that it's not reasonable to assume that you can avoid the outcome of a major american sporting event if you've tivo'ed it, so there's no restrictions, but on soccer, where you can avoid the outcome if you want to, i take the approach of not specifically commenting on a result until the next day (for the handful of us who care!).

and yes, moriarty, all us premiership fans get the terrific variety of the pats: this actually goes back to coach belichick's days under coach parcells, when the giants would change up on defense quite a bit from week to week (of course, that was much easier in the pre-free agency days). meanwhile, the pats offense is as diversified as, say, the walsh 49ers in terms of play selection....

and finally, al, i hope you've now seen arsenal - man u, because (stop reading here if you haven't!) despite the wrong team winning, it was a terrific match.

Posted by howard | January 22, 2007 2:12 PM

Yes, very good match, howard. Henry's goal was beautiful - Eboue really had another gear to motor on by ManU's left back, his cross was just perfect, and Henry really smashed it. ManU deserved a point, although as a Chelski fan, I am happy with the result.

Posted by Al | January 22, 2007 7:11 PM

well, al, to complete the soccer hijacking of this thread, actually, even though i'm a man u fan, i thought arsenal deserved the win: they clogged the middle extremely effectively and kept rooney and ronaldo from running riot on the defensive end, while on offense, they kept creating chances out of their beautiful short-passing game (i tell you, i love man u's attacking philosophy, but when wenger's short-passing game is on and henry is running free, arsenal may well be as beautiful as your lads in barcelona) and were finally rewarded.

and yes, henry is a stud, isn't he?

Posted by howard | January 22, 2007 10:40 PM

Good Weekend

Comments (63)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories