Not precisely a failure, but I’m reminded of Shoeless Joe Jackson, who “supposedly” participated in throwing the 1919 World Series.
Except that Jackson hit .375 over the series, with 12 hits and and a home run. Show me anyone else who came even close (actually, Buck Weaver was the only one of the conspirators to breka .300 - see the stats here: http://www.blackbetsy.com/1919ws.htm).
There’s no “supposedly” about it. Jackson took the money and was considered by the others to be part of the fix. He confessed to this at the time and would have been convicted except for the fact that the confessions mysteriously disappeared before the case went to trial.
Chick Gandil, who was part of the entire thing, once wrote an article on the situation. He claimed that the players did not throw the series. They took the money, but kept changing their mind about matters. In a couple of the games (the first, most obviously), they were letting up; in others, they were playing their best. It depended on how they felt day to day about the gamblers. He finished by saying that they lost the series because they were outplayed, not because they threw it. (And that Cincinnati team won 96 games that year vs. Chicago’s 88, so there’s evidence they were better.)
Everyone at the time agreed Jackson was involved. He may have dropped out early, or found himself unable to let up (there was a story about Bill Russell, who when asked to miss the basket for a TV commercial, found himself unable to do so. Jackson may have been the same – his instincts overcoming his laying off). The at bats alone prove nothing.
I admire Jackson for what he did on the field; no doubt he was a great ballplayer. But he was involved.
astorian, people are always complaining about the Super Bowl being a blowout. But I wonder if it simply the result of most football games in general being blowouts. I think it may be that the Super Bowl is so hyped up that people have an unrealistic expectation of a close game from the two great teams.
I wonder if someone has ever done a comparison being average margins in Super Bowl, as compared to average margins in other games (in which the teams have similar records).
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me, guys…
The AFC losing eleven straight Super Bowls. Which “proved” the NFC’s “clear dominance” to the AFC. Gag me with a blocking pad. You’re putting teams like the Cowboys and 49ers in the same category as the Saints, Lions, Panthers, and Falcons?
Here’s how I see it. The AFC is and always has been a competitive divison, and may have actually been slightly stronger overall for much of the past decade. However, there’s never been one really dominating team, like the '85 Bears. Furthermore, many of the AFC champions were there for just the first or second time and didn’t have the big-game experience necessary to win the game of their lives. And sometimes a team just plain screws up. The Buffalo Bills have always had a dominating team, but never could put it together in the Super Bowl. Their SB agianst the Giants should never have come down to a desperation field goal, their next two losses were aberrations (fell behind early and it just snowballed), and they LED at the half in their fourth SB, but for some bizarre reason made a bunch of mistakes and let the Dallas offense completely take over (oh, and they were held scoreless in the second half, too).
The NFC has had great champions. That does not make the AFC a feeble conference. Of course, now that we have teams like the Rams (The Rams! The freaking Rams!!) and Ravens winning Super Bowls, I just hope we can lay this ridiculous myth to rest for good.
RealityChuck - This reminds me of something…given the rap against Rickey Henderson, and given how some publications shamefully downplayed his breaking the all-time steals record (because they didn’t want to put him alongside Nolan Ryan or something), when he retires, what will he be better known for, his phenomenal record and the game-breaking ability he brought year after year…or that ring he got because he happened to be withe the Blue Jays at just the right time? I hope it’ll be the former. I also hope that Colin Montgomerie wins a career grand slam.
ElvisL1ves - From what I hear, the consensus is that Greg Norman has been incredibly unlucky, but he’s also failed to win tournaments he should have (that infamous Masters was only the most glaring example…his last and best chance). No one’s seriously calling him a spineless choker, but I don’t think anyone would put him in an elite echelon with the likes of Byron Nelson or Jack Nicklaus.
Dignan/Zoff - It wasn’t the first shot that killed him, it was the second. Jean Van de Velde needed a double bogey to win it all. So of course, he whips out the driver. And slices his tee shot horribly, almost off the 18th altogether. However, he’s in light rough and has a clear shot to the fairway. So it wasn’t a fatal mistake, and he has an easy recovery. So what does he do? Yep, he shoots for the green…and slices this shot even MORE horribly, going from the light to the not-so-light rough. The rest is history. It wasn’t the first shot that killed him, it was the second. He refused to play it safe even after his tee shot showed him why he should. To tempt fate and screw up twice in a row was unforgivable.
I’m astonished that anyone at all criticizes the Braves. I thought you were a “choker” only if you won NO championships. Like the Vikings (where I kinda feel it’s deserved) and Bills. Atlanta won a World Series! Only one, yeah, but they won it! Are we going to set quotas on how many championships a team “should” win? (Thank goodness John Elway was never under this kind of pressure.)
Oh, and the Penn State team I referred to was the one that went 12-0 and didn’t win the national title, which went to Nebraska, which also had a perfect record. They never played against each other, not even in a bowl game. The “tiebreaker” was a handful of stuffed shirts who do not play football. I don’t care where you’re from, Penn State was NOT a “loser” that year.
IIRC, Penn State had a better record than the team that won the championship not once, not twice, but 4 times. :eek:
For the record, 1968, …
Well, perhaps I don’t recall correctly after all. 
In 1994 they were unbeaten along with the same Nebraska team that spanked the FL Gators (YEAH!!!) 69-17 or something like that. And in 1985 they tied OK with an 11-1 record, but were #3 behind both OK and Michigan (10-1-1). In 1978 they had the same record as the national champ Alabama (11-1), but were ranked 4th after USC and Oklahoma. In 1977 it was even worse - 5 teams finished 11-1 and Penn State finished 5th (Nuetered Dames, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Penn State). In 1969 they had the same record as Texas, but was voted #2, meaning that they went 22-0 in '68 and '69 but still weren’t considered the best team in the country either year.
Being a Georgia Bulldog fan, the only thing I can say about Pittsburgh is “how does #2 sound?” I can’t stand Penn State at all, but don’t tell my wife as she is a big fan of Joe Paterno. 
DKW – Henderson is one of the biggest jerks in sports, but being a jerk doesn’t keep you from being in the Hall of Fame (remember, Ty Cobb was one of the first elected). Henderson will be remembered for his base stealing and run scoring. (He actually has two WS rings, BTW.) People only remember WS players if they either have a great series (Clemente), a great moment (Mazeroski, G. C. Alexander, Walter Johnson*), or a long career (Berra, Ford). The fact that someone was on a WS champion is noted but otherwise forgotten.
*Johnson’s winning the final game of the 1924 series was the stuff of legend, and that series may have been one of the earlist examples of the “hasn’t won a championship” hype. Johnson was 36 at the time, had won more games than anyone but Cy Young, but had played for a bunch of lousy teams. He lost his first two starts, and came back in relief in the 7th game, and won because of a couple of lucky breaks. Great story, no doubt, but do you really think Johnson wouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame if the ball hadn’t hit that pebble?
Trumped-up failures? Ah, that may as well be the new name for the Inter-Toto Cup. UEFA, the union of European football associations, decided that it needed a new competition to fill the TV schedules during the traditional summer closed season. The end result was a complete lack of interest from fans (not caring about no-mark Eastern European teams on TV) and clubs (wanting to rest their overpaid superstars) alike.
English clubs had to be virtually press-ganged into taking part; Wimbledon sent a team made up of loan signings, trialists and youngsters ‘borrowed’ from other clubs rather than risk their regular first team. It’s improved a bit now, as greed and the possibility of a place in the UEFA Cup encourage club chairman, but this ranks as the most pointless football tournament since the Anglo-Italian Cup slit its throat in shame.
Well, the Rams are an NFC team, not AFC–so that doesn’t help your case too much.
As to the OP:
Now, I don’t know the exact situation here–who they were playing, exact field position, etc (since I pay f*ck-all attention to what the stinkin Cowboys are doing)–but going for it on 4th on your end of the field is a terrible decision. At least, it is if you can’t afford to let the opponent score. No matter how good your offense is, it will often be stopped–especially when the defence realizes they have a chance to turn the game around–or put a nail in the coffin.
Bad idea.
Astorian, your analysis is sound, but your hypothetical is wrong. The 1972-73 Dolphins didn’t miss tackles or blocks and they didn’t fumble. They very methodically crushed whoever they played. Every game went like this: Dolphins take opening kickoff and go 80 yards for a touchdown, taking 7 minutes to do so. The other team would get the ball and go 3 and out. The Dolphins would get the ball back and go 75 yards for another touchdown, eating up up the rest of the first quarter. The game would be over by then, because no one came back on the Dolphins, and the 'Fins spent the rest of the game running out the clock.
DKW said:
I remember having a conversation in the mid-'90s with a kid who claimed that the NFC would dominate Super Bowls forever because they were the “best” conference. I pointed out to him that after Super Bown XV the score was AFC 11/NFC 4, that it was 11-2 in the past 13, and that as of that time the Steelers had won as many as the entire NFC combined. He just stared at me–he was too young to remember it, and he didn’t get the significance. Maybe he had a stroke when Denver beat Green Bay a few years ago.
First of all…I don’t think anyone says that you can’t be a great player unless you win a championship…but it is said that your career isn’t complete.
How bout an obscure one:
The first year that the INDY 500 went to the IRL cars…and CART staged the US500 on the same day…head to head…and on the first lap…half the field wrecked.
On a similar note…the decision to split the open wheel series’ (IRL and CART) was a HUGE mistake…it allowed NASCAR to become the dominant series…as well as lure away the drivers who should have been in the INDY series. Jeff Gordon, an Indiana boy…came up through the ranks…but somehow the open wheel series let him go…then they let Tony Sterwart go. Imagine the CART series with those two every week…instead of the no names they have now.
…but the PGA Championship made it unavoidable. Yep, the slagging on Phil Mickelson has already begun.
Huh…my response (other than it’s golf; this sort of thing happens all the time) is as follows.
First off, he’s thirty-freaking-one years old, and you can go back to my comments on David Duval in the OP; my sentiments are exactly the same.
Number two, although he’s competed in 31 “majors”, he’s only had four podium finishes prior to today. So he hasn’t really been in a position to win those “majors” until recently. Now he’s shown that he’s capable of winning, and any reasonable person knows that it’s only a matter of time.
San-ban (little tip of the hat to Shingo Katayama there :)), I encourage everyone to actually look at the kind of tournament he had. Four rounds of -4, final pressure-packed round at -2. Considering the difficulty of the course, this is a phenomenal result. It’s only because one man was even more phenomenal that he didn’t win (you do not “lose” a non-match play golf tournament any more than you “lose” a marathon). Had David Toms, say, overshot his layup on 18 into the water and missed the up-and-down, would anyone even dare decry the kind of rounds Mickelson had? So why should it make any difference what one opponent did?
Well. Here’s to a great '02 in in case…Phil Mickelson isn’t going away, you can be sure of that.
Myrr21 - My point was that any team can win the Super Bowl these days (except for the Cardinals, of course), so arguing conferences is pointless. I do think that the AFC had an all-around better conference in the '00 season. (Of course, the Giants absolutely trampling their conference may have had something to do with it.)
Re. the ill-fated 4th and inches: The opponent was Kansas City, it was a late-season game in IIRC Dallas’ last Super Bowl season. The entire team caught an incredible amount of hell for that decision.