I was going to come here and ask about the origins of the phrase “Off the Schneid” (meaning to end a losing streak), but Google found me that answer. Apparently, in Gin Rummy, scoring zero points in a game is referred to as getting “Schneidered,” a word of Yiddish origin.
Okay, fine. But my question now is, why has this phrase suddenly become SO popular among sportscasters? I think I was vaguely aware of the term before, but in the past few weeks I must have heard it dozens of times, from ESPN commentators, the sports guy on the local news, the talk-radio shouters, newspaper columnists, and on and on.
“The Lions finally got Off the Schneid this week!”
“The Twins still can’t get Off the Schneid in the playoffs.”
“When will the 'Niners get Off the Schneid?”
…and so forth.
I say it’s time to give it a rest. What do you think? And what other terms would you like to see permanantly retired from sports lingo?
I’d like it if they just permanently retired the halftime, post-game and mid-game interview altogether. They’re invariably loaded with bad cliches and rarely provide any real information or insight.
You can always count on hearing at least (but not limited to) one of the following overused phrases that need to go away:
[ol]
[li]We’ve just got to get back to basics.[/li][li][Someone] gave/will give 110%.[/li][li]We’re pressing/trying too hard.[/li][li]It was a total team effort/failure.[/li][li]Guys need to step up.[/li][li]We’re going to take it one game at a time.[/li][li][Player/Team] brought their “A” game.[/li][li]We just need to play [team’s name] [team’s sport].[/li][/ol]
I think you can blame Chris Berman of ESPN for popularizing that phrase. (In fact, I think most of the decline of Western Civilization will eventually be traced back to Berman, but that’s another kettle of fish.)
“I’m just happy to be here, hope I can help the ball club.”
“We’ve got to play them one game at a time.”
“I’m just going to give it my best shot, and the good lord willing, thinks will work out.”
“Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Sometimes… it rains. Think about that.”
That’s not where it came from, although it is a card-game term. In card games of German origin like Skat, if a player or team fails to secure half of the required number of points, they are schneidered. So, if the opponents of a solo Skat player take only 30 points instead of the 60 needed to win their contract, they are schneidered and the solo player scores a bonus. The correct term for failing to score any points is “schwarz” (“black” in German).
I’ve never heard “schneidered” used in Gin Rummy before, where “gin” is the usual term for zero points.
I would counter that they’re not about information or insight. They work on 2 levels:
a) let the fans get a feel of being up close with the players/coach.
b) reinforce those very sports clichés that you’re talking about.
Yes, the clichés are there on purpose. A lot of fans live by those clichés. Read print sports page columnists sometime.
When a fad phrase like off the schneid, geeked up, flat, etc., passes thru sports journalism, it really is test-marketing a potential cliché. If it enters the permanent vocabulary, it’s a cliché - if not, it’s a fade, and fades away.
Why are clichés so important? I think it’s because sports are so full of traditionally masculine men. They’re taught not to be emotional or articulate, but they need some way to express the meaning of their sport in words. Clichés help them do that while maintaining an impersonal mask and not sounding Too Smart.
I wasn’t so much talking about players using cliches anyway (feel free to keep posting those though), but sportscasters overusing silly phrases. Like, say, “Three-point land” in basketball.
Another one I hate: “If you’re Joe Girardi, you might be thinking about bunting right here.”
If I’m Joe Girardi, I’m not watching the game on FOX, you idiot, so why are you talking to me?
I don’t think it has any bearing on A), and B) is all the more reason to get rid of them. There is the potential and expectation for insight, as evidenced by the post-halftime report by sideline reporters who inform us verbatim what the coaches said about the game… even when what they said was nothing at all.
The reporters converge on the players in the locker room, or even in the hallway leading to the locker room, to ask the same tired questions just to get the same sound bytes over and over and over again.
It serves no purpose except, I’d imagine, to irritate the players and coaches who, while probably exhausted and still digesting the recent events of the game, have to try and dodge loaded questions, avoid giving anyone bulletin board material, giving away any team secrets or otherwise coming across as an idiot… and in doing so they resort to lame cliches that often don’t even properly answer the questions being asked, and sound like one anyway.
If everyone knows there’s never anything fresh, why keep doing it? Because it does a job. It perpetuates myths that mean something to the audience. It sells ball the same way commercials sell beer - by creating resonance with something familiar.
My older relatives, back in Wisconsin, used to play Sheepshead (which they also referred to as Schafkopf, and which I, until I just looked it up on Wiki, didn’t know was a Skat game). I can still remember my grandmother complaining, “Oh, for cry-yey, I got schneidered again!”
For reasons I won’t get into here, Yiddish is privileged as a source for English expressions - indeed American cultural references - in a way German isn’t. You don’t see references to Sheepshead in old movies and TV shows, except for that bay in Brooklyn.
I think the clichés survive because, well, what the hell else is there to say? You lose a game because the other team plays better and scores more points. And then you feel bad for a little while.
But reporters keep asking questions, so you have to find 8,000 different ways to say the same thing.
I figure the sportscaster is talking to everyone in the world who isn’t Joe Girardi. Presumably he already knows what he’s thinking.
I was about to say something similar but not nearly as thorough. Particularly since the only skat game I’m familiar with is Sheepshead (grew up in Wisconsin where on rare occasion I’d see my father play it).
It seemed to be the default card game for my relatives, particularly the ones of my grandmother’s generation, when I was growing up. I learned how to play at one point, but haven’t played in about 20 years, and I’m not sure I even remember how anymore.
My guess is that sportscasters get put into situations where they have to adlib live in front of an audience of millions while discussing something that in most cases has already happened hundreds of times before. It’s a situation that’s going to foster cliches: you see a guy kick a field goal or steal a base and what are you going to say anout it that hasn’t already been said thousands of times? And if you tried to be original on the spur of the moment, there’s a risk you might end up saying something stupid or offensive. So you stick with the cliches.
The overused phrase that I hate the most is “Unanswered Points.” What they really mean is “Consecutive Points.” As soon as team scores a 2nd TD, they’ll say “That’s 14 UNANSWERED POINTS by the Jets!” Well, how could the last 7 points have been answered, they haven’t even kicked the ball off yet. Geez. Don’t say unanswered until the game is over when we know for sure that there was no answer to whatever # of consecutive points the other team scored.
I’m not a big fan of hearing “Pick 6” meaning a defensive player scores a touchdown after an interception. I’m not sure why, it just doesn’t sound right to me, but I can’t quite put my finger on why.
