By outcome I don’t mean, of course, “I want my team to win” - everyone does.
Rather, do you prefer that your games be nailbiting, tight, narrow contests that go all the way down to the wire and everyone is on the edge of their seats, or do you prefer lopsided blowouts in which the outcome is known by halftime?
In addition, do you prefer low-scoring defensive battles or high-scoring offensive shootouts?
When it comes to games that involve my team, I want blowouts either way. Being someone who doesn’t like stress, either it means my favorite team is winning handily and I have nothing to worry about, or else my team is getting crushed and I at least don’t have to agonize over any “what-ifs” or “if-onlys” that will nag me after the game, lamenting one or two plays that could have swung the outcome.
When it comes to games involving teams I have no rooting interest for or against, then yes I want narrow contests that go on as long and narrowly as possible, for entertainment’s sake.
I am also a sucker for cheap shallow high scoring and want lots of goals, baskets, touchdowns from all teams all the time; no purist low-scoring defensive struggles for me.
I prefer games that come out the way they’re “supposed” to be. If two top teams play, I want a nail biter. If the first place team is playing the last place team, I want to see the last place team get blown out, seeing all the top guys showing off their best moves. If it’s two last place football teams, I want to see a sloppy game with fumbles, missed field goals, lots of penalties, and so on.
High scoring or low scoring also depends on who’s playing. If it’s last year’s Cy Young winner against the Cy Young runner up, I want to see a 1-0 game. If it’s two teams loaded with sluggers both facing the other team’s fifth starter, I want to see the a high scoring slugfest.
I think the nail biters are more fun most of the time and blowouts get old quickly. On the other hand my team won a game 22-1 over the weekend and I laughed all of the way through the game so occasionally it’s fun when that happens. I certainly don’t enjoy losing that way though I’ll turn the game off and go do something else.
I don’t like a blowout, unless it’s an absolute, total, how is that even possible blowout. Like the time my college football team won 64-0… when the game was called for rain at halftime. Those are entertaining for the same reason that world records are, because they explore the boundaries of what’s possible. A more mundane 35-0 over the course of the full 60 minutes wouldn’t have been nearly as interesting: With a 35-0, even if it’s in the direction I like, I’m spending more time asking “Just why are we playing these clowns, again?”.
The best possible game is one that’s won by the team I prefer, against a worthy opponent, in a real squeaker. Like Super Bowl 43, when the Steelers (my favorite Super Bowl team) beat the Cardinals, 27-23, with a turnover at the far end of the field that turned into a touchdown. At the end of the game, I was able to say “Wow, that was the best game I’ve ever seen”… but while a game is ongoing, if I don’t know that it’s going to go that way, I’d much rather see my team build up a comfortable (though not blowout) margin.
I don’t have a lot of partisanship wrt to sports teams so what I mostly want is a close game between evenly matched teams. At another message board I once asked the question “what’s it like supporting a powerhouse team that wins most of its games in blowout fashion?” and was told “It’s awesome.” I don’t think I’ll ever empathize with that. I turn most mismatches off.
I like them to be entertaining. Sometimes that means efficient execution by one or both teams at the top of their game, but more often it means errors or risky plays that lead to cool or surprising outcomes.
I’d much rather seen an upset, because that’s more interesting. There’s a reason they make a lot more sports movies about underdogs that triumph in the end than they do about dominant teams that steamroll the opposition.
I think the ideal level of dominance, from a fan’s perspective, is the US Women’s National Soccer Team. They’re very very good. So they win a lot, which is great. But they lose enough that winning can’t be taken for granted. It probably helps that what they play in our big knockout tournaments (after a group round). If they played against other countries in a year-long league, they would probably always win the league and it would be dull. But anything can happen in a tournament. I think winning maybe 1/3 of big tournaments is the sweet spot.
Most of those folks aren’t fans at all, and it’s debatable whether they ever actually root for anyone. If “their team” goes into the dumpster, and some other team becomes the powerhouse, they’ll just root for that other team. Loyalty that is so easily transferred isn’t loyalty at all: Taken to the logical extreme, they’d always be happy with the outcome of every game, because as soon as one side one, they’d switch to that team.
I mean, sure, there are going to be some genuine fans among that number. The kid who grew up two blocks away from Yankee Stadium, and got his glove autographed by their star shortstop, and spent all his allowance money on tickets whenever he could, yeah, he’s probably still going to be a Yankees fan even if they were to suck. And maybe it’s pretty awesome to be him. But it’s tough to spot the truefans when they’re so outnumbered by the fair-weatherers.
Having worked in journalism for so long, part of me instinctively just wants a game that is quick. Even if I’m not personally on deadline, someone either at my paper or elsewhere is sweating bullets hoping to get the damn game in the paper, and I can’t help but feel for them. If it can’t be quick, I would at least like it to end in regulation. I’m not against close games, but I’m always happier if the margin is one that is least likely to give anyone the opportunity to tie things up, like a football game where one team is up by five. Blowouts are nice, but once the team that’s ahead has really sealed it up, I start begging them to just knock it off. No need for a grand slam when you’re up by nine runs.
It’s been 40 years now but I still remember high school football or basketball games ending at 9:30, still needing to get quotes and then driving back to the paper to crank out 14 column inches of clean copy before the 11 o’clock deadline.
I learned to compose half the story on the 15 minute drive back and I still marvel that I didn’t crash the car while I was concentrating on the story composition.
I suppose that’s the benefit of basketball, football, soccer, etc. - when one team is up big, the clock runs just the way the clock runs - it hits 00:00 no matter what. Unlike baseball which can in theory go on forever if one team just can’t get three outs to end an inning.
I think this is mainly because many a dynasty is short-lived. The Warriors were all but unstoppable in the NBA from 2015-2018, then fell off a cliff. The Cowboys were great from 1992-1995, then worthless. The Heat were unstoppable from 2011-2014, then bye-bye thereafter. The Bulls had two three-peats, then faded into the sunset. So you got to enjoy it to the max during the short time it lasts. Before you know it, it’s your opponents crushing you and not you them.
I mostly watch college football, and in general, I agree with @BobLibDem- I want a competitive game that’s well played. No enjoyment in watching them get blown out or in blowing out a team a tier or two lower than them.
