Winning and Losing

We all like to win. But sometimes we get carried away with it enough so that we forget certain things.

I remember the episode of "Bewitched" where Samantha, who was hiding in Tabitha's preschool classroom, heard the teacher say, "It's all right to lose. But it's grand to win." To which Samantha rolled her eyes, as if to say, "THIS is what you're teaching my child?"

As I said, we all like to win. We often forget, however, that there are other things involved in competition. Like sportsmanship, for example.

A while ago, I wrote a column on how distracting foul shooters is not good sportsmanship, even though the NBA seems to condone it. Lately I have seen some of the cheerleading squads jump in at the high school level. Madison, in particular, has one "cheer" where they stand there squawking like some kind of sick bird when an opponent is at the foul line. Really??? I think it's time for the cheerleading coaches to re-evaluate what's important. I talked to two former HS basketball cheerleaders, who told me their squads never did that. One, in fact, said that they weren't allowed to. But we're in the 2010's now-- bigger, stronger, faster, ruder.

BTW, if Madison really wants to distract the foul shooters, it seems to me they shouldn't all "squawk" at the same time and pitch. They should just squawk randomly and at different pitches, so the shooter can't tell what is coming next. I shouldn't say this, because I am apt to give someone ideas. But I dare Madison to try that, and see how well that goes over. C'mon, girls. I dare you.

OSU's loss to Kentucky in the "Sweet 15 and one Sourpuss" has brought forth FB discussions that make me think of other issues. Some people think they didn't try hard enough. Now and then, that is an accurate assessment of a team's performance. But I think it is overused, and I don't think it applied here. The Wildcats had a good strategy, and OSU had an off-shooting night. For the most part, I think that was the explanation. But when a favorite loses, there will always be some that say that they didn't try hard enough.

I was amused by the announcer's assessment of the upset at game's end. He talked as though it was a huge one. In fact, the Buckeyes were 5 1/2 point favorites, which pretty much by definition makes it a mild one.

I think sometimes, tournaments make people forget their mathematics. True, OSU was the overall #1 seed. But it was commonly said that there is no dominant team in the tourney, and that going in, any one of 20 teams could walk away with the title. Now, consider Ky was a #4 seed. That's effectively equivalent to a #13-16 ranking. If such a team would have beaten OSU on a neutral floor during the regular season, sure the fans would have been disappointed. But it would have been considered a minor upset, and we would have heard about how one can expect these things during the course of the regular season.

Yes, the tournament is different from the regular season, and there are certain aspects in which teams prepare differently. But playing one's best is not something that can easily be controlled. Yes, the great players tend to ramp it up (thank you, Eric Wedge) when the game is bigger, but even they can't totally control how they play every game.

I go back to a former softball teammate of mine-- a longtime veteran of the local lots. She said that "When you take the field, you never know just who it is that is going out there. It could be Steve the hero, or Steve the goat. And I have learb=ned over time that you can't control it."

One other thing that I think probably all sports fans as well as athletes are sometimes guilty of, at least to a degree, is that we tend to take somewhat of a Machiavellian attitude. That is to say that we look at it as though we are the only ones who affect the situation.

For example, about 15 years ago, a friend of mine and I went to the Horseshoe in Columbus to cover the HS state track meet. Edgewood had a runner named Andy Greicius, who was one of the top distance runners in the state. I think it was the mile race we were watching, when Andy was winning, but eventually the guy in second place caught and passed him, and won.

My friend said something to the effect of how Greicius blew it, and I said something of the opposite opinion. My friend responded by saying, "When you run a race, you're supposed to go out there to win. You do everything you can to win."

I didn't say anything, because I didn't want to get into an argument. But though I couldn't disagree with the statement, shouldn't it apply to the other guy too? Don't you think he was doing everything within his power to win? Yes, you do everything you can to win, but in most races, especially of that level, there are others who are doing the same. Then it comes down to who is better that day, which might be because they are a better overall runner, or because they had a better strategy, or because the weather conditions favored them, or because one had a good day, or because one had an off day. Or a host of other reasons. You are not the only runner in the race, and the fact you are doing everything you can to win doesn't mean you are going to win. It does mean that you left everything on the track, and if you win, great. If you don't, you have nothing to regret.

Greicius tried his best. The fact that he did everything he could to try to win, or the fact he went to a school in our coverage area (which is what the comment in effect comes down to, when you think about it) doesn't mean he was going to win. And the fact he did not win doesn't mean he didn't do everything he could.

I suppose that being a fan of Cleveland pro sports teams helps us remember some of these issues. After all, our teams *never* win the championship (or they haven't, from 1964 to this point). I guess that as a result, there might be a tendency for us to think about some of the issues that go into them. Maybe that's why I spend so much time thinking about them...