Does Everyone Automatically Default To Cheering For The Underdog?*

Question: Do you always cheer for the underdog if "your team" is out of contention (that is where the asterisk comes in)? If you don't have time to read the whole blog post, just skip to the comments and answer the question if you don't mind.

Most of you know that I grew up in NY, which means that I am a Yankees fan and a Giants (football) fan. Some people out here have tried to get me to switch those primary allegiances to Seattle teams, but most people know better. That also means that I actively cheer against division rivals such as the Cowboys, Red Sox, Rays, and the Eagles.

I have been having a debate with a friend (I'll call him "Tony") about cheering for the underdog, which started out of my pronouncement that there was no way in hell that I would be cheering for the Seahawks this weekend. Let me clear, "Tony" is not one of the people who has said "cheer for the Mariners because they are nice guys". He has his primary allegiances, too – one of which is one of the above mentioned rivals, no less! We have debated about our shared division, etc., and have agreed when both of our respective teams have sucked or performed well (or if the other person's team sucked or performed well).

Even though I have happily resided in Seattle for the past 8 years, the only local team that I have been remotely interested in cheering for has been the Seattle Sounders. The fan base for that team is consistently engaged and very knowledgeable about the sport. I have made my dislike for the Mariners organization and their fans well known here and here. I haven't talked too much about the Seahawks, and my disdain for the team and their fans. Let's leave the Sonics out of the equation for now.

We are in football playoff season so now we're in crunch time. I am more disappointed in the Giants choking than anything and I don't think they deserved a playoff spot. Let's make that clear. But something happened for the 1^st time ever. A team with a losing record made the playoffs by winning their division – and yes, that would be the Seattle Seahawks. While I think it is lame that the Seahawks made the playoffs with a losing record, I understand why every division needs to have a seat at the table.

What I think is a disgrace is that a team that has won 4 more games, the New Orleans Saints, has to travel across the country to a team that has a losing record. Yes, it is the current system but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed to reward teams that win more games (you can add in strength of schedule, etc., but at least it is more of a meritocracy). Furthermore the Saints managed to win 11 games in a division that also holds the #1 seed for the NFC, and the 3^rd place team won 10 games! Clearly the talent was in the NFC South this season! I can only hope that the competition committee changes things in the offseason to seed the 4 division winners and 2 wildcards that rewards talent and consistency as opposed to mediocrity. Sorry – winning your division with a 7-9 record is mediocrity and even that's a stretch when you have a losing record.

Anyway Tony and I have been having a debate this week about me not cheering for the Seahawks. I am going to do my best to not exclude context to be fair to him, but I am not going to include all of the text because it's a lot. LOL.

["Tony" – if you're reading this, and you feel I misrepresented you, I apologize. That is not my intent.]

Some statements from "Tony":

• "Finally, most people root for the underdogs in games like these. i can't imagine why anyone not from New Orleans could possibly want the Super Bowl Champs from last year to win. What a great story ... if the Hawks could win!!!"
  
• "What I don't get is why you would actively root against your current home town? It is so exciting to be in a town with the buzz of a winner, especially if your team is out. That is why I cannot fathom how you could root for the Saints."
  
• "Oh come on. You are saying you don't want a positive buzz in your home city because the fans are fair weather? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face..."
  
• "And [sic] i still don't understand why the prospect of excitement...in this city...the city you live in...regardless of how fair weather you believe the fans to be...would want you to be actively against this team."
  
• "I think you are completely wrong. Most people root for the underdog and will root for the Seahawks. They ALWAYS root for the underdog."
  

To add some additional context and I am hoping that this makes it more fair to "Tony", I have made it clear that Seattle fans are fairweather – see above. And to be fair, I think "Tony" meant to say "home city" as opposed to "home town" since he knows where I am from. So please disregard that distinction. And my disdain for Seahawks fans started when the Giants played here a few years ago and lost by 3 points, and the Seahawks fans went around saying they crushed the Giants. Whether it is bitterness or not, the reality is that the arrogance of the fan base turned me off to the Seahawks for the forseeable future.

So now we are having this debate on Facebook and now I am asking you – do you always cheer for the underdog if "your team" is out of contention?

I happen to disagree with "Tony" that most people will tend to root for the underdog and in this weekend's case, will root for the Seahawks (BTW, this excludes Seahawks fans from the conversation since that is "your team"). Here is why:

• Pre-scandal, Tiger Woods had tons of fans cheering for him to break Jack Nicklaus' Grand Slam record. Ironically, I was not one of those people because even before he became a regular on the NY Post front page, I thought he acted like a petulant brat. But there is no denying his endorsement abilities and the fan base that enjoyed watching his talents on the golf course. Tiger may be an underdog now, but he had plenty of people in his corner wanting to watch greatness happen and to say that "they were there".
  
• I do not know many people who were cheering for Virginia Tech (the lower ranked team) in the Orange Bowl when they played Stanford. There was so much authentic buzz around Harbaugh and Luck's next move that people wanted to see them dominate. I also think that people think that athletes actually go to class and are held accountable at Stanford as opposed to most D-1A schools.
  
• I do not think people are going to be cheering for Green Bay because they are the lower seed against Philadelphia. My thoughts on Michael Vick aside – there are many people who have some very strong feelings about his past actions (and rightfully so), and wish him nothing but failure. The positive thoughts for GB outside of Wisconsin are probably more about hoping the Eagles lose than GB winning.
  
• People want compelling match-ups as they move forward in the playoffs. They want higher caliber play. Do they always get it? No. But that's what the fans want. And the NFL doesn't want blow-outs as the advertising rates increase throughout the playoffs. As another friend of mine said, who ironically is a fan of a baseball rival of mine, "they [Seahawks] played like crap all year and are being rewarded for being only slightly less crappy than the Rams." We'll call him "Dustin". LOL.
  
• I managed to get home in the 6^th inning of Roy Halladay's no hitter in the playoffs this year. I am no Phillies fan, but I have a lot of respect for Halladay and how he dominated the AL East – probably the strongest offensive division in baseball. I was cheering for Halladay and pacing while I watched him achieve this feat. Sometimes you cheer for a specific player. Halladay happens to be one of those players for me. And I am happy he gets to compete for the post-season (realistically it wasn't going to happen for him with the Blue Jays) because he is one of the best over the past decade.
  
• Has anyone met the marketing arms of the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Manchester United, Liverpool, Los Angeles Lakers or the Dallas Cowboys? Yeah, those are some dumb people how they somehow have converted millions to cheer for those teams all over the world (and aren't hometown fans).
  

Now these are examples and I can cite many more. "Tony" can make legitimate arguments countering the above bullets, but my point is that who you cheer for is not always an exact science. Sometimes it is about the underdog (like Oregon vs. Auburn). Sometimes it is about a perceived injustice (like Arkansas vs. Ohio State). I became a Drew Brees fan on March 14, 2006 when he signed with the New Orleans Saints after being with the San Diego Chargers. I was actually at the game in SD when he dislocated his shoulder against the Broncos. That's when AJ Smith decided to go with arrogant and obnoxious Philip Rivers and cut ties with Brees. What Brees has done since on and off the field has been nothing short of incredible.

So based on the lameness of Seattle fans – not just mine, but many other Seattle transplants who have experienced crazy fandom, I am not cheering for the Seahawks. They don't deserve my passion. Maybe they don't need it. I don't care. As "Dustin" said:

"I like "authentic buzz" which you don't get around here (except with the Sounders). I was turned off for good when I realized that the only cheering you ever get in Safeco is that which is prompted by the scoreboard or the hydro races on the centerfield screen. For all the enthusiasm of some fans here, the sports IQ is terrible (even this morning one radio host talking about how it would be great to have "a couple of more home games" if the Seahawks win this one on Saturday!). I have a different tack on the fans here though - I think they are not demanding enough. Ownership of these teams has been lame for years and the fans do not make them accountable enough. Fans are getting hosed but they don't seem to notice or care."

There you go. If you're still with me, just answer if you always default to cheering for the underdog if you have no skin in the game (i.e., your team is out of contention).