Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Better dead than NOT red?

According to a UK anthropological study published in the current edition of Nature, athletes who wear red are constantly more like to win. Furthermore, teams that wear red uniforms tend to perform better than when they wear something else.

So, apparently, the Cincinnati Reds would be better than their current 14-26 record, not if they actually got decent pitching, but if they wore their alternative all-red home jerseys more often (after all they are 9-10 at home, but 5-16 on the road).

Then, again, the Arizona Cardinals (6-10), San Francisco 49ers (2-14), Washington Redskins (6-10), and Kansas City Chiefs (7-9) all stunk up the NFL last year despite the red shirts. (In all fairness to the color red, three of those teams are in the NFC. Of course, the team with the best record is the one AFC team, Kansas City).

And then there's perennial Big Ten football loser Indiana that went 3-8 last year, thus tying with the not-so-fighting Illi'. Of course, in a case of the tie, the non-red team loses. So, Illi sucks. However, the Big Ten also has the Buckeyes who are more successful than IU cause, well, they're redder. Are college teams intimidated by red-shirted freshmen or seniors? Well, maybe, but that's not a literal red-shirt, so it doesn't count.

Of course, the UK study focused mainly on European soccer and the Olympics. Therefore, only the Olympic section of the study has any real sport validity in the U.S. And on that, the study may have a point. I mean Russia sucked the instant they became the United Federation of Planets, or whatever they were in the first post-Cold War Olympics. Does anyone expect to hear Al Michaels say: "Do you believe in post-Communist miracles?" Of course not.

No comments: