Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Golfhaus]

I was just sitting here enjoying my day off, when it hit me: Why aren't there team sports where more than two teams compete against each other?

Think about it. Football, soccer, basketball, baseball, hockey, handball, extreme dodgeball... they are all team sports with two teams competing against each other. Why aren't there any sports where, for example, the matchup would be Redskins vs. Cowboys vs. Steelers? The closest thing to this I can think of are team relay events like in track and field and speed skating, but those aren't quite the same - teams are battling against the clock instead of going "against" each other, so to speak.

I realize I'm drinking WAY too early in the day (noonish) to be having thoughts like this, but dammit, why is this the case? Is there a practical reason why three-team sports aren't feasible? Am I on the cusp of leading a sporting revolution? Should I have another drink?

I should have another drink.

[CortJstr]

In ball-based sports it would make offense difficult as there's be two teams on defense at any given time. Plus it complicates rankings and whatnot because if your sample game ended up scoring 21-7-20 then could you really say that the Stilhers lost? Wrestling uses this as a convenient way for somebody who's undefeated to be in a match and not win but still be "undefeated" since he didn't actually lose either.

That said 4 team volleyball or 4 person tennis could work. You could even rotate people like in Four Square with the top seed starting in the King square.

[wombat]

This is a very good question.

Someone sometime should have written a science fiction book where the team sports are like that.  And if they did, someone on this board knows about it.  Anyone?

[Golfhaus]

In ball-based sports it would make offense difficult as there'd be two teams on defense at any given time.

My buddy J. Daniels pointed this out to me, too. I still think it could work in a sport of the style like baseball or cricket, where the opportunity to instantly switch from defense to offense isn't there like it is in intercepting footballs and stealing basketballs.

We also banged out a hypothetical way to make tri-baseball. It's not anywhere close to perfect, but illustrates what I mean:

Take three teams: Nationals, Phillies, Mets. Each inning is divided into thirds instead of halves. In the top third, the Nationals are at bat, followed by the Phillies in the middle, and the Mets in the bottom (since we're playing at Shea, natch). Now, at this point, my brain said "So there's 18 defensive players on the field?" Mr. Daniels responded, "Poppycock," as he is known to from time to time. "The key is to split up the two defensive teams. It can't be an even split in baseball because there's nine defensive players, so the best you can do is 5 from one team, 4 from the other. So, split the field into two groups - in one, the outfielders and the battery, and in the second, the infielders. In the top of the inning, the Nationals are at bat, the Mets are in the outfield, pitching, and catching, and the Phillies are in the infield. In the middle of the inning, the Phillies are at bat, the Nationals are in the outfield, and the Mets are in the infield. In the bottom third, the Mets are batting, The Phils are in the outfield, and the Nats are in the infield."

There would be some interesting developments in that your outfield and infield would not practice together regularly, so would be out of sync to a degree. Rundowns when the runner is caught between third and home would be interesting, too.

Basically, I am now severly interested in inventing a sport involving three teams of players, that is logical, fun, and competitive.

(And CortJstr, you get a can for accurately predicting what a Redskins/Cowboys/Steelers score would look like, even if you've overestimated the abilities of the Cowboys...)

[CortJstr]

(And CortJstr, you get a can for accurately predicting what a Redskins/Cowboys/Steelers score would look like, even if you've overestimated the abilities of the Cowboys...)

I allowed for Washington/Pitt miscommunication.

I think you also have to take venues into account. Your new sport will need new stadia with 3+ lockerooms/benches. Not to menion scoreboards (Home, Away, Really Away)

[Golfhaus]

I allowed for Washington/Pitt miscommunication.

I think you also have to take venues into account. Your new sport will need new stadia with 3+ lockerooms/benches. Not to menion scoreboards (Home, Away, Really Away)

True, but apparently the old sports need new stadia too.

And you only need stadia when the sport reaches a level of popularity that people want to watch it being played professionally. I'm talking about a sport that could be played in a park just as easily as it could at TOUAMB Field.

[jough]

I'm going to digress for a moment and bitch about stadia being named after corporations.  Wait, no I'm not.  It just cheeses me off to have to go to fuck*ng Citizen's Bank Park when it should be named after a great baseball player or politician from Philly, like Ashburn Park or Rizzo Field or something.

Okay, I'm done.

[Hobo Frenzy]

Golfhaus i like where you are going with this one. I think it could work. The only thing I would suggest is that 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, pitcher and home all be played by one defensive team. The out fielders and the short stop would be the other defensive team. My reasoning would be that the infield would all be working together and the shortstop (being on the other team) could strategically play with or slightly against the infielders given his position.

Getting outs could mean more than it does. Maybe the team catch or tag three outs would get to bat. So the pitcher would be trying to get more strikes and throw in a way that made for more infield plays. But now that I think about that maybe it wouldn't work because the outfielders wouldn't want to throw to the basemen...UNLESS the shortstop ran to the base and got the tag instead!! Can you imagine the carnage that would go on? The shortstop would being the designated ass beater!

[AlohaDawg]

I'm afraid that collusion between teams would make thiis fail quickly - for instance, the temptation for small-market teams to gang up on the Yankees, for example. Or combos of football teams colluding to beat the Raiders. The emphasis could become not losing (assisting a team in defeating another)  rather than fairly winning/sharing a win.

That said, I have played three-way "cutthroat" racquetball before. I think most individual sports could be made three-way. Team sports is a rough one, though.

There is a commercial now with >2 way singles tennis played on sort of a round court. That's kind of interesting.

[Hobo Frenzy]

I don't know if this was mentioned before but I'm thinking of a sport where four square meets tennis. The court is a circle and there are two perpendicular intersecting nets. One or even two people to a team and one team per square. I can see this working! I got the idea from you AlohaDawg.

[CortJstr]

I hate to tell you this HF, but they used to sell a ping pong version of this exact game at Toys R Us.

[AlohaDawg]

I picture a circle of tennis surface about 100 feet in diameter.

normal height tennis nets across the circle, from the center to 0 degrees, 120 degrees and 240 degrees. Each wedge is split by a line to center and an arc between the nets at 25 feet from center. The only out of bounds is outside the circle. The net posts are out of bounds.

serve three balls simultaneously to your left and keep the balls in play.
Every point players rotate so that the same person is not always on their right.

[Golfhaus]

I'm afraid that collusion between teams would make thiis fail quickly - for instance, the temptation for small-market teams to gang up on the Yankees, for example. Or combos of football teams colluding to beat the Raiders. The emphasis could become not losing (assisting a team in defeating another)  rather than fairly winning/sharing a win.

But that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's a weird concept to play "not to lose" rather than "to win" because in most team sports they are the same thing. But look at NASCAR. At Homestead, Tony Stewart wasn't trying to win that race, because doing so would involve taking risks that might wreck him AND his chances at the championship. All he needed to do, and all he wanted to do, was finish in the top 20 or whatever, and the big trophy was his. And no one criticized this strategy. In team sports, we equate not playing to win as a bad thing, because it usually meant a) a fix was in, or b) the team was trying to tank itself for a better draft position - neither of which are honorable. But if a multi-team sport placed as much emphasis on NASCAR-style "survival" as on actual victory, this could change. If, for example, hockey- and soccer-style points were awarded, where say the winner got 4 points, the "survivor" got 3, and the loser got 0, this might eliminate some of that type of cooperation.

Although, that kind of cooperation dances a line between "collusion" and "strategy," and which side of the line would depend on the culture of the sport as much as anything else. Again, NASCAR drivers on the same owner team often cooperate, despite the fact that they are supposed to be competitors. Few people complain about this.

[Lister]

Although, that kind of cooperation dances a line between "collusion" and "strategy," and which side of the line would depend on the culture of the sport as much as anything else. Again, NASCAR drivers on the same owner team often cooperate, despite the fact that they are supposed to be competitors. Few people complain about this.

Well, generally when people complain about collusion, etc. in other sports, they say it harms the integrity of the game.

As far as game theory goes, three- or more- cornered contests are nearly impossible to balance if all sides are to be in conflict at all times.  Even the simplest complicit cooperation between any two sides would be enough to change the game from one of skill to one of numbers.  This begins to even out if there are enough sides (say, nine or more), but it's still a sizeable advantage if two teams work together against others who are competing alone.

This is easiest to see in strategy games (Starcraft, Warcraft, Risk), but it's even visible in Hearts, where I swear the computer players work together.  It's so hard to prove or disprove, though, that there wouldn't be any real integrity to speak of.

The only fair ways to do it are to have all sides work against a common measurement (judging, time, distance, etc) or to have them compete directly against each other sequentially in a tournament system.  Which leaves us with what we have now.

[pmcd9]

There's already too many ridiculous bs sports out there, we don't need to invent any more.

~Paul