Top 10 Trivial Top-10 Lists

Don’t take the title the wrong way because I love a good top 10 list. The more I read, though, the more I see the same ideas mundanely being pushed out just to post.

The best lists and rankings are creative, debatable, and pose themselves as a cogent and educated argument.

But more and more top ten lists bore me and point out the obvious or useless. So for the first and last time, I will post a top 10 list of my own: The Top 10 Trivial Top 10 List ideas.

10. Ranking amateur athletes/teams

I try my hardest to stay away from glorifying any amateur athlete or team. College sports are basically semi-professional sports, so I don’t categorize them as amateur. Mainly I’m referring to high school players. The whole point of ranking is being able to have at least seen some of the players/teams on the list.

Going off of what you’ve heard makes for quite a hyperbolic explanation. Plus, trying to project what a teenager will do athletically is just wrong to me. We should be teaching these kids better values than ordaining them future kings without much evidence. Ranking amateur teams is equally purposeless.

9. Ranking sports casters

I don’t watch ESPN or any other sports news show for the entertaining sportscast. I can honestly say I want the score and highlights and I’m done. Ranking the sportscasters is like ranking the judges at the Hawaiian Tropic bikini contest - nobody is looking nor paying attention to them. And besides, comedy is an acquired taste; it is too subjective to rank.

8. Lists greater than 20

This one kind of bucks the trend so far, but the only thing worse than a bad top 10-list is a bad top-25 list. Is it really necessary to talk about the guy ranked as no. 24 with the guy ranked as No. 3? They’re not in the same league, so no need to have them on the same list.

At least with a top 20 or top 20, you have created an upper and lower echelon with no spot directly in between. Some very good debates have occurred if a player or team does not make the top five or top 10 on a list. The only time you need to go higher than 20 is if you are ranking all-time players or teams. Even then it may be too much.

7. Rankings that have everything to do with one’s geographical location

For example: ranking the best rivalries. This is pointless. Is somebody in Ohio going to say UNC-Duke is historically a better rivalry than Ohio State-Michigan? It’s way too broad and there are more creative ways to evaluate these.

Regardless, this list is guaranteed to come out every year during college football and basketball season. The only people who could possibly give us an objective vote on such lists are those living in geographical oddities like Montana, the Yukon, or the planet formerly known as Pluto. I agree that it is great discussion, but it’s overdone to rank.

6. Ranking the aesthetics of uniforms

I’ll be the first to admit that I do comment on uniforms. I like a sharp looking uniform. However, I refuse to debate, a la Tyra Banks, the aesthetic pleasure I get from a uniform. In the end, I really don’t care and neither should fans.

I think when a franchise, as they often do, come up with a hideous uniform or abandon a traditional and beloved color scheme, the fans should shout their displeasure in oral and written form. Otherwise, don’t waste your time writing an editorial better suited for Allure magazine.

5. Ranking fan bases

What does it matter? This is also kind of falls under the category of number seven. I guess I see the point because you’re also ranking the best atmospheres at games, but I really don’t care how the other people react.

Plus, there is extreme bias and prejudice in doing this anyway if you’ve never actually attended a game there, or the game you attended was a bad one.

North Carolina fans are always called a “wine and cheese” crowd by outsiders and national sports telecasts. Really? Come spend a day in North Carolina with a Carolina fan and attend a game with him or her.

If you leave without committing a felony on that person, you have either tremendously strong morals, a conscience, or patience that would impress Job. They are one of the most unequivocal, passionate fan bases around and they do not try to subdue that in any way.

4. Ranking franchises

Please note it is “franchises” and not “teams.” I love ranking teams, especially teams from different eras. It lends to great debates. Ranking franchises, on the other hand, does not make any sense to me.

They’re not static; organizations change over time and are mere shadows of what they once were (either good or bad). New ownership, front office, let alone coaches, players, and playing styles completely change the landscape.

Plus, lists like these consider the most success over generations. What do the 1980 Patriots have to do with Belichick’s Patriots? Nothing, they just happen to be the same franchise. I just see no purpose in ranking a franchise when there are so few businesses who uphold the same ideals as they did in their infancy.

3. Lists where the No. 1 spot is obvious

Maybe I should say painfully obvious. I hate these lists with a passion. I start to read them, fully expecting the writer to go out on a limb and make an argument for a massive underdog, then sheer disappointment.

What then, pray tell you, is the point? If the point is ranking the other players or teams, then include the word “Not” in your title. “The best Syracuse players of all time NOT named Carmelo Anthony.”

I think we all know the arguments for Carmelo Anthony, no need to be anticlimactic. Now I’d be interested in reading that list and seeing who is ranked No. 1.

2. Ranking current players

These are necessary, I know. We debate all the time. Who deserved the NBA’s MVP this season: Kobe, LeBron or D-Wade? But is a whole list obligatory when most of the time it is clearly a race between only a few players?

I recently read a top 10 list for the NBA MVP race this season that included Brandon Roy and Dwight Howard. Great players with phenomenal seasons, but are they really in the upper echelon with the aforementioned players?

I contend to come up with a more creative way. Discuss who is NOT the MVP this NBA season. Rank only the ones who actually matter. I do like lists that rank players from different eras and generations. These are always the most fun when it comes to discussion.

1. Ranking the hottest/sexiest cheerleaders/fans/athletes and/or their wives/girlfriends

Simply put: a colossal waste of time both for the reader and the writer. Not only is beauty one of the most subjective topics out there, but such articles claim to be “sports” oriented when they could not be any further from it.

Overall, I think the best lists are original, creative, and imaginative. They are debatable yet cogent, but mostly a vat of information in support.

One of the most informational I’ve read recently is here (Note: though some on this list are young, all are professional players):

The Future Stars of American Soccer

Intriguing with in-depth analysis and enough player evaluation.

Many that I’ve mentioned require first hand information (e.g. fan bases). I also like lists that bring up topics not really being delivered to a wide audience. Take for example this well put together list:

Five Most Embarrassing Commercials to Watch with Your Little Girl During the Game

Appealing to us sports fans with daughters. And, of course, it is unique and something I’ve always thought about but never read about.

Better yet - don’t always be tempted at writing a list or ranking multiple players. This is one of the best I’ve seen to do such. It’s a comparison of Don Hutson and Jerry Rice:

Why Jerry Rice is NOT the Greatest Wide Receiver in NFL History

I was mostly intrigued because it completely avoided ranking any more players than what the author thought was necessary when discussing the best NFL wide receivers. Informational, compelling, cogent.

As always, feel free to comment. But understand one thing—these are my opinions. Some might love lists and rankings on sports casters, fans, or franchises. I, on the other hand, enjoy something a little more distinctive.