u/FewCucumber288 — reddlx

Which fanbase is going to get humbled the fastest after all this portal hype?

Not asking this to troll anybody because it happens every year. There’s always one fanbase that spends May celebrating a “superteam” and then by Thanksgiving they’re losing a neutral-site game to a mid-major because nobody on the roster actually meshes. The signs are usually there too: too many ball-dominant transfers, no interior depth, lots of scorers but no defensive identity, everyone assuming talent automatically equals chemistry. The funny thing is fans usually know deep down. You’ll see the hype publicly, but if you read team-specific threads, people are already quietly worrying about lineup balance. Which school do you think is getting way too much love right now based on names instead of actual roster construction? Could be anybody — blue blood, SEC, Big East, whoever. I just feel like every year there’s one “won the portal” team that looks way less scary once games start.

reddit.com

u/FewCucumber288 — 2 days ago

▲ 6 r/oldschoolwrestling

Did The Undertaker’s “Deadman” gimmick save WWF’s character era in the 90s?

Rewatching early Undertaker segments from 1990–1993, it’s interesting how risky the entire presentation was in hindsight. On paper, a supernatural mortician character in a major sports entertainment company should have collapsed under its own weight, especially as audiences were starting to lean more toward realism.

But what made it work was the level of internal consistency WWF committed to. The Undertaker wasn’t played as comedic or self-aware—he was treated as a legitimate, unstoppable force within that universe. That seriousness gave him credibility, even when the gimmick itself bordered on absurd.

Another thing that stands out is how flexible the character became over time. By the mid-to-late 90s, he had already transitioned through multiple phases—deadman, biker, and later hybrid versions—without ever fully losing audience investment. That’s extremely rare for a gimmick-based character.

What I find interesting is whether he actually helped prolong WWF’s reliance on exaggerated characters. On one hand, he proved that a strong gimmick could still succeed even as wrestling was shifting toward the Attitude Era’s more grounded tone. On the other hand, you could argue he was the bridge that allowed WWF to transition without completely abandoning character-driven storytelling.

So the question becomes:
Was Undertaker a stabilizing force that preserved the old-school character era long enough for WWF to evolve on its own terms, or did he delay a necessary shift toward realism?

stream more of the old school wrestling here https://sportsflux.live

u/FewCucumber288 — 2 days ago

▲ 16 r/VintageNBA

Why does the 1993 Knicks defense get discussed less than the 2004 Pistons when they were arguably just as suffocating?

I rewatched a few games from the 92–93 New York Knicks season and was surprised how physical that team still looks even compared to what people call the “last real defensive era.”

Everyone brings up the 2004 Pistons because they won the title, but that Knicks group with Patrick Ewing, Charles Oakley, and John Starks was holding teams under 100 as a routine thing in an era where pace was still relatively healthy.

Is it just because they ran into Michael Jordan, so history treats them as a footnote? Because stylistically, they look like a direct ancestor to a lot of the praised grind-it-out defenses from the 2000s.

Would be interested if anyone has defensive rating/context adjustments that make the comparison fair across those eras.

Here's the site I use to stream all the Vintage NBA action: https://sportsflux.live

u/FewCucumber288 — 3 days ago