Subjective (and speculative) questions have been a significant discussion topic on Sports SE meta.

Take a look at the following "subjective" questions below. If you agree that the question is a good fit for this site, please upvote. If you feel the question wouldn't be a good fit, please downvote. With all questions, a comment about how and why it would fit or not with suggestions for improvement is much appreciated.

*Please add more subjective questions if I missed any worth consideration.


Why is NFL season significantly shorter compared to most other sports?

I am not sure but if I remember correctly the NFL teams play 15-16 games during regular season and a couple more in the play-offs if they can make it the whole way. Why such a short season, in comparison to other leagues such as NBA where teams play 82 games in regular season and playoffs are usually a few games each round (best of 5-7-7-7)?


What factors could be accounted for Liverpool FCs lack of success in EPL in the recent years?

It's been a while I have been wondering about why Liverpool's been lagging behind the other big clubs in the EPL. I went back and checked stats from the last 10 years. They have four top-3 finishes and no titles within this period. Particularly the last three years, they finished 7th, 6th and 8th respectively (8th being last year).

This is of course arguable but I don't think people see Liverpool as a title-contender anymore, and they are still living off their long and glorious past. I have been trying to put my finger on what might have caused their lack of success in the EPL. It can't really be the finances as they have been spending serious sums of money, third after Man City and Chelsea in the total money spent on transfers.

One could argue the choice of players/coaches, or the effect of the new club owners. But I was wondering if anyone has more stats/info on Liverpool's seemingly deteriorating performance in the EPL.


What factors could have contributed to the fall of the Oakland Raiders?

The Raiders of the 70's claimed the best winning percentage of any team in all of professional sports.

However, although they played in the Super Bowl in 2002, the Raiders followed that with seven consecutive seasons with at least 11 losses per season.

What factors could have contributed to the fall of the Oakland Raiders? What specific factors may have contributed to their playoff success in the early 2000's followed by a record number of consecutive losing seasons (according to Wikipedia) since their Super Bowl season of 2002?

  • 1
    I still think that there is no way to answer this. – gbianchi May 15 '13 at 16:42

What kind of delivery is Nathan Lyon's "Jeff"?

In the recent Test series against South Africa, the Australian right arm off-spinner Nathan Lyon occasionally employed a delivery that spun the other way (away from a right hand batsmen instead of towards). I understand he has named this delivery "Jeff" for unknown reasons. There has been some sparse media coverage of this, see for instance here, but I have not managed to find any suitable footage to work out how he is doing it, such as a super slo-mo zoomed in view of the bowling hand or any articles explaining the details.

There are several ways off spinners can get a ball to go the other way. The most famous is the 'doosra' employed most notably by Muttiah Muralitharan, which requires extremely flexible elbows and wrists and long fingers in order to rotate the hand around to impart spin in the desired direction. No non south asian player has ever been able to deliver this ball legally due to the different physiology of Anglo/European players, so I doubt that this is it exactly but a modified version something along these lines might be possible.

The other option is to use the fingers to flick the ball the other way, almost like a regular leg break but using the middle finger to impart spin instead of the whole hand and wrist. Ajantha Mendis uses this and calls it a 'caroom' ball, while Ravichandran Ashwin calls it his 'sudoku' ball. I believe that Jason Krejza has also experimented with this (and probably a number of other spinners as well).

So, does anyone know if "Jeff" falls into either of these categories or is it something else? It has also been described as a 'backspinner', which makes it more likely to be the caroom ball style delivery, or some variant of that.

I'm really looking for a definitive answer here, if one can be obtained, rather than speculation or an explanation of different possibilities, which is why I've outlined at least some of them myself here in the question.


What are the advantages and disadvantages of this derived system of calculating points in hockey?

Currently the National Hockey League awards two points for a win, whether in regulation, overtime or a shootout. One point is awarded to a team losing in overtime or a shootout, and no points to a team losing in regulation.

To my mind this is a bad system because the number of points available is varied. It's either two or three.

Would it be better to allot three points per game, and award them in the following fashion:

  • 3 points to a team winning in regulation.
  • 2 points to a team winning in overtime or a shootout.
  • 1 point to a team losing in overtime or a shootout.
  • 0 points to a team losing in regulation.

Another benefit to this system is it offers greater incentive to win in regulation, and discourages simply playing defensively when tied, especially in games that are significant to the standings.

Are there any disadvantages or advantages to something like this that I've failed to consider?

  • Very speculative but could be informative, I think... THe question going after advantages and disadvantages of a hypothetical point system. While it might not be realistic to speculate about this, it's still not that subjective I suppose – posdef May 14 '13 at 21:07
  • This is a rant disguised as a question to gauge if "I’m curious if other people feel like I do." Otherwise, illustrating this hypothetical point system and its advantages and disadvantages are legitimate. Concern is if the question would lead to discussion because of many opinions rather than focusing on objective facts/experience to address the matter at hand (the feasibility of the hypothetical point system). – user527 May 15 '13 at 3:34
  • Well sure, I see how this question can be a rant but it's still valid to question why a win in regulation should be worth more than a win in the OT. – posdef May 15 '13 at 12:20
  • After reopening this question with a rephrase, the community still chose to vote close the question with the "primarily opinion-based" reason. – user527 Jul 12 '13 at 20:40
  • 1
    well then the community has spoken :) – posdef Jul 12 '13 at 22:57

Is it worthwhile to change your golf swing?

Tiger Woods has made headlines for changing his golf swing multiple times in his professional career. As a pro, Woods has changed his golf swing three times under Butch Harmon, Hank Haney, and most recently Sean Foley.

Woods's pro statistics before each swing change:

June 1997, pro swing change No. 1. Tour events prior to change: 17. Wins: 5. Winning percentage: 29.4 percent. (Majors: 1. Wins: 1. Winning percentage: 100 percent.) World rank at time of swing change: 2.

March 2004, swing change No. 2. Tour events since prior change: 132. Wins: 35. Winning percentage: 26.5 percent. (Majors: 27. Wins: 7. Winning percentage: 25.9 percent.) World rank at time of change: 1.

August 2010, swing change No. 3. Tour events since prior change: 91. Won: 31. Winning percentage: 34.1 percent. (Majors: 23. Wins: 6. Winning percentage: 26.1 percent.) World rank at time of change: 1.

Woods's experience of changing his swing is an exception. Other golfers, such as Padraig Harrington and Sir Nick Faldo, have not had an equitable level of success after changing their golf swing. In Faldo's case, it took several years for his swing change to click.

Is it worthwhile to change your golf swing? What are the reasons for changing your golf swing? What factors play into the "growing pains" associated with changing your golf swing?



New Zealand has dominated world rugby for a number of years, but their cricket is not nearly as strong.

What are the reasons for this? Is it because of the schooling system, is it historical, is it because of the weather in New Zealand?


Why is Peter Siddle considered to be a Test match specialist?

Peter Siddle is currently considered to be the leader of the bowling attack in Test matches for Australia, however he is never considered for any limited overs cricket. Is this entirely due to the selectors wanting to keep him fit and rested for Test matches, or is there something about his bowling style that makes him unsuitable for white ball cricket, even though he is considered the leading red ball bowler?

One possibility I can think of is that his style of 'hit the pitch' seam bowling is perhaps less suited to limited overs cricket which seems to be more about variations, such as slower balls, and swing bowling these days. Siddle to my knowledge does not posses a good slower ball and doesn't get a lot of swing. On the other hand, plenty of other good limited overs fast bowlers have a similar style. Siddle's consistency and accuracy seem like useful weapons for limited overs cricket, much like Glenn McGrath who also didn't get a lot of swing or bowl slower balls yet was an excellent ODI bowler.

  • Although this is tricky to answer, this could theoretically be answered by statistical analysis, reference to statements by selectors, etc., and therefore I think it's a fair question. – Spinner May 15 '13 at 11:48
  • Two separate flags on this question say otherwise. Would like to get that perspective also. – user527 May 15 '13 at 14:19

What seat is the best overall seat in an American football stadium?

Sitting front row at the 50 yard line gives a spectator an intense (and expensive) view of a small focal point of an American football field.

Sitting higher up gives a spectator a better overall field view, but keeps a fan from enjoying the full violence of the game.

Sitting in the corner gives a great view of a single endzone, but the opposite endzone can appear a mile away, and your team (presuming you have one) will only score in that endzone during a single half (which a ticket buyer cannot predict prior to the coinflip).

With all this in mind, what seat in the average American football stadium offers the best overall view? What about best view for one's buck?

  • 1
    Extremely subjective, as different spots would have different pros//cons, and people will value them differently – posdef May 14 '13 at 21:05