@HS - As I've said before, it's not a matter of 'should'; all authorities give you a choice. If you are happier using singular verbs that's fine. And, like jayles, that's what I tell my students - in Polish these nouns would always take a singular verb, so it's easier for them to do the same in English. But they read stuff like the Economist, so it's important for them to know that we often use a plural.

In your first example, personally speaking, I might say either; there's not much difference between seeing them as a group or as individuals, but when they start doing some action or other I would be more likely to see them acting as individuals and use a plural verb. My own feeling is that when we're talking about a group's existence, we're more likely to use a singular verb, and when they're more active, a plural verb - but I stress, that's entirely optional. After 'existential there', I would always use 'is' not 'are'. Look! There's a pack of dogs running round our garden'.

I certainly have the standard British tendency to use a plural. As a 'by the by' I would certainly never say 'a pride of lion', when lion has a standard s plural, even if I was looking at them through the sights of a gun - don't take this amiss, but, like Eric Partridge (Usage and Abusage) I don't go for this extension of 'game plurals' to animals that have perfectly good plural s versions. Incidentally, Partridge, also author of the Dictionary Of Slang And Unconventional English, was apparently a keen collector of the type of collective nouns you've been using there, and apparently himself came up with 'A condescension of actors.'

@jayles - OK, so let's take out police for a start, that's always plural. The then X of Y determiner types. So that leaves us with perhaps three main categories -

1. what are commonly referred to in grammar books as collective nouns - class, family, government, school, team etc - where there is a difference in practice (but as it turns out not in theory) between AmE and BrE.

2. Words like couple and pair, which more naturally take a plural (at least according to the Economist Style Guide)

3. Other odds and ends like majority

I agree that, of course, "the team were on their feet" refers to the members. I don't know if I'd call it a figure of speech, as it can be explained grammatically, and has been done so, even by the principal prescriptivists, such as Robert Lowth and Lindley Murray. What I'm now discovering is that it was also seen as perfectly acceptable by nineteenth-century American grammarians such as Noah Webster and William Chauncey Fowler.

It's not that team has become a plural noun, but that all these grammars agree that this special category of nouns can take a singular or plural verb. It appears that they were earlier known as 'nouns of multitude'. For an explanation I really do recommend you look up notional agreement at Wikipedia, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Having found out that older American grammars were in agreement with British ones, what would interests me is to find out why and when the divergence in usage began. And I suspect it might have something to do with the influence of the Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Style Guide.

@jayles - Thanks, 'range - yes, that was my bad example, as the accent is on the range rather than the colours. How about 'A wide range of people were invited' - 17/1 on Google, not including my own blog post on the subject, which was triggered by this - 'A wide range of activists, both African and European, is furious about the New Alliance' - 'A wide range of people is furious' seems weird to me.

http://random-idea-english.blogspot.com/2013/07/some-random-thoughts-on-wide-range-of.html

But I'll wait and see if there are some more answers before giving my own comments.

@HS - 'I do not maintain that they are wrong, I merely question their opinions.'

'I'd also maintain that using a plural verb with team is incorrect.'
'You can post as many examples of misuse as you choose, they do not change the facts.'

Terms like 'misuse' and 'incorrect' sound pretty like 'wrong' to me.

'However one has to wonder why so many people seem to have been taught the same "rules of English" as I have been.' - Well, in this particular case it's likely that most British people of our generation were actually taught that singular verbs with collective nouns are perfectly OK, as school textbooks were saying that as early as 1886, not to mention Fowler, Gowers and Partridge, who were enormously influential on the English teachers of the post-war years. Those are also 'facts'.

I don't suppose you'll be interested, but on that other page I've posted quotes from and links to two school grammar books from the end of the nineteenth century which talk about collective nouns and their use with plural verbs.

Basically, what it boils down to is that you don't like it, which is fair enough, nobody's asking you to use it, but that doesn't necessarily make it incorrect. I may have gone over the top, but that is because I've scrupulously tried to argue my case on evidence alone, to be treated as though this is just my little theory - 'I see that WW was holding forth the same theories last year' ' - well, I might also find that rather condescending, as I might 'You can post as many examples of misuse as you choose, they do not change the facts.'

All I ask is that people are objective, and try and understand - 1) that there is a lot of (hard) evidence to show that most Brits do indeed use collective nouns in this way, especially when talking of sports teams, and have done so for at least a hundred years; 2) that most commentators on British English find this perfectly OK; and 3) those who are really interested in grammar make a little effort to understand why this is so. That seems to me a rather more interesting approach to grammar than simply condemning something out of hand, on very little basis other than personal opinion.

On the subject of traditional school teaching, here are two extracts from late nineteenth-century textbooks used in British schools. The first is from The English Language: Its Grammar, History, and Literature, by JMD Meiklejohn, first published in Edinburgh in 1886. Meiklejohn was professor of the theory, history and practice of education in the University of St.Andrews.

'Rule XXIX. — Collective Nouns take a singular verb or a plural verb, as the notion of unity or of plurality is uppermost in the mind of • the speaker. Thus we say : "Parliament was dissolved." "The committee are divided in opinion." '

http://archive.org/stream/englishlanguage05meikgoog#page/n90/mode/2up

The second is from The Elements of English Grammar, by Alfred S West, first published around 1898:

'Collective nouns are also called Nouns of Multitude, and in using them we sometimes think of the individuals included in the group rather than of the group
as a whole. Hence these nouns are found with either singular or plural predicates. We may say * Parliament was unanimous,' if the thought uppermost in our minds is
the assembly as a whole, but we may say ' Parliament were all sixes and sevens,' if we are thinking of the assembly as divided into different parties.'

http://archive.org/stream/elementsof07west00westuoft#page/n92/mode/2up

There ain't nothing new under the sun.

I wonder, which do people think more natural in each of these pairs of sentences. If you reply to this, it would be useful to say what branch of English you speak:

The couple on the bench opposite me were kissing and canoodling.
The couple on the bench opposite me was kissing and canoodling.

A pair of swallows have made their home under the eaves of our house.
A pair of swallows has made its home under the eaves of our house.

The staff are unhappy about the new arrangements.
The staff is unhappy about the new arrangements.

A majority were in favour of change.
A majority was in favour of change.

A large number of people agree with this idea.
A large number of people agrees with this idea.

A wide range of colours are available.
A wide range of colours is available.

@HS - If, as you suggest, this is a recent phenomenon (and no doubt to be blamed on television) I wonder why the Fowler brothers were writing about it in 'The King's English' in 1908, or why Sir Ernest Gowers wrote about it in 'The Complete Plain Words' in 1954. So I think your memory may well be deceiving you.

And to call the combined comments of the Fowlers, Gowers and Partridge together with those of British dictionaries and the whole of the EFL grammar publishing industry, led by Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, not to mention David Crystal, probably the leading expert on British English, 'just opinions' is, frankly, weird. When experts in other areas of academic excellence generally agree about something are these just opinions?

To remind you; this is not just my weird theory. This is standard stuff, as anybody who teaches British English knows.

Practice in the British media is not uniform. Apparently The Times always goes for a singular verb, but others vary, although most are agreed about sports teams - the house rule is that they take a plural verb. Remember these are simply house style guides; they are not laying down grammatical rules.

This is from the Economist Style Guide:

"COLLECTIVE NOUNS
There is no firm rule about the number of a verb governed by a singular collective noun. It is best to go by the sense—that is, whether the collective noun stands for a single entity (The council was elected in March, The me generation has run its course, The staff is loyal) or for its constituents: (The council are at sixes and sevens, The preceding generation are all dead, The staff are at each other's throats). Do not, in any event, slavishly give all singular collective nouns singular verbs: The couple are now living apart is preferable to The couple is now living apart. Indeed, in general, treat both a pair and a couple as plural."

http://www.economist.com/styleguide/s#node-21535265

From the Guardian Style Guide:

"singular or plural?
Corporate entities take the singular: eg The BBC has decided (not "have"). In subsequent references make sure the pronoun is singular: "It [not "they"] will press for an increase in the licence fee."

Sports teams and rock bands are the exception – "England have an uphill task" is OK, as is 'Nirvana were overrated' "

http://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-s

From the BBC Style Guide:

"It is the policy of BBC Radio News that collective nouns should be plural, as in The Government have decided. Other departments, such as BBC Online, have resolved that collective nouns should always be singular, as in The Government has decided. BBC Television News has no policy and uses whichever sounds best in context.The difficulty for writers comes because there is no rule
–
collective nouns
can be either singular or plural. The advice from Radio News is fine, but think about what you are saying. A lot depends on whether the organisation is seen as a singular entity or as a collection of individuals. It is more natural to write The committee park their cars in the field rather than The committee parks its cars because the committee is being thought of as separate people. It would also be correct to write The committee has decided to ban cars from the field because it is being seen as a single body.
Similarly, The Cabinet are discussing education (because it takes more than one to have a discussion) but The Cabinet is determined to push through the changes (where its members are acting together). There is one rule you must follow, though
–
In sport, teams are always plural. England are expected to beat the Balearic Islands ; Tranmere Rovers have extended their lead at the top of the Premiership."

http://web.archive.org/web/20110707214856/http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/newsStyleGuide.pdf

@HS - Yes, I overstepped the mark, for which I apologise, but I do find this attitude that you are right and that just about everyone who has written about British English is wrong exasperating - there really is no debate about this among professional commentators on British English.

However, there might well be some people who don't care less or would like to talk about 'care less' so I suggest we carry this on in its proper place -

http://painintheenglish.com/case/4394

Seeing my explanation on another thread was apparently 'difficult to follow', perhaps this, from probably the most popular self-study grammar book for foreign learners of British English, will be easier to understand. (Remember, he's talking about British English):

"Some singular nouns are often used with a plural verb. For example:

government staff team family audience committee company firm

These nouns are all groups of people. We often think of them as a number of people (= 'they'), not as one thing (= 'it'). So we often use a plural verb:

The government (= they) want to increase taxes.
The staff at the school (= they) are not happy with their new working conditions.

In the same way,we often use a plural verb after the name of a sports team or a company:

Scotland are playing France next week.
Shell have increased the price of petrol.

A singular verb (The government wants ... / Shell has ... etc) is also possible."

English Grammar in Use (Cambridge University Press) - Raymond Murphy

@Brus - interesting point. Like you I'm a 'mice man' (in both your senses), but when I read the comments above, I naturally thought of mouses with a soft S, and now you've got me wondering why.

At Morewords.com most words listed under *ouse are variations on house. There's spouse where you seem to have a choice between hard and soft s in the singular. The only other nouns I can find with a soft s are:

grouse - bird - plural - grouse, complaint - plural - grouses (soft s?)
house - houses (hard s)
lobscouse (whence scouse) - plural (hard or soft? - I've no idea but imagine soft)
louse - plural lice

But now I'm wondering of it's houses that's the exception (out of a total of only three, admittedly - so it hardly makes it a rule).