# Sports?



## Bullgrit (Jan 20, 2014)

The thread asking who's going to win the Super Bowl prompted this thread.

I don't have any interest in any sports. The only sports broadcast I watch is the Super Bowl -- mostly for the commercials and half-time show, and the fact that it'll be a subject for social discussion for the next week. I'll watch some Olympic events -- mostly because it'll be a subject for social and media discussion for a month. But I don't care at all about either the Super Bowl or the Olympics. Total meh.

Whenever I get together in any kind of social gathering, a sports discussion comes up, especially in a male group. But I have nothing to add to such discussion. Just, nothing.

The only time I was interested in a sport was when my sons played soccer, and that interest was strictly limited to my son's team and games. Other than that, none of us, (me, my wife, or my two sons), have much interest or knowledge of sports, really.

For Christmas, my brother-in-law sent my youngest son a present -- a life-size wall sticker of some pro soccer player, (because my son played little soccer for a few years, ending last spring). We unrolled the big package and saw the soccer player, and we all said, "Um, who's this?" Hell, it wasn't until we unrolled it all the way down to see the soccer ball at his feet that we even realized it was a soccer player.

How about you? Are you a sports enthusiast? One sport, many sports, all sports?

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Jan 20, 2014)

Very little.  I'll watch and cheer for England in the World Cup every 4 years, but that's the totality of it. I have nothing against it, though.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 20, 2014)

I like sports.  I mostly watch MMA, NFL, NCAAM, NCAAF, MLB and occasionally some NBA.  If it's not the NFL I typically only watch games that involve teams I follow.  The NFL, though, is something I can watch no matter who's playing.  I also read a lot about the stuff.  

I find that a lot of the folks that don't appreciate sports (er, watching - playing them is a whole different animal) don't typically understand a whole lot about them.  I'm interested in them for the small details.  It's fun to watch the game as a game but, IMO, it's even more fun to watch one small part of it as it unfolds - the way the line pulls on a run play, what pitch a pitcher chooses when there's one on, two out and he's down in the count, etc.  A lot of the folks I've talked to that say they don't like sports only understand what's happening on the broadest level.  I dunno, I think they may appreciate 'em more if they understood more of what's going on.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 20, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I mostly watch MMA, NFL, NCAAM, NCAAF, MLB and occasionally some NBA.  If it's not the NFL




I have no idea what you just said! Literally, in the actual literal sense of the word!


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 20, 2014)

Morrus said:


> I have no use what you just said! Literally, in the actual literal sense of the word!




Yeah, I should have explained what those are.  Let's see if this helps (as you're not an American and not a sports fan, I'm'a gonna go with 'no' ):

MMA: Mixed Martial Arts (most know the UFC - Ultimate Fighting Championship)
NFL: National Football (American) League (professional American football)
NCAAF: National Collegiate Athletics Association Football (amateur (college/university) American football)
NCAAM: National Collegiate Athletics Association Men's Basketball (same as NCAAF but basketball)
MLB: Major League Baseball (possibly the most arrogant entity on the planet.  baseball is hugely popular on an international level yet the only teams in MLB can compete in the _World _Series)
NBA: National Basketball Association (professional basketball)


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 20, 2014)

Not interested, but it is hard to avoid being exposed to sports news as it is omnipresent. Helps to make small talk, as long as it stays superficial.

Me: About that local sports team? They won last night!

Co-worker: Yeah, Moniz really was amazing. Trading him for Goldberg and Samson was a great move even if they are performing well in that other town, don't you think?

Me: Umm... Go local sports team!


----------



## Tea He (Jan 20, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Not interested, but it is hard to avoid being exposed to sports news as it is omnipresent. Helps to make small talk, as long as it stays superficial.
> 
> Me: About that local sports team? They won last night!
> 
> ...



That's a break dance team, right?
Break dance is a sport in Quebecistan!?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jan 20, 2014)

I haven't been to a sporting event in person in a while, but I follow plenty, and watch some on TV when I get the chance. I don't own any sports memorabilia.

I played tennis myself, and I used to watch more and go to the local pro event, but haven't kept up with it lately because the quality of play at the top level has dropped off so badly.

I follow most of the major sports somewhat regularly; football, baseball, basketball, soccer. Hard to get much into fanship because virtually every team in my geographical region is terrible.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jan 20, 2014)

I'm not much of a sports viewer. I would rather play a sport than sit around watching it. The only sport I do watch it MMA. Even then, it depends on who is fighting. If I miss an event, I won't die. I do go to a local ports bar when I want to catch one of the fights. When there is a good fight, the place gets packed, and people get really into the fights.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 20, 2014)

Well, it depends.

I voted "enthusiast" based on one sport: Formula 1.  I try and watch every race. Other motorsports I like, but I won't watch obsessively; I will watch portions of big races (LeMans, Daytona 24, Daytona 500) or tracks I like (Watkins Glen, Laguna Seca), but won't give it my full attention.

Every other game (insert Hemingway quote here) I pretty much ignore, except when the Olympics roll around, at which point my wife & I will watch a lot of different sports over the two weeks (I prefer Winter, she prefers Summer).


----------



## billd91 (Jan 20, 2014)

I like some sports. I find it kind of fun to watch people doing things I can't do - see the amazing things they can accomplish. I particularly like when the Olympics rolls around because I can watch sports that aren't as overexposed as the main professional sports. I also enjoy some aspects of sports history. Ken Burns's documentary series on baseball was quite enjoyable to watch even if it did tend to focus overmuch on teams in New York and Boston.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 20, 2014)

I tend to only watch the X games on ESPN which are going to start later this week and even then it's only a few events that I watch. But other wise I'm not that much of a sports watcher and due to health I can't even play any sports.


----------



## Janx (Jan 21, 2014)

Morrus said:


> I have no idea what you just said! Literally, in the actual literal sense of the word!




Indeed.

At best, I'd rather play a game than watch a game.

I cannot fathom why there's so much money spent on it.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 21, 2014)

The best thing about the superbowl is that the clothing stores are nearly empty (well, the men's departments). I couldn't give a rodent's rectum for football games, or any professional sport. I honestly do not understand the mentality.
Really, unless you are directly involved or personally know someone who is actively participating, what's the point in getting all worked up? Especially when it's "Our Home Team." Sorry, but those aren't members of your home town--they didn't grow up there (unless there's a rare exception), nor do they have anything to do with the town. Not really. They simply happen to be professionals hired by the person who owns the franchise that is based locally. They're ringers. All of them.
This "Fear the Beard" crap that showing up locally has me shaking my head.

I don't get it.

*Mod Edit:*  Political commentary removed.  ~Umbran


----------



## delericho (Jan 21, 2014)

I pay enough attention to football (soccer) to be able to talk about it if I must - so I know how the leagues in Scotland stand, how the big four or so teams in England are doing, but I almost never actually go to a game, and very rarely watch on TV - I always have something I'd rather do.

The one exception to this is when Scotland are once again failing to qualify for the World Cup and/or Euros, in which case I'll generally try to watch the matches.


----------



## nerfherder (Jan 21, 2014)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Well, it depends.
> 
> I voted "enthusiast" based on one sport: Formula 1.  I try and watch every race.



Similar here.  It's the only sport that I enjoy all the discussion around it, the interviews, the gossip.  I'm not even that interested in other motorsports.  That's possibly a chicken & egg situation, as I'd need to know all the teams and drivers to be interested.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 21, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> I don't have any interest in any sports.



Yeah, that. Actually, considering the follow-up explanation, I would actually belong in the missing poll option 0 - 'what is this sports, you are asking about?' I don't watch any sports whatsover, no olympics, no world championships, nothing - not even when my country happens to be hosting the event. I actively avoid any news about sports, too. I don't even know the majority of sport celebrities.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 21, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> The best thing about the superbowl is that the clothing stores are nearly empty (well, the men's departments). I couldn't give a rodent's rectum for football games, or any professional sport. I honestly do not understand the mentality.
> Really, unless you are directly involved or personally know someone who is actively participating, what's the point in getting all worked up? Especially when it's "Our Home Team." Sorry, but those aren't members of your home town--they didn't grow up there (unless there's a rare exception), nor do they have anything to do with the town. Not really. They simply happen to be professionals hired by the person who owns the franchise that is based locally. They're ringers. All of them.
> This "Fear the Beard" crap that showing up locally has me shaking my head.
> 
> ...




First, the folks that get paid all those millions very often _do _mean a lot to the cities they play for.  They set up a lot of charity and do a lot of charity work.  Additionally, they're part of the reason all of those empty menswear stores you appreciate so much are actually staffed.  See, major sports are big business and they bring all sorts of money into the city which creates all sorts of jobs.  Bars, restaurants and stores of all kinds see people pop in that they wouldn't otherwise.  These teams are a major part of the economy in most of the cities they're in and the players very often make a lot of charitable donations to the area as well.  If you doubt it ask the folks in New Orleans what they think about Drew Brees.  That's just one example of many.

Second, as for the appeal, well, if you don't get it you don't get it and it's probably because you don't want to get it.  There's nothing wrong with that but assuming there's something wrong with people who do see an appeal to sports most assuredly is.  It's beyond simply rallying around a team.  There's a whole lot more to sports than the score and a lot of people appreciate those smaller details.  Basically, your ignorance by choice in no way qualifies you to judge those that watch sports.  You just don't know nearly enough to make the sort of assertions you have.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> First, the folks that get paid all those millions very often _do _mean a lot to the cities they play for.  They set up a lot of charity and do a lot of charity work.  Additionally, they're part of the reason all of those empty menswear stores you appreciate so much are actually staffed.  See, major sports are big business and they bring all sorts of money into the city which creates all sorts of jobs.  Bars, restaurants and stores of all kinds see people pop in that they wouldn't otherwise.  These teams are a major part of the economy in most of the cities they're in and the players very often make a lot of charitable donations to the area as well.  If you doubt it ask the folks in New Orleans what they think about Drew Brees.  That's just one example of many.




Beyond even all those excellent points, he presence or lack of pro/college/amateur sports is often among the deciding factors in corporate relocations, just like with schools, libraries, museums, parks and other quality of life factors.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 21, 2014)

The towns and cities were there before the sports teams. Obviously there was something of interest to draw people in before the sports teams arrived.
Charity is all very well and good, I guess. Unfortunately, my counter argument goes into politics.
My logic and business logic are very different--we've had that discussion before.

As for criticizing others, well, I'm not a joiner, nor do I understand the need to join. That is all. That is a reflection on me, not those who do.
I do think the behavior some of the sports fads and franchises encourage is a little odd.

Anything else I say would fall under political ban. (again)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2014)

> The towns and cities were there before the sports teams.  Obviously there was something of interest to draw people in before the sports teams arrived.




Yes, usually natural resources- water, arable land, minerals- or the site had military strategic/tactical merits of some kind.

But in the modern world, those reasons have lessened in importance.  Now, economic and quality of life issues dominate the logistics of corporate moves...and where the corporations go, so too do the people searching for jobs.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 21, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> The towns and cities were there before the sports teams.




Yes.  But most of them were also there before the internal combustion engine.  One presumes that criteria change with changes in the underlying assumptions of civilization, as well as shorter term socio-economic changes.  Consider the population of some of the top US cities, charted over time.  The relatives shifts suggest there's more to a city than just the things that were important when it was founded.

http://www.peakbagger.com/pbgeog/histmetropop.aspx


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 21, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Beyond even all those excellent points, he presence or lack of pro/college/amateur sports is often among the deciding factors in corporate relocations, just like with schools, libraries, museums, parks and other quality of life factors.




Good point!  



sabrinathecat said:


> The towns and cities were there before the sports teams. Obviously there was something of interest to draw people in before the sports teams arrived.
> Charity is all very well and good, I guess. Unfortunately, my counter argument goes into politics.
> My logic and business logic are very different--we've had that discussion before.




Sure the cities existed before the teams, so what?  Cleveland was a steel town, so was Pittsburgh.  Ain't no steel now, bro.  Things change over time and that includes what drew people to a town and what keeps that town running.  So many cities were built on an industry that's dead or dying and now they rely on whatever they can to bring people downtown because those people are their money.  

I'm from somewhere near-ish Cleveland.  We had a decent basketball team once not long ago because one kid from Akron got drafted by the team.  He's potentially the greatest to ever play the game and practically single handedly took the team to the championship game (and was promptly swept) and made them relevant.  The games at home were sold out - frequently he'd sell out games on the road, too.  Then one day his contract was up and he 'took his talents to South Beach'.  I can tell you a whole lot of what was being said at that time.  A lot of it was _economic _talk, not sports.  

EDIT: I meant to mention Detroit because as things go it's more an example on your side than mine.  Detroit is dead and the Lions, Tigers and Bea ... whoops, Pistons (and Red Wings) can't save it.  For the most part, though, these massive revenue generating entities are positive for the economy ... unless ...

More in fairness to you: Miami is actually being screwed over by its professional baseball team.  The owners lied about income and conned the mayor into taking on a huge share of the cost of a new stadium.  The people, of course, are the ones paying for it.  Again, I don't consider this example as the one that tells the tale.  It's an exception ... and a warning.



> As for criticizing others, well, I'm not a joiner, nor do I understand the need to join. That is all. That is a reflection on me, not those who do.
> I do think the behavior some of the sports fads and franchises encourage is a little odd.




Fair enough on all counts.



> Anything else I say would fall under political ban. (again)




And that's a shame but understood.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2014)

> I meant to mention Detroit because as things go it's more an example on your side than mine. Detroit is dead and the Lions, Tigers and Bea ... whoops, Pistons (and Red Wings) can't save it. For the most part, though, these massive revenue generating entities are positive for the economy ... unless ...




Detroit is a classic economic case study: essentially a "company town" for the auto industry, it never quite grew big enough to diversify.  It got its music industry & sports businesses, yes, but nearly everything else was dependent on the automakers, either the companies themselves, or the companies that supplied parts & services to them*.  And when that dried up, so did Detroit.










* and the details of how the auto makers threw around their monopsony power are key to why Detroit collapsed like it did.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 21, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Detroit is a classic economic case study: essentially a "company town" for the auto industry, it never quite grew big enough to diversify.  It got its music industry & sports businesses, yes, but nearly everything else was dependent on the automakers, either the companies themselves, or the companies that supplied parts & services to them*.  And when that dried up, so did Detroit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





You know, we can even bring it back to sports a li'l.  Detroit's teams were _terrible _for a very, very long time.  Like, all of 'em.  If you field a terrible team ticket sales typically aren't great and that whole pro-sports team effect never happens.  That's obviously small potatoes compared to the auto industry stuff but it may have mattered some ... or more when you consider that the Ford family owns the Lions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> You know, we can even bring it back to sports a li'l.  Detroit's teams were _terrible _for a very, very long time.  Like, all of 'em.  If you field a terrible team ticket sales typically aren't great and that whole pro-sports team effect never happens.  That's obviously small potatoes compared to the auto industry stuff but it may have mattered some ... or more when you consider that the Ford family owns the Lions.




Yep.

So as a factor in attracting new corporations, the existence of _bad_ teams in ALL of the USA's big four sports, they may well have been tallied as negatives instead of positives.

And it's weird that a small market like Detroit would even have a team in all four.  Many much larger cities only have 2-3 such franchises.  It's an anomaly only explained by the presence of the Big Three automakers.  Money draws money...


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 21, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep.
> 
> So as a factor in attracting new corporations, the existence of _bad_ teams in ALL of the USA's big four sports, they may well have been tallied as negatives instead of positives.
> 
> And its weird that a small market like Detroit would even have a team in all four, an anomaly only explained by the presence of the Big Three automakers.  Money draws money...




Good point.  I have no idea why Cleveland has three of the four and even less of an idea why Ohio as a whole has two cities with at least two.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 21, 2014)

With football, at least, it can be summed up with 3 letters: AFL.  Or to use more letters: competition.

The plutocrats who wanted to join the pro football game couldn't get into the NFL, so they made the AFL.  And due to a lot of factors- populations, demographics, stadium availability, convenience (to them)- they plunked their teams in the Midwest and beyond.

And because they put out a good product, the AFL became the AFC when they merged.

The other leagues have similar stories, though ABA didn't fare quite as well while the AL did.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> You know, we can even bring it back to sports a li'l.  Detroit's teams were _terrible _for a very, very long time.  Like, all of 'em.  If you field a terrible team ticket sales typically aren't great and that whole pro-sports team effect never happens.  That's obviously small potatoes compared to the auto industry stuff but it may have mattered some ... or more when you consider that the Ford family owns the Lions.




If you mean the 1960s-70s, then maybe. But since then (and before then), there have been quite a few bright spots for Detroit sports. The Pistons have 9 division titles and 3 championships since 1988, the Lions were in the playoffs more often than not in the 1990s, the Red Wings have won the Stanley cup 4 times since 1996 (and were pretty hot in the 1950s too). So it's not like there's been a total dearth of good sports during Detroit's decline. Detroit may be a good example of a case in which the economic benefits of half-way decent sports franchises can't outperform the twin disasters of departure of major industry and flight to the suburbs.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> First, the folks that get paid all those millions very often _do _mean a lot to the cities they play for.  They set up a lot of charity and do a lot of charity work.  Additionally, they're part of the reason all of those empty menswear stores you appreciate so much are actually staffed.  See, major sports are big business and they bring all sorts of money into the city which creates all sorts of jobs.  Bars, restaurants and stores of all kinds see people pop in that they wouldn't otherwise.  These teams are a major part of the economy in most of the cities they're in and the players very often make a lot of charitable donations to the area as well.  If you doubt it ask the folks in New Orleans what they think about Drew Brees.  That's just one example of many.
> 
> Second, as for the appeal, well, if you don't get it you don't get it and it's probably because you don't want to get it.  There's nothing wrong with that but assuming there's something wrong with people who do see an appeal to sports most assuredly is.  It's beyond simply rallying around a team.  There's a whole lot more to sports than the score and a lot of people appreciate those smaller details.  Basically, your ignorance by choice in no way qualifies you to judge those that watch sports.  You just don't know nearly enough to make the sort of assertions you have.




Yeah, that rant sounds alot like what I used to get from people when they found out that I played RPG's and video games. "I don't get why you'd want to play/do that?" "That's kinda stupid isnt it. Sitting around and talking about playing a game about talking?" (That last one from someone who REALLY didnt get it.) 

I like sports (mostly Boxing and MMA but I love me some Yukon Huskies as well as Football and Basketball. Baseball I can take it or leave it. Either way I root for my NY teams.). I like RPG's when ever someone from one group diminishes the other that's usually a huge sign not to really associate with that person anymore. You dont have to like RPG's or sports but you dont have to take a steaming crap all over them either.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Jan 22, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> First, the folks that get paid all those millions very often _do _mean a lot to the cities they play for.  They set up a lot of charity and do a lot of charity work.  Additionally, they're part of the reason all of those empty menswear stores you appreciate so much are actually staffed.  See, major sports are big business and they bring all sorts of money into the city which creates all sorts of jobs.  Bars, restaurants and stores of all kinds see people pop in that they wouldn't otherwise.  These teams are a major part of the economy in most of the cities they're in and the players very often make a lot of charitable donations to the area as well.  If you doubt it ask the folks in New Orleans what they think about Drew Brees.  That's just one example of many.



The Florida Marlins would disagree with you.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 22, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> With football, at least, it can be summed up with 3 letters: AFL.  Or to use more letters: competition.
> 
> The plutocrats who wanted to join the pro football game couldn't get into the NFL, so they made the AFL.  And due to a lot of factors- populations, demographics, stadium availability, convenience (to them)- they plunked their teams in the Midwest and beyond.
> 
> ...




Yeah, that's true.  I can tell you as a Browns fan that I wish we'd go back to the AFL.  The Browns _dominated_ the AFL.    Lotsa peeps think the Browns have always been terrible but the truth of the matter is that they are, historically, one of the most successful franchises ever ... and that's why these days it's so, so painful to be a fan (er, not that I was a fan back during the AFL, of course - closest I came to a good Browns team was the Kosar era).  



billd91 said:


> If you mean the 1960s-70s, then maybe. But since then (and before then), there have been quite a few bright spots for Detroit sports. The Pistons have 9 division titles and 3 championships since 1988, the Lions were in the playoffs more often than not in the 1990s, the Red Wings have won the Stanley cup 4 times since 1996 (and were pretty hot in the 1950s too). So it's not like there's been a total dearth of good sports during Detroit's decline. Detroit may be a good example of a case in which the economic benefits of half-way decent sports franchises can't outperform the twin disasters of departure of major industry and flight to the suburbs.




Yeah, you're right.  There were some decent to good teams during that time and they still couldn't hold on.  Thinking about it, it's a damned miracle Cleveland still exists.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jan 22, 2014)

Typical German, here. I have some interest in Fußball (the 'real' soccer), which extends to reading in the newspaper and talking about but rarely watching it - with the exception of the European and World Championships. With the latest developments in information technology I sometimes watch our local soccer team (3rd division) via live stream.

Another sports is handball, which I played for some ten years, but didn't watch - until our son started to play himself. Now I'm one of those enervating fathers cheering up their kids in some school gym.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 22, 2014)

Personally, I always loved participation in sports more than watching or talking about it.  But for a variety of reasons, sports always took a back seat to other activities.

Not that I was bad, at least, not uniformly so.  I had sports I excelled in, and others I was completely abysmal at.  I just had a lot of other things to do.  FWIW:

Bad: raquet sports, baseball/softball, basketball

Good: football, fußball, volleyball, bowling, swimming, powerlifting, hockey (with a ball)

Some of those, I failed at because of my skill in a different sport.  For instance, I am terrible at raquet sports because of my skill at volleyball.  I am so accustomed to getting my hands and forearms to connecting with a volleyball, that when I swing a raquet at a ball, I almost always hit it with the shaft of the raquet.  This is not very effective.

With basketball, I simply can't score points.  Block, steal, pass?  Sure!  But make a shot?  Not a chance.  That may not sound like much of a detriment, but it guaranteed that someone else was always available to double cover someone else.  (No fancy dribbling, either.)

There were other sports I participated in that I was good at...with qualifiers.  As in, I was better at them than anyone would expect me to be.  Even though I am 5'7", I could actually clear standard men's hurdles pretty well, and had a pretty good long jump.  However, I was so slow, it didn't matter that I could clear the hurdles, because I was coming in last.  And my long jump, ridiculous for my size, was still not competitive.


----------

