The Sports Thread

[cookiecutter]

TIACN is right.

I don't think liking a team due to geographic proximity is any less valid than liking a team for its other qualities. The home team's games are the ones you are going to see, read about in the paper and talk to with other locals. It's also a way to develop a connection. It certainly doesn't have to be the only reason or the best reason, but it's valid.

 

[AchrisK]

Because you like the players, the ethic of the team, the way the coach performs, etc. I like the Steelers, for example (even though they're in western PA and I'm in central NJ), because they have a long history of steadfast, hardnosed, well-coached, defensive football with an emphasis on ground game and intelligent and reserved quarterbacking. This is indicative of the coaches and players that they choose to be a part of their organization, which has much to do with the fact that the Steelers have been under the ownership of the Rooney family for countless years, and their sports ethics are spotless, which I greatly respect.

But a lot of that changes over time. If the Steelers change ownership and philosophies, will you stop being a fan? I think it's cool to stick with a team through different stages. Maybe I think that more having been around longer. I think sticking with the local team is cool. Although I admit I get sick of all the U of A fans here in Tucson.

 

[MasterOLightning]

Any hockey fans here? I usually wait until the football season is over until I really get into the hockey season but not this year since the Jets are the most boring team in the NFL and they suck. I went to the Devils home opener at the new arena on Saturday. The arena is gorgeous and easy to get to via the train, too bad the game sucked.

I've been following the Blackhawks more this year. Kane and Toews are already the two best players on the team after just a dozen games. They're going to be all-stars for years. I still think the team would be lucky to finish around 6th. They're not as deep as the stronger teams in the West.

 

[skeptik]

TIACN is right.

I don't think liking a team due to geographic proximity is any less valid than liking a team for its other qualities. The home team's games are the ones you are going to see, read about in the paper and talk to with other locals. It's also a way to develop a connection. It certainly doesn't have to be the only reason or the best reason, but it's valid.

Mr. Logic thinks it's valid to like something just because it's near? That's like liking a Britney Spears CD because it's in your reach as a opposed to a Slayer CD because it's downstairs. If the only (stressed again) reason that you cheer for a team is because it's the "home" team and not because you've grown to like actual qualities of the team, then you're an irrational homo.

But a lot of that changes over time. If the Steelers change ownership and philosophies, will you stop being a fan? I think it's cool to stick with a team through different stages. Maybe I think that more having been around longer. I think sticking with the local team is cool. Although I admit I get sick of all the U of A fans here in Tucson.

Would you like a band who vastly changed their musical style to a style that you didn't care for? Of course not. If the Steelers started playing a type of football I didn't care for and started using shitty sports ethics and cheap tactics and the like, why would I like them? Remember that this has nothing to do with a team's success. Teams naturally go through evolutions and lapses in quality. But if what I like about something is removed, why would I continue to like it?

 

[AchrisK]

Mr. Logic thinks it's valid to like something just because it's near? That's like liking a Britney Spears CD because it's in your reach as a opposed to a Slayer CD because it's downstairs. If the only (stressed again) reason that you cheer for a team is because it's the "home" team and not because you've grown to like actual qualities of the team, then you're an irrational homo.

I think it is you who is being irrational. That music comparison is weak. The reasons given by cookie are very valid and are very common. Not everything in life has to be based on being grounded in sound logical conclusions. Especially sports.

Would you like a band who vastly changed their musical style to a style that you didn't care for? Of course not. If the Steelers started playing a type of football I didn't care for and started using shitty sports ethics and cheap tactics and the like, why would I like them? Remember that this has nothing to do with a team's success. Teams naturally go through evolutions and lapses in quality. But if what I like about something is removed, why would I continue to like it?

Again, a sports team vs musical artist comparison is weak. Musical enjoyment is based on enjoyment of music. It is very individual and within an artists catalog, or even one album you can have things that are more and less enjoyable for a person. We like many bands based on their music. Now I can see a sports fan enjoying to watch football games based on quality playing, and I think we can all appreciate that. But when it comes to "my team" it is a whole different ballgame (pun intended). However we choose them, once they are ours there is a whole range of experience that comes with that. From camaraderie with others who also embrace our team, to emnity with "rival" team fans, to making the enjoyment of sports more personal, to team pride or team comiseration. For those who love the local team there is also the pride of your city.

Now I can see becoming disollusioned with a team, based on organizational or philosophical changes that go against your own ideas. Along these lines I bet the Pats have lost some fans with their cheating ways. But depending on how strong a fans allegience to a team, they will take the heat along with the team, and it's all part of the experience.

 

[Life Sucks]

Being a fan of the team representing your area is no different than being a fan of the team of the college you attend(ed). I did not go to a school with a D1 sports program, though I do live very close to a college with one. I live in west Boston, very close to Boston College. Though most people in Boston like BC, I hate BC and am glad when they lose, because BC students are for the most part a bunch of spoiled Irish/Italian catholic assholes.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

topic change:

who do u guys like sunday in the Pats/Colts game?

I am from New Hampshire and a huge Pats fan so clearly I am picking them but not solely for that reason. I just think they're a better team hands down. I also happen to think it's not going to be as close of a game as people think...Pats by two touchdowns at least...

 

[The Ozzman]

It's going to be close, but it will be the Colts.

 

[Life Sucks]

Hmm. I wish I could say Pats. but.... Here is my analysis (I'm not one of those guys that knows stats like the back of his hand, so bear with me):

Colts have better offense overall, and a better quarterback. Pats have better defense (though not much better, but better nonetheless). Pats have a better offensive line, which makes a big difference. Pats are strategically better, though who knows how much of this should be attributed to the coaching staff doing things they should not be doing hehe). Colts have homefield advantage. I think it can go either way. The Pats are actually favored stats-wise, but I personally don't think stats mean that much, which is one of the reasons I don't spend tons of time memorizing as much of them as possible, like most guys do.

 

[AchrisK]

I fear that the Pats will win, but I am cheering for the Colts.

 

[Zephyrus]

Pats. They edge out the Colts in just about every category, except kicking perhaps. Hopefully that category won't be the determining factor.

 

[King Richard]

Pats. They edge out the Colts in just about every category, except kicking perhaps. Hopefully that category won't be the determining factor.

You still have yet to actually explain why the Pats are better than the Colts, and this is the second time I've asked.

 

[skeptik]

I think it is you who is being irrational. That music comparison is weak. The reasons given by cookie are very valid and are very common. Not everything in life has to be based on being grounded in sound logical conclusions. Especially sports.

Saying that they're valid and common doesn't make them so (though they are indeed common). I also didn't say that "everything in life has to be based on being grounded in sound logical conclusions." I said that people who only like a team in so far as they are within the same vicinity annoy me.

Again, a sports team vs musical artist comparison is weak. Musical enjoyment is based on enjoyment of music. It is very individual and within an artists catalog, or even one album you can have things that are more and less enjoyable for a person. We like many bands based on their music. Now I can see a sports fan enjoying to watch football games based on quality playing, and I think we can all appreciate that. But when it comes to "my team" it is a whole different ballgame (pun intended).

Just like when it comes to your friend's band, no? You tend to like them even if they're highly mediocre. Or even a regular old "local" band. You overemphasize their quality because of an irrational impulse connected to proximity relations.

However we choose them, once they are ours there is a whole range of experience that comes with that. From camaraderie with others who also embrace our team, to emnity with "rival" team fans, to making the enjoyment of sports more personal, to team pride or team comiseration. For those who love the local team there is also the pride of your city.

How is liking a team based on more than "lol I can see the stadium from my house" stopping you from doing any of that? Also, by the way, you're evidently not understanding what I'm saying, because liking a team because of the personal aspect of being involved in a social gathering of city "pride" (a term improperly used in this situation in my opinion) is a reason outside of the proximity issue that I've been talking about. If camaraderie is important to you in sports, though, and you root for a team only because you can easily find people to root with you, how much do you really like the team itself and how much do you like the idea of being in that type of network?

Now I can see becoming disollusioned with a team, based on organizational or philosophical changes that go against your own ideas. Along these lines I bet the Pats have lost some fans with their cheating ways. But depending on how strong a fans allegience to a team, they will take the heat along with the team, and it's all part of the experience.

Which is irrational. Which I don't care for. I'm allowed to dislike that. If the Steelers or the Yankees or the Devils or any other team that I favor becomes a different team, expressing qualities that I dislike, what reason do I have to continually cheer for them? It's like being in an abusive relationship, which is, you guessed it, irrational.

I'm not saying that people are stupid for liking teams because they're local or that they shouldn't choose teams that way. I'm just saying that it annoys me a bit.

/overblown issue

 

[Zephyrus]

You still have yet to actually explain why the Pats are better than the Colts, and this is the second time I've asked.

Obviously I'm not an expert, but that's the notion I get when watching these two teams. The Colts just seem a little weaker in several aspects of play. For one thing, they don't score as much as the Pats, and Peyton isn't having the greatest year, relatively speaking.

 

[MasterOLightning]

The Patriots have played a much softer schedule than the Colts; of course they're winning by larger margins. Besides, if the Colts decided to run up the score every game, I'm sure they could. The Colts play in the hardest division in football, and the Pats in the weakest. Even if the Pats win this week, their weak schedule might come back to hurt them in playoffs when they're not used to quality competition.

 

[Zephyrus]

Yeah I suppose. I'm still confident in victory, though.

 

[AchrisK]

...The Colts play in the hardest division in football, and the Pats in the weakest...

This is true.

 

[Death Aflame]

The Wings already have ten wins baby! The Zetterberg line has been extremely dominant so far, here is hoping for another win in Calgary tonight.

Did anyone catch the Lightning and Devils game last night? I am surprised that NJ blew the doors off of Tampa Bay so much, especially considering the departure of so many key NJ players in the off season and the undeniable talent of Lecalvier, St. Louis and Richards on TB.

 

[Matt]

Leafs are 5-5. Goalie play seems to be a major issue.

 

[zoidberg]

The Patriots have played a much softer schedule than the Colts; of course they're winning by larger margins. Besides, if the Colts decided to run up the score every game, I'm sure they could. The Colts play in the hardest division in football, and the Pats in the weakest. Even if the Pats win this week, their weak schedule might come back to hurt them in playoffs when they're not used to quality competition.

very true.