|
On September 23 2014 06:09 Kronen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 05:24 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 05:18 Kronen wrote:Where's the irrationality of supporting "foreign" players who choose to represent an organization important to local business and culture? If someone becomes part of an organization, aren't they by virtue of dedicating their energies to improving that organization adopted into the local fold? I have a bit of a problem with the premise of the argument. On a sidenote, i didn't know all the players on Manchester United were from Manchester. Good to know  . This isn't necessarily the case. If the Patriots offer John Smith ten million more dollars per year to join their team, then it doesn't make sense to be a fan of John Smith for joining your team unless you're a fan of the team that has the most purchasing power. By joining the Patriots, John Smith is dedicating his energy to making more money. This is a strong argument for why there are so many soulless New York Yankee fans in the world  . On the other hand, every organization has a finite amount of resources and a number of options to expend those resources. There was obviously something special about John Smith to have your organization single out him as a person of interest. Something particular in his play your organization felt would gel with the team. Therefore, the choice of your organization isn't just a "we have X dollars, let's spend X dollars on said player whom the general consensus believes is worth X dollars." There's agency and personal choice in each of these decisions. Furthermore, there have been numerous cases of players taking less money (26million versus 30+) to join a team with prospects at winning a championship (Miami Heat , Big Three). Wouldn't it stand to reason that perhaps not all players are just in it for the money? They actually want to succeed personally and professionally. By virtue of personally succeeding, they impart success onto the organization that facilitated their self-actualization. What say to you this? Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 05:38 MichaelDonovan wrote:
We can squabble about why a player might change teams, and whether salary increase could be the reason, but that is beside the point. The point is that it is very unlikely that a player would switch teams just because he wants to be a part of the local culture. The player will always do what is in his best interest to do given the circumstances. I tend to agree on this point, but this fixation on player's origin being the only motivation for them to succeed is rife with problems too. What determines player origin? Birth? Early education? Advanced education? The first place of professional employment? Isn't it up to the player to decide where he or she is "from" if that indeed is a chief motivating factor? On the other hand, there are numerous examples of relocated professionals (like Drew Brees) becoming embraced by the local culture and championing local community initiatives. He will say that before moving to Louisianna he had no strong feelings for the town, but living there for over a decade, he now feels like it is his home. --- Personal sidenote because I like your argument and I too feel that personal organization affiliation is somewhat irrational: I grew up in rural Illinois. I lived 4 hours from the Chicago Bears, two from the Indianapolis Colts, and 2 from the St Louis Rams. Who was my team of choice through all early adolescence? The San Francisco 49ers. I fell in love with the West Coast Offence championed by Bill Walsh and his slingers. It was just amazing too watch. When I moved away from Illinois and San Francisco moved away slowly from that offence, I found myself cheering for the Colts. At first, i thought it was because of nostalgia or local pride, but I soon came to realize it was because I loved watching Peyton Manning analyze and dissect a defence. While I now don't consider myself a Broncos fan (still a colts fan!!), I have come to realize that the reasons I find myself cheering for a team vs another are numerous, diverse, and often contradictory. But as long as I'm enjoying myself and enjoying the company I'm cheering with (or against), I have no problem with embracing any contradiction.
To your point about taking less money to have a better shot at a championship, I think this just says that they value fame over cash. They like the idea of being a hall of famer with five superbowl rings over the idea of having an extra 20 million dollars when they retire. Whether they want prestige or cash, their choice is still self serving and not worthy of fandom in my opinion. The fact of the matter is that every player wants to win. If a player is willing to throw away his current team mates to join a team that can play better, that doesn't seem any less selfish than doing so for money. In either case, the player probably doesn't have "I wan't to play for my favorite team, the Patriots!" in mind.
As far as this business about player origin is concerned, I think the way to measure it is the same way that fans measure it. The question would be, "Do the players on the team have the same psychological interest/investment in the local region which the team represents as the fans of that team do?" That is, if I say I am a fan of the Seattle Seahawks because I am "from the Seattle area", is it likely that the player on the team would say something similar about why they play for the Seahawks? My guess is probably not.
|
United States24615 Posts
On September 23 2014 07:48 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players. This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players. My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result. You're either a fan of the team as a team of players, or you are a fan of their mascot/logo. I said I disagreed with this, and then you restated it. What?
As far as a typical fan of the game of football is concerned, there are teams of players from different regions of the country who have logos and mascots. The rest of it is behind the scenes and not typically related to fandom. Source?
|
On September 23 2014 07:56 aike wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 07:52 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 07:23 aike wrote:On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players. This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players. My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result. Hey man the Packers are a non-profit organization  Easy to be a fan of that right? hahaha. The thing is, players slowly rotate out and new ones slowly come in. It's not like the entire roster shifts out. So if I start watching this year and become a fan of the current players, next year 80% of the players I'm a fan of are still there, and then new players come in and I can become a fan of them. Ans so while the team I was a fan of in 2000 isn't around anymore, over time I have become a fan of the players that slowly replaced that team The slow replacement idea is interesting. But what if every new player that joins is really bad at the game compared to the people they replace? Eventually the team will start losing. How can you become a fan of that new bad player? For what reasons? There are many reasons to be a fan of a player other than skill. People are fans of Catz and Destiny because they do fun things, not because they are champions. I'm a huge fan of White Ra, he's a great person and his games are always fun to watch whether he wins or loses. As far as on a big team sport like Football, you kind of "get to know" these players as they come in as rookies and slowly start to play more and more, so you build a connection with them that will either make you like or dislike them 
Sure. The Oakland Raiders have very dedicated fans even though they always lose. The logo is a tough looking guy with an eye patch. It's a great logo to wear with face-paint while drinking beer and shouting. I think a lot of Raiders fans would probably openly admit to being a fan of the logo/mascot itself.
I guess what I would say about the personality part is this: Players on any given team have wildly varying personalities. In fact, there are probably some players on a given team that are disliked by their team mates. How can a fan zoom out and say that they are a fan of a team because of the personalities of the players on the team, when A) they all have different personalities and B) some of them aren't even fans of each other? Maybe that's a foggy way of saying that, but I hope you see where I'm going with it.
|
On September 23 2014 08:08 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 07:56 aike wrote:On September 23 2014 07:52 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 07:23 aike wrote:On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players. This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players. My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result. Hey man the Packers are a non-profit organization Easy to be a fan of that right? hahaha. The thing is, players slowly rotate out and new ones slowly come in. It's not like the entire roster shifts out. So if I start watching this year and become a fan of the current players, next year 80% of the players I'm a fan of are still there, and then new players come in and I can become a fan of them. Ans so while the team I was a fan of in 2000 isn't around anymore, over time I have become a fan of the players that slowly replaced that team The slow replacement idea is interesting. But what if every new player that joins is really bad at the game compared to the people they replace? Eventually the team will start losing. How can you become a fan of that new bad player? For what reasons? There are many reasons to be a fan of a player other than skill. People are fans of Catz and Destiny because they do fun things, not because they are champions. I'm a huge fan of White Ra, he's a great person and his games are always fun to watch whether he wins or loses. As far as on a big team sport like Football, you kind of "get to know" these players as they come in as rookies and slowly start to play more and more, so you build a connection with them that will either make you like or dislike them Sure. The Oakland Raiders have very dedicated fans even though they always lose. The logo is a tough looking guy with an eye patch. It's a great logo to wear with face-paint while drinking beer and shouting. I think a lot of Raiders fans would probably openly admit to being a fan of the logo/mascot itself. I guess what I would say about the personality part is this: Players on any given team have wildly varying personalities. In fact, there are probably some players on a given team that are disliked by their team mates. How can a fan zoom out and say that they are a fan of a team because of the personalities of the players on the team, when A) they all have different personalities and B) some of them aren't even fans of each other? Maybe that's a foggy way of saying that, but I hope you see where I'm going with it.
Nobody is going to respond to that by dissecting what they like or dislike about each player, their interactions, and then evaluate the net effect of that on how they feel about the team. Discounting it as a factor entirely based on a condensed response that doesn't capture something complex is just lazy at best.
|
On September 23 2014 08:06 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 07:48 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players. This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players. My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result. You're either a fan of the team as a team of players, or you are a fan of their mascot/logo. I said I disagreed with this, and then you restated it. What? Show nested quote +As far as a typical fan of the game of football is concerned, there are teams of players from different regions of the country who have logos and mascots. The rest of it is behind the scenes and not typically related to fandom. Source?
Okay. Consider a given football team. There are certain components of which it is comprised:
The players on the team.
The coaching staff.
The owners of the team.
The sponsors of the team.
Representatives of the NFL and its own sponsors.
The team logo/mascot.
Am I missing any important parts?
Let's say I'm not missing any for now.
What part of the team does a fan of the game of football admire?
Players.
Coaching staff.
Logo/mascot.
Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch.
This excludes owners and sponsors because they aren't part of the game that they watch. Nobody cares about the representatives of the NFL because those are just the guys making sure that everyone on the team is following NFL rules. We don't even know their names. Also not part of the game that they can watch.
The coaching staff changes in the same way that the players change, though they change less often since the coach can last decades. Still, the coach retiring after 50 years of my being a fan of his team isn't going to make me stop being a fan of his team even if the new coach is an asshole and the team loses every game from then on. Otherwise, I'm a fairweather fan and that's bad.
|
On September 23 2014 08:13 dangthatsright wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 08:08 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 07:56 aike wrote:On September 23 2014 07:52 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 07:23 aike wrote:On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players. This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players. My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result. Hey man the Packers are a non-profit organization Easy to be a fan of that right? hahaha. The thing is, players slowly rotate out and new ones slowly come in. It's not like the entire roster shifts out. So if I start watching this year and become a fan of the current players, next year 80% of the players I'm a fan of are still there, and then new players come in and I can become a fan of them. Ans so while the team I was a fan of in 2000 isn't around anymore, over time I have become a fan of the players that slowly replaced that team The slow replacement idea is interesting. But what if every new player that joins is really bad at the game compared to the people they replace? Eventually the team will start losing. How can you become a fan of that new bad player? For what reasons? There are many reasons to be a fan of a player other than skill. People are fans of Catz and Destiny because they do fun things, not because they are champions. I'm a huge fan of White Ra, he's a great person and his games are always fun to watch whether he wins or loses. As far as on a big team sport like Football, you kind of "get to know" these players as they come in as rookies and slowly start to play more and more, so you build a connection with them that will either make you like or dislike them Sure. The Oakland Raiders have very dedicated fans even though they always lose. The logo is a tough looking guy with an eye patch. It's a great logo to wear with face-paint while drinking beer and shouting. I think a lot of Raiders fans would probably openly admit to being a fan of the logo/mascot itself. I guess what I would say about the personality part is this: Players on any given team have wildly varying personalities. In fact, there are probably some players on a given team that are disliked by their team mates. How can a fan zoom out and say that they are a fan of a team because of the personalities of the players on the team, when A) they all have different personalities and B) some of them aren't even fans of each other? Maybe that's a foggy way of saying that, but I hope you see where I'm going with it. Nobody is going to respond to that by dissecting what they like or dislike about each player, their interactions, and then evaluate the net effect of that on how they feel about the team. Discounting it as a factor entirely based on a condensed response that doesn't capture something complex is just lazy at best.
It's completely beside the point anyway. Those players change over the years, so their personality is irrelevant. Even if they change gradually, if the old players whose personalities you liked are slowly replaced by boring, uninteresting people who just play the game and smile, you won't stop being a fan of the team. Especially since it is so gradual, a fan won't really notice that the players on their team who were once full of entertaining attitude are being replaced one by one by players who just smile and wave.
|
United States24615 Posts
On September 23 2014 08:16 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 08:06 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 07:48 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players. This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players. My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result. You're either a fan of the team as a team of players, or you are a fan of their mascot/logo. I said I disagreed with this, and then you restated it. What? As far as a typical fan of the game of football is concerned, there are teams of players from different regions of the country who have logos and mascots. The rest of it is behind the scenes and not typically related to fandom. Source? Okay. Consider a given football team. There are certain components of which it is comprised: The players on the team. The coaching staff. The owners of the team. The sponsors of the team. Representatives of the NFL and its own sponsors. The team logo/mascot. Am I missing any important parts? Let's say I'm not missing any for now. What part of the team does a fan of the game of football admire? Players. Coaching staff. Logo/mascot. Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch. This excludes owners and sponsors because they aren't part of the game that they watch. Nobody cares about the representatives of the NFL because those are just the guys making sure that everyone on the team is following NFL rules. We don't even know their names. Also not part of the game that they can watch. The coaching staff changes in the same way that the players change, though they change less often since the coach can last decades. Still, the coach retiring after 50 years of my being a fan of his team isn't going to make me stop being a fan of his team even if the new coach is an asshole and the team loses every game from then on. Otherwise, I'm a fairweather fan and that's bad.
MichaelDonovan there are many things that affect fandom of a team that are not on your short list. I think the problem really starts with "Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch." We aren't talking about fans of the game. We are specifically talking about fans of the team. Teams have a cultural heritage... they have a history. Teams have icons and symbols beyond just a mascot or logo (although those can be an example). Teams have philosophies about how to play, or to manage themselves, how to treat the fans, and many other things. These philosophies can remain nearly unchanged for a long time (of course, any aspect of the team can change after a long time). There are many reasons to be a fan of a sports team... and as others have said trying to simplify human behavior about sports fandom using basic logic isn't going to be very successful.
|
Northern Ireland24293 Posts
I don't see it as irrational, more intangible/with too many variables at play to easily be able to articulate why you identify with a particular team.
I would still consider the regional/city representation as being part of it as well. While the constituent parts may be assembled from parts elsewhere, wearing the team's colours they're imbued with whatever ideals or 'character' associated with the region and by extension, the sports team.
In European sports, there are a lot of socio-political identities associated with clubs historically, in addition to representation of whatever city they're in. Hence why something like Real Madrid vs Barcelona, or Boca Juniors vs River Plate takes on another element (national identity and class respectively).
|
United States24615 Posts
On September 23 2014 08:51 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don't see it as irrational, more intangible/with too many variables at play to easily be able to articulate why you identify with a particular team.
I agree with this modification of what I was saying above.
|
On September 23 2014 08:34 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 08:16 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 08:06 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 07:48 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players. This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players. My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result. You're either a fan of the team as a team of players, or you are a fan of their mascot/logo. I said I disagreed with this, and then you restated it. What? As far as a typical fan of the game of football is concerned, there are teams of players from different regions of the country who have logos and mascots. The rest of it is behind the scenes and not typically related to fandom. Source? Okay. Consider a given football team. There are certain components of which it is comprised: The players on the team. The coaching staff. The owners of the team. The sponsors of the team. Representatives of the NFL and its own sponsors. The team logo/mascot. Am I missing any important parts? Let's say I'm not missing any for now. What part of the team does a fan of the game of football admire? Players. Coaching staff. Logo/mascot. Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch. This excludes owners and sponsors because they aren't part of the game that they watch. Nobody cares about the representatives of the NFL because those are just the guys making sure that everyone on the team is following NFL rules. We don't even know their names. Also not part of the game that they can watch. The coaching staff changes in the same way that the players change, though they change less often since the coach can last decades. Still, the coach retiring after 50 years of my being a fan of his team isn't going to make me stop being a fan of his team even if the new coach is an asshole and the team loses every game from then on. Otherwise, I'm a fairweather fan and that's bad. MichaelDonovan there are many things that affect fandom of a team that are not on your short list. I think the problem really starts with "Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch." We aren't talking about fans of the game. We are specifically talking about fans of the team. Teams have a cultural heritage... they have a history. Teams have icons and symbols beyond just a mascot or logo (although those can be an example). Teams have philosophies about how to play, or to manage themselves, how to treat the fans, and many other things. These philosophies can remain nearly unchanged for a long time (of course, any aspect of the team can change after a long time). There are many reasons to be a fan of a sports team... and as others have said trying to simplify human behavior about sports fandom using basic logic isn't going to be very successful.
So you disagree with my premise that the typical fan of a football team must also be a fan of the game of football? I don't know if I'm really getting anything from you other than "It's complicated."
|
United States24615 Posts
On September 23 2014 09:04 MichaelDonovan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 08:34 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 08:16 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 08:06 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 07:48 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players. This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players. My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result. You're either a fan of the team as a team of players, or you are a fan of their mascot/logo. I said I disagreed with this, and then you restated it. What? As far as a typical fan of the game of football is concerned, there are teams of players from different regions of the country who have logos and mascots. The rest of it is behind the scenes and not typically related to fandom. Source? Okay. Consider a given football team. There are certain components of which it is comprised: The players on the team. The coaching staff. The owners of the team. The sponsors of the team. Representatives of the NFL and its own sponsors. The team logo/mascot. Am I missing any important parts? Let's say I'm not missing any for now. What part of the team does a fan of the game of football admire? Players. Coaching staff. Logo/mascot. Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch. This excludes owners and sponsors because they aren't part of the game that they watch. Nobody cares about the representatives of the NFL because those are just the guys making sure that everyone on the team is following NFL rules. We don't even know their names. Also not part of the game that they can watch. The coaching staff changes in the same way that the players change, though they change less often since the coach can last decades. Still, the coach retiring after 50 years of my being a fan of his team isn't going to make me stop being a fan of his team even if the new coach is an asshole and the team loses every game from then on. Otherwise, I'm a fairweather fan and that's bad. MichaelDonovan there are many things that affect fandom of a team that are not on your short list. I think the problem really starts with "Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch." We aren't talking about fans of the game. We are specifically talking about fans of the team. Teams have a cultural heritage... they have a history. Teams have icons and symbols beyond just a mascot or logo (although those can be an example). Teams have philosophies about how to play, or to manage themselves, how to treat the fans, and many other things. These philosophies can remain nearly unchanged for a long time (of course, any aspect of the team can change after a long time). There are many reasons to be a fan of a sports team... and as others have said trying to simplify human behavior about sports fandom using basic logic isn't going to be very successful. So you disagree with my premise that the typical fan of a football team must also be a fan of the game of football? I don't know if I'm really getting anything from you other than "It's complicated."
Well, it is complicated. I gave you some examples of your oversimplifications. I'm not going to say this is too complicated to possibly analyze... because that's obviously not true. And I generally agree that a fan of a team is a fan of the sport, but that's not a definite, either. The problem was the attempt to focus solely on the characteristics of being a fan of a sport, when talking about being a fan of a team. While there is a great deal of overlap, they are not the same thing at all.
|
On September 23 2014 09:09 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 09:04 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 08:34 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 08:16 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 08:06 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 07:48 MichaelDonovan wrote:On September 23 2014 07:10 micronesia wrote:On September 23 2014 06:02 aike wrote:
A team really is more than just the sum of it's players. This sums of my only concern with the OP. It creates a false dichotomy that you are a fan of a team either because you are a fan of its current players, or because you are a fan of the mascot. The latter is an unfair characterization. Teams are typically organizations which include many moving parts, and while players are very important, they are far from the only thing that contributes towards victory in the standings. You can be a fan of a sports organization while not particularly caring for the mascot, nor the hometowns of the players. My personal opinion is that professional sports is essentially a competition of mercenaries. NCAA isn't AS bad in this regard, as all players on a team go to the same school. But when pro sports come on I have to ask myself "what does this team that you are cheering for so strongly... represent?" Usually, there is not a good answer, and I can't get into pro sports very much as a result. You're either a fan of the team as a team of players, or you are a fan of their mascot/logo. I said I disagreed with this, and then you restated it. What? As far as a typical fan of the game of football is concerned, there are teams of players from different regions of the country who have logos and mascots. The rest of it is behind the scenes and not typically related to fandom. Source? Okay. Consider a given football team. There are certain components of which it is comprised: The players on the team. The coaching staff. The owners of the team. The sponsors of the team. Representatives of the NFL and its own sponsors. The team logo/mascot. Am I missing any important parts? Let's say I'm not missing any for now. What part of the team does a fan of the game of football admire? Players. Coaching staff. Logo/mascot. Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch. This excludes owners and sponsors because they aren't part of the game that they watch. Nobody cares about the representatives of the NFL because those are just the guys making sure that everyone on the team is following NFL rules. We don't even know their names. Also not part of the game that they can watch. The coaching staff changes in the same way that the players change, though they change less often since the coach can last decades. Still, the coach retiring after 50 years of my being a fan of his team isn't going to make me stop being a fan of his team even if the new coach is an asshole and the team loses every game from then on. Otherwise, I'm a fairweather fan and that's bad. MichaelDonovan there are many things that affect fandom of a team that are not on your short list. I think the problem really starts with "Fans of the game are fans of the game that they can watch." We aren't talking about fans of the game. We are specifically talking about fans of the team. Teams have a cultural heritage... they have a history. Teams have icons and symbols beyond just a mascot or logo (although those can be an example). Teams have philosophies about how to play, or to manage themselves, how to treat the fans, and many other things. These philosophies can remain nearly unchanged for a long time (of course, any aspect of the team can change after a long time). There are many reasons to be a fan of a sports team... and as others have said trying to simplify human behavior about sports fandom using basic logic isn't going to be very successful. So you disagree with my premise that the typical fan of a football team must also be a fan of the game of football? I don't know if I'm really getting anything from you other than "It's complicated." Well, it is complicated. I gave you some examples of your oversimplifications. I'm not going to say this is too complicated to possibly analyze... because that's obviously not true. And I generally agree that a fan of a team is a fan of the sport, but that's not a definite, either. The problem was the attempt to focus solely on the characteristics of being a fan of a sport, when talking about being a fan of a team. While there is a great deal of overlap, they are not the same thing at all.
I was targeting that large overlap with my use of the word "typical." This was never meant to be a precise analysis. Just a fun little dialogue with some observations. I live in a town where football is a really big deal and I interact with fanatic football lovers daily. So my premises are based on my personal observations.
|
Trying to rationally explain or attach specific reasons for fandom is useless as being a fan is essentially emotionally based. You don't analyze every aspect of a team trough a strict well thought out pattern and choose one. You could very well pinpoint some incentives for someone to associate with a specific team, but in the end it's a gut feeling. You can't just discredit an emotional choice because it's not rationally based.
Just saying : "I am a Patriots fan because my father was" does not make your choice devoid of any sense. Being a fan is not being rational, it is being passionate. Telling someone their object of passion is a mere mascot or logo because that is where a rational analysis leads to is not only incorrect, but also insulting. They like the team. All that it emotionally represents to them.
I believe the title of your blog explained it quite well and this issue did not deserve a full Socratic dialog. "On the irrationality of emotions." That's it.
I might be wrong, but it seems as if you're trying to devaluate the behavior of sports fans because you cannot relate to it. Being myself uninterested in sporting events, I have always seen the over the top cheering and senseless fandom a silly, borderline stupid behavior. However, I have recently come to terms with it as being something truly admirable. In any area of life, being able to put passion and energy into something trivial should always be encouraged and commended, or at the very least, celebrated.
|
Looks like Tina got smart after Ike.
|
Yeah, BUT
My team is better than yours.
|
On September 23 2014 05:34 MichaelDonovan wrote:
That's not a really satisfying reply. Doesn't do much against my argument. Just says, "Well you don't know enough, Jack."
People don't like teams just because of the players.
I'm not a fan of the Minnesota Wild because of the particular players. I'm a fan of the Minnesota Wild because they're the hockey team from Minnesota, which is my home.
Fans are generally fans of the organization as a whole, not just the players, which punches a huge hole in this scenario.
You're either a fan of the team as a team of players, or you are a fan of their mascot/logo. As far as a typical fan of the game of football is concerned, there are teams of players from different regions of the country who have logos and mascots. The rest of it is behind the scenes and not typically related to fandom. It's like wearing only Nike shoes either because you like how they look and you like the prestige of the brand name, or because you think they actually make the best shoes. The organization which the logo represents is just a company trying to serve its own purposes. There isn't really that much to be a fan of in that, which is why I disregarded the "sports organization" part of the team.
You could bring up an example like, "Team A donates all its profits to feed hungry children. Therefore, no matter who the players are, where they're from, or how well they play, I will always be a fan of Team A." This would be perfectly reasonable, however, and outside the scope of my argument. In that case, if you ask a fan of Team A what exactly he/she is a fan of, the fan can give you a straight answer which makes complete sense.
This is not the case for the typical football team or the typical football fan. You might scrutinize my use of the word "typical", but you can probably see what I'm getting at anyway.
No. You just don't seem to be able to grasp what drives people to be fans of something, so instead of trying to understand it, you write it off as inconsequential so you don't have to deal with it.
People that are passionate fans of a sports team are typically fans of a team where they were born/grew up/spent a significant amount of time/have some other type of emotional attachment to. The team represents part of that place's culture. It's not about winning, or the players, or who they donate to.
As a Minnesota Wild fan (hockey), I'm a fan of the Wild because the organization is from Minnesota (where I grew up), it's hockey (the most popular sport in Minnesota and a sport I love), and the team is one facet of our culture here, just like all the other teams in Minnesota. It's the same anywhere, and it's quite the philosophical mistake to just write off other factors and create a false dichotomy when trying to define fandom.
Part of your problem is you are solely defining a sports organization as its concrete parts (the people/company) and saying that these are the only things people can be fans of. This is completely wrong. Fans are not just fans of the people/mascot/logo/management/etc. People are also fans of what the team represents, what it embodies, and what it does.
|
Northern Ireland24293 Posts
Just look at TL LR threads, I don't even have to name names but there are people who will:
Cheer for the player that plays their race
Be a rabid fanboy of a particular player
Be a rabid fanboy of a team, and support any representative
Be relatively neutral and want to see good games.
Be a fan of Kespa players/eSF players
Be a fan of foreigners
And this is just with regards to a game that has a history of 10ish years as a pro game if we're including BW
|
Well from what I gather, Donovan wants to say that being a devout fan doesn't make sense because regardless of history, culture, etc. the players themselves are not as loyal to the team as the fans are so why is it fair for hardcore fans to condescend the "fair weather" fan who values prestige over anything else.
Its not that being a crazed fan is bad but more that they don't have any ground to be calling others derogatory names and that that behavior alone is illogical, It happens in every competition but to a lesser degree than in American Football.
In the end its like Crips vs Bloods, they all do the same shit but hate each other.
|
This is an interesting discussion. + Show Spoiler +For the record, I am a fan of the Detroit Lions - for no reason than I really liked one of their players when I was younger (Barry Sanders), I liked the color blue and I liked lions... (so the logo) I've since been a fan through thick and thin
I think the real question is why do we find the need to find a side to cheer for? Any competition I watch I always end up picking someone that I want to win. Usually I try to find some connection and it's quite seldom that I don't care who wins. Now, why I've remained loyal to the same team for 20 some years I can't really say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
