Sports as Entertainment
There is enough written about the value of sports to participants, but what about the value to the fans. I reckon every sport is somewhat different even in this respect so I will focus on professional football. This is the most popular sport in America. Why?
Maybe because it is the least predictable, has the best game pace to it, is exceedingly complicated, has so many really varied positions and generates the fiercest emotions. BUT, realistically, does it make sense to be too strong a fan of any team? There are 16 teams and only one can win the Superbowl. Maybe half the teams or more have at least a chance before the season starts since football championships change hands constantly. Since the level of emotion is driven to high levels throughout the game and season, when your team loses the disappointment is equally of a high level. NOW, in what way does the life of a fan change whether his team wins or loses? PRECISELY, it doesn't. There was a time in my life when watching a game where I really, really wanted my team to win might even generate a headache. Not Good. Over time I began to realize how much unpredictable variables enter into a football game. Injuries, when the penalties occur, when passes are dropped, when tackles will be missed, when blown calls will surface, when someone slips, tipped balls, when fumbles occur, the condition of the field, the weather, etc. It is amazing that the best of experts can manage to correctly predict the winners of games a little over 60% of the time.
Foot ball can be entertaining, but it takes, I sense, a certain developed discipline for it to be entertainment rather than torture. Of course some people enjoy the torture just as some people like climbing cliffs or any other dangerous sport. Then there are the football arguments. Listening to pregame shows or ESPN sport news gives one an endless series of 'experts' with definitive and 'for sure' opinions on every player and everything associated with the game. When the game is over most of it turned out to be pure bullshit. Most topics argued about in football are unprovable. Fans aren't arguing about who scored the most touchdowns or anything else that has a factual basis. No, they argue about which players are better, which coaches are better, whether the team should have gone for it or punted, team chemistry, player attitudes, etc. From a distance what is the purpose of all these debates? How often does one side change their mind? It starts off friendly enough with each side manipulating certain observations or stats to fit their case, while others watching the debacle wish the arguers would just let it drop, but it rarely does and can go on for weeks, months, years. What is the prize at the end if one could win any of these arguments? I am trying to think of one case in my own history where one side ever capitulated. I can think of cases where friendships have been weakened, but none where the friendship was strengthened. Most of the times when these arguments are being made, apples and oranges are being compared. Plus, what may work with certain people in certain situations does not work for other people in different situations. How good any player is, for example, depends on the quality of the supporting cast and the quality of the opposition. The other players have to be individually good at their positions for one player to get his own best stats. Nice guys don't get you good stats, guys who play their position well do. Like all those involved state all the time: it is a business, pure and simple. First comes their own survival and if the team should happen to win that is nice too. But the first objective for every player is for them to put up the stats for them to not only survive as a team member but get a top salary.
To enjoy a sport like football one probably needs to see it as pure entertainment. There is a surprise on most every play, sometimes pleasant, sometimes unpleasant. You know all these kinds of unpredictable things are going to happen and one must learn not to react emotionally much to their occurrence. The lucky ones forget about all the heartache 5 minutes after the game is over. The smartest ones keep their emotions in check throughout the game. IT IS JUST A GAME. IT HAS NO REAL MEANING TO ANYONE'S LIFE EXCEPT THOSE OUT ON THE FIELD.
Most things in life come at a price----marriage, sport success, job success, friendships, good health, wealth, contentment, justice, etc. Winning and losing in sports as a fan requires no price and comes with no control over the outcome. Any idiot can be a fan, maybe most are. THEN AGAIN, all you have to do as a fan is show up and root. There is no required preparation. Being a fan for some people, actually a lot of people, can become compulsive behavior---like overeating, drugs, sex, whatever. I suppose, those addicted would say it gives them some genuine pleasure in their life. I am not sure pleasure is the right term. There are people who wash their hands 100 times a day; one need be careful calling this pleasure. It is compulsive behavior. Every addict to anything claims a real need for the diversion. Maybe most of us need to be addicted to something so there is something to occupy our spare time.
I stated before that sports is unpredictable. So is gambling at a Casino and look how many people are addicted to casino gambling. Gambling is not only time consuming but it does affect your bank account, marriage, and state of mind. In general, too much of anything can kill you including too much oxygen, food, and a lot of other things so necessary in moderation. I am 70 years old and read a lot. Why? Am I ever going to do anything with the increased knowledge? Of course not. I write a lot---for my own contentment. Yes, contentment is the only basis for a hobby. If one can be a sport fan in a way which brings contentment and doesn't destroy other aspects of your life, then I guess it is a good thing. I have abandoned most sports because following them is too time consuming and winning or losing as a fan, for me, has no lasting effect and contributes about zero to my state of contentment. My life will be as content whether Green Bay wins or loses. I still watch a lot of games because football is, as I say, unpredictable, and thus filled with the unexpected. Iit is good theatre. People enjoy plays for the same reason.
Almost all sports debates cannot be proven----contrary to the certainty with which sports commentators and fans pretend otherwise. Opinions cannot be proved and more often than not the messenger of an opinion becomes the one subjected to character assassination. In one form or another these arguments end by each accusing the other of ignorance, lack of some kind of experience to even know about such things, and all sorts of irrelevant character assassinations---the other guy once predicted team X to win the division, or has been known to lie too much, or what do people in his/her profession know anyway, or someone who would choose such a loser as a spouse can hardly be trusted to be a judge of anyone etc. In other words the debate shifts from the issue at hand to whether or not the other person is even capable of having a valid opinion. Be all this as it may, how is it that one person may claim to know the factual answer?
1. They are smarter (now who could possibly counter that?)
2. They once coached some kind of sport which gives them unique experience or or some such experience by which the truth came by osmosis. Sounds good enough EXCEPT, if it were true then all those with similar experience would all agree on the topic in question. They don't.
3. They once played the sport in question. It seems here they confuse athletic ability with understanding complex issues.
4. Certain other people say so (The Pope complex--a Pope elected by selected people knows the answers because God gives him the answer). Like who is to dare question God? A sport commentator or a group of sport commentators get elevated to Popes on the debate in question.
5. Logic based on reasonable evidence and hypotheses constructed based on that reasonable evidence. This may come closest to the answer BUT also cannot be proven. It still is opinion.
In the end, with sports, DOES IT MATTER? I suppose, somewhere beyond human wisdom, one great athlete is better than another great athlete. Or, again beyond human wisdom, some factor can be precisely determined as to how important it is for team success. Perhaps the only non damaging sport debates can occur when both sides accept the difference between believing one is right and knowing one is right. One cannot know something which is not a provable fact. Fortunately, sport beliefs are harmless, at least on paper, since non of it matters much in any real sense. It only matters when relationships are destroyed or damaged. Not good.
STILL, in the end, sports debates can be stimulating, amusing, entertaining, challenging and all such good stuff PROVIDING both sides keep in mind that no one is going to win these debates. If the debate itself is fun, FINE, if the debate ceases to be fun, then STOP.
