Sports: Perspectives On Winning
I don't listen much to sport talk shows, pre game analyses, or post game analyses. It is then I begin to feel "whoa---these are games, not political struggles which affect the lives of others in any meaningful ways". Of course I am hypocritical and have strong opinions myself about teams and individual players. But somehow, when people make a living publicly character assassinating athletes, in this or that way, I feel, in my heart, this is going too far. I know, the athletes make way too much money so we should be able to verbally pummel them to our heart's content. But then, what does that say about ourselves that we are so eager to personally assault the character of others whom we really know so little about. We do know about their athletic performances and that really should be the focus. It is not like there is any fairness about any of it. The same commentators, with the same axes to grind, attack the same individuals week and after week. What is this, in the last analysis, but media propaganda to discredit individuals who are not present to defend themselves. John Madden is so popular in part because he refrains from that sort of thing. He talks football (and other aside trivia) not carry on as if football is some sort of dating game where you try to figure out which candidate appeals to you the most---or some kind of verbal Jerry Springer show.
Sports are entertainment and about athletic performance, not---in my mind---some sort of Roman Coliseum game in which sport gladiators are fed to the lions (sport commentators). Clearly many others feed on sports exactly because it gives them a chance to torch the character of certain athletes. Last week some reporter saw fit to use 'unnamed' sources to pit teammates on one team against each other. It is, no doubt, a good way to get your own babble a lot of coverage. But when the deed is done and accomplished, and your own hot air gets nationwide attention, how should one feel about your nasty little deed? What has it all to do with the game anyway? I live in a high rise condo and I suppose with little effort and time, I could spread comments made by certain residents about other residents throughout the building by posting these comments by 'unnamed' sources and what they said about who. Then others could say the people who live in this building are dysfunctional, they dislike each other and are consumed with petty jealousies. If I did that I would feel like a pretty sleazy and slimy character. Probably better for me to be sleazy and slimy a different way.
The team in question was Dallas, whom I support, and the target in question was Terrell Owens, who I find to be an interesting person with a unique background, and as a consequence, an intriguing personality. By the end of the week the media had pegged Dallas as a dysfunctional team. And when the game was held the dysfunctional team won. They won, as any football team wins, when the individual performers, on that day, performed their individual tasks better than individual performers on the other team performed their tasks that day. It is just silly to think some athlete on the field can't tackle good in the game because he dislikes some other player on his team. Fans can talk 'team' all they want, but in the last analysis each player on each team knows that his future---his salary---depends on his performance alone. He either makes tackles, or throws the ball well, or catches the ball, or runs the ball well, or blocks well, etc.
A friend emailed me a message the next day which in part read: "Dysfuntional teams (groups) do just fine when things are going well, but
the dysfunction will cause problems when things are not going well.
As someone once said, "losing doesn't build character, it reveals
character". Everyone wants to win, but the way they react to losing
says a great deal."
This seems perceptive enough at first glance, but really has some drawbacks. First, if a dysfunctional team wins an important game against a tough opponent, that team, by definition of the word, is not dysfunctional---in fact it functioned quite well. In football, whether teammates all like each other (and good luck trying to impose that on any large group of people) has little to do with their individual game performances. It does seem however, that winning means more if the individuals do like each other, and losing goes down better without a lot of finger pointing. To the extent any of this is true, then the only thing any reporter accomplishes who uses 'unnamed sources' to spread dislike amongst team members, is to make victory less pleasurable or defeat more fractious. What the hell kind of goal is that? These athletes work hard, and to deliberately spoil the level of joy in victory or level of pain in defeat is ethically despicable.
It is probably true that losing may reveal character, but since character is often a trait ever in the making, losing can also build character. I taught young adults all my life, students roughly the same age as most of these athletes. You learn with time, not to judge a book by it's cover, to appreciate diversity, to understand that the history of young people often dictates their character and attitudes and outward behavior. I often would deliberately pair up polar opposites as lab partners and when either would protest to me in private, I would just smile and say that is exactly why I did it. I think most people feel real good when they are able to find some good in someone they assumed was simply no good, not their type, etc. That is precisely why Obama won---he brought out the better angels of human nature, gave people reason to get along rather than dislike each other. Can anyone imagine Obama going into a locker room and prying out little tidbits from some unsuspecting gullible irresponsible teammate to gather gossipy tales and then use those tales in an attempt to pit teammate against teammate? Of course not because whatever else Obama is or is not, he is not a sleazeball. In the last analysis the teammates already know how they feel about other teammates and don't change because of anyone else's opinion. It is only the fans which get manipulated, and rise up against this player or that player. Terrell is a cheap target because he is a very different sort of person. It is worth noting that all these media 'color' commentators who rant against Terrell have never been on a team with Terrell. And conversely, most who are the strongest defenders of Terrell have been on a team with him. I prefer to trust the latter.
There is never any good reason to dislike someone because they are just different. Terrell is hired to perform well on the field, to stay in shape and not interfere with the ability of anyone else to perform well. He does that and true to his nature, stays off to himself, never gets close to others on the team. So what? He is too focused on his own performance to hardly notice the presence of others. So what? He is full of himself. So what? These are all adults, if they need a nursemaid and alter ego let the team hire one for them. Fans themselves can be a little too full of themselves and expect every athlete to dance to their tunes of personality preferences. The sports writer in question got a lot of fans to boo Terrell at the game. That is a cheap shot itself. Terrell is in the top ten selling sport jerseys of all sports (okay, he is ten), but most of his fans can hardly afford to attend a football game. Most of his fans are 'nothingburgers' living in the kind of environment in which he grew up. They understand the miracle nature of his personality and achievements and he is a perfect role model for them---"the little Engine that Could". He gives them hope and his adherence to simple ethical principles are the kind of principles they should be pondering. Terrell is impervious to media assaults and has been his whole life. But his supporters, the young ones, are not. They cannot understand why he is being put down and they feel like it is an attack on nobodies like themselves, and it creates racial and class hostilities for what purpose---so some lowlife reporter can get press for himself?
All of this sports personality banter, on a scale of one to ten gets about a 2. The only thing clear is that my teams are better, the individuals I root for are the best, and everyone else should shut up. Case closed.
