Conference 7.286::sports_91

    Can't argue with logic like that!  :*)
    
    lEe

  LeE

  You just beat me to the keyboard!!

  rick

    I see you guys are finally starting to come around to my way of
    thinking.  It was only a matter of time.  What did it, the elegant
    simplicity?
    
    MrT(heorist) 

    T, what's yer theory on the intensity of Stanley Cup action?
    
    Mark.

    
    Hockey, as a defensive orientATed continuous state game, engenders
    fan stress in a "roller coaster" manner, with the fans mental state
    alternating between elation and fear as play centers around either
    the vistors' and homies' goal respectively.  Hockey fans are drawn
    into a continuous mental state that acts as a real-time analog to 
    what is happening on the ice.  This results in a form of manic
    obsessiveness, one that is heightened with the added dimension of 
    hot goalie play - ("no, I will not be penetrated by your advances 
    and I reject you" or "yes, penetration is complete and it was good")
    - and also the added dimension of the power play ("you are outnumbered,
    so just lay back and enjoy it").  The game of hockey is emblematic of
    mankind's territorial imperative, and succeeds in delivering in its
    fans the cathartic experience of agressive behavior at the direct 
    expense of approach-avoidance behaviors.  When the red light blinks
    after a goal, it symbolizes to the fan either a brief moment of blind
    euphoria or gloom.  Then the fan gets back on the "roller coaster" for
    another spin, his/her adrenaline gland all the while flapping open and
    closed as the object of frustrated desire, the puck, attempts to make
    good its threats of penetration yet again.
    
    Where football stands as an analog to our race memory of military conquest
    and organizational forms; hockey appeals to something much deeper, more
    primordial in nature: the pack instinct.  That the players are donned in
    uniforms not dissimilar to those of pre-medieval warriors presents to the
    fan a "cultural signature" only reinforced by the fact that the players
    carry clubs in their hands and wear knives on their feet.  That the puck
    as the object of desire and the center of attention resembles an offal
    that has been flattened underfoot signifies the intensely anal retentive
    nature of organized warfare and the pack's assertive desire to slap such
    group-based repression away.
    
    This psychological milieu naturally intensifies by a_order of magnitude
    as the territory becomes more valuable, the symbolic hymen more pure.
    
    DrT

    re: .-1
    
    If we had a noting HoF, *that* one would get inducted on the first
    ballot.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

A classic crosscheck to the back of the hockey establishment! ****



Steve

    Nice job, T!
    
    Mark.

    Bogus plagarism ....

    At least its true!!!

    Hey Dr. Malpractice, you misspelled plagiarism.  You sure you 
    ain't a_orderly?
    
    The only derivative piece a my essay was the part about "clubs
    in their hands and knives on their feet," which I remember reading
    years ago in either the Globe or Times sports section.  
    
    DrT

    
    One NOtY nomination, coming up!  
    
    Aw, heck, how 'bout a Pullet Surprise.  Was that your doctorite thesis,
    T?
    
    I'll never see the game of hockey the same way again.  It just took the
    mind of MrT to elevate a brutal exhibition to the level of an emotional
    diorama.  Splendid!
    
    Dickstah
    

    Sheesh Dickstah, take a cold shower or have a butt, will ya already?
    
    Mark.

Everything in life relates to one of three things:

		1. Sex
		2. Your Mother
		3. Eating

Some folks might be able to pair this list down to two,
(and in Arkansas, well....)

'Saw

    
    No wonder sex is so much fun...it reminds people of hockey!
    
    
    Dickstah
    

    Truly a Shroom-induced analysis,Mr T, and quite apropos.
    
    In watching the Broons last night, I was immediatly brought back to 
    your dissertation when Dave Christian scored the lone B's goal. Derek
    Sanderson's comments on the goal mirrored your theory
    I paraphrase " Christian eyes the target, Barrasso goes down opening
    his legs, parting like the Red Sea. Christian fires, and in he goes!"
    Truly Freudian (or is it now "T"ian).
    
    Mr.T, the Huongon of Hockey (read "Darkfall" by Dean Koontz)
    
    MikeL
    
    

Here I was ready to induct MorT into the steenkin' HoF when charges
of plagiarism rear their ugly head.  This whole mess reaks of 
Rosie Ruiz, cold fussion, and Hitler's diary. 

Nexted time you accuse me of being dishonest cause I root for Carolina
despite my non-alumnus status FAX me a (certified) copy of *your*
IU degree.  *YOU* cain't be trusted until you've been proven innocent
of these serious and, tragically, all-too believable charges.


- ACC Chris
    

    >Bogus plagarism [sic]
    
    Doc, I apologize for taking a swipe at you like I did.  It wasn't
    unteal later that I recognized the literary subtlety in this finely
    crafted phrase of yours.  Midnight used a double negative of sorts,
    with the "bogus" cancelling out the "plagiarism" (which is itself
    a form of falsehood) in the form a a redundancy.  Further, the Doc
    goes on to cover his veiled compliment by intentionally using a comic
    phonetic misspelling a plagiarism as if to say "this isn't plagiarism,
    it's original!"  Why did Midnight take this tack?  Obviously, given
    his Macho Mien way, it was impossible for him to simply gush the praise
    he felt for my modest essay.
    
    Doc, I accept your compliment, and you *are* this file's Macho Mien!
    
    >One NOtY nomination, coming up!
    
    Does our Constitution permit a sitting NoTY consecutive terms?  And
    even if it does, I'm not sure I cain accept.  It tore me up inside
    presiding over poor Mike JN's funeral.
    
    MrT 

    Nice attempt at diversion MorT (we all know you're a master) but, while
    Doc's grammer and sports analysis may be faulty he *did* force you into
    a confession.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

>    Mr.T, the Huongon of Hockey (read "Darkfall" by Dean Koontz)
 
Mike --

I am truly impressed with your choice of Literature.  One of my personal
favorites as well......

>    Mr.T, the Huongon of Hockey (read "Darkfall" by Dean Koontz)
 
Mike --

>I am truly impressed with your choice of Literature.  One of my personal
>favorites as well......


 must be a rugby book then????

 ;^)

    Barasso and Moog put on a clinic last night, eh?
    
    Mark.

    How DARE you flap your tongue at *MrT* about confessions, ACCaught.
    Seems to me that it was YOU who was forced to 'fess up during your
    squalid Trial... and there's talk on the network right now about
    whether you should be brought up on charges for misrepresenting
    yourself in matters UNC-CH.
    
    I plagiarized nothing.  Plagiarism is when one presents the work of
    another as his (see Martin Luther King's doctoral thesis).
    
    MrT

> must be a rugby book then????
>
> ;^)

Hahahahahahaha  too funny.

Nope, believe it or not the Sawman takes a break from that rugby stuff 
now and again.  

Dean Koontz is an excellent author of spooky stories, sorta like Stephen
King only different.  I enjoy reading his stuff, and there are times when
it has scared me silly....

'Saw

Agent's are ruining sports. 

I read an article today in the Glob concerning Leonard Russell, Pat's 
second pick and I found it quite disturbing. His agent, Steve Feldman,
no relation to Marty, said some things that kind of takes the "meaning"
out of the game. His words were that of a typical agent, "Russell deserves
this much", and, "No one works harder.." bla bla bla. The plain and simple
fact is, the man has never carried the ball once in the NFL yet! This is the
same agent that represented Junior Seau and created quite a "nasty mess"
during negotiations. He was held out of camp and missed part of the season.
Feldman has also had similar dealings with the Rams and the Bengals. I quess 
what I'm trying to get at is, Why does the NFL put up with these leaches?
I cannot begin to count how many high paid 1st round busts there have been, 
and allway's there is some sleazoid agent saying that x player is the best,
hardest working, bla bla.. It seems to me that the players are being
manipulated by these agents and I would say mis-represented alot of the 
time. What do these guy's actually know about sport? Feldman believes that 
Russell deserves more than Pat Harlow, the Pat's first pick, because he 
is going to "run the ball 20 times a game", therefore he has more value than 
an offensive lineman. HEY, BUDDY! Offensive lineman work harder than most 
running backs and I'd venture to say that it's one of the most demanding 
positions in the game. 

It's not just football either, agents are dictating what the fan is paying 
at the gate, and possibly the direction of professional sports. Money is put
before sport and the taste is souring.


Steve

    re .19
    
    It's about time that you caught on ....
    
    NoTY
    
    Frankly, T, you're Joe Biden-style method of campaiging is going to
    wear thin with the electorate, not to mention your Bananna Republic
    method of claiming victory last year ... 
    
    You've got an image to rebulid T-man ...

    RE: .26
    
    Steve,
    
    You didn't happen to catch the editorial on Channel 5 a couple of weeks
    ago did ya?  Great piece on how sports, due to GM's paying such high
    prices for athletes salaries that less and less of the 'average Joe'
    is able to attend a sporting event.
    
    Jo

    
    No, I didn't see it, but I'm just an "ordinary, average guy" that 
    maybe see's one or two games a year in person. By the way I love the
    line in that new Joe Walsh song which I referred to above.
    
    "Every weekend we mow the yard, pick up the dog doo, hope that it's
    hard." 
    
    HA HA!

    Interesting guest on the Today Show this morning.  A history professor
    from Harvard who teaches standing-room-only classes because he is such
    a great prof, has written a book of essays called "Bully for
    Brontosaurus."   He makes science and history more accessable and
    enjoyable by relating them to things we are already interested in.
    
    One of the essays deals with baseball and the evolution of man. He
    states that baseball as we know it today evolved over the centuries,
    originating from different forms of European ball games.  Once it was
    finally organized into baseball in the U.S. "they" posthumously named a
    Civil War hero by the name of Abner Doubleday as the creator.  There is
    no evidence that Doubleday knew a thing about baseball let alone invent
    it.  The sport was an important entity that NEEDED a creator.
    
    In the same sense, people ignore the strong evidence of evolution and
    other scientific strongpoints, instead insisting upon something so
    important as man and the universe needing a creator.
    
    Very interesting analogy.
    
    	--dan'l

> In the same sense, people ignore the strong evidence of evolution and
> other scientific strongpoints, instead insisting upon something so
> important as man and the universe needing a creator.

Not to start a rathole, but the so-called "strong evidence of evolution"
is *highly* questionable.  And lest you stereotype this remark by assuming
it's only the opinion of right-wing religious fanatics, consider that
many highly educated and researched scientists have disputed evolution
and labeled many of its precepts as extremely bad science.  

HTH,


- ACC Chris
    

 Dan'l,
 
 Was it Stephen Jay Gould ???   If so, he's a famous Harvard professor
 of natural history who specializes in evolution.
 
 He's written numerous essays and he's published at least 4 or 5
 collections of them.  I have "The Flamingo's Smile" if you want to
 read some.   
 
 One of his essays is all about the evolutionary disappearance of the
 .400 hitter.   His major theme is that baseball has now
 systematically evolved to the point where performance extremes have
 closed in on the performance averages.    In other words, the league
 hit .260 while Ted Williams hit .406 but now the league hits .260 and
 Tony Gwynn hits *only* .370.    There's an evolution there and Gould
 explores it.
 
 Gould also wrote the introduction to "Eight Men Out", Eliot Asinof's
 superb book about the 1919 Chicago "Black Sox" scandal.   Gould
 describes how the scandal shook baseball to such a degree that
 someone like Babe Ruth and others were encouraged during the 1920's
 to completely destroy the natural equilibrium between pitchers and
 hitters and embark on an offensive orgy in order to keep fan interest
 up.    
 
 The entire National League hit over .300 during the 1930 season !!!
 
 A truly great writer ...
 
 Bob Hunt
 
 P.S.  Other essays in "The Flamingo's Smile" had to do with things
 like why female praying mantisses eat their mates, why some jellyfish
 float upside down and, yes, why the flamingo smiles.

                                              
    Hey Chris, where'd you get that opinion?  Right-wing religious
    fanatics?
    
    I don't think the overall theory of evolution is in much danger from
    too many of these "highly educated and researched scientists".  
    Certainly some supposed historical evidence of the theory and pieces 
    of Darwin's original treatise, but not the core theory...
    
    glenn
    

    Chris,
    
    as a recent student of literature, writing, and the arts, (and as an
    instructor of current writing discipline in your vaunted UNC system), I
    must say contemporary essays have moved beyond proving theory.  No
    longer do essayists follow the formula of presenting theory and proving
    it with fact.  Today's contemporary essayist writes to make the reader
    think, not to pound substance and statistics into the reader's brain.
    
    This particular man (I'm not sure if it was Gould because I was
    brushing my teeth when Bryant introduced him) does just this.  He is
    not trying to prove Darwin's theory.  He is, however, drawing an
    analogy of something America is very familiar with (baseball) and
    showing how remarkably similar it is to a belief in most popular
    culture through the ages (the creation).
    
    In a sense, your knee-jerk response helps prove his point without him
    having to present an ounce of fact regarding the creation or the
    existance/nonexistance of a god.
    
    	--dan'l

      
    > No longer do essayists follow the formula of presenting theory and proving
    > it with fact.  Today's contemporary essayist writes to make the reader
    > think, not to pound substance and statistics into the reader's brain.
      
    'Course that would only be Gould as essayist, and not Gould as
    scientist, where he does have to prove theory with fact, and has done
    so.
    
    Kind of along the same lines, Gumbel brought up the topic of Gould's
    diagnosis of terminal cancer nearly ten years ago and his successful
    battle against it thus far (I had never heard about this).  Gould said
    that he believed that part of the fight was mental which for him
    involved poring over the statistics to see what his chances were, the
    result being that he was reassured and comforted in his knowledge 
    of the disease and the progress against it.  Again, it was clearly an
    example in Gould's mind of the need to turn to science and knowledge
    where traditionally men have turned to God.
    
    glenn
    

Last night on the local Sports Radio talk show there was a discussion about the 
lack of freedom becoming a big part of Athletics and Sports. It was added that 
if a 225lb linebacker was really motivated to make it to the NFL and used 
steroids to make it he has made the conscience decision to greatly reduce the 
length of his life it's up to him/her.  
The conversation focused on Alzado being a tradegy but if what he is saying is 
true about 90% of the NFL using the Juice then he will be joined throughout the 
90's and early 20th century with other fallen hero's. 
Most callers used the Brian Bosworth example as a player without the juice is 
just a average jock. A second example is Tony Manda"rich" (tm) is not the "Best
player" without the juice. 

Would drug testing cause the NFL to be less spectacular ?

I think not. 

    > Hey Chris, where'd you get that opinion?  Right-wing religious
    > fanatics?
    
    Certainly not an unexpected response.  The popular myth put forth by
    todays mass media that evolution is as factual as gravity is well
    entrenched, as well as the idea that only Moral Majority crusaders
    could possibly believe otherwise.
    
    There are countless men and women of science who have disputed
    Darwinism, and there are countless books available on the subject.
    Perhaps none of those who consider evolution a much more giant leap of
    faith than creation summed it up better than Sir Fred Hoyle, who argued
    that life originated by the random shuffling of molecules is "as
    ridiculous and improbable as teh proposition that a tornado blowing
    through a junkyard may assemble a Boeing 747."
    
    
    - ACC Chris

>    Sir Fred Hoyle, who argued
>    that life originated by the random shuffling of molecules is "as
>    ridiculous and improbable as teh proposition that a tornado blowing
>    through a junkyard may assemble a Boeing 747."
    
    junkyard => substance
    tornado => catalyst
    Boeing 747 => finished product
    
    I don't see how that analogy has much to do with evolution...or
    baseball. ;-)
    
    	--dan'l
    

    re: .35  (dan'l)
    
    It may be true that today's contemporary essayist writes to make the
    reader think but you're missing a big piece of the puzzle if you don't
    realize that Stephen Jay Gould is a paleontologist whose argued for
    evolution for many years.  His clever literary analogy attempts to
    'prove' his agenda by taking equating something  historical (Doubleday
    didn't invent baseball) with something theoretical (evolution).
    
    Cain you say "Thypocrisy"?  I knew ya could ...
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    Hoyle was a famous mathematicican - certainly as intellectually
    qualified as Gould.  And the basis for his analogy - the *unbelievable*
    odds against life generating from nothing - is certainly "factual".
    
    BTW, getting back to SPORTS, I like the NL tonight.
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    
    > Hoyle was a famous mathematicican - certainly as intellectually
    > qualified as Gould.  And the basis for his analogy - the *unbelievable*
    > odds against life generating from nothing - is certainly "factual".
    
    Which, as dan'l pointed out, is not the theory of evolution.
    
    Hey Chris, I was yankin' your chain with that religious fundamentalist
    stuff.  You said something like "and before anyone makes the 
    stereotypical accusation that..."  and I played as your straight man and 
    did just that, only to be chastised as a typical bigot.  Don'tcha even
    recognize your own prose anymore?  Aw, fergit it.
    
    By the way, Gould was not trying to "prove" anything with that baseball
    analogy.  It was a very simple comparison, very light fare, prepared for 
    the typical barely-attentive "Good Morning" viewer.  I seriously doubt 
    anyone decided to change their fundamental beliefs after they heard it.  
    But you sure jumped all over the bait...
    
    The AL, with its equal pitching and superior offensive stars, will take
    their 4th in a row in the mid-summer classic.
    
    glenn
    

    > But you sure jumped all over the bait...
    
    That's why y'all luv me!
    
    ;^)
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    When Georgia Tech missed the game-winning field goal Saturday, the
    Clemson players began dancing and having a blast.  This is nothing new.  
    In fact, the Giants did it after Scott Norwood booted his boot in the
    Super Bowl.

    However, one thing that our swim coach at Ohio U, Fletcher Gilders,
    taught us about being good sports is never ever ever cheer at someone
    else's miscue...regardless of what their miscue means to you and/or
    your team.

    For instance, Mid-American Conference Men's Swimming Championships,
    Kent State, 1984.  Eastern Michigan beats both my relay team and Ball
    State's.  That defeat was enough to knock us a few points into third
    place behind Miami after the last event.  However, a few seconds after
    the race, the officials DQed Eastern Michigan and that vaulted us into
    second.  Because it had been so ingrained into us not to cheer these
    kinds of mishaps, none of us showed any emotion.  The Miami coach came
    over and congratulated us on our final standing, and he also noted how
    sportsmanlike we were in the process.  His disappointed team
    appreciated it too.

    Now when I see football players act like zoo animals because an
    opponent missed a field goal (if they blocked it I can understand the
    elation) it just rubs me the wrong way.

    There is no right or wrong here.  Just curious as to your opinions on
    the matter.  

    	--dan'l

>    In fact, the Giants did it after Scott Norwood booted his boot in the
>    Super Bowl.

If you've just won the Super Bowl, be it on a missed FG or whatever,
you're gonna go nutso.

If they had stood there and yelled at Norwood "you ass, you blew it",
then that's different.

There's a difference when celebrating a victory and when taunting
someone for a miscue.

JMHO,
'Saw

    Dan;l -
    
    CXheering a DQ that moves you up in standings is not cool.
    
    
    Cheering a missed, potential game-winner is fine, IMO, because you
    are celebrating a victory.
    
    In reality, any time a team cheers for itself, it can be thought of as
    jeering the team they just beat.
    
    No problems from me.  If they ran up to the kicker, and taunted him,
    that would be unsportsmanlike...
    
    JD

    
    Wasn't it Hollywood Henderson that rushed up to Roy Gerela and patted
    him on the head after he missed an easy field goal early in one of
    those classic Steelers-Cowboys Super Bowls?  I think Jack Lambert
    clocked him for it.  That kind of behavior from Henderson was a bit 
    too much for me.  Other than that, in most cases I don't think that
    celebrating the missed kick is exactly exulting in the other guy's
    misfortune, any more than the guys on the offense celebrating if they
    made the kick.  I'm somewhat discouraged by *excessive* celebrating 
    either way (although I don't want to see it penalized).  There should
    be at least some internal pride and satisfaction that doesn't need to 
    be played out before 75,000 fans...
    
    glenn
     

>    CXheering a DQ that moves you up in standings is not cool.

    Not my point exactly.  Had that DQ led us to the MAC championship, the
    reaction would have been the same.  We would have won because someone
    else screwed up.  To me that's the same as missing a field goal; the
    other team wins because someone else screwed up.

    It's not that big a deal really.  It's just that the Clemson dudes
    jumping around in absolute ecstasy because the kid missed, just kind of
    struck me as unsportsmanlike.  Just me, I guess, and the way Fletcher
    Gilders taught us to be good sports.  Some lessons you never forget.

    	--dan'l

    Missing a field goal isn't exactly the same thing as "messing up". 
    Let's face it, FG's aren't a guaranteed thing, especially as the
    distance increases.  Matter of fact, given the success the Techhaid
    kicker has had it wouldn't be farfetched to conclude he was due for a
    miss.  (Fortunately he made 'em when it counted - against Virginia. 
    Haw!!)
    
    
    - ACC Chris

    Re back a few
    
    It were Cliff Harris who patted Gerela on the haid and then felt the
    wrath of Lambert.
    
    JaKe
    

    Dan'l -
    
    A DQ is an 'official' rules type call.  It happens in track a lot. 
    Passing the baton out of the zone.  Running out of lane.  etc.  Those
    are things that are 'cheerable' - but a missed field goal isn't the
    same, IMO.
    
    Look at it this way.  When the Reds won the World Series last year,
    someone made the last out for the A's.  The Reds celebrated.  In a way,
    that's like celebrating a missed kick.  That out led to the ultimate
    victory.
    
    If you had won a champeenship meet because a guy on your team beat the
    other team's stud in an upset, you guys woulda cheered, right?  The guy
    might have had an off day.  A bad race.  Just like making a bad kick.
    
    JD

	Well I watched the highlights of the Ryder Cup on the local sports 
last night and was appalled to see grown men acting like wild animals when 
some poor guy missed a gimme put.  8^(  How come golfers don't have more 
class?

				/Don

He missed that putt because I was sitting there, watching him line
it up, and I was saying "Noonan, Noonan, Noonan"....

Works every time....

'Saw

 Are any of you folks finding yourself less and less enamored with Pro football?
 Are you finding it easier to do things with the family or to change the channel?
 Do you look forward to saturday's college schedule more? Do you look forward
 to Northern Exposure more than MNF?

 I do and I wonder why? Part of it I know is the rules. Holding offensively
 by the line and defensive muggins by CB are part of the problem. Instant
 replay is also a big part of it. Also there's no dominant teams at the top
 that are worth hating. The Saints, Buffalo?? Where have the times gone when
 you could always hate the Raiders, the Cowboys etc. Is it the money?

 any other thoughts??

 mike

    MIke -
    
    I used to watch any game that was on.  Now I watch the Jints, if they
    are on, and maybe the Raiders (my 2nd Favorite team).  But I rarely 
    watch other games.
    
    Part of it is the switch in time zones.  the early game on SUnday is 
    at 10:00, and I usually do my long run on Sunday morning, plus church,
    read the paper, and QT with the wife.  Dont' really get into the
    game that early (unless it is the JInts, of course).  
    
    MNF comes on early too.  Take last night.  I watched about 10 minutes
    of it.  But its on when I get home from work, and I want to run, then
    relax with the paper, then dinner, etc...  By then the game is just
    about over.
    
    I'm more of a football purist, anyway.  I like good defensive
    struggles, just like I love pitching duels in baseball, tie games in
    hockey, and one basket games in hoops.  I get no joy in watching teams
    run up and downthe field like a pinball machine.  I call it wimp
    football - and there's more of it around then ever.
    
    All in all, I don't watch as much.  
    
    I agree with you over the holding.  I don't mind the DB mugging, cuz
    they've been hogtied with the stupid rules to open up offenses so that
    simple-minded fans can cheer cheap touchdowns.  Instant replay is a
    joke.
    
    I do know one thing, I NEVER watch pre-game shows.  NEVER.
    
    The only show I like is ESPN's "PRime TIme"
    
    JD

    Funny you should mention that, Mike, I was wondering the same thing.
    I'm not quite sure why I really don't care too much for the NFL as much
    as I used to. 
    
    Perhaps it's the image of the mega-corporate league, where THIS 
    billionaire in city A hires a bunch of guys to beat up on the 
    gladiators hired by THAT billinaire in city B. I would say instant
    replay has a lot to do with dragging out the games so that they last
    even longer. The "No Fun" rules just stifle whatever spontaneous
    emotion is still left in the game. Also, players come and go fairly
    quickly, so today's up 'n coming star is a washed up bum a couple of
    years later at the ripe old age of 27. This makes it hard for the
    casual fan to identify with teams he doesn't follow closely. Quick!
    name the starting WRs for the GB Packers...
    
    Tom 

    Used to be I could watch any two teams any time.  Then the big change. 
    I moved to Carolina.  What a pleasure to have 70� days in December to
    go out and enjoy yourself.  Why the hell would I want to stay inside
    and watch football?  Unless it's the Steelers, I'm out of there!
    
    What could get me back.  It's obvious.  Combine the two.  Give me a
    football team in Charlotte!
    
    	--dan'l

    Agreed dan'l.  I used to watch a whole lot more pro football when I
    lived up in the tundra.  Now I'm usually out playing tennis on a Sunday
    afternoon during the winter months ...
    
    
    - ACC Chris

There are a couple reasons why I don't watch as much football anymore.

First off, since I've started playing rugby, I've been hooked on the
constant non-stop action.  I've started getting very antsy watching
football.  For me, the excitement leve that rises and falls in rugby,
with a quick "phew" when play stops for a lineout or scrummage, is
more entertaining that the one play, stop, one play stop of football....

And, if you notice with football, 95% of the time you see EVERY play TWICE.
It happens, then, while all the subs are coming on, the tv people
replay it in slow motion/stop action/telestrate it whatever.

On Sunday, I was able to follow the Giants game AND the Ryder Cup
by judicious channel flipping.  I could have used PIP, but it was 
my folks TV and I wasn't sure if that would affect what my brother was
taping.  (Something about a built in A/B switch)...


And football has lost something.  There used to be excitement.  Now
the game is SO specialized that you have a player for just about 
every situation.


I watch the Jints, but last Sunday, after watching the Jints, I 
watched other stuff, and then capped it off with Star Trek's season
premier.

I saw the final :52 of the Jets because I was waiting for "Mark and Bryan"....

The real reason Mike, it's easy, your Married....With Children

:-)

Chap

    Mike raises a very interesting question and yes, I find pro
    
    footaball to be less and less exciting which is constantly
    
    reinforced by my watching (any) college sport.  Now to my
    
    additional question; if we, as a microcosm of society are becoming
    
    less enamored with NFL's "offerings" on TV, what do you suppose
    
    the near term effect of at-stadium-attendence will be AND the
    
    likelyhood that more (domed?) stadiums and expansion teams will
    
    become reality?
    
    just food for thought.....
    
    Kev
    

> Are any of you folks finding yourself less and less enamored with Pro football?
> Are you finding it easier to do things with the family or to change the channel?
> Do you look forward to saturday's college schedule more? 

    Without a doubt.  You hit the nail right on the head.  I still don't
    miss a second of any Bronco game, but as far as watching other NFL
    games I don't have a great deal of interest anymore.  Denver usually plays 
    at 2 out here and the early game is often a dud anyway.  And on the Sunday
    night games I usually give in to the wife an watch a movie with her. 
    Since Denver played this past Sunday evening, we spent the day stuck in
    traffic in the mountains viewing the changing Aspen.  Even MNF games
    don't get me that excited anymore unless it's an AFC West team.  Last
    night I turned the game on, watched bits and pieces of the 1st half,
    decided to call a friend and talk for a while and then ended up reading
    Sunday & Monday papers I hadn't gotten to while sitting in front of the
    TV.  By the time I really started to watch the game Washington had it
    in the bag.
    
    It used to be I was in front of the TV on Sunday morning at 10:30
    waiting for the network pregame shows to come on.  There's no doubt I
    look forward to Saturdays much more now.  I watch *much* more college
    football than I ever used to, and it really doesn't have to be teams I
    like or dislike.  Most of it is the competitiveness, intensity, and
    excitement of the college games.  College football has huge, noisy crowds, 
    bands playing, mascots, cheerleaders, fight songs, road crowds, college 
    spirit, and more.  I turn on Auburn-Tennessee and see 97K orange-clad 
    maniacs making constant noise throughout the game and that gets me fired 
    up for some hard-hitting football.  It sure seems like there's many more 
    loyal college fans around the country too.  Do you ever notice some of 
    these crowds?  97K in Tennessee, 94K at Penn State, 106K at Michigan, 
    84K at Clemson, 90K at Ohio State, etc. etc.  And these aren't exactly in 
    big cities either.  Many pro teams have trouble getting 60,000 at a game. 
    
    
    Joe

    Good question, Mike.  
    
    I'd have to agree with all of the previous replies, but I've got a few
    more reasons that really have affected me.
    
    One, there is just too damn much pro football on the air.  It's almost
    half the year, too.  Too much of anything tends to diminish it's value,
    at least to me.  Matter of fact, this holds try for baseball, too. 
    Why, it seems that EVERY night there's at least one game on, either a
    Mets or Braves game.  And, that's in BOSTON, for crying out loud!  Why
    the heck do I have to lose 2 cable selections because of games involving 
    distant teams who happen to play in a different league than my team?
    
    
    Two, the games are too long.  Why should I waste 1 of my 2 afternoons
    by sitting in the house, when there's fresh air and sunshine outside?
    I'd rather rake, or go apple-picking, or just a walk with my wife and
    daughter.  We don't have that much free time for ourselves, so I hate
    to waste any of my weekend.
    
    Three, it's become too scientific, too specific.  Every game has an
    analyst who disects each and every play.  Hell, I'd just like to hear
    someone tell me that Mr. QB drops back, he looks, he throws down the
    middle, but the play is broken up by the safety.  That's all I need,
    really MORE than I need if I'm watching the game.    
    
    Of course, if my Pats were a bit more capable of playing this game,
    then I'd perhaps at least listen to them on my walkman.  But, I can't
    do that with the way they've been playing, cause I start to curse and
    I forget who is around me.
    
    lEe

 No doubt about it.   
 
 I "invest" three hours each week for the entire Eagles game plus 1
 hour for ESPN "Prime Time" highlights and sometimes 1 more hour in
 the middle of the week for "Inside The NFL" on HBO.
 
 I used to watch six hours every Sunday plus 3 more on Monday Night
 plus all the highlight shows I could find.   No more ... Dan'l is
 100% correct.  Fall and early winter in the Carolinas are just
 gorgeous.   'Tis a sin, puh-raise Jeez-sus, to waste 'em indoors.
 
 Best combo of all ... a gorgeous fall afternoon watching the Carolina
 Panthers ... in 1994.
 
 Bob Hunt

See, I never get to see college football anymore.

I don't mind sitting on the couch on Sundays.  See, I'm recovering 8^)

Well, some of the time anyway.

I really dislike all this "week off" doodoo, because now the season
takes FOREVER....

    
    >>     <<< Note 149.70 by CNTROL::CHILDS "Northern Exposure>>MNF" >>>
    >>            -< You're full of em today aren't you Mac ;^) >-
                                    ^^
    
    Shouldn't that read "IT" instead of "em"?????
    
    (8^0*
    
    JaKe
    
    

    re .59, .60
    
    Yeah, you guys must be reel baseball watchers then, seeing as
    what a hell-hole the sweatbelt is during the summer.
    
    Up here, where we have nice temps and low humidity and a nice
    breeze for six months a year we do with baseball what you oughta
    do with football: listen to it on the radio while joe is fishing
    or biking or whatever.
    
    MrT

�    Up here, where we have nice temps and low humidity and a nice
�    breeze for six months a year we do with baseball what you oughta
�    do with football: 
    
    What?  Play it in a dome?

         
    > Up here, where we have nice temps and low humidity and a nice
    > breeze for six months a year we do with baseball what you oughta
    > do with football: listen to it on the radio while joe is fishing
    > or biking or whatever.
    
    This is MrT's roundabout way of conceding (he's been very up front
    about this, actually) that Minnesotans have distorted baseball to such
    a great extent that it can only be recognized over radio, and even then 
    only if all references to plexiglass and trashbags are censored...
    
    glenn
    

from rec.sport.hockey, without permission.
    From: [email protected] (Gary L. Newell)
    Newsgroups: rec.sport.hockey
    Subject: Re: Why hockey isn't popular in the U.S. 
    Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
 
Now I will give my seasonal essay on "why hockey is not
popular in the united States" - by Gary Newell - 12/92
 
 There are many reasons why hockey fails to incite the passions of many American
sports fans but none so obvious than the fast-paced, continuous, unpredictable
action that is so key to the sport. Thnik about it - whhat sports are the
most popular in the United states? Baseball and Football. What do these games 
have in common? Not much in terms of the nature of the game or the amount
of physical contact, burt they do have a great deal in common when one looks
at the pace that these games are played. They are what I like to refer to as
"predictable" games. Not predictable in the sense that we can say exactly
what result the next play will have, but predictable in the sense that we know
when the play will occur and when it will stop.
 
 In baseball we have the classic confrontation of the pitcher and batter. We
know that when the pitcher winds up the play is about to begin, after the
pitch, if there was no hit, we are sure that nothing will happen again for 
another 20-25 seconds or so until the next pitch comes. Each "play" lasts all 
of 3 seconds unless there is a hit and then we might see a 10 second play.
Football? Same thing - the play will not start until the teams  finish the 
huddle, come to the line, and then snap the ball. The play in terms of action
is lucky to last 8 seconds and then both teams break again for a bit more
*strategy*. And with *strategy* we come to the second key reason why
US fans are not drawn to hockey.
 
 The frequent breaks in both baseball and football allow for "game analysis"
the likes of which perhaps only chess can out do. We have light-pen driven
devices that allow color analysts to mark-up replay after replay in 
super slow motion using helmet cams and 12 different angles over and over
again, and yet we still haven't missed a second of the "action"!! We will
be able to hear a complete thesis on why the wide-out pass didn't work 
on third down and still have time to grab another beer and be back for the
next snap. In baseball we get a *complete* run-down of the status of
the game after almost every pitch. We find out the inning, the how many
outs there are, how many men are on base, who is at bat and what the
ball and strike count is between almost every pitch of the game. We get
many chances to learn about why the outfield is pulled to the left or why
the infield is playing deep, we learn why the next pitch is likely to be
a curve ball on the outside of the plate or why the Red sox might pinch hit 
 - in short, it takes longer to discuss what might happen and what we should
expect to see happen than it takes for it to actually happen. This my friends
is strategy. Americans love it - they want analysis - don't believe me?
Look at the money these "color analysts" make - look at the name recognition
folks like John Madden have, the fame that is thrown their way? Why? 
Because they analyze for us - they make even the most clueless bozo in the
world able to feel like he "knows" what is going on. They take the mystery out
of the game for the masses and allow the informed fan to sit back arguing
with the analyst who is 2000 miles away about his analysis while allowing the
dolt to have a clue as to what is going on. But what about hockey? We can
do the same there right? I don't think so. The play can continue for
3-4 minutes at a time without a whistle. The next break is simply not
guaranteed to occur in the next 20 seconds or the next minute as it is
in baseball and football - no, it will happen when it happens. And when is
that you ask? Ah yes - the third reason Americans do not like hockey - the
learning curve.
 
 So you want to teach your friend about baseball and he has never seen
a game before? OK - first off try to talk only when the action is on
and let the analyst teach them for you but if you must play teacher
then focus on the pitcher vs. batter duel. Explain the concept of a 
Ball and Strike, an out and a basehit and you are far enough along to
expect them to be able to grasp most of it - face it - 3 strikes and
you are out, 4 balls and you walk and although there are exceptions
to these rules they rarely occur. Football? 10 yards and you get
to keep going but you only have 4 chances to get 10 yards - tough? No
penalties? Sure plenty of them and we get to see them played out from
the previously mentioned 15 angles with electronic inking to boot.
Pass that line get a touchdown - simple. Hockey? Not so simple. First
we have lines which unlike football are  a) different colors and b) 
not spaced evenly or in any inuitive distribution. We have circles and
dots and they appear to have inconsistent roles in the game. We need
to explain offsides to our potential new hockey fan - but of course we
need to explain offside passes as well as offsides and while we're at
it we better explain why sometimes an offsides is not an offsides. If
that isn't enough, then the wonderful concept of icing comes into play
but of course we need to explain that sometimes icing isn't icing at all 
(shorthanded) or that it can be "Waived off" again for no appearant reason
to the new fan. Our new fan is likely to miss some action until he
or she adjusts to the flow of the game. Some of you might remember the days 
when "how do we make it easier to see the puck on TV" was a major
concern of the NHL. Why? Because they found that one of the biggest complaints
of new fans was that they could not see the puck - they didn't know the likely
flow of the puck and so they spent a great deal of their time scanning the
screen for a 4 pixel black spot. 
 
 We often hear that alleged "wouldbe fans" would come to hockey in droves if 
only it did not have fighting. Interesting - these are the same fans who
watch 15 bench-clearing brawls in baseball, countless fights in football 
(including the frequent cheap shots) and fighting that takes place in
basketball but do not seem driven to stop watching those games. But are
these people lying about their feelings for hockey? Well, not really. What
is happening seems clear to me. They watch a game or two that they simply
do not understand. But do they understand the fights? Of course they
do - there isn't a human being beyond 6 years old who doesn't know what a
fight is. *That* they *understand* - why the whistle blew when that
guy was skating up the ice they haven't a clue about but they know that
those two guys just knocked the shit out of each other because one didn't
like the way the other one banged him - they've mastered that aspect of the
game. Screw the various lines and faceoffs and seemingly inexplicable
whistles - they are just something that happens between fights - and hey
they *know* fighting. So, what happens to this viewer? First he probably
does not enjoy the game because he frankly didn't know what the hell was
going on - the learning curve for hockey is high, the amount of outside
analysis is greatly limited by the continued flow of action (it doesn't
make much sense to go back and look at a pass that happened 3 and a half
minutes ago) while waiting for a faceoff - you barely have time to give
the current status of the game - period, score, time left etc.), and
for many americans the idea of playing a sport on ice is a bit bizarre and
foreign. So now he or she knows they didn't enjoy the game - but why?
Well it is clear isn't it? The only thing they did understand fully was
the fighting and so since this is something that they have mastered it makes
the most obvious target for their disapproval. They are not going to say - well
I watched the game for 3 hours but I don't know what is going on - nor
are they likely to admit that the reason they did not enjoy the game was due
to their own innocent ignorance of the game - instead most americans are
going to figure that they a) didn't like the game and b) saw fights which
they knew - so obviously their negative feelings *must* be due to the
fights they saw.
 
 Still don't buy it? OK - let's look at some other sports. Basketball is 
frequently presented as a counter to this argument. But is it really
an unpredictable game with little opportunity for endless analysis and
over examination? At one time it may have been but not any more. Watch a
game - keep track of the longest span of time which goes by without
a whistle for a foul or a time out (including TV timeouts of course). Not
much time - plenty of opportunities to get in the Bud commercial and still
hit the electronic inking interface to explain why elliott was so wide
open for that three point shot or why the double team on Jordan has been
ineffective. The action in the game is also extremely predictable, though
more similar to hockey than either baseball or football, the usual half-court
offense is focussed onto one area of the floor anwe *KNOW* that something
is going to happen in the next 15 seconds (it takes 7 or 8 to move the ball up
court - plenty of time for the color man to set up the play) - you can often
find 4 minute spans in hockey where very little happens - no shots, no
good hits, nothing but sloppy play around center ice and line changes. Not
in basketball - no sireee - plenty of shots and action and in fact we'll
put in the 24 second clock and make sure they do it even faster!! 
 
 Soccer - I rest my case. There are few sports with more similarities than
hockey and soccer in the United states. 10-15 years ago this country started 
a serious campaign to make soccer succeed in the united states? Well folks
it didn't work. Why? Because it is not the type of sport americans like.
It is slow paced, has unpredictable breaks in the action, and simply
doesn't lend itself to over-analysis. The scary part
for hockey is that soccer is popular at the youth level - has been for some
years now - and it is still not going anywhere. Unlike hockey, it is
cheap to play, can be played anywhere in the country and is easily organized.
And yet it hasn't gone anywhere as a national sport? No fights there folks.
Can't blame fighting for soccer's problems. So what hope does hockey
have? a) Stop looking to non-traditional areas for new support b) stop
catering to the new found political correctness in sports movement that
seems to have chosen hockey as its favorite target and c) attempt to
counter the cheap-shot stick work which has blossomed in the NHL since the
increase of non-North American players in the league.
 
 
 
 
			gln
 
    

    If this guy thinks the amount of fighting is comparable between hockey
    and other sports, he ought to have his head examined.  Maybe it has
    changed this year, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find *any* game
    previously where there wasn't at least one (and probably more) fights
    per game in the NHL.  The differences would be staggering.
    
    
    Spud

    re. 75
    
        I agree with .76 about the fighting part but the rest is right on.
    I never really looked at it that way but when I started the section on
    soccer and started to remember when I was about 12 (am 27 now) how
    eveyone was saying soccer was the next national pastime.  It never took
    off and I kept playing hockey.  I moved to Arizona in 1980 (remember 
    the miralce on ice) and was watching the game.  The only thing my
    friends could grasp was when the sticks went in the air it meant goal.
    Trying to explain offsides, two line offsides and the killer "delayed"
    penalty was useless.
    
    
    Jerry
    

    
    It really is'nt that difficult. If I can explain it to non sports
    minded women who could care less, then explaining it to someone who has
    played some type of competative sports should be easy.
    
    Hockey is not that difficult, it's the bafoons that make it difficult
    when trying to explain it.
    
    -TH

    Take puck, hit it with stick towards goal, or pass off to teammate. 
    Get hit by defenseman, drop gloves and pummel the snot out of other
    team, get gloves, jersey, pads, jock, skates back on after fight, and
    do whole thang over again.
    
    Schnort Schitt Schlepps
    
    JaKe
    

    
    PLEASE NOTE:
    
    The Legal department has asked me to inform you that it is not
    necessary to "Get hit by defenseman" to drop gloves and pummel the
    snost out of other team.......
    
    In their opion, it is an "Optional" act.
    
    Hal Tried Hallugens(tm)
    
    I remain,
    a legal clerk wannabee too!
    Kev
    

    Re.79
    
     Yawn........
    
    Obviously you never played.
    
    -TH

    	A good jab and/or uppercut will always look good on your National
    Hokey League resume.
    
    				/Don

    
    Why is it when a fight breaks out it hockey it's terrible, but in
    football, basketball, and baseball (mostly the latter) it's shrugged
    off. Baseball seems to have just as many if not more bench clearing
    brawls than hockey, but each is treated differently. Why ? Maybe
    because 99% of all baseball players could'nt hurt each other without a
    bat ? Take Roundball, watching the shovefest and fighting in that sport
    is considered sticking up for one's teamate. Gimme a break. 
    
    Last week there was a serious injury in football, dusted off as part of
    the game. Given that same injury in hockey,they would have tried to ban
    the sport.
    
    I don't condone fighting at all in the NHL, or in any other sprot for
    that matter. But when the same issue (fighting) is addressed 
    differently by the same people, to me that spells HYPOCRITE.
    
    With the emergence of the Russians, Chzecs, Finns, and the rest of Europe,
    the game is slowly changing from the days of the Broad Street Bullies,
    to the skating and finesse game that has a wider appeal. North American
    Hockey as we know it will be dead in the next generation.
    
    
    -TH 

�    Why is it when a fight breaks out it hockey it's terrible, but in
�    football, basketball, and baseball (mostly the latter) it's shrugged
�    off. 
    
    In hockey, a fight results in a player leaving the ice for 5 minutes. 
    In baseball, basketball, and football, players are ejected for the
    remainder of the game and often fined and suspended.  Looks to me as if
    hockey is doing the shrugging.

>    In baseball, basketball, and football, players are ejected for the
>    remainder of the game and often fined and suspended.  Looks to me as if
>    hockey is doing the shrugging.


Not to be contrary, but I've seen darn few football players tossed for
fighting.  

A couple of weeks ago I saw to guys go at it, starting with grabbing their
facemasks.  Each landed at least two blows.

The penalty?  Offsetting personal fouls...


I haven't figured out who's dumber -- hockey players for shedding their 
equipment and fighting, or football players who leave it on and fight


8^)

'saw

    
  >  Why is it when a fight breaks out it hockey it's terrible, but in
  >  football, basketball, and baseball (mostly the latter) it's shrugged
  >  off.
    
    Quite simply, because it happens much more often in hockey and most of 
    the time it's fake.  Guys are literally paid to be fighters in the NHL,
    and they're expected to do so, often.  It's like a WWF match half the 
    time.  I don't mind seeing a good fight every once and while when 
    emotions have truly reached a breaking point (and this condition isn't
    met in most baseball fights, I agree), but hockey fights often seem
    to be scheduled in advance in the dressing room.
    
  > Baseball seems to have just as many if not more bench clearing
  > brawls than hockey, but each is treated differently.
    
    As many if not more than hockey?  If you follow the average baseball
    team all year long, you might see two or three fights, tops.
    
  >  Last week there was a serious injury in football, dusted off as part of
  >  the game. Given that same injury in hockey,they would have tried to ban
  >  the sport.
    
    This is a good point.  The maudlin response by football and the media to 
    these kinds of incidents is a bit sickening, to tell you the truth.  
    Shower the guy in heartfelt sympathy and maybe nobody will ask any
    tough questions, of football and of themselves...
    
    glenn
    

  >> I don't mind seeing a good fight every once and while when 
  >> emotions have truly reached a breaking point 

     It's that type of thinking that has led to this:

  >> but hockey fights often seem to be scheduled in advance in the 
  >> dressing room.
    

     If the NHL was completely honest they'd admit that they haven't
     cracked down on the brawling because: a) a large numbers of "fans" 
     like to see a good brawl when they watch a game and b) alot of the 
     powers that be in hockey still have a macho, neanderthal, boys will 
     be boys attitude about fighting. 
    

    
    ...Yeah, the Probert/Domi fight looked real fake to me.
    
    ...Mel

                                        
  >> I don't mind seeing a good fight every once and while when 
  >> emotions have truly reached a breaking point 

   >  It's that type of thinking that has led to this:
    
    Okay, okay, let me revise my statement to read, "It doesn't lessen my
    appreciation of a sport if a fight breaks out every once in a great
    while..."  Obviously no one goes to a baseball game to see a fight, or
    if they are they're getting shortchanged.  In the last 5 years over
    about 150 games, I've seen one in person, and I didn't go apoplectic
    over it.  If a guy's pitching inside, goes a bit too far, hits
    the batter pretty well and he responds, I can appreciate the
    frustration.  At the very least, *sometimes* a fight shows you that a
    player actually cares, about his performance and his team.
    
    glenn
      
    

    
    > ...Yeah, the Probert/Domi fight looked real fake to me.
    
    I'm talking about the cause of the fights, not accusing anyone of using
    razor blades and ketchup packets...
    
    glenn
    

    	First they jack up the price of beer at the Garden, then they
    crack down on fighting.  What next, Disney character outfits?
    
    				/Don

    Fighting in hockey seems to be the only sport in which true fights
    break out. Boxing looks more like a three ring circus every day.
    When's the last time you saw a sports champeen toss his her trophy
    in a wastebasket?  The WWF has no flies on professional boxing as far
    as hokeyism. Hockey's a distant third.
    
    
    JMHO
    MikeL
    

   >> When's the last time you saw a sports champeen toss his her trophy
   >> in a wastebasket? 

      When was the last time you heard a sports champeen say , "and then
      we can call him a garbage picker" ? "Garbage picker" ? I haven't
      heard anyone use that phrase since I was in the third grade. I
      guess we won't see ole Riddick sittin' in with the McLaughlin
      Group anytime soon.
    

>      When was the last time you heard a sports champeen say , "and then
>      we can call him a garbage picker" ? "Garbage picker" ? I haven't
>      heard anyone use that phrase since I was in the third grade. I
>      guess we won't see ole Riddick sittin' in with the McLaughlin
>      Group anytime soon.


When I was in college I used to work summers for the Town of Glastonbury
at the Waste Water plant.  

The last couple of summer, my buddy Murph and I used to do vacation
coverage at the town landfill.   It was a lot of fun, it was how I learned
to drive a dump truck (which later helped me get my Class II license
with the fire department), and we had an air-conditioned trailer on the
premises, and every once in a while someone would recycle a pile of
Playboys, so, well,  you get the picture.

We had a sign the first summer that said "No Garbage Picking Allowed",
and we called the folks who did that "garbage pickers".

The next summer I noticed that the sign had been changed to 
"No Scavenging Allowed".


I wonder if 'Scavenger' is more politically correct than 'garbage picker'?    


'Saw

    >> I wonder if 'Scavenger' is more politically correct than 'garbage 
    >> picker'?    

       Maybe, it's just more concise.