I never liked it when I was younger because I didn’t understand how much strategy went into it. It is more like a game of chess than other sports which are more like checkers.
I will never understand the fanatical behavior of sports fans. I find myself rooting for the team with the least number of players who act like children when they score.
I seen someone already beat me to the chess analogy.
I’m reminded of my grandma Lena, who once wandered into the living room when I was watching a game at about the age of ten, and remarked in a shocked, disapproving tone “Oh! they push each other down.” 
I’ve developed a shorter attention span over the years for any televised sport, watching short segments of games and then doing other things. It’d be fine by me if more people gravitated to attending or participating in amateur sports events rather than watching pro games on TV. It’d also be OK if those who look down on professional football could be less vocal about their sense of superiority.
Do you find it more likely that it’s a bizarre ritual most don’t enjoy, or that many people like something you don’t like?
It’s exactly this. If you don’t like sports, it’s because you’re from a shit town with shit teams, or no teams at all. No wonder you don’t care about the sport…you don’t care who wins.
I’ve heard that from women, but I talk sports like a man, and I don’t notice any pecking order. We talk about it because it’s interesting, and it’s common. When you go to a party and talk about movies, you talk about the blockbuster because 1) everyone’s seen it and 2) they probably liked it. You don’t do it to “establish a pecking order.”
But this is what I really want to comment on. Surely you must know that we don’t watch sports for the outfits. You must understand nobody’s ever said they were excited to see everyone in the same uniform.
How can you not grasp the great drama of competition? The suspense of an uncertain future? Have you never rejoiced at victory? Been emotionally crushed by defeat? Do you not marvel at impressive human physical abilities, like throwing something at 100 mph or hitting a moving target? Can you not grasp the tension of two teams competing for the everlasting glory that only one can attain? Do you not appreciate the dedication it takes to master a skill and perform at the top of one’s profession?
I cannot understand the mindset of someone who will root for a fictional hero in a scripted movie to overcome their conflict, but cannot begin to empathize with real life people doing the same thing, unscripted, live, in front of a nation.
Do you honestly think it’s about the outfits?
Football is like chess with pigeons. It doesn’t get more strategic than baseball. The lineup, the pitch selection, the defensive shift, the bunt, the base stealing, the bullpen use, the pinch hitter, the double switch, the long at-bat battle, and on and on. Every action is half strategy, half execution. Football is 15% strategy, 85% execution.
Why can’t people just like what they like without the condescension and judgment for what they like. I like football and that’s great, both playing and watching though I haven’t had opportunity to play in years. You don’t and that’s great. It doesn’t make one better or worse. Then you have fans of other sports, like baseball, that act like they have dibs on some sort of intellectual superiority for the strategy used in their game. Men like football. Not all men. That is okay. Women like football. Not all women. That is okay. What’s distasteful is the looking down one’s nose of others for what they like or dislike and the identification with such as though it makes one better or worse than another.
I’m a man that doesn’t give a shit about any sports, let alone football. I’ve always been this way, and my Dad is similar though he knows enough to pretend at the bar that he watches or cares, I think he’ll just read the scores. I don’t even have enough passing knowledge to bluff people that I’m just another sport loving American man like them. I will say I’ve watched football and basketball games and understand to some extent why people enjoy it, there really is a lot going on below the surface, watching sports has just never appealed to me personally.
I’m a woman and this season I’ve missed most Sundays, but I normally watch football with my SO. We’re equally interested, but we see the games differently. I know little about strategy, penalties, and player stats; he seems to know it all. I can name the players, usually the entire field for my team and the opposing QB and receivers and other notables, and I know the league standings each week because I look for all of that pre-game – he’s barely interested. Neither of us watch college football, ever, we’re major fans of the same team but minor fans of other different ones, and we’ll watch a good match-up even if we aren’t fans. So we’re different but compatible football watchers. Maybe even typical ones of our respective genders, I don’t know.
I have standing invites to watch games with people who aren’t like this. I don’t have their level of knowledge or animosity or ¼ of their gear. Meh, I’d rather be home.
I think its a mixed bag somewhat from when we were kids. Girls tended to play with girls and boys with boys and sports of one kind of another were always a part of boys playing. With a football even a small area and a few kids could become a game; with a baseball once you got past three you needed more people and sometimes a larger area we didn’t have. Yeah, I did some stickball in an alley visiting the cousins but with 5 people it was kinda a useless thing. Some sort of football game, even with something like “kill the man”, it still worked. This experience from childhood blended over to adulthood and what we watch/follow.
I always though part of this was involved in how many more ladies enjoy baseball over football. The girls would often get in the kickball/stickball and sandlot games; not so much the more brutal (at least the way we played them) football based games.
Soooo, you would rather ‘get things done’ than read a book or watch a movie or any other pastime? Sports are fun because 1)they are realtime entertainment 2)they are fun to watch with others 3)they can be adrenaline rushes.
I know this is a little off-thread, but can you elaborate on that?
After all, wouldn’t you expect a football team’s lineup to vary as appropriate? With a selection to be made, on every snap, as to whether the quarterback plans to hand the ball off or pass it to this or that receiver – while factoring in the question of whether your tight end will act like a receiver or a blocker this time?
All while the opposition is choosing between a prevent defense or a blitz, or between a nickel defense and a dime defense, and so on? And isn’t the occasional quarterback sneak arguably like unto an occasional bunt, the way that sprinting out of bounds to stop the clock is arguably like unto stealing a base? And once in a while you swap in a guy to take the snap for a wildcat-formation ploy, or you have guys execute a double reverse? Or you have the long battle down the field end in a field-goal attempt, or in a fake field-goal attempt – or in a punt, or in a fake punt? And did you start that off by gaining possession with a play-it-safe touchback, or by running the ball?
Do you use that timeout now, or save it for later? If the latter, do you spend a down spiking the ball to stop the clock? Or is this a good time for a fake spike? And will you, upon running the ball to the one-yard line, drop to one knee – figuring it’s better to roll the dice on maybe getting that last yard soon, when the clock is closer to zero, instead of getting a sure-thing touchdown now with time left for the opposition to have a decent shot at scoring likewise? At what point do you conclude that you’re in a ‘shutdown corner’ situation, such that you should reluctantly write off one receiver and throw passes as if some options don’t actually exist? At what point does it make sense to take a chance on an onside kick? At what point do the decisions end?
(“FLEA FLICKER! Ha-HA! That’s AWESOME!”)
That attitude violates a core principle of message boards and social media in general. Shame on you. :mad:
Sports in general doesn’t do for me what it seems to do for other men. Baseball I get, mostly because I played in Little League, I suppose.
Football is about the only thing I’d agree with George Will on, though: “Football combines the two worst things about America: it is violence punctuated by committee meetings.”
For many years I have tried to like football, but I just can’t get into it. I can appreciate the athleticism, but I still find it extremely boring.
My (male) coworkers will go on, and on, and on about football. They know all the teams, all the players, all the coaches, etc. etc. I have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about; they may as well be talking in a foreign language.
The older I get, the less I appreciate watching people line up against each other to claim some kind of superiority. Too many people still want to prove their worth by hurting someone else.
If uninterrupted, how long do your answers usually run, and how detailed do they usually get?
I have found that in social situations where no one can reasonably be expected to care about a given hobby or interest of mine, it’s sometimes wise to keep all initial mention of the matter rather brief and succinct. I usually don’t elaborate unless someone suddenly shows interest - be it genuine or feigned - and hits me with follow-up questions.
So, the question “you any good in the kitchen, Steken?” would initially be answered with a simple “nah, haha, not really! I do bake though!”, rather than “I have recently acquired the latest book from Tartine which is an excellent bakery up in San Francisco, California - that’d be on the American west coast - Vertigo takes place there - perhaps you’ve seen it - Hitchcock movie - and I recently did a sourdough bread from there which actually incorporates a porridge made out of emmer wheat - what they’d call farro down in Italy - land of the Caesars - a sack of which I bought on a recent trip to Frankfurt - which is, of course, in Germany - the financial capital of the country, I believe - as opposed to Berlin, which is, of course, the political capital,” etc.
Works for me, but YMMV.
Many years ago I made a conscious decision to never watch another football game. I had an epiphany about how utterly ridiculous every aspect of it is: grown men, matching costumes, chasing the guy who’s holding a ball, trying to knock him down, real anger, frustration, heartbreak on display over a game. Not to mention the enormous salaries, the enormous stadiums costing enormous amounts of money, etc.
My boycott lasted just a couple of months. I watch it now, but I am aware of how stoopid it all is.
mmm
Somebody should do a proper poll…
I am a 40-something guy that could care less about watching football or any sport. I used to play pick up games of football, basketball and ultimate for about 15 years when I was in my 20s and early 30s and loved it, but after having kids I lost the desire and time. Even though I was passionate about playing whenever I could, I never understood why people sat around and watched it on weekends though there are plenty of people in my life that did and do; probably a majority now that I think about it. Very few people at my work in in my immediate circle watch sports; all of us find other things we would rather do much in the same way as the OP (biking, working on cars, rock climbing, and hiking for example). From my experience, I think only 30% of guys are religious about watching and about 30-40% don’t watch at all. I do agree with Shodan that it is a great social lubricant and having a little bit of knowledge about the local teams can go a long way. For this reason I peruse the sports headlines a couple of times a month.
Sure. The difference is the decisions in football are easier, fewer, and more temporary. They’re also made with less information and more guessing.
Take the lineup. Who’s the football coach going to put in? His starters. Which ones? All of them. At the same time. When and if they get tired, he’ll sub one of those players. But you see the critical point there? “When they get tired.” That’s a physical attribute, an athletic credential, making the decision for you. That’s because football is the more physical game. And when that player again catches his breath on the sideline, he goes back in the game. If you pull your pitcher, he’s done for the night.
What receiver should the quarterback pass to? Well, he’s got 3-5 options all at once. He gets all five choices. The correct decision comes down to who’s open. How do you get open? By being faster and more agile than the pass defender. That’s a physical competition, man to man. Whoever is better at their craft with prevail. That’s not strategy, that’s elite conditioning and rehearsal.
Imagine if instead, like a baseball pitch or a defensive shift, the quarterback had to choose his intended receiver before the snap. He couldn’t just say “who’s open?” He’d have to say “Who is the most likely, statistically, to get open, given the game situation and the opposing coach’s presumed choice?” Then he’d be locked into throwing to that guy or taking a sack. If that were the rule, then we’d have a strategic game.
That’s not to say football doesn’t have any strategic choices at all. But I said they’re easier…do you play a 3-4 or a dime defense? Well…is it third and long or is it near the end of the game and the opponent has to be passing? No? Then 3-4. Did the offense put in 5 receivers and go empty-set? Then you put in your dime backs. It’s not not strategy…it’s just not hard.
Finally, consider why you put in your dime back. Is it because the formation is better at preventing the pass? No, not really. It’s because that dime back is faster than the linebacker you subb’ed him for. You’re not executing some great defensive strategy, you’re going for the best physical matchup you can get. It’s about the body and skill makeup of the player you’re using, not the grand design of the scheme.
In football, you decide things after seeing what’s developed. In baseball, you make decisions before things happen.
Well, you’re glossing over a lot with “rehearsal” there, aren’t you? The key is that you’re running your route, which you and the QB know ahead of time: sprinting from Point A to Point B where you’ll pivot at the exact moment when he knows you’ll start to diagonal over to reach Point C at Time T – because that’s when the ball will be arriving there, as the two of you arranged ahead of time, if he’s throwing it to you. Try that without said plan and it’s just a man-to-man physical competition; but you wouldn’t, because planning is too big a plus against a quick defender.
(Instead, he’ll try to outguess you, and I-Know-You-Know-I-Know can set in; you’ll sometimes get a situation where it’s obvious that we’re not going to run the ball because it’s obvious that we need to pass it to a guy who can immediately step out of bounds if it’s not an incomplete pass that stops the clock – and as soon as defenders take that into consideration, guarding potential receivers as if they’ll obviously just run right along this or that sideline, the offense chooses that moment to act as if time isn’t almost up and we’re instead in a topsy-turvy world where it makes sense to have a guy do his thing in the middle of the field after all.)
Is it, though? I didn’t keep running my mouth before, since I didn’t realize this was going to be the sticking point; but upon scoring a touchdown, you decide beforehand whether to go for the easy point or the harder two-point conversion. And maybe you only got that touchdown by first being in a fourth-and-inches situation, where it’d be comparatively easy to kick a field goal for three points; are you, instead, going to gamble that we can make six the hard way? You have enough seconds left for one last snap before halftime; will you take a calculated risk by putting the ball in the air, or have you already decided to play it safe by taking a knee? And so on?