Several times in class, we have talked about the necessity of having a superstar in a sport. These stars drive their particular sport, supposedly thrilling fans into turning on their televisions each time they play. Why, then, are the all-star games in major sports (excluding baseball) watched as much as Sunady afternoon bowling? Shouldn’t a game that brings all the stars together, instead of the normal one or two, be a highly anticipated event?
The reason that nobody really watches the games is that even if there are superstars, the games are inconsequential and often don’t include the game’s biggest stars, who instead choose to either let younger players get a chance (ideally) or take the weekend off as a midseason/postseason hiatus (realistically). Now though, even the young stars don’t want to play as was voiced when Bulls’ rookie forward Tyrus Thomas said he was participating in this weekend’s all-star events only for the money.
For some time now, people have associated all-star games more with skills challenges than with the actual games themselves. And why not? The slam-dunk challenge and the three-point challenge are often more exciting than the game itself, and more people can probably tell you who won the last home run derby than who won the game itself. Perhaps the best all-star skills challenges are in hockey, which include speed skating, shooting accuracy, and the hardest slap shot. But nobody watches hockey anyway, so these are basically irrelevant.
Football’s equivalent of an all-star game, the Pro Bowl, also brings up another good point: Stars don’t play because they don’t want to get hurt. Quarterback Drew Brees injured his non-throwing arm rather seriously during last weekend’s Pro Bowl, making this the second offseason in a row Brees will have to undergo rehabilitation. While participants in other all star games may “go easy” during the game, football is a sport that this is impossible, therefore making injuries that much more prevalent.
Baseball is the lone exception in the sport's world where the game may, MAY, be watched as much as the events leading up to it. Whether this is because stars normally do show up to play, or because the game-winning conference gets home field advantage for the World Series, is "un-clear" (unlike several particpants in prior all star games).
So how do these games become more relevant? While the answer isn't obvious, it should be plain to see that something needs to bring these games into the spotlight.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Why people do (or don't) watch sports
Here at Northwestern University, the fan turnout for sporting events is abysmal. Why are there so few people coming out to the games? While people argue that the teams are terrible, and therefore aren't fun to watch, this claim isn't legitimate for the majority of sports. Also, isn't true that the teams that are doing bad need more support than the teams doing well? Crappy teams need love too, right?
When people say sports at Northwestern are bad, by sports they mean Football and Basketball. While this season that may be true, the vast majority of teams here are actually great. The girls lacrosse team has won the national championship two years in a row, softball was a runner up last year, women's tennis is currently 6th in the nation, and Wrestling boasts to #1 nationally ranked grapplers. And even the two major sports here aren't nearly as bad as the number of Northwestern students supporting their teams. The football team is one year removed from a bowl game, and the basketball team is only one game below .500.
Maybe Northwestern students are too busy to support their fellow classmates. Northwestern is tough school, right? Yet how can coming to a two hour tennis match or two hour wrestling dual really take away all the studying time people have? Maybe Northwestern students not the whole just don't like sports. Going to a sporting event, however, is about more than the game. It should be a time where friends can come together and enjoy each other's company just as much as the event.
Fellow athletes aren't helping the cause, though. While they may show up to the games, they routinely act "too cool" to join in to the other student section when they cheer. So Northwetern, listen up: Try to be more supportive of the teams here. It doesn't hurt to cheer a little every now and then.
When people say sports at Northwestern are bad, by sports they mean Football and Basketball. While this season that may be true, the vast majority of teams here are actually great. The girls lacrosse team has won the national championship two years in a row, softball was a runner up last year, women's tennis is currently 6th in the nation, and Wrestling boasts to #1 nationally ranked grapplers. And even the two major sports here aren't nearly as bad as the number of Northwestern students supporting their teams. The football team is one year removed from a bowl game, and the basketball team is only one game below .500.
Maybe Northwestern students are too busy to support their fellow classmates. Northwestern is tough school, right? Yet how can coming to a two hour tennis match or two hour wrestling dual really take away all the studying time people have? Maybe Northwestern students not the whole just don't like sports. Going to a sporting event, however, is about more than the game. It should be a time where friends can come together and enjoy each other's company just as much as the event.
Fellow athletes aren't helping the cause, though. While they may show up to the games, they routinely act "too cool" to join in to the other student section when they cheer. So Northwetern, listen up: Try to be more supportive of the teams here. It doesn't hurt to cheer a little every now and then.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Art and Sport
Before I begin, I want to issue this disclaimer: I am not attacking anyone in particular with what I am going to write. I respect all of you, so please realize I on't hate anyone, merely that I disagree with some ideas expressed in class. Having said that, here we go:
I am still here to argue that sports and art do not have enough in common to label two with the term, "comparably similar". While it is always possible to come up with extreme situations where anything is comparable to anything, art and sport simply do not have enough in common to state that they are alike.
As I said in class, while people may say a great play in sports is "a work of art", no one looks at a Picasso and exclaims, "Great Play!" The arguement against this claim was that sports can be described as beautiful, and art can described as beautiful, so art and sports are alike. However, that analogy can be used for anything in life; a newborn baby is beautiful, so is a newborn babe like sport? Are flowers, rainbows, and puppy dogs like sport? Merely stating that two facets in life can have one broad term attributed to both does not mean that they are similar.
Remember, though, that I am arguing here against art, not fine art. Art, for me, involves the stationary products that one would see in an exhibit: paintings, sculptures, etc. Claiming that looking at a piece of art is similar to watching a sporting event is just riddiculus. Tryng to argue that people have watched art being created and enjoyed it is again a blanket statement trying to tie two non-similar aspects of life together with a word like "enjoyed".
While I do in no way hate art, one must admit that sports only relation to art are the generic terms broadcasters use to spice up their show: The phrases, "that play was a work of art," and, "that play was beautiful" are synonomous. Art is simply not like sports.
I am still here to argue that sports and art do not have enough in common to label two with the term, "comparably similar". While it is always possible to come up with extreme situations where anything is comparable to anything, art and sport simply do not have enough in common to state that they are alike.
As I said in class, while people may say a great play in sports is "a work of art", no one looks at a Picasso and exclaims, "Great Play!" The arguement against this claim was that sports can be described as beautiful, and art can described as beautiful, so art and sports are alike. However, that analogy can be used for anything in life; a newborn baby is beautiful, so is a newborn babe like sport? Are flowers, rainbows, and puppy dogs like sport? Merely stating that two facets in life can have one broad term attributed to both does not mean that they are similar.
Remember, though, that I am arguing here against art, not fine art. Art, for me, involves the stationary products that one would see in an exhibit: paintings, sculptures, etc. Claiming that looking at a piece of art is similar to watching a sporting event is just riddiculus. Tryng to argue that people have watched art being created and enjoyed it is again a blanket statement trying to tie two non-similar aspects of life together with a word like "enjoyed".
While I do in no way hate art, one must admit that sports only relation to art are the generic terms broadcasters use to spice up their show: The phrases, "that play was a work of art," and, "that play was beautiful" are synonomous. Art is simply not like sports.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)