I have no control over many aspects of the Substack platform, and branching comments is among the things I can' t control. I also prefer the straight chronology, though that can make it hard to follow certain conversations.
The essence of team sports is our people against your people -- our community, our neighborhood, the athletes who happen to live in our school district and so on. In the Olympics, it's our citizens against your citizens. Something of a proxy for war, really.
And the essential idea has since been perverted beyond recognition for, well, at least a century, right? As soon as schools began recruiting athletes and pro teams began hiring players who lived elsewhere, it's basically become our laundry (uniforms) against your laundry.
Club sports, like ultimate frisbee, and intramural sports, like dorm basketball, are the only thing close to pure sports that are left. High school sports at lower levels -- where student athletes really did grow up in the districts they represent -- are also fairly pure.
The men and women who wear the maize and blue for my beloved Wolverines were in most cases lured to the Ann Arbor campus from all over the country (and sometimes the world) with scholarship offers to help Michigan win games/meets/matches, most of which attract a small audience. There is either a mass delusion that the investment in money-losing sports is a net benefit to a college or university or there's something I'm missing.
Does the fact that Michigan, just for example, has a golf team, again just for example, make the school any more attractive to non-golfing potential students or help the school fulfill part of its core mission? In the entire history of American academia has there been one single non-golfing prospective student who has thought to himself or herself, "Well, I WOULD go there, but they don't even have a golf team."
I suspect not.
At some schools, the big-time sports do earn their keep with various revenue streams and can be justified on that basis, and many participants do consider athletic scholarships and preferential admission to be adequate compensation for the time they devote to their sports.
For those who do find time to study, it's a step on the first rung of the ladder of professional success.
Finally, as fans, it's simply fun to assign a value to a team that "represents" us in some way or that we identify with for purely geographical reasons.
Why do you root for the Bears over, say, the Indianapolis Colts? My guess is that the players on the Bears are no more inherently Chicagoans than the players on the Colts, and we know from experience that any one of them will defect to another team in a heartbeat when the circumstances are right.
I would add that the fond memories of attending sports event in college also generate lifelong followers. Many schools believe these followers help to maintain political support for school funding and contributions to both the academic and athletic departments. I had fun going to games with friends when I was in school, waning interest in my 20's, and no interest afterwards. I would think that gambling and paid players will be the final straw in any fantasy about sports being about anything but money.
I like our people against your people. That’s why people competing in the Olympics for other countries loses some of that for me. And why it took me a while to get used to free agency in baseball. Remember Banks and Stargell and Musial? You knew who they played for. Too bad they made peanuts.
After reading that terse little email from "Edward C.", all I could think of is that U of I fans never disappoint. I worked at Northwestern in the early 80's and was part of the campus police. We would gauge vistiing fans when planning for events and U of I fans, hands down, were/are the worst. I regularly attend NU football games and always sit in the east stands where it is a mix of NU and visiting team fans. The only visiting fans that come close to U of I fans in terms of unwarranted hubris are Nebraska fans. I always hear Jethro Tull singing, "Living In the Past" when they are around. The best visiting fans, hands down...University of Michigan. They know how to win and respect the fact that they are in someone elses house.
Any comments on the upcoming semi-annual time change? This inane mandate has been a bipartisan annoyance for decades, yet our fearless leaders are helpless when it comes to to making a change. Maybe it's just an "old guy" thing, but the sheer arbitrariness (is that a word?) of this folly just drives me nuts.
Is it just me...or is William Barr way up there on the Despicable Human list. And he's everywhere this week just, spewing. I just heard him tell Gayle King that he'd vote for Trump while beating the drum to buy his book. Talk about whiplash. I hope it's the top of the Worst Selling Books list. That Tweet got my vote this am (and a few others). I'm glad the PS is doing well for you Eric
I believe I am the victim of unfair editing. In my list of heroes I included All Winners of the Medal of Honor which seem to meet your definition of hero but you only mentioned the folks who donate organs and care givers as not being heroes. Be fair.
Next you say you are looking for some major sacrifice for someone to be a hero and then agree that Alexander Vindman is a hero. Well he spoke truth to power - but hero - not really.
You seem to think risking his career makes him a hero. I think a hero needs to act in an altruistic manner for the good of others. Alex did a good thing and now he is busy defending himself.
This is a slippery slope - another guy- Mike Pence - spoke truth to power by just doing his job and counting the Electoral Votes. He put his political career on the line by doing that. Yet I do not consider Mike Pence a hero.
"All medal of honor winners" is like "all first responders" or any other broad category. I do think risking one's career to speak truth to power is heroic. And Pence's "heroism" has to be considered in context of his larger body of invertebrate mewling and bending the knee.
Nope - you are dead wrong here. The Medal of Honor Winners are a very small selective group of people who were/are extremely brave. Do a little research on how small a group they are and then how few are stil alive today. First responders number in the thousands not so the Medal of Honor winners.
I think you show a civilian viewpoint calling the Medal of Honor winners a broad category - we veterans know how small and special they are.
I have to agree with Peter Z. Medal of Honor winners are the top of the hero pyramid for me, followed by the Navy Cross, Distinguished Service Cross, and Silver Star. I think the idea of hero has been substantially debased by the media and common usage. Part of the standard, for me, is 'above and beyond the call of duty'. Sometimes it takes a substantial gut check to do one's duty, but it is not heroic. Courage, fortitude, commitment, and determination are requirements for many admirable roles in society. Finally, people with less than laudable traits and history have performed heroic acts when called upon in the moment. Recognizing their humanity is part of the wonder of heroism and far better than pretending they were saints.
Thanks. When you started the Paid Edition, I was wondering about the value. No wondering anymore. You make me think a little (sometimes uncomfortable which is good) but also make me smile
I have no control over many aspects of the Substack platform, and branching comments is among the things I can' t control. I also prefer the straight chronology, though that can make it hard to follow certain conversations.
The essence of team sports is our people against your people -- our community, our neighborhood, the athletes who happen to live in our school district and so on. In the Olympics, it's our citizens against your citizens. Something of a proxy for war, really.
And the essential idea has since been perverted beyond recognition for, well, at least a century, right? As soon as schools began recruiting athletes and pro teams began hiring players who lived elsewhere, it's basically become our laundry (uniforms) against your laundry.
Club sports, like ultimate frisbee, and intramural sports, like dorm basketball, are the only thing close to pure sports that are left. High school sports at lower levels -- where student athletes really did grow up in the districts they represent -- are also fairly pure.
The men and women who wear the maize and blue for my beloved Wolverines were in most cases lured to the Ann Arbor campus from all over the country (and sometimes the world) with scholarship offers to help Michigan win games/meets/matches, most of which attract a small audience. There is either a mass delusion that the investment in money-losing sports is a net benefit to a college or university or there's something I'm missing.
Does the fact that Michigan, just for example, has a golf team, again just for example, make the school any more attractive to non-golfing potential students or help the school fulfill part of its core mission? In the entire history of American academia has there been one single non-golfing prospective student who has thought to himself or herself, "Well, I WOULD go there, but they don't even have a golf team."
I suspect not.
At some schools, the big-time sports do earn their keep with various revenue streams and can be justified on that basis, and many participants do consider athletic scholarships and preferential admission to be adequate compensation for the time they devote to their sports.
For those who do find time to study, it's a step on the first rung of the ladder of professional success.
Finally, as fans, it's simply fun to assign a value to a team that "represents" us in some way or that we identify with for purely geographical reasons.
Why do you root for the Bears over, say, the Indianapolis Colts? My guess is that the players on the Bears are no more inherently Chicagoans than the players on the Colts, and we know from experience that any one of them will defect to another team in a heartbeat when the circumstances are right.
I would add that the fond memories of attending sports event in college also generate lifelong followers. Many schools believe these followers help to maintain political support for school funding and contributions to both the academic and athletic departments. I had fun going to games with friends when I was in school, waning interest in my 20's, and no interest afterwards. I would think that gambling and paid players will be the final straw in any fantasy about sports being about anything but money.
I like our people against your people. That’s why people competing in the Olympics for other countries loses some of that for me. And why it took me a while to get used to free agency in baseball. Remember Banks and Stargell and Musial? You knew who they played for. Too bad they made peanuts.
After reading that terse little email from "Edward C.", all I could think of is that U of I fans never disappoint. I worked at Northwestern in the early 80's and was part of the campus police. We would gauge vistiing fans when planning for events and U of I fans, hands down, were/are the worst. I regularly attend NU football games and always sit in the east stands where it is a mix of NU and visiting team fans. The only visiting fans that come close to U of I fans in terms of unwarranted hubris are Nebraska fans. I always hear Jethro Tull singing, "Living In the Past" when they are around. The best visiting fans, hands down...University of Michigan. They know how to win and respect the fact that they are in someone elses house.
Any comments on the upcoming semi-annual time change? This inane mandate has been a bipartisan annoyance for decades, yet our fearless leaders are helpless when it comes to to making a change. Maybe it's just an "old guy" thing, but the sheer arbitrariness (is that a word?) of this folly just drives me nuts.
I have car that I don’t drive much, so I didn’t change the time in the Fall. Soon it will be right again!
Not to be picky, but several typos in 3/8/22 version. BUT still enjoy reading it…
The responsible parties have been beaten severely. And thanks!
Is it just me...or is William Barr way up there on the Despicable Human list. And he's everywhere this week just, spewing. I just heard him tell Gayle King that he'd vote for Trump while beating the drum to buy his book. Talk about whiplash. I hope it's the top of the Worst Selling Books list. That Tweet got my vote this am (and a few others). I'm glad the PS is doing well for you Eric
I believe I am the victim of unfair editing. In my list of heroes I included All Winners of the Medal of Honor which seem to meet your definition of hero but you only mentioned the folks who donate organs and care givers as not being heroes. Be fair.
Next you say you are looking for some major sacrifice for someone to be a hero and then agree that Alexander Vindman is a hero. Well he spoke truth to power - but hero - not really.
You seem to think risking his career makes him a hero. I think a hero needs to act in an altruistic manner for the good of others. Alex did a good thing and now he is busy defending himself.
This is a slippery slope - another guy- Mike Pence - spoke truth to power by just doing his job and counting the Electoral Votes. He put his political career on the line by doing that. Yet I do not consider Mike Pence a hero.
"All medal of honor winners" is like "all first responders" or any other broad category. I do think risking one's career to speak truth to power is heroic. And Pence's "heroism" has to be considered in context of his larger body of invertebrate mewling and bending the knee.
Nope - you are dead wrong here. The Medal of Honor Winners are a very small selective group of people who were/are extremely brave. Do a little research on how small a group they are and then how few are stil alive today. First responders number in the thousands not so the Medal of Honor winners.
I think you show a civilian viewpoint calling the Medal of Honor winners a broad category - we veterans know how small and special they are.
I agree. Also, obtaining any of the medals for valor requires a specific, documented act of courage above and beyond the call of duty.
I have to agree with Peter Z. Medal of Honor winners are the top of the hero pyramid for me, followed by the Navy Cross, Distinguished Service Cross, and Silver Star. I think the idea of hero has been substantially debased by the media and common usage. Part of the standard, for me, is 'above and beyond the call of duty'. Sometimes it takes a substantial gut check to do one's duty, but it is not heroic. Courage, fortitude, commitment, and determination are requirements for many admirable roles in society. Finally, people with less than laudable traits and history have performed heroic acts when called upon in the moment. Recognizing their humanity is part of the wonder of heroism and far better than pretending they were saints.
Thanks. When you started the Paid Edition, I was wondering about the value. No wondering anymore. You make me think a little (sometimes uncomfortable which is good) but also make me smile