Comments for This Sporting Life

Comment on What we cannot reliably learn from former NFL players about the “bounty” system (or anything else) by This bullfighter needs a left tackle… « This Sporting Life

This bullfighter needs a left tackle… « This Sporting Life — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 16:48:14 +0000

[...] post may interrupt the flow of posts on the NFL’s “bountygate” (last seen here) but the surreal juxtaposition probably isn’t out of [...]

Comment on Bounty Ethics in the NFL by What we cannot reliably learn from former NFL players about the “bounty” system (or anything else) « This Sporting Life

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:39:11 +0000

[...] But there are real limits to usefulness of the first-hand practical wisdom of former players on a range of issues routinely debated in the sports media. The predictable debates over “bountygate” are a case in point. (For links with more information about the NFL’s recent enquiry into the use of a bounty to reward defensive players on the New Orleans Saints, see the post preceding this one.) [...]

Comment on Bounty Ethics in the NFL by Wayne Norman

Wayne Norman — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:21:45 +0000

“Fans of the teams involved may want a win at all costs. But the rest of us neutrals want to see the stars play the best game possible.” Exactly! One of the paradoxes with competitive pro sports as a source of entertainment is that we want the players and teams to be thinking almost entirely about winning, and not to be trying to entertain us directly (the way they do in pro wrestling, say). By trying to win they will generally produce the most impressive play. At the same time, we rely on them to draw some sharp lines when it comes to certain winning tactics. Because in the end of the day, the point of the pro leagues is to provide the best exhibition of talent to the fans.

Comment on Bounty Ethics in the NFL by njwv

njwv — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 06:38:59 +0000

Not a bounty but there’s also this article about trying to intentionally concuss players so they make mistakes later. That one hits at two problems since it involves both intentionally injuring and the confidence that the injured player won’t be protected by anyone.

http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2012/01/did-giants-strategically-concuss-kyle-williams.html

And as for the why? We’re taught from a young age that playing dirty is bad form. We’ve also all been on the wrong side of someone playing dirty and most of us know how that feels.

From a pure sports point of view, intentionally injuring players also directly rips off the fans. Fans of the teams involved may want a win at all costs. But the rest of us neutrals want to see the stars play the best game possible.

Comment on The sporting soul by David Brooks on Linsanity and the difference between the morality of religion and sports | Ethics for Adversaries

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:18:12 +0000

[...] Brooks, the New York Times‘s supposedly conservative columnist, regularly looks to sports as a way of making sense of our political and popular culture. This week he used the Jeremy Lin [...]

Comment on What’s Wrong With Soccer Broadcasting? (Soccer vs American Sports, part 4) by M.Willis (@M_Willis)

M.Willis (@M_Willis) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:38:10 +0000

Great analysis of the entire US soccer broadcasting picture. I share a lot of your thoughts – and wrote a piece specifically about the idea of how US Soccer commentary (from the booth) might evolve in the near future. http://mwl.li/soccer-madden

Comment on Luck don’t come easy by Wayne Norman

Wayne Norman — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:18:56 +0000

Yes, “Suck for Luck” is an interesting perversion of the competition for the Super Bowl … in some future year. (I take it that it refers to the quest to finish last in the NFL so that you “win” the chance to draft first and take top QB prospect Andrew Luck.) It is perverse enough that some leagues (e.g. the NHL, I think) make a handful of the worst teams enter a lottery for the chance to draft first. Any league’s brass surely get indigestion at the thought of truly embarrassing deliberate attempts to lose games late in the season. For any given team, of course, “sucking for Luck” can be a perfectly rational strategy to maximize their chance of long-term success. But “the game” exists and thrives only if it makes sense and provides entertainment and meaning on all sorts of levels. And part of this drama relies on our believing that these teams and players have integrity, pride, and are professionals (and not simply because they get paid, but in the sense that they are committed to the “point” of their profession, and not merely to the opportunity it gives them to “win”). Some of this may be illusion on the part of fans, but players and teams have to realize that their livelihood — in the long run — relies on our being able to maintain such illusions. Herm Edwards, then coach of the then-lowly Jets, understood this when he emphasized, to a roomful of cynical sports reporters, that “WE. PLAY. TO WIN. THE GAME.” Granted, he lost his job soon after that….

Comment on Luck don’t come easy by saideman

saideman — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:55:03 +0000

With this title, I thought you would be combining this blog with ethics for adversaries and address “Suck for Luck” NFL dynamic.

Comment on Blurring the lines between sports, business, politics, and media by donna

donna — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:18:49 +0000

I like considering sports to be an art of blending business, politics, and media.

Comment on What’s Wrong With Soccer Broadcasting? (Soccer vs American Sports, part 4) by Topher

Topher — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:07:34 +0000

live play coverage of american football is still crap like soccer with the same high mid-field side camera. but its true the pre-play and post play preparings and recaps make the game spectacular because you can know what the players went through if anything before the snap by the movement of cameras around the line especially on the quarterback or perhaps a player who had just made a big play, and on the post-play every camera angle has already beautifully cut-up footage to present perfect understanding of each process that those players involved with the play had gone through, the openings they found the openness in the field the linemans crafty work, the quarterbacks thoughts and hurdles and so on. the quick editing is spectacular along with the announcers knowledge to quickly summulate and relate that footage. i wish the during play coverage would change it up sometimes though i mean maybe camera it from behind the o-line or d-line or maybe at some vertical angles where you can still see the whole line where people wouldnt have the chance of not seeing a player that ended up being crucially involved. just sitting in the endzone bleachers of either side give you perspectives that youve never seen along with the corners of the stadium and going up the stands.

to get back on soccer ive noticed that the WPS does a much better job than any mens league on camera changing and i actually was able to see some live in front of the goal play that ive never seen live in any mens division. i actually witnessed a goal looking right at the goal which was always strictly a replay or recap shot that youd only be able to see after the game or briefly on score edited replay and the WPS seems to take less need on showing the whole field at all times and actually shows close ups and camera changes.
for sure this is because like you said the popular sports go out to many different signals and given that this reasons to stick to the lowest-common-denominator formula. but since the WPS is a lot less widely distributed gives them more room to experiment and explore other possibilities which i think is fascinating

to add two more things about american soccer that ruins it is easy draws, you should have to fight hard to draw a draw is not an easy thing, it goes to say that both teams were so closely matched that an even outcome was the only logical final analysis to be made, but games are never that close and im sorry a game where a team has 15 shots on goal against a team that only has 3 shots but the scores only 2-2 is not an evenly matched game and to prove that the other team does have more possibility they should get a kind of american football overtime in all games but i can agree with leaving the shootouts to elimination games, but give every other game some kind of golden goal overtime and maybe not a split 30 minutes but 15 or 20.

another thing that ruins american soccer and for that all american sports is minor leagues that arent a league really but simply a training camp for the bigs this leads people to sensationalize every top league player because theres not many others to compare and contrast with a sort of monopoly structure forms and the reasons a lot of players make to the top is a lineage of sensationalized traits that they were in the right situation for coaches and scouts who got a hard-on for those traits, where there wasnt a linear progression that demands development in all fields of the sport but more of a culting up of absolutist like qualities.