Content Post Idle thoughts: The "lesson learned" edition.

[NormZauchin]

Apparently it hasn't occurred to people that in pro sports caucasions are the DEI hires. If they acted like certainwhite people we wouldn't be allowed to play, coach, or participate in any way.

If certain white people hadn't invented those sports no one of any ethnic or racial persuasion would be playing or coaching them.

 

[mgteich]

I would take all instant replay out of all sports and just live with human error. There's nothing more annoying and boring than watching a dozen replays for 10 minutes. With gambling, I recognize it won't happen...

I have a different approach. I would expand the use of instant replays (especially to penalties) and have computers make all the calls.

Yes, there would be mistakes, but nowhere as many as with humans making the decisions.

 

[UrbanCowboy]

I have a different approach. I would expand the use of instant replays (especially to penalties) and have computers make all the calls.

Yes, there would be mistakes, but nowhere as many as with humans making the decisions.

true, but does it make it into a video game? on the one hand, it fits with the general direction of society. on the other, does football/sports provide an escape from all the digital/analytics/AI stuff?

 

[neuronet]

true, but does it make it into a video game? on the one hand, it fits with the general direction of society. on the other, does football/sports provide an escape from all the digital/analytics/AI stuff?

The game would still be people playing football...

 

[mgteich]

true, but does it make it into a video game? on the one hand, it fits with the general direction of society. on the other, does football/sports provide an escape from all the digital/analytics/AI stuff?

Some sports are played in the 21st century not the 20th. Do other sports really have only humans make all the calls? Of course not.

Google Search

========================

For example, having computers making some calls seem obvious (out of bounds, off-sides, delay of game and 1st down). I don't see why folks would object. More importantly, I don't see why teams, the union and the bettors would object.

Should be go back to leather helmets and ban the forward pass?

 

[Huckleberry1]

If certain white people hadn't invented those sports no one of any ethnic or racial persuasion would be playing or coaching them.

But they are playing them, and they are dominating them, and my point still stands, in most pro sports whites are the DEI hires.

 

[UrbanCowboy]

Some sports are played in the 21st century not the 20th. Do other sports really have only humans make all the calls? Of course not.

========================

For example, having computers making some calls seem obvious (out of bounds, off-sides, delay of game and 1st down). I don't see why folks would object. More importantly, I don't see why teams, the union and the bettors would object.

Should be go back to leather helmets and ban the forward pass?v

[B]neuronet[/B]​

The game would still be people playing football...

I'll let it go after this. First, I respect your positions. What I'm tossing out there is not to "go backwards" but to be thoughtful about how to go forward. What is the appeal of football? To me it's pretty primitive. Physical, blocking, tackling, smashing into each other. Kind of the opposite of daily life, where we spend so much time in the digital world. I understand integrating football with digital, but does it lose its appeal? We already hear a lot of "flag football" talk and fantasy ruining it, blah, blah. I'm saying maybe keeping it as the anti-digital sanctuary could be the smarter long-term play. Thanks for playing along!

 

[PatsFan_Belarus]

Controversy generate attention. Attention generate revenue. So, it's there to stay.

 

[p8ryts]

I'll let it go after this. First, I respect your positions. What I'm tossing out there is not to "go backwards" but to be thoughtful about how to go forward. What is the appeal of football? To me it's pretty primitive. Physical, blocking, tackling, smashing into each other. Kind of the opposite of daily life, where we spend so much time in the digital world. I understand integrating football with digital, but does it lose its appeal? We already hear a lot of "flag football" talk and fantasy ruining it, blah, blah. I'm saying maybe keeping it as the anti-digital sanctuary could be the smarter long-term play. Thanks for playing along!

I won't deny that a good QB sack is one of my favorite plays. However, I enjoy the strategy of the game. Pre-game, in-game adjustments, the play calls, defense. A properly executed play is a beautiful thing. One of my all-time favorites was Daniel Graham on the wham play, coming back and nailing the DT. The Green Bay sweep was a beautiful thing to behold with Jerry Kramer and Fuzzy Thurston coming around that corner.

 

[Huckleberry1]

I won't deny that a good QB sack is one of my favorite plays. However, I enjoy the strategy of the game. Pre-game, in-game adjustments, the play calls, defense. A properly executed play is a beautiful thing. One of my all-time favorites was Daniel Graham on the wham play, coming back and nailing the DT. The Green Bay sweep was a beautiful thing to behold with Jerry Kramer and Fuzzy Thurston coming around that corner.

Jerry Kramer and Fuzzy Thurston? Holy ****, are you Ken's dad?

 

[Gumby]

But they are playing them, and they are dominating them, and my point still stands, in most pro sports whites are the DEI hires.

I think anti-DEI in the football world is not black-white, but rather people who have never played contact football at ANY LEVEL to include pee-wee refereeing a game (that is, ….. „sorry ladies“).

 

[mgteich]

I'll let it go after this. First, I respect your positions. What I'm tossing out there is not to "go backwards" but to be thoughtful about how to go forward. What is the appeal of football? To me it's pretty primitive. Physical, blocking, tackling, smashing into each other. Kind of the opposite of daily life, where we spend so much time in the digital world. I understand integrating football with digital, but does it lose its appeal? We already hear a lot of "flag football" talk and fantasy ruining it, blah, blah. I'm saying maybe keeping it as the anti-digital sanctuary could be the smarter long-term play. Thanks for playing along!

You describe football's appeal before the forward pass and certainly before the AFL.

Sure, we say that we love a hard fought 13-9 game, but many more fans favor watching a 27-24 or higher scoring game.

 

[p8ryts]

You describe football's appeal before the forward pass and certainly before the AFL.

Sure, we say that we love a hard fought 13-9 game, but many more fans favor watching a 27-24 or higher scoring game.

Fans are brought into a game(s) by a contested contest. A low scoring game, whether football or any other sport generates just as much intensity as a high scoring game.

 

[mgteich]

Fans are brought into a game(s) by a contested contest. A low scoring game, whether football or any other sport generates just as much intensity as a high scoring game.

I believe that higher scoring games with lots of lead changes (and perhaps turnovers) generate more FAN intensity and excitement. Perhaps that shouldn't be so, but I think that it is.

I understand that many disagree.

 

[pazrul72]

Fans are brought into a game(s) by a contested contest. A low scoring game, whether football or any other sport generates just as much intensity as a high scoring game.

I agree with your overall point but Silence of the Rams II shows you are incorrect for the vast majority of current football fans. I loved that game, two monster defenses went off on each other and all it took was one or two plays to swing the game. I was edge of my seat can't look away what a great game when it was over. Next day at work I was shocked to hear how many people talked about how boring it was. "Worst Superbowl ever" heard more then once by multiple people. I think people that actually know and study the game love a good defensive battle, but for casual fans that turn on a game or two and just know the basics a back and forth 31-28 kind of game is just easier to follow and have fun with. And let's be real that's where new money comes from, us addicts are watching regardless of how the games are played.

 

[Zuma]

I have a different approach. I would expand the use of instant replays (especially to penalties) and have computers make all the calls.

Yes, there would be mistakes, but nowhere as many as with humans making the decisions.

I've been thinking the same lately. It's going happen eventually anyway. Use computers concurrently with Refs until the calls are as good or better.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Oh ****, it isn't?

That explains a bunch of ****!

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Fans are brought into a game(s) by a contested contest. A low scoring game, whether football or any other sport generates just as much intensity as a high scoring game.

I think there are two levels.
Level 1, "Look!!! A guy did a thing!" At this level, we're watching the individual performance at the play level. In between big plays, it's the live action version of "The Pub" on here. People talking about their stocks, their little fckers, some hoah, whatever. No attention to the "war" but big attention to the individuals on a big play... the "DID YOU SEE THAT" approach

Level 2, "Sports is theatre for stupid people." Of course this is tongue in cheek, but it captures the level p8ryts is talking about here, and it's the higher level. Every game is a must-win situation. There is a plot (we have to win, they think they do, but we're the protagonist.) There is motivation: We have to win. There are obstacles: The other guys get paid. To make it interesting, we can posit that the refs are against us too, and so on. The main point is that interest in the sport comes from engagement in outcomes and the vicarious participation in the struggle. Every game up to the last one you play, there are small denouements, little morals you can glean. That's why it hurts so bad when your season's over. It's just... empty. End of play, and no little bow to tie it all up, no matter how you try. There's no "next week we have to stop the run better. This is the lesson learned..." This is "the world will never be the same... but we're not in it." Sure, you can move on to draft talk, but that's a very JETE way to live, draft-to-draft.

But like I said, level 2 is the higher level (and a smaller slice of fandom), followed by level 3, which many of the guys here are on, people who seek out all-22 angles on every play so they know what really happened, etc. They're an even smaller slice.

Level 1 is the big bulk of the population, the SportsCenter theory of sports.

That's the flaw... you make it high scoring because more people go "Look! He did many big things! This truly was a performance for the ages... oooo something shiny! What were we talking about?"

That's the most prevalent type of fan.

Also, a Level 2 guy with the whole opera playing in his head, also responds to Level 1 hype. It's just that it doesn't go both directions.

So the main point is that yeah most people want more big plays, more home runs, higher scoring games, whatevah, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.