"OK, I don't know how a thread on American football turned into my opportunity to write an online bloglike journal..."
It must have been my lamenting the disappearance of cheerleader crotch shots on TV, which inevitably led to a discussion of other negative changes in our society and their causes.
If any business priced their product the way colleges do (tell us how much you and your parents earn and we'll tell you how much it costs) their top executives would be put in jail. The next time some "liberal" complains about price gouging by big oil companies, ask them how that differs from what colleges and universities have been doing. Aren't they both raising prices as demand outruns supply?
I always put the term "liberal" in quotation marks when using it to describe a particular political group, because today's "liberals" are anything but. As AN correctly points out, the only liberal political group in our society is the libertarian party, and their philosophy is about as far removed from "liberals" as you can get.
But thank God we still have the Cowboys cheerleaders, who almost make watching the Boys worthwhile.
Financial aid forms are only required when you are seeking aid - in whatever form There is never a disincentive to be a wise consumer when it comes to our children's education, just a disinclination to treat the process like any other purchase. There are plent of public universities that give the privates a run for their money. As a society we are certainly into name branding of everything and certainly undervalue the ability to think for oneself!
"OK, I don't know how a thread on American football turned into my opportunity to write an online bloglike journal..."
I've wondered about that myself several times, especially since it wasn't even about the comparisons between American football and soccer. It was just a mindless cheer that the Steelers won their first game meant to drop off the board after a few other fans had chimed in.
"The equation of sophists and other clueless college professors with THE WHOLE intellectual community..."
I agree that it is overly broad, but sadly those most often identifying themselves as intelectuals have done the damage, the rest just suffer the consequences. I think the meaning of the word "liberal" has been basterdized to mean a political persuasion identified with primarily marxist and socialist thinking. Many on the right now use the term "classical liberal", meaning something closer to a libertarian.
What AN and FONDL are saying here are all points I'd agree with. Not really that there's much news there (although the Financial Aid Form had a different impact on my family, by resulting in a figure that we supposedly "can" pay that was erroneously extremely high because my dad was too poor to have hired an accountant who could have helped to hide assets, thus further enabling the wealthiest to remain even wealthier, ironically). My concern is for two things:
1. The equation of sophists and other clueless college professors with THE WHOLE intellectual community -- whether that's a misuse of the "proper definition" of the word "intellectual" or simply a current development by which that word means that group, is beside the point, so I'll abandon using the misleading word. I bridle equally at idiots like the deconstructionists or the politically correct who CLAIM to be smart but who actually are just snake-oil salesmen. The "emotional damage" which was wreaked upon me by deliberately anti-male bigots masquerading as Marxist comparative literature professors who SHOULD have been working _in_loco_parentis_ and instead were going out of their way to be _loco_in_mentis_. Yeesh, the stories I could tell ...
2. the difference between a college degree and a college education. I haven't been in the position to hire very often, but when I have, I have been reduced to ignoring the line on the entry-level applicant's resume that says "BA from ___." It's utterly meaningless. Maybe in higher-class occupations (and those are probably things I need to seek out) the fact that a candidate is bright and can prove it make a difference; for me, it's always been the case that kids out of school seem to think they have been educated. Then they can't find Russia on a map, don't know how to run a fax machine, believe that "work" means "spend time" not "get the job done" and that companies are founded in order to fund paychecks, and resent opportunity because it means they're expected to "try hard." My generation (I'm only 40, I'm amazed at the change in so short a time) realized that "doing a job" meant finishing it with practical skills. The current generation utterly lacks this awareness.
Maybe the 9/11 generation will "save us all." We should just write off all 35 to 45 year olds (whimsically starry eyed and impractical) and all 25 to 35 year olds (inept, and arrogantly determined to remain so) and just let the 15 to 25 year olds run things. If I were in the 45 to 55 group, or older, I'd be appalled and worried.
Here's a story. Girl at work (yes, I say "girl" because of her age and attitude) was asked to stuff 100 envelopes and stick 100 address labels on them and put them in the mail room. All details explained, labels printed already, stack of letterhead envelopes provided. Three hours later she is found "done" and polishing her nails. She stuffed ONE envelope, "ran out" of letters (not thinking to photocopy 99 more), and STOPPED. "Well, I did all I could, and exactly what you asked," was her attitude.
Here's another story. Another child at work ("boy" this time) was asked to print labels. He knows how to run Filemaker software to select the proper addresses, gets a set, goes out of his way to develop a variety of complicated search queries. Going about it directly would have the job done in half an hour. Four days later he is still saving query sets and programming file associations. Finally we demand that it be done immediately. So, he prints what he's got onto a sheet of Avery 5160s. Unfortunately for him, the print doesn't match the perforations, so you can't just peel the labels off the sheet and (see above, "girl" task!) stick them on envelopes, because the lines of letters have been printed in the middle ground between labels instead of lining up properly. He quits and goes for a smoke, actually believing the job is done.
Where did these humans come from? Used to be, a "college education" should have meant that you "got the concept" of these basic ideas. Maybe you were bored by them, but at least you could move through them and on to something more complicated and more closely allied to the eventual profitability of the enterprise. Now, "college education" is a term I don't use -- I say they "graduated from a college or university" slyly, with the ironic implication that WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
I'm angry at my own plight, because my RESUME makes me look as bad as the "boy" and "girl" above and so I am precluded from GETTING the jobs that would allow me to demonstrate that I have more understanding than they do. I'm doubly angry because I got myself into this state by FOLLOWING THE ADVICE of people who should have "known better" -- professors, career center advisors, parents, wealthy relatives, etc. So, I can take solace in the idea that I know the skills are there, but I take umbrage in the equivalent knowledge that I've been led down a garden path to a dead end.
The fields suggested to me in this thread -- Human Resources, Teaching, etc. -- don't appeal. I may end up in one or another of them, but for me I don't see very high potential for profit (and therefore, one of my main goals, a high enough salary that I can take significant portions of the year OFF -- 1.5 months? -- in exchange for reduced pay, but still cover the bills and the mongering expenses) in any. As stepping stones, maybe, but almost all are "dead ended" at lower-middle-class salaries (roughly $45K or less) unless another step is taken.
Big things for me to be thankful for: no kids, no family, no pregnant wife to support, no siblings (therefore "borrowing" from mom and dad is always a potential safety net), I live in the USA (therefore trans-continental moves are safe and easy, and economic opportunities abound), I survived Katrina, I'm not addicted to anything (except maybe tobacco in my smoking pipes? and strip clubbing?), I have no criminal record, I have a genius-level IQ (which I ought to be able to apply to something lucrative, you'd think?) and a "real" college education, not just "graduated from a college or university." Plenty of things to be unthankful for, but I won't list them because this is an exercise in optimisim not pessimism.
I'm going to go for that "optimist's walk" that was suggested a few threads back. Listen to the birdies. Turn off CNN.
OK, I don't know how a thread on American football turned into my opportunity to write an online bloglike journal, but it has. I thank all for their points and suggestions. Cheers,
Book Guy
FONDL, one other peeve about college that you touched on when you complained about going broke putting your kids through. The profusion of scolarships, stipends, and all forms of financial aid has removed any incentive whatsoever for the student or parent to be a consumer or for the college to police itself and provide value. Colleges know they can charge what they want and they will find some way to soak the parents and the government to get that number. I'm assuming you filled out financial aid forms for your kids? You basically told the college how much money you had before they told you what you had to pay, the rest is some form of financial aid. When I went to school I was given a number and told to pay it, which I did by working throughout high school, summers, college, and loans. I get the impression that schools don't accept applications without financial aid forms anymore.
When I went to grad school I had my costs fully covered by my employer. I was 26 years old and had been on my own since I was 22. After I filled out the application I got a polite note from the school saying that I had somehow neglected to provide my and my parents financial information along with the forms. I wrote back that it was not an oversight. I was not a dependant of my parents, I had not been for 5 years, and their finances were none of the school's concern. In addition, the school knew very well that my tuition costs were fully covered, so beyond that my finances were none of their concern. I got another polite letter asking for my financial information again, at which point I relented (since I wanted to actually get to go), but the mindset kind of floored me. They felt entitled to all my financial records as a condition of admission even after they were aware that they were getting full tuition out of me guaranteed.
AN, I'm in total agreement with you here. It's also one of my pet peeves that teachers have dgrees in education rather than in their field. IME history is often taught by the football coach who knows absolutely nothing about history.
You mentioned the impact of the GI bill. But more recently, the other thing that has led to a huge explosion in college degrees is the drive for women's equality. When I went to college only about 15% of college students were women; today it's about 55%. It's not that fewer men go to college, it's that a great many more women do because of greater opportunities for women.
Personally I think that's great and I'm totally in favor of it. But let's be honest, not all women have benefitted. Women who for whatever reason have not been able to get a higher education are worse off than they otherwise would be and usually their husbands are too. The explosion in the number of college grads has resulted in increased educational requirement for many jobs that were previously filled by relatively uneducated people (eg. secrataries have been replaced by admin assistants, and that's not just a name change, most companies require at least a 2-year college degree for admin assistants and many prefer a 4-year degree.) This has made it much more difficult for relatively uneducated people, both men and women, to get a decent-paying job. It has increased the gap between rich and poor.
Some poeple might even question whether the female college grads are better off. Many now go to work all day outside the home but still have a full-time job waiting for them at home. And because the husband is expected to do more to help, he also has less leisure time.
The women who have benefitted the most are those who choose a career over a family. But clearly the biggest winners have been the colleges and universities themselves. Because of the strong increase in demand for secondary educations they've been able to increase their fees at a much higher rate than inflation.
Which may explain why so many people like me who went broke putting their kids through college hate the entire dishonest college system and the intellectuals who run it.
I think there is another problem with the liberal arts degree. At first the idea was that every educated man was to be a polymath to some degree. This was true for only a very short time, when men like Jefferson and Adams in this country could be lawyers running farms who were expert historians, were at least familiar with principles of higher mathematics and usually spoke several languages fluently. In such a case (usually accomplished with a single bachelor's degree and a lot of reading) such a man really was qualified for almost any job, the only caveat being their disposition or abilitiy to do the job. The growth and specialization in just about every field quickly put an end to that kind of man. One simply could not know all of chemistry, let alone be an expert AND a lawyer. That is why major fields of study developed.
As access to colleges increased, most dramatically with the GI bill, college degrees were less rare, but still represented a well educated man (or woman) who knew how to learn and could apply that skill to many different fields. I think the downfall of the liberal arts education has come about via the "professionalization" of some fields. Education comes to mind. I come from a family of teachers and have taught. You can't teach teaching. You can learn teaching by doing it, and you can "be taught" by seeing what works, but becoming a teacher (in the sense you can actually teach) is in no way guaranteed by a degree in education. It is also in my view nearly criminal that history teachers have degrees in education, not history. This one is just my pet peeve, but other fields like buisness, social work, political science, pick your favorite, have done similar things.
I'd also say that one problem with the country's intellectuals is that they substitute clever sophistry for actual scolarship. The deconstructionists come to mind.
Seems to me that the most common career path for people who discover that their liberal arts degree isn't worth much is to go to law school. The other common path is to go into sales. Human relations is another possibility, but you might need some courses for that. Or get a teaching certificate, many states have loosened up their requirements for teaching certificates in some fields because of a shortage of teachers. Check with your local community college, a couple of evening courses may be all you'd need to get into any of these fields.
Funny, you seem to have missed the point. :) If there's a group, say, call it Group A, who claim that some other group is intellectual and meanwhile, BECAUSE of their intellectuality, they are also wrong and largely to be ignored, then by definition Group A is a bunch of anti-intellectuals. Doesn't mean Group A is also wrong -- you can be correct, and anti-intellectual, of course, just like you can be incorrect and well-read. As either side would say about the other, "even a broken watch tells the right time twice a day."
The distinction between "practical" and "ivory tower" educations (or, the way I'd put it: uneducated training, versus untrained education) has been consistent throughout Western history and it's not news to me. Market demand will continue to define which is lucrative, though not which is education or valuable. But you're right that college degrees used to be more in demand merely because of scarcity. As a subset of that phenomenon, in the 1980s there was a "sea change" in the marketability of a humanities BA, for example -- before then, many opportunities existed in fields such as diplomacy, middle management in a variety of of organizations and companies, publishing, government service, etc. College professors educated before that sea change for a while mislead the college students getting educated during and after it, by suggesting "do what you love and the money will follow" and other rapidly decaying platitudes.
For me, the question now is merely how to recover from being misled. I am perfectly willing to abandon the old theories and paradigms (given a valid replacement, of course), but how to make an efficient and (eventually) effective transition? I'm willing to agree that your prototypical Ph.D. in Romance Languages is non-profitable; but if a guy happens to have one (or something similarly useless), what do you do NEXT and for a profit?
My answers? 1. Plan eventually to run your own business. 2. Move to a large city with a variety of opportunities. Learn. (Kiyosaki: "Work for someone in order to learn. Invest in order to make a profit.") 3. Save enough to keep spending on strippers.
BG, I think it's a combination of a number of factors: their arrogance, the fact that much of the news media is very supportive to their wacky views, and the whole political-correctness that permeates so many college campuses, all of which has alienated much of the public.
And I also think it's related to something else that I've been meaning to mention to you that you don't seem to realize, or at least you maybe learned only recently. And that's that there are two entirely different types of college degrees: those like engineering and accounting for which there is practical application and strong market demand, and those like history or English literature for which there is little practical application or demand. It used to be that there was strong demand for college graduates in any field because they were in short supply. Now it's the opposite, there's a surplus of college graduates so what you take is of much greater importance than it used to be. It's the people with degrees in fields for which there is little demand who seem to make up the "intellectual" group. Maybe they're all pissed off because no one values their knowledge and the only place they can get a job is on a college campus teaching things that no one values.
And I think it's also sometimes related to personalities. IME extremely intelligent people often seem to have trouble getting along with people. I've had 3 friends over the years who I thought were true geniuses, and they were all misfits who had couldn't get along with anyone (except me.) Their problem is that they thought they were better than everyone else, which isn't a good way to make friends.
Or, it's the conservative extremists who have manipulated the language by giving "intellectuals" a negative connotation because so many more liberals than conservatives are educated and intelligent. :) Just a sophistry, I personally don't really believe it ...
I agree that there are dumb educated people at both ends of the political spectrum and didn't mean to imply otherwise. IMO anyone who blindly follows any political philosophy while automatically rejecting all others is pretty dumb, since they all have their good and bad points. I was simply trying to make the point that it's the liberal extremists who have given the term "intellectual" a bad name.
BG, a couple comments if I may. First I think we need to make a distinction between intelligent people and those who are highly educated. I know lots of very smart people who have little education and I know lots of highly educated people who are pretty dumb. In many circles the term "intellictual" has come to mean people in this latter category, those highly educated people who never learned to think for themselves. IMO that's what has led to the prejuduce against "intellectuals" in this country. The term "intellectual" has become synonymous with "pointy- headed liberals," the elitists who spout wacky political views and think they should be running the country instead of the "great unwashed" who run it now.
And I agree that we're the most obese nation on earth. But at the same time we probably have more fitness nuts than anywhere else on earth too. It's a dichotomy, another symptom of what I call the bifurcation of America, the widening of the gap between the haves and the have-nots. We can argue all day about what is causing this bifurcation (liberals blame conservatives, conservatives blame liberals, I think they're both wrong) but I think you'll agree that it exists and is becoming more pronounced.
But to get back on topic, how come the Eagles quit playing halfway through the third quarter? And why are the TV networks ruining the game with so damn many commercials, don't they realize that's why they're losing viewers? And does GM really think I'm going to run out and buy a Chevy after they've annoyed me all day by showing the same stupid commercial a hundred times or so?
Agree on the distinction (between dumb-but-educated, versus smart-but-education-is-beside-the-point). Disagree on the idea that all current dumb-but-educated are liberal (plenty of pointy heads from Harvard and Yale in the current admininstration). Also, I'm disappointed that the TERM "intellectual" has become one that just means dumb-but-educated, since that implies that (dictionary-definition) intellectuality is itself a detriment, when in fact it's simply a (potentially highly useful) tool. And it implies that "anti-intellectuality" is a term that has come to mean something other than what I was talking about ... I do admit that the term in OUR culture (North America) has come to mean what you're suggesting it means. So you're not wrong about the current use of the term, but it's still a disappointment that "intellectuality" now means something bad. Which, I guess, proves we're anti-intellectual here, now don't it? :)
I get your point, but I'd point out that you're parrotting exactly the lines that most anti-intellectuals state about the detriments of the intellectual community -- that "they" (the intellectuals) fail to provide something that "we" (the others) can identify with. But it's not the intellectuals' duty to be men of the people. It's their duty to get the answer to the question right. This dichotomy -- the life of the mind versus the life of the body -- doesn't really even engender discussion in most societies. That we're considering the process by which "truth" must be somehow made "palatable to the masses" is, in itself, an anti-intellectual quest in the first place. As far back as de Tocqueville this conundrum has been noted in American society -- we have a distrust of the act of overt thinking; somehow, that idea seems to imply that the answer will be "more wrong" than if we didn't think at all. Strange social condition ...
I'd differ with you on the idea that Americans are outdoorsy and athletic, too. Although we like to think of our nation as the land with the great braod expanses and open plains, our general "use" of these outdoor opportunities is to exploit their resources (which happens in all countries) and then to enjoy them in MOTORIZED ways -- RVs, Nascar, salt flats racing. Sure, America USED to be full of cowboys and prospectors, but now we're THE MOST OBESE NATION ON THE PLANET. We exercise less, go outdoors less, eat healthy less, than any other land in any other place at any other time in the history of mankind. If we have some cultural "myth" that we're athletic and therefore tough, that's just plain idiotic. It bears no relation to reality.
I don't necessarily think "intellectuals" in the malodorously stereotypical sense (bearded men, boring presentations, tweed suits, long slow lugubrious discussions, big words that mean nothing) are going to help America. But I do think that using our heads will. So far, we have an aversion to that concept. Even the idea that an "intellectual" is identified so easily with that stereotype (ineffectual, excessively mental) despite the fact that there's no reason to believe bright people are boring and wrong, is in itself an indicator that we as a culture have a knee-jerk wrong-headed reaction against thought. Most of the bright people I know are more likely to be right, and are also more interersting, and less lugubriously dull, than the dumb people I know. Nevertheless, as a society we assume otherwise. And this is a grave detriment to our wellbeing.
"Maybe the USA is just a grossly unmental nation in all things, including sport." BG, I don't think that's really true, I think it's more a case of there being so many phony "intellectuals" looking down their noses at the rest of us that it really turns people off. Plus I think a lot of Americans have always been physically active and outdoorsy, maybe because we have so much outdoors, and so we tend to admire people who excel at physical activities more than we do those who excel at mental activities. I think if intellectuals learned to be a little more humble and were willing to admit that they don't know any more than the rest of us outside of their specialized field, they'd improve their reputation. Then maybe we could get talk show hosts to stop interviewing actors and actresses on serious issues. What passes for intellect in this country is pretty sad.
I'd continue this discussion but the Eagles-Giants game is coming on now. Go Birds!
FONDL: the kids' IQ question is similar to my experience, as well. Maybe the WHOLE american-vs-british football question nis just one of anti-intellectuality. I always found the idea, of having "pre set" plays (as is necessary in NFL football) to be unathletic in the deepest ethical sense, because it meant I was just the coach's amanuensis, not the real author of anything.
My High School regularly does well in state-wide soccer competitions, does poorly in football. It probably wouldn't surprise you to know that it's a gifted-talented magnet school. The intellectual thing is part of the success rate -- kids thinking for themselves with the problem-solving node of the brain rather than the "just bully your way through" node.
Maybe the USA is just a grossly unmental nation in all things, including sport. The stupider the better? Note current administration ...
BG, to answer your question, when the soccer players around here get a little older most of them take up lacrosse too. Then in high school they play soccer in the fall and lacrosse in the spring (while still paying club soccer all year.) And I assume that the more skilled football players play baseball in the spring.
I don't know how soccer got to be a yuppie thing either but I think a lot of the appeal is to parents who are looking to keep their kids away from football because of the injuries, and maybe highly educated people worry more about that then do those with lesser education. There also seems to be a racial component, very few black kids seem to play soccer, most prefer football.
The kids on my son's high school soccer team used to joke about the IQ of the soccer players vs. the football team. The kids on the soccer team were almost all top students while the football players were mostly from the bottom of the class. Don't know if that's typical or not but it wouldn't surprise me if it is.
Last weekend I was watching a pro football game when one of the defensive players grabbed a loose ball and ran down the sidelines with it. He would have scored easily but he couldn't run that far and had to stop. I found it amusing that a highly paid professional athlete couldn't run 60 yards. LMFAO.
The distinctions among family sport preferences are about social class. But I can't figure out why soccer got picked as the "upper middle class" or "yuppie" sport. Not sure how or when that happened, and only part of me appreciates it. Have you considered looking around to find out whose children are playing Lacrosse? :)
There are of course advantages to having the wealthy and leisured classes interested in what I'm interested in. But I am kind of disappointed that soccer has become America's "yuppie" sport -- I don't hold with the yuppie ethos at all, and often am rather at odds with the materialist (and Christian fundamentalist) parents who run the teams I coach -- and wish that the game would get more down-and-dirty here at home.
There is some truth to the idea that it seems too "Euro-weenie" for Americans to truly embrace soccer. We don't really embrace car racing in the European style, either, even though we are the land that perfected automotive dependence. Instead, we change the rules and the vehicles so that we have our "own" version of it (or, should that be rephrased, that THEY changed OUR rules and cars?). Same can be said of what has happened to (English) rugby football in the United States (NFL football), Australia (Aussie rules football), the antipodes in general (tri-nations rugby versus super-league and super-six), and in the public (aka private) schools in England (the distinction between rugby and soccer). There, it's again social-class dependent -- rugby followed coal miners and middle management around the globe; soccer stayed in the streets; and cricket was for the "classes" who could access verdant greens in the countryside. Prize fighter, footballer (soccer), or rock star -- those are the supposed only options, besides the dole, for an urban child in England.
I'm glad to see others piping up for soccer. I, too, believe that most of my classmates in other sports simply couldn't have handled the degree of effort, athleticism, and dedication required for soccer, at least not the ways that football and baseball _et_al._ were played at my schools. I had shied away from asserting that, given the generally non-receptive context. American football players did a lot of "silly" drills that didn't develop any skills or improve on team play, but instead were "morale building" somehow -- sharing toothbrushes, that kind of crap. Baseball players just hung out all the time, except in the arena of batting practice, to the extent that "natural" fielding talent became the ONLY factor distinguishing subs from starters -- basically, the inherent class system with which one ARRIVED at the school already possessing. No chance for self-improvement, because you were already perceived to be "fixed" at your static level of ability.
Another point I'd make, is that in general Europeans spend much more time and effort on their sports fanaticism than Americans do. People like Green Bay Packers fans THINK they have a significant investment in their team; some few do; but very seldom to the level that a dyed-in-the-wool yobbo of a Manchester United or Arsenal or Inter Milan fan does. Sure, they own a green room and a cheesehead hat, and they watch every game and cook out. That's nothing. Given first that there are so few games in the NFL; second that Americans seldom spend as much as half their disposable income on traveling to watch their team play; third that there is no "second division" in almost every major American sport, not supported to the extent that Europeans support their down-market teams; and fourth that Europeans as a lot have a much more "dole oriented" socialist economy and therefore have many more hand-to-mouth opportunities; you end up with fanatacism that is only in its infancy here in North America, relative to what Europe offers. For example, there are a lot of people who CLAIM to be Boston Red Sox supporters until they die, who have never even gone to California to see a game; and many home Red Sox games are not sold out at all! That lackadaisical attitude would be unheard-of for Celtic or Barca.
I don't necessarily think that the extreme level of fanaticism would work in American sports. Our pastimes flourish on flash-in-the-pan performances, big moments that punctuate an otherwise staid equilibrium. In the game play, and in the faring of the team across the season, it's all about highlight-reel instances. As well, we work too hard, too much time is spent in the office, here in [view link]. We don't have the liberty, neither technically (boss will fire us) nor culturally (we'd be considered "slackers" and never get ANOTHER job) to just hie ourselves off hither just to get wasted at game after game and then come back home to a hero's welcome.
I would like Europe's vacation system. We work too much here. But I've always liked being "second best" in some ways. I'm NOT a professional "sports fanatic" the way The Schwab on ESPN is, and I don't really respect people like that who get obsessive about something to the extent that they aren't really as productive in society as they could be if they'd gotten obsessive about, say, helping NASA keep parts on a Space Shuttle or something. Soccer is not subjected to that type of scrutiny here in [view link]., which for me is turning out to be part of the allure. I think, if I were in Europe and still loving soccer as I do, I might find myself surrounded by the mainstream boring people that I am happy to avoid.
I like a good American football game. But it's only so long that I can dumb down my discourse to help my surrounding context keep up with me, before I get to the point of accidentally letting a multi-syllabic word slip, thus offending my cohorts and even tweaking their homophobic radar, suggesting to them that because I read books or drink cokes instead of beer, I must be gay. Dealing with that type of crowd is difficult for me, so I'm sometimes happy they aren't attracted to my sport here, and I sometimes wonder whether I would be attracted to that sport were I in a place, such as England, where they were as obsessed with it as I currently am.
Formula I racing has the same allure as going to a college or pro football game does - it's an excuse to yell a lot and get extremely drunk.
I think all sports are good for kids and more kids should be encouraged to play whatever sport they choose. I just think soccer is better suited to children than some other sports because the kids can begin playing at a very early age, they really enjoy the constant action, there's little standing around, the basic concepts of the game are easy to understand, and serious injuries are rare.
In my area kids start playing organized club soccer at age 4 (and you can see their younger siblings kicking a ball around on the sidelines) and at that age they have spring and fall seasons and summer clinics. A few years later the better kids will start playing on travel teams and they will play all year around, in spring and fall leagues, tournaments all summer, and an indoor winter season. By the time they get old enought to play baseball they have little interest, they're hooked on the constant action of soccer.
I coached a very talented travel team for years and only 2 of my players played baseball several others tried it and found it boring (none ever played football.) Probably half the fathers of my team had played football in high school and got their kids involved in soccer specifically because they didn't want their kids to have the injuries that were bothering all their lives. Although I never played football (I went to a very small High school that only had soccer in the fall) my motivation was exactly the same.
Interestingly enough it's become somewhat of a class thing in my area. For the most part the kids whose parents went to college and for the most part work with their brains play soccer, while those whose parents didn't go to college and work at more physical jobs play football. I wonder why that is?
Those of you who think soccer is for wimps have obviously never seen good competitive HS, college or professional soccer up close. It's every bit as physical and violent as most other sports and much more so than many. It's also obvious that soccer players are among the fittest of all athletes in any sport, certainly far more physically fit than a lot of football and baseball players. You don't often see any overweight soccer players. And the skills needed to play soccer well require a huge investment in discipline and practice time, again much more so than football or baseball do.
My local HS soccer team had a strength training coach who was a world champion weight lifter and a head coach who was as tough as any coach I've ever seen in any sport (which is maybe why they were state champoins several times.) The players probably did 10 times as much running in practice as the football or baseball players did. Very few of the football or baseball players would have been able to pass the timed distance-run test that all the soccer players had to pass in order to make the team. But perhaps the best thing about soccer is that size doesn't matter, any kid can play if he's willing to work hard. Small kids aren't discriminated against the way they are in some other sports.
Chandler, good point, the number of scantily clad hot women in beer comercials does tend to plateau during football season. I guess I just assumed it was the cheerleaders since FONDL had mentioned the cheerleader crotch shots that I also fondly recall. Must be a reason why the Brazilians do so well...
FONDL, I was joking, as I said. I have the utmost respect for the athleticism and endurance of soccer players, I just find it a bit boring to watch.
Mickkeyc, in a proper sport like football that happens on the field and is part of the game, not a penalty that happens off to the side of the action. In a truely proper sport like hockey nobody'd notice since he didn't use his stick or draw blood.
Doug, "big, die-hard Bears fan all of my life" Is there another kind of Bears fan?
I can understand being sad to see them go, but really, other than commercial breaks and time outs who ever looks at them? I have no objection to them mind you, but I find it interesting that the teams that don't have them share certain no-nonsense gritty football characteristics, at least historically.
Someone tried to form a Steelers cheerleading squad back in the '80's. I think the Rooney's sued them into oblivion.
I'm virtually never against scantily clad hot women, but look at the NFL teams who don't have cheerleaders... Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Detroit Lions, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Cleveland Browns. Say what you will about Cleveland and Detroit's records lately (and Green Bay now I guess), these teams, with the possible exception of Detroit, have the superfans. They aren't turning out or tuning in for the cheerbabes.
Soccer is being pushed my the moist palmed mushy liberals in this country who want us to be more European. I say fie on the euroweenies. I want my gas in gallons not "litres", my weight in pounds not kilograms, and my sports violent and bloody. OK, so there is some level of fitness required for soccer. I'll take hockey instead. They need to be just as fit, they're armed, and the rules specifically mention drawing blood from your opponent. Hockey, Canada's national sport, and them cannucks used to punch way above their weight till they got all sissified and european. No wonder Gretsky and Lemieux live in LA and Pittsburgh now.
P.S. this is a joke.
Yeah, it's funny that I would agree with you about our country being too "soft", especially as this tendency is represented in childhood sports; and yet do that right on the heels of advocating vociferously for soccer. Heh.
I realize that the perception in North America is that soccer is for people who don't want to have to learn a "complicated" sport; for people who don't want to try too hard; for "everyone" to get a goal and then go get pizza and have their self-esteem stroked. I hate that crap as much as anyone else. There DOES need to be a place for the klutzes and the timid kids to have an opportunity to come out of their shells and try things out before they get pummelled on the gridiron (heh; that was always a blast ...) but I'm disappointed that soccer has somehow been appointed as the "sissy" place.
There's a funny scene in the Mike Judge animated show "King of the Hill" in which Bobby is at the school playing field, and you can overhear in the background the weenie hippie soccer coach saying, "Now, EVERYONE scores a goal and EVERYONE wins!" Grrr ... not my version of soccer.
So, when I advocate for my sport, I'm not advocating for the weenie side of it. Unfortunately, that is starting to seem like the only option in North America. I'd say soccer has a lot MORE competitive spirit for a lot of good (sophistries? AN!) reasons: you compete with the WHOLE world, not just the boys next door, and therefore your standards are perpetually raised; you have to have a LOT of aerobic capacity; no equipment to protect you (shinguards are for weenies!); no place in the rules for taking time out to argue, or stop the play, or ask coach what to do, or get wa-wa, in any other way STOP playing the game. The POINT is its perpetual competition. I don't exactly get how it got perverted in North America; but there ya have it, that is indeed what is currently happening.
Take soccer back from the soccer moms! Fewer jog bras! More Jeff Agoos, less Eric Wynalda and Landon Donovan. And certainly, fewer California surfers, fer Chrissakes.
I really feel that we are getting too soft in America with the kids... eveyrone has to be able to play.... no one should ever loose a game.... football is too violent ... etc. Wait until this country is challenged more than we are now and have a generation that never learned to react under pressure, missed the teamwork lessons of a good football program and the practice and concentration that it takes to be a good baseball player.
Once kids hit the 9 or 10 year old level they have proven to me that they can and strongly desire to compete and when they aren't the best work to improve.... soccer at least in my area attracts too many kids that don't have strong commitments to compete nor the desire to work to improve because they can just run around and are hidden on the soccer field.
I've coached state champioship baseball and see the commitment from my players. We need a strong generation with some leaders.....the weak I guess should stay in soccer but please don't talk about too much pressure on a kid playing ... the good one's thrive on it and when they fail don't cry but work harder ... the weak have parents who complain that little johnny didn't play well or got cut when he did nothing but sit on his ass to prepare.
The worst thing a dad of a 7 year old can hear;
"your son has a real talent for soccer"
The best thing a dad of an 8 year old can hear;
"dad I hated soccer - can I quit?"
Jim Rome
BG, I agree with you that soccer is the most fun sport to watch because of the constant action, and is also the best sport for kids to play because of all the running and lack of pressure. It's why I pushed all my kids into soccer and why I coached for so many years.
And I agree that baseball and football are both inapropriate for young kids. Baseball puts too much pressure on the individual (a kid misses a fly ball in left field or strikes out with the bases loaded and everyone will remember it 20 years later, a kid misses a soccer ball and unless he's the keeper it's forgotten in 10 seconds) and I think football is too violent for kids, it teaches the wrong values and causes way too many serious injuries. In fact I think high schools should drop football entirely. But maybe if my kid were 6-8 and 350 pounds I'd feel differently.
But having said all that I don't think soccer will ever be very big in the US as a spectator sport because it's basically unsuitable for TV (not enought time for all the commercials), and it's TV that generates public interest. And frankly I think that's good for the sport because it keeps the pressure off the kids who are playing. It was great coaching a sport that the parents didn't know anything about. Incidently, we had several kids in our soccer league whose dads palyed for the Eagles - their partents didn't want their kids playing football, which I think tells you something.
All sports have exciting elements (boring ones , too). One thing that makes football a bigger deal is the scarcity of games. 16 games/team/season vs 82, 162, etc for other sports. Lose 3-4 games in a stretch not that big a thing in a 162, or even 82 game season. Do that in football, its a real big deal. Thus, outcome of single game in football has far more significance than most other spectator sports= More hype & excitement for viewing audience. Playing games predominantly on weekends doesn't hurt either.
I missed the "cheapshot." But I'm sure I can imagine it.
I think ALL sports at their core are a type of "ritualized violence." They can act as a replacement for war, a type of "game war" in which the side effects are minor, thus minimizing the effects of war on the whole populace. Or they can represent a society's obsession with violence, hence actually enhance the warlike nature of the whole populace. Baseball waned as football grew at the same time America was becoming the world's economic and leader warrior victor. Strangely, in our more expansionistic phase -- late 19th C -- the sport that grew was baseball, considered by many a more "pacific" pastime.
I think the thing that goes with football is TV. It's tailor-made for the networks, with its regular breaks, concentration of a few events in high-profile time slots (viz. soccer, in which a good team plays from 30 to 60 games per year spread randomly throughout the week and across the continent among various countries, from August to May), and opportunity for product endorsements (both of football-based equipment -- soccer has almost none -- and of unrelated items like tortilla chips and beer).
I have always reasoned that the growing popularity of American football is the sort of controlled violence taking place between the sidelines. As a strategic battle it's a fascinating sport to dissect but there is juss way too much downtime in between attempts to make a positive play. As our society becomes more coarse and can excuse the most grotesque violence without any reflection whatsoever the popularity of sports like football and UFC fighting (and its offshoots) will always have audiences to capture. One needs to only see the cheapshot that Trent Green absorbed as the latest act.
BG, glad to see you can appreciate good sophistry. It's becoming a lost art. Entertaining, always, but now people wants "facts". So sad. Some time we must discuss angels on pinheads.
PS -- my high school didn't have a baseball team (it hardly had a football team; offense and defense shared helmets when they swapped off the field!), but I did play summer-league hardball (baseball, duh) with the city's Rec department. Never was very good at batting ... coach kept saying I should stop trying to kick the ball ...
Didn't learn to ice skate until I was 18 and moved to Minnesota for college. There aren't many hockey rinks in New Orleans. :)
PPS -- I just wanted to be tough and be challenged, that's all. That's why I didn't like football and did like soccer -- chance to succeed and be seen putting in effort, rather than merely fetching the water for the inept tall blond kid. I guess I'm learning that this is an unusual American experience?
And I do like your point about the monolithic requirement of athleticism in soccer. Everyone "has to" have a similar set of athletic skills, in soccer -- the running, trapping, kicking, etc. is identical for 10 of 11 players -- while in football there are a variety of talents showcased -- some push, some throw, some run fast, some catch, etc. I agree. But I think that's a PROBLEM for American football -- it means that if a kid is big, fat, slow, stupid, and aggressive, he's encouraged to stay that way and develop neither a lifetime of physically fit habits (like running, which is barely used in football), nor a variety of other skills that he lacks. He gets to stay lethargic and fat BECAUSE of football. That's a disservice to the kid.
But those damn brightly colored soccer jersey are just faggotty. I agree. :)
Hahah, AN, fair enough. Your sophistry works as well as mine does. :)
I think the reason I ended up leaving basketball and football behind, in my change-over from junior high to the "big leagues," was twofold: I was a late-bloomer and the coaches for the traditional sports were idiots. Very little "ability" was observed at my high school; just size. I therefore left the high school for my sports outlet and played at club level in a sport that would allow me to excel. I was really into "excellence" and beating the competition, and it was clear to me that football would prevent me from doing that because the hierarchies would eliminate on the basis of inaccurate criteria before allowing any effective team member to actually compete.
Hmm. Sounds kind of like my experience in my jobs as well. Rooted out of the "typical American system" not because I'm no good, but because the boss isn't smart enough to know I'm a heckuva lot more effective than most of the dolts I have to interact with. Maybe I needed some football to teach me to be stoopider better ...
Book Guy, you have issues...
Football is not democratic, but it is meritocratic, just like the good 'ol USA. You can develop and apply your particular gifts, be they speed, a strong and accurate passing arm, size and strength, or the ability to out think the other guy and be recognized for them. It rewards preparation, planning, and individual initiative. While there is a heirchy it is one based on merit. A QB who can not preform or lead won't be a QB for long. Same for a coach.
It is soccer that is fascist. It seeks to impose one model of "athletic" on the entire group, insiting that you must run constantly and must move the ball in only one way, and that only those good with their feet may contribute to the team, except for that one leader to whom none of the rules apply.
I tried to talk my youngest son into playing soccer when he was ten just for the coordination work - he was going to do it until he saw the feminine looking silky shirts you have to wear - he said no way - now he plays high school football and baseball thank god
It's funny. Europeans think of the men wearing extra padding and tight lycra pants as the girly, homosexual-acting ones. "Manly" to them means, ABLE TO DO MANLY THINGS.
I do think soccer jerseys are silly. I own many, but most are from teams I played ON, not root FOR. Those fat balding dudes in shorts, flip-flops, and a bright pink Flamengo jersey? Faggotts ...
Maybe if soccer teams used more muted color schemes, like the Steelers or the Buccaneers ...
Book Guy, I'm surprised that a cerebral guy like you isn't a fan. Unlike most sports, football is all about strategy, which is why the same coaches win wherever they go. Plus it's the perfect game for TV because there's lots of down time for getting another beer etc. and with instant replays you never miss anything. Plus it's the most violent of popular sport, it's like watching the gladiators kill each other. No wonder it appeals to Americans. But I do miss the crotch shots of cheerleaders that used to be part of the standard TV coverage. And I hate the reviews of close calls, they haven't improved the number of bad calls at all and they slow down a game that's already becooming too slow with too many commercials. Football is just about the only thing I ever watch on TV anymore.
I agree football is, to me, the most strategic of team sports. The playbooks are huge, the plays themselves very intricate, and a football coach has more impact on the game than the coach/manager of any other sport I can think of.
As for world outlook - check out the popularity of American football in Western Europe and elsewhere around the globe. My relatives in Europe follow football with a passion, often staying up until all hours to see a game. Post Communist Eastern Europe it's the same, esp in the former Yugolslavia (they love a good fight, lol).
BG, can I assume you're counting Canada as part of the US?
I know, it's not action packed like soccer and doesn't have the breakneck pace of cricket, but we poor Americans have to make due with what we have.
I like the chess-game cerebral portion of American football. I just don't like the fact that 99% of the participants aren't invited to use their brains most of the time. Sure, there are a few moments when a lineman or a wide receiver gets to do something on the spur of the moment, because of a broken play or a change in the opponent's arrangement, but mostly, we all ask daddy what to do. Either the quarterback or the coach, in a hierarchical structure, is in charge.
It's funny. American football, and to a lesser degree baseball, are two of the most hierarchical, least democratic sports out there. When I was in High School, at a small school and as a late bloomer, I knew I wouldn't be ALLOWED to show my stuff and excel at either. So I chose soccer, because EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RULES. And my athletic ability and dedication allowed me to excel. Why would the United States insist on pastimes that basically subvert opportunity in the name of social class? Our football team was all about everyone watching the tall blond kid stand around and be in charge (and fuck it all up for the rest of us because he was worse than the rest of us would have been, but that was of course beside the point), and baseball was for the various coaches' sons.
The selection process, and the on-field activity, aren't about "fair" play, in those two sports. For true direct one-to-one rights and justice, I guess basketball and (to a lesser extent, because of the ice-time cost) ice hockey seem about as fair to me as soccer. But I'm not tall, so "democratically" speaking basketball wouldn't be an option (I was quite good at it, but again coaches wouldn't "let" you play unless you fit some preconceived notion that had nothing to do with your ability).
So, I perceive soccer as "the land of opportunity." I do enjoy a good American football EVENT. By that, I mean, when people get together, or have something to talk about together. It's part of our culture, so the hooplah and the tail-gating are fun for me. I have been to several NFL games, including the Saints' first-ever playoff win (2002? over the Rams the year after they won the Superbowl) in the Superdome. I loved the way the little kids who had ridden into town from miles around went hog-wild. And I've seen Flutie do a leapin' leaner into the Rich Stadium end zone. That's fun.
But PLAY the sport? Even, watch it while I'm alone? I'd rather do dishes. In fact, the few times I've gone out with the buds to throw a football around, you basically CAN'T play. You have to have a "system" in place, with arranged signals, divided u p positions, practice, coaches, equipment. It's not for participatns. For that reason, again, I think football is "bad for America." We're the world's most obese nation, and one reason is that we watch and obsess over non-participant sports. Sure, there are a few who organize flag football or softball on the weekends, but mostly our citizens prefer sitting on butts. Soccer is for participants; it's easy to organize, to get a game going.
I do like Jim Rome's line: Soccer is the world's most favorite sport. So what? Rice is the world's most favorite food. It's funny, and it does make the point. Soccer is a kind of "poor cousin" to the hooplah-and-equipment necessary for football. In some ways, the EXCESS of football is what people appreciate. The fact that it isn't athletic for the observers, but still has people doing athletic things, even though they're morbidly obese. Contradictions like that, prove that we're an affluent, leisurely society. Hence the fact that America's LOWER classes -- those who do the physically most strenuous labor -- are attracted to watching but not participating in football. They're "proving" that they can step back from pushing things around for am inute.
There's a column in "The Practical Ethicist" (NYT Sunday Mag) in which he explains his position, that baseball is bad for most children. Sure, there are a few who will excel, learn competition and leadershipo; but most will stand out in left field IN FEAR that the ball will come to them. They learn to think of a sport as one in which you AVOID activity. In children's soccer games -- and I've watched this happen repeatedly; it's a natural human isntinct -- if you just let 'em run about for a while, ALL kids will eventually hope to kick the dang thing. Get involved. They start to run after it. And from there, it's a quick stone's throw to teaching them to enjoy physical activity, and start a lifetime of health.
Not to mention a lifetime of worldly awareness. Why would we be PROUD of a team that only beat other teams from within a narrow radius? If a baseball team wins the World Series, they MIGHT have a friendly against the Tokyo Giants; otherwise, only one point five nations participate in either football or baseball. If you want to be ON TOP OF THE WORLD, as I did when younger, then you want to COMPETE WITH THE WHOLE REAL WORLD, not just the imaginary nearby world. Top of the world is NOT the Pittsburg Steelers. It's Barcelona; maybe Internacional of Brazil.
I don't really think most Americans actually BELIEVE the rest of the world exists or matters. I think soccer proves it. And I KNOW they (we) don't believe our diet and exercise need to improve. I guess I don't blame 'em, for getting involved in pastimes that allow 'em to remain in denial rather than bringing up the painful truth.
That's my thoughts. I don't MIND American football -- I was just joshin' with my first post -- but I think we COULD do so much better. And there's a degree of resentment for me. When I chose to play soccer, I did it BECAUSE it meant I was tough, a competitor, someone who wouldn't be a damn wimpy lame-ass fat-butt baseball or football player. I thought I'd get girls, I thought I'd be perceived as stronger. Turned out, whenver I mentioned it, people thought of me as some bright-colored-shirt-wearing faggott type. They were surprised by my muscles, if they saw me shirtless ("hey I thought you were one of those weenie soccer boys"), and the hot girls preferred the fat lazy stupid men who had to be told what to do -- the American football players. If only I'd known that impressing people was much less difficult, I would have lowered my appeal to the least common denominator -- football. So, I feel that soccer's marginalization also has marginalized me. Is it racial? Or just bigoted in a jingoistic way? Or just stupid?
And don't give me that, "nothing happens," thing. Nothing happens in soccer? More than in a "perfect game" in baseball. Helluvalot more than in Nascar, which involves ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE of automobiles going in circles. You can't even SEE THE ATHLETES' MOTIONS if you watch Nascar.
Oh geez, I got started on a new subject ...
Well, it's just the internet.
Yawn. American football. The sport that convinces the masses that they're athletic (sitting still is a major portion of the game; gaining weight is an advantage), that stupidity works (rote memorization and rigid adherence to hierarchical command structures are mandatory; never ever run a play without asking daddy what to do!), and that we dominate all ("world champions" hahahahahahaha NOBODY ELSE PLAYS THE GODDAMN GAME).
six minutes to go, Steelers backed up on their own 13 yard line and I am sitting on a ticket with the Dolphins +4........ my fault thinking I was gonna cash a fucking ticket.
I wept when Batch fumbled the snap on the one, but for a different reason.
I laughed, I cried, I twisted my "Terrible Towel" into knots...football season is here.
To me World Football has the best athletes, when played at its most elite levels be it World Cup, Premier League, Champions League or Serie A. When it comes to the sport I am more or less a once every four years guy (World Cup fanatic). Sumpin about national pride of the entire world grips me unlike the latter three leagues.
It's hard to explain the passion for the sport I have every four years whereas it ceases to exist during non WC competitions (never have gotten into MLS either) but I have alot of respect for the hundreds of millions of fans, if not billions and can easily see how it's the most popular sport both participatory and viewership.
Now can someone explain to me the allure of Formula One racing?
58 comments