Stupor Bowl 50

[Modernistfan]

Well, I won't be watching Super Bowl 50 on Sunday. The reports on the prevalence of traumatic brain encephalopathy among ex-football players (virtually every deceased football player who has been autopsied has been shown to have detectable traumatic brain encephalopathy) has just about extinguished any desire that I had to watch football.

If that were not enough, the association of the Super Bowl with sex trafficking, especially of underage girls, domestic violence, and spousal abuse finishes the job.

As far as the ads, I would much rather see the companies pouring millions and millions of dollars into Super Bowl ads use that money to either hire more workers, increase the pay of the workers that they already have, or reduce the price or improve the quality of their goods or services. I think that there should be a sales tax or value added tax applied specifically to advertising to encourage companies to spend their money in a more socially effective and economically productive way.

I'm going to a bridge tournament.

The Super Bowl just enhances my feeling that the United States is going the way of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire had panem et cirenses (bread and circuses), and we have the Super Bowl and food stamps.

[BWV 1080]

Sports advertising has become much more valuable in recent years as these events have become just about the only thing that people watch live anymore. Makes sense that companies would allocate their marketing budgets accordingly. The real scam is the taxpayer dollars that go to subsidize stadiums.

As for the concussion data, I agree that football will be dead in a generation, with an athletic talent pool comparable to what boxing or MMA is today. Pro players at least are well compensated - the real victims are college and high school athletes. The NCAA is a scandal.

And the Roman Empire never really went the way of the Roman Empire, the decadence - collapse story is just that, a convenient political narrative

[jbuck919]

As for the concussion data, I agree that football will be dead in a generation, with an athletic talent pool comparable to what boxing or MMA is today. Pro players at least are well compensated - the real victims are college and high school athletes. The NCAA is a scandal.

And the Roman Empire never really went the way of the Roman Empire, the decadence - collapse story is just that, a convenient political narrative

I certainly hope you're right about the first part. Aside from the very important medical issue, as far as I'm concerned, all sports oriented toward getting an object in the goal on the other side of the field are a breathtaking waste of human and financial resources and what we would have left if Communism had won the day. As for Rome, you are partly right there too. What we have now is bread and circuses, but without the bread.

Perhaps some here are familiar with the story of John Urschel. The only one I can think of to compare him with is Kurt Gödel, who starved himself to death when his wife died because he was dementedly convinced that all food she did not cook for him was poisoned. It takes an equal degree of derangement for a brilliant mathematician to risk everything to almost certain brain trauma in pursuit of an NFL career.

http://www.realclearscience.com/2015/03 ... 63901.html

[John F]

I agree that football will be dead in a generation

Not that soon, if ever. It's an economic powerhouse for the owners, for television, for colleges and universities, and other vested interests, and there's no other sport or programming to take its place on autumn and winter Saturday and Sunday afternoons for the tens of millions of American couch potatoes. Well, there's soccer, the world's most popular sport except in the U.S., but that too involves frequent contact between players' heads and a fast-moving object, the ball, and while I haven't yet seen any medical studies of soccer yet, no doubt they will come soon.

[BWV 1080]

I agree that football will be dead in a generation

Not that soon, if ever. It's an economic powerhouse for the owners, for television, for colleges and universities, and other vested interests, and there's no other sport or programming to take its place on autumn and winter Saturday and Sunday afternoons for the tens of millions of American couch potatoes. Well, there's soccer, the world's most popular sport except in the U.S., but that too involves frequent contact between players' heads and a fast-moving object, the ball, and while I haven't yet seen any medical studies of soccer yet, no doubt they will come soon.

Youth participation in football is declining and eventually the athletic talent pool wont be there. And soccer by some accounts is worse - but banning heading doesn't destroy the game

[Modernistfan]

There may be a few players who avoid traumatic brain encephalopathy, but the odds are not good. Former Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears All-Pro defensive lineman Alan Page, who went to law school and eventually won election to an associate justice position on the Minnesota Supreme Court, retiring by virtue of Minnesota's mandatory retirement age for justices at age 70, seems to have all his marbles, but, if so, he is extraordinarily lucky.

[jbuck919]

Youth participation in football is declining and eventually the athletic talent pool wont be there. And soccer by some accounts is worse - but banning heading doesn't destroy the game

Many sensible parents won't let their boys play football anymore. I can just imagine the father-son fights that happen over this issue, which might appear if we could observe them more dangerous than the game itself, but a strong and caring father will prevail in this matter no matter how his son might mope, pout, and rebel. No sport is completely safe, but there are alternatives for hormoned high school athletes that don't involve destructive collision. Ironically, wrestling is one of them.

I know that John F is a big soccer fan. Well, nobody is perfect. I don't see that as an alternative to American football, though most US high schools field a team (typically a team of those who couldn't make the cut for American football). The whole point is that Americans uniquely recognize an exceedingly boring game, even by the standards of such kinds of sports, when they see one. It is not exactly a substitute as a point of pride for still having the death penalty and no meaningful gun control, but I wouldn't have it any other way in the USA.

[John F]

Many sensible parents won't let their boys play football anymore.

Correction: Many sensible upper middle class parents won't let etc. etc. But their boys, and some girls play football too these days, who go to college rarely make the varsity, except in the Ivy League and such, and even more rarely make it into professional football where the big money is. As for the other 2/3 or 3/4 of American families further down the socio-economic ladder, many without a father in the home, football and other big-time sports are seen as a way to escape from poverty etc., however adverse the odds. So I doubt either parents or children will spurn them.

I know that John F is a big soccer fan. Well, nobody is perfect. I don't see that as an alternative to American football, though most US high schools field a team (typically a team of those who couldn't make the cut for American football). The whole point is that Americans uniquely recognize an exceedingly boring game, even by the standards of such kinds of sports, when they see one.

If by that you're referring to the sport that all the world but the U.S. calls football, but we call soccer, it is as I've said far and away the world's most popular sport, over 3 billion (with a b) viewers watched the 2014 World Cup on TV, and it didn't get that way by being boring. Here in the U.S., NBC bought American TV rights to the English Premier League for very big bucks, outbidding Fox, and shows every single game live, nearly 400 of them from August to May; they think American interest is substantial and on the rise. Anyway, if the sport bores you, obviously it doesn't bore me, and I reject the implication that this is a character flaw.

[jbuck919]

Many sensible parents won't let their boys play football anymore.

Correction: Many sensible upper middle class parents won't let etc. etc. But their boys, and some girls play football too these days, who go to college rarely make the varsity, except in the Ivy League and such, and even more rarely make it into professional football where the big money is. As for the other 2/3 or 3/4 of American families further down the socio-economic ladder, many without a father in the home, football and other big-time sports are seen as a way to escape from poverty etc., however adverse the odds. So I doubt either parents or children will spurn them.

I know that John F is a big soccer fan. Well, nobody is perfect. I don't see that as an alternative to American football, though most US high schools field a team (typically a team of those who couldn't make the cut for American football). The whole point is that Americans uniquely recognize an exceedingly boring game, even by the standards of such kinds of sports, when they see one.

If by that you're referring to the sport that all the world but the U.S. calls football, but we call soccer, it is as I've said far and away the world's most popular sport, over 3 billion (with a b) viewers watched the 2014 World Cup on TV, and it didn't get that way by being boring. Here in the U.S., NBC bought American TV rights to the English Premier League for very big bucks, outbidding Fox, and shows every single game live, nearly 400 of them from August to May; they think American interest is substantial and on the rise. Anyway, if the sport bores you, obviously it doesn't bore me, and I reject the implication that this is a character flaw.

This is why I couch my posts in terms of "some" or "many" or occasionally "most." Citing the pitiful situation of the urban underclass does not undermine my point. It merely underscores how important it is not to accept that situation as inevitable, no matter how intractable it may seem to be.

As for soccer, you are displaying the fallacy of incredulity, i.e., "All those people can't be wrong." Yes they can, as on many other subjects such as religion. Association football (soccer) is a game born of poverty and universal ease of play. It is popular in countries where boys who barely have enough to eat can play it on the street with a made-up ball. I can't explain why that makes it popular in a country like England, which has the far more sophisticated game of cricket to divert intelligent devotees. I can't explain it at all in most of Europe, which has no such alternative. In any case, I am not alone in my assessment of this, as you know. Many top sports commentators in the US, starting with Frank Deford, share my opinion. I don't begrudge you your love of the game or fanship of any specific team, but it is what it is.

[lennygoran]

I'm going to a bridge tournament.

I haven't played bridge in so long but I agree with your choice--no concussions from playing bridge in the days I was getting some master points. Regards, Goran as opposed to Goren-yeah I spelled it and played it different.

[lennygoran]

there's no other sport or programming to take its place on autumn and winter ......while I haven't yet seen any medical studies of soccer yet, no doubt they will come soon.

There other programs-for example the History Channel and where Hitler is now living-and on soccer the studies are already with us-there's talk of banning heading. Regards, Len

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/1 ... ries/?_r=0

[lennygoran]

This is why I couch my posts in terms of "some" or "many" or occasionally "most."

Why couch your posts-- it's as boring a sport as you can have-okay maybe hockey is worse. Regards, Len [baseball fan and fleeing]

[Modernistfan]

I respectfully disagree that the Roman Empire did not decline. As years went by, the currency was debased, inflation and public debt rose, the general public was passive and increasingly failed to participate or protest (this was the origin of the satirist Juvenal's phrase "panem et cirenses"), public services deteriorated (the roads and aqueducts were increasingly in poor repair), and more and more expenditures were devoted to fighting wars on the frontier, including against Parthia (now part of Iran). Literacy, education, and the arts declined, and, especially after Constantine, fundamentalist Christianity took hold and began to persecute pagans, Jews, and even Christians deemed insufficiently adherent to the tenets of the established church (especially Arians, who could very roughly be equated to present-day Unitarians). This should all sound depressingly familiar.

[jbuck919]

I respectfully disagree that the Roman Empire did not decline. As years went by, the currency was debased, inflation and public debt rose, the general public was passive and increasingly failed to participate or protest (this was the origin of the satirist Juvenal's phrase "panem et cirenses"), public services deteriorated (the roads and aqueducts were increasingly in poor repair), and more and more expenditures were devoted to fighting wars on the frontier, including against Parthia (now part of Iran). Literacy, education, and the arts declined, and, especially after Constantine, fundamentalist Christianity took hold and began to persecute pagans, Jews, and even Christians deemed insufficiently adherent to the tenets of the established church (especially Arians, who could very roughly be equated to present-day Unitarians). This should all sound depressingly familiar.

I strongly suspect that Steve (BWV 1080) did not intend to imply that the Roman Empire did not decline, since this is a matter of historical fact and was dealt with in great detail by one of the three greatest historians of all time, Edward Gibbon. (The other two are Thucydides and Tacitus.) I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think the general idea was that cheap entertainment and basic sustenance have always been enough to keep the general populace in check, a situation known since ancient times and across civilizations that had no contact with each other. It may be a slightly cynical view, but I can't seriously argue with it. All revolutionary movements up to the present day depend on the tension between the need for people who know better and the danger they present because they do know better.

[John F]

As for soccer, you are displaying the fallacy of incredulity, i.e., "All those people can't be wrong."

You're being careless with words. This isn't about right and wrong, whether about morals or mere correctness, it's about liking and not liking - in effect about taste. Half the Earth's population likes football/soccer; you don't. So be it; you're entitled. But why are you arguing about taste, when such disputes have been known for millennia to be futile? And whence this blinkered, America-centered view? Are we truly the measure of all things, even of taste in sports?

Americans uniquely recognize an exceedingly boring game, even by the standards of such kinds of sports, when they see one.

By "uniquely" you're saying that alone among all the nations and peoples of the Earth, Americans have the acumen, critical sense, what have you, to find soccer/football boring. By "recognize" you're saying that being boring is intrinsic to the sport itself, not just how some people like you happen to respond to it. Really, now.

Someone I knew once told me that Brahms's music is boring. I replied that while she may be bored by Brahms's music, and some others may be too, this in itself says nothing about the quality of the music and a lot about themselves. Some music is intrinsically boring and meant to be, such as Satie's "Vexations," less than a page of music to be played 840 times. Even so, there are those who claim not to be bored by it. Such people are not normal. Liking football/soccer is normal, everywhere in the world except possibly in upstate New York.

It is popular in countries where boys who barely have enough to eat can play it on the street with a made-up ball. I can't explain why that makes it popular in a country like England, which has the far more sophisticated game of cricket to divert intelligent devotees. I can't explain it at all in most of Europe, which has no such alternative.

And in America, where it's not popular with street urchins and the very poor, who play basketball and stickball instead, but with the better educated, more affluent middle class. You can't explain the game's wide demographic popularity because you don't understand it. When's the last time you watched a game at the highest level, for example the English Premier League on NBC? I'm guessing never. Well, here's a few seconds of soccer at its best, Arsenal (a London club) scoring against Norwich in 2013. It all happens so amazingly fast that you can hardly follow it the first time, but the last replay shows the almost telepathic five passes that set up the goal.



Of course this kind of play doesn't happen in every minute of every game, or even every week, but the potential is always there, and it's one of the reasons why football/soccer is called, in many languages, the beautiful game.

[jbuck919]

I'll just go back to my original statement, which is that all sports oriented toward getting an object in a goal at the other end of a playing area are mind-numbingly boring to me, and always have been. Obviously, much of the world thinks differently, but I will never understand it. (BTW in the Baltimore/Washington area I did attend professional games of basketball, hockey, and yes, soccer. I found people-watching among the spectators far more interesting than what was going on on the floor/ice/field.)

[lennygoran]

I found people-watching among the spectators far more interesting than what was going on on the floor/ice/field.)

I'll take watching tonight's Republican debate over any sporting event and that would include even the sporting events I would consider less boring like basketball or my favorite--baseball. I have it in for football-the concussion issue-for many it's the hit that counts the most-it's like the Roman Colosseum spectacles of the past-then there's the 60 Minute factor-will it be on this week-nope instead we have the Super Bowl. Regards, Len

[Kate_C.]

Fascinating. Strip most posts of verbosity and pretense and you've the same raw brand of argument and judgmentalism native to much of the internet. Most prominently, the conformity of objective observation to substantiate subjectively endorsed cultural preferences and socioeconomic theories.

So, whether flipping cards or wearing face paint, have a great weekend!/p,k

[lennygoran]

wearing face paint

Does this mean that now we'll be bringing up whether the Washington Redskins should change their name!

I wonder if there are any controversial soccer football names?

Could only find this so far:

New York Red Bulls

"This is perhaps the most egregious instance of corporate branding in North American professional sports. Soccer team names have always been kind of ho-hum and unimaginative (see FC Barcelona, for example). But with the Red Bulls, Major League Soccer is clearing the path for corporations to invade professional sports like never before. Naming a team for an energy drink that tastes like equal parts antifreeze and asparagus concentrate is misguided, to say the least. What’s next? The Denver Mountain Dew Code Reds? The Detroit Slim-Jims? Or how about the Tampa Bay Pearls, brought to you by Tampax?

In this case, the team’s name isn’t offensive to any one group of people so much as it is a slap in the face of all decent human beings who resent being marketed to on a nonstop basis.

Regards, Len

http://www.therichest.com/sports/other- ... /?view=all

[Modernistfan]

I did play soccer in college (Cal Tech--we were lousy, and no one would have ever confused me with the second coming of Pele) and I still love watching it at the World Cup, English Premier League, or comparable levels. They are really amazing athletes at that level, and, unlike much of American football, they have to plan and think on the pitch (no headsets with coaches calling in plays, as is the norm in American football).

[jbuck919]

I did play soccer in college (Cal Tech--we were lousy, and no one would have ever confused me with the second coming of Pele)

Here is a famous sports cheer from your school's East Coast rival:

E to the U du dx,
E to the X dx.
Cosine, secant, tangent, sine, 3.14159.
Integral radical mu dv
Slipstick, slide rule, MIT

(It may no longer be in use or may have been modified since slide rules are obsolete.)

[Holden Fourth]

We'll have to ban walking soon......those recurrent hip and knee injuries resulting in severe incapacitation in later life and costing the taxpayers billions in medical dollars. Easier to just lie on the couch...and watch football

[BWV 1080]

I respectfully disagree that the Roman Empire did not decline. As years went by, the currency was debased, inflation and public debt rose, the general public was passive and increasingly failed to participate or protest (this was the origin of the satirist Juvenal's phrase "panem et cirenses"), public services deteriorated (the roads and aqueducts were increasingly in poor repair), and more and more expenditures were devoted to fighting wars on the frontier, including against Parthia (now part of Iran). Literacy, education, and the arts declined, and, especially after Constantine, fundamentalist Christianity took hold and began to persecute pagans, Jews, and even Christians deemed insufficiently adherent to the tenets of the established church (especially Arians, who could very roughly be equated to present-day Unitarians). This should all sound depressingly familiar.

Yes, the Roman empire declined as empires are wont to do. Just saying the decadence narrative - sapping the essential vitality of the Romans until younger more vigorous races overran them- is a 19th century fantasy. The Roman Empire lasted longer as a Christian empire - from the 4th century to the fall of Constantiople in the 15th century, than it did as a pagan one.

[jbuck919]

I respectfully disagree that the Roman Empire did not decline. As years went by, the currency was debased, inflation and public debt rose, the general public was passive and increasingly failed to participate or protest (this was the origin of the satirist Juvenal's phrase "panem et cirenses"), public services deteriorated (the roads and aqueducts were increasingly in poor repair), and more and more expenditures were devoted to fighting wars on the frontier, including against Parthia (now part of Iran). Literacy, education, and the arts declined, and, especially after Constantine, fundamentalist Christianity took hold and began to persecute pagans, Jews, and even Christians deemed insufficiently adherent to the tenets of the established church (especially Arians, who could very roughly be equated to present-day Unitarians). This should all sound depressingly familiar.

Yes, the Roman empire declined as empires are wont to do. Just saying the decadence narrative - sapping the essential vitality of the Romans until younger more vigorous races overran them- is a 19th century fantasy. The Roman Empire lasted longer as a Christian empire - from the 4th century to the fall of Constantiople in the 15th century, than it did as a pagan one.

Gibbon (who wrote in the 18th century) included what could be summarized as decadence among the reasons for the fall of Rome. His genius was that he did not offer a simple explanation, but an elegantly thought-out and beautifully written manifold one. It is summarized in a single paragraph at the end of The Decline and Fall. I do not own the book(s), but read this passage in my formal studies a long time ago. I have been searching for years for it on the Internet just to make a point every time someone wants to explain something very complicated simplistically. (I am not implying that either Steve or Modernistfan has been trying to do that here.)

It is a bit controversial whether the continuation of the Eastern Empire until 1453 is really a continuation of the Roman Empire. Gibbon did not think so, and devoted himself to the fall of the Western Empire and the subsequent rise of the Middle Ages. An alternative view is that the Byzantine Empire is just another manifestation of the fall of Rome, different in form from what happened in Western Europe. As for the survival of Christianity, I have heard it argued that it is the vestigial remnant of Rome in both the East and the West, though again in different forms. I am not urging that as scholarly fact, but there is some sense to the idea.

In any case, I don't have any trouble dismissing the notion that Rome fell because it was overtaken by "more vigorous races." I've actually never heard that argument before, but if it has been made, my response would be that there was a reason they were called barbarians.