There's a lot of commentary in the conservosphere that ESPN is losing customers because of their unrelentingly liberal politics. Well, maybe. I don't think I would like it much better if they were unrelentingly conservative in their politics. The line always is "These issues are important! We can't refuse to talk about them. We have a responsibility..." Yeah, sure. I think they are important, too. I do want to hear about them. Just not from sportscasters and athletes and coaches. I don't care about Tom Brady's take on racism in the NFL, or Bill Belichick's. I might, might be interested in Richard Sherman's take. Yes, his main qualification is that he is a great athlete, but he has secondary qualifications of being intelligent and thoughtful. Mouthy, I'm not thrilled with, but I can endure it.
So a few minutes of Sherman, maybe. Stephen A. Smith has interesting delivery, so a few minutes of him. But why on earth should I be interested what Mike and Mike think, or Jemele Hill?
9 comments:
So a few minutes of Sherman, maybe. Stephen A. Smith has interesting delivery, so a few minutes of him. But why on earth should I be interested what Mike and Mike think, or Jemele Hill?
While as a Pats fan I didn't particularly like Sherman razzing Tom Brady circa 2013
after a Seattle victory, he also shook TB's hand after the Super Bowl. Sherman says what he thinks, and he devotes more time to thinking for himself than most pro football players. Stanford isn't going to admit a football player who hasn't read a book from cover to cover since second or third grade- which can be said about some college athletes. Sherman was a good student at a high school where it wasn't so cool to be a good student. So yes, some Sherman in the mix. Stephen Smith is worth listening to.
But when I watch sports I don't do so to hear political chatter from either side.
Sports are entertainment, a relief from that political chatter of either side. Or at least sports used to be.
I gave up on ESPN years ago, when SPEED picked up the Formula One races, sooooo 30+ years ago. All I was interested in.
What little I've seen of ESPN reminds me of The View. Gossip. Boring, when not infuriating. I'm not a sports fan, but I enjoy my offspring and their college football rivalries. I wouldn't enjoy if they took it seriously -- it's done in fun. (It's got to be done in fun since one of them is a W&M graduate!)
I don't watch ESPN on cable, but I do refer to the ESPN website to keep up with the Pats and Celtics. While Stephen Smith is OK, my preference for text over video comments means that I view him maybe once a month. He correctly predicted the Celtics win streak would stop at Miami. So he has been right at least once.
Since I lack the "fan" gene, I really don't get following pro football. I honestly don't understand why anyone cares.
Donna B.
Since I lack the "fan" gene, I really don't get following pro football. I honestly don't understand why anyone cares.
I can understand why a female wouldn't be a fan.
I played football growing up- daily in season during junior high. We played it even with snow on the ground. Lots of fun. Weekends during high school, which tapered off in university years. No organized team, as my my high school at the time didn't have a football team. Tight-fisted Yankees keeping a watch on insurance costs.
Which reminds me of my grandfather, who was captain of his college football team. In his final years, he slipped and fell on the ice. He suffered no broken bones from the fall. He told us that his football experience enabled him to roll with the fall.
It's just not football. I found out I lacked the "fan" gene when the Beatles played on Ed Sullivan. I just could not bring myself to care about how cute Paul was even though I liked their songs and bought their first album. (I wish I still had it, so I could sell it.) Fainting or screaming or buying every album? Nope.
Football is the only "pro" sport I now actively dislike. It could be living halfway between Dallas and New Orleans that brought that about. Too much of it in my face too often. Neil Young and Garth Brooks have recently joined the list of active dislike for a similar reason -- two relatives who constantly tried to shove them in my ears.
People with highly active fan genes annoy me.
As for college football, the fans are generally not so annoying. They make the rivalries fun, mostly. Of course, I may change my mind since I recently moved to Alabama. Apparently to fit in in my neighborhood, I need a dog to walk and to take a public stand for either Roll Tide or War Eagle. My plan is to head this off by flying a Fresno State Bulldogs flag.
Fresno State might work. It would confuse them.
I played in a college band that sang a fair bit of Neil Young. You will notice that the content of his lyrics is secondary to the sound of the words and the imagistic nature of the phrases. He'll have a cool-sounding line, but it doesn't relate to the next line or the one after.
You're right, it would confuse them, but then I might be asked questions I can't answer. I may decide on TCU. Purple is the unifying color for my home decor and I can answer questions about Horned Frogs and Fort Worth. I have a lovely ceramic dog on my hearth and that will just have to do.
The final straw with Neil Young was the relative wanting to play "Boxcar" at my father's funeral. I didn't react well and the other relative who kept insisting on "The Dance" was in the blast zone. They pretty well leave me alone now. I'd already had to nix Vince Gill and "Go Rest High on that Mountain" with another relative. The chorus is fine, but the verses were so NOT my father. That relative was happy to have the chorus printed on the program.
You are absolutely right about Neil Young's lyrics. However, lyrics are important at funerals. So are the deceased's stated preferences. I cannot have been the only relative to have heard his opinion that modern music was good, but he liked the old hymns in church.
Post a Comment