Sports: Pro & Con

Introductions - Urban Issues - Miscellaneous News, Topics, Interests
min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby min-chi-cbus » September 17th, 2014, 9:39 am

I found this article really fascinating.

I need to provide the mandatory disclaimer that I think what Adrian Peterson is absolute, completely wrong.

But I have found some really interesting commentary coming from some people (especially of the privileged, white variety) that rubbed me wrong for some reason. This article seems to get at some of what isn't being discussed (even if I don't completely agree with some of what she's saying).
Oh my goodness, I don't even know where to begin with that article!!

Firstly, let me humbly say there is a note of truth to much of what the author/professor wrote. That shouldn't be too shocking, she is, afterall, a professor. However, the article puts black people in a positive light and as victims, and white people in a "we-all-aspire-to-be-Christopher-Columbus-slave-whacking-aholes" light.

I'd instead argue that the similarities I see between how people discipline their children has almost NOTHING to do with race whatsoever. It has a lot more to do with income, or lack thereof, and it also has to do with socioeconomic status (aside from income). Let's get the cat out of the bag right now: I'm white (shocker city!), I grew up mostly in good school systems with two loving parents in a semi-Christian household. Violence was STRONGLY discouraged, period. BUT (big but), physical disciplined ruled where a "talking to" or grounding failed. In fact, I'm pretty sure most working-class white parents or people we know have similar stories, but I think the key is the word(s) "working-class", and not "white".

I had the unique experience of growing up in 2-3 different socioeconomic stratii (what's plural for stratus?): lower/middle class, upper-middle class, and fairly elite. See, my dad is a doctor, and children of doctors who stay in school as long as my father (14 years) don't initially grow up as rich -- in fact, we were flat broke for quite a while. Being able to experience the different levels of privilege that go with each of the three different social classes and coming from an extended family that's mostly lower-to-middle class has allowed me to see the various ways in which people (my friends, family, etc.) viewed the world, and what they were allowed to get away with.

My mother, who was born IN Chicago to very poor 1st and 2nd generation immigrants was disciplined as a child -- both physically and psychologically -- grew up with the hand of discipline. She, and everyone in her lineage and beyond dealt with discipline in the form of force. What she experienced as a child is a slightly muted version of what her parents experienced as children, and I experienced a slightly muted version of what she experienced. When she was bad, she was beaten with her mother's hands. Her brother: a belt or a fist, if necessary. Both very similar to "black culture" as described in this article, except for using switches or electrical cords (good God!). My father was the son of a Naval officer and I don't have to tell you that discipline and strictness reigned supreme when he grew up, although he rarely was the disciplinarian in my childhood, if for no other reason than because he was almost always at work when I was growing up. But when he DID enforce discipline, it was those episodes that really set me straight! My mom would use two methods with me: her open hand on my bottom or a hairbrush, and not just any hairbrush, but those spikey SOBs with thousands of bristles. If I covered my butt with my hand to avoid the spanking, out came the spikey brush, then the brush would continue what the hand started. This was when I was littler, of course. When I started getting as big or bigger than my mother, she learned that no level of hitting would do much to me anymore. Enter dad. The worst I had ever received was just with two hands to the butt (or maybe it was one), but it was enough to cause moderate to serious bruising and swelling and welting and, given that I was brought up to abhore violence (ironically), my mother was furious with the result and it never happened like that again. Aside from that, mainly spankings, groundings, eating soap, and the other niceties white children deal with (like loving parents who explain right from wrong so you understand the punishment and why you deserve it....that kind of thing).

Another note: I'm not that old, and am considered a Millennial (33 in November).

The author paints black culture to mirror her own, but really only her own of a middle to upper-middle class society, and not necessarily what I see and hear almost every single day. Disciplined children on the bus or train? Not even close, the kids run amok -- grade schoolers and teens alike! Some children sit like stones, yes, and all I can think of is that they've been so worked over before that they'll probably never do anything bad again in front of Mom or Dad, and it screams abuse to me. It's actually sad to see stoic children -- it doesn't look like they're learning much, just fearing things. Fear is NOT the key to discipline, it should be learning and improving and understanding. Fear brings resentment, and resentment brings hate (and hate brings the Dark Side - Yoda....had to do it!). What I see from most black people I encounter in a tough working-class city like Cleveland is resentment and hate. So to that end, if the author is saying that should be avoided, I totally agree. White people who are disciplined were never told that they were disciplined specifically so they can look good to any one particular race or ethnicity (moreso to be respectful to their elders and themselves). So if black people supposedly do so in order to make it in a "white man's world" as the author suggests, perhaps that's where the rift begins between the two cultures. I don't think it's necessary, however, based on the things I know about white people and what they think about (hint: it's not how to hold black people down).

I personally am getting a little tired of living in an area where violence is so widely regarded. Everyone acts hard, disrespect is commonplace, racism is omnipresent, and I don't want to subject my family to such a thing. On my walks home I see groups of black kids fighting bare-fisted with eachother and video-taping it......for fun (but really, for "practice")! White kids I know mostly wrestle, and if they box, they use gloves. Black culture (at least here in Cleveland) is ALL about being "the man": talking with a purposely low voice, being misogynistic, getting ripped, never backing down (even if there isn't a fight or a conflict), acting "hard", walking with "swagga'" (which I just think makes people look like they have a limp or disorder), etc. These may be stereotypes, and they certainly don't apply to all African Americans (i.e. "blacks"), but it's certainly the prevailing culture where I am living now (again, at least here in CLE). It's really not how I want to subject my two girls to the world ("diversity" bonus aside). Yet growing up in a household with an absentee father (it goes beyond just working lots), I looked OUTWARD to define what it is to be a man, and I took a lot of pride in trying to be at least 50% of what the stereotypical black man in America is today, based on what I just outlined above. You sort of become one of the herd, as a result, for better or worse, and my skin color had zero to do with it.

Getting close to full-circle now, I'm suggesting that perhaps the reason certain cultures of people act the way they do has more to do with a.) their socioeconomic status and place in the world (i.e. are you beneath others, and do you resent them as a result?), and b.) how your parents raise you to be the man or woman you SHOULD be "Should" meaning a productive, respectful member of a larger society, not necessarily [fill in the blank'] neighborhood or community -- hard to argue we shouldn't be both, I hope. If a parent isn't present to assist with that or the parents themselves reinforce the same vicious cycle of fear and resentment they were taught, you're more likely to stay stuck in the rut, and the resentment perpetuates itself. I see this all the time with some people I'm close to (in this case, mostly white people). I was raised to spank growing up, and that's my default now. My wife, however, having not been raised that way, refuses such a thing. Right now I feel almost defenseless when disciplining my children because much of what I know and fall back on has been already ruled out, so I'm learning how to learn better methods of discipline. I haven't figured it out just yet, and my kids can act like little shits at times, but it's a work-in-progress for the better.

I hope that's the ultimate angle of the article, and of Adrian Peterson's case as well, and not us vs. them or finger-pointing and casting judgement, respectively.

IllogicalJake
Target Field
Posts: 513
Joined: January 30th, 2014, 9:03 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby IllogicalJake » September 17th, 2014, 10:00 am

I work in an office and I have to sign a Code of Conduct agreement each and every year. In fact, most of the places I've worked enforce such a thing.
I have to think that one's field of work really affects whether they would have to sign one. I've never had to sign a conduct form as part of my employment (though my current role is public-facing, so that is in some ways surprising).
Err, I think you attributed min-chi-bus's quote to me by accident. I've never had to sign a conduct agreement as part of my work. Although if I did, I'd expect to be fired if I were in similar shoes... :\
i talk too much. web dev, downtown. admin @ tower.ly

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1384
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby xandrex » September 17th, 2014, 10:03 am

In fact, I'm pretty sure most working-class white parents or people we know have similar stories, but I think the key is the word(s) "working-class", and not "white".
Class no doubt plays a very large role in how we view the world, but with race so intertwined, it would be hard to argue that's not also a factor. Cultures aren't defined by any one of us, but we're all shaped by them.

Corporal punishment happens across incomes, races, etc. But the context of that punishment is always different. One thing to note though is that it is always for the same end result: power and control.
Disciplined children on the bus or train? Not even close, the kinds run amok -- grade schoolers and teens alike!
I didn't quite see eye to eye with the author on this part either. I haven't noticed black parents doing any better (or any worse) at controlling their children. I have seen a proclivity toward milder forms corporal punishment (a smack on back of the head, for instance) amongst some groups, but for the most part, kids really aren't restrained regardless of their color or (perceived) class.

xandrex
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1384
Joined: January 30th, 2013, 11:14 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby xandrex » September 17th, 2014, 10:04 am

I work in an office and I have to sign a Code of Conduct agreement each and every year. In fact, most of the places I've worked enforce such a thing.
I have to think that one's field of work really affects whether they would have to sign one. I've never had to sign a conduct form as part of my employment (though my current role is public-facing, so that is in some ways surprising).
Err, I think you attributed min-chi-bus's quote to me by accident. I've never had to sign a conduct agreement as part of my work. Although if I did, I'd expect to be fired if I were in similar shoes... :\
Oops, I definitely did (I had done some editing and mis-remembered who I was quoting!). Apologies!

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby min-chi-cbus » September 17th, 2014, 10:06 am


Class no doubt plays a very large role in how we view the world, but with race so intertwined, it would be hard to argue that's not also a factor. Cultures aren't defined by any one of us, but we're all shaped by them.

Corporal punishment happens across incomes, races, etc. But the context of that punishment is always different. One thing to note though is that it is always for the same end result: power and control.



I didn't quite see eye to eye with the author on this part either. I haven't noticed black parents doing any better (or any worse) at controlling their children. I have seen a proclivity toward milder forms corporal punishment (a smack on back of the head, for instance) amongst some groups, but for the most part, kids really aren't restrained regardless of their color or (perceived) class.
I tend to agree, but I think much of that has to do with isolation vs. integration, black or white or whatever. My Polish/Italian relatives who like to stay in their inner circles have many of the same plights that the average black American does (to a degree anyway), and I credit that mostly to staying within "the rut".

The odd thing is that blows a hole in that theory is that where I live is nearly 50%/50% black/white, as a city. But the areas where blacks live and whites live is SHARPLY divided, so maybe the areas where integration is highest also support better outcomes, but that doesn't seem to be the case either (hence, where we live).
Last edited by min-chi-cbus on September 17th, 2014, 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4615
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby David Greene » September 17th, 2014, 10:08 am

I tend to agree, but I think much of that has to do with isolation vs. integration, black or white or whatever. My Polish/Italian relatives who like to stay in their inner circles have many of the same plights that the average black American does (to a degree anyway), and I credit that mostly to staying within "the rut".
It's different for Black people, though. Society doesn't let them integrate. It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of (white) culture and dominance.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby min-chi-cbus » September 17th, 2014, 10:10 am

I tend to agree, but I think much of that has to do with isolation vs. integration, black or white or whatever. My Polish/Italian relatives who like to stay in their inner circles have many of the same plights that the average black American does (to a degree anyway), and I credit that mostly to staying within "the rut".
It's different for Black people, though. Society doesn't let them integrate. It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of (white) culture and dominance.
Who's not allowed to integrate? People with means move, and people without don't, but everyone's "allowed" to move almost wherever they please. People congregate together for support. It makes sense, but I think it can do more harm than good (rich, white people included).

I also live in an integrated neighborhood, so maybe that's why my opinion/perspective is slightly different.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4615
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby David Greene » September 17th, 2014, 10:16 am

I tend to agree, but I think much of that has to do with isolation vs. integration, black or white or whatever. My Polish/Italian relatives who like to stay in their inner circles have many of the same plights that the average black American does (to a degree anyway), and I credit that mostly to staying within "the rut".
It's different for Black people, though. Society doesn't let them integrate. It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of (white) culture and dominance.
Who's not allowed to integrate? People with means move, and people without don't, but everyone's "allowed" to move almost wherever they please. People congregate together for support. It makes sense, but I think it can do more harm than good (rich, white people included).

I also live in an integrated neighborhood, so maybe that's why my opinion/perspective is slightly different.
I'm not talking about geographically integrating. I'm talking about integration as being accepted by society. Black folk are a long way from that. There are still legal barriers in place that make it harder for Black people to succeed and that's not even getting to the cultural issues. It's all about white privilege. That's what the article author is talking about.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby min-chi-cbus » September 17th, 2014, 11:20 am

And my argument is that white privilege (whatever that is) isn't limited to white people, it's limited to rich people. It should be called "rich privilege" or "successful privilege". I also argue that black people, among most other primary cultures in this country, do a lot on their own as per the prevailing culture (generally, not everybody) to keep from being more widely accepted.

Just as an example, if/when I am mad about something (and I tend to have an expressive face) people don't want to talk to me, regardless if I'm trying to outwardly portray anger or hostility. Black people (or white or anybody) who purposely portray that hostility are never going to become widely accepted and trusted members of society, because it makes people not want to associate with you or trust you. Even if it's part of the culture or it's a necessity of living in the hood, it won't matter to somebody who does not live that way and has more privilege. Black people who are open and friendly assimilate just fine, and 99% of even the most "lily white" people aren't afraid to accept them and associate with them (and the person can do so in any manner, as long as it's open and friendly). I personally find that I reach out to and talk to those people (whatever color or status) who are the most friendly and seemingly accepting, and I don't think that's a coincidence, I think most of us would do the same.

For that matter, it doesn't matter who (black or white) is privileged, those who are privileged will dictate how society "beneath" them will have to act in order to assimilate. Just like if you want to excel at your job and learn from a mentor, you look UP to a boss or executive and act accordingly -- they don't assimilate to suit your needs, because they don't have to. That may not be fair, but that's life, and I strongly feel that it's true for all people along the socioeconomic scale. OR, that is to say, I think the correlation is much stronger along the socioeconomic scale than the racial or cultural scale (i.e. people are willing to adapt more for wealth/success than racial/cultural reasons, but both are probably true). It may be even harder for blacks, but I don't think it's necessarily BECAUSE of whites, or other privileged folks. As a white person of modest means and high aspirations, I don't expect anybody to assimilate to meet my needs when it's I who wants something different. I don't aspire to be "white" or with white people/culture, I aspire to be successful as I define it (which is basically to have financial freedom, a loving family, and general happiness and health), and I try to assimilate with those who have what I don't. If it were only blacks in this country who were considered the most successful, what would you say if all non-blacks told blacks that they have to change in order to allow the non-blacks to succeed? What if it had nothing to do with the fact that they were black, but instead had some cultural values that gave them a distinct socioeconomic advantage over other cultures (e.g. you could argue that Norwegians have a strong positive culture, and I'm not Norwegian, but I admire their culture)?

This is a really interesting subject and I appreciate the different perspectives. Just like with the author, she has only lived life once (unless she's Hindu) and can really only speak about the life she knows through her own eyes. Same with everybody else. There isn't necessarily a "right" or "wrong" viewpoint, unless you're completely making it up. I don't think there's a simple answer either, however, and there's also some overlap that exists (it's not all black and white, pardon the pun).
Last edited by min-chi-cbus on September 17th, 2014, 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 2869
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby min-chi-cbus » September 17th, 2014, 11:55 am

Let me say one more thing that's more in line with my original point: I feel that Adrian Peterson is not getting a fair shake right now, despite the (terrible) circumstances surrounding the issue, mainly because we don't know all of the facts just yet and people are being quick to pass judgment. HOWEVER, I don't think that him being black is the reason he's receiving such hostility (if a white star like Peyton Manning did the same thing you'd hear the same outcry), but rather because of the prevailing culture in which he was raised does not assimilate well with the prevailing privileged culture that currently exists, and the values those people embody. It's top-down, based on $$/success -- what the top thinks is moral and okay is the standard by which the rest live. I think you could also add "majority" as a reason for privilege, in addition to wealth and/or success.

If people of privilege in this country (white or any race) treated their children similarly when it came to discipline, this wouldn't be as much of an issue (although there aren't many cultures I know of -- black included -- that are A-O-K with brutally whipping a 4 year old). In short, he's being outcast because of his actions, not his race/culture/socioeconomic status. I'm not sure the author (or many black people) feel that's true, however, and that's what I'm trying to explain. It certainly brings up some larger issues though, like the differences in corporal punishment between different races/cultures (generally speaking, of course) and what is today considered okay and excessive, and how that's changed.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4615
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby David Greene » September 17th, 2014, 1:29 pm

And my argument is that white privilege (whatever that is) isn't limited to white people, it's limited to rich people.
It's not. It's really not. You and I have privilege because we're white. Rich people have more privilege, yes, but everyone white person has privilege a person of color doesn't. There is ample sociological research to back this up.
Black people (or white or anybody) who purposely portray that hostility are never going to become widely accepted and trusted members of society, because it makes people not want to associate with you or trust you. Even if it's part of the culture or it's a necessity of living in the hood, it won't matter to somebody who does not live that way and has more privilege.
That is indeed white privilege. The fact that black folk have to behave a certain way in "the hood" to survive is not something a white person experiences in the same way. Yes, there are white people that need to be more street-wise. But white people, for example, don't have to deal with racial profiling. White people are generally allowed a lot more leeway.

"Acting black" isn't a crime but we treat it like one. The politics of respectability is ludicrous.
Black people who are open and friendly assimilate just fine, and 99% of even the most "lily white" people aren't afraid to accept them and associate with them (and the person can do so in any manner, as long as it's open and friendly). I personally find that I reach out to and talk to those people (whatever color or status) who are the most friendly and seemingly accepting, and I don't think that's a coincidence, I think most of us would do the same.
It might be informative to talk to your black friends and ask them about this. You might be surprised. I've heard plenty from black friends and colleagues about what they deal with on a daily basis. They certainly fall in the "open and friendly" category. Heads up, it takes building some trust to get a black person to open up to you about this. It's well worth it!
For that matter, it doesn't matter who (black or white) is privileged
It does in this country. Our whole society is built around race, whether we like it or not. That's simply historical fact.
Just like if you want to excel at your job and learn from a mentor, you look UP to a boss or executive and act accordingly
I think we are talking about two different things. I'm not talking about showing respect to "elders" and the like. Of course we all have to do that and it's no different for blacks or whites in that respect. I'm talking about simply living life. Black people deal with B.S. all the time and it has nothing to do with *their* behavior.
What if it had nothing to do with the fact that they were black, but instead had some cultural values that gave them a distinct socioeconomic advantage over other cultures (e.g. you could argue that Norwegians have a strong positive culture, and I'm not Norwegian, but I admire their culture)?
This isn't about culture. Our country has deep-seated aspects of racism and prejudice embedded in our society. "Black culture" is a response to that. It is not right or wrong, it just is. We as white people don't get to judge that.
This is a really interesting subject and I appreciate the different perspectives. Just like with the author, she has only lived life once (unless she's Hindu) and can really only speak about the life she knows through her own eyes. Same with everybody else. There isn't necessarily a "right" or "wrong" viewpoint, unless you're completely making it up. I don't think there's a simple answer either, however, and there's also some overlap that exists (it's not all black and white, pardon the pun).
I too appreciate the conversation. Please don't take what I'm saying as a judgment of you or any other individual. It's a judgment of society as a whole.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4615
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby David Greene » September 17th, 2014, 1:37 pm

Let me say one more thing that's more in line with my original point: I feel that Adrian Peterson is not getting a fair shake right now, despite the (terrible) circumstances surrounding the issue, mainly because we don't know all of the facts just yet and people are being quick to pass judgment.
We certainly know enough to make some value judgments. The photos are there and he admits to doing it. We really don't need anything else.
HOWEVER, I don't think that him being black is the reason he's receiving such hostility
Absolutely not! I've never heard anyone argue that. The message of the article is that Peterson's behavior was formed in a certain context that developed as a result of living in an oppressive society. That doesn't excuse the action but it helps explain it. I'm one of those who thinks the book should be thrown at him.
what the top thinks is moral and okay is the standard by which the rest live.
That's certainly part of it but given the psychological research, it's objectively true that corporal punishment is harmful.
In short, he's being outcast because of his actions, not his race/culture/socioeconomic status. I'm not sure the author (or many black people) feel that's true, however, and that's what I'm trying to explain.
Thanks, that helps clarify things a lot. I didn't get the same feeling from the piece. In fact the author goes out of her way to explicitly say what AP did was wrong. What she's providing is an explanation of why he did it. That's not the same as excusing it or claiming he's being punished because he's black.
It certainly brings up some larger issues though, like the differences in corporal punishment between different races/cultures (generally speaking, of course) and what is today considered okay and excessive, and how that's changed.
Indeed. I sincerely hope this tragedy (and it is a tragedy in the traditional sense) sparks some good conversation and learning for everyone. I've already learned a lot simply by following some links to articles on parenting strategies.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3403
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: U.S. Bank Stadium Construction Updates

Postby Wedgeguy » December 7th, 2015, 9:59 am

I would think that if they are going to get some tax abatement that they would fall under the same type of requirement. IF they don't, I'm sure that BLM would be up in arms that they got a subsidy but did not have those requirement. In these current times I don't think they want protesters outside their construction site. Just my observation.

Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4677
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Sports: Pro & Con

Postby Anondson » December 7th, 2015, 4:14 pm

The economics of sports is probably a bubble that is about to pop.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... o-pop.html

Wonder what this will mean for stadium finances around here?

mplsjaromir
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1138
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 8:03 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby mplsjaromir » December 7th, 2015, 4:27 pm

Nothing, likely. None of the stadiums around here are funded by ESPN. ESPN is still crazy profitable, going forward they won't likely be spending nine figures on new studios like they have done in the past. Sports media is still by far the most healthy of any media, very difficult to pirate or time shift sports programming.

nordeast homer
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 717
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 11:11 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby nordeast homer » December 7th, 2015, 4:45 pm

ESPN's programming has gone downhill in that time period, I'd be more apt to think it has to do with that than peoples overall interest in sports. People I know are spending just as much or more on sports, both college and pro. If you recall, the Vikings have added suites to the original design to meet demand.
With the addition of MLS we may see a team or two struggle if they have perpetual losing seasons, but the fact that MLS is headed here is a sign that sports are as popular as ever here.

Anondson
IDS Center
Posts: 4677
Joined: July 21st, 2013, 8:57 pm
Location: Where West Minneapolis Once Was

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby Anondson » December 7th, 2015, 7:20 pm

To follow the money chain a bit here... How much of a team's value/revenue is its share of media contracts? How much do the teams' ability to afford facilities (and their facility's staff) depend on current levels of media payments?

Teams and sports that are heavily dependent on network contracts I see struggling to make financial ends meet. Teams and sports that are less dependent on networks, but get by on subscribers and members, will weather the change better.

billhelm
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 175
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:59 am

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby billhelm » December 8th, 2015, 8:50 am

ESPN's drop in subs is probably mostly from people who don't watch sports to begin with. It's included with most cable packages and many cord-cutters are able to do it because they don't care about sports. Sports media like ESPN is going to have to evolve away from the subsidy model they've enjoyed for years and that will probably require some tough choices about their business model.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7767
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby mattaudio » December 8th, 2015, 9:04 am

Interesting that sports media is subsidized by [hashpipe]peoplewhodontcareaboutsports just like sports stadia are subsidized by [hashmark]unwillingtaxpayers. And that doesn't even count all the things we're learning about how at least two of the four "meat and potatoes" sports create major lifelong physical degradation for many athletes. Maybe the whole model of sportsball is not sustainable once the curtain is pulled back.

BikesOnFilm
Foshay Tower
Posts: 985
Joined: February 20th, 2015, 12:38 pm

Re: Sports: Pro & Con

Postby BikesOnFilm » December 8th, 2015, 9:16 am

But without sportball, how else will we make sure American children are instilled with the correct emotional framework so they respond correctly to appeals to nationalism?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests