Hey there sports fans!

Badgley · Post by **Badgley** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:06 pm

I was having a conversation with a collegue at work today regarding Baseball this season. Throughout the course of the conversation my co-worker kept making statements such as: Our pitching will be great, We will have good hitting, We should be a playoff contender. My question is this, why the personal ownership? I understand that fans play a valuable role in sports, as and audience does for tuba/euphonium players. But I still do not understand the personal ownership. Any thoughts?

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 7:49 pm

My guess is, that you're talking with people who have never belonged to anything. So they adopt the team instead of the other way 'round.

People don't talk that way about individual musicians, but I've talked with enough board types who speak about their orchestra without owning any of it, or even donating much. It goes with the territory... (in this case literally; proximity)

At least with sports you have a direct result against other "franchises"; in music, while it should be about artistry things are often matters of circumstance. Do you think that the audience of x orchestra actually prefers the romantic approach that the music director takes? Do they have any choice? And except for a few cities in the world, actually have more than one orchestra to listen to?

I've never had much exposure to the British brass band competition model, so I don't know if they have supporters that don't have vested interest. I do agree with bloke, though, aside from music I tend myself to go for individual activities, not teams, nor to live vicariously through anybody.

Matt G · Post by **Matt G** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:42 pm

I love this stuff too.

I find it ironic that the most commited (in every sense of the word) fans have almost no athletic prowess.

They might golf.

I was in the business of turning down coaches during my high school days. Too many of them saw me run for 30 minutes straight in PE around the track and run a low 5's 40 yard dash at 250 lbs. The only sport I really wish I has pursued was baseball, but I had a good enough time playing intramural softball in college. I played intramural basketball, also, and some pick up football in college.

When I tell people some of this, they automatically start in with sports talk. I think it may frustrate them when I really don't care and I don't know current players. I usually ask about their athletic abilties and participation, and it is usually nil or close to it.

Anywho, I see sports as a viable hobby, but I really dislike those who feel that their opinion is both unique and valid.

TubaRay · Post by **TubaRay** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:21 pm

Matthew Gilchrest wrote: Anywho, I see sports as a viable hobby, but I really dislike those who feel that their opinion is both unique and valid.

Of course you realize this means you dislike a very large number of people, right?

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:24 pm

TubaRay wrote:Of course you realize this means you dislike a very large number of people, right?

He's a tuba player, isn't he?

TubaRay · Post by **TubaRay** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:35 am

windshieldbug wrote:
TubaRay wrote:Of course you realize this means you dislike a very large number of people, right?
He's a tuba player, isn't he?

Good point!

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 4:24 am

When the Rams left Anaheim in 1995 (and the Raiders played their home games in Oakland at the same time--the team NEVER really moved), you never saw so many grieving sports fans! I didn't get to see the whole thing, I left for Southeast Asia in August 1995 and didn't return to the U.S. Mainland for four years.

Coming back to Southern California (seven years ago), Los Angeles still didn't have a football team. I thought sure everyone would adopt the Chargers as their favorite team (they started out in L.A.!) But no, some people still liked the Rams. Some liked the Raiders (grrrrr!

). Some liked the 49ers. A few liked the Chargers. Most said they were waiting for the NFL to do something. They lost interest in professional football, well, from the standpoint that they didn't want to go to home games, didn't have a favorite team, and felt dejected that Georgia Frontere would desert a place that really loved its team ("oh, yeah?"

).

The closest thing to this instance was when New York, which had THREE Major League Baseball teams, lost both of its National League teams when the Dodgers and the Giants moved to California in the late 1950s. The Mets were established just a few years after that.

The powers that be in the National Football League say that Los Angeles may have a football team in two years. But they are not to blame. Several businesses have had good ideas to put up stadiums in and around L.A. Even today, when I drive by a big pit across the Foothill Freeway (I-210) from the Miller Brewery in Irwindale, I subconsciously say to myself, "Isn't that where the Raiders are going to play?" 12 years ago, they planned to do that. There have been very few unifying efforts to get a team. With the pending reconstruction of the Memorial Coliseum, we shall see.

I am not so sure Los Angeles deserves its own professional football team. L.A. has an Arena Football team, the Avengers. Maybe that's ALL L.A. will have!

LoyalTubist · Post by **LoyalTubist** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:18 pm

Actually, Anaheim had a pretty good facility with the baseball stadium there. Cal State Long Beach used it until about 1990, then dropped football altogether in 1992 (along with Cal State Fullerton and the University of the Pacific in Stockton, of the Big West conference). It was called Anaheim Stadium, until rennovations a few years ago, then renamed Edison Ball Park. They made it look like it was for baseball only--maybe they were trying to ward off any NFL teams from coming. It was named Edison for Southern California Edison, the local power company. Disney bought the California Angels and they became the Anaheim Angels. Just before Disney sold the team, they won the World Series (and even die-hard Dodger fans considered the Angels "my team.") The new owner rechristened the team the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. He wasn't redesignating where the team was playing its games--he was incorporating a Spanish translation of the team into the name--so everyone would have to say it! The only problem with this is los Ã¡ngeles means angels in Spanish, but that is not what the local Spanish language newspapers call the team (even today, with the "new" name.) La OpiniÃ³n, the Spanish language paper of Los Angeles calls the team los Serafines or Seraphim. They play home games in the same place, now known as Angel Stadium.

Maybe Anaheim shouldn't get an NFL team either... You don't know WHAT they will call it.

tubatooter1940 · Post by **tubatooter1940** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:18 pm

""I am not so sure Los Angeles deserves its own professional football team." Quote

If they get one then New Orleans will want one.
Since 1967, I have recorded Saints games and only watched if they won.
Think how many Sunday afternoons I have had to spend outside doing things. I then get to watch the whole game in an hour zipping thrugh commercials.
I risk being flamed by theorizing that sports fans are like adults with no children who dote on their pets.
The New Orleans Saints will never write me a letter telling me I suck and ordering me to never root for them again. I can safely invest all my devotion to them with no chance of rejection. Barring hurricanes and stadium moves the Saints will be there for me 'til the day I die.