From: hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Bruce Hasch)
Subject: Re: In Defence of Fair-Weather Fans
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:35:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.084618.1@uwovax.uwo.ca>, jpalmer@uwovax.uwo.ca (The Econoclast) writes...
>In Defence of Fair-Weather Fans
>by John Palmer
> 
>There is absolutely nothing honourable about being a die-hard "______" fan,
>cheering for them through thick and thin, especially during seasons when the
>team is losing two-thirds of its games. I don't understand how this type of
>masochistic loyalty came to be elevated to a virtue for so many people.

I completely disagree with this.  Loyalty toward a team tends to be formed 
when you first become a baseball fan, which for most of the people on r.s.bb
is at a very young age.  This loyalty, while maybe not quite a VIRTUE, runs
awfully deep.  

>When I watch a sporting event, I like to see my team win. I like to see them
>win really big. I like to see ungodly, lopsided scores in my team's favour. I
>don't like nail-biting defensive duels. And most of all, I hate to see my team
>lose. 

Of course.  That's part of being a FAN of a certain team.   

>Most people are like me, but for some reason they think they have to allege
>loyalty even when their team is losing. Why bother? 

To me, this shows that you know nothing about being a fan of a team.  Don't
get me wrong, you still may be a BIG fan of the game of baseball, but you're
not a fan of a team.  I'll root for the O's whether they're 64-98 or 98-64.
I'll go to games.  I'll watch them on TV.  That's loyalty--and that's part
of being a fan.

>We all know that fewer
>people attend games played by losing teams, fewer people watch televised
>events of losing teams, and fewer people buy the souvenirs of losing teams.
>Why hypocritically claim die-hard loyalty as a virtue and not practice it? 

This is the flaw in your logic.  People who desert a team when they're 
struggling are NOT fans of that team.  People who only follow winners are
fair-weather fans, and they make winning teams a lot of money by purchasing
souvenirs, going to games, etc. --and that's OK, but you are mistaken if
you believe that a majority of baseball fans don't show a certain degree 
of this die-hard loyalty.

>Why not just admit that we like to cheer for winners?

Of course--everyone wants to win!  I'm sure a decent chunk of people on the 
net are rooting for someone in the LCS, even if "their team" isn't in the
playoffs.  

>Be honest now. When your team is winning, how much channel hopping do
>you do? Heck, even during commercials, I'm reluctant to switch to another
>channel since I like to see my team win. 
> 
>But when my team is losing, like most other so-called fans, I begin to wonder
>what else is on tv. I begin to browse through mail-order catalogues. I give
>serious consideration to fixing myself a sandwich.

I disagree.  I might turn off a game that we're losing 11-1--but I also might
turn off one we're leading 9-0.  If the outcome of the game isn't in doubt, 
I'm more apt to turn off the TV.  If the O's are losing 5-2 in the 9th, I'll
damn well be in front of the tube until it's over.  

>It's fun to cheer for a winner, and it's not fun (except in some perverse
>situations) to cheer for a loser. How many people were there, cheering for the
>Blue Jays in 1980? How many people were there, cheering for the Cleveland
>Indians in 1990? How many people were there, cheering for the Indianapolis
>Colts in 1986? Not nearly as many as when the teams were new or were
>winning.

I went to ~40 games in 1988 :-(, and rooted for the O's in every one of them.
Even though they lost 107 games.  Even though they started 0-21.  Even though
they had such sure-fire Hall Of Famers as Ken Dixon and Eric Bell and Wade
Rowdon and Fat Jim Traber and Lumberin' Larry Sheets and Ken Gerhart and Mike
Hart and Tom Niedenfuer.  I rooted for them even though Cal Ripken, Sr. had no
clue how to manage a pitching staff.  And enjoyed it.  Certainly not as much
as I would have had we been winning--but that's part of the game.  Sometimes
you win, sometimes you lose.

>Most people like cheering for winners, and they readily shift their allegiances
>when other teams (or companies or candidates) become winners. 

Bull.  I'll root for someone else when the O's are eliminated (whoever is 
chasing Toronto :-)), but with nowhere near the zeal with which I root on 
the O's.  Period.  As for candidates, I think George Bush is a slimeball and
Dan Quayle is an idiot.  And if, by some miracle, the USA is stupid enough
to re-elect these clowns, I'll still think that.  Because most of us stand
for something, be it in politics or baseball.  You don't.  

>And I, quite frankly, see nothing wrong with these shifting allegiances, since the seeming
>fickleness of consumers spurs managers and owners into trying to produce
>better products. It would often be the case that if we continued to show loyalty
>to a team (or product or whatever) regardless of how bad it was, people would
>have a substantially reduced incentive to improve.

But on the other hand, without us--teams which have bad years would move, fold,
or otherwise cease to exist.  Without loyal fans, the game can't survive any
adversity.

>So in fact, all you die-hard fans, you are doing little more than promoting
>mediocrity, and that is nothing to be proud of. By continuing to cheer for and
>support the poor performers, you are not egalitarian loyalists. Rather, you are
>misguided demoralizing inhibitors of growth and improvement.

Again, without loyal fans, the game dies.  

>It is the fair-weather fans who are providing all the excitement and incentives
>for athletes and others to improve. Instead of having special ceremonies for
>alleged die-hard fans, leagues and teams should hold events for fair-weather
>fans. After all, we are the ones who spur them on to bigger and better
>performances. 
> 
>And with all that in mind, Go Blue Jays (but if they lose, go Expos or some
>other team that might have a chance of winning next year).

Have fun being fickle.  Again, I'm not saying that you aren't a BASEBALL fan-
but you aren't a Blue Jays fan.  Remember, fan is short for fanatic--and that
does imply a certain degree of loyalty come hell or high water...

>  Slower than John Olerud's legs and Cito Gaston's mind, combined

Yikes!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce 'No Billy or Bush in 1993' Hasch                hasch@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu
Roland:  Leave Bill Unprotected			Marlins:  Please take him!!
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball