My rant yesterday about Brett Favre got me to thinking about what I would do if the unlikely were to occur and he wound up a Minnesota Viking. Could I cheer for a guy I despise if he could help my team win? Could I enjoy his success? It's a tough question to answer.
There have been a couple instances in the past when I player I dislike has joined a team I like. When Jeff Kent joined the Astros, I didn't think much of him (particularly because I dislike the Giants), but I got fairly used to him in the couple of years he played in Houston. My dislike for him, though, was nowhere near my feelings about Favre.
Then when Pettite and Clemens joined the 'Stros from the hated Yankees, again I was reluctant to cheer for them, but eventually did, even if half-heartedly. I was able to put aside my feelings for the individuals (to an extent) in order to enjoy my favorite team's success.
When the Broncos, another of my favorite teams, drafted Maurice Clarett in 2005, I was guardedly optimistic that he might turn out to be a good player. He clearly did not, and proved before he even hit the practice field that he would be a problem. Still, I don't hold a grudge against the guy because his life is such a mess. I can only feel sorry for him.
The difference between Favre and any of the other players I mentioned is that my level of spite is much higher for Favre. Would that change if he suited up in the purple and gold? At this point, I would guess that it might, if he helped them win, but if he stunk the place up, I'd be even more spiteful of him for bringing his F-game to a favorite team of mine.
So, I pose this question to you, the reader. How would you feel if someone you despised joined a team that you liked? Could you root for said player to help your team, or would you continue to hate the player, regardless of the effect on your team?
My guess is that most people would put up with a player they hate if the player got results for the team. Just look at Barry Bonds' popularity in San Francisco. I think most sports fans will gripe about a player, unless that player is on a team they like, in which case their tolerance for the player goes way up. For the average fan, winning trumps all other concerns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I think what you're saying points to the significance of team sports and why we love them so much. It's not about the players, even though they get most of the publicity these days. When it comes down to it, for fans, it's all about the team. Would I like to see Brett Favre or Barry Bonds on my favorite team? At first, no, but if he helped that team win...
It's also funny how we grow attached to certain players so much that we're willing to put aside our hatred of certain teams if a favorite player of ours ends up there. It's tough being a sports fan in the era of free agency.
Free agency can be tough at times when a favorite player leaves a favorite team and when it seems like teams and players have no loyalty, but I don't know if I'd like there to be no free agency. It might make it harder for struggling teams to improve and could lead to long-standing dynasties, which I think are detrimental to fans other than those of the dynastic team.
On the other hand, if there were no free agency, then favorite players would stay around and it could potentially keep player salaries from ballooning like they have in the modern era. It might also make it easier for small market teams to compete if the draft process was kept around because players couldn't just jump ship for a big payoff elsewhere.
I don't imagine free agency will ever be rid of, however, since I think it is a very good thing for players since it lets them maximize their earnings by making teams bid on their services. And even without free agency, I would bet ticket prices would still be very high, with the franchise owners making even more money off the teams than they do now.
I'm certainly not saying get rid of free agency. While it does detract from player, team and fan loyalty, it also gives perpetual hope to fans of bad teams that, with one of two big moves in the offseason, their team can be right back in contention. It is strange to look at the way free agency has shaped each of the three major sports leagues, and it would be interesting to debate which system is the "best."
The fact is, free agency is a necessary evil to prevent work stoppages, because if you removed the player's right to change teams, you put all the power in the hands of ownership and it wouldn't take long before there was major unrest on the labor side. It's the same with all industries in this country which is why the vast majority of us are free to change jobs at will. Don't you just wish there was a salary cap for corporate CEOs?
A salary cap for CEOs? Well, now, that's dangerous thinking there. You'd better just go back to your work and hope for the gift certificate to the grocery they give out as a year-end bonus.
Post a Comment