I watch monday night football because it is my job to watch sports and evaulate it from a critical standpoint, not because I stand to make millions of dollars off of it.
It is because I am questioning/training future workers in the sport industry in what they are doing to and for society. If these students see who and/or what sport benefits perhaps positive social change can be made. What's your problem with that?
btw your quote only works if capitalism erases history, which it doesn't.
It is because I am questioning/training future workers in the sport industry in what they are doing to and for society. If these students see who and/or what sport benefits perhaps positive social change can be made. What's your problem with that?
I understand. Nothing in it for you. Pure sacrifice. I totally get it.
btw your quote only works if capitalism erases history, which it doesn't.
No, it doesn't. Nothing does. Regardless, "erasing history" has nothing to do with the point being made.
I watch monday night football because it is my job to watch sports and evaulate it from a critical standpoint, not because I stand to make millions of dollars off of it.
Just curious, but what kind of job makes you watch sports and evaluate it from a critical eye other than being a scout? You cant get the social ramifications of how a stadium benefits a city by watching a football game, so just kind of curious what it is you do and why watching MNF is in anyway beneficial to what you do? And I love football, so not complaining thta you watch football, just dont really see how watching it gives you any information into the postives or negatives it has on society.
Just curious, but what kind of job makes you watch sports and evaluate it from a critical eye other than being a scout? You cant get the social ramifications of how a stadium benefits a city by watching a football game, so just kind of curious what it is you do and why watching MNF is in anyway beneficial to what you do? And I love football, so not complaining thta you watch football, just dont really see how watching it gives you any information into the postives or negatives it has on society.
Well I could go on all day with this, but... the main premise is that sport has major a/effects on society and society has major a/effects on sport (Marx's dialectic ontology). So in other words sport is a major pedagogical (big word for teaching) tool in our daily lives. Think, for example, how long you spend watching sports per week, vs. say sitting and reading a book on the economic system of China. For most people the former is far longer and more exciting than the later, so you are then involved in a form of engaged learning - meaning that you process and learn more even if you don't think that it is learning.
What you are thinking of as critical is in the utilitarian sense of how to make sport more exciting. What I view as critical is what's going on in the (sporting) spectacle (Guy Debord has great work on the spectacle) that reflects, is reflected by, and simulataneously shapes society. So, in other words, what are the historical and contemporary dominant, subversive, and emergent themes, messages, priorities, and taken for granted assumptions that are produced and reified through sporting practices. Getting to your question how does this work for MNF:
We have a flyover before every NFL game? Why is that? Who benefits from it? Who pays for it? Where did this practice start?
Why do we sing the national anthem before sporting events? Why is it televised? Who benefits? Who doesn't? (BTW - Hitler popularized the playing of national anthems prior to sporting events by playing the German National Anthem during the Berlin Olympics twice after a German won an event ... think about that time you rise and stand)
Why is it that we watch oversized men, juiced up on steroids, running around and into each other as fast as they can in order to inflict various levels of pain onto other men? Why is it that we as a society choose to watch sports that the average male physiological body can perform better at? What does this say about American society when our favorite sport is American Football, which excludes women at nearly every level, except for sideline speaking parts for 'normative' sexy women?
Why do we get mad at say Terrel Owens or Deion Branch for being greedy b/c they want to receive more money for their labor, which, by the way is the equivalent of one auto accident per game in wear and tear on the body, but not so much at Tom Benson, Robert Kraft, Robert Loiza, etc. for being to miserly to share their enormous wealth? Who owns the media which makes the tv shows which criticize the players and not the owners?
What sort of class system does sport help create and reify? In what ways do different classes utilize the contemporary sporting system? Why does Michael Vick (who's regular season and post-season record is actually quite impressive) get so much criticism, yet Peyton Manning get so much love? In what ways does race, perceived sexuality, etc. play into that?
Anyway this is off the top of my head...and to answer your question I am a lecturer in sport and society at Towson University, a PhD student and TA in this area at the University of Maryland, College Park.
I understand. Nothing in it for you. Pure sacrifice. I totally get it. No, it doesn't. Nothing does. Regardless, "erasing history" has nothing to do with the point being made.
I love when I present opposing viewpoints, and back them up with strong evidence, then you claim that it has nothing to do with it or you get totally polemical and erase the original meaning behind the statement. If you are arguing that me watching MNF to make a better lecture at Towson University while getting $3100 for the semester is selfish then so be it, I just find that it is quite different than getting $185 million of the Louisianna publics money to finish a stadium. True capitalism in the Ayn Rand sense does involve the erasure of history or historical inequities for it to work, and in the way she argues it can't happen. You being a proponent of Rand in this way would be the same as me being a Marxist or neo-Marxist it can't happen you need to break from her historical context and move her theories into a more nuanced present to even have a shot at posing a good argument using her theory.
Well I could go on all day with this, but... the main premise is that sport has major a/effects on society and society has major a/effects on sport (Marx's dialectic ontology). So in other words sport is a major pedagogical (big word for teaching) tool in our daily lives. Think, for example, how long you spend watching sports per week, vs. say sitting and reading a book on the economic system of China. For most people the former is far longer and more exciting than the later, so you are then involved in a form of engaged learning - meaning that you process and learn more even if you don't think that it is learning.
What you are thinking of as critical is in the utilitarian sense of how to make sport more exciting. What I view as critical is what's going on in the (sporting) spectacle (Guy Debord has great work on the spectacle) that reflects, is reflected by, and simulataneously shapes society. So, in other words, what are the historical and contemporary dominant, subversive, and emergent themes, messages, priorities, and taken for granted assumptions that are produced and reified through sporting practices. Getting to your question how does this work for MNF:
We have a flyover before every NFL game? Why is that? Who benefits from it? Who pays for it? Where did this practice start?
Why do we sing the national anthem before sporting events? Why is it televised? Who benefits? Who doesn't? (BTW - Hitler popularized the playing of national anthems prior to sporting events by playing the German National Anthem during the Berlin Olympics twice after a German won an event ... think about that time you rise and stand)
Why is it that we watch oversized men, juiced up on steroids, running around and into each other as fast as they can in order to inflict various levels of pain onto other men? Why is it that we as a society choose to watch sports that the average male physiological body can perform better at? What does this say about American society when our favorite sport is American Football, which excludes women at nearly every level, except for sideline speaking parts for 'normative' sexy women?
Why do we get mad at say Terrel Owens or Deion Branch for being greedy b/c they want to receive more money for their labor, which, by the way is the equivalent of one auto accident per game in wear and tear on the body, but not so much at Tom Benson, Robert Kraft, Robert Loiza, etc. for being to miserly to share their enormous wealth? Who owns the media which makes the tv shows which criticize the players and not the owners?
What sort of class system does sport help create and reify? In what ways do different classes utilize the contemporary sporting system? Why does Michael Vick (who's regular season and post-season record is actually quite impressive) get so much criticism, yet Peyton Manning get so much love? In what ways does race, perceived sexuality, etc. play into that?
Anyway this is off the top of my head...and to answer your question I am a lecturer in sport and society at Towson University, a PhD student and TA in this area at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Well thats interesting stuff, but to be honest most every game is the same in the terms of the issues you bring up, so I dont see why actually sitting there watching the game is a necessity in answering those questions. What I mean by that, the NFL is on the same networks every week, the national anthem is before every game, the women reporters work most every game etc etc. I can certainly see where you are coming from, but just dont really understand why these things cant be evaluated by really just watching a few games a year. In other words, you said you were watching the game last nite for work. My question is, what exactly did you get from watching that game that you didnt already know before?
Well thats interesting stuff, but to be honest most every game is the same in the terms of the issues you bring up, so I dont see why actually sitting there watching the game is a necessity in answering those questions. What I mean by that, the NFL is on the same networks every week, the national anthem is before every game, the women reporters work most every game etc etc. I can certainly see where you are coming from, but just dont really understand why these things cant be evaluated by really just watching a few games a year. In other words, you said you were watching the game last nite for work. My question is, what exactly did you get from watching that game that you didnt already know before?
Well, for one thing, the impetus of this thread, that the Superdome got a $185 million upgrade (I probably could have read that somewhere but I spent this summer studying for comps). I was also watching b/c it was a week after the 9/11 pukefest that went on the week before so it's necessary to see how and in what ways they presented the game differently, if at all, than the previous week - which it was. Thus it begs the question, was ESPN really all that worried about the families and people affected on 9/11 or were they using them to make a quick buck off of the emotions of the American people then on to the next week to colonize a new way to feed into the emotions of the American people the following week which they did when they told us how "uplifting it'll be to see the New Orleans Superdome being used". You get this stuff every week and since I teach on Monday's and Wednesday's I usually tell my class to pay attention to it so that we can discuss the subtle differences week to week.
Well, for one thing, the impetus of this thread, that the Superdome got a $185 million upgrade (I probably could have read that somewhere but I spent this summer studying for comps). I was also watching b/c it was a week after the 9/11 pukefest that went on the week before so it's necessary to see how and in what ways they presented the game differently, if at all, than the previous week - which it was. Thus it begs the question, was ESPN really all that worried about the families and people affected on 9/11 or were they using them to make a quick buck off of the emotions of the American people then on to the next week to colonize a new way to feed into the emotions of the American people the following week which they did when they told us how "uplifting it'll be to see the New Orleans Superdome being used". You get this stuff every week and since I teach on Monday's and Wednesday's I usually tell my class to pay attention to it so that we can discuss the subtle differences week to week.
But are a lot of these issues even NFL related, or society related? A lot of networks capitalized off the emotions of 9.11, a lot of newscasts have attractive women, a lot of events sing the national anthem. So now my question would be, cant you get mostly similar answers by studying the media in general, or another aspect of society? When it comes down to it, the NFL is an entertainment industry, and we have had an Oliver Stone 9.11 film, the ABC movie, etc. I think what you are doing is interesting and I have certainly never watched games from this aspect, however, in the questions you have raised on here (which I know is just off the top of your head stuff), I think you could observe other aspects of society and get pretty much the same answers. Everything that goes on around the game is really no different than any other news, media, or entertainment outlet. They all just play off societies emotions towards tragedy, and allure towards attractive women, etc etc.
I love when I present opposing viewpoints, and back them up with strong evidence, then you claim that it has nothing to do with it or you get totally polemical and erase the original meaning behind the statement. If you are arguing that me watching MNF to make a better lecture at Towson University while getting $3100 for the semester is selfish then so be it, I just find that it is quite different than getting $185 million of the Louisianna publics money to finish a stadium. True capitalism in the Ayn Rand sense does involve the erasure of history or historical inequities for it to work, and in the way she argues it can't happen. You being a proponent of Rand in this way would be the same as me being a Marxist or neo-Marxist it can't happen you need to break from her historical context and move her theories into a more nuanced present to even have a shot at posing a good argument using her theory.
I'm arguing that your watching MNF is your job, just like providing MNF is someone else's job. I have no problem if either of you are selfish. You seem to be the one intent on proving that your work is of no benefit to you.
But are a lot of these issues even NFL related, or society related? A lot of networks capitalized off the emotions of 9.11, a lot of newscasts have attractive women, a lot of events sing the national anthem. So now my question would be, cant you get mostly similar answers by studying the media in general, or another aspect of society? When it comes down to it, the NFL is an entertainment industry, and we have had an Oliver Stone 9.11 film, the ABC movie, etc. I think what you are doing is interesting and I have certainly never watched games from this aspect, however, in the questions you have raised on here (which I know is just off the top of your head stuff), I think you could observe other aspects of society and get pretty much the same answers. Everything that goes on around the game is really no different than any other news, media, or entertainment outlet. They all just play off societies emotions towards tragedy, and allure towards attractive women, etc etc.
EXACTLY ... that's the society of the spectacle. Anyway that's what my class argues it's call Sport and Society. It's all interrelated, I just try to argue and articulate the ways that it changes, inspires, conspires, etc. with society and as a result of society.
EXACTLY ... that's the society of the spectacle. Anyway that's what my class argues it's call Sport and Society. It's all interrelated, I just try to argue and articulate the ways that it changes, inspires, conspires, etc. with society and as a result of society.
Well interesting stuff, but come on be honest, sometimes you just watch the games because football kicks ass?
Well interesting stuff, but come on be honest, sometimes you just watch the games because football kicks ass?
You know how when in the Matrix Neo started seeing the green lines of code? That's kinda how I look at football now. Sure I derive some entertainment from it, but it's hard to divorce it from the stuff I've learned. Lot's of times students will come up to me and say "You've ruined sports for me b/c I can never look at them the same again." I guess once you see the Matrix it's hard to go back all the way.
But I already detailed what I thought of Tom Benson.....
in any case, do you also study other forms of entertainment on society like music concerts for instance?
people watching is faciniating for me, I love studying and breaking down social constructs to see why they tick.
Yes I take a lot of liberty with the word Society so we have a song of the week for instance, which is related to the lecture (and changes from semester to semester). So far we've had:
Week 1: Introduction (Kinda What I've Outlined) Sleater-Kinney "Entertain"
Week 2: Sport and Neoliberalism Black Star "Thieves in the Night"
Week 3: Sport and Class Pearl Jam "Unemployed"
In my own research, I've done an ethnography of the Little League World Series, discourse analysis on Danny Almonte, Neoliberalism and Red Sox Nation, and ... researched the VFC Tour, but since Kerry didn't win the thrust of my argument (that Kerry's winning would exact any real change in American society) didn't come to fruitioin.
The superdome also brings in a lot of business and money to the city. So I agree it sounds bad to spend that much to fix the superdome and not concentrate on other areas of the city, but you have to keep in mind the money the superdome generates for the city, through not only football, but conventions and things of that nature
GOOD JOB! 185 million is not alot of money compared to the revenue it will bring for the city and morale.
I have a BA in Sport Management and an MA in Sport Commerce and Culture and in every recent peer reviewed research article the city rarely, at BEST, makes any money off a stadium, particularly in the way the owners get tax cuts, public subsidies, etc. It's an extreme fallacy that a sporting stadium is a good thing for a city, especially in the recent past.
This post is an extreme fallacy, with no support on numbers or percentages.
and also you do not seem to think about tourism, community, players in the community. And the romantic ideal in children growing up in the city. You are wrong.
Also keep in mind stating you have degrees before a post doesn't mean anything. Facts supercede degrees.
I have a BA in Sport Management and an MA in Sport Commerce and Culture and in every recent peer reviewed research article the city rarely, at BEST, makes any money off a stadium, particularly in the way the owners get tax cuts, public subsidies, etc. It's an extreme fallacy that a sporting stadium is a good thing for a city, especially in the recent past.
You may be comparing apples to oranges.....the current wave of stadiums are generally one-trick ponies. You play football in them or you play baseball in them etc....the city/state finances for a private concern. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Superdome belongs to either the city or the state not the Saints. They are just one of the tennants. Tulane University plays at the dome, and prior to 2005 it hosted two college bowls. It also hosted the Bayou Classic, a big dollar game between predominately black college teams. Throw in concerts and conventions, and you have a true multi-purpose facility. It is not a stadium like the ones in Baltimore (baseball only/football only) or a FedEx Field in D.C.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
You may be comparing apples to oranges.....the current wave of stadiums are generally one-trick ponies. You play football in them or you play baseball in them etc....the city/state finances for a private concern. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Superdome belongs to either the city or the state not the Saints. They are just one of the tennants. Tulane University plays at the dome, and prior to 2005 it hosted two college bowls. It also hosted the Bayou Classic, a big dollar game between predominately black college teams. Throw in concerts and conventions, and you have a true multi-purpose facility. It is not a stadium like the ones in Baltimore (baseball only/football only) or a FedEx Field in D.C.
even 1 trick ponies though are good for the city and mankind in general. No tonly in the money it draws, but in emotions. Theres more good than bad i believe. and No one can say Camden Yards isn't impressive looking. These are works of art in a way and that alone should be embraced by the city.
imagine people trying to explain to students 3000 years from now what all these baseball stadiums are and why the hell one of them has a hill in the outfield.
even 1 trick ponies though are good for the city and mankind in general. No tonly in the money it draws, but in emotions. Theres more good than bad i believe. and No one can say Camden Yards isn't impressive looking. These are works of art in a way and that alone should be embraced by the city.
I see your point in regards to the one trick pony stadiums.....it's easy to see the emotional impact of a sports franchise when you live in a city that lacks the identity that sports teams sometimes bring to a metro area, the "major league" effect.
Actually, I was pointing how ryan198 argument about how cities don't make off of stadiums is probably not the case in the argument surrounding the Superdome.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
imagine people trying to explain to students 3000 years from now what all these baseball stadiums are and why the hell one of them has a hill in the outfield.
that hill would be much cooler if the centerfielder would take a nap on it.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Comments
Oh. I see. That's totally different.
btw your quote only works if capitalism erases history, which it doesn't.
I understand. Nothing in it for you. Pure sacrifice. I totally get it.
No, it doesn't. Nothing does. Regardless, "erasing history" has nothing to do with the point being made.
Just curious, but what kind of job makes you watch sports and evaluate it from a critical eye other than being a scout? You cant get the social ramifications of how a stadium benefits a city by watching a football game, so just kind of curious what it is you do and why watching MNF is in anyway beneficial to what you do? And I love football, so not complaining thta you watch football, just dont really see how watching it gives you any information into the postives or negatives it has on society.
Well I could go on all day with this, but... the main premise is that sport has major a/effects on society and society has major a/effects on sport (Marx's dialectic ontology). So in other words sport is a major pedagogical (big word for teaching) tool in our daily lives. Think, for example, how long you spend watching sports per week, vs. say sitting and reading a book on the economic system of China. For most people the former is far longer and more exciting than the later, so you are then involved in a form of engaged learning - meaning that you process and learn more even if you don't think that it is learning.
What you are thinking of as critical is in the utilitarian sense of how to make sport more exciting. What I view as critical is what's going on in the (sporting) spectacle (Guy Debord has great work on the spectacle) that reflects, is reflected by, and simulataneously shapes society. So, in other words, what are the historical and contemporary dominant, subversive, and emergent themes, messages, priorities, and taken for granted assumptions that are produced and reified through sporting practices. Getting to your question how does this work for MNF:
We have a flyover before every NFL game? Why is that? Who benefits from it? Who pays for it? Where did this practice start?
Why do we sing the national anthem before sporting events? Why is it televised? Who benefits? Who doesn't? (BTW - Hitler popularized the playing of national anthems prior to sporting events by playing the German National Anthem during the Berlin Olympics twice after a German won an event ... think about that time you rise and stand)
Why is it that we watch oversized men, juiced up on steroids, running around and into each other as fast as they can in order to inflict various levels of pain onto other men? Why is it that we as a society choose to watch sports that the average male physiological body can perform better at? What does this say about American society when our favorite sport is American Football, which excludes women at nearly every level, except for sideline speaking parts for 'normative' sexy women?
Why do we get mad at say Terrel Owens or Deion Branch for being greedy b/c they want to receive more money for their labor, which, by the way is the equivalent of one auto accident per game in wear and tear on the body, but not so much at Tom Benson, Robert Kraft, Robert Loiza, etc. for being to miserly to share their enormous wealth? Who owns the media which makes the tv shows which criticize the players and not the owners?
What sort of class system does sport help create and reify? In what ways do different classes utilize the contemporary sporting system? Why does Michael Vick (who's regular season and post-season record is actually quite impressive) get so much criticism, yet Peyton Manning get so much love? In what ways does race, perceived sexuality, etc. play into that?
Anyway this is off the top of my head...and to answer your question I am a lecturer in sport and society at Towson University, a PhD student and TA in this area at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Well thats interesting stuff, but to be honest most every game is the same in the terms of the issues you bring up, so I dont see why actually sitting there watching the game is a necessity in answering those questions. What I mean by that, the NFL is on the same networks every week, the national anthem is before every game, the women reporters work most every game etc etc. I can certainly see where you are coming from, but just dont really understand why these things cant be evaluated by really just watching a few games a year. In other words, you said you were watching the game last nite for work. My question is, what exactly did you get from watching that game that you didnt already know before?
But are a lot of these issues even NFL related, or society related? A lot of networks capitalized off the emotions of 9.11, a lot of newscasts have attractive women, a lot of events sing the national anthem. So now my question would be, cant you get mostly similar answers by studying the media in general, or another aspect of society? When it comes down to it, the NFL is an entertainment industry, and we have had an Oliver Stone 9.11 film, the ABC movie, etc. I think what you are doing is interesting and I have certainly never watched games from this aspect, however, in the questions you have raised on here (which I know is just off the top of your head stuff), I think you could observe other aspects of society and get pretty much the same answers. Everything that goes on around the game is really no different than any other news, media, or entertainment outlet. They all just play off societies emotions towards tragedy, and allure towards attractive women, etc etc.
I'm arguing that your watching MNF is your job, just like providing MNF is someone else's job. I have no problem if either of you are selfish. You seem to be the one intent on proving that your work is of no benefit to you.
Well interesting stuff, but come on be honest, sometimes you just watch the games because football kicks ass?
in any case, do you also study other forms of entertainment on society like music concerts for instance?
people watching is faciniating for me, I love studying and breaking down social constructs to see why they tick.
Yes I take a lot of liberty with the word Society so we have a song of the week for instance, which is related to the lecture (and changes from semester to semester). So far we've had:
Week 1: Introduction (Kinda What I've Outlined) Sleater-Kinney "Entertain"
Week 2: Sport and Neoliberalism Black Star "Thieves in the Night"
Week 3: Sport and Class Pearl Jam "Unemployed"
In my own research, I've done an ethnography of the Little League World Series, discourse analysis on Danny Almonte, Neoliberalism and Red Sox Nation, and ... researched the VFC Tour, but since Kerry didn't win the thrust of my argument (that Kerry's winning would exact any real change in American society) didn't come to fruitioin.
GOOD JOB! 185 million is not alot of money compared to the revenue it will bring for the city and morale.
This post is an extreme fallacy, with no support on numbers or percentages.
and also you do not seem to think about tourism, community, players in the community. And the romantic ideal in children growing up in the city. You are wrong.
Also keep in mind stating you have degrees before a post doesn't mean anything. Facts supercede degrees.
even 1 trick ponies though are good for the city and mankind in general. No tonly in the money it draws, but in emotions. Theres more good than bad i believe. and No one can say Camden Yards isn't impressive looking. These are works of art in a way and that alone should be embraced by the city.
Actually, I was pointing how ryan198 argument about how cities don't make off of stadiums is probably not the case in the argument surrounding the Superdome.
that hill would be much cooler if the centerfielder would take a nap on it.
~Ron Burgundy