International I Hate Sports Club

Since there has not been any relevant discussion lately in my last topic, I'm starting a new one. I made a list of the pros and cons of sports. I tried to be as honest and objective as possible in making this. I might add some more if I can think of any.


Pros

-In a time when more people than ever are obese, sports are a way to exercise.

-Sports teach children how to follow rules, as well as that there are penalties for breaking them.

-Sports teach the value of teamwork, which is concept needed in any kind of job or career.

-A great number of jobs are directly and indirectly provided by the sports industry.

-All of the major sports leagues and their teams, as well as many of their players, are involved in charity.

-Sports teams can make a person proud of their city or school.

-Sports raise money for educational institutions.

-Sports scholarships have enabled many students to go to college when they would not otherwise be able to afford it.

-Successful sports teams make colleges more desirable and prestigous to students. (For academically elite universities such as Duke and USC, this was a big factor in them getting to where they are.)



Cons

-Teams can create a clique mentality (but sports are far from being the only thing that does this).

-Some fans take sports too seriously (but this can happen with any hobby or interest).

-Some people, especially males, can be made to feel socially abnormal and outcasted by others for not liking sports (but this can be done for any reason, such as a person's clothing style, musical tastes, or sexual orientation).

-Some parents push their children too far when they want to make them into star athletes (but you also see similar behavior in people such as Michael Jackson's father, or parents who enter the daughters in beauty pageants for 4 or 5 year old girls).

-Recruited athletes are admitted to colleges over more academically qualified students (but the same thing also happens with affirmative action for minorities).

-Professional athletes are paid too much (but so are all other kinds of popular entertainers).

-Star athletes get off easy when they commit crimes (as fair as the American justice system is, wealthy, powerful, and famous public figures will always have it easier than everyday people).



To sum all of this up, overall sports do more good than harm for society. And in the areas in which they do harm, sports are not the only thing to be blamed.

And you tried to make the cons look better than they were...

-In a time when more people than ever are obese, sports are a way to exercise.

And they're a good way to get fat kids to hate P.E. and sports and stay obese.

-Sports teach children how to follow rules, as well as that there are penalties for breaking them.

No, they teach them that they can break the rules with little-no penalty (if your coach was better he would have punished you instead of giving a warning).

-Sports teach the value of teamwork, which is concept needed in any kind of job or career.

Teamwork with other athletes, they don't give a shit for non-athletes who are forced to play with those damn athletes

-A great number of jobs are directly and indirectly provided by the sports industry.

So I can do a simple thing and get a job with no effort? Wow, I wish I could do that, but the problem is... I want a job that benefits this society.

-All of the major sports leagues and their teams, as well as many of their players, are involved in charity.

And they're into rape, verbal/physical attacks, and being elitist, but aside that... would they do that as kids? No, because they wouldn't give a shit as kids and their care for charity isn't that high even as adults... some even do it for a positive reputation.

-Sports teams can make a person proud of their city or school.

And they stress a person because everyone in their city/school talks about it when said person doesn't care.

-Sports raise money for educational institutions.

Plus they waste it on... more athletic crap. It can go either way .

-Sports scholarships have enabled many students to go to college when they would not otherwise be able to afford it.

What if I got a scholarship if I painted graffiti, is that fair to the others who tried to do things the right way? No.

-Successful sports teams make colleges more desirable and prestigous to students. (For academically elite universities such as Duke and USC, this was a big factor in them getting to where they are.)

And it makes it less desirable and frustrating to students. Against it can go either way .

At the risk of being redundant, there are still far too many people who don't seem to grasp the subtle difference between promoting sports and promoting physical fitness. The very state of being obese rules some people out from even participating in many sports. Studies have shown that when obese children are bullied in traditional sports-centered P.E. classes, they actually gain weight because they seek comfort in eating. In addition to reading a news item about this, I also saw this happen to several friends of mine when we were in junior high and high school. A sport is primarily a contest, not a physical fitness activity. Participation in a sport requires the previous attainment of a certain level of physical fitness, along with certain physical skills. There is not a single sport that exercises all of the muscles of the body. For example, a professional football player who begins taking ballet lessons will end up with sore muscles. The most efficient way for an obese person to lose weight is to start an exercise program that burns up a lot of calories, not participate in a sport (especially in the coercive settting of a mandatory sports-centered P.E. class).

If sports are said to be beneficial in some ways, then it must also be said that sports have their limitations. Sports do not and cannot provide for the moral bedrock of a country's culture. Sports do not teach morality. They do not teach a sense of right and wrong, morally speaking. They do not teach against arrogance. Sometimes teenage boys in certain sports are taught by coaches and sports fans that they are better than others and that the rules don't apply to them. Many end up with a false sense of entitlement. Sports do not teach empathy or compassion, which are actually regarded by those who subscribe to machismo as feminine and therefore undesirable traits. They do not teach inclusion or respect for the rights of others who are not involved in sports. They do not teach altruism or a sense of social justice. They teach conformity, not independent thinking. They teach physical courage, which is very impressive; but they do not teach moral courage, which is what I understand to be the essence of true character. Despite what the sports media says, a guy can excel at a sport and still be a lousy human being not deserving of honor and respect, as I have personally observed in my own experience. I'm not meaning to downgrade sports. I'm simply rejecting the mindless impulse that so many have to view sports as a panacea.

Earl's right Sportsguy92.

SportsGuy92 wrote: Pros

-Sports raise money for educational institutions.

WRONG. There are numerous sources that accurately report that sports are, at least financially, a losing proposition. Here's only one:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... tudy_N.htm

QUOTE

"The amount of money the nation's highest-level college athletics departments are receiving as subsidies from their schools is rising, according to a report by the NCAA.
The report, which examines the revenues and expenses of Division I athletics programs for fiscal years 2004, '05 and '06, also shows that:

â?¢Without subsidies, athletics departments at 19 of the 119 schools in Division I-A (now known as the Football Bowl Subdivision) made money in fiscal 2006 â?? up from 18 in '05 and '06 â?? and 16 did so over the three-year period."

END QUOTE.

Only 19 of the top 119 sports schools made money. You lied, pinhead.

Inescapable conclusion: sports are a drain on the rest of college activities (and the rest of humanity). BOO YAA!!!

SportsGuy92 wrote:
-Successful sports teams make colleges more desirable and prestigous to students. (For academically elite universities such as Duke and USC, this was a big factor in them getting to where they are.)

WRONG. Most high school students rank the quality of a college's sports teams far down the list of what they consider when deciding where to apply, says a new poll.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/2001-03-20 ... sports.htm

QUOTE

Most high school students rank the quality of a college's sports teams far down the list of what they consider when deciding where to apply, says a new poll.

The study "refutes the so-called 'Flutie Factor,' (which holds that) intercollegiate athletics and winning teams have a major impact on enrollment decisions," says Rick Hesel, who did the poll by Art & Science Group of Baltimore. Widely known in admissions circles, the Flutie Factor refers to a surge in applications to Boston College after its quarterback, Doug Flutie, made his fabled touchdown pass to beat Miami in 1984. Applications rose 30% in two years.

Hesel said students rated jobs, internships, clubs and community service as more important extracurricular interests. The findings are based on telephone interviews with 500 college-bound high school students last spring â?? just after the men's national basketball championship tournament. Most respondents could not even recall which team won, Hesel said. (Michigan State University admission director Gordon Stanley doesn't doubt those findings. But he says winning the men's basketball championship last spring made a "significant difference" in the fall 2000 acceptance rate â?? boosting it from a historically stable 40% to 43%.)

The poll, to be published later this month, comes at a time when intercollegiate athletics programs are growing more prominent â?? and more controversial:

A New Jersey judge last week ruled that a magazine published by Rutgers University violated the First Amendment rights of an alumni group when the magazine rejected the group's ad arguing that the university's participation in big-time athletics endangers its academic mission.

Members of a national faculty group based at Drake University in Des Moines will hand out brochures at the Final Four of the NCAA men's basketball tourney this month in Minneapolis urging colleges to restore academic integrity to big-time athletics.

In a telephone poll of 850 Americans released in January by the American Council on Education, 56% said colleges put too much emphasis on intercollegiate athletic programs. Only 5% said colleges put too little emphasis on athletic programs.

Calls for reform aren't new. But recent research is poking holes in a long-held theory among supporters of intercollegiate athletics that winning teams benefit student recruitment and alumni giving, Hesel said.

In addition to his poll, a new book, The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values (Princeton University Press, $27.95), offers evidence that winning teams, especially football teams, have little, if any, impact on rates of philanthropic giving by alumni.

"One of the big justifications (for intercollegiate sports) is, 'We gotta do this because alumni are demanding it,' " says Game of Life co-author James Shulman. But the data suggest "that's not true."

END QUOTE.

How can SportsGuy92 be so consistently wrong? oh--sports fan.

Sports teams weren't even ON my list when I was looking at colleges. But I'm probably not the best example.


In a time when more people than ever are obese, sports are a way to exercise. (Only one of many, and a lot of obese people tend to WATCH sports rather than play, which isn't exactly exercise, unless you count jumping around like an idiot when your team scores.)

-Sports teach children how to follow rules, as well as that there are penalties for breaking them. (Parents and teachers do that too! Or should, anyway.)

-Sports teach the value of teamwork, which is concept needed in any kind of job or career. (Don't need sports for that either.)

-A great number of jobs are directly and indirectly provided by the sports industry. (Yes, and a great number of jobs aren't.)

-All of the major sports leagues and their teams, as well as many of their players, are involved in charity. (Don't have to be in sports to be involved in a charity.)

-Sports teams can make a person proud of their city or school. (If the only thing you have to be proud of regarding your city or school is the sports team, then it's probably not much of a city or school.)

-Sports raise money for educational institutions. (What Ray said.)

-Sports scholarships have enabled many students to go to college when they would not otherwise be able to afford it. (So basically kids who aren't interested in sports are screwed, right? Except, isn't there also a little thing called financial aid?)

-Successful sports teams make colleges more desirable and prestigous to students. (For academically elite universities such as Duke and USC, this was a big factor in them getting to where they are.) (Again, what Ray said.)


If you insist on attaching a "but" to all the cons, I can do that to the pros.

Abitagirl did the same thing, making a "but" for your pros.

Do you think he'll ever try to make the cons look good? Or will he leave this forum?

Sergey wrote:

-In a time when more people than ever are obese, sports are a way to exercise.

And they're a good way to get fat kids to hate P.E. and sports and stay obese.

-Sports teach children how to follow rules, as well as that there are penalties for breaking them.

No, they teach them that they can break the rules with little-no penalty (if your coach was better he would have punished you instead of giving a warning).

-Sports teach the value of teamwork, which is concept needed in any kind of job or career.

Teamwork with other athletes, they don't give a shit for non-athletes who are forced to play with those damn athletes

-A great number of jobs are directly and indirectly provided by the sports industry.

So I can do a simple thing and get a job with no effort? Wow, I wish I could do that, but the problem is... I want a job that benefits this society.

-All of the major sports leagues and their teams, as well as many of their players, are involved in charity.

And they're into rape, verbal/physical attacks, and being elitist, but aside that... would they do that as kids? No, because they wouldn't give a shit as kids and their care for charity isn't that high even as adults... some even do it for a positive reputation.

-Sports teams can make a person proud of their city or school.

And they stress a person because everyone in their city/school talks about it when said person doesn't care.

-Sports raise money for educational institutions.

Plus they waste it on... more athletic crap. It can go either way .

-Sports scholarships have enabled many students to go to college when they would not otherwise be able to afford it.

What if I got a scholarship if I painted graffiti, is that fair to the others who tried to do things the right way? No.

-Successful sports teams make colleges more desirable and prestigous to students. (For academically elite universities such as Duke and USC, this was a big factor in them getting to where they are.)

And it makes it less desirable and frustrating to students. Against it can go either way .

In these examples I was referring to organized sports leagues for children, not PE which I have already said is unnecessary in schools. What did you mean sports teach kids that they "can break the rules with little-no penalty"? Since when is this true? In sports, when you commit a penalty, there are consequences such as turning the ball over or putting the other team in a better position to score. You say that jobs provided by sports are not beneficial to society, but all jobs, provided that they are done honestly and are not done to harm others, benefit society simply by the fact that they allow people to be employed.

Little-no penalties for causing trouble.

Earl wrote:At the risk of being redundant, there are still far too many people who don't seem to grasp the subtle difference between promoting sports and promoting physical fitness. The very state of being obese rules some people out from even participating in many sports. Studies have shown that when obese children are bullied in traditional sports-centered P.E. classes, they actually gain weight because they seek comfort in eating. In addition to reading a news item about this, I also saw this happen to several friends of mine when we were in junior high and high school. A sport is primarily a contest, not a physical fitness activity. Participation in a sport requires the previous attainment of a certain level of physical fitness, along with certain physical skills. There is not a single sport that exercises all of the muscles of the body. For example, a professional football player who begins taking ballet lessons will end up with sore muscles. The most efficient way for an obese person to lose weight is to start an exercise program that burns up a lot of calories, not participate in a sport (especially in the coercive settting of a mandatory sports-centered P.E. class).

If sports are said to be beneficial in some ways, then it must also be said that sports have their limitations. Sports do not and cannot provide for the moral bedrock of a country's culture. Sports do not teach morality. They do not teach a sense of right and wrong, morally speaking. They do not teach against arrogance. Sometimes teenage boys in certain sports are taught by coaches and sports fans that they are better than others and that the rules don't apply to them. Many end up with a false sense of entitlement. Sports do not teach empathy or compassion, which are actually regarded by those who subscribe to machismo as feminine and therefore undesirable traits. They do not teach inclusion or respect for the rights of others who are not involved in sports. They do not teach altruism or a sense of social justice. They teach conformity, not independent thinking. They teach physical courage, which is very impressive; but they do not teach moral courage, which is what I understand to be the essence of true character. Despite what the sports media says, a guy can excel at a sport and still be a lousy human being not deserving of honor and respect, as I have personally observed in my own experience. I'm not meaning to downgrade sports. I'm simply rejecting the mindless impulse that so many have to view sports as a panacea.

An adult who simply wants to exercise is probably not going to play sports; but for children, who usually would find simply running or lifting weights boring, if not unsafe for them, sports are a healthier alternative to the TV/computer/video games routine that dominates many kids' free time these days. Your statement that participation in a sport usually the previous attainment of physical fitness is true once children have reached the junior high/high school age, because that's when organized sports usually start to become far more competitive. But at that age most of them would also be ready to begin weightlifting or any other kind of physical fitness program.

You are correct in that sports do not teach morality, but many people on here are also too quick to label them as immoral or harmful. Would I was trying to do with this list is admit that there is, as I believe you called it, a "dark side" to sports, but also say that sports are far from the only cause of these wrongs. But what I disliked the most is how you said that sports have only bad consequences. I have gone back through this forum and read all of the posts from the beginning, and I read the post by Captain America. He made some statements that were certainly rude and bullying towards anti-sports people, but he did make a valid point when he said that sports taught him the discipline he needed to improve his grades.

Ray wrote:

SportsGuy92 wrote: Pros

-Sports raise money for educational institutions.

WRONG. There are numerous sources that accurately report that sports are, at least financially, a losing proposition. Here's only one:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... tudy_N.htm

QUOTE

"The amount of money the nation's highest-level college athletics departments are receiving as subsidies from their schools is rising, according to a report by the NCAA.
The report, which examines the revenues and expenses of Division I athletics programs for fiscal years 2004, '05 and '06, also shows that:

â?¢Without subsidies, athletics departments at 19 of the 119 schools in Division I-A (now known as the Football Bowl Subdivision) made money in fiscal 2006 â?? up from 18 in '05 and '06 â?? and 16 did so over the three-year period."

END QUOTE.

Only 19 of the top 119 sports schools made money. You lied, pinhead.

Inescapable conclusion: sports are a drain on the rest of college activities (and the rest of humanity). BOO YAA!!!

You left out the schools that did receive subsides, where the more than half of the programs (about 57 percent to be more exact) were profitable. Also, college sports are just like any other kind of business, and depending on a variety of variables and factors, some businesses will gain money, and some will lose it.

So it's both a con and pro. These things dominating kids free time isn't a negative influence.