Author Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why  (Read 5013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« on: September 23, 2012, 12:51:20 AM »
In order.
 
The Texas 'Football' Longhorns,as Howard would have said.  Which means I like Oklahoma, Oklahoha St, A&M, Tech, Baylor, SMU, TCU, and anyone else they play that might beat them
 
Dallas Cowboys.  Duh.
-
Oakalnd Raiders.  I wish for them to go 8-8 every year, just missing the playoffs, not getting a good draft position.  Now if they stopped with the dumb penaltlies, stupid talk, got rid of the criminals and former USC QBs, started winning and moved the fan base beyond the thugs and costumed idiots of the world, we could talk..
 
LA Lakers and Dodgers, USC Trojans
 
Yankees
 
The football factories of Ohio St, Michigan, Nebraska, Florida, Notre Dame,
 
Oregon Ducks.  Certainly their fans.
 
Seattle Seahawks, at least for  as long as they have Pete Carroll as coach
 
Colts, for the way they left Ba'mo'.  Like Luck though, maybe enough to take them off the list
 
St Louis Rams.  They were in LA entirely too long
 
Knicks, Magic, Heat
 
LA Kings, Dallas Stars
 
UConn, Duke and North Carolina
 
Most of the rest of the teams in LA, Texas, Florida, NY
 
Not sure where to rank it but any team from University of Detroit-Mercy.  For obvious reasons.
 
 
Favorite team:  whoever is playing the Raiders next.
 
 
Ok, that should be enough to piss off just about everyone...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2012, 01:32:38 AM »
Good list, Paper*Boy.  texas is tops on my list.

I'd add lsu and "little brother" (Oklahoma state or okie lite, if you prefer).  Their fans are unbearable when they have success, and even when they don't.  lsu fans are unbearable at any time as well.

Boomer Sooner, baby.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2012, 03:40:28 AM »
all NY teams and the cowgirls of course


Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2012, 04:13:59 AM »
The University of Alabama Crimson Tide. The vast majority of the fan base of which has never been within miles of a classroom in which college courses are taught, and yet have convinced themselves that because they are UA football fans they therefore have "class" (oh, I'm gagging) which they think is a God-given quality and a sign of superior character, which most often evidences itself as the impossibility of ever dishonoring the University or the memory of Paul "Bear" Bryant (but they would think I am redundant), or, if a student athlete, of ever losing an Alabama football game. These toothless wonders truly believe that because their great-grandfathers clutched onto Bear Bryant's football success as the only way the white illiterates of Alabama could ever hope to view themselves as the equals of and competitive with those smart-ass Harvard lawyers and government Jew boys who came down to Alabama and forced George Wallace to send white kids to school with nigras, that today it means that their families have a tradition of "class" as "winners". They really think this way.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2012, 04:21:42 AM »
 
               I live in the Belly of the Beast. The Boston Red Sox and their "fandom" of self important literati and self aggrandizing egotists with a martyr complex. That birth in a stable in Bethelem 2000 years ago wasn't as important as Oct 27, 2004, when the Red Sox broke that 86 year drought. Funny, how the White Sox broke THEIR 88 year drought the following year to far less hype and fanfare.

          I've watched baseball religiously since 1979. I've lived in Boston the entire time. Yet, I was always a fan of baseball, not that team that happened to play in my city of birth. I actually have more of an affinity for the 1984 Cubs or 1989 Giants than the Sox teams of my youth.

          ** Sox players were often arrogant, diffident pricks. Jim Rice and Dwight Evans come to mind. But "Spaceman" Bill Lee, who I met in 1989, long after his career was over, was a genuinely cool motherfucker. He treated us like equals and had a verve and true love of the game. The best "celebrity" encounter I ever had.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2012, 04:41:13 AM »
... "Spaceman" Bill Lee, who I met in 1989, long after his career was over, was a genuinely cool motherfucker. He treated us like equals and had a verve and true love of the game. The best "celebrity" encounter I ever had.

Nice.
 
He's still playing, sort of a one-man barnstormer.  He was just out here last month, pitched, and won the game.
 
"I'm able to do this," Lee explained, "because I've never quit."
 
 http://www.marinij.com/sports/ci_21389191
 
http://www.marinij.com/sports/ci_21358885/pacifics-notes-spaceman-ready-take-mound-pacifics

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2012, 05:29:54 AM »
Florida football fans are the worst - they're both arrogant (because of recent success) and paranoid (because of many more years of failure) at the same time.  When one is arrogantly shouting "Tebow, Tebow, Tebow," simply shout back a reminder of an infamous past game, such as "4th and Dumb"  and watch said fan melt into a pool of babbling fear.  It's a hoot.

If you're not familiar with it, the story of how Bear Bryant and John McKay (USC) plotted to integrate Alabama's football team is interesting.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2012, 06:53:34 AM »
I don't like Dallas or their obnoxious fans. I was glad when the Mavs beat Miami last year, however. Mark Cuban really loves and dare I say spoils his team and fanbase, and I respect that. I live in a town where the owners only like the fans' money. I can't stand Eagles or Giants fans either.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2012, 08:06:42 AM »
Pretending soccer is a sport, whatever team that 'look, see how cool I am' guy who's married to the skinniest Spice Girl plays for.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2012, 09:54:05 AM »
I don't care for the Toronto Maple Leafs.  They suck every year.  When I do have time to watch some hockey, a Maple Leafs game seems to be the only choice available, even when they are out of playoff contention (happens every year).  I also don't understand all the fans who wear Maple Leaf sweaters, hats, etc., fly Maple Leaf flags attached to their cars, and have personalized Maple Leaf license plates.  I guess they have no shame.
As for the NHL lockout... it's greed, pride, stubbornness, etc.  They don't care about the fans. Let them stay locked out all year.  Who needs them?

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2012, 10:28:50 AM »

Nice.
 
He's still playing, sort of a one-man barnstormer.  He was just out here last month, pitched, and won the game.
 
"I'm able to do this," Lee explained, "because I've never quit."
 
 http://www.marinij.com/sports/ci_21389191
 
http://www.marinij.com/sports/ci_21358885/pacifics-notes-spaceman-ready-take-mound-pacifics

        He was part of a free camp in my neighborhood one day. By no means did he have to do this, but he stayed around and threw batting practice to about 6 of us. We were 13-15 year olds, and he talked to us like we were adults. He had no obligation to do anything beyond merely being there, and leaving(like the other pro athletes did) but he must have thrown 200 pitches in an hour as we hit around. Great guy.

         

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2012, 11:11:24 AM »
I know it's a stretch to call dart throwing a sport.  It's like golf.  Requires skill for sure, but doesn't measure up to my minimum requirements - whatever those might be. So, like shooting pool, I place darts in the category of "games."

Nevertheless...

I hate some of the dart teams at the lodge I formerly frequented some time ago. Self-important jackasses.

Though I enjoyed the low-priced alcohol which was solicited during the tournaments. 

The first (and last) year I played there, my team scored second place out of 16 teams - partly because of me, and partly because of "Needle Dick Ray."

We had to come up with team names and I suggested THE RAW OYSTERS and it stuck.

I still have the stupid award plaque: RAW OYSTERS - 2ND PLACE.

Has a little fake dartboard on "blue marbleized wood."  You couldn't make this shit up.

I've been feeling the itch to show my face again - out for dart blood.


[attachimg=1]

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2012, 11:53:54 AM »
I don't care for the Toronto Maple Leafs.  They suck every year.
Why, oh why, did Canada replace the Red Ensign with the Maple Leaf flag?  The Leafs finished that year in like 4th place in a six-team league.  The Canadiens won the cup that year - why not a Habs flag?

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2012, 12:11:04 PM »
All of them.
Because I can.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2012, 10:39:46 PM »
....If you're not familiar with it, the story of how Bear Bryant and John McKay (USC) plotted to integrate Alabama's football team is interesting.

I'm reminded of the line from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." The most commonly heard version goes like this: the great Alabama football coach Bear Bryant, who was actually pro-integration, connived with USC coach John McKay to thwart the racism of Alabama Governor George Wallace, and reverse the anti-integration policies of the University of Alabama so that Bryant would be allowed to recruit black players to play for the Tide. In scheduling the game Bryant assumed that SouCal's powerful team, which had many fine black athletes, would easily defeat his Crimson Tide, which, although a perennial challenger for the national championship, had a lily-white roster and relied solely on white players. Bryant wanted to get his team to get hammered by an integrated opponent, and so demonstrate to those fans who might still oppose,  tnb have oppolsed inegration of thrteam s  show the fans that he needed to recruit blacks to remain competitive. SouCal crushed Bama 42-21, powered by SouCal running back Sam "The Bam" Cunningham. He ran roughshod over the stunned Tide defenders, who had never played blacks before and were unprepared for the high degree of athleticism of SouCal's black players. After the defeat, Bryant was so impressed by Cunningham that he went to McKay and asked to borrow his star running back for a moment. Bryant took Cunningham to the Alabam locker room. As Cummingham entered, the room fell totally silent as all eyes turned to the black Trojan. Bryant stood quietly for a moment beside the equally silent Cunningham, and then said simply, "Gentlemen this is a football player." The erupted in cheers as the Bama boys recognized the young man's achievement. It was later said by another coach (albeit one who wasn't at the game and who didn't happen to have ever coached at either Alabama or Southern California), "Sam Cunningham did more to integrate Alabama in 60 minutes than Martin Luther King did in 20 years."

Does that sound pretty much the way you heard it?....Because almost every detail is a complete falsehood. But this or something close to it has been printed in several books about Bryant or Alabama football. But to the false or misleading statements. Hang on for another wall o' text.

Let's dispense with the drama of Bryant bringing Cunningham to the Alabama dressing room for some Shakespearean minimalism. Bryant went to the visitors' locker room and quickly congratulated Southern Cal's coaches and players: that's it. And you'll see that Cunningham, through no fault of his own, did virtually nothing to change integration at Alabama....because it had already been in effect - for 14 years.

Now about Bryant. You must understand the veneration which so many Alabamians had for Bryant, who for many of them was the primary, or only, source of pride in their lives. Not surprisingly the truth about Bryant's stellar career, while glorious, is not sufficient for some of his worshipers,  and a huge hagiography has sprung up around him, in which he is attributed demigod status. Perhaps it's only human nature to ascribe nobility to our heroes, and so it is with Bryant. Even his death has something of heroic myth to it, since he died less than 30 days after a bittersweet retirement he was not really happy about entering.

But over the decades since his death in 1983 ever greater deeds are told about him. In death he has attained virtues which were absent in life, and today he is often painted as a man who would have been unrecognizable to those who saw him on a daily basis. One of these myths is that Bryant was "pro-integration"; as if he was chomping at the bit to integrate Alabama football but was thwarted by a combination of Governor George Wallace's racist views and the University of Alabama's policy of segregation. There are three major problems with that assertion. Here's the truth.

Bryant was born just before WWI in Arkansas, in deepest Jim Crow territory. He was  raised and lived his life certain of the mental inferiority of blacks compared to whites. He also was convinced that most blacks had a "character deficit" and were more likely to be physical and moral cowards who were unwilling to do difficult things unless driven by fear or force to do so. He was just a product of his place and time.

But, like most folks of his time and place and background, his bigotry was ameliorated a good deal by the fact of integration - certainly not that integration was helped into being because of Bryant's lack of bigotry. Mostly Bryant was a realist. After playing excellent Midwestern teams in bowl games in the 60's, such as Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado (and he was lucky to break even with them), Bryant saw what black players added to the skill levels of those teams. So pragmatism was behind Bryant's racial conversion, not a change of heart. He knew he would have to integrate his team.

But there weren't hurdles to that which the revisionist Bryant hagiographies would have us believe. First, segregation was not a policy at the University of Alabama when Alabama and Southern Cal played in 1970: segregation ended at UA in 1956 when the first black student was admitted. In 1963 newly elected Governor George Wallace tried to reestablish segregation at UA by his "stand in the schoolhouse door" to block the admision that Fall of some black students, but this was just grandstanding for his racist supporters. Wallace failed and UA remained integrated. So the game wasn't about changing University of Alabama policies so that Bryant could legally recruit black players.

Even more to the point, George Wallace wasn't even the governor of Alabama in 1970: his term had expired in 1967. Alabama's governor in 1970 was the quite progressive and racially enlightened Albert Brewer. Integration at UA was just not an issue in 1970.

The real issue was that Bryant didn't want to run the risk of pissing off that portion of his fans for whom integration was offensive. And now we get down to it. The man who was always talking to his players and the public about "doing the right thing", and having moral courage and being a man, and counting the cost to do the right thing even if it hurts, couldn't meet the standards he expected his football players to meet. Bryant, like most humans, was in fact something of a moral coward. When it came to integrating his football team he just turned tail and hid for at least 5 years after he could have done it. He could easily have put dozens of wonderful black athletes on his team since 1965 with the snap of his finger; but he wouldn't because he was afraid of losing even a little popularity with his fans. Now who was "doing the right thing, even when it hurts"?

Bryant was in actuality, as many successful public figures, something of a manipulative cynic whose public persona was that of a humble John Wayne. When talking to his adoring public during his weekly Sunday afternoons tv show when he reviewed the game of the day before, Bryant affected a false humility which was endearing to those many fans of Alabama football who were unsophisticated and easily manipulated. Remember, we're talking about over 40 years ago, when America was an entirely different place: there was none of the cynicism and irony which chokes popular culture today. Americans, and Alabamians in particular gave great deference to authority figures. They also tended to take people at their word. This worked greatly to Bryant's favor. He was far more concerned about not hurting his personal popularity than he was about righting any societal wrongs such as integration. He could easily have singlehandedly integrated his team in 1965, so his refusal to have done so by 1970 speaks more to moral cowardice than courage.

Instead Bryant wanted to manipulate the Alabama fans into virtually begging him to integrate the team to stay competitive - which is what happened. Alabama had been defeated by some of those Midwestern teams with black players, and it stung Alabama's fan base: if there was anything they hated even more than "race-mixing", it was losing football games.

So Bryant began slowly stocking up on excellent black athletes who were generally exemplary citizens and goods students as well. There's no doubt there was a double standard at work here: the black athletes had to be superior in every aspect of their lives. They couldn't do the things the white players often got away with, at least to some degree, such as star quarterbacks Joe Namath and "Snake" Stabler, who were famous for their drunken hijinks (which occasionally got them tossed in jail where, in fairness to Bryant, he let them languish a bit).

Now make no mistake: Bryant was a truly legendary coach. No one was truly his equal. He could build a rock-solid team; instill a sense of pride and self-confidence which was unmatched; a give them desire to win like no other. Former players today still talk about how Bryant's leadership was responsible for their later successes in life, and some even said that Bryant had had more positive impact on their lives than even their fathers. Bryant was also a world-class motivator. One of the reasons that current Alabama fans love Nick Saban so much (other than the fact he's given them two national championships in 5 seasons on the job, and looks in good position for a third this year), is that in his drive, dedication and burning desire to win he is a clone of Bryant. One could do worse.

But the truth about Bryant is plenty of glory. Fans may think they are helping to burnish the reputation of their hero by printing exaggerated accounts of Bryant's life, but they actually put his place in history at jeopardy because questions arise about what is reliable and what is not. The truth is absolutely fine as is.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2012, 11:08:54 PM »
I'm reminded of the line from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." The most commonly heard version goes like this: the great Alabama football coach Bear Bryant, who was actually pro-integration, connived with USC coach John McKay to thwart the racism of Alabama Governor George Wallace, and reverse the anti-integration policies of the University of Alabama so that Bryant would be allowed to recruit black players to play for the Tide. In scheduling the game Bryant assumed that SouCal's powerful team, which had many fine black athletes, would easily defeat his Crimson Tide, which, although a perennial challenger for the national championship, had a lily-white roster and relied solely on white players. Bryant wanted to get his team to get hammered by an integrated opponent, and so demonstrate to those fans who might still oppose,  tnb have oppolsed inegration of thrteam s  show the fans that he needed to recruit blacks to remain competitive. SouCal crushed Bama 42-21, powered by SouCal running back Sam "The Bam" Cunningham. He ran roughshod over the stunned Tide defenders, who had never played blacks before and were unprepared for the high degree of athleticism of SouCal's black players. After the defeat, Bryant was so impressed by Cunningham that he went to McKay and asked to borrow his star running back for a moment. Bryant took Cunningham to the Alabam locker room. As Cummingham entered, the room fell totally silent as all eyes turned to the black Trojan. Bryant stood quietly for a moment beside the equally silent Cunningham, and then said simply, "Gentlemen this is a football player." The erupted in cheers as the Bama boys recognized the young man's achievement. It was later said by another coach (albeit one who wasn't at the game and who didn't happen to have ever coached at either Alabama or Southern California), "Sam Cunningham did more to integrate Alabama in 60 minutes than Martin Luther King did in 20 years."

Does that sound pretty much the way you heard it?....Because almost every detail is a complete falsehood. But this or something close to it has been printed in several books about Bryant or Alabama football. But to the false or misleading statements. Hang on for another wall o' text.

Let's dispense with the drama of Bryant bringing Cunningham to the Alabama dressing room for some Shakespearean minimalism. Bryant went to the visitors' locker room and quickly congratulated Southern Cal's coaches and players: that's it. And you'll see that Cunningham, through no fault of his own, did virtually nothing to change integration at Alabama....because it had already been in effect - for 14 years.

Now about Bryant. You must understand the veneration which so many Alabamians had for Bryant, who for many of them was the primary, or only, source of pride in their lives. Not surprisingly the truth about Bryant's stellar career, while glorious, is not sufficient for some of his worshipers,  and a huge hagiography has sprung up around him, in which he is attributed demigod status. Perhaps it's only human nature to ascribe nobility to our heroes, and so it is with Bryant. Even his death has something of heroic myth to it, since he died less than 30 days after a bittersweet retirement he was not really happy about entering.

But over the decades since his death in 1983 ever greater deeds are told about him. In death he has attained virtues which were absent in life, and today he is often painted as a man who would have been unrecognizable to those who saw him on a daily basis. One of these myths is that Bryant was "pro-integration"; as if he was chomping at the bit to integrate Alabama football but was thwarted by a combination of Governor George Wallace's racist views and the University of Alabama's policy of segregation. There are three major problems with that assertion. Here's the truth.

Bryant was born just before WWI in Arkansas, in deepest Jim Crow territory. He was  raised and lived his life certain of the mental inferiority of blacks compared to whites. He also was convinced that most blacks had a "character deficit" and were more likely to be physical and moral cowards who were unwilling to do difficult things unless driven by fear or force to do so. He was just a product of his place and time.

But, like most folks of his time and place and background, his bigotry was ameliorated a good deal by the fact of integration - certainly not that integration was helped into being because of Bryant's lack of bigotry. Mostly Bryant was a realist. After playing excellent Midwestern teams in bowl games in the 60's, such as Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado (and he was lucky to break even with them), Bryant saw what black players added to the skill levels of those teams. So pragmatism was behind Bryant's racial conversion, not a change of heart. He knew he would have to integrate his team.

But there weren't hurdles to that which the revisionist Bryant hagiographies would have us believe. First, segregation was not a policy at the University of Alabama when Alabama and Southern Cal played in 1970: segregation ended at UA in 1956 when the first black student was admitted. In 1963 newly elected Governor George Wallace tried to reestablish segregation at UA by his "stand in the schoolhouse door" to block the admision that Fall of some black students, but this was just grandstanding for his racist supporters. Wallace failed and UA remained integrated. So the game wasn't about changing University of Alabama policies so that Bryant could legally recruit black players.

Even more to the point, George Wallace wasn't even the governor of Alabama in 1970: his term had expired in 1967. Alabama's governor in 1970 was the quite progressive and racially enlightened Albert Brewer. Integration at UA was just not an issue in 1970.

The real issue was that Bryant didn't want to run the risk of pissing off that portion of his fans for whom integration was offensive. And now we get down to it. The man who was always talking to his players and the public about "doing the right thing", and having moral courage and being a man, and counting the cost to do the right thing even if it hurts, couldn't meet the standards he expected his football players to meet. Bryant, like most humans, was in fact something of a moral coward. When it came to integrating his football team he just turned tail and hid for at least 5 years after he could have done it. He could easily have put dozens of wonderful black athletes on his team since 1965 with the snap of his finger; but he wouldn't because he was afraid of losing even a little popularity with his fans. Now who was "doing the right thing, even when it hurts"?

Bryant was in actuality, as many successful public figures, something of a manipulative cynic whose public persona was that of a humble John Wayne. When talking to his adoring public during his weekly Sunday afternoons tv show when he reviewed the game of the day before, Bryant affected a false humility which was endearing to those many fans of Alabama football who were unsophisticated and easily manipulated. Remember, we're talking about over 40 years ago, when America was an entirely different place: there was none of the cynicism and irony which chokes popular culture today. Americans, and Alabamians in particular gave great deference to authority figures. They also tended to take people at their word. This worked greatly to Bryant's favor. He was far more concerned about not hurting his personal popularity than he was about righting any societal wrongs such as integration. He could easily have singlehandedly integrated his team in 1965, so his refusal to have done so by 1970 speaks more to moral cowardice than courage.

Instead Bryant wanted to manipulate the Alabama fans into virtually begging him to integrate the team to stay competitive - which is what happened. Alabama had been defeated by some of those Midwestern teams with black players, and it stung Alabama's fan base: if there was anything they hated even more than "race-mixing", it was losing football games.

So Bryant began slowly stocking up on excellent black athletes who were generally exemplary citizens and goods students as well. There's no doubt there was a double standard at work here: the black athletes had to be superior in every aspect of their lives. They couldn't do the things the white players often got away with, at least to some degree, such as star quarterbacks Joe Namath and "Snake" Stabler, who were famous for their drunken hijinks (which occasionally got them tossed in jail where, in fairness to Bryant, he let them languish a bit).

Now make no mistake: Bryant was a truly legendary coach. No one was truly his equal. He could build a rock-solid team; instill a sense of pride and self-confidence which was unmatched; a give them desire to win like no other. Former players today still talk about how Bryant's leadership was responsible for their later successes in life, and some even said that Bryant had had more positive impact on their lives than even their fathers. Bryant was also a world-class motivator. One of the reasons that current Alabama fans love Nick Saban so much (other than the fact he's given them two national championships in 5 seasons on the job, and looks in good position for a third this year), is that in his drive, dedication and burning desire to win he is a clone of Bryant. One could do worse.

But the truth about Bryant is plenty of glory. Fans may think they are helping to burnish the reputation of their hero by printing exaggerated accounts of Bryant's life, but they actually put his place in history at jeopardy because questions arise about what is reliable and what is not. The truth is absolutely fine as is.
Longest....post.....ever.


Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2012, 11:14:18 PM »
Longest....post.....ever.

         Uh Oh. James G warming up in the bullpen, trying to reclaim that title.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2012, 11:33:31 PM »
Longest....post.....ever.

It's true. But you needlessly killed all those additional pixels in quoting in entirety. I at least put the pixel skins to an arguably good use. Although I do admit the meat was left on the prairie to spoil.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2012, 04:57:51 AM »
I was around the SEC at the time.  Bryant had made a few attempts to integrate the team in the past.  He enlisted the NAACP at one point, in an attempt to sign some star black players, but that didn't work.

But one point rarely mentioned in the story is that black players didn't have to go to the big schools to get to the NFL.  I remember reading a magazine in 1970 that showed Notre Dame had put more players in the NFL than any other school.  Grambling State was second.  So black players knew they could get to the NFL through Grambling, Southern, FAMU, etc., go to the schools their fathers and uncles had attended, and not have to put up with BS.

What Bryant did, after the Southern Cal game, was go out and recruit a dozen black Jr. College and Division II kids.  Remember there was an NCAA rule at the time that freshmen could not play varsity sports.  Bryant signed 10 of those kids.  Other SEC schools were signing one at a time.  He had argued that he was making a serious run at integrating the team, and that by signing a number of black players, they wouldn't be alone.

And what Bryant did had already happened in high schools all across the South. 

You're right that the legend is much greater than what actually happened, but what happened is important.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2012, 10:11:01 AM »
All of them.
Because I can.

This.

I mean, really, aren't they all the same at the end of the day? Overpaid, ego-driven, free agent fucks. I don't understand this pining over one team vs. another.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2012, 11:09:19 AM »
Tribalism

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2012, 12:06:55 PM »
Tribalism
No doubt about it - nationalism in microcosm.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2012, 02:22:11 PM »
I hate all sports teams that use taxpayer money to build their cathedrals.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2012, 04:09:56 PM »

 

 
Yankees
 
The football factories of Ohio St, Michigan, Nebraska, Florida, Notre Dame,
 

 

Care to explain why the hate on Nebraska? Even if I wasn't a fan, Id find it hard to hate them.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2012, 04:21:00 PM »
I hate all sports teams that use taxpayer money to build their cathedrals.
Great post!

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2012, 05:44:11 PM »
         Uh Oh. James G warming up in the bullpen, trying to reclaim that title.


no... he's still busy trying to figure out how to dial the police.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2012, 05:46:02 PM »
I hate all sports teams that use taxpayer money to build their cathedrals.


amen.  i hate all professional sports for this and many other reasons, but this is at the top of the hate list.  i'm totally incapable of relating to this thread.  i think professional sports exist for the purpose of distracting the peasants from how shitty their lives are by giving them something woefully meaningless and insignificant to be interested in.  i see professional sports as a pacifier for adults.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2012, 05:49:51 PM »

amen.  i hate all professional sports for this and many other reasons, but this is at the top of the hate list.  i'm totally incapable of relating to this thread.  i think professional sports exist for the purpose of distracting the peasants from how shitty their lives are by giving them something woefully meaningless and insignificant to be interested in.  i see professional sports as a pacifier for adults.

I have nothing to add to this. Except my disgust. I have not cared for sports since my high school days when coach roe taught us to cheat. Yeah sports, always brings out the best.

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2012, 05:50:03 PM »
This.

I mean, really, aren't they all the same at the end of the day? Overpaid, ego-driven, free agent fucks. I don't understand this pining over one team vs. another.

 
On Seinfeld, Jerry would do short nightclub bits in the beginning or end of the episode.  Here's one he did on this (of course it's funnier listening to it than reading it):

 
"Loyalty to any one sports team is pretty hard to justify. Because the players are always changing, the team can move to another city, you’re actually rooting for the clothes when you get right down to it.
 
You know what I mean, you are standing and cheering and yelling for your clothes to beat the clothes from another city. Fans will be so in love with a player but if he goes to another team, they boo him.
 
This is the same human being in a different shirt, they -hate- him now. Boo-oo! Different shirt!! Boo. "

Re: Which Sports Teams Do You Hate And Why
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2012, 06:02:28 PM »
All of them.
Because I can.

I keep thinking my dad must be writing some of these posts, but no - he wouldn't have even clicked on the thread.  Not that any of these comments are 'wrong' of course. 
 
I do have to say - as a group sports fans seem to be, umm, overrepresented in the sub 100 end of the IQ spectrum... but then so do drivers, people using cell phones in public, shoppers, TV audiences,..