When did college football fandom become college football fandumb? How did something re-creational become de-creational? (“Are we not Men? We are Devo! Are we not Men? D-E-V-O!” Forgive me, Mark Mothersbaugh.)
What’s gone wrong?
College football was meant to be a pastime. It was meant to bring unity to campuses and to alumni, to be a source of interest and even, dare I say it, joy. But it has become a source of something else. Not of unity, but of mercenary alliances, not of interest but of obsession, not of joy but of desperation. College football is no longer a pastime.
What are some of the pathologies of current college football fandom?
1. We. Listen to a college football fan who has gone over the edge, and you are almost sure to hear: “We need a new coach.” “We played lousy.” “We killed you.” “We got 12.” Of course, the fan using “we” has no standing in coaching searches, has never missed — and certainly never made — a tackle, has never been on the winning team in a college football game. That a team is your team does not mean that it is your team. (Attention: Bobby Lowder. Attention: Bobby Lowder.) There is the team — and there (waaay over there) are you, the fan. You are not on the team. Being a fan is not a way of being third-string (and surely not a way of being first-string). Being a fan is not a way of being offensive or defensive coordinator, or even of being a position coach. It is not a way of being recruiting coordinator. It is not a way of being water boy. Fans are not on the team, they don’t coach the team, and they don’t recruit for the team. They don’t carry water. They cheer their team on — and things would be better if they could be of good cheer in doing so. We need to be more circumspect with the first-person plural.
2. Another sure sign is Internet Fixation. Surely, there is nothing wrong with following your team in your spare time. Being more knowledgeable can make the pastime more enjoyable. But that is not what Internet Fixation is. Internet Fixation is the state of not only reading all that can be found about your team in your spare time, but of devoting unspare time to doing it, and, most importantly, to reading what you read in a perverse lectio divina, doubled over the screen, scrying for anything that jolts your conviction about your team, anything that you disagree with, anything that you can meditate upon blackly. And that results in barely literate and wholly uncontrolled spasms on message boards and in comment boxes.
3. Boordom. Members of fandumb believe that membership has its privileges, the first being the freedom to act or speak in any way whatsoever, no matter how boorish. Fans of other teams are immediately denied any standing as human beings; they are no longer seen as made in the image of God. Fans of other teams are cattle, gadding about mindlessly, chewing the cud of their own insipidity. They can be treated in any old way, verbally slaughtered. They have no dignity and the way they are treated does not reflect back on the person dishing out the treatment. But this is crazy. Being a fan does not allow us to dissolve or deface the laws of charity or human society: We cannot so consider fans of other teams that we forget they are human beings. In some ways (not in all, of course), being a fan of a team is like a matter of conscience. We ought to respect the consciences of others, and where their conscience disagrees with our own, to recognize that we cannot simply substitute our conscience for theirs or pressure theirs.
We would all be better off if we recognized that we are fans of our teams due to quite contingent factors: where we grew up, where our parents went to college, where we went to college, what colors we like, and our taste in fight songs. Any one of us could have ended up as a fan of our rival. Despite bumper stickers, God’s grace has nothing to do with what team we support. Chance, not grace, has decided the issue.
Of course, it is not only college football fans that exhibit these pathologies. We see them in fandom generally. But I am concerned with college football. And I do think that some of the pathologies are hidden from view by college football more than they by pro sports. The pathologies are hidden behind the school colors, the school mascot, the school song, by the whole alma mater pageantry. But it is worth remembering that the object of that pageantry is the school, not the team. The team exists for the sake of the school, not the school for the sake of the team. (That is the deep difference between college football and, say, arena league football.) Still, the pageantry can keep us from realizing that we are losing our way by making us feel that we are doing all in the name of loyalty. But just as there is a difference between love and obsession, there is a difference between loyalty and, well, fanaticism.
I do not believe that anything I am saying here is news. I say it as a reminder, as a way of making contact with your better selves. Nonetheless, I expect that some of you will reject what I say. You will reject it because you believe that these pathologies are the price of the “incomparable high” you experience when your team wins. But is that true? I reckon that members of fandumb cannot really experience much of a high when their team wins. Usually, what they experience is a kind of relief, and perhaps a feeling of self-justification that is incompatible with joy. The outcome of the game matters too much, and, even worse, they expect so much from their team that any error, any gaff, even (maybe especially) in a winning cause, is a torment. Read message boards or comment boxes and deny this. And even where the fan manages a bit of a high after a win, it will not even remotely compare the low after a loss, either in magnitude or duration. That asymmetry itself should be enough to show that your fandom has become fandumb.
I speak from my own experience. I am trying to progress fandumb to fandom: mea culpa. So far, little steps for my little feet.
Dr. Jolley is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Auburn University. He works in the theory of judgment, the history of 20th- Century philosophy, metaphilosophy and philosophical psychology. He also likes football. His book, “The Concept ‘Horse’ Paradox and Wittgensteinian Conceptual Investigations” was recently published in Ashgate’s Wittgensteinian Studies Series. “Leisure with Dignity,” his column for TWER, will run bi-monthly to monthly. Write to him at [email protected]
Great stuff. Sadly, I see myself in some of that.
Missed you Jolley…
That’s great stuff. However, bama still sucks.
War Damn Eagle
You’ve nailed it (me, at least in part). But alas, I’m with Jonesy.
Use of “we” depends on the context. In general, most fans using “we” are talking not just about the team, but about the community consisting of the team, coaches, alumni, teachers, and fanbase at large. I feel it’s perfectly appropriate to say something like “we won”, because a victory on the field is a victory for us all.
Also, I don’t know if I agree completely with the “team exists for the sake of the school” perspective. I never attended Auburn, but I’ve been a fan of its athletics for almost 40 years. I consider athletics more enjoyable than academics (gasp). And frankly, if Auburn did not participate in athletics, I would not be interested in the school. So, while agree that the school should not be marginalized, it’s unreasonable to discourage some fans from solely appreciating the athletic aspects of Auburn.
Oh please…
How can someone live in the Auburn community with this namby-pamby view of the world? (I’m absolutely certain Kant wouldn’t.) I suspect the author grew up in North Dakota or Virginia, where there isn’t any football. He certainly didn’t grow up in Alabama around the Bammers. Being a true Auburn fan means you have skin in the game, and it’s a 365-days-per-year membership.
I am Auburn by the grace of God, for which I am thankful every day. So that’s MY team out there – END OF STORY. WE beat Mississippi State and LaTech. And WE’RE going to beat West Virginia.
If being namby-pamby or “holier than thou” is what it’s all about, your affiliation with Auburn sports is hereby TERMINATED. Take your smug, misguided perspective and go elsewhere, and do it now. The real fans don’t want to see it.
-MoreSawdust
@more.sawdust
I think you may need to read the article a little more closely, for you are the character called to reflection.
@Ian
LOL I don’t need to reread the article again. I rejected its premise as “namby-pamby”, misguided, and “holier than thou”. Perhaps you should read my post again.
Number one reminds me of an old “Coach” episode (remember that show?).
random kid – “Hey, Coach. How how many games are we going to win this year?”
Coach – “Are you one of my players?”
random kid – “No.”
Coach – “Then you aren’t going to be winning any games this year.”
I agree with you 100% by the way. I don’t like using “we” for the reasons you mentioned. To me, it just sounds silly. Say you run into Antonio Coleman after a big win. What do you say to him? “Hey, great game!” or “Wow, we really beat the crap ouf of those guys, didn’t we?”? If you said the second, he would probably look at you funny.
Fans calling other fans idiots, losers, etc. is also silly. If team A’s fans think team B’s fans are losers, I guess all that a fan of team B has to do to become a winner is become a fan of team A. That just doesn’t make sense.
More.sawdust, it looks like you missed the point when you say things like, “your affiliation with Auburn sports is hereby TERMINATED”. Dr. Jolley is not affiliated with Auburn sports. He’s a fan of Auburn sports (see number 1). And while missing the point, you’re showing a very “holier than thou” attitude. Someone’s opinions are different than yours, so they’re wrong and shouldn’t be allowed to cheer for Auburn? That’s pretty weak, man.
Dude – Minnesota State was make-believe… and it shows!
It’s clear that I have skin in this game, and that you don’t (or won’t). If you think being smug and smarmy about Auburn football is a good substitute for being a real fan, then by all means, be smug and smarmy, and the rest of us will roll our eyes and mutter under our breath “Oh for pity’s sake” that much more. But I’m still curious about some things…
If, for you, it’s always been “they” instead of “we” – why did you ever care about Auburn or Auburn football in the first place? On what basis do you make that distinction? Geography alone? You flipped some weird 17-sided coin and it came up “Auburn”?
Some more questions:
Before each Iron Bowl, would you say…
(a) “I’m for Alabama except when they play Auburn.”
(b) “To hell with the Mullet Nation and its Angwy Wittle Midget.”
Just before the first game of the season, would you say…
(a) “I’m for Alabama except when they play Auburn.”
(b) “‘Round the bowl, and down the hole, roll tide roll!”
Have you ever said… “I used to be for , but I decided to be for Auburn because .”
If you were to earn degree in mathematics from Auburn University, which would you say?
(a) “Some have alleged that 1 + 2 = 3. But – if that’s true, then the 1 and 2 lose their personal identities, and that is so, so unfortunate. In an inclusive number system that honors diversity, 1 + 2 would be 12.”
(b) “We should ask the 1 and the 2 if they want to be added together first. Numbers have feelings, too.”
(c) “1 + 2 = 3.”
You’re at an Auburn home game, and your sister complains that there were long lines for the women’s restrooms. Which would you say?
(a) “To make things fair, we should pass a law that outlaws urinals in the men’s rooms, so that men always have to sit, too.”
(b) “We need to have more women’s restrooms, and probably have more women’s restrooms than men’s restrooms.”
Which would you say when Old Glory passes by?
(a) “Why do they always have to parade that damn flag around?! As a world citizen, I’m offended!!!”
(b) “I’m proud to be an American. GOD BLESS AMERICA.”
I suppose, in your world, “we” weren’t attacked on 9/11… only the victims in the World Trade Center buildings were attacked, right?
So – when we (or “they”, as the case may be) were attacked on 9/11, which did you say?
(a) “I’m ashamed of my country. We (or they) deserved it.”
(b) “Kill ALL of the terrorist bastards, and kill them NOW!!!”
Just curious… and…
WAR DAMN EAGLE!!!
Ah yes, the Screaming Eagles! You have to admit, though…that show was pretty funny (until he went pro).
1. C, neither. I would say, “WAR DAMN EAGLE!” I focus my attention on the “good guys” on gameday.
2. C, neither. I would rather see Auburn playing a Bama team with a good record than one with a bad one. It makes the win that much sweeter. However, I’m never “for” Bama, and actually take delight in their losses (especially if it helps Auburn win the West).
3. No.
4. C
5. There are usually lines in both bathrooms.
6. B
7. I believe that America was attacked, and as someone with an American birth certificate and passport, I fall in that group.
8. I was actually in too much shock to say anything, but my imediate reaction was that those responsible need to pay for their actions. I still believe that.
I just have one question for you. If someone disagrees with your opinion does that mean they’re wrong, or that they have a different opinion than you?
I’m not being smug and/or smarmy, and neither is Dr. Jolley. We’re just expressing our opinions.
WAR DAMN EAGLE!!!
Hmmmm….. not sure I believe that you answered truthfully. Whatever… we both know where you’re coming from…
To answer your question – when someone disagrees with me, they’re usually wrong. Not always, but usually.
As far as expressing opinions, I only answered Dr. Jolley’s (bizarre) thesis in kind, with a healthy dose of reality – something most philosophy professors need between those staggering puffs off the philosophical bong.