Greet Machine: Boring vs. Interesting Day 23 -- plus other randomness

< Stadium news update | Main | Links of the day >

November 17, 2005

Boring vs. Interesting Day 23 -- plus other randomness

• Well, my "boring vs. interesting" series is winding down. I said I would do this for a month, so I've got a bout 7 days. Then I will make a decision on whether or not I think my life is boring or interesting. Right now the stats look like this:

Interesting days: 14
Boring days: 8

So, things are looking good so far. You know, I've kind of enjoyed breaking this down, but I'm not sure at all any of you have enjoyed this. So, if you find these little snippets in the life of snackeru to be worth while let me know. If not, the tiny minutiae of my life will torment you no longer. Anyway ...

Last night my son and I made a poster for his paper towel absorbency experiment.

The whole experiment turned out pretty good, and as you can see our poster is colorful and (hopefully) interesting.

After we made the poster, I made a batch of cookies for the Cub Scout Pack meeting tonight. Every Pack meeting we give away cookies to the Scouts that are having a birthday in the month of the Pack meeting. So, I had to make 6 big cookies last night:

Hopefully they turned out OK.

Overall, it was kind of a boring night:

Interesting days: 14
Boring days: 9

• In reading Jim in St. Paul's material concerning the first 10 years in Minnesota for the Twins and Vikings I came across a startling discovery: The Vikings were not the first NFL team for Minnesota. The document above mentions the "Duluth Eskimos" so I decided to do a little research into the history of the NFL in Minnesota.

In 1921, the same year the Green Bay Packers joined the AFPA, the Minneapolis Marines also joined the league.

In 1922 the APFA revises its name to the National Football League.

In 1923, the Duluth Kelleys joined the league.

In 1924-25, the Minneapolis Marines folded.

In 1926 the Duluth Kelleys were renamed to the Duluth Eskimos.

In 1927-28 the Duluth Eskimos folded.

In 1929 the Minneapolis Red Jackets joined the league.

In 1930-31 the Minneapolis Red Jackets folded and we wouldn't get another team for another 30 years.

Interesting stuff, no? Speaking of the Duluth Eskimos, in 1927 they had a record of 1-8, with a 0-20 drubbing from the Packers in Green Bay. Also note that they played every game "away." Methinks they were begging for a new stadium and when they didn't get one they were probably contracted! See?!?!? There is precedent!

Let us all lament and weep for the Eskimos! What could have been if only Duluth would have just built them a stadium! It is a shame ...

UPDATE: Here is the real story of the Eskimos. Their lack of a decent stadium had something to do with it, but it had more to do with money.

• Spycake wrote an interesting comment yesterday which discusses, among other things, the phenomenon of fantasy sports. Spycake writes:

Pro sports are less of a requirement now to make a city "great", or even truly "major league." They're just businesses themselves, national businesses, and their direct effects are rather lost among the myriad of suburban and summertime diversions we have access to today. Especially football, the reigning king of pro sports. Most of the "Vikings fans" I grew up with now care more about their fantasy football teams and DirecTV Sunday Ticket subscriptions than the real local team.

That is an interesting thought. I can't say I agree, but then again I'm not really a part of the whole "fantasy football" scence. But his comment got me to thinking, if I was really big into fantasy football, would I care more about my team than the Vikings? Unlikely, but I'm sure there are people like that out there.

Then it dawned on me: that is exactly why I can't get into fantasy sports. I can't stand the thought of cheering for anyone other than the Twins, Vikings, or T-Wolves. I had a fantasy football team in college and I had absolutely zero interest in it. I only cared about Sunday afternoon with the Vikings. I can't imagine having Ahman Green on my team, or Kyle Orton, and having to follow those players every week and maybe even having to cheer for them. Quite frankly it makes me sick.

It reminds me of a quote (for some reason) from Larry Bird who was asked what he thought of Magic Johnson and Isaiah Thomas kissing at mid-court before games. Of course, Bird said he thought it was "disgusting" and that it also made him sick. Bird then went on to describe how when he was a rookie he was really good friends with another player on the Celtics who was then traded the next year. Bird said that player is now an enemy and that he has never talked to him since.

I thought this exchange was hilarious, but it also demonstrated that Bird was loyal to the Celtics (almost to a fault). Most likely he also expected that same loyalty from the fans. I can't imagine that Bird ever played fantasy sports for the same reason I don't: I can't imagine cheering for anyone other than the players on my favorite teams.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm against fantasy sports. I'm sure they are a lot of fun for a lot of people. I just found Spycake's comment interesting and it made me think of the reasons why I don't play. Too much loyalty is one reason, but not enough time is definitely another. But I think he has a point, for some fantasy sports may be more important than the teams they grew up cheering for.

Posted by snackeru at November 17, 2005 08:31 AM | Boring vs. Interesting | Sports | TrackBack popup

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/6410

Comments

In the early days of the NFL, a lot of franchises were in relatively little towns. As the league grew, they were yanked out of little towns and placed into the big cities. There is, of course, one relic of the old days left.

Bird is an interesting character. I've always suspected that he hated Magic Johnson's guts and wanted to punch him out. Magic is always talking about "me and Larry." You don't hear much of that kind of talk from Bird.

I also think his involvement with the Pacers has brought him endless joy. He's been able to stick it to the Celtics and he got the distinct pleasure of firing Isiah Thomas (note that Thomas' first name is spelled differently from that of the prophet). If I recall correctly, he didn't even do it in person. Never talked to him. Larry maintains true hatred for Thomas and has been vastly superior to Thomas as a coach and executive in the league, something I'm sure he is well aware of.

Posted by: SBG at November 17, 2005 09:39 AM

i have really enjoyed your boring vs interesting. i think it makes us all think about our lives. i also really enjoyed the paper towel experiment and especially Alex's comment!
love mom

Posted by: at November 17, 2005 09:55 AM

Speaking as a fantasy sports addict, I enjoy it immensely. As much as I may hope for a good day from a certain player, I do not root for them when at the expense of my beloved teams.

What I have gotten from fantasy sports is a greater knowledge of the players and teams involved. This has enhanced my enjoyment of sports in general and not just given me a narrow view of my teams.

As far as Larry Legend goes, he really doesn't sound like much of a friend and not someone I would want to hang out with. If you're traded from his team through no fault of your own and to him you are dead? Harsh. As far as loyalty goes, if he's so damn loyal, why is he with the Pacers now instead of the Celtics? Bird was a phenominal player, but much of what I have heard about him as a person leaves a lot to be desired.

Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at November 17, 2005 12:12 PM

I for one haven't found the boring v. interesting days all that.... interesting. I was thinking of doing a blog that judges interesting v. boring Greet Machine posts. :o)

Posted by: freealonzo at November 17, 2005 12:38 PM

It's commonly known that Bird has a daughter out of wedlock that he refuses to have anything to do with, against the wishes of the kid. He's interesting, yes, but not a good guy, I agree.

Posted by: SBG at November 17, 2005 12:58 PM

I too am not interested in fantasy sports -- that was just an observation I've made about family and friends who've gotten into it. And more importantly, it's just a small example of a larger point: pro sports are more popular than ever, but the actual presence of teams means far less to a community (both residents and businesses) today than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when Minnesota went "major league." Cities (and metro areas) are no longer captive audiences in close quarters without transportation and in need of cheap local entertainment -- cities are sprawled out over a huge area, and most families have 2-3 automobiles. And pro games aren't cheap.

If I own a company or am looking to start/move a business to the Twin Cities, I couldn't care less about the Twins and Vikings. Quality of life is still important -- but in a country where driving, TV viewing, and organized youth sports are at all-time highs, the actual presence of a pro sports teams means less and less to the overall quality of life. To some individual lives, yes, but fewer people (especially government and business leaders) are conviced of pro teams' community benefit.

Posted by: spycake at November 17, 2005 01:45 PM

It makes me kind of sick that cheering for Kyle Orton would make you sick. It's just football, man!

Posted by: bjhess at November 17, 2005 01:55 PM

You are sick because cheering for Kyle Orton makes me sick? Please don't be sick! Be rest assured that I don't cheer for Kyle Orton. Therefore I am not sick. See how that works?

Posted by: Shane at November 17, 2005 01:59 PM

I think Shane's obsession with stadiums is sick.

Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at November 17, 2005 02:32 PM

I'll agree with that. I am a sick individual. I gotta be me, though.

Posted by: Shane at November 17, 2005 02:48 PM

I'm sick of all this sports talk!! The larger social issue is that Americans want our celebrities to not only be talented, but likeable, same for politicians. I think it is becoming more apparent in the information age that you can't have both. Heck, one could even add on that we want those "leaders" to be good looking, too. We want too much. It is enough for me to just appreciate unadulterated talent. I enjoy watching Darryl Strawberry play ball in part because of his vices and chance of overcoming them, but mostly because he seemed to really enjoy playing a game he was good at. Same for B Farve. Now, I would even argue that there's a danger in being that kind of a fan who projects the personality I would desire onto the player of my choice to enhance my enjoyment of the sport. Sometimes it has to be enough that an athlete is talented, whether or not they are chaste, generous, and well-read.
Item #2, what kind of racially sensitive fire would the "Eskimos" come under today for THAT mascot? It had to be a doozy.

Posted by: Cheesehead's wife at November 17, 2005 03:22 PM

I, for one, have found the boring v. interesting survey interesting. It's let those of us who don't know you get to know you a little, to know the person behind the blog.

I played fantasy sports for a couple of years, but then I got married, got a new job, and got a lot more involved in my community. To play fantasy sports well takes a lot of time, time which I just don't have any more. But, to each his own.

I also think the incredible sports information boom makes it less important to have a team in your town. I'd hate it if the Twins ever left, but I rarely get to a game anyway. I'd still be able to watch their games on MLB.TV or the Extra Innings package, or listen to their games on the internet or satellite radio. I'd have to pay to do it, which I don't have to now, but I could still do it. Years ago, that wasn't the case. And if I miss the game, I can go on the internet and read all the game stories. It's a lot easier to keep up on a team that isn't in your market than it was even ten years ago, so having a team in town isn't quite as important to a fan as it used to be.

Posted by: Jeff at November 17, 2005 05:23 PM

I have a fantasy team and am a die hard Vikings fan. because of fantasy football i have grown fond of a few other teams. (Indianapolis and San Deigo) but the Vikes are stil my #1 team. To avoid having to cheer for a Vikings rival, I dont ever draft anyone from GB, CHI, or DET. Sounds weird but oh well. I dont think fantasy fb is a bad thing. but there are people who are way to obsessed with it. I have a freind who dosnt have a favorite team, he just likes whoever's on his fantasy roster. That's sad if you ask me, and the only issue i have with fantasy sports.

Posted by: bluecorps at November 17, 2005 07:43 PM

Posted by: bluecorps at November 17, 2005 07:45 PM

sorry for the double post

Posted by: bluecorps at November 17, 2005 07:47 PM

I disagree completely with spycake. The presence of major sports teams, I believe, is an important aspect to what makes a metropolitan area unique, and an important factor in the culture of that region. What is Green Bay without the Packers? Can you say a bigger version of Grand Forks? The Twin Cities without the Twins and Vikings? A less environmentally beautiful Portland? A cold Omaha? Either of those comparasions work in my view.

I also believe the fantasy football angle is overblown. I know plenty of people up here in Southern Canada who bleed purple without playing fantasy football. Years of playing fantasy football, baseball and basketball, tell me that fantasy sports may make one pay more attention to a particular sport, but this is no where near the same as being a true fan of your local team. I play fantasy NBA and therefore follow a little of what is happening in the NBA and with the Timberwolves. But if the Wolves moved to Vegas tomorrow I would shed not a tear as I am really not a fan. The Vikings or Twins leaving, though, would be the worse day in my life, and all of the fantasy sports in the world will not change that.

Curt in Grand Forks

Posted by: Curt Hanson at November 18, 2005 10:43 AM

"What is Green Bay without the Packers?"

What is Green Bay WITH the Packers? Obviously they kind of define the town (and even the state), but that's hardly the case with most major sports teams.

"The Twin Cities without the Twins and Vikings? A less environmentally beautiful Portland? A cold Omaha? Either of those comparasions work in my view."

A cold Omaha was the old battle cry of the pro-Metrodome business community, correct? You don't think things have changed in community/team relations since the 1970's? Why isn't the business community saying the same thing today? If you put a pro team in Omaha, it still wouldn't come close to the quality of life in the Twin Cities. Portland is a good example of a successful city without huge pro sports (excepting the Blazers), Las Vegas is another. The Twin Cities and greater Minnesota have quite a bit to offer other than pro sports -- lots of fishing, hunting, and other outdoor activities, plus a large suburban infrastructure and a strong arts community. The Twins and Vikings both have 40+ years in Minnesota and are inextricably linked to the state in the minds of many, but that's hardly evidence that their presence is of vital importance to the quality of life.

Even the "unique"-ness and regional "culture" that you mention, although true, are nowhere near as important today as they were in the past, given the modern homogenized national sports scene. I don't think any city's fortunes will be greatly altered by pro sports anymore.

Posted by: spycake at November 18, 2005 12:09 PM

November 17, 2005

Boring vs. Interesting Day 23 -- plus other randomness

Trackback Pings

Comments

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.