Football Is America's Pastime, But America Invented Nu-Metal

| | Comments (14)

The GM Meetings start today in sunny Dana Point, CA. I can only imagine the amount of cream cheese they and the writers assigned to cover them go through each morning at the continental breakfast. The most glamorous (and I use that word as lightly as possible) image of these meetings are trade proposals being run through the Four Seasons by harried bellmen, and Manny Ramirez being put on waivers after a couple of poolside Mangotinis.

Whether or not that is ever the reality, there figures to be little to none of it this time around. Last year limited use instant replay was voted in at the meetings. This year, the agenda includes things like overhauling arbitration and most gallingly, the idea of a neutral site World Series.

In the annals of reactionary baseball thinking this idea is pretty high up the list. I don't think I ever heard this mentioned before last week's rainy denouement in Philly. My aversion to it is pretty simple. I like the showcasing of two different parks each year. I like the element that each fields brings to the game. One of the idea's big proponents is old school icon Whitey Herzog. I have a ton of respect for Whitey, but on this issue I have a big problem with his reasoning for the neutral site Series.

"You could call it World Series Week," he said by telephone Wednesday night before the Philadelphia Phillies and Tampa Bay Rays endeavored to finish in windy, frigid weather a Game 5 that was suspended two nights prior.

Herzog is well aware of the opposition for such a proposal.

"You've got the old school people in baseball who say that you're taking the World Series away from the home fans and all that," he said. "That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. If you're really going to be honest, the hometown fans (because of high ticket prices) don't get to see the World Series anyway."

"Right now," said Herzog, "the World Series is only the fourth most sought-after ticket. It's behind the Super Bowl, the Masters and the Final Four. So, in that respect, you can't say that it's the national pastime.

On the surface, Whitey looks to gain some cred by breaking from traditionalists in his support of the idea. But, in reality the foundation for his argument lies in one of the most outdated and traditional notions there is, and one that I just don't understand. Mainly, that baseball has a divine right to be America's pastime, and it is somehow fundamentally wrong for it to be behind football (or anything else) in popularity.

The media's obsession with sounding baseball's death knell owes much to the feeling that once it was outpaced by football in the nation's consciousness, it was no longer relevant. Forget the fact that they drew 78 million fans this year, and in each of the previous 3 years (where there wasn't a recession going on) it set new attendance records. Arguing numbers against football's absolutely monolithic economics isn't going to get you anywhere.

The reason I don't buy into it, or even care about the argument, is because I can't think of a single instance where football becoming more popular has impacted my enjoyment of baseball. They're totally unrelated. Is the drive to be "America's Pastime" itself a sport, rooted in the inherent competition of athletics? Because if so, that's dumb. There is plenty of art, food and style more popular than the ones I like. That hasn't once made me abandon any of them.

A gigantic baseball complex sitting in the middle of Nashville (where the hell did they get Nashville from, anyway) hosting a manufactured spectacle like World Series Week, would only serve to reinforce the divide between baseball and football. If you love baseball for what it is, the downsides are glaringly obvious. And if you honestly care about making baseball as popular as football again, shouldn't you do something more innovative than hollow mimicry?

PREVIOUS: How the Phillies Can Repeat and Why Phillies Fans Should Be Scared   |   NEXT: Tonight's Questions


Although I hate the idea of neutral site World Series games it probably gives the Tribe the best chance of hosting one.


I love his argument about the World Series tickets being to expensive for the average fan. Like having to take time off of work, drive/fly to Nashville, and get a hotel room for a week is something that the average fan can afford. I like the idea that if my team is in the WS I can go to games without having to take off work and know that the stadium is filled with Twins fans. I have never been to a WS game but I have been to plenty of important games in my life and being there with 50,000 other partisan fans is the best part. Hearing 50,000 people scream and yell at little things like a first pitch strike is what makes those games so fun. Moving it to a neutral site would make it exactly what it is, neutral. Like the super bowl you would have a quarter of the stadium filled with one teams fans, a quarter of the stadium fill with the other, and half the stadium fill with random people that are there just to be there. Half of them not knowing anything about the game anyway.

Another way baseball should be more like football: more television blackouts!

Also: More violent criminals

This is America. Everything is supposed to be bigger, faster, and Most EXTREME To The Max Edge. If you don't like it, move back to Soviet France, you commee.

This is a stupid idea. The SuperBowl is usually boring, the crowd doesn't get into it because like BC said it costs so much to get to and get in a SuperBowl.

However, I support better commercials during the World Series.

However, I support better commercials during the World Series.

Did you know that The Fixx' song "Saved by Zero" is about masturbation? The 'zero' is the circle made by your thumb and fingers around your member. Ferreals!

We can have it at my house. Big back yard. Trees to piss behind. I'll get a keg or something. It'll be great.

I'm sure none of this is being fomented by a thousand baseball writers who would rather spend a week in Miami or San Diego, than Philly or Detroit. None at all.

What if baseball rendered it's players union powerless and symbolic, would it be more like football then? Would more people watch if the names and faces of players meant nothing?

Do you think baseball's insistence on playing on surfaces and in buildings with "unique dimensions and/or non-standard design" might throw a monkey wrench in this plan?

Baseball competing with football is like football competing with MMA.

They should play every single game of the season on neutral sites, just like in Little League. Then the only people who would come to watch would be parents, bored siblings and would-be molesters.

I see good points on both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, it all boils down to me not caring and focusing instead on possibly sprinkling goat cheese on my Boboli tonight.

Leave a comment