Sports are a common topic across academic disciplines. In addition to Sports Economics, there is Sport Management, Sport Marketing, Exercise Science, and even Sports Philosophy. I know very little about the last item on this list, but nevertheless, this column is still going to offer a few philosophical thoughts about sports.
A typical entry at The Wages of Wins Journal begins with a question and ends with an answer. And if the answer says that Kobe Bryant (or Gilbert Arenas, Allen Iverson, etc…) isn’t the greatest, we then see a number of comments where regular readers of this page debate those with arguments that torture logic in a fashion that probably violates the Geneva Convention (assuming we still think that’s important).
In the last column of 2007, I am going to take a different approach. Today’s column is going to focus on a question that I don’t think I can answer. And I hope the WoW Journal readers might have some ideas.
My question begins with the WoW Journal blog roll (on the right). The blog roll presents a mix of blogs ranging from economics, to sports economics, to just sports. Included in this list is The Disappointment Zone, a site maintained by life-time Cleveland sports fan, Joel Witmer.
This past year has been one of highs and lows for Witmer and the other fans of Cleveland professional sports. Ohio State managed to reach the championship game in college football and men’s basketball, only to lose to a team from the University of Florida each time. Next came the Cavaliers, who made it all the way to the NBA Finals, only to be swept away by the San Antonio Spurs. Then the Indians came within one win of advancing to the World Series, only to see the Red Sox take three straight and eventually a World Series title. Finally, the Browns managed to win 10 games, only to miss out on the playoffs when the Colts couldn’t come back and defeat the Titans on Sunday.
Witmer’s website was named The Disappointment Zone before the series of disappointments he experienced in 2007. In Witmer’s lifetime, Cleveland has had a number of close calls with championship glory. The Browns advanced to the AFC Title game twice in the 1980s, only to be thwarted by John Elway and the Broncos. The Indians reached the World Series in 1995 and 1997, only to lose each year. In essence, Witmer has seen his team come close to a title, only to be thwarted each time.
His experience this past week led me to wonder about consumer demand for sports. Sports fans tend to follow a specific collection of teams. We invest into these teams with time, money, and emotion. When our teams win we feel like we have won. When they lose, we feel like we are losers. In sum, our teams can make us happy or sad. Or if I were to pretend to be an economist, teams can increase or decrease our utility.
Obviously when our teams take the title our utility level has been increased. But titles are few and far between for most sports fans. In my lifetime as a Detroit fan I have seen the Pistons take three titles, the Tigers win once, and the Lions…. well, they got to the NFC title game once but in general, the Lions are not too good. If we start my clock as a fan when I am eight years old, I have invested 30 years into these three teams, and in those 90 seasons only seen four titles. So 95.6% of the time my teams have either finished the season with a loss, and/or missed the playoffs entirely.
Okay, here’s my question. Given that winning the title is unlikely, how would we prefer our teams finish the season? Consider baseball for a moment. Obviously when the regular season ended, Witmer was happier with his Indians than I was with the Tigers. The Indians were in the playoffs, the Tigers were not. But like every playoff team outside of Boston, the Indians season ended without a title. In fact, the Tigers won their last game in 2007. Witmer’s Indians, despite being the better team, finished with three disappointing losses. When we look at the entire picture, Witmer was clearly very happy to see his team eliminate the Yankees (as was I) and quite happy to see his team take three out of four from Boston. But the last three games of the Boston series clearly reduced his utility.
Did the net effect of this experience leave Witmer worse off than a Tigers fan? Would he have been better off if the Indians missed the playoffs entirely?
Again, I don’t have an answer to these questions. But one wonders about this answer for fans of each NFL playoff team. Right now fans of twelve teams are thinking that if things break right for them (and maybe if Tom Brady breaks a bone or two), maybe their team can win a Super Bowl. Fans of eleven of these teams are going to be unhappy in a few weeks. Would they have been better off just being a fan of the Lions, who were eliminated a few weeks ago?
Okay, I know the answer to that question. No football fan is better off being stuck witht the Lions. But let’s not go there.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
magicmerl
January 1, 2008
I’ve rooted for the spurs since David Robinson was a rookie, and I’d have to say, the ‘good’ or acceptable ways to finish the season (other than winning it all) are
a. losing in the playoffs because of a major injury
b. missing the playoffs because you’ve been decimated by injuries
c. losing in the conference finals
d. losing in the conference semi-finals
Losing in the first round is crud, as is missing the playoffs with a relatively healthy team
Tim
January 1, 2008
You answered your own question. I would much rather see my team lose in the playoffs than miss the playoffs altogether. Yes, if they lose in the playoffs year after year one might find that frustrating, but if they miss the playoffs year after year it goes beyond frustration to boredom and irrelevance.
seansmith
January 1, 2008
There is utility in the outcome, but also in the process as well. The period of time before and between games is a time of fan anticipation, positive affect around the city and on the internet, and tangible material increases in merchandise sales. This would all be calculated in an overall picture of utility.
Furthermore, even though the Tigers won their last game, there would be “slippage” for a Detroit fan in the fact that every game throughout the playoffs would be a reminder that their team wasn’t good enough.
In other words, this isn’t a philosophy question, but an economics question with missing data.
sportsBabel
http://www.sportswebconsulting.ca/sportsbabel/
reservoirgod
January 1, 2008
I have to disagree w/ magicmerl. Losing in the playoffs due to injury is not an easy pill to swallow. I was a Lakers fan growing up and when Magic Johnson and Byron Scott went down in the first two games of the ’89 Finals against the Pistons – I was decimated. I would’ve preferred them not even making the playoffs to coming so close to a three-peat and then not even having the chance to compete. Or the ’91-’92 season when Magic announced he had HIV/AIDS right after they finished STEAMROLLING thru the pre-season and I just KNEW we were going to get revenge on the Bulls… I would’ve preferred Magic made his announcement in the off season than to deal with the disappointment of what would’ve been (no one can convince me the Lakers wouldn’t have won the title that year). And I’ll sum up the disappointment of being a Knicks fan with something my uncle (who was a Nets fan until they announced the move to Brooklyn) told me when I was a teenager, “You’re too young to be a Knicks fan. Don’t throw your life away. All the Knicks fans I know have back trouble, hypertension, etc. You don’t need that at your age.”
But I digress… To answer your question – fans are better off when they’re not disappointed and disappointment is tied to expectations. For instance, Tampa Bay fans probably had low expectations going into this season, but now they’re a home favorite in the first round of the playoffs. If they lose that playoff game, then it’s a disappointment. And if I was a Tampa Bay fan, then I would’ve preferred switching places with the Carolina Panthers.
TG Randini
January 1, 2008
1. It’s better to make the playoffs and lose, rather than not make the playoffs at all. The sum of the increase in (17 week) weekly utility (excitement through the season, entertainment, etc.) + weekly post-season utility (for any post-season wins) is undoubtedly greater than the dis-utility incurred through the one post-season loss (when averaged across the population).
The capitalist oligarchists know this: that is why they strive for competitive balance. They believe this balance creates greater total utility when averaged across the total population of sports fans for the constituent cities.
Nero, Caligula, and their ilk also knew this. That is why they had gladiators fed and trained for combat in the Colisseum. It would have been cheaper (less food, management, training, etc.) merely to throw Christians to the lions. Although they did this, too, they knew the spectators would get bored if this was the only type of entertainment. So they incurred extra state expense in the training and feeding of competitors in gladiatorial combat because, long-term, competition is more exciting, thus creating greater spectator utility.
In both cases (imperial Rome and imperial America), the emperors and oligarchists know that if the population is entertained (distracted), they are less likely to storm the Forum or White House.
2. Willie Shakespeare once said, “It’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.”
This was said a few hundred years before Adam Smith was born.
There are certainly cases where a guy (for example) falls madly in love with a girl in one night, gets his heart broken, and moons about it for six months. The total utility for love in this case would probably be negative… but in sum, spread across the population for all encounters and durations… there is probably net positive utility for love.
Now substitute what Willie said for the first sentence in this post.
TG Randini
January 1, 2008
PS: The 17 weeks of weekly utility was for NFL football. Substitute the appropriate number of weeks for college football, college and NBA basketball, etc. etc.
Also: the net positive utility for ‘love’ probably holds true. If not, our genes would have evolved away the ‘love/nurturing/etc.’ capacity in order to increase our fitness for survival as a species.
In this case, the chemical release/mixture of endorphins, etc. that create the ‘love/nurturing/etc.’ condition… acts as a positive mechanism.
What was it that Bryan Ferry (of Roxy Music) once sang?
Love is a Drug?
Evolutionary fitness says this is one of the positive drugs, averaged across the population as a whole.
don
January 1, 2008
Randini stole my Shakespeare lead and frame, so I’ll go in another direction. I doubt if sports’ thoughts enter the higher levels of the brain; rather for all, but a few (especially readers of this site) sports’ thoughts are located in the reptillian sector of our brain stem. Fans and fanatics share the same root.
Thus I think the hedonist philosphers need be considered for this issue. The true Epicurean would advise not becoming vulnerable to that which you really can’t control. Thus for the Epicurean it would be better to not be in the playoffs as such interaction risks the severe disappointment of loss. Of course, to the true Epicurean following professional sports and identiying with professsional teams.
To their hedonist cousins and opponents, the Cyrenaics, go for it all. The spasms of happiness leading to the playoffs are worth the possible regurgitation of the playoff feast. Enjoy, live for that moment of your team winning–indeed enjoy all the moments of the game and overeat and overdrink when you do.
Kent
January 1, 2008
Statistical proof that Cleveland is most cursed sports franchise–
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E1DC163FF933A25755C0A9619C8B63
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/sports/baseball/31score.html
Kent
January 1, 2008
Statistical proof that Cleveland is most cursed sports franchise–
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E1DC163FF933A25755C0A9619C8B63
Kent
January 1, 2008
Also, this article applies–
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/sports/baseball/31score.html
p
January 1, 2008
I disagree,
It wasn’t a bad year to be a Lions fan!
As for me, the utility of a team depends on whether they meet my self-determined expectations. So as a fellow Lions fan, I would say the Lions are the least disappointing team I followed, this year.
At least from an owners point of view, studies in MLB have shown that making the playoffs significantly increases ticket sales and revenue the following year. Which implies that missing the playoffs entirely is worse than being swept in the first round.
The Franchise
January 1, 2008
Enjoying a team for what it is, rather than what it is not, seems to be a successful formula.
Harold Almonte
January 2, 2008
In sports like every competition you win or loose, and people like everything in life, confront this thing with their “half full/empty glass” minds. I think that in social evolution the half full minds, in the end, take charge of rules and controls, and create the silver and bronze medals, the consolation prizes, and the accumulative points, the “what matter is to compete”, “we didn’t loose, just we won the 30th place” phrases, etc. But, one thing is for sure: the true celebrations, and the arrogancies, still are winners’s rights only.
Harold Almonte
January 2, 2008
Top winners.
Mike
March 22, 2008
There are several books, intended for sports fans, that discuss philosophy of sport.
My own Running and Philosophy and Football and Philosophy, as well as Basketball and Philosophy and Baseball and Philosophy. These might be interesting for you and some of your readers.