First of all, there are some who would be consumed by fantasy football. This in itself is not an adequate argument against fantasy, because the same thing could be said about facebook, or even non-fantasy NFL-watching. It is, however, valid to note that for certain types of personalities fantasy would not be a good idea because it would lead to a decrease in other meaningful activities in their lives and leave their relationships lacking. I don't have that kind of personality, so I'll move on to other reasons I choose not to engage.
Fantasy football measures the success of individuals and units (special teams and defense) by numbers alone. The receivers who have the most catches for the most yards are sought-after because catches and yards and touchdowns and stats are how you accumulate fantasy value. Fantasy pays no attention to those players who are vital to a team's success but do not put up consistently big numbers. One way that this is becoming more and more the case is in the instance of running backs. Many, if not most, NFL teams are adopting rushing systems in which two or more backs share the load. Because of this common system, often some of the best running backs in the league rush for just 60-80 yards a game over the course of a season. Also, if a team's rushing attack has a "short yardage back," then the 60-80 yard rushers often don't score many touchdowns, because they are less likely to be in the game near the goal line. Obviously this isn't true across the board. Clinton Portis, Adrian Peterson, and Brian Westbrook are just three examples that spring easily to mind who consistently rush for 100 yards or more and score pretty often. But consider the Dallas Cowboys rushing attack if Felix Jones had remained healthy this year. As Jones became more of an impact player, with a contrasting style to the battering ram that is Marion Barber, neither of these backs would get very good fantasy numbers, but they are two of the most important pieces of a successful Dallas offense.
Another personal objection I have is to the "but it makes you care about every game" argument. First of all, I already care about every game. As an avid football fan who cheers for teams in both conferences (the Cowboys are by far my favorite team, but I root for Denver too in every instance except when they play each other), almost every game of the weekend has implications, and even if it doesn't, I love NFL football no matter who's playing. My real objection, however, is that the argument is somewhat flawed. You don't care about the outcome of every game. You care about how specific players perform in the game. A fantasy player might say, "I hope Arizona kills their opponent this week," but he likely means, "I hope Kurt Warner throws for 350 yards and 3 touchdowns, regardless of who wins."
My final objection (at least my final mentioned objection in this post) is that fantasy, if I were involved, would likely create situations where I would have to cheer for players and/or teams I despise, or cheer against players and/or teams I love. Unless my fantasy team was made up of Tony Romo, Marion Barber, Jason Witten, Roy Williams, Terrell Owens, Nick Folk, and the Cowboys defense and special teams, I would probably run into issues over the course of a season. What if I had Santana Moss? I HATE the Redskins, but I'd want him to perform well. That goes against everything in me. I'm a fan of the Cowboys first and foremost, not of individual players. "So don't draft players from teams you hate," a fantasy-er might say. Okay, but if I want to succeed in fantasy, which is at least one of the points to it, I would no doubt have to draft a player who at some point in the season will play against the Cowboys, which creates the same problem. True fans cheer for their team, win or lose (just ask the guy in my class who's from Detroit and still says, "Go Lions" every week). I want to care about my team is faring against other teams, not how players from 10 different teams are faring individually. Words I never in my life plan to say: "Well, it's okay that Dallas missed the playoffs this year, because Michael Turner had a fantastic game, and I'm beating the second seed in my fantasy league!"
To sum up: I have no problem with people who enjoy fantasy football. More power to ya. But I don't think I would like it very much, and I hope that's okay with fantasy-ers too. I'll continue to root for my team and to enjoy good football, you continue to root for your players and be concerned with every play of every game. To each his own.
I welcome arguments and objections (from all one or two of you who read this).
2 comments:
Personally I think that you took my post about fantasy football a little too...um...personally? I think it is perfectly fine not to participate in fantasy football. I would also like to mention that if you added up my entire time spent on my fantasy team during the season you would probably arrive at a number close to 30 minutes. Also, I think you proved your ignorance to the whole concept by using Marion Barber of all backs as an example of a person valuable to a team but not necessarily to a fantasy team. Someone like Willie McGahee or Leron McLain would have definately been a better example. You wouldn't know that though because you probably don't give a squat about the Ravens. Besides, Willie McGahee is especially important to me if Antonio Bryant is playing against him. Why? I need Willie to stay just far enough ahead of the Bucs so that they have to pass downfield to Bryant. Also, I feel bad for someone who would have to skip watching the NFC championship if it were between the Redskins and the 49rs because he so hated the site of either team. I guess I'd just have to ask...do you really love the NFL or just the Prima Donna Cowboys. Hey, I love the Cowboys and root for them in every game they play, but I'm sick of Romo strutting around like he is King of the QB. Sick of T.O. whining everytime the ball goes to someone else. If it weren't for Barber, Jones, and now Choice it would be hard for me not to see at least Romo and Owens, and throw jailbird PacMan in there too, as arrogant pricks. They have no business giving up a game like that in the fourth quarter. Call it bad coaching or whatever, they choked. Just because you wear blue and silver on Sunday doesn't make you any better than Santana Moss. They should have to prove it. They haven't. It's too bad too, because I think that they are better. I think they really ARE better. But it is hard to perform if you are a head case.
There are people who would tell you all about how much they hate Harry Potter even though they never read one of his books. Or how terrible sqash tastes even though looking at it is as close they've come to tasting it. I have a very hard time listening to those people. Their rants and raves just don't seem to hold much ground with me. I don't know why? Maybe you could help me out on this one.
For the record, I don't expect that you would publish this comment. That is okay. I've got a blog too.
I did publish your comment, so there. I'm for freedom of speech!
I didn't attack the amount of time you spend on fantasy, so no need to argue as though I did. Also, I do give a squat about the Ravens. Dallas plays them in two weeks, and it's going to be a must-win, which is looking pretty scary. Also, Denver could end up playing them in the playoffs. I watched - and cheered for - the Ravens in last night's trouncing of the 'Skins (the game wasn't as close as the score indicated). I would never skip watching an NFC Championship, and I don't believe there's any indication in my post that I would. Not liking a team is different from not watching a team. I said I wouldn't cheer for Santana Moss - not that I wouldn't watch him. If the '9ers and the 'Skins played in the NFC Championship, I'd watch the game with the utmost interest... and then hope the winner got shellacked by whoever the AFC team was!
As for your final question, I really do love the NFL, but even football fans can be team fans. I love the sport itself like crazy, and if the city of Dallas fell into a black hole tomorrow and there was no longer a Cowboys team, I'd find another team and cheer for them... but until that happens, they're my guys. I don't have to like every individual player. I do, however, have the ability to like players and still not be crazy about everything they do. I have a love/hate relationship with T.O. I love him when he performs and keeps his mouth shut (even when "performs" means not getting a single catch, but drawing double or triple coverage opening up other receivers), but he drives me nuts with his blame-game, always-in-the-spotlight-in-the-worst-way loudmouth-ness. You don't stop cheering for your team because of stuff like that. Ever.
I'm perfectly comfortable, too, with fans of the NFL who don't even have a favorite team, who just love the game. But I do have a team. Even if it's owned by a greedy moron who loves money and ego above all else.
(And for the record, I don't think Romo struts at all. I think he's a perfectly likable guy. Also, the "blue and silver" did prove they were better than Santana Moss a few weeks ago... plus, you don't have to "prove it" to your fans. If they're fans, they cheer you on win or lose. You do have to "prove it" in order to get to the postseason and succeed, and we'll see how that goes.)
Post a Comment