Call me when Angelo, Lovie, and their whole crew is given the boot, and competent football people are hired to replace them. Until then, I've had it. The gross incompetence that is on display week in and week out from players and coaches that are supposed to be professionals is inexcusable, and I can no longer tolerate it. You can spare me the "good riddance" and "you're not a true fan" garbage, too. If the unwillingness to accept a substandard product disqualifies me from "true fan" status, then so be it. I'm sick to death of being pissed off more Sunday afternoons than not, so I'm not going to do it anymore. Adios until the draft.
Madden, your reign is at and end!
You are certainly entitled to do what you want with your free time. I too can't stand the meatballs who think you have to watch every game or stay until the end if you attend or you are not a "true fan." If a restaurant has bad food and bad service I wouldn't expect you to return for Sunday brunch each week.
I wish I could walk away but I am hooked, good or bad. I think that makes me more of an idiot than a fan at this point. They are a tough watch and it's getting harder to justify spending 3 hours + each week of my free time watching them fumble their way through games. Unfortunately, I will continue to do so, but I can't blame you for tuning out.
Well, I trust the Bears' coaching staff more than I do you, guy.
Seems like you are a horrible fairweather fan... seeing as how this team is still over-.500.
I'm sensing some pretty thick sarcasm from Rami on this one, to which I say:
This team is not a Bill Cowher away from any kind of sustained success. I would even go so far to say that bringing in Cowher would bring the team more short-term woes than they would have if they didn't bring him in, as the system-wide changes he would/could institute would necessitate widespread roster turnover that would take years to complete.
Eh, I want Gruden anyway.
You get sacked over 50 times in a season and let me say you're not tough...
Hate to say it but Lovie probably isn't going anywhere. With the possibility of a work stoppage there is now way that the Bears are going to pay two coaches to do nothing in 2011.
Only a real fan would subject himself to the pain/misery/torture that is Chicago Bears football. You sir, are no real fan.
I remember the time when he had a pass rush & O-Line.
Those were the days.
I'll watch every game, whether the Bears are a 3-13 team or a 13-3 team, because they are "my" team. I love it when they make good plays and I'm disappointed when I see them turn over the ball or go "3 and out," but after the game is over I don't feel angry or pissed off. I've been entertained (sometimes more, sometimes less) and after it's over nothing in my life has changed. It's just football and life goes on.
Abraham Lincoln once said that "people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be." I consider it a weakness to let things like sports, bad drivers, rude people, etc., affect or determine my happiness. Why would I give that power to people who have no control over my life?
Tomorrow is another day and next week is another game, and there are too many good things in life to dwell on the negative. I'll keep watching the Bears good or bad ... and I'll be fine.
You can't tell people to quell their happiness or depression based on the play of a sports team because it's "just a game" and it "doesn't have an affect on your life", because there is no logical conclusion for that mantra. Where is the line drawn between "you can let this influence your emotional state" and "you cannot let this influence your emotional state"? What level of direct effect on one's life is necessary to move something from the "can't care" side to the "can care" side? What's more, who makes that decision? You? Is there some gold-standard by which we should all set our emotional clocks for optimum happiness?
When dealing with how individual sentient beings react to and perceive input (emotions), the line between two supposed definite areas (like "caring" and "not caring" about the play of a sports franchise) isn't a line anymore, it is a big fuzzy cloud, because those beings are supposedly free to interpret said input in any way they choose, and the emotional impact on those beings is based at least in part on how those beings perceive and weight specific events.
Think of it like calculus: one of the uses of calculus is to find the area underneath a specific curve over a definite period (integration). However, when you're dealing with simple functions or curves (straight lines with some given slope) you don't need calculus, you can just calculate the area based on the simple geometric shaped formed by the curve itself with the X axis (the rectangle and/or trapezoidal method). But, as you will find, as the curves start becoming more and more complex (with curves instead of straight slopes, changing slopes, etc.), those simple methods of calculating area start to have larger and larger margins of error: they get you close to the true area under the curve, but they aren't nearly as exact as can be because those geometric shapes no longer fit under the curve perfectly.
This is when you need to integrate, to reduce those rectangles or trapezoids down to an infinitely small width (a point) so they can match up with the curve at every single point. Then you can add them all up, and you have the true area under the curve.
Like a complex function, how someone perceives and interacts with the world around them (or even if the resultant interaction or perception) isn't given by a simple function that we can apply a simplistic "under or over the function" or "right or wrong" or "can or cannot" method to, because you will inherently count something that shouldn't be counted, or miss something that should have been. Therefore, it is improper to use a "right vs. wrong" or "can vs. cannot" rule when approaching how an individual (or many of them) interact with and perceive the world. Over larger areas with more simplistic rules? Sure, that approach is a good rule-of-thumb, but to definitively state for an individual instance or system (like how one's emotions are or are not influenced by sports) is almost completely erroneous.
You know who is the one and only true fan of the Chicago Bears? This guy:
I agree with you, Lefty, to a certain extent. It's easy to say "I'm not gonna let his ruin my day." It's a much harder thing to live it. Passions and emotions run high during a football game for players and fans alike. We cheer loudly and sometimes boo, and treat the game like it's the most important thing in the world. What makes it so entertaining is that we are so emotionally involved. But, Like a good movie, when it's over, it's over. (I'm speaking just for myself, here.) But I don't think it is profitable or healthy to to get upset about how a bunch of athletes performed during a sporting event.
True, emotional reactions pretty much defy logic. But I think we can (at least, I think I can) choose to decide what things warrant getting emotional about - relationships, work, faith. In the grand scheme of things, sports are not that important, and I thing some people "over react."You can't tell people to quell their happiness or depression based on the play of a sports team because it's "just a game" and it "doesn't have an affect on your life", because there is no logical conclusion for that mantra.
That's for each person to decide for themselves.Where is the line drawn between "you can let this influence your emotional state" and "you cannot let this influence your emotional state"? What level of direct effect on one's life is necessary to move something from the "can't care" side to the "can care" side?
I make that decision for myself. I wasn't making a "right-or-wrong" judgment of anyone. I was just offering my opinion that you can watch and enjoy the game without getting all suicidal about it when your team doesn't do well.What's more, who makes that decision? You? Is there some gold-standard by which we should all set our emotional clocks for optimum happiness?
I agree 100% here and with your calculus analogy that followed. I think some people tend to lose perspective that it is a choice.When dealing with how individual sentient beings react to and perceive input (emotions), the line between two supposed definite areas (like "caring" and "not caring" about the play of a sports franchise) isn't a line anymore, it is a big fuzzy cloud, because those beings are supposedly free to interpret said input in any way they choose, and the emotional impact on those beings is based at least in part on how those beings perceive and weight specific events. ...
I didn't mean to be that black and white about it. I was just making an observation that, in my opinion (not being dogmatic), getting pissed off at football players, or refusing to watch them because they are struggling, is a bit of an over reaction.... it is improper to use a "right vs. wrong" or "can vs. cannot" rule when approaching how an individual (or many of them) interact with and perceive the world.
If one gets that emotional, and no longer enjoys the game, by all means, don't watch it. It is supposed to be entertainment, after all. I'm not going to let a crappy offensive line and boneheaded receivers stop me from watching a sport I love. If nothing else I can enjoy watching the athletic performances of Bears opponents.