Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Number one on the no-fly list

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                               

New sports leagues

Sporting events between players with different beliefs.
 
(+5, -5)
  [vote for,
against]

I propose a sports league where teams are formed by ideological positions. For example, one week you could have the socialist playing basketball vs. the capitalist.

Reasons to agree that this is a good idea. 1. Maybe it would let people burn off steam, so that we will not have to have real wars. 2. Without subscribing to the idea of mob (or city or country) mentality where the team represented by my mob (or city or country) is the good guy, and the other team is the "bad guys" there is very little reason to care for the outcome of sporting events. Why root for a team if every member of the team is inherently the same as other members of the other team, and members constantly get traded back and forth?

3. Greed is the only thing now that motivates players to play. They have to tell themselves, “I am going to work really hard so that I can make a lot of money.”

4. Apposing groups could view the contest as a vicarious struggle. In the 1980's the US and the USSR had an arms race where each side tried to prove that they could build more, and better weapons. The contest resulted in great peril for the planet. Now China and India are kind of trying to see which will be the next supper power. Some people have said that they are having a race to space. This is much better for the future of humanity, than an arms race. In a similar way, we can compete against the Chinese, on the basketball court or with Hollywood.

5. It would be interesting to see if thinking about a cause while you played, made you play harder. In war, Generals have to tell their solders why they are fighting; “Think of your friends, family and homeland that you are protecting. You understand, appreciate, and love your own people; can you say the same for your enemy?”

6. We all know that athletes don’t play as hard when the outcome doesn’t matter. They play much harder in a championship game than an exhibition game.

7. It would be interesting to see which team had better sportsmanship, the pro-choice, or the pro lifers.

8. Sociologist could examine what type of person will accept certain types of situations.

9. Athletes would no longer disengage from the real world. They would have to become real hero's that stand for something important and fight for it. They would go through a natural process that allows them to choose what they believe and develop real conviction in their ideas.

10. This is a way we can be entertained, and engaged in the real world too.

Possible rules: 1. Players could be given one day to make up your mind.

2. Players would be able to try and influence their friends to join their side.

3. Presentations could be made to everyone be experts representing each side.

4. Professors could be available to talk with each of the players.

5. Players could post their reasons for joining each team

6. At first it may seem like it would be difficult to produce even sided teams, however I think this is where it gets cool. Extreme positions would have to be moderated until the wording for each side’s positions produced evenly sized teams.

7. Different leagues with different rules could spring up. The league with the best rules would eventfully become most popular.

Principles that agree 1. To find out which ideas should win the war of ideas, we need to find ways of measuring how strongly people actually believe what they say they believe.

Reasons to not think this is a good idea. 1. People watch sports to escape from the real world

2. Instead of letting of steam, this would magnify the animosity between apposing sides.

2. Devout Christians and Muslims could not play. Response: Not only is this not true (Eric Liddell, Jonathan Edwards and Muhammad Ali, the Pope used to be no mean football player, the recently deceased former Bishop of Liverpool was a first class cricketer), but who cares? I might make a rule that sides that are actually fighting in the real world, could not participate in this, because emotions would run too high. Some of it could be humorous (think less filling vs. great taste). I'm sure some Hollywood type could come up with better ideas than me.

3. Come to Glasgow, where derby matches are accompanied by vehement, if ill informed, debate on the role of the Church of Rome in modern Christianity and the advantages and disadvantages of Irish immigration. Oh yes, and fatal stabbings by people too drunk, too aggressive and too stupid to treat a total stranger as anything other than a *?@%ing animal or dirty fenian. First hand experience of this practical reality tells me that what's proposed is a bad bad bad idea (posted by Calum). My response: at least the sides are talking. At least they are interacting with each other. They see that their are stupid people on both sides. I think they gain respect for each other also. But to your point, when people hold beliefs very strongly, competitions could get out of hand. That would have to be managed.

Origin of Idea: When watching the movie Troy, I started thinking about the old custom of letting two warriors fight instead of forcing the whole army to fight. And I guess the idea makes sense. You have the best person from each side. That kind of tells, statistically speaking, which society deserves to win, because they are able to produce more excellent specimens.

myclob, Mar 06 2005

I tend to play in the annotations and ........ Half_20Bachelors_20degree
.......links division, but I don't think I'll ever turn pro. [normzone, Mar 07 2005]

Gay-vs.-Muslim Soccer Set in Netherlands http://www.breitbart.com
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/16/D8GCRG8O1.html [myclob, Mar 17 2006]

[link]






       I like it, a much better reason to take sides. It would boil down to muslims against christians. Jihad soccer, crusade formula one.
zeno, Mar 06 2005
  

       This guy sure goes in for long titles. Check his account page.
DesertFox, Mar 07 2005
  

       For many people, sport is a religion.
FarmerJohn, Mar 07 2005
  

       Long titles seems the religion for this one...
DesertFox, Mar 07 2005
  

       I can see it now. A custard-filled flocking road cone soccer game between the bakers who use short titles and those who use long titles.   

       The winner of that round plays the team made of people who primarily post ideas.   

       Meanwhile, the annotaters are playing against the linkers.   

       Winner of that round plays the generalists who do it all equally.   

       Of course, all this is taking place at the college level - Halfbaked University [link]. Who knows what madness prevails when you turn pro........
normzone, Mar 07 2005
  

       [UB] Christian, fairly devout, no problems with christians playing sport. Yes ,we should use our time well, but sometimes relaxation and recharging are a good use of time.
david_scothern, Mar 07 2005
  

       //I would like to see a league where teams are formed by ideological positions//
Come to Glasgow, where derby matches are accompanied by vehement, if ill informed, debate on the role of the Church of Rome in modern Christianity and the advantages and disadvantages of Irish immigration. Oh yes, and fatal stabbings by people too drunk, too aggressive and too stupid to treat a total stranger as anything other than a fucking animal or dirty fenian. First hand experience of this practical reality tells me that what's proposed is a bad bad bad idea.
calum, Mar 07 2005
  

       How about a game where one team believes that they are going to win, and the other believes that they are going to lose?
Ling, Mar 07 2005
  

       He's got a point [UB] - I do believe the Pope used to be no mean football player, the recently deceased former Bishop of Liverpool was a first class cricketer and the Dalai Lama is very handy with a set of darts (well, maybe I made that last bit up).
However, having been the victim of supporter violence for simply coming from the wrong town, I have to agree with [calum] that this is a bad idea.
AbsintheWithoutLeave, Mar 07 2005
  

       //is it ok to be offended by this //
I would say that you can be offended by whatever you wish, but that there is no requirement for anyone else to refrain from offending you.
(Thinks; it's not often [UB] fumbles the ball. Maybe he's working too hard.)
angel, Mar 07 2005
  

       "And here are the football results...

Ideology League, Division One...

Roman Catholics 10, Hellfire Club 1

The tired looking Hellfire Club were no match for the organised and aggressive Catholics and were completely overwhelmed. Using old fashioned tactics, the Catholics seemingly outnumbered the Hellfire Club all over the park and they eventually ran out winners by 10 commandments to 1.

Hassidic Jews 4, Born Again Christians 5

In an entertaining match both teams displayed enthusiasm and energy. It was an end-to-end encounter with each side chasing the ball around the pitch in a single pack. The Born Again Christians snatched a late winner in extra time.

Nihilists versus Thugees

Match abandoned at half time.

Stoics 0, Scientologists 0

In a dull encounter the Stoics unimaginative forwards failed to find a way through the packed Scientologists defence. The spectators had all departed well before the final whistle.

Voodoo Priests 1, Agnostics 0

Despite the shambling, brainless performance of the Voodoo defenders, the Agnostics managed to show a complete lack of confidence in front of goal and missed a hatful of easy chances. Their profligacy was punished in the second half after a succession of unfortunate injuries reduced them to just two fit players and, after taking the lead with a disputed penalty, the Voodoo Priests expertly used possession to run down the clock, with the Agnostics seemingly chasing shadows until the final whistle.

Utilitarians 6, Anarchists 6

The record breaking run of draws by the Utilitarians continues. After building up a big early lead they seemed to take their collective foot off the gas and allowed the Anarchists to catch up. The Anarchists, using a variety of unorthodox tactics, managed to draw level just before the final whistle and snatch a result that seemed most unlikely after they had scored a couple of spectacular own goals early on.

Buddhists 1, Atheists 0

A sublime performance from the Buddhists was won by a superb 90 minute long passing movement which involved each of their players equally and covered every blade of grass on the pitch. It was finished off by a tap-in from close range as the referee was about to blow for the end of the game. The Atheists claimed that the Buddhists ‘had just been lucky’.

Hindus 1000, Muslims 99

A raucous crowd watched a thrilling and emotional game as each side mounted wave on wave of attacks on the opposition. Eventually the Hindu pressure began to tell on the Muslims, who lost all discipline and were reduced to arguing with each other about who was team captain, and a second half avalanche of goals swept the Hindus to victory.
DrBob, Mar 08 2005
  

       "Foosball is the debil."   

       --The Waterboy's momma.
Soterios, Mar 09 2005
  

       Thanks for all of your comments so far. I have had lots of ideas running around in my head, but never thought that anyone would discuss them, so I really think this is a cool community. I've tried encorporating some of your ideas into my main post, and I think I'm getting use to this website.   

       And so I guess that killed the conversation.
myclob, Mar 11 2005
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle