gates@bdmrrr.UUCP (Al Gates) (11/19/85)
Isn't football for the fans? What's wrong with a bunch of fans cheering for
their team? Isn't that what the game is for?
If fans want to interfere with the football being played, that's their right.
Without the fans, football is NOTHING. The fans pay all of the salaries.
If Seattle fans get extra entertainment out of disrupting a football game with
their noise, what's wrong with that? That's why they paid to sit in the
Kingdome.
The snowball incident is a little more severe. This is not because the
snowball distracted Cavanaugh, but because it was dangerous to the players.
Injuries caused by fan disruption are not forgivable.
Here's a side note about fan noise--on Saturday, the University of Michigan
played at the Metrodome versus the University of Minnesota. Several Michigan
plays were disrupted because of noise. What was the final score you ask?
Michigan 48 Minnesota 7. You can't tell me that fan noise played a major part
in this game.
--
Al Gates
BDM Corporation ^ ^ ^ ^ {seismo,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!gates
7915 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (11/19/85)
> If fans want to interfere with the football being played, that's their right. I do not agree. The fans should have the right to do pretty much ANYTHING they want EXCEPT interfere with the game. > Without the fans, football is NOTHING. The fans pay all of the salaries. Untrue. More revenue BY FAR comes from network television rights than from ticket sales. > If Seattle fans get extra entertainment out of disrupting a football game with > their noise, what's wrong with that? That's why they paid to sit in the > Kingdome. What about the rights of the fans watching on TV? > The snowball incident is a little more severe. This is not because the > snowball distracted Cavanaugh, but because it was dangerous to the players. > Injuries caused by fan disruption are not forgivable. Where do you draw the line? > Several Michigan > plays were disrupted because of noise. What was the final score you ask? > Michigan 48 Minnesota 7. You can't tell me that fan noise played a major part > in this game. I don't believe it ever does. In any game, you can always point to MANY critical plays; even if fan interference DOES cause a critical play to go for a particular team, I don't think it's accurate to blame the outcome of the game on any single play. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY
graber@srcsip.UUCP (Rob Graber) (11/25/85)
In article <1865@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > I do not agree. The fans should have the right to do pretty much ANYTHING > they want EXCEPT interfere with the game. > What about the rights of the fans watching on TV? They don't have any.. they haven't paid a cent to watch the game if anyones rights are being stomped on its the networks, THEY have paid an enormous amount of money to broadcast the game. I do agree with your first statment though, fan behavior is a problem which can and should be controlled. Although the fans are integral to professional football it's not good bussiness sense to allow fan behavior to reduce the value of your product. Besides, I think the whole noise issue is a little overated, The Gophers still lost to Michigan, and The Vikings just lost to The Saints fer crissakes... rob graber ..!ihnp4!umn-cs!srcsip!graber [ At the Iowa game the Iowa fans: "Rose Bowl Rose Bowl" ] [ Minnesota fans: 'indxqpndx bwl indpriwh bwell" ]