BirdsCommaAngry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 97
I've heard our arguments against the 'Niners. Most of them are of an assorted but consistent variety:
"Their coach is a whiner and a prick!"
"Their fans are arrogant, band-wagoners, and/or not knowledgeable!"
"[insert SF player/coach/FO member] is overrated!"
"People think they're better than us and they're not!"
"Their our rivals. We're supposed to dislike them!"
Most of these views are supported with inarguable evidence of sorts but none offer a real answer.
If Harbaugh is indeed a whiner and a prick and these are indeed reasons to dislike someone, why should we dislike the entire organization? If Harbaugh is worth disliking, why not just dislike him and him alone? The same logic applies across the board. If their fans are arrogant or band-wagoners, why not just dislike their fans? If someone says the 49ers are the better team and you truly believe they're wrong, why not just dislike that someone? We've all heard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but we do so gingerly.
Even the one argument that actually targets the entirety of their organization, the argument about the nature of rivalries, is flawed. Really, who is it that says we're supposed to dislike them? The media, players, coaches, and other fans do. The media has a prerogative to up-sell the sport and provide as much content as their efforts will allow. Rivalries are staple among their arsenal. Players and coaches have a similar prerogative as well as attempting to motivate one another for their upcoming games. For the professionals, rivalries aren't so much a reality as they are a tool for achievement.
Fans buy into the concept because we believe it's real. We think so from our own personal experiences with and interpretations of players, coaches, fans, statistics, and all the other nuances involved in our personal analysis. But those experiences and interpretations have produced the faulty statements I questioned above. We're merely supporting a stance with misinterpreted information which makes the stance faulty by definition. Our communicated understanding of rivalries is wrong!
There is, however, one reason we don't mention and it's probably the sole reason for the fan support of rivalries. Everything about a rivalry, whether its anticipating the highs of victory, talking up our own greatness, belittling the other guy for even the most impractical of reasons, or just simplifying the dislike of a few individuals down to the common denominator that is their team, makes us feel good. To that little part of the brain that makes us feel pleasure, saying "Forty-Whiners" might as well be a Snickers. Shouting "Fluke!" or "The refs are playing for you, huh?" after losing a game that wasn't even close might as well be a game of fetch with the dog. It's all fun and it all feels good but so much else can accomplish these same simple feats.
My question to each of you is why should we dislike the 49ers or any team for that matter over all the other alternatives for our own enjoyment? Why does this phenomenon pique your interest while others do not?
"Their coach is a whiner and a prick!"
"Their fans are arrogant, band-wagoners, and/or not knowledgeable!"
"[insert SF player/coach/FO member] is overrated!"
"People think they're better than us and they're not!"
"Their our rivals. We're supposed to dislike them!"
Most of these views are supported with inarguable evidence of sorts but none offer a real answer.
If Harbaugh is indeed a whiner and a prick and these are indeed reasons to dislike someone, why should we dislike the entire organization? If Harbaugh is worth disliking, why not just dislike him and him alone? The same logic applies across the board. If their fans are arrogant or band-wagoners, why not just dislike their fans? If someone says the 49ers are the better team and you truly believe they're wrong, why not just dislike that someone? We've all heard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but we do so gingerly.
Even the one argument that actually targets the entirety of their organization, the argument about the nature of rivalries, is flawed. Really, who is it that says we're supposed to dislike them? The media, players, coaches, and other fans do. The media has a prerogative to up-sell the sport and provide as much content as their efforts will allow. Rivalries are staple among their arsenal. Players and coaches have a similar prerogative as well as attempting to motivate one another for their upcoming games. For the professionals, rivalries aren't so much a reality as they are a tool for achievement.
Fans buy into the concept because we believe it's real. We think so from our own personal experiences with and interpretations of players, coaches, fans, statistics, and all the other nuances involved in our personal analysis. But those experiences and interpretations have produced the faulty statements I questioned above. We're merely supporting a stance with misinterpreted information which makes the stance faulty by definition. Our communicated understanding of rivalries is wrong!
There is, however, one reason we don't mention and it's probably the sole reason for the fan support of rivalries. Everything about a rivalry, whether its anticipating the highs of victory, talking up our own greatness, belittling the other guy for even the most impractical of reasons, or just simplifying the dislike of a few individuals down to the common denominator that is their team, makes us feel good. To that little part of the brain that makes us feel pleasure, saying "Forty-Whiners" might as well be a Snickers. Shouting "Fluke!" or "The refs are playing for you, huh?" after losing a game that wasn't even close might as well be a game of fetch with the dog. It's all fun and it all feels good but so much else can accomplish these same simple feats.
My question to each of you is why should we dislike the 49ers or any team for that matter over all the other alternatives for our own enjoyment? Why does this phenomenon pique your interest while others do not?
