> I've always taken the *very*
>unpopular position that sports exist for the fans.  Without the fan, there
>would be no scholarships, there would be no pro contracts, there would be no
>Division I sports.
>
>-- Ron
>   [log in to unmask]
 
I think you're right, up to a point. Without fans, there probably wouldn't
be scholarships for athletes. There might be professional contracts, but
they'd be along the lines of current professional flag football or roller
hockey contracts: a few thousand dollars, not enough to entice a college
student to leave school and take a job. There would still be Division I
sports, because the reason these sports started at all at the college level
is because the athletes wanted to play them. I have no doubt that if there
were no professional teams, if there were no collegiate teams, if there
were no junior teams, the athletes I have known at Cornell who play hockey
would still try to get together as much as they could just to play the
game. Why? Because they love to play the game. When you've seen Joe
Nieuwendyk and Mike Richter and Mike Schafer and Mike Tallman and Eric
Gregoire and Chris Norton and whoever else they can find playing a pickup
game at Lynah Rink at 9 o'clock at night in the middle of summer, you
realize that it's not the money or the fans that motivates these guys to
play, they play because they love the game, and that love for the game is
still there even if all the fans and all the agents and all the beer
companies go away. The runners on Cornell's cross-country teams don't run
because of all the fans who turn out for their meets (there aren't a whole
lot), they run because they love to run.
 
If sports exist for the fans, as you claim, what are the fans going to do
when the athletes don't want to participate any more?