Games People Play
by guest columnist David Kennedy

I have a problem with fans who talk about their favorite teams in the first person, "we". Or refer to another team's fans in the second person, "you" or "you guys".

I'm as big a fan of "my" favorites as any person is of theirs. I'm dying with the 49ers this season, and it is especially painful to watch them flounder their way through their first losing season in almost two decades (since I was a sophomore in college). I've screamed at the television every time the networks have the temerity to show the atrocious Golden State Warriors (who haven't been any good since the early 90's). I've been to Athletics and Giants games and acted like an insane fool, making fathers wonder why it is that they brought there sons to see some rowdy fan act stupid. I identify with my teams as much as anybody.

But even I know when to separate fantasy from reality. I am not a 49er, I am not a Warrior, I am not an Athletic, and I am not a Giant. And neither is anybody else other than the players who take the field, the coaches who coach them, management and the attendant employees of these or any other respective sport organization. I am a die-hard follower of all of the aforementioned teams, but I am not a member of any of those organizations. As such, I have absolutely no direct or indirect effect on how well they do on the field or off. I have no bearing on whether they win or lose. To a certain extent my paying to go see them play or paying to watch any of them on pay-per-view television goes into the pocket of management and by extent helps to pay the salaries of both management and the players, but if I either stop going to games or paying to watch them, somebody else will.

Furthermore, when I'm at the games no amount of me hurling verbal abuse at opposing players has any effect on whether my team wins or loses (it just makes me look like a loud, oafish buffoon). And going beyond that, such as hurling garbage or throwing beer on opposing players, would make me in serious need of psychiatric attention.

That I recognize this is one thing; that there are fans out there that can't make the distinction between themselves and the teams they cheer for is something else entirely. They had nothing more to do with their team winning or losing than I did with mine. That their identities, their very existence, is wrapped up in a form of entertainment that neither directly nor indirectly effects whether they get up in the morning and go to work is ludicrous beyond words. It is truly funny listening to a Sacramento Kings fan says to me after Kings get through beating up on the Warriors, "We kicked your butt!" I feel like telling them, "Who is "we", Kemosabe? And who is "you "? No, you didn't do anything, and I didn't do anything, either."

I am a Giants fan. I am also a fan of singer Lauryn Hill. When she wins a Grammy or tops the Billboard charts or goes platinum do I claim "we did it"? I love Clint Eastwood movies. When he gets into one of his patented gunfights in those old man-with-no-name spaghetti westerns against Lee Van Cleef do I scream "We have to shoot this scumbag"? You begin to see how absurd this is when it is put into this context, yet sports is the only institution in which it is generally accepted that its followers will internalize their activities.

An acquaintance tried once to explain what was meant by "we". He postulated that it was an identification of a community with the team that plays there. As an example, Sacramentans identify the Kings as theirs, so when they win then it is a victory for the city, and when they lose then it is a loss for the city. I asked this person, "What about fans of the Kings who are not from Sacramento, have never been or lived in Sacramento, and have no connection to Sacramento, but for some arbitrary reason are fans of the Kings?" His response was, "Well, they are not really fans. You should be from the city from which that team comes from in order to be a fan. That is true support."

Whaaaat?!

Who makes these rules up, and are they written someplace in an official capacity so that we all know how to comport ourselves as fans? Using this logic, I can no longer be a fan of either the Warriors or the Athletics because I moved from Oakland almost 15 years ago. And that being the case, I have lost the "privilege" of referring to either team in the first person: "we". Using this logic, those communities without a team in any particular sport cannot be fans of anybody in that sport. And using this logic, those persons with a sports team are limited to supporting either their local team or no team at all. Am I the only person who recognizes the absurdity of any of this?

Lost in all of this is the one thing that should keep us all levelheaded and centered as well as sane: perspective. I find it instructive to note that sports and fanaticism are only put in its "proper" perspective - that of it being "only a game" - when the real world tragically intrudes upon it. For example, when Payne Stewart's plane crashes, or when umpire John McSherry dies of a heart attack behind home plate, or Rae Carruth is arrested for murder - then we get a healthy dose of perspective.

No. Perspective is one of those things that should be meted out in healthy doses all the time. Then you'd probably be less inclined to think of yourself taking that final shot against Shaq or dropping that Hail Mary pass against Deion and the Cowboys. Because "you" didn't do a damn thing.

David Kennedy is the host of The Sport Authority, a weekly sports talk radio program on 91.5 FM The voice in Sacramento, California. He has been searching for the evidence of things not seen for most of his life. Until he finds it, he will just have to settle for searching for prozac over the counter -- cheap!