Zen and the Art of Jumping the Sinking Ship

What happens when a man is faced with a season deferred? Does he walk away from the game, journeying into the desert to contemplate what went wrong and how to address the future, if there is indeed a future? Does he just drift into the background, experiencing the remainder of competition from the shadows? His allegiance stored away like a widow's wedding ring worn even beyond the death of one's betrothed. Or does he offer his loyalties elsewhere? Like a royal subject witnessing his majesty's demise at the hands of a new conqueror who is now demanding service, or offering death?

Some people are polistic; loving their city and all it's teams no matter what (fluctuating based on their success, of course), storing revulsion and contempt for all teams from other competing cities. Some of us are wanderers, we may like a baseball team from one region and a football team from a completely different region (typically occurring with people from Connecticut who love the Yankees as well as the Cowboys). Other special types, do not seem to have a horse until the very end. They sit back and enjoy the game for what it is, withholding preference until the final hour, when passions bubble over and a normative judgment is seemingly thrust upon their previously open consciousness. And of course, depending on your disposition, this will determine how you respond if/when your horse is excused from competition.

But are there rules for such "ship-jumping"? Not laws so much, but moral edicts that tell us how to behave whilst our sporting souls wander aimlessly in the ether searching for a temporary home to sublet after the delicate abode which they previously occupied, was washed away in a flood of humiliating defeat. First off, is ship-jumping authorized? Either by the community's own standards (real or imagined), or by our own allowances? Can we allow ourselves to begin supporting a different team that is still alive, in the lieu of our central devotion to our home team? Worse still; what will the neighbors say?

Are you required to lend your support to the team that beats you? The reasoning here would state that, "Since they beat us, if they win out, then it makes us look good, because then we lost to the champs." But this would hold that you are somehow not angered by the team that beat you. Consider the New England Patriots. In 2007, the beat just about everyone, but I really doubt that any of their opponents or their fan bases along the way were pulling for them at any point.

Another route would be the divisional opponent. That any team from your division should be rewarded with your support. This argument seems a little more thin, primarily because your biggest rivals tend to reside in your own team's division. Therefore, how could a Cardinals fan really be called on to support the Cubbies in another disaster-waiting-to-happen trip to the postseason? Just unlikely is all, unless Cardinals are really as soft as I believe them to be.

Or are we inspired by more negative forces? Rather than throwing our support behind a team, do we choose instead to throw out support against a team? In this case, we do not necessarily choose a horse to ride, but we choose a gun with which to shoot a specific horse, and then snort the gelatinous by-product during the victory celebration. In some instances, we may actually even throw our support behind "the best possible chance." We look at a team and think, "This team can beat the Red Wings, so they are on now my team" (until they of course lose to the Red Wings). However, can we really call this option support? If anything, it is more of an anti-support mechanism, and as such, seems even more disposable, and in turn, disingenuous. So, if our "new" team loses in the semi-finals, do we simply lend our support to the new opponent of our enemy (eg. I only support two teams; the Red Sox and whoever is playing the Yankees)?

The most sustainable, albeit least likely option, is to simply lend your support behind the remaining team that you like the most. Now, it should be clear at this point that your speaker is a Boston fan, but that doesn't mean that he still does not favor certain teams over others outside of his own hometown affiliation. Some will disagree with this entirely, maintaining that you should have one team (for a given sport) and one team only. Typically the reasons provided are pride-based, or are wrapped in speculations of "fair-weather fandom." But, I personally never had a problem with lending sub-support to teams even prior to the playoffs. Especially if the team is determined to be support-worthy (by your own rigid criteria, of course), and is not simply some front-running juggernaut who is in no need of additional support, and only serves to satisfy some deep-seated ego disorder for the fan in question.

So, if we can accept the idea of having a "second" team during the regular season, or even a "fail-safe" squad in the postseason, then we must conclude that having a specific interest, or even an absolute interest in the playoffs, rests on having a specific team upon which to focus your attention and passions. Or, is it even possible to be actually vested in the outcome without a specific team to pull for? And if we really wanted to pull this string some more, is it possible to watch any event without picking a personal favorite? I don't think so, but the floor is open for debate.

Therefore, I'm thinking that we need some rules:

Upon what criteria are we allowed to seek out a new team, once our own beloved team has been dispatched?

I'm calling for suggestions, and hopefully we can compile a list for publication later on. Give it here...