It has recently been brought to my attention that the intent of a boo is construed as one of two things. Either it is viewed as a right of a paying customer to express their displeasure for the product that they paid good money for. The other side of the debate is that it should not be within the feeling of a "true fan" to boo the players that they are there to support.

This is a long standing debate that will see no end, much like watching a dog chase it's tail. But what is behind this phenomenon? Is there a right or wrong? What makes a true fan, or a boo fan?

To get to the bottom of the debate, I think it's best if we look at the definitions of a bandwagon fan and a diehard fan. A diehard fan is most commonly known as someone who has stuck with their team through thick and thin, trials and tribulations and everything else that will make that return to success so much sweeter to the soul. The diehards undivided attention to the problems with the team, from the technique in the trenches to the talent level brought in by the men on charge of the operation and how well that all meshes on the field of battle.

Their undying passion often leads to insults and jokes pointed in the direction of the program that they so readily dole out loyalty to. Instead of being embarrassed or shamed by these comments, a diehard wears them as a badge of honor, knowing full well and believing with everything that is within them that things surely will turn around and are willing to do everything in their power to get the team heading in that direction.

On the other side of the fence, we have the bandwagon jumpers. These are the fans best described as a thief in the night, ready to attack and attach themselves to what they perceive as valuable or rightfully theirs at that particular moment. Stealthily waiting in the shadows for that prize that has taken many years to mature and finally bear fruit so they can can pluck the prize from the bountiful branches and claim it as their own. These are the people that have invested more in their varied hat collection than in their own well being, desperately grasping for something that will make them seem to be one of the popular fans at the water coolers. What is quickly discovered is that they just don't fit in. They possess no stories on how they jumped off the wagon, not to run, but to try and fix the spoke that helps the wheel turn so they could get back on and enjoy the ride once again.

This is where the band-wagoners are lost and the diehards are found and also where the distinction between the two become crystal clear as is evidenced here in a couple of quotes from the SeahawkBlue.com forum

"That is the one thing that upsets me more than booing. Booing is just expressing your opinion on a controversial topic. You might as well go watch the game at home if you don't want to stand up and do your part for the team.

Is it bad that I am hoping for a couple year downer to weed these fans from our stadium?" -HLD

"I think boo-ing sucks. It says more about the person doing it, than the person they are directing it at. My kids play sports and I would be absolutely devastated in anyone ever boo'd them, so I will not boo someone else's kid, no matter the age."
-Starbucksmommy

"So- Are the Yankees fans bandwagon fans because they boo A-rod or Giambi when they have a 2-month slump? How about the Philly fans? These fans are known for their passion. Shaun and Holmgren get it. They know the fans expect more them. As for booing, I stayed the whole game and stood the whole time, and I booed Shaun and others on occasion. There was a group of guys who stood the whole entire game in front of me and they booed him to. I talked with these guys and they really knew the game, as do I. I don't think being passionate makes you a bandwagon fan." -SeahawksFan93

"By saying you are a good fan because you go to every game is like saying a penguin is a seal because it swims." -HLD

These are just a small sample of what feelings are on the issue, but over an entire fan base the sentiment and the line drawn is perfectly clear.

Another example would be to use the Boston Red Sox. For what was an eternity to most of the Sox faithful came to an end in 2004 when they again beat the self described curse and brought home a World Series Championship again. But what a painful thing that victory must have been to Red Sox fans who knew every player at every position including the bench players. The same fans that could tell you who was Major League ready on their farm teams and the promising prospects. All the way from Short season A ball up to Triple A. They now are engaged in conversations with "fans" who can't even name the most recent manager who failed to get this same team to the Series, or stumble to remember who the current manager is or that closer and saves leader, you know? "what's his name!", he was monumental in their success and so was that 2nd baseman, um, uh, ???

What this leads to is that the die-hard fan is less inclined, if at all, to boo his team because he has most definitely viewed worse performances and odds show that he will likely see better. But the band-wagoner is there for the short haul and is only interested in immediate successes, so when that down year comes, they boo with all of their might until they fade away only to re-emerge latched on to the next best thing.

Leaders are often viewed as the people most likely to get through the thick and the thin never veering from their course, but making the necessary adjustments to keep the ship steady and heading in the right direction. Where as followers latch themselves to what makes them feel safe, whole and as one to a group, but for only as long as that feeling lasts. For when the going gets tougher than they would prefer, they move on to the next cool thing, or the next fad.

Is it a leader or follower thing? I couldn't answer that question, but the comparisons are eerily similar.

Labels: band-wagoner, boo-birds, die-hards, sports