[numinary1]

Right, excuses carry no weight. Got it. Agreed! But fuck football coaches and sports analogies for business. Sports is a zero-sum game. Business sometimes is,sometimes isn’t. Depends on agility, creativity, and the market you’re in. If your boss quotes football coaches just quit on the spot (unless of course you are in sales).

[travisjungroth]

Sports aren’t zero-sum. When two teams play each other, they’re both enriched whether they win or lose. They both get practice, they both make money.

If it’s zero-sum, how can a team with a losing record continue to operate indefinitely?

[jerrre]

I think this depends if you view a game or league purely as a compition (per definition if one team wins, another one has to lose), or as a "brand": very exciting games can increase the popularity of a league/sport, increasing revenue/attention even for the losing team.

I think most sports fans only look at the first part.

[travisjungroth]

How can you have fans in a zero-sum game?

Teams A and B play each other, and everything gained by A is lost by B and vice versa. A zero-sum game. But somehow we have a fan X. But why are they interested? It seems like some extra value is created by the interaction of A and B (entertainment). This means it’s not a zero-sum game.

It’s not some games that increase the popularity of a sport. It’s all games. A lot more people show up to a stadium on game day than an off day.

[_jal]

Not to mention dysfunctional teams do not shut down at some performance threshold, there are no referees (or there are many), and I don't know about you, but I don't shower with my coworkers.

Er, go team?

[ronilan]

Sport is a zero-sum game only if you ignore all the things that sport is about.

Example from this weekend - Shaqueem and Shaquill Griffin sack Aaron Rodgers in the final minutes of a game that ended the Seahawks season with a loss: https://twitter.com/ucf_problems/status/1216547670233358337?...

That was Shaqueem’s first NFL sack. That’s his second season with the Seahawks.

[mattnewport]

I suspect your example is only meaningful to people who already share your view. Knowing nothing about the NFL I barely know what you're talking about here and have no idea what point it's supposed to be making.

[aidenn0]

Basically: A player on the losing team made a good play.

I don't think it's a particularly good example; despite the fact that his team lost, that play significantly improved his team's chance for a win. If he doesn't make that play, then players on the other team would have better numbers.

[ronilan]

Yes that. But basically not that at all, unless you ignore all the things that make those players who they are.

[PhasmaFelis]

You're not really clarifying yourself here.

All competitive sports are zero-sum. For one team to win, the other has to lose. That's what "zero-sum" means.

[ronilan]

Competitive sports are zero-sum only if you ignore all the things that competitive sports are about. Winners and losers are a side effect of the competition not the essence of it.

[ronilan]

My example is only meaningful to people who know the story, or will research it as a result of that comment.

The view? They’ll form that themselves.

[Cougher]

What's there to research? I'm familiar with football and familiar enough with the idea that new players made "winning" plays in the process of losing the game and ending their season. When you post three times and still have most respondents scratching their heads about your point, maybe it's your communication that's the problem.

[ronilan]

What you don’t know can’t inspire you.