I read the linked article, which is a blanket condemnation of team sports in schools. The author describes being made to feel worthless by teammates because she was not good at the sports, and states that these feelings produced lasting wounds.

One the one hand I see what she means. In a physical competition people less gifted will do worse and feel that they let down their teams.

But what about striving as a group for a common goal? Are only nonphysical / intellectual goals acceptable? Won't dumb or nonartistic kids feel worthless in these situations? Is there no hope for the group? Must each of us be a loner, Dottie; a rebel?

Even this linked sportophobic author acknowledges that kids can move, and run, and that those things are good. I say that group endeavors are good too. I propose that new physical sports be devised which allow a range of different modes of participation such that each team member can contribute to the team. Because there must be an invention here is my sport: Move Stuff. A motely assembly of stuff is in two piles. Maybe at end zones of a field. The team must move the stuff to the other end of the field. Some stuff can be thrown. Some can be carried. Some might be rolled or dragged, maybe by multiple individuals. There is heavy and light stuff. There are pingpong balls. There are dumbells. There is big awkward stuff like nets requiring multiple people. There are barrels and big balls. Whichever team clears its side out first wins.

The stuff for a team is color coded. Maybe there could be an aspect where the opposing team can bring some items back up their side of the field and push them back into the start zone of the opposing team. This would allow more traditional competition for those inclined - you would look across and see the reds rolling your blue barrel back up their side of the field.

Teams would approach the task anarchically. There would always be new stuff in the pile in addition to old stuff from last time. Some kids might just run like mad back and forth with stuff. Some kids would be in groups to move heavy stuff, or form a bucket brigade to pass them along. Some would work in opposition to the other team. Each contributes according to ability and inclination.
-- bungston, May 10 2013

Don't require Team Sports http://www.slate.co..._editors_picks=true
Author wounded by gym. [bungston, May 10 2013]

White americans are demotivated by appeals to the common good. http://www.npr.org/...-common-good-is-bad
"Taken together, our studies show that, in fact, interdependent behavior can be a barrier to motivation for European-Americans, and that this can have important consequences in terms of how they support social issues." [bungston, May 10 2013]

// Teams would approach the task anarchically. //

You had me until here.

'Moving Objects From Here to There' sounds like an awesome team sport for kids, and if it doesn't exist by the time my son is old enough to play I'm going to organize it right here in my little town, where people will try anything because we thrive largely on winter tourism and thus are bored clean out of our minds seven months out of the year.

However...

As with any developing sport, tactics and strategy will evolve and it will become just another team vs. team coordinated effort. Even with a constant rotation of different 'objective items' the sharper-minded kids will spot patterns and start grouping items by different rude criteria, i.e. size, shape, ease of handling, etc. and the dull-minded followers will be equivically ordered into groups based on physical or mental attributes: big strong kids will move the heavy stuff, small quick kids will move the light stuff, clever kids will sort and stack the items, and charismatic kids will direct the operation, calling the plays if you will.

There's a reason that team sports are so ubiquitous: Humans are pack-oriented predators. We're not solitary hunters like a panther or a shark; we evolved to hunt in groups of really clever, devious bastards who watch things and spot patterns and devise tactics and already have you dressed and butchered before they even attack you, like wolves and lions. So it's only natural that we tend to gang up on each other when at play.

Bun anyway. I love the idea.
-- Alterother, May 10 2013


I probably used "anarchy" incorrectly. What I meant is that the team would approach the task in an ad hoc manner. What you say about leaders et is no doubt true. But in a school setting participants could opt not to listen to any self- anointed leader but still help the team as they saw fit.

There would need to be a role governing the opposition bringing back objects. Probably red members should not be allowed to enter the red destination zone - they just throw the objecin there. Blue can go in and get red stuff and bring it back on the blue side of the field. Blue cannot enter the red destination zone - they throw the stuff in there. Each team should move in opposite directions - so on a trip for a red across the field he would need to decide whether to bring a red thing to the destination or a blue thing back but not both. You always return empty handed.

If red things are all out of origin zone and all in destination zone, with none in red hands traversing red side, red wins. If blue is mucking about with red things on their side but does not have them back to origin yet, they do not count.
-- bungston, May 10 2013



random, halfbakery