I raise this question this off the heels of the chaos that is the state of the Knicks and how emotionally difficult it may be for many to find a sensible response as a fan.

A very interesting dialogue took place on the Elba forum, which touches on one of the most significant conflicts and debates that underlies this challenge and comes out through the whole "haters" vs. "lovers" debate about rooting for the team to win or rooting for the team to lose. Certainly these comments represent a particular point of view which I do not believe is shared by many here, but that's why I thought I'd post it here.

Here's the two main posts on the subject, first from exmachina and second (our own/Knickerblogger contributor), tomverve:

exmachina:

Years ago, I had my choices for a Thanksgiving bird and chose duck. The lady of the house had never prepared that particular fowl, and seven hours later presented a duck that was mostly skin and bones.

We had a good cry, then a good laugh. After all, it was just one, overdone bird.

This "we" thing is way overdone. In the Yahoo Knicks Forum league several of us are in, I have a collection of players, none of whom are breaking any records thus far, and certainly the real humans who are putting up stats have no idea they are assembled into anything resembling a team in my virtual reality.

The one player on the Knicks who really identifies with NY, who really wants to be here is the object of almost as much villification as Isiah Thomas. I'm talking of Coney Island's own, Stephon Marbury.

When the NBA started, it had territorial choices. It got a tad squirrely when the Philadelphia Warriors exercised their rights by taking Wilt Chamberlain upon graduation from high school, who then went on to Kansas, and if I remember right, a year with Globetrotters. Anyway, territorial choices were there to enforce home-town loyalty, a dated concept for sure.

I'll be watching the UConn men's team this afternoon and sort of rooting them on. I have some connection with the school, as my wife did her undergraduate work there, and is now finishing up her Ph.D., but mostly I get to watch them on TV frequently so reach some level of identification.

My point is that whether it's geography or residual childhood attachment we may have our reasons for being fans, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. Doesn't make it less poignant or real for us.

I was miserable after Thursday night's game. Last night, I watched the recorded Knicks game, after a nice evening out seeing a play, tasty dinner, but I was well on my way to a bummer before the spirited 4th quarter rally and win. When I finally crawled into bed, I was quite cheery.

Human beings are idiots.

This morning, I watched my other recording from last night, "Friday Night Lights." Frankly, for all the drama of the Knicks game, it was a better show. Does that make me a fan of "Friday Night Lights?" Should I be bitter that David Milch followed the brilliant "Deadwood," with the colossaly pretentious "John From Cincinatti?" Should I be mad at HBO's management, much as so many folks on this Forum are pissed at Dolan?

I think there's a fundamental disconnect in our culture between the areas where we have real control, and the fantasy and media hype of imputed control. Chip, who is a respected jazz writer may have some impact on that world through his writing, but all our horses and all our men aren't going to make Isiah Thomas do squat (although a cumulatvely booing Garden might). Reality shows like American Idol provide the illusion of participation, but it's just more show biz.

Talking among ourselves has some cathartic value, and I've become quite fond of folks over the years, as we've shared insights about a variety of subjects, certainly including our irrational attachment to the NY Knicks.

Otherwise, I'm watching the unfolding drama of this season, enjoying whatever positive developments in the team or individual players, agonizing over our short-comings like any fan. I do love the sport of basketball, so there's always some redemption, specially since the UConn woman have a dynamite team this year (though nobody I've fallen in love with since Sue Bird and Swin Cash). And then there's "Friday Night Lights" about a part of the world to which I have no connection (rural Texas) and a sport I mostly dislike (football). Go figure!

tomverve:

Well said [exmachina]. Why root for losses so that the management is changed? Only makes sense if one is under the illusion that one's rooting interest matters in the scheme of things. (Message boards are great for creating this illusion.) I will gladly welcome the change in management when it happens, but in the meantime I may as well enjoy what victories come. Otherwise my intended past time is only working against me by bringing me conflict and grief. In that case the purpose is defeated and there is no point continuing.

It's all entertainment to me. I thought it was very entertaining when Isiah and Marbury argued and Marbury hopped on a Jet Plane back to New York.

They lost in Boston, and a good time was had by all, on the forums and on the talk shows, expressing our disgust for this team.

You gotta admit, these guys know how to put on a good show.

Honestly, its just sports.

When the teams is bad, year in and year out, people stop watching and stop buying merchandise.

This yeah I have seen maybe like 4 games in total. Because it is damn boring, and really only watch them when I come home from work on a weekday and feel like relaxing for a couple of hours. Usually nowadays 10 minutes into a Knick game I realize that its not relaxing, and that I am getting angry because they are quiet frankly putting up a really bad show of the game of basketball. Then I switch the channel, or go upstairs and do something on the computer or just go to sleep a little earlier.

And I used to watch most of the games back in the day. Maybe I just grew out of it. I still watch the Rangers as much as I can though, but they are good. So its probably a combination of a team being competitive and getting over a child like attachment to a sports team.