Sports is superficial, so your problem if I'm inferring correctly is with the NYT and not the particulars of the article. As to your statement that "bulletin board material" as a motivating factor isn't provable I simply refer you to the statement made by Kia Nurse in response to the comment fro Deva'Nyar Workman's comment about Uconn being beatable. As for your opinion of the NYT, subscription is optional.
My wife will tell you that subscription to the
Times is NOT optional (and anyway, there's nothing nearly as good: journalism is a race to the bottom). Truthfully, I didn't really mind the article (despite my initial points): I was just warning BYers not to expect much.
But I don't agree with you that sports are superficial. I think sports can be just as "intellectual" as anything else in this world; there is important scholarship on sports because, since the time of the ancient Greeks (maybe earlier, but evidence is scanty), society has at times been organized around it. And I don't deny that bulletin board material
might serve as motivation. But it's simply anecdotal and accepted without being questioned (if there is research on the subject--and I don't know if there is--the reporter didn't bother to make that claim). My point wasn't that it shouldn't be discussed, but that it was really the only thing in that article. Just lazy framing of the question, IMO. Again, I was just trying to point out the article's limitations, but my frustrations with the
Times got the better of me.