You can argue all you like about whether refs should be influenced; the fact is they are influenced. By many factors. By star players, by coaches, by the league, by the crowd, by having a bad day. These things are subconscious, and they are a fact.
Why remove one influence (to both refs, and the team/s) by sitting on your hands?
I guess I don't exactly get what your point is? I don't disagree with you about how things mostly are in regards to crowd support.
I just think that with less passiveness our crowd could influence games more (both encouraging/dis-encouraging players, and refs).
Do you think that our crowd can't influence games more?
Do you think that our crowd shouldn't influence games more?
Do you think that it's too great of an expectation for our crowd too show more enthusiasm when we are on a bad run?
I think that we can, and should do more. Many college basketball crowds are a good example of the effort we could be putting in.
If we can't match their effort do they care more about their college than we do about the Trail Blazers?
It may be a fact, but that doesn't mean it's the norm. There are way more influences than that. If you're going to be an official, you need to be able to turn off everything but your work. Some can do that, others can't. To get an accurate gauge on these studies, there needs to be further psychological testing to see what other motivations may be in play. I don't doubt that they -can- be influenced, but the good officials should -never- get influenced. That's just poor officiating. There are ways to "catch" your subconscious, but that's psychological stuff that goes much deeper.
As far as the fans. College is a bad example. It's a culture thing. Be as loud as your college buddy. "look the part", so to speak. Being in college is all about finding yourself, and also for some it's about the consumption of alcohol to achieve less inhibitions. College is it's own entity, especially if you are talking universities, etc.
Our crowds are some of the best in the NBA. But, you're asking 20,000 people to adhere to one (of many forms) form of cheering. To "conform" in a sense, to be more boisterous, but you can't make people do what they don't want (or feel like doing) to do. I go to a ton of baseball games, and I never do any of the cheers, any of the manufactured crap. Same for blazers games. That's all fluff. I let real emotion take over. I can't manufacture cheering when there's no sense in it. I will, however, tell them to start working harder. That doesn't sound like big cheers. It's a human instinct (Just like the refs being 'influenced, as you say) to not be cheering unless good is happening, or there's a precipice of goodness. There's times to 'circumvent' the subconscious (Like being a ref, in this example) and times where it really doesn't seem advantageous or fulfilling to do it (like cheering or forcing yourself to exclaim positively during a real moment of distress, however minor). Especially when you're in an environment of extreme ups and downs as a basketball game can produce.
What you're asking people to do is to circumvent their subconscious, while you are saying officials can't do anything but react to their subconscious. That doesn't seem fair to discount one while validating the other.
It's possible to override the subconscious, but it needs to be for a damn good reason, and a temporary cheer for a team that's not giving you happiness in that moment seems really counter-productive.
I think you and I are going to agree to disagree on this subject. That's alright, that's what being a human is, we have our opinions.
I'm getting a psychological boner talking about this, though, so I thank you.
