Why isn't there more of a rivalry in American sports between the North and South? I'd assume what with the civil war and the North completely humiliating the South this history would have carried over to sports?
It's hard because there isn't one team to represent the North and one to represent the South usually.
>>63394937
>One team to represent the north
The patriots
>One team to represent the south
The cowboys
There, done.
1. "The North" (aka the Northeast) doesn't have much of a unified identity. New England is the closest thing you'll see to a region with some kind of regional pride, everyone else just identifies with the cities (NYC, Philly, etc.).
2. The North-South border is really unclear now. Is Baltimore still Southern? How about DC? Kentucky? Virginia?
3. Southern regional identity is strongest among rural whites in the Deep South (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Georgia), and they don't really get their own pro sports teams. Atlanta and New Orleans don't really count, because they're black cities. Texas and Florida are each kind of their own regions at this point full of Northern transplants, so there's not much dislike for the North.
4. The whole country crushed the Southern traitors, not just the North.
TL;DR: People care about their states and cities more than they care about regions (except for white people in Alabama and those weirdos in the Pacific Northwest). And all the migration around the country over the decades has diluted regional identities anyway.
>>63395063
>implying new england is part of the US
>implying Texas is part of the US
>>63395063
>One team to represent the north
>The patriots
All Northerners outside of New England hate the Patriots.
>>One team to represent the south
>The cowboys
That could actually work, most southerners I've met either watch college ball or the Cowboys.
>>63395103
>get told
>spout /pol/-tier mumus
Well the best football players both white and black come from the SEC so its kind of hard
>>63394845
confederate soldiers were much more effective in battle because they actually went hunting and stuff. the yankee crowd probably never fired a gun before.
>>63395103
No implying tbqh
>>63395063
>>63394845
There is only one answer for the team of the North if you're talking about civil war memory
>>63395309
>confederate soldiers were much more effective in battle because they actually went hunting and stuff. the yankee crowd probably never fired a gun before.
You're thinking of the modern northeast. Back in the 1860s, less than 20% of the population lived in an urban area. Pretty much all of the "yankee crowd" (which included tons of soldiers from all over the country, not just the Northeast) had been hunting before.
The Mizzou-Kansas rivarly was a pretty good one. went back to them killing each other over slaves
>>63395309
Yeah, all the people in the northern states were never hunting or anything in the 1860's, they were all living in New York City being gentleman.
The south won a decent amount of battles in the early stages because they had good generals, the north won most of the later battles because they had more money/supplies
Standing in lines and firing muskets is not very related to setting traps for animals anyway.
>>63395888
>the north won most of the later battles because they had more money/supplies
Sherman, Hooker, and Grant were pretty good generals tbf.
Well for starters, it was a long time ago
also, pro teams are generally made up from players from colleges all over the nation, they are a poor representation of the city they play for. To take this further even the colleges recruit from all over the nation. and college games are mostly attended by students who are not always even from that state.
then you have the fact high school and college games are normally regional, for example Oregon mostly plays teams from the pacific coast, Texas teams will mostly play texas teams or other southern states.
Rivalry is more organically formed by playing against teams near you, to compete for dominance in that area (such as Duke/North Carolina), or based on a history of interesting head-to-heads (such as Packers/Vikings), out of game politics (such as NY/Boston, or a history of meeting each other in championship games (Celtics/Lakers)
