Just another Wisconsin cheesehead

People ask; “You’ve lived in Boston 29 years; how can you still be rooting for the Green Bay Packers?”  If you have to ask, you’ll never understand.  My fellow Wisconsinites know how I’m feeling right now.  I’ll see you guys in June.

Blogging will be delayed by euphoria.

Tags: ,


17 Responses to “Just another Wisconsin cheesehead”

  1. Gravatar of Rick Schaut Rick Schaut
    6. February 2011 at 23:04

    When Mike Holmgren came to Seattle, people asked me if I was going to become a Seahawks fan. What can you do, but shake your head?

    And pass the cheese.

  2. Gravatar of dWj dWj
    7. February 2011 at 05:49

    The first Packers Super Bowl in 13 years, and I was sick. I ended up listening to the game on the radio while lying in bed. (The first half was more relaxing than the second.)

    I’m feeling much better this morning. Healthier, too.

  3. Gravatar of Wimivo Wimivo
    7. February 2011 at 05:51

    I *hated* the Packers during the Brett Favre era. All I heard about day in and day out was how great Brett Favre was, how Favre deserved the MVP even though he threw 29 interceptions, how Favre should obviously start the game even though his injured thumb prevents him from throwing the ball forward, because backup Aaron Rodgers obviously isn’t an NFL caliber quarterback.

    Needless to say, I was allowed to become a Packers fan again three years ago. Good thing I did! (Plus, I made a tidy sum betting against Favre fanboys during his decline. Mostly in the form of Little Debbie snack cakes. Oh, high school.)

  4. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    7. February 2011 at 06:52

    The Green Bay Packers Victory – Two Strikes Against Libertarianism

    Surely you know that the Packers are the only municipally owned team in the NFL, right? And their record is superior to most privately owned teams (like, you know, Pittsburgh).

    That’s strike one.

    Indeed, the non-profit municipal ownership structure seems to be so effective that the NFL has banned it to preserve the oligopolist model of team ownership, leaving the Packers grandfathered.

    That’s strike two.

    The US better hope Norway never decides to field a real football team.

    OK, seriously though, the ownership model in Green Bay has significant implications on the relative bargaining power of different stakeholders in a league where financial competition is far from “free”.


    Needless to say, I was definitely rooting for Green Bay, but I was surprised to see Scott on my side.

  5. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    7. February 2011 at 06:56

    [que comments defending Pittsburgh’s record…]

  6. Gravatar of Dustin Dustin
    7. February 2011 at 07:00

    Somebody at socialist Dollars&Sense loves the Packers because they’re publicly owned.


  7. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    7. February 2011 at 07:47

    I’ll respond to the other comments later, but I can’t let this slander pass by uncommented on. The Packers are NOT publically owned in the sense you imply–that is government-owned. They are publicly-owned in the sense that any private corporation with stockholders is “publicly-owned.”

    Green Bay Packers epitomize the best of libertarianism–individual people working together for the common good in private, non-government organizations.

    Sham on you for trying to ruin my celebration!!


  8. Gravatar of ChacoKevy ChacoKevy
    7. February 2011 at 08:03

    Congratulations to the Packers. Quite a run made sweeter when you consider that you went through my Bears twice, and finished the season by taking a symbolic dump on Jerry Jones’ front lawn (for that last part, even Bears fans thank you).

    Certainly a great team, but I have my doubts about a Green Bay dynasty, because I think the NFC North will pummel each other next season. Also, players may want to PLAY for Green Bay, but nobody wants to LIVE there. Tiny market, players never get nationally recognized with endorsements… and it’s GREEN BAY.
    If the Bears can figure out their woes at offensive line, no reason they can’t do it next year. Afterall, the Packers couldn’t protect Rodgers at all last year either.
    Vikings will be better w/o Childress and Favre. No more drama will have the players “buying back in”. They still have the best runner in the league.
    And finally, I believe the Lions will be legit next year. Above .500. They’ll make a Wild Card run, but probably just play the part of spoiler.
    NFC North will be the best overall division, with the SuperBowl going to someone else on an easier path.

  9. Gravatar of Stephan Stephan
    7. February 2011 at 11:17

    Aha. Scott Sumner has a neat workaround to not face up to the fact that the Packers are a socialist enterprise. They are non-profit! Isn’t that a violation of the American Dream? How comes the beer in the stadium is cheaper than in every for-profit NFL stadium?

    Those Non-Profit Packers

  10. Gravatar of Chris T Chris T
    7. February 2011 at 13:55

    Count me among the ecstatic cheeseheads today!

    Can’t imagine ever changing to another team.

  11. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    7. February 2011 at 14:26

    Rick, Glad you see it my way.

    dwj, Yes, a great day.

    Wimivo, I liked the way Brett Farve played, but he definitely became more annoying later in his career.

    ChacoKevy, You said:

    “Tiny market, players never get nationally recognized with endorsements… and it’s GREEN BAY.”

    That’s right, players. . . Brett Farve . . . in Green Bay never get . . . Brett Farve . . . any sort of national recognition.

    It’s doesn’t matter where they want to live. In the NFL players are serfs, they do what they are told.

    Here’s something to think about. Green Bay just won the Super Bowl despite being decimated with injuries, and despite having the second youngest team in the league. Don’t count on them slipping next year, they might be far better (if healthy.)

    I agree about the Lions being better.

    When the Packers lost to the Patriots and were 8-6, I told my colleagues “Don’t be surprised if the Packers play the Patriots in the Super Bowl.” I think they probably thought I was crazy–the Patriots yes, but not the Packers.

    Stephan, By your logic Harvard University is a socialist organization. If that’s how you define socialism, then I proudly call myself a socialist. Private non-profits are an essential part of any libertarian system. Just as important as for-profits.

    Chris, I agree. Would a Christian convert to Islam just because they moved to Egypt? Then why would a Packer fan become a Patriot fan just because he moved to Boston?

  12. Gravatar of Robert Simmons Robert Simmons
    7. February 2011 at 16:33

    My nephew asked me a similar question about the Red Sox when I moved to NY. I thought it was cute, as he was 6 or 7. How can an adult ponder such a thing? Sometimes you adopt the new city’s team(s) if they aren’t rivals, but your team is your team.

  13. Gravatar of James Davies James Davies
    7. February 2011 at 18:00

    Count me as a very happy cheesehead too.

    – Neenah, Wisconsinite, living in LA (and outside Wisconsin for 13 years now).

  14. Gravatar of Chris T Chris T
    7. February 2011 at 18:33

    For those not from Wisconsin, the religious analogy is quite appropriate.

  15. Gravatar of Bill Stepp Bill Stepp
    7. February 2011 at 19:05


    Non profits are an artifact of the tax system. Taxes wouldn’t exist in a libertarian society, so neither would non-profits.
    Sorry to burst your bubble.
    Congrats to the Packers and pass the cheese, please.

  16. Gravatar of Lorenzo from Oz Lorenzo from Oz
    7. February 2011 at 20:48

    Bill Stepp: what an impoverished view of organisational purpose (and history). People have plenty of reasons to form bodies which have a dominant purpose to which any money made is subordinate. That is true regardless of tax arrangements.

  17. Gravatar of Scott Sumner Scott Sumner
    10. February 2011 at 05:49

    Robert, I agree.

    James, I hope to join you in LA someday.

    Chris. Yes, it is a sort of religion.

    Bill, Actually non-profits would do fine without taxes, as they attract enormous amounts of donations, People donate tons of money to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the symphony, Harvard University, etc. For-profits don’t attract donations and hence can’t compete well in those areas. Volunteerism is an important part of the libertarian society.

    Lorenzo, I agree.

Leave a Reply