> we watch sports matches to spectate top-of-the-class athletes doing their best, regardless who or what they are.
Then wouldn’t be more interesting if a variety of players with different top-of-the-class physical profiles moved the game through strategies optimized to their strengths and weaknesses ?
To take a concrete example, the addition of the 3 point rule expanded the category of players that could have a critical impact on the game. I personally wouldn’t see that rule addition as a dilution of the game or a pandering to physical diversity, it genuinely makes the games more interesting.
We could imagine other rules that bring in even wider physical profiles and change the game in interesting ways.
I watch sports to see athletes performing their best; I couldn't give a rat's rotten ass what they are.
As such, diversity quotas would not be appealing to my interests and demands in the first place. I /don't fucking care/ what they are, I care if they are good athletes.
If a sport presents me with diversity hires, I'm just going to go watch or do something else.
The other side of that is that there are sometimes opportunities to innovate within the existing rules that no one else is exploiting. For example, Boyd Epley revolutionized the whole game of gridiron football when he introduced a rigorous strength training program to the Nebraska Cornhuskers.
Then wouldn’t be more interesting if a variety of players with different top-of-the-class physical profiles moved the game through strategies optimized to their strengths and weaknesses ?
To take a concrete example, the addition of the 3 point rule expanded the category of players that could have a critical impact on the game. I personally wouldn’t see that rule addition as a dilution of the game or a pandering to physical diversity, it genuinely makes the games more interesting.
We could imagine other rules that bring in even wider physical profiles and change the game in interesting ways.