Wow, these band board posts are pretty sparse. I think more people should get on and debate!
In response to this really old topic, I'm going to weigh in that by definition, band is indeed a sport. As is golf, tennis, cricket, badminton, and even twister! I think there are 2 clarification points to be made. These will be made purely on a football vs. band basis, as that is obviously what this thread mostly consists of to this point anyway.
1. It is good that no physical extracurricular/competitive activities are excluded from the mantle of "sport." Even though the words of the argument are only debating nomenclature, the general atmosphere oftentimes is that band is somehow inferior and therefore denied that label. I contend that, while different in its means of activity and competitions, it is still, for all intents and purposes, technically a sport, and therefore not entitled to descrimination on that front.
2. HOWEVER! I'm going to agree mostly with Lc68 on this one. Just because band is technically a sport, that doesn't make it as exciting to watch or as athletically based as football. It also doesn't mean that band physically works as hard as football. I don't think it works as INTENSELY as football does. As a person who has been a member of a AAAAA football team AND a high school marching band, I know how hard people in band work. Many times they MAY put in more hours. Not always, however. My friends and I worked out for about 4 hours each day ON TOP of practice to maintain our competitive form during my football years. I think it's terribly obvious that nothing any band member does during its competition is as physically grueling as running, tackling, or blocking at full speed after already doing so for hours and taking numerous bone-jarring hits. Again, as Lc68 said, this is evidenced by the many extremely non-athletic band members that are found throughout almost every band.
Verdict: While band is a sport, football is a much more rigorous test of athleticism and strength. To be a starting football player in a large high school program is difficult, to say the least. You HAVE to be physically talented. On the other hand, PHYSICAL TALENT is not really a requirement for band, and nor does it stand out through means of band competition if a member DOES possess it. The standouts are those who can march up to par and display MUSICAL talent. You can be the biggest, fastest band member in the world, but if you stink at your instrument, you are going nowhere, as how big and fast you are doesn't matter other than the fact that you can competently march. Therefore, football is the athletic winner. Football is a more athletically difficult sport. If we feel we need to subclassify ourselves differently, so be it. Make up a new name for sports like football, basketball, soccer, etc. My opinion is that we don't. We should just realize that while it takes a tougher athlete to be a football player, it takes a much more talented musician to be a band member. There is no overall superior or inferior between the 2. One may make more money than the other, and therefore be dominant, but that still only measures popularity, which is a collection of opinions, and not which is "better."
To sum it all up, we should just try to get along and improve the historically bad relations between football and band. After all, football and band are 2 different branches on the same tree. They are both SOLELY for entertainment. Even up to the Trans-Siberian Orchestra or the NFL. Think about it.
