Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Saying “they must’ve preferred it that way since they gave Golden St one, and maybe two, games” doesn’t come across as anti-conspiratorial.

I agree that Brutus' presentation was not "anti-conspiratiorial", but his underlying point was and I think that underlying point is a great counter-argument to the conspiracy theories.  It is extremely difficult to concoct a plausible motivation for the NBA to want a sweep.  Assuming that they don't want a sweep then any anti-cavs conspiracy theory is pretty much impossible.  

Fair enough.

Well at this point I'm pretty much off of professional sports.
The Browns perma-sucking combined with all of the political theatrics have turned me off of the NFL.
LeBron and the Crew leaving Ohio have eroded away my half-hearted interest in either of those leagues.
I'm sure as Heck not going to waste away my summer watching baseball.
The Blue Jackets are fine I guess, but I kinda have a tough time getting all that into the NHL.

My fandom is essentially confined to College Sports, from this point forward. Which is perfect, really.

I'll watch NFL this season...

...to track how my fantasy football team is going.

Beyond that, if it's not involving a former Purdue player, I usually don't care that much about the NFL. I consider myself today a half-hearted Saints fan, but that's just because of Brees. When he retires, I'll be officially without a team.

And no, I'm not going to root for the "Los Angeles" Chargers, even though they're local. I could have become a Chargers fan, but I HATE HATE HATE when teams sell out their market and move for more money. I kinda half-heartedly liked the San Diego Chargers, but I have no use for the LA Chargers. 

I'm pretty sure 99.9% of pro sports fan bases are fair-weather.  I have no issue with it.  I think it could be a problem for MLB going forward the way things are trending with seemingly 2/3 of the league tanking.  NBA can get away with having a small number of true contenders because its a superstar league anyway.  MLB can't.

I certainly am but I want to emphasize a point that is important to me.  I am a fair-weather Cleveland Pro-Sports fan but I am NOT a bandwagon fan.  I will not jump on the Lakers bandwagon if the Lakers suddenly become NBA title contenders.  I'll still, at heart, be a Cavs fan, I just will not spend any time/money on it unless/until they are good again.  
WRT MLB:
My observation is that other than the BIG MONEY teams (NYY, BOS, etc) the rest of the MLB teams can really only be good about 2-4 years once every decade or so.  That is how it is with the Indians in Cleveland.  I pay some attention in those 2-4 years and watch every game if they get to the World Series.  The rest of the time I don't pay any attention at all.  

I'm pretty sure 99.9% of pro sports fan bases are fair-weather.  I have no issue with it.  I think it could be a problem for MLB going forward the way things are trending with seemingly 2/3 of the league tanking.  NBA can get away with having a small number of true contenders because its a superstar league anyway.  MLB can't.

I just don't know how anyone can care about a 162-game MLB season, or for that matter even an 82-game NBA season.
Football is sustained by being a weekend sport. Even the addition of Monday Night Football and the Thursday night games don't really dilute that, because MNF is sort of an event unto itself.
But MLB? Who has the time or energy to pay attention to a random game played at 2:00 PM on a Tuesday in July? And it gets even harder when your star pitchers only play 1/3 or 1/4 of the time, and even then only pitch for 6-7 innings. I realize there's all sorts of strategy to bringing in relievers and closers, and to managing a pitching staff. But would fans really be all-in on the Patriots if Brady only played half the games? At least the NBA trots their superstars out there [almost] all the time...
NBA is similar. There are too many games. They're mid-week when people have lives to attend to. It's just not feasible to care that deeply about a team, especially when they suck. And >half the teams make the playoffs, so why worry about some mid-season Wednesday night game, especially when the teams care so little about the regular season that they rest their stars from time to time. If the coach doesn't care about winning each game, why should I care about watching it?

I just don't know how anyone can care about a 162-game MLB season, or for that matter even an 82-game NBA season.
Football is sustained by being a weekend sport. Even the addition of Monday Night Football and the Thursday night games don't really dilute that, because MNF is sort of an event unto itself.
But MLB? Who has the time or energy to pay attention to a random game played at 2:00 PM on a Tuesday in July? And it gets even harder when your star pitchers only play 1/3 or 1/4 of the time, and even then only pitch for 6-7 innings. I realize there's all sorts of strategy to bringing in relievers and closers, and to managing a pitching staff. But would fans really be all-in on the Patriots if Brady only played half the games? At least the NBA trots their superstars out there [almost] all the time...
NBA is similar. There are too many games. They're mid-week when people have lives to attend to. It's just not feasible to care that deeply about a team, especially when they suck. And >half the teams make the playoffs, so why worry about some mid-season Wednesday night game, especially when the teams care so little about the regular season that they rest their stars from time to time. If the coach doesn't care about winning each game, why should I care about watching it?

I don't think even die hard MLB fans (of which I sort of consider myself) follow baseball in the way they follow football.  It's not a live and die type sport where you have to watch every game, and hang on every result.  But I sort of find the beauty in that.  The trends, the fact that you lose one day and have to lace them right back up 12 hours later sometimes.  The ability to lose 5, 6, 7 in a row and shake it off.  The best teams are probably going to lose 60+ times, and the worst teams are still going to win 60+ times.  The pace of it to me is perfect for the summer.  I love that I can eat dinner, grab a beer, turn it on and it be the bottom of the 4th inning, and I can just pick it up from there.  Or that I can have the radio on in the background while I do housework.  I know for, it's aided by the fact that I enjoy the game more than I enjoy football.  What football has is what you bring up.  It's on once a week, usually on the weekend, 12 times a year.  That's the only reason I watch every game.  If MSU played 162 football games, and the Tigers were on 12 times a year, that would flip too.

I still have an investment in the outcome, it's just a different kind of investment.  For better or worse, a college football result can make or break my weekend.  I like having sports that aren't like that too.