Most sports topics bore the living crap out of me. Unless I'm playing the sport or betting on it, I just don't care enough about it to obsess over sports and who's playing it.
And that disdain includes all the misguided colleges who have mostly lost their primary focus on higher education and instead chose to fund full tuitions for below average students who are considered star athletes just to fill a college stadiums otherwise empty seats just to hopefully win games and thus attempt to justify the ridiculousness of it all.
Sports jocks need to go to a sports specific technical school and all the much vaunted collegiate institutes of higher learning should stop pretending jocks are there to learn anything really useful besides hitting or throwing a stupid ball around just for shits and giggles and an excuse for the college frats to throw a party after they win a game.
In my mind when we're talking politics we're really talking philosophy. When we discuss taxes we're really talking about individuals and the idea of a meritocracy and intersubjectivity. One side will say you are born an individual, come into the world the same as everyone else, and your income is equal to the amount of work you've put in. The other recognizes the individual but as a historical entity born into the world and produced by the world. You are not born equal and hard word doesn't necessarily translate to wealth. Taxes work to combat this structural inequality inherent in a capitalistic society. But no one speaks in these terms, they focus on the empirical level. For example, Obama may say10% of families are living in poverty in the USA as an argument for us needing this or that policy, but if we don't recognize the underlying philosophy each side will simply assimilate that fact into their own theoretical view. One side will say that 10% of people made bad choices and don't work hard enough, the other will say that 10% are victims of an unequal system. The underlying philosophy is what allows us to make sense of the empirical world, but it is ignored.
Political debates always eschew these difficult, fundamental ideas that inform a party's ideology in favour of rhetoric and playing the political game. It is easier to convince people they're being convinced than to ask difficult questions, ask the voters to learn as a part of their civic duty, and actually convince them. So long as we ignore the theoretical underpinnings of our own thinking we cannot have a conversation with anyone else.
I don't think it's too much to ask people to learn (not in the sense of accumulating facts but of being critical and cognizant of the philosophy that informs mine and other's worldview) in order to properly participate in politics.