Racism is a major problem in our country and throughout the world. Although times have certainly changed, and major progress has been made with regards to equality, there are still many racial issues that exist. One of these issues includes the low percentage of African-American coaches in college football.
There are many instances where racism can be found in sports. In Color Coded: Racial Descriptors in Television Coverage of Intercollegiate Sports, Rada and Wolfemeyer state, “Researchers have found that announcers are more likely to confine their descriptions, and praise, of African American athletes to statements regarding their athletic abilities and physical attributes” (68). They later state, “When announcers do refer to the White athletes’ physical accomplishments and/or attributes, they often highlight two factors: the players’ intellectual and cognitive prowess, and a strong, blue collar-like work ethic” (68). This shows that racism is even apparent in sports broadcasts, as announcers place stereotypical labels on athletes based on the color of their skin.
As for college football, it is possible that there is racial discrimination involved when it comes to the recruitment of coaches. In this ESPN.com article posted on behalf of the Associated Press, it is shown that only 3.4 percent of college football coaches are African-American. Floyd Keith, executive director of the Black Coaches and Administrators, says that the number of African-American coaches in college football is an “outright disgrace,” and that he is searching for a potential civil rights lawsuit against individual universities for Title VII violations.
In comparison to the NFL, however, the percentage of African-American coaches greatly differs. In Racial Integration of Coaching: Evidence From the NFL, Goff and Tollison state, “From 1989 to 1998, the percentage of teams with Black coaches ranged from 3% to 10%. Since the 2000 season, these percentages have increased above 10% reaching 22% starting in the 2006 season” (128). This shows that the number of African-American coaches in the NFL is on the steady increase, even though college football percentages remain extremely low.
Do you think that the low percentage of African American coaches in college football is a problem? Why do you think that the percentages differ so greatly between college football and the NFL? Is the low number of African-American coaches in college football a result of racism?
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Rooney Rule: Out-Dated?
People of color have certainly gained equality (or probably majority) in sport as far as numbers in physical presence and athletic opportunities. However, the same cannot be said about opportunities for people of color in upper management/ownership and coaching in sports. One of the most important developments in this decade for race equality was the inception of the “Rooney Rule” (named after the Steelers’ owner) in the NFL in 2003, which requires NFL teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching jobs.
This article on the subject by Dave Goldberg describes the impact of the Rooney Rule on the NFL. He talks about how the other leagues have fared and the impact on the front offices as well.
“While the NFL hasn't achieved the coaching diversity of other sports leagues--the NBA has had double-digit numbers of black coaches for a decade, Major League Baseball has nine black, Hispanic or Asian managers for 30 teams--the Rooney Rule seems to have inspired minority hires not only on the sidelines but in the front offices. The rule does not apply to top executive hires, but the number of black general managers has increased from one in 2002 to five now. Just as important is the success of minority coaches and GMs: five of the six teams in the last three Super Bowls have had either black coaches or general managers.”
It is interesting to note that the NFL is a sport dominated in numbers by African American athletes, yet the coaching numbers don’t reflect that quite as much as in the NBA, which is in a similar situation of proportion of African American athletes (although the NBA has had higher percentage of minority coaches).
In the article Racial Integration of Coaching by Goff and Tollison, they address the percentage issue: “Black players make up 65% of the workforce in the NFL. Some writers in the media and in economics have used this figure as a benchmark by which to judge hiring of Black coaches. The backgrounds of NFL coaches indicates that past NFL playing experience is not necessarily a strong influence on the hiring of coaches; therefore, the 65% benchmark may not be relevant” (Goff & Tollison, 138).
It is also an interesting concept because race is a social construction. “For Max Weber, there was race only if there was a race consciousness anchored in a community identity which could lead to action, such as segregation or prejudice. These were not necessarily attributable to hereditary differences but to habitus” (Jarvie, Handbook, 335). The problem of having a lack of minority coaches in professional sports was something created by us, and something that required us to create rules to fix it.
So, I pose these questions. Is the Rooney Rule out-dated, or should it continue to be implemented at the same or even a higher level? Should such rules be extended to upper management? Should percentages of athletes in the sport play a role in requirements? Should teams be allowed to interview whoever they want, or should they have to comply because they all fall under the law of the NFL?
This article on the subject by Dave Goldberg describes the impact of the Rooney Rule on the NFL. He talks about how the other leagues have fared and the impact on the front offices as well.
“While the NFL hasn't achieved the coaching diversity of other sports leagues--the NBA has had double-digit numbers of black coaches for a decade, Major League Baseball has nine black, Hispanic or Asian managers for 30 teams--the Rooney Rule seems to have inspired minority hires not only on the sidelines but in the front offices. The rule does not apply to top executive hires, but the number of black general managers has increased from one in 2002 to five now. Just as important is the success of minority coaches and GMs: five of the six teams in the last three Super Bowls have had either black coaches or general managers.”
It is interesting to note that the NFL is a sport dominated in numbers by African American athletes, yet the coaching numbers don’t reflect that quite as much as in the NBA, which is in a similar situation of proportion of African American athletes (although the NBA has had higher percentage of minority coaches).
In the article Racial Integration of Coaching by Goff and Tollison, they address the percentage issue: “Black players make up 65% of the workforce in the NFL. Some writers in the media and in economics have used this figure as a benchmark by which to judge hiring of Black coaches. The backgrounds of NFL coaches indicates that past NFL playing experience is not necessarily a strong influence on the hiring of coaches; therefore, the 65% benchmark may not be relevant” (Goff & Tollison, 138).
It is also an interesting concept because race is a social construction. “For Max Weber, there was race only if there was a race consciousness anchored in a community identity which could lead to action, such as segregation or prejudice. These were not necessarily attributable to hereditary differences but to habitus” (Jarvie, Handbook, 335). The problem of having a lack of minority coaches in professional sports was something created by us, and something that required us to create rules to fix it.
So, I pose these questions. Is the Rooney Rule out-dated, or should it continue to be implemented at the same or even a higher level? Should such rules be extended to upper management? Should percentages of athletes in the sport play a role in requirements? Should teams be allowed to interview whoever they want, or should they have to comply because they all fall under the law of the NFL?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Nationalism In Sport: A Good or Bad Thing?
Nationalism and Sport are often intertwined, as sports provide a venue for symbolic competition between nations. We see this in some of the biggest sporting events in the world including the Olympics, the World Cup, and even the World Baseball Classic. Bud Greenspan uses a quote from Barrie Houlihan that helps explain nationalism in the Olympics in his study called Olympic Orchestration: "nationalism is deeply embedded in the fabric of Olympic movement. . . it is the defining narrative of the Games themselves: the opening parade of athletes in national groups. . . wearing the colors on their kit. . . and the playing of the national anthems and the raising of national flags at medal ceremonies." (Olympic Orchestration, 20-21)
It is amazing to see all the die-hard fans that represent the different countries in these huge sporting events. When the different teams and fans all sing their national anthems together and hold up their country's flags, you can't put those moments into words (unless of course there is a country singing their national anthem and you have no idea what they are saying). Every American felt a great sense of excitement when Michael Phelps dominated his different swimming events breaking record after record. Everyone from Jamaica felt as a big group of one when Usain Bolt destroyed his competitors in his running events. It is amazing to see one athlete be able to bring a nation closer together after winning a bunch of their events. In 2016, Rio de Janeiro will host the Olympic Games and trust me, you will see the Brazilians more amped up then anything to support their country. It brought tears to the Brazilian president during his press conference after finding out that they won the bid to host the Olympics. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/02/olympics.2016/
However, nationalism is something that has been questioned quite a bit too. As far as a fan aspect is concerned, there is nothing better to watch then millions of fans all who are strangers that act as best friends in the stands as they root on their countries. On the other hand it can turn bad very quickly. For example, it was a soccer match which started the war between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969 which killed 6,000 people and left 24,000 wounded (Handbook, 351). There have been some other extreme cases where fans of two nations have battled during and after games that have resulted in deaths and serious injuries. Being a part of a nation and rooting on you country is a great thing, but where do you draw the line? Why do you think some people get this intense over their nation?
When looking at nationalism from a player's standpoint, we have to ask ourselves where to draw a line there. How is a player going to react when he is playing for the country he was born in against the country he currently plays in now? In this article, a German footballer of Iranian birth had asked to be excused from a match against Israel. He states, "I have more Iranian than German blood in my veins. Besides I'm doing this out of respect. After all my parents are Iranian."(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/13/whennationalismandsportcol) Should players be allowed to do this and how do you think fans would think of a player if he asked to sit out a big match because of these views?
It is amazing to see all the die-hard fans that represent the different countries in these huge sporting events. When the different teams and fans all sing their national anthems together and hold up their country's flags, you can't put those moments into words (unless of course there is a country singing their national anthem and you have no idea what they are saying). Every American felt a great sense of excitement when Michael Phelps dominated his different swimming events breaking record after record. Everyone from Jamaica felt as a big group of one when Usain Bolt destroyed his competitors in his running events. It is amazing to see one athlete be able to bring a nation closer together after winning a bunch of their events. In 2016, Rio de Janeiro will host the Olympic Games and trust me, you will see the Brazilians more amped up then anything to support their country. It brought tears to the Brazilian president during his press conference after finding out that they won the bid to host the Olympics. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/02/olympics.2016/
However, nationalism is something that has been questioned quite a bit too. As far as a fan aspect is concerned, there is nothing better to watch then millions of fans all who are strangers that act as best friends in the stands as they root on their countries. On the other hand it can turn bad very quickly. For example, it was a soccer match which started the war between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969 which killed 6,000 people and left 24,000 wounded (Handbook, 351). There have been some other extreme cases where fans of two nations have battled during and after games that have resulted in deaths and serious injuries. Being a part of a nation and rooting on you country is a great thing, but where do you draw the line? Why do you think some people get this intense over their nation?
When looking at nationalism from a player's standpoint, we have to ask ourselves where to draw a line there. How is a player going to react when he is playing for the country he was born in against the country he currently plays in now? In this article, a German footballer of Iranian birth had asked to be excused from a match against Israel. He states, "I have more Iranian than German blood in my veins. Besides I'm doing this out of respect. After all my parents are Iranian."(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/13/whennationalismandsportcol) Should players be allowed to do this and how do you think fans would think of a player if he asked to sit out a big match because of these views?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
The Impact of Sports
To some, sports are merely games, but to others, sports are a way of life. Sports are able to bring out the best in everyone through competition. Whether it is competing against the opposing team or the stopwatch, sports are forums for athletes to show their true colors. It is the idea of being able to raise your hands up in triumph when you achieve excellence or having the mental strength to cope with a tough loss, sports encompasses all of that.
There is no question that being the athlete that nails the buzzer-beating basket or the one who breaks the world record is the most exciting aspect of sport, but the meaning of sport is much deeper than that. Sports have the unique ability to unite countries, races, and enemies in a way that is truly incomparable. In a Washington Post article entitled, “The Soccer Wars,” the author Daniel Drezner, discussed the soccer match between the British and the Germans on Christmas of 1914. This by any means was not your ordinary soccer match, well, because it took place during the heat of battle in World War I. The two sides had a one day truce because of the holiday, so instead of sitting around planning out the next attack, they decided to organize a friendly soccer match. Sure it was only a temporary solution, but for the duration of that game, it could be argued that neither of the sides were even thinking about bombing one another not one day earlier. It is the idea that for that moment, nothing else matters.
As athletes, we put all of our heart and soul into training with the hope that it will enhance our possibilities of winning, even if it is just by a hair. In the article that we read for class, “Olympic Orchestration: Bud Greenspan’s Re-presentation of Sport” the author Lori Amber Roessner discusses the idea of Olympic athletes and how merely making to the Olympics is the achievement. Roessner states a quote that Bud Greenspan’s said which was, “The most important thing in the Olympic games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well” (Greenspan, 1995, p. 254).” Now, I pose the question, why do athletes compete if winning is not the ultimate achievement? To my knowledge there are no Olympians in class, so what in your lives would classify as “making it,” with not worrying about the final outcome of winning or losing? As an athlete, I hate losing and I cannot stand it. Going into any type of competition I always want to win and that is what I expect from myself, but then again, it might be different at the Olympic level!
Sure sports would not exist if it were not for the athletes that perform, however, when there is full support from the fans, it definitely affects the athletes play in a positive way. We all love it when we are on the playing field, and we look up and see a packed stadium cheering us on. Roessner discussed the viewership of the Olympics and the numbers are simply astonishing, remarkable really. Daniel Drezner discussed the civil war that was going on in Africa during a prior World Cup, and how it seemed as though a settlement was not in the near future. The President of the Ivory Coast said, “Because, as everyone knows, a country united makes for better cheerleaders than a country divided." The 2006 World Cup was the first time the Ivory Coast qualified for the World Cup, so the President felt as though the team needed full support if they were going to perform at the highest level. The idea of having supporters or cheerleaders is crucial for motivating and pushing the athletes to greater heights. Lincoln Allison discussed in Handbook the notion of the formation of a countries identity through sport. Allison said, “Thus there can be a collective sense of national humiliation when a national team is defeated; the event is taken reflect on the state of the nation as a whole…” (Handbook 345). Similar to the 9/11 video we watched in class, and how the Yankees were New York’s “savior.” Do you think it is right that Sports above all else, should have the ability to shape a countries identity? What are potential reasons for the idea of sports shaping or creating one’s indentity?
Sports are much more than just a game or a luxury activity, the affects of sport on all of society in general are massive. The fact that something so simple such as a swimming race or a soccer game has the ability to cease a war and unite a country is truly unthinkable. The idea of sport as a universal language that all races, genders, and beliefs are able to understand without any misunderstandings is something that I believe nothing else in this world has the ability to do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060201401.html
The Importance of the Olympic Games
A spectacle that represents more than just a game; the Olympics are a multi billion dollar, sixteen day phenomenon (Olympic Orchestration 2). The games fuel a media firestorm that exists for days leading up to, and even after the games have passed. Although some may argue that the Olympics interfere with the traditions of each country involved, most would agree that they represent one of the very few global traditions we have today (Handbook 358).
American sports produce national heroes for our community. This is important, because all young children, and even adults benefit from these heroes, in that they strive to be like them. The Olympics is a collection of athletic heroes from throughout the world, and for countries less established than America, the Olympics can be a light in the dark (Olympic Orchestration 5). Although the athletes are always in fierce competition, there is a noticeable display of respect between the players. As long as the competition stays friendly, the Olympics will survive. If tensions were to ever grow to great, that would leave the door open to potential acts of violence.
For the city of Rio de Janiero, the 2016 summer games will create drastic changes for the country politically and economically. According to http://www.riooooolympics.com/2009/11/05/what-do-the-olympics-mean-for-rios-environment/#more-234, Rio has taken a beating from politicians, whose acts have not been improving the country, but rather fattening their pockets. Rio will benefit from a significant increase in tourism as well, which will help bring in the money needed to restore order in the city.
Overall, the Olympics benefit the media and hosting country. It also produces athletic heroes that can become role models for young children. How important do you think the Olympics are for both our American and global culture? Many of the athletic events are becoming mainly western dominated (Handbook 360), because the professional leagues are so popular worldwide. Is it a good idea to continue to add events to the Olympic games, or should the Olympic Committee decide to keep only the original events in order to preserve this great global tradition?
American sports produce national heroes for our community. This is important, because all young children, and even adults benefit from these heroes, in that they strive to be like them. The Olympics is a collection of athletic heroes from throughout the world, and for countries less established than America, the Olympics can be a light in the dark (Olympic Orchestration 5). Although the athletes are always in fierce competition, there is a noticeable display of respect between the players. As long as the competition stays friendly, the Olympics will survive. If tensions were to ever grow to great, that would leave the door open to potential acts of violence.
For the city of Rio de Janiero, the 2016 summer games will create drastic changes for the country politically and economically. According to http://www.riooooolympics.com/2009/11/05/what-do-the-olympics-mean-for-rios-environment/#more-234, Rio has taken a beating from politicians, whose acts have not been improving the country, but rather fattening their pockets. Rio will benefit from a significant increase in tourism as well, which will help bring in the money needed to restore order in the city.
Overall, the Olympics benefit the media and hosting country. It also produces athletic heroes that can become role models for young children. How important do you think the Olympics are for both our American and global culture? Many of the athletic events are becoming mainly western dominated (Handbook 360), because the professional leagues are so popular worldwide. Is it a good idea to continue to add events to the Olympic games, or should the Olympic Committee decide to keep only the original events in order to preserve this great global tradition?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Battle of Title IX
Posted on behalf of Ross Montolio:
Anyone who watches college sports has a favorite team; it might even be your own schools team. Most people only root for the sports that are highly broadcast mainly because they are the more popular sports. Now what would happen if the NCAA decided to eliminate all football for every school? The country and all those schools would go into an uproar of disapproval for eliminating the most popular college sport.
The debate of Title IX is one that happens every time a school cuts a sport. Schools and Universities throughout the country have been struggling during these rough times causing schools to cut different sports programs. According to ncaa.org, in the gender equality and title IX section it says, “an athletics program can be considered gender equitable when the participants in both the men's and women's sports programs would accept as fair and equitable the overall program of the other gender. No individual should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, institutionally or nationally, in intercollegiate athletics.” Because there are these rulings, set in 1972, by the NCAA it puts pressure on schools, especially athletic directors, to carefully go over all of their sports programs, if a school needs to cut a program. This is mentioned in a recent espn.com article.
The article is about the recent cut of the Northern Iowa baseball team. Like most sports teams that have programs cut, there was just not enough funding to support the baseball team. In the article mentions how Title IX affected the removal of the baseball program. “Although most men's teams tend to bring in more revenue, they're often the first on the chopping block so schools can remain compliant with Title IX laws”. So because of the title IX rulings it is the men’s sports that are looked at first. However another point brought up in the article says the median revenues for male and female NCAA sports were $22.2 million for men and $865,000 for women. “Of the men's revenue, football and men's basketball account for $19.6 million. For the women, basketball makes up $490,000, or more than half the total revenue”. In all there are three sports that make up for most of the money made by NCAA sports.
It is outrageous to think that the NCAA is in the right to say that they want equality in all of their sports, when only three sports make up almost all of their sports revenue. The Ridpath article talks about the loss of wrestling teams across the country because there is no wrestling for women offered. The article says how “The trend continued with the loss of several wrestling programs in 2007 including the University of Oregon's nationally competitive program, ostensibly for gender equity reasons”. The article also goes on to say that Oregon added a baseball team after the wrestling program was cut. According to the Lovett & Lowry article, which talks about women and the NCAA, the article mentions that “There is also reason to believe that women are more sensitive to women's issues and more willing to adopt change”. So should the NCAA still abide by the Title IX rules that are almost 40 years old or should schools only have sports that will be popular and make the school and NCAA money regardless of gender?
Anyone who watches college sports has a favorite team; it might even be your own schools team. Most people only root for the sports that are highly broadcast mainly because they are the more popular sports. Now what would happen if the NCAA decided to eliminate all football for every school? The country and all those schools would go into an uproar of disapproval for eliminating the most popular college sport.
The debate of Title IX is one that happens every time a school cuts a sport. Schools and Universities throughout the country have been struggling during these rough times causing schools to cut different sports programs. According to ncaa.org, in the gender equality and title IX section it says, “an athletics program can be considered gender equitable when the participants in both the men's and women's sports programs would accept as fair and equitable the overall program of the other gender. No individual should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, institutionally or nationally, in intercollegiate athletics.” Because there are these rulings, set in 1972, by the NCAA it puts pressure on schools, especially athletic directors, to carefully go over all of their sports programs, if a school needs to cut a program. This is mentioned in a recent espn.com article.
The article is about the recent cut of the Northern Iowa baseball team. Like most sports teams that have programs cut, there was just not enough funding to support the baseball team. In the article mentions how Title IX affected the removal of the baseball program. “Although most men's teams tend to bring in more revenue, they're often the first on the chopping block so schools can remain compliant with Title IX laws”. So because of the title IX rulings it is the men’s sports that are looked at first. However another point brought up in the article says the median revenues for male and female NCAA sports were $22.2 million for men and $865,000 for women. “Of the men's revenue, football and men's basketball account for $19.6 million. For the women, basketball makes up $490,000, or more than half the total revenue”. In all there are three sports that make up for most of the money made by NCAA sports.
It is outrageous to think that the NCAA is in the right to say that they want equality in all of their sports, when only three sports make up almost all of their sports revenue. The Ridpath article talks about the loss of wrestling teams across the country because there is no wrestling for women offered. The article says how “The trend continued with the loss of several wrestling programs in 2007 including the University of Oregon's nationally competitive program, ostensibly for gender equity reasons”. The article also goes on to say that Oregon added a baseball team after the wrestling program was cut. According to the Lovett & Lowry article, which talks about women and the NCAA, the article mentions that “There is also reason to believe that women are more sensitive to women's issues and more willing to adopt change”. So should the NCAA still abide by the Title IX rules that are almost 40 years old or should schools only have sports that will be popular and make the school and NCAA money regardless of gender?
Women's Sports: No Respect
Sports are known as a way for men to express their masculinity, manly competitiveness, brute strength, and maybe impress the ladies. Are these attributes of men's sports the reason female athletes aren't taken seriously?
Possibly. Maybe it's that most women's sports don't include the physicality of sports such as football or men's lacrosse and hockey. Maybe it's the frequent and often inaccurate stereotype that many female athletes are lesbians, or just not ladylike.
Two weeks ago, the Detroit Shock of the WNBA announced they would move to Tulsa, Oklahoma. Granted, Detroit is in an awful economic situation. But are people going to flock to Tulsa for women's professional basketball at a higher rate than the 8,000 people a night in Detroit? Highly unlikely.
The WNBA has been in existence since 1997, and is still partially funded by the NBA. Columnists and talk show hosts have quipped for 12 years that they don't understand how the league is still in existence. And these same people were all over the Phoenix Mercury for adding advertising to their uniforms this past WNBA season, despite the fact that men's sports teams in nearly every country except the United States have done this for years.
This arrogance and disrespect towards women's sports is highlighted in Nancy Theberge's analysis of "Gender and Sport." In 1995, CBS sports golf analyst Ben Wright made "a number of sexist and homophobic remarks about tour players." (Theberge 325). Wright went as far as to say that female golfers "are handicapped by having boobs."
Many of the talking heads in the media still lead this negative outlook towards women's sports. The WNBA, and women's college sports are slowly starting to gain mainstream exposure in the internet age, but it is still nowhere near the coverage of their male counterparts. What can be done to change this? How can these negative stereotypes be overcome? The Quinnipiac women's hockey team is off to the best part in program history, yet the attendance this weekend for two home games didn't crack 200. How can we as students help the teams here at QU gain the respect and exposure they currently lack?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)