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?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Sexuality in Sports- Do Homosexuals Lose Their Masculinity?
Sports and athletics are a way for men to show their masculinity and strength. Does this change if a man is a homosexual?
There have always been many controversies in this area. Men believe that those who are gay are more feminine and weak and therefore don’t deserve to play in the same level or league as other men. In the article Hegemonic Masculinity & Neohomophobia John Amaechi is reported to have played in professional basketball for eight years. In 2007, he publicly announced that he was gay. After eight years of proving his excellent basketball skills and abilities, in a few days his reputation was completely changed just by announcing that he was a homosexual. In studies it was found that some reporters, “‘Blamed the victim’ and presented Amaechi negatively in a number of ways, ultimately presenting him as incapable of competing in professional sports.” Why is he all of a sudden incapable of playing a professional sport after eight years?
Recently, Magic Johnson has announced that he is releasing a book and in it, he accuses previous Knicks coach Isaiah Thomas of calling Johnson gay. This has become a huge deal in that Thomas is very offended that Johnson would say this about him. In this article, Johnson says, “"How can a so-called friend question your sexuality like that. I know why he did it, because we used to kiss before games, and now if people were wondering about me, that meant they were wondering about him, too." Why are men so threatened with the idea of a rumor about them being gay?
My question to all of you is how would you handle a situation in which you were rumored to be gay? Or how would you react to teammates announcing their homosexuality? Would you accept them for who they are and continue to respect their athletic ability or would your perception change?
Another point is that, at this time it seems as though there are not too many homosexuals in sports at this time. Do you think that more will open up or just keep quiet if they are? It is hard for those who are not males to be seen as equals in a sport, just as blacks and women have in the past. In the article Women and the NCAA: Not Separate- Not Equal it says, “Why is it that whenever a group asks for equal rights, the dominant group's first reaction is defensive. The second reaction is to interpret equal rights for one group as diminished rights for another and finally, to stall [emphasis added). (U.S. Congress, 1993)”. Do you think that it is the same situation for homosexuals that once they ask to be treated equally, many officials will stall in executing this? What do you all think?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Pressures of a Student Athlete
Posted on behalf of Michael Mancuso:
Most of us had played sports growing up whether it is in high school or just having fun around the backyard. But few of us, are actually able to take the game to the next level and play a sport in college. If we were even able to attend, then chances are we all know someone who plays for a school, your school, or an alumni player who were fortunate to make this a real opportunity for them. We think of college athletes as the jocks who get to miss class, hand in late assignments, and have an endless supply of booty calls stored away in their blackberry’s. I have been fortunate to have had numerous friends from high school go on to play in college whether it is football, basketball, or baseball and have also friended many more athletes here at Quinnipiac. One thing I know for sure, is that this stereotype is not all that it is cracked up to be.
The college life for a student athlete is one with many restrictions. They are given set schedules every year and often time don’t really get to choose the classes they want due to practices, lifting’s, ect. They have to live life by the schedule and it seems as though everything they do is put under a microscope. Behavior is always a problem both on and off the field as they are threatened with losing their scholarship, being benched, or thrown off completely due to “normal” college incident. Coaches might not allow them to drink or go out because there is an 8am practice or earlier lift the next morning and anyone coming in hung-over or feeling out of it will be feeling worse with the extra laps after practice. They must make many sacrifices in their college careers and cannot just enjoy going to school as the rest of us can, whether or not they plan on continuing their sport after they graduate.
The Ellenbogen article pushes the microscope up even closer. After Pete Rose was banned from the game he starred in due to a gambling addiction and fixing games in which he managed, gambling has become a problem many have started to look more into. Now although in many ways illegal, college students (including Quinnipiac,) can’t wait to turn 21 so that they can go to the casino’s and dream of hitting millions. Many take it further and bet on sports whether it is office pools like for the Super Bowl and March Madness, or I know even myself get involved in fantasy money leagues. A few of us even go all the way to online sports betting where anything goes from how many runs will be scored in the first inning or how many foul shots Kobe Bryant will attempt tonight. However, over the past couple of decades campuses have been focusing in to make sure their athletes are not participating. Gambling can get any person into debts and troubles, but Ellenbogen talks about the serious problems it can have on student athletes. He says, “If student athletes incur significant losses or develop associations
with other gamblers, they may be pressured to use or share information concerning collegiate
games, or possibly alter their performance to influence the outcome of games” (Ellenbogen 349). This is exactly the problem Pete Rose faced in baseball, and ultimately ruined the “Hall of Famers” chances of ever getting in. It can also ruin the career of a student athlete as the punishment for action could range anywhere’s from a one year suspension to being thrown out of the school entirely. In 2001, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission concluded that, “sports wagering threatens the integrity of sports, puts student athletes in a vulnerable position, it can serve as gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and it can devastate individuals and careers” (Ellenbogen 350).
One reason that drives one to gamble is competitiveness, something that is obviously present in a student athlete. However, a surprising study also has shown that competitiveness can also lead to another problem. The Serrao article comprises a study that has found that, college athletes tend to consume more alcohol than non-athletes do. As well as those participating in even intramural sports drinking more heavily than those students who do not. Serrao concludes that, “The current study hypothesized that a sport-related personality trait, competitiveness, may contribute to alcohol use among individuals participating in athletics” (Serrao 206). Do we really believe that high levels of competitiveness could be a bad thing and lead to many bad habits? This study would prove that everything our coaches have been teaching us all our lives may actually backfire and be a negative when it is all said and done.
What have our own college experiences told us, in contrast to these studies? Has competitiveness been the overwhelming problem to explain “bad behavior” among student athletes or do you believe it is the pressures and responsibilities that go along with being a student athlete? Would you agree with the findings that have been studied by both Ellenbogen and Serrao?
Most of us had played sports growing up whether it is in high school or just having fun around the backyard. But few of us, are actually able to take the game to the next level and play a sport in college. If we were even able to attend, then chances are we all know someone who plays for a school, your school, or an alumni player who were fortunate to make this a real opportunity for them. We think of college athletes as the jocks who get to miss class, hand in late assignments, and have an endless supply of booty calls stored away in their blackberry’s. I have been fortunate to have had numerous friends from high school go on to play in college whether it is football, basketball, or baseball and have also friended many more athletes here at Quinnipiac. One thing I know for sure, is that this stereotype is not all that it is cracked up to be.
The college life for a student athlete is one with many restrictions. They are given set schedules every year and often time don’t really get to choose the classes they want due to practices, lifting’s, ect. They have to live life by the schedule and it seems as though everything they do is put under a microscope. Behavior is always a problem both on and off the field as they are threatened with losing their scholarship, being benched, or thrown off completely due to “normal” college incident. Coaches might not allow them to drink or go out because there is an 8am practice or earlier lift the next morning and anyone coming in hung-over or feeling out of it will be feeling worse with the extra laps after practice. They must make many sacrifices in their college careers and cannot just enjoy going to school as the rest of us can, whether or not they plan on continuing their sport after they graduate.
The Ellenbogen article pushes the microscope up even closer. After Pete Rose was banned from the game he starred in due to a gambling addiction and fixing games in which he managed, gambling has become a problem many have started to look more into. Now although in many ways illegal, college students (including Quinnipiac,) can’t wait to turn 21 so that they can go to the casino’s and dream of hitting millions. Many take it further and bet on sports whether it is office pools like for the Super Bowl and March Madness, or I know even myself get involved in fantasy money leagues. A few of us even go all the way to online sports betting where anything goes from how many runs will be scored in the first inning or how many foul shots Kobe Bryant will attempt tonight. However, over the past couple of decades campuses have been focusing in to make sure their athletes are not participating. Gambling can get any person into debts and troubles, but Ellenbogen talks about the serious problems it can have on student athletes. He says, “If student athletes incur significant losses or develop associations
with other gamblers, they may be pressured to use or share information concerning collegiate
games, or possibly alter their performance to influence the outcome of games” (Ellenbogen 349). This is exactly the problem Pete Rose faced in baseball, and ultimately ruined the “Hall of Famers” chances of ever getting in. It can also ruin the career of a student athlete as the punishment for action could range anywhere’s from a one year suspension to being thrown out of the school entirely. In 2001, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission concluded that, “sports wagering threatens the integrity of sports, puts student athletes in a vulnerable position, it can serve as gateway behavior for adolescent gamblers, and it can devastate individuals and careers” (Ellenbogen 350).
One reason that drives one to gamble is competitiveness, something that is obviously present in a student athlete. However, a surprising study also has shown that competitiveness can also lead to another problem. The Serrao article comprises a study that has found that, college athletes tend to consume more alcohol than non-athletes do. As well as those participating in even intramural sports drinking more heavily than those students who do not. Serrao concludes that, “The current study hypothesized that a sport-related personality trait, competitiveness, may contribute to alcohol use among individuals participating in athletics” (Serrao 206). Do we really believe that high levels of competitiveness could be a bad thing and lead to many bad habits? This study would prove that everything our coaches have been teaching us all our lives may actually backfire and be a negative when it is all said and done.
What have our own college experiences told us, in contrast to these studies? Has competitiveness been the overwhelming problem to explain “bad behavior” among student athletes or do you believe it is the pressures and responsibilities that go along with being a student athlete? Would you agree with the findings that have been studied by both Ellenbogen and Serrao?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Hazing and Alcohol Abuse Among College Athletes
College is a very important time in a person’s life. For most students, it is the first time they are living life on their own, not having to worry about pleasing their parent’s with their every move. This causes students to have the opportunities to let themselves go a little more and experiment with more things. We see how many problems tend to occur with those students who are more involved, especially the student athletes. The problems that tend to be associated with college student-athletes look at physical issues, such as extensive use of alcohol or drugs, perhaps because of pressure they may be feeling to fit in from older athletes. Coakley and Dunning, in the Handbook of Sports Studies, discuss how sports in today’s world seem to cause more problems, such as anxiety within athletes and feeling the pressure to perform at their highest skills at all times. Does this anxiety also lead to more problems with drinking associated with student athletes? If they are expected to play to their best ability, do they also have to let loose and enjoy themselves in just as intense of a manor?
An article I found talks about how student athletes at SUNY in New York are trying to change the image of college student athletes drinking excessively because of a death of one of their own (http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S1207176.shtml?cat=572). The District Attorney on the case discusses how students, especially athletes, can be exposed to situations in where they feel pressure to drink in different hazing situations, which can clearly lead to outcomes as severe as death. Teams are supposed to accept their new players in with out harm and make them feel welcomed, and as we see in today’s world, to feel welcomed onto a new team usually includes some sort of hazing activity, which most students feel the need to participate in to be seen as “one of the guys.”
Within the article “Competitiveness and Alcohol Use Among Recreational and Elite Collegiate Athletes,” it is shown that studies show “intercollegiate athletes are more likely than their nonathletic counterparts to report heavy episodic drinking in the preceding two weeks, more frequent heavy episodic drinking, and a greater number of drinks per week” (206). It seems interesting that the students who should be paying more attention to their physical wellness and what they put into their body seem to be doing the exact opposite. But is this a tradition that the older players force on to the younger players, which turns into a cycle that is difficult to end? Many freshman athletes are put into different situations than perhaps other nonathletic freshman may be. They are already introduced to older students who have an easier access to purchasing and providing alcohol and who have already been through these situations. The problem with hazing is that it is a nonstop cycle, because once you are hazed, the only thing you want to do is haze the next group of incoming additions to a team, because you had to endure it, so everyone else should have to too. Does any type of hazing ever help a team bond, or should hazing be something put into the past? Even as schools try to break down on hazing, we see that it is nearly impossible for administration to stop all forms, so does it even help when schools say they have a “no hazing” policy, or does that make things worse? Also, the article discusses that because college athletes tend to have a more competitive personality than non-athletes, could this also lead to problems with drinking?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Are Parents a Negative Influence on their Children in Sports?
Posted on behalf of John Fitsch:
When it comes to youth sports, it is not a parent’s job to be a die-hard fan. It is to be supportive whether or not their child does well or does poorly. When children burn out of sports, it is usually the fault of the parent putting on too much pressure for instant success instead of allowing for losing to be a learning experience. Support is always good, but to live through their child is something parents do too often and is taking things way too far. As Paul R. Strieker says, “Many parents and coaches try to push their youngsters to achieve that extraordinary ability at an even younger age. This approach can be unhealthy and can lead kids to specialize too early in a particular activity, have recurrent overuse injuries, or succumb to the effects of pressure and pre- maturely quit their sport.” (109)
Parents often try to be their child’s coach too often as well. They are not experts, and can often teach incorrect techniques that make a child less successful in their sport. Yet, this leaves many children between a rock and a hard place. At a young age, how can a child accept that what their parents are saying is wrong? Knowledge of correct skills and technique is critical for success. Soccer is an excellent example of how proper skills result in success. According to Keeron J. Stone and Jonathan L. Oliver, “Ultimately, skill to execute a successful pass, dribble with pace and control, or shoot at goal with accuracy, will determine the outcome of a game. “(164) When given improper instruction, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the performance of a player will not be as high as one who has been taught proper techniques and skills.
Over the last two years I have given private lessons and worked at camps for baseball instruction, working with young baseball players aged 5-13. I have noticed that when in isolation from parents, the children I have worked with nearly always are more willing to learn new techniques that most of the time contradict what a parent had taught them in the past, and are also much more willing to take positives out of losing baseball games.
The camp I worked at the last two summers has two parts to the daily routine. Half the time is taken up by instructional lessons, and the day is finished up with a competitive day. The problem is that (from what I’ve seen) parents are more concerned with the games rather than the instruction. Too often have I seen parents ask after a day of camp, “How did you do?” rather than ask, “What did you learn? ” or even a simple, ”Did you have fun?” Parents need to learn that these camps are not showcases for their children to show off.
What we cannot forget, however, is that the ones who introduce their children to sports are most of the time parents. If it weren’t for them, most kids would be playing videogames instead of doing something active. The world of sports can be a lot of fun.
Do you think that parents should be heavily involved in their children’s sports lives, or should they just stick to role being the chauffer? Or, how can parents positively support their children in sports.
When it comes to youth sports, it is not a parent’s job to be a die-hard fan. It is to be supportive whether or not their child does well or does poorly. When children burn out of sports, it is usually the fault of the parent putting on too much pressure for instant success instead of allowing for losing to be a learning experience. Support is always good, but to live through their child is something parents do too often and is taking things way too far. As Paul R. Strieker says, “Many parents and coaches try to push their youngsters to achieve that extraordinary ability at an even younger age. This approach can be unhealthy and can lead kids to specialize too early in a particular activity, have recurrent overuse injuries, or succumb to the effects of pressure and pre- maturely quit their sport.” (109)
Parents often try to be their child’s coach too often as well. They are not experts, and can often teach incorrect techniques that make a child less successful in their sport. Yet, this leaves many children between a rock and a hard place. At a young age, how can a child accept that what their parents are saying is wrong? Knowledge of correct skills and technique is critical for success. Soccer is an excellent example of how proper skills result in success. According to Keeron J. Stone and Jonathan L. Oliver, “Ultimately, skill to execute a successful pass, dribble with pace and control, or shoot at goal with accuracy, will determine the outcome of a game. “(164) When given improper instruction, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the performance of a player will not be as high as one who has been taught proper techniques and skills.
Over the last two years I have given private lessons and worked at camps for baseball instruction, working with young baseball players aged 5-13. I have noticed that when in isolation from parents, the children I have worked with nearly always are more willing to learn new techniques that most of the time contradict what a parent had taught them in the past, and are also much more willing to take positives out of losing baseball games.
The camp I worked at the last two summers has two parts to the daily routine. Half the time is taken up by instructional lessons, and the day is finished up with a competitive day. The problem is that (from what I’ve seen) parents are more concerned with the games rather than the instruction. Too often have I seen parents ask after a day of camp, “How did you do?” rather than ask, “What did you learn? ” or even a simple, ”Did you have fun?” Parents need to learn that these camps are not showcases for their children to show off.
What we cannot forget, however, is that the ones who introduce their children to sports are most of the time parents. If it weren’t for them, most kids would be playing videogames instead of doing something active. The world of sports can be a lot of fun.
Do you think that parents should be heavily involved in their children’s sports lives, or should they just stick to role being the chauffer? Or, how can parents positively support their children in sports.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The Pressure to Practice
Posted on behalf of Will Cavallo:
Everybody has heard “practice makes perfect,” but everybody also knows the practice does not make perfect. There are no perfect people out there including professional athletes. Practice does help with the development of certain skills. Now more than ever parents are introducing their children to sports earlier and earlier. This places a massive amount of pressure on the young kids. Some parents expect their kids to be able master these skills quickly when it is almost impossible to master the skills.
In the article, “Sports Skill Development in Kids,” the author, Stricker says, “Having a clearer picture of this process hopefully will allow adults to reduce the pressure perform skills for which they placed upon youngsters to may not be developmentally ready” (109).He was referring to the topic of maturation rates of children. All children develop at different rates and not many people can predict when they are mature enough to learn certain skills. He is saying that if we do know when the right time to develop the children they will be able to learn these skills in a stress free environment.
Stricker also mentions that parents reinforce the habit of winning to young children. He says we need to not just appreciate the top place finisher. I feel that we don’t need to just praise the gold trophy, because this might discourage children to play that sport again. If we reinforce winning and they don’t win than who would want to do that again. Being a soccer player since the age of five, winning was always stressed on my teams and I. I think that this helped shaped me into the very competitive person that I am. It doesn’t have to be a sport that gets me going it could be anything that I can turn into a competition. That is the positive of stressing winning early, but I still don’t think that it should be stressed on young children.
In the article, “ Pushing too hard too young,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4556235 by Jacqueline Stenson she says, “Given all these factors, it’s not surprising that some athletes simply burn out on their sport. Like I was saying the children may just give up or “burn out” in the sport. Kids who are enrolled in sports at the age of 9 or 10 still may feel the burn out effect. Parents need to realize when too much is too much.
Like I said before I have been a soccer player since I was five and still learning skills today. In the article, “The Effect of 45 Minutes of Soccer- Specific Exercise on the Performance of Soccer Skills,” the authors, Stone and Oliver discuss the idea of skills in soccer. They said, “Ultimately, skill to execute a successful pass, dribble with pace and control, or shoot at goal with accuracy, will determine the outcome of a game” (Stone and Oliver 164). Skill is what wins games. I think that more skilled teams have a better chance to win, but there are no guarantees in sports.
Everybody has heard “practice makes perfect,” but everybody also knows the practice does not make perfect. There are no perfect people out there including professional athletes. Practice does help with the development of certain skills. Now more than ever parents are introducing their children to sports earlier and earlier. This places a massive amount of pressure on the young kids. Some parents expect their kids to be able master these skills quickly when it is almost impossible to master the skills.
In the article, “Sports Skill Development in Kids,” the author, Stricker says, “Having a clearer picture of this process hopefully will allow adults to reduce the pressure perform skills for which they placed upon youngsters to may not be developmentally ready” (109).He was referring to the topic of maturation rates of children. All children develop at different rates and not many people can predict when they are mature enough to learn certain skills. He is saying that if we do know when the right time to develop the children they will be able to learn these skills in a stress free environment.
Stricker also mentions that parents reinforce the habit of winning to young children. He says we need to not just appreciate the top place finisher. I feel that we don’t need to just praise the gold trophy, because this might discourage children to play that sport again. If we reinforce winning and they don’t win than who would want to do that again. Being a soccer player since the age of five, winning was always stressed on my teams and I. I think that this helped shaped me into the very competitive person that I am. It doesn’t have to be a sport that gets me going it could be anything that I can turn into a competition. That is the positive of stressing winning early, but I still don’t think that it should be stressed on young children.
In the article, “ Pushing too hard too young,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4556235 by Jacqueline Stenson she says, “Given all these factors, it’s not surprising that some athletes simply burn out on their sport. Like I was saying the children may just give up or “burn out” in the sport. Kids who are enrolled in sports at the age of 9 or 10 still may feel the burn out effect. Parents need to realize when too much is too much.
Like I said before I have been a soccer player since I was five and still learning skills today. In the article, “The Effect of 45 Minutes of Soccer- Specific Exercise on the Performance of Soccer Skills,” the authors, Stone and Oliver discuss the idea of skills in soccer. They said, “Ultimately, skill to execute a successful pass, dribble with pace and control, or shoot at goal with accuracy, will determine the outcome of a game” (Stone and Oliver 164). Skill is what wins games. I think that more skilled teams have a better chance to win, but there are no guarantees in sports.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Twitter in Professional Sports
The internet is one of the easiest ways to access information in the sports world. With one click of a button, you can get updates on scores, injuries, news, trades, and basically anything that you want. The article titled, Sports Online, the New Player in Mediasport states, "From its explosive development in the last decade of the twenieth century, the World Wide Web has become an ideal medium for the dedicated sports fanatic and a useful resource for even the casual fan" (Real 171). This entire article talks about fans accessing sports news online. Now, fans can connect with their favorite players and teams in a whole new way.
Social networking on the internet has grown greatly in the past couple of years. Starting with MySpace.com and eventually Facebook.com, and now Twitter.com. None of the social networking sites have impacted the sports world like Twitter has in the last year. It seems like everyone is on Twitter these days. This article (http://http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3990853), takes Twitter to a whole new level. Charlie Villanueva of the NBA, tweeted during halftime of a game. This is crazy, in my opinion. His coach, Scott Skiles reprimanded him because of this. In class, we have talked about players in the NFL doing this during games and we also read an article about how the head coach of Texas Tech football team banned his players from using Twitter. I think Twitter is pretty cool. You can follow some of your favorite athletes and see what they are up to in their daily lives. Personally, I follow Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant on Twitter (if it is really their accounts and not someone just making stuff up about them). I think this is great for athletes to use OFF THE COURT. I think it is crazy for an athlete to update his twitter at any time during a game. Personally, I think during a game, a players only focus should be on the game. After all this is what they are getting paid for. I have always believed that during the game a player should avoid all distractions that can hurt his or her performance. By tweeting during half-time, I think this could cause a major distraction. In fact, I think all professional sports leagues should ban their players from using Twitter during games. Villanueva tweeted during or right after his coaches half-time speech. Some things that coaches say during their speech, they do not want the rest of the world to hear. If a player is tweeting during this speech they could be upset with the coach and post something on Twitter that the coach said. This could possibly get the coach in trouble which is not fair. What is your opinion on players tweeting during the game? Do you think professional sports league should all ban players from using Twitter on the sidelines or in the locker room during a game?
In the article titled, Making Room in the Lineup: Newspaper Web Sites Face Growing Competition for Sports Fans' Attention, it says, "The growth of Web sites related to sport is a definite boon for consumers of sport information. Fans have easy access to stories, pictures, and other media related to their favorite teams" (Butler and Sagas 24). Like I said before, fans love to get updates on their favorite teams and players. Twitter gives different types of updates as fans can get information from their favorite players' personal lives which is pretty cool. Twitter is a very interesting web site and I think that is is a good web site. I just think that players need to seperate using Twitter for their personal lives and playing their sport. Twitter should not be used during sporting events by the players.
Social networking on the internet has grown greatly in the past couple of years. Starting with MySpace.com and eventually Facebook.com, and now Twitter.com. None of the social networking sites have impacted the sports world like Twitter has in the last year. It seems like everyone is on Twitter these days. This article (http://http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3990853), takes Twitter to a whole new level. Charlie Villanueva of the NBA, tweeted during halftime of a game. This is crazy, in my opinion. His coach, Scott Skiles reprimanded him because of this. In class, we have talked about players in the NFL doing this during games and we also read an article about how the head coach of Texas Tech football team banned his players from using Twitter. I think Twitter is pretty cool. You can follow some of your favorite athletes and see what they are up to in their daily lives. Personally, I follow Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant on Twitter (if it is really their accounts and not someone just making stuff up about them). I think this is great for athletes to use OFF THE COURT. I think it is crazy for an athlete to update his twitter at any time during a game. Personally, I think during a game, a players only focus should be on the game. After all this is what they are getting paid for. I have always believed that during the game a player should avoid all distractions that can hurt his or her performance. By tweeting during half-time, I think this could cause a major distraction. In fact, I think all professional sports leagues should ban their players from using Twitter during games. Villanueva tweeted during or right after his coaches half-time speech. Some things that coaches say during their speech, they do not want the rest of the world to hear. If a player is tweeting during this speech they could be upset with the coach and post something on Twitter that the coach said. This could possibly get the coach in trouble which is not fair. What is your opinion on players tweeting during the game? Do you think professional sports league should all ban players from using Twitter on the sidelines or in the locker room during a game?
In the article titled, Making Room in the Lineup: Newspaper Web Sites Face Growing Competition for Sports Fans' Attention, it says, "The growth of Web sites related to sport is a definite boon for consumers of sport information. Fans have easy access to stories, pictures, and other media related to their favorite teams" (Butler and Sagas 24). Like I said before, fans love to get updates on their favorite teams and players. Twitter gives different types of updates as fans can get information from their favorite players' personal lives which is pretty cool. Twitter is a very interesting web site and I think that is is a good web site. I just think that players need to seperate using Twitter for their personal lives and playing their sport. Twitter should not be used during sporting events by the players.
Fantasy Football's Growth
The internet has made the sports world much easier to watch, follow, and understand. And along with it has come the growth of fantasy sports. What started out as something the NFL frowned down upon has turned into a cash cow that the league will now showcase every Sunday with commercials. The fantasy football brand has helped the NFL become more popular as a whole.
No longer are fans just following their favorite team; now they are following any player who plays for their fantasy team. Some of the more intense gamers like yours truly, also checks his opponents players and how they are doing, expanding my knowledge well beyond my own team. I currently have three fantasy football teams and while it is not shocking that younger people are catching onto to the phenomenon I found out that my father (50), step mom (48), and even my grandfather (76) are fielding teams this year!
Fantasy Football is still growing. Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/playbook/2007/11/14/fantasy-football-growth-continues-at-rapid-pace/ ) reports that, “As of August 2006, about 12.8 million adults were playing fantasy football making up 80% of the $4 Billion fantasy sports market according to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association.” In addition, Yahoo! Sports reports at least a 40% growth each year (Real). The industry is only growing and with new games being added each year the popularity and money will also continue to grow. This is good for not just the fantasy sports websites but also for the respective sports leagues.
People play for various reasons. Some play because they love to follow football. There are the casual players, trash talkers, skilled players, isolationist thrill seekers, and the formatives (Farquhar and Meeds, 1215-22). Whether playing just to stay in touch with old friends and family or dropping hundreds of dollars to play for high stakes and everywhere in between, fantasy football is common place.
The biggest winner is the NFL. The growth of fantasy football has helped contribute to the growth of the NFL as a whole. The knowledge of fans has grown beyond just their favorite teams and has spread throughout the league. This is why the NFL now promotes fantasy football and will continue to do so in hopes that the interest in the league will continue to grow (along with the money).
-Nate Porter
No longer are fans just following their favorite team; now they are following any player who plays for their fantasy team. Some of the more intense gamers like yours truly, also checks his opponents players and how they are doing, expanding my knowledge well beyond my own team. I currently have three fantasy football teams and while it is not shocking that younger people are catching onto to the phenomenon I found out that my father (50), step mom (48), and even my grandfather (76) are fielding teams this year!
Fantasy Football is still growing. Portfolio.com (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/playbook/2007/11/14/fantasy-football-growth-continues-at-rapid-pace/ ) reports that, “As of August 2006, about 12.8 million adults were playing fantasy football making up 80% of the $4 Billion fantasy sports market according to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association.” In addition, Yahoo! Sports reports at least a 40% growth each year (Real). The industry is only growing and with new games being added each year the popularity and money will also continue to grow. This is good for not just the fantasy sports websites but also for the respective sports leagues.
People play for various reasons. Some play because they love to follow football. There are the casual players, trash talkers, skilled players, isolationist thrill seekers, and the formatives (Farquhar and Meeds, 1215-22). Whether playing just to stay in touch with old friends and family or dropping hundreds of dollars to play for high stakes and everywhere in between, fantasy football is common place.
The biggest winner is the NFL. The growth of fantasy football has helped contribute to the growth of the NFL as a whole. The knowledge of fans has grown beyond just their favorite teams and has spread throughout the league. This is why the NFL now promotes fantasy football and will continue to do so in hopes that the interest in the league will continue to grow (along with the money).
-Nate Porter
Should Video Games be so realistic?
Growing up when i played video games with my freinds or my brothers I would always hear the statement that "this game is fake, its not real enough" but what I do not understand is why a person would want a video game to be so realistic because if a person really thought about it, it is a video game. Ten years ago, video games focused just on the sport of whatever game it was and was for fun, now video games are so realistic that it's unbelievable, as technology advanced, a video game in a sense can mirror reality, do you think that's bad or good?
"Games of the past focused exclusively on a single athletic contest, todays game's are invested in providing the entire experience from scouting to drafting to marketing and business decisions. Success on the court, as in the real world, is connceted to off-court decisions, providing a much more holistic experience" ( Leonard, 395). This goes to show how much video games have come on the fact that you can basically do everything a sports team does in real life on a game.
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE57J73920090820: This article just talks about how more realistic a game can become. I do not know if there has been a study done on this but do you think that the more realistic the game is the more people would want to buy it?
Another thing that kind of bothers me is when a game comes out and a professional athlete says "that does not look like me" I mean seriously, it's lik they want the player to look just how they look in real life, they must fail to realize that it is a game and it is the video virtual version of them which some of them get upset about. In this day and time they can replicate the person's face but is that really a big deal. "The attention to realism and expansive of nature of virtual sports truly defines today's gaming industry" (Leonard, 396). I guess it's a priority.
Do you think that the realism of video games takes the fun out of the game? Im sure in the future the video games before its all said and done will probably be talking to you. What are yall take on it?
"Games of the past focused exclusively on a single athletic contest, todays game's are invested in providing the entire experience from scouting to drafting to marketing and business decisions. Success on the court, as in the real world, is connceted to off-court decisions, providing a much more holistic experience" ( Leonard, 395). This goes to show how much video games have come on the fact that you can basically do everything a sports team does in real life on a game.
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE57J73920090820: This article just talks about how more realistic a game can become. I do not know if there has been a study done on this but do you think that the more realistic the game is the more people would want to buy it?
Another thing that kind of bothers me is when a game comes out and a professional athlete says "that does not look like me" I mean seriously, it's lik they want the player to look just how they look in real life, they must fail to realize that it is a game and it is the video virtual version of them which some of them get upset about. In this day and time they can replicate the person's face but is that really a big deal. "The attention to realism and expansive of nature of virtual sports truly defines today's gaming industry" (Leonard, 396). I guess it's a priority.
Do you think that the realism of video games takes the fun out of the game? Im sure in the future the video games before its all said and done will probably be talking to you. What are yall take on it?
Monday, October 5, 2009
What does payroll have to do with winning in baseball?
In a one-word response, no. Here is my proof: (click on image to see it full size)
Just by looking at these two graphs, it is clear that there is hardly any correlation between winning baseball games. Yet, there always, always are people who believe that is the case. It just so happens that this season, the Yankees, the most hated team in all of sports, collected the most wins and had the highest payroll. That was not the case last year, or the year before that.
“In truth, there will be no true underdogs this postseason, no party crashers like the Rays last October. The Twins would come closest, because of their low payroll, but they have reached the playoffs four times this decade. The Tigers beat the Yankees in 2006 en route to the A.L. pennant.”
Kepner points out the Twins could be considered underdogs, just based on their low payroll, while completely ignoring how the players on the team are performing. I don’t buy this idea one bit.
A powerful counterargument to my view was made last week by Sports Illustrated’s Jon Heyman.
“Never has payroll been such a determinative factor in making the playoffs as this season, and that’s especially true if the Tigers hold off the feisty, small-market Twins in the AL Central.”
Bud Selig looked past what he called “an aberration.”
“I’m fairly satisfied this year is an aberration,” baseball commissioner Bud Selig said by phone. “I still think the basic tenets we have in place will lead to the best competitive balance we’ve ever had.”
Selig and Heyman are right, in that 2009 has yielded a strangely high number of playoff teams from high-market cities. Do you think this idea of high-market teams making the playoffs is on the rise or on the decline? Or is this just an abnormality, like Heyman and Selig said?
The Brown/Jepsen article titled “The Impact of Team Revenues on MLB Salaries” made correlating arguments to Kepner, Heyman and Selig as well.
“Although a high team payroll does not guarantee playoff success, a low team payroll eliminates a team from contention. From 1995-1999, no team with a payroll in the bottom half of the distribution won a single playoff game” (Brown 193).
That last fact is true, but it does ignore the most recent history (for no particular reason). In fact, the 2003 Marlins beat the Yankees in the World Series with a payroll over $100 million less than New York’s. Even if I surrender my first claim that wins does not correlate with team payroll, the highest payroll team has to win the postseason as well. What happens when a high payroll team like the Phillies run into a low payroll, but hot team, like the Colorado Rockies in 2007? The Rockies won 21 of their last 22 games to reach the World Series that year. No owner or general manager can buy “October magic,” but that is usually the difference when it comes down to it.
I understand when people say the Yankees pay their players too much. I happen to agree, and think that no player should be making over $20 million, let alone $10 million! However, as long as there is no salary cap for teams, these players’ salaries may continue to rise. That is why I have to ask you, should there be a salary cap put on teams? If so, how do you go about choosing the right amount? If not, why shouldn’t there be?
NFL not immune from struggling economy
Posted on behalf of Jamie Palatini:
The NFL brings in the most revenue of all of the four major sports in the U.S. However, even Roger Goodell and company have not been able to avoid the economic woes which have plagued the nation over the last few years.
One of the biggest ways that NFL teams bring in money is by selling the naming rights of the stadiums they play in to a large corporation for an absurd sum of money. But recently, even that has not been a guarantee for some teams. Los Angeles has been trying to build a stadium for the last 15 years so they could lure a team back to town, but plans have stalled now in part because no corporation will pay money to put their name on the stadium. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/agreement-gives-proposed-nfl-stadium-in-industry-a-boost.html
Jacksonville is struggling more so than any other franchise right now. The are one of lowest
valued franchises in the league, they have the second lowest average ticket price, and have been unable to sell out the stadium this season. Their stadium is publicly owned, and does not have a name on it, which is a huge chunk of money that the Jaguars are lacking. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/football/03jaguars.html
This habit of naming stadiums is in fact a fairly new concept. As of 1990, there were no baseball stadiums with corporate names; as of 2001, the majority of baseball, basketball, football and hockey arenas had sold their naming rights to large corporations (Leeds and Pistolet 584).
And while some may think that naming a stadium Heinz Field (thought you'd like that Prof. Burns), or the TD Bank Sports Center, the main reason is for the money. We cannot for get that sports are a business. Of course a franchise wants to win and be successful, but just as important and if not more important is the ability for that franchise to make money (Lavoie 162).
Do you wish that we could go back to the days where the communities took the brunt of the financial burden, and we would have more "Municipal Stadiums"? Do you think that there will ever be a situation, such as a tanking economy, where we will go back to a situation like that?
Whether you like having these named stadiums or not, it's impossible to ignore the financial impact that naming rights can have for a professional franchise.
The NFL brings in the most revenue of all of the four major sports in the U.S. However, even Roger Goodell and company have not been able to avoid the economic woes which have plagued the nation over the last few years.
One of the biggest ways that NFL teams bring in money is by selling the naming rights of the stadiums they play in to a large corporation for an absurd sum of money. But recently, even that has not been a guarantee for some teams. Los Angeles has been trying to build a stadium for the last 15 years so they could lure a team back to town, but plans have stalled now in part because no corporation will pay money to put their name on the stadium. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/agreement-gives-proposed-nfl-stadium-in-industry-a-boost.html
Jacksonville is struggling more so than any other franchise right now. The are one of lowest
valued franchises in the league, they have the second lowest average ticket price, and have been unable to sell out the stadium this season. Their stadium is publicly owned, and does not have a name on it, which is a huge chunk of money that the Jaguars are lacking. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/football/03jaguars.html
This habit of naming stadiums is in fact a fairly new concept. As of 1990, there were no baseball stadiums with corporate names; as of 2001, the majority of baseball, basketball, football and hockey arenas had sold their naming rights to large corporations (Leeds and Pistolet 584).
And while some may think that naming a stadium Heinz Field (thought you'd like that Prof. Burns), or the TD Bank Sports Center, the main reason is for the money. We cannot for get that sports are a business. Of course a franchise wants to win and be successful, but just as important and if not more important is the ability for that franchise to make money (Lavoie 162).
Do you wish that we could go back to the days where the communities took the brunt of the financial burden, and we would have more "Municipal Stadiums"? Do you think that there will ever be a situation, such as a tanking economy, where we will go back to a situation like that?
Whether you like having these named stadiums or not, it's impossible to ignore the financial impact that naming rights can have for a professional franchise.
Do Team Salaries Have an Impact on Winning?
Posted on behalf of Craig Gannon:
http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/09teamsalaries.htm
For years and years the question has been asked if whether or not Major League Baseball needs a salary cap. Every off-season there are key free agents that can be acquired to help out teams. However, the same teams seem to be in the mix every year. The Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Cubs had the highest payrolls in 2009, with the Yankees being the off-season winners. For fans of teams who are not at the top, proposes the question if MLB needs to revise their current system. However, for better or worse in the new millenium we have noticed that teams with low salaries (Marlins, Rays, Twins, A's) have had an impact in baseball and managed to be very successful teams. The Oakland A's were the best example of this. General Manager Billy Beane ( a former player himself) managed to build the A's from the ground up and drafted a solid foundation for his farm system. The A's arguably had the best three pitchers in basbeall (Hudson, Mulder, Zito) and one a number of AL West titles. Beane new that he was in a tough situation and took a different approach then most. He managed to, "acquired baseball players who had high on-base percentages (OBP) and slugging percentages (SLG), virtually ignoring their fielding statistics and speed (Lewis, 2003, p. 32). Hakes and Sauer (2006) suggest that Beane valued individual player characteristics quite differently from other owners and general managers" (Brown and Jepsin 193).If we look at more recent history the Minnesota Twins have took Beane strategy and helped build their team into a winning franchise. Every year the Twins find someway to sneak there way into the playoffs. Who would of thought that on the last game of the season the Twins would of fought all the way back to have a tie-breaker with the Tigers (who led the division basically all year). There hasn't been one year where the Twins have acquired a major free agent, its almost as if their giving their own free-agents away. However, they managed to keep a solid farm system and acquire veteran players to help keep the team in tact. In a move that came somewhat unnoticed was the acquisation of Orlando Cabrera. The Twins were a very young team and having a sub par year. However, the veteran leadership that Cabreara brought to this team was huge.
Who is to say that the twins cannot be the AL champs if they beat the Tigers? They are the hottest team in AL. However, they have the 24th lowest salary in the majors. This goes to show that teams with the largest salary does no always mean success. The Marlins, Rays, Rockies to name a few are examples of this. Teams with young players and low salaries have found a way to win and compete amongst the best. Does this show a new wave in baseball for years to come?Furthermore, Teams with lower salaries do not have the funds to create many opportunities to make profit. Every year professional teams are trying to build new stadiums in order to further their respective franchises. Recently, in the NBA the Nets finally found a investor to help build there stadium in Brooklyn. Prior to this announcement it looked as if the Nets moving to brooklyn was dead. In baseball it seems as if there are the same problems. The Marlins, Twins, Rays, and Rockies four of the more successful low salary teams, have played in the same stadium since their existence. How do they expect to compete with other teams in acquiring players when they have no investors to further their franchise. According to Leeds and Pistolet, "Economic studies generally conclude that teams reap large profits from new, municipally funded facilities" (Leeds and Pistolet 581). New stadiums bring in more excitement, therefor, having more fans attend games. The Marlins and Rays are at the bottom of league attendance, with no interest of investors, therefore managing to stay towards the bottom in team salary.
This proposes the question where is the line drawn? How can MLB come up with a way where every team has a fair shot and competing for free-agents. Even though recent history shows that salary necessarily doesn't have an impact on winning, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Cubs have a much better chance every year. What do you guys think, should MLB baseball have a salary cap and if so why? Or do you think baseball is fine where it is (putting your favorite teams position aside)?
http://baseball.about.com/od/newsrumors/a/09teamsalaries.htm
For years and years the question has been asked if whether or not Major League Baseball needs a salary cap. Every off-season there are key free agents that can be acquired to help out teams. However, the same teams seem to be in the mix every year. The Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Cubs had the highest payrolls in 2009, with the Yankees being the off-season winners. For fans of teams who are not at the top, proposes the question if MLB needs to revise their current system. However, for better or worse in the new millenium we have noticed that teams with low salaries (Marlins, Rays, Twins, A's) have had an impact in baseball and managed to be very successful teams. The Oakland A's were the best example of this. General Manager Billy Beane ( a former player himself) managed to build the A's from the ground up and drafted a solid foundation for his farm system. The A's arguably had the best three pitchers in basbeall (Hudson, Mulder, Zito) and one a number of AL West titles. Beane new that he was in a tough situation and took a different approach then most. He managed to, "acquired baseball players who had high on-base percentages (OBP) and slugging percentages (SLG), virtually ignoring their fielding statistics and speed (Lewis, 2003, p. 32). Hakes and Sauer (2006) suggest that Beane valued individual player characteristics quite differently from other owners and general managers" (Brown and Jepsin 193).If we look at more recent history the Minnesota Twins have took Beane strategy and helped build their team into a winning franchise. Every year the Twins find someway to sneak there way into the playoffs. Who would of thought that on the last game of the season the Twins would of fought all the way back to have a tie-breaker with the Tigers (who led the division basically all year). There hasn't been one year where the Twins have acquired a major free agent, its almost as if their giving their own free-agents away. However, they managed to keep a solid farm system and acquire veteran players to help keep the team in tact. In a move that came somewhat unnoticed was the acquisation of Orlando Cabrera. The Twins were a very young team and having a sub par year. However, the veteran leadership that Cabreara brought to this team was huge.
Who is to say that the twins cannot be the AL champs if they beat the Tigers? They are the hottest team in AL. However, they have the 24th lowest salary in the majors. This goes to show that teams with the largest salary does no always mean success. The Marlins, Rays, Rockies to name a few are examples of this. Teams with young players and low salaries have found a way to win and compete amongst the best. Does this show a new wave in baseball for years to come?Furthermore, Teams with lower salaries do not have the funds to create many opportunities to make profit. Every year professional teams are trying to build new stadiums in order to further their respective franchises. Recently, in the NBA the Nets finally found a investor to help build there stadium in Brooklyn. Prior to this announcement it looked as if the Nets moving to brooklyn was dead. In baseball it seems as if there are the same problems. The Marlins, Twins, Rays, and Rockies four of the more successful low salary teams, have played in the same stadium since their existence. How do they expect to compete with other teams in acquiring players when they have no investors to further their franchise. According to Leeds and Pistolet, "Economic studies generally conclude that teams reap large profits from new, municipally funded facilities" (Leeds and Pistolet 581). New stadiums bring in more excitement, therefor, having more fans attend games. The Marlins and Rays are at the bottom of league attendance, with no interest of investors, therefore managing to stay towards the bottom in team salary.
This proposes the question where is the line drawn? How can MLB come up with a way where every team has a fair shot and competing for free-agents. Even though recent history shows that salary necessarily doesn't have an impact on winning, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, and Cubs have a much better chance every year. What do you guys think, should MLB baseball have a salary cap and if so why? Or do you think baseball is fine where it is (putting your favorite teams position aside)?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Memphis and Academic Fraud
In late August, the NCAA announced that it would be stripping the University of Memphis’ Men’s Basketball team all 38 wins (an NCAA single season record) that they obtained during the 2007-2008 season. The announcement came 16 months after the Tigers lost to the Kansas University Jayhawks in the championship game. The reason: academic fraud committed by a member of the team, alleged to be Derrick Rose, the star freshman of the Tigers that year.
The player (Rose) was accused of having another person take the SAT exam for him, making that player ineligible for the next season which would have been the players freshman year. SAT officials conducted their own investigation and notified the university, the NCAA and the player that the tests scores were going to be cancelled. The committee was not very lenient with its penalties based on the fact that the player was used for the entire season. Memphis has appealed the NCAA’s decisions and Derrick Rose is still denying the allegations.
The Kihl and Richardson article, “Fixing the Mess”, showed how an athletic program can be affected by academic fraud. Whether it is taking away wins, taking away money, losing recruits or losing trust, there are a lot of people who are deeply affected when an infraction occurs.
“Corruption impacts an organization in a variety of ways including via sanctions, a negative reputation, loss of public confidence, and assorted financial losses Organizational stakeholders who are not involved in malfeasant activities but continue to work within the organization during the post-corruption period experience various types of harm that is associated with their respective roles and responsibilities. (Kihl and Ricardson 278)”
The two people under the most heat for this infraction are no longer with Memphis. Derrick Rose departed from Memphis after that season and was drafted number one in the NBA draft. Head coach John Calipari is now the head coach at Kentucky. What about the people who are still at Memphis, the players and administration? What about the kids that worked so hard all year to obtain those record setting 38 wins? Every player on that team wasn’t taken in the NBA draft, so that record setting season was probably going to be the greatest basketball memory of their lives.
Both Calipari and Rose “allegedly” made a mess while at Memphis, abandoned the school before things blew up and left the mess for other people to clean up/suffer the consequences. This isn’t anything new with Calipari, academic fraud was committed while he was at UMASS in 1996. He left for the NBA that following year. If the allegations are true, Rose owes it to his teammates to come out and admit that he screwed around. Despite the fact that Rose is a great player and Calipari is a great coach, I think that they are both cowards.
Memphis will also suffer financially. Every single penny that the basketball program earned that year is going to have to be returned. The money that was earned for being in the NCAA tournament is going to be handed over to Conference USA. Memphis will also be prevented from receiving future shares doled out in the conferences revenue-sharing program.
The Stinson and Howard article came to the obvious conclusion that success will lead to an increase in financial donations to the athletic department. “Successful athletics programs, they noted, were successful at increasing the donor base.”(Stinson 18) After Memphis reached the finals in 2008 I am sure that donations were through the roof. Will the lingering effect of the Rose situation have an overall effect on donors? Will donors question the validity of the program the next time that it has a successful season?
The player (Rose) was accused of having another person take the SAT exam for him, making that player ineligible for the next season which would have been the players freshman year. SAT officials conducted their own investigation and notified the university, the NCAA and the player that the tests scores were going to be cancelled. The committee was not very lenient with its penalties based on the fact that the player was used for the entire season. Memphis has appealed the NCAA’s decisions and Derrick Rose is still denying the allegations.
The Kihl and Richardson article, “Fixing the Mess”, showed how an athletic program can be affected by academic fraud. Whether it is taking away wins, taking away money, losing recruits or losing trust, there are a lot of people who are deeply affected when an infraction occurs.
“Corruption impacts an organization in a variety of ways including via sanctions, a negative reputation, loss of public confidence, and assorted financial losses Organizational stakeholders who are not involved in malfeasant activities but continue to work within the organization during the post-corruption period experience various types of harm that is associated with their respective roles and responsibilities. (Kihl and Ricardson 278)”
The two people under the most heat for this infraction are no longer with Memphis. Derrick Rose departed from Memphis after that season and was drafted number one in the NBA draft. Head coach John Calipari is now the head coach at Kentucky. What about the people who are still at Memphis, the players and administration? What about the kids that worked so hard all year to obtain those record setting 38 wins? Every player on that team wasn’t taken in the NBA draft, so that record setting season was probably going to be the greatest basketball memory of their lives.
Both Calipari and Rose “allegedly” made a mess while at Memphis, abandoned the school before things blew up and left the mess for other people to clean up/suffer the consequences. This isn’t anything new with Calipari, academic fraud was committed while he was at UMASS in 1996. He left for the NBA that following year. If the allegations are true, Rose owes it to his teammates to come out and admit that he screwed around. Despite the fact that Rose is a great player and Calipari is a great coach, I think that they are both cowards.
Memphis will also suffer financially. Every single penny that the basketball program earned that year is going to have to be returned. The money that was earned for being in the NCAA tournament is going to be handed over to Conference USA. Memphis will also be prevented from receiving future shares doled out in the conferences revenue-sharing program.
The Stinson and Howard article came to the obvious conclusion that success will lead to an increase in financial donations to the athletic department. “Successful athletics programs, they noted, were successful at increasing the donor base.”(Stinson 18) After Memphis reached the finals in 2008 I am sure that donations were through the roof. Will the lingering effect of the Rose situation have an overall effect on donors? Will donors question the validity of the program the next time that it has a successful season?
The Importance of Donations to College Sports
College sports are a huge part of sports society, particularly on a state and local level. Proving this point is the fact that many fans and alumni show their school spirit by donating the one thing every school wants – money.
Especially at universities where there are high levels of school spirit as it pertains to athletics, donations are one way for alumni and fans to feel connected to their team, even part of it. It’s a way for them to say, “Yeah, I helped my team win” because for all they know they just wrote a check that will help put a scholarship together for a key recruit.
There have been several studies that have found a team’s success and post-season survival rate affect just how much people are willing to donate. In the article “Winning Does Matter,” Stinson and Howard reveal, “…it is clear that successful athletic programs often lead current donors to make larger gifts, and perhaps more importantly, attract additional donors to the institution” (p. 17).
Because many schools believe winning is everything, some of course are willing to bend the rules and get ahead and stay on top.
Over the summer, the men’s hockey team at the University of New Hampshire was penalized by the NCAA for multiple recruiting violations. After sending 923 impermissible emails to 30 student-athletes, UNH received two-years of probation and a reduction in recruiters as part of their punishment. UNH reported their rule violations to the NCAA themselves, claiming they had sent the emails as a mistake. Whether or not that’s true is debatable, as NCAA violations are nothing new.
For some universities, getting caught violating NCAA rules can be detrimental to the program’s image. In “Fixing the Mess,” Kihl and Richardson explain, “…the consequences of corruption appear to linger well into the post-corruption period where the coaches and players will continue to experience distrust, ostracism, and embarrassment” (p. 299).
So why break these rules and risk sanctions and the public relations backlash?
The answer is pretty simple - money. Donors are more likely to back a winning team than a losing team. Winning brings more recruits, more hype, more press, and more students – and all of these bring more money.
High-profile college teams can use their television exposure, especially their post-season television appearances, to help them drag in more donations. And they do. According to Stinson and Howard, appearances in bowl games and the NCAA tournament can both lead to an increased level of donation (p. 4). For smaller programs, however, it’s all about marketing. Athletic directors must essentially market their teams to potential donors – make the university’s programs look appealing and worthy of investment in.
In this economical environment, universities are looking for new ways to get money and draw in new donors. Many programs have been cut in schools across the country because athletic departments just don’t have enough money for scholarships and other expenses.
Since money is tight, winning might be even more important to a program than before – in fact, it might just save it.
Especially at universities where there are high levels of school spirit as it pertains to athletics, donations are one way for alumni and fans to feel connected to their team, even part of it. It’s a way for them to say, “Yeah, I helped my team win” because for all they know they just wrote a check that will help put a scholarship together for a key recruit.
There have been several studies that have found a team’s success and post-season survival rate affect just how much people are willing to donate. In the article “Winning Does Matter,” Stinson and Howard reveal, “…it is clear that successful athletic programs often lead current donors to make larger gifts, and perhaps more importantly, attract additional donors to the institution” (p. 17).
Because many schools believe winning is everything, some of course are willing to bend the rules and get ahead and stay on top.
Over the summer, the men’s hockey team at the University of New Hampshire was penalized by the NCAA for multiple recruiting violations. After sending 923 impermissible emails to 30 student-athletes, UNH received two-years of probation and a reduction in recruiters as part of their punishment. UNH reported their rule violations to the NCAA themselves, claiming they had sent the emails as a mistake. Whether or not that’s true is debatable, as NCAA violations are nothing new.
For some universities, getting caught violating NCAA rules can be detrimental to the program’s image. In “Fixing the Mess,” Kihl and Richardson explain, “…the consequences of corruption appear to linger well into the post-corruption period where the coaches and players will continue to experience distrust, ostracism, and embarrassment” (p. 299).
So why break these rules and risk sanctions and the public relations backlash?
The answer is pretty simple - money. Donors are more likely to back a winning team than a losing team. Winning brings more recruits, more hype, more press, and more students – and all of these bring more money.
High-profile college teams can use their television exposure, especially their post-season television appearances, to help them drag in more donations. And they do. According to Stinson and Howard, appearances in bowl games and the NCAA tournament can both lead to an increased level of donation (p. 4). For smaller programs, however, it’s all about marketing. Athletic directors must essentially market their teams to potential donors – make the university’s programs look appealing and worthy of investment in.
In this economical environment, universities are looking for new ways to get money and draw in new donors. Many programs have been cut in schools across the country because athletic departments just don’t have enough money for scholarships and other expenses.
Since money is tight, winning might be even more important to a program than before – in fact, it might just save it.
Winning & Donations In College Athletics
Washington State University recently announced they would be upgrading their football stadium. Jim Sterk, WSU’s athletics director announced last week that the university will be able to move forward with the project because construction costs have dropped. The new stadium will be very luxurious with 16 luxury suites, 21 boxes, and 1,200 club seats. The total cost of the project is estimated at $30 million and they plan to pay for it without state help. The university is relying on donations and the money made from the sale of the premium seats that are sold. WSU hopes to have the stadium ready for the 2012 season. Here is a link with more information about the stadium upgrade.
In Stinson and Howard’s article Winning Does Matter we learned that people are more likely to donate to athletic programs over academic ones. This did not really surprise me because as we have learned thus far in the semester people love sports and can often feel connected to teams. By donating directly to these sports teams I think people feel like they helped the team win and are part of the success story. The article goes on to say that teams that do well are more likely to receive donations: “Both an NCAA tournament appearance and the one-year lagged variable of an NCAA appearance are associated with an over $400 increase each in the average total gift” (Stinson & Howard 9). Why do you think WSU is able to move on with this stadium upgrade? Do you think it has to do with fandom?
When reading the article about WSU’s new stadium I was surprised that they have already received about $16 million through various donations. The team has not been playing well and is 3-13 in the past two seasons. If they team was playing better and winning more games I am sure they would be able to raise the funds quicker. However I also thought back to when we discussed the idea of fandom and what a major part of peoples life sports can be, especially football. I am sure many people donated money to have a closer connection with the team.
When reading this article I also wondered if the women’s facilities are as nice as the men’s and when was the last time one of their stadiums was updated. The other article we read for class, NCAA Website Coverage looked to see if women’s athletics receive the same about of coverage as men’s on schools web pages. The research showed that in most cases there was an equal amount of coverage: “In fact, outside of a couple of coverage discrepancies between men’s and women’s soccer, the data show that men’s and women’s sport teams received comparable allocations” (Cooper 237). Do you think that most schools provide women with the same quality facilities as men? Or is there simply a different in facilities necessary between men and women’s sporting events?
In Stinson and Howard’s article Winning Does Matter we learned that people are more likely to donate to athletic programs over academic ones. This did not really surprise me because as we have learned thus far in the semester people love sports and can often feel connected to teams. By donating directly to these sports teams I think people feel like they helped the team win and are part of the success story. The article goes on to say that teams that do well are more likely to receive donations: “Both an NCAA tournament appearance and the one-year lagged variable of an NCAA appearance are associated with an over $400 increase each in the average total gift” (Stinson & Howard 9). Why do you think WSU is able to move on with this stadium upgrade? Do you think it has to do with fandom?
When reading the article about WSU’s new stadium I was surprised that they have already received about $16 million through various donations. The team has not been playing well and is 3-13 in the past two seasons. If they team was playing better and winning more games I am sure they would be able to raise the funds quicker. However I also thought back to when we discussed the idea of fandom and what a major part of peoples life sports can be, especially football. I am sure many people donated money to have a closer connection with the team.
When reading this article I also wondered if the women’s facilities are as nice as the men’s and when was the last time one of their stadiums was updated. The other article we read for class, NCAA Website Coverage looked to see if women’s athletics receive the same about of coverage as men’s on schools web pages. The research showed that in most cases there was an equal amount of coverage: “In fact, outside of a couple of coverage discrepancies between men’s and women’s soccer, the data show that men’s and women’s sport teams received comparable allocations” (Cooper 237). Do you think that most schools provide women with the same quality facilities as men? Or is there simply a different in facilities necessary between men and women’s sporting events?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Should high school sports get national media attention?
A few weeks ago I saw this article on ESPNChicago.com that mentioned that high school sports will be covered on this website in the upcoming weeks. After reading this, I started wondering if this is a good thing, or a bad thing. Should we be exposing young, high school athletes to this sort of national media attention? Or would it be better to let these young minds develop, and save them from some of the pressure and embarrassment that can come with national attention?
We can all remember some of the most recent high school standouts. Lebron James was on the cover of sports illustrated as a junior in high school, and was already dubbed as “the chosen one”. The other person that comes to mind is Matt Barkley, who was called the Lebron James of high school football back when he was a junior in high school. The fact that some of these high school athletes are made into celebrities at such young ages has had its impact on high schools. “The increasing and intense coverage of high school sports, fueled by media-created rankings that can make celebrities out of 11th graders, has led some schools to hire sports information directors and has led educators to wonder if scholastic sports do not need NCAA – style oversight to protect athletes and academics.” (Hardin and Corrigan. 91)
ESPN, the self proclaimed worldwide leader in sports has now come up with a new branch called ESPN Rise, which is dedicated specifically to high school athletes. The claim to fame for high school sports was always the fact that it was considered pure. But with all this media attention that these high school athletes are getting, can we still say they are playing only for the love of the game? Even Hardin and Corrigan argue, “That high school sports and their relationship with media at the local and national levels are in need of closer scrutiny.” (Hardin and Corrigan, 90)
ESPN is now also showing high school football games of the week, which also adds to the national media coverage these high school athletes are getting, which could cause problems: “An admission from a high school football coach in The New York Times two years ago that he studied marketing and business plans as much as game plans is an indicator of how great the degree may be.” (Hardin and Corrigan, 91)
The move from print coverage to televised coverage is also examined in our handbook. “It is noteworthy that, to date, far more critical attention has been paid to television sports than to sports coverage in the print media.” (Handbook, 291) If the trends continue, and high school sports continue to receive more and more television coverage, then soon we will start seeing more and more of these athletes on TV.
Do you guys think this national attention is good for high school athletes? Does it affect recruiting? (OJ Mayo case) I argue that this national attention isn’t good for these young athletes. As mentioned before, high school sports should be about the love of the game. There are so many possibilities for things to go wrong when these kids start facing the pressure of media. What if they feel the need to use steroids to be even better? What if they start slacking off in school? How can they focus on a math test the next day, when they have a football game being televised the night before on ESPN? We can all remember the ones who got survived the early media attention and have excelled at the pro level. Sidney Crosby, Lebron, Kobe and others. But what about the ones who didn’t make it? The one’s who were dubbed as the next great thing, and now are not even known. This media attention affects the schools, the recruiters, and most importantly, the minds of these young athletes. I believe that they should be left alone, and given time to develop properly. Not physically, but mentally. Even Lebron James said that he felt all the pressure, and that it was hard for him to deal with. He said it got into his head, and the heads of his teammates. He should be lucky and proud of the fact that he made it past all that. There's even a debate online whether or not its good.
-Robin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)