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?
Monday, October 26, 2009
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)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)