This idea of Pay-for-Play for college athletes has been widely debated on both sides of the spectrum. Many of the arguments I have seen and read that actually bring up valid points and hold some weight are the ones advocating for not paying the players. On the positive side of paying players people refute allowing it because the athletes are already getting a scholarship of somewhere around $100,000 and they don't need to be greedy and getting more (Hartnett, 2013). In a New York Times article by Tyson Hartnett in October of last year he points out three reasons of why it is unfair to not pay the athletes: first, many coaches of these athletes are making $100k+ a year and if their team makes it the playoffs they get bonuses; second, the "non-profit" NCAA signs multi-billion dollar contracts with TV companies; third, the athletic programs bring hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. These back-up Hartnett's argument by showing that the coaches are making an incredible amount of money with bonuses on top and what do the players get in return for making the playoffs, nothing. Furthermore, if the NCAA is supposed to be non-profit and be for the benefit of the athletes then shouldn't some of these billion dollar contracts be going back to the athletes.
On the other side of this argument Darren Rovell wrote an article on ESPN.com about the reasons why we should not pay the athletes. In Rovell's article he quotes NCAA president Mark Emmert saying "The reality is schools are spending between $100,000-$250,000 on each student-athlete." This side of the argument really tries to bring in this idea of college athletes and especially football and basketball athletes are exploited labor within in college athletics. Emmert mentions that many people have suggested that players should be able to sell their own autographed memorabilia and market themselves while playing in college. However, he refutes that point because the popularity and greatness of some athletes is higher than others so the range of money athletes would be receiving would be based on their playing and skill level. This, Emmert says sounds a lot like paying for play which is what the NCAA is trying to stay away from and to keep the amateur sanctity of college athletes.
This is something that I have thought about and have many times fallen into this gray area between both arguments. On one hand I feel college athletes receive a lot of benefits from college athletics as far as a scholarship, gear, clothes, and shoes that are considered absolutely necessary for the athletes to perform. So, in this argument I don't think the athletes should be paid at all and they receive enough benefits for it to be worthwhile. However, I also believe that college athletics is comparable to a full-time job and that these athletes are giving up so much of their time to perform for the university that they should be paid for the everything they do. This argument will linger on for a long time so I think I have some time to make my final decision.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Friday, February 14, 2014
High School Sport
During the time of high school sports and when they emerged social conditions looked very sexist and racist. This is why today we see some of the women's sports in high school looked at as activities and not actual sports. They were more sports to cheer on the men to play. Also there are perverse race distinctions of the sports and when they emerged a lot of them were made up of white men. As this has actually changed over time there is still some of the lingering effects that started with the creation years ago. In the actual study from Doug Foley done in a small high school in he Texas he quotes "As in most pep raffles, on the Friday I am describing, the cheerleaders were in front of the crowd on the gym floor doing
dance and jumping routines in unison and shouting patriotic cheers to whip up enthusiasm for the team. The cheerleaders were
acknowledged as some of the prettiest young women in the school and they aroused the envy of nobodies and nerds. Male students
incessantly gossiped and fantasized about these young women and their reputations." This quote fully puts into perspective the type of role girls played in high school 'sports'.
Jay Coakley wrote about high school sports were supposed to embody this idea that by putting kids and young adults through sports would build character. And not just an athlete character but one that was considered to be successful in every aspect of his (mainly) life. He further addresses that was no need for research into actually seeing what these athletes became and what type of character they have because of this idealized quote of "sports make what I am today." High school sports are supposed to build character and personal traits that are to set a person up for the rest of their life and in whatever they do in life, because of sport they will be successful. However, from many scenarios we have seen about athletes that sports have built them to be such an incredible athlete that once it is all gone they have no character outside of sports. Also, high school sports have classified the athletes as better people than the kids who choose not to compete in sports and take part in other activities. One part of Foley's study that the did he talks about the treatment of band members in which he entitles "The Marching Band and The Band Fags" which just about sums up what the entire section is about. High school sports in some instances have built kids in to great young adults with lots of character and in other instances it has led to perverse socialization of athletes over non-athletes.
Currently the status of interscholastic sports is two sided debate between the necessity of high school and/or college sports. Some people argue that interscholastic sport is taking away from what sport is meant to be and that it also takes away from the important things in school. On the other side of the argument are the people saying that student athletes actually do better in school and more often they graduate from high school and go to college.
Some problems with interscholastic sport is that it changes the student culture within the school, often giving popularity and fame to athletes. This then tends to glorify the athletes and puts all other students not in sports as the other and they don't fit in. This type of behavior is what starts what was previously mentioned about the marching band being called band fags. Not only does this create a hierarchy among the activities students participate in, but it also creates a hierarchy in gender, orientation, class, race, and ethnicity. These are the problems that people emphasize that are wrong with interscholastic sports.
I think one solution to one of these problems is that schools and especially coaches and anyone or anything reinforcing these sports as better than any other interscholastic activities needs to stop that and actually do the opposite. These people and institutions that are in charge need to a better job making all interscholastic activities as important as the next. There is no reason why football needs to be placed as a superior sport or activity to band or anything else. I think helping this equality of activities will also help to slightly get rid of the sexual orientation put-downs that we hear so much. There are any problems with interscholastic sports, but there are also a lot of the great things that sport has done for students and I don't think those need to be overlooked either.
Jay Coakley wrote about high school sports were supposed to embody this idea that by putting kids and young adults through sports would build character. And not just an athlete character but one that was considered to be successful in every aspect of his (mainly) life. He further addresses that was no need for research into actually seeing what these athletes became and what type of character they have because of this idealized quote of "sports make what I am today." High school sports are supposed to build character and personal traits that are to set a person up for the rest of their life and in whatever they do in life, because of sport they will be successful. However, from many scenarios we have seen about athletes that sports have built them to be such an incredible athlete that once it is all gone they have no character outside of sports. Also, high school sports have classified the athletes as better people than the kids who choose not to compete in sports and take part in other activities. One part of Foley's study that the did he talks about the treatment of band members in which he entitles "The Marching Band and The Band Fags" which just about sums up what the entire section is about. High school sports in some instances have built kids in to great young adults with lots of character and in other instances it has led to perverse socialization of athletes over non-athletes.
Currently the status of interscholastic sports is two sided debate between the necessity of high school and/or college sports. Some people argue that interscholastic sport is taking away from what sport is meant to be and that it also takes away from the important things in school. On the other side of the argument are the people saying that student athletes actually do better in school and more often they graduate from high school and go to college.
Some problems with interscholastic sport is that it changes the student culture within the school, often giving popularity and fame to athletes. This then tends to glorify the athletes and puts all other students not in sports as the other and they don't fit in. This type of behavior is what starts what was previously mentioned about the marching band being called band fags. Not only does this create a hierarchy among the activities students participate in, but it also creates a hierarchy in gender, orientation, class, race, and ethnicity. These are the problems that people emphasize that are wrong with interscholastic sports.
I think one solution to one of these problems is that schools and especially coaches and anyone or anything reinforcing these sports as better than any other interscholastic activities needs to stop that and actually do the opposite. These people and institutions that are in charge need to a better job making all interscholastic activities as important as the next. There is no reason why football needs to be placed as a superior sport or activity to band or anything else. I think helping this equality of activities will also help to slightly get rid of the sexual orientation put-downs that we hear so much. There are any problems with interscholastic sports, but there are also a lot of the great things that sport has done for students and I don't think those need to be overlooked either.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Once the cheering stops: The life of a retired pro-athlete
A majority of the time the life of a retired athlete is not pretty at all it usually this struggle of running out of money and finding a job that they can actually make a living with the skills they have outside of the playing field. Athletes have a very difficult time trying to find a job when they leave the league because most of the time they haven't made any connections during their sports career that could set them up with an actual career. They also see a lot of difficulty in being able to save money during their career with fraudulent investments that actually hurt them in the long then actually setting them up with a stable financial future. Like quoted in the ESPN 30-for-30 the men often talked about the constant spending on cars and luxury items that they didn't really need and eventually it hurt them.
These men also face a lot of problems when they transfer from playing into a retired life because they don't have any real world work experience that is actually valued in the workforce or business world. Like the New York Times article Eric Knott had talked about how people saw baseball on his resume and they though of it as a career gap and that he didn't have any experience. Most of the time this is the kinda thing that the athletes face of not having any help in their transition to a whole new life. A lot of this comes from no successful organizations or incentives that come from the respective sports leagues foe the players. Although, this maybe seems to be changing with a couple business and entrepreneurial classes former players can take that was brought up in the New York Times article, there is still a big gap that players are trying to make it through.
Furthermore, I think the athletes are struggling so much because some of them only see a few years of college, if any, depending on the sport, which in turn causes them to have no real world skills that are applicable in the business world. Also, I think there needs to be a lot more help coming from the leagues themselves. Even relating to the previous sports pages post, maybe Roger Goodell could focus a little less on spending millions of dollars on a foreign football team or more foreign football games and focus more on the retired players who sacrifices themselves for the leagues that are now having a hard time raise their families because of their financial troubles. This side of sport cultures I think is considered the dark side. This is the side of sports that people 'like to forget' because people want to see professional sports and athletes as these superhuman people who give us this entertainment and live lavish fantastic lives. However, that isn't the case these athletes maybe do live these lavish lives for a few years but there comes a point where they cannot play anymore and when that happens they are thrown into a world of unfamiliarity and a no-income lifestyle. This harsh reality of retired athletes, beyond the medical issues of playing the game, is a dark side to sports and US sport culture that will never truly be better and perfect, but it can be improved with the right programs and help from the corresponding sport leagues and major actors within those leagues.
I have thought about this and a lot of what I feel was expressed in talking about the the dark side of retired athletes. Retired athletes need more help and more programs that can set them up for their future. Another harsh reality is that the American people would like to believe that every athlete would be as well off as Michael Jordan with his enormous shoe contract that has made him more money since he's retired than ever did when he was still in the league. So many people before have compared sport to war and athletes to soldiers and in all honesty this connection of the players retiring and finding a job and soldier coming back from war trying to find a job might be the closest one yet. Many soldiers have gone to serve before college or served as their college and service is much appreciated but anther harsh reality is that there are so many veterans that struggle everyday when they come back from war. This all sounds to similar to athletes, maybe there is a program that can help both.
These men also face a lot of problems when they transfer from playing into a retired life because they don't have any real world work experience that is actually valued in the workforce or business world. Like the New York Times article Eric Knott had talked about how people saw baseball on his resume and they though of it as a career gap and that he didn't have any experience. Most of the time this is the kinda thing that the athletes face of not having any help in their transition to a whole new life. A lot of this comes from no successful organizations or incentives that come from the respective sports leagues foe the players. Although, this maybe seems to be changing with a couple business and entrepreneurial classes former players can take that was brought up in the New York Times article, there is still a big gap that players are trying to make it through.
Furthermore, I think the athletes are struggling so much because some of them only see a few years of college, if any, depending on the sport, which in turn causes them to have no real world skills that are applicable in the business world. Also, I think there needs to be a lot more help coming from the leagues themselves. Even relating to the previous sports pages post, maybe Roger Goodell could focus a little less on spending millions of dollars on a foreign football team or more foreign football games and focus more on the retired players who sacrifices themselves for the leagues that are now having a hard time raise their families because of their financial troubles. This side of sport cultures I think is considered the dark side. This is the side of sports that people 'like to forget' because people want to see professional sports and athletes as these superhuman people who give us this entertainment and live lavish fantastic lives. However, that isn't the case these athletes maybe do live these lavish lives for a few years but there comes a point where they cannot play anymore and when that happens they are thrown into a world of unfamiliarity and a no-income lifestyle. This harsh reality of retired athletes, beyond the medical issues of playing the game, is a dark side to sports and US sport culture that will never truly be better and perfect, but it can be improved with the right programs and help from the corresponding sport leagues and major actors within those leagues.
I have thought about this and a lot of what I feel was expressed in talking about the the dark side of retired athletes. Retired athletes need more help and more programs that can set them up for their future. Another harsh reality is that the American people would like to believe that every athlete would be as well off as Michael Jordan with his enormous shoe contract that has made him more money since he's retired than ever did when he was still in the league. So many people before have compared sport to war and athletes to soldiers and in all honesty this connection of the players retiring and finding a job and soldier coming back from war trying to find a job might be the closest one yet. Many soldiers have gone to serve before college or served as their college and service is much appreciated but anther harsh reality is that there are so many veterans that struggle everyday when they come back from war. This all sounds to similar to athletes, maybe there is a program that can help both.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Sports, Politics and the Olympics
The 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, Mexico is widely known for the student massacre and the racial protest from some of the athletes. Many athletic events happened that are still remembered to this day as their records still stand or the results were so shocking the will always be remembered. One of the biggest events was the Student massacre at Tlateloco Plaza in which student protested the incarceration of the leaders of the National Student Strike Committee as well as the PRI's lavish expenditures on the Olympic Games. The students were murdered in cold blood by white-gloved paramilitary forces and army platoons. At this time there were many opposing reports so the actual number of deaths vary, but a good estimate was 337 students.
From Sage and Eitzen's Chapter their idea of Sport as a Vehicle of Change in Society seems to have a to of similarities with the 1968 games. The reason I think this is because that is partially what the leading political party in Mexico (PRI) was trying to do. They wanted to show the rest of the world that they were emerging and that it was time to get rid of that third world title that had been associated with them for so long. However, the students and people in opposition to the PRI believed there were many other welfare issues that should be addressed long before they bring the Olympic Games to Mexico City. I also think the Sport and Nationalism idea by Sage and Eitzen was comparable to the '68 games because it was actually the reverse of what was in the chapter. Essentially after the massacre there was a lessened sense of nationalism from the people of Mexico and especially students and people that disliked the PRI, which actually grew into more opposed political parties after the massacre and the games.
As far as the statement regarding sports as being completely devoid of politics, I do not agree nor do i completely disagree. I think that little league and the lower levels of sports that essentially don't involve the sport as an occupation are the purest, nonpolitical forms of sport. However, keeping in line with the Olympics I believe that these glorified higher levels of sports revolve around politics. For example, In a Scholarly Article by Andris Zimelis title Let the Games Begin, in the 1968 Olympic Games were one vote shy of being canceled because of the massacre of hundreds of students in Mexico City that were politically revolting against the Olympic Games. Although the games were a success, there was still a lot of domestic political unrest in Mexico City because sport.
 |
| http://www.olympic.org/photos/yaaat005 |
From Sage and Eitzen's Chapter their idea of Sport as a Vehicle of Change in Society seems to have a to of similarities with the 1968 games. The reason I think this is because that is partially what the leading political party in Mexico (PRI) was trying to do. They wanted to show the rest of the world that they were emerging and that it was time to get rid of that third world title that had been associated with them for so long. However, the students and people in opposition to the PRI believed there were many other welfare issues that should be addressed long before they bring the Olympic Games to Mexico City. I also think the Sport and Nationalism idea by Sage and Eitzen was comparable to the '68 games because it was actually the reverse of what was in the chapter. Essentially after the massacre there was a lessened sense of nationalism from the people of Mexico and especially students and people that disliked the PRI, which actually grew into more opposed political parties after the massacre and the games.
 |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute |
As far as the statement regarding sports as being completely devoid of politics, I do not agree nor do i completely disagree. I think that little league and the lower levels of sports that essentially don't involve the sport as an occupation are the purest, nonpolitical forms of sport. However, keeping in line with the Olympics I believe that these glorified higher levels of sports revolve around politics. For example, In a Scholarly Article by Andris Zimelis title Let the Games Begin, in the 1968 Olympic Games were one vote shy of being canceled because of the massacre of hundreds of students in Mexico City that were politically revolting against the Olympic Games. Although the games were a success, there was still a lot of domestic political unrest in Mexico City because sport.
Friday, January 31, 2014
London Calling: The Globalization of the NFL
The NFL is keen to expand overseas because sports and especially in America are all moving towards this idea of Globalization of the sports world. Sports nowadays are hugely dependent and focused on money and viewership. As much as it bothers me to say it, it seems that all the people in the sports world care about is making money. I think the NFL chose London for several reasons. One being that Wembley stadium houses enough fans and is a good location geographically for the NFL. Also, London has a big concentration (from the recent popularity and attendance at the last games) and in terms of money it has been successful for the NFL, which is why some people think it should be a permanent thing. The previously mentioned aspects are factors that are facilitating the NFL overseas and for good reason. However, I think social media is also playing a big part in the increased amount of NFL fans and popularity in London. One London newspaper writes about how Facebook, Twitter, and Google all have offices in Shoreditch and are helping the popularity of American Football. One blogger in London Jamie Cutteridge and his friend David Dickson started an NFL blog called Any Given Sunday Night that was originally planned to just give people information about the game and what was going on in general. However, the blog spiraled out of control and is now one of the main sources for fans to find out instantaneous scores, highlights, and updates. The blog and much social media in and around London has this mentality of "no fan gets left out". This is the type of snowball effect that has been happening since 2007 when the games started in London. Some drawbacks to the expansion to London were brought up perfectly in the article by Bill Barnwell in which he brought up everything from travel time, affects on the players from traveling, players not wanting to live abroad, the cost of living abroad, should the teams abroad be allotted more cap room, should players get cost of living pay, players refusing to play for teams abroad, and will they even sell out the stadium eight times a year? All these points are very valid and I think most of them are too important to try and make adjustments. And if these adjustments were done then the game would change radically and personally I would be disappointed with Goodell and the NFL. This dark-side aspect of the game that has been brought up before, is really apparent in the expansion talks. This league is called the National Football League for a reason, it is an American game in which American teams play each other. The NFL has really seen ultimate low for me personally with trying to put a team in London. The reason this is a low is because it is another reminder that the NFL is really all about money. And not for that love of the game that most of experienced when we were little. The game is supposed to be pure and in the greatest sense a form of art. The game now in the NFL is so much about money and expanding and making it so extraordinary and amazing. However, I think the game itself is both extraordinary and amazing but its hidden behind the shadows of money, expansion, and greed.
How Social Media is Helping the NFL Grow in London
How Social Media is Helping the NFL Grow in London
Monday, January 27, 2014
The Sociogenesis of Cricket
The first documented cricket information was approximately somewhere around 1550 in Guildford, Surrey. Without actual documentation it is assumed that cricket started somewhere in northern England sometime after the Dark Ages. From the research I couldn't find one specific person or group of people responsible for the start of cricket. However, I did find a couple cricket clubs that were supposed to be at least partly responsible; they were The Hambledon Club and the Merlebone Cricket Club (MCC) (Brittanica). Earliest records of cricket have exclusively men playing the game and specifically aristocrats and business men. Cricket diffused to North America through the English colonies in the 17th century. Cricket later diffused to West Indies, Austrailia, New Zealand, and South Africa then followed by the rest of the world by the beginning of the 19th century. The first recorded rules came from The Duke of Richmond and Alan Brodick in 1728 were known as the Articles of Agreement. In 1774 the rules were amended things like the maximum bat width, middle stump, and giving authority of in-game decisions to the two 'umpires'. The amendments were done by the Star and Garter Club which were made up of the same men who started the MCC. The original equipment was a bat that was usually a sturdy curved tree branch that resembled modern day hockey sticks. The ball that was used was usually a roundish rock that wasn't too heavy to break the branch. The equipment slowly evolved to more handcrafted elegant bats and balls.
 |
| http://neweraofsports.blogspot.com/2013/06/history-of-cricket-starting-of-new-era.html |
 |
| http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GandM_Purist-Grace_match_cricket_balls.jpg |
 |
| http://hockeygods.com/hockeys/15-Bandy |
1844 First official international match: Canada v United States.
1853 First mention of a champion county: Nottinghamshire.
1873 WG Grace becomes the first player to record 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in a season.
First regulations restricting county qualifications, often regarded as the official start of the County Championship.
First regulations restricting county qualifications, often regarded as the official start of the County Championship.
1900 Six-ball over becomes the norm, instead of five.
1910 Six runs given for any hit over the boundary, instead of only for a hit out of the ground.
1971 First one-day international: Australia v England at Melbourne.
1975 First World Cup: West Indies beat Australia in final at Lord's.
1976 First women's match at Lord's, England v Australia.
1975 First World Cup: West Indies beat Australia in final at Lord's.
1976 First women's match at Lord's, England v Australia.
2005 The ICC introduces Powerplays and Supersubs in ODIs, and hosts the inaugural Superseries.
The sport now faces current issues of dealing with serious misconduct like Pakistan a few years ago being accused of ball tampering. There are also some problems with getting an international league and regular season system that we see in so many other sports. It also faces trouble with making sure that women's cricket is seen as just as important as men's on national levels as well as internationally.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Sport in the Ancient World
Coakley addressed a few games that were especially popular at the time, wrestling, boxing, javelin, discus throwing, foot racing, archery, and long jumping were all popular in Ancient Greece. The most popular ones were especially wrestling and foot racing as we saw in the YouTube videos for Ancient Greece. However in Ancient Rome, the games were more used for training soldiers that doubled as spectacle for the Roman people. There was a big focus on creating and honing individual skills that would be used in battle, according to Coakley. As far as the characteristics, the Greeks were very particular about the time and place of the olympiad games. The games had to take place after the third or fourth full moon after the summer solstice. Modern sports are often controlled by some sort of bureaucracy that makes the rules and any changes to the game or the rules. In ancient times it is best to look at the Greek games in which they had what they called a 'gymnasiarc' that was in control of each gymnasium in each Greek city. These gymnasiarcs would act as the bureaucracy and adjudicate the rules and the games. In Roman sports they an official governing body known as the guild of athletes that adjudicated the rules of the game and even established what tools would be used in each game or what the the athletes would wear. In the beginning the games took place for a single race, as years went on they got more and more elaborate to more chariot races and even to boxing and wrestling (Guttman). The games started and ended with elaborate festivals to celebrate the games and the athletes and especially the athletes that won. Based on the explanation you can infer that these games often played a role more in the lines of entertainment than some religious ceremonies at all. The entertainment was generally for the upper class while the lower class men would compete.
The Roman games however mocked the Greek games because they took place, as previously mentioned, as a preparation to war or to train warriors. In Roman society gawking over Greek games was considered agains the views of the nobility (Guttman). As far as sport as religion, in comparison to modern sport the Roman model is more akin to the sports we now see (Guttman). The Romans even saw their games a possible ulterior to war. The Greek olympiad games and the Roman war training games were often seen as games for lower class. There were certain games that were more aristocratic, such as tennis and bowling. From the Guttman reading in Greek games like tennis and bowling the government ruled them as only available to aristocrats and nobleman. These games were considered for such nobility that gender did not matter anymore. Furthermore, there were many women that were actually considered to be far superior than some men at the game. These were really the only games that women could participate in, most games in Greek and Roman cultures were exclusively created by and played by men. Considering specialization/professionalism of the athletes it was highly recommended and pushed for in Greek sports. However, in Roman sports they thought professionalism in a sport dampened the building of an all-around person.
The Roman games however mocked the Greek games because they took place, as previously mentioned, as a preparation to war or to train warriors. In Roman society gawking over Greek games was considered agains the views of the nobility (Guttman). As far as sport as religion, in comparison to modern sport the Roman model is more akin to the sports we now see (Guttman). The Romans even saw their games a possible ulterior to war. The Greek olympiad games and the Roman war training games were often seen as games for lower class. There were certain games that were more aristocratic, such as tennis and bowling. From the Guttman reading in Greek games like tennis and bowling the government ruled them as only available to aristocrats and nobleman. These games were considered for such nobility that gender did not matter anymore. Furthermore, there were many women that were actually considered to be far superior than some men at the game. These were really the only games that women could participate in, most games in Greek and Roman cultures were exclusively created by and played by men. Considering specialization/professionalism of the athletes it was highly recommended and pushed for in Greek sports. However, in Roman sports they thought professionalism in a sport dampened the building of an all-around person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)