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)?
Monday, October 5, 2009
NFL not immune from struggling economy
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.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Alex Rodriguez
By Andrew FletcherOK, I realize that the title of the blog post should have more of a focus off the bat. Even though it only has two words, it does indeed have a focus. If I wanted to describe Alex Rodiguez and his relationship to sports scandals, the title would probably be as long as the blog post.
Now that I got that little disclaimer out of the way, here we go...
David Leonard has a section in Chapter 31 called "A Convergence of the Front and Back Pages." Anyone who lives in New York will tell you that Rodriguez graces the covers of the New York Post and New York Daily News almost daily. The Yankees blog "Replacement Level Yankees Weblog" even keeps track of Rodriguez's cover appearances here. In the past, Rodriguez's cover appearances would stretch down most of the page. Because he is still on the disabled list, he hasn't been in the public eye and that's why he only has five appearances since they started counting this season. But good news, folks: he's working out in Tampa today!
Leonard mainly focuses on Blacks and crime in his writing about the front and back pages, but Rodriguez's relevance is still there.
Leonard writes: "As with the sensationalized literature, the popular press ubiquitously offers the impression that athletes are committing crimes at disproportionate rates, although the bulk of the coverage centers on the alleged criminal activities of Black athletes (Benedict, 2003; Lapchick, 2003a, 2003b; Vlahos, 2003)" (526-27).
Rodriguez is neither Black, nor is he exactly a criminal - he's a deviant - but his disproportionate appearances in the New York covers would lead one to believe that he has in fact committed crimes. The fact that he was caught using steroids is almost irrelevant, because he has been hated by New Yorkers since he became a Yankee on Valentine's Day 2004.
Look at the above picture, for example. A picture of Rodriguez kissing himself as part of a magazine spread is above news involving President Barack Obama. Apparently Rodriguez is more newsworthy than the president of our country. How about that.
Then we have articles about Rodriguez not washing his hands in the bathroom and his comments about wishing Jose Reyes was batting leadoff for the Yankees got blown out of proportion. He is the media anti-darling. Everything he says or does gets scrutinized. Some of this is Rodriguez's doing, but too much is just too much.
Do you think the media is to blame for its coverage of Alex Rodriguez, or is it his own doing? When is enough actually enough?
Judging Stereotypes in Sports Reporting:
Christina Gaudino
MSS 340 Blog: Sports Scandals & Controversies:
The media loves to pass judgment on athletes. This comes from our instincts to make our favorite athletes into prized perfected possessions. In chapters 30 and 31 of the Handbook, sports scandal and controversy is discussed and magnified from every angle. The handbook suggests that as fans and commenter’s we hold athletes to unrealistic standards, “awards them with special attention and privileges, which may give them a sense of entitlement and freedom from accountability.”
It is also important to consider the role that race plays in sports scandal reporting. The handbook suggests that many commenters are white males passing judgment on the actions of black athletes. Are we providing whites “with the chance to talk about athletes in a way that reinforces these stereotypes? The handbook also talks about the relationship between images of black athletes and black criminals. “Throughout history black male bodies have come to rep that which is deviant criminal and threatening.”Blacks are seen as more violent, prone to drug use and inclined toward violence against women. Clearly, this issue steams out from a much larger society problem. “I believe that at least part of the systematic coupling of athletes and crime revolves around racial stereotyping.”
The role of race is discussed further in the article from the New York Times; McNabb Says He Can Relate To Obama, by Judy Battista. Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb is infamous for his 2003 quote in which he suggested he’d be treated differently if he was not black. The media ripped him apart for his remarks, but was he lying? Mc Nabb went on to relate his public scrutiny to that in which president Obama experienced while running. ''I think it was similar in his process and the things that he went through, of the criticism that he received, people going back into his past and trying to characterize him and figure out what type of person he was,'' said McNabb, who added, ''Obviously, it's on a different level with him because he's the president of the United States, but I just watched the way he handled it, standing strong up there, continuing not to get rattled.'' Mc Nabb also stated that prior to his incident he become reluctant to discuss race and sports.
I think a lot of African American athletes may look at the problem with racism and sports as unchangeable and it’s better to keep quiet and make money then to stir up controversy. The Handbook points out America’s views on black entertainers, “Americans love their black entertainers when they behave “properly,” and stay in their place.
In an older article printed in the New York Times entitled Unfair Play written by Warren Goldstein, Goldstein suggests the existing attempts of white officalsto market black athletes. Goldstein states, “white people’s denial of black business ability while they continue to profit from black athletic skill; black athletes’ training in high school, college and the pros (what he calls the “Conveyor Belt”) to think only about individual success, never about a system that distributes power unequally.”
So is the problem the way we report on athletes? Or the expectations we hold them to? Or do these men and women really feel they are above the law because of their positions in sports? Do you believe athletes are judged entirely differently based on their race?
Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/
MSS 340 Blog: Sports Scandals & Controversies:
The media loves to pass judgment on athletes. This comes from our instincts to make our favorite athletes into prized perfected possessions. In chapters 30 and 31 of the Handbook, sports scandal and controversy is discussed and magnified from every angle. The handbook suggests that as fans and commenter’s we hold athletes to unrealistic standards, “awards them with special attention and privileges, which may give them a sense of entitlement and freedom from accountability.”
It is also important to consider the role that race plays in sports scandal reporting. The handbook suggests that many commenters are white males passing judgment on the actions of black athletes. Are we providing whites “with the chance to talk about athletes in a way that reinforces these stereotypes? The handbook also talks about the relationship between images of black athletes and black criminals. “Throughout history black male bodies have come to rep that which is deviant criminal and threatening.”Blacks are seen as more violent, prone to drug use and inclined toward violence against women. Clearly, this issue steams out from a much larger society problem. “I believe that at least part of the systematic coupling of athletes and crime revolves around racial stereotyping.”
The role of race is discussed further in the article from the New York Times; McNabb Says He Can Relate To Obama, by Judy Battista. Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb is infamous for his 2003 quote in which he suggested he’d be treated differently if he was not black. The media ripped him apart for his remarks, but was he lying? Mc Nabb went on to relate his public scrutiny to that in which president Obama experienced while running. ''I think it was similar in his process and the things that he went through, of the criticism that he received, people going back into his past and trying to characterize him and figure out what type of person he was,'' said McNabb, who added, ''Obviously, it's on a different level with him because he's the president of the United States, but I just watched the way he handled it, standing strong up there, continuing not to get rattled.'' Mc Nabb also stated that prior to his incident he become reluctant to discuss race and sports.
I think a lot of African American athletes may look at the problem with racism and sports as unchangeable and it’s better to keep quiet and make money then to stir up controversy. The Handbook points out America’s views on black entertainers, “Americans love their black entertainers when they behave “properly,” and stay in their place.
In an older article printed in the New York Times entitled Unfair Play written by Warren Goldstein, Goldstein suggests the existing attempts of white officalsto market black athletes. Goldstein states, “white people’s denial of black business ability while they continue to profit from black athletic skill; black athletes’ training in high school, college and the pros (what he calls the “Conveyor Belt”) to think only about individual success, never about a system that distributes power unequally.”
So is the problem the way we report on athletes? Or the expectations we hold them to? Or do these men and women really feel they are above the law because of their positions in sports? Do you believe athletes are judged entirely differently based on their race?
Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Should athletes be punished for their crimes?
Professional athletes committing crimes seems to be a growing problem, but they are not facing consequences for their actions. They are not convicted because it might possibly ruin their career, for Michael Phelps and Kobe Bryant this is almost too true. Most of their sponsors decided not to resign them and both athletes are are trying to rebuild a reputation. In an article in USA Today it stated on accusations of rape "there is enormous pressure on the victim not to press charges, that you're ruining his career" (www.usatoday.com/sports/2003-12-21-athletes-sexual-assault_x.htm ). But rape is still a serious crime, how can these athletes just walk away? In the Handbook it says "a problem exists because athletes do not face consequences legal or otherwise when accused, arrested or convicted of a crime. Athletic skills represent a get out of jail free card that provides universal immunity, thereby guaranteeing a persistent problem within sports" (Leonard 525). Of coarse for everyday people who do commit these same crimes such as rape (most widely committed among athletes) getting off scott free is just not fair. Even though they do have a special skill and make loads of money they should not be treated any different, they have committed a federal crime and should be punished accordingly. What do you think? Should athletes get special treatment to protect their careers/reputation? Should they be able to just walk away from a crime they were convicted of. Is that fair for everyday citizens who commit these serious crimes and are punished?
Farrell Henneberry
Farrell Henneberry
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Olympic Coverage
The ratings of the Olympic Games the past few years have been dismal. Things finally took a change for the better last summer. NBC’s coverage of the Olympic Games was seen by many Americans and NBC was happy with the results. Much of the ratings success is of course due in part to Michael Phelps and his race for gold. This fact also meant that NBC had to air a lot of swimming. Almost every time I turned to NBC last August it had coverage of either swimming, diving, track or volleyball. One time I saw badminton but that was when I turned on MSNB at 4 0 clock in the morning because I was having trouble sleeping. This got me thinking is this how all the networks air the footage of the Olympics to their country? Are populations around the world subjected to the same four sports over and over again? Apparently not.
Just over the boarder Canada has an entirely different way of covering the Olympics. In this article the author states why the Canadian’s coverage is much better than the US’s coverage:
http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/08/if-olympics-cov.html
The article notes not only does CBC cover a more wide range of sports, but it is also better because it gives better analysis, is more in-depth, and is less dramatic. What do you think of this year’s coverage of the Olympic Games? Do you think NBC did a good job with its coverage? Or do you think the format should be more like Canada’s? Is NBC right to put some sports on lesser channels?
The text states, “When viewers tune in to the Olympic Game, they are certainly addressed as biased observers. It is assumed that they wish to see representatives of their nation at work, but it is also believed that they wish to see a more transcendent excellence-that they want to watch the best”(Rowe 128). Do you think NBC is just showing us what we want to see? Do you wish they showed more and if so what other sports would you like to see?
Just over the boarder Canada has an entirely different way of covering the Olympics. In this article the author states why the Canadian’s coverage is much better than the US’s coverage:
http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/08/if-olympics-cov.html
The article notes not only does CBC cover a more wide range of sports, but it is also better because it gives better analysis, is more in-depth, and is less dramatic. What do you think of this year’s coverage of the Olympic Games? Do you think NBC did a good job with its coverage? Or do you think the format should be more like Canada’s? Is NBC right to put some sports on lesser channels?
The text states, “When viewers tune in to the Olympic Game, they are certainly addressed as biased observers. It is assumed that they wish to see representatives of their nation at work, but it is also believed that they wish to see a more transcendent excellence-that they want to watch the best”(Rowe 128). Do you think NBC is just showing us what we want to see? Do you wish they showed more and if so what other sports would you like to see?
Is America still in diapers when it comes to soccer?
“Every four years, the world comes together around the little black-and-white ball, a carnival scene mixing sport and revelry with a not-so-subtle undertone of nationalism.” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports/jan-june06/worldcup_06-09.html
http://soccerlens.com/the-generation-gap-in-american-soccer/3697/
Monday, April 6, 2009
Globalizing the American Pastime
posted by Kristen Finelli
It is no secret that sports are trying to globalize. Globalization of sports such as rugby, American football, and hockey would mean increased revenue for everyone involved. However, most of these sports have failed to attract worldwide audiences.
When most people think of globalization of sports, they imagine the World Cup, which draws millions of viewers around the world. Even here in America, a country that has never embraced soccer, we watch the World Cup matches. There is even a bid going on to bring the World Cup to the United States. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/sports/soccer/31vecsey.html?em
The Olympics is another example of the globalization of sports. But recently, there has been a new tournament that has brought a certain sport worldwide attention. And that’s the World Baseball Classic. The World Baseball Classic is a brand new concept. The first tournament was played in 2006, and the second tournament was played just last month. Baseball is thought of as a purely American sport, at least by Americans. It was founded here and has a long, colorful history. However, people all over the world, especially in Spanish-speaking countries, have tuned in to the WBC. And the teams have proved that baseball is not purely an American game. Team USA made it to the semi-finals, but in the end, the final came down to Korea and Japan. And who would have expected the Netherlands to get as far as they did? This just proves that baseball, a small sport that Americans think of as their own, has spread around the world with positive results.
There was a question of whether the WBC would do well in the States. We’re a little snobbish when it comes to our sports, and it was debatable whether fans would want to watch people from other countries, whom they didn’t know, play a sport that we feel attached too. However, coverage on ESPN was a huge success. http://www.multichannel.com/article/189969-World_Baseball_Classic_Starts_Strong_For_ESPN_Vehicles.php And part of the reason for that was the opportune timing of the games. For Americans, the off-season is long and spring training games get old after a while. In MediaSport it says that in sport, “the audience is targeted in its most vulnerable condition, relaxed yet fully receptive to the physical action and the inserted sales pitch” [Wenner 128]. True baseball fans are desperate for baseball, so of course they will watch. I did.
The WBC is still in an experimental phase. What are your opinions on it? Do you think that it’s a good thing for the globalization of baseball? Or is it purely a publicity stunt by MLB? Did you watch the World Baseball Classic this year or in 2006?
It is no secret that sports are trying to globalize. Globalization of sports such as rugby, American football, and hockey would mean increased revenue for everyone involved. However, most of these sports have failed to attract worldwide audiences.
When most people think of globalization of sports, they imagine the World Cup, which draws millions of viewers around the world. Even here in America, a country that has never embraced soccer, we watch the World Cup matches. There is even a bid going on to bring the World Cup to the United States. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/sports/soccer/31vecsey.html?em
The Olympics is another example of the globalization of sports. But recently, there has been a new tournament that has brought a certain sport worldwide attention. And that’s the World Baseball Classic. The World Baseball Classic is a brand new concept. The first tournament was played in 2006, and the second tournament was played just last month. Baseball is thought of as a purely American sport, at least by Americans. It was founded here and has a long, colorful history. However, people all over the world, especially in Spanish-speaking countries, have tuned in to the WBC. And the teams have proved that baseball is not purely an American game. Team USA made it to the semi-finals, but in the end, the final came down to Korea and Japan. And who would have expected the Netherlands to get as far as they did? This just proves that baseball, a small sport that Americans think of as their own, has spread around the world with positive results.
There was a question of whether the WBC would do well in the States. We’re a little snobbish when it comes to our sports, and it was debatable whether fans would want to watch people from other countries, whom they didn’t know, play a sport that we feel attached too. However, coverage on ESPN was a huge success. http://www.multichannel.com/article/189969-World_Baseball_Classic_Starts_Strong_For_ESPN_Vehicles.php And part of the reason for that was the opportune timing of the games. For Americans, the off-season is long and spring training games get old after a while. In MediaSport it says that in sport, “the audience is targeted in its most vulnerable condition, relaxed yet fully receptive to the physical action and the inserted sales pitch” [Wenner 128]. True baseball fans are desperate for baseball, so of course they will watch. I did.
The WBC is still in an experimental phase. What are your opinions on it? Do you think that it’s a good thing for the globalization of baseball? Or is it purely a publicity stunt by MLB? Did you watch the World Baseball Classic this year or in 2006?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Globalization of Sports
Posted on behalf of Katie Devlin:
With the constant advances in technology and work ethics, a major change has been made with universal communication becoming exceptionally simple and virtually effortless as evidently seen in sports. Although countries are more connected which can be seen as an increase in globalization, this also means there is an increase in global competition.
Some sports have failed to become globalized. For example, baseball, America’s favorite pastime, and arguably the most famous sport to watch and participated in America has not become so popular in other countries… yet.
Soccer however is globalized which is why watching the World Cup is so popular in many countries. Sport globalization definitely shows both universal competition and universal bonding. It seems as if Europe and Canada seem to be adopting football into their culture which may lead to World Football Championship perhaps in the future. If soccer has been globalized, there is no doubt other sports have the same capability to be picked up by other countries. For instance, NFL played its first regular season game in London a couple years ago which could definitely a way to promote and advertise the game of football that us Americans seem to love.
Sport globalization can lead to international markets and business opportunities in the sport industry that can help the economy that especially needs help in our country.
Sports act as a universal feature of culture. There are no language barriers in sports. The rules are the rules. Everyone has the ability to know the game. There are no geographic barriers.
As notes on page 325 of the Handbook, “The motivations for and responses to viewing sports on television are primarily functions of affect, but they contain distinctly cognitive and social aspects as well.”
With the constant advances in technology and work ethics, a major change has been made with universal communication becoming exceptionally simple and virtually effortless as evidently seen in sports. Although countries are more connected which can be seen as an increase in globalization, this also means there is an increase in global competition.
Some sports have failed to become globalized. For example, baseball, America’s favorite pastime, and arguably the most famous sport to watch and participated in America has not become so popular in other countries… yet.
Soccer however is globalized which is why watching the World Cup is so popular in many countries. Sport globalization definitely shows both universal competition and universal bonding. It seems as if Europe and Canada seem to be adopting football into their culture which may lead to World Football Championship perhaps in the future. If soccer has been globalized, there is no doubt other sports have the same capability to be picked up by other countries. For instance, NFL played its first regular season game in London a couple years ago which could definitely a way to promote and advertise the game of football that us Americans seem to love.
Sport globalization can lead to international markets and business opportunities in the sport industry that can help the economy that especially needs help in our country.
Sports act as a universal feature of culture. There are no language barriers in sports. The rules are the rules. Everyone has the ability to know the game. There are no geographic barriers.
As notes on page 325 of the Handbook, “The motivations for and responses to viewing sports on television are primarily functions of affect, but they contain distinctly cognitive and social aspects as well.”
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Globalization: The wide world of sports
In the Handbook of Sports and Media Joseph Maguire states, “The concept of globalization is subject to intense political, ideological, and social scientific debate” (436). He further goes on and talking about other issues that go in the idea of globalization in sports. Over the years globalization in sports has grown to an extreme. Games can be shown in over 100 hundred countries at a time. LeBron James is a perfect example. A game played by him shown on ESPN can viewed in many different countries. There are many more examples in different sports. One factor that plays a big role in globalization is the amount of foreign or international players coming to America to play the sport professionally.
One article I found briefly talked about how Yao Ming is the reason why Chinese people watch the game of basketball. http://sportsprof.blogspot.com/2005/09/globalization-and-sports.html This article also talked about other sports, such as, soccer, and baseball. After reading this article it showed me how the international and foreign players have an effect on the game. I believe the international players bring a lot of the money for the sport.
Maguire also states “The sport and leisure-wear industry can be used to highlight how consumption of cultural goods is bound up with globalization” (436). I believe star athletes being represented by big name brands play a big role in globalization in sports. Sports gear is being brought all over the world due to the companies’ big name star athletes. For example, Nike has LeBron James and Michael Jordan, Addidas has Kevin Garnett and David Beckham. Young children in other countries want the gear that the star players wear.
Over the years more and more athletes from other countries have came to America to play the sport the love. In today’s society it is uncommon not to have an international player on your hometown’s professional team. Which sport do you think is most globalized? Who do you think has the most influence on their sport’s globalization?
One article I found briefly talked about how Yao Ming is the reason why Chinese people watch the game of basketball. http://sportsprof.blogspot.com/2005/09/globalization-and-sports.html This article also talked about other sports, such as, soccer, and baseball. After reading this article it showed me how the international and foreign players have an effect on the game. I believe the international players bring a lot of the money for the sport.
Maguire also states “The sport and leisure-wear industry can be used to highlight how consumption of cultural goods is bound up with globalization” (436). I believe star athletes being represented by big name brands play a big role in globalization in sports. Sports gear is being brought all over the world due to the companies’ big name star athletes. For example, Nike has LeBron James and Michael Jordan, Addidas has Kevin Garnett and David Beckham. Young children in other countries want the gear that the star players wear.
Over the years more and more athletes from other countries have came to America to play the sport the love. In today’s society it is uncommon not to have an international player on your hometown’s professional team. Which sport do you think is most globalized? Who do you think has the most influence on their sport’s globalization?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
End of Blackness in Sports? Ask the Media...
Posted on behalf of Kyle deManincor:
When Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy were on opposing sidelines in Super Bowl XLI, monumental steps were taken in the effort to end "blackness" in sports. It was a historic moment not only for African-Americans, but for sports as a whole. It was captured throughout the media as one of the finest moments in all of sports. In recent years though, the media has taken on almost a political role when it comes to blackness in sports.
According to Chapter 27 in The Handbook of Sports and Media, "...the spectacle of the Black athletic body has 'simultaneously diminished the space for progressive politics itself...it appears that we have moved from a position of black athletes embodying a politics of social transformation to politics itself being reduced to the bodies of individual athletes" (461). The media has lost sight of the black culture as a whole and re-focused on the talents of certain black individuals.The media has catered to the white-population through the use of black athletes who seem to influence the lives of so many through their charisma and wonder. "Michael Jordan's carefully engineered charismatic appeal...is a case of complicitious racial avoidance. Jordan's image was coveted by the media primarily because of its reassuring affinity with the affective investments associated with America's white-dominated national popular culture" (Raney and Bryant, 477). The media used Jordan as a way to market sports to the white-dominated culture. "...Michael Jordan self-consciously allowed himself to be whitened" (477). The same thing is going on with Tiger Woods and Golf.
In an article on yahoo sports, http://sports.yahoo.com/top/blog/roy_s_johnson/post/Mike-Tomlin-The-end-of-blackness-?urn=top,138325, "most of America looked at a black man and saw a coach, not a black coach. They saw a man." This is referring to Mike Tomlin after the Steelers won the Super Bowl. It's a great line, and it has to make one wonder, is blackness finally coming to an end in sports? Does the media avoid racial issues by spotlighting these great black athletes, such as Lebron James and Tiger Woods? Are there still these stereotypes about black athletes that the media just cant avoid? Either way, blackness in sports will only come to an end as long as the media allows it to.
When Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy were on opposing sidelines in Super Bowl XLI, monumental steps were taken in the effort to end "blackness" in sports. It was a historic moment not only for African-Americans, but for sports as a whole. It was captured throughout the media as one of the finest moments in all of sports. In recent years though, the media has taken on almost a political role when it comes to blackness in sports.
According to Chapter 27 in The Handbook of Sports and Media, "...the spectacle of the Black athletic body has 'simultaneously diminished the space for progressive politics itself...it appears that we have moved from a position of black athletes embodying a politics of social transformation to politics itself being reduced to the bodies of individual athletes" (461). The media has lost sight of the black culture as a whole and re-focused on the talents of certain black individuals.The media has catered to the white-population through the use of black athletes who seem to influence the lives of so many through their charisma and wonder. "Michael Jordan's carefully engineered charismatic appeal...is a case of complicitious racial avoidance. Jordan's image was coveted by the media primarily because of its reassuring affinity with the affective investments associated with America's white-dominated national popular culture" (Raney and Bryant, 477). The media used Jordan as a way to market sports to the white-dominated culture. "...Michael Jordan self-consciously allowed himself to be whitened" (477). The same thing is going on with Tiger Woods and Golf.
In an article on yahoo sports, http://sports.yahoo.com/top/blog/roy_s_johnson/post/Mike-Tomlin-The-end-of-blackness-?urn=top,138325, "most of America looked at a black man and saw a coach, not a black coach. They saw a man." This is referring to Mike Tomlin after the Steelers won the Super Bowl. It's a great line, and it has to make one wonder, is blackness finally coming to an end in sports? Does the media avoid racial issues by spotlighting these great black athletes, such as Lebron James and Tiger Woods? Are there still these stereotypes about black athletes that the media just cant avoid? Either way, blackness in sports will only come to an end as long as the media allows it to.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Stereotyping of Athletes
If you’re a sports fan, you’ve heard this phrase: “A scrappy player.” A scrappy player could mean many things. In baseball, for example, it usually means someone who “plays the game the right way.” Recently, someone that fits that description is Red Sox 2nd baseman Dustin Pedroia. Anytime he is being talked about, someone is there to say that he is a scrappy kid who plays the game the right way. Other baseball players that can be described as “scrappy” are Cubs shortstop Mike Fontenot and Padres shortstop turned second baseman David Eckstein. There is even an article on mlb.com that states “Mark Grudzielanek is the archetype of the scrappy middle infielder. The Royals second baseman will slap a ball up the middle, stand in stoutly making the double-play relay throw and explain himself and his team matter-of-factly before and after the game.” What do all these players have in common? They’re all white. In chapter 27 of the handbook, it is noted that “In contrast to Black athletes, who are frequently framed in terms of their physicality, White athletes are most often depicted as relying on intellectual means to achieve their sporting success” (453). As a baseball fan, when I hear the term scrappy, I think of just that, someone who may not have great athletic ability, but uses their head and their heart to succeed. Therefore, does calling Mark Grudzielanek “the archetype of the scrappy middle infielder” have racial undertones? You be the judge.
On the other side of the coin, we have the African-American athlete. A prime example of a player who has been touted for his athletic ability is Nationals outfielder Elijah Dukes. ESPN’s Chris Jones even wrote a feature on Dukes for ESPN the Magazine. In talking to former teammate Ryan Knox, Jones was able to get an interesting quote. “Dukes also happens to be one of the best raw talents baseball people have seen on a diamond. In 2006, Baseball America ranked him the top pure athlete in the talent-rich Tampa Bay organization. ‘He's a freak, he's so good,’ even Knox admits.” There are a few words in this quote where some people might take issue. Raw, pure athlete, and freak aren’t necessarily associated with the typical baseball player. What’s even more curious about Elijah Dukes, is that he falls into a certain stereotype brought about by the media. “Both print and electronic portrayals stereotyped African-Americans as criminal, arrogant, unruly, undisciplined, and threatening” (455). As Jones notes in his article, “Dukes has been suspended at least once during each of his five professional seasons. In 2006, he was placed on indefinite suspension by Tampa Bay's Triple-A farm team, the Durham Bulls, after two violent confrontations.”
Obviously, this is a very small sample size. But it cannot be denied that the media treat Black and White athletes differently. What do you think has caused this discrepancy? Do you think it’s an insult for a player to be deemed scrappy? And finally, is Elijah Dukes only still in baseball because of his “pure” athletic ability? Would a player of less so-called “athletic ability” be out of baseball after all these off the field problems?
Detecting Racial Stereotypes in the Sports Media
According to Davis and Othello’s article Race and Ethnicity in US Sports Media, “a stereotype is a generalization about a category of people that is negative and/or misleading” (Wenner 157). Their discussion highlights existing stereotypes in the coverage of minority athletes and attempts to reveal the reasons why they remain. They point out that some critics believe the sport media contribute to the spread of racial stereotypes, and in a way, preserve them. What do you think?
“Rainville, Roberts and Sweet (1978) have suggested that the ‘practice of assigning white announcers exclusively to give the play-by-play in games which involve black and white players leads to a prejudicial treatment of the black players’ ” (Wenner 167). Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb agrees. In an interview on “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” in the fall of 2007, he discussed the level of criticism he receives as an African-American quarterback and suggests that he must “do a little extra” since he is “graded more harshly.” The short article outlining McNabb’s thoughts can be found here: McNabb says black QBs under more pressure.
McNabb got a bit of flack for his comments and no longer remarks on the issues of race through a public forum such as the media. This shows an oppressiveness of sorts and promotes the “sweep it under the rug” mentality. Such action further exacerbates the problem, does it not?
Instances of racially-biased coverage have been reported before, but like the athlete’s concerns themselves, they are sometimes hard to uncover. Authors Grainger, Newman, and Andrews discuss in Chapter 27 of the Handbook of Sports and Media, the fact that “the increasing visibility of and coverage afforded African-American athletes” does not necessarily mean that there is a substantial “reduction of racism in the sport media” (Raney and Bryant 461). I don't know about you but I certainly agree.
In some cases it takes a program like “Costas Now” on HBO Sports to unveil the provocative topic of race in sports. The fifth segment of the April 29, 2008 episode dealt with how the issue of race impacts the sports world, and even that seemed uncomfortable. Coincidentally, Donovan McNabb was invited to appear on the show, but declined. So, if the athletes who experience the negativity and prejudice refuse to speak up, how is an ordinary citizen to feel at ease talking about such a touchy subject?
How do you feel about the state of the sports media with regard to race? Do you find it difficult to recognize racial bias or is it fairly black and white? What suggestions might you offer to improve the current coverage? Will we ever see an end to the issue?
“Rainville, Roberts and Sweet (1978) have suggested that the ‘practice of assigning white announcers exclusively to give the play-by-play in games which involve black and white players leads to a prejudicial treatment of the black players’ ” (Wenner 167). Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb agrees. In an interview on “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” in the fall of 2007, he discussed the level of criticism he receives as an African-American quarterback and suggests that he must “do a little extra” since he is “graded more harshly.” The short article outlining McNabb’s thoughts can be found here: McNabb says black QBs under more pressure.
McNabb got a bit of flack for his comments and no longer remarks on the issues of race through a public forum such as the media. This shows an oppressiveness of sorts and promotes the “sweep it under the rug” mentality. Such action further exacerbates the problem, does it not?
Instances of racially-biased coverage have been reported before, but like the athlete’s concerns themselves, they are sometimes hard to uncover. Authors Grainger, Newman, and Andrews discuss in Chapter 27 of the Handbook of Sports and Media, the fact that “the increasing visibility of and coverage afforded African-American athletes” does not necessarily mean that there is a substantial “reduction of racism in the sport media” (Raney and Bryant 461). I don't know about you but I certainly agree.
In some cases it takes a program like “Costas Now” on HBO Sports to unveil the provocative topic of race in sports. The fifth segment of the April 29, 2008 episode dealt with how the issue of race impacts the sports world, and even that seemed uncomfortable. Coincidentally, Donovan McNabb was invited to appear on the show, but declined. So, if the athletes who experience the negativity and prejudice refuse to speak up, how is an ordinary citizen to feel at ease talking about such a touchy subject?
How do you feel about the state of the sports media with regard to race? Do you find it difficult to recognize racial bias or is it fairly black and white? What suggestions might you offer to improve the current coverage? Will we ever see an end to the issue?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
What is the definition of an African American Athlete?
There are many stereotypes about African-American Athletes. Growing up most little kids dreams are to be a professional athlete. I wonder why this is the case. In chapeter 21 in the handbook it says "The natural athlete myth suggests that african americans possess innate physiological advantages while conversely lacking the necessary skills and intelligence to succeed in other occupational areas" this is what is portrayed and comprehended by african american youth so why not want to become a professional athlete as players like Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson have paved the way and proved this to be wrong as they succeeded on and off the court.
In chapter 21 in the handbook it also talks about how "the possibility of a professional sports career for African Americans (and African-American male youth in particular), as an escape from poverty and a means to circumvent the racial discrimination in many other occupations" african american athletes have overcome a lot from being discriminated against because of there skin color. African American Athletes use their talent as a tool to get an education and open up doors of opportunities they might not have had if it was not for playing some type of sport.
It says in the handbook "the deviance of African-American athletes is often linked to stereotypes of single-parent famililes, welfare dependency, drugs, and crime" this is why african-american athlets work so hard to succeed so that if there family is in this situation, they can some day be able to provide and put them in a much better situation.
Will the stereotypes of the African American Athletes ever end? It has gotten better from where it was about 50 years ago but still has room for improvement. African Americans should not have to succeed in a sport to get treated equally in life. What do you think that status of the african-american athlete will be in 20 years. Do you think these stereotypes will still exist?
In chapter 21 in the handbook it also talks about how "the possibility of a professional sports career for African Americans (and African-American male youth in particular), as an escape from poverty and a means to circumvent the racial discrimination in many other occupations" african american athletes have overcome a lot from being discriminated against because of there skin color. African American Athletes use their talent as a tool to get an education and open up doors of opportunities they might not have had if it was not for playing some type of sport.
It says in the handbook "the deviance of African-American athletes is often linked to stereotypes of single-parent famililes, welfare dependency, drugs, and crime" this is why african-american athlets work so hard to succeed so that if there family is in this situation, they can some day be able to provide and put them in a much better situation.
Will the stereotypes of the African American Athletes ever end? It has gotten better from where it was about 50 years ago but still has room for improvement. African Americans should not have to succeed in a sport to get treated equally in life. What do you think that status of the african-american athlete will be in 20 years. Do you think these stereotypes will still exist?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Definition of a True Sports Fan
Posted on behalf of Andrew Spero:
Many people are quick to pronounce themselves as “diehard sports fans” who live and die with their favorite teams. But I feel there should be some validity behind such a bold statement and the designation of being a true sports fan should come with some defined qualifications.
First of all a casual fan is nothing more than just that and is definitely not to be confused with a true sports fan. They watch their favorite team’s games when it conveniently fits their schedule or when a social gathering revolves around it. They cannot name their team’s starting second basemen or manager for that matter and do not start following the team on a consistent basis until the playoffs start (like many Yankee fans I know).
A true or diehard fan of a team, in my opinion, is someone who is emotionally attached to their particular team and watches every game during the season unless they have a legitimate reason not to do so (i.e. class, work, etc.) in which TiVo and DVR come in handy. They must be very familiar with the players on their team as well as knowing their strengths and weaknesses on the field. Bill Simmons who writes a very popular sports blog for ESPN has his own list of qualifications and characteristics that make up a “true sports fan” in his opinion. http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020227
I have to say that I full heartedly agree with many of the guidelines that he talks about of a true fan. One of my favorites and one that I sternly believe in is once you choose a team you are stuck with that team for the rest of your life, through the good times and the bad. Even though I am a Yankees fan myself I have no respect and do not take Yankee fans seriously who admit that they used to be Mets fan but switched somewhere along the line (I’m thinking this switch took place somewhere during the late 90’s). These people are nothing more than frontrunners and do not deserve to be classified as Yankee fans. This may come off as harsh but like I said not everyone can be classified as a true sports fan. How do you feel about some of these rules and guidelines and do you agree with them?
Another quality of a true fan is the unmistakable pit in your stomach that fans endure after their team experiences a bad loss or worse yet being eliminated from the playoffs. Raney and Bryant in the Sports Handbook talk about the casual fan or “low-identified fan” does not have to worry about feeling these emotions. “Because the identity of these fans is not in jeopardy when the team competes, they tend not to experience negative emotional consequences of poor team performance. As a result, they have little need to cope with a loss” (343). For example a casual New York Giants fan can watch the Giants suffer an incredibly tough and heartbreaking loss to their archrival Cowboys and then after the game go out to the mall and hang out with their friends and be more or less unaffected. A true fan such as myself could never do that after a loss of that nature and this is why Raney and Bryant list a couple of coping strategies that many “high-identified fans” use in these cases.
Some of these strategies I agree with and do myself while others I do not find affective at all. One coping strategy from the Handbook that I readily agree with is as follows, “One way for highly identified fans to cope with a team’s loss, particularly a season ending defeat, is to shift their focus from the losing team to another team” (345). For example when the Yankees are eliminated from the playoffs I immediately start focusing more on the Jets season and look forward to the upcoming New York Rangers and Knicks seasons. The pain of the failed season is still there but at least I have three other teams to have “hope in” and distract my attention. For the big sports fans, do you use any of these strategies and if so which are your favorite?
Many people are quick to pronounce themselves as “diehard sports fans” who live and die with their favorite teams. But I feel there should be some validity behind such a bold statement and the designation of being a true sports fan should come with some defined qualifications.
First of all a casual fan is nothing more than just that and is definitely not to be confused with a true sports fan. They watch their favorite team’s games when it conveniently fits their schedule or when a social gathering revolves around it. They cannot name their team’s starting second basemen or manager for that matter and do not start following the team on a consistent basis until the playoffs start (like many Yankee fans I know).
A true or diehard fan of a team, in my opinion, is someone who is emotionally attached to their particular team and watches every game during the season unless they have a legitimate reason not to do so (i.e. class, work, etc.) in which TiVo and DVR come in handy. They must be very familiar with the players on their team as well as knowing their strengths and weaknesses on the field. Bill Simmons who writes a very popular sports blog for ESPN has his own list of qualifications and characteristics that make up a “true sports fan” in his opinion. http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/020227
I have to say that I full heartedly agree with many of the guidelines that he talks about of a true fan. One of my favorites and one that I sternly believe in is once you choose a team you are stuck with that team for the rest of your life, through the good times and the bad. Even though I am a Yankees fan myself I have no respect and do not take Yankee fans seriously who admit that they used to be Mets fan but switched somewhere along the line (I’m thinking this switch took place somewhere during the late 90’s). These people are nothing more than frontrunners and do not deserve to be classified as Yankee fans. This may come off as harsh but like I said not everyone can be classified as a true sports fan. How do you feel about some of these rules and guidelines and do you agree with them?
Another quality of a true fan is the unmistakable pit in your stomach that fans endure after their team experiences a bad loss or worse yet being eliminated from the playoffs. Raney and Bryant in the Sports Handbook talk about the casual fan or “low-identified fan” does not have to worry about feeling these emotions. “Because the identity of these fans is not in jeopardy when the team competes, they tend not to experience negative emotional consequences of poor team performance. As a result, they have little need to cope with a loss” (343). For example a casual New York Giants fan can watch the Giants suffer an incredibly tough and heartbreaking loss to their archrival Cowboys and then after the game go out to the mall and hang out with their friends and be more or less unaffected. A true fan such as myself could never do that after a loss of that nature and this is why Raney and Bryant list a couple of coping strategies that many “high-identified fans” use in these cases.
Some of these strategies I agree with and do myself while others I do not find affective at all. One coping strategy from the Handbook that I readily agree with is as follows, “One way for highly identified fans to cope with a team’s loss, particularly a season ending defeat, is to shift their focus from the losing team to another team” (345). For example when the Yankees are eliminated from the playoffs I immediately start focusing more on the Jets season and look forward to the upcoming New York Rangers and Knicks seasons. The pain of the failed season is still there but at least I have three other teams to have “hope in” and distract my attention. For the big sports fans, do you use any of these strategies and if so which are your favorite?
Sports as an escape
As a die-hard fan for years, it wasn't until this past summer that I finally understood sports as an "escape."
In the Handbook of Sports and Media, Arthur Raney points out that one of the main emotional motivations for viewing sports is to escape. "For decades, persons of all ages have reported seeking out media content to help escape from the stress of daily living. Sports fans are no different. ... It has also been discussed in relation to boredom." (Raney, p. 319-320)
Last summer, my weekdays began at six a.m. and would find me riding a train five hours a day. Never was I more tied to my AM radio to catch baseball games on the ride home, or more excited to plop down in front of a television to watch a night game before heading to bed and starting the whole thing over again. Baseball, among other sports, was my escape.
I could forget about life, about work, about whatever was going on to enjoy a simple game of a ball, a bat and some leather gloves.
"Wann and Rochelle found that nearly two in five sports fans report regularly tune in to sports on televisions to escape boredom." (Raney, p. 320)
One man is small peanuts though. While reading this portion of the text, I was reminded of an event from a few years back.
During the World Cup (the every four year soccer world wide tournament, for those non-fans), the war torn country of the Ivory Coast experienced something special during their countries games. The country, in midst of a civil war, saw many soldiers putting down their weapons and calling a cease fire to enjoy the game.
From MSNBC.com:
Sports, however interesting or exciting, can work beyond just the players on the field. For many fans, it is their way to forget about life for a while and simply enjoy a game.
In the Handbook of Sports and Media, Arthur Raney points out that one of the main emotional motivations for viewing sports is to escape. "For decades, persons of all ages have reported seeking out media content to help escape from the stress of daily living. Sports fans are no different. ... It has also been discussed in relation to boredom." (Raney, p. 319-320)
Last summer, my weekdays began at six a.m. and would find me riding a train five hours a day. Never was I more tied to my AM radio to catch baseball games on the ride home, or more excited to plop down in front of a television to watch a night game before heading to bed and starting the whole thing over again. Baseball, among other sports, was my escape.
I could forget about life, about work, about whatever was going on to enjoy a simple game of a ball, a bat and some leather gloves.
"Wann and Rochelle found that nearly two in five sports fans report regularly tune in to sports on televisions to escape boredom." (Raney, p. 320)
One man is small peanuts though. While reading this portion of the text, I was reminded of an event from a few years back.
During the World Cup (the every four year soccer world wide tournament, for those non-fans), the war torn country of the Ivory Coast experienced something special during their countries games. The country, in midst of a civil war, saw many soldiers putting down their weapons and calling a cease fire to enjoy the game.
From MSNBC.com:
The joyous shouts of “Voilà ! and Allez-y!” from the crowd gathered at the Ivoire Restaurant on Saturday turned to sad groans as Ivory Coast lost its first World Cup match against Argentina.For a game to stop a civil war in it's tracks -- if only for a few hours -- for 11 men on a pitch thousands of miles away to make fighters put down their guns and ammo to enjoy a team representing their country as a whole, that is something truly special.But the 2-1 result in the first match of super-tough Group C, described by some sports commentators as the "group of death," is unlikely to dampen the spirits of soccer supporters from this war-torn nation — fans who have become united by their first chance to compete on soccer’s international world stage.
Divided by a north-south civil war since 2002, the national team, known as the Elephants, is made up of a mix of players from different ethnic and religious groups. With all eyes on the World Cup, the team has bonded the country, with the various factions putting down their weapons and respecting a cease-fire.
---
Drogba, the Elephant's captain, has made a point of saying that the team is a symbol of tolerance and a reflection of how the country was in the past: a diverse ethnic group forming one national identity.
According to news reports, after the team's decisive win over Sudan that guaranteed their place in the World Cup, Drogba led his team in a plea for peace.
"Ivorians, we ask for your forgiveness," they said. "Let us come together and put this war behind us."
Sports, however interesting or exciting, can work beyond just the players on the field. For many fans, it is their way to forget about life for a while and simply enjoy a game.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The Deep Roots of Fandom
In May 2008 in Nashua, N.H. witnesses say a Red Sox-Yankees argument in a bar led to taunting in the parking lot, and then to murder. The argument started in a Nashua bar when Ivonne Hernandez announced that she was a Yankees fan. The argument spilled into the parking lot, where Red Sox fans chanted “Yankees Suck” upon seeing a Yankees sticker on her car. An article on FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354187,00.html) reports that Hernandez allegedly gunned her car in the parking lot, striking two of the people taunting her. One of them, Maria Hughes, suffered internal injuries while the other, Matthew Beaudoin suffered serious head and brain injuries. Beaudoin died that night.
While this is a very extreme and violent case, it’s also clear that the intensity of team fanship and loyalty is incredibly strong. Hopefully sports arguments will never be taken this far again. How did the argument get so out of hand? Arthur Raney describes the deep roots of fanship and where they begin.
In the Handbook of Sports and Media, Raney discusses why he thinks people become fans of certain teams. Raney explains that people “form allegiances toward specific teams for various reasons, such as geography, allegiances held by respected family members and friends, team colors, specific players, styles and strategies of play, and perceived popularity among the masses” (Raney & Bryant; 315). Which of these reasons do you identify with in supporting your favorite teams?
Because of Quinnipiac’s unique location, it often feels like we are a student body made up of two kinds of people; those who support the Yankees and those who support the Red Sox. Even if you couldn’t care less about that rivalry, there must be some team out there that you love! Here’s your chance to explain why you support your favorite teams (professional or not). Analyze when your allegiance began, and what/who influenced your choices. How do you show your loyalty?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Forever Connected
Around this time of year the disease known as “March Madness” is running rampant through college campuses. From the big schools in the Big East to the little ones in the NEC, students on college campuses around the country are hoping that their team will have a chance to attend the Big Dance. Oddly enough, it’s not only the students on these campuses that are behind on their school, but also alumni and other fans of these colleges. On espn.com Page 2 Jim Caple wrote a story about Washington the joy of watching Washington collect its first outright PAC 10 title. Caple, a graduate of the university, wrote nostalgically about watching his Huskies cut down the nets. Caple writes, “But for one afternoon, the sight of the Huskies climbing the ladder one by one to cut down a net turned back the clock and made even the oldest alumni feel young enough again to camp out in any weather for NCAA tournament tickets.”
When reading this article, I instantly made the connection between what Caple was feeling and what Daniel Wann described as team identification in the Handbook of Sports and Media. Wann described team identification as “the extent to which a fan feels a psychological connection to a team and the team’s performances are viewed as self-relevant.” (332)This explains why Caple, who graduated from UW in the mid 80’s, would still feel this way about his Huskies winning the championship. For Caple, there will always be this psychological connection between him and his alma mater because he identifies himself as being part of Washington. The team’s performance is self-relevant because he can remember back to the days when he was a student rooting for the Huskies.
While Caple does not appear to hinge his every life decision on the fate of Washington there are some people out there that do this with their favorite team. Personally, I know people whose moods are so drastically affected by something they have no outcome over. I am an avid sports fan and enjoy rooting for my favorite teams, but I have never been the type to let them affect how I live my life. Wann talks about the different coping strategies that fans use when their team loses. One of them is something people say all time is as Wann writes, “One way to ease pain of a recent loss is to remember past victories and/or focus on potential future triumphs.” (343)
As long as there are sports there will always be team identification and as long as there are those identifying themselves with a team there will be some who go overboard. So the next time your team loses a big game, don’t be the person who goes overboard because remember that sports are just a game.
When reading this article, I instantly made the connection between what Caple was feeling and what Daniel Wann described as team identification in the Handbook of Sports and Media. Wann described team identification as “the extent to which a fan feels a psychological connection to a team and the team’s performances are viewed as self-relevant.” (332)This explains why Caple, who graduated from UW in the mid 80’s, would still feel this way about his Huskies winning the championship. For Caple, there will always be this psychological connection between him and his alma mater because he identifies himself as being part of Washington. The team’s performance is self-relevant because he can remember back to the days when he was a student rooting for the Huskies.
While Caple does not appear to hinge his every life decision on the fate of Washington there are some people out there that do this with their favorite team. Personally, I know people whose moods are so drastically affected by something they have no outcome over. I am an avid sports fan and enjoy rooting for my favorite teams, but I have never been the type to let them affect how I live my life. Wann talks about the different coping strategies that fans use when their team loses. One of them is something people say all time is as Wann writes, “One way to ease pain of a recent loss is to remember past victories and/or focus on potential future triumphs.” (343)
As long as there are sports there will always be team identification and as long as there are those identifying themselves with a team there will be some who go overboard. So the next time your team loses a big game, don’t be the person who goes overboard because remember that sports are just a game.
Monday, March 2, 2009
"Remember the Titans" and Racism in Sports
Posted on behalf of Amanda Pugliese:
Over the course of a lifetime, everyone has watched at least one sports movie; whether the movie is fiction or fact is irrelevant. Some of these movies are considered to be "feel good movies" which leave the audience with a sense of accomplishment or pride. These movies usually end on a good note with the latter half of the movie dealing with a crucial game or instant that defines the movie and its athletes. The great movies don't just deal with a championship games, they deal with issues of the times and how they affect people, mostly athletes.
In 1971, one White high school and one Black High School in Virginia closed down and in a government mandate; the students from both schools were forced to integrate. This school was T.C. Williams High School, known to other schools in the area as the home of the Titans. "Remember the Titans" was not only about the novel idea of an integrated football team, but also the town's reaction. Many scenes were filmed off the football field and these could arguably be the most important scenes of the movie.
Although Raney and Bryant speak mostly of fictional sports stories, the same can relate to those based on a true story. They ask, "is the mere presence of sports in a narrative enough to justify inclusion as sports fiction, or must sports be central to the storyline? How large a role must sports play in a narrative before it is considered a central element"(187). When thinking about "Remember the Titans" people remember the touchdowns and the excruciating practices, but they also remember the riots and the anger of the people in the town who were against integration. Raney and Bryant ask if sports must be central to the storyline and I think it has to be because in this particular movie, football is what brings the town together.
The story of "Remember the Titans" is not about football. It is about the times of inequality, racism and bigotry. Students refused to go to class with those of a different race and adults did not want to associate with others that did not look like them. This movie is about the struggle for civil rights but what makes this movie great is the struggle the football team faced to become one to work together to attain a common goal. Sports made this a powerful movie. Watching the players come together proved it is okay to be friends with, associate with and even care for people that don't necessarily look like you. If the T.C Williams Titans had a lesser role in the movie the concept of coming together, no matter what your background is, even when everyone else is divided, would not have been as strong.
Do you think all this talk of racism and bigotry is really over? Are all men and players really equal? Some people look up to athletes as role models and see sports in general as an escape. Do you think sports create an escape from this unequal life? Or do you think sports are an equal field where no one cares about your race or gender?
The following post from Sports Illustrated is a year and a half old, but it is just as relevant to the topic of enequality in sports. In some senses there is still racism, but some people tend to “ignore it”, as Phil Taylor says in this article : http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/phil_taylor/07/01/money0707/index.html.
It not only brings up facts from the past but it also mentioned athletes that are involved now and their race. Taylor touches on the issues of racism in the media, but are there just a select few that make these comments or is it more common?
When you watch a movie like “Remember the Titans” you think how far we have advanced in society. We have gone from a divided nation to a united one, or have we?
-Amanda Pugliese
Over the course of a lifetime, everyone has watched at least one sports movie; whether the movie is fiction or fact is irrelevant. Some of these movies are considered to be "feel good movies" which leave the audience with a sense of accomplishment or pride. These movies usually end on a good note with the latter half of the movie dealing with a crucial game or instant that defines the movie and its athletes. The great movies don't just deal with a championship games, they deal with issues of the times and how they affect people, mostly athletes.
In 1971, one White high school and one Black High School in Virginia closed down and in a government mandate; the students from both schools were forced to integrate. This school was T.C. Williams High School, known to other schools in the area as the home of the Titans. "Remember the Titans" was not only about the novel idea of an integrated football team, but also the town's reaction. Many scenes were filmed off the football field and these could arguably be the most important scenes of the movie.
Although Raney and Bryant speak mostly of fictional sports stories, the same can relate to those based on a true story. They ask, "is the mere presence of sports in a narrative enough to justify inclusion as sports fiction, or must sports be central to the storyline? How large a role must sports play in a narrative before it is considered a central element"(187). When thinking about "Remember the Titans" people remember the touchdowns and the excruciating practices, but they also remember the riots and the anger of the people in the town who were against integration. Raney and Bryant ask if sports must be central to the storyline and I think it has to be because in this particular movie, football is what brings the town together.
The story of "Remember the Titans" is not about football. It is about the times of inequality, racism and bigotry. Students refused to go to class with those of a different race and adults did not want to associate with others that did not look like them. This movie is about the struggle for civil rights but what makes this movie great is the struggle the football team faced to become one to work together to attain a common goal. Sports made this a powerful movie. Watching the players come together proved it is okay to be friends with, associate with and even care for people that don't necessarily look like you. If the T.C Williams Titans had a lesser role in the movie the concept of coming together, no matter what your background is, even when everyone else is divided, would not have been as strong.
Do you think all this talk of racism and bigotry is really over? Are all men and players really equal? Some people look up to athletes as role models and see sports in general as an escape. Do you think sports create an escape from this unequal life? Or do you think sports are an equal field where no one cares about your race or gender?
The following post from Sports Illustrated is a year and a half old, but it is just as relevant to the topic of enequality in sports. In some senses there is still racism, but some people tend to “ignore it”, as Phil Taylor says in this article : http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/phil_taylor/07/01/money0707/index.html.
It not only brings up facts from the past but it also mentioned athletes that are involved now and their race. Taylor touches on the issues of racism in the media, but are there just a select few that make these comments or is it more common?
When you watch a movie like “Remember the Titans” you think how far we have advanced in society. We have gone from a divided nation to a united one, or have we?
-Amanda Pugliese
Sports Movies: Fact or Fiction?
There are a lot of great sports movies out there. Some are based on true stories and some are just made up. But what makes a sports movie really good? Is it that you know the story and you want to see it play out on screen and find out some things you didn’t know already know? Or is it that you want to get lost in the fantasy of something that could never happen? People enjoy watching them for various different reasons. Some watch them for the entertainment value and some for the facts.
In an article in the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E5D61738F935A25750C0A961958260&scp=24&sq=%22sports%20movies%22&st=cse) written in 1997 the author wrote, “As megasports loses its traditional posture as a secular religion and becomes absorbed, physically and morally, into the larger entertainment industry, the joining of the two fantasies, sports and movies, becomes more and more historically useful” (Lipsyte). Sports movies have become more than just watching people play sports on a big screen, it’s about the story and the people behind the story. According to Wenner “In contemporary society, the mass media serve as the primary vehicles through which we learn of the extraordinary accomplishments, courage, and deeds of cultural heroes and the faults and ignominious deeds of villains and fools” (Wenner 152).
According to the handbook, “Fiction narratives involving sports have become a popular staple of the modern entertainment landscape” (Raney and Bryant 186). Every year there are various different types of coming out. There are the ones that are based on a true story, like The Rookie, and then there are ones that are based on fantasy, such as Angels in the Outfield. People watch sports movies for all different reasons. What are your reasons for watching sports movies? Do you watch them for the entertainment factor, or do you watch them for the historical content? And what are your favorite sports movies?
In an article in the New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E5D61738F935A25750C0A961958260&scp=24&sq=%22sports%20movies%22&st=cse) written in 1997 the author wrote, “As megasports loses its traditional posture as a secular religion and becomes absorbed, physically and morally, into the larger entertainment industry, the joining of the two fantasies, sports and movies, becomes more and more historically useful” (Lipsyte). Sports movies have become more than just watching people play sports on a big screen, it’s about the story and the people behind the story. According to Wenner “In contemporary society, the mass media serve as the primary vehicles through which we learn of the extraordinary accomplishments, courage, and deeds of cultural heroes and the faults and ignominious deeds of villains and fools” (Wenner 152).
According to the handbook, “Fiction narratives involving sports have become a popular staple of the modern entertainment landscape” (Raney and Bryant 186). Every year there are various different types of coming out. There are the ones that are based on a true story, like The Rookie, and then there are ones that are based on fantasy, such as Angels in the Outfield. People watch sports movies for all different reasons. What are your reasons for watching sports movies? Do you watch them for the entertainment factor, or do you watch them for the historical content? And what are your favorite sports movies?
Sports Films: More about life, less about sports?
When you think about sports movies, chances are you think about the underlying theme(s) instead of just focusing on the sport that is involved. That’s because sports movies are much more than just outlining whatever sport the film is about. According to David Firestein in his article, “Fields of Dreams: American Sports Movies,” “There are few, if any, countries in the world in which sports—not a sport but sports in general—permeate national life to the degree that they do in the United States. Sports are part of the very fabric of American life” (Firestein 1). http://www.america.gov/st/artsenglish/2008/June/20080615215701xjyrrep0.7029383.html In today’s society, there are so many people who are or have been linked to sports in some way or another. With that said, everyone has a different connection to sports, but a strong one nonetheless. Since a majority of our society can relate to sports, they are able to connect sports and their experience with sports to specific events or hardships in their own lives.
In chapter 9 of MediaSport, Leah R. Vande Berg quotes, “Smith (1973) explains that modern sports heroes have outstanding physical abilities, sustain excellence year after year, overcome adversities, and display individual flair or charisma” (Vande Berg 138). I feel as though this quote can be connected to sports films in several ways. There are plenty of ways that people can describe sports heroes, and yes, I think that the aforementioned reasons are very valid. Additionally, I think that when comparing that quote as a whole to sports films in general, when people are searching for a sports movie to watch, they are going to be looking for a story that has a ‘hero’ or a theme of overcoming adversity, an athlete or team that have outstanding physical abilities, or being able to sustain excellence year after year. Even though those are some incredibly strong themes, those are just a few minimal themes to choose from among a plethora of sports movies.
In chapter 11 of the Handbook of Sports and Media, R. Glenn Cummins quotes Berman in saying that sport, “speaks very directly to the experience of contemporary America” (p.12), adding, “We simply do not identify with scientists or painters in the way we identify with athletes” (p.13) (Cummins 197). There are not many sports movies that are solely about the sport being played at hand, but are about much more than that. In terms of that, I believe that audiences like to see the sports films that contain an underlying theme and that have something much more than the sport involved. They do so because those “stories” appeal to them. Yes, the sport as the main theme may catch their eye at first, but before actually viewing the movie, they want to truly know “what the movie is going to be about.” Our society has a way of identifying with athletes; partially because most of us were one at some point. Sports films tend to focus on struggles that are occurring during the time the film is set in and a lot of people can relate to that since they’ve either learned about those struggles in the past or have lived through something similar to it. It is much easier to identify with athletes instead of scientists or painters because it is more common to be an athlete or grow up being an athlete rather than being an up-and-coming scientist or painter.
Sports films attract different types of viewers because of the sport being played, but also because of what the film ultimately stands for. If you were to look through every sports movie ever made, there are tons of themes that the movies are about and that helps to take the films from just average and boring to a great, feel good movie. Do you think that when fans are picking out a sports film to watch, that they are more focused on the type of sport that is being played, or the underlying themes? And, do you think that sports films are becoming more and more about life’s issues rather than the sport at hand?
In chapter 9 of MediaSport, Leah R. Vande Berg quotes, “Smith (1973) explains that modern sports heroes have outstanding physical abilities, sustain excellence year after year, overcome adversities, and display individual flair or charisma” (Vande Berg 138). I feel as though this quote can be connected to sports films in several ways. There are plenty of ways that people can describe sports heroes, and yes, I think that the aforementioned reasons are very valid. Additionally, I think that when comparing that quote as a whole to sports films in general, when people are searching for a sports movie to watch, they are going to be looking for a story that has a ‘hero’ or a theme of overcoming adversity, an athlete or team that have outstanding physical abilities, or being able to sustain excellence year after year. Even though those are some incredibly strong themes, those are just a few minimal themes to choose from among a plethora of sports movies.
In chapter 11 of the Handbook of Sports and Media, R. Glenn Cummins quotes Berman in saying that sport, “speaks very directly to the experience of contemporary America” (p.12), adding, “We simply do not identify with scientists or painters in the way we identify with athletes” (p.13) (Cummins 197). There are not many sports movies that are solely about the sport being played at hand, but are about much more than that. In terms of that, I believe that audiences like to see the sports films that contain an underlying theme and that have something much more than the sport involved. They do so because those “stories” appeal to them. Yes, the sport as the main theme may catch their eye at first, but before actually viewing the movie, they want to truly know “what the movie is going to be about.” Our society has a way of identifying with athletes; partially because most of us were one at some point. Sports films tend to focus on struggles that are occurring during the time the film is set in and a lot of people can relate to that since they’ve either learned about those struggles in the past or have lived through something similar to it. It is much easier to identify with athletes instead of scientists or painters because it is more common to be an athlete or grow up being an athlete rather than being an up-and-coming scientist or painter.
Sports films attract different types of viewers because of the sport being played, but also because of what the film ultimately stands for. If you were to look through every sports movie ever made, there are tons of themes that the movies are about and that helps to take the films from just average and boring to a great, feel good movie. Do you think that when fans are picking out a sports film to watch, that they are more focused on the type of sport that is being played, or the underlying themes? And, do you think that sports films are becoming more and more about life’s issues rather than the sport at hand?
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Controversial sports books sell while tarnishing the game
Let's face it...we live in a world where information is power. This ideal is widespread in the high-tech high-paced world that we live in where what you know,may make you well-known. This notion recently came to fruition with some tell-all books like Tom Verducci and Joe Torre with "Yankee Years" and Jose Canseco's "Juiced."
Steve Bilifer of Sports Business Journal recently wrote an article about Torre's part with the book and its everlasting effect. Bilifer writes, "For 12 years, Torre came across as a calm, honest and noncontroversial presence in the toughest pressure cooker in sports. That image has taken a hit since the release of his new book. The book should sell well, but after this tortured book tour, Torre won’t be able to buy back his unblemished image as a straight shooter." Many players are coming out with these big tell-all books for the purpose of dishing out the information they know to turn a profit. Jose Canseco did the same thing with "Juiced" and he turned an enormous profit for saying everything he knew about steroids, and now Joe Torre is doing the same thing with his Yankee memories.
These players and coaches lose a lot of credibility and respect in the game often for releasing all of this information, but their wallets open up for the bills that sell. Why is the clubhouse not the clubhouse anymore? The old baseball adage is whatever happens in the clubhouse or locker room stays there. Canseco and Torre broke this to leak the info to the public, something seen as unacceptable in many sports circles.
Another unfortunate thought is that this seems to be one of the only ways to keep sports literature popular. Fine sports stories like Warrick Dunn and his tale of overcoming his mother's murder as a young boy and his success story seems like a best seller but it only finds itself well down the list of many book selling stores. By giving the reader something juicy and entertaining, the media starts to publicize the controversial stories and increases the readership. Fans love juicy news and juicy entertaining tales sell in the 2000s.
How many of you agree or disagree with this? In "mediasport," Leah Vande Berg writes of sports heroes and their impact on celebrityhood and culture. Joe Montana, Michael Jordan and other various athletes are included in this list of icons. Vande Berg also mentions Dennis Rodman to the list. Rodman is seen as "flamboyant" and the opposite of the "clean cut, all-American" public look and persona of a Nolan Ryan or Joe Montana (Vande Berg 146). Rodman worte a book of his own entitled "Bad as I want to be" that spread more news about him and his wildish behavior...another bit hit.
In the handbook of Sports and Media, R. Glenn Cummings argues if sports fiction as a non-genre. "The assertation that sports fiction is simply drama or comedy that happens to involve sports leads to the question of whether sports fiction actually constitutes a disctinct genre of entertainment." (Cummings 187)
My take: I'm tired of these tell all sports books. I'm a growing historian of the games and the tell-all sports books should have their own place in the bookstores. Put tell alls in one section and put historical sports books in another aisle.
In the ESPNized world that we live in, entertainment and sports have merged to unprecededented proportions. Give me a good historical baseball or football book anyday and I will read it. Unfortunately, sports fans love the juicy stories now, and those are the best sellers.
What do you think?
-Michael Radomski
Steve Bilifer of Sports Business Journal recently wrote an article about Torre's part with the book and its everlasting effect. Bilifer writes, "For 12 years, Torre came across as a calm, honest and noncontroversial presence in the toughest pressure cooker in sports. That image has taken a hit since the release of his new book. The book should sell well, but after this tortured book tour, Torre won’t be able to buy back his unblemished image as a straight shooter." Many players are coming out with these big tell-all books for the purpose of dishing out the information they know to turn a profit. Jose Canseco did the same thing with "Juiced" and he turned an enormous profit for saying everything he knew about steroids, and now Joe Torre is doing the same thing with his Yankee memories.
These players and coaches lose a lot of credibility and respect in the game often for releasing all of this information, but their wallets open up for the bills that sell. Why is the clubhouse not the clubhouse anymore? The old baseball adage is whatever happens in the clubhouse or locker room stays there. Canseco and Torre broke this to leak the info to the public, something seen as unacceptable in many sports circles.
Another unfortunate thought is that this seems to be one of the only ways to keep sports literature popular. Fine sports stories like Warrick Dunn and his tale of overcoming his mother's murder as a young boy and his success story seems like a best seller but it only finds itself well down the list of many book selling stores. By giving the reader something juicy and entertaining, the media starts to publicize the controversial stories and increases the readership. Fans love juicy news and juicy entertaining tales sell in the 2000s.
How many of you agree or disagree with this? In "mediasport," Leah Vande Berg writes of sports heroes and their impact on celebrityhood and culture. Joe Montana, Michael Jordan and other various athletes are included in this list of icons. Vande Berg also mentions Dennis Rodman to the list. Rodman is seen as "flamboyant" and the opposite of the "clean cut, all-American" public look and persona of a Nolan Ryan or Joe Montana (Vande Berg 146). Rodman worte a book of his own entitled "Bad as I want to be" that spread more news about him and his wildish behavior...another bit hit.
In the handbook of Sports and Media, R. Glenn Cummings argues if sports fiction as a non-genre. "The assertation that sports fiction is simply drama or comedy that happens to involve sports leads to the question of whether sports fiction actually constitutes a disctinct genre of entertainment." (Cummings 187)
My take: I'm tired of these tell all sports books. I'm a growing historian of the games and the tell-all sports books should have their own place in the bookstores. Put tell alls in one section and put historical sports books in another aisle.
In the ESPNized world that we live in, entertainment and sports have merged to unprecededented proportions. Give me a good historical baseball or football book anyday and I will read it. Unfortunately, sports fans love the juicy stories now, and those are the best sellers.
What do you think?
-Michael Radomski
Monday, February 23, 2009
Has Television Taken The "Hero" Out Of Sports?
In the earlier years of sports, athletes were viewed as idols, heroes, and saviors. To some, a baseball player was their sole inspiration. A football player gave them reason to hope. A basketball player gave them an example of greatness. In today's society however, athletes are scrutinized more fiercely than ever. One reason for this, is television. Television has given the world access to the inner details of the lives of virtually every major athlete in the country. You can't go on espn.com to look for stats without also seeing articles that are in some way related to an athlete's personal life or general human character.
Athletes from the pre-television era were certainly not perfect. Babe Ruth would show up drunk to Yankee Stadium. Mickey Mantle, Billy Martin and Whitey Ford would go out partying until 7 in the morning the day before an afternoon game. There was illegal gambling (especially in boxing, and notably the Black Sox of 1919), and racism (who could ignore Ty Cobb?), and womanizing (too many to list) all throughout sports, but without the constant eye of TV cameras and constant media coverage, the public was never exposed to the reality of their "heroes".
Here is an excerpt from "A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication" by Richard Harris: "Media coverage of sports has enhanced, or at least altered, the perceived reality of the hero. Sports stars have long been heroes emulated by youth, but the age of television, and to a lesser extent other media, has changed this role somewhat. On the one hand, a superstar such as Michael Jordan may be seen by many more people on television than was previously possible. On the other hand, the close scrutiny of television shows the faults as well as the nobler aspects of a potential hero."
Had there been an ever-watchful eye following the superstars of that era, hero worship may not have been as common. It would have been more likely to see an athlete, like many of those who play today, get picked apart for the little things they've done wrong - or thrown to the wolves for, slightly bigger, um, issues?
Some examples: let's look at Alex Rodriguez, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Vick.
These three athletes are (or in Vick's case, used to be) all superstars in their individual sports. However, they were also caught up in some messy and scandalous situations. Michael Vick was once considered to be the most exciting, and certainly one of the most talented players in the National Football League. However his career as the stunningly quick Quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons came to a screeching halt when he was arrested for torturing and murdering dogs, for fun. Who could forget the constant media coverage, not only on ESPN but on national news channels? It was all anyone could talk about for weeks. Television allowed the public to watch all the details of the step-by-step self-destruction of Michael Vick's promising career. We all got a front row seat to see the media and the rest of the football world tear Michael Vick down from his pedestal (and rightfully so).
"Reminiscent of the O.J. Simpson case, sometimes sports figures dominate news outside their sporting environs. Jessell (2003) criticized the media for overemphasizing the rape trial of Kobe Bryant because the story lacked meaning for people not directly connected to the case, writing that "the media has a role in this as it does all trials: to bear witness and make sure that justice is done. That's it. Anything else is pandering and sensationalism."" (Brown & Bryant, 97) Now, whether or not you agree that the Kobe Bryant rape scandal should have been publicized the way it was, that's just the reality of what happened. Kobe's reputation took a nose dive at the time this story leaked. People were shocked and caught off-guard that their superstar basketball hero could do something so horrible. So of course, the media, especially television media, followed Kobe's story around for weeks on end, exposing a darker side to the Laker legend.
And of course, I must include Alex Rodriguez. For those of you who missed the February 16, 2009 issue of Sports Illustrated, the headline of the feature story was "The Latest and Greatest to Fall". The story was a nearly 2,000 word expose by Selena Roberts on Alex Rodriguez's positive drug test from 2003. The test, which was supposed to be anonymous (I won't even get into that issue, I could rant all day), revealed that Alex Rodriguez had tested positive for two anabolic steroids while a member of the Texas Rangers. Now, in the days and weeks following the news, we've seen a one-on-one interview between Rodriguez and ESPN's Peter Gammons, a Nationally televised press conference (aired on FOX, as well as YES, and ESPN), and countless hours spent on countless TV stations talking about A-Rod, A-Rod, and oh yeah, A-Rod. In fact, if you turn on Sports Center - look at the bottom of the screen at the "sports ticker". It gives brief game recaps and breaking news of each sport covered by the ESPN network. But now there's a new category. There's MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA ..... and AROD. He's got his own category! He's ONE person. The media, especially television media has been all over this story like nothing I've ever seen before. He's on ESPN everyday. He's on local New York Media everyday. I heard him being talked about on Connecticut's Channel 8 local news - this morning. It's ridiculous. Television has given us a gigantic telescope aimed directly at Alex Rodriguez's life. (And it wouldn't be the first time - the stripper, the divorce, broken friendship with Derek Jeter, affair with Madonna, need I continue?)
It's human nature for people to want to know about the lives of those they admire, such as sports athletes. "Enjoyment "depends not so much on conflict as on its resolution and what the resolution means to the parties involved. It depends on how much those who come out on top are liked and loved, and on how much those who come out on the short end are disliked and hated." (Bryant and Miron, 2002) Predispositions and dispositions, then, toward personalities, players, teams, and other stimuli in a sporting event, are critical to the viewer's enjoyment of that mediated experience. How does this theoretical perspective of the television audience advance our current discussion of sports coverage on cable television? Certainly, the ongoing efforts of sports cable programmers to provide additional coverage, information, and analysis of teams and their cast members contribute to the viewer's development of sentiments toward the very characters portrayed in these growing number of television contests." (Wood and Benigni, 154) This basically states that the media is just trying to serve the human desire to seek out all of this information - the information we feel is necessary for us to know both on a social and psychological level. Thus, the media goes out and finds every little piece of information possible that could expose an athlete and shred some light onto who they really are - and not just the pretty image we've made for ourselves in our heads. it is because of this need, this drive and desire to know it all - that maybe, we've heard too much, seen too much. Would we have been better off left in the dark? Left to continue believing the best in our sports idols - that they're not all steroid-using, dog-killing, rapists? Television has taken off our blinders - and for that, should we be thankful? Maybe we should ask for them back ...
Does the star make the ratings?
While the greats of sports have always been viewed as heroes and notable people, television has taken their status to a whole other level. These days many sports stars have also taken on the role of celebrity due to the nature of broadcast television, and celebrities just happen in to pull in more ratings, making games more profitable for networks. In chapter 5, The Handbook talks about the positive and negative nature of how celebrity’s effect ratings.
While players like LeBron James increase game ratings for their team even when they were losing, other sport content is getting cut when the major players are not on the field or court. The book specifically notes that ABC ditched part of the PGA tour for America’s Funniest Home Videos because Tiger Woods was not on the green. (96). Chapter 9 of The Handbook also takes note of Tiger’s affect on ratings: “cable stations and networks have seen a dramatic drop in golf ratings…coinciding with Tiger Woods’ relative slump in 2003” (157).
Michael Phelps has brought much attention to the sport of swimming, increasing ratings and making people even more aware of the sport. I know of many people who are not fans of swimming but they will specifically watch swim meets because of Michael Phelps’s star power. Recently Phelps has gotten in trouble with the media because of the picture that was released of him taking a hit from a bong. Do you think that his actions will play a role on swim ratings in the future? Some of his sponsors seem to think so and have already dropped him from his contract, but others have not such as Hilton Hotels: "We continue to support Michael Phelps as an athlete whose numerous athletic feats outshine an act of regrettable behavior" Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/swimming/news/story?id=3878675
Is it a good or bad thing when star power is able to dictate what gets aired and what doesn’t? Are celebrity sports stars having a negative impact on network and cable scheduling? Are celebrity athletes taking the focus away from the game? Take Phelps for example, is their more focus on his personal life than his athletic abilities at this point in time? Also comment on other effects of the celebrity athlete and how they have changed the way in which sports are viewed and scheduled on broadcast television.
While players like LeBron James increase game ratings for their team even when they were losing, other sport content is getting cut when the major players are not on the field or court. The book specifically notes that ABC ditched part of the PGA tour for America’s Funniest Home Videos because Tiger Woods was not on the green. (96). Chapter 9 of The Handbook also takes note of Tiger’s affect on ratings: “cable stations and networks have seen a dramatic drop in golf ratings…coinciding with Tiger Woods’ relative slump in 2003” (157).
Michael Phelps has brought much attention to the sport of swimming, increasing ratings and making people even more aware of the sport. I know of many people who are not fans of swimming but they will specifically watch swim meets because of Michael Phelps’s star power. Recently Phelps has gotten in trouble with the media because of the picture that was released of him taking a hit from a bong. Do you think that his actions will play a role on swim ratings in the future? Some of his sponsors seem to think so and have already dropped him from his contract, but others have not such as Hilton Hotels: "We continue to support Michael Phelps as an athlete whose numerous athletic feats outshine an act of regrettable behavior" Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/swimming/news/story?id=3878675
Is it a good or bad thing when star power is able to dictate what gets aired and what doesn’t? Are celebrity sports stars having a negative impact on network and cable scheduling? Are celebrity athletes taking the focus away from the game? Take Phelps for example, is their more focus on his personal life than his athletic abilities at this point in time? Also comment on other effects of the celebrity athlete and how they have changed the way in which sports are viewed and scheduled on broadcast television.
Highlights of Sports Programming
For 25 years fans have watched sports programming on cable and satellite television.
Fans who watch sports on television get more than just the video clips and highlights of the game; they get to know the athletes on a more personal level. ESPN and Fox are the two largest providers for sports news and talk. SportsCenter is also a popular sports program devoted to highlights. Sports radio is a great outlet to get your fix on sports talk but video clips are what have defined sports. Fans watch sports on TV to escape from their daily stresses while also allowing fans to watch their favorite teams in the comfort of their own homes. Advances in television such as high definition and sharper images can make a fan feel like they are actually in the stands, a more realistic viewing.
Fans views these programs for the entertainment and love of the game, sports announcers don’t just provide the stats but also present the inside news on the athletes. Such as Kobe Bryant and his sexual assault charges. Should the entertainment industry and sports industry collaborate, or should they stay separate? Or is sports part of the entertainment industry?
Because of such realistic viewing from big screen TVs and HD, do you think that fans are less likely to attend actual games and avoid paying rising ticket prices? Or does the atmosphere of screaming fans, hot dog vendors and personal viewing still have the same effect it did in the past?
“There is no denying the power of HD sports: Shaper images neatly transplant the viewer out of the living room and into the stadium, minus obnoxious drunks.”(Raney and Bryant 101)
Cable television networks and programs have more power today than before in the sports industry. But who decides what games are covered and what don’t? Networks like FOX who are affiliates with MLB decide the content, “the line between content and coverage is continually blurred when professional teams venture beyond the boundaries of media and partnership and into the realm of media ownership, and vice versa-when media properties invest or retain ownership in sports teams”(Raney and Bryant 157). Is it fair coverage for professional teams to have pull in coverage and has this made for less of a variety of coverage for other teams?
Fans who watch sports on television get more than just the video clips and highlights of the game; they get to know the athletes on a more personal level. ESPN and Fox are the two largest providers for sports news and talk. SportsCenter is also a popular sports program devoted to highlights. Sports radio is a great outlet to get your fix on sports talk but video clips are what have defined sports. Fans watch sports on TV to escape from their daily stresses while also allowing fans to watch their favorite teams in the comfort of their own homes. Advances in television such as high definition and sharper images can make a fan feel like they are actually in the stands, a more realistic viewing.
Fans views these programs for the entertainment and love of the game, sports announcers don’t just provide the stats but also present the inside news on the athletes. Such as Kobe Bryant and his sexual assault charges. Should the entertainment industry and sports industry collaborate, or should they stay separate? Or is sports part of the entertainment industry?
Because of such realistic viewing from big screen TVs and HD, do you think that fans are less likely to attend actual games and avoid paying rising ticket prices? Or does the atmosphere of screaming fans, hot dog vendors and personal viewing still have the same effect it did in the past?
“There is no denying the power of HD sports: Shaper images neatly transplant the viewer out of the living room and into the stadium, minus obnoxious drunks.”(Raney and Bryant 101)
Cable television networks and programs have more power today than before in the sports industry. But who decides what games are covered and what don’t? Networks like FOX who are affiliates with MLB decide the content, “the line between content and coverage is continually blurred when professional teams venture beyond the boundaries of media and partnership and into the realm of media ownership, and vice versa-when media properties invest or retain ownership in sports teams”(Raney and Bryant 157). Is it fair coverage for professional teams to have pull in coverage and has this made for less of a variety of coverage for other teams?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)