There are but a few days left in the United States' recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month, but the awareness raised during this time is has to carry over passed any designated amount of time and transfer into every day life without the presence of special recognition of one minority group looming.
This past Sunday, there was another incident that reminded us that the work being done this month (and that will be continued during Black History Month, National American Indian Heritage Month, and Asian Pacific American Heritage Month) is very much still needed. On Sunday, a Houston Dynamo fan was banned for life for making racist comments towards an opposing player. Even more disheartening than the comments that one fan made were some of the comments that hundreds of readers have made about the story. This is just another awful display of ignorance on the part of the one fan in question and of those who made comments in support of that fan's right to freedom of speech. If any one of those readers were abreast to the situation then they would know that this is not a matter of ones right to The First Amendment.
(And by the way, that argument is mute in the first place. No one has taken away that man's right to free speech; he is still allowed to make all the racist comments his heart desires. The problem with people crying out for the First Amendment to save them when they have made ignorant and stupid comments and/or actions is that consequences like a lifetime banishment from a soccer stadium sometimes comes with the territory. Some places don't want to be associated with that type of behavior, and it is their right to make that distinction, too.)
Hispanic Heritage month is as much about minorities in general than it is for just Hispanics; the fact that there is an official recognition of one group is not just a victory for that one group of people but for all minorities who fight the daily struggles of intolerance and bigotry. Many people question the reasons why any recognition for one minority group is need, it is also argued that if equality is to be reached then no group of people should receive any special attention at all. While in a perfect world this would be the case, but as most of us know, and as this incident and some of the comments illustrate, the world is far from perfect. Those that make the argument against Hispanic, Native American, Black, or Asian heritage recognition most likely have not had to endure ignorance or racism as a part of their daily lives. For that very reason, time must be set aside so that those who don't know can have the opportunity to learn so that peace and equality can be achieved.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Science Behind a Rivalry
Tomorrow at "high noon" - as all the ESPN pundits have been saying this week - there will be a top-5 showdown in Dallas, the result of which has the potential to loom large in the BCS "National Championship" picture (however, without a true playoff system the FBS championship requires quotation marks). Hopefully this game will have a better outcome than the last time ESPN and ABC hyped up a #1 vs. #5 contest, in which USC took Ohio State to the woodshed and revealed not only OSU's true colors but those of the entire Big Ten conference (if only "weak" was a color).
But this game between #5 Texas and #1 Oklahoma already has a leg up on the then-#5 Ohio State v. then-#1 USC game, and it's the fact that these two teams are bitter, heated rivals. College rivalry games are always must-see, but when the stakes are as high as they are in tomorrows game then usually the result is something special; something that has the potential to elicit memories that will live on for many seasons to come.
College football rivalry games are some of the most special events in all of sports. Unique from most other professional and college sports, college football rivalries happen but once a year. Meaning that for an entire year all of the spoils belong to the victor, and no matter what the teams records are at the end of the season, the winning team can always claim their superiority over their rival because in a head-to-head match up, they came out on top. There is a different aura that surrounds the rivalries in college football, and it is that which makes them not only special, but the best rivalries in all of sports.
But what makes college football rivalries so unique and special? Surely there are the intense yearly contests between the likes of Yankees/Red Sox, Cowboys/Redskins, Lakers/Celtics, Red Wings/Avalanche, and so on, and so on. But these games can't live up to the intensity that surrounds the Michigan/Ohio State, Auburn/Alabama, Oregon/Oregon State, Texas/Oklahoma, Army/Navy, or any other game in the plethora of rivalries in college football. The reason behind this? It's not exactly concrete, but I have a theory that might explain some of what goes into a college football rivalry game that makes them so much more special than any other rivalry in any other sport.
For one thing, the amateurism that goes into college sports greatly contributes to what makes these games so special. In professional sports, the athletes are not as much into the games as they are into their contracts. Too many times fans have seen their favorite players switch allegiances at season's end only to end up on the roster of their most hated rival. And while fans might be intense, the players are less likely to buy into the fervent hatred that fans have for the opposing team. In college football, however, rivalries are sold to the players starting in the recruiting stage. If they don't buy into it the minute they reach campus, they will the moment they walk onto the field and feel the mass of people both rooting against them so ardently. The minute a player commits to one school, fans of that school's rival immediately hate him and will spew some of the most foul and obscene comments about them for the rest of their lives. Without pay getting in the way and making the rivalries hazy like in professional sports, college players don't need any extra incentive to go out and kick the ass of their rival school.
Perhaps the biggest reason why college football rivalry games are much more intense than any in professional sports is because colleges represent more of a territorial connection that professional sports do. While pro sports teams represent teams and states the same way colleges and universities do, the players on a college football team most resemble the surrounding area then a professional team would. Pro teams have a mixed bag of players from all over the country and, as stated above, are their mainly because of financial reasons then anything else. For the most part college football programs recruit their players from that state and the surrounding area, so the battles between two schools not only represent a battle between the two institutions but the regions of the state and country as well. It's why when Michigan and Ohio State play it's a contest not just between those two schools, but those two states. At the same time, if the Detroit Lions beat the Cleveland Browns or Cincinnati Bengals, it does not elicit the same type of response. No rivalry in professional sports can live up to the kind of hype that surrounds a college football game.
The Texas/Oklahoma game would have been a great game no matter the rankings coming in, and so goes for the rest of the impending college rivalry games in store for this season. Because of all the ingredients that go into these games, the recipe always calls for bubbling emotions that usually end up in scathing burns and fantastic explosions.
It's like a science experiment gone terribly right.
But this game between #5 Texas and #1 Oklahoma already has a leg up on the then-#5 Ohio State v. then-#1 USC game, and it's the fact that these two teams are bitter, heated rivals. College rivalry games are always must-see, but when the stakes are as high as they are in tomorrows game then usually the result is something special; something that has the potential to elicit memories that will live on for many seasons to come.
College football rivalry games are some of the most special events in all of sports. Unique from most other professional and college sports, college football rivalries happen but once a year. Meaning that for an entire year all of the spoils belong to the victor, and no matter what the teams records are at the end of the season, the winning team can always claim their superiority over their rival because in a head-to-head match up, they came out on top. There is a different aura that surrounds the rivalries in college football, and it is that which makes them not only special, but the best rivalries in all of sports.
But what makes college football rivalries so unique and special? Surely there are the intense yearly contests between the likes of Yankees/Red Sox, Cowboys/Redskins, Lakers/Celtics, Red Wings/Avalanche, and so on, and so on. But these games can't live up to the intensity that surrounds the Michigan/Ohio State, Auburn/Alabama, Oregon/Oregon State, Texas/Oklahoma, Army/Navy, or any other game in the plethora of rivalries in college football. The reason behind this? It's not exactly concrete, but I have a theory that might explain some of what goes into a college football rivalry game that makes them so much more special than any other rivalry in any other sport.
For one thing, the amateurism that goes into college sports greatly contributes to what makes these games so special. In professional sports, the athletes are not as much into the games as they are into their contracts. Too many times fans have seen their favorite players switch allegiances at season's end only to end up on the roster of their most hated rival. And while fans might be intense, the players are less likely to buy into the fervent hatred that fans have for the opposing team. In college football, however, rivalries are sold to the players starting in the recruiting stage. If they don't buy into it the minute they reach campus, they will the moment they walk onto the field and feel the mass of people both rooting against them so ardently. The minute a player commits to one school, fans of that school's rival immediately hate him and will spew some of the most foul and obscene comments about them for the rest of their lives. Without pay getting in the way and making the rivalries hazy like in professional sports, college players don't need any extra incentive to go out and kick the ass of their rival school.
Perhaps the biggest reason why college football rivalry games are much more intense than any in professional sports is because colleges represent more of a territorial connection that professional sports do. While pro sports teams represent teams and states the same way colleges and universities do, the players on a college football team most resemble the surrounding area then a professional team would. Pro teams have a mixed bag of players from all over the country and, as stated above, are their mainly because of financial reasons then anything else. For the most part college football programs recruit their players from that state and the surrounding area, so the battles between two schools not only represent a battle between the two institutions but the regions of the state and country as well. It's why when Michigan and Ohio State play it's a contest not just between those two schools, but those two states. At the same time, if the Detroit Lions beat the Cleveland Browns or Cincinnati Bengals, it does not elicit the same type of response. No rivalry in professional sports can live up to the kind of hype that surrounds a college football game.
The Texas/Oklahoma game would have been a great game no matter the rankings coming in, and so goes for the rest of the impending college rivalry games in store for this season. Because of all the ingredients that go into these games, the recipe always calls for bubbling emotions that usually end up in scathing burns and fantastic explosions.
It's like a science experiment gone terribly right.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Voices of the People
There is no doubt that as the United States has changed over the last four years, public attentiveness to politics has grown. More and more people cannot sit idly by and watch the US encounter disaster after disaster without doing the very least they could do to help solve the problem: vote.
Or at the very least, talk about it.
But that in itself is a great start. There was a time when talking about politics was taboo, and for an athlete come come out and publicly support a candidate was enough substance for him to to be ridiculed. Even though the politics surrounding the Beijing Olympics was completely different than the issues that encompass the presidential campaigns, the basic sentiment was that the athletes were there to compete and not to express their political views; it wasn't their place. And that's how system has operated for so many years. Athletes were expected to stick to what they did best and not stick their heads into politics. Now, however, the political landscape has changed and as more and more people have deep rooted interests in politics, more and more of them are speaking out about it, and athletes are among them.
From all over the sports world, athletes are coming out and talking about the issues that are important to them in the upcoming election. In the NFL, economics is the driving force behind so many players opinions, some of which have changed with increased incomes. The young Blazers center Greg Oden did his homework and decided to throw his support behind Obama due to his stance on "education, civil rights, and health care." And mega stars LeBron James and Tiger Woods have shown their support for Obama through some handsome donations to his campaign fund. Even Dallas Mavericks forward Josh Howard threw in his support of Obama, albeit at the end of an embarrassing rant about not honoring the national anthem.
No matter which candidate they endorse, it is good to see people of prominence coming out and speaking about politics. Athletes are constantly in the spotlight for their performances but are too quickly dismissed when they step outside the lines of the game they are paid to play. They are recognized for their physical prowess but their capacity for anything other than sports is overlooked. Although they are athletes, they are first and foremost people; citizens with concerns about numerous subjects that need to be met. They are also in the unique position to be in the spotlight every day of the week, which is a responsibility that some, unfortunately, don't take too seriously. But for those that recognize the expectation to be a role model and who take responsible steps to bolster that image, it is admirable for them to speak up about politics.
What is said is not as important as the fact that they are saying something. The mere mention of the subject brings it to the forefront of the attention of their fans which has the potential to inspire others to look into the issues and form their own opinions (even if the fans are just adopting what the athletes are saying). Even though athletes are not elected officials or have years of experience in politics, their views and opinions are important. Athletes are closer to the common person than most politicians are as most athletes are better representatives of what the common person is.
In an environment where everyone seems to be talking, the athletes are truly the voices of the people.
Or at the very least, talk about it.
But that in itself is a great start. There was a time when talking about politics was taboo, and for an athlete come come out and publicly support a candidate was enough substance for him to to be ridiculed. Even though the politics surrounding the Beijing Olympics was completely different than the issues that encompass the presidential campaigns, the basic sentiment was that the athletes were there to compete and not to express their political views; it wasn't their place. And that's how system has operated for so many years. Athletes were expected to stick to what they did best and not stick their heads into politics. Now, however, the political landscape has changed and as more and more people have deep rooted interests in politics, more and more of them are speaking out about it, and athletes are among them.
From all over the sports world, athletes are coming out and talking about the issues that are important to them in the upcoming election. In the NFL, economics is the driving force behind so many players opinions, some of which have changed with increased incomes. The young Blazers center Greg Oden did his homework and decided to throw his support behind Obama due to his stance on "education, civil rights, and health care." And mega stars LeBron James and Tiger Woods have shown their support for Obama through some handsome donations to his campaign fund. Even Dallas Mavericks forward Josh Howard threw in his support of Obama, albeit at the end of an embarrassing rant about not honoring the national anthem.
No matter which candidate they endorse, it is good to see people of prominence coming out and speaking about politics. Athletes are constantly in the spotlight for their performances but are too quickly dismissed when they step outside the lines of the game they are paid to play. They are recognized for their physical prowess but their capacity for anything other than sports is overlooked. Although they are athletes, they are first and foremost people; citizens with concerns about numerous subjects that need to be met. They are also in the unique position to be in the spotlight every day of the week, which is a responsibility that some, unfortunately, don't take too seriously. But for those that recognize the expectation to be a role model and who take responsible steps to bolster that image, it is admirable for them to speak up about politics.
What is said is not as important as the fact that they are saying something. The mere mention of the subject brings it to the forefront of the attention of their fans which has the potential to inspire others to look into the issues and form their own opinions (even if the fans are just adopting what the athletes are saying). Even though athletes are not elected officials or have years of experience in politics, their views and opinions are important. Athletes are closer to the common person than most politicians are as most athletes are better representatives of what the common person is.
In an environment where everyone seems to be talking, the athletes are truly the voices of the people.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Keep On Talkin'
When Chad "Ocho Cinco" Johnson spoke last week, he prophesied that he would not only score a touchdown, but would also "kiss the star" in the center of the Cowboy's field in tribute to the Dallas organization. And while those words did not come to be true, there is another statement he uttered that I hope he dose follow through on.
Later in that same interview from in front of his locker, Chad warned ESPN sports talk personalities, anchors, and analysts to mind their words about him or he would be compelled to take their jobs. Yes, Chad is a fantastic and successful receiver, but that does not necessarily translate seamlessly into a successful TV career. That said, Chad is undoubtedly already better than some on-air personalities and given the choice ESPN executives should immediately move to replace some of their current employees with Mr. Ocho Cinco. The one name that comes to mind when thinking of who would he replace first would undoubtedly be Hannah Storm.
To those that regularly watch and pay attention to the new morning SportsCenter, both during the week and on the weekends, have been exposed to Hannah Storm for a little over 2 months now. And while she has had a few moments where she has done well, for the most part she has been a complete and total disaster. She constantly misquotes statistics and her on camera presence is deplorable. Every one of her interviews has some awkward moment where she doesn't follow the flow a more skilled journalist would. Her questions are canned; she doesn't write her own material, but rather has a team of people to prepare her for every moment she will be on camera. Because of this, she will miss any opportunity for a follow-up question because it had not been scripted for her. And when those few times come up that she does go off script she sounds like a fumbling teenager who knows nothing about sports and just likes to hear herself talk.
ESPN prides itself on being the worldwide leader in sports, and through all of there overwhelming successes there have been a few blunders. Hannah Storm was a "big" name the network felt they needed to add in order to hype their new live morning format. Although the experiment has not lasted that long, from a fan's perspective it has been a failure.
ESPN went out and hired Hannah Storm to create a buzz about the transition to the live morning show, which to be quite honest could have been done without her. And since she has been on the network, her performance can best be described as "poor". There is do doubt that ESPN could have saved a ton of money on what can only be assumed they are now paying her in the form of a ridiculous salary. There are a number of current personalities they could have used that would have been WAY better than her (my personal favorite is Sage Steele; she does the 9 AM SportsCenter on Friday mornings and does a fantastic job, much better than Mrs. Storm could ever do and on top of that is much better looking). The problem in front of the Bristol executives right now is that they have already dedicated time, money, and media attention to bringing Hannah Storm in, and the only way to avoid any negative attention that replacing her would bring would be to bring in someone with a bigger name.
Solution: Bring in 85.
The media attention that Johnson would receive would trump any controversy of Hannah Storm being replaced. ESPN would then be free to wean her out slowly but surely as they try to forget she was ever hired in the first place. In fact, Chad's presence would do wonders for growth of ESPN's morning audience. Despite what anyone will say about Chad, he always commands the utmost attention; he has something to say about everything and him replacing Hannah Storm would be the best move ESPN could have ever made.
But alas, much would have to happen before such a move could be made. Chad would have to be so incensed about the media's coverage and comments about him to compel him to retire and pursue a career in broadcasting. Also, the ESPN suits would have to admit they made a mistake bringing in a journalist far inferior to what the network currently has employed. And finally, ESPN would have to swallow their own pride and agree to buy out Hannah Storm's contract and let her be on her way (an apology to the SportsCenter fans would be nice as well, but most people would settle for just getting rid of Mrs. Storm). Until then, the only thing that can be done is to encourage Chad to keep on talking and possibly persuade him to try and take on another career with all the air-time he could possibly imagine.
Later in that same interview from in front of his locker, Chad warned ESPN sports talk personalities, anchors, and analysts to mind their words about him or he would be compelled to take their jobs. Yes, Chad is a fantastic and successful receiver, but that does not necessarily translate seamlessly into a successful TV career. That said, Chad is undoubtedly already better than some on-air personalities and given the choice ESPN executives should immediately move to replace some of their current employees with Mr. Ocho Cinco. The one name that comes to mind when thinking of who would he replace first would undoubtedly be Hannah Storm.
To those that regularly watch and pay attention to the new morning SportsCenter, both during the week and on the weekends, have been exposed to Hannah Storm for a little over 2 months now. And while she has had a few moments where she has done well, for the most part she has been a complete and total disaster. She constantly misquotes statistics and her on camera presence is deplorable. Every one of her interviews has some awkward moment where she doesn't follow the flow a more skilled journalist would. Her questions are canned; she doesn't write her own material, but rather has a team of people to prepare her for every moment she will be on camera. Because of this, she will miss any opportunity for a follow-up question because it had not been scripted for her. And when those few times come up that she does go off script she sounds like a fumbling teenager who knows nothing about sports and just likes to hear herself talk.
ESPN prides itself on being the worldwide leader in sports, and through all of there overwhelming successes there have been a few blunders. Hannah Storm was a "big" name the network felt they needed to add in order to hype their new live morning format. Although the experiment has not lasted that long, from a fan's perspective it has been a failure.
ESPN went out and hired Hannah Storm to create a buzz about the transition to the live morning show, which to be quite honest could have been done without her. And since she has been on the network, her performance can best be described as "poor". There is do doubt that ESPN could have saved a ton of money on what can only be assumed they are now paying her in the form of a ridiculous salary. There are a number of current personalities they could have used that would have been WAY better than her (my personal favorite is Sage Steele; she does the 9 AM SportsCenter on Friday mornings and does a fantastic job, much better than Mrs. Storm could ever do and on top of that is much better looking). The problem in front of the Bristol executives right now is that they have already dedicated time, money, and media attention to bringing Hannah Storm in, and the only way to avoid any negative attention that replacing her would bring would be to bring in someone with a bigger name.
Solution: Bring in 85.
The media attention that Johnson would receive would trump any controversy of Hannah Storm being replaced. ESPN would then be free to wean her out slowly but surely as they try to forget she was ever hired in the first place. In fact, Chad's presence would do wonders for growth of ESPN's morning audience. Despite what anyone will say about Chad, he always commands the utmost attention; he has something to say about everything and him replacing Hannah Storm would be the best move ESPN could have ever made.
But alas, much would have to happen before such a move could be made. Chad would have to be so incensed about the media's coverage and comments about him to compel him to retire and pursue a career in broadcasting. Also, the ESPN suits would have to admit they made a mistake bringing in a journalist far inferior to what the network currently has employed. And finally, ESPN would have to swallow their own pride and agree to buy out Hannah Storm's contract and let her be on her way (an apology to the SportsCenter fans would be nice as well, but most people would settle for just getting rid of Mrs. Storm). Until then, the only thing that can be done is to encourage Chad to keep on talking and possibly persuade him to try and take on another career with all the air-time he could possibly imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
