One thing I was asked to do was to just write about the things I enjoy and whatever else comes to mind. What are some things that I might enjoy researching? Let's find out.
The one thing that I always thought I wanted to study was race. This probably came to me after I came to Ohio Northern. Seems strange, right? Well when I came here, it was sort of a reverse culture shock (if that exists). I am from Middletown, Ohio. Very different from Ada. In Middletown, there are roughly 55,000 people. In Ada, there are about 5,000. In Middletown, there are people from all race and social statuses. In Ada and at Ohio Northern, most of the people are cut from the same breed. I joke around with my friends a lot of the time that there are too many white people here from me. It usually generates some chuckles. Anyways, the lack of culture here made me want to share my experiences from Middletown to the people here who had never experienced it. With that happening, I also wanted to learn more about race myself.
Another thing I am very intrigued by is figuring out the question, "Why do people do the things they do?" This would deal with psychological factors mostly. What previous experiences hve made a person make that decision now? Why would they fold in this situation? Why would they excel in another situation? Why would they treat this type of person in a particular way? Why does this person interact this way in this situation as opposed to another situation? All of these questions (and many more) are very interesting to me.
Since I've een at ONU, I've been around a lot of great sports teams, including playing on some myself. I was a part of a national championship team and was the captain for that team. I've also seen some other talented teams do not so well in the NCAA Tournament. On the other hand, I've seen other over matched teams make deep runs in the tournament. This begs the question, what makes one team more successful than another team if the talent level is nearly equal? How much do team dynamics matter? How much does coaching technique matter? What is the most important ingredient to team success? Does it all start with strictly recruiting? Do coaches have the most impact on the outcome? Or do the players decide all contests?
These are just a few of the thoughts that I've had today and over the years. Maybe one of my biggest issues is that I really enjoy a wide variety of things. This is an issue when narrowing down an area of research to just one topic, and it is still the issue. Hopefully I will think of something really soon.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Inglis Article
I basically just wanted to outline the five steps of qualitative research according to Inglis as suggested by Bogdan and Biklen (1982).
The first is that the research should take place in the most natural setting. If I am observing a practice, the most natural setting would be for the team and coaches to be where they usually are. Also, if I am somewhat hidden from their vantage points, they will not notice me and practice like usual with the usual dynamic involved.
The second is that the data should maintain its original meaning. This can be done with still photos, video, documentation and transcripts. If I take video of a practice, I can refer back to that when trying to answer questions as opposed to having to recall everything from memory.
The third deals with the process that the data is collected as opposed to the data itself. If I'm worried about data or a specific result, I might have a bias going into the process. However, if I only focus on my method of collecting information, I can deal with the results later and not worry about swaying my opinion at the time.
The fourth deals with theories being born through induction. Through observation, the researcher can come to conclusions based on reasoning and evaluating what occurred during the observation.
The last one involved the meaning of the information. This does not necessarily mean the meaning for the researcher but for the participants. I should ask myself, "How did the events of my observations get perceived by those I was observing?"
The first is that the research should take place in the most natural setting. If I am observing a practice, the most natural setting would be for the team and coaches to be where they usually are. Also, if I am somewhat hidden from their vantage points, they will not notice me and practice like usual with the usual dynamic involved.
The second is that the data should maintain its original meaning. This can be done with still photos, video, documentation and transcripts. If I take video of a practice, I can refer back to that when trying to answer questions as opposed to having to recall everything from memory.
The third deals with the process that the data is collected as opposed to the data itself. If I'm worried about data or a specific result, I might have a bias going into the process. However, if I only focus on my method of collecting information, I can deal with the results later and not worry about swaying my opinion at the time.
The fourth deals with theories being born through induction. Through observation, the researcher can come to conclusions based on reasoning and evaluating what occurred during the observation.
The last one involved the meaning of the information. This does not necessarily mean the meaning for the researcher but for the participants. I should ask myself, "How did the events of my observations get perceived by those I was observing?"
Agar Article
I will say that I definitely enjoyed most of the Agar article. There were three points that I want to touch on in this post.
The first is the thought about eye contact. I found it interesting that eye contact can mean different things in different settings. It was odd at first, but after thinking more, it made sense. Pretty much everything we do in life can be construed differently in other cultures. One simple example deals with women in the United States compared to those in some middle eastern nations. Here, women can dress how they wish. There, women are restricted to wearing certain items and must cover their faces. In the U.S., we think nothing of women wearing business attire with her hair done and makeup on her face. There, some men might be a little upset (to put it extremely mildly). In dealing with eye contact, this is a very clear cut issue for me here. If someone is staring at me, as was the case for Agar, I would have a problem with it here. I would feel uncomfortable and suspect that the person is extremely curious about me. In other situations, eye contact is not only welcomed, but expected. I would expect a presenter or speaker to give proper eye contact. Likewise, I would expect both parties of an interview or conversation to give eye contact. Not giving eye contact in these situations would shoe me a sign of disrespect or indifference.
The next idea I wanted to talk about was how forming questions can reveal a person's intelligence. When someone asks me a question, it is pretty apparent how much they know about the topic they are asking about. If its a basic question, they may not know much. If the question has detail that reveals some information, then the person might have some knowledge. Also, the timing and tone of the question can tell me about the person. Let's look at the Jim Calhoun example I've alluded to before. The reporter asked Calhoun about his salary after a game. This was not the right place to approach this situation. The reporter was not concerned about the answer as much as he was trying to get under the skin of Calhoun. This showed little tact. If he really wanted to know about the salary, a more private venue would have been better. The tone of the question is also important. The person can show him/herself to be sarcastic, sincere, confused, intelligent, etc. all by the tone of their voice.
The last thing I wanted to touch on was that multiple perspectives on a situation are better than just one. The biases and differing view points will be able to more completely assess the situation. My opinions will be formed based on my experiences. Another person might have different opinions because of their experiences. When we combine our thoughts, we can discuss both viewpoints and see which one makes more sense for the situation as opposed to sticking with what we believe individually.
The first is the thought about eye contact. I found it interesting that eye contact can mean different things in different settings. It was odd at first, but after thinking more, it made sense. Pretty much everything we do in life can be construed differently in other cultures. One simple example deals with women in the United States compared to those in some middle eastern nations. Here, women can dress how they wish. There, women are restricted to wearing certain items and must cover their faces. In the U.S., we think nothing of women wearing business attire with her hair done and makeup on her face. There, some men might be a little upset (to put it extremely mildly). In dealing with eye contact, this is a very clear cut issue for me here. If someone is staring at me, as was the case for Agar, I would have a problem with it here. I would feel uncomfortable and suspect that the person is extremely curious about me. In other situations, eye contact is not only welcomed, but expected. I would expect a presenter or speaker to give proper eye contact. Likewise, I would expect both parties of an interview or conversation to give eye contact. Not giving eye contact in these situations would shoe me a sign of disrespect or indifference.
The next idea I wanted to talk about was how forming questions can reveal a person's intelligence. When someone asks me a question, it is pretty apparent how much they know about the topic they are asking about. If its a basic question, they may not know much. If the question has detail that reveals some information, then the person might have some knowledge. Also, the timing and tone of the question can tell me about the person. Let's look at the Jim Calhoun example I've alluded to before. The reporter asked Calhoun about his salary after a game. This was not the right place to approach this situation. The reporter was not concerned about the answer as much as he was trying to get under the skin of Calhoun. This showed little tact. If he really wanted to know about the salary, a more private venue would have been better. The tone of the question is also important. The person can show him/herself to be sarcastic, sincere, confused, intelligent, etc. all by the tone of their voice.
The last thing I wanted to touch on was that multiple perspectives on a situation are better than just one. The biases and differing view points will be able to more completely assess the situation. My opinions will be formed based on my experiences. Another person might have different opinions because of their experiences. When we combine our thoughts, we can discuss both viewpoints and see which one makes more sense for the situation as opposed to sticking with what we believe individually.
Denzin Article
Quite frankly, this was a difficult article to sift through. However, one sentence resonated with me more than the others. On page 29, the authors say, "The search for grand narratives is being replaced by more local, small-scale theories fitted to specific problems and particular situations," (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003). This sentence is found under the fifth moment, the postmodern period of experimental ethnographic writing.
For the longest time, I've always told people I want to be some sort of "field expert." I tell them that I just want to know more about something than anyone else. This could be anything at this point in my life. I think the sentence above is indicative of my long-time wishes.
It seems at this point in history, now towards the end of the moments of research so far, most "grand narratives" have been written. Obviously there are still things that need to be generalized in a big way, but I believe more topics regarding specific ideas are what need to be researched. For example, a grand narrative before could have been "Why do high school athletes pursue a collegiate career in sports?" That is very broad and all-encompassing. Now, people would like to answer more specific questions. Staying with the same sort of example, a question could be "Why do high school athletes choose to play football, basketball or baseball at the Division III level?" This question is much more specific and deals with a smaller group of people.
These are just examples, but it would go along with my wish to be the most knowledgeable about one thing. Is it possible to know why high school athletes play sports? To an extent, the answer is yes. However, the population of college athletes is much greater than those playing college football, basketball, and baseball and the Division III level.
So, for whatever I end up wanting to study, I think I want it to be something more specific than general.
For the longest time, I've always told people I want to be some sort of "field expert." I tell them that I just want to know more about something than anyone else. This could be anything at this point in my life. I think the sentence above is indicative of my long-time wishes.
It seems at this point in history, now towards the end of the moments of research so far, most "grand narratives" have been written. Obviously there are still things that need to be generalized in a big way, but I believe more topics regarding specific ideas are what need to be researched. For example, a grand narrative before could have been "Why do high school athletes pursue a collegiate career in sports?" That is very broad and all-encompassing. Now, people would like to answer more specific questions. Staying with the same sort of example, a question could be "Why do high school athletes choose to play football, basketball or baseball at the Division III level?" This question is much more specific and deals with a smaller group of people.
These are just examples, but it would go along with my wish to be the most knowledgeable about one thing. Is it possible to know why high school athletes play sports? To an extent, the answer is yes. However, the population of college athletes is much greater than those playing college football, basketball, and baseball and the Division III level.
So, for whatever I end up wanting to study, I think I want it to be something more specific than general.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Seidman article and Theberge article
I just read through Seidman's article dealing with the keys to a successful interview. The principles applied in this article remind me very much to a book I am reading at the moment. I am halfway through Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. The common theme throughout is to show genuine interest in people. One way to do that is to be a good listener, as is mentioned several times in Seidman's article as well. Most people are mainly interested in theirself and that's it. So if you are willing to understand that fact, listen to someone, and be genuinely interested, the person will then feel more comfortable and enjoy your company. This will lead to more productive interviews.
The article by Theberge had some very interesting segments. I'd say the parts that I felt most interesting were the personal accounts from the athletes that were studied. We always hear athletes say, "I'm in the best shape of my life." However, being in that shape doesn't necessarily equate to being healthy. The argument is that in order to be a top-tier athlete, you must push the body beyond healthy limits. The comment is made by one athlete in the article that someone doing yoga and running a few times a week is probably healthier than an NFL athlete. I had never thought about this situation in such a light, but it really makes sense. It is well documented that professional athletes have troubled retirement years because their bodies are so worn down, but we don't think of them as unhealthy while they are competing at such a high level. If they end up that way when they are older, though, they are probably doing unhealthy things during their careers. Also, this reasoning might be an explanation as to why we experienced the steroid era. Athletes felt using these steroids would help protect their bodies from later deterioration (even though I'm sure most were interested in the short-term benefits).
The article by Theberge had some very interesting segments. I'd say the parts that I felt most interesting were the personal accounts from the athletes that were studied. We always hear athletes say, "I'm in the best shape of my life." However, being in that shape doesn't necessarily equate to being healthy. The argument is that in order to be a top-tier athlete, you must push the body beyond healthy limits. The comment is made by one athlete in the article that someone doing yoga and running a few times a week is probably healthier than an NFL athlete. I had never thought about this situation in such a light, but it really makes sense. It is well documented that professional athletes have troubled retirement years because their bodies are so worn down, but we don't think of them as unhealthy while they are competing at such a high level. If they end up that way when they are older, though, they are probably doing unhealthy things during their careers. Also, this reasoning might be an explanation as to why we experienced the steroid era. Athletes felt using these steroids would help protect their bodies from later deterioration (even though I'm sure most were interested in the short-term benefits).
Skinner & Edwards
I wanted to first comment on a section by Skinner and Edwards. The authors say, "A person’s
definition of a situation tells him or her how to assign meaning in constantly shifting conditions," (Skinner and Edwards, 2008, p. 406). They use an example of a fan and the ever-changing climate in which a fan is subjected. The social reality that a fan lives in tells him to buy apparel, wear a team jersey and attend games with other fans. This creates an atmosphere that allows a fan to adhere to a different set of socially acceptable rules. For example, it is most likely frowned upon for an individual to scream and cheer in a hospital. However, this behavior that is so disdained one place is perfectly acceptable within the realm of a stadium, field or arena. What the authors explain, however, is that the relationship a person has with a team is not a fixed relationship. As we've seen recently with the team formerly known as the Seattle SuperSonics, franchises can sometimes be relocated. This has been true with many organizations throughout the years of professional sports. Do you think the Browns fans of the 80s cheered the same for the Baltimore Ravens during the period of time when the Browns were absent from the NFL? I would highly doubt it, because that relationship had basically been terminated. I also believe that this relationship also fluctuates with the success of the team. Most people are fickle, fair-weather fans in the long run. I'll use the Browns as an example again. People still cheer for them and hope for them to do well. But when the expectations of a team become so low, the same excitement is not generated for fans. So while these people are still fans, the level of excitement and dedication to the team isn't as high as it would be if they were in the playoff hunt (perfect example: my boss was recently looking for a parking pass for this weekend's game against Green Bay on eBay. He found two tickets and a parking pass for 20 dollars. This is because of the lack of interest).
definition of a situation tells him or her how to assign meaning in constantly shifting conditions," (Skinner and Edwards, 2008, p. 406). They use an example of a fan and the ever-changing climate in which a fan is subjected. The social reality that a fan lives in tells him to buy apparel, wear a team jersey and attend games with other fans. This creates an atmosphere that allows a fan to adhere to a different set of socially acceptable rules. For example, it is most likely frowned upon for an individual to scream and cheer in a hospital. However, this behavior that is so disdained one place is perfectly acceptable within the realm of a stadium, field or arena. What the authors explain, however, is that the relationship a person has with a team is not a fixed relationship. As we've seen recently with the team formerly known as the Seattle SuperSonics, franchises can sometimes be relocated. This has been true with many organizations throughout the years of professional sports. Do you think the Browns fans of the 80s cheered the same for the Baltimore Ravens during the period of time when the Browns were absent from the NFL? I would highly doubt it, because that relationship had basically been terminated. I also believe that this relationship also fluctuates with the success of the team. Most people are fickle, fair-weather fans in the long run. I'll use the Browns as an example again. People still cheer for them and hope for them to do well. But when the expectations of a team become so low, the same excitement is not generated for fans. So while these people are still fans, the level of excitement and dedication to the team isn't as high as it would be if they were in the playoff hunt (perfect example: my boss was recently looking for a parking pass for this weekend's game against Green Bay on eBay. He found two tickets and a parking pass for 20 dollars. This is because of the lack of interest).
Sunday, October 4, 2009
First Qualitative Research Post
It has taken me a while to get started with this coursework, but with October being a relatively slower month in the evenings, I should be able to get much more accomplished in the near future.
I was unable to access the Skinner article, so I'm starting my blog posts after reading the Ely article.
The part that resonated closest with me had to be the initial assignment for the students to observe a nearby eating establishment. The varying perceptions and the wide array of questions formed is quite impressive. The different perceptions by each student is very true to life in general. These students were in different places, but the same would have happened if they would have all observed the same thing. Our perceptions are, many times, formed based on our prior experiences. For instance, I'm sitting here watching the Bengals/Browns game. As a Bengals fan, I'm viewing this game as missed opportunities by the Bengals as opposed to superior play by the Browns. My friends who are Browns fans believe that Cleveland has been in control and are a better team today. Based on our previous biases, we have completely different views on the exact same game (Note: The Bengals just punted for the first time in overtime).
The other reason this assignment was interesting to me was because I feel like people do this on a daily basis anyways. The difference is that we do not consciously realize that. I do remember, however, playing a sort of game when I was younger. My friends and I had season passes to Kings Island in Mason, Ohio. We would regularly stand in line for rides and pick someone to focus on. We would then try to guess what that person was thinking. We would read their facial expressions, see who they were interacting with, and decide what we thought they were thinking. Most of the time we would make jokes, but the observations we made were similar to this assignment in the different restaurants.
After reading this article, it mostly opened my eyes to the fact that this type of research is done continuously. We are constantly observing and making decisions based on those observations. We don't always think about it or write it down, but the process is always happening.
As far as the area in which I'd like to conduct more research, I want to look at issues regarding socioeconomic status and race. I think there is a perception that sport participation is based on a person's race. I believe that a person's social and financial situation is more indicative of what sports a person will play. I think I can study this in youth athletics, recreational activities and professional athletics.
I was unable to access the Skinner article, so I'm starting my blog posts after reading the Ely article.
The part that resonated closest with me had to be the initial assignment for the students to observe a nearby eating establishment. The varying perceptions and the wide array of questions formed is quite impressive. The different perceptions by each student is very true to life in general. These students were in different places, but the same would have happened if they would have all observed the same thing. Our perceptions are, many times, formed based on our prior experiences. For instance, I'm sitting here watching the Bengals/Browns game. As a Bengals fan, I'm viewing this game as missed opportunities by the Bengals as opposed to superior play by the Browns. My friends who are Browns fans believe that Cleveland has been in control and are a better team today. Based on our previous biases, we have completely different views on the exact same game (Note: The Bengals just punted for the first time in overtime).
The other reason this assignment was interesting to me was because I feel like people do this on a daily basis anyways. The difference is that we do not consciously realize that. I do remember, however, playing a sort of game when I was younger. My friends and I had season passes to Kings Island in Mason, Ohio. We would regularly stand in line for rides and pick someone to focus on. We would then try to guess what that person was thinking. We would read their facial expressions, see who they were interacting with, and decide what we thought they were thinking. Most of the time we would make jokes, but the observations we made were similar to this assignment in the different restaurants.
After reading this article, it mostly opened my eyes to the fact that this type of research is done continuously. We are constantly observing and making decisions based on those observations. We don't always think about it or write it down, but the process is always happening.
As far as the area in which I'd like to conduct more research, I want to look at issues regarding socioeconomic status and race. I think there is a perception that sport participation is based on a person's race. I believe that a person's social and financial situation is more indicative of what sports a person will play. I think I can study this in youth athletics, recreational activities and professional athletics.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
In Conclusion...
Now that the semester is over here in our Sport & Society class, there are some things I'd like to end with.
I think a lot of my personal experiences have had some serious connections to many of the topics and issues that we discussed over the 15 weeks. The list of my experiences includes, but is not exclusive to, coaching girl's/women's sports, growing up in a racially and economically diverse city, having a gay head coach in college, and starting kindergarten in a bilingual classroom near Los Angeles. Does this make me an expert on these topics? No, but I feel that I have a pretty broad range of knowledge circulating around the issues in class. This is also probably why many of the topics were extremely interesting to me.
One of my favorite things to do with my friends is to have "friendly" arguments about almost anything I feel I can talk a little bit about. One reason is I love hearing other people's thoughts about a topic. Another reason is I like to see how people respond to what I think (or how they respond to whatever I'm arguing if I'm playing the Devil's advocate). By doing this, you get people to think about difficult issues, especially if some of the topics of this class were brought up. Now, I don't think I will be starting a social revolution anytime soon to transform the way society thinks, but what I will continue to do is talk with people about issues that need to be discussed. If all i can do is make people think about racial inequalities or equal rights for gay and female athletes, then I am doing a decent job. The first step for people to change their thoughts about issues is to make sure they are informed and that the issue at least crosses their mind.
The one part I liked best about the class was always the discussion topics during class. Just like my previous paragraph mentioned, I love hearing what different people think about different. So much of your beliefs are based on how your life has been previously spent. So by listening to different comments and expressing my own opinions, I am able to gather pieces of what a person believes and how they live their lives.
I also thoroughly enjoy expressing my own thoughts through this blog. I have written one other blog in the past that I posted to for about a year. The feedback from people was both positive and negative. Regardless of what the people said, it was usually hilarious and very entertaining to see what others felt. The comments and discussions that have occurred via our blogging has been beneficial and very interesting.
The one thing I did not enjoy, and will never enjoy, is driving 50 minutes to come to class. That has been such a pain since the round trip driving takes nearly two hours out of my day three days a week. Having to work every day, every weekend, and most nights, on top of being an hour away from school, is not the most ideal of situations. Nonetheless, I did what I could do and did get much out of the class.
Hopefully after about a year hiatus this class had at least got me back to blogging and sharing my thoughts on the internet. I look forward to continuing this in the future.
I think a lot of my personal experiences have had some serious connections to many of the topics and issues that we discussed over the 15 weeks. The list of my experiences includes, but is not exclusive to, coaching girl's/women's sports, growing up in a racially and economically diverse city, having a gay head coach in college, and starting kindergarten in a bilingual classroom near Los Angeles. Does this make me an expert on these topics? No, but I feel that I have a pretty broad range of knowledge circulating around the issues in class. This is also probably why many of the topics were extremely interesting to me.
One of my favorite things to do with my friends is to have "friendly" arguments about almost anything I feel I can talk a little bit about. One reason is I love hearing other people's thoughts about a topic. Another reason is I like to see how people respond to what I think (or how they respond to whatever I'm arguing if I'm playing the Devil's advocate). By doing this, you get people to think about difficult issues, especially if some of the topics of this class were brought up. Now, I don't think I will be starting a social revolution anytime soon to transform the way society thinks, but what I will continue to do is talk with people about issues that need to be discussed. If all i can do is make people think about racial inequalities or equal rights for gay and female athletes, then I am doing a decent job. The first step for people to change their thoughts about issues is to make sure they are informed and that the issue at least crosses their mind.
The one part I liked best about the class was always the discussion topics during class. Just like my previous paragraph mentioned, I love hearing what different people think about different. So much of your beliefs are based on how your life has been previously spent. So by listening to different comments and expressing my own opinions, I am able to gather pieces of what a person believes and how they live their lives.
I also thoroughly enjoy expressing my own thoughts through this blog. I have written one other blog in the past that I posted to for about a year. The feedback from people was both positive and negative. Regardless of what the people said, it was usually hilarious and very entertaining to see what others felt. The comments and discussions that have occurred via our blogging has been beneficial and very interesting.
The one thing I did not enjoy, and will never enjoy, is driving 50 minutes to come to class. That has been such a pain since the round trip driving takes nearly two hours out of my day three days a week. Having to work every day, every weekend, and most nights, on top of being an hour away from school, is not the most ideal of situations. Nonetheless, I did what I could do and did get much out of the class.
Hopefully after about a year hiatus this class had at least got me back to blogging and sharing my thoughts on the internet. I look forward to continuing this in the future.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Paralympics Part 2
As a follow up to my last entry, I wanted to make two more points regarding the Paralympic Games.
When we talked about 'olympism' in the Olympic Games, it seemed like a consensus that the Olympic Games were polluted with ideals outside those of Olympism. I have even mentioned this in a previous blog about how the ideology of Olympism is great in theory, but is almost nonexistent in practice.
If we look at the Paralympic Games, don't these events bring a better understanding of what olympism is supposed to be? These athletes are coming together to compete at a high level while at the same time they are there for the experience of other nations and to simply compete.
So if I am a member of Team USA and I compete in the Paralympic Games, do I even want to have the same media exposure? Do I want to have the same convoluted relationship that Olympians have with the media and the viewers? If I want to stay closer to the ideals of Olympics, I am not sure that I want to have the same exposure. Paralympic athletes compete now for seemingly the same reasons that that the ancient Olympians did. That is to compete at a high level while at the same time bringing together different cultures. The fact that they are competing is way more important than the winner of the event.
The last point I want to make regarding the Paralympics deals with a complete societal change that needs to take place in order for more exposure to occur. The media is not really at fault for this. As quoted by a coworker of mine and a former newspaper editor, "The job of the media is to pick the stories and write about the stories in which they think their audience wants to know about." In essence, everything the media is feeding the public is exactly what the public wants. If the media didn't do this, then people would not consume the news like they do now because there would be severe disinterest.
In my opinion this is very comparable to another large complaint people have with sports. That complaint is that professional athletes are overpaid. I argue that professional athletes are underpaid in some instances because much of society's disposable income goes to watching and attending sporting events. Michael Jordan made the NBA, the Chicago Bulls, and every arena he visited billions of dollars over his career. So when he was paid $33 million during the 1997-98 season, he was probably being underpaid compared to what he was worth. The same can be said for many athletes. The only reason that pro athletes make the money they do, is because society continues to pay for it. Jordan made that money because people paid to watch him play, paid to wear his shoes, and paid to wear his jersey. Is it his fault? Absolutely not.
Just like society is responsible, yet complains, about overpaid athletes, we are also responsible for the lack of media attention the Paralympics receive although many view that as a travesty.
When we talked about 'olympism' in the Olympic Games, it seemed like a consensus that the Olympic Games were polluted with ideals outside those of Olympism. I have even mentioned this in a previous blog about how the ideology of Olympism is great in theory, but is almost nonexistent in practice.
If we look at the Paralympic Games, don't these events bring a better understanding of what olympism is supposed to be? These athletes are coming together to compete at a high level while at the same time they are there for the experience of other nations and to simply compete.
So if I am a member of Team USA and I compete in the Paralympic Games, do I even want to have the same media exposure? Do I want to have the same convoluted relationship that Olympians have with the media and the viewers? If I want to stay closer to the ideals of Olympics, I am not sure that I want to have the same exposure. Paralympic athletes compete now for seemingly the same reasons that that the ancient Olympians did. That is to compete at a high level while at the same time bringing together different cultures. The fact that they are competing is way more important than the winner of the event.
The last point I want to make regarding the Paralympics deals with a complete societal change that needs to take place in order for more exposure to occur. The media is not really at fault for this. As quoted by a coworker of mine and a former newspaper editor, "The job of the media is to pick the stories and write about the stories in which they think their audience wants to know about." In essence, everything the media is feeding the public is exactly what the public wants. If the media didn't do this, then people would not consume the news like they do now because there would be severe disinterest.
In my opinion this is very comparable to another large complaint people have with sports. That complaint is that professional athletes are overpaid. I argue that professional athletes are underpaid in some instances because much of society's disposable income goes to watching and attending sporting events. Michael Jordan made the NBA, the Chicago Bulls, and every arena he visited billions of dollars over his career. So when he was paid $33 million during the 1997-98 season, he was probably being underpaid compared to what he was worth. The same can be said for many athletes. The only reason that pro athletes make the money they do, is because society continues to pay for it. Jordan made that money because people paid to watch him play, paid to wear his shoes, and paid to wear his jersey. Is it his fault? Absolutely not.
Just like society is responsible, yet complains, about overpaid athletes, we are also responsible for the lack of media attention the Paralympics receive although many view that as a travesty.
Paralympics Part 1
From reading different blog entries and the responses, I have found that media exposure in regards to the Paralympic Games has been one of much discussion. Therefore, I've decided to tackle the issue myself and add another perspective.
The issue at hand seems to be whether or not large broadcasting stations should put more coverage of the Paralympics on the air. Some think that the lack of national viewing interest is reason enough not to show the same amount of coverage that the Olympics would receive. Others feel that there is a certain social or moral responsibility that the media has to help publicize the Paralympics.
My view of the situation is that each entity (in this case, media and the Paralympics) has to supports its own interests. The media has to protect its business and air material that they know will generate viewership as well as sponsorship. As with any business, it is important do what you can for as many different people while still earning a profit when everything is said and done. If the major stations are losing a great deal of money by showing something that people won't watch, there will not be the media outlets necessary to inform the public. On the other side, advocates for the Paralympic Games should absolutely be bartering for more media coverage. When you market a product or strongly believe in a product, you will market it to the best of your abilities to have the most people know about it. If the Games could find their niche on network television, they would be able to be covered more. And from my personal perspective, I hope that niche is found so there is more exposure for disabled athletes.
I feel as if another argument people give in favor of more exposure for the Paralympics deals with the effort they put into their sport. People will say, "Well, this wheelchair athlete puts just as much time and effort and energy into being the fastest in the world, just like Michael Phelps does. Why shouldn't this athlete have the same exposure as Phelps?" This is a conundrum not only in the Paralympics but in many sports. For example, NCAA Division III men's basketball players work just as hard as NCAA Division I players do. Does this mean that ONU men's basketball players should be upset that they aren't on Sportscenter every night during the winter? I don't think so. The athletes at ONU understand the reality that the general public is way more concerned with the Division I level as opposed to the Division III level. It is an accepted truth, but the players will still work just as hard.
The issue at hand seems to be whether or not large broadcasting stations should put more coverage of the Paralympics on the air. Some think that the lack of national viewing interest is reason enough not to show the same amount of coverage that the Olympics would receive. Others feel that there is a certain social or moral responsibility that the media has to help publicize the Paralympics.
My view of the situation is that each entity (in this case, media and the Paralympics) has to supports its own interests. The media has to protect its business and air material that they know will generate viewership as well as sponsorship. As with any business, it is important do what you can for as many different people while still earning a profit when everything is said and done. If the major stations are losing a great deal of money by showing something that people won't watch, there will not be the media outlets necessary to inform the public. On the other side, advocates for the Paralympic Games should absolutely be bartering for more media coverage. When you market a product or strongly believe in a product, you will market it to the best of your abilities to have the most people know about it. If the Games could find their niche on network television, they would be able to be covered more. And from my personal perspective, I hope that niche is found so there is more exposure for disabled athletes.
I feel as if another argument people give in favor of more exposure for the Paralympics deals with the effort they put into their sport. People will say, "Well, this wheelchair athlete puts just as much time and effort and energy into being the fastest in the world, just like Michael Phelps does. Why shouldn't this athlete have the same exposure as Phelps?" This is a conundrum not only in the Paralympics but in many sports. For example, NCAA Division III men's basketball players work just as hard as NCAA Division I players do. Does this mean that ONU men's basketball players should be upset that they aren't on Sportscenter every night during the winter? I don't think so. The athletes at ONU understand the reality that the general public is way more concerned with the Division I level as opposed to the Division III level. It is an accepted truth, but the players will still work just as hard.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Who Should Take the Blame?
The way that male and female athletes are portrayed in the media is definitely different. We discussed how men are often time perceived as bigger, stronger, and faster with the intent of the pictures to show these characteristics. Female athletes, on the other hand, are very rarely portrayed performing their sport. They are usually shown in posed positions that accentuate their sexuality, beauty and other feminine qualities. The only picture that instantly comes to my mind of a female athlete on the field of play is when Brandi Chastain got the cover of Sports Illustrated. However, the famous photo was one that was taken right after the game, right after she scored the game winning goal, and right after she took off her shirt. The way that female athletes are depicted in photographs is very different from this. Athletes like Anna Kournikova or Maria Sharapova have embraced their beauty and used it to pose for magazines or act in commercials. Some other female athletes have posed in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition (Which happens to be the only time I've seen photos of male athletes that are designed to show off their physical appearance. I remember it happening when athletes' wives would pose in their swimsuits along side their more famous husbands).
Now, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. It is just the fact of the matter. Should a female athlete be able to endorse her body to make money? I don't have a problem with that. Any person should be able to do the same thing if the opportunity were to arise. Where I'm not necessarily sold is the fact that many people blame the media for this happening. I understand that sport consumers (predominantly male) most likely enjoy seeing scantily-clad, very in-shape female figures as opposed to men in the same fashion. Therefore the media will give the consumer what they want to see. However, I think that the female athletes deserve much of the blame/credit for this.
Coming from a household with three younger sisters and a mother (and a father, but he doesn't factor into this situation), having a female student-athlete as a roommate now, and coaching women's volleyball at the high school and college levels, I have come to the conclusion that MOST females care very much what they look like at all times. Some of the most makeup worn by these women have been on game days because a lot of people will be there to see them. Also, at ONU we take head shots of each athlete to post on our Web site. The males will come looking like they would for any other practice. This will be the only practice of the year where the women have their hair done and makeup fully applied. Again, I feel this is because, as a generality, women care way more how they look then men do.
With all of that, I feel that while the media does almost always show women outside of their sport and in a more clean and "sexy" environment, this is the way the many females wish to be portrayed as well. I know this is not true in every instance, but like with everything in life, there are always exceptions to the rule.
Now, I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. It is just the fact of the matter. Should a female athlete be able to endorse her body to make money? I don't have a problem with that. Any person should be able to do the same thing if the opportunity were to arise. Where I'm not necessarily sold is the fact that many people blame the media for this happening. I understand that sport consumers (predominantly male) most likely enjoy seeing scantily-clad, very in-shape female figures as opposed to men in the same fashion. Therefore the media will give the consumer what they want to see. However, I think that the female athletes deserve much of the blame/credit for this.
Coming from a household with three younger sisters and a mother (and a father, but he doesn't factor into this situation), having a female student-athlete as a roommate now, and coaching women's volleyball at the high school and college levels, I have come to the conclusion that MOST females care very much what they look like at all times. Some of the most makeup worn by these women have been on game days because a lot of people will be there to see them. Also, at ONU we take head shots of each athlete to post on our Web site. The males will come looking like they would for any other practice. This will be the only practice of the year where the women have their hair done and makeup fully applied. Again, I feel this is because, as a generality, women care way more how they look then men do.
With all of that, I feel that while the media does almost always show women outside of their sport and in a more clean and "sexy" environment, this is the way the many females wish to be portrayed as well. I know this is not true in every instance, but like with everything in life, there are always exceptions to the rule.
In Reality...
In class we explored the different newspaper exposure for all different types of demographics. One of the areas in which we were looking was race. Which race or races were getting the most exposure and is this the way it should be. Instead of looking at this issue, I immediately began to think of how Ohio Northern deals with race and diversity. To me, it is a very comical approach.
In my five years at Ohio Northern there has been a steady increase in the desire to promote diversity on campus (at least from my vantage point). As a student it was apparent in the sheer increase in minority enrollment. Every year there was a noticeably greater racial minority population on campus. Now that I work in the office of communications and marketing, it is obvious that this happened because of a conscious effort by the university.
The comical part is that even though there was been an increase, Ohio Northern is absolutely not a place were diversity is flourishing. From what I see on campus, and without hard data in which to base this judgment, the overwhelming population is still middle- to upper-class white people. So instead of promoting what we are and giving an accurate representation of the school, we still promote that we are a diverse institution.
Here is a funny example to make my point. Last year Ohio Northern won the All-Sports Trophy for both the men's and women's programs for the second consecutive year. Accomplishing this the first year was notable, but doing this the second time in a row was unprecedented (Note: we have all but won this trophy on both sides again this year for the third straight time). About this time last year, the decision is made to take a picture with all the team captains (or important members) from our 21 sports. We take the picture, and people who make decisions at the school reviewed it. Well, we were not going to be able to use the picture anywhere on our Web site or in any of our publications because the picture did not show diversity. Of the 21 sports at ONU, maybe two were of a racial minority. In the end, we took a picture of four student-athletes who happened to be around during the summer, with one of them being of color. I guess when you have 1-of-4, it better demonstrates diversity than 2-of-21.
This is a good example of how media can show you EXACTLY what it wants to portray regardless if the information is accurate or credible.
In my five years at Ohio Northern there has been a steady increase in the desire to promote diversity on campus (at least from my vantage point). As a student it was apparent in the sheer increase in minority enrollment. Every year there was a noticeably greater racial minority population on campus. Now that I work in the office of communications and marketing, it is obvious that this happened because of a conscious effort by the university.
The comical part is that even though there was been an increase, Ohio Northern is absolutely not a place were diversity is flourishing. From what I see on campus, and without hard data in which to base this judgment, the overwhelming population is still middle- to upper-class white people. So instead of promoting what we are and giving an accurate representation of the school, we still promote that we are a diverse institution.
Here is a funny example to make my point. Last year Ohio Northern won the All-Sports Trophy for both the men's and women's programs for the second consecutive year. Accomplishing this the first year was notable, but doing this the second time in a row was unprecedented (Note: we have all but won this trophy on both sides again this year for the third straight time). About this time last year, the decision is made to take a picture with all the team captains (or important members) from our 21 sports. We take the picture, and people who make decisions at the school reviewed it. Well, we were not going to be able to use the picture anywhere on our Web site or in any of our publications because the picture did not show diversity. Of the 21 sports at ONU, maybe two were of a racial minority. In the end, we took a picture of four student-athletes who happened to be around during the summer, with one of them being of color. I guess when you have 1-of-4, it better demonstrates diversity than 2-of-21.
This is a good example of how media can show you EXACTLY what it wants to portray regardless if the information is accurate or credible.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Awesome, In Theory
When talking about the Olympics in class recently, we discussed Olympism and the ideals of Olympism. To me, it seemed as if Olympism was just that, idealistic, and not much more. In theory, this concept seems great. It is very nice to think that everyone will come together to compete in these games for enjoyment. Another nice thought about Olympism is that everyone can put aside their differences for duration of the games and have friendly competition. Unfortunately, I think that is not at all how the Olympics are perceived by the athletes competing, members of each nation, and spectators around the world.
The Olympics are very similar to every sporting event around the world in that everyone wants to win. Like Herm Edwards famously quoted in a press conference, "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" Merely participating is not enough anymore. Was it enough for USA men's basketball to not win gold? No, and that's why they hired Coach K and transformed the environment of the team. Was it enough for Michael Phelps to win a few medals? No, and that's why he murdered his body and swam about 14 times to win eight gold medals. If it was enough just to participate, countries would not have training centers for children at extremely young ages to prepare them for the Olympic games ten years down the road. I remember hearing a story about the Chinese national beach volleyball program. From the story i heard, China had bought an island for all of their potential beach volleyball Olympians to live on and train on. They also submersed their players in southern California so they could play against some better competition throughout training. These things do not happen if the goal of the Olympics is to just participate.
The thought of Olympism also reminded me of similarities that surround the NCAA. The commonality is that both have great theoretical purposes. The Olympics are supposed to bring nations together who might not always have the same views and allow them to compete in friendly competition for two and a half weeks. The NCAA is supposed to provide a place where student-athletes can flourish as just that: students and athletes. Again, we would be lying to ourselves if we thought that the ideals of the NCAA were upheld, especially at the Division I level. Examining just men's basketball and football in the NCAA, you find that many of the student-athletes are not graduating from their institutions. They use their scholarship to have a full time job of athletics in hopes of reaching the professional level. It is very much one sided as opposed to the idea that each individual can succeed in both realms. Now, obviously there are those who can do both in intercollegiate athletics. And there are obviously some Olympic athletes who are there for solely the experience. However, in both instances you would be remiss to think that there is not a higher purpose. Nowadays, the purpose of both these events is to win and to get paid. This is from the athletes' standpoints as well as those of the sponsors.
The Olympics are very similar to every sporting event around the world in that everyone wants to win. Like Herm Edwards famously quoted in a press conference, "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" Merely participating is not enough anymore. Was it enough for USA men's basketball to not win gold? No, and that's why they hired Coach K and transformed the environment of the team. Was it enough for Michael Phelps to win a few medals? No, and that's why he murdered his body and swam about 14 times to win eight gold medals. If it was enough just to participate, countries would not have training centers for children at extremely young ages to prepare them for the Olympic games ten years down the road. I remember hearing a story about the Chinese national beach volleyball program. From the story i heard, China had bought an island for all of their potential beach volleyball Olympians to live on and train on. They also submersed their players in southern California so they could play against some better competition throughout training. These things do not happen if the goal of the Olympics is to just participate.
The thought of Olympism also reminded me of similarities that surround the NCAA. The commonality is that both have great theoretical purposes. The Olympics are supposed to bring nations together who might not always have the same views and allow them to compete in friendly competition for two and a half weeks. The NCAA is supposed to provide a place where student-athletes can flourish as just that: students and athletes. Again, we would be lying to ourselves if we thought that the ideals of the NCAA were upheld, especially at the Division I level. Examining just men's basketball and football in the NCAA, you find that many of the student-athletes are not graduating from their institutions. They use their scholarship to have a full time job of athletics in hopes of reaching the professional level. It is very much one sided as opposed to the idea that each individual can succeed in both realms. Now, obviously there are those who can do both in intercollegiate athletics. And there are obviously some Olympic athletes who are there for solely the experience. However, in both instances you would be remiss to think that there is not a higher purpose. Nowadays, the purpose of both these events is to win and to get paid. This is from the athletes' standpoints as well as those of the sponsors.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Try to Understand
I remember hearing the issues about Rene Portland at Penn State regarding her policy about not allowing lesbians play on her basketball team. As the perception is that there are more lesbians playing competitive women's sports than homosexuals playing men's sport, I was slightly taken back by her policy. When I first heard about it, I guess I just assumed that since the perception was there, people would be more tolerant towards the situation. I also felt like if there had been any policy put in place on a team dealing with sexual orientation, it would have come from a men's team rather than a women's team.
Regardless of what my perception was at the time of Portland's incident, my views about this topic have become more informed since entering college. Playing volleyball at Ohio Northern, I have had one gay teammate and my coach for four years is a gay man. The teammate was a sophomore my freshman year. After the school year, he had quit the team and transferred to Findlay. It was during the summer that he had come out to a few of his upperclassmen friends on the team. Ironically, even with a gay coach, he was unable to come out during the season or while he was still a member of the team. I would assume that this had something to do with his thought that his teammates might treat him differently.
Having a gay head coach, moreso than a gay teammate, helped myself along with my teammates understand more about the issue. Without sport, I am not sure that I would have had the understanding that I have now. Sport has always been somewhat of a comfortable thing for me. Sport is what I knew, and it has always been the one avenue that I could better understand life lessons. This situation was no different. What I learned is that people often times place judgment without really knowing a person. This situation helped me wait to pass judgment until I saw what a person is really about. Before, it was easier to labels on people such as 'gay' or 'straight' or 'popular' or 'athletic.' Now, I think its much better to not label anyone unless you get a chance to know them yourself.
The one other big thing I learned is that sport allows you to simply compete and be an athlete or coach. When it came down to it, never once in a game or a practice did I think of my coach as being gay. Rather, I just thought that he was my coach who was trying to make our team better. With that outlook, I had much success and learned many coaching lessons throughout my years. If I had been blinded by something that really did not matter when dealing with sport, I would have hindered myself immeasurably in achieving my potential.
Regardless of what my perception was at the time of Portland's incident, my views about this topic have become more informed since entering college. Playing volleyball at Ohio Northern, I have had one gay teammate and my coach for four years is a gay man. The teammate was a sophomore my freshman year. After the school year, he had quit the team and transferred to Findlay. It was during the summer that he had come out to a few of his upperclassmen friends on the team. Ironically, even with a gay coach, he was unable to come out during the season or while he was still a member of the team. I would assume that this had something to do with his thought that his teammates might treat him differently.
Having a gay head coach, moreso than a gay teammate, helped myself along with my teammates understand more about the issue. Without sport, I am not sure that I would have had the understanding that I have now. Sport has always been somewhat of a comfortable thing for me. Sport is what I knew, and it has always been the one avenue that I could better understand life lessons. This situation was no different. What I learned is that people often times place judgment without really knowing a person. This situation helped me wait to pass judgment until I saw what a person is really about. Before, it was easier to labels on people such as 'gay' or 'straight' or 'popular' or 'athletic.' Now, I think its much better to not label anyone unless you get a chance to know them yourself.
The one other big thing I learned is that sport allows you to simply compete and be an athlete or coach. When it came down to it, never once in a game or a practice did I think of my coach as being gay. Rather, I just thought that he was my coach who was trying to make our team better. With that outlook, I had much success and learned many coaching lessons throughout my years. If I had been blinded by something that really did not matter when dealing with sport, I would have hindered myself immeasurably in achieving my potential.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The Showtime Lakers Create a Sports Fan
The story of Dustin Carter, in my opinion, is one of great courage and fascination. Not only the fact that he was able to compete at the high school level, but Dustin was a serious competitor. He had a very successful career by anyone's standards and even made it to the state wrestling meet, without arms and legs. His appendages only extend to his elbow or knee joints.
We discussed in class how our athletic careers would have been different if we had been born the opposite sex. I believe the story of Dustin can also beg the question of how our athletic career would have been different if we had to deal with a disability.
For me, I have no idea what that situation would have brought. I do know that my interest for basketball had sparked from the moment I realized what I was watching on television. My mom loves telling the story of how I refused to watch cartoons when I was little. I only wanted to watch 'backet ball." This created a huge problem for me during the offseason. Growing up near Los Angeles, I was a huge Lakers fan when Magic Johnson was running the show. I was such a big fan, I remember crying when he announced his retirement due to his contraction of the HIV virus. It was a no brainer for my parents to buy me a small hoop for our back yard so I could practice my sweet, two-handed jumper.
With that type of background and exposure to the sport when I was very young, I cannot imagine my love of basketball to change if I had been disabled. At that point, it was not about watching the sport because I could necessarily relate. It was about watching the sport because it was attractive to me. I loved the way it was played, I loved the atmosphere, and I had a great team to watch and follow. Because I enjoyed it so much, my parents then would do things such as buy me a basketball and rim or buy me memorabilia and apparel. Let's say I had no arms or no legs. I believe my parents would have facilitated to my needs to still allow me to have a positive experience with the sport.
While I'm not sure I would have had a different experience as a child, I do think that I would have had a different experience later in life. I don't think I could have played varsity basketball or volleyball in junior high or high school. This would have then changed my decision on college and ultimately what I am doing with my life right now. The ability to play and do well at sports allowed me opportunities that I might not have had if I was not able to play at the levels I did. Therefore, my life over the past decade and a half would most likely have changed, but I do not think my love of sports would have.
We discussed in class how our athletic careers would have been different if we had been born the opposite sex. I believe the story of Dustin can also beg the question of how our athletic career would have been different if we had to deal with a disability.
For me, I have no idea what that situation would have brought. I do know that my interest for basketball had sparked from the moment I realized what I was watching on television. My mom loves telling the story of how I refused to watch cartoons when I was little. I only wanted to watch 'backet ball." This created a huge problem for me during the offseason. Growing up near Los Angeles, I was a huge Lakers fan when Magic Johnson was running the show. I was such a big fan, I remember crying when he announced his retirement due to his contraction of the HIV virus. It was a no brainer for my parents to buy me a small hoop for our back yard so I could practice my sweet, two-handed jumper.
With that type of background and exposure to the sport when I was very young, I cannot imagine my love of basketball to change if I had been disabled. At that point, it was not about watching the sport because I could necessarily relate. It was about watching the sport because it was attractive to me. I loved the way it was played, I loved the atmosphere, and I had a great team to watch and follow. Because I enjoyed it so much, my parents then would do things such as buy me a basketball and rim or buy me memorabilia and apparel. Let's say I had no arms or no legs. I believe my parents would have facilitated to my needs to still allow me to have a positive experience with the sport.
While I'm not sure I would have had a different experience as a child, I do think that I would have had a different experience later in life. I don't think I could have played varsity basketball or volleyball in junior high or high school. This would have then changed my decision on college and ultimately what I am doing with my life right now. The ability to play and do well at sports allowed me opportunities that I might not have had if I was not able to play at the levels I did. Therefore, my life over the past decade and a half would most likely have changed, but I do not think my love of sports would have.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Buscones = Crooked Searchers?
As I was thinking about the young baseball players in the Dominican Republic, I became interested in what the term ‘buscones’ translated to in English. First, I asked a coworker who is fluent in Spanish, but he had not ever heard or used the word. After perusing the Internet for a few minutes I found a couple of translations. The first one I found translated to ‘crooked.’ The second one I found translated to ‘searchers.’ If you were to put the two definitions together, I suppose that there is an accurate description of the men who run these programs in the Dominican Republic. They are always in search of finding or creating the next best baseball player to come from their country. When they discover the player, then they become crooked, or corrupt, in a sense that they take 35 percent of the player’s signing bonus.
To answer the question of development versus exploitation is tricky, in my opinion. Taking such a high percentage of the player’s money is gross exploitation. However, it is not as concrete as to whether the buscones methods of creating a great ballplayer is exploitation. In the United States, every summer a large number of hopefuls put their skills on display and try out for various travel league baseball teams. To most of us, this is very common and we would never think negatively about the situation. When this same thing happens in the Dominican Republic, people all of a sudden say that the children are being exploited. These prospective Major League Baseball players go through drills for pro scouts. Potentially hundreds of players will be there to try out. So what some people are calling exploitation, the United States calls the NFL combine. One of the perceptions is wrong because essentially the same thing is taking place in two different countries. The only difference is that in one, it is perfectly acceptable, and in the other, it is morally wrong.
The basic premise of the mass tryouts and the buscones does not bother me a ton. The two parts that I have an issue with are when the buscones take such a large sum of money from these kids and when MLB pays the Dominican players on a lower scale simply because they are not from the U.S. The players may not care right at first because the money is still much greater than what they would have in their home country, but if they work in the United States they should be treated fairly.
As a final side note, I felt Sandy Alderson was a tremendous jerk on the Outside the Lines episode. He had such a sense of superiority and would not even pronounce buscones correctly. He said it in very Americanized way that, to me, showed he refused to respect the culture when the word had been spoked correctly numerous times around him.
To answer the question of development versus exploitation is tricky, in my opinion. Taking such a high percentage of the player’s money is gross exploitation. However, it is not as concrete as to whether the buscones methods of creating a great ballplayer is exploitation. In the United States, every summer a large number of hopefuls put their skills on display and try out for various travel league baseball teams. To most of us, this is very common and we would never think negatively about the situation. When this same thing happens in the Dominican Republic, people all of a sudden say that the children are being exploited. These prospective Major League Baseball players go through drills for pro scouts. Potentially hundreds of players will be there to try out. So what some people are calling exploitation, the United States calls the NFL combine. One of the perceptions is wrong because essentially the same thing is taking place in two different countries. The only difference is that in one, it is perfectly acceptable, and in the other, it is morally wrong.
The basic premise of the mass tryouts and the buscones does not bother me a ton. The two parts that I have an issue with are when the buscones take such a large sum of money from these kids and when MLB pays the Dominican players on a lower scale simply because they are not from the U.S. The players may not care right at first because the money is still much greater than what they would have in their home country, but if they work in the United States they should be treated fairly.
As a final side note, I felt Sandy Alderson was a tremendous jerk on the Outside the Lines episode. He had such a sense of superiority and would not even pronounce buscones correctly. He said it in very Americanized way that, to me, showed he refused to respect the culture when the word had been spoked correctly numerous times around him.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Indian Wells and the Williams Threesome
The racism that Venus, Serena and Richard Williams faced at Indian Wells in 2001 was an absolute atrocity. Not only was blatant racism on display that day, but I believe that some of fans could have been excessively harsh also because they are women. Being black women, two historically discriminated against classes, must have disturbed many of the white elitist who were probably in attendance that day.
Although the sisters have had tremendous success, that day showed that they had not reached a point where race is no longer an issue for them. Tiger Woods has achieved this status in another elitist sport with golf. Can you imagine Tiger having to withdraw from this week's Accenture Math Play Championship and then receiving a plethora of "boos" the next time he competes? I surely cannot. Even before he won the U.S. Open on one leg last year, I highly doubt fans would have received him the same way the Williams sisters were received at Indian Wells. I think this can be attributed to the fact Tiger sits alone at the top of his game. Others are close and have attempted to dethrone him, but no one can ever sustain his level of success. With Venus and Serena on the other hand, they are at the top of their profession, but they share that spot with quite a few other players. Even between the two of them, they are not as dominating at their sport as Tiger is at his.
Many people in class on Wednesday talked about their disdain for Richard Williams. While I have not followed his antics on a regular basis, it does sound like he has done some pretty ridiculous things throughout his daughters' careers. However, I feel it is unfair to judge a person before examining some of the experiences they have had in life. As a white male, I can only speculate on the racism that Richard has faced during his lifetime. Indian Wells was a very public display of racism, but I am sure that this instance was not the first time he had faced this issue. He probably has had to deal with racism on at least a weekly basis, if not a daily basis. When any person deals with something of that nature, they can become calloused to society. At first, I am sure that Williams would sit back and take much of the racism that came his way. But over time, people will become more outspoken and learn to take a stand for themselves. Going even further, people can stop caring about what people might say about or do to them, so they act in sometimes ridiculous ways. I will give Richard Williams the benefit of the doubt that he has faced things in life that I can only begin to imagine. Like my experiences have shaped how I live life, his experience have most likely helped determine how he lives his life, as well.
Although the sisters have had tremendous success, that day showed that they had not reached a point where race is no longer an issue for them. Tiger Woods has achieved this status in another elitist sport with golf. Can you imagine Tiger having to withdraw from this week's Accenture Math Play Championship and then receiving a plethora of "boos" the next time he competes? I surely cannot. Even before he won the U.S. Open on one leg last year, I highly doubt fans would have received him the same way the Williams sisters were received at Indian Wells. I think this can be attributed to the fact Tiger sits alone at the top of his game. Others are close and have attempted to dethrone him, but no one can ever sustain his level of success. With Venus and Serena on the other hand, they are at the top of their profession, but they share that spot with quite a few other players. Even between the two of them, they are not as dominating at their sport as Tiger is at his.
Many people in class on Wednesday talked about their disdain for Richard Williams. While I have not followed his antics on a regular basis, it does sound like he has done some pretty ridiculous things throughout his daughters' careers. However, I feel it is unfair to judge a person before examining some of the experiences they have had in life. As a white male, I can only speculate on the racism that Richard has faced during his lifetime. Indian Wells was a very public display of racism, but I am sure that this instance was not the first time he had faced this issue. He probably has had to deal with racism on at least a weekly basis, if not a daily basis. When any person deals with something of that nature, they can become calloused to society. At first, I am sure that Williams would sit back and take much of the racism that came his way. But over time, people will become more outspoken and learn to take a stand for themselves. Going even further, people can stop caring about what people might say about or do to them, so they act in sometimes ridiculous ways. I will give Richard Williams the benefit of the doubt that he has faced things in life that I can only begin to imagine. Like my experiences have shaped how I live life, his experience have most likely helped determine how he lives his life, as well.
Almost Raceless
Very few black athletes are able to get to a point where they are simply looked at as athletes and not black athletes. In my opinion, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan, among others, have reached this level in their respective careers. However, they have each used this avenue differently in their lives.
We discussed in class how Tiger refers to himself as "CA-BL-IN-ASIAN." By doing this, he is recognizing that he is a diverse person, coming from many different backgrounds (caucasian, black, Indian, Asian). Oprah referred to him as America's son (Cashmore, p. 621) and Cashmore states that he is the new face of America and helped bring about the new racial order in the United States. This is an order where racism has disappeared (p. 622). These are two more examples where Tiger seems to allow others to help him embrace the role of eliminating racial barriers.
To my knowledge, Jordan never has been very public about being a leader of the black race, or any controversial issue for that matter. He has continually been criticized at different points for being in a position to influence racial perceptions of people but refusing to do so. He has simply kept himself away from the issue. This has been completely different than his good friend Charles Barkley, who uses his platform as an ex-NBA player and celebrity to incite conversation about any controversial topic that he feels needs to be addressed. Many times, Barkley is concerned about racial issues.
Although Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan have gone about dealing with race in different matters, both have reached a point where they transcend race. People of all ages, races, genders, etc., are naturally drawn to both of them because of the successes they have had in their professions. It seems as if no one needs to bring up the fact that they are black when they accomplish one of their many feats. People do not discuss that Tiger might end up with the most majors for a "black golfer." They are just concerned that he might end up with the most majors of any golfer. The same could be said for Jordan. People only talk about how many championships he won or how he was the best basketball player of all time. This may have been easier to accomplish for Jordan because of the sport he played. In basketball, there is obviously a much greater black population in the professional ranks.
We discussed in class how Tiger refers to himself as "CA-BL-IN-ASIAN." By doing this, he is recognizing that he is a diverse person, coming from many different backgrounds (caucasian, black, Indian, Asian). Oprah referred to him as America's son (Cashmore, p. 621) and Cashmore states that he is the new face of America and helped bring about the new racial order in the United States. This is an order where racism has disappeared (p. 622). These are two more examples where Tiger seems to allow others to help him embrace the role of eliminating racial barriers.
To my knowledge, Jordan never has been very public about being a leader of the black race, or any controversial issue for that matter. He has continually been criticized at different points for being in a position to influence racial perceptions of people but refusing to do so. He has simply kept himself away from the issue. This has been completely different than his good friend Charles Barkley, who uses his platform as an ex-NBA player and celebrity to incite conversation about any controversial topic that he feels needs to be addressed. Many times, Barkley is concerned about racial issues.
Although Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan have gone about dealing with race in different matters, both have reached a point where they transcend race. People of all ages, races, genders, etc., are naturally drawn to both of them because of the successes they have had in their professions. It seems as if no one needs to bring up the fact that they are black when they accomplish one of their many feats. People do not discuss that Tiger might end up with the most majors for a "black golfer." They are just concerned that he might end up with the most majors of any golfer. The same could be said for Jordan. People only talk about how many championships he won or how he was the best basketball player of all time. This may have been easier to accomplish for Jordan because of the sport he played. In basketball, there is obviously a much greater black population in the professional ranks.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Surgery Update and Belated Super Bowl Observations
It has been nearly two weeks since I had surgery to repair my left knee. Originally, they doctor thought it was an isolated ACL tear. After an initial look at the MRI, he noticed a small tear in my medial meniscus. On the morning of the surgery, he informed me they found another tear in my lateral meniscus. So my walking time line went from 7-10 days after surgery to 3-4 weeks. I knew that I would not be able to come to class the first week (week of Feb. 2), but the second week of missing class came as a little bit of a surprise. Luckily, the knee has been getting better every day, and I will be able to make it to class on Monday, February 16.
As far as the Super Bowl is concerned, one piece of information stuck out to me. Looking back to the Super Bowl the featured the Indianapolis Colts and Chicago Bears, one theme really controlled the media attention. This theme was that each head coach, Tony Dungy for the Colts and Lovie Smith for the Bears, happened to be African-American. This obviously meant that a black head coach would finally have the title of head coach for a Super Bowl champion.
After the completion of this year's game and a Pittsburgh Steeler victory, Mike Tomlin became the second black coach to win a Super Bowl as a head coach. Almost instantly after the game, I thought about when Tony Dungy made history just a few years ago. The more amazing thought I had, was that I did not remember a single time that the media made a big deal about the color of Tomlin's skin. Now, this could be attributed to me not watching enough Super Bowl coverage, but I really feel that it just was not an important piece of information this year. I also do not remember anyone saying much about his race after the game.
To me this could mean a few things. First, the possibility is there that the media just had more important or interesting story lines this season. From Larry Fitzgerald's father in the media, to Ben Roethlisberger's injury, to Anquan Boldin's antics, this is a very real possibility. The other, and more hopeful, possibility is that race has become more of a non-issue in society. While I do not believe that to be the case (race always plays a part in perceptions, whether people realize it or not), I believe there may be another reason. Maybe the novelty of a black head coach winning a Super Bowl just wore off, so people did not care anymore. I was not around when Jackie Robinson broke the race barrier in baseball or Jesse Owens won four gold medals in the Olympics, but I would imagine that the second time an African-American performed these feats people did not make nearly as big of a deal about it. Can anyone name the SECOND black baseball player to play in Major League Baseball? I highly doubt that most people can.
While I would like to think that society has changed and does not notice race, it has only been a short few years. Change takes way more time than that.
As far as the Super Bowl is concerned, one piece of information stuck out to me. Looking back to the Super Bowl the featured the Indianapolis Colts and Chicago Bears, one theme really controlled the media attention. This theme was that each head coach, Tony Dungy for the Colts and Lovie Smith for the Bears, happened to be African-American. This obviously meant that a black head coach would finally have the title of head coach for a Super Bowl champion.
After the completion of this year's game and a Pittsburgh Steeler victory, Mike Tomlin became the second black coach to win a Super Bowl as a head coach. Almost instantly after the game, I thought about when Tony Dungy made history just a few years ago. The more amazing thought I had, was that I did not remember a single time that the media made a big deal about the color of Tomlin's skin. Now, this could be attributed to me not watching enough Super Bowl coverage, but I really feel that it just was not an important piece of information this year. I also do not remember anyone saying much about his race after the game.
To me this could mean a few things. First, the possibility is there that the media just had more important or interesting story lines this season. From Larry Fitzgerald's father in the media, to Ben Roethlisberger's injury, to Anquan Boldin's antics, this is a very real possibility. The other, and more hopeful, possibility is that race has become more of a non-issue in society. While I do not believe that to be the case (race always plays a part in perceptions, whether people realize it or not), I believe there may be another reason. Maybe the novelty of a black head coach winning a Super Bowl just wore off, so people did not care anymore. I was not around when Jackie Robinson broke the race barrier in baseball or Jesse Owens won four gold medals in the Olympics, but I would imagine that the second time an African-American performed these feats people did not make nearly as big of a deal about it. Can anyone name the SECOND black baseball player to play in Major League Baseball? I highly doubt that most people can.
While I would like to think that society has changed and does not notice race, it has only been a short few years. Change takes way more time than that.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Millennial Students
When I first began reading this article, it became very clear that I have had conversations regarding the different generations before. I'm not sure that I've ever highlighted much of anything throughout my scholastic years, but this article spoke many truths that I felt were highlight-worthy.
The first point that I highlighted was that members of the Millennial generation, "...Have been socialized by supportive parents to be successful in life." This concept always makes me laugh. I would venture that most of our parents, from an early age, always told us that we can do whatever we want in life. They would tell us that the opportunities are endless, and if we work hard, we can achieve anything. Although that sounds like a great theory, that is not always the reality. As an extreme example, I believe there is no way I could have ever become a professional basketball player. Even though I worked harder than most people on my high school team, there were just certain physical barriers that I could not overcome to be successful beyond high school basketball. In a more realistic setting, most people believe that working hard equates to getting whatever job you want. While working hard definitely increases your chance at success, there are many other variables beyond hard work that will dictate what you do. Later in the article, the author gives us six characteristics of Millennials. The two that help support my idea are that Millennials are protected and sheltered and that Millennials are confident and optimistic about their futures. Parents do very much protect and shelter their children. I find this to be most true in conventionally upper class or rural settings that aren't always exposed to different cultures. By living around one demographic during your childhood, this group of Millennials are even more sheltered from the differences in the world, not only by their parents, but by their limited surroundings. Regarding the confidence in one's future, Millennials often have the false sense of optimism as I mentioned before. I think most Millennials are prone to always having a plan for the future. Even though it might change consistently, there is always a positive plan or idea that they will tell people about. Unfortunately, most of the time these ideas do not come to fruition. When the plan fades out, then they are on to the next plan or idea that sounds feasible at the time but ends up being overly optimistic in reality.
The second point that made me laugh because of previous conversations dealt with the Millennial dependence on technology. First, it was stated that, "...given their access to and use of computers, pagers and cell phones, they have keenly mastered the ability to multitask." My initial thought was, while we might be able to multitask, the more pressing issue is that technology has severely deteriorated our attention span. Between texting, instant messaging, and browsing the internet, we are always going back and forth between activities. Sure enough, two paragraphs later the author mentions how technology has "shortened their collective attention span." Another good point was how the over-reliance on technology has stunted our face-to-face skills. Again, this is so true as most Millennials would rather send an e-mail or text message instead of calling a person or discussing something face-to-face.
The first point that I highlighted was that members of the Millennial generation, "...Have been socialized by supportive parents to be successful in life." This concept always makes me laugh. I would venture that most of our parents, from an early age, always told us that we can do whatever we want in life. They would tell us that the opportunities are endless, and if we work hard, we can achieve anything. Although that sounds like a great theory, that is not always the reality. As an extreme example, I believe there is no way I could have ever become a professional basketball player. Even though I worked harder than most people on my high school team, there were just certain physical barriers that I could not overcome to be successful beyond high school basketball. In a more realistic setting, most people believe that working hard equates to getting whatever job you want. While working hard definitely increases your chance at success, there are many other variables beyond hard work that will dictate what you do. Later in the article, the author gives us six characteristics of Millennials. The two that help support my idea are that Millennials are protected and sheltered and that Millennials are confident and optimistic about their futures. Parents do very much protect and shelter their children. I find this to be most true in conventionally upper class or rural settings that aren't always exposed to different cultures. By living around one demographic during your childhood, this group of Millennials are even more sheltered from the differences in the world, not only by their parents, but by their limited surroundings. Regarding the confidence in one's future, Millennials often have the false sense of optimism as I mentioned before. I think most Millennials are prone to always having a plan for the future. Even though it might change consistently, there is always a positive plan or idea that they will tell people about. Unfortunately, most of the time these ideas do not come to fruition. When the plan fades out, then they are on to the next plan or idea that sounds feasible at the time but ends up being overly optimistic in reality.
The second point that made me laugh because of previous conversations dealt with the Millennial dependence on technology. First, it was stated that, "...given their access to and use of computers, pagers and cell phones, they have keenly mastered the ability to multitask." My initial thought was, while we might be able to multitask, the more pressing issue is that technology has severely deteriorated our attention span. Between texting, instant messaging, and browsing the internet, we are always going back and forth between activities. Sure enough, two paragraphs later the author mentions how technology has "shortened their collective attention span." Another good point was how the over-reliance on technology has stunted our face-to-face skills. Again, this is so true as most Millennials would rather send an e-mail or text message instead of calling a person or discussing something face-to-face.
Friday, January 23, 2009
The prevailing people of the present may not be those of the future
In class on Wednesday we had a question to answer about what types of people are relevant in today's society. At the time that Mills wrote the Sociological Imagination, it was mentioned that black athletes such as Jim Brown and Bill Russell had become powerful, outspoken leaders in society. Two men that directly came to my mind regarding black athletes speaking out were Tommie Smith and John Carlos. Although their stand against human rights was in 1968 at the Mexico City Summer Olympic games, a thought came to my mind. Smith and Carlos, who are many times now perceived as heroes of the time, were shunned by the Olympic committee at the time of their famous picture on the podium where they raised their fists donned with black gloves to represent black power. Many years passed before their actions were viewed as positive for not only their race, but human rights in general (Smith was an advocate for all human rights. He was part of an organization call the Olympic Project for Human Rights whose aim was to protest racial segregation in the United States and general racism in sports. You can see Smith, Carlos and the silver medalist from Australia, Peter Norman, sporting patches with initials OPHR on them).
When were then answering the questions from Mills about our own society, I felt that an example of Smith and Carlos was relevant. At their famous moment, they were not seen as prevailing citizens. They had taken an unpopular stance that caused much tension. Now, they are viewed as activists for human rights and racial integration in sport, and the connotation of their names has changed from negative to positive as time had passed.
So looking at today's society, we are able to choose who the prevailing people are based on societal perceptions. First, lets look at a person like Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns. For his two MVP seasons, the media seemed to have a love affair with him, making him a positive person of the moment. He was touted as an unathletic NBA player who was able to maximize his potential and make every player around him better. For all intents and purposes, he was the ideal teammate. Now compare him to Kobe Bryant who has become an antagonist to the media and many NBA fans. We hear about how he ran Shaq out of L.A., how he constantly yells at teammates, and how he can only play within the team system for so long before he become selfish. He would not be considered an ideal teammate.
With that, it seems clear that Nash will forever be a hero and Kobe will forever be a villain. I disagree with that notion. If that were the case, it would have been impossible for Tommie Smith and John Carlos to ever be viewed in a positive manner. It took years upon years for their place in history to be solidified, and the same thing will happen for Nash and Kobe. Nash may have a great career and win another MVP award, but maybe he does nothing of cultural relevance that sticks with people 50 years from now. Kobe has had a great playing career but has been overshadowed by some of his deficiencies. However, it is quite possible that the way he acts today and the things he says today will be the way the world functions in 50 years. I am not saying that either of them have done something profound at this point. What I am saying is that it seems almost impossible to tell who are the prevailing people of the time until years have passed. The perceptions of today will most likely not be the perceptions of the future.
When were then answering the questions from Mills about our own society, I felt that an example of Smith and Carlos was relevant. At their famous moment, they were not seen as prevailing citizens. They had taken an unpopular stance that caused much tension. Now, they are viewed as activists for human rights and racial integration in sport, and the connotation of their names has changed from negative to positive as time had passed.
So looking at today's society, we are able to choose who the prevailing people are based on societal perceptions. First, lets look at a person like Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns. For his two MVP seasons, the media seemed to have a love affair with him, making him a positive person of the moment. He was touted as an unathletic NBA player who was able to maximize his potential and make every player around him better. For all intents and purposes, he was the ideal teammate. Now compare him to Kobe Bryant who has become an antagonist to the media and many NBA fans. We hear about how he ran Shaq out of L.A., how he constantly yells at teammates, and how he can only play within the team system for so long before he become selfish. He would not be considered an ideal teammate.
With that, it seems clear that Nash will forever be a hero and Kobe will forever be a villain. I disagree with that notion. If that were the case, it would have been impossible for Tommie Smith and John Carlos to ever be viewed in a positive manner. It took years upon years for their place in history to be solidified, and the same thing will happen for Nash and Kobe. Nash may have a great career and win another MVP award, but maybe he does nothing of cultural relevance that sticks with people 50 years from now. Kobe has had a great playing career but has been overshadowed by some of his deficiencies. However, it is quite possible that the way he acts today and the things he says today will be the way the world functions in 50 years. I am not saying that either of them have done something profound at this point. What I am saying is that it seems almost impossible to tell who are the prevailing people of the time until years have passed. The perceptions of today will most likely not be the perceptions of the future.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Class Introduction
As I stated in class, my name is Steven Wright and I am the assistant sports information director at Ohio Northern University. I recently graduated from ONU in May of 2008 and decided to stay in Ada for two more years while I pursue my master's degree at Bowling Green.
We were asked in class to come up with a statement that would help identify and introduce ourselves. For me, the identifying statement has recently changed. A year ago I was a three-year captain and four-year starter for the Ohio Northern men's club volleyball team. I had great success as part of the team as well as an individual. We were able to win the 2007 National Championship, which was the ultimate achievement in my four years. I was also named to the All-Tournament Team at nationals three seasons, First Team All-Conference all four years and Conference MVP three seasons. At that point in my life I would have used the statement, "I lead, therefore I am." With my current position at ONU, a new statement that I would now use as a self-descriptor is, "I inform, therefore I am." I do not believe that is a statement that I would like to have for the rest of my life, but the job is definitely enjoyable and has some perks. For example, in March I will get to work the first and second rounds of the NCAA March Madness Tournament in Greensboro, North Carolina due to my connections in the sports information world.
Other sport-related job experiences include serving as an assistant coach for the women's volleyball team at ONU in the fall of 2007 as well as being a public relations associate for a Texas Collegiate League baseball team named the Duncanville Deputies in the summer of 2007. Also, throughout my undergraduate work at Ohio Northern, I served as a student worker in the sports information office. That experience helped land my graduate assistant position at Northern.
We were asked in class to come up with a statement that would help identify and introduce ourselves. For me, the identifying statement has recently changed. A year ago I was a three-year captain and four-year starter for the Ohio Northern men's club volleyball team. I had great success as part of the team as well as an individual. We were able to win the 2007 National Championship, which was the ultimate achievement in my four years. I was also named to the All-Tournament Team at nationals three seasons, First Team All-Conference all four years and Conference MVP three seasons. At that point in my life I would have used the statement, "I lead, therefore I am." With my current position at ONU, a new statement that I would now use as a self-descriptor is, "I inform, therefore I am." I do not believe that is a statement that I would like to have for the rest of my life, but the job is definitely enjoyable and has some perks. For example, in March I will get to work the first and second rounds of the NCAA March Madness Tournament in Greensboro, North Carolina due to my connections in the sports information world.
Other sport-related job experiences include serving as an assistant coach for the women's volleyball team at ONU in the fall of 2007 as well as being a public relations associate for a Texas Collegiate League baseball team named the Duncanville Deputies in the summer of 2007. Also, throughout my undergraduate work at Ohio Northern, I served as a student worker in the sports information office. That experience helped land my graduate assistant position at Northern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
