I moved this last week and the only internet access I have is using my neighbors unprotected wireless that disconnects every few minutes. I’ll have a real connection tomorrow and posting should resume on a near-daily basis. Until then, I recommend that the two people who read this site check out this special report from the Economist. I wanted to link it earlier but it slipped my mind, however, it is highly informative.
absolutes
August 25, 2008
I’m not sure if this is a trend that is limited to only sports journalism or if it is widespread in other mediums as I have only really identified it with regards to covering athletic competitions. When writing about sports, the first rule is seemingly to stake your opinion and then relentlessly defend it, never admitting that the truth may lay somewhere in the middle of your argument and the counter-point. A player is either great or washed up, a team is championship caliber or lottery bound, fans are either passionate or disloyal, etc. The great writers don’t do this, but as we all know, a vast majority of writers would not qualify as great.
I am bringing this point up because upon re-reading my original reflections on the Josh Childress signing, I realized that I too was speaking in absolutes. My stance was that his fleeing the NBA for the proverbial greener pastures of Greece marked the beginning of an exodus of talent to foreign teams. My basis for this logic were mainly economic as I felt the rising Euro in combination with the falling dollar would make the option for fiscally viable. I also felt that the limitless salary restrictions, and the tax free salary would greatly outweigh the benefits of staying in the NBA at a lower pay but for more prestige. In fact, I was pretty adamant that players would not care much for the supposed prestige when millions of dollars were at stake. These conclusions, with regards to the non-economic related fields, were without merit and empirical evidence. My mistake.
The other side of the argument, and the one I saw argued most by talking heads and former players, was that this signing was a mere anomaly and would have no future impact on the league. The central point to their argument, if I may generalize, was that children grow up dreaming of playing in the NBA, not in Greece or Russia, and that given the choice very few would abandon their childhood goal. While this notion is an intangible that cannot be measured with actual values, it obviously does play a role in the choice of the players. I did not take the time to account for the fact that these players would be leaving behind their friends and families to live in a country where they most likely do not even speak the language of its citizens. Their are a multitude of things that could impact a players choice beyond the financial aspect, and it plays a much larger role than I was willing to give it credit for. Again, my mistake.
The truth of the situation, as I was saying, most likely is in between these two arguments. Will players continue to leave the NBA for Europe? Yes. Will players stay in the NBA to realize their dreams? Yes. I made a mistake in generalizing the players as one, instead of realizing that everyone has different values and backgrounds the would easily impact how comfortable they would be playing overseas or if they want to remain at home. Some players may have grown up only wanting to play in the NBA while others may have just gotten into basketball because they were naturally talented at it.
I am willing to admit that I was wrong because I spoke without examining a multi-faceted issue on those multiple facets, however, I still believe that the NBA must begin to reexamine its collective bargaining agreement if it wants to remain as the only viable basketball league in mainstream culture. Revolutions do not happen over night, and I am certainly not calling this a revolution, but changes will come without warning unless David Stern has the foresight to look ahead. Europeans already have a better youth development system than we do, and Spain came dangerously close to beating the All-Star lead Olympic roster without their starting point guard, so to say that the talent gap is all the the NBA needs to remain afloat is shortsighted and dangerously naive. Over-expansion has already diluted that talent pool amongst 32 teams so we as fans certainly do not even more of a disparaging displacement of players.
In 1988 China won 5 gold medals at the Olympics, and this year they won more than any other country. While they did that through raising children to become Olympians in events where they could easily garner multiple gold medals, you can see how that approach could be used to raise legions of Europeans who are not only good at basketball, but have enough national pride to remain in their country’s leagues instead of the NBA. I am not trying to announce the death of the NBA as I earnestly believe that it will always be one of the top leagues in the world, but as globalization continues to reach its hands into all aspects of our lives, is it really that absurd to believe that in twenty years we could have multiple viable leagues world-wide in the same sense that the EPL coexists with La Liga and Serie A?
Being open to new ideas and preparing for them is not the mark of a paranoid man, rather, it shows the someone is never satisfied with their current position. The NBA should not be so arrogant to dismiss the idea of a viable second league entirely much in the same way that I should not have been so brash to declare a new era upon us. The future will most certainly fall somewhere in between those two arguments and it should only serve to benefit us, the fans, who care more about watching a good game of basketball than rooting for a good game of basketball with the caveat that it is only played on American (or Toronto) soil.
social activists
August 21, 2008
The question of the social responsibility of athletes has been argued for as long as athletic competitions have been around. On one hand, people feel that those who are able to capture the attention of the public through their athletic abilities have a responsibility to use their platform to inform the masses about the current issues of the day (Iraq, Darfur, etc) while others feel that an opinion spoken by someone famous has as much weight as anything espoused by Stephan Baldwin. That is not to say that an athlete who is speaking their mind is necessarily ignorant, indeed there are many athletes out their such as Dikembe Mutombo who use their wealth and public figure to raise awareness for issues and do a wonderful job. No one should be forced into being a role model, and no one should be forced to stump for issues for any reason other than that they choose to.
The reason for this post came from an interview I read between Dan Steinberg and John Amaechi, who last year become one of the first (if not the first) former NBA player to publicly admit to being a homosexual. While I did not read his book (I tend to avoid anything that is only relevant only because ESPN promotes it for weeks on end), most of what I have read from Amaechi via interviews and his blog have been rather interesting (albeit self-serving) but nonetheless I found him to be a capable writer. He is of the belief that athletes have a moral responsibility to use their fame for the betterment of the world at large. His stance is that given the rare platform of a global audience, those who are well-known owe it to everyone else to use some sway to get issues on the forefront of the papers. I must say that I strongly disagree with his stance.
And I think it’s disappointing, because I think even now, if Michael Jordan stood up and said, ‘You know what, let’s really do something about the inequity of education in America,’ then I think it would change.
Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time, an Oscar-caliber actor, the face of the most powerful shoe company in North America and most of all, not a political activist. He famously once stated that “Republicans buy shoes too,” a stance that has echoed his entire political career as in that he has remained silent on most if not all issues. If Michael Jordan chooses to become an activist, great. If not, then the world will still turn tomorrow. It is unfair to ask that someone campaigns if they do not believe that it is in their best interest. While some would like to believe that the nobility of a cause would be greater than the possible effect on the margins of Jordan’s bank account, it is up to every man to choose how they want to be remembered and if shoe-salesmen extraordinaire is the choice, then we should step back and allow them their freedom.
So yeah, I think they have the kind of power to change the world. I think it’s an awesome responsibility, and I can see why people wouldn’t want that. However, if you’re a God, every once in a while you’ve got to show it.
This statement is the underlying flaw in Amaechi’s argument: he believes that athletes are perceived as Gods. A fair assumption in you’re referring to a group of fourth graders, but for those of us that live in the real world, athletes are not Gods; they are people who we live vicariously through, people who live a life we wish we could live, who possess talents that we wish we had, but certainly not Gods. No one believes athletes are infallible, and no one should be listening to Kobe Bryant speak to find out their stance on ending apartheid. If Rex Chapman denounced the state of Israel and said that September 11th was a Zionist conspiracy, do you really believe that the fans of the University of Kentucky Wildcats would all begin to wear a keffiyeh and chant “death to the infidels”? Athletes may have the power to enrapture us, but to change the political landscape? There are certainly some that are capable of doing so, but to expect everyone who possesses an iota of athletic ability to also be a spokesmen is asinine.
After shooting this three, I would like to tell you sheeple about how the wool was lifted from my eyes after watching this movie called Loose Change.
It doesn’t have to be huge. I’m not talking about using the Olympics, embarrassing people, taking your medals and throwing them to the ground. I’m talking about publicly accepting these awards that you’ve earned, cherishing the moment, cherishing the fact that Chinese people here are just amazing, but tactfully saying, ‘I’ve got this medal but I wish along with this that there was improvements in this and this.’ That’s all you have to do. Small, tiny steps.
I can only reiterate so many times that asking people to step out of their element, regardless of financial background, fame, or whatever category you wish to pick, is just wrong. John Amaechi is in a unique situation because he is a former athlete who willingly became the face of the gay-rights movement in sports, so in a way he might believe that everyone else should have the same attitude. However, this is clearly not the case. There will always be people willing to champion causes, and some of them will be athletes, but there will also be people uncomfortable in that role, and we cannot ask them to step out of their element even if we believe it is for a good cause.
new media athletes
August 19, 2008
I should not know Paul Shirley’s name. He played for teams I don’t follow, isn’t very good (compared to most NBA players), and might best be known for his uncredited appearance as #50 for Iowa in Glory Road. However, I do know who he is because he used to write for ESPN while playing for the Phoenix Suns and parlayed that gig into publishing a book and working on a television pilot. He is for an intents and purposes a new media athlete. By leveraging the power of the internet, he was able to propel his career from that of a human victory cigar into becoming an author. Instead of toiling in obscurity, he now is only in relative obscurity (as in those who follow the NBA semi-irregularly might actually know who he is, unlike lets say Matt Bonner). Yes, the fact that he is a good writer certainly helped as no one wants to read the ramblings of a bad writer but it is important to not look past the fact that he was able to provide a service that few others could: an inside look at the life of an NBA player.
Gilbert Arenas is a tremendous athlete but were it not for his long-running blog on NBA.com would he be a near max-contract player with loads of endorsements? He already has the talent, but I sincerely believe that his blog took him to the next level where he was able to transcend the boundary between NBA star and pop-culture star. It is a well-known fact that he doesn’t even write the actual blog, instead he dictates his thoughts to someone else to writes it for him, yet people still flock to read it knowing that it may not be his 100%, authentic voice. His blog alone did not garner him his shoe deal, but it certainly did not hurt.
My third example of a new media athlete is Chris Bosh, star of the Toronto Raptors. He has been to known to produce videos for YouTube, usually skits of some sorts that make you think “hey if I were rich, I would do the same thing*” including a plea to make the All-Star team, and an interview with himself as Blane Herrington in a Eddie-Murphey-except-funny type role.
While you may not find this video funny, you certainly have to admit that he is taking advantage of his considerable means as a world-class athlete and making videos not only to entertain himself but to garner a new legion of fans. Currently he is playing for the USA Basketball team at the Beijing Olympics, but he is still posting videos about his journey. For the most part they offer an insight into a life that the vast majority of us will never be able to comprehend. He doesn’t have to do this but he does for his fans and because he wants to.
In this age of constant information it is important for athletes to reach out to their fans with a personal message rather than letting The Superficial do it for you. At this point in time Gilbert Arenas could murder a man in cold blood and all I would think is 1) I can’t wait for his blog post about it and 2) I wonder if he did it in a quirky fashion? Your image is everything and by merely spending a few hours a week writing a post, making videos or any other venue in which you can touch base with your fan base, you gain so much more than you could ever possibly lose. The differences between Chris Bosh’s videos and LeBron James’ Facebook are quite evident. I can hardly believe that James had any role in putting up the page other then signing his name to give permission. The video of James hanging out with his child and eating breakfast is done in a professional manner unlike Bosh who probably has his friends holding the camera and writing the script with him. If you could cause your name recognition to sky rocket merely by writing down your thoughts or producing videos with friends, don’t you think you would do it? There are really no downsides to this approach, and in the coming years I expect to see many more athletes who leverage the internet as a tool.
A quick warning, however, is that I would suggest that if you are an athlete with a MySpace or Facebook page, do the exact opposite of this man. The difference between using the internet to further your global appeal and using it to make a fool of yourself should be quite obvious.
*People who think this are dumb.
olympics and power
August 15, 2008
People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promises; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking… In the absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power.”
Robert Greene “The 48 Laws of Power”
It is often said that people watch sporting events as a means to escape the daily drudgery of life, and that is why Joe Average will spend hours reading about his favorite WNBA team, spending money on tickets and television packages, living and dying with every move, every playoff game, and every transaction. The power of sports is hard to recreate elsewhere in society; people do not cheer for companies to crush their competition (save for the cultists that worship Apple products) nor do they tend to go out of their way to support only one brand (again, save for the Apple fanatics). The difference in loyalty between a sports team/player and a company is fairly simple: people root for their teams by birth, tradition or at random whereas in most cases they choose to buy products from a company based off of convenience, availability or most likely the price. Yes, their are cases where some people will spend more for products based off of brand loyalty, but I figure it is a safe assumption to say as a whole that in general a majority of people care more for the economic impact of saving money than they do over buying an Intel computer over a rival.
The reason the Olympics are such a powerful product is because they take the fanaticism that follows athletic competitions but harnesses that into a nation-pride frenzy where the achievements of “our athletes” somehow ascends the boundary of competition and becomes a sense of national pride. Michael Phelps was born in America and his achievements are vicariously empowering America over other countries. Logically this idea makes no sense, but when you combine athletics and nation pride you get this mixture. China is famous for harvesting children at young ages who show any slight skill at an athletic event and training them for the onset of their journey into adulthood. The Chinese know better than anyone that if you can harness national pride and unite the common folk then they are much more willing to overlook issues such as human rights violations (yes I realize this does not make much sense if looked at from a rational manner but nationalism tends to be irrational).
The Olympics are the perfect platform for nations to expand national pride through athletic competitions. The men and women representing their respective countries are suppose to be the best in the world at what they do, and by association, the best countries must have the best. Julius Caesar often put on lavish spectacles to entertain the masses and establish himself as a larger-than-life figure. China is currently doing the same thing. Their opening ceremony was meticulously planned out the even the tiniest detail; they wanted everything to be perfect down to the little girl singing the national anthem to the 29 foot prints leading to the lighting of the Olympic torch. Since the games began, when was the last time you heard about their occupation of Tibet? While people care about the issues, the games serve as a distraction that many allow themselves to be easily caught up in. Make no mistake about it, the Olympics are an economic juggernaut that if used correctly can greatly enhance a country on the world wide level. Many people believed that China wanted these games to be their coming out party as a global power and thus far they have exceeded the expectation placed upon them.
Sports in general are often used as a tool of power. This is why teams are able to hold cities hostage for brand new facilities and sweet-heart leases as no politician wants to risk angering the masses by spurning a source of escapism and unity. When you combine the love at competition with the pride of nations you get a combination that can be easily whipped up and riled into a frenzy. Remember, the fans of Red Star Belgrade were used as a militia during the 1990s Balkan Wars. Sports have the power to unite a country like few other devices are capable of, and if used correctly, much power can be gained by playing the field effectively.
transcending popular culture
August 12, 2008
In order for an athlete to transcend the boundary between being famous for their athletic achievements and just being famous, they have to become larger than the game they play. Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and Kobe Bryant are able to do this based off of sheer athletic ability. Because they are so marketable, Nike is able to promote them even if they are retired or an accused rapist. However, not many athletes are able to cross this threshold. Chris Paul right now is the best point guard in the NBA but I would be willing to bet a majority of Americans would not be able to point him out in a police line-up.
There is one easy way to gain prominence but it may lead to a lack of endorsements: become a sports revolutionary. The 10 people listed are more well known for their off the field actions, yet some might claim that they are more important than a Jordan or a James.
During the height of the Vietnam War, St. Louis Cardinals linebacker Dave Meggyesy, weary of conservatives using football to boost pro-war patriotism, circulated a petition amongst his teammates asking their Congressman to bring the troops home. Ownership, incensed, became even more furious when Meggyesy, inspired by the Mexico City Olympic fist-raisers, refused to obey Commissioner Pete Rozelle’s order for players to salute the flag during the national anthem. Benched for “political reasons” midway through the 1969 season, Meggyesy quit football in the prime of his career and subsequently authored a book, Out of Their League, which aired out the NFL for exploitation, racism and drug abuse.
Using your fame to become an activist is a double-edge sword; many people will love you for it while a majority of people will shun you. Before someone takes a stand against an injustice, they must ask themselves are they willing to forgo millions of dollars to try and support a cause. Tyrone Lue famously attempted to have all of his Cavalier teammates sign a petition condemning China’s inaction against the genocide in Darfu, which LeBron James did not sign (although I read that he didn’t sign because he felt he hadn’t researched the topic enough to offer his John Hancock, I maintain that he does not want to alienate a billion potential shoe buyers.) While Lue is certainly not a household name, a mid-level exception player at best, the fact that he is willing to stand up for his believes is an admirable quality.
As long as athletes are treated as larger-than-life figures people will continually want them to use their name recognition to power their causes. No one should be forced to do this, and using this technique to gain fame is certainly despicable, but it is the fastest way to become culturally relevant. With regards to Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power, this most resembles the fifth (So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it with your Life) and the sixth (Court Attention at all Cost). Power can be gained and lost with brash outspokenness or with silence. It is up to the player in question to decide what they value most.
will lebron go to europe?
August 6, 2008
No, probably not. While he is still ridiculed for his global icon comment from a few years ago, it is obvious that his goal is to be the next Jordan in terms of endorsements and fame. Playing in Europe, even if it is just two years for 50 million a year, won’t do much to enhance that status. I really do believe that European basketball will be on par with the NBA in the next twenty years but that is because it is a free market with a youth system thats completely trumps our own. Signing players like Josh Childress shows that the prestige of the NBA won’t be enough to hinder players who are not max-contracters, but for a player of James status, the money he would make would certainly be less than he would through endorsements. The prevailing theory is that he wants to play for the Knicks because New York is the largest market in America. Playing for the best team in Europe will not sell as many jerseys.
The future of the NBA is going to be decided by our youth developmental programs and the freeing of the restricted market. Don’t expect James signing with a European club to be the catalyst that changes the system because ultimately that doesn’t have as much of an effect on the pocket books of the owners as a second, viable league rising.
fulmer cup
July 30, 2008
I love sports. I will watch nearly any competition that involves scoring, someone winning, and someone losing. I watched Slamball, the XFL, MLS, and other various leagues that really aren’t that great. I arbitrarily will pick a team or player to support, even if it is just for the afternoon, for no real reason other than I like to have someone to cheer for. If I am watching ESPN Classic, I will root for a team even if the game was played 20 years ago. Competition is just something that I love.
I put that disclaimer in here because this post is about a competition that keeps track of points that college football athletes earn by committing various crimes. It isn’t because I have an agenda against the supposed privileges that are granted to these few people skilled enough to play football at a high level that I find enjoyment in these matters, but because sometimes they are just downright humorous. Obviously the people that are arrested for domestic violence or animal cruelty are scum, but there are gems such as a Purdue player being arrested for stealing condoms.
The Fulmer Cup serves as a watch dog to show you the stuff that these athletes try to get away with that ESPN will never report unless it is a big name player. In some ways it is just as bad as reading The Superficial for the latest celebrity gossip, but I think it is more important than that. Blogs are able to report news that otherwise would never get national attention. Most people have probably never heard of Ellis T. Jones III, a former San Jose State football player, but in the Fulmer Cup he is a legend.
Former San Jose State football player that used Craigslist to lure people into meeting him and getting robbed.
Jones was charged with 13 felony counts including five counts of robbery, four counts of assault for using a taser gun on some of his victims, and one count of kidnapping when he locked a victim in the trunk of a car. He faced up to life in prison with the possibility of parole, but was convicted of only five robberies. He is currently serving a five-year prison sentence.
Mr. Jones racked up an unbelievable THIRTY-ONE points by himself in the 2006 Fulmer Cup, which was then awarded to him personally and not San Jose State. It was the least they could do.
This competition is a text book example of schadenfreude. Do I feel bad for the victims of his robberies? Yes. Does that mean I can’t find humor in the situation? That would be just as bad as trying to forget the national tragedy of 7/29. If you cannot find amusement in someone being arrested for stealing beer from a gay bar then my sense of humor must be radically different from yours.
I said earlier that I felt that this was not as bad as reading celebrity gossip and I stand by that statement. I find that the Fulmer Cup is doing a service by making these crimes known. If no one except the local newspapers report these crimes than how our we suppose to find out about them? I’m not going to read the police blotter of newspapers in college towns across America just to know if anyone did something amusing. This is a niche product that not many people would be interested in, but there are enough that there is a Wikipedia dedicated to keeping track of these points in order to help the site be run.
If there is an audience for a product then it deserves to be recognized. You can’t create passion for even a trivial idea, but as long as it exists there are people out there willing to do it for free. The Fulmer Cup is a watch dog in a way, but it exists first and foremost as something for the fans of college athletics. You can take the site anyway you want it but it is around because there are people like me who love anything and everything related to sports–even the criminal aspects.
sports iq
July 29, 2008
The lack of posts these past few days can be attributed to me having finals this week. Starting Thursday I’ll be back to posting daily, with some more thoughts of Theodore Roosevelt and 48 Laws of Power with some sports talk that maybe two people find interesting.
As for the title of the post, it refers to the habit of sports journalists to refer to white players as possessing high [insert sport] IQs. I’m not one to blame everything on racism, but I never really understood the practice. On another website I read they refer to the Minnesota Timberwolves as building “Team Eugenics” on the basis of them signing and drafting many players whose only attribute is their basketball IQ. I don’t think that any sort of bigotry is implied with this phrasing, its just that outside of upside potential and sure-thing, there is a dearth of adjectives to garnish onto players.
Someone needs to develop a better system of describing players. It seems that every writer is forced into using the same ways to describe players for no real reason. What does upside potential even mean?
