Manifold Superlativity

Bowled Over: A Review

2011-01-17T21:12:00.000-08:00

Seeing the Field: The Importance of Perspective in Bowled Over: Big-Time College Football from the Sixties to the BCS Era

By Michael Oriard. Published in 2009 by the Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

Recently, as I sat through a theatrically contentious faculty senate meeting in which university appropriations to intercollegiate athletics were hotly debated between faculty, administrators, and athletic administrators, I reflected over the following statement like a mantra:

“From the moment that university administrators […] realized that the new public passion for intercollegiate football provided opportunities for university building, (universities) have been torn between the competing demands of marketing and educating” (1-2).

This is the backdrop for not only the fierce negotiations between university administrators about the mission of higher education, but also the subtext for conversations never held between ardent college football fans who never step foot on a campus and the most strident defenders of higher education’s mission, who never step foot in a college stadium on a Saturday night. As a college football player turned athletic administrator and faculty member, I can appreciate the perspectives of all the negotiating parties. I can also appreciate the importance of perspective to the conveyance of a compelling story.

In the introduction to Bowled Over, author Michael Oriard reveals his analytical approach as ethnographer and historian to introduce his unique perspective on a rich area of consideration that is gaining increasing attention among the higher education studies – the proliferation of college athletics. This approach ultimately proves beneficial, in addition to being quite unique in sport culture criticism. As Mary Louise Pratt points out in “Arts of the Contact Zone,” it is important to depict “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other,” especially when one is personally involved in those struggles (a reflective method known as autoethnography) (519). All too often, scholarship in sport management and higher education history is author-evacuated, de-contextualized, and personal experience relegated to introductory anecdotes rather than emerging as central to the analysis. The alternative is no better, with vignette vendettas and exculpatory exorcisms by authors who have been personally wronged in one way or another by the machinery and culture of the college sports industry.

In particular, what makes Oriard’s perspective so pivotal is that his career as amateur, collegiate and professional football player spanned a decade, which he labels “the long 60’s” (5), and contends was the most controversial in organized American football. The years between 1963-1974 not only saw watershed changes in American culture, but those cultural changes had an indelible impact on college sport, and the decade casts a longer and more significant shadow over college football as we know it to this day (6-7). Oriard’s first-hand experiences with and living through those changes as student-athlete-turned-professional athlete-turned university professor provide robust context for his often reasonable, and on occasion controversial, foundation-jarring claims.

Among the more controversial claims is that the institution of the one-year scholarship in 1973 transformed amateur athletics irreparably, and, that it was in response to the American cultural trend of 1960’s racial upheaval (7). And yet, this claim is made more compelling by Oriard’s experiences living through that period and experiencing those changes first hand.

Oriard also details a long list of radical action spanning the country from Washington State, to Wyoming, to Indiana, and Syracuse and many points in between. The everyday actions of players at those institutions challenged the cultural norms that dominated the football landscape previously and attempted to wrest college football from the Conservative and religionist movements Oriard claims had co-opted it in the early half of the twentieth century (46-47). Far from the “dumb jock” stereotype that dominates much thinking about the big-time college football player, football players became focal civil rights heroes in many cases and actually inspired participation in civil rights causes, from Ben Williams’ integration of Ole Miss football, the last bastion of segregation in the arch-segregationist SEC (81-84) to Eddie McAshan’s integration of the quarterback position at a major southern school (Georgia Tech in 190). Largely influenced by the African-American civil rights movement, and the social movement strategies it popularized in America[1], players made significant strides in transforming college athletics culture, but as Oriard points out, the rich history of athletes participating and spawning revolutionary action goes back to the strike breakers at Cal, Chicago, and Minnesota at the turn of the 20^th century (24). Perspective is important here, because many of these stories have either gone untold, or have been retold to cleanse them of the bigotry and racism that permeated college football and its earliest heroes, the coaches. Oriard’s retelling of Bear Bryant’s integration of Alabama football is particularly crushing to his The Last Coach mythos as hard-nosed pragmatist committed to winning at all costs, even desegregation (60-62). Instead, we are provided with an analysis of Bryant’s decision to integrate his team as one borne both of humiliation and personal loss, not revelation or even the more crass realization that he could not win without black players[2].

Even at Notre Dame, far from the recently desegregated south, and the more racially progressive West, Oriard witnessed first-hand as student protests of the invasion of Cambodia and Vietnam on his campus were first rejected and eventually given a guarded “go-ahead” by Coach Ara Parseghian, who did not admit publicly that he was anti-war. And though Oriard is careful not to compare superficial cultural changes at Notre Dame (such as the way players were allowed to wear their hair and facial hair during this period changing drastically) to the student protests across the country for substantive social change, participating in and observing those movements at Notre Dame put the larger movement in perspective for him, and showed him once and for all that sport is not above or beyond the politics and culture of American society, but intertwined within it and in some cases, incredibly influential upon it. After all, as Oriard points out, there were black players integrating the SEC before 1970, but to white, southern football purists, Sam Cunningham and USC had as much of an impact on civil rights in the South as did Rosa Parks.

No matter how much credit organized sport is given for providing diverse groups of people the opportunity to consider racial and cultural difference in ways that it may never have been considered otherwise, it’s important to note that organized sport does not exist above, beyond, or in a vacuum where such matters do not have an impact. Even the concept of the “student-athlete” as we know it has been shaped by these factors, and Oriard shows us the impact of racial and cultural difference on the shaping of the student-athlete experience through the lenses of history, historiography, and personal experience.

Many take for granted that the idea of the student-athlete is one that is a remnant of ancient times, where young men would train their minds and bodies in conjunction with one another, and the gymnasia served as a space where bodies learned to be elegant and to elocute (see Debra Hawhee’s Bodily Arts for an excellent analysis on this topic). Oriard examines the phasing out of the “student-athlete” (and transition to “athlete-student”) through analysis of NCAA legislation, examining historical trends, and through personal reflection. Oriard points to a specific historical moment when the NCAA’s twice- failed and eventually successful attempt (under the leadership of avowed anti-radical Walter Byers) to pass legislation that eliminated the four-year scholarship provision and reduce it to one-year, renewable contracts between the university and the athlete (46). In doing so, Oriard claims, that the “student-athlete” was eliminated from big time college athletics, and the professionalization that we often cite synonymously with college athletics’ arms race began in sooth (130)[3]. Again, this footnote provides a perspective on college athletics oft unconsidered, that college athletics has not become the economic behemoth on the accord of local university administrators, or because of historical inevitability or capitalistic compulsion. Rather, because of unintended consequences, sanctioned racism and anti-radicalism, the biggest players in college football now closely resemble its earliest antecedents who hired mercenaries to compete for their institutions, bringing them glory and financial reward.

Oriard does more than suggest that this watershed moment occurred by citing transcripts and news reporting. Rather, he shows how racial upheaval and civil rights movements inspired both revolutionary movement among players and reactionarism among coaches and athletic officials, and he rewrites the institution of the one-year renewable scholarship as a sea change moment. It would become a means by which the NCAA could control player protest against institutional and cultural mores, remove talk of entitlement to workers’ rights (130-31), and eventually become the basis by which the NCAA would protect its non-profit status (thus increasing its and its members’ profit margins) for decades to come[4].

Oriard himself observed and participated in the cultural moments which precipitated the one-year scholarship legislation while a student-athlete at Notre Dame. Folks like Oriard, who himself claims to have gone to college for athletic and academic pursuits, are relics of the past, as the renewal is “contingent upon satisfying the coach … and that players must acquiesce in coaches’ increasing demands” (204) and that athletes who desire academic and athletic success are still possible, but succeed “against the system rather than within it” (206). The college football establishment, as well as conservative American political officials, claimed football as a bastion of anti-war and anti-radicalist sentiment, even though on college campuses across the country, these norms were being challenged and coaches who were becoming relics of a time long past became victims of their stubborn refusal to accept their players right to free speech and cultural expression. As he shows through careful narrative that explains how national trends impacted life in South Bend – his “well-barbered” teammates looking like “Eisenhower Republicans” upon his entrance in 1966 – and the painful and humiliating ushering-out of coaches who demanded their players stifle anti-war, anti-religion, and counter-cultural sentiment in all its forms by the time he was cut by the Kansas City Chiefs in 1974 (17-18). In the end, the passage of the one-year renewable scholarship bylaw reasserted the college football establishment’s Conservatism by threatening students’ rights and set the stage for student-athletes like Oriard to become a true minority in big-time college sport. It also, paved the way for big-time college football’s commercialism, and gave credence to critics who claim that their priorities must need place athletics over academics.

Rhetorically, Oriard’s arrival story as student-athlete who lived personally through the times he investigates and analyzes gives him considerable ethos as analyst and his colorful anecdotes as storyteller that make the read enjoyable and insightful. One minor drawback is that the lack of personal experience cited as backdrop for chapters that rely heavily on data to ground his claims leads to a rather dry and sometimes laborious reading. The lack of backgrounding for the drier statistical claims begs for either a co-author with commensurate experience to carry forward the storytelling/analysis juxtaposition, or, consultation with industry professionals – coaches, and athletic administrators in particular – who share similar sympathies for student-athletes and universities caught in the arms race of college athletics. Oriard’s methodological approach to cementing his central claims via personal narrative, supported by statistical, historical, and anecdotal evidence, suggests how a wider range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary inquiry might prove beneficial to the burgeoning study of American sport culture criticism.

References

Barra, Allan. (2005). The Last Coach: A Life of Paul “Bear” Bryant. New York: W. W. Norton

Press.

Broussard, William. (2009). “One foot in: Student-athlete advocacy in the margins of

American college athletics.” Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics.

2009-10 working paper series. University of Washington, Seattle.

Hawhee, Debra. (2005). Bodily Arts: Rhetoric and Athletics in Ancient Greece. Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Pratt, Mary Louise. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33-40.

[1] I’ve written about this elsewhere, namely, in “One Foot In: Student-Athlete Advocacy in the Margins of American College Athletics,” as part of the University of Washington Intercollegiate Athletic Leadership working paper series.

[2] Oriardi notes that Bryant likely lost a fourth national championship in 1966 because sportswriters did not appreciate his unwillingness to integrate. His undefeated Crimson Tide finished second to 10-0-1 Notre Dame.

[3] Even though the practice of recruiting individuals to play for a collegiate team by contract wet back to the late 19^th century, Oriardi claims that the one-year renewable contract was the most significant move in the commercialization of college sport ever.

[4] This is the predominant subject matter of Chapter 1, “From the Sidelines of a Football Revolution,” pp. 15-56.

Michael Vick is a Player (MVP)

2010-12-12T09:11:00.000-08:00

From the November 27th issue of "The Real Views"

Most professional athletes who fall from grace for personal or legal reasons never return to their former glory while atoning for their transgressions. Sure, Jason Giambi had several good years after publicly admitting using steroids in 2004, but he didn’t embark on a nationwide tour preaching against the dangers of steroid use. Gilbert Arenas, after being sentenced to two years probation for illegally bringing in and storing weapons in his locker at the Verizon Center (and serving a suspension for half the 2009-10 NBA season), wrote a thoughtful apology in the Washington Post and promised to be a better role model, but his ppg and assists are down significantly and his Wizards are 5-10. And Tiger Woods has been featured more on Taiwanese television than in America since his all-too-public fall from grace, earning less money in 2010 than in any year as a professional golfer.

It seems that though many professional athletes run into trouble, personal and legal, that it is all too rare that they come back and successfully repair their public images while performing exceptionally on the field of play. After returning to the NFL with a 23 month sentence for his involvement in running a dogfighting ring behind him, Michael Vick has done more this season to rehabilitate his image on and off the field than any professional athlete in recent memory. Vick, somehow has bucked that trend mightily, and in such a manner that Andy Reid has stuck with his hot hand in spite of the fact that Kevin Kolb, named starter at QB to begin the season, has played well, led his team to a couple of wins, and has a respectable 85.3 passer rating in 7 games this year.

Vick’s on-going apology has been remarkably earnest, if imperfect, and robust even if not well-received (Philly Mayor Michael Nutter is an exception, endorsing Vick on Meet the Press on November 28). He has reached out to PETA (http://bit.ly/gdP6Q) and the ASPCA (http://bit.ly/x1sJv) and the Humane Society (http://es.pn/11Cwx2) in attempts to discourage youth from engaging in the behavior that led him to lose millions of dollars in endorsements and the respect of many fans and gain as ardent enemies animal lovers across the world. And though it was an ill-fated television show, he even contracted with Black Entertainment Television to air “The Michael Vick Project” in order to tell his personal story to television viewers and have cameras follow him around as he introduced the world to the context of his upbringing.

Though he has many detractors (read:haters) who remain, keep Vick’s efforts at earnestly apologizing and carrying through on his promises to make things right in perspective. Roger Clemens never apologized for cheating, and neither did Brett Favre (the former allegedly with steroids, the latter allegedly via cell phone), but one could imagine that if they did, they would be admonished and then soon forgiven. Tony Hayward (of BP infamy) apologized his bum off, but I don’t think for a second that anyone bought his mawkish sincerity or that of any of the actors he trotted out over the coming months claiming to want to “make (things) right.” And have you heard a single apology from the CEOs of Countrywide, Lehman Brothers, AIG, and the many other companies whose malfeasance is the cause for the decline in American economic prosperity we are facing today? What is their penance? Being fired and retiring with multi-million dollar golden parachutes and no jail time? Vick made horrible mistakes in his life, did jail time and paid restitution and loss millions in earnings as a result. He has asked fans, those whom he offended, and even Jesus for forgiveness (http://bit.ly/fMOPJu). In the America that we often tout as a land of second chances, where a man has the right to earn a living and pursue his dreams legally, the hate towards Vick is disproportionate, and frankly, poorly targeted. If only Angelo Mozillo were an NFL quarterback …

However, if Vick’s life off of the field has been scandalized, his performance on the field, as Dave Chappelle would say, has been “scandal-proof.” With a 108.5 passer rating, he’s led the Philadelphia Eagles to first place in the NFC East, a 7-3 record (5-1 as a starter), and has not thrown a single interception all season. His November 15^th MNF performance may have been the most amazing statistical performance ever by an NFL quarterback, accounting for six touchdowns, 413 total yards, and becoming the first NFL QB to ever accumulate 300+ passing yards, 50+ rushing yards, 4+ passing TDs, and 2+ rushing TDs in a single game. All of this has come in the wake of an 11-5 season in 2009, after which the Eagles traded their star quarterback Donovan McNabb and left huge shoes to fill (the Eagles had gone to five NFC Championship games and a Super Bowl under McNabb). Vick is on pace to throw for 2,500 yards and 17-20 passing touchdowns (while running for 8 more). Sure, it’s not the 4,500 yards and 33 touchdowns that 2009 NFL MVP Peyton Manning accounted for, but he is also on a pace rushing the ball that would make him the leading rusher on Indy’s 2010 team. And he’s led and won in every way that a quarterback can, rushing for over 100 yards vs. Green Bay, throwing for three touchdowns and 291 yards vs. Jacksonville, and in his worst statistical game of the year, threw for 258 yards and ran for a touchdown in a win against NFC East rival New York Giants.

A Michael Vick who remains injury-free, throws for 20 or more touchdowns and 2,500+ yards and leads Philly to an NFC East championship and a healthy playoff run (NFC Championship or better) is my lock for 2010 NFC MVP (otherwise, it’s obviously Drew Brees, and maybe a resurgent Cowboys team makes Jason Garrett third!). No one player has been any more important to his team’s success after 10 weeks of the NFL season, and if he continues on this pace, his story will continue to serve as hyper-controversial to many (if not most), but redemptive all the same to one Michael Vick.

Besides, Manning is running out of mantle space by now, and what the hell is Tom Brady gonna do with another trophy, besides marry it?

nb: as of 12/10, the 1st place Eagles are 8-4, and Vick has thrown for 2,243 yards, 15 TDs, and accounted for 21 TDs.

The NCAA: Never Cares About Academics

2010-09-30T05:56:00.000-07:00

"Touchdown/Point After" from The Real Views

By William Broussard

Cast aside your aspersions, if you have them about college athletics, for just a second. Clear your mind of the sad case of Reggie Bush, found to have accepted various and sundry contributions while a student-athlete at USC, leading to him forfeiting his 2005 Heisman Trophy. Forget, for just a tick, about the University of Florida’s Chris Rainey, the university’s 27th player arrested in six years under head coach Urban “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” Meyer, who allegedly stalked a woman and sent her a text message reading “Time to die, B#$%h.” Forget the University of Tennessee’s Derek Dooley granting premium press access to particularly kind sportswriters while denying access to, you know, journalists, or his predecessor in journalistic integrity, Mike “I’m 40!” Gundy of Oklahoma State, who just verbally assaults journalists when he disagrees with them. And please, forget everything you know about Lane “Monte’s my Dad, ICanHazBCSJob?” Kiffin at Tennessee/USC/Next highest bidder in 2011.

Done forgetting those things? Me either. I’ll probably need a Neuralizer ™.

But put in context, college athletics is not about corruption, greed, law-breaking, abuse and scandal. In fact, the vast majority of student-athletes competing at the NCAA’s highest level, Division I, represent the 350 institutions where they study and compete, as well as those host institutions’ communities, with grace, aplomb, and high honor. The vast majority of college student-athletes are not committing crimes. They’re not accepting bribes. Heck, I was a two-time football all-American and I was never even offered one! And they are, for the most part, graduating at rates that exceed that of their non-student-athlete counterparts. They’re studying their tails off, matriculating successfully, bringing significant honor to their families and communities, and the vast majority of them are going into professions that have nothing to do with sport after graduation.

So why do stories about college athletics focus much more on what’s wrong than what’s right?

Consider the case of Jeremiah Masoli, formerly of the University of Oregon, and currently of the Southeastern Conference’s University of Mississippi (Ole Miss). Masoli, after leading the Ducks to a Rose Bowl berth in 2009, was finally, and embarrassingly, dismissed from the team for being charged with a second misdemeanor in as many years. Keep in mind that LeGarrette Blount, who became infamous in 2009 for socking a Boise State player in the jaw after an embarrassing loss on ESPN only got suspended for 6 games at Oregon, so to be suspended from the team, Masoli’s character issues and lack of potential for reform must have been considerable. So when we learned that Masoli planned to transfer to Ole Miss to play football, for so many reasons, many assumed that the NCAA would not approve his application to be immediately allowed to play. For one, transfers from FBS programs to FBS programs are required by NCAA rules to sit out one year. Secondly, transfers are required to be in good standing with their previous institution to be eligible—being suspended isn’t exactly ‘good standing.’

And yet, there he was, on September 4th, just weeks after he announced he would transfer from Oregon, leading the Rebels in overtime against the Jacksonville State Gamecocks, going 7-10 for 109 yards and an interception. Sure, it was an embarrassing home loss, 49-48, and an inauspicious (and in the eyes of many, all too apt) debut for Masoli, but I can’t get over the fact that the NCAA sanctioned his appearance at all. Ole Miss didn’t deserve the loss, and it didn’t exorcise any of my disdain.

Masoli didn’t break any rules to get eligible (though he broke several at Oregon in the first place to become ineligible to play there) and he exploited a loophole to gain a fifth year of eligibility at Ole Miss by enrolling in a graduate program there that was not available at Oregon (Parks and Recreation). Let’s assume for a second that Masoli fully intends to work in the Parks Service upon graduation and give both Oregon and Mississippi the benefit of the doubt for helping Masoli resolve the best way forward for himself after some mistakes in his past (after all, I adore magical realism, which requires one to suspend reality for the sake of the greater power of the narrative). The fact is that in order for moves like this to happen and the NCAA not appear completely crass and uniquely interested in big profits and preserving the profitability of only its biggest brands, it has to land hard on others. And anyone who follows NCAA Football closely knows that the stiffest sanctions are typically leveled on the meekest among the programs.

When APR (Academic Progress Rate) penalties were first issued, punishing programs that did not graduate 50% or more of their players by a series of calculations that include retention and eligibility, the bulk of the scholarship penalties went to non-BCS conference FBS and FCS schools. And while individuals like Masoli get second chances and earn the disgust of fans across the nation, the NCAA can rely on stats which show the significant number of scholarships that the NCAA mandates be cut from academically underperforming programs – this of course rarely happens to Oregon and Mississippi, but much more likely to Portland State and Mississippi Valley.

Masoli broke no rules in getting eligible to play at Ole Miss. Oregon broke no rules in releasing him. But the NCAA continues to make commonsenseless decisions that allow (student)athletes affiliated with their biggest brands to exploit loopholes while others at their lesser brands follow a much stricter set of rules, enforced in a manner more draconian, with much stiffer consequences for non-compliance. Masoli benefits, but we must realize that this was about the BCS, the Pac-10 and the SEC. The NCAA’s commitment to the potential redemption of one young man looking for a second chance appears purely coincidental.

William Broussard is an assistant professor of language and communication and associate director of athletics at Northwestern State University of Louisiana. He blogs at Manifold Superlativity. Follow him on twitter @LouisianaNormal.

A great week for diversity in intercollegiate athletics

2010-06-30T06:16:00.000-07:00

Last week, I spent a week working with and learning from individuals deeply committed to promoting diversity in intercollegiate athletics – The National Association for Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) and the Center for Intercollegiate Athletics at the University of Washington. Both organizations’ commitment exceed the superficial, perfunctory, and obligatory commitments made by organizations and reflect a deep commitment to identifying future leaders in college athletics from all walks of life.

Monday morning, I visited with Dr. Jen Hoffman, a researcher with the Center for Intercollegiate Leadership at the University of Washington in Seattle. The center, whose mission is to provide instruction to future leaders across the spectrum of collegiate athletics, including coaches, policymakers, and administrators, and support research on all areas of college athletics, is thriving, increasing its graduate cohort manifold in its brief existence. The executive masters program emphasizes leadership training among its diverse student leaders, who from the cohort I visited with represent many disciplines, geographical regions, ethnicities, and age groups.

The rest of the week, I spent visiting with hundreds of college athletics administrators from across the country at the NACDA national conference in Anaheim, CA. NACDA highlights the efforts and achievements of athletic administrators across the country. It was clear that regardless of region, race, gender, age or any other cultural affinity that if you run a good department, or show promise in your field, your efforts will not go unnoticed. This was apparent not only at the recognition of future leaders in college athletics through the John McClendon Scholarships, which provide scholarship support to future athletic administrators, but also at the Minority Opportunity Athletic Association and National Association of Athletic Development Directors (NAADD) Diversity Initiative programs. As a past recipient of the NAADD Diversity Initiative award, which funded my participation in the conference’s fundamentals of athletic development workshop, I can tell you that the organization puts its money where its mouth is when it comes to promoting diverse participation.

I also had the privilege of watching my boss, Northwestern State Athletic Director Greg Burke, receive the Under Armour Athletic Director of the Year award as one of 20 recipients from across the nation at the FBS, FCS, Divisions I, II, and III levels and NAIA. It was very interesting to look upon the dais, and out at the attendees of the honoree luncheon, and take note of how truly representative the group was of many different ethnic and gender groups.

It was an encouraging week, to say the very least, and one which provided instruction for the near term and hope for the future of college athletics.

My Father, the Sports Legend

2010-06-20T14:43:00.000-07:00

From The Real Views Online

It’s a cliché to suggest that someone’s sports hero is his father. The person who taught you how to shoot baskets, swing a baseball bat, field a ground ball, or catch a pass ends up getting a significant jump start on all other contenders. I spent my early years as a sports fan cheering on Tony Dorsett, Michael Jordan, and Frank “Big Hurt” Thomas, my dad got a big jump start on all of them, collecting points for getting in there first. Sure, my father couldn’t hit a baseball 450 feet, windmill dunk a basketball, or juke a defender out of his cleats, but his endorsement of my failed attempts to do so, and patience as I repeatedly failed (until my body caught up with my desire and I failed less frequently) trumped all that.

However, my father was a considerable athlete in his own right. He was a legend, in fact. I should have suspected as much from watching my father shoot hoops in the backyard. I certainly remember him missing shots as we took thousands of them in the backyard, but can’t say that I remember him missing more than a dozen. Ever.

People used to ask me if I knew how good a basketball player my father was. In the barbershop. After church. People who had no reason to say so would tell us he was the best to have ever come from Crowley, Louisiana. That he could outmaneuver smaller guards who should be quicker than he was and run circles around forwards his size (he was 6’3, 220 lbs). He’d take shots that drove his coaches crazy (until they rimmed in) and played in a way that made every coach, except for the one at segregated Ross High School, even crazier. He earned a scholarship to Grambling State and was Willis Reed’s teammate for a year or two in the early 60's, and later became a pretty good high school coach (winning a state championship as an assistant under John Brady, who’d later coach LSU to a Final Four).

Of course, that demanding and uncompromising coach never showed up at 807 N. Ave C.

One of my memories of my father as a basketball coach involved him constructing a rudimentary basketball goal in the backyard. A plywood backboard with a makeshift rim attached, nailed to the roof of the house (thank God there was no homeowner’s association). After dispensing with the fundamentals, holding the ball, dribbling, etc., he then showed us how to shoot. He reared the ball back slightly behind his head, jumped slightly while rolling the ball off the tips of his fingers, and the ball went straight through, not even touching the rim. My brother followed suit, awkwardly, but at least looked the part in doing so. My first shot, however, was a disaster of the most epic sort for someone as good a ball player as my father.

I recall hitting the backboard, but I may be remembering myself better than I was. I did not hit the rim. I did hit the roof, but only the very bottom of it, and the ball had such tremendous and unnecessary backspin that when it hit the ground, it nearly bounced back and shattered my parents’ bedroom window.

My father looked down at me, said something encouraging, and went inside, I suspect, either to cry silently, or more likely, laugh until he wet himself.

Over the years I dribbled a path in my backyard, along with my brother and his friends playing pickup games that literally destroyed the grass underneath. And my father never bothered, never over-instructed me, and seemed content with the fact that we’d rather beat half court traps in the backyard than trap out in the streets.

When my brother and I took to baseball, he not only enrolled us in Little League, and bought bats and gloves so we could practice, but alternately drove my brother and I to Arlington and Houston every summer so we could watch the big leaguers do it. My brother and I became football players (not so much a choice as a dictation by our body types), and there was neither a hem or a haw that we take up basketball. Of course, neither hem or haw would have corrected my shot, but that doesn’t stop many many parents from insisting their children participate in sports. Only once do I remember my father insisting that I participate in a basketball-related activity – and that was when he, my brother, and I saw Julius “Dr. J” Erving play an exhibition game in his final season against the Chicago Bulls at the Cajun Dome in Lafayette. Good call.

Late in my father’s life, in what he said was one of his proudest moments, I was named an All-American football player. In his frailty, he pumped his fist and said “finally.” His dreams left unfulfilled in college as his career was ended too soon from a knee injury, he got to see his son reach a pinnacle of sport; a pedestal he’d deserved but was too humble to proclaim and too unlucky to ever reach.

Or maybe, finally, the basketball star remembered the son’s humble athletic beginnings, and now relished coming back out “in the yard” and watching him play.

Or maybe, he was vindicated in his approach to being a star athlete who becomes a parent. He wanted as much as anything for me to succeed in athletics, but refused to be a helicopter parent, harass coaches who didn’t start me or whom he felt played me in the wrong position, or esteem me solely on the quality of my athletic performance. Rather, he encouraged me to see sport as something to do, not the only thing to do, not the only thing I could ever do. And we still came out on top.

To every father, like mine, who lets his son become who he is to become, Happy Father’s Day.

But I still think my dad could’ve beaten your dad in basketball.

Jim Joyce and the Jinx

2010-06-03T14:57:00.000-07:00

"Si se puede!" -- UFW rallying cry (that Obama jacked later)
"No Pudimos!" -- Jim Joyce, June 2, 2010

On my way home from work yesterday evening, I noticed an interesting message on my TweetDeck. A Twitter pal of mine posted the following message:

@NameRedactedToProtectTheQuasi-Innocent: Before this season, there were 18 perfect games in 135 years. 1 every 7 1/2 seasons. Galarraga is 6 outs away from the 3rd PG this season.

This is what us die-hard sports fans know as a "jinx." And before you bombard me with requests (Tiger Fans) to know who, in fact, issued this hex on Armando Galarraga (before the blown call and after) I will never give up my sources. I have too much integrity to do that. Plus I dont want to lose precious Twitter followers. But I digress ...

I've seen too many jinxes to relegate the phenomenon to sheer superstition and coincidence. Athletes at the very apex of athletic performance are under the constant threat of jinxes undoing their historical achievements. They can engage in jinx-blocking, such as the antics of caricaturish chicken-sacrificing Pedro Cerrano all they want. The fact of the matter is, with history, gravity, circumstance, and all else against you, the jinx is the little extra boost that keeps the asterisk from appearing next to your name when all is said and done.

How many times has the announcer chimed in with an esoteric and marginally important statistic only to watch the streak in question end before she/he can finish the sentence?

How many times have you exhorted in wonder as you witness a historic athletic performance happening, as if you are the first genius to notice it (when actually, all of your other friends are following jinx etiquette and keeping their mouths hushed!) and then just like that, it's over. And then all of your friends look at you the way Big Perm looked at Smokey countin' out $200 in Friday.

And if you're an athlete, how many times has your teammate or coach looked over to you, whispered how close to greatness you are, and on the ensuing possession dribbled the ball off his shoe/dropped a lazy pop fly/or fumbled to fulfill Cleveland's history as Heartbreak City?

I watched the final inning once I got home. I didn't know what would happen to prevent Galarraga's perfect game, but I knew beyond the shadow of all doubt something would.

It's Detroit, anything could have happened.

The sound of the doors shutting down at Mercury could have distracted Galarraga, forcing him to hang a curve.

Galarraga could've been Artested by a beer cup.

Shots coulda rang out because Benzino gave The Detroit Tigers 2/5 mics this year, leading to a fan-athlete n#@$a moment.

In the end, Jim Joyce made what is being called one of the worst missed calls in umping history. No matter. He couldn't have helped but. Because tens of thousands of people across the country probably started jinxing Galarraga after 5 1/3.

And ... it's Detroit. The whole damn city seems jinxed right now, why should Galarraga have have it any different?

nota blacke: have not yet seen the transcript, but I heard that immediately after the game, Arizona governor Jan Brewer issued a statement thanking Jim Joyce for his efforts. With Joyce's missed call, Brewer now drops to second place in the category of "White Folks Associated with Denying Opportunities for Hispanics in America."

My latest post on Athletics Development Frontier

2010-06-03T14:36:00.000-07:00

Athletics Development Frontier

Posts at Athletic Development Frontier

2010-05-31T16:18:00.000-07:00

I have been posting at the site "Athletic Development Frontier for a few months now, though, I took a couple of months off for some newer projects, both scholarly and professional, that were added to my plate.

My posts there can be found here, and include the following topics:

A great primer for athletics development officers: The Annual Campaign Letter

Diversity in the Development Workplace: The NAADD Diversity Initiative

Careerball: The sport athletes play when they’re through playing sports

Professional Conduct: Development Officers are Never ‘Off-Duty’

From Marketing to PR to Development: Converting Goodwill into Fundraising

The Difference between Marketing and PR to a Development Officer

A little love from the St. Pete Times

2010-05-30T09:46:00.000-07:00

I was given a citation in "Black Coaches and Administrators' efforts boost ranks of minority college football coaches" by Antonya English of the St. Petersburg Times last week. I'd previously written an open letter to the Black Coaches Association where I was generally critical of their evaluation process of institutions hiring head football coaches, and specifically critical of their evaluation of our efforts at Northwestern State.

I'm glad Ms. English took notice. I only wish the BCA had done so, as well.

The full article is here.

Bryant D's up Phil Jackson ... Vanessa Bryant, that is

2010-05-30T09:32:00.000-07:00

also featured @ ThisWeekinBlackness.com

The Los Angeles Lakers struggled at the close of the regular season and had to battle off a scrappy Oklahoma City squad (Kevin Durant, fresh off a regular season scoring championship, totally dropped the mic at Kobe’s feet after rocking it in game 3) to get to the Western Conference semis against the Utah Jazz. And then, as if fresh from the cool waters of Lake Minnetonka, the Lakers arrived at the 2010 NBA Playoffs.

Eight games later, including a sweep of the aforementioned Jazz, an average margin of victory of nearly 11 points, the Lakers seem invincible. Kobe has scored 30+ in eight straight games. Pau Gasol dropped 29 in Game 2. A game after Amare Stoudamire called Odom’s Game 1 performance “lucky” (he had 19 pts./19 rebs) Ol’ Smashin-a-Kardashian poured in 17 and 11, respectively. Other than Shannon Brown’s missed dunk (which wasnt challenged by Richardson as much as it was observed) ...

Richardson: no this m#@$%f@#$% aint. oh s@#$ this m#@$%f@#$% is. Hope he miss ... PHEW!

... really, who has challenged the Lakers thus far in this series?

Other than Vanessa Bryant, that is.

Ms. Bryant showed up wearing a T-shirt which read "Do I look illegal?" for Game 1 (for once, the $4 mil rock on her finger was overshadowed by another accoutrement). Ms. Bryant, who is Chicana, as are her two daughters with Bryant, issued a clear challenge to the anti-immigration legislation adopted by Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona. Brewer, who collaborated with Rep. Russell Pearce (a white supremacy sympathizer) was looking for a poll bounce, considering her ~20% approval approval rating just months ago. Though she has received that bounce, she, and her state by extension, have been vilified in the national media, hearkening back to the state's tardiness at adopting a MLK holiday in the late 80's (I've written about this here).

Her choice of attire ironically challenges the beliefs of Lakers head coach Phil Jackson more than it does anyone on the Suns' team. The Phoenix Suns actually side with Ms. Bryant on the issue, famously and controversially donning "Los Suns" jerseys for Game 2 of their series vs. the San Antonio Spurs in support of Latinos in the Phoenix community. Jackson, who has a) come out in support of SB 1070 and, b) made other controversial and culturally insensitive comments about people of color in the recent past (and got that ass ethered by Scoop Jackson for doing so) has incensed Laker fans of every ethnic and cultural background by doing so. And his comments regarding the Suns' and Ms. Bryant's expressions of dissent has done more to engender negative feelings associated with his ball club, including protests of their home athletic events.

In the end, Ms. Bryant has exposed Phil Jackson's true colors. And none of them are darker than paper bags.

So during those long stretches of the Lakers v. Suns games, when the Lakers go on 15-0 runs, Kobe is hitting turnaround fadeaways for 2 sets of 10 while Steve Nash and Amare Stoudamire stand idly by, waiting to get back to AZ so someone can ask Pau Gasol for his documentos, take a minute to think about Phil Jackson's effed up politics. Imagine how someone who has spent this much time coaching and working with people from all over the world could so cavalierly criticize their culture, dismiss their humanity, belittle their existence. Reconsider cheering for a man who sees no value in your affinities or expressions of heritage and tradition.

I'm not saying don't rock the purple and gold. I'm not saying boycott the Lakers. I am saying that if Phil Jackson doesn't value the lives of black and brown and Latino people, then he'd be coaching Luke Walton to dish the ball to Adam Morrison, and you wouldn't even have a damn team to cheer for right now. Thanks for pointing that out, Ms. Bryant.

nota blacke: Word has it that in retaliation of the Los Angeles City Council's decision to boycott Arizona's passage of SB 1070, the anti-immigration/show me your papers/si se puede (vamanos) bill, the Arizona Corporation Commission is threatening to turn out the lights in Los Angeles, as it provides nearly 1/3 of the City of Los Angeles' electricity. Damn. Arizona wanna make erryone look illegal (if erryone is dark, do erryone go to jail?).

On the plus side for the Suns, maybe the Vegas odds dip below 10 points if the lights are out in Staples.

Shocking Behavior–The Philly fanatics and the decline of fan civility in American sport

2010-05-11T05:09:00.000-07:00

The aptly named Philly Fanatic, beloved mascot of the Philadelphia Phillies

From the forthcoming 5/21 edition of The Real Views Magazine

A fan, by nature, possesses an intense and often irrational enthusiasm for something (“fan,” after all, is short for “fanatic”). And as go irrational beliefs, so often goes irrational behaviors.
In the November 21, 2008 and March 6, 2009 editions of The Real Views Magazine, I wrote about unruly fan behavior and the emergence of the “fan-athlete altercation.” These altercations involve incidents in which fans at professional, organized sporting events engage in actions which promote or prompt sometimes unsavory (but after close analysis, often justified) reactions from professional athletes. In the incidents I cited, fan resentment, sometimes the result of racial animus and other times, the product of perceived class division, created a backdrop for what would often be characterized as unlawful behavior on the part of fans. However, in a world where such fan behavior is sanctioned to the point that it sometimes becomes a point of pride for an organization, such actions are often forgiven, and, moreover, subtly encouraged.

Most upsetting in these situations is the double standard to which athletes are subjected – that it is somehow permissible for fans to act in such a fanatical manner, but athletes, because of their exorbitant pay and perceived privilege are to just shut up, play, and cater to the desires of the season ticket purchasing fan. In the end, the media often actively participates in cementing this dichotomy, blaming the athlete by characterizing their actions as part of a narrative where all fan misbehavior is good clean fun while the ensuing responses from athletes are almost always overreactions, temper tantrums, or the expressions of individuals whose wealth and privilege create a warped sense of the world and of limitless entitlement.

Sometimes, however, the fans themselves display behaviors that make us question their worldviews, and their sense of entitlement to be entertained and sated by the teams that they root for – to the point that they feel entitled to let hell break loose should the home team so much as lose a game or two.

Philadelphia is a sports town that self-consciously prides itself in its fandom. They believe their fans to be among the most passionate in the country, and they have gone more than the extra mile to show it. From the Dec. 15, 1968 Philadelphia Eagles game when fans booed Santa Claus simply because they were in the middle of a 2-12 season. They also pelted him with snowballs, a minor offense given that Santa is from a place that gets snow 300 days out of the year, but still. In William Kashatus’ “Dick Allen, the Phillies, and Racism,” he details the Philly slugger, who hit 200+ home runs in his 6+ years with the team, who would be cheered for hitting a home run and then roundly booed if he were to strike out. He later demanded to be traded because of the virulent racism he faced from fans. No different than Philly’s treatment of Donovan McNabb, a college standout who was booed on NFL Draft day, went on to lead the team to NFC Championships and a Super Bowl appearance, and was still regularly chided as the team’s leader.
For the “City of Brotherly Love,” these two brothers received very little.

In 1989, Eagles fans hurled snowballs at the visiting Cowboys, and one future governor Ed Rendell was even among the hooligans that day. A decade later they would cheer after Michael Irvin, of the archrival Cowboys, suffered a career-ending injury and lay motionless on the field before being removed by stretcher. And perhaps it went unnoticed because fighting at hockey games is like free throw shooting at basketball games, but in 2001, a Philadelphia Flyers fan actually assaulted a Toronto Maple Leafs player after he drunkenly stumbled into the penalty box.

Philly fanatics, indeed.

Two recent incidents at Citizens Bank Park, home of the Philadelphia Phillies, prove that fan incivility is on the rise and is at a feverous pitch, and the target of the incivility is not always a professional athlete.

In a mid-April incident, a 21 year old man from South Jersey was arrested for vomiting on a man and his child. On purpose. He has been charged with assault, reckless endangerment, and disorderly conduct. He has also managed to take the bar for fan behavior, in a town that seems to wear it like a lapel pin, and lower it beneath the earth.

Then, in an incident that gained much more air time because of its extreme idiocy, a 17 year old fan, who allegedly asked his father for permission first, ran onto the field at Citizens Bank Park for nearly a minute before being subdued by a Taser. In an age of heightened security measures and palpable fear of terrorist attack (just three days before, a Nissan Pathfinder full of rudimentary explosives was found on Times Square), police moved quickly to seize the fan. For all those police officers knew, he could have assaulted one of the players, or harmed himself or them in the process. If one is drunk or brazen enough to run on the field during a professional sporting event, who knows what behaviors might follow.

Both of these fans were arrested, and will be fined and are punishable by law. And the security measures taken were swift, appropriate, and evidence of effective event security measures in place at the venue. But the culture that produces their behavior should be the focus of the analysis. Their behavior, part of a decades’ long trend in Philadelphia, is more than a question of event management and security, and certainly merits a more stern response than “Well, you know Philly fans …”

At the very least, there should be a serious reconsideration of the city’s nickname, or an acknowledgement of its fundamental irony.

A special thanks to DJ Gallo of ESPN’s Page 2 for his May 4 compilation of Philly fan misbehavior, “Philadelphians can read the phine print”

By the time SB 1070 gets to Arizona

2010-04-27T08:28:00.000-07:00

From the 5/1 edition of The Real Views Magazine: http://therealviews.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/by-the-time-sb-1070-gets-to-arizona/

“Looki lookin’ for the governor/Huh he ain’t lovin’ ya/But here to trouble ya’”
– Public Enemy, “By the Time I Get to Arizona”

Across the nation, individuals who support causes of social justice for all peoples are infuriated by what is the most recent round of legislature passed by the extras from ‘Raising Arizona’ who compose the Arizona State Legislature. Before one expresses surprise or fresh disgust at the passing of “anti-illegal immigrant legislation” that will promote police harassment and racial profiling of anyone darker than a paper bag but lighter than a coconut shell (read:Latinos) in Arizona, consider the source.

Remember that this is a state known for government officials like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who while abusing his power (and, as a federal investigation alleges, the Constitution) to arrest and convict illegal immigrants for petty crimes, neglected his duty to investigate and seek the incarceration of much more dangerous individuals. Phoenix Suns fans largely recoiled at his burgeoning relationship with Shaquille O’Neal and Amare Stoudamire, who are both “Special Deputies” in Maricopa County. One wonders if Arpaio’s intent was to sick them on Leandro Barbosa, Robin Lopez, and if he felt especially brave, Boris Diaw (a black Frenchman) or even Steve Nash, a Canadian of South African descent, who is as white as the day is long, but probably made his share of enemies in Phoenix after declaring anti-war statements.

It’s also a state legislature known for passing laws banning bilingual education among schoolchildren at the behest (and with the financial support of) Ron Unz, a financial services software executive from California, who made a name for himself traveling across the country promoting initiatives banning bilingual education. This legislation was pushed through in spite of the many obvious benefits of bilingual education and the obvious irony that of the many languages spoken in the State of Arizona, English is the one that has been spoken for the shortest amount of time historically. One wonders if this bias against multilingualism extends to the clubhouse of the Arizona Diamondbacks, formerly owned by ultra-conservative Jerry Colangelo. If so, according to their 2010 roster, nearly 25% of their players should be very careful to speak como el gabacho when el jefe comes around the corner, and it probably wouldn’t hurt to tuck their visas/green cards/drivers licenses into their socks.

I’m not sure how one says deja vu in Spanish, and perhaps there is no exact translation, but if people of Mexican descent need a primer on the concept of institutionally and culturally racist legislation being passed in the State of Arizona, they need only ask any African-American with a memory of longer than twenty years how it feels. And perhaps the State of Arizona would be well-suited to remember the fallout for its legislative actions, and how sport played a central role in reversing misguided legislation there.

MLK Holiday fallout
In 1986, then Governor of Arizona Bruce Babbit declared a holiday honoring slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., following suit with the rest of the nation although against the wishes of Senator John McCain (who later changed his position) and President Ronald Reagan (who later slept through the AIDS and crack-cocaine epidemics). When Governor Evan Meacham took office in 1987, he rescinded the holiday, sparking national outrage and leading to boycotts of, most notably, the NFL and the Super Bowl. When Super Bowl XXVII was awarded to the Rose Bowl instead of to the City of Tempe because the state failed to recognize the holiday, Tempe lost tens of millions in potential revenue, and the state was branded as intolerant and backwards as a result. The holiday was later approved in 1992 and the NFL lifted its ban, awarding Super Bowl XXX (1996) to Tempe. Meacham later became the first governor in the United States to become impeached, indicted for a felony, and replaced by recall election, and even still, he is remembered most for his crass insensitivity to minorities.

From SB XXX to SB 1070
SB 1070, recently approved by the state’s legislature and set to be signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, follows in Meacham’s errant footsteps. Faced with serious cultural, financial, and judicial problems related to illegal immigration in the state, and with inadequate support from the federal government, SB 1070 treats a hatchet wound with salt and lemon juice by arming police officers with the ability – no, charge – to confront individuals who appear to be immigrants “if reasonable suspicion exists.” In other words, not only will routine traffic stops potentially become unnecessary interrogations of legal U.S. residents, and police will spend increased time and resources racially profiling Arizonans (legal and “illegal” citizens), but as is the case in Maricopa County, it creates a context in which the prosecution of such crimes becomes paramount. Furthermore, the federal investigation of Sheriff Arpaio’s practices, which are allegedly unconstitutional, is brought into conflict with state law, as it is now legal for police to profile and harass citizens, so long as they are believed to be illegal at the onset.

The nation’s eyes again are on Arizona, and once again, for all of the wrong reasons. It is not unreasonable to believe that boycotts similar to those which occurred during the MLK Holiday fiasco will once again return. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-AZ has initiated the call for boycotts by “civic, religious, labor, Latino, (and) organizations of color to refrain from using Arizona as a convention site, to refrain from spending their dollars in the state of Arizona until Arizona turns the clock forward instead of backwards and joins the rest of the union.” Though a Rasmussen poll shows that 70% of Arizonans support stricter anti-immigration laws, legislators are not elected to follow the public’s demands, but rather to legislate in a manner that is for the greater good. Mass protests in Tucson and Phoenix indicate that this is not the case.

In the end, I am confident that SB 1070 will be repealed. Its sponsor, avowed white supremacist sympathizer and Holocaust denier Rep. Russell Pearce has zero credibility among fair-minded people, and many who support stricter anti-immigration policies do not, in theory or practice, support the initiation of a police state toward that end. Gov. Brewer’s approval ratings are abysmal (hovering around 20%) and though the aforementioned Arpaio and Fife Symington, former impeached governor and convicted felon (pardoned by then President Clinton) are also considering running in the next election, I have faith that the citizens of the State of Arizona will find themselves maligned until this law is erased from the books, and elect accordingly. And just like before, major boycotts of tourism and professional athletics organizations will lead to an economic sanctioning that ultimately cannot be absorbed in an already cash-poor state.

Until then, bring your papers to the park, athletes, if you’re visiting the Suns in the playoffs or the Diamondbacks during the regular season. And you might want to come up with a name other than “Copper State,” as the metal is far too dark so as to not draw Arizona State police officers attention.

Is more less in the case of March Madness?

2010-03-29T22:45:00.000-07:00

By all means, let's not expand the tournament and allow people with names like Ali Farokhmanesh to become household names, ever and anon.

from the 4/2 edition of The Real Views

RealView Sports by William Broussard

Jeff Eisenberg of Yahoo! Sports calls it “the worst idea the NCAA has ever had, and it’s had a bunch of them” while Tracee Hamilton of the Washington Post called it the “worst idea in the history of ideas.”

Pete Thamel and Richard Sandomir of the New York Times claim that the NCAA is only considering the move only because of the money, citing CollegeRPI.com’s Jerry Palm, who claimed that this year’s field is “horribly unaccomplished” compared to previous years’ fields (in hindsight, this claim was moot, considering that 2010’s Sweet 16 boasted the most diverse class – from 11 different conferences, 3 double digit seeds, and Northern Iowa, Cornell, and St. Mary’s from mid-major conferences).

Gene Wojciechowski of espn.com hyperbolically equated the expansion to rewriting the intro to “Layla” by Eric Clapton, noting that it makes as much sense as the players not getting paid part for the $6 billion CBS payout to participate in the tournament (assuming he believes that the dollars which go into athletic department coffers to help underwrite the costs of athletic scholarships are non-existent, unimportant forms of payment).

As usual, the dominant sports media has jumped to the conclusion that best fits its desire to be entertained or to scandalize instead of conducting thorough investigation, or perhaps even considering the merits of watershed moves in popular sport.

The NCAA as bad guy, profiteering off of unpaid labor and athletic programs desperate for exposure and branding? Check. See also: Expansion of number of college football bowl games

The NCAA as bad guy, exploiting revenue sport potential for gross profits while sacrificing the quality of competition? Check. See also: Proliferation of college athletic programs accepted for Division I status in the last decade.

However, as an athletic administrator at an NCAA Division I institution (Northwestern State is a member of the Southland Conference) and a former Division I athlete, I support the NCAA’s decision to consider expanding to a 96 team-tournament in men’s basketball.

First of all, from a competition standpoint, critics are claiming that the 65-team tournament already features too many teams with insufficient accomplishments. These individuals fail to take into consideration that a 6th or 7th place team in a major conference may have been a couple of breaks away from being a 2nd or 3rd place team, and, under the right conditions, could make a run in the tournament. They also claim that the guarantee extended to winners of midmajor conference tournament championships already, on occasion, flood the tournament with underperforming teams. And yet these same critics are likely the same ones calling for a playoff system to be implemented in college football so the winner can be decided on the field. If the best team is decided “on the court,” by the same logic, then what does it matter if midmajors are going to get clobbered by the big conference schools and the underperforming big conference schools will be exposed as soon as they encounter real competition (like Ohio and Washington, respectively, this year. Wait, what?).

Secondly, from a revenue standpoint, many institutions benefit vastly from their participation in the NCAA tournament. That’s right, the NCAA doesn’t keep all of the $6 billion profits from the television contract with CBS, much of those profits are paid out to athletic departments. And even though the vast majority of those payouts have been made to big conference schools, those schools are slowly and surely weaning themselves off of state support, meaning that privately generated revenues and donations are increasingly fueling college athletics rather than taxpayer dollars. And for programs like Northern Iowa, which has been to the NCAA tournament the past two years representing the Missouri Valley Conference, revenues generated from their participation this year (advancing to the Sweet 16) will go a long way toward balancing their budget. Especially considering that the state of Iowa is forcing the University of Northern Iowa to find a way to continue operating without the $4.3 million subsidy it currently provides the institution for intercollegiate athletics. While the Panthers and UNI alumni should be celebrating their unprecedented success, athletic department officials are now trying to figure out how they will continue to provide athletic scholarships next year. Participating in and winning games in the NCAA tournament, which UNI will be given an increased chance to do if the field is expanded, could be crucial to them and so many other institutions in their predicament.

Finally, for all of the critics who criticize the NCAA for not focusing enough on amateurism, finishing your amateur career either competing in an NCAA postseason, or, by participating on a team who either brought your university to the NCAAs for the first time or helped it advance further than any other previous team is a treasure that an amateur athlete will possess for a lifetime. The NCAA’s Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) has wised up to this notion, increasing the percentage of teams who have the chance to participate in postseason play from 13% to 16%. Currently, over half of the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) teams have the opportunity to end their seasons as bowl champions, and with the proposed increase, Division I basketball teams will increase their chances from 18% to 28%.

If the tournament is expanded to 96 teams, more schools will have the opportunity to participate, earn much-needed revenue, and give more student-athletes the experience of a lifetime, and it will still only involve a quartile of the nation’s basketball programs. And the institution of first-round byes will eliminate the need to add extra weeks of competition for the vast majority of schools, eliminating concerns about student-athletes missing too much class. More revenue, more opportunity, no significant loss of competition equals more March Madness.

The only downside is that we’ll have to hear David Barrett’s “One Shining Moment” for an additional week (though Jennifer Hudson’s version may bring me around).

Torii Hunter becomes the hunted: Were his comments racist or righteous?

2010-03-15T21:16:00.000-07:00

Torii Hunter swings and misses. Credit him for taking a good, hard hack.

RealView Sports by William Broussard (3/19 issue)

“They’re not us, they’re imposters (emphasis added).”

In an extended comment about the place of African-Americans in Major League Baseball (MLB), Torii Hunter, left fielder for the inelegantly named Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, used the word “imposters” to label Latin American players of African descent who might otherwise be equated with African-Americans by the MLB. It was a controversial and otherwise thought-provoking comment, in which he pointed out that MLB was somehow complicit in the decline over the past twenty years of the percentage of African-American players in the league[1]. The outrage over this steep decline is attributable to, among other things, the emergence and popularity of Latin American players of African descent, such as David “Big Papi” Ortiz and Vladimir Guerrero, who have black appearances, but are not African-American.

More than anything, Hunter’s words were unfortunate. Not because they were erroneous (although, they were) but because they detracted from what was otherwise a compelling andd seemingly accurate statement. Hunter misspoke, but the overall content of his statement was apt. Unfortunately, his poor choice of words allowed the dominant media to deflect the criticism away from MLB and onto Hunter, already deemed a controversial figure for previous comments like these.

Torii Hunter pointed out in his comments that MLB targets Latin American players because they can be recruited ‘on the cheap.’ His exact words were:

"As African-American players, we have a theory that baseball (MLB) can go get an imitator and pass them off as us," Hunter says. "It's like they had to get some kind of dark faces, so they go to the Dominican or Venezuela because you can get them cheaper. It's like, 'Why should I get this kid from the South Side of Chicago and have Scott Boras represent him and pay him $5 million when you can get a Dominican guy for a bag of chips?”

Immediately upon issuing this statement, reactionary sport media editorialists at the dominant sport outlets (Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and the like) rushed to defend MLB, defining Hunter as the real problem. Kevin Kaduk of Yahoo! Sports noted that black players represent some of the best black talent in the league, and are among the highest paid, and that Hunter’s argument was “illogical.” Patrick Hruby of ESPN’s Page 2, rather than address the substance of Hunter’s comments, chose to use Hunter’s choice of the words “bag of chips” and then equate the salaries of MLB’s highest paid Latino players to amounts of popular potato chip brands that could be purchased (e.g. Johan Santana, of the New York Mets, whose salary of $18.8 million could purchase 9.4 million canisters of Pringles Super Stack Potato Crisps). Other outlets such as Sports Illustrated, and blogs such as the user-generated forum The Bleacher Report, focused on Hunter’s “Imposter” comment in the headlines, drawing attention away from the content of his comment, which was made at a USA Today roundtable and Craig Calcaterra of NBCSports notes, was “seriously misquoted[2].”

And yet, in the margins of the American sports media, the content, not the unfortunate rhetorical choice, of Hunter’s statement, is being considered, and only here is a serious discussion about this intersection of race and professional sports being debated. ESPN.com buried two writers’ opinions that essentially defended Hunter. Noted sports columnist and Pulitzer Prize nominee Johnette Howard wrote in a special to ESPN.com that Hunter was wrong about who he blames, but right about the problem of declining numbers of African-Americans in MLB. Pedro Zayas of ESPNDeportes echoes this sentiment, that Dominicans and Venezuelans are not to blame, but also that in his home country of Puerto Rico, the numbers of professional players being recruited are declining, and that there may be an opportunity for intersecting interests between Puerto Ricans and African-Americans on this issue. And author Dave Zirin wrote presciently about this issue on his book Welcome to the Terrordome, which detailed the process by which young boys from Central American and Caribbean countries are enrolled in baseball camps at a young age, and as a result do not receive proper education, and come to the United States on the long shot that they can make it in the ‘bigs.’ When these young men are not successful in acquiring a big league contract, they are left to return tot heir home country without proper education, or, remain in America illegally and work odd jobs to make the ends meet. For every Pedro Martinez and Carlos Zambrano, there are thousands of young men who risk everything to find success in the MLB, including their personal health[3], because of the rampant poverty in which they grow up and live.

His words were portrayed as insulting. Latin American players of African descent are not masquerading as American blacks or acting like they share the cultural affinities of American blacks for political and social/cultural gain. They no doubt face many of the same struggles and obstacles that many young black men face every single day in this country. His words were portrayed as demeaning, incorrect, ignorant, perhaps. The fact that Latinos are good at the sport of baseball and from places like Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba is not their fault, nor should they be ashamed of it. Torii Hunter, by unfortunately choosing that one word, became the villain while attempting to point out the villainous practice of targeting the poorest countries of the world to find professional athletes in the most inexpensive ways possible.

African-Americans are disappearing from the sport of professional baseball in America. And a way that MLB deflects this criticism is by pointing out that players who are black, but not American, are among the most popular figures in the league. This does nothing to address the fact that the numbers of African-American players are dwindling, and that the MLB, as well as municipal and local governments bear the blame, as much of the private and public dollars that have been cut from funding sport programs and facilities in urban areas have resulted in the lowered number of blacks who are playing in MLB.

Instead of asking if Hunter’s statement accurate or unfortunate (it was both), one should hope that the media, should it further consider this matter (Torii Hunter has not apologized for his comment, rather, chose to apologize for using the word “imposter”) would focus on the subject matter rather than his rhetoric.

Torii Hunter said the right thing the wrong way. Let’s take the focus off of the one word that was off the mark and focus on the other words that actually raised an important issue.

[1] Down from 24% in the 1980’s to 8% in 2009, according to Terrence Moore, national columnist for FanHouse.com.
[2] http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/torii-hunters-statement.html.php
[3] Chris Jenkins of USAToday notes that Latin-American players are increasingly the subject of steroid investigations, one can assume, because they are exceedingly willing to risk using drugs in order to acquire a professional contract.

A Friendly Criticism of Dave Zirin

2010-03-08T12:58:00.000-08:00

In response to Dave Zirin, author of several books including What's My Name Fool?, regarding his article on athletics and public ed entitled "How Sports Attacks Public Education" found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/how-sports-attacks-public_b_486639.html

Hey Dave,

Love your work, but felt compelled to comment, given my unique position as a Director of Development who raises money for a Division I athletic department and a faculty member at a university experiencng severe budget cuts. I think it is very important to realize that cuts to higher education in the context of college athletics proliferation, though often problematic, are not as correlative as your article suggests. I offer an example from close to home.

Last year we installed brand new turf at our football stadium, Turpin Stadium, at a cost of $1.065 million. Representatives from our university, city, and region, as well as political representatives from our region lobbied effectively to receive that earmark for a number of years, and much of that work pre-dated the economic tailspin we currently find ourselves in. Could the state have decided that it is more important to use that money to balance a $5 billion deficit, or even to allocate it to the university for a different, more “academic” purpose? Perhaps. Would it have? Probably not … $1 million isn’t going to balance such a large budget deficit and the work needed to be done (old turf needed to be replaced, this wasn’t done for vain purposes). At the same time, our campus, with only a budget of $41 million from the State of Louisiana, braced for a second consecutive year of multimillion dollar cuts in the middle of a three year, 40% cut proposed by Governor Bobby Jindal and a commission he assigned to study the future of higher ed here. As we braced, even in our own department, for personnel and operations cuts, that new field stood as a beacon of eked out progress on our campus. And this year (a winless, 0-11 season, btw, under a brand new coach) we had tens of thousands of people visit the stadium and enjoy the field, and alumni who took immense pride in it. And the field wasn’t visited only for football games, but band competitions, high school football games, intramural games, and much more. The expenditure didn’t go to “academics” but it did go to the mission of the university, which is to provide a well rounded experience and education for all our students. At many universities, the athletics department’s mission is wedded to the university’s, as it is here at NSU.

Meanwhile, other areas on our campus received multimillion dollar earmarks, ones that had nothing to do with athletics. While an athletic department’s success can be measured (and is, that’s the whole point of what we do) what I don’t hear is critics raising a stink over an underperforming academic program getting a new building, or a historical building on a campus being gutted to move an already functional area, when the original area works fine, or renovations of already very nice homes and offices, etc. Many many more millions are wasted in this fashion, for vanity's sake, but athletics remains an all too visible, and arguably facile scapegoat, which is especially problematic because athletic departments give educational opportunities to so many minorities who are perceived to be interested in college only as a means to becoming professional athletes.

Regarding a couple of your claims:

1) “Friedgen also gets perks like a $50,000 bonus if none of his players are arrested during the course of the season.” I hope you’re jesting here J If you’re referring to the practice of offering non-performance incentives to coaches’ salaries, then I would offer this: NCAA student-athletes graduate at a higher percentage than non-student-athletes. NCAA coaches recruit students to universities that are more likely to graduate than their peers, even with their considerable challenges in scheduling and time management. And it appears that they are better at recruiting students who will graduate than people whose full time job is to help said students graduate. Furthermore, your statement feeds the negative stereotype that young black men, enrolled in college or otherwise, are apt to be arrested, and when they are not, this is exceptional. While it is more likely that a man age 18-25 will be incarcerated than go to college statistically, if this were an attempt to poke fun, that’s risky, considering that it is rooted in an immense social justice problem in this country.

2) “Over at Berkeley, students are facing 32% tuition hikes, while the school pays football coach Jeff Tedford 2.8 million dollars a year and is finishing more than 400 million in renovations on the football stadium.” Yes, Coach Tedford’s salary is by many standards exorbitant. But the $400 million is going to be recouped from seat licensing according to the plans detailed here: http://www.calbears.com/genrel/091709aaa.html. So while the regents agree to finance it, the development folks at Cal are going to have to hunt this money down privately, and they have already begun to http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/09/22/story6.html. Can we question the priorities of alumni who want to donate $225 million to rebuilding Memorial Stadium rather than donating the money to athletics? Sure. Can university officials? No way!!! If alumni want to back this initiative with private dollars, then it is their right. The university is raising private dollars for academics too, trust me (Cal has a $3 BILLION campaign going on right now and they have raised $1.44 billion of that already). It’s unfair to call out athletics for wasteful spending when they are raising the money privately AND the university is raising money for their endowment, too, and committing considerable resources to that venture as well. It’s also unfair to call this an “attack.”

3) “In truth, they are the result of a comprehensive attack on public education that has seen the system starved. One way this has been implemented is through stadium construction, the grand substitute for anything resembling an urban policy in this country. Over the last generation, we’ve seen 30 billion in public funds spent on stadiums.” Not sure of your logic here. First of all, Coates and Humphreys’ analysis was on professional stadiums. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n2/coates.pdf. Are you implying that projects like the one at Cal are like the ones Coates and Humphreys analyzed, because if so – and I strongly suspect your readers by and large have not read this study – this is a false implication based on the study you are citing. If you are implying that projects like the one at Cal are like the ones mentioned in this study, then again, this is a false syllogism, given Cal’s efforts to raise private money (professional sports owners expect municipalities to just fork this tax money over). By comparison, local economic development studies have shown that our university has an $8 return for every dollar invested in it by the state, and that our athletic department has in between a $60-$65 million regional economic impact, on only a $9 mil budget. That’s definitely a real impact on this region that would crumble an already rural and economically impoverished area were it removed.

4) The title: I think it’s a bit much to suggest that “Sports” are attacking “Public Education” if not very dangerous. Far too much of what goes on on college campuses with reference to athletics is very very positive to suggest that athletics are attacking public education. It isn’t all Beer and Circus here in higher ed, much less so outside of the BCS conferences. Think of all the opportunities that young men and women have earned to acquire college degrees. All of the amazing narratives that have emerged as a result of us having college athletics proliferate as much as it has. Sure, there are problems with the arms race, and wanton proliferation of college sport that have resulted in many unintended consequences. But public education’s biggest enemy is not sport, I won’t supply my list, but suffice it to say that college athletics proliferation wouldn’t make my top 25.

Again, I am a huge fan and appreciate your work immensely. I just think that there is so much else to focus on in this society for the decline of public education other than sport. I hope this is read as food for thought rather than as an attack.

~William Broussard

2010 Winter Olympics: “D’Oh, Canada” and “Go, Canada”

2010-03-03T12:25:00.000-08:00

When your pictogram looks like someone who has set down the iron to mop, you might not be a sport.

Reflections of a barely casual observer ...

In the past 17 days, I have not watched 17 minutes of Winter Olympics coverage on NBC. NBC’s appeals to pathos, mawkishly dripping with sentimentality, have never piqued my interest, nor, for that matter, is the celebration of sports that are inaccessible (and uninteresting) to 99% of all Americans. Moreover, the nationalist pride I am supposed to feel over watching American ‘athletes’ compete for Olympic gold in ‘sports’ such as curling (frozen shuffleboard), biathlon (“bi” is a misnomer, cross country skiing requires athleticism, rifle shooting does not), and other contrivances (snowboardcross is essentially snowboard NASCAR, only inviting the viewership of those interested in the crashes). This isn’t to say that many athletes competing in these events are among the world’s elite, and it isn’t to say that bobsledders, speed skaters, and ice dancers don’t meet the highest standards of athleticism, no matter whose aesthetic is considered. Its cultural – I grew up in south Louisiana where the only running we do in the cold is for courir de mardi gras, the only shooting we do in the cold is at deer and fowl, and if we are dancing in the ice, it is only because hell (and Louisiana) has frozen over because the Saints won the Super Bowl.

But I have taken a keen interest, at times, in this most recent iteration of the Olympics. For one, much of the news emerging from Vancouver has not been good. From the tragic death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili on a course known for its “50-50” turn[1], repeated bobsled crashes on the same course, weather delays in Whistler that relegated planners to having to use fake snow for downhill skiing (you could actually see grass and clumps of dirt flying all over the course when skiers came down the course), and an ominous start, when the Olympic torch wouldn’t light properly. Additionally, the underperformance of the host Canadians across the board (losing the total medal count 37 to 26 to the United States, in third place behind Germany’s 30), and potential $875 million debt that will be left to Vancouver to pay for the Games (according to Kelly Sinoski of the Vancouver Sun) had to be difficult for Canadians to deal with. Certainly Beijing, in need of positive public relations due to its country’s reputation as a Communist, anti-democratic regime with a sketchy human rights record, perhaps could justify the billions it spent on the last Olympics, but can Vancouver really justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars to threaten an already sterling reputation as a clean, beautiful Canadian city? Especially considering that the games haven’t necessarily had as much good news to report from the city as bad, and frankly, did not paint this beautiful city in the most positive light. After all, the dancing Mounties, fighting hockey players, and flying beavers at the closing ceremony, and the repeated, insane mentions of NBC’s folks labeling all Canadians as “very very nice people” as if Canada owns the patent on geniality smacked of a Monty Python sketch.

Canada’s loss to the United States in a preliminary matchup of men’s hockey was the icing, on an, at times, iceless Olympic games. Coming up with a loss in their de facto national sport, on their home frozen turf, versus Americans competing in our 11th favorite sport (according to Gallup, just below track and field, just above professional bowling) was simply too much for most Canadians to bear.

Secretly, out of pity and rationality, and also because I feel no threat to my national pride in rooting for another country to beat us at a sport that is utterly insignificant to most of the country, I rooted for Canada to win in the gold medal matchup. The way that they won the match, in overtime on shots on goal, was about as fitting an ending as I could have imagined (Do you believe in completely reasonable conclusions to hockey matches?!? YES!!!). For one, the United States won silver, which was a major accomplishment in and of itself (many would have probably expected Russia to appear in that gold medal game instead of the United States). Secondly, from what I hear, the competition was exciting and evenly matched (courtesy of the NHL, there were an equal number of professionals on each team). And finally, morning in America was completely uninterrupted by the loss while Canadians are probably beaming with national pride and glory right now, perhaps making the nearly billion dollar investment worthwhile.

I felt badly for Canada as the game approached. I remembered how disgusted I was in the United States Basketball teams’ performances in the 2002 World Championships (sixth) and the Summer Olympics of 2004 (third) and how it truly felt as if a paradigm had shifted. Surely, I didn’t lose sleep over it, but it felt odd, and threatening somehow in 2004 to watch the “Dream Team” lose as many games in a single Olympiad as they had in all other previous ones combined! Canadians may have felt the same pains late in 2009 when Team USA defeated Team Canada in the IIHA Junior Nationals. On their home turf. As ominous a prelude as three out of your four flames lighting up at the opening ceremonies.

Now, in addition to better beer, better health care, and better treatment of indigenous peoples, Canadians can now add “and that time we beat you guys in hockey for the gold medal” to their national list of adages that prove that Canada is a better place to live than America.

I’m happy for Team Canada and the country for their win. And Team USA should feel no shame at all for its performance (unlike the athletes I derided earlier, Sidney Crosby is no punk …).

More than anything, I’m mostly happy to have a regular schedule on NBC and MSNBC again.

[1] Because only 50% of the lugers and bobsledders actually survived the turn.

Review:

2010-02-19T20:52:00.000-08:00

Hafferkamp, Russ. (2009). Careerball: The sport athletes play when they’re through playing sports. Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publishing. http://www.careerball.net/

The quandary that many athletes face when their athletic careers end is that much of what has led to their success all of their lives, and the activity(-ies) that has consumed their lives can threaten to stall or compromise a successful transition into a career. The author of Careerball advises former athletes to keep their heads up, work as hard as they can, and success will be theirs in the end.

A true statement, almost without exception. However, one doesn’t need to be a former athlete to appreciate this advice, or profit from it. Much of the advice that the career coach offers in his self-published tome is so widely applicable that it is a book-long challenge to identify what Careerball actually is. It doesn’t keep the book from being an enjoyable and at most times instructive read, but I was left wanting when it came to the book’s promise to identify a particular or unique way that former athletes could successfully approach career development based on character traits they develop as athletes (that somehow, non-athletes cannot develop or share).

Hafferkamp offers sage advice, interesting considerations, and useful perspectives for student-athletes who are at a crossroads in their lives. He is the CEO of a consulting firm that specializes in career counseling for former athletes. Sections on the unique perspective that an athlete develops , and how that shapes perspectives in ways that can be as beneficial as they are deleterious were engagingly written. Chapters 11 and 12 focus on identity formation and transitions unique to high school and college athletics, and serve as an excellent precursor to an advice section that cites survey data from 300 former professional and collegiate athletes about athletic experiences and career development. Sharp transitions and excellent antitheses appear sporadically (e.g. his suggestion that athletes’ focus on their craft makes them determined and mentally strong, but can also keep them from exploring other aspects of their development). Chapter 4 focuses, at one point, on stereotype threat research, which is very interesting.

However, platitudes dot the landscape of the book. Statements such as “athletes are good at setting goals,” and “(they) don’t lose hope,” and claims that student-athletes are competitive, work well with others, and are loyal are so widely applicable that one does not have to be an athlete to identify with them. Additionally, entire chapters that one suspects will be aimed specifically at a niche, selected audience instead reaches out to a very wide one, instead (chapters on “Personal Interests,” “Time Management,” and networking and mentorship) are not without merit, but also not germane specifically to student-athletes.

An interesting read, it is framed unfortunately as a book for former athletes on the subject of career development instead of as a book on career development that highlights ways that athletes may or may not benefit from their athletic identities. The book’s shining moments are when his tone is reflective, even autoethnographic (as an athlete and father of an elite athlete) and less like self-help.

New Orleans Saints: Super Bowl Champions and Soundtrack for a Revolution

2010-02-15T20:39:00.000-08:00

gotta be startin' somethin' ...

I am not a New Orleans Saints fan. At least not a die-hard one. The last time I counted myself as one, Bobby Hebert was handing the ball off to Rueben Mayes and Pat Swilling and Sam Mills (may he rest in peace) were dominating on the defensive side of the ball. Sure, I was thrilled when Aaron Brooks led them to their first playoff win in 2000, and as I was in Arizona at the time, I felt a small sense of pride in being from Louisiana and watching “our team” collect its first win in the NFL playoffs. No bandwagoner, I, I didn’t run out and buy an Aaron Brooks jersey, talk noise to Cardinals fans, or anything of the like. I smiled, called my brother, and that about wrapped it up.

The Super Bowl run the Saints accomplished this year elicited the same reaction in me. Sure, as they started 13-0, it drew my interest, but so did the Colts, and so does every team that starts the year off rattling off 10 or more wins. Frankly, I’ll pull for any team to go undefeated and win the Super Bowl just so Mercury Morris will give it a rest. I’d seen the Saints play several times this year, once brilliantly against the New England Patriots (I’ve never seen Belichick dismantled) and several times uninspiringly, particularly in the early season against Miami, and late in the season against Carolina and Tampa Bay (the Panthers, a .500 team, and the Bucs, whose win against the Saints may have saved Raheem Morris’ job). I watched them play in the NFC Championship, and thought Minnesota the better team, though, I gained tremendous respect for how the Saints attacked Adrian Peterson’s weakness (hard to imagine that an elite runningback would have that much trouble holding on to the dang ball) and secretly delighted in how badly they beat up Brett Favre (bet he still doesn’t retire). I thought the Super Bowl would be a close match, and that if Dwight Freeney had been healthy, it would have been a much different game (because I think Jermon Bushrod might be the worst left tackle in the NFL). But it was a great game, New Orleans made the most plays, and deserved the championship.

But here’s why the win was bittersweet, die-hard fan, or not. In 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson attempted to convert a crisis into a financial opportunity. Forced to play his home games away from New Orleans in Baton Rouge and eventually San Antonio, rumors abounded that Benson was seriously considering moving the team. In fact after a loss to the Miami Dolphins, amid rumors that he was relocating the team (the San Antonio Saints? Really?) he confronted and was confronted by angry, betrayed fans. Benson said he would never go back. Comparably, Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf, relegated, much like Benson to a somewhat dilapidated venue (the Metrodome), threatened to shop the team to Los Angeles after the 2010 season, and only their loss in the NFC Championship game prevented him from following through. Surely, Benson will not dare shop a World Champion franchise. But commanding more concessions to keep the team in New Orleans certainly does not seem beneath him, and these concessions are likely to come on the backs of Louisiana’s taxpayers (I mean, he’s done it before) at a time when Governor Jindal is cutting education, health care, unemployment benefits and social services left, right, and down the middle (and for a time, even postured about not accepting federal stimulus funding). More concessions to keep the Saints in Louisiana are not good for the state, no matter how good this may make us feel in the immediate future (as of February 15th, the post-Super Bowl party continues through Mardi Gras). And while I am only a casual fan of the New Orleans Saints, I am a die-hard fan of the State of Louisiana.

I’ll admit that I shortsightedly quipped, a few weeks ago, that it didn’t matter to me who won the Super Bowl. That there were more important things to consider, more important heroes to root for. I was ridiculed roundly in my close circle of friends and co-workers, labeled as much as a traitor for not somnambulistically endorsing the Saints’ Super Bowl run. While I contend that I do not owe the Saints my loyalty and fanaticism because of my place of birth (I’m just not a huge fan of sports – I enjoy them, but refuse to let my day or week be ruined by a team’s performance) I failed to recognize the true power and importance of this game, and more importantly, of this win. I think levees need to be repaired in New Orleans. I think developers need to stop gentrifying historic and culturally important neighborhoods. I think displaced citizens who want to return to their homes need to be given the chance to do so, and I think schools and neighborhoods need to be rebuilt. I think if those things were to happen in the next decade that the Saints’ Super Bowl championship would literally be the least important item in this list to be achieved.

But these items aren’t unrelated. New Orleans is a beautiful, strong, amazing town. The birthplace of jazz and a mecca of French, Creole, and African-American culture. Add to that: Home of the NFL Super Bowl Champions. And if this is the latest means by which New Orleans, and New Orleanians in the diaspora, draw inspiration, so be it. And if this made the world fall in love with New Orleans all over again, rather than simply feel sorry for it, then all the better. And whether the hero that New Orleans’ youth choose to follow into its greater future be Mitch Landrieu or Louisiana native and Super Bowl hero Tracy Porter; Wynton Marsalis or Reggie Bush, so long as they have a hero to follow, it beats the hell out of abject despair. Hell, if the fierce winds of Katrina have been momentarily forgotten because of 20 weeks of a really cool Brees, then maybe this championship was the perfect tonic.

A reminder of what was. An indication of what could be. A soundtrack of a revolution to come.

Who Dat, indeed.

The Future of the Black Athlete: William Rhoden's "Forty Million Dollar Slaves"

2010-02-09T08:14:00.000-08:00

also published in The Black Scholar journal (2008).

Rhoden, William. Forty Million Dollar Slaves: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete. New York: Crown Publishers, 2006.

In March 2007, controversy erupted when CBS radio shock-jock Don Imus, on his nationally syndicated radio show, denigrated the women of Rutgers University’s Women’s Basketball team by labeling them “nappy headed hoes.” Immediately, a nation-wide, almost uniform response to his unabashedly racist and sexist comment emerged, and he was roundly rejected by members of the media, politicians, and pundits of virtually every ilk. Though executives at CBS and other media elites offered a de facto defense of Imus, the vast, organized, and unequivocal call for Imus to apologize (and furthermore, for him to be sanctioned sternly) and for racist vitriol of this sort to cease without severe consequence forced the hands of both the executives who employed Imus and the advertisers who sponsored his work. Imus was fired within a week of making his denigrating comments, largely due to the effect of the concerted response of Rutgers President Richard McCormick and Head Coach C. Vivian Stringer, and the poise and determination of her players, which galvanized the support corporate sponsors who funded Imus’ on-air vitriol. These scholar-athletes serve as a model for athletic leadership in our society as they stood up for justice, equality, and their own humanity amidst a public spectacle thrust upon them, confirming the long-espoused adage of sport culturists that, in sport, we sometimes see justice served as it can and should be for all Americans.

It is exactly this kind of leadership in difficult times that William Rhoden charges contemporary black athletes with in Forty Million Dollar Slaves. Unfortunately, it seems as if this is the kind of leadership that contemporary athletes have demonstrated that Rhoden all-too easily overlooks.
The book’s subtitle, “The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete,” indicates that Rhoden is more than a historian, but a nostalgian fully convinced that the black athlete’s historical willingness to advocate for social and economic justice for all black people has diminished--and perhaps disappeared--in recent times. In order to drive home the suggestion that a vacuum of leadership has led to black athletes becoming a lost tribe, he relies heavily upon the metaphor that the relationship between athletes/owners/sport-industrial complex is akin to the relationship between the slave/master/plantation. In other words, though contemporary athletes receive lucrative compensation for their labor, they still rely exclusively upon white owners--who buy, sell, and trade them, and ultimately control their fates--and thus are condemned to exercise silence, complicity, and coercion when it comes to issues that impact the entire black community. After all, in the end, “anyone who exercises power over them is white, and they feel […] that the owners are taking more value out of them than they are putting in” (xi). Additionally, as in times of slavery, their athletic prowess exists solely at the “spectacle of white owners” and is further complicated by the fact that they are coached predominately by white men and evaluated by an almost exclusively white sports media[1] (8).

Controversial, certainly, and hyperbolic, perhaps, but Rhoden carefully chooses the slave/master/plantation metaphor and explicates it deftly throughout the text, relying upon historical examples of athletes who embodied the black struggle for self-determination through their athletic exploits, and profiling contemporary athletes who most aptly fulfill the slave/master relationship in contemporary times. Rhoden believes that the “common cause” that once united all black athletes has been fractured by their disconnection from the black community via a conveyor belt system that prepares them for professional athletic competition and the ancillary public relations requirements (5). And he pulls no punches when he accuses contemporary black professional athletes of abdicating their responsibility to their community with “treasonous vigor,” a point he endeavors to drive home by profiling black athletes such as Tom Molineaux (boxer), Jack Johnson (boxer), Isaac Murphy (jockey), Arthur Foster (Negro Leagues entrepreneur), and Jackie Robinson (baseball), whose athletic exploits and pursuant social action inspired social movement, black solidarity, and paved the way for future black successes both in and out of the arena of sport (8).

Rhoden’s accusation that contemporary athletes have failed to lead and inspire America’s black population (as he claims those of previous generations had done) begins to unravel, however, due to the thoroughness of his historical research and analysis. After more than a century of black athletes who faced the most dire consequences--loss of livelihood, death threats--we have now entered a period where an unspoken code encourages contemporary black athletes to avoid ‘rocking the boat’ lest they risk losing their lucrative sponsorships. Rhoden carefully explains the mechanisms that have disenfranchised and excised black athletes (the “Jockey Syndrome” p. 61) who challenged racist hegemony and the system )the “Conveyor Belt” p. 177-78) that compels contemporary black athletes to avoid the political arena and avoid drawing any attention to themselves that could leave them characterized as ungrateful malcontents who will face what has often been repudiation and reprisal from reactionary sports media. It is no wonder that black athletes more often than not choose to avoid hot-button political issues and, as Rhoden puts it, concentrate on “making those in positions of power feel comfortable with (their) blackness” (178).

Rhoden’s charge that contemporary black athletes of great import (think Kobe, LeBron, Donovan, Tiger) have not seized upon their global popularity in order to take up issues of racial justice and equality fails to consider the fact that social, political, and economic forces in professional and amateur sport have forced the consent of these athletes … or else. Furthermore, mechanisms exist to completely disfranchise athletes who do ‘stand for something,’ be it the constant attacks in the media, being characterized negatively by coaches and team administration, and personal risk of losing scholarships or livelihood. And yet in the face of those odds, individuals such as Etan Thomas, John Amaechi, Warrick Dunn, Joe Horn, refuse to, as Dave Zirin puts it “Be like most athletes and just toe the line, drink Coke, wear Nike and tap-dance on cue”[2]. As the women of Rutgers have proven, contemporary black athletes are capable of carrying on the tradition of their brave brothers and sisters before them who led their teams to victory on the field and led the way in challenging racial disunity and injustice in the world outside the athletic arena.

[1] See Richard Lapchick’s “Crime and Athletes: The New Racial Stereotypes of the 1990's.” Center for Sport in Society, 2002. <>.
[2] See Zirin’s column “In Defense of Etan Thomas” on edgeofsports.com,
<<>>.

Time Out, Mr. President …

2010-02-01T22:01:00.000-08:00

Obama cuts to the Left, unlike the escalation of the War in Afghanistan, which was a definite cut to the Right ...

Many college football fans across the country are rejoicing in light of the President’s decision to announce he has the Department of Justice investigating the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) college football bowl system to determine its legality according to Sherman anti-trust laws. Finally, an outside agency may step in and right the system that, in the not-so-humble opinion of many fans, has wronged so many very good college football teams by not giving them a proper chance to compete for a national championship.

An aside: I, for one, like the bowl system as it is currently constituted. As a former student-athlete turned athletic administrator, I can authoritatively state that having an opportunity to 1) win your last football game, 2) extend your season, and 3) win a championship, are precious. It makes the grueling preseason and off-season workouts worth it in the end. There is no question that lower prestige bowl games such as the New Mexico Bowl, Bell Helicopters Armed Forces Bowl, or the Emerald Bowl lack the zing! of a Fiesta Bowl, the pageantry of a Rose Bowl, or the historic importance of the Cotton Bowl. But tell that to TCU and Boise State, who, a mere thirteen months after competing in the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl, met in a rematch in the 2010 Fiesta Bowl. Some contend that the proliferation in the number of bowl games (now at 34) dilutes the importance of playing in and winning a bowl game. But I am all for young men who work to achieve success having the greatest opportunity possible to receive a modicum of it at the season’s end.

Aside #2: A playoff system is no better arbiter of who a champion is than the current bowl system. If you invite eight teams into a playoff, #9 will probably have a legitimate axe to grind about not being invited. Oh, and this year’s national champs Alabama would have had to open up with the #8 seed Ohio State while Texas would have drawn the #7 seed Oregon, who Ohio State never seemed to struggle with in the Rose Bowl. A playoff system also ends with one winner – and everyone else is a loser. While I do not advocate the little-league-ization of college football (where everyone plays, everyone gets a trophy or medal, and everyone wins!) the playoff system restricts the definition of success. I know this from experience.

In 1998, I played for a Northwestern State team that won a school record 11 games, beat 5 Top 25 teams, and made it to the “Final Four” of FCS Football, finishing with a #2 ranking in the country. And yet, it seems, so many people can only recall that we almost made it to the championship, that we were one step away. Nothing about that magical season, in my mind, should ever be constructed as a failure. And yet, a playoff system inevitably yields such rhetorical (and mnemonic) constructions.

In addition to believing that the President’s pursuit of ending the BCS’ reign over college football is wrongheaded (though, I’d love to watch BCS PR spokesperson Ari Fleischer be owned in the media all over again after a turn as President Bush’s worst White House spokesperson – quite a feat, indeed), I also believe it is ill-timed. And it always will be.

When Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) first began calling for an investigation of the BCS’s legality, I thought the timing was poor. Primarily because there will always be more pressing issues facing Americans, and our elected officials should not be wasting their time on such trivialities. I find it incredibly disappointing that lawmakers cannot reach bi–partisan agreements on Health Care Reform, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and yet, they can come together on such a unfathomably unimportant topic such as how the NCAA should decide upon its national champion.

Orrin Hatch has been making this case for years, now. In fact, it is in response to Orrin Hatch's letter to the Justice Department that Pres. Obama is now bringing up this case[1]. Hatch is one of the longest standing critics of the BCS, and even called for President Obama to invite Boise State to the White House out of fairness this year. Additionally, Rep. Joe Barton (R) of Texas called the BCS system "communist[2]," and several representatives (Neil Abercrombie, D-HI, Lynn Westmoreland, R-GA, Jim Matheson, D-UT, and Mike Simpson R-ID) also co-sponsored similar legislation one year ago. And every year, the state with the sourest grapes (i.e. a team who goes undefeated but does not play for a championship) has a senator or representative arise to carry this water, for the purposes of shameful electioneering and pandering.

Want proof that the avocation of this cause spits in the face of the citizens who elected these public officials? That a petty fight, ensuing over the precise way to name a college football champion, is at its very best, Mel Brooks-style farcical?

The Alabama Crimson Tide are your 2010 BCS National Champions.

Who cares?

Alabama is still the 45th smartest state in the union, according to the Morgan Quitno Press, the 47th worst place in terms of potential to lead a healthy life according to parenting expert Dr. Vincent Iannelli, and according to Bob Martin of the Madison County Record, the state has a whopping unemployment rate of 11% and rising[3]. And in 2008, the University of Alabama System was forced to cut $80 million from the budget of its three campuses, and eliminated over 300 jobs. Whatever pride the Crimson Tide may have brought to people in the state, it has clearly not wrought any other discernible benefit in Alabamians’ lives.

Sure, Nick Saban will receive a nice pay bonus. And the players will have memories and a legacy that will never be forgotten by them. But deep cuts to higher education, underperforming public schools, above average unemployment, and rampant health problems across the state are much more serious problems than whether or not Alabama deserved to be a national champion in college football. And if you don’t believe that, ask an unemployed, un-or undereducated, unhealthy Alabamian what he wants more – work, an education, and healthy lifestyle, or the chance to watch strangers from his home state hoist a Waterford Crystal football.

President Obama, this is an unwinnable fight. Please take a moment and let your better judgment steer you towards bravely facing the country’s problems, and furthermore, tell Orrin Hatch and Co. to join you. The hurt so many Americans are feeling cannot be stalled by timeouts and there can be no overtime if you don’t have a job to begin with.

[1] As noted on his Senate web site http://hatch.senate.gov/public/.
[2] “Lawmaker compares BCS to communism.” http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/30481373/
[3] “Unemployment tax tsunami hits state.” http://www.madisoncountyrecord.com/articles/2010/01/29/opinion/oped2.txt.

Article in Athletic Management

2010-01-31T12:59:00.000-08:00

From October 2009, "Ahead of the Game" on Football Promotions:

http://www.athleticmanagement.com/2009/10/19/ahead_of_the_game/index.php

PR, Marketing, and Athletic Development

2010-01-31T12:28:00.000-08:00

First post on Athletic Development Frontier, a blog out of Ohio University on all things atheltic fundraising which has just added me as a regular contributor. Feedback welcomed!

http://athleticsfrontier.com/archives/1188

Ther home page is here: http://athleticsfrontier.com/

Post over at NACDA/NAADD

2010-01-26T20:56:00.000-08:00

A feature on Northwestern State University athletic development available on the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics website:

http://www.nacda.com/sports/naadd/spec-rel/120409aac.html

The Difference between Marketing and PR to a Development Officer

2010-01-26T20:53:00.000-08:00

I'm now posting as a contributor to "Athletics Development Frontier," (http://athleticsfrontier.com/) a website out of Ohio University. Here is my first offering:

***

First of all, I'm grateful for the opportunity to become a member of this community and want to share with everyone a little about me as a means of introducing myself.

I am Associate Athletic Director at Northwestern State University, Louisiana, a Division I member of the Southland Conference. I am also a professor of Journalism and Public Relations. My full-time gig in athletics is as a development officer, overseeing the identification, cultivation, and stewardship of donors to NSU Athletics. And my gig on the side is as a professor in the public relations component of our New Media studies-centered Journalism program, where I teach the basics of PR writing, management, and campaigns. There is an interesting, fertile, and symbiotic relationship between these two roles and rhetorical spaces that I inhabit, and through both roles I've learned that effective fundraising and promotion of intercollegiate athletic programs require excellent marketing and its more often overlooked but no less important counterpart, public relations.

Much of what we do in intercollegiate athletic development involves securing funding and in-kind support for various initiatives. There are fixed costs (scholarships, books) which require annual funding, campaign costs which require significant one-time investments, and always, always, tickets to sell and seats to fill. This means that marketing, or the creation, acquisition, and satisfaction of customers, has as its end a monetary gain of some sort. And plenty can be used to market athletics -- interesting story lines, record-breakers, high performers, championships to defend -- and so much more. Look at any athletics website (check out www.nsudemons.com, for example) and you'll find evidence of the prevalence of sports marketing, including game promotions involving corporate sponsors, branding, deals on tickets, and opportunities to get involved.

But the development officer should also be sure to produce or make available ample amounts of public relations materials, or materials which generate goodwill for your organization. Examples include feature narratives about coaches and student-athletes, press releases about off the field accomplishments (like academic awards or community service), and routine contact with donors through E-lists, hand-written notes, and other forms of contact that simply keep them feeling good about your operation. A nicely produced annual report, or a clipping sent with a note about a student-athlete sent to a benefactor of an endowed scholarship does not have the soliciting of funds as its end game. Rather, it shows appreciation for past support and, hopefully, sets the stage for future asks. It also creates goodwill among potential donors and supporters out there whom you may not have come into direct contact with.

So remember, take time to develop good marketing strategies and attend to the ways that you promote your program through public relations. Both are keys to identifying, acquiring, and retaining consistent supporters of your athletic program. I will post some examples in upcoming submissions.

Rooney Fooled?

2010-01-12T10:24:00.001-08:00

In the past week, the Washington Redskins and Seattle Seahawks have exposed the inadequacy and utter permeability of the rule that the NFL has imposed to ensure that more minority applicants garner opportunities to interview for head coaching positions. Regardless of what consequences will be doled out to these teams, the message appears clear: The Rooney Rule may as well be known as the Rooney Gentle Suggestion.

In hiring Mike Shanahan (replacing Jim Zorn) as their head coach, the Washington Redskins publicly (and, many would contend, tackily) courted their replacement candidate in a search with an end so transparent it smacked of M. Night Shyamalan. The Redskins neither took the recommended amount of time to search for new candidates or follow the edict that qualified minority candidates be granted interview opportunities. Just what you’d expect from the Redskins, the only professional sports team to be federally ordered to desegregate its team back in the 60’s.

The Seahawks played by the rules, though, they are being mentioned in the same breath with the Redskins as evidence that the Rooney Rule casts as unimposing a shadow over the NFL as the Black Coaches Association Report Card casts over NCAA Football. Both are well-intentioned ideas that lack teeth. Frankly, so far as we know, the Seahawks may have intended to hire Leslie Frazier, a helluva ball coach with NFL pedigree (won a Super Bowl in ’85 with the Chicago Bears) over Pete Carroll if he interviewed well (of if Carroll removed his name from the search). However, most pundits agree that this was merely a move to satisfy the requirements of the Rooney Rule, while ignoring the spirit of the rule. So much for the Left Coast leaning that way.

In one instance, we have a case where business as all too usual prevailed, and the Washington Redskins made the move best for their fiscal interests and their pursuit of greatness, not the equally important (though less lucrative) pursuit of social justice. In replacing Jim Mora, however, the Seahawks interviewed a qualified minority candidate and selected a more qualified and accomplished non-minority coach. Leslie Frazier will be a head coach in the NFL someday if he keeps producing as he has, it just won’t be in 2010. That isn’t unjust. But let’s say, for instance, that the Seahawks intended to hire Pete Carroll all along. All they would need to do is bring in someone like Frazier, run him through the process, and decide on their de facto candidate. Though we know that the Redskins did not follow the rule and should be sanctioned (the NFL levied a $200,000 fine against the Detroit Lions when they violated the rule in 2003), the Seahawks could just have easily done so, and would get away with it. Many other NFL teams have been accused of doing just that in the past few years.

I would never say that the need for the Rooney Rule does not exist. For years mediocre white coaches were hired again and again (think Norv Turner, with 5 winning seasons in 12 years and three different teams) to lead teams while very qualified and talented minority coaches could hope only to work their way up to coordinator positions. Black coaches who were hired and sustained success were fired anyhow and struggled to find subsequent opportunities (think Art Shell, a 54-38 record in 6 seasons, fired after a winning season, then re-hired to coach one of the worst teams in the NFL and fired after a 2-14 season). When the Rooney Rule was instituted in 2003, only 6% of NFL coaches were black, even though there were many qualified candidates. In 2009, 22% of the coaches are black, and there are many more qualified individuals in the pipeline. Comparatively speaking, 8% of college coaches are black (the number has doubled since the end of the 2009 season), though the NCAA does not have a comparable rule in place to enforce the interviewing of minority candidates.

But the rule needs to be revisited, for several reasons, all of which are revealed by the recent actions of the Redskins and the Seahawks:

1) NFL teams do not have to follow the rule. Even if the Washington Redskins are fined $200,000 or more, will this be a corrective to the behavior? Not likely. And it certainly won’t spur a boycott of their team that could be financially disastrous, or any kind of federal or local government intervention. Hell, it probably won’t even bring a lawsuit. In this instance, the rule is toothless.

2) NFL teams can satisfy the rule disingenuously. Again, I am only speculating as to what Seattle’s intent may have been, but if they intended all along to hire Carroll, and the Frazier interview was perfunctory, then in this instance, the rule is hollow.

3) The Rooney Rule addresses a symptom, not a root cause. Racism has long been a problem in the United States, and the panacea of sport is no exception. The reason that black coaches did not have opportunities to become head coaches is part of an embedded, institutionalized problem much bigger than professional football, and no rule to which only NFL teams are subject will change that. Sure, it can have a significant impact, but so long as this rule prompts chicanery and loopholing rather than serious retrospection about hiring practices (not just at the head coaches level, but throughout the organizations) the rule will be circumvented and the root causes of racism will continue to deny opportunities to qualified minorities in professional football.

The Rooney Rule is no Golden Rule, applicable in all times in all places to all people. That is why, in some cases, the rule besmirches the name and efforts of its namesake in a way that not only he would find, personally, foul.

New Article in "Louisiana Progress"

2009-12-09T11:36:00.000-08:00

Please take a look and consider joining/supporting the "Louisiana Progress Initiative." My article "Game Theory" is featured in Issue 2.

http://laprogress.squarespace.com/storage/LPIjournalv1.2.pdf

For more information about the LPI, please see:

http://www.laprogress.org/lpi-journal-december-edition/

Profiles in Advocacy: Linda Bensel-Myers, Jon Ericson, and Thomas Foster

2009-12-08T00:16:00.000-08:00

from the 12/10/09 edition of "The Real Views"

If one accepts the premise that many black male student-athletes in the revenue generating sports of football and basketball matriculate and leave institutions of higher education with feelings of being exploited, then a desperate need exists to identify the counter-narratives of advocacy where student-athletes at least have the potential to have vastly different undergraduate experiences. For one, the very continued existence and integrity of organized amateur athletics depends upon it, and too, the NCAA should be invested in identifying these stories as crucial moments in shaping its history rather than as unfortunate marginalia. Finally, these stories should be recognized as instructive rather than destructive, and as important moments in higher education that occurred, for the most part, outside of the classroom.

One of the most powerful examples of such a narrative is the case of Linda Bensel-Meyers vs. the University of Tennessee. In 1995, Linda Bensel-Meyers was fired by the University of Tennessee because she blew the whistle on the improprieties she observed (including papers being written for student-athletes) while she was an English department faculty member and Director of Composition. In “Breaking Faith with the College Athlete,” Bensel-Meyers assails the quality of education offered to high-profile athletes, labeling it as “tantamount to institutionalized slavery” and claiming that NCAA institutions do not “provide an education nor reward the athletes for their lucrative service to the university.” In addition, reflecting on her own experiences at Tennessee, she brings attention to the exploitation of the college athlete done in the name of the so-called “student-athlete[1]” and the “institutionally-sanctioned fraud” and “institutional coddling” that under gird the assumption that elite athletes neither have time nor interest in academic pursuits, so they must be allowed to take “shortcuts” – in this case, plagiarized essays, but in others, tracking into majors, and independent studies. Rather than being hailed as a heroine advocate for student success, Bensel-Meyers encountered threats and hate mail, and ultimately, her termination, and was vilified at home and forced into exile. And she is convinced that the NCAA, as well as the University of Tennessee, is to blame for her exile, noting: "I don't think the NCAA investigators were interested in seeing the evidence I had[2]." She remains, however, a committed advocate, serving as director of the National Institute for Sports Reform and past Executive Director of the Drake Group.

Jon Ericson shares with Linda Bensel-Meyers a fierce commitment to student-athlete advocacy and even founded the advocacy group “The Drake Group” after he developed misgivings about American college athletics during his tenure at Drake University. In the mid 1990’s, Ericson, a provost and emeritus professor at Drake University, was asked to participate in NCAA “Self-Study,” or a mandated evaluation of departmental services instituted to ensure that member institutions meet the standards defined by the NCAA to continue their membership. The standards include everything from facilities, to Title IX compliance, to overall dedication to the academic, social, and athletic development of student-athletes. When Ericson discovered pervasive negativity regarding the faculty’s perceptions of student-athletes, athletes’ academic integrity, and the exploitation of student-athlete labor, and that many faculty were “sickened, shocked, and angry” to discover a lack of academic accountability for student-athletes, he provided this feedback in his study to the NCAA. Recommendations for reform were ignored by both NCAA and Drake Self-Study Group, and Drake maintained NCAA status. He later founded The Drake Group, an organization committed to exposing widespread corruption in the NCAA and calling for revolution of athletic administration, and an outfit that still calls for “integrity in the face of commercialized sport” to this day. The Drake Group remains a quietly influential force rallying faculty across the nation in their support of athletic reforms and meets annually to strategize and provide resources to its growing membership.

Unlike Ericson and Bensel-Meyers, many of the staunchest advocates of student-athletes are not high-powered faculty or cabinet members, but people who spend time every day in close contact with them, supporting them in their daily efforts as opposed to philosophical grounds or purely theoretical suppositions. Examples include parents of student-athletes who work closely with them to help them choose an institution that values not only their athletic production but their potential as citizens, and community members who provide support for students who struggle to acclimate to new environs while balancing all the stresses of athletic competition. Particularly for student-athletes whose focus on athletics supersedes their interest in academic pursuits when they arrive on campus, such advocates play a critical role in helping them identify resources, value satisfactory progress, and navigate successfully through college in ways often unseen by outsiders and insiders alike.

Individuals like Thomas Foster, the “Clubhouse Man” at Northwestern State University, have played this role without public or even internal recognition for decades. Though, on the surface, Foster appears only to clean the Field House, move tables and chairs across and vacuum the building’s floors, he has also served as confidant to coaches and student-athletes, has stepped in and represented the desires of student-athletes to coaches and administrators, and has helped many football student-athletes graduate from college and pursue professional football careers from a small Division I college in rural, North Central Louisiana. In the fast-paced world of college athletics where coaches and administrators turn over positions with regularity, he has been a constant at Northwestern State, offering advice, guidance, and at times, fiercely defending student-athlete interests with his own reputation and comfort level on the line. Even at an institution like Northwestern State which has largely avoided major NCAA infractions over the past decades, individuals like Foster play a critical role in interpreting the desires – athletic and cultural – of student-athletes while also encouraging student-athletes to develop into well-rounded members of the community and institution. Unlike the previous profiles in advocacy, not all instances of student-athlete advocacy end in exile and loss of livelihood – Foster was inducted into Northwestern State’s graduate letterwinner’s Hall of Fame in 2008, the highest honor given to a Northwestern State athletic staff member.

In the 1990’s, non-profit organizations used social movement strategies to call for widespread reform measures to be enacted by the NCAA in order to curb abuses, reign in irresponsible spending, and ensure the quality of education offered to student-athletes measured up to the education offered to all students. However, these organizations and this movement began with the experiences of brave individuals who pursued an agenda that I have defined as “student-athlete advocacy,” or, any means by which an individual or group of individuals engages in traditional social movement rhetoric/agitation to air grievances on behalf of student-athletes that ensure their intellectual and social as well as their athletic development.

[1] A term, she claims, which was coined strictly for the purposes of preserving the myth of amateurism among revenue generating athletes and preserving the NCAA’s tax-exempt status during Walter Byers three decades-long reign as NCAA President.
[2] “Tennessee prof takes on football team.” USAToday.com. 8 May 2000. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/comment/jzcol79.htm.

“An Open Letter to Black Coaches and Administrators”

2009-11-23T19:49:00.000-08:00

Dan Rooney, namesake of the "NFL's Rooney Rule," after which the BCA Hiring Report Card styles itself.

n.b. The Black Coaches and Administrators (formerly known as “The Black Coaches Association”) is a 501 (c) (3) tax exempt non-profit organization whose primary purpose is to foster the growth and development of ethnic minorities at all levels of sports both nationally and internationally. The BCA is committed to creating a positive enlightened environment where issues can be examined closely, debated sincerely and resolved honestly. The BCA's focus involves the concerns of its colleagues in professional sports, NCAA (Division I, II, and III), NAIA (Division I and II), junior college and high school levels. The 2009 Report can be found here.

In 2006-2007, I spent a year doing research for the BCA’s Hiring Report Card, compiling information on every Division I institution that conducted a hiring search for a head football coach during the course of the year. In that year, I learned much about the information that the BCA considered and the methodology by which it evaluated these coaching searches, and in doing so, became the means by which universities’ commitment to diversity and ethical hiring practices was measured.

Though the categories evaluated do not always paint a clear picture of the efforts expended, it definitely gave university administrators an opportunity to review their processes and introduced a public sanction for those who did not. As it stands, a university cannot receive the highest score, an “A”, unless a minority candidate is invited to interview in person, which begs obvious questions – what happens if universities that are otherwise committed to diversity fail to identify minority candidates? What happens if universities that are not committed simply invite token candidates? Though I believed (and continue to believe) these questions need to be addressed and the methodology revised, I have no doubt that the BCA’s existence is a positive force in college athletics.

I want to thank Floyd Keith, the Executive Director, and Dr. Keith Harrison, the principal researcher, for the work they do with the BCA – it is crucial, was long overdue, and they are probably underappreciated for engaging in it. I know from the year that I worked with them how much goes into collecting all of the information that is used to calculate the findings.

However, as a university administrator who just participated in the BCA’s evaluations, I would be remiss if I didn’t make my objections known, for the benefit not only of Northwestern State University, but for university administrators nationwide who have been unwittingly maligned by the Hiring Report Card rubric, lest they become detractors (rather than advocates) of ethnic diversity in college athletics.

***

Dear BCA Administrators:

I am writing to protest the “C” grade that Northwestern State University received in the 2009 BCA Hiring Report Card.

When I submitted paperwork to the BCA for the Northwestern State University HFBC search in January 2009, I included with it a two-page letter detailing mitigating factors in our search which limited the potential for us to bring in qualified minority candidates to interview for the position. In it, I outlined that the conversation we had with Mr. Keith, the executive director, did not provide us with any information that could be followed up on. The two suggestions he made, Al Lavan at Delaware State and Rod Broadway at Grambling[1], were far out of our price range ($106K) and therefore, would not even consider applying for the position here. We also noted in that conversation the extreme difficulty we would have identifying even qualified Assistant Coach applicants from bigger conference (FBS) schools at this price range.

In our own research, we scoured SEC, Conference USA, and WAC websites trying to identify qualified minority assistant coaches and coordinators, and we actually discovered a couple of individuals who ultimately did not apply, but we felt should be on the BCA’s radar (and who were not even included in the NCAA’s ‘Resume Book’). I supplied the BCA with this information.

Alas, we did not identify a qualified minority candidate, but we noted that it was not only not for lack of trying, but that we did more than what would ever be expected of a department to identify a candidate, including providing the BCA with information that could assist other institutions even though it did not help us. Alas we received a grade – “F” – that belies the A+ effort we put in.

By receiving A’s in 3 categories (diversity in the interview committee, length of search, and affirmative action policy) and a B in a fourth (number of communications with BCA), we not only showed our commitment to diversity, but showed an exemplary commitment. The F in the 5th category – and I understand, the criteria is what it is – seems unmerited in the context of the letter I supplied in January, explaining that factors such as the salary we offered would not entice qualified minority candidates from larger, FBS conferences, or from out of region.

The overall “C” grade we received feels unmerited, if fair – again, the criteria is what it is. I don’t think, however, that we gave “C” effort or represent a mediocre effort as an institution or a department for our commitment, and that is the picture that has been painted by the Report Card. We had as many A’s as thirteen institutions that received A or B grades overall.

The letter of explanation supplied that detailed the extra work we put in to ensure the process was dutifully executed with regard to promoting ethnic diversity in the search should have mitigated the “F” grade that we received in that category. With this simple explanation, it is clear even to people who do not perform research for a living that the grade was unmerited.

Sorry for my long-windedness – it is nothing else but more evidence of our commitment, and is meant in a collaborative rather than an accusatory spirit. Hopefully, other administrators will stand up for their own institutions as they see fit, and, as Attorney General Eric Holder called on us, not be “a nation of cowards” on the issue of race, fairness in hiring, and ethnic diversity in college coaching.

Respectfully, William Broussard.

[1] Average salary for MEAC and SWAC coaches, 2008, was $133,587.22, and Rod Broadway was paid $156K + bonuses.

Let me be Blount

2009-11-10T08:46:00.000-08:00

the guy on the left fell on his own accord ...

from "The Real Views" magazine, 11/13/09

Hundreds of thousands of people watched the game live. Millions more have since watched the video. During the opening week of the college football season, LeGarrette Blount, Heisman Trophy darkhorse and University of Oregon tailback became a household name – for all of the wrong reasons. The buildup took all 21 years of his life, the destruction only took seconds.

Everything had built up to this moment. Blount had shown flashes of greatness in the 2008 season, rushing for over 1,000 yards. He’d impressed NFL scouts, and his Oregon Ducks were slated as fierce competitors to unseat USC from atop the Pac-10. But Blount, who reported to camp overweight and out of shape, was not a factor in the game, rushing for -5 yards on 8 carries. In the high stakes environment that is college football, particularly for NFL prospects who feel immense pressure to impress scouts at each turn, this was a disastrous outcome.

Then things took a turn for the even worse.

As 16th ranked Oregon lost 19-8 to 14th ranked Boise State and the teams cleared the field, Blount put up the kind of fight fans had waited for all night long. Unfortunately, though he had failed to penetrate Boise State’s defense all evening, he found his odds much better going one on one with a Boise State player.

After the game, while players shook hands, wished each other well, and began looking forward to the next game, everything came crashing down around LeGarrette Blount and the pressure proved too much to bear for his bearish shoulders. Byron Hout, a Boise State defensive end and the victim of Blount’s post-game battery, never saw it coming. From the looks of it, didn’t see it afterwards either. One could easily imagine Blount’s life flashing before his eyes at the exact same moment.

The fight was one-sided (though Hout was shown jawing only moments earlier and even being chastised by Boise State Head coach Chris Petersen for doing so), the opponent was unsuspecting, and this cheap shot would not only fail to erase Blount’s poor performance or Oregon’s loss, but it would, at the time, signal the end of his playing career.

The ultimate counterpunch to Blount? According to several sources, including NFL Draft expert Mel Kiper, Jr., in those five seconds, he would render himself, in the eyes of many NFL general managers, undraftable. He’d been suspended the previous season for violating team rules, and had shown discipline issues by not reporting to fall camp in shape in 2009. This was the straw that broke Blount’s back (well, the extended footage of him being dragged off the field by security while becoming increasingly belligerent didn’t help).

Predictably, within days, Oregon Head Football Coach Chip Kelly announced that Blount would be disciplined severely for this transgression. His punishment was a suspension for the duration of the football season, ultimately ending his collegiate career, and perhaps, any chance of redemption among fans, university alumni, and potential future employers in the world of professional football.

As usual, the hypocrisy of sports media and sport enthusiasts all over was in full effect, from local journalists all the way to the “Worldwide Leader.” The meme spread like wildfire all across the country – “the Blount Punch” became a favorite search on YouTube.com as quickly as Blount became a villain in the blogosphere, on ESPN, and on Oregon Football message boards. I’m always amazed by how something so ‘vile,’ ‘disgusting,’ ‘unruly,’ and ‘reprehensible,’ can attract so many “views” (the ESPN.com video has over 160,000). Oregonian columnist John Canzano wrote off Blount’s post-game apology as “clumsy and self-serving.” ESPN.com bloggers Todd McShay and Kevin Weidl wrote off Blount as not skilled enough to warrant investment of NFL teams in him, given his behavior (they think that Michael Vick, though, is freakishly talented enough to warrant such investment, however, even though he is a convicted felon). Overnight, Blount became the “this is what’s wrong with sports these days” athlete du jour. Sure, fans and analysts hate this kind of behavior, yet celebrate it by rehashing it ad nauseum and contemplating the consequences of a young man’s life as though he were pawn, not person.

In fact, analysts all over, even outside of sports journalism lined up to offer what pop psychologist’s proof they had that they’d seen this coming all along, what anecdotes they had about this being no surprise given Blount’s past behavior, and what sundry issuances of good riddance they could muster.

Here’s where I get on the wagon, but only briefly. Blount’s actions were hyperbolic, hyperemotional, and unjustifiable (I mean, I get the frustration … he’s out of shape, just had a big opportunity to impress future employers on national television and blew it … this wasn’t a “c’est la vie” moment, but still). In fact they were indefensible even if they could be rationalized, and many believed the moment revealed something more deeply-seated than an “Aw, shucks I didn’t play well tonight” attitude, but more of a “Football is all I have and if I can’t do well at this, I am going to destroy everything around me and myself in the process” attitude. It’s bad enough when stress breaks a young person down to the point that they act out violently – it’s made infinitely worse when this all happens on national television.

I know from my past employment as a judicial affairs officer on a university campus that if a student exhibited such behavior, sanctions, education, and anger management classes would be issued. However, in the all too damning world of athletics, the verdict was much stricter – Blount’s career should be ended and unrelenting punishment, rather than education and reflection, and perhaps atonement, should be the sanction of choice.

Chip Kelly’s brave decision to keep LeGarrette Blount on the team and allow him to continue practicing (he faced staunch criticism for not cutting ties with Blount completely), and his recent decision to reinstate him for the team’s final three games, after paying a “significant and appropriate price,” is the best educational sanction that Blount could have received. That’s the difference between our “chew them up, spit them out” consumer culture and sports media and the true spirit of the NCAA and intercollegiate athletics – while the sports media and fans fired up the band and told Blount to hit the showers, Coach Chip Kelly put the ball back in Blount’s hands.

Sure, it’s a long shot (like 3rd and 21, inside sprint draw against a dialed up blitz, long shot) that Blount will move the chains and extend his playing career beyond Oregon, but putting the ball back in his hands at this point should figure in considerably in how he plays the game of life from this point forward.

Welcome back LeGarrette. Drive your legs, lower your pad level, and don’t put the ball on the ground.

Micheal Vick and Poor Sports

2009-08-05T21:38:00.000-07:00

My take on Mike Vick's "Return" ... from the 8/7 edition of The Real Views

Though many convicted felons endure the stereotypes associated with being ex-cons long after they have served their time and paid their debt to society, I’d wager that most Americans agree that if someone “does the crime and does the time,” then in most cases past sins can be forgiven.

Roger Goodell, of course, isn’t an average American. Nor does he appear to be one who has much faith in the humanity of people who make up the NFL.

National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell has made waves in recent weeks by openly discussing sanctions of Michael Vick, including a suspension of as many as four to six games for the 2009-10 football seasons. This after Michael Vick completed a sentence of 23 months for federal dogfighting (conspiracy to organize dogfighting and animal torture) and stood poised to make his return to professional football this summer. Many teams, looking for a capable backup quarterback, or perhaps the next “Slash[1]” were weighing the possibilities of signing Vick to a contract, were discouraged when Goodell was quoted as saying that he would consider suspending the quarterback for as much as a quarter of the season.

Consider the salary that Vick would command as a multi-year veteran. And now consider that any team who would consider signing him would do so because they needed his services immediately, this sanction would make him undesirable to virtually any professional football team. Combine this fact with the likelihood that whichever team enlists Vick’s services will have to be incredibly proactive in their public relations efforts, and one begins to wonder if any team will give Vick a chance.

Frankly, if 32 NFL teams looked at Vick and decided that his downside (he only completes 53% of his passes, has struggled running pro-style offenses, throws nearly as many interceptions as touchdowns) outweighed his upside (and you are supposed to tackle this guy how?), then fine, that would be the end of it. Even if teams truly believed, in their front offices, that the potential negative impact of giving Vick a chance would pose too great a risk to their images, they could attribute their decisions to many football-related reasons. Besides, can you imagine the vicious headlines Vick would not have to endure if in fact he did not sign:

First time Vick plays Cleveland and wins: “Vick Kills the Dawgs”
If Vick were signed by the Bengals: “Vick Wears Stripes”
If Vick were re-signed by the Falcons and went to a UGA game …

You get the picture.

But Vick, who appears for all intents and purposes appears to be contrite, if not reformed, and ready to move forward with his life is being denied this opportunity, in full, by Roger Goodell. The question is why.

Vick has made no shortage of mistakes, to be sure, from being involved with unsavory characters whose actions have reflected poorly on him, to unfortunate on the field behavior, as well.

But is his crime, as powerful political lobbies like PETA and the ASPCA would have us believe, unforgivable?

Is Goodell merely doing his job and protecting the brand of the NFL, or does he truly believe that Vick is incapable of being reformed, that somehow his sanction will be more impactful than a 23 month prison sentence and the loss of all freedoms associated with the superstardom Vick once enjoyed?

I get Goodell’s message, I really do. There is a difference between sanctions that a person faces criminally (23 months for federal dogfighting) and socially (likely, a lifetime of cajoling fans, boycotts, and general disdain) and professionally. Violate the strict terms of the CBA (the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement) and there are sanctions. And given Goodell’s self-imposed charge to rehabilitate the damaged brand of the NFL, those sanctions have been much more severe under Goodell than under past commissioners.

But is Goodell rehabilitating the brand one sanction at a time? Does he truly believe that he has more power to rehabilitate Vick with a four game suspension than the federal government possessed when it issued the 23 month conviction?

Does he not trust the owners’ of individual teams ability to successfully market and brand their own teams? If a team decides (this is the pro “let the marketplace determine value” argument) that they want to employ Vick and risk potential losses to ticket sales … or, cash in on the controversy by guaranteeing one of the biggest pre-season stories in the history of the NFL unfolds at their front door, then why should Goodell pervert that process?

Does Goodell think that he will be viewed as soft in the eyes of many fans if he does not impose an additional sanction on Vick?

Whatever the case, Goodell does not appear to have faith that Vick has been rehabilitated, nor does he trust the intentions of any team who would be interested in employing him, and this sanction may end Vick’s playing career. Some people think that’s justified, others argue that playing in the NFL isn’t Vick’s right, but a privilege that can be lost as easily as it is attained. Those people have legs to stand on in their arguments.

Vick’s legs, however, have been cut from under him by Goodell. A leg for a leg, perhaps.

If Goodell truly thinks that reinstating Vick threatens the NFL brand, or that his actions deserve sanctions more severe than the de facto two season suspension he has already faced, then so be it. He is the commissioner, he needs to rule accordingly and he could make arguments to justify those actions.

But if he is acting because he feels politically pressured by unforgiving fans and the political lobbies of animal rights activist groups, then he merely makes a feeble political placation at Vick’s expense, piling on rather than acting independently and ruling definitively as a commissioner should.

Simply piling on Michael Vick is an ironically cowardly move as a response to his cowardly crime.

[1] Nickname associated with Kordell Stewart, formerly of Pittsburgh Steeler fame, who was called “Slash” because he was a Quarterback-slash-Receiver-slash-Running Back.

New Journal -- Article on Legislative Session and College Athletics

2009-08-05T21:33:00.000-07:00

View and download here: http://tinyurl.com/laprogress1

FIRST ‘LOUISIANA PROGRESS JOURNAL’ LAUNCHES
AUGUST 4, 2009: Today the first edition of the Louisiana Progress Journal was released by the Louisiana Progress Initiative(LPI). The public policy publication includes five articles that share original thoughts, proposals, and analysis on current policy debates and challenges in Louisiana. The journal is the result of a volunteer effort by a group of Louisiana-based thinkers, writers, and practitioners with the goal of injecting fresh ideas into the public debate through carefully-reasoned reports, articles, and essays.

“The Louisiana Progress Initiative is a volunteer effort that we hope will gain steam with this and future reports and eventually lead to a new progressive policy organization here in our state,” said journal editors Greg Granger, PhD, and Matt Bailey, JD. “We believe that progress can best be achieved through innovation – new ideas that break from the status quo, challenge our long-held beliefs, and lead to effective solutions to the obstacles we face.”

The journal is free and the public is invited to share and distribute copies of it freely.

ABOUT THE LOUISIANA PROGRESS INITIATIVE
LPI is a new, statewide endeavor which seeks to advance progressive policies in Louisiana through careful research and analysis. The organization’s mission is to foster a robust marketplace of progressive ideas through the dissemination of periodic reports directly to policymakers, community organizations, and concerned citizens. LPI is non-profit, non-partisan, volunteer-led, and not affiliated with any other group.

To submit a piece, e-mail lpi.inbox@gmail.com

Student-Athlete Advocacy: A Review of the Literature

2009-07-13T21:31:00.000-07:00

"One Foot In", cont.

Research on student-athlete advocacy in college athletics is informed by scholarship on educational inequality, particularly as it impacts black students in public school systems and predominantly white institutions, cultural criticism and historical analyses of college athletics, and social movement rhetoric literature and theory.

Educational Inequality
Philosophers and researchers have considered the pernicious effects of racism on the social and educational experiences of black Americans extensively. These effects extend to many areas within American society, from forms of racism both overt and covert (such as “institutionalized racism,” coined by Ture in Black Power) and forms of oppression both direct and indirect (Young, 2000). From the considerations of educational sociologists and historians (DuBois’ Souls of Black Folk, Woodson’s Miseducation of the Negro and E. Franklin Frazier’s The Negro Family in the United States seem especially relevant) to cultural and social critics (Baraka’s Blues People and the incendiary yet often astute rhetoric of Malcolm X, the Black Liberation Movement, and the Black Panthers) to contemporary “cultural-ecological” theorists such as Johnathan Kozol (Savage Inequalities), John Ogbu (“Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education,” and “Minority Education in Comparative Perspective”), Angela Valenzuela (Subtractive Schooling) and Jabari Mahiri (Shooting for Excellence), the literature suggests that a collision of environmental, historical, and economic forces have led to a general underperformance among black public school students compared to their white (Caucasian) peers in formal, public educational settings. The lack of college preparation opportunities and resources available to inner-city youth in urban areas, under-resourced, and disproportionately poor rural public education systems, and the pernicious experiences that youth of color face in many of well-resourced schools indeed converge to deny many persons of color the chance to gain entry into the academy and obtain a degree.

Scholarship (Atkinson, Jennings, and Lionson, L. 1990, Hraba, Radloff, & Gray-Ray 1999, Laird, et al. 2004, Sparrow and Chretien 1993) also suggests that black students who beat the odds and successfully matriculate to college face further obstacles to their success in obtaining college degrees because of feelings of alienation, the vestiges of racism, and a lack of services to help them counteract the multiple stressors of being minorities at predominantly white institutions. These stressors also include being first-generation college students and having a general lack of black faculty and staff role models. It’s likely that a confluence of these experiences contributes to the disproportionately lower success rates among African-American student-athletes, according to NCAA statistics, much of which occurs before they arrive on college campuses to begin with. Research in the areas pertaining to educational inequality suggest that though black male student-athletes at Division I-A schools share some degree of privilege in that they are college students, for the most part many of them suffer through various forms of discrimination as they alternately (or concurrently) are assumed to be academic underperformers either because of their ethnic or athletic affiliations (Lumas 1997; Mangold, Bean, and Douglas 2003). The intersections between the institutional racism that under girds the educational inequalities in the public school system and the level of educational quality for college student-athletes precipitates the need for a more robust advocacy than is provided in many institutions.
Research regarding the travails of African-American students in institutions of higher education indicates that these students are often unduly hampered in their endeavors to be successful students, matriculate, graduate, and transition into their chosen careers and professions. Researchers have identified myriad reasons for the sub-par academic performance among Students of Color, including among others: (a) feelings of isolation and alienation on college campuses, (b) the vestiges of racism and racial discrimination, (c) the sense that public education divests Students of Color from meaningful cultural capital, and (d) cultural differences between learning environments and home/familial environments (Smith and Moore, 2000; Laird, 2004; Valenzuela, 1999; Ogbu, 1990). These struggles have, historically, led to high attrition rates and lower levels of student satisfaction with their college experiences, particularly at Predominantly Caucasian Institutions of higher learning.

Research on issues in areas as varied as graduation rates, job opportunities, and feelings of acceptance and belongingness among minority student-athletes, coaches, and administrators suggest that the hardships that these individuals routinely face jeopardize the prospect of their success as college students. A study released by the NCAA in 2003[1] proclaims that student-athletes are more likely to graduate over a six year period than non-student-athletes, but notes that black student-athletes are not only less likely to graduate than their white peers, but that there are “fewer black athletes” competing as student-athletes than in past data sets (“NCAA Graduation Success Rate – 1996-2002 Cohort” 2). This translates into a lower proportion of student-athletes having the opportunity to compete at the college level, likely because Proposition 16, a stringent eligibility standard mandated in 1996 “affects access to higher education for minorities” because the sliding scale used to determine eligibility is 50 percent based on standardized test scores (“NCAA Graduation Success Rate – 1996-2002 Cohort” 2). Recent updates to the Satisfactory Progress model (the “40-60-80[2]” model) also restrict access further for junior-college transfers, which in football and basketball tend to include significant populations of black and minority student-athletes.

Though graduation rates for black student-athletes are slowly rising, black student-athletes are still much less likely to graduate than their white peers. In the 2003 study, black male athletes in football and basketball graduated at rates substantially lower than their white counterparts (52 percent vs. 41 percent in basketball, and 61 percent vs. 49 percent in football) (“NCAA Graduation Success Rate – 1996-2002 Cohort” 3). These numbers, Lapchick claims (Lapchick 2), reinforce already-existent stereotypes about the intellectual capability and potential of black male student-athletes and substantiate them with data – even though many people are unwilling to examine the disparities of these numbers in order to determine why they exist. It can easily be contended, because of these disparities, that the most significant interventions that the NCAA and its member institutions have introduced on the past three decades have improved graduation success rates for black male student-athletes in revenue sports, but for the majority of those students, more significant interventions must take place to ensure their success.

[1] NCAA Graduation Success Rate – 1996-2002 Cohort. http://www.ncaa.org/news/2003/20030901/active/4018n01.html.
[2] Requirement that student athletes complete 40% of their major requirements by the end of their second year of eligibility, 60% by the end of their third year of eligibility, and 80% before the beginning of their final year of eligibility to remain eligible to complete.

The Games We (May No Longer) Play

2009-07-06T23:08:00.000-07:00

Across the state (excepting the state’s flagship institution) the face of college athletics is changing rapidly and drastically. Unfortunately, in the “Sportsman’s Paradise,” it’s changing for the worst.

At the University of New Orleans, students voted down a referendum to establish a student fee to underwrite the costs of operating their Division I athletic program. As a result, their program is in limbo, as university-wide budget cuts will likely finish the job Hurricane Katrina started and eliminate Privateer athletics indefinitely (and perhaps permanently).

While Centenary (Shreveport) is not considering eliminating their Division I program, their current conversations are tantamount to elimination in the eyes of the program’s supporters. To reduce costs associated with travel and paying for athletic scholarships, Centenary’s Board of Trustees has proposed that Centenary move down to non-scholarship Division III, which has more regional competitive options than does Division I (Centenary’s current conference membership requires them to travel to the Dakotas, Indiana, Missouri, and Michigan). The move down from Division I to Division II is considered a move towards a less prestigious division, and one that would negatively impact recruitment for a university whose student body is composed of nearly 30% student-athletes.

At Southeastern Louisiana (Hammond), they have eliminated the men’s tennis program, impacting ten student-athletes on scholarship. Their tennis program won the Southland Conference championship as recently as 2006.

Southland Conference competitors Nicholls State (Thibodaux) and McNeese State (Lake Charles) will face substantial NCAA penalties due to poor performances in the APR (Academic Progress Rate) reviews, and because of widespread budget cuts, their departments will struggle more than ever to expand their academic services and support for student-athletes. On the plus side, the reduction of scholarships associated with APR penalties (Nicholls will lose scholarships in 6 sports, McNeese in 8 sports) will help their budgets, but their coaches and administrators would much rather not have the problem.

At the University of Louisiana-Monroe, President Jim Cofer has been rumored to cut the student fee allotment to athletics, and University of Louisiana-Lafayette President Joe Savoie has cut their budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well.

In a state whose institutions operate among the lowest budgets in Division I athletics in the country, these budget cuts are not “trimming fat.” They aren’t even trimming meat. We’re talking about trimming bone from bone, and perhaps even extracting marrow.

Truth be told, I am the first to admit that athletics is not the most crucial concern in higher education. Frankly, the University of Louisiana System’s decision to raise the funding of its member institutions in 2008 to 5%+ of the Southern average was a much more important decision than any coach or athlete has ever made. And the work that student-athletes perform in their classrooms and communities outweigh the importance of the decisions they make on the field and on the court many times over. However, as Hall of Fame basketball coach Dean Smith famously quipped, athletics is often considered “the front porch of the Academy,” and if higher education in the state is to be judged by the state of its collegiate athletic programs (save for the state’s flagship, largely immune to budgetary problems) then Louisiana Higher Education’s front porch will need much more than a good sweeping around before it resembles a gateway to a stately mansion.

Gov. Jindal’s posturing (and rumored preparation for a presidential run in 2012) about refusing federal stimulus funding, and GOP house legislators’ decision to vote along party lines (all House Republicans voted against SB 335), which would have nearly halved the proposed $200 million cuts to higher education in the state have placed the state’s institutions in a perilous predicament. We aren’t talking about less than immaculate front porches as gateways to mansions, but dilapidated front porches which lead to shotgun houses. Whereas in most parts of the country, state legislators pride themselves in their funding of higher education, in Louisiana, adequately funding higher education is considered wasteful spending.

I know better. And so do the people of Natchitoches and Northwestern State University. Among my most treasured memories in my time as a student-athlete at Northwestern is the fall of 1998, when the entire City of Natchitoches rallied around the success of the university’s football team. The citizens and students packed the stadium on the weekends, and it seemed that the entire city was awash with purple and white (and not gold, for a change). Furthermore, the three extra Saturdays of home football games were a boon to the local and regional economy (anyone needing evidence of this should read a recently released regional economic report which states that Northwestern State’s impact on the 10-parish area it serves is $352 million annually). The next year, enrollment applications at the university increased substantially, as they did in 2006 when Northwestern State beat Iowa in the NCAA Basketball Tournament. And given that athletics offers Northwestern State and the City of Natchitoches so much to be proud of, provides so much service to the local community (NSU student-athletes provide more than 2,000 hours of community service hours every year), one thing is certain.

Budget cuts to Northwestern State University and to Demon Athletics hurt Natchitoches.

So while Demon Athletics makes no plans to cut scholarships to deserving student-athletes, cut teams, switch divisions, or make any other drastic changes to its plans to accommodate the impending budget cuts, it also means that Demon Athletics will struggle to grow. And so will its plans to better and more comprehensively serve and represent NSU, the City of Natchitoches, and north central Louisiana.

As an alumnus, former student-athlete, faculty member, and athletic administrator, I’m proud to say that our one saving grace in the midst of this global economic recession is that pride in Northwestern State University and Demon Athletics has not receded. And though the decisions made in Baton Rouge may discourage, dishearten, and frustrate us mightily they have not defeated us.

After all, by our own words, “Victory is on Our Side!”

On the ‘Air’: RIP Steve McNair 1973-2009

2009-07-06T22:32:00.000-07:00

RealView Sports by William Broussard 7/9/09

Before Sahel Kazemi’s name becomes household. Before the love-gone-wrong murder-suicide plot is explicated on MSNBC and BET ad nauseum. Before the stats are debated, the ink on the encomia dries, and a week-long discussion about whether or not a career was Hall of Fame worthy or not.

For one morning, I want to remember the man who put black college and the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly known as Division I-AA) on the map for a whole new generation. I also want to remember a man who did as much for the idea of the black quarterback as had Don McPherson, Warren Moon, and Doug Williams. And how …

In 1994, Steve “Air” McNair registered one of the greatest season-long performances in the history of NCAA Football. His senior year at Alcorn State, near Lorman, MS (a town of only 500) as quarterback of a program that had won only 4 Southwestern Athletic Conference (SWAC) championships in the previous four decades, and playing in James Spinks Stadium (Michigan’s Big House could hold 4 ½ of them), McNair fascinated everyone in the entire country.

He was a record breaker – his 6,000 yards of total offense and 53 passing touchdowns were among over a dozen NCAA records he set. He was big – the 6’2” 230 lb’er had legs like a tight end and the shoulders of a fullback and seemed virtually un-sackable. He played the game’s finesse position like a linebacker, crushing opposing defenders who tried to take him down, and alternately, sitting in the pocket and throwing tight spirals 50 yards down the field. He broke the stereotype of the black college option-style quarterback who only threw on 3rd and long. McNair could really throw the ball. And the whole country – even NFL general managers – took notice.

McNair won the Walter Payton Award that year as the top player in Division I-AA football and finished third in the Heisman voting – still a record for a historically black college football player. Most importantly, his success shone a bright light on black college football, which had long been out of the national spotlight (save for Thanksgiving Day in New Orleans for the Bayou Classic) and McNair’s NCAA success translated into NFL success, a barrier that many talented black college quarterbacks failed to traverse.

McNair’s NFL accomplishments are impressive by any measure, but particularly so for a quarterback who so many doubted could make the transition from Division I-AA SWAC football to the NFL. In his 13 year career (he was drafted third overall in 1995 by the Houston Oilers, who later became the Tennessee Titans, and finished his career with the Baltimore Ravens) he threw for more than 30,000 yards (just outside the top 20 all-time) and 174 touchdowns.

But McNair meant so much to young black men like myself, who’d watched many black quarterbacks in the early and mid-1990’s rise to superstardom and lead their college teams to great successes on Saturday, only to be spurned by the NFL or otherwise be denied an opportunity to play on Sundays. When he led the Titans to the Super Bowl in 2000 (and came only one yard short of forcing an overtime period in one of the most famous plays in SB history), it felt as if he’d carried a fan base he’d earned several years before all the way with him – people who’d never met him, never lived in Nashville, never attended Alcorn State or any other HBCU for that matter.

And I cant help but thinking that Kordell Stewart, Tommie Frazier, and Charlie Ward felt as if they were right there along with him, as they’d fallen a yard short somehow in their careers, too.

Stewart had completed a record setting collegiate career at the University of Colorado the same year as McNair, and was a second-team All-American, leading his team to an 11-1 record, Fiesta Bowl victory, and a #3 finish in the national polls. His “Miracle at Michigan” 64 yard Hail Mary touchdown pass is remembered as one of the greatest plays in college football history. Though labeled as a running quarterback by many who did not think he could be a successful NFL quarterback, he was Colorado’s most prolific passer at the time of his graduation, leading them in career passes, attempts, passing yards, total offense, and passing touchdowns. Though he led the Steelers to the AFC Championship game twice in his career, he was replaced by NFL also-rans time and time again and forced to play kick returner, flanker, and other positions to retain his contract.

That was further, of course, than Frazier and Ward ever made it. Ward would lead the Florida State Seminoles to a national championship and win the Heisman Trophy as quarterback in 1993, only to be overlooked in the NFL draft and instead be drafted by the New York Knicks. When Ward, who threw for 27 touchdowns his senior year and was named Amateur Athlete of the Year in the United States (his predecessor and successor were Olympic Gold Medalists) he was passed up in the first round of the NFL Draft, and instead went to the NBA (he had also been previously drafted by the Milwaukee Brewers of MLB).

Frazier, who electrified crowds and won a national championship at Nebraska, was possibly the best athlete to never win the Heisman (he finished a close second to Eddie George in 1995). Frazier never played in the NFL because of blood clots discovered in his leg in advance of the 1995 draft (later discovered to be Crohn’s disease) but discussion had already centered around what position he’d play in the NFL if he were drafted.

McNair’s success in the NFL, after he’d garnered so many fans during his collegiate career, was particularly sweet after a decade of watching hyper-successful black quarterbacks gain national prominence in the NCAA year after year only to fail to convert it into success in the NFL. From an upbringing in a small town in the South and a playing career at Division I-AA Alcorn State, to national recognition as a Heisman candidate and the world’s greatest stage – the Super Bowl – he manifested dreams deferred not only by generations of black athletes long out of their prime, but even for his peers.

A fantastic athlete that carried the hopes and dreams of so many people on his just-broad-enough shoulders, and moreover, a young man who will be missed terribly by former teammates, coaches, family and friends alike. RIP “Air” McNair. You made touchdowns, great plays, and believers out of so many. I hope that we all remember these contributions after the 24-hour news cycle does its worst with your untimely and unfortunate demise.

A bittersweet morning with my Top Ten MJ Tunes ...

2009-06-28T10:43:00.001-07:00

My Top Ten MJ songs, in a particular order:

Human Nature -- insistent chorus, powerful message, MJ is instructive, but not pedantic here ... preternatural vocal range, as well.

PYT -- the R&B equivalent of the assumptive close -- where ya come from? wontcha take me there?

In the Closet -- seductive and terrifying, beautiful and haunting. like an Obsession commercial, but actually cool.

Rock With You -- best dance song ever recorded.. (the 1st period at the end of the sentence is "Period")

Give Into Me -- Slash and Micheal both kill this song. Again, insistent, anxious, pleading even.

The Girl is Mine -- perhaps MJ's sweetest song. "The gosh darn girl is mine." If only Tupac and Biggie resolved their spat over Faith Evans in such a manner ...

Smooth Criminal -- best riff in an R&B song, perhaps best video ever made, lb for lb better dancing than Thriller.

Don’t Stop ‘til You Get Enough -- this video makes me nostalgiac for a time that i didnt live in or through.

Dirty Diana -- MJ's sexiest song in the way that "In the Closet" was his sexiest video.

Tie: Remember the Time, Billie Jean, You Rock My World, about 35-40 others.

One Foot In -- A Work in Progress

2009-06-28T09:39:00.000-07:00

Linda Bensel Meyers, Tennessee Football's greatest foe (other than Florida)

An excerpt from my work in progress, a working paper in the University of Washington's Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics Journal. In essence, this is an "autoethnobiohistoriography" of College Athletics, or, a story, often told through first person reflection of one's own experiences, as they relate to the experiences of others who that person may or may not have come into contact with, to rewrite the expereinces of said person in a narrative that can perhaps be generalized, though, defined in the contexts which follow, perhaps should not be.

Or, its a story about college athletics. I'm the Virgil to your Dante. See you in hell.

One Foot In:
Student-Athlete Advocacy in the Margins of American College Athletics

This is a story about underdogs who come out on top and heroes who hide in plain sight. This is a story about winning, winning big, and winning the right way. This is a story that I have written both with my words, my actions, and from the unique perspective of someone who has seen the world of college athletics from many related and yet seemingly disparate angles – as Division I NCAA student-athlete, honors college graduate and doctorate-earner, Division I NCAA athletic administrator, faculty member, sport culture critic, and student-rights advocate. This is a story about people who are staunch believers in what American college student-athletics might be, and who realize what it is, and what it is not. This is a story about civil rights, righteous indignation, living right, and dreams realized only after considerable pain.

When asked to list the greatest heroes in the history of college athletics, the names that I will speak about in the coming pages are not ones that will be commonly listed, perhaps even in their own backyards. And I use the word “hero” loosely and not without irony, as one is as likely to hear words like saboteur, traitor, and ne’er-do-well associated with these folks as they are hero/heroine. Alas, these individuals have engaged in what I will define as student-athlete advocacy in ways that have changed college athletics, and particularly the lives of so many college athletes more significantly than any coach, player, or game ever has or will.

This story of promises kept is a promise kept, itself. My own father, a standout basketball player, became an even better educator and advocate for educational equality later in life. Chief among the lessons he and my mother imparted to me were these: 1) Athletics is a part of your life, and though you may define yourself through participation in them – the outcome of that participation should never define you; and 2) Those who would help another achieve his goals are not always obvious – seek them out – and those who would stand in the way do not always do so conspicuously. In short, they encouraged me to live a life that was enriched by, but not dependent upon athletic excellence, and to humble myself to accept the support of anyone who would underwrite my development as a young man, as an intellectual, and as an athlete. This story, in which I identify true heroes in college athletics, subverts the importance of college athletics-related glory to the importance of the often invisible people who support college athletes, and elevates their importance over the more easily observable coaches and teammates often credited for the success of great athletes and teams in college athletics.

This is a story of higher education -- and I wish more stories about college athletics were stories about higher education. The story of Linda Bensel Meyers and Jan Kemp, writing instructors at Southeastern Conference universities (University of Tennessee and University of Georgia) who led local initiatives to examine injustices perpetrated upon black male student-athletes at their institutions. The story of Jon Ericson, emeritus professor at Drake University, who led a nationwide movement to examine the role of athletics in the liberal arts higher education mission. The story of Thomas Foster, a state employee and self-described “Field House Man” of the Northwestern State University Field House, who has played the role of mentor, father, coach, scout, and confidant to hundreds of young male football players whose care was delegated to him because they lacked black role models and leadership.

More than anything else, this is a story of wins and losses, big catches, last-second shots, Hail Marys, and unforgettable performances.

It’s also a story about sports.

Defining a Rhetoric of Student-Athlete Advocacy

The risks associated with college student life is an oft-discussed topic in the media and oft-depicted theme in popular culture, with much of the commentary centering on the all-too-often deleterious behaviors college students engage in and the efforts of higher education researchers and student life administrators to curb them. An emerging trend on many campuses across the country is a focus on both curricular and extracurricular support of students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, a need nearly universally recognized, though, much more difficult to provide resources for particularly in budget cut environments. While underage alcohol use and binge drinking plague many college campuses, and a lack of resources for students from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds challenge other campuses, scandals surrounding college student-athletes, particularly at “big-time” NCAA Division I programs have touched almost all campuses. A key difference between the reaction to athletics-focused crises is that while the associated challenges of alcohol/drug abuse, and racial and cultural harmony and diversity are causes that university administrations and alumni rally behind, scandals in college athletics are typically occasions in which university administrators and alumni vilify and condemn college students for their actions.

As a result of this peculiar tendency, in the past two decades, a number of higher education cultural theorists have begun to consider, specifically, the ways in which black, male, scholarship athletes in revenue-generating sports (primarily basketball and football) at NCAA Division I institutions are further hindered in their ability to successfully matriculate because of the myriad stresses that elite-level athletic competition places on them, and how the pressures of the limelight negatively impact them. Their collective claim is that the culture of elite athletics often fails to promote academic excellence, and that media-related distractions, time spent traveling, practicing, working out, and preparing for competitions, and the physical and mental stress athletes often incur serve to prevent many of them from focusing on schoolwork and graduating (See Zimbalist, 2001; Thelin, 1996; Sperber, 2001; and Lapchick, 2005). Their claims have been borne out by NCAA-calculated statistics over the past 20 years that suggest that black male student-athletes in the revenue-generating sports of football and basketball graduate at rates substantially lower than their white male counterparts (Lapchick 2005, NCAA Graduation Rate Data 1990-2005). This evidence suggests that the interventions and traditional forms of advocacy available to many black male student-athletes have not sufficed. In the instances I will highlight in this essay, I will profile the dramatic lengths that educators have gone to and in doing so, attempt to define a rhetoric of student-athlete advocacy that successfully intercedes on behalf of black male student-athletes.

(to be continued)

Footnote:

[1] This is not to suggest, of course, that most college athletic departments fail to provide resources for student-athletes that would minimize their participation in risky behaviors and provide support to ensure their successful matriculation. Quite the contrary; from mandates adopted by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) down to the provision of CHAMPS/Life Skills programs and academic support units on each campus, student-athletes are uniquely assisted in their efforts.

Gatorade Commercials: What's G?

2009-04-19T19:33:00.000-07:00

And no, the "G" doesn't stand for ghoulish ...

A pulsating, two note piano riff laced atop two minor chords fades in, creating dramatic tension across a black backdrop. Slowly, black and white faces are paced across the screen one at a time, moving at a moderate speed from right to left, all at once revealing them in stark contrast of the black background, though, not all of the faces are instantly recognizable. An older black gentleman, with a dazzling smile, salt and pepper hair, natty jacket, open collar shirt. Two young, stern, attractive Caucasian women follow, their shoulders and overall build revealing their athleticism, though, not the exact nature of it. A middle-aged man, whom even the most casual sports fan identifies as Muhammad Ali, comes next, his hands set to jab at the screen. Next follows a youthful, possibly pre-pubescent Hispanic youth, hat cocked to the side, smile beaming as if he is thrilled to be next to Ali, and who can blame him? The whole time, the voice over is provided by a young Black man, with an accent that is as definitively urban New Orleanian as any you will hear, and he narrates the segment, alternately offering encomia and intermittent African-American vernacular slang between each passing participant. The closing shot is preceded by men dressed in all black save for their white masks, dancing like mechanized ghouls emerging from a Tim Burton film.

The commercial ends. A white “G” emerges on the screen. Fin.

The refrain in the commercial? “What’s G?”

A bit of backstory is appropriate. In late 2008, Gatorade fired its Director of Marketing and Sales, largely because the brand found itself losing precious market share in the energy drink segment. A decade ago, Gatorade was virtually without competitor, garnering contract after contract from professional and collegiate teams and paying gigantic sums of money to its pitchpersons (which have included Jordan, McGwire, and Manning among many, many others). Now, the energy drink umbrella is much more vast, and products such as Red Bull, Vault, Monster, SoBe, and Vitamin Water have carved considerable niches for themselves. Increasingly, Gatorade became the drink of choice only for those who considered themselves “athletes,” and college students, truck drivers, graveyard-shifters, and everyone else in between who needed to pull long, late hours but had an aversion to java went to a different aisle in the grocery store.

Additionally, due to the advent of the Atkins Diet and the ensuing affinity for “low-carb” fare, many consumers faced a quandary – why consume 200 calories and 50 grams of sugar in a 32 oz. Gatorade when they could get “energy” from other energy drinks which have no sugar? Gatorade countered with “G2,” which slashed sugar and caloric content by 50%, but an unimpressive campaign, featuring a street-clothes-clad Derek Jeter walking down main-street, failed to lead to successful sales. Gatorade, even G2, was still the drink of the competitive athlete engaging in organized sports played in a rigorous fashion. And in a society that increasingly struggles with obesity and a youth culture more and more prone to electronically-induced sloth (choosing WoW, PS3s, and IPhones over Hide-n-go-Seek, Hopscotch, and RumbleFumble) this simply means fewer and fewer people will purchase Gatorade products.

Unless. Unless Gatorade redefines itself. As a drink of youth. As a drink of casual, weekend athletes. As a drink that identifies with urban and hip hop culture. As a drink for anyone who engages in any kind of activity that causes you to sweat – be it golf, skateboarding, ciphering/freestyling, tagging, flag football, bocce ball or company softball.

Unless, that became G.

Back to the afore-described commercial, which features professional athletes and icons of all stripes, identifiable to all age groups, in all shapes, sizes, and physical condition. On Gatorade’s new website, we learn that their spokespersons include the aged (Muhammad Ali, suffering from Parkinson’s, is featured in the present day rather than by showing footage of him in his prime) and the youthful (Candice Parker is an excellent choice, as she tremendously athletic, strikingly beautiful, and very young). The universally loved (I mean, how can someone, other than Fuzzy Zoeller, not like Tiger?) and the near-universally controversial (Tommie Smith is featured, and he is still holding his single black-gloved fist in the air, reminiscent of the 1968 Olympics). And the voice over is supplied by none other than the comically ubiquitous Lil’ Wayne, who somehow squeezed in the commercial between a guest appearance on ESPN Ocho, a guest spot on 10 new singles coming out next week (including a surprising duet with Toby Keith), a semifinal appearance on CBS’ Survivor and a shocking defeat of Bobby Flay on Iron Chef. Lil’ Wayne gives “G” precious ethos, or, credibility. He is universally loved in much the same way Gatorade hopes to be – by “urban youth” and white suburbanites, young and slightly less young, men and women alike.

If the re-branding is successful, Gatorade will redefine itself as a drink for the masses (think, just a few years ago, Gatorade made commercials about laboratory research and elite athletes, men chiseled like Adonai and Osiruses and women like Athenae, hooked up to machines and traversing like gazelles on treadmills while lab-coat donning scientists wrote in their notebooks). Their viral marketing campaign, which included the quasi-surreptitious re-branded “G” (I mean, you could see that same “G” on the product in your local grocery store) the new website, and new commercials, generated much controversy and chatter in the blogosphere, and I, for one await their quarterly sales reports to see what, if any, impact the campaign has generated.

Whatever the case, the television commercial is an intriguing concept. I would have cast the commercial differently, but then again, I’m no director of marketing and sales for a major beverage brand. But if I were charged with inciting a revolution …

What’s Really G?

Lineup: Etan Thomas (holding his new book of poetry), Kurt Warner holding a picture of Pat Tillman (a Christian soldier holding a picture of a dearly departed soldier), Queen Noor, Naomi Klein, Steve Nash (waving mini Canadian and American flags), Stephon Marbury (holding a pair of “Starbury” shoes), Michelle Obama (going sleeveless, of course), and Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith high-fiving each other. Voiced over by Supernatural, or, if this is too commercial for him, Michael Franti.

Now, that’s G.

Driving While Black, and Life in Post-Racial (sic) America

2009-03-31T14:55:00.000-07:00

W'sup Sabine County Sheriff? My bad for scootin' through there and bein' black at the same time. Didnt mean to bother you and the Forest Services (or Alpo, the kindly drug mutt)! Next time, I won't not speed or pass the paper bag test ...

The March 17, 2009 incident involving the Dallas Police and Ryan Moats is a counterpunch to the suggestion – tantalizing, while also mind-numbingly inane – that we are now in a “Post-Racial America.”

Watching the incident unfold (video-documented here and analyzed well in a number of blogs and newspapers, including Dave Zirin on his 3/30 HuffingtonPost.com missive) has incited within me a bilious mixture of disgust, regret, and extreme disappointment.

Many people who know me well know that I have lost both of my parents. What they do not know was that I was not at either one of their bedsides when they passed away. Both times, I was in transit, rushing cautiously but speedily to be at their sides, all for naught. When my father passed away, I received word that he was dying, and I made the three and a half hour drive from Shreveport to Lafayette only to arrive 30 minutes too late. When my mother passed away, the drive was across Biloxi to get to her, again, arriving minutes late. I don’t recall the content of those drives, whether I braked appropriately, signaled each time, came to complete stops, though I am reasonably sure I did, as I am a careful driver. And furthermore, were I to have been pulled over, I hope that I would have been as patient and as tolerable as Moats appeared to be. Truly, his demeanor throughout the entire horrifying incident is what makes this case as disgusting a case of police misbehavior on record (the many, many incidents of police brutality and murder on record, notwithstanding). I truly feel for Mr. Moats and his family, and wish to express my regrets for their loss.

For all the talk about America entering a new era – a post-racial era – given the election of Barack Obama as president, incidents like this remind us all too starkly that while a Black leader is now calling the shots, many Black people in this country face a paralyzing fear of getting shot at by police officers who abuse their authority and harbor hatred for Black people. Ryan Moats, and the unseen individuals who every day are haunted by the specter of institutionalized racism, are reminded time and time again that their race – not the content of their character – determines their place in the social order of America. Though I am a career-long educator and committed advocate of social justice, hopeful that America will live up to the words of the Declaration of Independence, episodes like this jar my sensibility to the point that I am certain that the only unalienable right I have is to remain silent.

Mr. Moats had every reason to be angry, to plead his case at a much higher decibel level, and finally, to challenge the officer – a little man with a big syndrome and a bone to be picked at Mr. Moats’ expense. And yet we all know, were that to have occurred, I might be writing today about two deaths rather than one, and in six to twelve months, riots would have ensued after this officer – after a paid suspension, of course – was exonerated and walked scot-free. I don’t care that the officer has apologized – it was contrived, expedient for his pending civil case and disciplinary hearings, and would not have happened if Moats didn’t tote the ball for the Texans.
Compounding the frustration I feel is the fact that the officer’s harassment of Mr. Moats discourages not only the public’s trust in officers of the law, but has to be discouraging, too, for other competent police officers across the country who risk their lives, day in and day out, to protect and to serve. While the case of Ryan Moats is being publicly debated, consider also that just a few weekends ago, four police officers were killed after a routine traffic stop involving an individual (a young black man, who was also killed after the incident) with an extensive criminal history (AP report). These men gave their lives protecting the people of Oakland and were met with a fate that is tragic and undeserved. I am truly saddened for their family’s losses, as well, as none of them were able to be at the sides of these men as they passed away.

One ill, in this case, feeds an alternating illness. Police officers in Oakland were already maligned after public outcry over the New Year’s Day shooting of Oscar Grant on a BART/S train platform -- a case which has drawn murder charges for a police officer currently on suspension. Now we have learned that about 20 onlookers at the scene of the shooting where the four police officers were slain actually lingered and taunted the police officers (AP report). It’s a Moebius Strip, which has neither a beginning nor an end – incompetent, racist police officers harass black citizens, causing black citizens to lose trust in and become fearful of all police forces. Black citizens become increasingly distrusting, leading to, at best, the “No Snitching” campaign, and at worst, to police becoming targets of violence. Whatever the case, there is nothing “post-racial” about this dynamic.

To close, I have long been a critic of the dominant sports media in America, and days after the Moats incident, there is little analysis or investigation into the incident on the major providers of content (ESPN.com, SI.com, Yahoo!Sports, and the like). They’ve, of course, provided video of Moats accepting the officer’s apology – as if to say, “don’t worry, everyone, it’s all okay now. No need to get racial.” The dominant sports media is also curiously giving as much coverage to an earlier incident involving this officer of the law, noting that the same officer had pulled over Zach Thomas’ (another NFL player) wife and arrested her after a routine traffic stop – as if to say, “See, everyone? He doesn’t just pick on black people.” As usual, the blogosphere is leading the way, and within hours of the incident, bloggers had posted videos of the incident and culled information from his MySpace.com page in which allegedly wishes to assault a young woman he’d pulled over, but recoils because her 7-year old daughter was watching. Clearly, whether his motives were racist or not, this is someone who has long exhibited the signs of incompetence and emotional instability that should have had him removed from the beat a long time ago.

But perception is everything. Whether or not the officer’s intentions were to display a deep-seated urge to dominate a black man, borne of his frustration and angst over a seemingly well-to-do black man standing up to him, or not, that is how many will perceive it. And his actions not only destroyed trust, but he has endangered the lives and made the work of his fellow officers more difficult. And he has disheartened virtually everyone else in the process, including me.

And maybe the silver lining is that he has, for once and for all, destroyed this whole “Post-Racial America” fallacy for good, and we can get back to broaching a discussion about racial inequality in America that will ultimately benefit us all.

Code Inspector or Architect?: The Role of the Social Critic

2009-03-31T14:49:00.000-07:00

Scoop Jackson -- he plays the role of a social critic and he rolls like a social critic.

Stephen A. is only a jackass that plays a social critic on television.

“Se dice bisonte, no bufalo (It’s called bison, not buffalo).” – Neil Gaiman, American Gods

Recently, a friend of mine and regular reader posed a question to me that I found intriguing because a) it’s a good question, one I often am asked, and its proof that readers are engaging my compositions critically, and b) it is proof that someone out there is reading!!!

The question, and I’ll paraphrase, went as such:

In your writing, you often explore racial themes in sports, but I don’t always see these situations as racially motivated or racist in nature. Why do you always write about racial problems?

Human beings, both through instinct and learned behavior, inherently search for meaning in their lives and in their surroundings. For some, this is a task that is attached, inextricably and directly, to one’s material existence, and is a simple function of making it from one day to the next. For a decreasing number of people in contemporary American society (due largely to the shrinking middle class, the lack of focus on critical thinking in public education, and a seismic shift to the bad in civic engagement) this also involves posing difficult questions about one’s environs, with intent to solve those problems. This group is composed, for example, of medical practitioners who not only treat disease, but inquire and research how those diseases originate and how to prevent them. It includes educators who not only teach children, but research more effective ways to inspire children and take their lives and experiences out of the classroom and integrate them into the learning experience. It also includes philosophers who not only record and examine, like the historian and the anthropologist, but deliberate about the best way forward.

Social critics do just that. They examine tangible societal elements (otherwise known as “culture”) and attempt to make sense of them. What do these elements tell us about ourselves? What do they reveal about our ways of seeing the world? In what ways might we make improvements and make our communities better places to live and our experiences generally more satisfying? Undeniably, social critics are arbiters of taste, often instructing the masses to enjoy or not enjoy something (think movie and food critics, book reviewers, theologians, and the like). The social critic, generally, is someone who is trained and credentialed in the area they offer criticism, and should offer that criticism for the express purpose of societal advancement. Otherwise, it is charlatanry or public relations.

By the above definition, I aspire to provide social criticism, particularly about the intersections between race, culture, and sport in contemporary society. I am uniquely, if not peculiarly, qualified to be a critic on this subject, namely because of a number of experiences and credentials that I have worked hard and am incredibly fortunate to have earned. I am a former college athlete with a Ph.D. in discourse studies, I’ve worked in higher ed for 10 years in athletics departments and as a faculty member, and I’ve researched issues in contemporary American sport extensively, publishing essays in several journals. My hope is that after reading one of my articles that the reader is provoked to consider a perspective that she or he may never have considered before. If the reader doesn’t agree with me, that’s okay. I write primarily to inform and to engage; persuasion is a secondary and often unintentional aim.

I also engage in social criticism which focuses on race and culture because those are the tools I have. If you’ve ever read good sportswriting, then you’ll know that sportswriters all have different tools. John Updike’s “Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu” is an essay about Ted Williams’ last game, and in it, there is as much description of the fans and the environs as there is about Williams. Updike’s lyrical prose, wrought with evocative language and descriptors is a far cry from the straight-ahead investigatory sports writing of Peter King or the tongue-in-cheek, mock-seriousness of Rick Reilly, who often uses sport criticism to reveal absurdity and foible in contemporary American life.

Me? I refuse to see sport as the great panacea it is often cast as for commercial reasons. Sport is not, as the advertisements on NBC and ESPN would have us believe, a world devoid of racism, cultural clashes, sexism, and segregation. Unlike Howard Cosell’s erroneous claim that "Rule Number One of the 'Jockocracy' is that (athletics) and politics should never mix," I believe that it is not we who mix them, but that they are mixed in and of themselves. Sports in America happen on American soil, into which is embedded and inscribed a history of complex, debilitating, and pernicious racial segregation. Therefore, when I analyze an issue of racial or cultural disparity or inequality in contemporary sport, I am not making the issue racial, I’m simply attempting to interpret why – historically, socially, and otherwise – those racial or cultural inequalities exist.

Michael Jordan (even though he wasn’t named an executive after helping re-brand the Wizards), Tiger Woods (even though he was called a chicken eatin’ Sambo by Fuzzy Zoeller), and LeBron James (even though he was cast as King Kong on the cover of Vogue) might choose to avoid using their platform to more thought-provokingly address discussions about race, and that is certainly their prerogative. I choose to act as if sport is not immune to racism, and I cite extensive examples to ground my claims.

Alas, readers may not see it my way, and as I noted earlier, that’s okay. I much less often focus on gender discrimination or issues of sexuality in sport, as these are not tools in my toolkit. Nor am I a rabid fire-breathing sort who can tell you why only three of the six potential first-round draft picks that my favorite team is considering will help them win a championship in the next three years. I’m interested in race and culture, and see the world through those frames, including sport.

In the end, I am not the architect whose design makes or does not make racism and cultural inequality a part of American sport. I am a code inspector who is able, with the tools of my training, to analyze the structure of the building, if it is or is not properly maintained, diagnose which parts of it are adequately fortified and which need repair, and hopefully make the home a better place to live.

Green and White Color Lines: Sport as a Metaphor for Race Relations

2009-03-02T17:42:00.000-08:00

As a young man growing up in Crowley, Louisiana, I’d watched the high school football team - The Fighting Gentlemen - through the leanest and meanest of years. The lean years occurred while my father was an assistant principal and my sister the head cheerleader, and included a winless season in the mid 80’s where I watched every single heartbreaking loss. The meanest of years included a run wherein the Gents won the 3A state championship in 1989 and when they returned to “The Dome” in 1991. In my four years at CHS from 1992-1995, we’d won a district championship, made it to the state playoffs each year, and continued building a tradition of hard-nosed, blue-collar, smash mouth high-school football played every week at Gardiner Memorial. And yet, in my lifetime, ground which I’d never seen broken by the Gents was about to be broken, and I was about to be a part of it - The Gents were going to take on the Pioneers of Notre Dame.

“The Pios” were the cross-town rivals for reasons that had very little to do with sport. While the students who attended CHS were primarily working to middle-class, comprising an ethnically and culturally diverse student body, Notre Dame was a parochial school, its student body primarily white, primarily middle to upper-middle class. We perceived them to be the “rich white boys” and we were what was left. In retrospect, we were full of erroneous misconceptions about each other. Nonetheless, we reveled in each other’s failures, despised one another’s successes, and dreamed about the day when we could test our mettle against one another on the field of play once and for all. Players at Notre Dame claimed their technical proficiency and discipline would prevail. We, of course, were convinced that our skill and work ethic would triumph. We were about to find out, as all summer long our coaches talked up our contest against them to open my senior season in a two, twelve-minute quarter jamboree and I hoped we could topple the cross-town rivals for good.

The game, unfortunately, never happened. Life went on, and we were certainly disappointed, but what was more telling than any outcome of a game that was never to happen for us, was the players’ reactions to the cancellation.

My black teammates were convinced that Notre Dame pulled out because “them white boys didn’t wanna be embarrassed by a bunch of brothers,” or because “them boys were scared of us!” For many of my black teammates, this was more than a gridiron matchup. It was a gladiatorial opportunity to address, and perhaps conquer the deleterious and pernicious impact that racism, segregation, and denied opportunity had had on them and their families by finally defeating whom they perceived to be the beneficiaries of unearned and undeserved financial and cultural privilege. White friends of mine who attended Notre Dame, who were often alarmingly honest with their feelings about black people with me, wanted to finally show us “who was boss,” and put us “back in our place” - disturbing metaphors, to be sure, considering the history of black/white race relations in the South. When the game was called off, part of me was relieved because frankly, there was no outcome that I could envision that wouldn’t end in increased strife and conflict between racial groups in advance of and after the game took place.

I am troubled all the more in reflection, because to me, football was but one of many activities and aspects of my upbringing that have determined who I am as a human being. Moreover, I know that the work of promoting harmony among diverse constituencies has taken place on territory much more treacherous than a 120 yd X 54 yd square of grass with white lines painted on it. Its just football, isn’t it?

Though I have participated in organized athletics since I can remember, and enjoyed success as an athlete and now as one who researches sport culture, I have never quite properly estimated or understood the level of significance with which many individuals regard athletic competition. I especially do not claim to understand the consideration of sport as a means to promote racial healing (or division). Surely Pios and Gents fans alike understood that no matter the outcome of the game, that twenty-four minutes of organized football could not redress past wrongs, revise social order, or represent any more than a blip on the radar of racial progress in South Louisiana history. Right?

And yet, sporting events and organizational exploits continue to carry disproportionate influence in the daily lives of many Louisianians. The New Orleans Saints and New Orleans Hornets have been (incredulously) attributed with helping heal New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Years of below-the-surface racial division and enmity in North Louisiana were said to have melted away instantly when The University of Louisiana-Monroe finally invited historically black college Grambling State last year after years of insisting the matchup would never happen (the record crowd and ticket sales probably didn’t hurt). I personally know many individuals who count as a sign of considerable progress that a black quarterback (Jamarcus Russell) could lead the Bayou Bengals to a national championship. Regardless of these athletic successes, however, the material existence of the same people who cheer alongside them continues to stagnate, and the institution of racism continues to rear its ugly head and cast a pall over the American topography regardless of the irrationality and rabidity of black sports fans across the nation. So is this fervor for organized sport simply wasted energy and investment in empty metaphors?

So long as racial progress and harmony in sport, as a part of the tableau of American cultural expression (including the arts, political movements, music, dance, etc.) serves as inspiration for social change, then the oft irrational and rabid investment in sport often observed in many Americans can be quite useful. Imagine that the next generation of black leaders will, in their young lives, witnessed Tiger, witnessed Tony Dungy, witnessed so many prominent and successful black athletes and coaches and derived significant inspiration from them. If successes in sport by teams and individuals spark revelation in the minds of progressive thinkers that much can be achieved by people, regardless of their ethnicity, then I hope that face-painting, tailgating, and hoarse throats in the morning continue to proliferate exponentially. Especially if the face painting is green and gold (CHS’ colors) and the Pios go down in flames!

nota bene: Only a decade after that game never happened, Crowley High School and Notre Dame High School are now in the same district and compete against one another every year. Every report I have heard about the matches has been positive, and the contests have been for the most part competitive, without significant conflict, and have rallied the entire city around the event. Perhaps this is evidence that the city and its citizens have come very far in the decade since I left - a positive development, indeed.

Blame A-Rod, Spoil the Child

2009-02-18T15:02:00.000-08:00

100 Smiles and Runnin' ...

Where have all the George Bells gone?

As a pre-teen, I loved the Toronto Blue Jays. This was an irrational love affair, given that I’d never been to Canada (I’d later discover that Toronto was one of the most beautiful cities on Earth) or even met a Canadian at this point in my life (I’d later discover that a Canadian was one of the most beautiful people on Earth, and convince her to marry me). I didn’t love ‘The Jays’ because of their location. I certainly didn’t beg my parents to take us to Arlington, Texas every summer to watch the Rangers play (but they did play the Jays every summer!), and I didn’t love The Jays because of their jerseys (two-tone blue, ultramarine over powder). No, I loved them because of George Bell. In fact, one summer, less than a week before Nolan Ryan would strike out his 5,000th batter, I would meet him and ask him if he knew George Bell (as if to say I bet you won’t strike him out tonight!). You might not remember George Bell … just imagine Ice Cube six inches taller with wider shoulders and a better build … more his 100 Miles and Runnin’ days than his Are We There Yet? days. I loved everything about his style of play – his ability to hit the ball, his athleticism in the field, and his leadership in the clubhouse. It was because of him that I followed the Jays so closely, celebrated their wins and dreaded their losses, and recoiled when the Canadian flag was flown upside down at the World Series (even though Bell is Dominican). My brother and I would play baseball in the backyard, he with his St. Louis Cardinals cap on, and me with my Jays hat, swingin’ for the fences every time like Bell, but hustlin’ toward second if I happened to punch one through the infield, which for our purposes, was a fig tree in the middle of the yard.

That was some time ago. Today, I come by the story of Alex Rodriguez admitting his use of anabolic steroids from 2001-2003 as someone who has not considered himself more than a casual Major League Baseball fan for more than a decade. I haven’t watched a game from opening pitch to final at bat in many, many years. I know the difference between Dwight Howard and Ryan Howard, for example, but couldn’t pick either one out of a lineup without considerable assistance (or unless one of them was wearing a Phillies cap). I am neither a casualty of the short lived Yankees dynasty of the late 1990’s (I hate the Yanks), or more recently, of Barry Bonds* eclipsing of Hank Aaron’s home run record (there’s no footnote, btw, I’m just assuming that the asterisk will heretofore be part of his name). In fact, generally speaking, whether I follow a sport closely or not, I have a tendency, like most folks, to become a fan when any athlete is about to break a long-held record (in fact, if I hear that someone is on 7:45 pace in the 3000m steeplechase, I’ll tear away from this computer so fast …).

No, I stopped following baseball the summer of 1994. For 232 days, players and owners walked away from the fans over what essentially was a dispute over the worsening financial situation of MLB, and fans across the country were outraged. In a nightmare envisioned by Durkheim nearly a century earlier, the socialization of religion had come to roost, and for many, the altars at which they worshipped six months out of every year had been destroyed, and hope for nirvana (you know, their team reaching the post-season, or favorite player being named an All-Star) had been stripped away from them. For many fans, this was tantamount to theft – they were being robbed of the opportunity to see their favorite teams and players teeter and totter, get hot and go cold, and of the catharsis of reaching the ultimate goal – winning a pennant. Fans packed away their team-themed knick-knacks, cancelled their cross-country commutes, folded and tucked away their jerseys, and simultaneously swore they’d never again – never again – root for a bunch of overpaid crybabies and their ne’er do well bosses. Though I never wore the jerseys or followed my favorite team to the point of obsession, I shared this sentiment. I thought it was just about greedy players, and blamed them for taking baseball away from me. If only I’d understood every labor dispute has at least two sides.

For a brief moment in 1998, however, I considered the love affair all over again, thanks to Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. As both men chased down one of the most coveted records in professional sports (Maris’ 61 home runs in a season) I grew interested again and found myself not only watching Cubs games with interest, but Cardinals games too (remember me and my brother used to play Jays vs. Cards all the time? I hated the Cards). In what was a wire-to-wire contest between the two men, the whole world tuned in as the aloof McGwire and the ever-affable Sosa banged out dinger after dinger all summer long. Being the baseball card collector that I was, I hunted down their rookie cards to make sure that they were in mint condition and safely stored away. Of course each of them was noticeably more muscular now. And of course two men in their 30’s shouldn’t be hitting the ball like men ten years their junior, but no one cared. No one cared! The doldrums of ’94 were gone, and America’s pastime was back to stay.

Until we discovered they were all using performance enhancing drugs. It was ’94 all over again.

I imagine that, across the country, many 14-year olds are watching baseball with the same critical and judgmental eye that I once did. They’re giving up on baseball. When A-Rod, one of the most consistent, well-liked, and powerful hitters in the game (he is on pace to absolutely demolish Bonds*’s record) is discovered to be under the influence of performance enhancers, and many more likely to come as long as the players union keeps leaking names, the cynicism is understandable.

And while I do not claim that A-Rod should be spared public scrutiny (he certainly will have many opportunities to face the music), I do hope that a responsible sports media, rather than sensationalizing the latest story, chooses instead to investigate the system that has produced one A-Rod after another after another. They should investigate the owners who either knowingly sanction the use of performance enhancers to ensure the marketability of MLB’s product or unwittingly fail to acknowledge the use when it occurs (unless, the owners think it’s natural to put on 30 lbs of lean muscle in a single off-season and play 10 consecutive 162 game seasons without injury). It also includes owners and league officials who have shrunk the strike zone to the size of a wasabi-flavored pea and “juiced” the ball, creating the environment in which more runs were scored and more home runs hit. It also includes scrutiny of the fans themselves, whose tastes have become altered to expect their favorite players to hit more and more souvenirs out of the park, and the media who glorify the big hitters. Though A-Rod will shoulder the bulk of the most recent wave of blame from fans and media alike, there are many more to blame, or at the very least, who are complicit in baseball’s demise in American popular culture.

It’s probably too late for me. But for the sake of that 14 year-old who excitedly dons that A-Rod jersey every opening day, I hope this instance finally opens up a more insightful and critical discussion (more than, say, a few late night sports programs giving drug-addled provocateur Jose Canseco 5 minutes on the mic).

Unfortunately, for our dominant sports media, all too prone to sensationalize stories rather than investigate closely, I’d sooner expect to see George Bell in the Jays’ starting line-up again before that happened.

FA(il)CTION!

2009-01-17T07:27:00.001-08:00

Wigga Fail and SK8bored Fail

Faction! Music for Sports Fans?

Sirius/XM has a channel called “Faction,” which bills itself as the channel “Where heelflips, handplants, half-pipes and hard rock join hip-hop and the biggest names in skateboarding, surfing, freestyle skiing and more.” It’s the channel for “action” sports. By this I suppose they mean “extreme” sports, because really, a bone crunching block is action. A game winning three pointer is action. Sodomizing yourself on a half-pipe to the cheers of your best friends (and the eventual loggers-on to failblog) is not action.

The channel, btw, is bollocks – a bunch of punkish music (Green Day is not punk. Beastie Boys is punk, but they haven’t innovated since “Whatcha Want,” and if you think Avril Lavigne is punk, then you should go and ask your mother – whom you still live with and likely breast feed from – who David Bowie is, because Avril Lavigne doesn’t have a clue).

As someone who is an audiophile and part-time sports fan (I enjoy sports, but don’t quite have enough of a vacuum in my life to consider following the every consideration and scrimmage of a particular sports team day in and day out) I don’t resent the fact that they have selected such awful music to represent me and my ilk. I do resent, though, that the idea of sports music – widely defined I the vacuous space of this blog as Arena music, music to play to, and music that gets you pumped when you’re about to play – is defined so very narrowly. I know that there are the obvious requirements here. The Ramones ‘Blitzkrieg Bop.’ Queen’s ‘Another One Bites the Dust.’ Blur’s “song 2’ (WOO HOO!). And as of late, Neil Diamond’s ‘Sweet Caroline’ and that techno song that sounds like Trent Reznor remixed that doo-wop sounding song that sounds like a Harvard barbershop quartet got stranded in Tanzania after their Fulbright money ran out. You know the one …

Which has gotten me to thinking …

Favorite song to listen to before a sporting competition:
Keeping in mind that my competitive career was limited to 1992-1999, when I played high school and collegiate football (and a short, tragic stint in competitive diving) there was only one song that was a must have for me before a competition once I heard it. The Deftones “Shove It (My Own Summer).” Chi’s insistent bass riff, Chino’s cryptic metaphysics echoing Hendrix like natural mastery (Hendrix chopped mountaintops with the edge of his hand, Chino one-ups him and shoves stars aside), Carpenter’s acrobatic polytonics, and the mid 90’s melodic metal staple of quiet verse-screamo chorus-quiet verse-loud melodic bridge builds and decrescendos nicely, mirroring all of the emotions of athletic competition – momentum swings, success, failure, quiet sweeping over a crowd upon the visiting teams score, mania rushing over them when the home teams scores.

Before ‘My Own Summer,” RATM’s “Darkness” and “Settle for Nothing” were the staples. RATM’s overt politicism and overtones of angst were perfect contexts for rural teenage intellectuo-revolutionarism, and Zach’s rhythm and Tom Morello’s Van Halen-meets-Zakk Wylde-meets-Wes Montgomery-on a pawn shop Ibanez were waves of adrenaline producing mayhem for me. In fact, the kickoff team I was on screamed “Death is on my side!” as we ran down the field. I am not proud of this now (bullshit) but I knocked three players unconscious and separated a shoulder in my tenure as a “Hitman.” BTW, Morello’s solo on “Settle for Nothing” makes another one of my Top Tens (#6 on “Song I’d most like to make love to that my wife wouldn’t allow.” #1? “Shimmy Shimmy Ya” by Ol Dirty Bastard). More to come, including “Favorite walk up music were I a Major League Baseball player” (here’s a hint, as I walk up to the plate, I’d take Giant Steps …) and “Favorite Music to have my team run out to at a football game” (hell no it ain’t ‘Crazy Train,’ it’s ‘Arc Arsenal’ by ATDI!)

A Head of “The Game”: Tom Williams’ Hiring Historic, not Surprising

2009-01-12T09:16:00.000-08:00

Where my Dogs at? Yale Head Football Coach Tom Williams and Handsome Dan

from "RealView Sports" 1/16/09

The Ivy League has produced presidents, business barons, and world leaders of virtually every sort. So, in the year 2009, when someone makes history at an Ivy League institution, people tend to take notice.

Last week, Tom Williams made history at Yale.

Most recently serving as an assistant coach in the NFL with the Jacksonville Jaguars, Williams is an experienced college assistant coach (San Jose State, Stanford, his alma mater, Hawai’i and Washington) and has an extensive background recruiting competitive student-athletes to institutions with strong academic reputations. Additionally, his successes as an assistant coach have prepared him well for the head position at Yale, one of the winningest football programs in college football (one of only two with more than 800 wins in its history). His experience and professional background make this hire remarkably uncontroversial, so calling Coach Williams’ hiring historic might seem a stretch.

Until you consider that for the first time in Yale’s history, a black man will lead their team onto the field. Historic? Perhaps. But surprising? Not at all. Consider:

1) The Ivy League is unafraid of people of color in leadership positions - Even though Williams is one of only a handful of black coaches in college football (one of only three in the Football Championship Subdivision outside of the historically black colleges, the others being Norries Wilson at Ivy League competitor Columbia and Richmond’s Mike London, who just won an FCS National Championship) his hiring should come as no surprise. First of all, the Ivy League is arguably the most progressive conference in the country when it comes to hiring qualified candidates of color, with a total of 7 of its 16 head football and basketball coaches of African-American descent.

2) The Ivy League isn’t the SEC, and that’s probably a good thing – The Ivy League champ is not likely going to match up well with any BCS conference competitors. And even if they could, we’d never know – Ivy League schools do not participate in post-season play (their student-athletes are attending to more important matters, like studying for finals). And as far as the matchups on the field? The players aren’t as hard hitting, physical, or speedy as their counterparts in the SEC (note that only 12 Ivy Leaguers are currently on NFL rosters, and it’s an 8 team league. The SEC by comparison had 263 at the beginning of the 2007 season). But the SEC has earned the reputation of being particularly disinterested in giving qualified coaches of color a shot at HFBC positions. This off-season cemented that reputation, with two controversial hirings in the conference – Lane Kiffin at Tennessee, who has fewer than 10 years experience coaching at the college level and coming off of a woeful performance as head coach of the NFL’s Oakland Raiders for one season, and Gene Chizik at Auburn, hired after going 5-19 in two seasons at Iowa State. Both were hired over Turner Gill, who brought Buffalo to their first bowl game in the school’s history and is more experienced and accomplished as an assistant coach than both Chizik and Kiffin. (btw, the story of the 1958 Buffalo team refusing to play in a post-season bowl game because their two black players wouldn’t be allowed to pay is an incredible narrative. See The Buffalo News’ “UB football's black and white decision 50 years ago” from 2 January 2009).

3) Yale doesn’t care about Black and White as much as it cares about Crimson and White – Any true fan of college football knows that the annual matchup known as “The Game” isn’t Michigan v. Ohio State, Auburn v. Alabama, or Georgia v. Florida. Its Harvard v. Yale. Since 1875, these two foes have finished each season playing each other 125 times. And it’s bigger than the 60 minute match on the field. It’s for serious bragging rights. The 1968 game was the topic of what became a sleeper hit in 2008, the documentary “Harvard Beats Yale 29-29,” and Harvard alums who would be quick to point out that seven of their alumni have been U.S. Presidents (Obama is one of them) to Yale’s five, aren’t as quick to note that Yale holds a 65-52 advantage over them in “The Game.” But that gap is quickly closing, and though outgoing head coach Jack Siedlecki won nearly 60% of his games as head coach and earned an Ivy League Championship in 2006, he lost 7 out of his 8 matchups with Harvard.

Tom Williams was hired at Yale because he’s a good football coach. He was hired at Yale because he’s a good recruiter and because his experience as a student-athlete and coach at elite institutions suits him well to do the job at Yale. And among the first words out of his mouth at the introductory press conference?

“We are going to beat Harvard.”

So while it might be characterized by many as a pleasant surprise that Williams was hired at Yale, to many in the know, it comes as no surprise at all. At the end of the day, and institution wanted a well-qualified coach to run its football program, and Williams fit the bill. From that perspective, this should come as no surprise at all.

The only surprise will be if Harvard doesn’t have a heckuva fight on their hands next fall, courtesy of “Handsome Dan” and Head Coach Tom Williams.

Real View Sports -- October 3rd

2008-10-07T21:41:00.000-07:00

Off Broadway?

Though I never played Black College Football, I owe one of the proudest moments of my life to the institution.

On a late summer day in 1996, the top-25 ranked Southern Jaguars visited Turpin Stadium to square off against Northwestern State. The atmosphere was electrifying and built feverishly until kickoff, as the discordant clashing of powder blue and yellow with purple and orange mixed on the surrounding premises. Southern, a perennial stalwart that had won multiple Heritage Bowls (the black college national championship) came in favored to win. Fans, thirsty for more success, filled our small campus to the gills, tailgating, playing great music, and sharing in that age-old Saturday afternoon tradition of spending the afternoon at the ballpark. By game time, the total attendance would set a Turpin Stadium record, and though some fans would come away from the game disappointed (namely, Southern’s, as Northwestern won the contest) anyone who saw that game got his money’s worth. The game was closely-contested, hard-hitting, and fans saw at least a dozen players on the field who would go on to play on Sundays.

And it was my first college football game.

I hope you’ll forgive me that I don’t remember the score, or how well I played in that particular game. Firstly, I don’t remember the score, and secondly, for my first college football game, I didn’t play terribly bad … of course, I didn’t play terribly well, either!

Ironically, my most memorable moment of that day happened before the opening kick.

My folks, both Gramblinites (Grambling State grads, for those not in the know), arrived an hour and a half before kickoff. Mom looked like a million dollars in a new purple pant suit and Pops, setting aside his regular natty button-down shirt/slacks/tie/jacket ensemble, had a neat purple shirt tucked into his slacks with an NSU cap. They pulled up in my Dad’s new GMC pickup, which he’d been saying he would buy for years. Mom and Dad had affixed one of those cool KAY/AEO license plates on the front, which matched the crimson paint job of the vehicle. As they pulled up, one of my teammates yelled out “Yo, Nupe!” to my Dad, they shook hands, and my Dad began playfully “charging him up.” We hugged, talked for a bit, and I had to ask them where they’d been keeping all this money that they were all of a sudden shelling out (new threads, new truck, etc.). My mom didn’t say a word, and when she patted me on my stomach, the answer to where all those dollars had gone became evident (I’d spent the summer eating up house and home trying to bulk up before reporting for two-a-days).

I’d always prided myself in making my parents happy with what I’d accomplished, but I don’t know if I ever remember them seeming happier than I did that day. In one moment, they were realizing several of their life’s goals manifest right in front of them. I, the youngest of three, was in college (my brother and sister are also college grads). I was playing college football (my father had played college b-ball at GSU). I was independent, driven, and had the entire world ahead of me in such a way that didn’t seem possible three decades before. I had the choice to attend a college of my preference, and I was not denied a choice because of my race, as my parents had been in the not-so-distant past.

The bitterness they must have felt, the resentment that being forced to endure segregation and Jim Crow, and having to choose between Southern and Grambling because those were their only choices must have subsided, if only for a moment, that day.

Which brings me to September 2008. By way of 1974.

Recently, Northwestern State lined up to face another historically black institution, Grambling State University. It was the first time the schools had faced one another in football since 1974, when the two schools broke the in-state “color barrier” and an HBCU (historically black college/university) faced off against a PWI (predominately white institution). Grambling came out on top that day, 14-13, but the memories of that game continue to figure meaningfully in the lives of all who attended and competed on that day. It was a bold and defiant statement, all at once denouncing the ignorance of racism and segregation, celebrating the excellence of Louisiana football, and synergizing the rich traditions of both institutions.

For many reasons, the primary one being a long standing Southwestern Athletic Conference (SWAC) requirement (since discontinued) that all member institutions play each other each season, we had to wait 34 years for part two. This scheduling requirement left little room on Grambling’s schedule to play out-of-conference teams, and combined with NSU’s and GSU’s need to play “money games” in the pre-season, the stars took a few years to align. Finally, they did, and NSU and GSU alums all over the Ark-La-Tex are energized about it.

I don’t know a whole lot of folks who were happier than I am about the development, but the reason has very little to do with football. It has much more to do with knowing that a new generation of GSU and NSU parents would share the same experience as mine did.

With a two-year contract in tow, we can look forward to another contest in 2009 and perhaps, together, we can look toward a time when my generation watches the next one play ball and struggles to remember the unnecessary pain and suffering our parents endured, replacing their pain and sacrifice with joy and fulfillment.

nota bene: in the September 10, 2008 issue of the Alexandria Town Talk, Grambling Head Coach Rod Broadway stated, with reference to the recent GSU v. NSU matchup: "I didn't have much to do with the planning of this one […] I'd rather play Hampton, South Carolina State or someone like that […] somebody in black college football.” Such a regrettable comment perhaps might have been the fashion in the 1970’s, but should certainly not pass as acceptable in the 21st century. Such a call for resegregation is not only unnecessarily insular and pernicious as a comment, but contemptuous if realized, particularly if a critical mass of white head football coaches (who run the show at all but five of the non-HBCU Division I football programs) follow suit. The great tradition of black college football is a paragon of black culture and should be shared with the world at every opportunity.

Where is the Hate?: The Indescribable (Media) Story of Brett Favre

2008-08-12T06:54:00.000-07:00

" Peace and I'm out like whut!?!"

"Sike ya mind, bitches!"

Every summer, the story is the same, and the only thing that changes is the pieces on the chess game.

An NFL star is holding out of camp. He wants more money. He wants a better contract. He wants to play for a winning team.

And the sports media, in universal agreement with tens of thousands of fans in chat rooms and comment pages, is the same: They need to shut up and play and appreciate how truly rare their opportunity is to play professional sport and earn an exorbitant salary.

In past years, it was Terrell Owens, who is unfortunately spoken of more for his off the field antics (his fictional affair with Nicolette Sheridan on MNF, the Drew Rosenberg fiasco), claiming that as the best wide receiver in the league, he should be the highest paid receiver in the league. He was labeled a “four year-old … multimillionaire monster.[1]” And this off-season, it was Chad Johnson, claiming that he wanted to be traded from the Bengals to a team with fewer off the field distractions (ok, when I saw a blonde-headed Ocho Cinco say this on ESPN, it instantly ranked among the most absurd things I’d ever witnessed). He has alternately been accused of being “selfish” and “a disruption” and that the Benglas would be “better off without him.[2]” Then last year it was #1 draft pick Jamarcus Russell, who was called “his own worst enemy[3]” after waiting until he had the perfect contract placed in front of him before signing it.

The long and short of it is that when these men behaved badly, they were met with derision and scorn for their actions by the sports media, reviled as arrogant millionaires who snubbed their noses at the values of the working class fans who ‘pay their salaries.’ I scare quote that remark because it could not be further from the truth -- corporate sponsors and television contracts pay their salaries … but scorn and derision and unequivocal vitriol was the response.

And then there was Brett Favre.

For a second consecutive season, Brett Favre retired tearfully months after he took the last snaps of the season, placing the future of his team -- The Green Bay Packers -- at risk and holding the hearts of fans hostage unnecessarily for months. And for a second consecutive year, he has changed his mind and decided that he wants to play again. This is his prerogative. And it paid off for the Packers last year as he led them on an unlikely playoff run and played better, arguably, than he had when he was five years younger. However, this season, between the length of time it took him to make a decision, the manner in which he histrionically placed himself at the center of attention (its obvious he could not live without this attention), threw his team under the bus, and placed a pallor over the season of individuals on his now former team, he is deserving of the scorn of fans and pundits alike.

Examples of that scorn?

On July 3rd, Mike Vandermause of the Green Bay Press Gazette[4] suggested that Favre should be allowed back by the Packers and given the opportunity to compete for a starting position. After he retired. After he was openly critical of The Packers’ management, and two weeks’ later blasted their actions (re: not letting him return) as a threat to their own legacy[5].

On July 7th, Sports Illustrated’s Peter King remarked that Favre is simply ‘doing what his body tells him to do[6].’ Because he is following his heart, all of his actions are excusable.

On August 7th’s “Mike and Mike in the Morning,” where Mike Golic and Mike Greenberg condemn any professional athlete who toes the line, they repeatedly sought justification for Favre’s behavior. And these guys are the type that would have told John Carlos and Tommie Smith to put their fists down and place them over their hearts like good Americans. They repeatedly excused Favre’s actions, and Greenberg even played George Benson’s rendition of “On Broadway” in the background, showing his excitement over Favre’s impending arrival in New York.

On August 10th ESPN.com reports that Brett Favre is ‘one of the guys’ because he runs punishment laps when he makes mistakes in practice with the Jets. Wow. Does he also put on his practice pants one leg at a time? Buckle his helmet on both sides? Next they’ll be telling us how he lets his teammates touch the hem of his jersey …

It goes on. And though there has been equal amounts praise and condemnation for Favre’s actions, that any member of the press would come to his defense, when in the past, similar actions were considered indefensible, is peculiar, and in fact, quite upsetting to me. As someone who places a premium on endeavoring to understand one’s actions before judging him, I typically find pundits who are quick to censure distasteful and largely useless.

And though I don’t go as far as calling for the sports media to increase its criticism of Favre, I do call into question why they have shown a propensity for rushing to judgment in past cases and why there is so much compassion shown for Favre when compassion was scarce in other instances. Throw out the fact that he is a first ballot hall of famer and hero to football fans across the nation … his desire to call attention to himself, throw his teammates and management under the bus, place a pallor over his successors and even the whole team in Green Bay, and start off the 08-09 year in such a negative way is condemnable whether you like the guy or not.

And an unbiased media, above all else, should be able to put aside its personal feelings and report the facts and allow us to make our own decisions.
[1] Johnathan David Morris, “In Defense of Terrell Owens.” http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/morris/051115.
[2] Joe Kay, “Chad Johnson bristles at selfish label, says he won't change to satisfy critics.” http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/2007-10-22-2921580273_x.htm.
[3] Omar Dyer, “Will Jamarcus Russell Ever Play in the NFL?” http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1897-will-jamarcus-russell-ever-play-in-the-nfl.
[4] Mike Vandermause. “Packers cant find polite way to keep Favre away.” http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/packers/2008-07-03-favre-column_N.htm.
[5] Interview. As told to Fox News on July 16th. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/packers/2008-07-15-favre-update_N.htm.
[6] Peter King “Favre saga far from over.” http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/07/07/favre/index.html.

"My Life, the Beer Commercial"

2008-08-06T22:08:00.000-07:00

People seldom understand events in all their complexity. Yet most human beings have a desire to understand some of the things that happen around them and to them. The way they come to some understanding is by participating in fantasy themes in which an explanation for events is acted out by the personae in the dramas.
-- Richard Cherwitz, "Rhetoric as a Way of Knowing"

Fantasy theme analysis, if it were to be nutshelled, would refer to the ways in which we can examine messages in order to elucidate the rhetorical effects of stories and metaphors on our beliefs and actions. It is often used to analyze political speeches and advertisements, and the ways in which cleverly crafted messages can stir up and elicit emotional responses which feel perfectly rational to us when we insert ourselves into the unfolding fantasies in these messages. When Bormann developed fantasy theme analysis while researching small group communication, he paid close attention to the ways that stories chained or failed to chain out ... or ... the ways in which some fantasy themes resonated and others petered out.

As someone who prides himself on being acutely aware of the ways that corporations and politicians (and even corporate politicians) weave messages in order to compel my action (buying their products, casting my vote, buying my vote), I tend to quite ably determine* even the finest lines between their fantasies and my material existence. This comes in quite handy when I feel the need to call "bullshit," which I often do, whether or not that bullshit comes from a liberal or a neocon, a democrat or a republican, wal-mart or trader joe's, Time Magazine or High Times Magazine.

One of the themes that is perennially present in many forms of public discourse is the theme of manliness. Under Armor commercials feature chiseled Adonai, liquor commercials feature well-built, fashionably dressed men, stylishly accoutred for women-killing (or gay men-killing, if that's how they get down). Political speeches are ripe with uber-masculine messaging -- "you are either with us or against us" -- and to boot, it is often of the "damsel in distress" variety -- "we must protect our country" "we must protect the sanctity of marriage" "we must save out nation from moral decay" "we must protect that woman -- Miss Lewinsky -- from stained blue dresses."

Among my favorite commercials of late is the Milwaukee's Best Light commercials, which often feature men behaving badly ... not gambling, liquor swilling, and hootin and hollerin behaving badly, but behaving badly as in acting out of accordance with the dictates of manly manliness.

Scene:
Three men are peeking under the hood of their car. No wait. Men don't "peek." Three men are looking, with stern intensity, under the hood of the car. And its a female car. So its like they're looking under her dress at her goods. Yeah. Looks good under there, doesn't it boys? Wonder if she minds if I touch her there ...

Somewhere, ee cummings is givin me mad props (see: "she being Brand" http://www-scf.usc.edu/~thier/ee/#brand)

Anyhow, as they look closely, trying to diagnose the problem like the men that they are so that they can gallop over and get their tools and get nice and greasy together ...

sorry ...

You look closely and realize that one of the men has gotten grease under his nails. He exclaims, "Jee willikers, and I just got these done!" He looks at the other two men and says "Oh, like you wouldn't be pissed if Mai-Ling squeezed you in yesterday at the last minute only to get icky car grease under your nails. Sillies!"

And then out of the sky, a 2 story high can of Milwaukee's Best Light drops from the sky onto his head and crushes him to death because a) he isn't being a man, so the only way to restore his manliness is to crush a beer can onto his head like Ogre from "Revenge of the Nerds" (http://www.luminomagazine.com/mw/content/view/347/4) and b) men don't like conversation, so the only way out of this uncomfortable situation is death.

See? The theme immediately falls dead with me (or fails to "chain out," in Bormann's terms) and becomes subject to my scorn and cynicism.

Or does it?

Yesterday while walking to work, a young man speedwalked by me, and honestly, it was a Milwaukee's Best Light commercial begging to happen. He wore cutoff shorts -- no shite -- with animal prints on them. The shorts were teal green and the little animals, which appeared to be dinosaurs, were pink. He walked with a small tote in one hand, and was talking into a pink RAZR cell phone. He also had a fanny pack and what appeared to be -- again, no shite -- shaved legs. His gait I could only describe as that of a confident young Naomi Klein strolling into an interview with a Janjaweed.

Now I am not one to judge ... sorry ... wiping tears from my own eyes after laughing at my own incredulity ... but I remember desperately wanting some sanction to befall this fellow as he sauntered past me. And this is highly unlike me, or so I thought, because in my own belief system I am actually quite comfortable with a wide array of masculine and feminine expression and comportment, but that ole' coonass in me kicked in when this guy passed by and I could actually hear myself in my own head, the voice sounding like Charlie Murphy's, saying "Yo somebody should stomp this fool."

And then, like a Milwaukee's Best Light can out of the sky, an elderly fellow sitting at the bus stop looked up, saw the dude walking by, and -- no shite -- exclaimed "Hey there, Nancy! Heh heh ... NAN-CEE!"

And I completely rethought my resentment of the commercial. After all, the two-story beer can is a metaphor for quasi drunken, hyper-masculine, sophomoric rejection of borderline heteronormative masculine expression in a society that often, in draconic and manichean ways, refuses to accept such marginal expression.

Or when academics get all faggy and polysyllabic.

It tells us more about the one doing the criticizing than the criticizee, to be sure. And for the duration of my 15:45 walk, I reflected on the ways which I may or have, subconsciously or otherwise, judged or discriminated against individuals whose gender difference troubles my own sensibilities. And troubles them so much that I wish beer cans would fall out of the sky and crush people.

I figured better of myself in the end. I resented this guy not because this was some authentic expression of his own gendered and sexual self but because he was a frat boy with wack fashion sense who needed to shower and shave after rolling out of the ditch that morning (ok, so I listened to his phone conversation) and return the pink RAZR and tote to his girlfriend, who left them at his place the night before.

But in the end, I think my desire to see two-ton beer cans fall out of the sky and crush frat boys -- although completely unrelated to this blog -- is worth further reflection on my part, and that I will never view Milwaukee's Best Light commercials the same ever again.

Of course, I will also never drink Milwaukee's Best Light beer, which tastes like Bud Light mixed with Novocaine, distilled water, baking soda, and twice being held back in the 11th grade.

Shove Your (Album) Where it _Do_ Shine: Santi is not R and B

2008-07-29T06:01:00.000-07:00

Santi's sound, unlike her Converse ad, is definitely not paper thin ...

Peep Santogold here and here

Santogold is slamming critics who are calling her an emcee and retailers who are putting her album in the R&B and Hip-Hop sections. She isn't without merit.

Whats not disputable is how hot this album is. It is definitely the truth. Not like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" truth. Or "If I Did It" truth. More like the truth Tom Cruise couldnt handle in "A Few Good Men."

On "Creator," on a synthesize laden beat reminiscent of a M.I.A. and Lil John collaboration, Santo spits beautifully. And on a couple of other tracks, like the dub awesome "You'll Find a Way" she does the rap/chant deal real smoothly, deftly moving between singing, chanting, and harmonizing over a haunting (like georgia anne muldrow haunting) chorus. But for the most part, these tracks are like if Cyndi Lauper got jungle fever. Or if Elastica had Tina Turner and MC Lyte as lead singers. She's coming to a Budweiser commercial near you (see "Lights Out")... and she sounds more like Corinne Bailey Rae doing guest vocals with The Breeders than Trina guesting with Destiny's Child.

Put her in the Rock/Pop section already, Sam Goody. And put her in rotation, MTV.

Canadian Football (That's the catchy title)

2008-07-28T04:35:00.001-07:00

Another import (pun intended) from "Sacred Cattle." In honor of the Roughriders going 5-0, which evidently matters.

11/21/2006
Spent the weekend up in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada with the in-laws and among other things took in some Grey Cup pre-game festivities and fulfilled a childhood dream of attending the 94th Annual Grey Cup, pitting the British Columbia Lions and the Montreal Alouettes (that's Mawhn-dray-awl Ah-loo-ett, styoopid ah-mare-ee-can!), which the BC Lions won, 25-14.
So here are some things I learned about Canadian Football, in no particular order or significance (in honor of the Canadian brand of football, which to my sensibility plays out in no particular order nor is it of much significance to most Americans):
1) For pre-game prep, we drank 'Kokanee.' Not 'Kokane,' as Cornrow Wallace put it, which consists of crack, baking powder, egg, and cinnamon, but "Kokanee." "Kokanee" in a can http://www.kokaneebeer.com/ does not taste like RedBalls, nor will you be able to lift a transit bus after consuming one, but it is quite passable. It's basically Bud Light. Wouldn't go so far as to call it "Glacier Fresh," but the folks in Creston, B.C. have something to be proud of as they have earned a discerning fan. Sure beats "Pilsner," which tastes like the foot.
As far as the matchup is concerned, an "Alouette" is a lark. Here is the fearless mascot in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOo5W3aShFU. Its Aw-inspiring. As in "Aww, their mascot is a doofus bird. Let's have a Pilsner, eh?"

2) Oh, and the people behind us "Would rather be Bombers than effin Riders fans." Which is sung in the tune of "Dixie," which leads me to my next offering …

3) A band at the pre-game festivities, actually played "Sweet Home Man-i-toba." Evidently there are rednecks north of the Mason-Dixon. You'll pardon me if I was uncomfortable hanging out with these people … or even mentioning 'hanging' anywhere around them.

4) On to the rest of the league. Winnipeg's mascot, by the way, is the "Blue Bomber." Read my description first, then click the link … basically a human-sized crow wearing Kool Moe Dee's shades http://www.bluebombers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=70

5) There is, evidently, a vast difference between a RoughRider and a Rough Rider. From what I hear, the vast difference is that Ottawa lacks an intact vas deferens. This of course, coming from people whose mascot is "Gainer the Gopher." A roughriding gopher. I gotta say it … Canadian Football, in one word … Cute. In two words? Terminally cute. You just wanna hug Canadian Football, pat it on its head or on the ass and say "Good try, Chum. Now, let's have an Elsinore. Coo-Coo-Coo Coo Coo-Coo-Coo" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3DYbE44OIE

6) A "Ti-Cat" is not that sadistic game you played when you were a kid, when you tied up two cats by their tails, affixed a Roman candle, and threw both of them off of the Mermentau Bridge in Mermentau, Louisiana, 20 miles west of Will's home town of Crowley, Louisiana. Sick bastard. (They are the 4-14 Hamilton TigerCats, whose fullback Julian Radlein looks like Ziggy Marley http://www.ticat.ca/).

7) Not in the CFL, but worth mentioning, are the University of Ottawa Gee-Gees. Yeah. Gee-Gees. You can tell by the way they use their walk … Lloyd Banks and 50-Cent are their mascots. It used to be Ricky Ross and Iceberg Slim, but they are now O Gee-Gees.

8) The CFL field is substantially different from an NFL or NCAA one. For one, they are 130 yards long with 20 yard end zones. And over 75 yards wide, compared to 57 for the NFL/NCAA. Also, goal posts are at the front of the end zone, not the back. And finally, tie games are settled by a slapping contest between the head cheerleaders. Here is the classic 1998 Grey Cup, decided in an unprecedented 20 overtimes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75YJecAzrRA.

9) And finally, I need a witch's tit to compare temps, but I'm pretty sure Winnipeg was colder.

10) And finally, as are all American football games of import, this was an opportunity for the Canadian Armed Forces to show off their prowess in a statement of national pride, heritage, tradition, and sovereignty. Yeah. The fly-over, made by a McDonnell Douglas F-15 A (american-made, and out of service in the American armed forces since like, I dont know, Korea?) was about a minute late. This after the "Snowbirds" were about two minutes late. Don't know about you, but I hope these guys don't get to use grenades ... The Canadian Armed Forces in two words? Also cute.

Well that's all for now. In honor of Canadian multiculturalism, I will sign off bilingually:

C'est tout, mes amis. Et toujours, je te veux maintenant, babee, sur la planchee, s'il te plait!

"Where's my Money?" MacFarlane on Women and Tenure

2008-07-28T04:17:00.000-07:00

"Mmm, that's good OJ ..."

What follows is Sokalian satire fit for the pages of AndyBorowitz.com: Indulge yourselves, bitches:

You guys ever see the Family Guy bit where Stewie breaks to OJ glass over Brian's head and beats the dog (pun intended) out of him for like 5 painful minutes while screaming "Where's my money, man?"

Stewie punches and kicks Brian 13 times, beats him with a towel rod six times, then slams his head in the toilet twice after bashing him in the face with an orange juice glass. 1-13-2-6.
Then, Stewie kicks him down the stairs, hits him 13 times with a golf club, shoots him twice, then pistol whips him six times. 1-13-2-6.

Macfarlane is a nutty guy, probably both ADD and OCD to boot, but I bet there's some kinda interesting secret here. My best guess is that the 1-13-2-6 is a date - January 13, 1926. Which is the birthday of? You guessed it, Carolyn Gold Heilbrun. Most notable for authoring Lady Ottoline's Album, but also known for penning a series of fictional, semi-biographical criticisms of her life in the academy (she was an Ivy league professor for many years). Her most famous of this sort is Death in a Tenured Position.

So perhaps what MacFarlane is telling us is that women in the academy who seek tenure are often denied it by men in power; their wishes and desires for reasonable compensation and respect for the work their teaching and research often deferred, postponed, and overlooked by the tenure process. And that if they continue to wait patiently for their due without demanding it, they are likely to die before they are given the respect they deserve.

In this instance, Brian, the Ivy league educated aesthete of the family, denies Stewie the respect he deserves. He has tenure over Stewie (Brian has been in the family 6-7 years, Stewie is only in his second year) and Stewie is a minority in the family, as no one ever hears his voice (Meg is also a minority, and she is so deluded by her experiences in this family that she later becomes a man named "Ron" in "Family Guy Presents Stewie: The Untold Story").

Perhaps Macfarlane is both advising women in the academy and praising those who have come before them ... to destroy the system that oppresses them and persistently dog the individuals and departments who have denied them what they have earned until they relent.
They work hard for the money. Run that before they break a towel rod across your head. Hell hath no fury ...

Or maybe its not January 13, 1926, but January 13, 1962 and Macfarlane is signifying on a London Daily Mirror article that ran on the same day, featuring a story entitled "Death of a Hero," about a dog that tried to rescue a human from a burning building. Clearly, that's why Stewie inexplicably sets Brian on fire at the end.

Either way. I like the first one better.

wereallnumber1 #10: the best blues players

2008-07-26T06:27:00.000-07:00

Oh Brother(s) Where Art Thou? or, "The Marshmallow Blues "

Jonny Lang, world's greatest bluesman

Muddy Waters ... nevahurdovum.

Was reading on The Rev. Keith A. Gordon's blog (of Devil Music Dot Com fame) about white bluesmen and got to thinking about my own experiences as an avid hobbyist bluesman. For those of you who don't know, I am an avid jazz and blues instrumentalist, and I play a number of string instruments, primarily bass and guitar, and I write blues songs. If it matters to you, and I suspect it does, I fashion myself after the Kings (Freddie and Albert), though I throw in a little Burrell and Montgomery to keep the pack guessing, but all in all, I would characterize myself as a contemporary blueshound with an ear to traditional jazz and blues influences. One of my favorite things to do when I have spare time is jam along with friends – you know, plug in, lay out a few templates, conjure up some spirits (as well as consume some spirits) and practice a little alchemy.

That was my plan on one of my last evenings in Tucson, Arizona.

So that evening, I convened with a couple of folks that I've had the good fortune to meet over my time there through a colleague of mine in my graduate department. Ed and Randy are a couple of real nice guys who all share with me a love of music and a kind of culturism associated with music that I find quite genuine and warm. Ed is a natural resources professor at the U. who is originally from Port Arthur, Texas and cites as his musical influences folks like Memphis Slim and Howlin' Wolf. His son is also a talented musician who plays keys for Jo Dee Messina (not sure who she is, but I'm sure she's lovely). Randy plays for a few area bands, a mixture of classic rock, modern rock, and funk outfits, and just plain out can bang the skins (that's play the drums, perverts). Our previous get-togethers have been nice, playing old jazz and blues records on the stereo, drinking a few beers, schooling Randy (who is from Minnesota) about what it was like growin' up in the South, and best of all, playing some good ole fashioned blues music.

Randy's up for anything. Ed likes blues-rock – a little Fleetwood Mac, some Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc., and also really digs Albert King, Dr. John, and Bo Diddley. And he is also a musical sponge that enjoys taking in the musical interests of others ... take for example, a couple of months back, he wanted to play "Honey Hush" by Foghat (which is really a cover of a song originally done by Big Joe Turner). Good stuff. In exchange, I taught him "I Ain't Drunk" by Albert Collins. Then we settled into a groove and played "Cold Shot" by Stevie Ray Vaughan. Nice thematic links (nagging women, obstinate men) and interesting chord dynamics and lead pattern opportunities. Then we had a beer and listened to a Blind Lemon Jefferson song that Ed remembered from his childhood. All good stuff.

Which takes us to my final night playing with those guys. Ed and Randy invited a couple of guys over who are "blues music enthusiasts" and 30 year vets of playing the bar scene here in Tucson. They seemed like affable enough guys ... though, one was overdressed, had already had too much to drink by 7 pm, and had a trophy wife to cheer for him as he played harp. The other guy looked both dazed and confused, and among other things, told us a story about a tractor he'd bought recently. Not to use on his farm mind you. For decoration. Yeah.

Anyhow, claiming to love "blues music," they proceeded to launch into a version of "All Along the Watchtower" that was so painfully bad I penned an apology letter to the Hendrix family in my head on the way home. And then an Elvis song. ELVIS! I walked out of the room at that point, mumbling something like "my mother is calling me ... over here ... I gotta ... yeah." And then Johnny Cash. And then Led Zeppelin. I wanted to tear the A string off of my guitar and make it into a noose by this point.

We finished the evening with a version of "Crosscut Saw" that was passable, but one of the jackasses was pounding the guitar so hard you could barely hear the rhythm guitar I was laying down ("Crosscut ..." has a rumba-influenced lead, so the guitar is quieter). Afterwards, they went on and on about how "Crosscut ..." was one of SRV's best songs. After repeating that it was an Albert King song twenty times to no avail, I packed up and prepared to call it a night.

So here's my take on it. First of all, when someone says "blues" and "Tucson" in the same breath, be forewarned, it ain't gonna be pretty. And I think it's because there's so few black people here to tell white folks any better. They been playing "blues" in a vacuum here for so long with few outside influences that virtually anything passes for blues (I remember going to Sakura a few years back for "live blues" and getting a "Pink Floyd" cover band). In fact, our local blues band of import, the "Bad News Blues Band," plays ... no shit ... James Brown and Temptations songs. Um. James Brown and Temptations were a lot of things ... blues ain't one of em (well, maybe James on "This is a Man's World," but that about it).

Fact of the matter is, any white bluesman or blueswoman of any import cites black influences. For Clapton, it was Freddie King. For LedZep it was the entire state of Mississippi, evidently (delta blues). For Elvis it was Wolf and Waters (though he never sounded a bit like either with that corny-assed "uh-huh" ... and by the way, I'm like Chuck D in this bitch ... f**k Elvis and John Wayne!!!). So white blues here in Tucson, sans black influences, is just a poor facsimile, and that, more than red beans and hamhocks, block parties and penny candies, b-ballin in the park and the MLK center after dark, made me miss black people more than ever.

Now don't go flyin' off the deep end here and call me a "reverse racist" (for a couple of reasons, primarily, because there is no such thing as "reverse racism," numbnuts, it either is or is not racism ... "reverse racism" is what ... a hug? A mortgage at a reasonable interest rate? Not getting shot 50 times by plainclothes cops?). After all, some of my best friends are white (hee hee, that really is fun to say).

It's just that when we borrow y'all's music, we make it better. That's why so many white musicians have black producers to do remixes. You watch. Britney will be in a studio with the Neptunes in like negative 2 weeks to get that Federline filth off her ass (called it!). And Pharrell will probably let Snoop and Hugo hit, too. Same thing happened to Mariah back in the day. Just you wait. When Hannah Montana turn 18, I guarantee you T-Pain gonna be slappin her ass in a video all the way to #1 on the R&B charts. For better or for worse. Actually for worse.

But these cats I played with in Tucson borrowed blues music and did her dirty. I felt like Common penning "I Used to Love Her" last night as these white dudes did to blues music what people named Bubba do to white-collar criminals in federal joints.

And thats why I couldn't wait to get back to Louisiana, man. Where people know how to put a hock in the greens, cold milk on cornbread, "Electric Slide" on at a wedding, and a domino on a gotdamm folding table.

And where they know that Elvis ain't the effin blues.

In all seriousness ... RIP Sean Costello. You was down, IMHO.

"Going to Colledge, or, Rhetoric gets ESPN Props ... Sorta "

2008-07-24T21:16:00.000-07:00

"This d-end is pwning me. Using nommo, I am going to speak will to power and transform this into a reality where I have the upper hand. Or I am going to illegally cut block him ... whatev ..."

An import from my former blog, "Sacred Cattle."

This morning on ESPN's "The Mayne Event" -- a fantastic satirical segment, narrated by reporter Kenny Mayne, which intersects folly and barbarity in professional football in a way that few can -- Daryn Colledge, a guard for the Green Bay Packers, was featured. Colledge, a 6'4", 299 guard from Boise State U. remarked on his teammates' misperceptions of him, stemming from the fact that he is from the North Pole (ok, a North Pole, the one in Alaska) and that his last name is "Colledge." His teammates, of course, assumed that he loves santa claus and that he loves higher education.

Like Charlie Murphy say ... "Wrong!" And in one moment, the two of the loves of my life -- Rhetoric and Athletics -- intersected briefly, if unfortunately, as Colledge disspelled the myth about his love for higher learnin'. And I quote:

"I hated college. What the hell does theory of rhetoric have to do with me? I block people for a living."

Drs. Estrem and Peele (BSU's Writing Program coordinators) must be proud.

What made it worse is that this segment followed one about LaDanian Tomlinson, where they did a feature on how he "sets up blocks," or affects postures, while running, that convince defenders to take angles against him that they believe will be effective, but ultimately are not. To the point that they have been wrong an NFL record 31 times this year. This is not simply athleticism, as there are many people in the world who are better athletes than Tomlinson. His success this year has been because he has a psychological edge over his competitors, as well, and one that is created by how he uses his body to persuade defenders that they have a shot at hime when they really don't.

This of course hearkens back to scenes described by Deb Hawhee in Minding the Body, (and to a lesser extent Gardner's work on multiple intelligence theory, kinesthetic intelligence being one that he profiles) where, in ancient Greece, rhetoric and athletics were taught in the same spaces. The gymnasium was a place not only for athletic training, but a place for engaging in social and intellectual pursuits (if you could imagine teaching your writing class in the McKale Center while Lute Olson clamored for better defense in the background).

Colledge has a point, though I still resent the remark ... as well as his implied characterization that blocking doesn't involve thinking, and that football is essentially an anti-intellectual enterprise. Football, of course, is not essentially rhetorical ... when you scoop a backside defensive lineman, reach an end on outside zone, or pull and kick out an end on a G-block, you're not seeking out the available means of persuasion in that given situation. And this is no time to elocute.

But there is a rhetorical element. Great offensive linemen play mind games. And they are often attempting to persuade in non-verbal and symbolic ways. Like pulling both guards on an "Influence Trap" play ... where one guard pulls and blocks no one, simply to set the linebackers' feet in stone as the runningback cuts back. Or on a 3-step drop when the tackle sets like a pass play, convincing the end to rush up the field and then cutting out the end's legs at the last second. Or one of any number of plays where you are required to affect certain postures or moves in order to "fool" the defense into believing you are up to something else. Hell, something as simple as committing to running the ball on first down is rhetorical. It sends the message -- we will not be dominated or overpowered up front and you will respect this part of our game or else it will be your demise.

I know Colledge was being silly for the purposes of the segment. But it gave me some food for thought as rhetoric rose and fall in the public spotlight in about the time it would take Colledge to miss an unrhetorical block and get Favre sacked.

Euphemisms Gone Wild

2008-07-21T20:09:00.000-07:00

Smilin' Bob

The "Backdoor Man" himself, Howlin' Wolf, enjoying a smoke after hittin Smilin' Susie

Perhaps its because I am now back in the Bible Belt and that's the way TV rolls down here, or perhaps it is because the FCC has become so fascistic an organization (due to the Parents Television Council's uber-powerful lobby) that folks are far beyond Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words and have moved on to any word that might sound like or be related to or might evoke an image of any of the aforementioned seven words.

And yet Dick Armey is still on the loose http://www.freedomworks.org/armey/.

But I saw a television commercial last evening so utterly ridiculous that I fear we are but mere decades away from previously thought incoherent mumbles, clicks, and finger snaps as words are phased out of existence. For fear that every utterance will offend the person next to you.

Mutually assured linguistic destruction. Stick with me here, men and womyn.

So I saw this commercial last night about "male enhancement." A euphemism that entered our language due to products like Viagra, Levitra and Cialis who want to market their products in prime time and not incur $300,000 fines every time their commercials aired. A truly inelegant and errant euphemism, if I've ever heard one. Seriously, twenty years ago, if someone mentioned male enhancement, wouldnt you think it meant something else? Like maybe it would help you grow a cool, manly, macho beard . Or something to help you grow big, burly muscles. Or maybe grow long, thick locks of hair that the ladies love.

You get the point. Hopefully.

But we all know now that male enhancement is a euphemism for making your man stick more wooden. Um. Making your bologna meatier. No. Making your nightstick stiff enough to beat minorities for fun ...

Dammit. Its contagious.

This commercial the other night literally used the words "that certain part of the male body" like 13 times. You know, its male enhancement for "that certain part of the male body." Hey, numbnuts. We know that youre talking about his willie. They had doctors (you know, people who play them on TV) saying that their product enhanced "that certain part of the male body."

C'mon. Say "make your penis bigger." Or "engorge your male genitals with blood by vasodilation." Or "help you feel more manly in a way that women really don't care about as much as you think ... I mean seriously, how about you work on your personality, douche?" Either of those would work.

But a doctor trying to sell me on enhancing that "certain part of the male body" makes me feel like I am a carbuncular, wheezing 12 year old getting the sex talk from "Charly" in Flowers from Algernon (translation? A Dee-de-dee).

And who truly loses out here? Foreigners. Can you imagine? This is gotta be getting lost in translation pretty badly. So here are the ten "certain parts of the male body" and how this idiotic product would make them more manly. So these people can go and have coitus while all alone.
Hey, I like euphemisms, too.

10. Feet - product will increase the size of your feet by 50%. Cuz you know what they say about guys with big feet? Mostly stop tripping over your own feet, you clumsy f**k.

9. Hair - product will increase the size of your hair three fold. Your fade will tight like Gary Coleman's.

8. Lips - You'll look like Steve Tyler in a month's time. Manly like M. Night Shymalan hides plots.

7. Hands - Big hands, you know you're the one. Next time you smack that ass, dislocate her hip.

6. Knuckles - because nothing says manly like systemic juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Or really big red knuckles.

Serious how could you possibly get that reference?

5. Knees - not funny. I have gigantic knee caps. Seriously. Chicks dont dig that. F**k that.

4. Forehead - Especially when it glistens a little bit from your hair product, like you belong in an early 90's R&B music video.

3. Soleus - Most jackasses go for the bicep curls and the tricep pulldowns. A ripped soleus is like the new 6 pack abs.

2. Eyes - product will make your shit look like Bernie Mac's. You'll always look like you got Graves disease. Ladies love it because you always get the cartoon big eyes when you see them, and they think you checkin em out and s%$t.

1. Brain - dude that's so gay. Women dont like big brains. Dumbass. Now move while I put this malleable rod in my c**k. Because thats what chicks dig, you dumbass.

Now move, I'm gon drink this brew, smash the can on my head, smear myself head to toe in oil and then wrestle another man in a manner that weds us in the customs of many Asian countries.
Awright later y'all. I'm gonna go read a book and enhance the size of a certain part of my male body. Hasta.

wereallnumberone #9: white pimps got all the game

2008-07-20T09:28:00.001-07:00

Its Hard out here for a (White) Pimp.

In my last days as a judicial officer at the University of Arizona, I had one of those "This- completely- horrifies- me- and- yet- the- feeling- that- pervades- my- being- is- not- anger- or- disgust- because- seriously-, I- don't- expect- a- whole- lot- more- from- these- bastards- I- really- don't" moments that have, unfortunately, typified the case load I'd managed in the Dean of Students Office for just over two years.

One evening, a young African-American female was invited to a party and wished to file a complaint based on events which unfolded thereupon. The theme of the party was a "Black Party." Bless her heart, she assumed this meant that everyone would wear black.

Well. Close.

Sidebar: Arizona is an effed up state when it comes to race relations and racism. It makes Alabama look like Vermont. I say Vermont because I am just foolish enough to believe that Vermont does not have racism. Mostly because there aren't races there (just the one – really white). And because Montpelier (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rlz=1T4TSHB_en___US204&q=%22montpelier+is+for+lovers%22) just seems like it would be a friendly place with the syrup and leaves changing and what not. Wait. That was the sidebar's sidebar.

REEEEMIX!

Ok, back to Arizona's effed up race relations. Y'all know Az. was like the last place on earth to have a Martin Luther King Day? I think we barely beat like Rhode Island. And they have a Brown University. South Africa had a MLK Day before Arizona did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DurbanSign1989.jpg

Anyway, Public Enemy even made a song about Arizona's embedded institutional racism. "By the Time I get to Arizona." see http://youtube.com/watch?v=TMAfKo65nng for a half-assed mashup ... all I could find). It was awesome. They killed the governor in that video. White folk went crazy. Black folks … didn't notice. Not our fault. Didn't see that video because Hammer was blowing up at the time.

Anyhow, people out here vehemently resisted MLK day's inception back in the day. C'mon people. It's a government holiday. Paid vacation. Chris Rock was right … its not like you have to do black s&%t on MLK day. Sit your ass at home and let us march. Who cares?

And Arizona only has one MLK Building. One. In the entire effin state. Tucson has no MLK Blvd. Which is good. Too few black people here in town for us to be killin' each other on MLK Street like every other city in the country. Ever wonder if like Des Moines has an MLK Blvd.? And if its gangsta as hell on that one street? While you think about Des Moines Iowa's gangsta, enjoy this street poem by DJ Quik: http://www.tsrocks.com/d/dj_quik_texts/just_like_compton.html As I am fond of saying, "its like poetry."

Ok, back to the Black Party. So it was a "Black Party" where you showed up as a black person. At first, I thought the young black woman was filing the complaint because she did not win "Best Costume." Apparently, her complaint was due to the fact that dozens of white folk showed up at this party dressed as gangstas, hoods, hoes, pimps, and one showed up as a grape soda factory. Evidently racists can have notable senses of humor.

And immediately I thought why do people always jump to "gangsta" when they think of black people? I mean, Fitty and Cube do that shit in a studio. Capone did it on the streets. And he was white. And why we always gotta be hoes? If a hoe is someone that shows ass and turns ass up in the air for money, then chickenheads like Paris Hilton come to mind. And all of Hef's girls. And the Pussycat Dolls (and I don't think any of them is black. Or talented for that matter. I wish they'd "Button" their lips shut.).

And seriously … white pimps got all the game. White pimps (ok italian, but them n%^&&*s look white to me until they start talkin) got all the game in Vegas and Hollywood. We hustle and flow. Bob Barker? He aint gotta hustle for shit. He got a crazy number of females round him, and he pimp them out hard on TPIR http://www.conspiracyinc.com/PimpT-shirtSerialKiller.htm. Plus, with all the money he got invested in private prisons in Arizona and Cali, he is turning hundreds of not thousands of young men into somebody's hoe every year.

And what about Donald Trump? First off, he got a lot of pimp qualities. Funny hair, irrational love of gold, and he's always lying about his money (he declares bankruptcy once a lunar year). Second of all, he's such a good pimp that he can actually whore himself out. He never has to go chasing bitches for money… all he gotta do is shake his self down.

What about out in cartoon land? There's Hank Hill, who once punked out Alabaster Jones (reppin that OKC till he die!) often drives his dad's Cadillac car, and pimps out "Lady Propane" to all of Arlen, Texas. And Papa Smurf (k, so he aint white … he certainly aint black!). Ok, there's one girl in smurf land. And he's her dad. And it's a lot of smurfs in smurfland and I aint ever heard any mention of Smurfs being hermaphroditic or capable of reproducing without copulation. That means Smurfette has gotta be givin it up. And if she givin it up for free, she stoopid. And you know Papa Smurf has gotta be getting a cut of that.

Then you got Tony Mottola. Marries a fully clothed, demure, coy Mariah Carey (before: http://991.com/newgallery/Mariah-Carey-MTV-Unplugged-EP-318821.jpg and after http://img.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/startracks/060821/mariah_carey.jpg)and then turns her loose, half naked and collaborating with Ol Dirty Bastard. All the while recording for Sony (Mottola's record company). That dude turned Mariah out, then she started, as Paul Mooney put it, "humping anything black, including flipped over barstools" and he made the money off of it. Straight Pimpin.

Then there was the Barrett-Jackson car auctioneer I heard yesterday, who claimed that as a man's man, he was "very interested in Carol Shelby's Super Snake." Wow. I've heard it called a lot of different names. But never a "super snake." A gay pimp! That shit is revolutionary.

Oh, you say the "Super Snake" is a car?

And then there's female athletes sports' agents … which have us more interested in looking up Maria Sharapova's skirt than in looking up her service stats. And Jessica Simpson's dad, who I think is a Rev (which so qualifies him to be a pimp). Seriously, when he complimented Jessica's body on E! (he literally said "and what a rack … she's like a DD"), it qualified as the creepiest moment involving incest since Angelina Jolie frenched her brother at that awards show.

Then there's the world's greatest pimp. Hef. Think about it. He samples all the goods. He has a ho-house. You gotta pay for the T and A ($4.99 or so a copy). He never falls in love with any of his hoes. And his game is so tight, he has a staff of people to slap bitches for him (I read he has sensitive skin and his hands callous easily). Ok, the last part is made up. But you feel me.

I'm just sayin … Snoop Dogg, Iceberg Slim, Bishop Don Magic Juan, and their ilk are squirrels trying to get proverbial nuts compared to these cats. And I just think that the kids who threw this "Black Party" are giving us too much credit by lauding us as the world's best pimps. We're flattered, really.

Next time, if they wanna be accurate, they should really reflect who we are. Kings and Queens. Doctors and Lawyers. Astronauts and Chemists. Teachers and Policemen.

And Red Kool-Aid Factories. Last I checked, Grape Soda wasn't really poppin on the streets like it did back in the day, whereas that Red Kool-Aid is always talkin' bout somethin. Already.

So in conclusion, eff white people at U of Arizona who throw black parties. And because I'm sure they're somehow to blame for it, eff Sumner Redstone and Viacom.

I'll holla. Viva Trick Baby.

wereallnumberone #8: "well, there you go" -- imus is public civility enemy #1

2008-07-17T10:37:00.001-07:00

" Nappy Headed Ho" that I wish would kick Don Imus' ass

Don Imus, an Ass

First off, eff Don Imus and all pundits of his ilk. Eff Limbaugh. Eff O'Reilly. Eff Hannity. Eff Coulter. And more importantly, eff Fox, CBS, MSNBC, and all the other major news networks for continuing to hire, market, and promote these acrimonious assholes.

Second of all, eff Howard Cosell. So much for rule number one of the "Jockocracy." Athletics intersected politics, race, and sex (as it did with Jack Johnson, Billie King, Muhammad Ali, Tommy Smith and John Carlos, and Steve Nash, etc etc) and once again proved that sport - for reasons better or worse - is our culture's panacea. Sports culturists like myself, who believe that athletic competition, when done right, utopically emblematizes what our society might be like if it were more progressive, rejoice when media stalwarts like Don Imus get their asses handed to them by athletes. Female athletes. Black female athletes at that. Oh that shit was sugar sweet.

He called them hoes because thats a derogatory slur for black women. He intended to demean their humanity, sure. And their sex. But his primary intent was to belittle them for their ethnic appearance. And his assumption was that Tennessee evidently had respectable looking black women (i.e. light skinnded, like Candace Parker, who is like Beyonce with a crossover) but Rutgers' women were dark, unattractive, and therefore thuggish lookin. Or "hardcore hoes." Which was why him getting fired was all the more fulfilling. for too long, we been like "you cant call women hoes and get away with it." And right wing pundits do. They call all people of arab descent terrorists. They even call em ragheads. Imus called Gwen Ifill a cleaning lady. He called Bill Rhoden a token hire.

And for once, I was like "you cant call ____ a _____" and major corporations shared the sentiment. That shit makes you feel good inside, dont it. Except for Viacom. Eff Viacom.
Whats really effed up is that this dumbass was calling them nappy headed when they all wear their hair in permanents. That shit be easier to comb than white girls hair. Lye is a helluva drug.

Or chemical, as it were.

Anyhow, for all my nappy heads of the highest order (or, nappy headed h.o.'s), this is for y'all. And big ups to the Rutgers Scarlet Knights, State U. of New Jersey, and C. Vivian Stringer and her badassed women's basketball team. They are really taking wearing "Scarlet Letters" to a whole nuver leva.

The White Stripes and the Myth of Racism in Pro Sport

2008-07-15T14:24:00.000-07:00

As much as I want to shake my fist in the manner of an octagenarian that was overcharged by 80 cents on his grocery bill, as much as I want to pout like those cute twins in "Big Daddy," as much as I want to fuss like that badassed black woman in the grocery store with the rollers in her hair when her kids grab yet another toy and say "I want that," I cannot do any of those things this morning without admitting first that I brought this upon myself. Its my own fault that I am so perturbed this morning.

So I will not be like the proverbial obese person blaming his weight on poor genetics midway through a third can of potted meat chased with cheez-whiz, capers, and pork rinds. I will not be like that slutty friend of yours who blames you for giving her tequila last night, when she know good and goddarn well that she was gonna let the squad run up in it even if she had been doing shots of O'Douls.

I am accepting blame and faulting myself for being red-assed today. And not in the cute way that those baboons are. That said ...
___________________________________________________
I read a report on Yahoo! Sports (which actually occasionally has good commentary though I am not a gigantic fan of Dan Wetzel, who is far too apolitical and snarky) announcing that a study was recently published on racial bias in NBA refereeing. I immediately thought that this would be an interesting and timely discussion (more on the timeliness later) and that perhaps it would spark some heated, but ultimately interesting debate on the intersection of race and sport. I knew, deep down, that players would be mum about the issue, or face suspension and fines, but hoped that analysts would give the issue some serious thought and examine the report dutifully. And even if nothing came of it, the fact that the debate was had could be a sign of times to come; a time that William Rhoden calls for in Forty Million Dollar Slaves, wherein he claims that black athletes have become ignorant of the history of embedded racism in professional sport and thus are incapable of defending themselves from the onslaught of racism when its ugly face rears time and time again. Racism exists. Period. As if the world of sport would be immune to it.

Like when European soccer fans call African players simians. http://www.brown.edu/Students/INDY/archives/2005-03-10/articles/sports-hu_soccer-racism.htm. Or when Fuzzy Zoeller called Tiger a watermelon-eater http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C1EF93D540C708CDDAC0894DF494D81. Or Zinedine Zidane was provoked to violence by an Italian soccer player who allegedly called him a "dirty terrorist." Or when Don Imus called Rutgers' women's basketball team "nappy headed hoes." Or when ...

But this is my fault. It is my fault that I expected better of ESPN. It is my fault that I expected better of Disney. It is my fault that I expected better of Yahoo! Sports. It is my fault that I expected better, for once in my effin life, of the American sport media.

The report, published by Justin Wolfers, from frikkin Wharton (translation, this guy is not pullin info out of anus) states that white referees make more foul calls against black players than white players, and that black referees call more fouls on white players than black ones, though not as frequently as their white counterparts. The short of it is that it appears that unintentional racial bias occurs in foul calls in the NBA.

Now look guys, I'm not jumping on Wolfers' bandwagon just yet. First of all, he didnt even review game tape, only box scores. This means that he isnt closely analyzing or contextualizing the foul calls (the fault, IMHO, with purely statistical analyses). Second of all, of course white refereees are calling more fouls on black players ... theyre the only kind of players to call fouls on!!! I mean really, would you call a foul on this guy? http://www.nba.com/suns/news/nash_wheaties_060418.html. I mean come on. How else can you say it ... he's adorable!!! And Canadian! The ony other option of calling a foul on a white guy is what? To call a foul on 3/8 of Jason Kidd? Posthumously on Pete Maravich? To call a foul on Jack Nicholson for Anger Management?

Also, this is the guy who published the study http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/index.shtml. I'm going to exercise some of my own bias ... since when did Ron Howard dye his hair blonde and become a basketball expert? There is such a thing called "ethos." He co-published the study with a Cornell graduate student. Lets hope he was a power forward for the Fighting Big Red Ithacans.

But still, regardless of the merit of the study, I am severely disappointed in Yahoo! Sports and ESPN for dismissing it without even discussing the underlying issue the article raises. That its possible racism impacts professional sport. As always, they trotted out the black ambassadors to dismiss the accusation of racism. LeBron: "Its (the study) stupid!" Kobe "I get more techs from black refs! Thats reverse racism." Charles Barkley "Its asinine." Kiki Vandeweighe "These remarks are made by people who dont understand basketball. End of Story." No offense, Kobe and LeBron, but when y'all get your GED's, I'll talk sociology of sport with you.

Wow. That was harsh. Sorry guys, that's just the indignance talking.

We all know what happens to political black athletes. Actually, we dont. Thats really scary. Has anyone seen Stephon Marbury? I'm really worried about him ... last I heard they'd frozen him like Han Solo so that his shoes wouldnt cut in on Nike sales http://www.hometeams.com/stmamc5fi.html.

And with that, the issue is dead. No more discussion ... hell there wasnt even a discussion in the first place. No one sat and debated it. Scoop and Dave Zirin were evidently unavailable for comment. Harry Edwards was off somewhere being black I guess. Richard Lapchick was on vacation with Aquaman and Chris Tucker.

Also unavailable for comment, conspicuously, was Tim Duncan, who was recently ejected from a game by a white referee who was later suspended because he had a "vendetta against" Duncan. But that's not racism, I guess. He was discriminating against Duncan because of his ...umm ... really cool name for a basketball player (close seconds are Joseph Schuten, Alvin Steels, and Marcus Threesixtyslam. He's dutch-irish I think).

We also havent heard from Shaq, the "Big Aristotle." Heh, more like the Big Thrasymachus!!! Who's with me on that one? He knows what I'm talking about (points at unsuspecting dude in next office)! I'm sure he would have said, in his sleepy monotone: "Thats nonsense black refereees and white referees call fouls and sometimes dont its part of the game next question (smiles) now I'm gonna go and let the air out of Kobe's tires and shoot at cubans cuz I'm a cop. Bush for president!" ***

So I got all worked up, expecting serious debate and reflection and introspection. Instead, I got progpaganda and one-sided "news" reporting that gave Rupert Murdoch a stiffy so hard he wants ESPN made into a pill form that would replace Levitra.
And its all my fault. I do now and have always known better than to expect serious discussions of race and racism in American media.

I call that foul on myself (and I'm black, so Wolfers' theory is refuted. End of Story).

***remember, this is the guy who once said that his skills were like the pythagorean theorem, there's no answer to it. Oh and also said "I'm tired of hearing about money, money, money, money, money. I just want to play the game, drink Pepsi, wear Reebok." And without a hint of irony. God bless you you big footed bastard.

wereallnumberone #8: Crying Over Loose Juice (Seriously, Folks, Let OJ Go)

2008-07-14T20:13:00.001-07:00

On possibly the world's #1 scapegoat for all pro athletes getting away with murder. What a poor metaphor ...

The other morning while in the gym, I heard a DJ bust a joke in which he basically stated that if any celebrity were going to have a yard sale or auction in which they sold their clothes for charity, he'd want to buy OJ's pants and underwear. Because he's certain that when the verdict was read, he probably shit gold.

First of all, this joke has three qualities that usually render a joke unfunny, and thus, unworthy of proper response:

1) It was born in and currently resides in Nebraska. Wait for it …
2) Seriously, who shits gold? Who eats gold? This guy http://images.usatoday.com/life/gallery/austin-powers/goldmember.jpg? No wait, that was his old skin. And Smokes and Pancakes. Maybe this guy ? No wait, that's not gold. Those must be made of lead. The kind you find in paint chips. And after you eat them for many years … you know its just not as funny when I have to explain it …
3) Finally, of all the metaphors to describe "expression of shock" this guy chooses "shit gold." Really. Try harder, Testicles-Which-Have-Lost-Feeling. How about "Had a Pig Nut" http://www.worldsentiment.com/user_blog.asp?blog_guid=%7B2A790B90-7B42-47E9-B6F3-A31B82D343F9%7D&get_user_guid=%7BC47BDA31-8A31-4FC4-89DB-E4BD0A211A58%7D. Or "Was as Happy as a Littuhl Guhrl" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dieter_mit_kyle_mclaglen.jpg. God bless expressionism. Or maybe "He was like a fat sunuhbitch on his 9th doughnut outta dozen … you know, that really is the sweet spot, you got plenty of donut in your stomach so you're nice and full, so you're beginning to chew more and thus releasing more of the flavor and enzymes and shit is collaborating in your stomach givin you itis and then you fall asleep and you know when you wake up you still got three more doughnuts and its like life is good."

Seriously, either of those could work.

But the reason I took notice was because the joke seemed revelatory. This muhfuka still hung up over OJ. Damn. That shit was like in '96. We still thought Kriss Kross and Hammer was gonna make comebacks back then (just turn your pants around and do the "Typewriter." Do it. You know you love it … and now I've lost you …). Gore was still inventing the internet and Clinton hadn't even tapped Lewinsky yet (that we know of). Poor Clinton. If he were black he woulda been in "I'll Bee Dat" by Redman (http://youtube.com/watch?v=y73-z6ffPW8). Bush was hemmin' up Brothas (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575291.shtml) and executing the mentally ill (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/09/texas.double.execution.03/) instead of turning Iraq into DisneyMesopotamia.

Not to belittle Nicole Simpson and the other dude, nor to editorialize about OJ's guilt or non-guilt (my blackness will not permit me to comment), but damn. Seriously. Get the eff over it. There have been worse transgressions in American history. There have been worse transgressions in L.A. history. There have been worse transgressions in Tulsa County, Oklahoma (http://www.globalblacknews.com/BlackWallstreet.html). I guess folks remember it because usually brothers get locked up and get way worse than they deserve, and this one was notable because its likely he got way less than he deserved.

But rich people get 'off' all the time. Martha Stewart called up the cops was like "Oh, I got jail time? I'll be there like week after Memorial Day, kthxbyewhatvrs." And athletes skate on the regular. Ray Lewis killed like two people and didn't even have to miss the Super Bowl. And Joe Namath was drunk in public and raped Suzy Kolber's face on national TV and didn't get time (http://www.ifilm.com/video/2483773). And black folks are getting away with it more than ever, which is a sign of, if nothing else, that the Civil Rights Act is finally taking effect (I was drankin' at a fountain up front like 3 minutes ago and, when I make bail, I'll probably be out within the hour. This is Louisiana though, so, you know, iss prolly better for y'all wherever y'all are). So a rich, black, athlete getting away with it should totally not be this big a deal to someone in 2007.

But this dude is still beefin over OJ. Wow. Think of the inverse. How often you hear black comedians and DJs and pundits talking bout James Earl Ray, or whatever white government official killed Martin Luther the King? Or Medgar's killer, who got sentenced to life like 400 years after the crime was committed. His coffin is in the State Pen now, for life. And how about Tupac and Biggie's killers? C'mon, had to be white dudes (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/16/biggie/index.html). Granted, Tupac is not dead. If Shakespeare continued to release posthumously the way Tupac has, he would have written the DaVinci Code.

What about all the white dudes who killed the blues and have never been brought to justice (yes you, Robert Plant, Mick Jagger, Elvis Presley, and the insufferable Jonny Lang. Will all of you please shut … the … eff … up) Seriously. These guys massacre Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, and Albert King every time they open their mouths and fret their guitars.

And what about the white dude that killed The Jacksons? Michael, I think his name was. Horrible, horrible what has happened to Jermaine. He was gonna be a big star. He was as passable a vocalist as Daryl Hall and he played bass way better than John Oates (he was prolly as good as Rick James, even though he had a coiff kinda like Odell in Jackie Brown) And who knows what could have been of Tito …

All I'm saying is, injustice, like s$%t, happens. And over time, we are charged with moving forward in spite of it and working towards ridding the world of it. Or at least reducing it somewhat. So some of us don't eat meat. Others don't purchase diamonds. Others still don't use vehicles that burn gasoline and me, well, I raise money so that cats who ball for my school get money to pay for an education which many of them could not otherwise afford in this free country. So maybe that DJ should drop his day job, get a J.D., and prepare himself for the next time when a Hertz Rent-a-Car pitchman (http://espn-att.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/simpson_hertz.jpg) offs a white girl and her boyfriend (allegedly).

Cuz you know those Hertz Rent-a-Car guys. They loooove white women.

In the words of the immortal ODB:

"I'm a minute away from feelin' no sympathy!!!"
---ODB, "Run Dirty Run"

wereallnumberone #7: Bum Chicka Wow ... Wow

2008-07-14T07:51:00.000-07:00

One of the higher rated commercial series in recent years has been the Axe Body Spray. I've been revolted by both the smell of and the advertisements for Axe Bodyspray for far too long to have refrained from cyber-busting the company's ass for it. So here goes.

First of all, I realize that ambergris http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Ambergris.jpg is often the base for many perfumes. After all, of the many uses of sperm whale excretions one could conjure, perfume would likely be the first, no? The problem is that it is a base for perfumes, not the perfume itself. On the real, a bodyspray should not smell like an animal's excretion ... much less like the excretion of a drunken vagabond who, after urinating on hair, setting it on fire, then wrapping it in donkey shite, pig bladder, and then lighting it afire in a ritual sacrifice somehow liquefied and then bottled the smell for the consumers. Of course, in the event that a bodyspray did smell like that, it would need some slick A and D to market it.

Enter Axe Body Spray.

Featuring commercials with bedheaded, be-skechered dorks who clearly draw inspiration from the "cool wells" of hot rockstars, actors and fonts of culture , we are thrust into a world where allegedly attractive women become inspired to hurl themselves onto these unsuspecting douches simply because they have doused themselves in the aforementioned malodorous fixture. Seriously, no one above an IQ of 19 or who has had sex 1.3 (see footnote) times or more in his lifetime would be so desperate as to bathe himself in the mixture of isopropyl alcohol and broken dreams that is Axe Bodyspray. And double seriously, if you are a self-respecting, intelligent, strong, independent woman who goes apes#$t when a man approaches you smelling like hyena ejaculate, then I hope Gloria Steinem shows up at your door tomorrow morning and kicks you in the cooter.

No, I dont mean that.

I hope Angela Davis totally gaps your fro in such a manner that that s$%t cant be covered up with any kinda part and you totally have to either wear a scarf for like four weeks or totally trim the entire fro to make up for it. Like this: http://www.reuters.pl/city/wieczor/foto/evening_m20040128.jpg (the "gap" is in the back by the word "fader." You aint foolin us, Erykah ...

Anyhow, between the stank juice that is Axe Bodyspray, the lames that employ its use, and the women who go ass-up for them (sounds like a Springer episode), I kinda got to wondering where else there's money to be made in the "I-cover-myself-in-odd-s%&t-and-hoes-come-flockin'" market. Here's the first ten things I thought of ...

New Axe Body Spray Fragrances:
10) Ass - comes in "Pancake" if you like white girls, "Onion" if you like sistas, and so on and so on ... you know, "Green T (and A)" and "Enchiladass."
9) Scandalwood - you'll be the talk of the town when you go out after all of the hot chicks at Berkeley. The smell? Halfway between the earthy, subtle tones of patchouli and underarm and foot stank. Bottle comes in the shape of this guy's head: http://i.realone.com/assets/rn/img/4/6/6/1/8681664-8681667-slarge.jpg.
8) Poot - Sound of spray is silent, but deadly. Also leaves streaks on white clothing.
7) fromunda cheese - I just gagged and vomited at the same time. Ga-vomited. Just imagine rotten bacon.
6) Santorum - http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/. Best. Effing. Neologism. As the result of. A Google Bomb. EVER. Again, gavomiting.
5) Mrs. Dubois Peach Cobbler - Yeah, Riley. That do look like thow-up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20dY9XgJs8Q. Also available in "Pork Flavored Broccoli."
4) Paris' Draws - Vinegar with undertones of burning lumber. I'm guessing. http://www.parishiltonblog.org/images/paris_hilton_ass_1_43.jpg
3) "Stankonia" - Kinda like "Poot" but aimed at the urban market. Rahzel beatboxes a bowel movement in the background of the commercial and all the hoes maul Questlove. Or Bootsy Collins. First cool Axe commercial ever. Immediately discontinued for lack of continuity. "Bom chicka wow wow" replaced by "Bom ova bag dad." http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_en_____211&q=%22bombs+over+baghdad+is+not+when+iraqis+use+ruben+studdard%27s+album+as+clay+target%22
2) Down Low - Commercial features Freddie Jackson singing to Ne-Yo. Smells like "Lying to your wife by telling her you and the guys will be playing poker." Heh. More like "Poke-him."
This guy knows what I'm talking about (points out random dude in the crowd that likes UFC).
And the worst (aka best) new Axe BodySpray?
1) The Iraq War Justification - Stinks to high effin heaven, n'est-ce pas? And if experience tells us anything, 70% of all Americans will jump all the eff over it.

Aight. I'm out. I gotta go take a shower after that ... just thinkin bout how Axe smell got my mouth tasting like pennies and tofu burps.

In the words of ODB:
Oooooh baby I like it raw!!!
-- ODB, "Shimmy Shimmy Ya"
Holla,
~Wb

*Coitus = 1.0. I'm counting everything else, e.g. dirty sanchezes, columbian mine workers, Hotel Rwandas, and charlie chaplins as .1.

wereallnumberone #6: we all watch it for the car wrecks anyway ...

2008-07-13T14:04:00.000-07:00

Mauricia Grant

Nikki Giovanni

“I don’t get NASCAR. But my students dig it, and I’m cool with that. Actually, I’m growing to like it.” -- Nikki Giovanni, from a lecture at the University of Arizona, February 23, 2006

At the apex of one’s high regard for himself/herself and for fellow human beings, or what Mazlov calls “self-actualization,” we are our most innovative, most able to collaborate with people of different backgrounds to solve the problems we all have in common, and most of all, we possess morality. Until we reach that point, we allow prejudices to hinder our ability to seek solutions to the common problems of humanity and fail to actualize our creative capacities -- ultimately limiting our emotional health, physical safety, and financial success. Self-actualization on a wide-scale is paramount if the project of multiculturalism is to ultimately succeed in America.

As I sit to write this morning, two black women are inspiring conflicting feelings about the outcome of the project of multiculturalism. And I bet that after hearing about the case of Mauricia Grant, Nikki Giovanni might take her praise for NASCAR back, faint though it may have been.

Virginia Tech Professor Nikki Giovanni is one of my favorite poets and scholars. She is astute, humorous, inspirational, clever, and her writing and pedagogy reflect a paradoxical truth about cross-culturalism that should be a mantra for anyone interested in social justice -- We all want simple things in life, yet understanding one another’s wants may be the most difficult undertaking of all.

Giovanni, once a militant, revolutionary poet whose involvement in the Black Arts Movement marked her as an artist both at the vanguard of black modernist poetry and the civil rights movement, is now a professor at Virginia Tech University, a predominately white institution in the decidedly rural Virginia town of Lynchburg. And though her students’ heroes include “George Bush, Dale Earnhardt, and Triple H,” and favorite poets include “George Strait, Hank Williams, and Donald Rumsfeld,” she enjoys teaching them about poetry and literature immensely. And she even claims to learn as much from them as they do from her. Why? Because she understands that though their worldviews and cultural affinities are different, their desires to appreciate art and be entertained and fulfilled by it are quite similar. The media they choose -- and the artists they appreciate -- are simply different from the ones that inspire her. She can appreciate the fact that all human beings possess desire, though we desire different things, ultimately. Because Giovanni gets this fundamental tenet of human life, she has become one of the most effective and important human rights advocates of our time.

On the surface, Mauricia Grant represents the kind of diversity and lack of prejudice that we are always inspired by when it occurs in corporate America. Surely, a black woman probably seems out of place on a NASCAR track. However, Grant pursued her desire to work in the white male-dominated industry of NASCAR as a certification expert, loved her work, and was rated positively in her reviews perennially. So it would probably come as a surprise to many that she was terminated in 2007 for “conduct unbecoming of a NASCAR official,” and for using “street language,” when she had never so much had been warned or reprimanded previously. But to Grant, the writing, much like an errant NASCAR driver, was on the wall. Only the fallout from her case would be more destructive, fierier, and take much more than the customary warning lap to clear up the debris.

Grant is suing NASCAR for $250 million, citing wrongful termination and a history of sexual harassment and racial discrimination during her tenure with them. Much more than sour grapes, Grant alleges that she has filed complaints over the years on several occasions when co-workers and supervisors sexually harassed her, made ignorant racist comments in her presence, and occasionally, intersected the two. Her nickname was “Nappy Headed Mo.” Her supervisors exposed themselves in front of her. And when she denied their sexual advances, they alleged she was gay. She was assigned to work more hours in the sun because, unlike her white co-workers, she wouldn’t sunburn. And on and on. Until she complained and was eventually terminated.

This story has exposed the underbelly of the sport that so many of Giovanni’s students love. What this story has shown us is that NASCAR administrators are plagued by a lack of the self-actualization that we must possess to advance human life as we know it. NASCAR, in this instance, has certainly not done anything to gain market share among women, people of color, and pursuers of social justice with their disdainful treatment and institutionalized racism and sexism inherent in their dealings with Grant. Evidently, NASCAR believes that it can advance the sport and increase market share by drawing in more fans from diverse backgrounds the same way the PGA has with Tiger Woods (who was called a watermelon and fried chicken eater by a fellow PGA member, and a commentator recently called for fellow players to “lynch” him). The same way that the WTA has with the Williams sisters (who are consistently labeled as aloof and unfocused by sport media, who are remarkably unwilling to address the racially provoked boos of spiteful fans every time they win at Wimbledon). The same way that the media continues to sanction the vitriol of Don Imus, who continues to assault civil sensibility on air without any retribution.

Sport culturists, or people who believe that athletic competition carries with it great possibilities for multicultural collaboration and provides great examples of human triumph in an often inhumane world, know that sport that has provided us with some of the most important moments in social progress and racial uplift in American history. NASCAR, as have other professional sports organizations in the past, has failed to live up to its potential in this regard. What’s important now is that NASCAR deals with this situation with sensitivity, and more importantly, with a commitment to justice and ensuring that no employee is ever subjected to the wrongs Ms. Grant alleges she was subjected to.

If NASCAR does handle this situation properly, perhaps I may consider changing my mind about the sport, which I now find disdainful in addition to being unentertaining. I hope I change my mind, re-affirming sports great power to heal us, and, erstwhile, confirming one of Nikki Giovanni’s most famous poetic lines:

“I am so hip, even my errors are correct.”

wereallnumberone #5: its been 666 days since I first read Chuck Klosterman

2008-07-13T09:06:00.000-07:00

“Cultural Popcure” or “Ream of (Cultural)Consciousness”

Early on in "Sex Drugs and Cocoa Puffs," which I am re-re-reading [1], Chuck Klosterman tells an unfunny joke that he claims works on 90% of the women he goes out with on the first date. The joke is unimportant (it involves the Amish and the Devil and metal zippers), as is the funny one he tells a few pages later, which involves a woman mistaking the word "carnivore" for "cannibal" and Klosterman's ensuing sexual frustration. What's also unimportant is his comparison of himself to Woody Allen (apt) and his blame of John Cusack for his dating troubles [2]. What's truly important about Klosterman is that he resonates with our generation -- his raw cynicism, his contrasting hypermaleness (you know, the desperation to get laid and all) and cathartic caricaturish hyperfemininity (seriously, when a person feels this much, male or female, it becomes impossible to do anything, other than feel). He resonates with us because the line between entertainment, media, and our "real" lives have become inexorably and impossibly blurred. And because sitcoms become metaphors and frames for our real real lives anyway -- in fact, we often cant unintertwine them, which really only leaves two kinds of people [3] -- people who are aware that they do this (such as me … I have often been known to say, after a witty retort or otherwise quasi clever observation, that "I should write sitcoms") and people who aren't aware that they do this -- but do it anyway. The person who claims "I don't watch TV" as if to claim some kind of "I wont let the media distort my view of the world" is a mere meme (or more accurately, la meme chose) of counter cultural curmudgeonly anti-technocrats they became amorous of on TV or in the movies.

People like me, who are quasi encyclopedically familiar with popular culture, to the point of obsession, to the point of defining the very means of their lives by their similarity to pivotal moments in pop culture history[4] are of the former kind.

Klosterman's noting of this is nothing new (if nothing else, cats like McLuhan, Postman, Adorno, Baudrillard, and the like predict this integration and eventual superimposition of not real life upon our real lives). His demonstration of it is nothing new either (see Rob Gordon in High Fidelity, a story about fear of commitment, hating your job, falling in love, and other pop favorites -- seriously, this is the subtitle, or if you want a "real life" example, simply think of that one friend you have whose favorite metaphors involve sitcoms/movies example below and outside of the parenthesis:)

Dude 1: Dude, your hair is f'ed up. Did you use too much hair gel or did a sheep ejaculate on your head?
Dude 2: First of all, that's a really vivid metaphor, did you read that in Manifold Superlativity? [5]? Second of all, its no worse than Ben Stiller in There's Something About Mary. Maybe a hottie like Cameron Diaz comes along and runs her fingers through it! Besides, it looks really good on Jim from the Office, and he's hookin up with the three hottest girls on that show!" [6]

See? That dude totally did what I said he would in the previous sentences. Trust me, that exact conversation has been had. Except for the acknowledgement of my blog.

So here's the deal about Chuck K. He's a good writer. And clever. And cynical, which he calls "pragmatic" the same way that I call my nappy hair "curly" and my penis "no more important an appendage than my spleen." But no one minds. And maybe that's the problem.

Maybe you've read him on Page 2. If not, go on, I'm not threatened: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=klosterman/070605. Hurry. ESPNInsider and its effin elitism will preclude you from reading this unless you become an insider.

The thing is, I shouldn't care what Klosterman, a pasty white goofy remarkably unathletic dork (his words, I'm paraphrasing) has to say about sport. I should also avoid his pratter about relationships, given his utter and uncanny ability to maintain one (again his words). The same way I shouldn't hearken Bush's advice on apt use of the English lexicon or Paris Hilton's advice on not being totally cockeyed. The same way you guys should totally totally stop reading my analyses of writers who pose as frustrated and falsely modest when they really think they know whats going on way more than they'd ever let on. Not even if they offer this advice by making constant references to popular culture in a way that resonates with us. Eff the media … it isn't the message.

Klosterman reads like a Family Guy episode (which I also adore) making constant non sequitirish references to pop culture to keep us entertained but ultimately not pushing us any further than the beginning of the punchline, where we already were in the first place. Its funny. It truly is. And interesting. But we're no better for it. Except we've learned to craftily use wikipedia when a reference is made that we aren't quite familiar with (or nod approvingly sans knowledge of the aforementioned pop-culture item).

And, as Klosterman says himself … its interesting, but in the end not totally profound. And millions of Americans agree, to the tune of $19.99 (paperback) a pop.

So Klosterman is either as not profound as he claims, as cynical as you imagine, and in the end only a diversion from real life (the sort of escapist consumerism Marx and Engels nightmarishly predict) or he is aware that pop culture soaked quasi profundity masked as not-cynicism and plenary self-indulgence[7] will sell like hot cakes, and for this, he should be censured at least as vigorously as the million pieces guy. I dig Klosterman, but I don't think I should. I don't think any of us should. He's like McDonald's French Fries -- so effin good you'd donkey punch an elderly woman (and yes, I know what a donkey punch is, and what you'd have to do first in order to be in position to donkey punch an elderly person … I calculated all of that) if she cut you in line while you were waiting to purchase his next book. Even when Morgan Spurlock (before: http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/critics_choice/critics_choice_awards_2005_photos/morgan_spurlock/criticschoice04d.jpg and after: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1iXsSrbA1o) warns you specifically not to. Or maybe Klosterman is actually defining our current condition by embodying it so melodramatically. I mean, who is going to reference pop culture, on average, 3-5 times every sentence and expect us to think this is normal behavior?

And seriously, who has time for this? Varsity Blues is on. And I totally played with a guy like Billy Bob, totally have turned down scores [8] of women in "cool whip bikinis [9]" and my momma did my recruiting, too. You win this round, Klosterman. No rererereading.

feetnotes:
1 I read it for the first time a year ago. I decided to re-read it recently because the first time felt like it confirmed me more than it challenged me, which I chalked up to not reading closely enough. The second reading embarrassed and disheartened me, because really, that confirmed me? Confirmed. In a way that religion and the support of friends could not? Really? That guy? That argument? I'm re-re-reading it because I need to confirm that it no longer confirms me. P.S., I digged really long footnotes way before I knew Klosterman did. I'm invoking Eliot here, not him*.
*So what I'm footnoting the footnote. Eliot's project was grand, but a total study in the importance of strategy, purpose, and audience when developing a rhetorical strategy. Let's bring back the importance of the love of literary classics via poetry. Wow. While at it, lets bring back America's love and respect of women and femininity by casting a music video featuring Paris Hilton singing "I am woman, hear me ride some random dude while a night vision cam records it" (directed by R. Kelly and Dean Martin).

2 Ok so I kinda do this, too. Anyone who knows me well knows that I once encountered Rosario Dawson in a NYC bar and inadvertently flirted with her … and I think she kinda didn't know how to respond, but she still flirted back. The reason she totally didn't go for me? Probably because she Hollywooded me … fitting me into an all too neat pigeonhole … as Anthony Anderson http://www.femail.com.au/ma_anthonyanderson.htm on Atkins, or a big boned LL Cool J (I tried to find a picture of him with a) his shirt on and b) not licking his lips and was on pages 451-475 on Google before I gave up. I began the previous sentence at 9:15 pm and finished it at 10:04. I also purchased "Bad" on CD in the meantime http://www.altrap.com/editorialpics/100/042ll.jpg.

3 Just kidding, the third kind of person is the person who really really likes Larry the Cable Guy. This is a third kind of person entirely.

4 Seriously, my first kiss was in the woods. The song "Harvest Moon" played in the distance. The moment was sponsored by JOOP! Perfume, which she wore. It was right out of Dawson's Creek for God's sake.

5 Yeah, I just big upped myself in my own blog. No worse than Saul Williams' big up of himself in Dead Emcee Scrolls, in which he attributes his meteoric rise to fame as a spoken word artist to the discovery of a Dead Sea scrolls like document stuffed into a Krylon ™ can in an underground subway, and then subsequently translating them. Sidebar 1: Saul Williams is a little, um, purple for a Mormon, no? Sidebar 2: Saul Williams would totally totally effin pwn Joe Smith in an emcee battle.

6 Something about that stick in the tailpiped Angela does it for me …

7 Quite possibly the most amazing neologism I have ever created, meaning "when someone absolves himself completely of his own sin/vices by learning that indulging in them is in fact, not sinful at all, because everyone else is doing it" or "finding virtue in your vices," as Ben Franklin once said.

8 And by scores (see next sentence), I mean that I have also been with scores of women, cool whip or no. And by scores, a "score" equals 3, right? Because then, technically, I'm not lying.

9 http://ngdev.net/images/ali-larter-dessert.jpg.

And finally, do you guys get from this that I enjoy reading Klosterman? Trust me, if I dont dig you, I dont write about you. Ever read my blog on John Stuart Mill? Exactly.