BGSU On Ice

This past Saturday evening, I caught the very end of a sporting event that has received virtually zero mainstream coverage. The U.S. Figure Skating Championships took place over the weekend in Cleveland. Figure Skating draws plenty of media attention and big ratings during the Olympics, but not so much at other times. The U.S. Championships, along with the World Championships to be held this March in Los Angeles, are the precursors to the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver.

One of the likely competitors in Vancouver is the newly crowned Ladies champion, Alissa Czisny. Although I don't follow figure skating closely, I am familiar with Czisny. A native of Bowling Green, Ohio, she's currently enrolled as a student at Bowling Green State University. I haven't met her or had her as a student, but her accomplishment is something we can all be proud of at BGSU. Given that much of our campus is presently buried under ice, and the state budget crisis has put many of our resources on ice, it's a pleasure to see someone skate so wonderfully across the ice. So, congratulations Alissa, and best of luck in L.A.

The Cost of Doing Business

Last night, as I was watching ESPN's coverage of the Australian Open, I saw a brief headline across the ticker that indicated that the NFL's San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders might consider building a new stadium that would house both franchises. The reason? It's a tough economy, and this might be an avenue toward fiscal restraint. A good idea, right?

Well, the story has been reported by the San Jose Mercury News. Mike Swift leads his article:

"The NFL is urging the 49ers to explore sharing a new stadium with their cross-bay neighbors, the Raiders, hoping the Bay Area could follow the lead of the New York Giants and the New York Jets, who have joined forces to privately finance the most expensive stadium in U.S. sports history."

Just how expensive is the New York venture? $1.6 billion. One. Point. Six. Billion.

Swift reports that a proposed 49ers-only stadium project in Santa Clara would run around $916 million, and that the new Dallas Cowboys stadium that opens next season will come in at $1.3 billion. This is evidence, he and league officials suggest, that a shared stadium makes good "economic sense."

Of course, what really makes good economic sense is to not build a new facility. Yet within the world of commercial sport, such a suggestion would be mocked and dismissed. What this discussion reveals is how deeply entrenched the logic of "It's the cost of doing business" has become. It's the reason why Nick Saban makes $4 million each year to coach college football at the University of Alabama. It's the reason why the New York Yankees will pay Mark Teixeira $180 million over eight years. And, it's the reason why nearly every professional franchise--big market or small, successful or not--is convinced that the only way to remain competitve is to join the great stadium arms race.

Evidently, the New York Giants-Jets agreement is supported with private money (plus $300 million from the NFL). To a degree, this is a good thing since it means the teams' owners aren't asking taxpayers to foot the bill. But make no mistake, fans will pay for the stadium: through higher prices for tickets, parking, concessions, souvenirs, and so on. Meanwhile, the "cost of doing business" justifies more and more expenses. At the end of the article, Swift quotes Carl Goldberg, chairman of the New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority, which owns the land for the new New York stadium. He says:

"The whole thing seems to be a horrible waste. Let's not forget that they only play 10 games per year per franchise. Doesn't it make more sense to build a better facility, with better fan appeal and a better fan experience, for both teams?"

A horrible waste, yes. What makes more sense is not to build a facility at all.

In Media Res

In Media Res, an online forum for media scholars to engage each other as well as non-academics, is currently featuring a "Sports Week." Four scholars, including yours truly, are discussing various developments in sports media, including technological developments in Olympic broadcasting, questions of racial identity within sports video games, judgments made by announcers about athletes' behavior, and changes in sports journalism.

I encourage you to check it out and, if so inclined, join the conversation. Just click here.

Of Dreams, Realized and Deferred

In light of my post yesterday about Tiger Woods, it might be worth re-casting the discussion on race and sports somewhat. Today is, after all, Martin Luther King Day. So, even if Woods doesn't want to talk about race, a lot of other involved in sports do. It's worth taking a look, then, at ESPN's special web contribution, "Realizing the Dream."

First, a disclaimer: ESPN over-emphasizes the extent to which the "dream" has been "realized." Indeed, this is entirely consistent with the standard stories about racial "progress": Jackie Robinson "broke the color line" in 1947; Texas Western was the first college basketball team to start an all-Black line-up en route to a national championship over all-White Kentucky; Tiger Woods (oops, sorry Tiger) redefines racial identity in a painfully homogeneous sport. Let me be clear that I am not dismissing the significance of these--or other--important moments. Rather, it is the framing of these stories that merits our rhetorical focus. In other words, every time we declare that the dream has been "realized," it is easier to forget that so many other dreams continue to be deferred (and to feel a lot better about it).

So please, read ESPN's stories, honor the memory of MLK, and celebrate the progress we've made. But also, let's remember that there is much to be done if we are to achieve any semblance of the many dreams woven by King.

Hello World, Or, Tiger Woods Still Has Nothing to Say

The comparisons have been all too predictable. With so few "minority" or "mixed-race" exemplars, it was inevitable that Barack Obama would be compared to Tiger Woods (see here, here, or here). To the extent that both men have transcended traditional assumptions about race in American culture, then yes, they are similar. Yet if we needed any reminder that they remain worlds apart, then today's speech by Woods at the Obama inauguration event, "We Are One," should suffice.

As I have noted before, I am troubled by Woods' reluctance to acknowledge that his presence not only in golf but in American culture more broadly is political. Whether he wishes to or not, he embodies both the possibilities and limitations of race in the United States. And, given that he was "announced" by Nike in the famous "Hello World" ads--the ones that told viewers there remained golf courses in the U.S. where Woods could not play--and that his father, Earl, had annointed him the "Chosen One" because he would be able to usher in a new era of racial and social harmony, I think it is fair to be disappointed by Woods' relentless efforts to avoid politics.

All of this leads us to Obama and the inauguration. As ESPN's John Sobel writes:

"Maybe he's ready to change, to exercise his power in more influential ways. Maybe that's why, three years after the death of his father -- a man Tiger says 'would have cried' had he lived long enough to witness Obama's election -- Woods finally has broken his silence.

On Sunday, Woods will have a front-row seat for history. What might prove to be a pivotal moment for our nation also might serve as a turning point for its greatest golfer, which -- it should go without saying -- pales by comparison. Just don't underestimate what this speech means to Woods, who might hear Earl's voice echo in his head as he speaks to millions.

The chosen one. The power to impact nations. For Tiger Woods, that impact might finally be coming to fruition. It will start with the right words at the right time."

That's optimistic stuff. So, how did Tiger do? I, for one, am disappointed.

Woods' speech this afternoon lasted all of two minutes. It was not about politics per se, but rather was a brief affirmation of the military. Here are some excerpts:

"My dad was a Special Forces operator and many nights friends would visit our home. They represented every branch of the service, and every rank. In my Dad, and in those guests, I saw first hand the dedication and commitment of those who serve. They come from every walk of life. From every part of our country. Time and again, across generations, they have defended our safety in the dark of night and far from home.

Each day - and particularly on this historic day - we honor the men and women in uniform who serve our country and protect our freedom. They travel to the dangerous corners of the world, and we must remember that for every person who is in uniform, there are families who wait for them to come home safely.

I am honored that the military is such an important part, not just of my personal life, but of my professional one as well. The golf tournament we do each year here in Washington is a testament to those unsung heroes. I am the son of a man who dedicated his life to his country, family and the military, and I am a better person for it.

Just as they have stood tall for our country - we must always stand by and support the men and women in uniform and their families."

Now, it is highly likely that Woods' speech was vetted by the Obama transition team. Nevertheless, it is striking that Woods notes the "historic" nature of the occasion without speaking of that history. Whether this omission is his or those advising the president-elect, it is remarkable that Woods made no mention of race at all. And, given the euphoria and energy generated by Obama's election, it would have been quite easy to appeal to themes of unity and hope. Indeed, since Obama represents (for many) a possible future in which racial inequities and tensions may be productively addressed, this speech from Woods is a tremendous let-down.

With such an apolitical past, however, we probably shouldn't be too surprised. After all, everyone--Republicans, Democrats, and all in between--seems eager to "support the troops." Thus, Woods is able to participate in a political event while maintaining his apolitical persona. This is not, I would contend, the same thing as the reconciliation strategy demonstrated by Obama. The president-elect attempts to appeal to competing sides of multiple issues--including race--as a means for reducing conflict and increasing cooperation. Woods seeks to appeal to everyone at the same time and on the same terms, thereby appealing really to no one. In other words, despite this "historical" opportunity, he still has nothing to say.

Barackin' the National Pastime

You have to love the imagination of minor league baseball promoters. Coming this June 23, the Brooklyn Cyclones will open their season by renaming themselves, for one game, the Baracklyn Cyclones, "honoring the 44th president of the United States with a night of patriotic partying at the ballpark."


As I have made clear, I enthusiastically support President-Elect Obama (even if recent choices leave me ambivalent). And so I think this promotion is pretty cool. In fact, I hope I can convince some family members who live near NYC to attend the game and score me my very own Barack Obama bobblehead (only in America!).





Given my criticisms of promotional events such as "Faith Night," am I suddenly a hypocrite? I don't think so, and here's why. Although one could argue that temporarily naming the team the Baracklyn Cyclones exhibits the same kind of partisanship seen when Faith Night clearly favors evangelical Christianity over other faiths. However, whereas Faith Night struggles to make the event inclusive for non-evangelicals, the Brooklyn event will ackowledge that non-Obama supporters might still wish to attend a baseball game. Thus, in addition to having an "Economic Stimulus Package," through which ticket prices will revert to 2001 rates, and a "Universal Health Care" program that hands out free band-aids to the first 1,000 fans (what calamities await these folks?), the game also will have a "Joe the Plumber Special," allowing any plumber named Joe to receive two free tickets, and a "Bi-Partisan Consolation Prize," so that anyone named McCain or Palin receives a free bleacher seat.



In sum, it appears that event is designed to capitalize on the considerable energy created by the Obama campaign and the optimism that is attached to his imminent inauguration. Is it partisan? To a degree, but it's also inclusive. I've never argued against partisanship here (rhetoric is partisan, folks); I'm just looking for everyone to have a seat at the table, er, ballgame.

Strong Convictions

We know that Sarah Palin is a "hockey mom." And we also know that the Alaska governor is very good at keeping herself in the news. Seriously, have you ever seen this much post-election coverage of someone who was believed to have cost the ticket the election (See here. Or here. Or here.)?

Anyway, I'll say this much. This fan (courtesy the D.C. Sports Bog) surely loves himself some Sarah Palin. And as much as this makes me want to take the gloves off and pull that sweater over his head, I'll give him credit for his convictions. Voting for Palin in 2012 would be one thing. Announcing it the world, well, that takes some serious strength.

Perfecting Tim Tebow

There isn't much to be said about Florida quarterback Tim Tebow that hasn't been already (just check out the "Tim Tebow Zone"). Tebow, who won a national championship his freshman year and the Heisman Trophy his sophomore year, is presently leading his Gators in the BCS Championship Game. As I write, with roughly five minutes remaining in the first half, the game is tied, 7-7.

Interestingly, Tebow has already thrown two interceptions. This is interesting if only because the sports media would have you believe that this could not be possible. Tim Tebow, after all, is perfect.

Let me preface this by saying I'm not attacking Tim Tebow here. Yes, I find the good-guy/super-Christian stuff a bit sanctimonious and he looks uncomfortably like Brendan Fraser, but otherwise, he seems like a perfectly fine fellow. Yet the extent to which he has been perfected by the sports media is downright obssessive. I don't really have the links to recount all of the Tebow feature pieces that have elevated him to godlike status. But it has gotten to the point that even ESPN seemed to recognize their indulgence when they reported that Tebow's teammates can verify that their QB isn't perfect after all. Too bad the "substance" of the piece is that Tebow can't sing.

My point isn't to dissect the specific instances of Tebow worship; it's to challenge the general principle. You see, although it is all too common, I think it is a mistake to construct "perfect" human beings. If there is an essential human quality, it is that we are inherently and unavoidably flawed. To pretend otherwise is to risk the hubris that inevitably leads to tragedy (rhetorical critics out there know that I am invoking Kenneth Burke on this). Somewhere along the line, Tim Tebow will fail (and I'm not talking about losing a football game). He will make a mistake, hurt someone, or simply be adequate. And when he is imperfect, what happens to the rhetorical construction of perfection? Most likely it consitutes an attitude through which Tebow will be judged, and through which we will judge ourselves. For, if Tebow is our model and he cannot be perfect, then what does it say about us that we've invested in him?

If this seems a bit, well, dramatic, perhaps we should be reminded of our other fallen sports heroes. How have we reconciled the failures of O.J. Simpson? Or Marion Jones? Or John Daly? Moreover, it isn't as if this rhetorical practice is restricted to sports. The discourse of perfection has surrounded president-elect Barack Obama for months now. Consider what we've set ourselves up for in the coming weeks when, no matter how smart or pragmatic he may be, Obama isn't able to instantly jump-start the economy. What is required is an acknowledgement that we are all, even the most athletic or the politically savvy among us, prone to error. What is required is a healthy dose of humility. Tim Tebow isn't perfect, he's human. Let's try to let him be.

The A-gone?

Well, not quite. But it might seem that way. The end of last semester was a bit overwhelming, and the holidays further kept me from thinking critically about sports. But now, it's time to get back to things. So, as we begin a new year there is much that feels like last year: BCS controversy, Adam "Pac Man" Jones' legal woes, Brett Favre's annual retirement soap opera. I'll pass on these issues, but suffice it to say, it's sure to be a busy 2009.