The Agon

What is "Sports Communication?"

2012-02-01T21:27:00.004-05:00

Academics love to ruminate on the nuances of language. I'm certainly guilty of this, as I tend to labor over single sentences, or phrases, or transitions in my writing. Should I choose the relative simplicity of "simultaneous" or the snooty sophistication of "concomitant?" Does "complicate" capture my attitude appropriately, or should I use "nuance?" Should I begin my sentence with "In addition," or mix it up with "Moreover?" You get the idea, and believe me, sometimes the more mundane the language the more time I will spend trying to make it just right.

But while some of this is little more than mental gymnastics, there are many issues of language that really matter. Academics are interested in inquiry, in precision, and in careful definition. As someone with a deep investment in studying sport through the lens of communication (or communication studies), I'm especially alert to the ways we choose to define the work we do. Careful readers will have noticed that I always call our subfield "communication and sport." This is important, I believe, because it foregrounds the lens (communication) that is used to view and evaluate the landscape (sport). Indeed, this was an argument I made with my colleagues when we were wrestling with a name for our organization--The International Association for Communication and Sport (IACS)

But, you might ask, does it really matter if the emphasis is reversed? How would our work be interpreted differently if we called it "sport communication," or "sports communication?" My principle concern here is that the emphasis gets shifted away from the study of sport as a communicative phenomenon to the practice of sports communication in professional settings. Indeed, before the publication of the textbook I co-authored with Andy Billings and Paul Turman--Communication and Sport: Surveying the Field--the textbooks that featured the terms "sport" and "communication" were focused overwhelmingly on professional or applied perspectives, and almost exclusively limited the definition of "communication" to some form of "media." A good example of this would be Strategic Sport Communication, written by Paul Pederson, Kimberly Miloch, and Pamela Laucella.

Further evidence of this conflation of "sports communication" with "applied sports media" comes from a survey conducted by the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism at Penn State University. The survey reveals that "the number of schools that report providing a certificate, minor, emphasis or full program in some form of sports communication has increased from 14 in 2007 to 34 during the 2010-11 academic year." In addition (or should that be "Moreover?"), the survey reports, "The most common courses among all schools surveyed were sports writing (62 schools) and sports broadcasting (57). Other common courses include: sports public relations or publicity (19), sports marketing (14) and sports media production (13)."

On the one hand, this is most excellent news. The growing interest in sports communication is something I am delighted to see. On the other hand, however, it takes little analysis to recognize that the "most common courses" reinforce the idea that when we use the term "sports communication" we are using shorthand that refers to sports information, public relations, marketing, broadcasting, and production. This omits, then, areas of communication study such as interpersonal communication, organizational communication, performance studies, intercultural communication, and yes, rhetoric. In other words, even as this kind of growth is good for our collective interests, it risks marginalizing scholarly traditions that are not understood in professional terms.

I want to be clear that I am not criticizing Paul, Kimberly, and Pamela and their book. Far from it, as Strategic Sport Communication is an essential resource in our field. Nor am I criticizing the Curley Center's survey or the people affiliated with it. Indeed, Marie Hardin, who is the Center's Associate Director for Research, is one of the smartest critics of sports media I know of. More than that, as the Executive Director of the IACS I am committed to advancing communication scholarship of sport in all its forms, and that certainly means promoting our expertise in media, production, marketing, and public relations. But it also means making sure that we're not neglecting the substantive work being done by others outside these areas. I don't know what questions were included on the Curley Center's survey, but based on the results, something tells me they weren't as representative as I might have liked.

Again, I'm not saying the survey's results are bad. I'm just saying I want a little, well, nuance. In short, the more inclusive our definition of sports communication, the better.

And, for the record, I avoid "concomitant" at all costs.

Sports Fans, Identity, and Socialization

2012-01-30T21:02:00.008-05:00

It seems to be a good time of year for new books from communication and sport scholars. Today I received my copy of Sports Fans, Identity, and Socialization: Exploring the Fandemonium, edited by Adam Earnheardt, Paul Haridakis, and Barbara Hugenberg. I had the pleasure of reviewing an early copy of this book so I could write one of those nifty blurbs for the back cover. Here's what I wrote:

"Sports Fans, Identity, and Socialization is a welcome addition to the growing scholarship in communication and sport. This edited volume features an impressive lineup of emerging and established scholars, drafted from a variety of disciplinary interests, including business, media studies, psychology, public relations, rhetoric, and sports management. What makes the book such a success is that it presents a broad range of methodological perspectives and addresses sports fanship across multiple sports, sites, and contexts. Sports Fans, Identity, and Socialization is required reading for anyone interested in the attitudes, behaviors, and motivations of contemporary sports fans."

You can get a copy of the book here. Congratulations, Adam, Paul, and Barabara!

The International Association for Communication and Sport

2012-01-25T11:48:00.004-05:00

This morning I had the pleasure of announcing to the community of scholars engaged in communication and sport research and pedagogy that we are now inviting members to join the International Association for Communication and Sport. This is an academic organization dedicated to the study of sport through the methods and theories of communication studies. We are in the process of becoming an incorporated not-for-profit organization and there will be more changes to come. In the meantime, you can learn more about our conference (the "Summit") at our website.

If you would like to join IACS, regular annual membership is $80 and a student membership is $40. At the moment, we can only accept checks, which can be made out to "IACS" or the "International Association for Communication and Sport." Mail checks to:

Michael Butterworth
Executive Director, IACS
300 West Hall
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403 USA

Sports and Social Media

2012-01-24T14:58:00.005-05:00

I recently opened a package at my office to discover a copy of another new book worth sharing with everyone. Jimmy Sanderson, who is completing his Ph.D. in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State University, has been out in front of the study of social media in sports. He's published extensively on the topic, and now has published It's a Whole New Ballgame: How Social Media is Changing Sports. You can learn more at Hampton Press.

Congratulations to Jimmy!

Remembering Paterno

2012-01-22T13:19:00.005-05:00

Former Penn State college football head coach Joe Paterno died last night at 85 years old. The cause of death was attributed to complications from lung cancer, but many will surely suggest that the sex abuse allegations and his termination by the Board of Trustees last November contributed to Paterno's weakened constitution. Regardless, there already are many reflections to be read about a man who spent 61 years coaching football in State College, Pennsylvania.

Not surprisingly, many of these reflections are concerned with Paterno's "legacy," something that previous to last fall's scandal was almost universally seen as impeccable. Just hours after Paterno's death, sports media are carefully constituting how he will be remembered. ESPN's Ivan Maisel, for example, reminds us, "A legacy covers more than 12 weeks." Writing for Yahoo!Sports, Dan Wetzel concludes that, in spite of his inability to do more to prevent the alleged sexual abuse of children, "Paterno reached too many, taught too many, inspired too many. And for years and seasons, for decades and generations to come, those that drew from his wisdom will pass it on and on. That will be his most lasting legacy." The television and talk radio hosts will most certainly add to this line of thinking.

There is nothing wrong with these comments, to the extent that they serve as invitations to consider a life lived over the course of its full 85 years. It is undeniable that Joe Paterno was a positive influence at Penn State University and in State College in any number of ways. And I think the somewhat measured reactions of Maisel and Wetzel are healthier than the all-or-nothing judgment made by those such as Dave Zirin, whose conclusion was to ensure that Penn State needed to do whatever it took "to make sure that the world Joe Paterno made has seen its last day." I typically agree with Zirin, the rare voice in sports journalism who is willing to challenge the political status quo bolstered by sport. But his approach to Paterno seems to be an either/or proposition, which does a disservice to making sense of someone's life or the lives of those that person affected.

All of that said, what I will be watching for in the coming weeks is how the issue of "legacy" continues to evolve. My greatest concern with these immediate reactions seeking to view Paterno over 85 years instead of 12 weeks is that it could represent an opening move in purging the public memory of those 12 weeks. Especially because the case against Jerry Sandusky remains before us, and because Penn State still has a considerable emotional recovery ahead of it, we need those 12 weeks to remain a central, if not definitive, part of how we remember Joe Paterno.

A Great Non-Debate

2012-01-20T21:21:00.007-05:00

This semester I am teaching Argumentation for the first time. I've always been interested in argument; after all, one common way I describe my job is to say that I "make arguments." As a scholar of rhetoric, I recognize that argumentation is a key part of the discipline, so I figured it was high time that I taught it.

So far I'm really enjoying the course. This past week, we focused on argument in rhetorical terms and critiqued the sad state of "debate" in American culture. One of the readings I assigned came from Deborah Tannen's book, The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War on Words. The book is well over 10 years old, but the chapter "Both Sides Come Out Fighting" does a nice job of explaining why we damage discourse by insisting that every issues has two sides and that those sides are always in need of a good "fight." Part of our discussion included a series of images from Yahoo! headlines, each of which were framed in terms that promised readers an exciting conflict--from the most innane of celebrity controversies to the latest disagreement among political candidates.

This recent discussion surely informs my reading, then, of this ESPN.com headline story.

This headline links to a column written by Rick Reilly that originally appeared last December, in which Reilly suggets that Eli Manning is the overlooked little brother who might just turn out to be better than his older sibling. The column may be a month old, but the headline image comes with an updated caption: "Always the 'lesser' Manning, Eli's quiet ascendancy turns up the volume on the brotherly debate."

Um, what "debate" is this supposed to reference? Just because Rick Reilly asserts that it's "possible" Eli could end up having a better career than Peyton doesn't make it so. The evidence that Reilly summons is either based on team performances that cannot--despite sports media's relentless efforts to the contrary--be attributed to a single player (even a quarterback) or on evidence so selective that it is easily countered.

For example, Reilly notes that Eli beat "Tom Brady and the 18-0 New England Patriots" to win a Super Bowl while Peyton "beat Rex Freaking Grossman." There isn't a person alive who understands football who believes that Eli Manning was the reason the New York Giants beat the Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. Meanwhile, Peyton Manning led the Indianapolis Colts over the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XLI. And, because it apparently needs to be pointed out, he did so by playing against the Bears' defense not their quarterback. So, was New York's victory over New England more impressive than Indy's over Chicago? You bet. Does it tell us anything about the superiority of one quarterback over the other? Not at all.

Meanwhile, Reilly also turns to individual statistical comparisons. Peyton has never thrown for as many yards in a single season as Eli did this year: 4,933. Fair enough. Then again, six quarterbacks surpassed 4,000 yards this sesason--the most ever in the league's history--so it appears that Eli's 2011 season may not be all that representative. But even if it is, it takes little effort to find advantages for Peyton in other categories. In 2004, Peyton threw 49 touchdown passes (then a record); the most Eli has ever thrown is 31. For more perspective, Peyton's 399 career touchdown passes over 13 years averages out to 30.69/year--basically 31. And while 49 touchdon passes is a lot more than 31, 4,933 is only a little more than 4,700, the number of yards for Petyon in 2010. And, if other averages are worth anything, Peyton has averaged 4,218 yards a season during his 13-year career. Eli's average over his seven full seasons is 3,791.

Is all of this part of an effort to prove Peyton's superiority over his little brother? No, because it is not something I'm interested in proving. Yes, I do think Peyton is a better quarterback than Eli. But so does everyone else. Peyton is on the short list of all time greats to have played the position. Eli is only now moving himself into the conversation as being one of the greats to be playing right now. Why is the comparison at all relevant?

Well, it's relevant, of course, because this is "The Manning Family" and because the "sibling rivalry" angle is a covnenient default storyline for sports media. As a tennis fan, I've long lamented the unavoidable speculation about where Venus and Serena Williams appeared in the draw of a tournament. Although age and injuries have diminished this story of late, throughout the first decade of the century, it felt as though every Grand Slam was framed by predictions of "an all-Williams final." The Mannings, meanwhile, are probably professional sports' most successful siblings so, much like the Williams sisters, there is some merit to giving that attention. But to constantly reduce their careers to a rivarly between siblings does a disservice to these elite athletes. And, it certainly does a disservice to us.

So, I ask again, what "debate" is it that ESPN wishes us to have?

Ideology in American Sports

2012-01-18T23:10:00.006-05:00

Unable as I have been to compose a blog post in 2012, I should at least take a moment to promote the work of one of The Agon's regular readers. Karsten Senkbeil, who recently completed a Ph.D. in American Studies at the University of Heidelberg in Germany, has published his book, Ideology in American Sports: A Corpus-Assisted Discourse Study. The Agon congratulates Dr. Senkbeil on his book and looks forward to reading it. You can find a copy of the book here (the Amazon.de site is in German, but the book is in English).

A Racial Inequity of Hall of Fame Proportions?

2012-01-14T20:26:00.002-05:00

I've just posted this on my own blog, and Mike encouraged me to cross-post it here:

Every year since he has become eligible, Alan Trammell has received a significant enough amount of votes to remain on the Hall of Fame ballot, though he has not been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. This includes appearing on 36.8 percent of the ballots this year. Meanwhile, the ballplayer whose name very prominently complemented Trammell’s through almost the entirety of Trammell’s career, Lou Whitaker, did not receive the five percent needed to remain on the ballot during his first year of eligibility back in 2001, when his name appeared on just 2.9 percent of the ballots cast.

As I grew up in the 1980s, Trammell and Whitaker were seemingly inseparable amid baseball discourse. Both came up, with Trammell at shortstop and Whitaker at second base, for the Detroit Tigers in 1977, and both played nearly their entire careers together for the Tigers, mostly as the team’s starting double-play tandem, through Whitaker’s retirement after the 1995 season. Trammell retired one year later.

In the end, their statistics look very similar. Whitaker played in 2390 games and had 8570 at bats, while Trammell played in 2293 games and had 8288 at bats. Whitaker scored 1386 runs and drove in 1084 RBIs, while Trammell scored 1231 runs and drove in 1003 RBIs. Whitaker had 2369 hits, of which 420 were doubles, 65 were triples, and 244 were home runs. Trammell had 2365 hits, of which 412 were doubles, 55 were triples, and 185 were doubles. Whitaker walked significantly more than Trammell (1099 vs. 874), but he also struck out significantly more than Trammell (1197 vs. 850). Trammell stole significantly more bases (236 vs. 143) and had a significantly higher batting average (.285 to .276), but Whitaker had a higher on base percentage (.363 to .352) and a higher slugging percentage (.426 to .415).

At the time of Whitaker’s retirement, he ranked as follows all-time among second basemen: ninth in hits, fifth in home runs, eighth in runs score, ninth in RBIs, ninth in doubles, fourth in walks, and seventh in at bats. All of those are higher than where Trammell ranked all-time among shortstops at the time of his retirement. Trammell’s rankings were tenth in hits, sixth in home runs, fifteenth in runs score, fifteenth in RBIs, eleventh in doubles, thirteenth in walks, and fifteenth in at bats. Trammell’s ranking of 26th in stolen bases does significantly outperform Whitaker’s ranking of 71st. Also, Trammell ranked 18th in average and 11th in slugging percentage among shortstops, while Whitaker ranked 30th and 12th, respectively. Both were ranked seventeenth in on base percentage, and neither ranked particularly high in triples, though Whitaker did rank higher among second basemen than Trammell did among shortstops. In other words, at the time of retirement Whitaker ranked higher against his positional peers than Trammell in more of the most prominent statistical categories than Trammell ranked higher than Whitaker.

In the time since these two retired, some second basemen have passed Whitaker and some shortstops have passed Trammell. Still, Whitaker remains more highly ranked among second basemen than Trammell does among shortstops on all from the above statistics that he did at the time of retirement except hits, where Trammell is now ranked twelfth among shortstops while Whitaker is ranked thirteenth among second basemen. Meanwhile, Trammell remains more highly ranked in batting average among shortstops than Whitaker does among second basemen (23rd to 42nd), and Trammell is now barely ranked higher among shortstops in on base percentage than Whitaker is among second basemen (20th to 21st), but Whitaker is now ranked slightly higher among second baseman in slugging percentage than Trammell is among shortstops (19th to 20th).

Meanwhile, to make this about at least a little more than batting statistics, Whitaker has a lifetime fielding percentage of .984 (all at second base), while Trammell has a lifetime fielding percentage of .977 at shortstop (along with 944 in 9 games in the outfield, .950 in 11 games at second base, and .950 in 43 games at third base).

All of this considered, there is a strong case to be made that Whitaker actually outperformed Trammell. At the very least, it suggests that there is anything but a clear-cut case of Trammell outperforming Whitaker. Still, the results of a little over a decade of Hall of Fame voting provide a different story, as indicated in my first paragraph above.

In the end, I can’t help but wonder if race is playing a role here, given that Trammell is white, while Whitaker is African American. There are well-documented histories of stereotyped depictions of black athletes as more naturally gifted than white athletes alongside overly generalized characterizations of white athletes as scrappier and more intelligent than black athletes. These characterizations have helped produce a history of Major League Baseball folks seeing white athletes as more fit for managerial and coaching roles than black athletes, and perhaps that has played a role in the fact that Trammell has gone on to become a major league coach and manager, while Whitaker has not. It would seem like these racialized perceptions could also easily lead Hall of Fame ballot holders to give Trammell more credit for his performance than they give Whitaker and thus produce the inequity of these two players’ ballot results.

The More Things Change ...

2012-01-01T12:08:00.003-05:00

The NCAA Division 1 FBS series annual college coaching carousel is wrapping up, with all vacancies but the rather undesirable Penn State job filled, and that one reportedly ready to have a hire as well. With many of these vacancies come buyouts of the coaches who are let go. Some of those buyouts include a$250,000 buyout of Rick Neuheisel by UCLA, a negotiable $750,000 due Dennis Erickson by Arizona State University, a $2.5 million buyout of Ron Zook at Illinois, a buyout that appears to be somewhere between $5.8 million and $8.8 million dollars for Mike Sherman by Texas A&M, and apparently a $6 million honoring of the last three years of Turner Gill’s contract by the University of Kansas even though Gill has accepted a job as the head football coach at Liberty. The list could go on, and it does, to the litany of millions of dollars.

Of course, the buyouts are only half (or even less) of the equation here, because in addition to these buyouts, the universities have new coaches to hire, presumably to be paid at competitive salaries that will entice the coaches to come. In the case of Arizona State, for instance, the hiring of now-former University of Pittsburgh head coach Todd Graham comes with a $2 million per year salary, which is $500,000 more than what Erickson would have made next season. In this particular case, ASU also agreed to pay Pittsburgh $1 million to buy out Graham’s salary. So, instead of paying the head football coach $1.5 million, ASU is on the hook for $3.75 million, and with Erickson likely to retire rather than take another coaching job, which might have otherwise nullified his buyout, there’s a good chance that the university will be on the hook for all of this.

This comes at a time when many universities have been facing severe budget cuts that have translated into layoffs and furloughs for employees as well as cuts in services and programs. Arizona State University remains a salient example here, where the entire janitorial staff was laid off and outsourced this past year, and 12,000 employees were required to take furloughs in Spring/Summer 2009, amid hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts and proposed further cuts over the past couple of years.

Meanwhile, after the 2010-2011 season, with higher education in California facing similar circumstances, Fresno State head football coach Pat Hill willingly agreed to a pay cut of around $300,000 in guaranteed salary as he and the university negotiated a new contract. Hill took this pay cut even though he helped put Fresno State’s football team on the national map a decade ago as one of the early institutions to raise the potential for challenging the exclusions of the BCS system that the likes of Boise State, Utah, and TCU have demonstrated more recently. As Hill said, referencing the cuts that the Fresno State was facing, “I didn't do it to be a hero or a martyr. I did it because it was the right thing to do in this situation.”

Hill’s reward for this? The coach is a member of the latest coaching carousel, having been fired after a disappointing 4-9 season in 2011.

I understand the old argument that the money for these hirings and firings comes from different revenue streams than the money for all of the other things being cut in institutions of higher education. Yet, as I’ve argued here before, that just glosses over the question of priorities. If we can raise this money to spend on big-time college athletics, but not so easily for other aspects of universities, particularly those that correspond even more closely with the basic missions of the universities, then perhaps we need to rethink our priorities. As we enter the new year – a time that's often associated with reflecting on what's happened in the past and looking forward to what might be coming in the future – it seems that a rather misguided message is being sent when we have once again prioritized paying extra money to replace football coaches because of wins and losses while failing to reward – or even simply remain faithful to – the willingness of a coach to help out the financial situation of his institution.

On the Virtues of Tebowing

2011-12-08T21:04:00.004-05:00

So, that Tim Tebow's an interesting story, eh? Among the most recent developments is that others, including other athletes, are taking up the practice of "Tebowing." Well, at least one athlete: Olympic skier Lindsey Vonn. Thanks to Yahoo!Sports, here's a picture of Vonn after winning a race in her home state (and, of course, home of Tebow's Denver Broncos) of Colorado:

Of course, if Vonn turns to "Tebowing" it would seem that she is communicating her shared commitment to the faith that motivates Tebow to pray publicly in the first place. You know, good 'ol wholesome stuff like this:

I'm not sure this is what Tebow has in mind...

Celebrating for Santo

2011-12-05T12:43:00.008-05:00

It took too long. So long, in fact, that Ron Santo is no longer alive to celebrate the announcement he so longed to hear. That is the sad part of today's news that the Veteran's Committee finally elected Ron Santo into the Baseball Hall of Fame. But the happy news is that for the millions of Cubs fans who knew, just knew, he was a Hall of Famer, they now have confirmation.

Santo's numbers may look modest when contrasted to the monstrous statistics compiled by players in the past three decades. But he was the dominant player at his position throughout the 1960s, an equally talented player in the field and at the plate. Santo now joins his teammates from that era--Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, and Ferguson Jenkins--in the Hall. Surely, if he could, he'd be clicking those heels (photo credit to http://www.santofilms.com/).

Academic Sports Talk

2011-11-16T22:55:00.006-05:00

The Agon is off to the annual National Communication Association (NCA) convention in New Orleans. NCA is the biggest (baddest?) academic organization for the study of communication, and it is a place where many communication and sport scholars present their research. For those who might wonder what this research looks like, here's a snapshot, based on the panels that I will be part of:

Panel Title: A New Pedagogical Voice on the Communication Team: Sports Communication

This panel represents the emergence of a new disciplinary focus within the field of communication: sports communication. Panelists represent academic programs encouraging research, critical study and career preparation in the sports industry, one of the fastest growing career fields in American society. Building on the experiences of several Summit meetings of like-minded colleagues in disciplines ranging from sports management to sports marketing to sports philosophy, each panelist brings a vision for preparing undergraduate and graduate students for careers in the dynamic sports industry. A co-founder of the Communication and Sports group, the current chair of the group, and the program planner for the next Summit on Sports Communication are panelists. Two program developers, one who has established programs at several institutions, and one who has just initiated an interdisciplinary undergraduate program, share their experiences and their visions for managing the explosion of interest in this career field.

Chair: Michael L. Butterworth, Bowling Green State University

Presenter: Sandra L. Alspach, Ferris State University
Presenter: Robert S. Brown, Daniel Webster College
Presenter: Paul Gullifor, Bradley University

Respondent: Andrew C. Billings, University of Alabama

Panel Title: The Uses of Sport: Identity, Politics, Activism

Chair: Kyle Kellam, Wayne State University

Presenter: Bonnie Sierlecki, Penn State University, "'The Audacity of Hoops': Basketball as Deep Play in Barack Obama's 2008 Election"
Presenter: Spring-Serenity Duvall, University of South Carolina-Aiken, and Matthew Guschwan, Indiana University, "'Tied Together': NIKE(RED) and the Commodification of Global Soccer Activism"
Presenter: Myra S. Washington, University of Illinois, "Multiracial Celebrity as Game-Changer: How a Blasian Athlete Challenges Discourses of Race, Nationalism, and Masculinity"

Respondent: Michael L. Butterworth, Bowling Green State University

Panel Title: Not Quite Child's Play: Disney, Film, and Toys in the Communication of Cultural Identity

Chair: Adam Richard Rottinghaus, University of North Carolina

Presenter: Michael L. Butterworth and Christopher A. Medjesky, Bowling Green State University, "Intertextuality, Nostalgia, and the NASCAR Aesthetic in Disney/Pixar's Cars"
Presenter: Jeremy Grossman, University of Georgia, "Normative Garbage: Post-Apocalyptic Narrative and What Remains in WALL-E"
Presenter: Kate Maddalena, North Carolina State University, "Plastic Child-Gardening Tools: Lego and the Control Society"

Respondent: Michael Mario Albrecht, University of New Hampshire

Panel Title: Our Team, Our Voice: Examinations of Media Coverage of Communities and Sports

Chair: Jeffrey Tyus, Youngstown State University

Presenter: Aaron Moore, Rider University, "Crises in New Orleans: The Public Relations Disasters of the 1978 Jazz and the 2005 Hornets"
Presenter: Michael Milford, Auburn University, "Red Devil: Wayne Rooney, Manchester United, and Communal Synecdoche"
Presenter: Nicholas Bowman, West Virginia University, and Matthew Crawford, Georgetown University, "Washed Out of the Sun Belt: The Fall (and Rise?) of Intercollegiate Sports at Post-Katrina University of New Orleans"
Presenter: Kate Lavelle, University of Northern Iowa, "When Saints Go Marching...: A Rhetorical Analysis of Identification of the 2010 New Orleans Saints"

Respondent: Michael L. Butterworth, Bowling Green State University

That's just four panels out of the hundreds scheduled over the next four days at NCA. But it's good to see sport so well represented--good times ahead.

Jesus Christ!

2011-11-15T09:15:00.004-05:00

The title is meant to evoke both the subject of this post and my sense of continued astonishment. There isn't much I need to say here, as I think the picture, as the cliche goes, is worth a thousand words.

This article from ThePostGame (via Yahoo!) notes that a "handful" of Broncos fans have customized their team jerseys with Tebow's number 15 and Jesus's name. You can refer to my recent post on Tebow, or one from early 2009, where I have made the case that elevating Tebow to pseudo-religious heights is fraught with problems. But this image makes clear that the conflation of Tebow with Jesus himself has reached a new level. Jesus Christ, indeed.

Doing Better After Penn State

2011-11-10T21:59:00.004-05:00

Several days into the unfolding scandal at Penn State I find myself struggling to make sense of the enormity of this story. Given that I have claimed an academic expertise in the rhetoric of sports, surely I must be prepared to comment on what is clearly the biggest sports story of the moment? Of the year? Decade? Yet, my academic lens remains unfocused, if only because the story is so disturbing and, unfortunately, it is far from fully written.

On the off chance you have arrived here not knowing about the allegations against former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, then this ESPN timeline is as good a place to start as any. You can also read the 23-page Grand Jury report which lays out a fairly convincing case that Sandusky is guilty of some horrid crimes. He is being charged with 40 felony counts of sexual abuse of children, and, sadly, there are likely more allegations to come. And, as details continue to emerge, Sandusky is rumored to have behaved in even more appalling ways, allegedly "pimping out young boys to rich donors."

Naturally, there is no shortage of commentary on the scandal. Yet, the story has developed so rapidly that media outlets have struggled to keep up with the details. Last night's Penn State Board of Trustees meeting was unanticipated to the extent that ESPN initially only had access by phone. The Poynter Institute called out ESPN for spotty coverage on Monday and Tuesday, arguing, "With the biggest staff of sports journalists in the world, ESPN should have been leading the charge to ask tough questions and shed light on this scandal. Instead, it was the tiny Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. out in front of the journalism pack."

I'm less concerned about ESPN's agenda-setting capabilities and more concerned about how media more broadly are covering the story. As I suggested at the start of this post, I'm not prepared yet to offer any definitive arguments. I do have some general reactions, however, to this point:

1) Real questions should be asked about how and why a story of this magnitude lay dormant for so long. These allegations go back as far as 1998, yet it was only after a 2009 accusation that the current scandal was set in motion. Mark Madden raised important questions about Sandusky in April of this year. Why wasn't anyone else asking these questions?

2) This story really isn't about "sports," but because it originates from a sports context most of the coverage--at least that I have seen--is from sports media. Perhaps because of this, too much of the focus has been on the firing of head coach Joe Paterno and what this scandal means for the college football program. At this point, anything regarding football should be incidental. However, the now tarnished legacy of Paterno has so dominated the past 24 hours of coverage that some worry that the spotlight is, inappropriately, moving away from Sandusky. In an especially biting satire, The Onion today featured the headline, "Sports Media Asks Molestation Victims What this Means for Joe Paterno's Legacy." The parody is more angry than funny, and it emphasizes the point that, even in the midst of this tragedy, we can't seem to stop caring so much about things that are more trivial.

3) This leads me to a third observation, which is the closest I can make to any informed judgment at this point. To begin, I have no sympathy for Sandusky and I find his alleged crimes to be unconscionable. Nevertheless, I worry very much about how easily so many have resorted to language that characterizes him as a "monster" (or some other similar term designed to dehumanize him). While his actions may have been monstrous, reducing the man himself to the figure of a monster threatens to simplify what is an enormously complex situation. In other words, the more we dehumanize Sandusky, the less we are compelled to ask questions about the other factors that made his actions possible. To be fair, there is some discussion about the "culture" that football created at Penn State and in State College (Michael Weinreb's column, "Growing Up Penn State," may be the single best thing I've read about the scandal so far). But I'm not only talking about the sense of entitlement that appears to characterize football at Penn State in particular and across big time college football in general. I'm also talking about the ways we think about masculinty and leadership in our culture, and how it is we elevate figures like Paterno and Sandusky to such heights in the first place. As Weinreb notes, the valorization of Steve Jobs after his death reminds us that sports figures are not the only ones to receive such adulation.

4) Finally, at the very least, we can hope that somehow this tragedy invites us to imagine ways to live with one another with more care and less pain. Sadly, the group of Penn State students who reacted to Paterno's firing by demonstrating in streets of State College and destroying property, does just the opposite. As Pat Forde suggests, "The ardor for Paterno was obvious, but you couldn’t help but wonder whether the students might be moved to one day show such united passion for those who suffered child sex abuse – the true victims here." Not only passion, but compassion. That is what is needed now, at State College and beyond. This story must remind us that we can do better. We have to do better.

Carrier Classic Update

2011-11-03T00:09:00.005-04:00

Two quick updates from the post from the other day on the "Carrier Classic" men's basketball game scheduled for November 11:

First, after sending him the link to that post, I did receive a response from Michigan State University Athletics Director Mark Hollis. While I do not feel it would be appropriate to copy the message here, I will note that it felt pretty dismissive, and I am currently in the process of replying.

Also, thanks to Ben Phillips for sharing this link on the camouflage uniforms that the MSU Spartans and UNC Tar Heels will wear for the event. The quotation from Spartan coach Tom Izzo seems particularly significant here, since it reflects many of the same concerns that we have articulated on this blog. Namely, we might ask if feeling "fortunate" and "thrilled" to wear military fatigues is as appropriate of a response as Izzo suggests. We might also express concern about the kinds of dismissiveness and marginalization that occur when Izzo indicates that "there's something wrong" with individuals who would not be excited to wear camouflage uniforms.

An Open Letter to Tim Tebow

2011-10-31T21:34:00.006-04:00

Dear Tim Tebow:

You are not as terrible a quarterback as yesterday's performance suggests, nor are you as worthless as many sportswriters are now suggesting you are. You are also not as talented a quarterback as last week's performance suggests, nor are you as wonderful as many sportswriters were suggesting you are just one week ago. You are, rather, a spectacular athlete who is currently, and probably will remain, a below average professional quarterback.

That said, you have sought this kind of scrutiny and you have invited the kind of criticism that accompanied yesterday's "embarrassing" performance in a 45-10 loss to the Detroit Lions (you can see previous posts on the subject here or here). Indeed, when linebacker Stephen Tulloch followed up a sack by "Tebowing" (picture taken as a screen capture from NFL Video available on Yahoo!), it was the logical outcome of your religious outspokenness. To your credit, you seem to understand that there will be critics and you do not waver in the face of their commentary. But you are nevertheless the subject of considerable attention and are complicit in the narrative that dominates how sports media portray you. As Yahoo!'s Michael Silver aptly summarized:

"While few NFL players seem to have a problem with Tebow on a personal level, I know plenty who are put off by the mythology and the holier-than-thou fan base that lionizes his every accomplishment and perceives negative depictions of his ability through a persecution-complex-tinted prism."

I know that a poor performance in a football game will not deter you. I am sure, in fact, that you will view this as a "test" from God himself. But in keeping with at least one Christian commitment, a greater sense of humility and humanity might help minimize the backlash against you. Until then, more players will wait for their turn to beat the holy hell out of you.

Sincerely,

The Agon

Unnecessary Roughness

2011-10-29T10:57:00.002-04:00

If you follow NCAA Division I FBS college football, you very likely know that one week ago the Michigan State University Spartans defeated the University of Wisconsin Badgers on a 44-yard touchdown pass that wide receiver Keith Nichol caught off a tip and barely squeaked over the end zone line as time expired.

You may also know that the Spartans’ success in the game has been partially attributed to the fact that the team did not receive a single penalty for the entire game.

You may also know that the penalty-free performance directly followed a game against the University of Michigan in which the Spartans, though victorious, were penalized thirteen times for 124 yards. In one of the penalty-inducing incidents in the MSU-UM game, defensive end William Gholston punched a UM player—an action that would eventually lead to Gholston’s suspension by the Big Ten Conference for the MSU-UW game.

You may also have heard that the defense coordinator of the Spartans, Pat Narduzzi, was quoted after the MSU-UM game as saying “That’s what we tried to do, 60 minutes of unnecessary roughness. Just glad it didn’t get called every snap.” As this story (among others) reports, Narduzzi was later admonished by MSU Athletics Director Mark Hollis, who said in a statement, “There’s no question that Coach Narduzzi was caught up in the emotion of the moment; however, that doesn’t excuse him from being accountable for his statements. Needless to say, Pat chose his words poorly, and he expressed his regret over making those comments to our local media following practice earlier this week.”

Yet, there’s one additional connection that I think bears recognition amid this series of events.

Back in July, Mike Butterworth wrote on the Agon about the men’s basketball game scheduled to be held on November 11 on an aircraft carrier and feature the squads from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and Michigan State University. While plans for the game have been in the works for some time, this summer it was announced that the game would be played on the USS Carl Vinson, which was the aircraft carrier that carried Osama bin Laden’s body after his death during a U.S. military operation this past spring. Reports have also noted that having a game on an aircraft carrier was the idea of MSU Athletics Director Mark Hollis. Meanwhile, more recently it was reported that President Barack Obama has been invited and will be in attendance for the game and even more recently that the two teams will wear camouflage uniforms for the event.

As Mike discussed in his post in July, and as I echoed elsewhere, there are some important reasons to be concerned about use of the USS Carl Vinson for this basketball game. I have voiced those concerns to Morale Entertainment, which is the organization that is helping to coordinate the event. I have also voiced those concerns to Mark Hollis. While I did receive a response from Morale Entertainment, Hollis has never responded to me.

In his comments about Narduzzi, Hollis offers the sentiment that individuals ought to be accountable for the statements they make. In the case of Narduzzi that statement took the form of something Narduzzi said, though statements can also be made by something one does. With that in mind, I would ask if Hollis is really committed to such accountability. After all, the ideologies promoted at the top of an organization set precedents for the rest of the organization. And so when MSU’s Athletics Director helps develop and promote an event that can so easily be considered a kind of unnecessary symbolic violence – perhaps metaphorically akin to a late hit after a football play has ended – as using the ship that carried bin Laden’s body to host a basketball game to celebrate the U.S. military, isn’t it a bit insincere for him to then admonish employees like Narduzzi for advocating a strategy of unnecessary roughness on the football field?

The Race

2011-10-22T20:16:00.010-04:00

The funeral was held today for racecar driver Dan Wheldon, who passed away last Sunday as a result of injuries suffered in a 15-car crash at the Las Vegas Speedway at the final Indycar race of the 2011 season.

Wheldon’s death and the crash that caused his death led to a week in which the Indycar series received more attention than it gets at any time during the year except for the week surrounding its signature race, the Indianapolis 500. Amid that attention, various voices have offered suggestions about how to make sense of Wheldon’s death and what should be done going forward to avoid similar occurrences in the future. NASCAR driver Jimmie Johnson suggested that the Indycar series should no longer race on oval tracks. Indycar legend and current racing team owner A.J. Foyt suggested that drivers need to be more careful on the racetrack. During the telecast last Sunday, as broadcasters and viewers awaited word on both Wheldon’s condition and what would happen for the rest of the race, former Indycar racer Eddie Cheever, now serving as part of ABC’s broadcast team, suggested that the Indycar league needs to be careful about the conditions under which it asks its drivers to race. Cheever’s comments particularly aligned with concerns that some drivers presciently voiced before the race that the confluence of 34 cars (more than any other race during the season) and the size and slope of the Las Vegas racetrack could prove dangerous.

Many of these suggestions involve the rhetoric of choice. Drivers who know the risks of auto racing choose to drive nonetheless. The league chooses to race on ovals. And the league chooses to place drivers in dangerous situations. All of these arguments raise important points, but they would seem to need to be taken in tandem, and in that regard, Cheever’s point seems particularly salient. When you ask drivers to compete, and equate their livelihoods with their success in competition, you have to account for the probability that drivers will at times push their limits and their racecars’ limits as they compete. Meanwhile, you have to recognize the degree to which some elements may be out of the control of the drivers—something made all-too-apparent in Wheldon’s death, which resulted from the unavoidable aftermath of a crash initiated by other drivers. It would, seem, then, incumbent on the institutions that run races (and, for that matter, that facilitate other sports) to ensure that they make choices that limit as much as possible the dangers to the drivers (and other athletes) who participate in their sports. Still, these leagues depend on viewership for their livelihoods, and just as it’s easy for a driver to push too much when driving a racecar, it’s easy for a league to okay racing/playing conditions that might prove profitable despite safety concerns. And, most certainly both inside and outside of sports, we’ve seen plenty of cases where it’s been not even livelihood, but the desire for greater profit, that has led to practices that have endangered many people.

The crash that caused Wheldon’s death thus appears to reflect some of the very problems that have led to many disgruntlements that occupy the minds of so many folks in the U. S. and around the world as they protest the excesses of the few at the expense of the many. Those many who have so much less than the few, the argument of competitive capitalism goes, only have less because of their own individual choices. Just ask Herman Cain, for instance, who recently said, “Don't blame Wall Street. Don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself.” Yet, this argument fails to account for the conditions under which these individuals are asked to compete. So many of us have choices that are so qualified and limited that they are hardly choices at all. Many of us don’t have the economic resources to choose to sue an organization that has wronged us. Many of us don’t have access to the means of distribution that allow us to disseminate our arguments as prominently and ubiquitously as large organizations can make theirs. And so on.

So, it’s not as easy as saying we can all choose. Like the racecar driver who does not push her/his car’s limits, or the baseball player who does not use performance-enhancing drugs, or the football player who eases up on tackles, or the tennis player who retires from a match rather than sacrifice physical wellbeing, the competition will pass us by, leaving our livelihoods in jeopardy. On the other hand, if we do push, we likely risk everything, and without significant precautions emplaced by the institutions on whom we rely for those pushes, we can very easily and catastrophically crash. Meanwhile, there remain so many factors out of individuals’ control that the conditions of the competition can cause us to easily and catastrophically crash, whether we push ourselves to compete or not. Cain’s statement above thus misses a key point. Many of us may choose not to become rich, valuing other things over having enormous economic capital. That doesn’t mean, though, that we should have to be poor and subject to the catastrophes that await us in the system. Still, that’s the condition under which so many athletes must play and so many individuals must live.

In a piece on Monday trying to make sense of Wheldon’s death, ESPN columnist Jeff MacGregor asked, “What are sports for? Help me answer that, please. Because this morning, more than most, I don't know.” I would suggest that at least part of the answer to MacGregor’s question is that sports serve as a means of expression—a form of art that allows for the expression of various human capacities, just as literature, music, drama, painting, and so many other art forms do. And, like so many other forms of expression, sports express not just individual identities and ideologies, but collective ones as well. We might, then, ask the additional question of what the conditions of Wheldon’s death and the discourses that emanated from it express about who we are and what we stand for. And then we might work on developing sporting practices that allow us to have a different answer.

Detroit Rising?

2011-10-10T09:54:00.003-04:00

Waiting in line at Panera this morning, hoping for a much-needed burst of writing energy as I try desperately to finish a book chapter already overdue, I spotted this morning's cover of USA Today. The feature story on the cover includes the headline, "Detroit Rising," and displays several images of what I assume to be symbols of some kind of urban renewal in the Motor City. Too cheap to spring for the $1.00 newspaper, I checked out the website instead. The headline there reads, "Spirit of Revival Rolls through Detroit." Click on the link and you'll find this story: "Detroit and Its Auto Industry Are Starting to Roll Again."

Sports figure prominently into this narrative. Consider the opening four paragraphs:

"For years, this blue-collar city has been synonymous with the ills suffered by the decline of great American cities — crime, poverty and abandonment.

These days, people think about Detroit a little differently.

A new spirit is heard in the euphoria for its professional sports teams: The Tigers are in the American League Championship Series, while the Lions are 4-0 for the first time since 1980 — and playing on Monday Night Football for the first time in a decade.

That spirit is celebrated in an Emmy-winning Super Bowl ad that touts the city's working-class roots. It's felt in the resurgence of the auto industry, which has seen sales rebound with new products and improved technology three years after almost collapsing."

It is later in the story that we learn that some material changes could be afoot, as well. But those changes appear marginal, and there is such a long way to go.

Make no mistake, after living in this region for over five years, I am fiercely pulling for Detroit. I'm fully on the Tigers bandwagon and, aside from their games against the Chicago Bears, I enjoy watching the Lions play well. Much more importantly, I'd like nothing more than to see Detroit regain its lost status as one of America's great cities. That said, I worry that, yet again, we're all too eager to equate sports success with economic growth and urban development. Sports success can contribute to a city's economy, yes, but the contribution is relatively small. So, even as we cheer the accomplishment's of Detroit's major sports teams (well, not the Pistons, really), let's not lose sight of the fact that athletic victories do not by themselves constitute a "revival."

Call for Papers: 5th Summit on Communication and Sport

2011-09-26T20:30:00.002-04:00

For the academics out there...

Call for Papers
Fifth Summit on Communication & Sport
Thursday, March 29 – Saturday, March 31, 2012
Embassy Suites Conference Center – East Peoria, IL
Hosted by Bradley University

If the first four Summits are any indication of the burgeoning interest in sports communication research, then the fifth Summit will certainly have much to offer. Our hope is that the upcoming Summit will serve as a vehicle for the exchange of concepts, theories and approaches to the study of communication and sport. Take this unique opportunity to connect with other sports communication scholars.

We invite you to consider presenting at the 2012 conference. To ensure that we offer a balance of topics, we ask that you consider responding to this call for papers.

Scholars who are interested in presenting research that explores communication and sport are encouraged to submit abstracts or full-length manuscripts for consideration.

Options for submission:

Abstracts (200-500 words)
To submit an abstract, click here and complete the online form

---or---

Full-length manuscripts (5,000-10,000 words, APA style)
To submit a completed manuscript, send as an attached PDF file, word format to: sportssummit@bradley.edu

Author name and contact information (institutional affiliation, email address and telephone number) should be in the body of the email. However, no information identifying the author or university affiliation may appear in the attached PDF document.

Up to two submissions from the same author will be considered. Submissions that explore theoretical and/or critical issues related to the study of sports communication are invited and all methodologies are welcome. Submission deadline is October 7, 2011. Any submission with an email date stamp after October 7 will not be considered.

Presenters will be notified of presentation acceptance via email by December 1, 2011.
Inquiries regarding submissions can be sent to Dr. Paul Gullifor at: pfg@bradley.edu.
More information on the Summit will be available at: http://communicationandsport.org/
Be sure to bookmark the site and check it regularly!!

Summit Schedule (Tentative):
Thursday, 7:00-9:00 Opening Reception TBD
Friday, 8:30-11:30 Research Sessions
Friday, 12:00-1:15 Opening Luncheon (free with registration) w/Keynote
Friday, 1:30-5:30 Research Sessions
Friday evening Dinner TBD
Saturday, 8:30-11:30 Research Sessions
Saturday, 12:00-1:30 Closing Luncheon (free with registration) and Business Meeting
Saturday, 1:30 Adjournment

Bradley University is proud to host the Fifth Summit on Communication and Sport. Bradley, with its new curriculum in Sports Communication, is a natural home for the Fifth Summit. The academic program, only in its third year, boasts more than 100 majors, a sports communication library, a partnership with NBC/Universal for the 2012 Summer Olympics, and a world-class faculty.

Bradley University, as the host of the conference, has proven its ability to prepare graduates for careers in communication and sport. Our current play-by-play announcers include:

Bob Ortegel, NBA World Champion Dallas Mavericks
Ralph Lawler, Los Angeles Clippers
Brad Johansen, Cincinnati Bengals
Charley Steiner, Los Angeles Dodgers
Andy Masur, San Diego Padres

In addition, Peoria, Illinois, boasts a rich sports history and culture. Many legendary sports broadcasters started their careers in Peoria, including Hall of Fame play-by-play announcers Chick Hearn and Jack Brickhouse. The community embraces its two professional sports franchises, the Peoria Rivermen hockey team (St. Louis Blues affiliate) and the Peoria Chiefs baseball team (Chicago Cubs affiliate). Peoria also hosts the original March Madness (the Illinois high school boys’ basketball tournament championships), as well as the state’s high school cross-country meet.

We hope that you will consider sharing your research at the Fifth Summit on Communication and Sport. We will be playing in Peoria!

Sport, Public Memory, and 9/11

2011-09-16T16:09:00.004-04:00

I feel almost as if I have neglected my primary responsibilities as an academic, as I have yet to comment on this past weekend's 10th anniversary of 9/11, which delivered numerous displays of communal, nationalistic, and militaristic imagery in sports arenas across the country. I spent the majority of Sunday in front of the television, alternating between feverish spurts of video-taping (thank you, antiquated technology!) and more relaxed reviews of fantasy football scores (I went an ugly 0-3 on the opening weekend). Of the ceremonies I saw, I think it is fair to say that some were more reflective than others (including portions of the ceremony at CitiField, pictured above), and that the predictable strands of belligerent patriotism were present, though more muted than I had anticipated. But the bottom line is that I'm still sorting out what I watched and what I think all of it means. So, in the absence of a more comprehensive commentary, I offer a work in progress. Today was the deadline for submissions to the Rhetoric Society of America conference to be held next May in Philadelphia. The conference requires only an abstract. Here, then, is the abstract to my proposal, titled, "Re/framing Public Memory in the Arena: Sport, the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, and the Illusion of Democracy":

Among the purported virtues of sport is its capacity to foster community. Indeed, to the extent that sport allows individuals to identify with one another it may be, in the words of Kenneth Burke, “compensatory to division.” Nevertheless, sport’s ability to constitute an “us” necessarily entails the construction of a “them,” all too often in ways that do damage to Burke’s declaration that human beings “should all want to get along with people. . .” In the years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, sport’s rhetorical constitution of community has commonly been achieved through belligerent forms of nationalism and militarism. This rhetoric is based on fragile identifications which, upon more careful reflection, reveal limits to community and threats to democratic health.

Such was the case on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, an occurrence marked by numerous ceremonies of remembrance in the United States, many of which took place in sports arenas that hosted events on Sunday, September 11, 2011. In this essay, I examine these ceremonies as rhetorical enactments of public memory. Scholars maintain that public memory is meaningful because it highlights moments from the past in order to ameliorate the anxieties of the present. Ten years after 9/11, Americans faced an economy and political culture in decline, prompting frequent calls for greater civility and cohesion. Not coincidentally, a common theme during the 10th anniversary sports tributes was the emphasis on sport’s ability to “heal” and foster “unity.” Moreover, media coverage celebrated these events as implicit endorsements of democracy, symbolized prominently by sport’s presumed ability to appeal to members of any race, sex, class, or nationality.

Although it is surely the case that some communal identification is possible through sport, I argue that the centrality of this theme constitutes an illusion of democracy. As a consequence, the public memory of 9/11 presented in and through sport served to exacerbate contemporary divisions, both domestically, by eliding sport’s role in disabling economic conditions, and internationally, by asserting a defiant nationalism on a global stage.

Have Sports Helped Us Heal? Or Kill?

2011-09-06T11:13:00.005-04:00

I have spent the better part of the last nine years trying to resist the empty patriotism found in this passage:

"The singing of 'God Bless America' during the seventh-inning stretch of New York Yankees home games provides a communal reminder of the lives lost Sept. 11, 2001 -- of the heroism of first responders and the resolve of a nation to never forget. Stirring performances of the song thrust two tenors in particular to prominence and made them seemingly inseparable from homage to 9/11 and Yankee pinstripes."

This comes from an article on Yahoo! called, "Singing Tenors Help Healing Process, One 7-th Inning Stretch at a Time." On the one hand, it is reasonable to assume that "God Bless America" has allowed many fans--both in the stadium and at home--to feel connected to one another based on the shared memory of that horrible day in 2001. And, indeed, I have argued in my scholarship that the earliest versions of these tributes were appropriate and moving ceremonies that helped people cope with an inexplicable tragedy.

On the other hand, however, I do not believe that "God Bless America" performances, now ten years after 9/11, function as "a communal reminder of the lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001." I think such performances will function this way this coming weekend. Yet since 2002, American sports fans--and those watching elsewhere, for that matter--have been subjected to a relentless parade of "tributes" that have much more accurately functioned as nationalistic rallying cries to bolster support for an offensively immoral war. This is the foundation of the argument I make in my book, Baseball and Rhetorics of Purity, and it is one that I fear has found little traction. In the next week, we will see numerous connections made between 9/11 and the world of sports. Some of those connections will be compelling. Others will be obvious attempts to arouse feelings of patriotism in order to foster identifcation between audiences, sports leagues, and television networks. Almost all of these connections, I expect, will be based on the same logic as the one above: that sports build community and they helped us "get past" 9/11.

Again, in the short run, I think this was true. But more importantly, over the long haul, sports have done the exact opposite. Sports did not return us to "normal," but rather produced a "new normal," complete with bombastic flyovers, ceremonies, and homages to the military. Professional and collegiate sports in the United States have been co-produces of the "war on terror," not responsible for its existence, but more than complicit in its maintenance. There are so many opportunities for sports/military cross-marketing that it puts any fast food chain's summer movie tie-in to shame.

More than just the flyovers, it is the omnipresence of the military in sports that is so disturbing. I've written about it previously, but there are almost too many connections to identify: presentations of colors before games, coin flips by military personnel, on-field enlistment ceremonies, sponsorship by branches of the military or military hardware manufacturers, tie-ins with military-based charities, player and coach visits to military hospitals or bases, and the almost constant invocations of "thanks" and "support the troops" rhetoric that underscores sports broadcasting. Each of these contributions makes it that much easier to view the "war on terror" in positive terms, making it that much easier to support the perpetuation of an unjust war.

All of this is to say that sports--at the institutional level--have not helped us heal. No, sports have helped us kill.

Labor Day and Selective Memory in Sports

2011-09-05T22:02:00.002-04:00

As I have lamented many times in this space, contemporary sporting events have all too often become showcases for militaristic and patriotic bombast. While we await the onslaught of 9/11 10th anniversary tributes--many of which will be poignant, many others of which will be thinly veiled nationalistic grandstanding--it is worth pausing over the present day and its significance. In the world of sports, Labor Day is typically marked by the stretch run in Major League Baseball and the start of football (and the U.S. Open for us tennis nuts). But if you've found yourself wondering why Labor Day doesn't prompt extravagant rituals to celebrate the legacy of work in the United States, then you're not alone. With this in mind, I encourage you to read Will McDonald's column on the Kansas City Royals blog, Royals Review. In "Major League Baseball's Sad Silence on Labor Day," McDonald criticizes baseball for continuing to play patriot games while ignoring the purpose of a different kind of holiday. I couldn't make the argument any better here, so please give it a read.

Hat tip to Korryn Mozisek.

Blurring Black and White

2011-08-26T14:44:00.004-04:00

This image comes from a site called "Pitbull Planet Pit," but it is based on a controversial image published in ESPN The Magazine. As I read on Yahoo!Sports, the magazine's current issue features a column called, "What If Michael Vick Were White?"

Discuss!

Academic Faith

2011-08-06T14:38:00.008-04:00

August 11 Update: Brent High wrote me back yesterday, and expressed interest in the panel. Looks like I have some planning to do!

As an academic, I sometimes (ok, frequently) wonder if anyone ever reads the things I write. Oh sure, my friends in higher education will look at my work and even assign it to their students now and again, but it's hard to imagine academic scholarship reaching a broader audience. This is why the National Communication Association, debuted an online publication called Communication Currents. As the website states:

"This site is designed to translate current communication scholarship published in scholarly journals of the National Communication Association. Working from recently-published journal articles, Communication Currents makes scholarship available in a form understandable and usable for broad audiences, including communication experts working with lay audiences, instructors and students, the press, and other interested members of the public. Essays in Communication Currents highlight the relevance of communication scholarship; demonstrates the way in which communication impacts our world; and demonstrates the leadership of NCA in the study of communication."

This project has the best of intentions, but it's still hard to know whether or not it's actually reaching a broader audience. A translation of an essay of mine in 2007, for example, was invited to appear on Communication Currents. I was pleased to do it, but after I wrote "The Political Symbolism of Sports: George W. Bush and the Iraqi National Soccer Team," nothing came of it. Nevertheless, when I was contacted recently by editor Kate Hawkins to provide a translation of my current essay, "Saved at Home: Christian Branding and Faith Nights in the 'Church of Baseball,'" I happily accepted. The revised essay is called, "Branding Faith in the Church of Baseball," and it is available now.

The essay is about the promotional event called "Faith Night," something I've written about on The Agon before (here and here). Faith Night was invented by Brent High, founder of Third Coast Sports, Inc., and now Assistant Athletic Director at Lipscomb University. So, imagine my surprise when, yesterday, I received the following email:

"Michael,

Good afternoon! Thanks for taking the time to focus your attention on Faith Nights. While many of your facts about the events are correct, many are not and are simply things that have been repeated by other repeaters. First of all, all of our events happen after the game, 30 minutes after the final out. Our events are not forced on anyone. In fact, several of the teams we work with don't even promote the event at all in venue.

Just to clarify, I'm referring to: https://mail.bgsu.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=1237c4e55ff64e6695ca35b0074846d2&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.natcom.org%2fCommCurrentsArticle.aspx%3fid%3d2147484429

We've received over 100 million media impressions over the last five years from outlets on five continents. I can honestly say that out of the hundreds of articles, broadcast stories and web articles like yours, there have only really been three reporters. The rest have been repeaters.

So, for future reference, feel free to contact me directly. I am always happy to provide reporters with true information and a quote or two.

Have a good weekend.

Sincerely,
Brent"

Well, how about that? I genuinely appreciate that he wrote, even though we're miles apart on the role of evangelical Christianity in sport. With that in mind, I responded with the following message:

"Dear Brent,

Thank you for your message. I'm glad you discovered the essay on the National Communication Association website. I should clarify that the essay available online is a translation of much longer and academically oriented research article, "Saved at Home: Christian Branding and Faith Nights in the 'Church of Baseball," published in the Quarterly Journal of Speech. I have attached a PDF of the full article for your interest.

I should also point out that, in addition to referencing various journalistic accounts of Faith Night, I have also attended three events in person: the Fort Wayne Wizards (now Tin Caps) in 2007, the Akron Aeros in 2008, and the Cincinnati Reds in 2009. So, while we may dispute the virtues of having Faith Night, I can say with confidence that I am not simply repeating what others have written.

Given your willingness to discuss this--which, by the way, I very much appreciate--I wonder if you might be interested in a more formal conversation. Specifically, I have had some preliminary discussions about hosting a panel discussion at Bowling Green State University that would address the role of religion in sport. The idea would be to have representatives from different backgrounds--athletes, coaches, journalists, academics, etc.--discuss the benefits and drawbacks of making sport a visible site for religious outreach. Such a panel would include, at minimum, Tom Krattenmaker, the author of Onward Christian Athletes, Ed Uszynski, who works for Athletes in Action and played for the traveling basketball team in the 1990s, and myself. Tom, Ed, and I have a range of views on the matter, and the idea is to have a respectful exchange that would allow our audience to intelligently consider the role of religion in sport. I invited Anthony Munoz to participate, but he declined, so I would still like to find a current or former athlete to be part of the panel. BGSU is a public university, which means we're not in the position to offer you a lot of money. At minimum, however, we could cover your travel and any expenses while here. Would this be of interest to you?

Thanks again for writing.

Best,

Mike"

This potential panel is something that I have been trying to organize for a while now. Perhaps this will finally be the opportunity to put it together. I'll certainly keep you posted.

Studying Sport

2011-08-02T16:43:00.002-04:00

Some Agon readers may be interested to know that the University of Toronto has officially launched a new institute designed to study sport policy: The Centre for Sport Policy Studies. Directed by Peter Donnelly, an accomplished scholar of sport and globalization, the center will attend to issues of inclusion, access, and education in sport, specifically in Canada (though one might foresee overlaps with issues in the United States or the international arena). With this announcement, it occurs to me that it might be useful to include other centers and institutes designed to engage with the substantive issues of sport culture. You can find them under the heading, "Centers and Institutes."

Back to Football

2011-07-26T23:13:00.010-04:00

I am excited to make my first contribution to The Agon, and I'll look forward to posting more after this. My first post reflects some things I've been thinking about during the National Football League lockout.

With the NFL labor dispute ending on July 25th, several networks and publications are celebrating under the banner “Back to Football.” The next several days and weeks will be all about “moving on,” a kind of memory wipe for fans, journalists, players, and owners who can finally put the nastiness of the lockout behind them and start focusing on football. The entire offseason is going to be squeezed into two weeks, with free agent signings by the minute. People will scramble to get their fantasy leagues back together and schedule drafts in between late summer vacations. Nobody is going to want to look back on this long ordeal.

A likely casualty of “moving on” will be the conversation about responsibility to retired football players that emerged during the lockout. As the current players and owners argued over how to divide up an estimated $9 billion pot of television and merchandising gold in America’s most popular sport, retired players were speaking up about the league’s responsibilities to them for disability and pension benefits, highlighting a generational and economic conflict normally at the margins of fans’ attention.

On July 4, 2011 a group of retired players filed a class-action complaint against current players and the league in response to being left out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations. The complaint accused current players and league officials of “conspiring to depress the amounts of pension and disability benefits to be paid to former N.F.L. players in order to maximize the salaries and benefits to current N.F.L. players,” echoing a long-standing charge by retirees.

The new CBA does include between $900 million and $1 billion of additional funds for retirement benefits, including a new “Legacy Fund” of $620 million dedicated to pensions for retirees who played before 1993; some sources are celebrating this as the league and players’ association finally making good on their obligations to retirees. Retirees and retiree advocates remain understandably skeptical about the increased funds. Even if there is additional money allocated to long-term care the league has in the past constructed intricate mechanisms for denying disability and pension claims. In addition, the league has shown continued resistance to officially recognizing a relationship between football-related head trauma and long-term brain injury, resulting in slow policy changes aimed at player safety. A greater sign of reform would be if the NFL changed its procedures and standards for processing disability and pension claims.

As fans and journalists are encouraged to “move on” past the lockout, I wonder if public attention to retiree issues can be sustained. While I have my concerns, I do think the lockout highlighted retired player advocacy as a force of change. Many fans would prefer to limit their contact with retired players to NFL films specials with soaring music and John Facenda's "voice of God" narrations, or to interviews with still-able-bodied greats talking about how tough and humble players were “back in the day.” But retired players who speak up about their own experiences with disability, depression and other long-term health problems disrupt such nostalgic, fantasy versions of football’s past. Former New England Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson's willingness to speak up about his severe post-concussion depression in 2007 still stands out to me as an important moment in agitating public attention toward football-related brain injury and countless other heartbreaking testimonies by retired players could be cited here. Retirees have been organizing for years into advocacy groups like Gridiron Greats and individuals like former player Dave Pear have transformed personal health struggles into platforms for collective action. In addition, tragedies like the suicide of former Chicago Bears player Dave Duerson, who shot himself in the chest so his brain could be examined at Boston University, have forced fans and league officials to face difficult questions about sports violence and brain illness.

Retired professional football players - often idealized in sports culture as icons of masculinity and toughness who played for love of the game in a simpler time - give voice to a more real, more fundamentally disturbing history of football-related trauma and failures of responsibility by current players and league officials. The new CBA contains increased protections for current and future players (for example limitations on two-a-day and full-contact practices), but what it ends up doing for retired players will say the most about the league’s actual attitude toward its past.

Getting Carriered Away on Veterans Day

2011-07-25T13:37:00.005-04:00

7/26 UPDATE: Please see Ray Schuck's important comments on this issue on his blog, Gettin' Iggy With It.

I hope you're in for a longer read, because I simply can't contain this post. So, settle in, won't you?

I first read about plans to host an NCAA men's basketball game on a naval carrier in a late-June issue of Sports Illustrated. Late last week came a more detailed announcement, and the only way I can think of digesting this story is to go FireJoeMorgan style (except without the wit). So, thanks to the Associated Press and ESPN, here goes:

"SAN DIEGO -- The Navy has given final approval for the Morale Entertainment Foundation to stage the Carrier Classic basketball game between North Carolina and Michigan State on the flight deck of the USS Carl Vinson on Veterans Day.
Because an endless loop of salutes and tributes on Veterans Day simply isn't enough. Nope, what we need is to stage a sporting event on a piece of active military hardware.

It will be the first NCAA hoops game on an active flat top.
Something tells me it won't be the last.

Rear Admiral Dennis Moynihan, the Navy's chief spokesman, and Mike Whalen, director of the Morale Entertainment Foundation, said the game on 11-11-11 on San Diego Bay will be played without cost to taxpayers and without operational issues that would adversely affect the Navy.
Here's the mission statement of the Morale Entertainment Foundation: "Morale Entertainment Foundation brings the 'Best of America' overseas to lift the spirits of our brave men and women who are fighting for our freedoms downrange." They do this by promoting "patriotism" ("the noblest passion and characteristic of a good citizen") and "troop morale." I would suggest that the noblest passion and characteristic of a good citizen is the enactment of one's right to self-rule--you know, that cute little thing we call "democracy"--but I have bigger fish to fry right now.

'We think that the game is going to be a celebration of service to all veterans. We're excited about that,' Moynihan said Friday.
Well, of course it will be, won't it? And I'm sure it won't at all feel like a propagandistic parade. Couldn't hurt the old recruiting efforts, eh Admiral?

The Carl Vinson and its sailors have attracted considerable attention since early May, when the carrier was used to bury Osama bin Laden at sea after he was killed by Navy SEALs.
You read that correctly. Not only will UNC and MSU play on an active-duty carrier, they will do so on the vessel that carried Osama bin Laden's dead body to sea. It's a good thing that President Obama refrained from sharing the pictures of bin Laden's body, lest we be tempted to do anything crass to the dead. Really, I find this kind of conflation of sport and war indefensible.

'The USS Carl Vinson is excited to host the game and we're confident we have the right precautions in hand to ensure we'll do this safely,' Moynihan said.
Safety first, of course. Um, anything about the appropriateness of using this particular ship? Nothing else available, I presume?

Because a game like this has never been played, the Navy had to thoroughly review Morale Entertainment Foundation's plans, including making sure a carrier was available, Moynihan said.
Whalen said there are a number of contingency plans in case of rain or if the Navy needs to quickly deploy the Carl Vinson, which is based at North Island Naval Air Station across the bay from downtown San Diego.

'Obviously the flight deck is where we want to play the game,' Whalen said. 'If we have to, we can go to the hangar deck.'

If the Carl Vinson has to head to sea, other options include playing the game on the USS Midway, which is now a museum berthed on the San Diego side of the bay, or at a college gym.

Whalen said he estimates it will take about 10 days to install the court and temporary stadium seating for approximately 7,000 spectators, and fewer than four days to dismantle it.

'But if the Navy says we've got to go, we'll have all our equipment off the ship in 36 hours from the time the Navy tell us they have an emergency,' said Whalen, a former Marine.

'If she needs to go, she'll go,' Moynihan said. 'We've worked carefully with Morale and we're looking forward to moving forward with this thing.'

Whalen inspected the Carl Vinson, USS Ronald Reagan and USS Enterprise during the planning process.

'Literally thousands of man hours have already gone into getting this agreement,' he said. 'Next year's Carrier Classic, I suspect, will be a lot easier.'
So, actually there are lots of alternatives to the Carl Vinson, then. Look, I don't at all endorse the idea of playing a college basketball game on any aircraft carrier, but if it's going to happen couldn't we have the decency not to be so transparently insensitive?

And, "thousands of man hours" were spent on this? Time well spent, I'm sure.

Money to hold the game will come from Morale Entertainment Foundation, corporate sponsors and private donors, Whalen said.
Hm, call me skeptical. Ok, but I'd sure like to see that list of sponsors and donors...

The game was the idea of Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis.

'On behalf of all Spartans, we appreciate the opportunity to express our appreciation to those that protect our nation on a daily basis,' Hollis said in a statement. 'This event is a celebration of the brave individuals and their families. Our hope is that the nation comes together on this day and appreciates the freedom that we enjoy and those that protect our privilege.'
On behalf of all Spartans? Really? I am certain there are many current and former members of the Michigan State University community who are indeed excited about this event. But I'm equally certain that many will be uncomfortable with it. There are, after all, thousands of Spartans who object to war and the militarization of American culture. Would Hollis ever endorse a pro-peace sporting event "on behalf of all Spartans?" How ironic, then, that an event purportedly designed to celebrate our "freedom" actually undermines the freedom of those affiliated with the unviersity to resist it. I understand, mind you, that people are still "free" to disagree with the event or even protest against it, but notice how Hollis's language situates those people as necessarily outside the borders of the Michigan State community.

North Carolina AD Dick Baddour said the game is a unique way to honor the military.
'It will truly be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the members of our team. It will undoubtedly create memories that they will forever cherish,' Baddour said in a statement. 'I am thankful to the United States Navy and our colleagues at Michigan State for inviting us to be part of the event.'
If Hollis has discursively positioned Spartans fans to endorse this event, then Baddour has almost completely secured the full-throated endorsement of Tar Heels players. There is no way that a North Carolina player (or other team employee) can now express concerns about the circumstances of this game without immediately being seen as un-American or un-patriotic. Any such resistance would obviously damage the "memories" everyone wants to create and be insufficiently "thankful." I can almost guarantee that every player in this game--on both teams--will default to the most standard and vague statements to "support the troops." This is not active citizenship; this is passive acceptance of an ideology being imposed by the institutional structures that make college basketball what it is.

There will be no public sale of tickets. Most tickets will go to military personnel, with each school getting 750 tickets. Michael Jordan and Magic Johnson are expected to be the honorary team captains.
Very well.

The game will be shown by ESPN, which also will give 40 minutes of air time to a postgame concert.
And now we complete the triangle. We need three key points here, after all, the first two of which are sport and the military. The third, of course, is the media. This is the same ESPN that brings us the "Bell Helicopter-Textron Armed Forces Bowl." The same ESPN that has turned Veterans Day into "Veterans Week." It was probably inevitable, then, to have this kind of an event, especially on the "Worldwide Leader in Sports." It is such an obvious effort to foster an identification between ESPN and the military in ways that position the network as a standard-bearer of patriotism. But it's really about public relations, isn't it? Few institutions sell militarism better than sport, and few media outlets sell sport better than ESPN. God bless America, right?

Ken Kinnear of Morale Entertainment Foundation said he is approaching acts such as the Eagles, Jimmy Buffett, Bob Seger, Lady Antebellum, Kenny Chesney, Keith Urban and Kid Rock to see if they're interested in performing. He hopes to get between three and five acts.

'This is the most significant and largest live entertainment event that has occurred on Veterans Day and we really believe that it is worthy of some significant talent,' Kinnear said."
Significant talent? All right, then, how about Bruce Springsteen? Or Pearl Jam? R.E.M.? Lest you think I can't help the sarcasm, this is actually an extension of my larger argument. The acts I listed, of course, have all been vocal opponents of the "War on Terror" and are understood to be "liberal" (gasp!). Come to think of it, so is Don Henley, so Kinnear might want to do more homework on the Eagles. In any case, it's obvious that the 40 minutes of extra television material provided by the musical performances needs to articulate with the larger message.

So much of this is predictable enough. We will have an over-the-top opening sequence on the broadcast that is heavy on stirring music and red, white, and blue imagery. Maybe ESPN will even counter Fox Sports's "Declaration of Independence" production? The announcers will adopt solemn demeanors and offer their "thanks" and "support." Military service and military actions will be understood in simple and unambiguous terms: the United States is always noble, and its military personnel always perform valiantly and morally. Never mind that by the time of Veterans Day 2011, we will have entered the 10th year of war in Afghanistan. Never mind that the shadow of Iraq lingers over us all. Never mind that we are a war-weary, economically beleagured nation. Yet we continue to foolishly declare our gratitude for our "freedom" that has been allegedly secured through all military operations.

I will clarify that I am not denying that many in the military are indeed courageous and deserving of our praise and gratitude. Nor am I suggesting that all U.S. military ventures are unnecessary. But, unlike the Morale Entertainment Foundation, I refuse to accept the idea that "patriotism"--in this case, the most passive and propagandistic form of it--is sufficient for citizenship. If we are truly to take seriously the idea that American Armed Forces fought for our "freedoms," then we owe them so much more than the Carrier Classic.

Oh, Say Can You Choose Another Song, Please?

2011-07-21T16:40:00.004-04:00

With the second half the Major League Baseball season now well underway, it is worth reflecting on a story from earlier in the season. It is not about professional baseball, but it is about the assumed mythology of the "national pastime" that the game shares at all levels.

Goshen College is a small liberal arts college in Indiana. It is a private institution that adheres to the Mennonite religion. Among Mennonite convictions is a commitment to nonviolence, which means that they do not endorse military service or action. This foundation is relevant in the world of sports primarily because nearly all live sporting events in the United States are preceded by a performance of the national anthem, a song that many over the years have suggested is "militaristic."

Prior to 2010, Goshen did not perform the "Star Spangled Banner" prior to its sporting events. Then, in the wake of some on-campus and community pressure, the administration agreed that an instrumental version of the anthem could be performed. As of this June, however, the college is seeking a permanent alternative. As a college press release noted:

"Historically, playing the national anthem has not been among Goshen College's practices because of our Christ-centered core value of compassionate peacemaking seeming to be in conflict with the anthem's militaristic language."

Not surprisingly, there are critics eager to label the college as "anti-American." Rather than resort to my standard arguments here--that the performance of the anthem is inherently political itself, that the anthem performance is a tradition that really only dates back to 1942, etc.--I'll make the relatively straight forward First Amendment case. As you likely know, the amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It seems to me that the "free exercise" of the Mennonite faith might include a private college's decision to play a song other than the national anthem prior to a sporting event. In other words, it is definitively an American thing to do. I'm fairly certain I would disagree with the Mennonites on a number things. Nevertheless, I couldn't be more supportive of this particular decision, especially because it stands in such contrast to the endless stream of nationalistic and militaristic symbolism that now saturates contemporary sports.

Hat tip to Matt Guschwan for this story.

Team USA: Always the Underdog?

2011-07-18T13:29:00.007-04:00

American mythology is replete with moments when the "little guy" triumphs. The entire myth of the American Dream, after all, is built upon the foundation that claims anyone can achieve greatness, regardless of identity (originally, in particular, class identity), so long as they work hard enough. Sports embody this mythology so perfectly sometimes one might think they were created solely for the purpose of sustaining the American Dream all on their own. [For more on this, consider reading Howard Nixon's, Sport and the American Dream.]

The myth is resilient, even in moments of contradiction. Such is the case with the Women's World Cup final, where the U.S. team was defeated by Japan. A 1-1 tie ended 2-2 after overtime, and Japan won the penalty kick shootout, 3-1. The game was viewed as a triumph for the entire nation of Japan, especially as many there struggle to recover from the disastrous earthquake and tsunami that struck earlier this year. [A related post here could address our propensity to seek reprieve from tragedy through sport.]

Meanwhile, most observers here in the United States have noted the mistakes and missed opportunities that ultimately doomed the Americans. Having watched most of the match myself, I have to agree this was largely the case. Team USA completely dictated play throughout most of the first half, then appeared to have the championship in hand with less than 10 minutes to play. A defensive breakdown led to the game-tying goal; a similar turn of events unfolded in overtime. Things went really poorly for the Americans during the shootout, and Japan didn't even need the full five rounds of kicks to secure the victory.

The major story I have seen circulated about the final match comes from the Associated Press. It is largely a summary of the match's action, and it includes reactions from various players and observers. The most interesting line of the story to me--and I read the story both on Yahoo!Sports and ESPN.com--comes in a late paragraph:

"Hollywood celebrities, pro athletes, even folks who don't know a bicycle kick from a Schwinn were captivated by the U.S. women and charmed by their grit and can-do attitude that is uniquely--proudly--American. Even President Barack Obama was a fan, taking to Twitter himself on Sunday morning to wish the team well."

Yes, it is interesting that President Obama uses Twitter (or at least a staffer does on his behalf). But I am struck by the default imagery used to describe the Americans: "grit and can-do attitude that is uniquely--proudly--American." Could there be a more concise translation of the American Dream mythology? Probably not, and yet, it really is not an accurate reflection of this team. I do not mean this as an insult against Team USA, who played wonderfully and with great skill. But I would not construct them as underdog; rather, they had every advantage an international team could want: history, resources, experience, and most of all, talent. Yet there is something about the against-all-odds, no-one-believed-in-them, overcoming-adversity theme that seems irresistable to sports media.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Well, no, I suppose it might have its place, especially among the members of a team who might use it as motivation. Nevertheless, in this case it seems to assign the "grit and can-do attitude" to the wrong team. It was the Japanese, after all, who had to take out Germany in the quarterfinal--the same Germany that had won the two previous World Cup titles, hosted this tournament, and featured the most accomplished player in Women's World Cup history, Birgit Prinz. It was the Japanese, then, who faced a superior American team and outlasted them for their first-ever victory against the United States. It was the Japanese who were the underdogs. Let's allow them to claim the mythology, at least for now.

Curiouser and Curiouser

2011-07-14T16:04:00.004-04:00

It's nice to be surprised by the mass media's coverage of sports every once in a while. So much of our sports talk is dominated by cliche that even genuinely impressive feats and events get reduced to predictable platitudes and celebratory schlock. If you became at all bored with hearing about Derek Jeter last week, then you know what I'm getting at. So when I made my predictions yesterday regarding what we might see and hear on HBO's Curious Case of Curt Flood, they reflected some very low expectations. And now I understand why the sports media's prediction game isn't a very smart one to play.

This is not to say that I was entirely wrong. The film focused almost exclusively on Flood's negative press, and it failed to produce any real news. Although HBO got much mileage over the revelation that Flood wasn't quite the painter he once claimed to be, this insight comes from Brad Snyder's A Well-Paid Slave, published in 2007. Speaking of Snyder, HBO drew heavily on his book for its narrative, and Snyder got plenty of face time as an expert on Flood. The documentary also endorsed the argument made (somewhat problematically, in my view) by Stuart Weiss in 2007 that Flood's fielding error in the 1968 World Series pushed him into the deep personal malaise that forced him to file suit and finally submit to his alcoholism. This strikes me as plausible, but also a very difficult claim to make -- it relies on a lot of armchair psychiatry that promises stable insight into a personality that is otherwise enigmatic.

Here's where I was utterly wrong: Apart from the vague scenery of athletes in the 1980s and 1990s making millions, HBO didn't seem too worried about chastising contemporary athletes for having limited memories. This is a real surprise, since this is usually why we are asked to remember Flood -- he presumably created the wealth to which our "overpaid" and "spoiled" athletes now feel entitled. But unlike most accounts of Flood, the problem of baseball's collective memory was hardly at stake, since the narrative actually landed not on his lost legacy, but instead on the optimistic note of his eventual recognition. HBO showed footage of Curt Flood speaking to the MLBPA in the 1990s, quoted Orrin Hatch on the floor of Congress naming the repeal of baseball's anti-trust exemption (with respect to labor) the Curt Flood Act, and showed Judy Pace explaining that baseball "took his hand" in the last months of his life by paying his medical expenses.

I'm ambivalent about this surprise, though, which seemed like an attempt to get baseball off the hook for its historical failures. Flood was hung out to dry in 1970, and as the HBO story detailed his personal unraveling over the next decade, MLB emerged as a heroic institution that saved his consciousness from his demons. Maybe Mike Butterworth can tell us if this is a purity narrative in the way that his book puts things, but it seemed quite like it was the game that purified Flood before his death.

At the same time, I'm pleased that The Curious Case of Curt Flood refused the easy path of scolding the current generation of athletes for refusing his ostensibly activist model. For a full explanation, I'll let y'all buy the book in February. And for a more coherent review of the HBO documentary, see this update to yesterday's USF News piece.

Curious Case

2011-07-13T16:44:00.003-04:00

Greetings Agon readers! Since agreeing to become a regular contributor, I have yet to contribute, but as the summer winds down, I plan to say more, especially about recent media interest in Curt Flood.

As you may know, Flood is the subject of a highly anticipated HBO documentary tonight, The Curious Case of Curt Flood. The news and media folks at the University of South Florida interviewed me about it yesterday, and will follow up tomorrow with my reaction.

Some predictions: We (along with contemporary pro athletes) will be urged to remember Curt Flood's sacrifice, since he has been nearly forgotten. Interestingly, this is the most frequent way Flood is remembered -- as forgotten. We are also likely to hear that Flood was vilified by the sports press in the early seventies, which is an argument I'm not sure is entirely sustainable. And we will almost surely hear that Flood's outspokenness created vast financial opportunities for athletes, and that those financial opportunities are what make contemporary athletes less likely to be outspoken. Someone will call this an "irony," which it surely is, but I suspect little effort will be spend to try to unravel or explain it.

More to come after the show...

Running Routes Toward Equality

2011-07-12T16:30:00.007-04:00

Just a few days after Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver DeSean Jackson responded to a hostile radio caller by resorting to language that mocks gays, former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Michael Irvin appears on the cover of Out magazine calling for equality for gays and lesbians. Talk about running different routes.

What's particularly interesting is that in his interview for Out Irvin links the experience of African Americans to the stuggle for equality for gays and lesbians:

"I don't see how any African-American, with any inkling of history, can say that you don't have the right to live your life how you want to live your life. No one should be telling you who you should love, no one should be telling you who you should be spending the rest of your life with. When we start talking about equality, and everybody being treated equally, I don't want to know an African-American who will say everybody doesn't deserve equality."

Irvin explains that he had difficulty accepting his own brother's homosexuality (Vaughn Irvin died from stomach cancer in 2006), but that their father's views on Christian tolerance have helped shaped his subsequent feelings. Irvin has long been a controversial figure and his appearance on Out will no doubt prompt additional criticisms from the usual suspects. Nevertheless, Irvin now joins a growing list of athletes--such as Scott Fujita and Sean Avery--who are speaking out against discrimination based on sexuality. Even while others like Jackson continue to think homosexuality is merely a punchline, these louder and increasingly frequent affirmations of equality suggest something truly is changing.

The Rumors of The Agon's Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

2011-07-12T16:30:00.002-04:00

No, no, we're still here. Summer's just been kicking our butts is all. Keep reading!

Jim Delany's Dog

2011-06-07T10:19:00.005-04:00

Over the last few years, perhaps in part as a means of publicly counterbalancing Michael Vick’s famous dog fighting case, numerous athletes, including a number of professional football players, have participated in campaigns for animal rights in association with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Indeed, PETA’s website contains a recently posted feature titled “15 Athletes for Animals” that includes, among other athletes, football players Lance Briggs, Aaron Curry, and Chad Ochocinco.

Enter, then, a comment made this past Sunday by Big Ten Conference commissioner Jim Delany. While addressing questions on a number of topics, Delany was asked if he felt angry or betrayed in connection with recently resigned Ohio State University football coach Jim Tressel having lied about knowledge of NCAA violations while coaching the team. In response, Delany said, “I was disappointed, I was surprised and I felt badly about it. But I kind of reserve anger for my dog. I try not to get terribly angry.”

Among other things, Delany’s response warrants questions about his treatment of his dog. Even if we are not at PETA kinds of levels in commitment to or interest in ethical treatment of animals (e.g., participating in public demonstrations on behalf of animal rights, boycotting businesses with histories of unethical practices toward animals, or even just becoming vegan or vegetarian), there is significantly justifiable reason here to wonder why Delany’s dog is the recipient of his anger and what might be the consequences of Delany directing his anger toward his dog.

Like the case of Jim Tressel and Ohio State football, implications for the treatment of animals that are embedded in comments like Delany’s involve issues of ethics—something that PETA explicitly recognizes in its name. Figures in the world of sport have the opportunity to use sport to advance an ethics of care and compassion, as the likes of Briggs, Curry, and Ochocinco have done with their PETA ads. As disappointed as Jim Delany may be with Jim Tressel, it’s disappointing to see Delany use sports to advance an ethics of harm and abuse.

Dancing Thomas

2011-05-23T21:56:00.003-04:00

There are certain stock stories in the sports media--underdog defeats heavy favorite; injured player triumphs over adversity; disgraced athlete reinvents image, and so on. One of these is the human-interest story that features either an athlete with a disease/disability or a non-athlete with a disease/disability who derives joy and/or inspiration from sport. Many of these stories are heartwarming, but they often descend quickly into excessively maudlin pieces that feel at best gratuitous and at worst exploitive.

A good example of this tendency was the media's collective rush to cover the story of Jason McIlwain, a high school student with autism who made his basketball debut as a senior in 2006 and promptly shot the lights out to score 20 points with only four minutes left in the game. His performance, which you can see here, really was remarkable, but the crush of media coverage quickly became a condescending morality play. I'm not saying it wasn't a good story--it was--but the story worked plenty well on its own without the heavy-handed "people with disabilities aren't useless, after all" subtext.

This brings me to today's story about J.T. Thomas, a linebacker just drafted in the 6th round by the Chicago Bears. Thomas just graduated from West Virginia University in Morgantown, where he has encountered Bears fan Joslyn Levell, a 14-year old with Spina Bifida, a birth defect that has restricted her to a wheelchair. You can read the full story here, but the main emphasis is that Thomas has asked to escort Levell to her middle school prom (why a middle school has a prom, I don't know, but that's beside point for now).

There is clearly something sweet to the story, but also the obvious risk that it could turn into another example of treating Levell much like McIlwain--that is, an object of curiosity and objectification. This is why I'm especially struck by the comments from Thomas, who said:

"I came to see her on that bus because I heard she was a die-hard Bears fan [she had asked about Thomas]. This is just about her being happy. Although that dance might last two or three hours, she might have something to remember for the rest of her life. Anytime you can affect someone's life positively like that, why not?

How brave of her to ask to see me; she has no idea. I'm just as nervous as her about going to the prom. The thing is, we're all the same people, and that's what I want to stress to her and everybody else."

What strikes me here is the extent of identification that Thomas establishes between himself and Levell, and in a way that I think avoids the trap I've described above. I'm not trying to over-read this, and I'm not sure I can entirely articulate the distinction I'm trying to make. In any case, this is a nice story and whether it was his intention or not, I suspect there are many Bears fans, myself included, anxious to see Thomas make the roster this season (if there is one...).

Smooth Like Santana

2011-05-16T21:39:00.003-04:00

Yesterday, the Philadelphia Phillies played the Atlanta Braves in Major League Baseball's annual "Civil Rights Game." This event was inaugurated in April, 2007, when the St. Louis Cardinals played the Cleveland Indians. As I wrote at the time:

"While clapping each other and themselves on their backs for their attention to 'diversity,' baseball's leadership erred by having the World Series champion St. Louis Cardinals play against the Cleveland Indians. Yes, the Indians. Given that Native American groups have long criticized the use of their images and heritages by sports teams, it is an egregious and embarassing oversight from MLB to promote a continuing violation of civil rights."

So here we are in 2011, and the game includes the Braves. So, MLB has invited the two most visibly racist organizations in the sport to represent "civil rights." That's 2 for 5, or .400, if you're scoring at home.

Perhaps more interesting, though, was the appearance of musician Carlos Santana. Santana was honored before the game, along with actor Morgan Freeman and baseball legend Ernie Banks, with the Beacon Award for his contributions to civil rights. And while most in attendance or watching at home were surely expecting a typical awards presentation with warm smiles and gentle platitudes, Santana recognized that being honored for his contribution to civil rights was precisely the right moment to talk about civil rights. When he had the opportunity to speak, he used the platform to condemn recent anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona and similar proposed legislation in Georgia. Speaking to the crowd in Atlanta, he said:

"The people of Arizona, and the people of Atlanta, Georgia, you should be ashamed of yourselves."

As I noted about a year ago, the response of athletes to Arizona SB 1070--what I believe to be an indisputably racist bill--was inspiring and a reminder that sports can be a vital site of democratic deliberation. Especially given the context of yesterday's occasion--i.e., a celebration of civil rights--I commend Carlos Santana for speaking out as he did. Man, he's so smooth.

Hat tip to Dave Naze for sharing the Yahoo! Sports Minute story.

After Further Review, May 11

2011-05-11T13:51:00.002-04:00

Ray and I are happy to continue After Further Review throughout the summer. Today's show includes discussions about Sean Avery's advocacy for same-sex marriage and the proprieties of horseracing. Listen live, from 2:00-4:00 EDT today, at WBGU-FM.

Sorry for the late notice (8 minutes before showtime!), but better late than never...

"Take 'Em Out" at the Ball Game (Or: "The Jersey Pop")

2011-05-02T21:06:00.003-04:00

This post originally appeared at BagNews Notes--my thanks to Michael Shaw.

How should Americans respond to the news of Osama bin Laden’s death? Relief? Joy? Righteousness?

I learned of the news while watching ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball” game between the New York Mets and Philadelphia Phillies. As word began rippling through the crowed equipped with iPods and Blackberrys, pockets of fans began chanting, “USA! USA!” ESPN’s broadcast team quickly seized upon the patriotic trappings of the “national pastime,” showing proud fans as the announcers commented on the historic significance of the moment.

Among the most prominent images is the one above, a still frame from the telecast that served on Monday morning as the front page photograph at ESPN.com.

In this image we see the almost perfect conflation of sport and nationalism. Here, the citizen as “fan” celebrates his “team,” the United States. The death of an American enemy, then, is roughly the equivalent of a walk-off home run, a satisfactory resolution to a “game.” Even the caption below the image—“America’s Game”—confirms that global politics can be conveniently reduced to winners and losers.

Even more troubling, as Salon.com’s David Sirota has already pointed out, is that these boastful expressions of pride and excitement too closely mirror the very actions of those whom we deem evil and insensitive when they cheer the deaths of Americans or our allies. Indeed, since 9/11 the United States has all too often resorted to arrogant and belligerent displays of patriotism. The Phillies fan captured in this photograph embodies such an attitude, as he is performing a familiar sports gesture—the “jersey pop.” As NBA player Earl Watson, who some argue “invented” the jersey pop while attending UCLA in 2000, notes, “It’s like a form of showing off. It’s kind of like a look-at-me type of thing.”

Sport promotes self-promotion. It delights in false modesty. But, of course, it is supposed to be fun. None of these things is true of international relations or war, and instead of modeling the self-congratulatory celebration contained in the image above we would be wise to greet the significance of bin Laden’s death with humility and self-reflection. Pop that.

USA! USA?

2011-05-01T23:04:00.003-04:00

It is 11:05 p.m. (EDT) on Sunday evening. Moments ago, a colleague of mine sent a group email alerting us that official reports were coming in that Osama bin Laden is dead. Working and watching a baseball game (a standard practice), I quickly switched from ESPN to CNN to confirm the news. Sure enough, President Obama is moments away from making an official announcement. It is most certainly big news.

But I quickly grew tired of Wolf Blitzer and John King while waiting for Obama's address, and so I flipped back to the Mets-Phillies game. As I did so, I was greeted by the crowd in Philadelphia chanting "USA! USA!" Suddenly, I am back where I was almost ten years ago, wondering why it is we as Americans insist on such boastful outbursts of patriotism. One might think that the costs and pain induced by the "war on terror" over the past 10 years would prompt more humble reflection on the news of bin Laden's death. But why should I expect that, when we can puff out our chests, guzzle a beer and shout patritotic platitudes?

After Further Review, April 27

2011-04-27T12:54:00.002-04:00

Today's show features Dr. Tom Oates, Assistant Professor of Journalism at Northern Illinois University. He's a Husky, so you know he'll be good! Tom's expertise is in sports media and cultural studies, and we'll be talking today about race and sexuality in the NFL Draft. Catch us on WBGU-FM, from 2:00-4:00 EDT.

After Further Review, April 20

2011-04-20T13:57:00.002-04:00

On today's show, Ray and I discuss the upcoming NFL schedule, Kobe Bryant, and maybe some Barry Bonds. Tune in from 2:00-4:00 (EST) on WBGU-FM.

A Non-Sports Timeout

2011-04-17T13:52:00.006-04:00

This past week, Bowling Green State University administration announced that the Ph.D. program in Media and Communication is to be eliminated. Further, the M.A. program is to be suspended, with the expectation that we will devleop a new program that will presumably be welcoming to "fee-paying" students--i.e., students who pay their own way and thus require no university support. There are any number of reasons why this decision is appalling, not least of which is that it was announced in a fashion that makes it clear the faculty of Media and Communication have no voice in their own collective future. We are fighting an up-hill battle, but we will not accept this decision without making every effort to preserve what we have all worked so hard to build. With that in mind, I ask that you forgive my non-sports appeal here and go to "SignOn.org" to sign our petition that protests this most offensive of decicison.

After Further Review: April 13, 2011

2011-04-13T12:44:00.002-04:00

Today's show features BGSU Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, Greg Christopher. Greg will be chatting with us about various issues in college sports, including the Big 10 Conference's push to organize its member institutions in a new hockey league. Tune in at WBGU-FM from 2:00-4:00, Eastern time.

Perhaps We Should Be Calling Icing

2011-04-12T15:13:00.004-04:00

Word is that the Big Ten brand is coming to hockey. To form the Big Ten college hockey conference, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Ohio State University will be leaving the Central Collegiate Hockey Association, which is one of the top Division I college hockey conferences, while the University of Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin will be leaving the Western Collegiate Hockey Association, which is another top Division I college hockey conference. The Big Ten conference mandates, though, that six conference schools need to participate in an intercollegiate sport in order for the conference to hold a championship. So, that means that these programs need one more member …

Enter Pennsylvania State University, which announced this past fall that it would be adding Division I men’s and women’s hockey programs, both of which have been operating on the club level. The university’s ability to take this step has been subsidized largely by the largest gift in the university’s history: an $88 million donation by Terrence M. and Kim Pegula that will help fund the teams and the construction of a new ice arena for the teams.

This all is occurring at the same time that the Pennsylvania State University system is looking at a budget cut of $182 million dollars, as Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has proposed what the university has called a “devastating” 52.4% drop in its state funding.

The politics of universities being what they are, these are, of course, two separate financial entities. If someone donates money to a university and earmarks that money for a particular purpose, then it must go toward that purpose. There are good reasons for this, as it allows individuals who feel strongly about particular programs at a university to direct their money toward those programs, rather than having the money go into the university’s general pot from which all programs draw and which might leave the programs the person wants to fund with little or none of that donation. We must ask, though, the question of priorities. When universities are facing immense budget crises, which will inevitably lead to cuts in instruction, student support, and many other programs that help universities serve their fundamental missions as educational and research facilities, how is it that folks can feel so strongly that it’s actually the development of hockey teams that warrants the largest donation in a university’s history?

After Further Review

2011-04-05T09:54:00.003-04:00

Well, it only took six or seven weeks, but Ray Schuck and I finally have a name for our weekly radio show: After Further Review. We like it because it is a familiar sports-based term and it suggests some degree of contemplation and evaluation. After Further Review airs each Wednesday, from 2:00-4:00 Eastern time, on WBGU-FM. You can stream the show online by visiting the radio's website. In the interest of synergy, I'll be providing weekly updates about our show's topics and guests. This week we're very lucky to have in the studio Dick Maxwell, the retired NFL Senior Director of Broadcasting, and Joe Horrigan, the Vice President of Communications/Exhibits for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Dick and Joe will be on campus to help announce and launch a new Sport Media Center at Bowling Green State University. I look forward to sharing more information about that venture as it develops.

Fandom and Nation-ness

2011-04-01T19:42:00.004-04:00

On ESPN's First Take this week, I heard one of the reporters from Butler University's campus paper refer to “Butler Nation” in discussing fan support for the basketball team. As a transplant to Pittsburgh, I have learned and experienced the ability of “Steeler Nation” to bridge political, ethnic, and religious gaps between groups of people. These rhetorics of nation and community appear to be productive because of their ability to establish a common identity or point of interest for diverse groups.

But what about when a sense of identification with a team becomes too antagonistic? Well, unfortunately, as a culture we have aggression where events like those at Dodger Stadium last night occur. While the reasons for the attack have not been fully discovered, it does raise questions or concerns about how rhetorics of nation-ness and fandom produce in culture, particularly in relation to opposing nations/fans. Weisman's rhetoric in his post on the event further points to the aggressive attitude that fans engender between one another: “People get the advisories about fan behavior in the first inning, but that's a long time and a lot of beers in the past — plus, those advisories focus on in-stadium behavior, and could leave the impression to a few people that the parking lot is some kind of demilitarized zone.” With the constant integration between militarism, patriotism, and fandom, should we be surprised that tensions between team's fans might escalate? Or should it be more troubling that a reporter referred to the parking lot as a demilitarized zone? To Weisman's credit, he is advocating for a more proactive approach in reigning in fan behavior, but his characterization might just reflect the ways in which rhetorics of nation in relation to team support goes too far and extends beyond fan support of the players to being a representative of the team because of such nation rhetorics.

What do others think? How productive can these rhetorics be and why are fans so drawn to frame themselves as a part of a nation?

Athlete Ally

2011-03-30T21:45:00.003-04:00

I think it is safe to say that sports are too often a site for homophobia and gender-based discrimination. There are, of course, exceptions, but especially at higher levels of competition--collegiate and professional--sports rely on normalized images of masculinity and femininity that tend to treat outliers with suspicion or hostility. When we think of ways that athletes and those associated with sports could challenge these images, we tend to think about those on the "margins" who attempt to disrupt the "center"--Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, Greg Louganis, John Amaechi, Sheryl Swoopes, etc. Less common, though, are the moments when those athletes who benefit most from the dominant gender order seek to destabilize it. In light of this, Inside Higher Ed's feature of Hudson Taylor is especially interesting. Taylor is a former elite wrestler, who graduated in 2010 from the University of Maryland. He is straight. As an "interactive performance arts" major, Taylor shared considerable class time with students in the performing arts, some of whom were openly gay. When he realized that his academic experience was at odds with the stereotypical discourse he heard in his athletic community, he began to talk to his teammates. In his words: "That’s when I started trying to talk to my teammates about their word consciousness and how they speak to each other and other people. That kind of homophobic language has become so normalized for athletes of my generation that most times those slurs are not meant specifically as words of hate. Like saying, ‘That’s so gay’ or something. That’s a huge problem that needs to be overcome. My teammates and friends just weren’t conscious of the effect their language could have on others" Hudson has since founded Athlete Ally, a non-profit organization founded "as a resource to encourage athletes, coaches, parents, fans and other members of the sports community to respect all individuals involved in sports, regardless of perceived or actual sexual-orientation or gender identity or expression." Hudson's activism certainly will not transform the gendered culture of sports on its own. Nevertheless, it is an encouraging gesture of camaraderie and mutual respect. It is, in short, a demonstration of one of the virtues of sports--that athletic competition might just allow people to find means to foster indentification and build community.

Changes at The Agon

2011-03-28T23:45:00.002-04:00

It's a new look, yes, but there are bigger changes in store for The Agon. In recent months, it has become increasingly clear that I can no longer sustain this blog on my own. I frequently have the impulse to write, but not the time or energy. There are simply too many other commitments that prevent me from posting more regularly. Nevertheless, this site is valuable to me, and I hope it is valuable to others. So, I've solicited the help of some friends, each of whom is a talented rhetorical critic of sport. Thus, I'm pleased to announce that The Agon can now boast a roster of five bloggers, including the four new recruits: Dan Grano, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte; Abe Khan, Assistant Professor of Communication and Africana Studies at the University of South Florida; Korryn Mosizek, Ph. D. Candidate at Indiana University; Ray Schuck, Instructor of Communication at Bowling Green State University. In the coming days, I'll continue to update the site and posts from the new contributors will follow shortly. My thanks to everyone who has been reading thus far, and to my new colleagues in this venture.

Something Serena

2011-03-24T09:50:00.003-04:00

Mary McDonald sent a link to this new ad for the tennis video game TopSpin 2k to the NASSS (North American Society for the Sociology of Sport) listserv. I encourage you to watch it.

Is this really what "freedom" looks like?

Surveying the Field

2011-02-24T12:44:00.003-05:00

I'm pleased to announce that Communication and Sport: Surveying the Field, is now available from SAGE. This is a textbook project that I have been working on, along with Andy Billings from Clemson University and Paul Turman from the South Dakota Board of Regents. It is, we believe, the first textbook to offer a comprehensive overview of the various ways that communication scholars study sport. This includes discussions of community, fanship, media representations of gender and race, performance of identity, politics and nationalism, interpersonal communication, organizational communication, and more. The book is available directly from SAGE or from Amazon.

There's Strong, and There's NASCAR Strong

2011-02-18T13:53:00.006-05:00

Thanks to Ray Schuck, who thought this item would be good for our radio discussion next week. It most certainly is, but I can't wait that long to talk about it.

Betty McCollum is a Democratic representative in Minnesota who has recently proposed that Congress forbid the Pentagon from spending taxpayer money to sponsor NASCAR teams. For the record, the Army spends $7 million/year to sponsor a car (it sure is pretty, isn't it?).

This is not the only expenditure of this nature. As Nick Turse reports in his book The Complex, in 2005 the Pentagon spent a total of $38 million to sponsor various race cars. Meanwhile, those flyovers that seem to be ubiquitous at major sporting events run a cool $32,000/hour in fuel costs alone. And how many millions must it take for those fancy TV ad campaigns for the different branches of the military that are commonplace during sports telecasts? In short, there is a robust sport/media/military relationship at work, and the sponsorship of a NASCAR team is but the tip of the iceberg.

Predictably, there are vocal defenders who insist that racecars need Army sponsorship (it's actually much more vicious than that, as McCollum has received threatening messages in response to her proposal). As McCollum's Chief of Staff, Bill Harper puts it:

"We've heard innumerable times that the Republicans were elected to send a message from the people that we should stop spending money. And yet the people who sent that message want us to spend $7 million for a sticker on a NASCAR."

But of course it's not about the money. It's about mythology, and imagery, and patriotism. God forbid we be denied the right to boast of our national greatness while a bunch of stock cars repeatedly circle the track. The audience for this kind of revved-up patriotism is likely larger among NASCAR fans that it is among, say, NBA fans. Nevertheless, here's yet another reminder that sport is a site for the "apolitical" infilitration of nationalistic and militaristic imagery. And, oh boy, the Daytona 500 is this Sunday. God bless America.

On the Air

2011-02-16T11:35:00.003-05:00

Blogging takes a surprising amount of mental energy, something that I have found lacking in recent weeks. The Agon lives on, however, and I'll hope to be more active here shortly. In the meantime, I'm excited that my friend and colleague, Ray Schuck, and I have started a weekly sports radio show, during which we discuss cultural, political, and social issues in the world of sports. We'll be on the air--and you can stream us live--every Wedensday, from 2:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern. Find us at WBGU-FM here: wbgufm.com. Today's topic is Tiger Woods, and we're pleased to have Professor Davis Houck of Florida State University joining us.

I'm a Man!

2010-12-29T23:34:00.003-05:00

As I watch the Alamo Bowl between Arizona and Oklahoma State, it is difficult not to be reminded of OSU coach Mike Gundy and his infamous press-conference rant from 2007--"I'm a man! I'm 40!" But the fact that Gundy is on the sideline tonight isn't the only reason his declaration has meaning tonight. Indeed, it seems that college and professional football are full of reminders this week about the meaning of manhood. Three things in particular stand out to me, each of which could warrant its own post.

1) As you surely have heard, the National Football League (NFL) postponed the Minnesota Vikings-Philadelphia Eagles game scheduled to be played this past Sunday evening. The decision was based on concerns that a severe winter storm that hit the Northeast late Sunday would create enough traffic risks that public safety would be compromised. The game was moved to Tuesday evening (by the way, thank you, Minnesota, for giving the Chicago Bears an assist in securing the 2nd seed in the NFC playoffs!), a decision that was both praised and criticized. Among those who questioned the move was Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. Rendell, a Democrat, told WPEN radio that he was looking forward to watching the game played in poor weather and that the NFL's decision was symptomatic of larger problems in the United States:

"My biggest beef is that this is part of what's happened in this country. . . . It goes against everything that football is about. . . . What do you think Lombardi would say? He would say that we've become a nation of wussies."

Notice how easily Rendell conflates the character of professional football with the character of the nation. "Football is tough, dammit, and so are Americans. At least we should be. When football took over as our most popular sport in the 1960s and 1970s, we were really tough. That's how I remember it, anyway. Now, we can't even hit a quarterback in the head and we've got to cancel a game that would have been really entertaining for me to watch at home even as 70,000 people tried to gather at the stadium in conditions that had prompted pleas for drivers to stay off the roads. If we'd just have guys play both ways again, and maybe let lineman slap each other's helmets, then I bet Obama would stop being such a weenie and kick somebody's ass in the Tea Party." [I'm not sure if Rendell actually said this. But I bet he thought it.]

The point for Rendell is to emphasize the erosion of toughness, especially as it translates to leadership, in American politics. To suggest that there are not tough leaders in American politics, however, is surely nonsense. Thus, it is far easier to read Rendell, who strongly backed Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama in 2008 during a primary that featured the apex of Clinton's attacks against Obama for being an "elitist" and someone who didn't understand real, working class people (i.e., "tough") like she did, as making a veiled attack on the presidential politics of the moment. What is most regrettable about the attack is that it plays into the critiques of Obama made by those on the far right (the "Tea Party") who think that the president is too careful and deliberate. These opponents are largely the same crew who valorized George W. Bush's leadership style because it displayed conviction and, yes, toughness. That Bush's leadership was catastrophic and arguably criminal is immaterial. He was, tough, and that's what we Americans need!

2) Earlier today, NFL Commisioner Roger Goodell announced that he did not have conclusive evidence that Brett Favre had texted either naughty messages or photos of his naughty bits to Jenn Sterger during the 2008 season (when both Favre and Sterger were with the New York Jets). Thus, rather than penalize Favre for violating the league's conduct policy--a policy, incidentally, that Goodell has employed liberally--the commissioner hit him with a $50,000 fine for not being forthcoming during the investigation. Although I think it's safe to say that Sterger is no angel, I also think it's a safe conclusion that Favre behaved inappropriately. Under Goodell, the NFL has emphatically penalized its players for transgressions involving guns, drugs, or impaired driving. It's too easy to intrepret the Favre decision as preferential treatment bestowed on the mythic (white) quarterback-hero. This is certainly part of the story, I think, but I'd argue that the larger issue is about masculinity. A harsh penalty for Favre would have called into question the larger rules by which men play in and around football. As Sterger's attorney, Jospeh Conway, put it:

"Today's decision is an affront to all females and shows once again that, despite tough talk, the NFL remains the good old boys' league."

Bombastic, maybe. But there's truth in that bomast. Speaking of...

3) Nothing quite says bombast like turning a sporting event into a recruitment ad for the military. This is not a new phenomenon, as armed forces commercials have been a staple of football telecasts at least since the 1970s. In more recent years, as I've discussed previously, we've seen the emergence of various efforts to connect the military to college football, most obviously with the development of the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl. That game (my critique of which can be found here) represents, to my knowledge, the first collegiate event to be sponsored by a military contractor. New to the 2010 bowl line-up is a game that is not only sponsored by a military contractor--Northrop Grumman--but overtly labels itself as a militarized event. This afternoon, The Military Bowl debuted with a 51-20 victory by Maryland over East Carolina. The game was played in RFK Stadium outside of Washington, D.C., and it featured numerous means by which we can "support" the military. I won't detail everything here; suffice it to say that a college bowl game that is explicitly defined as a military promotional vehicle raises critical concerns. Among those concerns is the continued equation of football with war, and of players with soldiers (paging Kellen Winslow). More specifically, it's another iteration of the themes I described above. The presence of the military at sporting events, especially football games, is a symbolic presentation of strength, of authority, of toughness. Underlying all of those characteristics is masculinity, especially as it is idealized in the figure of the American warrior-soldier.

Although these moments may seem isolated or unrelated at first glance, I think they work together to illustrate a larger discourse about sport and masculinity (and masculinity and war). That discourse reveals patterns of behavior that are believed to be "normal" for men in American culture. Football is, of course, a tough game. There's nothing surprising about that statement. But our conception of toughness extends beyond the actual play on the field, and this is why our language choices and symbolic investment in football matter so much. All of these examples might be read through Mike Gundy's declaration--"I'm a man, so we shouldn't wuss out when it snows"; "I'm a man, so I say whatever I want to women"; "I'm a man, so I want to valorize war." If only we could reconsider what it means to be tough, perhaps we could similarly rethink the consequences of being a man.

Sport and Identification

2010-12-03T13:51:00.003-05:00

I am saddened today to have learned that Chicago Cubs announcer, and former all-star 3rd baseman, Ron Santo has died at the age of 70. Santo is among the legendary figures in Cubs history, both for his skill as a player and his passion as an announcer. There is little doubt that all of those who feel a connection to the Chicago Cubs will miss him greatly.

I find myself thinking more sentimentally about Santo because much of my own identity is tied to Chicago. My parents were both born and raised on the city's north side, so even as grew up mostly on the west coast, I felt that Chicago was home. Going to college at Northern Illinois University--in DeKalb, about 60 miles away from the city--only heightened my idenfication with Chicago and the Cubs. I then spent the first two and a half years of married life living in the Chicago suburbs, before making the Milwaukee-to-Bloomington-to Toledo pilgrimage. It has now been 11 years since I lived in the Chicago area, but in many ways it remains home.

Sports, then, are often a way to stay close to home even while far away. This is especially true for me of the Cubs. I see this kind of identification with my students at Bowling Green, many of whom are from areas such as Cleveland or Detroit. In the case of Cleveland, for example, I have seen first hand the anguish they have felt because of LeBron James's departure. Although some Cavaliers fans have reacted poorly to the loss of "King James," most have experienced an understandable sense of disappointment, a product of the degree to which sport symbolizes a community.

Such symbolic investments are not necessarily or always good, but we cannot pretend they don't exist. My own devotion to the Chicago Cubs hasn't always been healthy, for example. But I appreciate that something as "trivial" as a baseball team can help me stay connected to a community that I value. And for 20 years, Ron Santo has been a part of that. I will truly miss him.

(Kid) Rockin' Patriotism

2010-11-30T00:41:00.002-05:00

Somewhere in this picture, sandwiched between the 80-yard long American flag and the Ford Field fans whose hand-held signs implored the CBS Thanksgiving Day audience to “Live United,” stands musician Kid Rock. The Detroit native performed the title track to his new album, “Born Free,” as part of the halftime festivities this past Thursday, an event sponsored by the United Way.

According to the United Way’s “Live United” blog, which is the source of this photograph, the 2010 United Way Thanksgiving Halftime show “inspired viewers to LIVE UNITED®, United Way’s call to the public to get involved in the community by focusing on the building blocks of life: education, income and health.” Nowhere are such building blocks needed more than in the ever-deteriorating city of Detroit, so one might applaud the NFL and the United Way for drawing our attention to the needs of the city, as well as others with similar problems. Meanwhile, native son Kid Rock has defined his new album in relation to his troubled home town—“The catalyst for this record was Detroit, and my thoughts on the world through the lens of Detroit,” he has said—so surely what we have here is a story of community and charity that is warranted on a national holiday such as Thanksgiving.

But look again at the image above. It is taken from a distance to provide a wide view of the field, and Kid Rock is all but invisible. Lost, too, are any calls to “education, income and health.” Instead of fostering a sense of local community—which, presumably, is the aim of the Live United campaign—viewers are invited to identify with their national community. Indeed, the entire Kid Rock performance—available here—was a 5-minute orgy of nationalism, complete with flags, bald eagles, explosions, and declarations of “God bless America.”

Excessive displays of nationalism are hardly new during sporting events in the United States. And this is precisely the problem. We have grown so accustomed to such performances that we are increasingly likely to view them as normal, as simple gestures of “patriotism.” As images like this one make clear, nationally televised sporting events often become the stage for grandiose claims of how “united” we are as a national community. Such a pretty house it appears to make. Sadly, the “building blocks” of such a house are rotting from within, and the patriotic spectacle offered on Thanksgiving Day is really nothing to be thankful for at all.

Veterans Week?

2010-11-11T13:52:00.005-05:00

Next week I'll be in San Francisco, where I will be part of a panel discussion about Roger Stahl's excellent book, Militainment, Inc. In sum, his argument is that the overlap between the military and entertainment industries, including sports, have morphed into a new form of interactivity, wherein citizens are invited to "play" in the context of war. Video games like America's Army or facilities like the "Army Experience Center," to name only two examples, invite citizens to participate in the machinery of war. Of course, that participation is sanitized and made "fun." After all, no one wants a trip to the mall to include unexpectedly landing on an I.E.D.

One of Roger's chapters focuses on extreme sports and the ways that the aesthetic practices of skydiving, snowboarding, skateboarding, and other related sports, have seeped into the logics of military recruitment. This is especially notable, he contends, in television advertising and Hollywood cinema. His dissection of Behind Enemy Lines, for example, artfully demonstrates how willing a film studio is to turn its product into a giant recruitment commercial in exchange for some really spiffy toys to shoot and blow up on screen.

In any case, the chapter on extreme sports also offers some review of how popular spectator sports have been increasingly implicated in our culture of militarism. I've been thinking a lot about this because of the conference, but since the timing overlaps with Veterans Day, I've also been thinking about it because of the extent of pro-military messages I'm seeing sports media, especially ESPN. The near-constant drumbeat of celebrating "America's heroes" began in earnest during the Monday Night Football broadcast, and has been propelled by live broadcasts of several signature shows, including Mike & Mike in the Morning and The Herd with Colin Cowherd, from military locations.

The image above is from last year, when Mike & Mike broadcast live from the USS New York. The hosts were invited to sit in a real helicopter, and in the case of Mike Greenberg, even put their hands on a real trigger. This, I believe, is exactly the kind of thing Roger has in mind when he talks about "interactive war." Sitting in the cockpit of a helicopter with your finger at the ready fulfills any number of war-inspired fantasies. It inevitably positions the participant to view members of the military heroically, and undoubtedly short-ciruits any possibility of critique.

This is not to say that Mike & Mike, or anyone else, should be spending Veterans Day finding ways to criticize the troops. Indeed, and I want to be clear about this, I am entirely in support of having a day marked to memorialize and honor those who have lost their lives while serving the United States military. What I do not support is the relentless and ubiquitous presentation of the military in and through sport as if it was the normal, default choice to do so. During the week, as I've been watching sports as I usually do and preparing for my conference presentation about Roger's book (this post gives you a hint of what I'll talk about), I found myself thinking: Exactly when did Veterans Day become Veterans Week?

There can be little doubt that the prominence of pro-military rhetoric weakens any arguments against the use of military force. This is especially so because, at least in the world of sports, honoring "America's heroes" isn't merely about paying respect to veterans of the past. Rather, it is as much, if not more so, about valorizing those who are serving in the present. And here is where I am particularly troubled. Common to these celebrations are declarations about thanking the troops "for all you do for us," or being grateful for "what you do over there so we can do what we do over here." What this implies rhetorically, of course, is a direct cause-effect kind of relationship, a relationship that is almost certainly rarely there. In the case of the Iraq War, for example, there is little to no evidence that what the U.S. military has done has advanced the cause of democracy or freedom here at home. Indeed, there is likely a stronger case that what our policy (note I stress policy, and am not "blaming" the troops) has done is to ensure that Americans remain a target of resentment and retributive violence (what Chalmers Johnson labels, "blowback").

Even beyond the reasonable critiques of the wisdom of American foreign policy, is the critique of what that policy does to the troops themselves and their families. When so much of the focus of pro-military rhetoric is geared toward "support the troops," how can it be that so little attention is paid to keeping the troops from getting shot in the first place? I've made this point before, but I can't emphasize it enough: If we really want to honor and celebrate "America's heroes," maybe we could stop sending them into military conflicts that are morally and politically suspect.

As an American, I do feel a sense of responsibility to properly respect those who have had the courage to wear a military uniform and serve with honor. Yet, I also regret that our common discourse neglects to honor those patriotic Americans who have fought for democracy and freedom without a gun in hand: those who have conscientiously objected to war; those who have publicly protested state aggression; those who have led efforts to find diplomatic alternatives to military interventions; those who insist that we really can give peace a chance. Moreover, as a rhetorical critic, I feel a sense of responsibility to challenge ideologically-based rhetorics that, persuasive though they may be to many, actually risk the health of the democracy they claim to defend.

Have a happy, and safe, Veterans Day

Gender, Sport, and the Olympics

2010-10-28T23:41:00.003-04:00

One thing I'd like to do a little more frequently here is share links to new sport-based scholarship. With that in mind, readers may find the new issue of thirdspace: a journal of feminist theory & culture to be interesting. It is a special issue called, "Gender, Sport and the Olympics." The editor of the special issue, Kim Toffoletti, notes in her introduction:

"Our aim is to illuminate the central role which gender and sexuality play in shaping ideas
about athleticism, sport culture and the body, and the significant ways in which athletic
events such as the Olympics work to transform conceptions of public space, national
boundaries and identities, and gendered self-presentations and performances."

The issue features several articles, discussions, and book reviews. You can check it out here.

What Should LeBron Do?

2010-10-26T11:48:00.003-04:00

Whatever your thoughts about LeBron James, the "Decision," or Nike, you should see this new commercial. It's really, really well done.

Et tu, Canada?

2010-10-17T22:45:00.005-04:00

Earlier this week, I came across this item on the listserv for the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS). Evidently, Hockey Night in Canada is pretty eager to feature members of the Canadian military fighting in Afghanistan as exemplars of national identity. Columnist John Doyle suggests that this is part of a shift in how hockey is viewed as a national metaphor:

"[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] plays a role in all of this. CBC is complicit in the unsubtle shifting of the meaning of hockey in Canadian life – from being emblematic of a culture of survival to an offshoot of the military, with an underlying meaning that has something to do with Canada being a warrior nation. Hockey is a fast, beautiful and thrilling game. Some say that hockey is part of the lifeblood of the Canadian culture precisely because it's about survival on the hard, unforgiving ice in the face of the eternal enemy of the elements. Now it’s about soldiers, war, warriors and the acceptance of death after death in war."

I don't know enough about hockey or Canadian history to offer any particular insight here, but I do find it interesting that the fusing of national sports telecasts with military propaganda isn't restricted to United States. I also can't help but wonder what political discourses in Canada have cultivated the need to shift the nation's metaphorical associations with hockey. Equating sport and war are practically a given in the United States. But Canada?

On Doing Less Harm

2010-10-08T14:09:00.004-04:00

In the wake of what appears to be an increase in stories about bullying--see here, or here, or here--here's another reason to root for Phoenix Suns guard Steve Nash. A professional athlete of Nash's stature has no obligation to comment on the issue of bullying, much less specifically comment on the harassment of gays and lesbians. So it is of no small significance that he tweeted to his more than 250,000 followers: "I'm pro-creative and individualism. 90% of gay teens being harassed is embarrassing to human race." He then included a link to this story in the New York Times.

ESPN's LZ Granderson has more on Nash's thoughts on the issue, including his insistence that "Bullying is about the insecurity of the person who feels the need to bully. [My response is] not about sexual preference or race or anything like that. It's just about human decency."

I often describe the larger purpose of my research as being an effort to have people do less harm to one another (there's a whole rhetorical attitude tied to this idea, borrowed clearly from Kenneth Burke, but I'll not get into that right now). Nash's emphasis on human decency gives us a chance to do just that--he clearly believes that words can make a difference, and in that he provides a simple and elegant example of treating others in this world with dignity and respect, instead of contempt and violence.

A Strikeout in the Bottom of the 10th

2010-09-29T22:04:00.003-04:00

So tonight gave us the conclusion of Ken Burns' 10th Inning of Baseball. In sum, if you want to know about baseball in the past decade, Burns would have you remember two things:

1) Baseball players used a shitload of steroids. Especially Barry Bonds (at least we think so).

2) Important games were played by the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, and maybe occasionally by some other teams that need not be mentioned in any detail.

Seriously, between the prolonged highlight sequences of the 2001 World Series (merited) and the 2003 and 2004 American League Championship Series, both of which featured the Red Sox vs. Yankees, and the endless interviews with Red Sox fans Mike Barnicle and Doris Kearns Goodwin, there was almost no time left for Burns to throw Bonds to the wolves.

Sure, there were some nice moments--the growth of new statistical measures, for example--but, in general, this installment was about performance-enhancing drugs and Boston-New York. For instance, after a 10-12 minute segment on the Red Sox collapse in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, Burns gave maybe 3 minutes to the concurrent collapse of the Chicago Cubs in Game 7 of the 2003 NLCS. And, after what had to be at least 20 minutes on the Red Sox finally beating the Yankees and winning a World Series in 2004, he devoted absolutely zero time to the Chicago White Sox breaking their own curse, and in 2005 reaching their first World Series since 1959 and winning their first since 1917. Lest you believe that I'm simply revealing my Chicago bias, need I remind you that I detest the White Sox? To essentially ignore such a compelling storyline involving a franchise with a deep and rich baseball history is inexcusable.

After the hour and a half mark, when Burns finally relented on the Red Sox in order to return to the steroids issue, I had checked out. I watched the rest, but I was frustrated and disengaged. I really enjoyed the top half of the 10th. I was pleasantly surprised that Burns didn't go heavy-handed on the patriotism and nationalism when addressing 9/11. But all in all, I think the bottom half of the 10th inning was nothing short of a strikeout.

Thoughts on the Top of the 10th

2010-09-28T21:57:00.004-04:00

Ken Burns' celebrated documentary series, Baseball, returned tonight on PBS, with a new installment, the "10th inning." I know that the second part doesn't air until tomorrow night, but here are some quick first impressions:

1) The production is every bit as engrossing as I'd expected, with excellent photography, video, and interviews. But, really, why does George Will always have to be a part of every baseball documentary?

2) As a baseball fan, I am struck by how immediate this inning feels--whereas the majority of the original series is "history" to me, the coverage of the past 20 years overlaps with my own memory of baseball. Thus, tonight I found myself thinking simultaneously: "Hey, I remember that!" and "Damn, I'm old!"

3) Barry Bonds was the first major figure introduced at length. It had all the makings of a Greek tragedy, and it's hard not to be saddened by what Bonds has become in the years since. It was not surprising, of course, that Bonds was immediately contrasted with Ken Griffey, Jr., probably the only other player from the 1990s in Bonds' league, but a personality that was widely celebrated as joyful and good for baseball. Strangely, though, after an extended segment on Bonds, Griffey received minimal time.

4) It would be impossible not to address steroids head-on, and given the wide range of topics to be covered in this inning, I'm generally impressed by the treatment of the issue. In particular, Burns implicates almost the full range of participants--players, MLB, media (he does kind of let fans off the hook)--and also acknowledges that the desire of players to use steroids and other substances isn't nearly as illogical as it is commonly portrayed.

5) Among the criticisms of the original 9-inning series was the disproportionate attention given to New York and its various teams. With that in mind, did the 10th inning really need to spend so much time just on the 1996 New York Yankees?

6) I'm pleased that Mark McGwire's use of androstenedione was not only discussed, but that Howard Bryant was given a platform to call out baseball and its writers for villainizing journalist Steve Wilstein, the writer who first discovered the now-illegal substance in McGwire's locker in 1998.

7) Speaking of 1998, as exciting and significant as the home run race between McGwire and Sammy Sosa was, the length of this segment felt far too long.

8) The discussion of new ballpark construction was framed as a way to introduce the growth of home runs in the 1990s (partly as a product of smaller stadiums), but only briefly gestured toward arguments about the illusion that new parks can revitalize struggling economies. This was a missed opportunity.

9) Late in the inning, Barry Bonds was set up as a villain. Even after foreshadowing the revelation that McGwire and Sosa were using illegal performance-enhancing drugs, those two figures were largely depicted in positive terms. Bonds, on the other hand, at the very end of the inning, was presented as bitter and resentful, motivated by the adulation given to players he knew were his inferiors.

10) Best line of the two hours goes to Pedro Martinez, who upon reflecting on his own excitement about the '98 home run race, said: "Innocence is beautiful sometimes."

All in all, a lot of interesting material. Can't wait to watch tomorrow night.

Preaching to the Choir

2010-09-27T23:18:00.004-04:00

I am currently teaching a course called, "Communication and Sport." I organize the course around several key metaphors: sport as community, sport as the body, sport as the nation, etc. This week, we are concluding the section on sport as religion, and I am finishing my preparation for tomorrow's class topic: "The Church of Baseball."

When I've taught this in the past, I've been sure to show my students a baseball blog written by "Sister Daedalus," called simply, "Church of Baseball." The Sister is a Cincinnati Reds fan, who has relocated to Washington, D.C. (though it appears she is presently in Lebanon). The blog is primarily about baseball, not church, but she does a wonderful job of extending the metaphor--her posts are "sermons," her blogroll includes "sinners" and "saints," and so on. It works really well as an illustration of the metaphor in my class, but I don't get to reading the blog as often as I'd like.

In any case, I checked in with the good Sister this evening so I could include it for tomorrow's class. Among her many posts about baseball, I also discovered her comments about a recent "Support the Troops" event in Washington, D.C. First, I can't believe I hadn't already heard about this. Second, her sermon about the sanctification of the troops is just spot on. In short, three members of the New York Mets--Carlos Beltran, Oliver Perez, and Luis Castillo--opted out of a planned team visit to Walter Reed Medical Center. In the words of Mets third baseman David Wright:

"You'd like to see everybody. I don't think it's big enough until you get everybody. But we made a good showing and I think it meant a lot for those guys and it meant a lot for us. It's amazing to see how dedicated they are to this country. It makes your chest swell."

Wright was one of the principal spokesmen for the launching of MLB's "Welcome Back Veterans" campaign, which was the initiative of Mets' GM Fred Wilpon. In other words, Wright's sentiments are hardly surprising. Of course, it's also the case that Wright is simply echoing the, "Golly gee, the troops are heroes, we appreciate all they do for us," discourse that is so commonplace in professional sports.

But, as Sister Daedalus reminds us, "They are not saints." And she concludes, "If you truly supported the troops, you'd be taking action to prevent them from being put into situations which might force a trip to Walter Reed, altering their lives forever."

I couldn't agree more. But rather than add my own sermon, I encourage you to visit church for yourself. Please read the rest of her post, "Support the Troops!"

Sport and Public Memories of 9/11

2010-09-17T09:19:00.006-04:00

John Lucaites, Professor of Communication and Culture at Indiana University, brought this photograph to my attention. He was kind enough to invite me to contribute as a guest correspondent to excellent blog he co-hosts, No Caption Needed. For my thoughts on this photograph, I encourage you to check it out here.

CBS and ESPN2: Double Fault

2010-09-14T22:14:00.004-04:00

Back in 2008, when Rafael Nadal beat Roger Federer at Wimbledon, I bemoaned the dearth of sports media attention given to the match and its significance. This is often the case for tennis, of course, as it is far down the list of popular spectator sports in the United States. But last night, once again in a match featuring Nadal, those who do count tennis as among their favorites were blatantly disregarded by the very networks that presumably aim to showcase the sport. After Nadal defeated Novak Djokovic to win the U.S. Open, thus securing the "career grand slam," ESPN2 (who had coverage at that point because of a rain delay that moved it from CBS) cut away from the trophy presentation in order to show the pre-game blather prior to the San Diego Chargers-Kansas City Chiefs NFL game. Pre-game. I'd say more, but Katie Baker at Deadspin.com has it covered. She's well worth the read.

Oh, Barf

2010-09-03T22:48:00.003-04:00

Because TBS hasn't been criminal enough with their coverage of the MLB playoffs--relentless advertising for their own schlock programming (the Frank Caliendo show, anyone?), lousy production values (the 2008 ALCS had the worst sound quality of any televised baseball I've ever seen), or painful announcers (see: Caray, Chip)--during the upcoming playoffs we'll be treated to...Kid Rock!

According to Att.net news, "The rousing, patriotic 'Born Free,' the title track from the Detroit rocker's upcoming album, has been enlisted by TBS as the official marketing theme for the network's Major League Baseball postseason coverage."

In the words of Craig Barry, the senior vice president of content for Turner Sports, "It's a song with an all-American feel that connects perfectly with America's favorite pastime."

After reading that Kid Rock has said, "The catalyst for this record was Detroit, and my thoughts on the world through the lens of Detroit. Watching everything go downhill over the past few years, the economy, the loss of jobs everywhere, I wanted to make a record that reflected the times but that still had soul," I'm not so sure about Barry's description. This sure doesn't sound like a "rousing, patriotic" anthem to me.

Nevertheless, MLB has produced a commercial that is worthy of every super-patriot's highest hopes. Get ready for another top-notch playoff season with TBS. I think my head's gonna explode.

Don't Be a Twit (Tweet)

2010-08-31T16:04:00.002-04:00

Washington Post sports columnist Mike Wise has been suspended for one month for purposefully posting false news (that Pittsburgh Steelers quaterback Ben Roethlisberger would end up with a 5-game suspenseion) to Twitter. Other news outlets picked up Wise's post, which is exactly what he thought would happen. Wise hoped that he would be able to make a point about the lack of fact-checking that accompanies the media's eagerness to break news. Instead, he has received a reprimand and has admitted to acting like "an idiot."

Ok, Wise probably was stupid here. But isn't it possible that the swift and rather harsh penalty reflects that maybe he hit a little too close to home? Methinks the sports media doth protest too much...

State of Denial

2010-08-27T22:50:00.003-04:00

There are few sports teams that I dislike more than the St. Louis Cardinals. They are the main rival of the Chicago Cubs, of course, and they are presently managed by Tony LaRussa, a guy who has always struck me as a pompous blowhard. But, generally speaking, I can keep things in perspective. I didn't like it much when the Cardinals won the 2006 World Series, but it didn't keep me up at night or incite angry rants from me about the state of baseball.

Meanwhile, I have a more difficult time staying calm when it comes to politics. Our political culture is so corrosive that it is a constant struggle to retain some optimism that we can somehow do better. If you've even glanced at this blog, you know that I not only lean to the left politically; I practically fall over in that direction. Nevertheless, I have great deal of respect for the fact that a perfectly reasonable, compassionate, and intelligent person might lean (or even fall over) to the right. This is not the case, however, when it comes to the cluster of political voices that are grouped around two entities: the Tea Party and Fox News. And no one disgusts me more than Glenn Beck.

What in the world do the St. Louis Cardinals have to do with Glenn Beck? Well, perhaps you've heard that Beck has organized a "Restoring Honor" rally to be held at the Mall in Washington, D.C., and it "just happens" to correspond with the anniversary of Martin Luther King's remarkable "I Have a Dream" speech delivered in 1963. In addition to Beck, the rally will feature former Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who runs a close second to Beck on my list of most contempuous Americans. Part of the festivities planned for the rally is a ceremony honoring, among others, St. Louis Cardinals superstar Albert Pujols. His manager--LaRussa--is defending the appearance of his best player (and, arguably, MLB's best player) by stating:

"I made it clear when we were approached: I said, 'If it's political, I wouldn't even approach Albert with it.' I don't want to be there if it's political." He added: "I don't know who's going to be there, who's going to accept [the award]. But the gist of the day is not political. I think it's a really good concept, actually."

I will not detail the many reasons for my distate for Beck and Palin. The reality is that, reprehensible though I may find them to be, they are perfectly entitled to believe in so-called conservative politics and to speak on behalf of those beliefs (I say "so-called" because their notion of conservatism is grossly distorted). So, for the moment, let's not worry about whether or not Beck's politics are correct. Instead, let's agree--and really, on this we should be able to agree--that it is impossible for Glenn Beck to hold a rally in the nation's capital on the anniversary of the signature speech by the signature figure of the civil rights movement to be understood as anything other than political. It is the very definition of political.

Thus, LaRussa's comments are laughable. What "good concept" might he be referring to? Add to this that the rally is to include a "faith-based" message (which helps explain Pujols' interest) and one cannot escape the careful articulation of evangelical Christianity with conservative political positions (such as being opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research, and so on) that has become so influential in American politics in the past three decades.

Is LaRussa in denial? Or is he stupid? Or does he simply want to play dumb in order to deflect any criticism that his star player might be subjected to? I'm not sure what the answer here is. What I do know is that Albert Pujols has every right to attend Glenn Beck's rally. But, rest assured, we all have the right to call him--and LaRussa--out for what it really means.

An Academic Holiday Present

2010-08-18T15:44:00.002-04:00

I know I've already shared the cover of the book, but today my box of 10 copies arrived. It's official, the book is real! You can find it here.

Thanks to everyone at the University of Alabama Press.

Playing Politics

2010-08-11T13:45:00.003-04:00

As I often insist, sports must be understood as political. Simply stated, they are far too public and involve too many corporate, government, and media entities to be the purported "escape" or "diversion" they are often portrayed to be. That said, athletes and politicians can make strange befellows, especially when athletes seek to become politicians.

Exhibit A: Kevin Millen, a former basketball player at Georgetown who lost a Tennessee congressional bid in yesterday's Republican primary. In his concession, delivered via email, Millen declared, "All Republicans in Memphis have turned this Republican Party into the dumbest and weakest Republican Party ever." He had lots of other interesting, and at times somewhat coherent, things to say. Shockingly, he received only 1,199 votes.

Exhibit B: Michael Vaughn, a state representative in Maryland. In this case, Vaughn is not a former athlete; he simply claimed to be, stating that he spent three years playing with the Dallas Cowboys in the 1980s. After someone decided to look up his time with the Cowboys, and subsequently discovered he had never played for any NFL team, Vaughn has now proceeded to deny his original claim and insists this is a "mistake" and a product of the "24/7" news culture.

Hey, Millen and Vaughn, let's leave the politics to former baseball players, shall we? I mean, that Jim Bunning in Kentucky seems to have it figured out. Wait, him too? Oh, never mind...

Crazier Than the Tea Party

2010-08-06T14:39:00.003-04:00

You are no doubt familiar with the familiar line: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" (a line, evidently, attributable to Albert Einstein). So in a world increasingly defined by insanity (exhibit A: Tea Party), here comes news from the New York Knicks, who apparently feel that Isiah Thomas needs yet another chance to destroy their franchise.

Thomas, who has a job as the head coach at Florida International University, will now be a "consultant" for the Knicks. How anyone at FIU thinks this is acceptable is beyond me, but they were the fools that hired him to coach their team to a 7-25 record, after all.

Of his new role, Thomas said, "I'm excited to work with the Knicks again. I wish my mom was still alive to see this."

No offense, Isiah, but I'm pretty sure she's relieved she isn't.

You Reap What You Sew

2010-08-03T11:29:00.003-04:00

It seems fitting that I return to The Agon with a story that connects in obvious ways to the LeBron "decision." News this morning is that Brett Favre will not return to play this coming season. After yet another off-season of self-indulgent posturing, Favre now leaves the Minnesota Vikings with approximately one month to sort out their offense without him. All I can say to the Vikings is that you get what you deserve. Bringing in Favre last year was a high risk-high reward scenario. To a degree, they were rewarded during the 2009 season. But let's not forget that the Vikings' season ended with an exceptionally bad (or delightful, given your perspective) interception that allowed the New Orleans Saints to win the NFC Championship (and, eventually, the Super Bowl).

Meanwhile, the Green Bay Packers, who received a fair share of criticism for ushering Favre out the door in 2007 so that Aaron Rodgers could finally play, come out of this as a clear winner and Super Bowl favorite for the 2010 season. Anyone prefer to Favre to Rodgers now?

[Yes, I know this is Brett Favre, and he may well "unretire" yet again in two weeks. But for now, this makes me giddy.]

The Morning After

2010-07-09T13:19:00.004-04:00

The sun came up today in Cleveland. Well, not the sun, actually. It's gray and rainy in Ohio today. But for the nearly 3 million people who live in and around Cleveland (counting areas like Akron), life goes on the morning after Lebron James declared his intentions to play basketball not in Northeast Ohio but in South Florida. In the wake of James' decision--announced through a mediated spectacle that stretched just about every boundary of credibility--Miami's ecstasy is dwarfed by Cleveland's agony. After "witnessing" for seven years the reign of hometown hero (Akron) "King James," Ohioans must now accept an NBA roster that will be lucky to win 20 games. Once a beloved figure just about everywhere, James is now widely viewed as narcissistic and arrogant at best, a coward and traitor at worst: Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert blasted his former superstar immediately after the announcement, calling James' departure a "cowardly betrayal"; many in the sports media have chastized him for abandoning a city that has well-documented socio-economic problems; ESPN's Bill Simmons wrote prior to the announcement, "Picking anyone other than Cleveland on this show would be the meanest thing any athlete has ever done to a city"; and now that James indeed picked someone other than Cleveland, local fans are utterly devastated, with some even resorting to burning their newly departed hero's jerseys (though let's face it, the same footage keeps showing up over and over again; it's hardly an epidemic).

I'm only a marginal professional basketball fan, so my interest here doesn't have much to do with the game itself. I tend to agree with analysts who think he would have been smarter to sign with Chicago, but if James thinks it'd be fun to play with his friends in Miami, who am I to argue. The backlash that "The King" now faces really isn't about the decision in and of itself, but rather, is about the manner in which he delivered the news. It's easy to criticize the ESPN production, "The Decision." Indeed, it was crass and shameless; in other words, perfect for ESPN. But calling out the Worldwide Leader is just too easy. In the end, as I listen to the laments of Clevelanders and the admonishments of the sports media, I'm more interested in the assumptions that are being made about the relationship between an athlete and a city.

In the contemporary era of free agency, there are notable examples of athletes who spent the entirety of their careers in one city: John Elway, Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken, Jr., David Robinson. These are hall of fame athletes and they are absolutely beloved in Denver, San Diego, Baltimore, and San Antonio. Part of that adulation is a product of the loyalty that each man demonstrated in order to remain in his given community. And, consequently, they have become the standard-bearers of a relationship between fans and athletes that far too many believe should be the norm. In other words, there is an unspoken contract between fans and players that says they want the same things--i.e., fans want heroes who will bring glory to their city by winning a championship, and players want to become heroes by bringing glory to their fans by winning a championship. Listen to any victory celebration in the major sports and you'll hear declarations about how wonderful it is to win a title on behalf of Chicago, or Los Angeles, or New Orleans, all of which, of course, have "the best fans in the world."

All of this makes sense so long as everyone plays along. But if expectations are violated, then the unspoken contract has been broken. In his excellent analysis of the "Malice at the Palace" (the 2004 brawl between the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers), Dan Grano argues that reactions to that incident were so dramatic because the unspoken rules of space--an invisible boundary separating players and fans in the arena--had been violated. That violation represented nothing short of a crisis of integrity for the league. Although Lebron James' departure from Cleveland is not a crisis for the NBA--it has been precisely the opposite, at least in the short run--it does reveal a similar disruption of unspoken expectations. This is why fans are so deeply hurt by James' alleged betrayal--he simply hasn't fulfilled his end of the bargain as they understand it.

The lesson here is not that Lebron James should have stayed in Cleveland. I do think it would have been nice if he had done so. But, rather, the lesson is that we might reconsider the expectations we have for our athletes and our sports. Too often, this story has been filtered through the lens of Cleveland-as-city-in-distress. Too often, Cleveland area residents have given in to this narrative--"Yeah, our town does kind of suck, doesn't it? C'mon, Lebron, you're all we've got!" Investing too much in a heroic narrative has set up Cavaliers fans for the colossal disappointment that they now face. So, while lashing out at James is a predictable response, it will do little to re-frame how Clevelanders see themselves or their city. Yes, James, his "team," and the sports media deserve some criticism. But, on this morning after, how might Cleveland fans understand this drama if they looked inward?

Judging a Book By Its Cover

2010-06-28T13:49:00.004-04:00

Well, the book isn't available just yet, but today the University of Alabama Press sent me a picture of the cover. So, I couldn't help myself:

No color, but I rather like it.

Delirious

2010-06-24T21:43:00.006-04:00

John Isner, reflecting on the moment last night that he learned his first round Wimbledon match with Nicolas Mahut would be suspended due to darkness--at 59-all--said, "I was completely delirious." It is a sentiment that captures perfectly how I felt yesterday (and, to a lesser extent, today) as a sports fan. When play was called, Isner and Mahut had been on court for a total of 10 hours over two days. The fifth set alone exceeded the duration of any other previous match in the history of tennis. Today, Isner sealed the victory after another hour of play, finally breaking Mahut's serve to take the decisive set, 70-68.

70-68!

The magnitude of the Isner-Mahut match is captured by the photo above, a photo that was arranged by Wimbledon officials who, quite rightly, recognized that the match was simply unprecedented. Frankly, the final score--6-4, 3-6, 6-7 (7), 7-6 (3), 70-68--is almost incomprehensible. As ESPN's Greg Garber put it:

"Over three days that were not once visited by rain, in a match that consumed 11 hours, 5 minutes--a cartoonish number that somehow fails to capture this raw, brutal struggle that consisted of 183 games--Isner was just a few, well-timed shots better than Mahut in the end."

What made the match all the better, at least for many watching in the United States, was that it overlapped with a quartet of tense matches at the World Cup, most notably games that would determine the fate of England and the United States. As you likely know by now, the United States, needing a victory over Algeria to advance in the tournament, orchestrated a magnificent goal in stoppage time to win, 1-0. The improbable result means that the U.S. won their group, which gives them Ghana in the next round while England must contend with Germany (Ghana will prove a most difficult test, but it is nevertheless a preferable match-up to Germany).

Grand Slam tennis tournaments and the World Cup are among the most popular and visible events in international sports. Nevertheless, it is unusual for them to displace the usual suspects--baseball, football, and basketball--on American sports pages. So, it's nice to see tennis and soccer get some love. But most importantly, the Isner-Mahut match and Landon Donovan's tournament-saving goal are reminders of why sports should not be easily dismissed as trivial or unimportant. Dave Zirin emphasizes this theme in his response to Terry Eagleton, an influential academic who recently disparaged sports as the "opiate of the masses" (a reference to how Karl Marx viewed religion, and one that has been applied to sports too many times by other misguided academics). As Zirin says, "But like all art, sport at its essence--what attracts us to it in the first place--holds within it a view of human potential unshackled, of what we could all be in a society that didn't grind us into dust."

That potential was unleashed by Isner, Mahut, and the American soccer team yesterday. We will not likely see moments quite like these again. That, of course, is part of what makes them so remarkable. But it is also the promise and the hope that we might see something else spectacular that keeps us watching sports again and again. I spend most of my time on this blog lamenting the reasons that sports fail us. What a joy it is, then, to celebrate these moments when sports excite and inspire us. Delirious, indeed.

Stanley Cup Pride

2010-06-22T17:17:00.003-04:00

Sports sociologist Eric Anderson has been arguing--rather loudly--that "hegemonic masculinity" in sports is dead. In other words, the idea that sports reinforce a dominant form of masculinity has increasingly been weakened by a new generation of athletes who view sexuality as more open and fluid than most of us are accustomed. Although media representations tend to still privilege more "traditional" images of gender, there do appear to be some moments that suggest Anderson is on to something.

Not so long ago, I wrote about Ohio State University football coach, Jim Tressel, whose comments to Outlook Columbus revealed a thoughtful and humane approach to sexuality in sports. Today, thanks to a Facebook link from Marian University's Bryan McCann, comes this news from Chicago: members of the NHL champion Chicago Blackhawks will march with the Stanley Cup in the Chicago Gay Pride Parade later this month.

Is this just another case of going after the gay and lesbian market--i.e., "pinkwashing?" Perhaps, but it's also a clear moment of inclusion and representation that has been historically absent in the world of sports. For that reason alone, there is, indeed, much to be proud of in Chicago.

Game On

2010-06-11T09:46:00.003-04:00

I'm writing less than 15 minutes before the opening game of the World Cup, between Mexico and host nation South Africa. I'm intrigued by the level of interest that appears to be present in the U.S. sports media. Perhaps this is skewed by the fact that I watch/read ESPN quite a bit, and, since ESPN is broadcasting the World Cup, they have an interest in promoting it. Yet there seems to be quite a bit of legitimate anticipation, especially for Saturday's match-up between the United States and England.

To be sure, there are political critiques to be made of the World Cup. Dave Zirin has already suggested that the billions spent on facilities is irresponsible, for example. Meanwhile, all of the American television ads touting the "non-political" nature of international sport are transparently naive. Nevertheless, I'm very excited that the action is about to begin, as there is nothing quite like four weeks of sustained soccer action played at the highest level.

So, in the interest of keeping things fun, let's enjoy the start of the World Cup. Here's my predicted final four:

Spain over Argentina
Netherlands over England

And in the final: Spain over the Netherlands.

Other bold predictions out there?

But, Hadn't We Come a Long Way?

2010-06-09T16:38:00.004-04:00

I work in a School of Media and Communication, which includes my own Department of Communication, as well as the Departments of Telecommunications and Journalism and Public Relations. I mention this because I have many colleagues who are committed to teaching and training the next generation of journalists to be detailed, ethical, and responsible professionals. But in our ever-quickening 24/7 mediated world, this seems to be a near-impossible task. The latest example? This image, a pull-out poster endorsed by the sports editor at one of the nation's finest newspapers, the Chicago Tribune:

This is an all-too-common tactic in sports--intimidate or demean your opponent by implying that he is: a) feminine; b) gay; or c) both. It's insulting, it's unnecessary, and above all, it's unprofessional. Look, I don't expect that this kind of stuff won't happen on the ice, in the locker room, or in the stands, but for a prominent media outlet to exploit such a juvenile stereotype is journalism at its worst.

And to think, so many in the industry want to blame the Internet for the death of newspapers.

Conferencing

2010-05-29T13:55:00.003-04:00

Presently, I am in a Panera in downtown Minneapolis, preparing for a conference presentation in less than an hour. The conference is the Rhetoric Society of America, an academic gathering of rhetorical scholars across departments, including Communication, English, Philosophy, and Political Science. Like many of my colleagues in rhetoric, I think RSA offers a nice alternative to the bloat and politics of the National Communication Association's annual convention. Although NCA is too expensive and too big, it has been a good place for a lot of scholars to feature sport-based research (especially in media or mass communication studies). It remains to be seen, though, whether or not RSA will make sport an important part of rhetorical studies. Perusing the conference program, I see only one panel that explicitly features sport (though there are a handful of additional papers on other panels). The panel is called, "The Wide World of Sports Rhetoric," a title so general that I fear it reveals the sense that the powers-that-be in the field aren't quite sure what to make of what we're doing. In any case, if you're interested, the panel includes the following:

Beijing Welcomes the World: Olympic Village and the Rhetoric of Globalization
Heather Hill, University of Washington

The Opening Ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games
Michelle Murray Yang, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Softball Constituting National Identity?
Korryn Mozisek, Indiana University

“We Must Protect This House!”: The Familial Rhetoric of Big-Time College Football
David Wright, University of South Carolina

What Presidential Responses to Steroids in Baseball Reveal about American Identity
Michael Butterworth, Bowling Green State University

As for the future of sports rhetoric at RSA, that remains to be seen.

Where's the Outrage?

2010-05-26T15:45:00.003-04:00

Kansas City Dwayne Bowe must have a really bad reputation. It is true that the young receiver has failed to earn the trust of his (also young) head coach Todd Haley, and he's evidently displayed various forms of immaturity since being drafted by the Chiefs in 2007. But I can't help but think there's more to the story, because how else to explain the overwhelming lack of discussion that has followed Bowe's interview with ESPN The Magazine?

In case you missed it--and I did at first, too, because it didn't appear to get much attention--Bowe offered some insight into the behavior of NFL players when they are on the road. He explains:

"You hear stories about groupies hanging out in hotel lobbies, but some of my teammates had it set up so there was a girl in every room. The older guys get on MySpace and Facebook a week before we go to a city; when a pretty one writes back, they arrange to fly her in three or four days in advance."

The response from Haley? "An internal matter."

From his teammates? "No comment."

From the media? "There's a sense around the Chiefs' training complex that his latest digression isn't something the tight-reined Haley-Scott Pioli regime is going to tolerate -- not from a player who's already been in the doghouse several times."

Meanwhile, ESPN columnist Jeffri Chadiha uses the situation to explore the impact it may have on Bowe's on-field play. And, he nicely sums up the prevailing wisdom: "It's not revelatory that pro athletes have groupies."

No, it certainly isn't. Heck, ESPN even reinforced the idea with its commentary from "MLB Player X," who affirms the same practice takes place in baseball, too: "News flash: Flying women into cities when you're on the road isn't big news for pro athletes."

The point shouldn't be whether or not this is a surprise, it should be whether or not it is acceptable. Have we already forgotten about Ben Roethlisberger? Exactly how is it that someone like Roethlisberger comes to view himself as above reproach, as someone entitled to ogle, grope, and lay women when and how he wants to? Well, it might have something to do with a culture of excess, tolerance, and silence.

Whatever his shortcomings, Dwayne Bowe gave us an invitation to further interrogate a permissive culture within sports that exploits women. Too bad no one wants to take him up on it.

A Shot at Exemption?

2010-05-24T15:09:00.003-04:00

The Supreme Court has ruled that the National Football League (NFL) must be understood not as a single entity, but as 32 separate organizations (teams). This decision stems from an anti-trust case filed by American Needle, Inc., which accused the NFL of closing down competition when it signed an exclusive 10-year contract with Reebok to manufacture officially licensed team hats.

NFL merchandise is huge business, but the bigger news in this case is that the ruling prevents the NFL from being able to dictate the terms of player and coach contracts, instead leaving those terms to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Say what you want about the excessive salaries in the NFL, there is no justice in an arrangement that denies players (and coaches) the right to negotiate their own contracts (especially since NFL contracts are not guaranteed).

My interest in this story is located on a different angle, however. In a report from the Associated Press, with contributions from ESPN's John Clayton, the NFL is referenced in contrast to Major League Baseball (MLB):

"Major League Baseball is the only professional sports league with broad antitrust protection. The National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, the NCAA, NASCAR, professional tennis and Major League Soccer supported the NFL in this case, hoping the high court would expand broad antitrust exemption to other sports."

Let's linger on that for a moment. MLB received its anti-trust exemption in a 1922 Supreme Court ruling. That decision ruled that because the business of baseball could be defined as local, it was not subject to the constraints of interstate commerce. As Smith College economist Andrew Zimbalist explains:

"Baseball's exemption from antitrust statutes . . . erroneous back in 1922 and more so in the 1950s, became even more anomalous in 1957, when the Supreme Court declared football to be subject to antitrust statutes and stated that baseball’s exemption was "unreasonable, illogical and inconsistent.'"

The 1957 ruling did not apply to baseball. In other words, the business of baseball and football (as well as other professional sports) are effectively the same, yet it is only baseball that receives the exemption? Now, you don't suppose there are any consequences to this arrangement, do you?

The Chorus Grows Louder

2010-05-04T21:57:00.003-04:00

Since I posted a couple of days ago, the debate over Arizona SB 1070 has only intensified. This is especially, and perhaps curiously, the case in the sports world. Given the large percentage of Latin American players in baseball, I'm not too surprised to hear of major leaguers (and the player's union) speaking out in opposition to the new law. But dissent is spreading, and with the basketball playoffs underway, the NBA may now become the focal point of this resistance. Specifically, the Phoenix Suns, when they host the San Antonio Spurs in game 2 of their Western Conference series tomorrow night, will wear jerseys that read, "Los Sons." Any illusion that this is merely because the game will be played on the Cinco de Mayo holiday is shattered by the comments of Suns owner, Robert Sarver, who said:

"However intended, the result of passing the law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question, and Arizona's already struggling economy will suffer even further setbacks at a time when the state can ill-afford them."

Suns point guard, and resident political voice, Steve Nash added:

"I think it's fantastic. I think the law is very misguided. I think it's, unfortunately, to the detriment of our society and our civil liberties. I think it's very important for us to stand up for things we believe in. As a team and as an organization, we have a lot of love and support for all of our fans. The league is very multicultural. We have players from all over the world, and our Latino community here is very strong and important to us."

Meanwhile, the Spurs wanted to wear "Los Spurs" jerseys but couldn't have them made in time. But San Antonio coach Greg Popovich stated:

"It's a wonderful idea, because it kind of shows what we all should be about. Sure there needs to be a lot of work done, obviously. A lot of administrations have done nothing about the immigration deal and now everybody's paying the price, especially a lot of people in Arizona. That's a bad thing, but the reaction is important, too, and this reaction [the Arizona law], I believe with Mr. Sarver, is inappropriate."

I recognize that one could interpret all of this political expression as an effort to pander to the large Latino communitites in Arizona and Texas. But it certainly feels like much more than that, and it is highly unusual to see such public political declarations, not only from athletes, but from coaches and owners. Dare I say that the NBA is providing a productive model of democracy?

A Rising Chorus

2010-05-01T00:00:00.003-04:00

You would have to be in hiding not to have heard of Arizona SB 1070, the newly minted legislation designed to contain illegal immigration in that state. For reasons that should be pretty obvious--it is premised on the identification of "suspicious" people--critics have quickly and vocally condemned the law for curtailing civil liberties and justifying racial profiling. It is not surprising, then, that numerous people and organizations have suggested that if Arizona wishes to marginalize immigrants, then perhaps the rest of the country should do the same to Arizona.

One of the primary ways to affect the state of Arizona is by threatening its robust tourism industry. This implicates sports in various ways, especially because the state is home to franchises in each of the four major league sports. Moreover, the 2011 Major League Baseball All-Star Game is scheduled to be played in Phoenix. Thus, among the voices of protest are those of baseball players, especially those from Latin America (Latinos, particularly Mexicans, are the obvious targets of the new law; meanwhile, approximately 25% of major league rosters are made up of players from Latin America).

The report from the Associated Press doesn't quote widespread unrest among major leaguers. Nevertheless, it is encouraging news that athletes are paying attention. Meanwhile, New York representative Jose Serrano sent a letter to MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, asking him to move next year's All-Star Game out of Phoenix. That's not likely to happen, but it does put MLB in the position of having to, in effect, choose sides on the debate. Given baseball's dependence on Latin labor, this is no small matter.

Lest you believe that silly protests and boycotts can have no effect, recall that the very same state of Arizona paid dearly in the late 1980s, when the NFL denied it the opportunity to host the Super Bowl until the state adopted the Martin Luther King holiday. It's safe to say that the potential impact of the present boycott efforts could be even greater.

And in the First Round, God Created...

2010-04-23T13:33:00.003-04:00

In the biggest story of last night's NFL Draft first round, Florida quarterback Tim Tebow was selected by the Denver Broncos. Predictably, the sports media are abuzz about what this means for the Broncos, their young head coach Josh McDaniels, and the other quarterbacks projected to have been picked ahead of Tebow (Notre Dame's Jimmy Clausen and Texas' Colt McCoy, in particular).

That's all well and good, and it does make for interesting sports chat. But what I think is most interesting is that this lands Tebow in Colorado, a state that is home to numerous evaneglical Christian organizations. Chief among them is Focus on the Family. You know Focus on the Family, they're the same folks who brought you Tim Tebow's mommy during the Super Bowl.

I'm just saying...

Change We Can Believe In?

2010-04-22T17:09:00.004-04:00

I learned of two articles from the listserv sponsored by the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (oh, NASSS, please find a less cumbersome name, won't you?).

First, Don Sabo forwarded an article from the New York Times that explains the Obama administration's action to overturn the Bush adminstration's decision to allow survey data to be used to demonstrate Title IX compliance. In a nutshell, surveys can be misleading, especially because they tend to reveal less interest in competitive sport among populations that have received less exposure to sport during their lives. In other words, women are traditionally given less access to sports so, as a group, they have less interest in playing them. I think you can see why this could allow colleges and universities to play loose with Title IX compliance.

Second, Faye Wachs shared this ESPN.com column suggesting that the public condemnation of golfer Tiger Woods and Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger can be understood as a shift in cultural attitudes about what kinds of behaviors are permissable for men, even men who are high-profile, successful athletes. As Howard Bryant writes, "For the first time, in a meaningful way, the wink-wink, nudge-nudge acceptance of the professional athlete and his murky late-night encounters with women has been replaced by a demand for maturity and accountability. In a shift, it appears that if the boys club is not completely closed, its existence is far less reputable than it once was."

I suppose time will tell with respect to Woods and Roethlisberger. But at minimum, I think it's safe to say that the amount of scrutiny and criticism directed in these athletes' directions is indicative of some kind of change. I don't think the outrage would have been as extreme even 10 years ago. Combined with the news about Title IX, one might even start feeling a little bit optimistic. But for us to really celebrate meaningful change, we need not only a public outcry when an athlete so egregiously mistreats women, we need them to not mistreat them in the first place.

More Self-Promotion!

2010-04-14T22:48:00.006-04:00

Yes, I know there are a lot of stories worthy of some Agon-style attention (I'm looking at you, Roethlisberger). But time and energy are in short supply these days, so I'll instead settle for letting everyone know about another exciting speaking opportunity. Russ Crawford at Ohio Northern University has organized a symposium called, "Breaking Barriers: The Role of Baseball in Integration." The panel includes myself and BGSU colleague Ray Schuck (a.k.a. "Iggy"), and it will engage with a range of effects--positive and negative--precipitated by Jackie Robinson's 1947 Major League Baseball debut. It happens tomorrow--April 15--which baseball fans will know is recognized as "Jackie Robinson Day."

As you could conclude from the images, I'll be discussing the popular comparisons between Robinson and Barack Obama, and the argument, made with some regularity in 2008, that Obama's election was made possible by the high-profile success of African American males in the 20th century (including Robinson, as well as athletes such as Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, and Tiger Woods). The symposium is scheduled to last two hours, so we should be able to cover a lot of ground. I'm especially interested to see what kind of feedback Ray and I get since we're both likely to challenge (though not dismiss) the prevailing mythology that sustains the Jackie Robinson legacy.

Militarism and Memorializing

2010-04-06T10:59:00.003-04:00

Last March, I wrote about my visit to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. I argued then that the exhibit, "Pro Football and the American Spirit," offered a problematic vision of public memory that further made militarism a normal and noble part of American life. Tonight, I get to present this argument as a public lecture at Denison University. The talk, "Militarism and Memorializing at the Pro Football Hall of Fame," takes place at 6:00. I also get the opportunity tomorrow morning to speak with two classes about sport and public memory. I'm really excited about the trip, and a big thanks goes to Cassandra Secrease-Dickson who invited me and organized the event.

Fourth Summit on Communication and Sport

2010-03-22T23:14:00.003-04:00

This past weekend, I attended the Fourth Summit on Communication and Sport. This conference built on the success of previous efforts at Arizona State University-West and Clemson University. Roughly 110 scholars and students attended the Summit, hosted, jointly by Kent State University and Youngstown State University, in downtown Cleveland. I should note that KSU's Barb Hugenberg and YSU's Adam Earnhardt did a wonderful job of planning and hosting the conference.

I had a great time. It was a chance to present some new research in progress--especially a developing essay about Tim Tebow--and to catch up with old friends while making new ones. Those of you familiar with the academic world know that large conferences--such as the annual convention of the National Communication Association--are often bloated, uninspiring affairs. I'm happy to say the Summit is absolutely the opposite.

I'm also happy to report that planning for future Summits has now been formalized. Previously steered by an informal committee featuring Clemson's Andy Billings, West Virginia's Kelby Halone, ASU-West's Jeff Kassing, and Paul Turman (now with the South Dakota Board of Regents), the Summit will now be under the direction of an Executive Committee. The new committee includes a representative from the most recent Summit--YSU's Amy Crawford--as well as a representative from the next one--Bradley University's Paul Gullifor. Also included are two at-large representatives: Ashland University's Karen Hartman and ASU-West's Lindsey Mean. The committee will be chaired by an Executive Director, who will be yours truly.

So, the Agon has been entrusted by this small, yet growing and engaged, community to direct the future of the Summit. I'm honored to have the opportunity and I look forward to the work ahead. My first executive order? A Cubs World Series championship. Check back with me in October...

A Surprising Outlook

2010-03-11T15:12:00.004-05:00

If you know anything about Ohio, you know that THE Ohio State University has a presence that is ubiquitous, and often obnoxious, throughout the state. With that presence comes influence, and that is especially the case when talking about OSU football. So it's kind of a big deal that Outlook Columbus, the state capital's gay magazine, has published an interview with Buckeyes head football coach, Jim Tressel.

If you don't know anything about Ohio, or Jim Tressel, you might think of him as the dude who wears the sweater-vest (see picture). He's also known to be a fairly conservative guy, which isn't surprisng given the culture of college football. Apparently, he's also not easily persuaded to do a lot of interviews, making his willingness to talk to Outlook Columbus all the more interesting. But what is most interesting is the candor and thoughtfulness he demonstrates. When asked how he would handle an OSU player coming out as gay, Tressel answered (in part) as follows:

"We’ve had players who had different religions, players who came from different economic backgrounds, players who are parents, who are spouses, who are caring for ailing parents, who are wheelchair bound, who are battling cancer, and on and on. Whatever a young man feels called to express, I hope we will help him do it in a supportive environment. Everybody is important, and maturity is learning to find and appreciate those differences in others."

There's much more to the interview, and you can read it in full on Outsports.com. It's well worth the read, not because Tressel makes a big deal of someone's sexuality but precisely because he does not.

Why It Shouldn't Be About "Ben"

2010-03-08T21:34:00.003-05:00

As you no doubt are aware, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger is now under investigation in Georgia after being accused of sexually assaulting a 20-year college student. You may also be aware that Roethlisberger is still facing a lawsuit filed by a woman in Nevada who claims he raped her in 2008. Predictably, most of the sports media coverage thus far has been about "Ben."

To a degree, this makes sense, given that the sports media are expected to focus on the sports-specific aspects of a story. The women who have pointed the finger at Roethlisberger are not part of the sports world, so they are merely the provocation for most stories about the allegations. Yet the relentless focus on Ben--what this all means for him, what it means for the Steelers, why he needs to grow up--results in an important oversight. Even those who are critical of the quarterback's behavior, such as ESPN's Jemele Hill, mistakenly focus on his "maturity." As she puts it:

"...let me pose the question that has plagued many of us since hearing the news that Roethlisberger is the subject of sexual assault allegations for the second time in eight months: Why is a 28-year-old quarterback with a $100 million contract putting himself at risk by socializing and drinking in a club with college kids?"

It seems to me that the answer isn't only about his maturity. It is also about the esteem and respect he grants women. Roethlisberger may be entirely innocent of assault. Nevertheless, he is guilty of treating women as little more than sexual playthings, pretty little dolls that exist purely for his amusement and pleasure. I'm not suggesting he can't pursue sexual relationships with women he finds attractive. But I am suggesting that when he uses his celebrity to shuffle dozens of young women in and out of a "VIP" room of a popular college bar, he is exhibiting and exploiting his power.

Unfortunately, this is not the angle of the coverage, even from someone like Hill. Rather than critique the very premise of Roethlisberger's behavior--i.e., not treating women as equals--she focuses instead on the damage he may have incurred for his marketability. Meanwhile, others focus primarily on whether or not he is guilty of sexual assault. Although that is important, it misses the fact that even if he is innocent of the charges, he is guilty all the same.

Going Prime Time

2010-02-24T16:20:00.003-05:00

Well, just a little.

Last Friday, WTOL-Channel 11 (Toledo) called me to see if I'd like to comment on the Tiger Woods press conference. Short answer: "Of course!" As I expected, they used just a brief portion of the interview and, frankly, not the part I would've most liked to see included. Nevertheless, it was fun and a good opportunity to translate ideas I work through in research into a more "public" forum.

You can see the story here: http://bgsuphoto.smugmug.com/Video/butterworth/11326646_LF8K9#795276257_DZedZ

And my thanks to colleague Seth Oyer for sharing this link (I actually thought the story never ran).

The Rhodes Less Traveled

2010-02-21T14:31:00.003-05:00

You may recall hearing about Myron Rolle's decision to postpone his (likely) NFL career in order to pursue further education at Oxford University in England, via a Rhodes Scholarship. For good reason, the sports media praised Rolle for his recognition that there is a world that exists beyond the football field. I shared that admiration at the time, but I must admit I was still pleasantly surprised by this morning's Outside the Lines feature of Rolle. Not only does he talk about the importance of education, he connects being educated with a keen awareness of social and political issues. Among those who have praised Rolle, and suggested he is nothing short of the next great African American leader in the United States, is the eminent Princeton professor, Cornel West.

Rolle appears to have a special combination of smarts and savvy, and I found him impossible not to like. And, even as he pursues an eventual career as a neuro-surgeon or public official, he remains committed to playing in the NFL. His current goal? To be drafted in the first round. That would seem to be the least of the accomplishments in his future. But don't take my word for it--you can watch the OTL segment here.

Trusting Tiger?

2010-02-19T14:53:00.005-05:00

Hey, did anyone hear that Tiger Woods did a "press conference" this morning? Is that getting any coverage? Anywhere?

Poor Evan Lysacek. Gold medal winning figure skaters are usually the darlings of American journalists. Not this year...

I just shared some quick reactions to Woods' prepared statement with my colleague Davis Houck, at Florida State. Here's what I wrote:

1) Tiger is trapped a bit by his own persona; he invented "Tiger" and now no one is sure who he really is and whether or not the person they saw today can be seen as sincere.

2) The acknowledgement of being "entitled" is important and, potentially, it signals a change of direction. However, as his later comments made clear, he still feels "entitled" to a degree of privacy that is incommensurate with his public image via endorsements, etc.

3) It was an interesting attempt to innoculate himself from criticism of seeking publicity with the publication of his baby's picture. Yet, although he's right to view the paparazzi with contempt, his claim strikes me as bogus, given how stylized and manufactured that image of him, Elin, and the baby was (was that on People?). [I've now checked this. It's just Tiger and the baby, seen here.]

4) Invoking Buddhism was really interesting. I've been doing a lot of work on American atheletes' use of religion, and it is almost unquestioned that when they do so it will be through (evangelical) Christianity. This was the most surprising part of the statement, I thought.

There's more to say, of course, and I'll share more a little later. Meanwhile, what did the Agon's readers think was the most striking part of Woods' performance?

A Little Perspective...

2010-02-02T21:53:00.010-05:00

...or Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad, Part III.

There is no shortage of commentary on the upcoming Focus on the Family commerical that features Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. One especially good colum comes from Tom Krattenmaker. On the other end of the spectrum is ESPN's Jemele Hill. Let me explain.

Hill's column defends Tebow for his willingness to stand by his convictions, no matter the consequences. Unlike most athletes who avoid controversy at all costs, she reasons, his public affiliation with Focus on the Family demonstrates a political and social consciousness that should be applauded. To the extent that Tebow's endorsement engages a matter of moral and legal substance it is, indeed, refreshing. As I've commented in this space on numerous issues, I do think it's important that athletes value political expression, even if I disagree with what they express. Hill appears to be making a similar point, but she badly misses the mark in two significant ways.

First, in praising Tebow for his convictions, Hill concludes that "we shouldn't feel comfortable promoting the idea that athletes shouldn't bother us with their silly opinions." Fair enough, but in this statement and throughout her column, she gives Tebow far too much credit for the content of the commercial's message. Tim Tebow did not produce this advertisement, nor did he purchase it. Rather, the content of the ad must be attributed to Focus on the Family, an extremely conservative Christian organization that has earned its reputation as being anti-gay and anti-woman. Thus, the Tebows may communicate their "silly opinions," but they are opinions backed by a large and influential religious organization that has contributed enormous economic and cultural support to conservative political causes. In other words, CBS isn't just allowing an individual athlete to express himself; they're providing a platform for a well-connected religious-political operation to use the Super Bowl to make a case against abortion rights. So even though many have made this controversy primarily about Tim Tebow, it really should be about Focus on the Family (and CBS).

In arguing that the ad is primarily about the individual convictions of Tim Tebow, Hill adds to her case by making an analogy to other socially conscious athletes. She writes:

"Tebow's decision to appear in this ad should be considered just as courageous as Muhammad Ali's decision to not enter the draft, or Tommie Smith's and John Carlos' black power salute at the 1968 summer Olympics.

No, I'm not kidding."

[In best John McEnroe voice]: You cannot be serious.

Later in the column, Hill acknowledges that:

1. Ali broke the law when he refused conscription into the U.S. Army. Although he avoided jail time, he was stripped of his heavyweight title and prevented from boxing for three years. By contrast, Tim Tebow is: a) appearing in a commerical that isn't remotely illegal, and b) expressing an opinion shared by a large number of Americans (it's hard to say how many oppose all abortion rights, but it's probably around 45%).

2. Smith and Carlos were ostracized from mainstream society for decades after the 1968 Olympics. She really doesn't come close to explaining just how marginalized these two men were for their protest. By contrast, no reasonable case can be made that Tim Tebow will face being shunned by mainstream society. There is no shortage of Tebow haters, but his future remains bright no matter how much it does or doesn't include a professional football career.

Has Tim Tebow risked losing some endorsements? Probably. Has he risked his draft status? Not likely. Will he become an outcast in his own country? Not a chance. In short, to equate a commercial endorsement of a controversial issue with the monumental historic actions of Ali, Smith, and Carlos is not only a severe exaggeration, it is also an insult to any of us who are invested in legitimate democratic dialogue and political struggle.

There is no shortage of commentary on the upcoming Focus on the Family commerical that features Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. What is in short supply, however, is a little perspective.

An Open Invitation?

2010-01-27T15:11:00.003-05:00

Just a few days ago I commented on the upcoming Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad that will feature Tim Tebow. In that post I suggested that perhaps MoveOn.org or other "liberal" organizations should try once again to place an advocacy ad of their own. In turns out that CBS spokesman Dana McClintock has opened the door to such a possibility:

“We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms. In fact, most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time.”

The only way to know if CBS means what it says is for a progressive group to produce an ad and pay up. I'm anxious to see if anyone will test the waters and, more importantly, whether or not CBS is as open-minded as they now claim to be.

From Bush to Bush League

2010-01-26T13:49:00.004-05:00

Nearly two years ago, I briefly commented about former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer starting his own sports PR firm. As a reminder, here are Fleischer's own words:

"The way the press treats athletes and sports executives has become increasingly adversarial and conflict-driven. Athletes who are trained to give it all and leave it on the field now face a public and a media that demand more. On the other hand, players and executives who get it often find their careers are launched to higher, more successful, lucrative levels — thanks to the good publicity they receive."

Let's see, any candidates out there for Fleischer's services? Maybe a former major league slugger whose reputation has been sullied by allegations of steroid use and lying? Ah, yes! As Selena Roberts notes in the current issue of Sports Illustrated, Fleischer was hired to represent, wait for it . . . Mark McGwire! So if you're wondering why McGwire seemed so formulaic and mechanical, this news might give you some insight.

As it turns out, Fleischer has also been hired as a consultant to the United States Olympic Committee and officials of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Hey, SI, I think I know what your next "Sign of the Apocalypse" should be.

I'm Here to Talk About the Past

2010-01-21T16:56:00.008-05:00

A recent project of mine has been to re-organize how I store electronic versions of scholarly articles and the notes I take from them. As I clear out some folders, I've also discovered some forgotten files and images. Among them are some that from the years before 2005, before Mark McGwire became infamous for declaring, "I'm not here to talk about the past."

Surely you know that McGwire has been in the news recently. I've avoided any comment on his (shocking!) admission that he did, indeed, use performance-enhancing drugs, even (and most notably) during his record-breaking season in 1998. Part of my resistance to the story is the predictable moralizing from members of the mainstream sports media, many of whom were eager to promote McGwire as baseball's savior in the 1990s (for some commentary on this, see the always excellent Dave Zirin), but now see him as the game's great villain.

To be clear, I think McGwire's "confession" was disingenuous. But he's merely a symptom of a larger problem, one that implicates other players, managers (I'm looking at you, Tony LaRussa), management, ownership, media, and fans alike. But what captures my attention the most is the reactionary media frenzy that ensued after his admission. So, with that in mind, here are some of the images I found, all of which I believe speak for themselves.

Tim Tebow's NFL Debut

2010-01-20T22:55:00.006-05:00

On Sunday, February 7, while you're gearing up for the Super Bowl, be sure to pay attention to the commercials. I don't mean the annual orgy of farting horses and dancing monkeys. No, this year promises something a little different. As CNNMoney.com reports:

"Focus on the Family, a Christian non-profit group, said it will air its first Super Bowl spot during the upcoming game.

The 30-second ad will feature Tim Tebow, a former quarterback with the University of Florida's Gators and 2007 winner of the Heisman Trophy, along with his mother Pam."

The ad is a "pro-life" message, based on Pam's experience of giving birth to Tim after doctors advised her to have an abortion (due to potential health complications). Between the Tebow family's deep and public faith and Focus on the Family's political activism, this is a relationship tailor-made for the anti-abortion movement.

It's also a troubling sign for broadcast television. You may recall that in 2004, CBS blocked two commercials from advocacy organizations. Ads from PETA (in favor of vegetarianism) and MoveOn.org (attacking then-president George W. Bush) were prohibited because CBS would not air commercials on "controversial issues of public importance." CBS spokesman Dana McClintock added, "We have a policy against accepting advocacy advertising."

Well, this year's Super Bowl airs on NBC [CORRECTION: CBS] and, evidently, they have no such policy. Look, it's a democratic culture and if they can pony up the $3 million for a spot, then Focus on the Family has the right to do so. But don't you wonder whether or not a comparably "liberal" organization would get the same air time? It might just be time for MoveOn.org to give football another try.

Save Money, Celebrate Better

2010-01-08T21:07:00.003-05:00

The University of Alabama is the state's flagship university, a Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching high activity Research University, and a U.S. News & World Report Tier 1 national university. It features numerous programs that are nationally ranked and a distinguished list of alumni. According to the university, it has more USA Today Academic All-Americans in the past six years than any other college or university. Oh, and as you may have heard, they also boast the national champions of college football, after last night's 37-21 victory over the University of Texas.

So what do all of these academic accolades have to do with football, you ask? Well, I suppose it has something to do with image. That is, what kind of institution is the University of Alabama? Everything above suggests that you could make a strong case that it is a first rate public university. The kind of place that you would be proud to send your child, a place that cultivates the leaders of tomorrow. And surely, it would be a place that knows how to celebrate with style and class.

Right?

Well, this upcoming weekend the university will allow the public a chance to celebrate the national championship at . . . Walmart. Yes, two Tuscaloosa-area Walmart stores will display the championship trophy this Saturday and Sunday, and fans will have a chance to have their pictures taken next to the crystal football. As the Associated Press clarifies, "The school will permanently display the trophy on campus. The Walmart stops are part of a sponsorship deal."

Style and class, indeed. I'm not able to find the details of the sponsorship deal between the university and Walmart. But it's surely just another example of the "synergy" between corporate America and higher education. In light of the economic shifts that have led both to the emergence of big-box retailers like Walmart and the increased privatization of public universities, this relationship should come as no surprise. Yet it is a vivid example of the no-shame, lowest-common-demoninator commercialism that now saturates not only college athletics, but higher education itself.

Public universities are not corporations. But try telling that to giddy Crimson Tide fans as they (undoubtedly) stand in long lines just to catch a glimpse of a $30,000 piece of crystal.