To my potential peril, I’m coming out of the closet on the subject of All Sports All the Time and saying that I – as one individual, as a woman, as a lover of athletics and sports, but as a lover of many other aspects of life that have nothing to do with sports – think that the sports culture in the US is completely out of control.
Ohio State boasts 17 members of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences, three Nobel laureates, eight Pulitzer Prize winners, 35 Guggenheim Fellows and a MacArthur winner. But sports rule. There is certainly a national conversation going on now that I can’t ever recall taking place,” said William E. Kirwan, chancellor of the University of Maryland system and co-director of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. “We’ve reached a point where big-time intercollegiate athletics is undermining the integrity of our institutions, diverting presidents and institutions from their main purpose.”
I started out my life as dancer. I was on the track team. I was a swimmer and a gymnast. I played soccer. I played softball. I spent 35 years practicing yoga. My husband taught me to play golf. I ballroom dance. I love a great baseball game, basketball game, football game, tennis match. I was in Italy for the World Cup. No one can accuse me of not liking sports.
I even predicted the Giants would win the Super Bowl several years back and my husband had to buy me a car (sorry…but we bet and he lost! Tough break.). And we’ll be in SF for this year’s Super Bowl (but he won’t bet me anymore…).
But I remember a day when it was Monday night football and occasionally we could watch something else on TV. But no longer. Every night is sports night all year ’round. The attached article queries whether sports have hijacked the American campus…but I’d go further and say it’s not just a hijacking by college sports but by pro sports as well.
And here’s the kicker: if you do love a good game, you can’t get tickets, or if you can they are unaffordable. Gone are the days of Take Me Out to the Ball Game with Johnny and Suzy and let’s eat salted peanuts in the shell and a hot dog or two.
Gone also are the days where you can watch ballet or any of the other dance arts on television (How perfectly boring!), or an opera (An opera? What’s an opera?), or a televised version of a great Broadway Play (Broadway? What’s that?). You can forget about programming for great documentaries (Non existant!) or anything else for that matter that doesn’t have anything to do with grids…or courts…or balls…or teams…or goal posts…or winning or losing.
If you have the time, read the attached. I would love to know what you all think (men and women). Maybe it doesn’t even matter to you and that’s fine and I respect that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/education/edlife/how-big-time-sports-ate-college-life.html?hp
January 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm
It matters to me, Giselle and it should matter to everyone. The arts – performing and other – are what beautify our world and soothe our souls. You are right to be concerned. I have to say that I have not yet read the article (in a rush) but will get to it and am prepared to bet (and I am not a betting person since I lost my shirt on a horse in a ‘fixed’ race when I was 18 and going out with the son of the owner) that I will not change my mind when I do.
January 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Hey Rob Ledford…I was worried whether my first comment would come from a man or a woman! I’m hereby putting you in the Agree category!
January 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Hey, Ellie Kennard I owe you a big fat hello. I was in NY all week and pretty out of touch!
January 21, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Well we missed you, Giselle Minoli but I have been busy with my 366 project, so that has compensated … but only just. Welcome back!
January 21, 2012 at 4:53 pm
I totally agree with you Giselle Minoli. I don’t know which is worse…the sports culture or the celebrity culture. Although the line between them is blurred to top it off.
January 21, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Blurred no kidding Tom Moncho. You know, I don’t honestly know how you guys handle this idolatry of sports figures. I love my husband. I respect my husband. He’s a surgeon in the Army and to me that’s groovy and awesome. But it’s all about Peyton and Tom and Eli and Drew and okay, but…sooooo? What are they saying? Our husbands are chopped liver?
January 21, 2012 at 4:59 pm
Well, in my case I seem to be lacking the requisite “male sports obsession chromosome”, LOL
January 21, 2012 at 5:00 pm
The esteem with which sports figures are held, and their astronomical pay, completely baffles me. It is a fine example of how certain society’s priorities are skewed.
January 21, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Earlier this my wife told me, “If anyone said to me ten years ago that I would enjoy watching football, I would have told him he was crazy.” This after she jumped up and down like a kid at Christmas when I presented her with her very own Rob Gronkowski jersey.
We don’t watch a lot of sports (I pretty much confine my viewing to the NFL, which, at least internally, is the most socialistic enterprise in the U.S.). Lately, ee have been watching the BBC History of the World War II together, and the first episode about how the Nazis came to power was positively chilling, given its echoes in present day America.
The bottom line: you are free to watch sports 24/7 if you like. But you are also free to do other things too. I prefer to do other things, but reserve Sunday afternoons for watching helplessly defensive backs bounce off The Gronk with my sweetheart.
January 21, 2012 at 5:02 pm
Well, for what it’s worth to you, Tom Moncho…I think you’re awesome and much more interesting than any of the above-mentioned sports icons…and that does not mean I don’t recognize their prowess on the field.
January 21, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Yes, miriam dunn and that fact makes it very bad for women. Football, baseball, basketball, these are primarily male-played sports, which relegates women to the roles of observers and cheerleaders. The women soccer players, who are absolutely unbelievable, can’t get their games shown, don’t make much money and are struggling to survive as a sport. The same with female surfers, who are ballet on water. But they are starving. They give up the sport because no one will sponsor them. Maybe I should have posted something about All MALE Sports All the Time!
January 21, 2012 at 5:06 pm
You made my day Giselle Minoli! A compliment indeed considering the source 🙂
January 21, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Leland LeCuyer You and your “sweetheart” (I love that) sound like you have everything in balance. I dig a good game with my sweetheart too…but I crave balance. That BBC History sounds great. My husband and stepson are history freaks, so thank you for that. We will snoop the BBC list…
January 21, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Matthew Graybosch My husband and I did a tour of the Coliseum when we were in Rome summer before last. The guide, who had been born in Rome, knew every detail about it. I knew some things but certainly not that depth of knowledge. Yeah….the Roman Empire. Look what happened there!
January 21, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Well, William Porter speaking personally, I’d rather be up in the skies flying pretty much any day and I reckon you’d rather be on the back of your ride. (BTW…who’s the little pink tike on your profile page? Very cute.)
January 21, 2012 at 5:27 pm
LOL Matthew Graybosch. Hence the “touchy-feeliness” of male athletes that is frowned upon in other contexts?
January 21, 2012 at 5:27 pm
William Porter Football is D&D with jocks instead of minis. Arcane and complex rules. Random elements. Pointless formalism. It’s great!
January 21, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Great post, and timely theme, Giselle Minoli . I love my sports as much as the next person, but it is out of control in it’s place in society.
January 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Matthew Graybosch As a Steelers fan, at least 50% of the games I watch don’t have cheerleaders.
January 21, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Matthew Graybosch and Tom Moncho Thank you both. Didn’t want to say it myself! And Matthew Graybosch what could possibly be better than witches, sorceresses and succubi? Can we add goddesses to that list please?
January 21, 2012 at 5:35 pm
It just amuses me no end that the homo-eroticism is totally acceptable…as long as they’ve scored points and have a wife or supermodel girlfriend and it’s “no homo”, a term I despise.
January 21, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Tom Moncho may I point out that a supermodel girlfriend, a profession based in narcissism and the exploitation of gifts one did not cultivate oneself, is never going to question the homo-eroticism of these sports. That’s why they have supermodel girlfriends. They want someone who will never ask any questions. It’s all about the way things look.
January 21, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Very true Giselle Minoli.
January 21, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Chopped liver! Funny …
January 21, 2012 at 5:51 pm
But that’s what makes them sexy Matthew Graybosch. It’s called mystery. Something Paul Newman pointed out was the sexiest thing about a woman.
January 21, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Well, subtleties don’t seem to be a strong point of male athletes. Or our culture in general, come to think of it. It’s a dying concept.
January 21, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Ann Margaret once said in an interview, when asked what makes a woman sexy “When she looks like she might say yes”
Or it could have been Angie Dickenson – I forget now lol
January 21, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Yes…..we do seem to have a lot of middle-aged, beer-bellied, former jocks [or self-perceived as such] running around in sports jersey’s with the number of their favorite
man crushpro athlete 😉January 21, 2012 at 6:12 pm
I’ll take Angie, or Ann or Carole (Lombard) or Veronica (Lake) any day, miriam dunn.
January 21, 2012 at 6:28 pm
I agree with the general tenor of remarks here that decry the exaggerated emphasis on professional and collegiate male athletics. The metaphor that comes to mind, though, is watching folks standing in an Alaskan river, trying to stop spawning salmon headed upriver by yelling at them — you can kvell but you won’t quell a basic instinct.
January 21, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Most interesting comment William McGarvey. But what if all other “fish sports” or animal sports were pushed onto the back burner and the only fish sport that was shown on telly all the time was the National Spawning League vs. the American Spawning League?
January 21, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Giselle Minoli Sorry, Giselle, I was not fishing for that in my metaphor… If the complaint(s) involve the highly organized, compelling, sometimes brutal, occasionally racist, homophobic and despicably underhanded, highly venal nature of these events, I’m in accord with the opposition. But our voices, I’m afraid, are very much in the minority. That’s all right, we’ll find something else to do — like kvetch to our other choir members on Google+.
January 21, 2012 at 6:41 pm
William McGarvey just switched from sports to politics lol
“highly organized, compelling, sometimes brutal, occasionally racist, homophobic and despicably underhanded, highly venal nature…”
January 21, 2012 at 6:47 pm
William McGarvey I don’t think it’s a basic instinct. It’s just the way our culture is organized. Humans are very plastic, really the only basic instinct relevant to this discussion is the instinct to integrate into the society around you. We’re social animals and that means we’re imitators.
January 21, 2012 at 6:52 pm
miriam dunn Sports and politics related? Really? Why, to quote the apocryphal boy’s dismay asking “Shoeless” Joe Jackson about his part in the legendary Black Sox baseball gambling scandal: Say it ain’t so, Joe! They are intimately interwoven in American culture. And money’s no small part of the connection, either… who do you think pays for a Stealth bomber to fly over a stadium? The ticket-holders?
January 21, 2012 at 6:52 pm
William McGarvey Consider that organizations like the MLB and the NFL only exist because the government grants them exceptions to anti-trust regulations.
January 21, 2012 at 6:52 pm
I believe the Super Bowl is in Indianapolis this year – not San Francisco, Giselle. I hope you bought your airline tickets for the right city!
While I personally do not watch sports as much as some, I love baseball and I spend a lot of time following my team during baseball season and certainly watching other teams as well. I get more excited about football this time of year (playoffs) because the games are more intense – the “winner-take-all” element. I have no problem with the amount of sports that are out there or that are televised – if there is an audience, the producers of what that audience wants are going to produce it. We are in a market-driven society – if there is less of a market for a ballet or an opera compared to a football team, then that is the way it is. Nobody is going to broadcast something that very few people want to watch. If I have a taste for what is currently unpopular, then I have to live with that.
Regarding pay – this is basic supply and demand. I will use baseball as an example. Baseball is a sport where if you successfully get on base 30% of the time using the bat, you are a superstar. It is one of the more difficult games in the world to play at the Major League level. In fact, only about 600-700 men in the ENTIRE world have what it takes to play at the MLB level in any given season. On top of that, you have high demand for the output – people are willing to pay fairly large amounts of money to go see these guys play and buy the merchandise. In addition, there is a large audience willing to watch it on TV, so there is more money generated from the TV contracts. The result of all this is that PAY IS GOING TO BE HIGH. There is no such thing as an absolute value of a skill or ability – it only has value based on how many want to consume it and what they are willing to pay for it.
I agree to a certain extent with college sports, because the purpose of existence of a college or university is not solely to field a good football team. There are competing purposes at a college and I do believe at some universities that the success of the football team overshadows the academic stature of the school. On the flip side, people like to attend a school that has a well-known football program so it is also a marketing tool to attract students.
On male vs. female sports – I am tired of the complaining on this. It is what it is. People want to go see the NBA more than they want to see the WNBA – for a variety of reasons. This means that the pay will be lower for WNBA players and that their profile will also be lower. You can’t force that to change. There are certain sports where I enjoy watching the women’s version more – volleyball is one of them. The female game is more about finesse and ball placement than it is about power and I find that more interesting – but that does not translate into $$.
January 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Remy Porter I would argue, Remy, that the basic instinct is competition , that’s all — be it Spencerian (sometimes incorrectly labeled “social Darwinism”) or the most highly refined professional athletics — which is where the socially integrated nature of things you describe comes into play. And your comment about major sports’ anti-trust exemptions maps into my response to miriam dunn — thanks.
January 21, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Daniel Bobke Well put, sir.
I would argue that the evolved emphasis on collegiate sports for men really is part of the fiscal charade to which major educational institutions have fallen prey, namely, that higher education’s major purpose is, simply, to sustain itself, by whatever means necessary. This means higher fiscal input (tuition, fees, alumni contributions, enlarged endowments, and, yes, ticket prices) are required to maintain a “competitive” market position vis a vis other institutions. Rhetorically, does all of this add “value” to society?
January 21, 2012 at 7:25 pm
William McGarvey I would agree with you primarily about public universities. Private universities are sustained by the tuition and the donations that people make to those schools and have to use the money to their benefit. The value of a degree from Stanford or Harvard is diminished over time if they don’t maintain their academic stature. The result would be that less people will want to go there, they will have fewer alums sending in donations, etc. They need to maintain a balance.
Public schools are different in that they are taking taxpayer dollars on top of the fees and donations. They are not necessarily subject to the same market forces that a private school is. Look at the shambles that the University of California system is in right now. No one is talking about shutting down or even partially minimizing any campuses. And they sure as hell aren’t talking about investing less in the football teams!
Part of it is also that people donate directly to the sports programs – that money can never be used for academics.
January 21, 2012 at 7:45 pm
+Daniel Bobke I meant to say we would be in SF during the SB, which meand that if it’s SF it will be fun to listen to everyone scream out of their windows and down the streets like Peter Finch in Network, which is what NYers do when the Giants are in the SB.
An aside, but maybe not, on 9/11 in NY uptown people were relatively silent. Stunned. Shocked. But during the SB one needs earplugs…
January 21, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Ahhh…sorry for the misunderstanding Giselle Minoli. I guess we will find out today if SF makes it to the Show.
January 21, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Daniel Bobke As a graduate of both a public (Michigan State) and a private (Southern California) institution, I can say accurately that I have been hounded by both for an alumni contribution. (My reply to both was to mail them a five-pound brick attached to their respective business-reply envelopes [ they pay for postage] and an enclosed note that read, “Enclosed find my contribution to your building fund. Further solicitations will meet with the same response.”)
USC (the University of Southern California) has probably achieved its greatest notoriety (both ways) for its athletic programs, including the “selling” of named positions on their football team to contributors (the “John Doe” punter). Though the school has begun to tout its “growing” academic “prestige”, let’s not kid ourselves about why the school is supported as lavishly as it is — everybody wants to be associated with a “winner” — not a Nobel winner, mind you, however valuable that might be to some.
Stay tuned with regard to the once-gloried California public institutions of higher education — the budget axe has just begun to fall, and when their graduates fail to gain job placements in an increasingly competitive market place, today’s tuition increases will seem minor and part-time, poorly-benefited faculties will go elsewhere as those schools become increasingly at risk.
January 21, 2012 at 7:51 pm
I’m not sure I agree with the analysis of women’s sports. Things eventually become market driven because they are cultivated over a long
January 21, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Sorry…trying to do this now on my BBerry…cultivated over a long period of time.
I live in a family of soccer players (guys) and they complain about the lack of funding and support more for women’s soccer more than the women I know. Much of this is ages old perception and a big fear on women’s part that you have to go along with it all or be accused of feminism. It’s the opposite of the assumption that all male dancers are gay and this is why men are not interested in dance (homophobia).
Much of this however is about education, intelligence, and a certain degree of sophistication. Paul Newman said his wife went to the race track with him and he went to the ballet with her. That’s the way it should be if you ask me. Balance.
January 21, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Giselle Minoli Not sure about all of your comment there, Giselle, but with regard to greater promotion of collegiate women’s athletics, let me offer two words: Title 9 . Recently, the University of Maryland has announced that it will have to stop funding of certain male sports activities because of Title 9 requirements for equality of funding for women’s sports. This was greeted with less than enthusiastic public support — suggesting miriam dunn that once again, politics and sports are highly interwoven here.
January 21, 2012 at 8:04 pm
William McGarvey this is almost worthy of a separate post. I have always thought that if women grew up in a more organized and supportive sports culture, they would have an easier time in the business world. They would do the business world differently, but they would have knowledge of that competitive sports environment.
Women’s soccer is a beautiful thing to watch, speaking personally.
January 21, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Giselle Minoli (1) They already do it differently, and (2) soccer (or, as the rest of the world knows it, football) can truly be a beautiful sport to watch — regardless of the players’ gender(s). It can also seem — to many eyes, I’m afraid — too long, too hard to watch, and regrettably too boring. De gustibus …
January 21, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Title 9 rules should be unpopular because they try to artificially create an outcome that would not happen otherwise as regards to the popularity and funding of sports. If no one cares about women’s basketball or softball – I am sorry – then it should not get funded to the same extent that something else that is more popular does.
Soccer is a difficult example because interest in soccer in the US wanes around the time our kids stop playing AYSO. While it is big in other parts of the world, it is just not competitive here because it has too much competition from, frankly, more exciting alternatives. An excellent gauge of the popularity of a sport is to see how many people can actually name a star or stars of that sport. Baseball, football, basketball – we can all name stars even if we are not fans of that particular sport. Soccer – not so much. I can name Pele – who hasn’t played in decades and may be dead for all I know, and David Beckham. An LA Galaxy player could kick the ball into the stands at a game here and not hit a fan.
I participate in things my wife likes to do that I would not choose to do on my own – that is part of being married. That does NOT translate to society at large. It is totally OK for guys to have guy things and women to have women things. I have been to a WNBA game – it was boring and not as aggressive as the NBA games. I find (and apparently a large part of the American public does as well) soccer to be excruciatingly boring. No one wants to watch women playing football either. That is not bad or good – it just is.
January 21, 2012 at 8:19 pm
I know others who feel that way…in this country, Daniel Bobke. But not in Europe. There was pandemonium in Italy during the World Cup. And my Hungarian dance instructor, who is a former soccer player has your sentiments about football – excruciatingly boring. And he thinks all men should learn to dance because it would make them better husbands!
I don’t think funding girls’ sports should be tied to audience size. Not everything should be market driven in a wise society. But who said we were wise?
January 21, 2012 at 8:26 pm
There are lots of funding models you could use that don’t punish one program for the sake of another. I have heard of money being taken from large programs to be given to a women’s sport where they couldn’t even field a full team because not enough people tried out. That is ridiculous.
January 21, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Daniel Bobke In many ways, Daniel, you and I are in agreement, or share similar tastes and expectations. But the kvell ing I was humorously alluding to in an earlier post about trying to stop spawning salmon is, in Title 9, oddly just such an example — a legislated attempt to amend a culture’s behavior against great odds. It may, though, have as an unintended benefit exactly what some have been arguing for here: a reduction in the value assigned to (as well as the heavy fiscal pressures upon) men’s collegiate sports.
January 21, 2012 at 8:48 pm
I guess it is all about intent. I am not looking to a legislative solution for most things – least of all reducing the value of men’s college sports programs.
January 21, 2012 at 10:23 pm
I don’t agree that funding things where no one attends is ridiculous. If we used that model as a reason to format our educational system no mathematics, literature, history or virtually anything else would be taught or funded anymore because no one wants to learn anything.
Years ago an old boyfriend of mine criticized the way I was spending my extracurricular non-professional time. His theory was that one should only put one’s energy into something that one would make a salary at. I had hosts of extra-curricular activities that I personally paid for, all of which he thought were a waste of my money.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, he was a runner (wasn’t going to make a living at that!) and played tennis every Saturday and Sunday (certainly wasn’t going to turn pro!) had 3 sets of golf clubs (not a chance of going on tour) and owned a fishing boat and spent scads of money deep sea fishing (not a thought in the world was given to becoming a professional fisherman).
When I pointed out to him that he spent far more money at his extracurricular activities none of which promised any income at all, he was silent.
What was good for the gander, was certainly not meant to ever be good for the goose.
This is American sports.
January 21, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Giselle Minoli I’ll bet your comments to that guy probably peeved him to no end, as he might have figured, “I’m a wage slave just so I can enjoy those things. And think of the ‘connections’ I can make while doing them!” Some of us — no, most of us — don’t always catch the irony or inconsistency between our “pieces of logic”, as it were.
January 21, 2012 at 10:51 pm
With all the attention that the ‘occupy wall street people got. More than anything the 99% people, which in turn are the ones that mostly cheer, attend and defend sports, not realizing that most of those Pro athletes are less than 1% of the population, and definitely with the pay they receive, they’re part of the 1%. The same people that turn reality TV persons into ‘celebrities’.
Indeed, any of these Pro-athletes are paid more than scientists and doctors that save lives and find cures, or push technology for the benefit of humanity. The same for the reality TV individuals that have no real talent, and receive more pay and attention than teachers, engineers and real artists. But let us all consume and shrink our minds with Pro Sports and TV Junk.
January 21, 2012 at 10:58 pm
The real problem is that people do not want to learn and want the easy way to make money without putting much effort into their professional success. Again, If you were to ask in the mid 50’s, 60’s and 70’s what you wanted to be when little kids grew up, they answered teachers, doctors, firemen, et cetera. Now more likely they say that is for nerds and not fun, they want to be Justin Bieber, they want to be ‘insert any athlete’s name here’…
January 21, 2012 at 11:14 pm
William McGarvey He was upset, but it was because he had never thought about his own double standard. Imagine if he had been head of a private school who had to think about which sports to fund…the guys or the girls? The girls would have lost out. I think Paul Newman was right. But, unfortunately, he’s no longer with us and that generation is gone. So is the balance.
Thank you Ludvik Herrera William McGarvey William Porter Daniel Bobke miriam dunn Matthew Graybosch Remy Porter dawn ahukanna Leland LeCuyer Tom Moncho Ellie Kennard Dean Reimer and Rob Ledford for chatting with me and Annie Jennings and Luvik for sharing…
January 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Giselle Minoli And thank you, Ma’am, for tolerating my rants… it’s been a pleasure.
January 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Giselle Minoli Your example of the personal just does not translate up to an institutional level. Your boyfriend’s activities were fine, as I am assuming were yours. His mistake was trying to denigrate your activities. Running, fishing, golfing – those cost no one but him time and expense. That is not the case when you are talking about a sports program at a university.
Let me be clear – I have no problem funding women’s sports programs. I have a problem with taking money away from other programs – women’s or men’s – to fund something no one cares to watch any way.
January 21, 2012 at 11:17 pm
I enjoyed it…good to exercise the brain on a Saturday!
January 21, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Daniel Bobke Thanks, Daniel, for the exchanges — particularly their civil tone.
January 21, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Thanks for the very illuminating discussion.
January 21, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Veering from the civil just means you don’t have a valid argument. My block button comes out when people choose to stoop to name calling and attacks.
January 21, 2012 at 11:25 pm
William McGarvey Oh, it’s Saturday! I love a good rant on a Saturday. Although I personally am prone to favoring them on a Sunday morning, fueled by a few triple espressos!
Daniel Bobke Institutions are comprised of individual people. As for my discussion with my long time ago boyfriend, he denigrated himself, not me, by showing me how narrow-minded he was. A Paul Newman he was not.
January 21, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Wait…I think that Giselle Minoli just said something akin to “corporations are people too”. 😉
January 21, 2012 at 11:29 pm
I am very fortunate to be blessed on G+ with the company of so very many sharp willing-to-converse-in-writing folks. Please forgive my mid-day BBerry escapade and all my horrific typos. Tried to fix those….
And. while we’re at it…anyone want to be on who will be in the SB?
January 21, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Daniel Bobke To quote Joseph Conrad: “The horror! The horror! ” 😉
January 21, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Yikes Daniel Bobke have you had people resort to name caling? Seriously The Horror! The horror! (one of the greatest films of all time…)
January 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm
Giselle Minoli I was, of course, referring to Heart of Darkness , the novel but the cinematic allusion I’d make would be Apocalypse Now … what movie were you thinking of?
January 21, 2012 at 11:40 pm
See, I could never see how Heart of Darkness became Apocalypse Now ….
January 21, 2012 at 11:44 pm
Apocalypse Now! Brilliant! (Somehow…in my haste…I managed to skip right over the Joseph Conrad part. Now that is horrifying!).
January 21, 2012 at 11:44 pm
miriam dunn Though I’ve only just found it, this essay explores the question: http://www.cyberpat.com/essays/coppola.html
For a broader search:
https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=mw#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22heart+of+darkness%22+%22apocalypse+now%22&pbx=1&oq=%22heart+of+darkness%22+%22apocalypse+now%22&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2950l21092l0l24028l36l35l0l0l0l0l617l7794l0.19.12.0.1.3l35l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=54701e30768e3007&biw=1615&bih=1024&qscrl=1
January 22, 2012 at 12:04 am
Interesting. Thanks William McGarvey
January 22, 2012 at 3:50 pm
I agree. I started to wonder a few months back about the lack of documentaries on tv, between sports and reality shows is mostly what you see.
January 22, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Well, Chykara Yamada according to a few gents on this post, only that which sells gets promoted. I think it’s otherwise called pants for the asses of the masses…
January 22, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Giselle Minoli Hello again… your succinct summary is statistically supportable (I loves that there alliteration stuff!) Alternatively, disincentives like Title 9 restrictions likely lead to political disaffection and financial shenanigans to maintain the status quo ante . Non carborundum…, etc.
January 22, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Thanks for posting this. I had this in my queue to post on my feed. This situation has been something I’d like to change for years. A college should be a place of learning, a place to hear and discuss ideas that matter in the world. Instead many colleges have become technical schools (nothing wrong with that except they are colleges) and have become centered on sports, which should be at most an accessory to college life. I’d like to think that only in the USA are we so beholden to tribalism and greed that we place sports above academics.
Many people I know hold their school’s favorite sports team in higher regard than its academic programs. Something is fundamentally wrong with that picture. In America, many of us are far more interested in defeating others than in advancing the state of the world. A good university education will teach you to focus on the long-term as much as the short-term, the subtle as well as the grandiose, the arts and sciences for their own sake rather than how much money you can wring from them.
January 22, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Hey William McGarvey. Guess what I’m watching? Yep…New England vs. Baltimore. I was shopping earlier today and there was a fellow there with his kids buying things that looked suspiciously like football watching grub. I asked them if they were going to watch the game and he said, “No, we don’t watch pro ball in my house. My wife is a doctor. She has $200,000 in loans. I’m a chemist and I have only $80,000 compared to her. It’s outrageous how much money those guys make and for what?”
There are a lot of people who feel that way. But for fear of being hit by lightning, they don’t say anything.
Back to worshipping at the Church of Pro Ball!
January 22, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Christopher Lamke I was surprised and heartened by the comments on this post. I love and respect talented athletes as much as I do talent and hard work and effort applied to most things. What I was posting about was the over-emphasis on sports and how it has taken over the various media. I went to a college where there were no fraternities or sororities and no competitive sports. It was my choice to be in a school that was about my education and about conversation and reading and writing and learning. It was not an easy school to attend then…nor is it now. But it was the right choice for me and every day I’m glad I got that education. I don’t know what I would feel if I graduated from a school that is only known for it’s sports program.
I mean, seriously, isn’t winning a Nobel or a Pulitzer or being awarded a Guggenheim or MacArthur something to have people stand up and applaud about?
I certainly think so. Thank you for your comment.
January 22, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Giselle Minoli
Wholly, Wholly, Wholly! Lord Football Almighty!
Early in the game our song shall rise to Thee
Wholly, Wholly, Wholly!, merciful and mighty!
Touchdown in three Passes, blessed AFC!
For melody: Holy, Holy, Holy – Hillsong United
January 22, 2012 at 11:13 pm
William McGarvey You crack me up. Bless you for not giving me grief. I only preach the gospel of balance. You know that.
January 22, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Giselle Minoli Ah, one of them there “Golden Mean” Grecian types, eh? Everything in moderation? Harrummpph… If only the Greeks would just pay their taxes willingly like everybody else… 😉
January 22, 2012 at 11:27 pm
I’ve been told I have a “Grecian” foot as opposed to the “Roman” one everyone assumes I should have because of my Italian roots. When in Rome one can’t do everything the Romans do. That would be a bore. Plus…they don’t like American football in Italy. Except that Parma has a “football” team. The book, which is a fun read, is Called Playing for Pizza.
January 22, 2012 at 11:46 pm
Giselle Minoli But you’re in America now, Giselle, so let’s wrap up this extended reference to Parma and Pizza and Politics and Sports with heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson doing his impersonation of Presidential aspirant Herman Cain’s favorite song: Herman Cain Sings ‘Imagine There’s No Pizza’
January 22, 2012 at 11:50 pm
I cannot top that as a Curtain Closer William McGarvey. Love that. Thank you!
January 23, 2012 at 12:04 am
(Just poking my head in to say how much I appreciate your discussion. They are always so interesting and people are always courteous, even in disagreement. I usually have not much to offer but a remark of joke here or there … but I do so enjoy visiting!)
January 23, 2012 at 12:09 am
Ha! miriam dunn. I thought there were would-be button-pushers on this one, but expected as much taking on the sports machinery as it were. You are the bomb! And, for what it’s worth to you…your own observations and comments are far more pithy than the remark or joke here or there! And I appreciate them and notice them and it wouldn’t be the same without you. Thank you.
January 23, 2012 at 12:10 am
blows kisses all around
January 23, 2012 at 12:12 am
Giselle Minoli miriam dunn Likewise, to be sure, miriam & giselle… I enjoyed the ride.
January 31, 2012 at 6:26 am
such an interesting discussion, as always. It’s people like you that draw me back to G+… sigh 🙂 🙂
Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this – professionally organized sports need to be removed from college. Either that, or have two streams – one stream should be treated as a professional sport, and another, as amateur. Or limit competition/meets to non-school time. It is bizarre that a baseball player can spend half a semester on the road, and yet take/pass all his classes, consistently.
And NCAA need to be abolished.
Did you know that most graduate students are not eligible to play any NCAA sport even though, you’d think that, by definition, a graduate student would be someone you want in a sport, as most grads are real students. This is because of the way they count your eligible years (4/5). However, because of shortsightedness of the NCAA, they don’t consider grad students as students in counting eligible years (though, I’m one of the rare grad students who did play in a NCAA sport cough :))
I watched other athletic students get offered all kinds of tutoring, and what amounts to multiple attempts at passing assignments and tests. Tier 1 (football, basketball, baseball) student athletes get free room and board, 24×7 chefs, lots and lots of tutors, etc. Oh yeah, a list of “easy” professors.
The whole thing is a horrible system. Driven by a sports crazy culture.
January 31, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Hi fan tai Nice to see you here. Thank you for taking the time to comment on this. Obviously I had no idea about your grad student/sportster background and it’s interesting to hear your POV from a firsthand perspective. I intentionally didn’t go to one of those “big” schools with organized sports (nor to one with fraternities and sororities)….so my own opinion is an observational one having to do with the way It “feels” to be affected by it from the outside, rather than from the inside as you were.
I think it would irk me no end to have all that “help” lavished on the sports programs but be ignored otherwise. Aren’t grad students an essential and honorable part of our university systems? I always thought so. Still do.
January 31, 2012 at 1:30 pm
pffft – I was in the most boring sport possible. My own coach says watching paint dry is more fun! 🙂 My school was one where a friend’s father knew the president, and had studied it as a model when they were setting up the first private university back home – he told me it was good value for the money – even though it was ranked in the 4th quartile. So I went. And it was pretty good value, a number of my professors were nationally known, one was the state engineer of the year twice.
Then I found out that my seat-mate on the plane ride home had a full ride to cornell, with 10 points higher than me on the SAT…
Ahh… to know the things we didn’t know…
Yeah, the “help” was pretty extensive and really skirted near the whether you cheated issue, in my opinion. Of course, it could be said that any student could have paid for a tutor outside of the school, but most people can’t afford it.