A great tradition of American business is to create demand when consumers are really not asking for anything. Nowhere is this more evident than in the way professional sports franchises work to expand their profits.

The National Hockey League is probably less guilty of excess than the National Football League, Major League Baseball or the National Basketball Association. But that did not keep the St. Louis Blues hockey franchise from taking the first step before going to the public well with an announcement on Oct. 1 that its home, the Scottrade Center “needs major renovation.” How major? Well, let’s say to the tune of $50 million. This comes at a time when St. Louis is succumbing to blackmail from the National Football League to build a $1 billion new stadium for the football Rams. Most opponents of this kind of bribery by a sports league or franchise say that the way to stop it is for a city to just say ‘no.’

As we have previously reported, this can be a very self-destructive approach for any single city to take toward a team or league. The corporations hold the best hand and can always take their chips and move elsewhere, most likely to a community that will do just about anything to gain the prestige of a new major sports franchise.

The St. Louis Blues are now saying that their building needs $50 million in renovations. The next step will be a not-so-veiled threat, asking (in the form of a demand) (a) for taxpayers to bear the cost of such renovations, or (b) for a new building to replace the 21-year old Scottrade Center, or (c) to leave St. Louis for perhaps Saskatoon (they did that once before), where they think they can get a better deal.

None of these options is good, and none of them is really necessary. Scottrade Center opened in 1994 at a cost of $200 million for construction. Much of this sum came from taxpayers. The typical cost of maintenance for such a building is two to three percent of the cost of construction per year. For Scottrade, that would be $4 to $6 million. As is the norm for professional sports franchises, the Blues, who own the building, do not make their books public. However, they are obviously doing maintenance on an on-going basis, and to most observers, the building seems very up-to-date.

I am reminded of the former St. Louis Cardinal baseball slugger, Mark McGwire. He is well known for his time in St. Louis as a prodigious home run hitter, for his use of a performance enhancing drug (PED) (which was legal in baseball at the time) and his failure to tell the truth before a Congressional committee investigating PEDs in baseball. Often forgotten is how he shilled for Cardinal owners in 2000, saying that Busch Stadium II (opened in 1966) was falling apart and that there was need for a new stadium. I maintain high respect for McGwire for a number of things, including walking away from $30 million in salary that he was due, because he felt that his knees would not permit him to be an effective player for the Cardinals. I don’t know what is worse, his trumpeting the Cardinals’ cause for a new stadium or the owners more or less putting him up to it. When in doubt, point the finger at the owners.

In any event, the Blues are now raising the “facility issue” only twenty-one years after the building opened. It’s not “state-of-the-art,” which is code for “help us find a way to get more public subsidies to cover expenses.”

Between 1960 and 2000, professional franchises in all sports built, or had built, new facilities. It made sense then because the older buildings were somewhat antiquated. The old Arena where the Blues initially played did not have air conditioning, and rest rooms could best be described as “a challenge.” But now we have franchises, particularly in football, asking for new stadiums when there is no demand for them from their fans. In fact, the fans resent the call for new facilities because ultimately they will pay for them as taxpayers.

We need to stop the madness. The first step is to allow the cities to “bargain collectively” with the owners and the league. It’s not just the players who need the protection of collective bargaining; it’s the cities. Divided they fall, as one city after another succumbs to the demands of owners. The cities have little leverage. The only way to correct this is to form a committee at the U.S. Conference of Mayors of those cities with professional sports franchises. They need to (a) lobby Congress, the president and the courts to enact anti-trust legislation to stop the blackmail, and (b) for the cities to collaborate in refusing to give in. That leaves the leagues with no place to go.

As is the case with so many problems in our country, we are distracted. Consumer focus is not an essential part of capitalism. The damage done by professional sports franchises to our communities is not our greatest problem, but the solution is one that is do-able and which does not involve public money. We need to shout a clear message that we know what they are up to and how to stop it. Can we do that without getting distracted? I’m not betting on it, but I’m hoping.

The post The sports-stadium blackmail game, and how to stop it appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Unaccustomed as I am to writing about sports, I beg for indulgence just this once. I’m still breathless from this evening’s amazing come-from-behind win by my local team, the St. Louis Cardinals. But as caught up as I have been for the past three hours in the play-by-play, the strategic moves, the psychological analysis and my city’s sense of reflected glory lived through a baseball team, I can’t resist turning this into a political story.

It’s pretty simple, really: The team with the most money lost.

The Dodgers play in one of the top media markets in the U.S. Their revenue from cable rights and advertising has been reported at about $293 million per year. The Cardinals, in a much smaller media market, reap much less from media–$28 million– and they must rely on ticket sales for the rest of their operating budget. Of course, that means that the Dodgers, whose annual payroll budget is $243 million, can pay huge salaries to baseball superstars and pre-empt most other teams when the best players become free agents. The Cardinals have an annual payroll budget of $107 million, and have to be much more strategic in assembling a team.

Today’s upside-down result [the Cardinals beat the Dodgers 3 games to 1 in the best-of-five division championship] is a victory for financial underdogs. And this is where, for me, the political parallel kicks in.

It has become axiomatic in politics that, without a huge campaign treasury, a candidate cannot be competitive-just as in baseball, the lower-budget teams start every season at a competitive disadvantage.

But that assumption has had a negative effect on the political game. Candidates, as well as political parties, have bought into the idea that money is everything—and they act accordingly. In the frantic pursuit of campaign contributions, ideas take a back seat to money. Fundraising events take precedence over meaningful contact with constituents—even cutting into the time elected officials spend on the floor of the legislative bodies to which they are elected. In the endless money chase, politicians see fundraising as their day jobs, and reelection—for the sake of retaining power—as the primary goal. Their patrons—wealthy donors, corporations and lobbying groups—use the power of the dollar to buy the loyalty—and votes—of their dependent candidates and incumbents.

At this point in American politics, it’s a financial free-for-all, and, as a result, American democracy is in free fall.

In politics, money is ruining the game. In baseball, a limited form of revenue sharing has narrowed the income gap among teams slightly [pro football has a much more robust revenue-sharing system]. In American politics, the only way to achieve financial parity would be to institute a system of publicly financed elections, with spending caps. The chances of that happening in the near future are dim, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. [There was, of course, that little glimmer of hope in 2012, when Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS Super PAC spent upwards of $400 million and yet still failed to elect Mitt Romney to the presidency.]

So, when the lower-income St. Louis Cardinals beat the extremely wealthy Los Angeles Dodgers today, and when the notoriously free-spending New York Yankees didn’t even make it to post-season, upending all the financial assumptions of the baseball world, I feel hopeful. I’m going to take it as positive indicator, both for baseball and for the political realm: Money can’t buy everything.

The post The team with the most money lost today: Cardinals vs Dodgers–a political parable appeared first on Occasional Planet.

[by Arthur Lieber]

If every rule has an exception, thent “no one likes a sore loser” has Stephen Coburn as its exception. This Wilfred Brimley lookalike is the co-owner of the not-to-be Triple Crown Winner California Chrome.

After his horse came in a disappointing fourth place in the Belmont Stakes, the third jewel of the Triple Crown, Coburn could not contain his bitterness and sense that he had been dealt a raw deal. Interviewed less than five minutes after the conclusion of the race, Coburn said about his horse:

Well, I thought he’d stand his ground, but he didn’t have it in him apparently. You know what, he’s been in three, this is his third very big race. These other horses, they always sit them out. They sit them out and try to upset the applecart. I’ll never see — I’m 61 years old, and I’ll never see in my lifetime another Triple Crown winner because of the way they do this. It’s not fair to these horses that have been in the game since Day One. I look at it this way: If you can’t make enough points to get into the Kentucky Derby, you can’t run in the other two races.

What he’s saying is that, as opposed to California Chriome, the horses that beat his were well-rested. They had sat out either the Kentucky Derby or the Preakness in the weeks prior to the Belmont. Coburn wanted a level playing field, in which the competitors in the third jewel would have competed in the previous two and be equally fatigued going into the race.

What Coburn didn’t say were the usual platitudes. Instead he sounded like a man who had been sucker-punched. If that’s what happened, why shouldn’t he be allowed to let off steam? Not everyone can be as gracious as Al Gore was after he had an election stolen from him. Coburn was not only talking about California Chrome; he was talking about horses not yet born but who, under the current rules, would be extremely unlikely to win the Triple Crown.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz wrote the following day:

After watching another flat, fatigued Triple Crown contender get consumed by the epic challenge of winning a third race in five weeks and doing so over the exhausting distance of Belmont’s mile-and-a-half oval, I believe the sport of thoroughbred racing needs to saddle up and gallop in a new direction.

The gallant California Chrome never had a chance Saturday, having left his sharpness and finishing kick at the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. When the moment came for Chrome to make his move Saturday and sweep through the long stretch at Belmont, he had had nothing left to give.

The opt-out, drop-in strategy prompted California Chrome co-owner Steve Coburn to rage against the system — calling it a “coward’s way out” — moments after his horse finished in a dead heat for fourth place. Coburn wasn’t gracious. A feel-good story suddenly boiled over in temper. But his frustration is understandable.

The point isn’t to make it easy for an outstanding horse to win a Triple Crown; the purpose should be to give that horse a fair chance. And I want to see the highest number of talented, fit, fresh horses run in all three races. Extra time off between races would greatly enhance that possibility.

Two days after the race, Coburn offered the requisite apology, saying that he was “very ashamed” of his behavior in the moments following the race. But why did he have to do that? His only crime was one that is familiar to progressives; he spoke truth to power. I would like to reward him by putting his visage on my favorite breakfast cereal.

The post This loser has every right to be sore appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I recently saw a revival of the great line that came out of the movie, Forest Gump. “Stupid is as stupid does.” The phrase can be a bit of a word game, but however one interprets it, the meaning certainly applies to the choice words about race uttered by Los Angeles Clippers’ owner Donald Sterling.

Among Sterling’s pearls was what he said in an authenticated recording with his one-time girlfriend, V. Stiviano:

“It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?”

“You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want.  The little I ask you is not to promote it on that … and not to bring them to my games.”

Don’t put him [Johnson] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me.  And don’t bring him to my games.”

The term “piling on” is one that is normally associated with football. It’s illegal, and in the minds of many, immoral, for one or several football players to keep piling on a downed player after the whistle has been blown.

In the case of Sterling, the basketball owner of notoriety, the piling on has come from virtually everyone who has an opinion, and that is just about everyone. Sterling has repeatedly been called a racist. Well in the words of the great philosopher, Fats Domino, “ain’t that a shame.” I mean, really, how much guts does it take to call a doddering old man who is clearly confused about the world in which he is living a name? Suddenly it seems that everyone in the world other than Sterling is “holier than thou.” It’s as if Sterling was the only person in the world to express a racial prejudice.

One of the other twenty-nine NBA owners who will vote on taking the franchise away from Sterling had the temerity to say, “wait a minute.” Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban proffered the thought that Sterling may not be the only racially prejudiced man in the world. In fact, Cuban went so far as to say that none of us, including himself, can honestly say that we are not a racist. He graphically described his perspective:

“If I see a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night, I’m walking to the other side of the street,” he said in a video interview for Inc.’s GrowCo Conference in Nashville. “And if on that side of the street, there’s a guy that has tattoos all over his face — white guy, bald head, tattoos everywhere — I’m walking back to the other side of the street.”

“I know that I’m not perfect,” Cuban also said Wednesday. “While we all have our prejudices and bigotries, we have to learn that it’s an issue that we have to control, that it’s part of my responsibility as an entrepreneur to try to solve it, not just to kick the problem down the road.

It would have been easy for Cuban to just fall in line with the owners, and virtually all other observers. He could have denounced Sterling as a racist and pretended to be it above it all. Instead, he said what he was really thinking; in NBA parlance he “manned up” and shared his inner thoughts.

Some African-Americans have criticized him for saying “a black kid in a hoodie and it’s late at night;” it sounds too much like Trayvon Martin. Cuban has apologized for the resemblance, but he stands by the conviction that we should treat race as a delicate issue and none of us should enter a conversation with the presumption that he or she is not racist.

Cuban’s perspective is one that can liberate us to have a more open national discussion on race. None of needs to defend ourselves as being pure. Instead, we can look at the issue of one that involves shades of grey.

By doing so, we can have a more meaningful discussion on why there are so many people in the United States have a visceral dislike, even hatred of President Obama. Why is he so vilified, particularly by those on the extreme right?

If we look at the situation from the simple “Sterling is a racist” perspective, we have are left with the dilemma of either calling the opponents of President Obama as racist, or as saying that they are not racists. Painting them with a broad brush as racist is fraught with all of the dangers of any generalization. Dismissing them as being pure at heart when it comes to race is equally inaccurate and disingenuous.

From Cuban’s perspective, we are all somewhat racist. There are gradations among us. When it comes to those who really demean our president, it would be unfair to call them racist. But to say that race may well be a key issue in their disdain for him is likely true.

It is only outliers who are “Sterling-esque” and call the president racial epithets. Most critics are civil enough to speak in code when there are criticizing the president (“he doesn’t care about us”). It would wise during the remainder of President Obama’s administration and as we move forward into the next political cycle to (1) examine ourselves for any underlying racial reasons that we may have for criticizing (or defending) the president, and (2) to make it fair game in the political dialogue to acknowledge that much criticism of the president comes from race. I nominate Mark Cuban to facilitate upcoming presidential debates in both parties.

The post Mark Cuban chooses thought and reflection over piling on appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the lines that sets off an alarm in me is when someone says, “I’m not a racist.”  The major lesson that I take from it is (a) to never make such a statement on my behalf, and (b) to try to make every effort to not say or do things that might be interpreted as racist.  Sometimes I succeed; sometimes I fail.

I have heard people say and seen people do things that set off my “race-dar.’  I imagine that sometimes it’s a real alarm; other times it’s a false one.   Here are a few examples from the world of sports, a realm with which I am somewhat familiar.

For the better part of the last decade, the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team has had very few African-American players on its roster, and those players have largely been fringe ones.  The team has been well-endowed with Caucasian and Latino players and among them are some of the best players in the League.  The Cardinals won the World Series is 2006 and 2011, so no one can say that the organization wasn’t doing everything within its power to win.  In fact no one can say with evidence that the team has tried to limit the number of African-Americans.  We are in an era in which the percentage of African-Americans in baseball has dropped from 20% to 8%.   Some teams have only one African-American player; others have none.  The Cardinals largely swing between one and no African-Americans on the team.  But in the mainstream community of St. Louis, this issue, or question, of why there are so few African-Americans on current teams is rarely, if ever, brought up.  We seem to be scared to talk about race for fear that we might cause trouble. We rarely say that by ignoring it we’re pretending that it doesn’t exist.

The Cardinals have had a running feud for three years with the Cincinnati Reds.  While the primary instigator of the first brawl was Johnny Cueto, a Cincinnati pitcher from the Dominican Republic, St. Louis fans have taken to placing the blame on Brandon Phillips, the Cincinnati African-American second baseman from Raleigh, NC.  The problem seems that the Cardinals can neither accept Phillips’ humor nor friendliness.  He likes to tweet a lot and at times makes playful fun of the Cardinals.  All in good jest; nothing more than that.  In a 2011 game, Phillips gave Cardinal catcher Yadier Molina a playful tap on the shin guards, but Molina considered it a violation of his space and another brawl broke out.  Ever since then, St. Louis fans and even announcers have described Phillips as being their nemesis and someone who hates the Cardinals.  I cannot say that there is any racism involved on the part of some in “Cardinal Nation;” I can only say that it smells a little like it.  It makes me feel uncomfortable.  It’s also possible in some ways that Phillips and many of his teammates dislike the Cardinals because the team can appear to be a bunch of white Boy Scouts.

The St. Louis Rams football team tried to sneak a talented African-American quarterback from Duke University named Thaddeus Lewis through waivers a couple of years ago.  Lewis had been exceptional in pre-season games with the Rams but he had little chance of replacing starting quarterback Sam Bradford who was both good and a $50 million investment.  Lewis was claimed off waivers by the Cleveland Browns and since has been a backup with the Detroit Lions and Buffalo Bills.  But he could be valuable to the Rams in a couple of ways.  First the team is weak at backup quarterback.  Second Lewis can run a “read option” offense; a style that is becoming to be a norm within the league.  Third, at the very least Lewis could run a “read option” offense in practice against the Rams’ defense.

On a sports radio program in St. Louis, an African-American co-host suggested that the Rams might try to get Thaddeus Lewis back to strengthen themselves at the quarterback position.  The white co-host said, “For what?”  Again, when I heard that, I felt uncomfortable.  Would the white co-host have said that about a white quarterback?  Maybe so, maybe not.  It just seemed like too easy a dismissal of a quarterback who in his one NFL start completed 22 of 32 passes for 204 yards with one touchdown and one interception.

The term “read option” has only come in style since then end of the 2012-13 season.  That’s because they playoffs featured three of the four such QBs in the league, Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers, Robert Griffin III of the Washington Redskins, and Russell Wilson of the Seattle Seahawks.  The fourth was 2011 Offensive Rookie of the Year, Cam Newton of the Carolina Panthers.  What virtually no one says publicly is that in a league that for decades was the domain of white quarterbacks, all four of these run-option quarterbacks are African-American.  I don’t know whether it would be better for football observers to say that teams should look for more read option quarterbacks or more African-American quarterbacks.  I don’t think that there is a right or wrong about this; only that it seems that we’re afraid to say “African-America” or black for no particular reason.  If there is a reason, perhaps we should talk about it.

I have written several other articles on the recent history of race in St. Louis sports teams:

• Baseball and Politics – Part I
• Baseball and Politics – Part II
• Baseball and Politics – Part III

It has never been our desire to accuse anyone of being racist because (a) we have no basis for doing so, (b) it never leads to productive conversation.  It might serve us well whenever we feel queasy about a race-related issue that we take time to think through our thoughts and not be afraid to check with others to get their perspective on it.  If opponents of President Obama would challenge themselves to see how much of their opposition to his policies emanate, at least in part, from race, it would help.  I have to acknowledge that I tend to favor his policies more because he is African-American.  Perhaps I’m practicing my own version of affirmative action.  If so, I don’t mind because I think that we are still some distance from equality.  I continue to question my choices; I think that it would be wise for all Americans to do so because we have not cured “our original sin” of slavery.  Let’s continue to make special efforts for the next 50 years and then see where we are.

[See companion article: The new denial: How much of partisan gridlock is driven by race.]

The post Walking on the thin line of racism appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Football and God rarely clash in the South. But the neighborhood surrounding the future $1 billion new Falcons’ stadium may be forced to lose two of its historic churches due to the new stadium, scheduled to open in 2017.

Local officials claim that that the new stadium will revitalize the western portion of downtown that struggles with unrelenting crime, high unemployment, and poor school performance. Per The New York Times,

“Politicians are also trying to portray the new stadium as a way to help redefine the beleaguered western flank of downtown, a civic jewel that would re-energize the core of a city that has long considered itself the glittering capital city of the South.”

The new stadium comes with a $45 million fund dedicated to benefit the surrounding communities of English Avenue, Vine City and Castleberry Hill.

But neighborhood residents who attend Friendship Baptist Church and Mount Vernon Baptist Church, the two churches in the way of the stadium’s development, do not agree with the city’s priorities. After all, these churches offer more than a place of worship. Friendship Baptist is one of the most historically important black churches in the region. It was established in 1862, in the days after the Civil War, as the first independent African-American Baptist congregation in Atlanta.

Regardless, “We want what the Buckhead kids have,” said Andrew A. Motley, pastor of Lindsay Street Baptist Church in the English Avenue community.

“Resources. Our children’s needs are no less. They don’t have options for resources. We need recreational facilities and green space. All they have are the drug deals and the users, the appearance of glamour from the drug dealers (and) police not as friends but as occupiers. We know the stadium will be built, but it is a luxury among all the needs around us.”

The stadium will be both privately and publicly funded. Although Arthur Blank, owner of the Falcons, will cover $800 million of the stadium cost, the city will likely provide $200-300 million through city-issued bonds and revenue from the future hotel-motel tax.

If the public is going to fund this stadium, it should offer more than a flashy arena that will likely be used for fewer than 10 NFL games a year.  Legislators should ensure that the future neighbors of the stadium, who will likely sacrifice a part of their history and identity in the loss of two of their churches, should benefit from the new stadium.  There are already too many instances of promised revitalization from politicians that ultimately only bring commercial activity benefitting the larger city while ignoring the most dire needs of the neighborhood.

The post Atlanta’s new stadium: Boost or boondoggle? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“Do as I say, not as I do.” Do you remember that expression? It’s stuck in my memory from childhood days. Lately it has been popping up in my head because of contradictory news stories and political happenings. Maybe it’s because I’m so dismayed at the attention being paid to a dead baseball player. Okay, Stan Musial was “the man,” but really?  The St. Louis Basilica?  Naming a bridge after him? Seriously?

We tell kids to study hard, do well in school, get good grades in college and choose a career with strong potential for financial success. Or at least choose something worthwhile to advance the progress of human civilization.  But then we spend hundreds of dollars to attend sporting events, buy all the apparel and memorabilia and practically worship the players who make the most touchdowns or hit the most home runs.

We argue about funding for education and talk about how kids need to learn math and science so America can compete in the global marketplace. But how often to do we have parades honoring a hero of science? We not only ignore their amazing successes, we allow politicians with a hidden agenda to bad mouth them in public without so much as a whimper of protest.

Look at the local news. Sports heroes from tiny tykes on up make it on the big screen. Okay, once a year the winner of the national spelling bee also gets a few minutes of fame. But really, think about how much air time is given to kids who do well in sports and how little attention the scholars get. Obviously this is what the viewers want to see and hear about or the networks wouldn’t send reporters and camera crews out to hobunk high school to interview athletes and their coaches.

I read recently that one St. Louis area school lets their middle school students out earlier than they used to because most of the middle school teachers are coaches and need to get to the high school for warmups and practice. No, I didn’t make this up. And it’s not because I was turned down for a job teaching history at a local high school because I wasn’t able to coach a sport. That turned out to be a gift because I then landed a job teaching at the college level.

Don’t you ever wonder about those athletes who travel to so many away games and how they have time to study? Or maybe I’m totally out of touch,  thinking they should be studying and working toward an academic degree.   Yes, I know there are some very bright athletes who take their studies seriously. Wouldn’t it be of some benefit to younger kids if we honored those student athletes for their scholastic accomplishments as much as we shower them with attention for doing well in sports?  Imagine a society where the “heroes” are not just good at running, jumping, hitting something or somebody but are also praised to high heaven for their genius at math and science. If this is what we really want young people to aspire to, shouldn’t we offer them chances to see how much we value those pursuits?

Imagine the parking lot of a local high school overflowing with families coming to watch science in action. Imagine booster clubs for math teams and closed circuit TV parties celebrating the winners of scholastic contests. Imagine a parade down Market Street for the researcher who breaks the genetic code identifying the most common form of cancer.

Imagine climate scientists drawing huge crowds eager to learn more about how “Six Degrees Could Change the World” a video produced by the National Geographic Society. And then imagine those huge crowds demanding that we speed up the shift to renewable energy sources like wind and solar. And ending subsidies to Big Oil. And stopping the Keystone Pipeline.

What do you think the chances are that these things will ever happen?  Maybe we’re too far down the path of celebrity intoxication to recover our senses. But there was a day when inventors, scientists and geniuses were our heroes and celebrated across the nation, so I know it’s possible. There’s probably a lot more to this whole question of our society’s priorities. At the very least, we should be honest with our children and not  tell them one thing and do another.

The post Go do your homework while I watch the game appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As a student at a Big 10 school, I hear many rumors about athletes and sports. “Most athletes are in the business school because it has the easiest graduation requirements so they don’t have to worry about grades,” or “General education professors have to fail a certain number of students, but athletes are exempt from that rule.” Despite the ridiculous nature of these myths, one can’t help but notice the central role sports tend to have in the college tradition.

The logic behind the over-glorification of sports and athletes is obvious. Schools funnel money into athletics to ensure that their players have the best advantage. This helps guarantee that teams win, which generates money from ticket sales, concessions, merchandise and a host of other retail factors. Having a rich sports tradition can be enticing to incoming students, thus increasing revenue from tuition. Sports are a cash cow for most universities, which creates a lot of pressure for athletes.

Not only are they responsible for their studies, but they’re also held accountable for their school’s reputation. Everyone from coaches to fellow students to alumni and sportscasters are commentating on their athleticism, creating an unimaginable amount of anxiety. As the NBA playoffs and the NFL draft begin, college athletes are focused on the professional arena of their sport rather than finals.

The time and dedication college athletes put into their sport constitutes the equivalent of a major in their sport.

Most universities suggest that each unit of credit requires two to three hours of studying per week. A full-time student usually takes 15 credit hours, which adds up to thirty to forty-five hours each week studying outside the classroom. The amount of time a college athlete spends practicing most likely surpasses the recommended amount of time a student must dedicate to schoolwork.  Under this schedule, it’s plausible to allow  an athlete to major in a sport.

The next logical question would be what would be the criteria for majoring in basketball or football? Majoring in a sport with the intent of becoming a professional is unrealistic. The curriculum should incorporate numerous aspects of the sport. A player should graduate with knowledge of how a contract negotiation works or how to handle salary discussions. The dynamics of coaching or managing a team should also be emphasized in an athlete’s education, as well as legalities related to sports. This would ensure that upon graduation, an athlete is familiar with all aspects of his or her craft.

The discrepancy between a coach and a professor’s salary has also been a long-standing issue for universities. Professors are providing a lifetime of information to students, which is applicable to their careers, while a coach is merely facilitating entertainment for the university. But the revenue sports rake in for schools and the expertise they can provide to craft a championship-winning team can justify a million- dollar salary, while professors make around $100K.

The last thing a college graduate wants to leave school thinking is that some of their classmates were passed along or given preferential treatment because of their athleticism and not their scholastic merit. The passion a journalism student feels for writing or a law student for justice is comparable to what a football player feels when training for a game. College athletes dedicate grueling hours of workouts and practice to their sports, which warrants the consideration of allowing them to major in it.  This change would also help alleviate the pressure an athlete faces from when trying to balance academics and time for practice. When a student athlete spends as much, or even more time. playing soccer or basketball, it becomes more than just a hobby. When the love of the game becomes a way of life, we should think about turning it into a college major.

The post Should sports be a college major? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I’ve always been amused by the term “scholar-athlete.” Many players on college sports teams are accomplished athletes who are “scholars” in the sense that their grades are fudged or they receive free tutoring for what is generally a light course load.  There are many exceptions,but  it’s a sham when colleges and universities promote large athletic programs in order to improve their academics.

Right now we are in the midst of chaotic reshuffling of athletic conferences, as almost every Division One school jockeys to position itself to get more money from television revenue.  The University of Nebraska moves into the “Big Ten” and gets the benefit of more television exposure in Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Milwaukee and the Twin Cities.  The current teams in the Big Ten pick up Omaha; somehow that’s supposed to significantly expand their markets.

There is inherent hypocrisy in much of college sports, at least with the major sports.  But the current, temporary free-market period that has opened up to allow for the formation of new oligopolies, brings to light some additional problems.  First and foremost, the administrators of our institutions of higher learning might need to put a little more of their own time into subjects that should have been mastered long before anyone shows up on a college campus.

The so-called Big Ten promotes itself as one of the academically elite conferences, and indeed universities such as Northwestern, Purdue, and Michigan may fit that bill.  But what confidence can we have in their academic acumen when since 1990 they have continued to call themselves the Big Ten after having added an eleventh team, Penn State, to the conference?  Now Nebraska is entering the Big Ten which should accurately make the Big Ten the Big Twelve.  The problem is that Nebraska is leaving a conference currently called the Big Twelve; their departure will leave only eleven teams in the league.  Actually it’s ten teams and falling because the University of Colorado has now joined the Pacific-10, which means that the Pac-10 now has eleven teams, including a team in Boulder, Colorado which is 1,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean (maybe they are preparing for “the big one” when California falls into the Pacific).

Texas could remain the kingpin of the current Big Twelve, but the Pac-10 is also luring them.  We should not be surprised that the supporters of Longhorn football prefer to have more exposure in the markets of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Phoenix, even if it means losing Manhattan (we’re talking about Manhattan, Kansas).  However, Texas has a long-standing rivalry with Oklahoma, so they want the Sooners to join them in moving west.  There may be a historical precedent to this, because during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, many Oklahomans moved to California.  Texas may justify itself as being “Pacific” because it longs for one expansive fence along the Rio Grande stretching west to the Pacific, as the new “border states” try to keep Mexicans from emigrating (although there may be exceptions for outstanding Mexican athletes).

Today’s Big Twelve may become something like the Small Five with Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Oklahoma State.  However, Missouri lusts to join the Big Ten to make it the Big Thirteen, but the Big Ten really wants Notre Dame, so Missouri joining might make it the Big Fourteen, and the former conference of the Great Plains goes from the Big Twelve to the Little Four.

Sounds a lot like Wall Street to me, and we’d better believe that the off-the-field games that the universities are playing are as cut-throat as they are in that other Manhattan in New York.

All this shuffling may make sense in the end, because universities will be pursuing the two things that are most important to them: money and image.  They continue to want us to believe that there are academic benefits to their athletic and financial gains.  The marketing departments of the universities may have told the chancellors to do it this way.

All this just reinforces the hypocritical nature of some of our largest universities.  I prefer not to be a follower of any team involved in this not-so-subtle maneuvering. I’ll opt for the honesty of professional “play for cash” sports, or the more true amateurism of smaller universities such as Washington University in St. Louis or the University of Chicago.

The pursuit of more money and glamour by our largest universities does not surprise me, but the current Big Ten has had twenty years to figure out that ten plus one is eleven, and they still haven’t gotten it.  We can only hope that, when the dust settles from the current jiggering, that the chancellors of each school in the major conferences have a workshop with a kindergarten teacher to review their math, and another workshop with a fifth-grade teacher to learn some geography.  Then they can work on that scholar part of “scholar-athletes.”

The post Let’s put math and geography ahead of football appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We’ve heard it said before that in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.  But what happens when in the land of 20-20 vision the one-eyed man is still king?

Phoenix Suns basketball star Steve Nash answered that question in a recent playoff game.  Late in the game he took an elbow to his right eye and sustained serious damage, albeit temporary.  The gash required six stitches.  Nash returned in the fourth quarter and scored ten points to help seal a 107-101 victory in the deciding game of the playoff series against San Antonio.

A video produced by Sports Illustrated provides a whimsical and semi-scientific analysis of how remarkable Nash’s one-eyed performance was.

We have two eyes not only so that we are a little more attractive than a Cyclops, but also to give us the power of depth perception.  Consider how important depth perception is in shooting a basketball through a hoop or hitting a curve ball (a near-impossible task under the best of circumstances).

When we examine important political or social issues, we always try to get the best perspective on the problems.  But “best perspectives” by some lead us to invade Iraq for no particular reason or to pass tax cuts for the wealthy that turned budget surpluses into deficits.  “Best perspectives” can lead us to believe that an off-shore oil rig is safe, when it’s an accident waiting to happen.

Nash’s performance reminds us that there are times when we’re handicapped and don’t have the best perspective, but we can still excel.  Perseverance can be as important as perspective, and awareness of our shortcomings can overcome the arrogance of certainty.

So with the benefit of clear perspective, I’ll assert that Steve Nash was successful in that fourth quarter because he grew up in Canada and had the benefits of their health care system.  Nice thought, but perhaps the wish is father to the thought.  I’ll leave the story where it began, “Hell of a job, Nashie!”

The post A different perspective on perspective appeared first on Occasional Planet.