The Practical Case Against Pay For Play

      I've waited awhile to write this one, mostly to let the raw emotion to die down, so that a practical view could not get practically blown off.  So here goes: paying collegiate athletes is a great way to turn Pandora's Box into the Death Star.

     Yes, that's pretty dramatic.  Too dramatic--but going over the top seems to be one of the only ways to get and keep people's attention.  Now, to state the case.

     First to review--there's a pending court case known as the "Ed O'Bannon Case", which is a class action lawsuit against that basically challenges the NCAA's limitation on what men's basketball and football players can receive for their services to the university as revenue producing athletes.  Second, there's the ruling earlier this year that Northwestern University football players can form a union, which if the players do, they'll be recognized as university employees.  Both cases could blow up the entire intercollegiate sports landscape.  Yes--***the entire*** landscape, and not for the better.

     Let's first address paying players more than their respective scholarships, room & board, books, and per diem.  Right now, the O'Bannon case deals only with football and men's basketball players.  This is impractical simply because **which ones** are you going to pay?  How much are you going to pay them? Are you going to pay just the stars--the guys who truly generate the revenue stream--or are you also going to pay the 3rd-string offensive lineman, et al?  This is where the attitude of "show me the money" rears its ugly personna, because everybody wants to get paid.  It doesn't stop there.  This is such a slippery slope that many other Pandora's Box questions must be answered on the way down that slippery slope into the Tar Pits.  Among them: what about athletes in non-revenue producing sports?  What about at universities where women's basketball is a revenue stream, or a a player/players are popular enough that they generate revenue for the university?  Shouldn't that be a "pay for play" scenario as well?  And, since you're talking about women's sports, you can bet the Title IX folks will chime in on the equal opportunity issue.  Those are just for starters.  All of these challenges must be met before "pay for play" can be practical.  Oh, and don't think the elite academic students--you know, the ones the universities recruit to come there to pad their academic and research prowess???!!!-- don't you think they're smart enough to get in on the cash capade?  What about the arts/performance stars who are recruited as well?  Shouldn't they get paid a portion for their contribution to the university's success/reputation?   Where does it end?  They're hard-but-fair questions.

    Second, a look-see at an even uglier scenario which is the Northwestern union thing.  The prima facie (at first look) questions cut this thing to pieces.  First, if these scholarship athletes become university employees, don't they become subject to the same rules and regulations of any university employed from the groundskeeper to the university president?  Do they fill out time cards?  Are they paid hourly or on a salary? Do they pay taxes on their scholarships?  Can they get fired for non-performance of duties--say, for example, being chronically late (for team meetings, study hall, the mess hall, etc... )?  Since they'll have to go through the National Labor Relations Board, won't they need to have a collective bargaining agreement?  Suppose there's an impasse between the players' union and the school--if they choose to strike, do they not get to go to class?  If they don't go to class, will they get flunked or incompleted?  Will they then lose their scholarship for non-compliance on the academic end?  If the university locks them out, same questions remain.  Those are just for starters.  All this will have to be legislated to make this practical.

     On the other side, it's become obvious the collegiate sports landscape needs serious reform.  It is practical to see that some athletes do generate not only some income, but some serious PR for their respective institutions, which added value on top of the revenue producing athlete/athletes.  I understand that.  I'm not one to offer challenges without at least a stab at a solution.  So here goes.

     For the revenue producing athlete, the university shall establish an escrow fund, where proceeds (let's just say 51% for the university, 49% for the athlete) from the athlete's likeness is deposited and kept, earning interest, for the entirety of the athlete's service to the university.   The athlete can then, after leaving the university, withdraw the proceeds under the following conditions:  1) To complete his/her degree, and upon completion of the degree the athlete can then withdraw what's left. Once he/she completes the degree, he/she can either withdraw the funds, or continue it earning interest to use for another degree for either him/her or a family member at a later date;  2) Withdraw the proceeds 5-years after his last day of service to the university to do with what he/she pleases.

     Regardless of which way one chooses to lean on this issue, there's no denying this is a slippery slope that very few know where it leads--largely because it's dark, murky, with a blindfold called money that obscures much rational thought on what "pay for play" means long term for not only the athletes and universities, but fans as well.

   

   

   
   
   


   

The Case For Wellness Over Fitness

     OK, so you're fit.  But are you **well**?  Not necessarily.

     When most of us speak of "fit", we're talking about physical fitness.  When we speak of wellness, we're usually talking out of our posterior--because many of us don't know what wellness is.  We have some ideas, know some of the aspects, and even can list the six dimensions of wellness (can you list them?).  The challenge is tying them together and then "gleaning the meaning" to create a map of the journey to land of "Zest For Life".

     Physical fitness is one of the six dimensions of wellness.  I'll opine that it's nowhere near the most important.  The body will only do what the mind will allow.  If the mind is not well, the body will not follow.  If the mind is fixated on what **looks** well, the body will follow--and will only **look** well.  The look is destined to fail, because the mind has failed to grasp that wellness is from the inside-out, not the other way around.  The fruit of outside-in?  Injuries, eating disorders, yo-yo eating and/or workouts, apathy, and eventually, great pain--the pain that comes from the pain of avoiding pain.  Pain which could (and should) have been easily avoided.

      I understand there's a sizable amount of the population that will not buy into wellness--simply because it's too hard.  That's OK.  I liken it to Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crud."  The truth remains the truth even if 90% of the population chooses not to believe: **Wellness** trumps fitness every time--because it's sustained long term, and its fruit is peace, not pain.

    Wellness is not just mental and physical.  There are four other dimensions: emotional, social, spiritual, as well as occupational.  When the wellness dimensions are fully integrated and become interdependent, the result is a **zest for life**.

     Ergo, wellness isn't just going into the gym and doing some arm curls.  It's harder.  It's challenging.  It's engaging.  And, once it becomes habit, it's fun, rewarding, and peaceful.  And, not subject to Sturgeon's Law.

     Come join me on a journey to wellness.
   

Cover vs. Support

  It's a case of your job versus my job--no matter how you see it.

  That's right, and you're going to have to like it--because that's just the way it is, and should be.  I'm talking about my job as an accredited media professional versus your job as a fan.

  My job as an accredited sports media professional is to **cover** your team(s), your kid(s), and everybody else's kid and team(s).  **Cover** can mean the feel good stories, the inspirational stories, and the golden moments where your kid(s) and/or team(s) shine.  Conversely, **cover** can also mean the defeats--whether big or small, where your kid(s) and/or team(s) screwed up--whether on or off the field, and then ones that may make your kid(s) and/or team look unfavorable.  It's called impartiality, and there are some of us who endeavor to stay close to the ever-shifty line of neutrality.  Call me old school, but impartiality is what lends to credibility.  If I'm biased (support) to your opponent, you'd have the right to be upset.  Conversely, if I'm biased to (support) you, your opponent would have the same right.

  It's **your** job to be the fan--which really requires partiality, as it should.  It's your job as a fan to **support** your kid(s) and/or team(s).  It's your money, your time, your effort, your choice.

 I draw the line when one projects one's partiality (support) to my broader perspective of endeavored impartiality (cover).  This is particularly true when it comes to two or more teams being **covered** in one game/match/meet/contest.  If one wants me to **support** his/her kid(s) and/or team(s), and all of those teams are asking me to do the same, I can't very well do my job--which is to take a step back and be as impartial as humanly possible (and don't give me your garbage that it's not possible--that's more of your projecting your weakness).  My agendas are as follows:  1) accuracy--whether folks like the accuracy or not; and 2) make my deadline.  That's it.  No ulterior motives.  No conspiracy/conspiracies.  I can't speak for anybody else--only myself.  Those of you who know me know ***I say what I mean, and I mean what I say***.

  I've also become adept at picking up when **supporters** are trying to use me to further their agenda--as in the waaaaaaay too common, "You need to come support my kid(s) and/or team(s) because they work hard.  He/she/they deserve your support.  You NEVER support my kid(s) and/or team(s)!"   This has happened in every single market where I have worked, but to be honest, it's been much more prevalent in my current market (the Rio Grande Valley).  For example, one gentleman texted me pretty much verbatim what's in quotes in this paragraph.  My response was as follows: "The kids who lose and don't hit a lot of home runs also work hard, and perhaps even harder because they're not as good.  So, why don't you rephrase?"  He couldn't.  He couldn't--perhaps because I knew his agenda, which was to promote his kid to college recruiters with press clippings/videos.  For those of you who didn't know this goes on, again, it's quite common.  For those of you who did and do--shame on you for being manipulative.  Just be an adult and go through the front door, and tell me what you want--that's your job.  I may or may be able to accommodate you--because that's **my job**.

  I've also had a few thousand folks over the years counter with something like this: "Well, I'll just talk to (insert competing medium/media here)!".  My response has been and is: "Go right ahead.  They can deal with the current headache and future headaches you bring."  If it's **that good** of a story, I'll be on it.

  And, don't give me "it's not fair".  I've found that often times many folks definition of fair is what's in their exclusive best interest.

  The biggest compliment I can pay any **supporter** is this:  I won't kiss your ass.  I respect you enough as a human being to be honest with you when I consider your story pitch, your compliment(s) and/or your complaints.  I respect myself and my profession enough to make this delineation: I cover,  you support.

That's just the way it is.

Why Soccer Is The World's Game & Not Ours

    No, it won't.

  Sorry, soccer enthusiasts, fans, and the like--your game will not become our game this year or anytime soon.  It's not because it's not a great game.  It's not because we're (the good ol' USA) behind the rest of the world, either.  It's certainly not some grand (or even minute) conspiracy.

  No, "fútbol" will do little better than grab our attention during the 2014 World Cup and then will quietly go back to its existence as the sport **just on the cusp** of breaking into the big four of American football, basketball, baseball and hockey.  It will stay the sport many will encourage our kids to play--and we'll cheer voraciously for our children as they play.  Some will take that enthusiasm into their kids' competitive soccer leagues into junior high and high school.  Some will even purchase tickets to some MLS games.  Most will not.

  So, what's the deal?  Where's the disconnect with soccer between World Cups?  Why does American football sack soccer from Uncle Sam's sea to shining sea?

  One theory has it being about our history versus the rest-of-the-world's history--particularly one important **revolution**.

  Michael Mandelbaum put it all in words in his book, "The Meaning Of Sports: Why Americans Watch Baseball, Football, And Basketball And What They See When They Do" (Public Affairs, New York ,2004).  The revolution?  The industrial revolution.  Put simply, football emerged from the mechanization of America, where measured time and synchronization of tasks catapulted the USA into the super power it still is today.  To quote Mandelbaum:

          "Football is the sport of the machine age because football teams are like machines,
          with specialized moving parts that must function simultaneously. Players are like
          workers in a factory. They must perform their tasks in a precise sequence, and the
          failure to so sow leads to the kind of disaster depicted in the film "Modern Times"
          in which Charlie Chaplin, working on an assembly line, gets tangled up in the
          machinery."

  Football was born of boon--and the great rivalries were born during that boon: Auburn-Alabama, Michigan-Ohio State, Oklahoma-Texas are classic examples on the college scene.  "The Black And Blue Division" of the NFL (Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Green Bay Packers, Minnesota Vikings) come to mind, as well as Rust Belt rivalries like the Steelers vs. Browns.  It's a game built upon the blue collar, hard labor, bare knuckles striving of the American Industrial Revolution.  We became truly great then, and perhaps football reminds of that greatness--at least subliminally.

  Mandelbaum also notes that American football is also video friendly, and I believe that's the principal reason football trumps futbol for the general masses between the Atlantic & Pacific (as well as Alaska & Hawaii).  You've heard it a kajillion times: soccer's boring.  I'll be more precise:  no, soccer is not boring at all, just like baseball's not boring--it's just not as exciting on TV.  I find soccer strategy fascinating, and the athletes playing the game to be on the same level as football athletes.  I, and millions of others, just don't like waiting so long for the **big** action to take place.

  Mandelbaum doesn't shy away from the violent aspect of American football.  He compares it to warfare--as in the drawing up the game plan (football) is to drawing up a battle offensive, where the head coach acts as the general, the players as soldiers, the support staff subordinate officers and medical staff.   Mandelbaum extends on his comparisons:

          "Because each (football and war) are dangerous, fighting a war and playing
           in a football game both require doing what comes unnaturally. Commanders
           and coaches must find ways to overcome the natural inhibitions to taking
           part in both.  Here again, the array of techniques they use, and the invent-
           ives they offer exhibit marked similarities."

  It's here I'll extend on Mandelbaum's point.  I believe football is a better diversion than soccer.  Sports, and all entertainment really, are really just diversions from real life that make real life more bearable, more lively, more hopeful.  Yes, football is a most violent game, where there are frequently serious injuries and infrequent deaths, but the violence is generally confined to the field and not the stands.  That it's also more fun to watch in person and on TV only makes it better.

  So, regardless of how successful the USMNT is in this or future World Cups, futbol will face an El Capitan-like climb to reach the popularity of football in the US of A, and really, even basketball and baseball.  I believe it can over-take hockey simply because more youth across all economic lines can play soccer than can play hockey--although watching hockey is a zillion times more exciting than watching soccer (popularity IS about the number of eyeballs).

  I fully expect some pushback from soccer fans and elitists. That's OK.  Those that know me know I welcome dissent--even if it's based more in emotion than in fact.  I fully expect some to counter that the world's game should be ours because most everything is global nowadays. I full expect others to use the well-worn counter that, something like this, "You'll never give soccer a chance because you just hate us and our game and you'll never understand it anyhow."  In my 25-plus years of sportscasting, I've heard variations of the above dozens of times in each market where I've worked.  There was even a lady in Oklahoma who refused to believe I had **ever** covered a single one of her son's high school games even after I gave her video proof of the nearly dozen games I'd covered in two years. My response to such nonsense is the same: your mind is already made up, so thank you for your opinion and you're free to go--there are some nice parting gifts waiting for you.

  Football certainly has its challenges, but popularity in the 50-states is not one of them.  Of all facts, this one is undeniable.  It's soccer's challenge to eclipse that popularity before the nation gets excited beyond World Cups.