 |
|
|
 |
|
I, for one, am disappointed that, when all was said and done after the recent furor over conference realignment in college sports, the Pac 10 did not become the Pac 16. I grant that an expansion would diminish some traditional rivalries and would entail some scheduling inequities, but these problems would be over-ridden by the exciting infusion of new teams and the development of new rivalries. Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Colorado, and especially Texas! and Oklahoma!--seen in football and basketball against "my" teams (UW, primo; ASU, segundo) at least every other year either at home or in a televised away game--would bring excellent competition, more respect, and new drama to the tired Pac 10. As far as caliber of play goes, merely adding Colorado and Utah to the league--thus creating the Pac 12--adds little luster. I want the Texas and Oklahoma schools in there--then we'd have some great new story lines in a high-powered conference. There would also be lots more TV money, which would be used to upgrade facilities, facilitate recruiting, and provide support for other, non-revenue-producing, sports teams at the 16 schools. Distasteful as the grubby money motive may be, we--institutions, alums, fans in general--are already, to mix a little Caesar with Macbeth, more than halfway across our Rubicon and "in blood so steeped/To return would be as tedious as go o'er." Money rules. Sad as it seems, big-time academic institutions rely on sports to help sell their academic programs. Students want to identify with winners and will actually select their colleges based in part on their athletic reputations. (If it were possible, I would love to see a return to the late-50s/early-60s one-platoon brand of football--you grizzled Husky fans remember the glory days of Schloredt, Fleming, and McKeta--with just a two-week spring practice period, no organized weightlifting or conditioning sessions, no passing drills or 7-on-7s, and with players working summer jobs to supplement their meagre scholarships, of which there would be only 40 available, enabling walkons to play a greater role--but that's not going to happen any more than most of us are going to diligently sequester our carbon, eat locally, or love our Arab neighbors as ourselves. Ergo, we need to stay in the conference expansion race in order to keep up with Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Florida, et al. We must join in the Mutually Accepted Delusion that big-time college athletics are necessary to our survival as institutions and happy fans and alums.
Which sort of brings us to the penalties recently meted out to USC by the NCAA. It turns out that--surprise, surprise--football player Reggie Bush and basketball player O.J. Mayo took cash and other benefits from sports agents to enroll in and play for USC. The AD and the coaches of the teams involved claim that they knew nothing about the matters. The penalties--post-season bans, loss of scholarships, vacating of victories--are harsh but fair. Among big-time schools, cheating and lack of institutional control are rampant. Over the past few decades, many schools have been caught and rightfully punished. At the highest levels of competition, violations happen all the time. Even the sainted John Wooden looked the other way when booster Sam Gilbert provided slush funds to some UCLA basketball players--or so it was alleged, and I am cynical enough to believe those allegations. The only way to stop the cheating is to remove all sports programs from institutions of higher learning (not going to happen) or pay stipends to the players of revenue-producing sports. That seems a long way from happening, too, and even if it did we would still have the problem of boosters bribing players to attend their school in the first place. At this point, all we can do is to acknowledge that corruption is widespread and hope that our favorite teams don't get caught. Of course, if they don't get caught, they probably aren't winning too many championships in major sports. In either case, the solution to the problem of getting caught or of not winning is clear: fire the coach!
I often lament that college athletes who become pros, whether or not they receive their degrees, are poorly educated and lack social awareness, so why was I uncomfortable with a decision made by "my" Phoenix Suns during the recent NBA playoffs? The Suns played a game as "Los Suns" in protest of Arizona's new immigration law. Players and management seemed united in contending that the law is mean-spirited, disrespects the Hispanic communithy, could lead to violations of civil liberties, and could result in boycotts by tourists and out-of-state organizations, thus damaging the Arizona economy. Arizona's law is highly controversial, and cogent arguments both for and against it can--and should--be made. But those arguments, I believe, should be made by individuals, not by businesses and corporations. The Supreme Court recently decided that corporations have the right to freedom of speech, whether expressed in words or in financial contributions, I and agree with the Court's decision. However, I believe it is a divisive and inappropriate slap in a prospective customer's face to speak directly on an issue. Product, price, and service, not political or religious position, should be what the customer considers in choosing to patronize a business or support a team. There should not be a corporate position on such things as gay marriage, abortion, legalization of marijuana, capital punishment, the theory of evolution, anthropic global warming, the war on terror, off-shore drilling for oil, bank bailouts, stimulus spending, etc. I don't want to enter stores over whose portals are posted political polemics like these (or their opposites):
McDonalds--Have It Your Way--Except for Abortion
Target: Take Dead Aim on Global Warming
LA Fitness: Workouts, not Bailouts
Walmart: Let the Fittest Corporations Survive--Evolution Rocks!
Starbucks: Some of Our Beans Are Blended With Other Varieties, Some Within Their Own Variety--Catch Our Drift?
BP: Drill, Baby, Drill
Exxon: Spill, Baby, Spill
Nor do I want to decide on whether to cheer a Steve Nash 3-pointer or an Amare Stoudemire dunk based on the name written on their jerseys.
|
|
|