This blog post is meant to touch on the subject of sports talk radio as we did in class and how it is an influential source of information. Sports, in general, have become a huge part of our society today and are only continuing to grow. Although sports talk radio is not the only or even the most popular source of sports media, it still plays a big role in the sports world. I sort of view sports talk radio as politics because there are many different radio hosts out there and it seems as though a particular person who follows sports tends to favor one radio host much more than all the others. Sports talk radio hosts take the latest news and they implant their opinions into the matter. Nothing that the radio hosts say have any influence on what news they are talking about; however, they all tend to have a certain way of connecting to specific audiences who feel the same way as the host does. Much like political parties, people tend to agree on the views and beliefs of one particular radio host than any other. An example we talked about in class of this was the "clones", who are extreme followers of Jim Rome. These people are heavily influenced by the views and stances that Jim takes on any particular subject matter and as a result adopt those same views and beliefs as their own. To further my point, in class this past Monday, Dr. Spencer asked the class if they had a specific sports talk radio host they preferred most and pretty much every student had one. Not only did we as students talk about what we liked about our favorite radio host, but we also expressed our dislike for competing radio hosts.
So while Sportscenter and sports news on television or sports news in the newspaper or on the internet is most likely a more popular media form to obtain the current news in sports, sports talk radio appeals to the sports fans who like to go more in-depth on the matter. Sports talk radio appeals to those who have a strong passion for sports and have certain views and beliefs that they want discussed. I almost view sports talk radio as a form of psychology or like we said in class therapy, where people turn to their personal radio host they connect to best in order to deal with a certain event that is going on in the sports world. Ultimately, sports talk radio brings personality and a connection with the fans to the world of sports.
Blog post by Nathan Wahle
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
The RUIMUS Accident
The RUIMUS Accident
Author: Brady Munger
On April 4th, 2007 Don Imus stirred up one of the largest race related and gender related controversies in recent history. During his radio show, Imus made multiple remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team that shocked the nation. The show full of "A list" politicians and all white crew as the article by Gill explained, made some racy and gender fueled remarks that insulted the Rutgers women's basketball team, as well as women athletes all over (Gill pg. 119, 2011). Between Imus, and Buddy McGuirk the executive producer, there were multiple different remarks made directed towards the players. They included the players being called "Nappy headed ho's", "Jigaboos" and "some hard core ho's" (pg. 119). When these were said on the air to a national audience it created a huge controversy, that included both social and civil activists, as well as many other groups. Their was an outcry and a back lash directly from what he said, which led to many people demanding many things from the incident. As a result of this, Imus was fired and was held out of his job for 8 months before being rehired.
There were multiple things in this incident that I found sickening. Other than the obvious things like the comments he made, there were other things that bothered me very much. The first thing was how it was handled as a whole. Although Imus was initially fired, he now has his job back and is back on the air which I feel should never have been allowed. Secondly, when he was let go he got a very large settlement of money, while the lady's on the basketball team that had to go through the incident received nothing. I find this awful, Imus was able to say these terrible things, and then walk away with money because he was let go. It should have happened much differently. Imus should have been fired with no settlement, and never allowed back on the air again. Those are the ignorant things that happen in society that need to be taken care of and stopped immediately before they spread.
A large discussion point in class about this incident was what do we determine as wrong in today's society. Someone brought up the point of the Chappelle show, and how they use certain terms such as this routinely. But with these two things, I believe there is a huge difference. The first, is that the show is a complete form of entertainment. It is not an attack on real life things, and is solely made to entertain people. With the RUIMUS incident, it was not a form of entertainment, but an attack on something real in life. He attacked the AMATEUR basketball players, and embarrassed them and shamed them in front of the entire nation. Second, with the Chappelle show, it rarely attacks specific individuals. But with the RUIMUS case, Imus attacked specific individual people in the Rutgers Team. He called out the team, and slandered them with racial and gender slurs that were very offending and not meant in any way "entertaining" or joking. Overall, I found this incident very offending and hurtful. It regressed all of the progress society had made on gender and racial equality in one quick segment. It shows how disrespectful some people truly can be, and shows that there still is a sense of racism and gender inequality in this nation and that it still exists.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Indianapolis Grand Prix Experience
Written by Mark Chipperfield
In the year 2005 I had the
unfortunate experience of seeing an event unfold similar to the one that
happened at Indian Wells in 2001. I was attending the United States Grand Prix
with my father and older brother for the third consecutive year. My dad had
always been a huge fan of Formula one racing and he instilled that passion into
us. We would and still do watch every race of the formula one season even though
the majority require being up at odd hours in the morning. So when the series
starting having a race in the United States we jumped at the chance to attend.
It also helped that the race usually took place during the summer.
The weekend started like any other
with teams having multiple practice sessions on Friday and Saturday leading up
to the race on Sunday. However there were a couple cars that kept spinning out
on the last corner of the racetrack that led to the cars slamming into the wall
at a very high speed. It was noticeable to me as one of the cars that this
repeatedly happened to belonged to my favorite driver at the time. But it wasn’t
really viewed as anything out of the ordinary in the media and things were
going normally as they would on any race weekend. The day of the race came and
there was excitement in the air due to the possibility of Formula one becoming
more popular in the United States with an exciting race. Then things took a
dramatic turn for the worse. After the cars were finished taking their warm up
lap the vast majority of them pulled into the pits and did not lineup on the
starting grid like the usually did. And all the cars that pulled into the pits
drove straight into their respective garages and the drivers climbed out of
their cars. It was a sure sign that they were not going to be participating in
the race. Amid all the confusion the remaining six cars started the race as if
nothing happened and the crowd started to get upset. The following video is the
beginning of the US broadcast of the race and some of the shock expressed by
the analysts’ sort of captures it all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhgnc6VruQs
. This experience does differ
from the Indian Wells event because it the dislike wasn’t really expressed
towards individual people as it was against the Williams Sisters.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Reflection on "The Jordan Effect"
Post By: Nathan Wahle
In Monday's class I can honestly say that it felt like I was traveling back to my childhood days. Michael Jordan meant everything to me when I was a kid and in a way still does to this day. Basketball is definitely my favorite sport so it helped having such an icon to look up to while growing up. Back when he played I followed the NBA religiously and every regular season loss was painful but I really took it hard on losses within a series during the playoffs, especially if it was against archrival Reggie Miller and the Pacers. If I had to listen to a game on the radio I would, if a game of his was on television I would watch, if the game wasn't on either of those two types of media then I would watch the bottom line on ESPN and follow the score that way. Meanwhile I had a miniature basketball court in my basement where I was pretending to be Michael Jordan and hoping one day I could reach his level. It was more fun than any video games or computer games because in my mind I was actually him.
I say to this day Michael Jordan still means everything because ever since he left the NBA, I do not follow the season anywhere close to how I did when I was younger. I do follow the NBA playoffs very close because I do think it is the best basketball and I tend to watch for great individual performances kind of like seeking that thrill and satisfaction of witnessing MJ's performances. Plus, to this day I still have a fit anytime somebody makes a claim to a player in today's game being the next "Michael Jordan". I get upset because I view Michael as mine just like thousands if not millions of others do as well.
After watching the video in class on Michael Jordan, it just proves how everyone took Michael as their own because the media protected him and nobody ever wanted to hear anything bad about him and if they did they would just deny it. It is crazy because I don't think we as a society would do that for any other athlete especially in today's sports. Michael Jordan reflected perfection in everything he did for whites and blacks, sports fans and non-sports fans, men and women it did not matter. Not only that but he had a magic about him that had people downplay the flaws he did have more than they would for anybody else. Not only will Michael go down as one of the best sports athletes of all time, but he might very well also go down as the greatest icon and hero of all time.
In Monday's class I can honestly say that it felt like I was traveling back to my childhood days. Michael Jordan meant everything to me when I was a kid and in a way still does to this day. Basketball is definitely my favorite sport so it helped having such an icon to look up to while growing up. Back when he played I followed the NBA religiously and every regular season loss was painful but I really took it hard on losses within a series during the playoffs, especially if it was against archrival Reggie Miller and the Pacers. If I had to listen to a game on the radio I would, if a game of his was on television I would watch, if the game wasn't on either of those two types of media then I would watch the bottom line on ESPN and follow the score that way. Meanwhile I had a miniature basketball court in my basement where I was pretending to be Michael Jordan and hoping one day I could reach his level. It was more fun than any video games or computer games because in my mind I was actually him.
I say to this day Michael Jordan still means everything because ever since he left the NBA, I do not follow the season anywhere close to how I did when I was younger. I do follow the NBA playoffs very close because I do think it is the best basketball and I tend to watch for great individual performances kind of like seeking that thrill and satisfaction of witnessing MJ's performances. Plus, to this day I still have a fit anytime somebody makes a claim to a player in today's game being the next "Michael Jordan". I get upset because I view Michael as mine just like thousands if not millions of others do as well.
After watching the video in class on Michael Jordan, it just proves how everyone took Michael as their own because the media protected him and nobody ever wanted to hear anything bad about him and if they did they would just deny it. It is crazy because I don't think we as a society would do that for any other athlete especially in today's sports. Michael Jordan reflected perfection in everything he did for whites and blacks, sports fans and non-sports fans, men and women it did not matter. Not only that but he had a magic about him that had people downplay the flaws he did have more than they would for anybody else. Not only will Michael go down as one of the best sports athletes of all time, but he might very well also go down as the greatest icon and hero of all time.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Post Four: Should Girls be Allowed to Play Football on Boys Teams
Author: Brady Munger
The question of whether girl's should be allowed to play football on boy's team's is a very large question that has been a large controversy for some time. There is a large number of people that believe the answer to this question is yes, while there is also a large following of people that think the answer to this question should be no. There are many reasons for each side of the argument. Some people want to see even opportunities for both girl's and boy's which means letting them both play together and letting girl's on guy's teams. Then there are other's that feel that their should be even opportunities, but this does not mean to them having both play on the same teams but having leagues available for girl's to play in. In our in class assignment, our group created two lists one pro's and one con's of girls playing on boy's football teams.
Pro's
-Increase in diversity
-Equality for boy's and girl's
-Different perspectives of the game coming together
-Bigger target market to advertise game
Con's
-Locker room issues
-Physical contact differences (threat of injury)
-Different motives for playing
-Team relationships between girl and guy player's
-Question of player's playing or not playing (lack of skill or gender the cause)
Overall the pro's list had some great points in it. The diversity of the sport would be a huge benefit, it would directly increase females interest in the sport, which would then increase the target market which was also on the list. Also, the issue of equality for both boy's and girl's would be a issue being resolved being both boys and girls were being offered the same opportunities. On the con's list, there were a few issues that really made you think. One of the biggest themes were the issue of having two genders on the team. It would bring up a issue of team bonding between to gender's, the locker room issue of having two gender's. or the physical difference between the two genders. Also, the question of playing time would be huge. You could never tell whether it would be a reason of skill why a certain player was playing or not playing or a matter of gender.
Overall, I do believe this is an issue that need's to be looked at much more closely. In my personal opinion there is no right answer to the question. I believe the best solution would be to have both girls and guys football team's, but the amount of participants usually would not allow for it. I think that before setting the issue aside it needs to be looked at very closely, and the best solution needs to be found.
The question of whether girl's should be allowed to play football on boy's team's is a very large question that has been a large controversy for some time. There is a large number of people that believe the answer to this question is yes, while there is also a large following of people that think the answer to this question should be no. There are many reasons for each side of the argument. Some people want to see even opportunities for both girl's and boy's which means letting them both play together and letting girl's on guy's teams. Then there are other's that feel that their should be even opportunities, but this does not mean to them having both play on the same teams but having leagues available for girl's to play in. In our in class assignment, our group created two lists one pro's and one con's of girls playing on boy's football teams.
Pro's
-Increase in diversity
-Equality for boy's and girl's
-Different perspectives of the game coming together
-Bigger target market to advertise game
Con's
-Locker room issues
-Physical contact differences (threat of injury)
-Different motives for playing
-Team relationships between girl and guy player's
-Question of player's playing or not playing (lack of skill or gender the cause)
Overall the pro's list had some great points in it. The diversity of the sport would be a huge benefit, it would directly increase females interest in the sport, which would then increase the target market which was also on the list. Also, the issue of equality for both boy's and girl's would be a issue being resolved being both boys and girls were being offered the same opportunities. On the con's list, there were a few issues that really made you think. One of the biggest themes were the issue of having two genders on the team. It would bring up a issue of team bonding between to gender's, the locker room issue of having two gender's. or the physical difference between the two genders. Also, the question of playing time would be huge. You could never tell whether it would be a reason of skill why a certain player was playing or not playing or a matter of gender.
Overall, I do believe this is an issue that need's to be looked at much more closely. In my personal opinion there is no right answer to the question. I believe the best solution would be to have both girls and guys football team's, but the amount of participants usually would not allow for it. I think that before setting the issue aside it needs to be looked at very closely, and the best solution needs to be found.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Post Number Three: Budget Allocation Assignment
Post Number Three: Budget
Allocation Assignment
Written by Mark Chipperfield
The premise
of this assignment was that the high school whose budget we were in charge of
had an athletic budget of $120,000. However the needs of the teams and athletes
were greater than the $120,000 budget that was available to us. We were allowed
to have four fundraiser’s that would gain $60 per participant in that sport
along with a $20,000 donation from an alum of the school to help buffer the
expenses. So the major decisions that we needed to make was what teams we were
going to have fund-raise and then what teams were going to get their extra
expenses paid for with the leftover money.
The first thing our group did when
presented with this assignment was to add up all the necessary expenses.
Overall we found that the necessary expenses of the athletic department were
$148,350 meaning we were over budget by a fair amount. The next step was to
figure out what teams we were going to force to take part in fundraisers. We
decided to go with a realistic mixture of teams with a large number of
participants as well as successful teams that would generate excitement if they
actually had a fundraiser. The four teams we chose were the football team (largest
number of participants), the softball team (1st in conference), the
downhill skiing team (1st in conference) and the women’s track and
field team (2nd largest number of participants). After doing all the
math we found out that all that fundraising would raise $11,040 for the
athletic program. So we added that $11,040 with the $20,000 donation and the
current $120,000 budget to figure out the total money we could spend on
athletics. The sum of those three ended up being $151,040. Next we subtracted
the $148,350 needed for necessary expenses from $151,040 and found that we had
only $2,690 dollars to spend on extra expenses for the sports teams. The three
things that we decided to spend that excess money on were new jerseys for the
men’s and women’s soccer teams (both are successfully 3rd in the
conference) as well as new shot puts for the women’s track and field team. The
reason why the women’s track and field team got new shot puts is because they
participated in a fundraiser while finishing second in their conference.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Post Number Two: Reflective Response to Title IX and Sports
The facts and statements about Title IX seem to be repetitive especially in the realm of sports.
-Established in 1972
-Equal opportunity for women as men
-AIAW vs. NCAA
-etc.
But what does it all mean?
Ok sure the basic theme of Title IX (in reference to sport) means that an equal amount of women are able to participate in sports as men. However, this statement only brushes the surface on the full impact of Title IX. Sport has grown so much in our society that it comes close to being the only thing that will have an adult paint his body for a game or cause one to cry after a loss. The power of sports is increasing dramatically. So, limiting participation due to gender in an area of our society with such impact is just as civilly wrong as saying a person cannot vote based on their gender. One thing to keep in mind is that one of the biggest arguments against Title IX is that women athletics do not bring in the type of revenue that men's athletics do. This is true, but it is not about the money but rather giving both men and women the same opportunity to pursue their dreams. Title IX extends much further than just the sports world. Let's say a female who comes from a low income background cannot afford college. However, due to her great athletic ability she receives an athletic scholarship in a particular sport. This opportunity gave her a chance to go to college, and assuming she took advantage of it, developed into her potential and was not limited by gender. So, when looking at the grand scheme of things, sure men's athletics may consistently bring in more money than women's right now, but it is about so much more than that. It is about living up to country's nickname of "Land of Opportunity".
This reflective stance sort of wraps up what Carpenter and Acosta's article "Title IX in Social and Legislative Context" addresses. They go on to explain the struggle for the NCAA to accept women athletics and how the AIAW was a monumental organization to get the ball rolling for women athletics. If it was not for the AIAW, the NCAA might have gotten away with their attempt to exclude athletics from Title IX. I believe as a society, I am guilty of this sometimes as well, we need to stop looking at everything from a money standpoint. First, women's athletics are relatively new anyway so they have a major gap to catch up with and I think we need to be patient and not so critical sometimes. I think if I had one criticism of women athletics right now it would be that in a large number of sports, women play with slightly different rules and regulations. I would like to see this changed just so that women are able to practice and train under the same rules and conditions so that maybe one day they will catch up to men. So not only will we have equal men and women sports, but possibly we will unify sports by combining men and women.
Nathan Wahle
-Established in 1972
-Equal opportunity for women as men
-AIAW vs. NCAA
-etc.
But what does it all mean?
Ok sure the basic theme of Title IX (in reference to sport) means that an equal amount of women are able to participate in sports as men. However, this statement only brushes the surface on the full impact of Title IX. Sport has grown so much in our society that it comes close to being the only thing that will have an adult paint his body for a game or cause one to cry after a loss. The power of sports is increasing dramatically. So, limiting participation due to gender in an area of our society with such impact is just as civilly wrong as saying a person cannot vote based on their gender. One thing to keep in mind is that one of the biggest arguments against Title IX is that women athletics do not bring in the type of revenue that men's athletics do. This is true, but it is not about the money but rather giving both men and women the same opportunity to pursue their dreams. Title IX extends much further than just the sports world. Let's say a female who comes from a low income background cannot afford college. However, due to her great athletic ability she receives an athletic scholarship in a particular sport. This opportunity gave her a chance to go to college, and assuming she took advantage of it, developed into her potential and was not limited by gender. So, when looking at the grand scheme of things, sure men's athletics may consistently bring in more money than women's right now, but it is about so much more than that. It is about living up to country's nickname of "Land of Opportunity".
This reflective stance sort of wraps up what Carpenter and Acosta's article "Title IX in Social and Legislative Context" addresses. They go on to explain the struggle for the NCAA to accept women athletics and how the AIAW was a monumental organization to get the ball rolling for women athletics. If it was not for the AIAW, the NCAA might have gotten away with their attempt to exclude athletics from Title IX. I believe as a society, I am guilty of this sometimes as well, we need to stop looking at everything from a money standpoint. First, women's athletics are relatively new anyway so they have a major gap to catch up with and I think we need to be patient and not so critical sometimes. I think if I had one criticism of women athletics right now it would be that in a large number of sports, women play with slightly different rules and regulations. I would like to see this changed just so that women are able to practice and train under the same rules and conditions so that maybe one day they will catch up to men. So not only will we have equal men and women sports, but possibly we will unify sports by combining men and women.
Nathan Wahle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)