Still Room for Improvement

Over the past one hundred years we have come very far in the increase of African Americans and other minorities in sports, but we need to keep moving forward. There are still issues with race and minorities not getting enough opportunity in sport today. As we discussed on American Sport and the 21^st Century, we were reminded that sport is not an oasis free zone from racial problems. There are, and will continue to be, problems in sport unless we address them. In the article it talks about how college sports received its lowest grade for racial hiring practices in 2014. This shows even more how there are not equal opportunities in sport for all races like we discussed in class. In the article is says that over 85% of all coaches in Division I, II, and III college athletics were white, which proves another point we discussed in class about how there is a skewed distribution of African Americans in sport in colleges around the United States. Lastly, in class we talked about how one of the consequences of racial logic in sports was that there are management barriers for African Americans. The author of this article Richard Lapchick says that the NCAA should introduce a rule such as the Rooney rule for the NFL. The Rooney rule states that whenever a position opens in the NFL, regardless of the team, that there must be minority candidates interviewed for the job. Lapchick says that it would help stop the inequalities of only whites being the people hired for most jobs in the NCAA. I believe there will be times when the percentages of minorities and whites happen to be closer together regarding coaching in college sports, but I don’t think it will be for a long time. What do you think?

Article discussed in Blog post:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12551859/lapchick-race-gender-hiring-issues-college-sport

More information about the Rooney Rule:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1822988-the-rooney-rule-10-years-later-its-worked-usually-and-we-still-need-it

Deviance: Will We Ever Be Without It?

Will deviant behavior ever cease to exist in the world of sports?  Are the current consequences enough for deviant behavior tough enough to deter it from happening? Do sports teams do enough to try and prevent it? Like in most sport organizations, deviant behavior also exists in the NCAA. No matter how hard the NCAA tries to prevent this deviant behavior in sport, it will continue for years to come; it is simply human nature.  In American Sport in the 21^st Century we defined deviance as an act/person that differs from the norm, especially behavior or attitudes that differ from acceptable social standards.  The article I found about deviance in sport discusses drug use and how the NCAA needs to do more to prevent this. In class we went over how the NCAA takes measures to combat drug use by making players lose a season of competition if they test positive for drug use. The biggest problem with this idea is discussed in the beginning of the article when Sharon Terlep points out that some schools such as Vanderbilt aren’t required to share their drug testing policies with the NCAA. How are they supposed to ban a player if they have no record of whether or not the players are doing drugs? We also talked about how the NCAA has mandatory random drug tests. The article elaborates more on these random drug tests. For example, the University of Georgia was tested this year. Guess how many of their athletes got tested? There are roughly 650 student-athletes and only about 35 got tested. This definitely proves that their drug testing polices aren’t really effective. If a school is going to drug test then all athletes should be tested; testing only 5% of the athletes is never going to deter the use of drugs for those athletes who want to use them. The article also reiterates what we discussed in class; that the best way to stop drug use in sports is to send a message that drug use is bad to young athletes long before they enter collegiate sports. When a player gets caught doing drugs or tests positive in college athletics, its sends a bad message to youth players. Deviance in sport will never go away; deviance is part of human nature, but the NCAA needs to attempt to combat and figure out new ways to prevent it better than they are now.

Article discussed in blog post:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ncaas-drug-problem-1426792929

NCAA drug testing policies:

http://www.ncaa.org/health-and-safety/policy/drug-testing

A New Era

Want to know the latest updates on your favorite sports team? Turn to social media; download apps on your smart phone and all the info you want is easily at your fingertips. Gone are the days where fans had to wait for the information they were seeking to be on the news or in the newspaper...or even on an Internet website. Over the past ten years social media has increasingly played a huge role in sports. More often then not, the way many people find information about sports is through different applications such as Twitter, ESPN, Facebook, and Instagram. Social media was defined in my American Sport in the 21^st Century class as a group of Internet applications that allow the creation and exchange of user generated content. In the article I found online, MLB Clubs See Social Media Gains in Lead-up to Season, it discussed the rise of attention to MLB teams' social media websites during the 2015 spring training season. In one month the league's teams collectively gained over 4 million new Twitter followers, over 1 million Instagram followers, and over 2.5 million new Google Plus followers. As discussed in class on March 26^th social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter have a significant increase in users per day. Craig Williams confirms this in his article when he provided the statistics on how many people are starting to use social media for updates on sports. Also on March 26^th we discussed how using social media can activate and leverage brands if done correctly. In the article, Bryan Srabian, Director of Social Media for the San Francisco Giants, talks about how important it is for all people in charge of social media to focus on making a great experience for people rather than just trying to make revenue for the team. The overall experience is what will make people come back and stay connected to the team. Lastly, in class we discussed how social media gives us better reach and accessibility to what we want to know about sports. Fans are not just interested in news about players, team records, or stats; the social aspects surrounding their favorite teams also intrigue them. For instance, the article tells about how Will Ferrell traveled to and played for over ten MLB teams in one day and how Twitter blew up because of that. How awesome is that? Without social media how would fans have even known it was happening at the time? Social media has a huge impact on sports now, and from here on it will only increase its role and its impact on the sport industry.

Article discussed in Blog post:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/04/06/Media/MLB-social-media.aspx   

More ways social media has been affecting sport:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/08/01/In-Depth/Social-media.aspx

Stadium Building Good or Bad?

In my American Sport and the 21^st Century class we talked about the economic impact of sports on the economy. We discussed the impact of building a stadium in a city and the arguments for and against it. In the article, sports economist, Michael Leeds, states that there is no impact on a city’s economy when a stadium is built for a sports franchise. How can this be true? In class we discussed one advantage of building a stadium is the number jobs that become available in the community. Shouldn’t this increase revenue for a city? One problem with this thinking is that the jobs are temporary, offering employment only during the specific sports season. Baseball has 80 home games a year, but what about football? They only have eight scheduled home games a season. How much does this really impact the local economy? As pointed out in class an argument against stadium subsidies was that the athletes and executives were the ones who benefit the most, not the local economy.   Also, Leeds argues that one major reason sports teams don’t add to the local economy is that they don’t generate new spending; people just spend what available entertainment money differently. In class we discussed that stadiums do actually produce a significant amount of money, but how much of that money actually stays in the local economy? Most of the money goes into the owners’ pockets and they don’t usually live in the same city where the stadium for their team is built. Factor in the fact that the money for building a stadium actually comes out of the taxpayers’ pockets and you have to ask yourself if it is actually worth it. Leeds actually points out that the economic impact of a baseball team has about as much impact as a midsize department store. So it seems like a city should reconsider building such a ridiculously priced stadium just to say they have a sports team.  Yet, everyone wants one. Currently, Inglewood’s city council just approved the building the most expensive stadium ever, and Inglewood is one of the poorest areas of Los Angeles. Sports economist, Victor Matheson disagrees with the proposed economic activity from this stadium of more than $800 million dollars a year, feeling it will be much less.  In Missouri, the Governor just offered the Rams $400 million dollars to not move to the new stadium in Inglewood. Where is all this money coming from? Ultimately, you, the taxpayers. Having a sports team makes the fans feel important and feel good, but the fact remains that feeling good does not help the economy.

Article discussed in blog post:
<http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/are-pro-sports-teams-economic-winners-cities>