For those of us who like to debate the Platonic ideal of what is sport, boxing creates the second biggest conundrum after golf (which everyone seems to want to define out). Last weekend's fight between Manny Pacquiao and Tim Bradley, in which Bradley won a split decision that has been universally derided as wrong to the point of being corrupt (the promoter of the fight has called on the Nevada Attorney General to investigate), brings the issue back up.
One of the four elements to my preferred definition of sport is objective scoring. This means points are awarded and winners determined based on objective criteria, rather than through "judging," which involves inherently subjective and usually undefined (and undefinable) criteria such as "artistic merit" or "whichever fighter you would not have wanted to be in a given round" (an oft-accepted standard for judging in boxing). One way to distinguish this is to ask whether the judge could explain his conclusion in a way likely to convince anyone who watched the fight and initially reached a different conclusion.
So what of boxing? Fights obviously can and often do end by knockout, the ultimate objective determination. But, as here, they often end on a decision by judges who exercise completely unchecked decision applying a standard that, quite literally, has no determinative criteria beyond "which guy won?". This contrasts with amateur boxing, in which judges look to who landed the most punches, an objective standard (although of course subject to manipulation and error). We could tweak the definition to include boxing by defining this element as "objective scoring, or at least the possibility of determining a winner by something other than subjective judging." So the possibility that a fight could be decided objectively is enough, even if some fights are decided via subjective judging. But it is hard to call something a sport (as opposed to a contest or competition or exhibition) after a fight like this one, in which you have the feeling that things were decided by people who were just making things up, but you could not, in fact, explain why.
Selasa, 12 Juni 2012
Senin, 11 Juni 2012
Athletes as Owners
Over the last few weeks a number of high-profile athletes have announced their involvement with a bid for a sports franchise or their own apparel line: Phil Mickelson announced that he has joined a group bidding to purchase the San Diego Padres and Caroline Wozniacki announced her own underwear line in conjunction with a Danish company. On the other end of the athlete-ownership spectrum is Terrell Owens, whose contract and ownership stake with an Arena Football League team were recently terminated, reportedly as a result of his failure to attend certain team promotional events. There is nothing new about athletes having their own clothing line, or brand, or having an equity position in a venture but these developments with high-profile athletes highlight important issues.
First, it is increasingly common for athletes to not just simply be product endorsers for a fee but to obtain an equity position in the entity producing the product. Tom Brady (Under Armour) and David Wright (Vitamin Water) are additional examples of athletes taking equity in the company whose product they endorse. For the athlete, there is an advantage of having the potential to earn far greater financial rewards if the product becomes a financial success than through an endorsement fee. For the company, the advantage lies in tying the athlete to the company for the long-term and possibly paying the athlete less in cash by giving an equity position. This kind of deal can thus be particularly attractive for a new company with potential but not a lot of cash yet or a company that wants to make a splash through a celebrity association.
Second, giving an athlete an equity stake makes morals clauses, or a variant thereof, an important negotiating issue. The concept behind athlete endorsements is at least in part that their association with a product or brand will increase its visibility and financial success. If the athlete/owner subsequently is embroiled in scandal, the rationale for using him or her as an endorser may be reduced, if not eliminated, but what appends to their equity ownership? Is it retained? Forfeited? Subject to repurchase by the company at its option pursuant to a set price or formula?
A few years ago a client I was working with, a small company that sought to make a splash, considered giving equity ownership to a professional athlete. The deal ultimately didn't happen, fortunately, because just a few months later the athlete engaged in improper conduct and his marketing value had significantly diminished. The ramifications to the company for being tied to an athlete who had fallen into disrepute would have been severe. There is no doubt that athlete equity in their ventures will increase.
In order to protect the company providing the equity stake, care must be given to associating with an athlete who is unlikely to end up in a scandal. Drafting the endorsement/equity participation agreement should also be done so that the company is protected in the event the athlete falls into disrepute.
First, it is increasingly common for athletes to not just simply be product endorsers for a fee but to obtain an equity position in the entity producing the product. Tom Brady (Under Armour) and David Wright (Vitamin Water) are additional examples of athletes taking equity in the company whose product they endorse. For the athlete, there is an advantage of having the potential to earn far greater financial rewards if the product becomes a financial success than through an endorsement fee. For the company, the advantage lies in tying the athlete to the company for the long-term and possibly paying the athlete less in cash by giving an equity position. This kind of deal can thus be particularly attractive for a new company with potential but not a lot of cash yet or a company that wants to make a splash through a celebrity association.
Second, giving an athlete an equity stake makes morals clauses, or a variant thereof, an important negotiating issue. The concept behind athlete endorsements is at least in part that their association with a product or brand will increase its visibility and financial success. If the athlete/owner subsequently is embroiled in scandal, the rationale for using him or her as an endorser may be reduced, if not eliminated, but what appends to their equity ownership? Is it retained? Forfeited? Subject to repurchase by the company at its option pursuant to a set price or formula?
A few years ago a client I was working with, a small company that sought to make a splash, considered giving equity ownership to a professional athlete. The deal ultimately didn't happen, fortunately, because just a few months later the athlete engaged in improper conduct and his marketing value had significantly diminished. The ramifications to the company for being tied to an athlete who had fallen into disrepute would have been severe. There is no doubt that athlete equity in their ventures will increase.
In order to protect the company providing the equity stake, care must be given to associating with an athlete who is unlikely to end up in a scandal. Drafting the endorsement/equity participation agreement should also be done so that the company is protected in the event the athlete falls into disrepute.
Kamis, 07 Juni 2012
The Other Panthers- A Look at LaGrange College
This year, Ferrum and the other USA South schools say goodbye to Shenandoah University as a conference member, and welcome LaGrange College into the conference lineup. LaGrange will be begin its 7th season of football, and while the program is young, do not be fooled into thinking that this is not a capable team. In their first two seasons of competition, they were winless. That, in and of itself is not too surprising, given the struggles that a new program would face getting started. The third year however, something changed. The Panthers (yes they too are called Panthers) went 9-2, and won the Saint Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, and made the NCAA playoffs.
Last season, the Panthers (boy this is gonna be confusing) went 4-6 as an independent, and while this was likely a disappointing season, it's important to note that 2 of their 4 wins, came against USA South members. (North Carolina Wesleyan, and Maryville)
Also, LaGrange will only lose 15 players from their roster from 2011.
While this is a preliminary look at LaGrange, I expect them to be a solid program, and be competitive right out of the gate. Stay tuned.
Last season, the Panthers (boy this is gonna be confusing) went 4-6 as an independent, and while this was likely a disappointing season, it's important to note that 2 of their 4 wins, came against USA South members. (North Carolina Wesleyan, and Maryville)
Also, LaGrange will only lose 15 players from their roster from 2011.
While this is a preliminary look at LaGrange, I expect them to be a solid program, and be competitive right out of the gate. Stay tuned.
Keys to Another Successful Season-Ends and Receivers
For a team that runs the ball most of the time, one may think that this is not an area of concern. It is true that Ferrum is an option attack offense, but the Ferrum passing game has proven to be a major cog in the offensive wheel.
Looking back over some statistics, there seems to be a trend emerging. Over the last four seasons, Ferrum has started to utilize the passing game more, albeit slightly, to enhance their offensive attack. Below is a comparison of how the Panthers have distributed their offensive running and passing plays:
2008- Ferrum ran the ball 500 times, and passed 120 times.
2009- Ferrum ran the ball 471 times, and passed 129 times.
2010- Ferrum ran the ball 444 times, and passed 150 times.
2011- Ferrum ran the ball 461 times, and passed 169 times.
What this shows is that Ferrum is developing its offense to be more multi-dimensional.
Look for the Ferrum passing game to continue this trend, but with a new quarterback, there may be an adjustment period. While it is not known who the starting quarterback will be, I am going out on a limb and assume that Tim Reynolds will get the call. Reynolds, a sophomore, saw limited action last year, but he made the most of his chances. I have seen video of his high school career (Yorktown H.S) on You tube, and he seems to be quite talented. He returned punts, played defense, and quarterbacked. While I doubt you will see him on defense, returning punts is a very likely roll.
If Reynolds is indeed under center, his receiving corp is solid. Derek West, and Makaya Jackson will both be back as his main targets. He will also have a stable full of running backs to throw to. as well as sophomore Matt Ball at Tight End. As a Freshman, Matt played in 7 of the 10 games. I think the passing game, no matter how frequently it is used will be strong.
Looking back over some statistics, there seems to be a trend emerging. Over the last four seasons, Ferrum has started to utilize the passing game more, albeit slightly, to enhance their offensive attack. Below is a comparison of how the Panthers have distributed their offensive running and passing plays:
2008- Ferrum ran the ball 500 times, and passed 120 times.
2009- Ferrum ran the ball 471 times, and passed 129 times.
2010- Ferrum ran the ball 444 times, and passed 150 times.
2011- Ferrum ran the ball 461 times, and passed 169 times.
What this shows is that Ferrum is developing its offense to be more multi-dimensional.
Look for the Ferrum passing game to continue this trend, but with a new quarterback, there may be an adjustment period. While it is not known who the starting quarterback will be, I am going out on a limb and assume that Tim Reynolds will get the call. Reynolds, a sophomore, saw limited action last year, but he made the most of his chances. I have seen video of his high school career (Yorktown H.S) on You tube, and he seems to be quite talented. He returned punts, played defense, and quarterbacked. While I doubt you will see him on defense, returning punts is a very likely roll.
If Reynolds is indeed under center, his receiving corp is solid. Derek West, and Makaya Jackson will both be back as his main targets. He will also have a stable full of running backs to throw to. as well as sophomore Matt Ball at Tight End. As a Freshman, Matt played in 7 of the 10 games. I think the passing game, no matter how frequently it is used will be strong.
Rabu, 06 Juni 2012
Musburger and the 1968 Olympics
Dave Zirin has a column at The Nation calling on Brent Musburger to apologize for the column he wrote for the Chicago American criticizing Tommie Smith and John Carlos after their protest at the 1968 Olympics. (H/T: Deadspin. Zirin reprints Musburger's column, which he uncovered after some digging, in full).
In the column, Musburger referred to them as "a pair of black-skinned stormtroopers" and their protest as "juvenile," "ignoble," and "unimaginative." He also belittled their efforts to explain their protest, saying, more-than-somewhat condescendingly, that "[p]erhaps it’s time 20-year-old athletes quit passing themselves off as social philosophers.” In a 1999 documentary on the '68 games, Musburger acknowledged that his words were "a bit harsh," but questioned the value of the protest. He is quoted as saying: "Did it improve anything?' . . . Smith and Carlos aside, I object to using the Olympic awards stand to make a political statement.''
A couple of thoughts.
First, I'm not sure of the answer to Zirin's basic point about an apology. Most of the mainstream (read: white) sports media were critical of Smith and Carlos. In fact, sports reporters were harshly critical of all the athletes in the late '60s and early '70s who were speaking out on social issues, especially race, seeking greater freedom, greater negotiating power, etc. Muhammad Ali was not a beloved media figure around this time. While Musburger's rhetoric is particularly harsh (especially the "stormtrooper" thing), he was writing what most everyone else was writing and saying, especially in its condescending tone. So if we demand an apology from Musburger, do we demand apologies from the other commentators and the publications for which they wrote, about Smith and Carlos or about any of the other politically active athletes of the day.
Second, I do agree with Zirin (and Barry Patchesky at Deadspin) that Musburger still did not get it in 1999. Look again at his quotation. He asked if the protest improved anything? Perhaps not, if we look at it alone and immediately. But Musburger must have been smart enough to know that one single act does not immediately change or improve everything and it is absurd for him to expect differently. But every act of expression and protest builds towards improvement. Next he said he objects to using the Olympic awards stand to make a political statement. This is fundamentally silly. It is impossible not to understand the political nature of the Olympics, including the medal awards. Why does he think we play the national anthem?
In the column, Musburger referred to them as "a pair of black-skinned stormtroopers" and their protest as "juvenile," "ignoble," and "unimaginative." He also belittled their efforts to explain their protest, saying, more-than-somewhat condescendingly, that "[p]erhaps it’s time 20-year-old athletes quit passing themselves off as social philosophers.” In a 1999 documentary on the '68 games, Musburger acknowledged that his words were "a bit harsh," but questioned the value of the protest. He is quoted as saying: "Did it improve anything?' . . . Smith and Carlos aside, I object to using the Olympic awards stand to make a political statement.''
A couple of thoughts.
First, I'm not sure of the answer to Zirin's basic point about an apology. Most of the mainstream (read: white) sports media were critical of Smith and Carlos. In fact, sports reporters were harshly critical of all the athletes in the late '60s and early '70s who were speaking out on social issues, especially race, seeking greater freedom, greater negotiating power, etc. Muhammad Ali was not a beloved media figure around this time. While Musburger's rhetoric is particularly harsh (especially the "stormtrooper" thing), he was writing what most everyone else was writing and saying, especially in its condescending tone. So if we demand an apology from Musburger, do we demand apologies from the other commentators and the publications for which they wrote, about Smith and Carlos or about any of the other politically active athletes of the day.
Second, I do agree with Zirin (and Barry Patchesky at Deadspin) that Musburger still did not get it in 1999. Look again at his quotation. He asked if the protest improved anything? Perhaps not, if we look at it alone and immediately. But Musburger must have been smart enough to know that one single act does not immediately change or improve everything and it is absurd for him to expect differently. But every act of expression and protest builds towards improvement. Next he said he objects to using the Olympic awards stand to make a political statement. This is fundamentally silly. It is impossible not to understand the political nature of the Olympics, including the medal awards. Why does he think we play the national anthem?
Selasa, 05 Juni 2012
"Stillpower" by Garret Kramer Review
This Stillpower book review is also posted over at Reed Reads.
I got the chance to get an early copy of the book Stillpower: Excellence with Ease in Sports and Life
by Garret Kramer, and I have to say that I enjoyed it. It was not my favorite book, but I think it is worth reading for athletes and coaches on the chance that they are able to glean one or two insights from the book that will really help them out.
The book talks all about recognizing that motivation is internal, whether it is in sports or in life, and we cannot seek external motivations. If we do that, it will be fleeting, and we will soon find ourselves performing worse. If we look to things happening to us as getting us down or up, we are not relying enough on the internal factors of performance. One story that I enjoyed from the book which talks about being motivated and satisfied by the right things was a story about former Argentinian golfer Robert De Vicenzo. The story from the book goes:
At the end of the book, Kramer gave his ten reminders that will "point you away from external quick fixes and toward your own natural understanding" :
1. Only when you feel a sense of cooperation with your teammates, coaches, and even your opponents will you be mentally prepared to compete to the fullest extent possible.
2. Struggles only occur when you are not operating from a clear mind-set. So when you attempt to solve problems from this state of mind, your performance will only get worse.
3. A coach's words are much less important than the state of mind from which the words are spoken.
4. A coaching methodology that focuses on behaviors is mentoring after the damage has already been done.
5. Recognize the difference between your life situations and your life.
6. Keep goal setting in perspective.
7. Without the free will to choose, you will lack the resources to draw upon personal insights and move through errant emotions.
8. The opportunity always exists to move through any situation successfully, no matter how challenging it might appear.
9. Understand that no matter what you are thinking at any moment in time, there is nothing you actually have to do.
10. You will perform to the best of your ability from the ease, simplicity, and peacefulness of stillpower.
-----
Is Stillpower worth the read? It depends. If you are an athlete or coach, I think you could get something out of this, because obviously even one insight that improves your performance will make it worthwhile. In addition, it is a quick and easy read, which should make it a relatively easy book to get through.
I got the chance to get an early copy of the book Stillpower: Excellence with Ease in Sports and Life
by Garret Kramer, and I have to say that I enjoyed it. It was not my favorite book, but I think it is worth reading for athletes and coaches on the chance that they are able to glean one or two insights from the book that will really help them out.The book talks all about recognizing that motivation is internal, whether it is in sports or in life, and we cannot seek external motivations. If we do that, it will be fleeting, and we will soon find ourselves performing worse. If we look to things happening to us as getting us down or up, we are not relying enough on the internal factors of performance. One story that I enjoyed from the book which talks about being motivated and satisfied by the right things was a story about former Argentinian golfer Robert De Vicenzo. The story from the book goes:
Robert De Vicenzo, the renowned Argentinian professional golfer, once won a tournament with a substantial cash prize. After receiving his check and smiling through interviews and photos, he went to the clubhouse and was prepared to leave. Sometime later, as he walked to his car in the parking lot, he was approached by a young woman. She offered well wishes on the victory and then told him that her baby was seriously ill and near death, but she had no money to pay the doctors' bills and hospital expenses De Vicenzo was so moved by her story that right on the spot, he took out a pen and endorsed the winning check over to the woman. "Make some good days for the child," he said as he pressed the check into her hand.
The following week, De Vicenzo was having lunch at the next tour stop when a PGA official approached him. "Several members of the parking lot crew told me you met a young woman after the tournament last week."
De Vicenzo nodded. "Well," said the official, "I hate to tell you, she's a phony. She has no sick kid. I'm sorry, my friend, but that girl fleeced you."
De Vixenzo responded, "You mean there's no dying baby?"
"That's right."
"That's the best news I've heard all week," De Vicenzo responded.I can only imagine how most people (myself included) would have responded to that situation if I was De Vicenzo, but reading about him response and his clarity (the world is better if there is no sick baby compared to if there is a sick baby), it is easy to see how he was a person with his priorities and life in order.
At the end of the book, Kramer gave his ten reminders that will "point you away from external quick fixes and toward your own natural understanding" :
1. Only when you feel a sense of cooperation with your teammates, coaches, and even your opponents will you be mentally prepared to compete to the fullest extent possible.
2. Struggles only occur when you are not operating from a clear mind-set. So when you attempt to solve problems from this state of mind, your performance will only get worse.
3. A coach's words are much less important than the state of mind from which the words are spoken.
4. A coaching methodology that focuses on behaviors is mentoring after the damage has already been done.
5. Recognize the difference between your life situations and your life.
6. Keep goal setting in perspective.
7. Without the free will to choose, you will lack the resources to draw upon personal insights and move through errant emotions.
8. The opportunity always exists to move through any situation successfully, no matter how challenging it might appear.
9. Understand that no matter what you are thinking at any moment in time, there is nothing you actually have to do.
10. You will perform to the best of your ability from the ease, simplicity, and peacefulness of stillpower.
-----
Is Stillpower
worth the read? It depends. If you are an athlete or coach, I think you could get something out of this, because obviously even one insight that improves your performance will make it worthwhile. In addition, it is a quick and easy read, which should make it a relatively easy book to get through.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)