Passing the Buck

Should college athletes be eligible to receive financial compensation? And if so, what should be the rules and regulations regarding this? This has and continues to be a question of debate that continues to generate heated controversy.

Initially taking on this question, it seems easier to generate answers that favor allowing for financial compensation than to oppose the allowance of such happenings. It seems only fair that those who have the ability to make money, should not be discouraged from doing so in ways that are completely legal and ethical in our capitalist society. If there are people willing to pay college athletes for their performance abilities and/or personal endorsements, how is it ethical to prohibit these individuals from taking advantage of what they have rightfully earned? Within educational institutions, other programs allow students to be paid for work that they do through jobs that they perform on college campuses and from performing and utilizing skills that they are taught at such institutions. Athletes have the ability to generate potentially large amounts of revenues arising from media endorsements, ticket sales to events, increasing merchandise sales, etc. If this is the case, why then should the NCAA prohibit these individuals from benefitting financially from profits they helped to generate?

There are those who argue still though that college athletes should not be allowed to receive financial compensation. People taking this side of the debate may argue that colleges and universities serve the role of providing education. Should athletes representing these organizations be allowed to be paid for their natural physical abilities, this would take away from the original and sole purpose for which these institutions were established. Because this is the purpose of colleges and universities, these people may also argue that any and all profits generated by athletic programs should be used to towards enhancements of academics at these institutions. There are also those who argue that NCAA sports are the highest level of certain sports that remain pure. Pure, in this sense, meaning not governed by financial dominance and/or financial competition. The last point seems very hard to make a strong argument completely in favor of though due to corporate sponsorships of popular and top-ranking athletic programs. Corporate sponsors not only provide funding and equipment for these programs, but also compound the popularity and success of these programs and draw in highly skilled athletes to these highly sponsored programs allowing them to retain the upper hand.

Seemingly, though there are certain aspects of prohibiting college athletes from being paid that are within reason, those in favor of seem more logical and ethical by allowing these individuals to be able to reap the benefits produced by their individual abilities contributed. Cases in the past have generated extreme controversy, such as Oklahoma's starting quarterback, Rhett Bomar, who received financial compensation from a corporate establishment for work that he supposedly did not do. It seems logical to view college athletes as employees of the institutions they represent, especially if the programs in which the athletes perform in generate profits for that institution.

We Reserve the Right

Being a student at the University of Texas in Austin, it's hard to avoid the excitement (or annoyances depending on your take) that the Longhorn football team brings to campus each Fall. Admittedly, I myself am a part of the huge fan base that enjoys partaking in the festivities surrounding the games played at DKR Memorial Stadium each season. This season, in addition to being a season ticket holder, I also had the opportunity to purchase a parking pass for one of the lots that permits tailgating very near the stadium. Although the money spent on my student season ticket was far less than the amount spent on the parking pass, the activities involved with the tailgate ran by myself and a few friends assuredly increased the enjoyment of being a Longhorn football fan this season. I can't deny the fact that the enjoyment of tailgating this season was in part due to the consumption of cold beverages (containing alcohol of course).

For numerous reasons, fans are seen as being an integral part of sports and, in some regards, considered just as important as the players of the game. Fans not only provide support for the players of the game, but also contribute to creating excitement and capturing the attention of people who may otherwise not be interested in the actual game being played. By hosting a tailgate this season, I can attest that many of the people who attended the tailgate who had little initial interest in college football fell victim to this sort of contagion this past Fall. While reflecting upon the reasoning behind my enjoyment of having a prime spot to tailgate at the UT football games this year, I realized that there was one ingredient in the mix, that if taken away, would have trimmed down the level of attendance at the tailgates, and also the attention span and perhaps even the overall satisfaction of those in attendance. Despite having the amenities of satellite television and some seriously delicious home-cooked food, the most essential ingredient that can not be overlooked turned out to be alcohol; in particular, beer! Furthering upon this, alcohol seemed to be such a key ingredient at these events (which were supposedly based on the football games being played by UT), that several people with tickets they had paid for to watch the game inside the stadium, located a mere 50 yards from our tailgate, bypassed their opportunities to watch the games from their seats in the stadium. When asked why they chose this option, the general responses mainly involved the fact that alcohol consumption is prohibited inside the stadium.

Considering this scenario led me to do some brief research on the rules involving alcohol and NCAA sporting events. While doing so, I came across an article in USAToday outlining the NCAA's take on alcohol at its sporting events. This article not only provides information regarding the NCAA's regulations regarding alcohol, but also defines some of the arguments related to the topic at hand. Even after reading the article, I find it hard to discern as to whether or not there is a right or wrong answer to whether or not the NCAA should or should not allow alcohol at its sporting events. Currently, the NCAA leaves the decision-making power to individual members and establishments within the organization.

On one hand, it is clearly seen that NCAA establishments that choose to prohibit the consumption and sale of alcohol at its events have the best intentions of spectators in mind. Undeniably, colleges are the home to the majority of binge drinking that does take place within the nation. Each year, unfortunately, there are many deaths that occur involving alcohol. By not allowing alcohol consumption or sales at events, establishments are doing their part in discouraging irresponsible decisions that may lead to such tragedies. Prohibiting alcohol sales and consumptions at NCAA events also helps to promote a clean image of both sports, athletes, and the organizations represented in these events. One can not blame organizations and establishments connected to the NCAA for taking this side of the argument with issues such as these as their basis for decision making.

Not surprisingly, however, there is another side to the argument. Alcohol and the companies that produce it are large profit centers. NCAA establishments that prohibit alcohol sales, consumption, and/or sponsorships are potentially loosing revenue. Generally, the populous of most colleges are populated by about 50% of students of or beyond the legal age limit to purchase and consume alcohol. Despite banning the sale and promotion of alcohol during events or at establishments does, by any means, completely end event spectators from consuming alcohol if that is their intention. Taking this into consideration, it seems that organizations are in fact doing more harm to themselves by discouraging potential revenues from alcohol, as well as potentially loosing revenue that could be generated through ticket sales to those who would attend certain events if alcohol was not prohibited.

NCAA organizations that choose to ban alcohol sales and consumption at events seems to be taking a reasonable course of action in reducing their liabilities, as alcohol is related to many injuries and deaths annually. What seems to be less logical though are the choices made by NCAA organizations that choose to prohibit advertising and media both onsite and offsite by alcohol companies during sporting events. Accepting sponsorships from alcohol companies does not involve any direct liabilities for the NCAA organizations. It seems even more ludicrous that NCAA organizations may decline ads promoting responsible drinking on the notion that such ads are being paid for by the producers and distributors of alcoholic beverages. It seems as if the organizations wanted to maintain a clean image, it would seek alcohol promotions that promote safe and responsible consumption of alcohol, considering that completely putting an end to alcohol consumption amongst its spectators is quite certainly an unrealistic objective.

At this point, the NCAA's decision to allow organizations and establishments affiliated with the association the right to make their own individual decisions is completely rational and logical. Whether or not this stance is entertaining the fans however is a question that will remain in debate.

jm

The World's Toughest Canoe Race

It's the middle of summer in central Texas. The temperature has been in triple digits for weeks and it hasn't rained in months. Certainly almost everyone in their right mind is seeking shade, if not air conditioning, from the blistering hot sun slowly burning its way across the rugged landscape of the Texas hill country as it begins to rise. Despite the conditions, nearly 100 canoes and kayaks are dropped into the headwaters of the San Marcos River at the scenic Aquarena Springs. One can't help but ask themselves, what are these people doing?

This is the beginning of The Texas Water Safari, aka "The World's Toughest Canoe Race". The 260-mile race takes place annually starting at the headwaters of the San Marcos River, continuing down a good stretch of the Guadalupe River, and finally finishing in the Gulf of Mexico. Although I have known about this race for years, it wasn't until last summer that I actually became a participant (or victim) of this grueling event. Even now, I find myself thinking, "What the hell was I thinking last summer? ...maybe I've truly lost my mind..."

So what is it about this race that makes it deserving of calling itself "The World's Toughest Canoe Race"? From an outsider's point of view, simply taking a look at the race description doesn't exactly convey the level of difficulty the race actually entails. The course covers 260 miles of Texas waterways, mostly on the San Marcos and Guadalupe Rivers, and grants its entrants a 100-hour deadline to finish the course. That's only an average of 2.6 miles per hour, sounds easy enough right?...Wrong! Taking a closer look into the official rules of the race helps to distinguish this race as the absolute "toughest" canoe race on the globe.

In order to compete in this race, the only source of propulsion allowed during the race is human power (generically meaning that all boats must be paddled). Competitors in the race are required to carry absolutely everything they need to complete the race onboard their boats. The bare-minimum requirements required by the official rules of the race mainly pertain to safety supplies (i.e. personal floatation, flares, whistle, lights for night travel, adequate floatation for the vessel itself, and a first-aid kit including supplies to treat snake-bites). As I found out quickly after compiling all of the supplies we thought we needed to complete the race, everything adds up to a lot of extra weight!

Aside from the challenges of overcoming the basic rules set forth by the rules of the race, the obstacles created by the terrain and nature are extreme. Over the course of the race, participants are forced to make many portages over land due to dams, log jams, etc. In this year's race particularly, due to the drought situation, there was a point of the race in which participants were forced to carry their boats on land for approximately an entire mile. Unfortunately (or fortunately perhaps), my partner and I did not succeed in making it that far in the course because of another problem we encountered... there was no water in the river. Because of this, we spent nearly 12 hours covering the first 40 miles of the race by having to drag, pull, and carry our boat downstream. In addition to the additional physical effort we had to put forth, the low water conditions led to puncturing a hole in the hull of our boat. With the river being extremely slow moving, the additional weight from our boat filling with water, and the time we spent trying to make repairs, we were not able to make the time cutoff of the second checkpoint in the race. In addition to the challenges created by the natural terrain, racers also face the possibilities of encountering snakes, hornets, and alligators along their way.

If these arguments don't sound challenging enough to qualify this race as the absolute "toughest", tack on the triple digit heat to add to the fatigue. Although The Texas Water Safari isn't the longest canoe race in existence, the time limitations set forth by the race tremendously increase the race's difficulty. With a 100-hour time limit to finish the race, the race is set up with safety in mind, and the first few checkpoints along the course being very fast to prevent racers from being on the more dangerous stretches during the night. The timing between the checkpoints generally allows more time versus distance due to fatigue as the race progresses, however in order to be competitive in the race, participants must expect to travel throughout at least some of the night(s). Because of limited visibility during the night, lights must be used at least part of the time. Unfortunately, although the temperature is cooler during the nights, the use of lights along the river attracts swarms of bugs (and possibly other creatures) creating an annoyance if not even danger for the boaters.

Should participants be fortunate enough to make it through the first two-thirds of the race course, there is an actual stretch of the track that is referred to as "Hallucination Alley". The occurrences of hallucinating among race participants is not uncommon based on the extreme heat, grueling pace, and length of the race combined.

In addition to all of the aforementioned challenges to be reckoned with by racers, the homestretch is perhaps even the biggest challenge (especially when combined with extreme fatigue and frustration). Racers eventually come to the mouth of the Guadalupe River which dumps them into the San Antonio Bay near Seadrift, TX. At this point, there is still another few miles to the finish line for the racers in store. While crossing the bay, racers face the possibility of their boats being capsized or flipped over by large waves. The crossing of a barge canal is also an unavoidable portion of the race course during the bay segment in which extreme caution must be used.

By evaluating all of the possible challenges and taking into account the ones that are assured, the possibilities of failure in this race generally prevails as the likely odd. Looking back at the design of the race mixed with the unfortunate situation of a drought this past summer, I truly feel like i got a taste of "The World's Toughest Canoe Race". How soon I will try my luck again at this challenge remains unanswered at this point though....

jm

Who's Business is it Anyways?

Since August of this year, my car radio has remained tuned to the local AM sports radio station for a variety of reasons. Although the initial reasoning behind this lies in the fact that this was the most convenient and effortless way to get up to date coverage of Texas football, I have since grown to appreciate the national coverage of events that it puts me in touch with. Although the station is host to shows that are locally broadcast, there are also a number of simulcasts of various popular national sports radio shows. Typically listening for the short amount of time I do spend driving each day is enough time to stay up to date on the most important local and national sports news and controversial issues. Although this is typically the case, that past few days have led to my disappointment.

Despite all of the excitement and sporting events that have taken place over the past weekend, the involvement of Tiger Woods in a car accident in the early hours of Friday morning has dominated radio coverage. In fact, this has been the only topic I have heard discussed since Friday. Although listening to the commentators continue to draw out the coverage of this event has become somewhat boring, it has led me to question the role and power that media has in relation to sports. It has indeed been interesting to hear how the angle of the story has evolved from coverage of a tragedy involving one of America's most beloved professional athletes to now merely gossip based on speculation.

Initially, the radio coverage began reporting that Tiger Woods had been hospitalized after being in a serious car accident that occurred less than a mile from his home sometime around 2:30 a.m. Friday morning. At this point, the coverage seemed to convey a great deal of concern for an athlete who has had a clean reputation both on and off the golf course. Progressively throughout the course of the day, more updates were released to the public, including an official announcement from the mayor of town in which Woods resides, regarding the physical condition of Woods and his release from the hospital. The originally so-called 'serious' car accident turned out to produce very minor injuries to Woods. Even now, there has been very little official information released to the media from Woods himself, so the media has taken it upon themselves to keep this event in the headlines.

Because of the timing of the accident, it seems logical to question the involvement of alcohol in relation to the accident. Police have since denounced this. Since then, the coverage of the car accident has produced speculations regarding Woods that may or may not have any relation to the initial news story because there has been such little factual information released for the media to feed off of. Listening to AM talk radio on my drive home from work early this evening, the coverage that originally began into Woods' car accident has turned into outrageous gossip. Questions as to whether or not Woods is involved in an abusive relationship with his wife, whether or not he has been unfaithful in his marriage, and the possibility of Woods being intoxicated at the time of the accident are but a few of the questions the original situation has spawned.

Listening to the recent coverage of the accident involving Tiger Woods has led me to question the intentions of today's media. Clearly, we rely on the media as both a source of entertainment and information. Indeed, they have done their job at providing both to their audiences at this point, but at what point should they draw the line and end the production of negative speculation. Over the past few days, I have witnessed the progression of Woods being embraced as an All-American hero into being rejected as a villain with malicious intentions (all based purely on speculation projected by or via mass media). With the intent of being informed about sports news by listening to this radio station, I found it quite disturbing to find that this has been their main topic of discussion. It will be interesting to see what becomes of Woods and his public reputation once he himself releases more information about the accident in the future and also what types of problems this media coverage has on his reputation.

Although, legally the media broadcast has the right to virtually any and all information, where is the line drawn ethically in what they produce? In certain cases, turning the beauty into the beast by the media has been completely justifiable. A solid example of this would be O.J. Simpson. In Woods case, however, there is no clear indication that any wrong has been committed, nor did it involve anyone else besides himself, yet he has been victimized as the target of negative media attention.

Prior to the case involving Woods, my curiosity involving the ethical realm of the media had been piqued earlier this year by two prior events. The first involved OSU's Dez Bryant and his questionable eligibility to compete as an NCAA athlete this season. The second involved a radio broadcast of a Lady Longhorns basketball game against UConn, when one of the Texas players was announced to be withheld from a starting position by the head coach due to her absence in classes at the university. Although athletes that wish to compete at professional or even semi-professional levels automatically subject themselves to being potential media targets, is it truly the right of the media to broadcast information regarding the lives of these individuals outside of their public performances as athletes?

Issues such as the aforementioned, however, lead me to question whether or not the relationship between the two produces mutual benefits for both parties. Athletes produce for the media, and the media produces for athletes. Questioning this issue produces only one certain answer: The media is a business and will continue seeking maximizing profits regardless of ethics.

jm

What Are the Odds?

Since even before sports evolved into an organized profession, gambling existed. When reflecting on the history and characteristics associated with gambling, the chances of a positive characteristic being top-of-mind are unlikely. When focusing on the ties between gambling and sports, the chances that top-of-mind attitudes will reflect a negative outlook toward gambling are even more likely. Does the negative image modern society has of gambling and sports truly representative of the issue at hand, or is there a better take on this issue that society has been overlooking?

Just the thought of gambling brings to mind the image of crooked casino games and even perhaps mobsters in some people's mind. The tie between gambling and sports has been given a bad reputation from such occurrences that have taken place that have involved insider betting and the so-called 'throwing' of games. Some such examples that come to mind are the 1919 'Black Sox' scandal and Pete Rose as among the most famous that have been justified. This type of situation should not be taken lightly in the world of organized sports, and in fact, was not. As can be seen that the repercussions were quite severe for everything in the past that has been proven regarding these types of situations in professional sports.

However, the linkage between betting and sports does has a positive side that often seems to be overlooked by the majority of society. Most importantly, sports betting helps to increase the interest level of the public. By increasing ownership in the events, sporting events are able to increase the number of viewers. By doing so, they also increase the chances of acquiring money from advertisers and sponsors because of the increased number of audience members. Although I myself am not one who often participates in gambling activity, my friend has recently directed my attention towards a betting website that is completely paid for by advertisements. Centsports.com allots its members $0.10 to begin betting with on almost any sort of sport imaginable, and does not allow users to contribute their own funds. The entire website is funded by advertising...a truly novel idea and credit to the economic contributions betting can create for sports!

With the advancements of technology today, it is possible for nearly anyone in the United States, if not even the world, to bet on nearly any type of sporting event that takes place across the globe. I myself have recently set up an account with a betting website to see what they information they had to offer regarding upcoming sporting events which I am interested in. I will honestly say, that the website not only provided me with interesting information, statistics, and odds for the events I had interest in, but also redirected my interests to other events which I knew little about before becoming a member of the site. By setting lines and spreads for bettors, sports betting in a sense makes a game out of a game which people are actually able to become participants of. After browsing the lines and spreads for this past week's college football games, I found that I became more interested to seek out the outcomes of games that had not even crossed my mind before viewing the website. Even though I did not have any real investment with the site, the idea of being able to track statistical odds versus my own opinions was effective in capturing my attention.

On the basis of these arguments in favor of sports betting, it seems that by not allowing or promoting gambling activity, sports that prohibit gambling seem to be harming itself more than the actual betting. Although there is a risk of internal corruption within the sporting events being wagered on, potential money seems to be being declined from advertisers, sponsors, and those who wish to wager on specific sporting events. In reality, there is no way that gambling will cease to take place. This being the case, it would make sense that sports should take advantage of this opportunity and reap the potential benefits. Whether or not the rules and opinions regarding sports betting will change have no clear answer at this point. If, when, and how such rules may change in the future will still leave us with the looming question, "What are the odds?"

jm

Is Politics a Sport?

In today's world, mass media coverage is more readily accessible and has more influence than ever before. The media's influence ranges from local to global scales and can be accessed from virtually anywhere, at any time, with the advancements of modern technology. In attempts of trying to keep up with news, there seem to be two topics that dominate the media's choice of coverage: sports and politics. Interestingly, these two genres even seem to be intermingled at times which create topics of debate and argumentation. In making comparisons between the two dominant topics of the media's attention, the following questions came to mind: Are politics and sports really that different? And if not, is politics a sport itself?

Because I do not know if there is a clear-cut answer to the aforementioned questions, the following ideas are similarities and differences between politics and sports that I have generated through conversations between myself and a few other individuals.

The activities of both sports and politics seem to engage individuals into some sort of game. A game, in this case, can be defined as an activity governed by some set of rules, and has a desirable end-result that creates competition or evokes a competitive nature between individuals or teams. In sports, this may be observed as a game, a match, or even an entire season. In the world of politics, this "game" may be seen in elections, debates, passing bills or laws, etc. (basically any number of activities that create debate (competition) in the political arena). In both there exist matches ranging from individual to team competitions. The competitiveness involved in both sports and politics can take on many different faces and may be governed by many different sets of rules and/or standards for determining the "winner". In regards to rules, both create topics for argumentation based on their officiating standards, as well as, how and to what degree these are enforced and upheld.

A couple examples of similar rules of competition that exist between professional sports and politics that have come to mind are:

- The ability to review a decision made by the officials of a sports event versus the mandatory recount of votes during public elections

- The age limits in place for certain professional sports versus the age limits in place for holding certain political positions such as the US President

There exist many different levels within politics that could be compared to 'leagues' in sports. The leagues, in a sense, line up what competition the opponents will actually face. Transitions within or to different leagues are possible in both sports and politics, both having levels ranging from amateur to professional. Entry into the game is also made fairly easy for almost anyone wanting to participate because of the diversity of these leagues which helps to generate popularity of politics and sports.

In both politics and sports, spectatorship and fans represent significant roles. In politics, fans often represent the success or failure of certain players of the game through their ability to cast votes. Much the same type of scenario exists in fan votes for certain sporting events such as all-star games in certain American professional sports leagues. The BCS ranking system in NCAA football that is currently in place, and definitely one of the most controversial topics in sports, includes human polls that account for two-thirds of each teams' overall standing. The ability for spectators to be able to cast votes not only increases feelings of ownership in the competition, but also helps to hold the attention and create excitement about the events. In addition to being active participants in competitions via voting, both politics and sports share the idea of holding events to heighten their teams' dominance. In sports these are known as 'pep rallies' and in politics these are called 'political rallies'. Both events involve fans fulfilling cheerleader type roles and an outlet for fans to show their affiliations and team pride.

Being that the question of whether or not politics should be considered a sport arose from my involvement with recent media coverage, it is interesting to analyze what effects the media has the ability to create for politics and sports, as well as what effects they have on the media in return. Looking at the media as a business, both sports and politics are hot topics of public interest that the public relies on the media to provide them with the most recent and up-to-date coverage of through various preferred mediums. Based on this, media providers thrive on these topics because there always seems to be something new emerging or happening in both the arenas of sports and politics. By developing a reputation of being a fast and reliable source for gathering this information, the success of the media source is furthered. Establishing this, it makes sense that the media uses these topics for their own gains. It is interesting to question though if the media developed their foci on these topics because of initial public interest, or if in fact, the media providers themselves created the interest by dedicating coverage to these topics. Because media providers seek to earn the public's trust, what the media chooses to release can have a profound influence on its audience members. Playing off of this, sports and politics alike and use media coverage to their advantage in generating popularity. Because sports, politics, and media providers are all seeking to generate profits, the importance of each maintaining their own reputation in the eyes of the public seem to uphold integrity to some degree. At this point, answering the question of whether or not the media is responsible for the public's craving for politics and sports of its audience today becomes less interesting than what each is providing for each other in order to increase overall gains and minimize losses in today's cluttered entertainment channels.

Even though politics does not generally involve feats involving the raw physical abilities of its participants, there are many suggestions that allude to it being very similar to a professional sport. These arguments are based on the intellectual abilities and capacities which surround both sports and politics. Whether or not the public will ever consider politics as a sport is probably not a question that crosses the minds of the general populous, but is rather something interesting to consider in today's media and technology driven world.

jm

Now You See It, Now You Don't

"America's favorite pastime" always seems to revitalize itself each year as the MLB playoffs come around. The sensation of "October magic" draws in the attention of sports fanatics around the globe, and even more impressively perhaps, those who haven't even thought about the game of baseball for nearly a year. Seemingly, baseball is a simple game, and does its best to preserve an outlet for competition at a level upholding purity in its standards. Although there have been amendments to the game's official rules and standards since its origins as a professional sport, some argue that the rules of the game are behind the times.

If the general American populous was polled about what the most controversial issue relating to baseball, performance-enhancing drugs would likely be the clear-cut most popular due to the amount of media coverage this topic has generated since the turn of the century. Though this issue is controversial and important in maintaining purity in the world of sports, there is a perhaps more important and relevant topic which can be debated concerning MLB. Within the arena of professional team sports, baseball has been one of the very few to continue its reluctance of the adoption and integration of available technology. This relates particularly to the standards of rules and regulations involving the use of technology alloted for use by the MLB officiating staffs. The continuation of not allowing video replay to aid in the determination of officiating decisions places baseball in a 'league of it's own' in comparison to other modern day professional sports.

In general, changing the rules of any game generally creates controversy. These types of debates involving sports normally center around whether or not the changes made are necessary, fair, and what it will do to the sport itself. The debate of whether or not video replay should be allowed in MLB is most certainly centered around this set of criteria.

Those who oppose the incorporation or allowance of technology into the officiation of MLB most likely align themselves as being in favor of preserving the traditional spirit of baseball. During the era of baseball's origination, even as at a professional level, the technology that existed was minimal or, in reality, nonexistent in comparison to today. Based on this, the need for rules involving technology in officiation were never established in the games original set of rules. Because baseball is a game that relies so heavily on the calls made by officials, adding rules that allowed for video replay in the determination of officiating judgments can be argued as taking away from the game's overall excitement and sport. The argument can be made that the rules currently in place allow equal and ample chances for both teams offensively and defensively even if error in judgement occurs in officiation. Allowing a change in video replay use by officials would also make comparisons to the past unfair taking into consideration that the use of replay was not available. Based on the fact that the game has been played for well over a century, the need to continue prohibiting video replay into baseball's officiation options can be defended by the previously established successes of the game.

Although the efforts to incorporate the use of video replay for aiding the officials judging the game have so far been successfully defended currently, there is no doubt that their opposition has been relentless. Those in favor of the incorporation of technology continue to generate examples and evidence that are relevant and more conclusive to their argument and definitely have the opposition on their heels at this point in time. What, when, and how changes in the status quo of this rule will occur will be interesting to see in the future.

Here is a link to a recent example fueling this debate:

2009 World Series Questionable Officiation

jm

BCS or Just BS?

The BCS (Bowl Championship Series) ranking is the current system in place for determining the single champion of NCAA Division I-A college football play each season. The rankings of the BCS combine the factors of two human polls, the Coach's Poll and the Associated Press Poll, (accounting for two-thirds of the ranking) and a computer-based rankings (contributing the last third). Whether or not this is the most logical and reasonable method for doing so each season has, and continues to be a hot topic for debate at a national level each year. The topic has remained so controversial, in fact, that it has even gained Presidential recognition in the recent past.

The BCS ranking system was implemented in 1998 in order to facilitate the determination of a national champion in NCAA Division I-A football while helping preserve its century old bowl system. Although modifications have been made to the BCS ranking system since its creation, most importantly the weight human polls contribute to the rankings, there is still debate as to whether or not this system is legitimate.

The sheer number of football teams that currently play at the collegiate level of Division 1-A, makes the task of determining a single team the true "national champion" each year daunting by itself. The BCS promotes its current system as the best alternative to a true playoff series amongst the top-ranked teams nationally each year. This argument stands true for the time being, as a playoff system amongst all of the BCS conferences would be quite time consuming and complicated. The BCS was originally established by the six most powerful conferences at the time, but has since allowed others (at least four) to participate to some degree in their shot at the national title each year.

Since the creation of the BCS, the system has generated controversy nearly every year as at least one team that has gone undefeated during regular season play has been denied a chance to be crowned the "national champion" of that season's play. Because the system takes into account to some degree the overall strength of schedule, the BCS defends this as a reasonable and plausible explanation. Even though the BCS has some backing to the explanation of its rankings, the topic of finishing a season undefeated and not being allowed a chance to play in the championship game has been the topic of much debate.

The BCS ranking system, in an overall sense, claims itself to provide an overall sensation of playoff games throughout the entire regular season of college football play. Based on the prior argument concerning the fact that many undefeated teams who are members of the BCS have been denied a chance to play in the championship match-up, this topic is debatable. Although official BCS rankings are not released until after inter-conference play takes place each season, the AP and Coach's Poll, which account for two-thirds of the BCS rankings, are established during and even before the BCS rankings are officially released, teams are subject to judgment prior to entering the BCS ranking arena. Because of the fact that a systematic ranking by computer analysis accounts for the remaining third of the vote in the rankings, there are some questions that arise as to whether or not the BCS ranking system is rational.

Collegiate athletes are not allowed to be paid for their performance on the field, but a great majority of them have aspirations to advance to a professional-level at which they will be paid post college. Based on the current BCS ranking scenario, a loss later in the season has much more potential to negatively effect a team's overall standing at the end of regular-season play. Because of this effect, it becomes increasingly important for teams in race for playing in the national championship game to continue winning the entire season even if they have clearly established themselves as an undisputed candidate based on prior performance. The fact that losses later in the season have a more profound impact on a team's overall final standings, often requires that teams continue to play their top-performing athletes despite injuries in order to maintain their ranking. If a playoff system were to be implemented, the chances of injured athletes having the opportunity to restore their health to a higher level would be increased if one loss late in the season would not ruin their entire hopes of playing in the championship game. This point seems to be reasonable from both the players' and spectators' points of view, as both would like to maximize and preserve their positive gains provided via football.

The debate surrounding whether or not the BCS is legit or just BS is something college football fans will have to endure until something else is implemented for determining the national champion for the time being. The arguments both for and against the BCS seem to make a lot of sense and endless depending on who you're talking to. For now, the iron remains hot, and moldable... What changes we will see in the future remains unclear for now though.

jm

The Red River Shootout

The Red River Shootout continues to remain one of the hottest and most controversial topics in college football. Not only is this game important as one of the biggest and most famous rivalries in the Big XII conference, but often merits national importance in NCAA football standings.

The annual match up between the football teams from The University of Texas and The University of Oklahoma have taken place since 1900. The game has been played in Dallas since 1912. The so-called 'neutral' location that this game has and will continue being played at, (at least until 2015), has been the cause and focus of much controversy and debate. Although the Dallas location that has been home to the game for nearly a century now, and is nearly equidistant between the two rivals, it is not the true home turf of either rival. Oklahoma argues the fact that the game is played within the Texas borders and puts them at a disadvantage. Both teams make the argument that the game counts as a home game for one of the teams, alternating each season, even though the game is never truly played at their home field.

The Cotton Bowl has been home to The Red River Shootout since 1932. The fact that the stadium has limited seating and was becoming quite rundown until recent renovations over the past few years fueled arguments against allowing the game to remain at the Dallas location. Although The Cotton Bowl now seats more that OU's home stadium after the recent renovations, it still seats less than UT's home at DKR Memorial Stadium.

Another part of the debate on whether the game should remain being played in Dallas deals with the economic aspects surrounding the game. Being one of the biggest games played each year in the Big XII conference, it is estimated that The Red River Shootout generates an approximate $17 million in profits for Dallas area businesses. Although the arguments are stronger from the Oklahoma side, businesses located in both teams' hometowns can argue that this is a potential gain worth fighting for in the debate involving whether or not the game should be alternate between the two rivals' true hometowns. Oklahoma sincerely argues that its businesses never have a chance of seeing the economic benefits this game generates, while The University of Texas is in fact receiving some residual benefits annually.

Although it seems the arguments for both teams remain strong for moving the location of the game to be played alternating between their two actual home turfs, there are many who will argue the opposite. With the new renovations made to The Cotton Bowl, the stadium has improved its seating capacity and amenities and allows ticket sales that split the stadium equally between Texas and Oklahoma fans. With the newly signed contract to keep the game being played at The Cotton Bowl, each team is now receiving $850,000 in grant money which was in past only $250,000. To many, discontinuing playing this game at the Dallas location would mean breaking tradition that has taken place over the better part of a century, and perhaps lead to a lessening of the rivalries between the two schools from a spectator's standpoint. Of the 90,000 seats available inside The Cotton Bowl, the game attracts far more spectators than are actually allowed inside who contribute to each teams' spirit in the rivalry. Based on this level of attendance, hosting the game in Austin, Texas would be clearly reasonable, however, is Norman, Oklahoma capable of accommodating this large of an unruly crowd?

Regardless of what or how strong the debates that surround this situation are at this point, The Red River Shootout will be played at The Cotton Bowl until 2015. Assuredly, further negotiations and debates are to come in the future...

Leaving all matters aside from the debate over the future of The Red River Shootout, OU and its fans clearly have other issues to think about in the meanwhile...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOamsw24IvE

jm