Lebron James was on the cover of Sport Illustrated when he was still in high school. He was drafted number one overall straight out of high school and was dubbed "The chosen one" by the media. Then before playing a single game, signed a multi-million dollar contract with Nike. Lebron is considered by some to be one of the greatest basketball players of all time. He has won numerous of individual accolades, however now in his ninth season he has not yet won the championship.
Michael Jordan was a guest on the Oprah show and talked about how young athletes today are handed endorsement contracts before even playing a single minute of professional ball. He stated that they are paid on their potential rather than their work. I believe this applied to Lebron. Today he has proved that he is worth the millions that Nike, Gatorade, and McDonalds pays him. However, before he even graduated his mother took out a loan based on his earning potential to buy him a Hummer for his eighteenth birthday. This actually caused an investigation to see whether Lebron was receiving illegal benefits. I don't believe companies should endorse athletes before their career actually starts. Many sponsors have lost money on a "bust." I believe that there are plenty of proven athletes out there to endorse already. I would want to make sure the athlete has a good morality and has proven himself on the field of play. Do you think athletes of high profile should get major endorsements before they even play?
-Derek Flores
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The Jordan Effect 2/20
For today's class, we covered a phenomenon called "The Jordan Effect," which rules that "the world's greatest basketball player is also one of its great brands" (Johnson & Harrington, 1998, p. 128). Based on the idea that Jordan was not only the greatest basketball player, but also one of the most profitable brands in history, it was noted in a video included in the lecture that the media knew this as well, and shielded him from any negative publicity as a result. One ensuing question that Dr. Spencer posed to the class asked, "would Jordan have been the 'icon' he was if he had not been protected by the media?"
Personally, my opinion is on the fence in this regard. On the one hand, I think that if reports were released displaying him in a negative light, they would have been blown out of proportion by the media, magnified by critics looking for flaws, and over-exaggerated by some extent of the public. However, on the other hand, if Jordan really was the "teflon athlete" of the century like some claimed, I feel as though a good majority of the public and of basketball fans specifically would be able to overlook the few negatives he had, and celebrate his amazing accomplishments on the court. Therefore, his image may have been reduced, but in the end, his icon-status would still live on.
As a follow-up to this question, NBA Executive VP Rick Welts released a statement which reads, "When Michael (Jordan) retires, he leaves having changed the public's view of what role athletes can play in society" (p. 130). I, for one, agree with Welts; the impact that Jordan had on fans, media, and businesses who watched him play was astronomical. They saw that one player and one player alone had the capability to leave an athletic, personality, and brand impression on a grand scheme as big as the world, and would influence people's behaviors, views, and purchasing decisions today and for most likely the remainder of our lifetimes.
With all that being said, do you think that Jordan would have been the icon he turned out to be if he had not been guarded and/or protected by the media? Also, do you agree or disagree that Michael Jordan defined the role of Black Athletes in our society, and retired having changed the public's view of such?
Until next time,
Neil
P.S. - Even if you don't comment, please be sure to share your opinion on this weeks poll, located on the right-hand side of the blog!
Personally, my opinion is on the fence in this regard. On the one hand, I think that if reports were released displaying him in a negative light, they would have been blown out of proportion by the media, magnified by critics looking for flaws, and over-exaggerated by some extent of the public. However, on the other hand, if Jordan really was the "teflon athlete" of the century like some claimed, I feel as though a good majority of the public and of basketball fans specifically would be able to overlook the few negatives he had, and celebrate his amazing accomplishments on the court. Therefore, his image may have been reduced, but in the end, his icon-status would still live on.
As a follow-up to this question, NBA Executive VP Rick Welts released a statement which reads, "When Michael (Jordan) retires, he leaves having changed the public's view of what role athletes can play in society" (p. 130). I, for one, agree with Welts; the impact that Jordan had on fans, media, and businesses who watched him play was astronomical. They saw that one player and one player alone had the capability to leave an athletic, personality, and brand impression on a grand scheme as big as the world, and would influence people's behaviors, views, and purchasing decisions today and for most likely the remainder of our lifetimes.
With all that being said, do you think that Jordan would have been the icon he turned out to be if he had not been guarded and/or protected by the media? Also, do you agree or disagree that Michael Jordan defined the role of Black Athletes in our society, and retired having changed the public's view of such?
Until next time,
Neil
P.S. - Even if you don't comment, please be sure to share your opinion on this weeks poll, located on the right-hand side of the blog!
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Sport & Disabilities
Hey everyone I hope that everybody is enjoying this lovely valentines day with all of this snow! On that note I would like to talk about a topic that we covered in class on Monday. Our class discussion was about people with disabilities and sports. Dr. Spencer first started class of with an activity which had us write down athletes that we know of that have disabilities. In which I was surprised about the amount of athletes that were brought up and how many of them were females. I do not follow a lot of women's sports but I did recognize some of the people that were up there. Then, she asks a question that really struck me and made me think and that is what I want to write about.
Dr. Spencer asked us if our experiences in sport would differ if we had a disability? at first I thought no not at all but then I really did think about it and made me realize how much tougher it would have been to compete. I played at a high level my whole life which was a challenge in itself and then if I had a Disability it would have been way harder. I am afraid if I was in that situation if I would have even continued playing or gotten discouraged from everybody else who had an advantage over me. My other thought though was if I had a disability would it have made e try even harder just to prove to everyone that it does not matter as long as you try.
In my personal opinion I believe it would have motivated me even more that what i already was and it could have made me a better athlete in a sense and a better person by being able to realize what a great opportunity everybody has to play sports because some people do not get that chance. Another factor that led me to think this was my families support knowing my dad he would not have let a disability stop me he would have done everything possible for me to succeed just like what he did for me when I was growing up. My brother once had what I would consider a disability in which it sidelined him for half a hockey season and a full baseball season. After watching what he went through and what my dad did for him pushing him to get back on his "horse", I know he would have done the same because now even after being sidelined for an entire season my brother is playing college baseball.
My question to the readers is whether or not they agree with me. If you do explain why. Or if you do not, I would like to know your reasoning.
Matt Konyesni
Dr. Spencer asked us if our experiences in sport would differ if we had a disability? at first I thought no not at all but then I really did think about it and made me realize how much tougher it would have been to compete. I played at a high level my whole life which was a challenge in itself and then if I had a Disability it would have been way harder. I am afraid if I was in that situation if I would have even continued playing or gotten discouraged from everybody else who had an advantage over me. My other thought though was if I had a disability would it have made e try even harder just to prove to everyone that it does not matter as long as you try.
In my personal opinion I believe it would have motivated me even more that what i already was and it could have made me a better athlete in a sense and a better person by being able to realize what a great opportunity everybody has to play sports because some people do not get that chance. Another factor that led me to think this was my families support knowing my dad he would not have let a disability stop me he would have done everything possible for me to succeed just like what he did for me when I was growing up. My brother once had what I would consider a disability in which it sidelined him for half a hockey season and a full baseball season. After watching what he went through and what my dad did for him pushing him to get back on his "horse", I know he would have done the same because now even after being sidelined for an entire season my brother is playing college baseball.
My question to the readers is whether or not they agree with me. If you do explain why. Or if you do not, I would like to know your reasoning.
Matt Konyesni
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Budget Allocation
On Monday we did an in-class assignment that had to deal with creating a budget for a high school's athletic program. We were to take the money we had and try to best meet each team’s needs. First we decided which teams would hold a fundraiser to supplement the budget. We decided that the best idea would be to have the four teams with the most members to hold the fundraiser. These teams were football, men's and woman's swimming and men's and women's track and field. The teams raised $15,300 and along with the $20,000 donation our total budget was $155,300. The total expenses that the teams needed were $151,350. This left us with $3,950 left over to spend on other items the teams wanted. When we started this activity we decided we did not want to cut any programs and we weren’t going to use conference rank as a deciding factor. We were going to try to be as fair as possible. We ended up giving extra money to the swimming teams and both men's and woman's track teams. These three teams help fundraisers to help raise money for everyone and got some from it.
After completing this assignment we learned that there are ways to be fair and strive for equality when coming up with an athletic budget. Through donations and fundraising events everyone can share the money and continue with their athletic programs. Do you think that teams that were ranked high in their conference should have gotten the extra money to purchase items they wanted? Do you also think that teams such as football and basketball should have gotten more money because they bring in more money?
-Derek Flores
After completing this assignment we learned that there are ways to be fair and strive for equality when coming up with an athletic budget. Through donations and fundraising events everyone can share the money and continue with their athletic programs. Do you think that teams that were ranked high in their conference should have gotten the extra money to purchase items they wanted? Do you also think that teams such as football and basketball should have gotten more money because they bring in more money?
-Derek Flores
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Title IX in Social and Legislative Context 02/01/2012
Hello, class!
For today's in-class discussion, each group chose a question to answer for the reading entitled, "Title IX in Social and Legislative Context" by Carpenter & Acosta (2005), which was in-large-part about the emergence of AIAW, NCAA, and governance in women's sport overall. The question that our group selected was, "In 2004 intercollegiate competition for women is characterized by full seasons, paid coaches, financial aid, and more similar funding for equipment, uniforms, and travel. Find a few negatives among the positives."
To summarize, our collective response to this question was that negatives of intercollegiate competition for women include various areas of athletic and academic pressure, such as pressure on athletes to perform on a (now) national arena, pressure to bring in additional revenue to the school via athletics, the possiblity for diminished/poorer grades due to increased travel, and even newfound pressure on coaches to, as Derek (DFLO) put it, "perform or get fired," bringing into play a new sense of job security. Finally, we felt that although females are deserving of equality in sport, introducing intercollegiate competition for women may impact males by reducing the amount of scholarship funding that could possibly go to deserving male athletes.
With that being said, my question to the rest of my group (and as well to the rest of the class) is: Can you think of any other negatives that may result from intercollegiate competition for women being introduced? Also, as a follow-up, do you think that the positives outweigh the negatives, and for what reasons?
I look forward to reading your comments!
Neil
For today's in-class discussion, each group chose a question to answer for the reading entitled, "Title IX in Social and Legislative Context" by Carpenter & Acosta (2005), which was in-large-part about the emergence of AIAW, NCAA, and governance in women's sport overall. The question that our group selected was, "In 2004 intercollegiate competition for women is characterized by full seasons, paid coaches, financial aid, and more similar funding for equipment, uniforms, and travel. Find a few negatives among the positives."
To summarize, our collective response to this question was that negatives of intercollegiate competition for women include various areas of athletic and academic pressure, such as pressure on athletes to perform on a (now) national arena, pressure to bring in additional revenue to the school via athletics, the possiblity for diminished/poorer grades due to increased travel, and even newfound pressure on coaches to, as Derek (DFLO) put it, "perform or get fired," bringing into play a new sense of job security. Finally, we felt that although females are deserving of equality in sport, introducing intercollegiate competition for women may impact males by reducing the amount of scholarship funding that could possibly go to deserving male athletes.
With that being said, my question to the rest of my group (and as well to the rest of the class) is: Can you think of any other negatives that may result from intercollegiate competition for women being introduced? Also, as a follow-up, do you think that the positives outweigh the negatives, and for what reasons?
I look forward to reading your comments!
Neil
Carpenter, L.J., & Acosta, R.V. (2005). Title IX in social and legislative context. In Title IX (pp. 93-114). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)