The Passing of Oscar Taveras: How Death Effects Sports

It's Fall and that is a very important time for Major League Baseball. It's the time that America's Pastime takes center stage with the occurrence of the spectacle known as the World Series. The San Francisco Giants and the darlings of baseball, the Kansas City Royals, have played a wonderful series that has resulted in a winner-take-all game seven. It's the best that baseball gets.

Unfortunately there has been a more somber headline dealing with baseball this Fall, the tragic death of St. Louis Cardinal outfielder Oscar Taveras. In Taveras, the Cardinals lost a 22-year-old corner outfielder who was pegged to bat in the middle of their order for the next decade or so. They lost one of the games brightest futures, and potentially a perennial All-Star. They traded away former All-Star Allen Craig to the Boston Red Sox to make a permanent spot for Taveras. Most importantly though, the Cardinals and Major League Baseball lost a teammate, an associate and a friend.

In the buzz and commotion of the sports world, sometimes the "pureness" of sports is lost. We think so much of the money associated with sports or the conflict on the field then what the game means. However when we see tragedies the mindset seems to change. Think back past Taveras to any other premature or tragic death of an athlete. Whether it's Nick Adenhart getting hit by a drunk driver, relief pitchers Darryl Kile or Josh Hancock, or shooting guard Drazen Petrovic death can quickly put in perspective what really matters. Death can be a reminder that when all is said and done professional sports are just a game.

Death isn't the only tragic issue that can have an effect on sport. Take a look at Jim Kelly, the Hall of Fame quarterback who played for the Buffalo Bills. in 2013 Kelly was diagnosed with cancer in his jaw. Probably the most famous Bill, the though of losing the man who led the team to four consecutive Super Bowls galvanized not only a single fan base, but the entire NFL to support this living legend. There wasn't a sports show that didn't update the status of Kelly until he was pronounce cancer free. It is my opinion that feeling of family that many fans felt supporting not only Kelly, but the death of long-time owner Ralph Wilson ensured that the Bills would always circle the wagon in Buffalo.

So why does tragedy bond players, coaches and teams together? Is it because as a group they all overcome something together? A great example of that is what the Saints meant to New Orleans after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. I think the biggest thing, is it gives everyone a perspective that we all know, but tend to forget. The perspective that life is above all the most precious thing on the planet.

I'd like to back my point up with the story of a young man that played football at a rival high school. The team was fairly mediocre, they had never been champions and usually had season that ended up in .500 records and missing the playoffs. Every once in a blue moon however they put a team on the field that gave the community hope. A team that had made the playoffs the year before returned most of their starters including a running back and fullback who anchor the teams triple option offense. However before the season began the starting fullback was diagnosed with cancer. It was a overwhelming shock to the begin of the season and a significant loss to an important part of the offense. The team played with heavy hearts, as could be expected, and made it into the playoffs. It's then the fullback returned to the team, not as a player but as the missing motivation the team needed. To see their teammate back in the locker room he belonged in gave the team an added measure of fire as they made a great run through the tournament and were able to bring home the State Championship to a community in need of some good news.

At the end of the day sports dominate the media and minds of those who follower sports for the wrong reason, but every once and awhile tragedy calls us all to remember what is most important and why we fell in love with the game in the first place. Just like Royals pitcher Yordano Ventura showed in game six of the World Series when he paid tribute by tipping his cap to his lost friend Oscar Taveras.

Professional Athletes Apologizing: Crisis Communication

Recently Ted Bishop, the president of the PGA tour, was fired due to a sexist Tweet and Facebook post directed towards Ian Poulter about comments that were made in Poutler's book about the Ryder Cup. Bishop was fired and hasn't apologized, but the question is will he?

Crisis Communication in sports isn't a new thing. Whether it's Tiger Woods trying to revamp his image after committing adultery with several women, Riley Cooper trying to explain his racist comments at a concert, or Greg Oden trying to explain why multiple nude and semi-nude photos ended up the internet crisis communication and the sporting world go together like Rasheed Wallace and technical fouls. It's eventually going to happen.

Ted Bishop hasn't apologized, yet, but why is apologizing the first thing athletes, coaches and commentators do following a crisis that gets public? It it because they feel so bad about what they have done? Doubtful. Is it because they feel a moral obligation to be good role models for little kids that grow up wanting to be just like their sporting heroes? That idea is about as comical as it is wrong. Then why do the apologizes following questionable actions flow like the waters of Lake Minatonka? Like the professor of my sports communication class explained, it's all about the brand and it's all about the money.

It's hard for me to believe that Mike Tyson was actually sorry after he bit off Evander Holyfield's ear, but he still apologized. Do I think the likes of Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Alex Rodriguez or Ryan Braun felt remorse that they cheated baseball or were they just screwed because the truth just caught up with them. Is it even fathomable that Latrell Sprewell honestly felt bad about choking then coach P.J. Carlesimo after the two got in an argument during an NBA practice? The biggest reason for apology wasn't because Tyson reflected on his actions and said, "gee wiz I probably shouldn't have bitten off Evander's ear that was wrong." No, Tyson wanted another fight and he didn't want to miss out on endorsements possibilities. McGwire and company all wanted to be apart of the Major Leagues again, whether actively or in the Hall of Fame, that's why they said "sorry." I'm not sure about Sprewell, the man who turned down $21 million because "he couldn't feed his family on that salary," might have honestly felt bad. He was crazy enough.

In all reality if any of these people didn't face future loss of monetary or other value none of them would have apologized. Why would they? They are above the law, they won't face punishment and they know it. They just don't want to lose money. Most of the time it isn't even the people who are apologizing's apology. It's some lawyer's or PR specialist's apology that the athlete or coach just reading word for word because that's how it's done.

So what do these "apologies" buy the guilty parties? Second chances in the case of Michael Vick. A false sense of humility it the case of Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant. An apology from another party as is the case of Wade Boggs. The apologies are intended to protect whatever the athlete, coach or commentator want to protect. The bottom line is sorrow has nothing to do with it. The better question is it worth it? In some cases, probably so. In other cases no way. So what should Ted Bishop do? If he wants another job previous experiences say to apologize. If he were Mike Leach he wouldn't apologize. Maybe Bishop, like Leach, can stand his ground and eventually make it back. No matter what happens, I'm going to tip my cap to the person who writes Bishop's apology. That will be some damn good writing.

For some info on famous apologies click here.

College Football Autograph Scandal: Which Coach Got it Right?

Looking at this year's Heisman hopefuls they all have a few things in common: big conferences, big schools, big names and big scandals. Well maybe not all of the potential Heisman winners are riddled with controversy, but possibly the two biggest names are, "Famous" Jameis Winston and Todd Gurley. Winston (Florida State) and Gurley (Georgia) have both been linked to a company that has been selling their autographs and paying the players for it, a violation of NCAA policy. Neither player have been proven guilty, but Georgia decided to suspend Gurley, while Florida State decided to wait until an investigation to say whether Winston will face suspension or not. The question is which program and which coach made the correct call?

Gurley was the first player associated with the autograph scandal, and was suspended indefinitely by coach Mark Richt despite Georgia's decent chance to make the first College Football Playoff, or at least a high profile bowl game. The Bulldogs, a top ten ranked team, have played multiple games now without arguably the best running back in college football, and seem content to wait until a final decision is made between the University and the NCAA.

Florida State and coach Jimbo Fisher took a different route than that of Mark Richt. When Winston was linked to the same company, it seemed like another nail in the coffin for the sophomore who already missed a game due to suspension earlier in the year. Despite Winston's questionable off the field issues, Fisher decided that no action will be taken until an investigation into the incident is complete assuring that Winston said he did not receive any monetary compensation for his autographs. Fisher essentially saying that nobody knows whether Winston did anything wrong, and that he can't be punished for something he might not have done.

Two different coaches took different routes of addressing an issue that could potentially cost their teams victories and a shot at a national championship, but which was the best course? I don't honestly know. Richt seemed to take a hard ball coach approach, not letting any nonsense supersede the Bulldogs and his team. Fisher took a more understanding approach, a players coach approach if you will. Both styles can work, but time will only tell which option was the best course to take.

What do these situations and coaches' decisions tell us about college athletics? Do decisions that deal with star players getting suspended depend on the team's ability to overcome those suspensions? Georgia can definitely compensate the loss of Gurley much more effectively than Florida State can compensate Winston (as evident by Florida State nearly losing to Clemson with a back up quarterback). Did Georgia suspend Gurley because they had more information about the situation then Florida State did, and that forced Georgia's hand? Does the amount of information matter, or would the decisions regarding both players have been made the same regardless? Should this off field issue effect Gurley and Winston's chance at winning the Heisman? Former Georgia great and Heisman Trophy winner Hershel Walker thinks so, but time will only tell.

At the end of the day I can't say which decision was right, if both were the correct choice, or if both were completely inappropriate decisions. I feel for Gurley, he had arguably the best shot at the trophy, but missing multiple games will cost him. I also don't feel for Gurley. He was aware of the NCAA policy and whether he received money or not, associating oneself with the situation is very dangerous. I find it interesting that despite his history, more rigorous and harsh penalties weren't brought against Winston. His track record hasn't been great in recent history, but innocent unless proven guilty. So my point is I don't know who to tip my hat to in this post, the jury is still out.

Women Broadcasting Sports: You've Never Played the Game

I recently had a conversation with a person who is very dear to me. It was a pretty typical Saturday conversation, "how are you" or "what's new in your life", the usual banter. Then after wading through all the obligatory pleasantries the weightier conversation ensued, the exchange about college football.
Suddenly some actual excitement entered the environment as teams and games were discussed and analyzed. Talks about who the best team was and who had a realistic shot (sorry BYU) to make the inaugural College Football Playoff bounced between my acquaintance and I. Then he asked me a very simply question that changed my perception about this person. The question was, "what game are you watching?" My response, Virgina Tech and Georgia Tech, a very competitive and exciting game. The response I receive was very surprising and somewhat alarming. "Oh I watched that game for about five minutes before I had to change the channel," he said, "Doris Burke has no business calling the play-by-play for football, I couldn't stand her." A man, who as long as I had known him, had stood up for the ideal of respecting women, just discredited a women just because she hadn't played a game. The conversation didn't last much longer and I was left to ponder what was just said and implied.

Maybe he's right? That was my initial thought. Take a good hard look at the sports broadcasting world. Women have been regulated to sideline reporting or the token women host of some analytical talk show that doesn't air anywhere close to prime time. CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox do not employ any women as play-by-play commentators for their NFL broadcasts. Aside from women's sports you'd be hard pressed to find a women commentator on a major network for any sport. Maybe my acquaintance was right then, you have to play the game to be able to talk about it. That's the only experience that can qualify you to talk about a sport, participation in that sport.

Well let's take a look at a high profile commentator, Mr. Joe Buck. Joe Buck is the number one play-by-play commentator at Fox for both the NFL and the MLB. Buck has also called both the Super Bowl and World Series, as well as hosts and participates in numerous other shows where his opinions on sport carry some influence. The funny thing about Joe Buck is that he never played sports, at least not at a high level. Nevertheless, for the most part, nobody is calling for his head. His opinion isn't dismissed or questioned, even though he has never played the game. So does the argument that women can't call a game because they didn't participate in the game hold any validity? In my personal opinion no, it does not.

So what is being said when someone says, "she doesn't belong here" or when there are no women play-by-play commentators on major networks? Is it they aren't qualified to do it because they never played the game? Or is it they aren't qualified because of their gender, because they are a women in a man's world? I would lean to the latter.

So why are women discriminated in the broadcasting world? Is it because they can't do a sufficient job? Not according to Bob Ryan, a columnist for the Boston globe, who thinks Doris Burke does a hell of a job and knows what she's talking about. At the end of the day it comes down to sports fans (mostly men) aren't comfortable with a women telling them about a sport that they consider to be in their possession. The idea that a women can give the results of games in a post game show or let everyone know the hustle that's going on down on the sideline in a nice outfit is fine, but the second she tries and explains what happening during the live game she isn't good enough.  What a load of crap. Play-by-play is about communication what is happening during a game clearly and effectively, point blank. Why does it matter what genetic make-up one has as long as they can accomplish the task? That's called discrimination and it shouldn't be tolerated. If anyone male of female, black or white or whatever classification you want to associate one with has passion and communicate the action of an athletic event effectively, they should be allowed to participate. It's that simple. So to Doris Burke, a very talented and versatile commentator talent, who just happens to be a women I tip my cap to you.

If you like to learn about how women CAN be great analyst in the sports community check out this article from ESPNW.