Women's Sports Media Coverage

An article from CNBC titled "The unlikely media interest in all things women's sports" by Michelle Castillo discusses the lack of media coverage in women's sports. It continues to discuss a women's lifestyle media company called Refinery29 which

typically focuses on beauty and fashion has decided to incorporate branding out into sports coverage. Refinery29 is a website that follows a newsletter format. It is broken down into six sections with additional sections that offer content geared toward specific cities in the Untied States. It is a great social media platform as many people check the website as if they were checking other mainstream media sites such as Twitter or Facebook. It might seem strange for them to start coverage of women's sports, but with the lack of women's sports coverage, the company might actually find great success in doing so. 

The company's main focus has always been to celebrate women and their amazing achievements. Building up a community of incredible female voices. Incorporating sports coverage will just show their great range of highlighting all women, no matter what their interests are. Whether those interests are beauty, fashion, and now, even sports. This will be a great marketing and commercial benefit for the company. 

Just how sparse is coverage for women's sports anyways? A research center called The Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota says that 40 percent of all sports participants are women but only 4 percent of sports media coverage is dedicated to those sports. We've been told for decades that females aren't really good at sports and that they don't really want to play anyway. Female athletes work so hard but yet don't get any respect or credit for what they do. Females when compared to their male counterparts are usually portrayed in media off the court, out of uniform, and in highly sexualized poses. The challenge for women's sport is producing a product that is worthy enough for coverage. It needs to be based on talent and good stories. It needs to be engaging that shows off the sport and makes sure that there is a good story to tell. 

According to the article, women make up 45 percent of NFL fan base and thanks to the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, American interest in the sport among both genders has increased. Because of the level of interest in sports, there is a huge market there. I agree as I think that there is a very large population of people that are genuinely interested in sports among both genders. There are just not as many companies that capitalize on this interest level. I think that it is extremely smart of Refinery29 as they will be able to gain a lot more business due to this new investment. 

But despite this potential, some media buyers say that much of the media and advertisers still are hesitant to commit to women's sports coverage. They are too busy comparing the lack of viewership compared with men's sports.  While this is true, there aren't very many viewers, but if more companies displayed it, and it was more actively available, then that would more likely increase viewership numbers. The more people are easily able to access to it will allow for more people to talk about what they see and encourage others to view it also. It is true that traditional broadcast and old media still play a significant role in connecting sports fans to women's sports, but it is now enhanced by new media platforms. 

Recruiting Athletes

There are many different aspects that go into the recruiting of an athlete. There was an article written by Doug Samuels on June 17, 2016 titled "7 things college coaches want to see in a prospect's social media". Not only is talent in the sport vital to a recruit's future with a collegiate team, but how the recruit showcases their life on social media will affect the decision a coach will make when deciding what type of players they most likely want to join their team. Coaches typically want players who are good at the sport and a good person. 

The first thing the article discusses is that coaches want a player that is a true fan of the sport. Meaning they post or share about decisions being made in real time and understand why a team went for two instead of kicking the PAT. They like to see that they can actual analyze and understand the game. A coach stated: 
“They will def know about and retweet any crazy highlight that they saw – but I love when a recruit / player tweets about the details of a particular game. It shows me a level  of maturity when it comes to the game of football. It shows me how they spend their free time.”

The next thing the article discusses is that coaches like to see that they show respect to the other people in their lives. For example, showing respect for family members, previous coaches, and teachers. You are definitely able to tell a lot about a person by the way he or she treats their family. A coach mentioned: 
“It also shows that the recruit isn’t ‘too cool’ to interact with the people who provide so much for them. In a round about way, that shows a level of gratitude in my mind.”

Other things the article states are that coaches look for athletes who are supportive of other winning teams, those who are not sore losers. Also those that are tweeting about positive things in life. Recruits may not understand that social media is so prominent nowadays and that prospective coaches are smart enough to do their research on the athlete before signing them on. This reminds me of an article published by the same author, Doug Samuels, about a year ago, when three separate college assistants tweet about dropping a recruit based of their social media. The coach assistants stated, "how a young person's social media presence can have a direct reflection on their recruitment". There is nothing in the NCAA social media policy that states that coaches cannot "stalk" their prospective recruits on their social media sites. Coaches obviously cannot post on their wall or things like that, but athletes need to remember that things posted on the internet are out there for all eyes to see. Once on the internet, it will always be on the internet.

Another thing I found interesting from this article was that coaches are going to watch for when an athlete tweets or posts complaining about certain things. Athletes need to be careful about what they complain about. They shouldn't be complaining about high school workouts, because not only are college workouts more intense, but they are also early early in the morning (5:30AM or so). So no athlete should complain now about working out in high school, coaches will notice and won't be able to imagine how they will be able to embrace the workouts required in college.  

The social media platform an athlete holds is very critical to the success in their recruitment process. Prospective athletes need to be very careful how they display themselves across all different medias. Understanding the importance of acting mature online will benefit any athlete who desires to play at the college level. 

Sports Social Media Policy

On October 9,2016, ESPN senior writer Darren Rovell writes an article titled "NFL teams can be fined for posting video under new social media policy". It describes the NFL's newly introduced part of the social media policy they have. It states that teams may no longer shoot video inside the stadium during games and post it on social media, nor may they use other live stream apps such as Facebook Live, Periscope or anything of that measure to stream anything live within the stadium. Teams cannot take highlights of what happens on the field and make it their own by using their own video and posting it directly on social media. Teams also cannot turn highlights into animated GIFs. Sources say that the league executives want to make sure that the content that is being generated within the stadiums is hosted by only the team websites so that the league maintains control of what is distributed to the public. In other words, executives want viewers to go through the official NFL channels to get their video content.

Any violation of this policy will cost teams $25,000 upon the first instance, $50,000 upon the second instance, and $100,000 for any additional violation of the policy. This seems like a ridiculous request by the NFL if you ask me, and many other teams agree. Teams have come up with ways to mock this new policy. For example the Eagles mock this new regulation by creating new and creative methods of tweeting highlights of games without violating the new rule. This website displays a twitter GIF that was when the Eagles played the Redskins and Malcolm Jenkins made an interception, the members of the Eagles team created a video of an old-school electric football game that recreated the play. 

I understand that this preventative policy is to allow the NFL to maintain control over what is displayed to the public and to control how fans view certain content, but what about what they are taking away from the fans? Sometimes the best content are the ones that you find from players that post about it. Fans thrive off of following their favorite players or teams and ultimately enjoy watching or reading the content they post. Wouldn't you think that the NFL would gain more viewers if they didn't make such stupid regulations? These regulations against live streaming video content just made teams want to mock the rules. Hence the videos that were created that were made into highlight GIFS anyways. Why does the NFL feel the need to control this aspect of the league? Instead of banning teams from live streaming video altogether, why don't they just ban what type of content they can stream? I understand that it is impossible to monitor every potential social media avenue an athlete has access to. Athletes have too many social media options nowadays, but that is the generation. Social media is how most news travels the fastest. Fans follow athletes and athletes post for fans. I think the NFL's social policy regulations are too strict and I believe if you are a member of a team you should be able to post whatever you please, with of course, regulations on inappropriate content. Athletes should be allowed to post whatever they would like as long as it is posted in a positive way toward the team they represent. They obviously need to be aware of who is taking videos or pictures of them and making sure they are not behaving in an inappropriate way that would make their team look bad, but I think such strict regulations are stupid. I mean it's only a sport. Let people live their live how they want. If they want to post videos, let them. Why make everything so strict? I believe that regulations like this will just spark the players that have rebellious personalities to post live videos anyway, in spite of the new regulations, causing more damage than if there was no regulation established in the first place. I think content will get leaked whether there are regulations or not, so why create them in the first place? Unless, secretly, this is how the NFL knows they will make more money. Maybe they know that teams will get so annoyed by the regulations and break the rules, making it so teams will owe multiple fees and the NFL will continue to gain money and more money. Who really knows? All I know is that this seems like a stupid regulation. 

Social Media "Hack"

On April 29, 2016 CBS Sports released a story on Ole Miss offensive lineman, Laremy Tunsil. Tunsil was expected to be a top 10 selection in the NFL Draft. He was known as one of the best offensive linemen. His talent was so great that many mock drafts had him going first overall. Until minutes before the draft, a video was posted to his personal verified Twitter account that was of him wearing a gas mask smoking what looks to be marijuana.Who leaked this photo? The real answer is still unknown. Tunsil claims his social media had been "hacked". He claimed the incident happened several years ago and that he had made a mistake. There are reporters that think it was Tunsil's step-dad because of the previous problem they had earlier that year. Hacked or not, the point is Tunsil WAS wearing the gas mask, and he WAS getting high. Athletes don't realize that their actions, no matter how recent they are, are always on display to the public at all times. Because of this incident, it scared away teams that were previously interested in him and Tunsil dropped all the way to the No. 13 pick. The Dolphins finally selected him, costing him millions of dollars in potential earnings. Although he lost out on millions of dollars, Tunsil was grateful for the Dolphins
and the opportunity he was given to play for them. 
Now what does this show about the affects social media have on sports? A lot. This incident literally happened minutes before the draft was supposed to start, and it went viral. So viral that the host of the draft even asked Tunsil about it in front of everyone right after he was picked to play for the Dolphins. Did this incident stop the decisions of the other teams? Yes, absolutely it did. They never verified the facts because it had happened so fast. At the time of the incident, there was no further investigation to change their minds about Tunsil, it immediately affected the draft order. Because of this, I do not believe that sportswriters are not going to be diligent in verifying the facts before negative framing of an athlete is depicted. Tunsil had to try to convince everyone that he really was hacked because why would he post that right before the draft, one of the most life changing moments of his life. 

Why are stories like this so popular? Well because of supply and demand of course. If football wasn't such a popular sport, the athletes wouldn't hold such a public standing. Supply and demand is very real when it comes to athletes on sports teams. Fans are interested in the athletes and their behaviors and that is why there is even a market for stories like Tunsil. Athletes are public figures and everything about them is interesting to anyone that follows or cares about sports at all. In Tunsil's situation, if he is going to be smoking

marijuana, so be it, but make sure that no one is ever filming it, snap chatting it, or tweeting about what is going on. Athletes need to learn to keep certain activities private and only use social media for good. Those bad behaviors can get leaked all over the internet for all eyes to see, especially people you may not want to see it and they will have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives, because once something is on the internet, it is always on the internet.  

The Fantasy Sports Gamble

Today, fantasy sports is a multi-billion dollar industry. About 57.4 million people played in some sort of fantasy league in 2016. That is about 15% of the entire United States population. An article by the New York Post sports

discusses how author Daniel Barbarisi was intrigued by the rise of daily fantasy sports that he quit his job as a New York Yankees beat reporter for The Wall Street Journal to live and breathe fantasy sports. Is this excessive fantasy? I believe so. Who quits their reliable job and takes a risk on fantasy sports? This guy is an idiot if you ask me. He had worked for The Wall Street Journal for 5 years and then decided to pursue his dream of book writing and also took a chance with fantasy sports.

Although, he definitely had good luck. Of course, I'm too much of a chicken to take such a big risk. But those that do, sometimes have great success, Daniel in this case did for sure.

Daniel has now earned $100,000 more than he had made at his writing job with The Wall Street Journal. Because of his success he decided to write a book called “Dueling With Kings: High Stakes, Killer Sharks and the Get-Rich Promise of Daily Fantasy Sports”. In his book he talks about how he was successful and what he saw.

He states, "Consistent winners closely analyze statistics, sometimes use computer models and have no team or athlete loyalties." But many of his fantasy sports gambles failed miserably. In fact, just last summer he lost $10,000 with his poor choices in his fantasy baseball league. Things don't always go as hoped. So what kept him going? What was his motivation? I believe Daniel went from being a "fan-first player" to a statistical enthusiast. His failures came because he was spending too much time trying to determine who he thought would be the best picks and not paying enough attention to who actually was the best picks based on statistical data. Once he learned from other people who do this for a living, his motivation changed and this is where I believe Daniel became a statistical enthusiast. He found he loved crunching numbers to uncover the degree to which having the first pick offers owners intrinsic advantages or disadvantages. He is a "stat geek", because he is more than willing to spend hours seeking out the data needed to play the games. He states he doesn't have team loyalties because those loyalties can ultimately ruin your chances of winning by affecting your ability in making logical decisions.

Fantasy sports gambling alters a person's attitude about winners and losers, it essentially creates a game within a game. Daniel states, "I am not looking to get rich at this. I don't want to weather the emotional ups and downs of playing for a living". He has already experienced the emotional ups and downs of sports gambling when he lost thousands of dollars and tried to hide it from his wife because he felt terrible and didn't want her to find out. He said, "I feared that I had given up my job to be a loser gambler". I don't think there is a time in gambling where you don't experience the emotional ups and downs. When you win, you crave to do it more, and when you lose, you feel horrible. I don't think Daniel realizes that these emotions come with the gambling territory no matter if you want them or not. 

Fantasy sports and sports gambling is very addictive. It is a massive industry and is under reported and underestimated. Fantasy sports has a positive correlation with sports betting and goes hand in hand with each other. This is why Daniel's story is not a surprise. Typically those that get consumed in fantasy sports, find the sport gambling side of things hard to stay away from. When money is involved, it is hard to quit. Even though Daniel states he won't do this for a living, I believe he will. He has had too much success so far, and I think it will be hard for him to stay away.  

Here is a clip of Daniel Barbarisi on the radio discussing his success: 

http://media.weei.com/a/118675511/dueling-with-kings-author-daniel-barbarisi-in-studio-3-9-17.htm 

Crisis Communication in Sports

An article published September 2016 on CNN by Emanuella Grinberg describes the case that drew national attention to the way that sexual assault survivors are treated. More than 16 months after the incident happened, Stanford student athlete Brock Turner was finally sentenced to six months in county jail after sexually assaulting an unconscious women behind a dumpster on Stanford's campus. Prosecutors were hoping that he would get 6 years in jail, but his sentence was reduced to just three months in county jail instead of six months. The judge who gave Turner his sentence was also a Stanford graduate. 

Judge Persky found that his case was "unusual" and justified sentencing Turner to probation instead of prison based on the fact that alcohol was involved and that he was an All American Swimmer for the university. This judge had to make a special exception to hand out such a light punishment when the typical sentence for such a crime is a minimum sentence of 2 years in jail with a max sentence of 14 years. If it was someone who wasn't an All American Swimmer, or even a Stanford student, or who was a white male, they probably wouldn't be given the same sentence time for the exact same crime. Just because you were drunk at the time of the crime should not allow for you to be held less accountable, in fact I think you should be held more accountable on the fact that you were being more irresponsible. 

The biggest problem here is the punishment does not fit the crime. During all of this, Brock Turner failed to take responsibility, failed to show remorse, and failed to tell the truth. At the time of Turner's conviction, he told everyone that she had consented to it, and more importantly, that it was HER idea. He did not even apologize to her for what he had done. The victim stated later on, "Had Brock admitted guilt and remorse and offered to settle early on, I would have considered a lighter sentence, respecting his honesty, grateful to be able to move our lives forward". 

Lets go back to the example of the Tiger Woods who had multiple affairs, cheated on his wife and disappointed his kids. He publicly apologized and felt sorrow for his wrong doings. This does not by any means justify what he did, but it does allow for people to acknowledge that he understands he was in the wrong and allow people to soon forgive him. His speech allowed for image repair. It has allowed for him to be able to one day build back his reputation. What Turner did was disgusting, disrespectful, and how he handled the situation was disgraceful. I have no respect for any person, athlete or not, who behaves in such a manner where he tries to put blame on someone else or denies he was in the wrong. This is a crisis in communication, his reputation is ruined. It will be hard for people to look passed the "sex offender" label he will have. His image is damaged and I do not think it can be repaired. Unless Turner were to publicly apologize to the victim, and make it the best apology he has ever given, there is no hope in his image ever being repaired. The way that Turner handled this situation is the typical denial and transcendence resolution type. First off, he denied that he was in the wrong, and the transcendence of this situation is the judge essentially blaming his actions on pure alcohol involvement.  

It is disappointing to me that our judicial system even let this sentence pass. I am aware the the judge is currently under recall, but that should not have even had to be put in place. Athlete or not, Stanford student or not, drunk or not, he committed a crime. He should be punished and he should take responsibility for his actions and at least apologize to the poor victim who will unfortunately be scarred by this for the rest of her life.

Unbreakable Bonds

On January 26, 2017, Brian Witt wrote an article "Unbreakable bonds: The player-coach relationship".  The article shows the relationship between player Draymond Green and coach Tom Izzo at Michigan State University. Draymond is a great natural

competitor but he credits his coach for instilling in him the mentality to become a two-time All-Star. Draymond said, "He showed me that if I wanted to be a player, if I wanted to be successful, if I wanted to one day possibly play in the NBA, that I had to always have that energy, and it just started to become who I was, and who I am."  Draymond and coach Izzo developed a lasting bond that continues to stretch far beyond the basketball court. Draymond states that one of the main reasons why he is so close with coach Izzo was that he raised him into a man which was 10 times more important than the type of basketball player he became.

Tom Izzo is a good example of positive coaching. Another great example as the article continues is coach Bob McKillop, coach at Davidson. McKillop's favorite acronym is TCC. Meaning Trust, Commitment, and Care. This acronym relates to the four

appropriate ways to view the coach-athlete relationship:

closeness, commitment, complementarity, and co-orientation. Trust falls under the closeness and co-orientation dimension, where a sense of liking and respect develop, understanding the division between friendships and superior-subordinate relationships. Commitment obviously falls under commitment, where athletes feel a sense of long-term orientation towards their coach. Care falls under the complementarity dimension as the coach and athlete are able to

communicate through a perspective of cooperation and affiliation. Stephen Curry a player for the Golden State Warriors played for McKillop prior to his career with the Warriors at Davidson. He states that McKillop had such an impact on his life and his basketball career, that he instilled confidence in him and gave him the vision of what kind of player he could be. He had a huge impact on his development and how to be a great man.

These coaches are great examples of the influence a coach has on an athlete. What if these two men, meaning Izzo and McKillop, decided to coach in a more negative and autocratic way? Not saying that autocratic coaching styles are always a negative approach but they could be. I believe that if these two coaches did not coach with such positivity and social support that neither of these two athletes would have made it to the NBA. Making it to the highest level of basketball is never done all on the athlete's own. The coach is the person who pushes the players and inspires them. Draymond wouldn't have learned to play

with such energy and Curry who saw himself as such a "scrawny kid" wouldn't have been given the chance in the first place without McKillop. Just like Izzo and McKillop, coaches need to be finding new ways to be demanding and yet find positive ways of communicating their demands. They need to be honest and that means honesty even when they make a mistake. Players will realize coaches are only human if the coach acts human. When they can admit when they were wrong and take responsibility for their actions. When they can have fun and laugh at themselves but at the same time, find ways to be serious and tough. Athletes will find respect for coaches that are able to maintain this strategy and that will build a good player-coach relationship.