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.  

Helicopter Sports Parents

How much parental involvement is too much? Are parents overstepping their parental boundaries? In an article from Azcentral Sports "Blurred lines: Are parents getting too involved in high school sports?" posted July 2016, it discusses the typical "helicopter parent" and the problems that arise because of it.

A helicopter parent is defined as a parent who takes an overprotective or excessive interest in the life of their child or children. In a study conducted by the National Alliance of Sports, 70 percent of children drop out of athletics by the time they are 13 years old and according to Youth Sports, 37 percent of youth that were surveyed wished that their parents wouldn't even watch them play. Parents are inadvertently going too far. They may mean well and may not realize that this constant hovering is essentially hindering their child's learning experiences. There is too much pressure to succeed. A professor at the University of Mary said it best, " With Sports, there involves so much passion. There are two types: Harmonious passion, the stuff that makes us better, and obsessive passion, the helicopter parents. They're trying to help the kids but they're killing them". 

Parents think that if they have their kids just choose one sport that it will be better for them. That this will help the kids have the greatest success at that one sport, become an elite athlete, and ultimately hope this will pay for their college careers.  Unfortunately, this is doing the complete opposite. This is driving children to "burn-out" a lot faster than if they were able to have a variety of hobbies. Disappointment reigns over everything. If children are feeling more pressure to stick with the sport than to quit in fear of disappointing their parents than this becomes a real problem. It is the parent's responsibility to support their children, not stress them out. Parents should be creating a positive motivational environment for their children playing sports. 

Helicopter parents can lead to depression in adult children. Whether it be in sports, school, work, parents need to let their children learn and sometimes that means they need to allow their children to fail. As hard as it may be, this is the best thing they could do for their children. Failure promotes learning opportunities like understanding hard work and how to deal with defeat. 

Parents need to realize that the way they act on the sidelines or during their child's sporting event will eventually teach their children learned behaviors on how to act. How far will parents go before they realize the damage they've done to their kids? There needs to be boundaries set among parents and children in sporting events. There shouldn't always be a pressure to succeed, what about the idea of just having fun? Is that not a thing anymore? Does the fact that children by the age of 13 are dropping out of athletics mean anything to parents? When are they going to learn that they are the problem and when are they going to change their ways? 

The article continues to talk about how kids actually prefer JUST their coach to coach them. Parents need to get out of the way and stop interfering. They can support but not criticize. They need to understand when they can't help their children and embrace the coaches who can. Parents need to find an appropriate balance of supporting, but not interfering. Otherwise, when their children grow up, they will have bigger problems to face. 

In conclusion, parents should enjoy the game and let their children enjoy the game. Being moderately involved in their children's sports activities is the ideal amount of support and creates a healthy balance between competition and the overall enjoyment of the sport.

Race & Ethnicity in Sports

Let's talk about in August 2016, when the 49ers quarterback willingly refused to stand for the playing of the national anthem. Colin Kaepernick was protesting the wrongdoings against African Americans and minorities in the United States. Kaepernick states, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder". 

I fully support how Colin Kaepernick feels and I agree with the reasons behind his protest. I may not agree completely with his form of protest but all he was trying to do was bring to people's attention a political issue that he genuinely believes in. 

The only reason that this brought real controversy among millions of people was because people know that there is a problem in our country but they just do not want to address it, they are scared of it. Instead of being mature about the protest and trying to better understand Kaepernick's view and where he is coming from on the situation, they get upset and create hate towards him. 

This is not what Kaepernick was trying to do. He was not trying to be disrespectful to our country or those that serve it. He was trying to bring awareness that there are certain things in our country that need to be changed. Coming from a biracial upbringing, adopted, and then raised by white parents and white siblings, he decided to be more active and involved in the rights for black people. This was in no way meant to show disrespect to white people or to those men and women who graciously serve our country in the armed services. He stated that after months of witnessing some of the civil unrest in the United States, he wanted to make a stand for civil rights. Would this have been as big of a controversy if a white football player was the one that made this stand instead of Kaepernick? I honestly do not think so. I do not think that people would have gotten so upset about this whole thing and thought it was as disrespectful if a white player had been the one to do it. This is the problem in our country. There is racism and people refuse to acknowledge it.

What happens to Kaepernick now? Well executives state that because of his actions to take a stand they believe he will be released from the 49ers and he will never play in the NFL again. Are you kidding me? Just because he had a political view and he is in a more public position, being the quarterback for the 49ers, he should lose his job for this? What about all the negative tweets, posts, and videos that show such hate and disrespect for him? Doesn't this just prove Kaepernick's point? That there is a big problem with racism in our country. If there wasn't a problem, people would not react this way. It would not have caused the controversy that it did. People get too comfortable with the way things are. It is too much work or effort to change the way things have been for years. Those that are comfortable with oppression seem to be the  ones that are the first to criticize others that are willing to speak out against it. 

Let us all think about this: 

Race and ethnicity are present in sports. Whether we want them to be or not. It is a fact. Where there is diversity there will be problems that arise and different opinions to be heard. This country is full of different political views that are shared by different types of people. It shouldn't matter who you are, we should all be allowed to express our 1st amendment: the freedom of speech. Whether that be in the environment of sports or in a political debate. We should all respect each other and the views each one of us share. 

Gender & Sports

I found an interesting article on CNN titled "Should a Woman's testosterone level be tested in sports" by Susie East. This article talks about the International Association of Athletics Federation of the Olympics that implemented a regulation where woman with naturally high levels of testosterone were not allowed to race without undergoing medical treatment to lower their levels of testosterone. Having high levels of testosterone is known as hyperandrogenism and therefore the regulation was named the Hyperandrogenism Regulation. The purpose of this was to prove that the female athletes did not have an advantage in their sport because of their higher level of testosterone. Suggesting that men have the advantage in athletics because testosterone is the essentially considered the male hormone.

An example was when Caster Semenya won the gold medal in the 2009 World Athletics Championship for the 800 meter race, following the race the International Association of Athletics Federation launched an investigation. The investigation included having her testosterone levels tested. In which the results showed that she had naturally high testosterone levels and was thus compared to as "running against a man" (East, 2016). Because of this investigation the Association enforced the Hyperandrogenism Regulation in 2011. But come 2015, runner Dutee Chand challenged the association. She argued that she has the right to compete without having to artificially change her body. Now come August 2016, when this article was written, the Association could not prove that having higher testosterone really did give female athletes an advantage over other athletes that had regular levels of testosterone. Currently the Association has two years to figure out if this regulation should be continually suspended or brought back with new evidence proving their theory.

This regulation was depicting that female athletes could not be this good on their own. They were supporting the perception that men are superior. Although most sports commentary involves comments in regards to women athletes being more emotional or attractive, what about the commentary that should be discussed, about how these women are actually excellent and in their own way, superior athletes. Instead these women were investigated and tested on their testosterone levels. Would men be tested on their testosterone levels as well as part of this regulation? Or just females? Because it is okay for men to have high levels of testosterone because men are superior anyways and it is okay for them to have testosterone, since it is in fact already the male hormone. Just because women in sports are depicted in different ways, often as less superior than men, I do not believe it should be broken down to analyze the very genetic/hormonal make up a female has. This puts pressure on women athletes to be more feminine. The way this regulation was communicated to society was very discriminatory to any women who have naturally high levels of testosterone. It is unfair to tell a female athlete, I'm sorry, but you cannot compete because of the way that you were born.

I am glad that this regulation is currently suspended and I do not believe that they will be able to find adequate facts and other valid information to prove that just because you have a higher testosterone level means you are a superior athlete. This perception that men are superior and comparing good female athletes to men is a little outrageous if you ask me. This puts pressure on females to be feminine in hopes that they will not be compared to a man. I do not know about other females, but I do not like being compared to men, whether that comparison is in the commentary of the sport or down to the genetic and hormone make up of the body. I believe that women should be treated the same as men when it comes to performance in sports. Or at least judged the same.