Gender Issues in Sports

In light of the panel discussion we have this week, I thought I would pose some questions about current gender issues in sports media. Unfortunately, due to the lack of coverage on women’s sports, it’s been a bit of a task to find anything incredibly recent. So what I decided to focus on was the idea of Title IX and how it has helped mold the sports world for women, particularly young female athletes. For those who may not know, Title IX states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Prior to the Title IX act being passed which supports equality for women in sports, there were countless cases of unfair circumstances for female athletes. As an athlete in high school, I am aware that not all of the inequalities can be solved with the snap of a finger, but the surge in efforts has made a huge difference. I had two female friends in high school who participated in sports targeted towards males. One of them was a wrestler and the other played football and men’s lacrosse. This obviously brought a fair amount of controversy to my high school, as it put into question their femininity. As it is pointed out in the Handbook, “while male athletes are objectified as well, the character of the objectification is quite different when it comes to female athletes.” For instance, male athletes are able to flaunt their masculinity and the more they do so, the more empowering it is for them. On the other hand, women who flaunt their bodies, even if it is to exhibit their athleticism, can be seen as more degrading.
I don’t want to make it seem as if there aren’t gender issues for men in sports, that aren’t based in appearance, however. Title IX also protects male athletes, who wish to participate in sports targeted toward females. My high school also had a male athlete who played field hockey. Sure enough, this sparked controversy, as well. I must say though, the ridicule that he received was more from the student standpoint, based on the fact that he had to wear a skirt, as it was part of the uniform. It was a concern to the athletic department for the fact that he may have more strength, which could in turn injure a female more. With the female athletes playing football or wrestling, the worry was that they would be hurt by the majority of male athletes, or that they may damage the team’s ability to function at their highest potential out of fear that they may hurt one of the females.
For further reading on representation of women in sports
http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/cgibin/iowa/issues/media/article.html?record=881

All of this being said, what are your thoughts on equality in seemingly “gender-specific” sports? Should the men be allowed to play with the women’s teams, or is the risk too intense? Do the same rules apply when a woman wants to play in a man’s game? Where should the line be drawn?

Fortunately, there is an uprising in the contact sport field for women, with the popularization of rugby and even the leeway for contact in women’s soccer is increasing. Personally, I wish I had the opportunity to play, so I wouldn’t have to slide tackle girls on the basketball court to get out that pent up frustration. Apparently they frown upon that.

Fanship and Marriage

As I was reading chapter 15 in Media Sport about issues regarding audience experience (gender, fanship & marriage), the first thing that jumped out at me was that the authors of the book included a section specific to marriage. I think such an inclusion just goes to show the dramatic social effects that sports viewership and especially fanship/fandom have. The auhors mentioned the "football widow myth," a reference to wives of devoted football fan(atics). This hit home because just last weekend I had an argument with my boyfriend over football Sundays. Not to divulge too much personal information, but our relationship is a pretty good example of relationship/fansom issues. With our busy schedules, Sundays have, for nearly two years, been "our day." However, since the start of this football season, Sundays have become football days and if I don't want to get together with "the guys" to watch the Pats or the Giants or whoever else is playing, I don't see my boyfriend until about 11 pm. His defense, "but I always invite you." My response- "but I hate football!" I do, I'm sorry. I can get excited about any other sport- I'm an avid baseball fan; I enjoy basketball and hockey; I'll even watch golf. I just can't get into football. Ironically, our mutual love for baseball has brought us closer together. We exchange tickets for birthdays and holidays, watch the games together on TV and have long heated debates about things like who the next Yankees manager should be. Football, on the other hand, is not something I expected to come between us. I'm sure lots of confused women wonder how their boyfriends/husbands could seem to be more interested in a sport than them, and without studying fandom I might have been wondering the same thing myself this football season.
I'm linking an article I found from "Christianity Today." I don't normally read this online magazine but it highlights very well some gender differnces in sports viewing between men and women. Also noteworthy is that the article is in a particular section of the e-zine devoted to issues/advice for couples who have recently married. http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/2003/003/15.12.html
A couple things to note discussed in the chapter that are also discussed in the article- women's fanship is more strongly correlated to learn more about the players and the sport, womens' fanship is more stronly correlated to pre-game preparations (including tuning in early, preparing drinks/food, discussing upcoming games), also the different dimensions of sports viewership can be seen in the article- the husband (and eventually the wife's) fanship, the learning dimension, release dimension, companionship dimension, and filler dimension.

In conclusion, sports viewership definitely does seem to differ between men and women and some of the more popular differences seem to hold true according to this article.

I'm curious, what do you think are the differences between men and women according to sports viewership. Also, have any of you ever encountered a problem either with a significant other or a friend in terms of sports viewing, for example maybe an argument over what game to watch, or maybe what to do on a Sunday? ;)

p.s. sorry for posting late, for some reason i had it in my head that the lead bloggers were supposed to post before noon monday.

Fans -- We're completely, certifiably, nuts

But, you know what? That's a good thing.

As fans, we are completely nuts. We are absolutely rediculously motivated to watch our teams succeed, come hell or high water. All we want is to see a win, and we want to see it with loyalty, integrity, and a good-natured sense of non entitlement.

But, do the players on our favorite teams really understand us?

Bob Ryan says no:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2007/10/19/a_striking_difference_in_outlook/

And you know what? I agree with him. Players do not understand what we go through as fans. Players do not understand why we live and die with their team. Players do not understand why the fans fret over a loss in April when there's 153 games left to play.

Hawk Harrelson (in probably the only smart thing he said) has said: "Every team will lose 60 games, every team will win 60 games. It's what you do with those last 40 that determine how your season will go."

I've always appreciated that realism, and as long as your name isn't the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, it's true. So, why do we fret like madmen (and madwomen) over every loss, over every pitching change, over every pinch hitter?

Why do we scream until we can't scream anymore while at the ballpark, even though there's much less enthusiasm on that beautiful patch of grass?

Why do we bond with the players on our teams, even though they come and go with more speed than Lindsay Lohan running to the bar?

No matter how many times a team, a player cheat, why do we come back to them with open arms?

The best part about fan-dom is that there are no clear answers. Everyone is entitled to be a fan in their own special way. How are you a fan? Do you watch the game on your couch, jumping and shouting the entire way? (like me), or do you sit back, relax, and try to enjoy the game? And does that reveal what kind of fan you are? Or does everyone watch the games in their own way?

We are all certifiably insane. But you know what, that's a really, really good thing.

Kristina Pantalone's Blog

One of the challenges in professional sports is creating a level playing field for all teams in order to have a more competitive league. This has been most successful in the NFL where television revenues are the most lucrative. Since there are more television revenues for the NFL, there’s more money to be divided up among the teams. However, what has given the NFL the edge, is the addition of salary caps, which prevent the big market teams from always cornering the market on star players. Does anyone think that the same strategy would work in the MLB in creating a more competitive balance among teams?

The MLB has not been as successful as the NFL in creating a competitive league. The book states that the “perceived competitive balance issue can be largely attributed to the revenue disparity among teams’ local television revenues.” Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox largest revenues come from their own television stations (YES and NESN) where advertising dollars directly pad the wallets of the owners.

If you were Bud Selig how would you leverage revenue disparity among teams? If you are not a big market club how would you go about raising revenues? An argument that the big market teams have is that their revenue is being used to help their competition bolster their teams. Do you think this robin hood approach is fair?

In chapter 17 Mondalo also discusses the economics of collegiate sports. He notes that the NCAA owns the rights to just its championship events. As a result universities and conferences can negotiate their own broadcasting contracts. With the increased exposure of college sports on television the acquisition of star athletes by colleges and universities becomes more important than their academic credentials. If colleges focus more on acquiring “jocks” rather than “brains” do you think colleges academic standards will decline?

Here’s an article from 2005 on the Yankees and revenue thoughts.. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/columnist/bodley/2005-04-07-bodley-revenue-sharing_x.htm

Another article on baseball revenues

http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06mlb_baseball-team-valuations-cx_mo_0420sports.html

NFL revenues from 04

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-07-05-revenue-cover_x.htm

Sports Business

Hope everyone is having a good weekend with the freezing weather. Reading over the chapter, several topics came to mind. A lot of what was said about the business of sports media had to do with advertising as well as gaining rights to certain sports. MLB, which we have discussed at length in class, does not get the viewings other sports generate. It is hard to translate to television yet it is still fought over by networks. In 2006, Fox paid 2.5 billion for the rights to MLB games. This to me was interesting when on average the annual league value is 4164. Million. The first question I have is why, with the low ratings of baseball in the previous few years, are networks still paying “the big bucks” to have the rights to MLB games?



The NFL, through Pete Rozelle, was able to take advantage of the bidding for rights between networks. Rozelle negotiated so well that all three networks during the 1970s viewed football as “absolute essentials.” In creating this competition, Rozelle was able to bring in more revenue and force the networks to share the rights. For 2004 alone Fox and CBS agreed to pay 8 billion to broadcast Sunday games. The next question I have is, is it the nature of the game of football or Rozelle that allowed football to force network sharing?



There was a lot more in the chapter about spots business that would have posed interesting questions but in thinking about business in sports I cannot help to think of Joe Torre right now. Yes, it does not have much to do with what the chapter dealt with which was money but it still is part of the business. My thoughts about this are hard as a Yankee fan. I think very highly of Joe Torre. I do not really want to see him leave the Yankees but we won’t know till sometime this week perhaps. However, with a team like the Yankees, whose players receive such high salaries, can the blame really be place on Joe Torre? As we discussed last week in class, for these players this is their job and they are some of the highest paid in the leagues. So why are they not performing? My closing question is should we really blame Joe Torre who cannot get out there and physically play for the Yankees or should the blame be placed on the players?


Some articles about Joe Torre….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21228671/site/newsweek/
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10082007/sports/yankees/the_torre_story_should_continu.htm
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-yankees-torre&prov=ap&type=lgns

Portrayal and Perception of Athletic Heroes in Our Society

Posting from Jen Farrow:

Chapter 9 in our Media Sport text focuses on the sports hero and how media generates celebrity-hood. Television ads, specifically, have used athletes and all that they exemplify to draw attention to and desire for the product being advertised. This advertising mechanism is smart and successful because of how athletes are viewed in our society- as superior figures of physical and mental strength who exemplify significant achievement. But, it is easy for a professional athlete to reach celebrity status, they’ve reached the public eye, and as we’ve discussed in class, sports are extremely dominant in our media. However, there is more to being a so-called “sports hero” than just publicity for playing a professional sport.

Wenner looks at heroism as a cultural phenomenon that has been around since ancient times, when people were considered heroic for significant nobility, bravery, and strength. Wenner then goes on to suggest that modern-day heroes accomplish less significant achievements in relation to life, yet they are constructed by media and society. Think about it: the figures in our society, specifically athletes, are far removed from our day-to-day lives, and according to Wenner, “without communication, there would be no hero.” (135) Our main source of gathering images and information about these figures is provided by the media, therefore they construct our perception of these athletes.

The main difference between a celebrity athlete and a heroic athlete is that celebrities are known by name, image, or a trademark. Heroes are usually known for more than that. Heroes are recognized and celebrated for their outstanding achievements and excellence, and also for demonstrating morality and the kind of social responsibility that is valued in our culture. The chapter offers a description of the modern sports hero that I liked a lot: “Modern sports heroes have outstanding physical abilities, sustain excellence yea after year, overcome adversities, and display individual flair or charisma.” (Smith, Wenner 138) This ESPN article provides a good list of athletes and their attributes that have come to be considered heroic. (http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/heroes.html) The chapter provides more modern examples of heroic athletes like Nolan Ryan and Joe Montana who exemplify masculinity, athleticism, success, work ethic, and a wholesome All-American image. My first question for you all is this: what athlete(s) in our society do you think posses these qualities and can be considered a heroic athlete? When answering that question, consider this; a common misconception is that heroic athletes are the most decorated athletes in their sport. In reality, many of these very talented athletes embody only celebrity status, and a lot of them get as much negative publicity off the field as they do publicity for their achievements on the field. Heroes are supposed to be culturally ideal figures that represent social responsibility. Now comes the question of cultural and social ideality and if those ideals change with time. Do you think the qualities of a modern heroic athlete are different than the qualities of Babe Ruth, Vince Lombardi, or Muhammad Ali?
The chapter goes on to talk about these heroic athletes and how the media uses them to advertise on television. Of course, the example that comes to mind and is used in the chapter is “Michael Jordan: Hero as Commodity.” His overall persona as a decorated basketball star, hard-working athlete, and devoted family-man with attractive physique earned him many marketing campaigns for the NBA, Nike, Wheaties, Haynes, Coca-Cola, Gatorade, Chevrolet, and McDonald’s. With these ads came the whole “be like Mike” slogan that outright suggested that viewers strive to be more like this heroic athlete figure. In today’s media, I’d have to say that the modern counterpart for old MJ commercials would have to be either Tiger Woods or Peyton Manning. We don’t know much about these people off the field until the media throws them at us on TV, specifically in advertisements, that suggest we be like these athletes and buy their product. Whether or not these athletes even use their product seems questionable. I wonder if there is even a Master Card in Manning’s wallet. He is clearly an exceptional quarterback who has a wholesome, southern-raised image about him; however he doesn’t really have that manly attractive physique. Do you consider Manning a modern sports celebrity icon, or a modern sports hero? Do advertising companies actually go for heroic figures to sell their product, or just the big names and faces? Here are some of Manning’s commercials that I’m sure you’ve all seen, but are always enjoyable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl8cKN-RxXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G0loI0Jn5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8kMrLx6_aQ

And to close, I want to ask about your thoughts on the social responsibility of athletes as they are portrayed in our society through many media outlets. Obviously you have your Michael Vicks, who are just outstanding screw ups, but how serious do most of these athletes take their position in the spotlight as role models for so many young athletes, and is it fair to expect social responsibility from them? What are some examples of athletes who do go out of their way to promote social responsibility these days?

Sports Sponsorship

Hello class, hope all of you had a good weekend. Up to this point in the class we have been focusing primarily upon the different mediums of sports. We have focused on sports as entertainment and the many ways it can be brought to you. This blog will change our focus to the business side of sports and focus primarily on Sports Sponsorship and Chapter 18 of the handbook. Sports marketing is a billion dollar per year business and we are all subjected to it each time we watch a sporting event on television.

Working at Octagon, I get to see the creation of sport sponsorships from their earliest stages and how marketing agents go about targeting many different groups throughout the event they are sponsoring. Athletes can also be sponsored and this is very common. For example: Lebron James and Nike, Derek Jeter and Ford, Tiger Woods and Buick. Using athletes for sponsorship can be one of the most effective ways to target a specific audience. If you are a fan of the player being sponsored then you will instantly be focused on the commercial. (Or at least that is the theory)

My First Question to you guys would be: Have you ever bought a product because of the athlete that was used in the marketing campaign? Have you ever not bought a product because of the athlete in the campaign? (As mentioned in class before, this is particularly prevalent when dealing with NASCAR drivers. Fans of NASCAR will show major favortism to the sponsor of their favorite driver. It can almost be gauranteed that a Jeff Gordon fan will not buy any other paint besides Dupont.)

There is a large variety of brands and services trying to associate with sports. Many companies will expand their budgets in order to be associated with sports; particularly major sporting events as a result of the enhanced viewership. Some brands will even use sporting events as their cornerstone of their marketing campaigns. In 2004, sponsorship spending was expected to reach $11.14 billion with about 70% dedicated to sports events. Sporting events can be very expensive and selling sponsorship rights can help to fund the event as well as meet salary demands. As a result, the companies sponsoring an event will have their name placed in different mediums each time the sponsored event is mentioned; hence free advertising for the company. For example, I am a college football fanatic which brings me to my second question.

My second question to you guys is the following: For those who watch college football you will konw at the end of the season there is a "bowl season." Teams who have done well during the year will be invited by the bowl to play in their game. Each bowl is sponsored by a certain company. (Fed Ex Orange Bowl, Nokia Sugar Bowl, etc.) Do you guys think this is a good marketing strategy? Are there any sponsored events that stand out in your mind where you associate a particular brand or service with? (Example: Golf has the Buick Open) Would you be more apt to buy a product because you have seen it so many times during that sporting event?

As a side note to the question above: The reason certain events are sponsored by certain brands and services is because the event depicts the target market for that particular brand or service. Do you guys find this be accurate? For example, do you feel that Buick's biggest market would be golf fans? Are there any other events that stand out to which you feel greatly inhibit the market they sponsor?

One final reason that sports sponsorship is so extensive is because it provides an avenue for certain industries to get around television restrictions. Tobacco and Alcohol are the second and third largest sports event sponsor brands. There are advertising limits on tobacco and alcohol, but due to their sponsorships, they can have "incidental" recognition of their brands which can not be prohibited. Many people call this exploiting the sponsorship and find this as a way to promote underage consumption of alcohol and smoking.

Final Question: Do you guys feel (though not feasible) there should be restrictions of what alcohol and tobacco companies should be able to sponsor and how many sponsorships they can have??


Here is an article pertaining to a large sports agency which was once predominantly a talent agency (CAA) gaining sponsorship rights to a sports team: http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article.main&articleId=56554

Here is a second article with a link to a commerical to which an athlete is used in a commercial to promote a certain product: http://youtube.com/watch?v=aXSQy2ATQxk

Feel free to answer any of the questions, certainly not all of them as there a lot. Hope you all enjoyed your weekend.

Sports fiction (books and movies) 2

One big issue of sports, whether it is in real life or in books and movies, is the the portrayal of minorities. We have all heard and seen how race can play a part in sports. Just think about recently with Donovan McNabb saying that black quarterbacks get treated differently. Or remember how Gary Sheffield claimed earlier this year that Joe Torre treats the minority players differently than white players. It has always been a sensitive issue in sports, but chapter 11 in the Handbook points out how there has been some progress, at least in movies. Baker did a study in 2003 that found that relatively recent basketball films such as White Men Can't Jump, the Air up There and Above the Rim "emphasize the importance of interracial relationships." He also brought up Cool Runnings and the Rocky films by saying they portray positive relations between Black and White characters. At the same time, though, Baker and others have argued there is still a way to go. There is the movie Major League, in which a Cuban-born Black player "shaves his head clean with a hunting knife and communicates mostly by grunting and glaring." This shows how minorities can still be portrayed in typical, negative manners. My question is where do you think we are when it comes to portraying minorities in sports movies, and even books? I think Hollywood has made a move in the right direction, but the Major League example shows there is still room to go. The weird thing is that when I read about Major League I had never realized how negative that portrayal of the player really is. So, do you think race will always be an issue in sports movies, like it seems like it will always be in sports? Another question that comes up with sports movies and books is why do viewers get attached to these fictional characters. For example, when I went to see the final Rocky, why were people applauding and cheering like little children when Rocky Balboa was training for the fight, and then after his last fight? One theory that attempts to answer this is the disposition theory. According to this theory "viewers form opinions about characters depicted in fictional narratives as they process media messages." Basically, it is saying that the viewer will hope for a positive outcome for characters who have formed a positive disposition (the good guy). Viewers will experience either positive or negative feelings as the movie or book goes on, depending on the actions of the characters. An example the book uses is the movie For the Love of the Game. This movies follows the career of pitcher Billy Chapel to his final pitching appearance. Because we the viewers have seen all the main events in his life and career, we feel attached to him and want to see him succeed. There is still some debate about how much the disposition theory works in sports fiction, but what do you think about it? I had never thought about sports movie characters like this but I think it is true. This works with teams too, as you want to see the underdog teams in movies win at the end Are there any characters or teams in sports movies or books that you found yourself rooting for at the end, and why do you think that happened? Chapter 9 in "Media Sport" was all bout the evolution of sports heroes. It talks about how over time the media has gained power in molding our heroes, especially in sports. This relates to the disposition theory in a way because the movies are making certain characters into heroes, making viewers want to see them do well. Just like the media (newspapers, tv) can make athletes into stars, movie directors know how to make a certain character heroic. A prime example of this is with Rocky. His character, courage, and family values make him feel like the everyman. At the same time his good performances in big fights make him what is known as the "modern sports hero." Links: This is a link to a ESPN.com Page 2's list of the top 20 sports movies of all time. A list like this will always cause some debate. http://espn.go.com/page2/movies/s/top20/fulllist.html Always a classic: Rocky I, training scene. This shows his hard-working attitude, and definately makes the viewer want to see him succeed. http://youtube.com/watch?v=cavFoyYJwPQ

Sports fiction

Ron and I both have the same knowledge when it comes to sports movies and books so we decided to just split up the issues in sports fiction as a whole, rather than by each medium.

One big problem with sports ficiton is that the lines are blurred as to what the criteria are for making a literary work "sports fiction". Some authors from the book say that sports must "play an integral part." But even that definiton is unclear, as the term "integral' is up for debate. Another author said that a sports novel "is simpy one in which sport plays a dominant role." What do you think? What makes a novel a true sports novel, or a film a true sports movie? Does the theme and idea have to be based solely around the sport itself, or can sports just be a backdrop in order to be called sports fiction? Also, does the sport involved matter? For instance, many of us have seen Any Given Sunday and consider that to be a decent sports movie. But what about Bring It On, or Searching for Bobby Fischer? Those movies deal with cheer leading and chess, respectively. Do we consider those to be sports movies? Another debate I found interesting from the reading was about which medium is better suited to tell a sports story; books or film. One author said that "literary works involvoing sports are vastly more complex than their cinematic counterparts." Many books have been turned into movies or shows, and vice versa. Friday Night Lights, the Legend of Bagger Vance, Seabiscuit, etc...are all examples. I happen to be more a fan of sports movies than books, but that could just be because I dont really like reading. I am a visual person and feel that the action and drama is better captured on the screen, expecially with todays techonlogy, than in a book. If any of you guys have read sports novels, which do you prefer, books or movies? Do you think the two mediums change the story?

Another issue I think worth talking about is gender and sports fiction. We have discussed this topic in previous classes when talking about TV and radio. But the trend seems to carry over to sports literature. Women are not there. For the most part. Women are usually just cheerleaders and temptations for the macho male athlete. One author says that "women are ultimately portrayed as subservient to men." Of course there are some exceptions, like Million Dollar Baby and A League of Their Own, but they are usually the exception, not the rule. So that raises the obvious question...why? Even in modern times when women are equal to men in so many regards, why are women still the minority in sports fiction? I happen to think that it deals with the idea that sports in general are more of a masculine activity. The sports that men play are often more entertaining and contain more action that female sports, so naturally they are better suited for the big screen.

This is a YouTube "movie" containing clips from sports films about heroes. The song is a little fruity but its fairly entertaining. Are these figures really heroes?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uYfET45Q7I8

This is a clip from my favorite movie "He Got Game." It shows the lifestyle of a star high school athlete, dealing with all of his temptations and the decisions he must make. Some material is not suitable for children under the age of 18, but were all 18 so enjoy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uw3PkZBzvnM

Sports and the Internet

For this week’s blog I will be talking about sports on the internet. Raney and Bryant bring up a lot of good points about fantasy sports, gambling, advertising and sports on the internet all together.

Fantasy leagues are clearly one of the more popular online attractions for people. The majority of people involved in fantasy leagues are young men ages 18-35. How many of you are currently subscribed to a fantasy league? Why do you think women are not as involved in either fantasy sports or online sports gambling? Now, because of the rise in fantasy leagues, fans are routing for individual players instead of teams. I think it’s funny that fantasy has become so popular that on their websites (sports.yahoo.com/fantasy) they have ‘expert analysis’ with sports buffs giving their insights. Spinning off of fantasy, comes the sports gambling issue. Currently, the U.S. is fighting major casinos that have their own sports gambling on offshore websites, i.e. the Mirage. I thought it was interesting that the majority of the gambling comes from college athletes, who actually bet on their own games. It makes you wonder if there is any underlying intention of them purposely doing badly in order to make money off their bets. Why is it that you think that women don’t get into sports gambling either?

Another topic that was covered in the book was about the demise of sports on television because of the advancements in the internet. Companies now have entire websites dedicated to sports. Now fans are able to go online and watch their favorite teams in games that they would otherwise not be able to watch. The internet is a great way for fans that don’t live in the city that their favorite team plays in to watch the game. March Madness is a perfect example. People commonly root for teams who are no where near where they live. There are so many games going on at one time that it is impossible for every single game to be broadcast on television...therefore it makes the most sense to put all the games online and let fans pick what games they want to watch. The Olympics and World Cup falls into the same category because there is usually a time change. People are unable to watch the games because they are on at awkward times, so because of the internet they able to see what happened in their favorite event or if Manchester United beat Liverpool.

Blogs, like sports radio from last week, are a vehicle for getting fans together to voice their opinions. However, blogs, different than radio are an easier medium for fans to get into contact with one another. Also unlike radio, if you don’t like what the person is discussing you don’t have to read the rest of their post; with radio you have to listen until the caller is done saying what they have to say.

The internet could however potentially hurt advertisements. Watching games on TV, you are forced to sit through plenty of commercials, however, watching the games online, there is only one ad that is played over and over again (usually, I’m not an online sports aficionado). And they also have banner ads on the sides but it’s not like anyone ever clicks through the pages to look at the ads. I really don’t think that the internet is going to be the end all of sports on television though. Would you all rather watch sports on TV or online? The other issue that came up in the book with regards to ads is TiVo. Because people are able to record games and watch them later, they can skip the commercials or fast-forward through them. That means the ads are not getting to the consumer and it makes the ads worth less. Do you think that companies will be less likely to advertise because of DVR?

Think of it this way, if we didn’t have sports on the internet none of us would be able to post on this blog every week and that would be a damn shame. I hope everyone had an eventful weekend….see you Tuesday!

Sports on TV

Hey all, hope everyone had a great weekend. Like Manning said I will be talking about sports and television.

As I was reading the chapters, I noticed that sports on television are one of the main out sources for sports, entertainment and advertising. Not only does TV celebrate main sports events but TV has shows that constantly talk about sports an example including SportsCenter on ESPN. Truly believe that sports would not be what they are today without television. The chapters discuss they evolvement of sports on television. It always has a steady audience and racks in ratings.

Sports channels have become standard channels in the American household today. At any given time a viewer can find basically any sport on TV. ESPN is a major channel broadcasting every sports from curling to poker. Cable and Satellite TV have now brought many channels to American homes. There is now channels like the YES Network, the Football channel and the Tennis Channel. So the question I bring to the class is, where would sports be today without television? And what do you think our culture would be like if sports was not an everyday occurrence on TV? There is never a time when there is not a season for a popular sport. At any given time there is a major league sport broadcast over television.

Not only are we interested in American sports but there has become a global marketing strategy to bring international teams to our country and American teams to foreign countries. A prime example is David Beckham coming to the LA Galaxy soccer team. As we have talked about in class, soccer is not a popular sport in America. Bringing a star like David Beckham to the US has sparked an excitement in our society. Below are articles I have found about the Beckham’s coming to America and sports ratings and how they have grown.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=399465&cc=5901
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-06-15-weekend_x.htm
http://wordpress.com/tag/cable-tv-ratings/

Sports on the Radio

First I just want to let everyone know that I’m going to be posting about radio, and Justine will be posting on TV so that we don’t talk about the same things.

Second, I wanted to mention that, unlike some of my classmates, this topic is kind of hard for me to write about. I’ve never been a big sports radio fan (I like visuals, I learn more), but this summer I got a chance to work at Sirius Sports Central channel 123 when my boss started hosting his own show, and I gained a lot of respect for sports radio. I now listen to “Movin’ the Chains” with Pat Kirwin, Tim Ryan, and others because those guys crack me up. I’m curious to know how many of us actually listen to sports on the radio (I can just hear Jared now). So, if you do listen to sports radio, why? What shows? The chapter mentions sports radio personalities (or just Jim Rome) and the loyalty that some fans have… is there anyone you have devotion towards? Why is sports radio so popular? Is it because, as Ron Barr said, “We can relate to sports because sports is a reflection of life itself. We all compete every day; sports is that release.”

I have to say the end of the chapter poses some interesting questions. The lack of research on sports radio is amazing. A Google search of the terms just brings up stations websites. I couldn’t find much to talk about via the internet (probably because if there are issues concerning sports radio, I just don’t know about them). So, here’s my experiment. I’m going to post a link to a youtube video. The video is of the last play of the ending of the Appalachian State vs. Michigan game from 9/1. The first time it plays, the announcer is Thom Brennaman from the Big Ten Network and the second is the radio call from the Appalachian State radio network announcers David Jackson and Steve Brown (he’s the one who just screams). Try to close your eyes during the second call so that you can pretend it actually is radio. So, which call do you think is the better one? Why do you think the radio call is the one getting more attention? Does this clip illustrate anything about sports coverage on the radio as compared to television?

The clip: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLE_bT_Zn7U

The chapter does touch on the masculinity of sports radio as a whole. While it is true that majority of sports radio shows are hosted by men, talking about male sports, shows with and about women are out there. Sirius has "The Fantoo Girls" who I have listened to before. They offer a female point of view on the world of sports thats usually pretty funny and insightful. We've discussed the inequalities of women's sports in the media with our discussion on newspapers. But I want to know if anyone sees female sports radio personalities as just a novelty or could the profession be changing?

As a kind of last point there’s a quote in the chapter that I wanted to bring up, Goldberg writes “Supporting one’s team has taken the place of what it was like supporting one’s country, right or wrong. Sports talk radio is the propaganda machine of the new fan-aticism.” Sports on the radio truly has evolved from just straight coverage of games to now channels on satellite devoted to individual sports to podcasts devoted to anything and everything sports. But why? Does anyone truly have the time to sit and listen to all of these sports shows? I was overwhelmed just looking at the ESPNradio website. Why is it so entertaining to listen to hours of content containing some stats and someone else’s opinion?

-- Lauren

Men Women Children and Newspapers

Since there will usually be two or three posts a week offering people different things to respond to, I decided I’d touch on a few things just so that people could choose from some different ideas to respond to.
I was very interested to see some of the research figures about the sports section near the end of the chapter. According to a 2000 ASNE survey, readers are more satisfied with the quality of the sports section than most other parts of the paper. As an observation just from taking a train into the city every day this summer, I saw many people who bought either the New York Post or the Daily News every day just for the local sports section. So I guess I wanted to pose a question to the class: What do you think makes the local sports section often times the most popular part of the paper? I will try to spark the discussion by saying that our country’s news coverage wildly varies from day to day ranging from a war often ignored by the media to the never say die Anna Nicole Smith coverage. Perhaps sports coverage is incredibly popular because like sports itself, the coverage is consistent. If your team wins, you read about why they won; if they lose you read about why they lost. The ease of the sports section actually leads me to my next mini topic.
It is really important that Raney and Bryant touched on the fact that the sports section is often what attracts kids to the news paper. With the prominence of the internet, this is not as big of a deal as it used to be, but nonetheless if a parent encouraged a child to read a newspaper, the sports section counted. And as a child, I remember the sports section of the New York Times being a lot more bad-ass than the world section. The sports section is an important tool for helping kids and teenagers get used to reading about current events, and often times the sports section is the gateway to the rest of the paper. So another question is: What would the newspaper look like without the sports section; and how do you think would it affect a paper’s popularity?
Obviously, the biggest topic of debate from this chapter is the Male Athlete’s domination of the sports section headlines. Stories about male athletes outnumbered that of females 23:1. In what was referred to as “symbolic annihilation,” in the book, this can create the notion that women’s athletic feats were irrelevant. So another question I will raise is: Why do you think that female athletics go so unnoticed? The only thing I could think of is that the news papers are working under the same guidelines as the rest of the news media. Go with what you know people will watch, listen to, read. These next two links should point out how minimal coverage of female athletics are. These are the front pages to espn.com and Sports Illustrated. As I type this at 11:00pm on Friday night (due to my being on RA duty). There are no stories or pictures about women on the front page of ESPN.com; and on SI.com the only picture of a female is a swimsuit edition model. Is sports media really becoming man’s answer to glamour and fashion?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/
http://espn.go.com/
Lastly; I love sports writing because it allows you to read a writer’s material and completely imagine their personality. The following two links are from my favorite sports writer Bill Simmons, who mixes tons of pop culture references into his “semi-professional” quality writing. Enjoy.
Part1: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonspreview/070906&sportCat=nfl
Part2: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmonspreview/070907&sportCat=nfl

Welcome to the Sports & Media class blog!

Welcome everyone to our blog! If you have something to say about sports & media, this is the place to post. Class members - please check in by responding to this message.