National Sports
D-1
March 31, 2011
The Colgate Maroon-News
ESPN Should Show Sports, Right? By Rebecca Silberman Maroon-News Staff
To the people who run programming for ESPN: I regret to inform you that your network has been involved in a most egregious form of false advertising – I thought this was a sports network. And yet, I am unconvinced that many of the programs you feature are in any way sports. So, let’s break it down. Let’s sift through the mass of sponsors and advertising representatives to lay down a good general rule for what constitutes a sport. When discussing this question, I often ask myself this: what would Buffy do – no, wait, that’s not it – is this “sport” more or less physically demanding than chess? Seriously, you would be surprised. Poker is not a sport. Sorry guys, but just because some particularly talented individuals are capable of developing wrist injuries due to the extreme physical toll of holding playing cards in your hands does not give you legitimacy. Until the Olympics include speed typing (carpal tunnel is a real problem), you can all take your sponsor promotions off your casts and deal. Let’s consider our model question: both poker and chess require a great deal of strategizing, math, luck and pretending to know what you’re doing. But in chess, there is no pretense of sporting legitimacy. Chess players are intense – some of them make Benedictine monks look like frat stars – and they don’t need to be called athletes to know that they are wildly more talented at their game than anyone else. This leads me to another crucial question: can a computer beat you at your “sport” (note: Jeopardy! will now be removed from the master list). Also note that when I say computer, I mean of the desktop, immobile variety that we currently have on earth. I personally don’t want to play rugby against a Terminator. The point of these questions is that if you don’t need to engage in specialized, challenging physical move-
POKER FACE: Jonathan Duhamel may have won just short of nine million dollars for winning the World Series of Poker in 2010, but that doesn’t make the game a sport. ments in order to perform your sport, it doesn’t count. That is the essential distinction which makes poker (chair-sitting abilities aside) not a sport and, though it pains me to admit this, billiards a viable one. Of course, this opens up a host of other potential sports to be considered. What about The Challenge Rivals: The Jungle (the newest incarnation of The Real World/Road Rules Challenge which, yes, is on MTV not ESPN)? Although the contestants are clearly involved in physically demanding tasks which have a clear winner and loser and a set of rules, I am reluctant to call this a sport because of its exclusivity. I have never heard of a pick-up game of The Challenge, and am fairly sure that they don’t sell jerseys. Not that I am saying that fan base or public attention necessarily makes something a sport (just look at tennikoit. I know, I want to see the Sportscenter guys pronounce that one too), but a sport should be universal. Although variations exist in strategy or even house rules, there is only one
atlanticvegas.com
way to play tennis. Games, or game shows, make up their unique set of rules for one, highly specific situation and it is these rules that govern the game. Conversely, in sports, the skills needed to play the game are ubiquitous – there is only one way to approach the problem of hitting a baseball (hit with stick). From this, the rules have been formed to streamline the methods used in approaching that basic challenge (so, no steroids or cork, just great hand-eye coordination). Challenge before skills, skills before rules – that’s the tagline, folks. So now that we know what we’re looking for, let’s make this clear: surfing – yes; fishing – eh, I’ll give you that one; bull riding – oh yes, and a great one at that (also, see mutton busting). But we get into problems when we talk about car or motor cycle racing. Driving is a universal (physically centered) skill in response to a problem that can be governed by certain rules allowing some to excel at it to a greater degree than others leading to our traditional structure of
closed competitions and prizes. Let’s face it, I can drive to Price Chopper any day of the week but that doesn’t make me NASCAR-worthy. Great – we’re all good on that checklist. But, where does the distinction lie between the skills of the mechanic and engineer who make the car (are they athletes too?) and the person who drives it. Which skill is the response to the challenge that shows the most disparity of talent and thus confers the title of athlete? And, furthermore, how can we reconcile this with our technology issue? I realize that this seems insignificant, since we all have grown up accepting that the drivers are the athletes (and we have Sports Illustrated to confirm our choice), but I bring it up because it establishes another distinction, this time in the relationship between athlete and sport. I suppose the mechanic never really had a chance – though there is a certain tactile skill required in putting together the machine, the competition to produce the best car is still dependent upon the driver. Following this logic, this is why both jockeys and racehorses are distinct athletes, but horse trainers are not. They are all acting physically in response to a challenge, but only the ones that are actively engaged in physical contest during the course of competition (of course, pit crews are a whole separate argument) get the distinction of athlete. This is relevant to our discussion because it hints at the source of my problem with the way programming is chosen: sports are greater and more extensive than just the athletes that participate in them. Show us sports, not games centered on colorful characters. To conclude this exhausting analysis, next time you’re sitting around, trying to plan your television programming for a night, ask yourself this question: does this program, this sport, put its emphasis on the athlete and their physical response to a challenge, or is it really just poker? Contact Rebecca Silberman at rsilberman@colgate.edu.
VCU Wreaks Havoc on March Madness By Matthew Kurtz Maroon-News Staff
In any other year, the Virginia Commonwealth University Rams would have been excluded from March Madness absolutely and entirely. However, this season’s expansion to 68 teams granted the Rams the opportunity to participate in a play-in game against the University of Southern California Trojans that would determine who would merit a chance to be a member of the remaining 64 teams vying for the National Championship. Five shocking victories later, all against BCS conference teams, VCU has spurred some coaches and sports enthusiasts to call for even greater expansion to a field of 96 teams. The Rams have persevered despite being bashed and criticized by college basketball analysts like Jay Bilas and Greg Anthony, who argued that the Final Four team did not deserve a chance to play in the NCAA tournament over other bubble teams like the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Colorado Rams. Ironically, VCU’s unheralded domination thus far in the tournament might pave the way for a drastic change in the amount of teams that are able to experience March Madness. The VCU Rams’ decisive victories against college basketball powerhouses like the Kansas Jayhawks of the Big 12, the Purdue Boilermakers of the Big 10 and the Georgetown Hoyas of the Big East in concert with the nearly incomprehensible two-year run that the Butler Bulldogs are
experiencing, have the potential to change the landscape of college basketball. Butler and VCU are proving that teams from mid-major conferences can legitimately compete against teams from the BCS conferences despite what the so-called experts say on the matter. Arguably, the Rams are in the midst of the most improbable run that March Madness has ever witnessed. In ESPN.com’s tournament challenge, exactly two people out of nearly six million competitors picked this Final Four correctly. For the first time in Final Four history, there are no one or two seeds remaining. Furthermore, this Final Four easily exhibits the highest combined seed total in NCAA tournament history (26). Although madness is usually attributed to the NCAA tournament, the VCU Rams’ astonishingly dominant run through elite college basketball teams makes this tournament feel bizarre rather than just intense. VCU defeated USC by 13 points, Georgetown and Purdue by 18 each and No. 1 seed Kansas by 10. Also, in a truly gritty and commendable performance in the Sweet 16, the Rams were able to surmount the tenth-ranked Florida St. Seminoles in overtime behind a game winning lay-up in the closing seconds by Bradford Burgess. That close victory advanced the team to the Elite Eight against Kansas, who had only lost two games all year and was coming off of an impressive 11-game winning streak. Led by 33-year-old head coach Shaka
Smart, VCU continues to prove the doubters wrong in a resounding fashion unlike any underdog that has come before them. Smart shows his players videos of the analysts picking against his team so that his players can relish and revel in the underdog role. Clearly, his players have responded to this tactic. The highest seed to ever win the NCAA tournament was the Villanova Wildcats who were a No. 8 seed in 1985 and, thanks to the VCU Rams in the 2011 NCAA tournament, a No. 8 seed in Butler will actually be favored. Though they were so very close to winning the National Championship last year, Butler came into the tournament as an underdog again. VCU, however, has made sure that, at least for one game, Butler will be the odds-on favorite. Resolve, confidence, consistent shooting and excellent defense are the staples of a VCU team that has allowed them to achieve immense success in the tournament. Right before tip off, Kansas forward Marcus Morris said to VCU point guard Joey Rodriguez, “You guys have had a good run, but now its over.” Rodriguez responded to Morris with a “we’ll see.” Nobody other than the Rams themselves could have realistically expected to see a ten- point victory in their favor en route to the Final Four. VCU caused a barrage of turnovers and contested shot after shot from the Jayhawks who only managed a miserable 31 percent from the field. The Jayhawks blamed themselves after the game for
missing too many open shots. Conversely, the Rams attributed the off-night to their persistent up-tempo style of defense that they like to call “havoc.” The team was led in its bout with Kansas by Jamie Skeen, who came into the game averaging around 15 points and seven rebounds a contest. By playing against the Morris brothers, who most likely will be top15 picks in the next NBA draft, Skeen elevated his game and his own draft status. He had only made 29 three-pointers the entire year, but against the Jayhawks he contributed four crucial shots from downtown. The threes were just a part of his monstrous evening, which consisted of 26 points and 10 rebounds, and lead to Skeen’s selection as the Most Outstanding Performer of the Southwest regional. March Madness earns its title because of the unpredictable and inexplicable outcomes which inevitably take place during every NCAA tournament. With that said, the VCU Rams are currently on one of the most remarkable runs that an underdog has undertaken in the history of sports and, should they win it all, it might be the greatest feat in recent memory. I did not compose a bracket this year and I take solace in my decision because I know there would not have been 3 perfect Final Four brackets. Still, I am only discouraged to complete a bracket next year thanks to the VCU Rams and all the crazy complications that come with them. Contact Matthew Kurtz at mkurtz@colgate.edu.