Tag Archives: sports

Finding community in the Wrigley bleachers

Posted on by

In the midst of a gloomy Cubs season, a new book titled Wrigley Regulars: Finding Community in the Bleachers might provide some hope. Not written by just a normal fan, it is written by an anthropologist. The website Bleed Cubbie Blue provides some insights into the book’s content:

Before I tell you about this book, you should know a couple of things. First, Holly Swyers, who is an assistant professor of anthropology at Lake Forest College, is one of the “Wrigley Regulars” and has been a personal friend of mine for more than ten years. She asked me (and other regulars) to read through her drafts to make sure all the facts were correct, and that means you’ll find things about me (and about this site) in the book. It’s also written not just about baseball and the Wrigley bleachers, but it’s designed to be a college-level sociology/anthropology textbook about communities and how they come together…

This book is highly recommended for anyone who’s a Cubs fan — or baseball fan — to understand why some of us spend so much time in the bleachers. Yes, it’s about baseball, but as Holly points out, it’s also about community and those you get to know so well over the course of many baseball seasons become family. We all found this out just within the last week, when someone who is a bleacher season ticket holder and one of the “Wrigley Regulars” became seriously ill. The outpouring of love and concern I saw everyone show is a perfect example of the family and community that Holly writes about.

A couple of quick thoughts:

1. This sounds like a fun research task.

2. I haven’t read the book but I’ll take a quick guess at the premise: American community has declined over time as we have become more individualized and separated from others. Here, in the unlikely setting of the Wrigley Field bleachers, strangers came together, not just for Cubs game but for authentic social relationships that transcended typical social categories that tend to separate people (social class, age, gender, etc.).

3. The plug from Bleed Cubbie Blue brings up an interesting point: sports isn’t just about competition and winning for fans. Perhaps for males in particular, sports allows people to build bonds over an external focus. A friendly relationship or community can develop without having to sit down and have deep conversations.

The highest-paid athlete of all time: a Roman charioteer

Posted on by

There is some discussion these days about the high salaries of modern athletes: are they worth it? Do these salaries demonstrate that society thinks these people are more or most valuable compared to others?

According to a new study, these high salaries are not just a feature of the modern era: a Roman charioteer is considered to be the highest paid athlete of all-time:

According to Peter Struck, associate professor of classical studies at the University of Pennsylvania, an illiterate charioteer named Gaius Appuleius Diocles earned “the staggering sum” of 35,863,120 sesterces (ancient Roman coins) in prize money…

Although other racers surpassed him in the total number of victories — a driver called Pompeius Musclosus collected 3,599 winnings — Diocles became the richest of all, as he run and won at big money events. For example, he is recorded to have made 1,450,000 sesterces in just 29 victories.

Struck calculated that Diocles’ s total earnings of 35,863,120 sesterces were enough to provide grain for the entire population of Rome for one year, or to fund the Roman Army at its height for more than two months.

“By today’s standards that last figure, assuming the apt comparison is what it takes to pay the wages of the American armed forces for the same period, would cash out to about $15 billion,” wrote Struck.

It sounds like Roman society was quite willing to make stars out of its athletes/competitors. I would be curious to know: what it is about societies that causes them to confer celebrity status and vast sums of money on people who compete (and win) in games or events?

Quick Review: Fall

Posted on by

With classes starting today, I thought I would make the argument that Fall (loosely defined here as late August to late November) is the best season of the year. Here are the reasons:

1. School starts. I’ve always enjoyed school. Now as a professor, it feels good to get back into the classroom and see energetic students again. There is always lots to do. The academic calendar has started anew.

2. The weather improves. I’m not a big fan of really hot summer weather and Chicago has been above normal hot this year. I enjoy the cool edge on the breeze. Today’s weather of about 77 degrees with sunny skies was perfect for the first day of school. And I can’t wait for the chillier days when it feels good to sit inside and read but is still pleasant enough outside to not need a heavy coat.

3. The sports world picks up. After a stretch with only baseball on the air, football, basketball, and hockey start. I enjoy watching both the professional and collegiate level and by October, there is quite a variety of action.

4. Special days. Labor Day is the unofficial end of summer (and summer break), my birthday rolls around, and I enjoy looking forward to Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I know others would disagree with me but I’m planning to enjoy the next few months.

A better life with a mouthguard

Posted on by

I’ve seen a story or two about this before and Time also explores how an Bite Tech/Under Armour mouthguard might improve your life.

The key, according to the makers, is that the mouthguard prevents clenching of the jaw and therefore improves physical performance and concentration. This mouthguard “moves your lower jaw forward. The combination opens the throat, improving breathing.” According to the article, studies by the maker show the mouthguard does increase performance – but just a bit.

Be prepared to see a cheaper model – $60 – made available to the public early in 2011. Whether this becomes a must-have accessory for many people remains to be seen…

Argument over Title IX ruling

Posted on by

Two articles at ESPN.com debate the merits of Title IX after a recent court decision regarding the act at Quinnipiac University. While the court case was about the school inflating the number of female athletes in order to show parity in male and female sports programs, Gregg Easterbrook (a journalist/pundit) and Nancy Hogshead-Makar (law professor and “senior director of advocacy for the Women’s Sports Foundation”) debate the necessity of Title IX.

1. Easterbrook argues that the rule allows the government to intervene in situations where it should not. While Title IX was initially necessary to help women’s sports get the recognition they deserved, it is unnecessary today. In the case at hand, the court was left deciding whether playing volleyball was a “civil right” and whether the school could add a competitive cheer team. Easterbrook says, “The issue is whether Title IX has run amok.”

2. Hogshead-Makar argues that Title IX is still necessary as women’s college sports attract smaller “scholarships, budgets, coaching salaries, facilities and competitive opportunities” compared to male sports, male sports are larger at the high school level, schools in addition to Quinnipiac are miscounting female athletes in order to appear compliant, and Title IX has widespread public support (80% according to one poll).

Divergent perspectives on a legal act that affects many college students.

Beware of stadium food

Posted on by

Yahoo reports on ESPN’s findings about stadium food. There were some noteworthy health violations and this little tidbit about Chicago stadiums in a discussion about how inspection practices differ by state:

Chicago stadiums had the lowest percentage of vendors with critical violations; that could be because city inspectors make their visits when the stadiums are empty and no employee is handling or serving food. (Gotta lova that Chicago political machine.)

In the last ten or twenty years, stadium food has improved in quality – from nachos with fake cheese to sushi, premium sandwiches, and more. However, perhaps a lot of it wasn’t very clean…

The rules of officiating: consistency and openness

Posted on by

Two rules regarding officiating I have witnessed in recent days: consistency and openness.

The other night, I provoked a 5-minute argument in the middle of a pick-up basketball game. The other team claimed I was consistently setting moving screens. (Ironically, before the game both teams were discussing how both the Celtics and Lakers set moving screens that are not called all the time.) But they were unwilling to call it as a foul. One of the key rules of pick-up basketball: players call their own fouls.

Perhaps another rule: be somewhat consistent in calling your own fouls. Don’t just complain about things you don’t like – you can call the foul and no one will argue. For many professional athletes, they also desire this consistency from officials. They may disagree about the validity of certain judgment calls (and most sports have judgment calls to be made on almost every play) but if they know both teams are playing by the same rules, they can handle it. Even the appearance of impartiality is enough to get players, fans, and coaches up in arms. Coaches like Phil Jackson have been recognized as masters of playing this game – criticize the officials in hopes of drawing better calls for your team in future contests.

Additionally, officials should be able to explain and be held accountable for their calls. This was not the case in the past, particularly in baseball. If you read baseball history, umpires often acted like dictators who saw no need to every offer any apology. But technology and league reviews now in most sports have reduced these traits. Scrutiny of every call is easy – plenty of replays, media outlets, and websites to discuss every decision. Witness the lauded efforts of umpire Jim Joyce who sincerely apologized to the Detroit Tigers pitcher whose perfect game was ruined by a bad call. Leagues are now willing to penalize officials based on bad calls. It doesn’t change the outcome of the game but it can bring a small measure of piece of mind.

Thus, the anger even a day later from the US Men’s National Team after a disallowed goal from their match against Slovenia. The issues:

1. A perceived lack of consistency, particularly in the second half. Players being mugged in the box are ignored. Phantom fouls are called.

2. The referee has not explained his call. What exactly did he see? Does he now see it as a bad call?

FIFA seems ready to admit the poor call as they are looking to remove the official from any further World Cup matches. I’m sure this will be of little solace to the US team but it does indicate we live in a new world of officiating.