Fuzzy Math

Given the importance of “tradition” to the Masters golf tournament, I’ll borrow that word to note that I have been making a tradition of not watching the Masters since the 2003 publicity surrounding Martha Burk’s letter to Augusta National chairman Hootie Johnson asking Johnson to admit a woman to the golf club and Johnson’s subsequent public refusal to do so. As I mentioned a year ago at this time, I struck upon a new idea for how I’d like this to be handled. So, once again, I’m hoping (I’m sure in vain) for someone from this year’s tournament to donate all or part of his winnings to the National Organization for Women. In the meantime, I watched the tournament for the first time in 7 years and my attention was caught by something involving similar issues as my tradition not to watch …

On ESPN’s broadcast of the Masters much was made of former champion Fuzzy Zoeller’s last round at the championship on Friday. Former champions are invited to continue to play in the tournament in perpetuity, though many stop playing in the championship once they feel they are no longer able to post respectable scores. This year, both Zoeller and Gary Player announced that that time had come. For Player, this meant he played in an all-time record 52 Masters tournaments. For Zoeller, this meant 31. Though both shot well better than most everyday golfers would shoot, neither was close to making the cut for the weekend and, thus, with the conclusion of play on Friday, the Masters playing days for each had come to a close.

In the case of Zoeller, much of his greatest fame as a golfer came in conjunction with the Masters golf tournament … for better and for worse. On the positive side, he remains to this day the last player to have won the tournament is his very first appearance (and the only person to do so other than the first two champions of the tournament). On the negative side, Zoeller is very much still remembered for racially insensitive remarks made after Tiger Woods won his first Masters tournament in 1997. The former point about Zoeller’s career was mentioned quite readily in interviews with Zoeller and coverage of the event during his last round of competition in the tournament. The latter point about his career, I suppose predictably, was not. To an extent, I know why Zoeller’s 1997 comments were not discussed. Often, at times when people’s milestones are marked, those commemorating these people emphasize the positives of their lives. Additionally, there is always the practical aspect of getting through the interview with Zoeller, since he might not do or continue with the interview if he was asked about the 1997 comments (though this interview in Golf Digest did bring it up, even though it was in a way that allowed it to be framed as having nothing to do with race). Yet, I think neither of these reasons is an appropriate excuse. Zoeller’s comments in 1997 do not alone define him and he does deserve the opportunity to make up for them, but that’s exactly the point. Making up for these comments would involve active and ongoing recognition of them. I don’t know that the “he’s put it behind him” kind of idea was explicitly at work in ESPN’s coverage of Zoeller, but the coverage rang in a manner that is very reminiscent of that sentiment. Just as athletes and other public figures who have been involved in activities that are deemed inappropriate are often said to have “gotten past it” or “put it behind them,” so to are comments involving racism and sexism handled in this way. The problem here is that real reflection on any kind of inappropriate behavior means continual acknowledgement of the potential to do it again and vigilance to help ensure that one does not do so again. This works personally (e.g., I recall what I did and my potential ability to do it again so that I do not personally misbehave again) as well as structurally (e.g., I acknowledge how specific behaviors perpetuate racism, sexism, exclusion, etc.). Zoeller’s retirement from competition could have been used to draw attention to the continual need to be vigilant of the many ways racism works in society. Instead, it’s as if racism does not even exist—i.e., we’ve “gotten past it.”

Zoeller’s final round could also have been used to draw attention to sexism and issues of gender as well. Much was made of the fact that Zoeller’s daughter, Gretchen, caddied for him during the tournament and, thus, Fuzzy was able to share the experience with her. Yet, to this day, August National continues to lack female members. So, Gretchen Zoeller was allowed on the grounds as his caddie and could play the course as his guest, since he’s a member by virtue of having once won the tournament, but she has yet to have the opportunity to join. Of course, Augusta National’s defense has for the past six years been that they do not have a rule against female membership; they simply have not yet had the right opportunity to admit a female member. So, they might (and I’m sure some would) argue that there’s nothing necessarily keeping Gretchen from joining the club. … Well, of course, nothing but the same old informal blocks that have continued to keep women out for decades and for the past six years despite public attention to the lack of female membership … the same old informal blocks that create the glass ceiling phenomenon and keep women (and racial and ethnic minorities) from getting opportunities in not just sports, but organizations, groups, and events across the board. It, then, stood as a rather (at best) awkward and (more to the point) patronizing and paternalistic sight to see a woman working in service to a man at an institution that denies membership to women. Again, though, this awkwardness and paternalism remained unaddressed in the coverage of the tournament. In this case, it’s as if sexism does not exist. After all, as the narrative went, Gretchen got to enjoy being her father’s caddie and share in his experience.

Fuzzy was applauded as he walked off the course and he was celebrated as a Masters champion by ESPN as they covered the tournament, but here’s an idea that might have been worthy of even more applause and celebration: Especially since he’s going out anyway (and, thus, does not have so much to lose), why not use this as an opportunity to draw attention to issues of discrimination by asking Augusta National to offer membership to his daughter? Her physical presence as caddie already potentially serves to draw attention to the fact that women can do what men do on the golf course, so there’s no good reason to exclude them. Why not, then, at the end of the round, during your interview, note what Gretchen did as caddie, state what this illustrates about women’s abilities to play and manage rounds of golf, and ask Augusta National to offer Gretchen membership? While race and gender are not the same and do not work the same way, the attention to discrimination that such a gesture could bring would certainly do a lot to atone for the offensive comments Fuzzy offered 12 years ago. Fuzzy could even have addressed that, saying something to the effect of how, as one who has been guilty of reinforcing prejudice before, he has learned the value of diversity and respect for others and he’d like to see this addressed further by the admission of women as members of Augusta National. Then, we’ve got coverage of it, it can easily be discussed in an interview with Fuzzy, and he can leave a little more positive of a legacy for himself.

Of course, none of this happened and coverage of the event continued the long tradition of keeping the United States from productively talking about issues of gender and race. For a country that claims so often to be aligned with freedom and equality, that tradition just doesn’t add up.

The BYOUty of It All

Maybe blogging is serving as therapy for me as I cope with last night men's college basketball proceedings. Though, truth be told, I was prepared for UNC to beat MSU and I'm not THAT upset. MSU had quite a successful season and losing in the final game to a UNC team that was clearly on a mission from this time last year isn't anything to feel bad about. Or maybe I'm blogging because a set of papers is sitting in a folder on my computer waiting to be grading in the same sort of way that that little stack of money follows people around on Geico commercials. I'm not sure how to explain why I'm already blogging again, but here goes ...

It seems like one of the greatest beauties of YouTube is the ability to find and rewatch all kinds of things that you haven't been able to see in years or even decades.

I mean, I've drifted down memory lane watching plenty of late-1980s videos, especially this one, this one, and this one recently. I even found this video, which I hadn't seen since its run on Dial MTV in 1988 and then subsequent fade from existence anywhere I might find it.

I also recently found an Arrow shirt commercial that I remember seeing once in 1987, really liking, and never seeing again ... until a few weeks ago when it dawned me to search for it on YouTube.

And who can forget the best performance ever to appear on American Idol (at least in my opinion)?

Today, this video is making me feel quite a bit better.

Gregg Doyel Update #3: Thanks, Gregg

I was working on my Master’s degree at Michigan State University when the Mateen Cleaves-Morris Peterson “Flintstones” teams that went on to win a national championship were developing. They won the championship two years after I left East Lansing. My last spring there was their first trip to the “Sweet Sixteen” round of the NCAA tournament, where they lost to, coincidentally enough, North Carolina. Since my time at MSU, the Spartans have become my favorite big-conference men’s college basketball team. (They’re second overall to Bowling Green, of course.)

With that in mind, I’m quite ecstatic that the Spartans are in the national championship game tonight. I think it will be tough to win, as North Carolina is a great team, but I’m excited and hopeful nonetheless. So, I’m quite ready to bask in the glow of praise for the team. However, I’m not willing to do so at the sake of decency, which brings me to Gregg Doyel …

A little less than a year ago, I critiqued CBS Sportsline’s Gregg Doyel for his take on Danica Patrick’s first win as an Indy Car driver. This led to a summer exchange between Gregg and I that I was thankful for and that I reported on here, here, and here on this blog. Well … in the spirit of goodwill, it’s only appropriate to give Gregg some props when I think he’s got something right. (This isn’t to say that he hasn’t had anything else right over the last year. Far from it. Rather, it is to say that this is the first chance I’ve had to note it and write about it.) In a column that Gregg posted this weekend, he argues that all of the stories about how the Michigan State University men’s basketball team is bringing relief to the economic woes of Detroit are not only untrue, but “insulting to true suffering.” While I hope he’s wrong about the outcome of the game (though that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have good points about the MSU-UNC matchup), I have to agree very much with his analysis of the “fairy tale” about MSU alleviating Detroit’s pain.

As I see it, this “fairy tale” is nothing much more than two things: (1) a way for media covering the event to spin a dramatic story that doesn’t have to be realistic as long as it’s dramatic and emotional, which is something that the United States media love to do (and something that television in general strives on) and (2) an attempt by sports media (as well as other media that isn’t directly covering sport, but is invested with the sports industry in one of a number of ways) to offer justification for the importance of sport, even if the justification is not wholly appropriate or correct. In the specific case of Michigan State University supposedly bringing relief to Detroit, it comes across as awfully smug and patronizing for sportscasters and sportswriters, who are doing okay even in the current economy, to be making these kinds of claims about those who are not so well off. Frankly, it’s sickening to hear over and over again and, so, I’m thankful to Gregg Doyel (who, it should be noted, writes for the website of the same media outlet that broadcasts the game tonight) for pointing this out.

If I Don't Listen to the Talk of the Town ...

I think I’ll start this post with a nice little ditty by Go West.

Now on to the topic at hand …

I generally like the work of Rob Neyer. He seems fairly progressive in his viewpoints. After all, I was applauding his take on Alex Rodriguez and performance-enhancing drugs a few weeks ago. He even gave money to Dennis Kucinich back in 2004. However, I found one of his latest blog posts to be rather un-progressive. In it, he concludes the following about Eri Yoshida, a 17-year-old Japanese knuckleballer who just made her professional debut: “You have to admire her dream and her persistence and her skills (or skill). But you can't play if you don't have the requisite physical tools, too.” This is based on her height and weight of 5’0” and 114 pounds (and, presumably, her gender may have something to do with this as well, even if Neyer isn’t consciously recognizing it). The problem here is that it’s indicative of how sports and athletes are viewed in general. Often, this is represented as a matter of people simply not having the body types or physical characteristics to engage in a sport, at least at its highest levels. For instance, during the Olympics last summer, NBC ran a story about how Michael Phelps’ swimming success could be attributed to a number of physical characteristics that he possesses. (Nope, the ability to relax by smoking pot wasn’t one of them …) That story reflected the sense that most of us wouldn’t be able to do what Phelps does, even if we tried. A similar sentiment is at work in Neyer’s take on Yoshida. He’s already dismissing her based on her physical characteristics, no matter how much she tries.

As James L. Cherney points out in an essay worth reading in the edited volume Case Studies in Sport Communication, one of the problematic aspects of sport is that bodies that are deemed “normal” for sporting activities, especially on their highest levels, are actually usually “abnormal” bodies in that they are not typical of the populations from which they come. Cherney’s analysis focuses on how disability then becomes defined problematically, particularly when applied to athletes such as Casey Martin. Applied beyond how “disability” is defined, Cherney’s analysis offers a useful perspective for understanding the inequities that are already set up in what are and are not deemed appropriate bodies types for sports, while his analysis also offers a useful perspective for understanding how the rules of sports serve to privilege certain body types over others.

Back to Neyer, then, how progressive is the progressive here? Perhaps sports will never completely be void of inequities based on physical characteristics of bodies (it’s possible that it’s inherent once we establish rules for how the games are played), but what good is it to further denigrate efforts that might potentially challenge or address those inequities? If Ishida has found a way to play baseball at a high level with her physical characteristics (and I intentionally do not say “despite” them here, because that’s not the sentiment I intend, as it would further reinforce the inequity, I think), shouldn’t we be much more supportive and certainly not so dismissive? Otherwise, we’re basically establishing a rather non-progressive, anti-democratic system of privilege based on birthright.

Fortunately, judging by the comments that readers have posted in conjunction with this piece by Neyer, many folks are calling Neyer out on similar kinds of grounds. To echo one of the themes of these readers, what has happened to the intelligent writing that many of us have come to associate with Neyer? I think at least part of the answer may be the way that he’s blogging, which very well may make this a consequence of the ESPN opinion-producing machinery (which, then, of course, makes it one more manifestation of how the “free market” of capitalism isn’t the freedom-of-opportunity place that so many people claim it to be). Neyer’s blog with several entries a day do appear to become a bit reactionary at times, sacrificing quality for quantity, perhaps. This may be part of the dilemma that blogging faces as a medium, but I’d like to think it’s a dilemma that can be addressed and overcome. I’d like to think that we can post several times a day and maintain quality even as we increase quantity. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking and maybe it’s wishful thinking for me to have my take on Ishida as well. Maybe I’m being too hard on Rob. I mean, inevitably, don’t we all have times when our performance just isn’t the best?

Hmmm … seems I’ve hit on the theme of another pair of recent posts from Neyer’s blog, one of which discusses evaluation of performance of umpires and the second of which involves Neyer defending his progressiveness when it was called into question by reader based on the first post. Along these lines, Jurgen Habermas has argued for an “ideal” public sphere of civil discourse based in rational argumentation, in which all claims are up for discussion and, thus, must withstand the judgment of rationality in order to hold up. Similar ideas have been evoked more popularly recently by Al Gore, who even writes about the potential of the Internet as a medium that might provide more equitable spaces for discussion. Having read a reasonable enough number of Neyer’s columns, I get the feeling (and maybe I’m wrong) that he’s not in opposition to these kinds of views of discourse and argumentation. They do, I think, suffer at times from the limitations of their modernist philosophical bent (see, for instance, John Durham Peters’ critique of Gore in the book Speaking into the Air), but I think there is something of use in positing a kind of space for discourse like this. (One of the problems, I think, is the use of rationality as the only basis for evaluating arguments. That’s not to say it can’t be a part of the criteria, but that it’s not appropriate to make it the only part.) As I understand this kind of space for discourse, if I do make an argument that does not hold up, I accept it as such, recognize my error, and add that to my storehouse of knowledge for future arguments so that I might do better next time. I am certainly not dismissed from the circle for making a bad argument. I get the feeling that’s at least part of what Neyer is saying about umpires. We’re not going to fire or otherwise discipline folks for every little mistake, but we might remedy consistent problems in performance by this kind of monitoring. I mean, Neyer does have at least some understanding of such surveillance, since his work for his job—i.e., writing pieces that appear online—is open for public judgment where folks like me can call him out when we think he’s wrong.

That all sounds well and good in an idealistic world devoid of power relations. The problem is that we do live within power relations that do affect what happens. So, while, in the modernistic dream, we are able to discuss everything and observe everything openly and honestly, one of the reasons that people can’t be open and honest in our society is because many times their ideas or some aspects of their lives or personhoods might be held against them as the basis to discipline them, at the very least by excluding them from or marginalizing them within conversations and, even more dramatically, by imprisoning them or imposing other actions against their lives, their liberties, and their pursuits of happiness, to adapt a particularly prominent phrase associated with democracy. I think I’m pretty much all for working toward that more ideal space for discourse, as long as we bear in mind the politics of these power relations and we negotiate them accordingly so that individuals and groups are not unfairly excluded, marginalized, and/or disciplined. (Hmmm … I suppose this is the perfect time for one more reading recommendation, this time for one of my favorite books ever: Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault.) I think part of that project is advocating not only an ideal space of discourse, but also an ideal space of thought and action as well. And, thus, we’re back to Ishida. If we dismiss the opportunity and possibility in what she is doing from the get-go, then how, I ask you, have we helped any of this?

Holy MACkerel!

Okay, a very cheesy pun, I know, but well worth it because ...

Today was a very good day for the Mid-American Conference.

In the NCAA women's basketball tournament, Ball State defeated one of the most prestigious programs in NCAA women's basketball history--none other than two-time defending champion Tennessee. Yes, I know it was a down year for the Volunteers, with their roster loaded with first-year players, but, still, this win was significant, particularly because it marked the first time that Tennesee failed to advance to the Final Sixteen in the history of the tournament. Way to go, Cardinals ...

And, meanwhile, several hours before that game took place in Bowling Green, Kentucky, another women's basketball game was held in Bowling Green, Ohio. In that one, which I had the thrill of attending, Bowling Green State University defeated Syracuse in the second round of the women's NIT tournament. Way to go, Falcons, too ...

That's a win over a Big East opponent and a win over an SEC opponent in the same day. On Tuesday Ball State is scheduled to play a Big 12 opponent (Iowa State) and on Thursday night BGSU is scheduled to host a Big Ten opponent (Indiana). Is it too much to ask that both teams soar to another pair of victories over big conference teams? I sure hope not ...

Right and Left

I remember when I was a kid my dad had a sign that hung in his office that read "War never determines who is right. It only determines who is left." Over the years, I've consistently thought that that was a profound statement that certainly applies to violence and warfare ... and, for that matter, sports ...

And so, with that in mind, the Arizona Wildcats men's basketball team defeated Utah by a score of 84-71 Friday evening and that surely fuels many to suggest that that "proves" that Arizona belongs in the tournament, despite the debate that has gone on about that since their selection to the field this past Sunday (though, I appreciate the counterview to that offered by Gary Parrish on CBS Sportsline). As Gary points out, this doesn't "prove" anything. Many teams not included in the field could have beaten Utah and Arizona happened to do so as well. And, of course, if they defeat Cleveland State on Sunday, which isn't a foregone conclusion, but is certainly a definite possibility, then Arizona will be in the Final 16 and that will just provide more light under the fire for those arguing that this "proves" that they deserve to be there. Again, it doesn't "prove" anything, but it does show that the matchup worked for Arizona to advance and it could do so again on Sunday. Put them against one of the other 5 seeds from the tournament (Illinois, Purdue, and Florida State) and perhaps Arizona doesn't win.

This is about more than Arizona, though. It's about the whole idea that the tournament decides who is the national champion, the best, etc. It only decides who the champion is because we have agreed to allow it to do so, but it doesn't necessarily mean that team was the best. It just means that that team won 6 games in row, whether by luck, by outperforming 6 other teams (if even by small margins), or simply because a team received the matchups that allowed it them to advance.

And, so, the NCAA tournament doesn't necessarily determine who is right (read: best). It only determines who is left.

New Rules for NCAA Basketball Tournaments

Here some things I’d like to see considered for the NCAA basketball tournaments (women’s and men’s):

1. If a team goes undefeated in conference play in the regular season, it should earn an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament even if it loses in its conference tournament. I’ve been advocating this for years and, frankly, it won’t make a lot of a difference overall, since many teams that go undefeated within their conferences either win their conference tournaments and make it moot or end up being considered good enough to be an at-large team by the NCAA tournament committees. Tthis season, Memphis and Gonzaga on the men’s side and Boston University, Sacred Heart, Connecticut, and Wisconsin-Green Bay on the women’s side are the only 6 teams to go undefeated in league play. Memphis, Gonzaga, and Connecticut have nothing to worry about, but based on projections by ESPN, the other three will need to win their conference tournaments in order to make the NCAA tournament. This has happened on the men’s side as well. In 2003-2004, Austin Peay went undefeated in the Ohio Valley Conference, but lost in the OVC tournament final and went to the NIT. My thinking here is that a team should not be punished if its one and only loss to a team in its conference came during a conference tournament. Going undefeated in a conference during the regular season pretty much indicates you outperformed the other teams in your conference and I’d think you have more of a right to be in the tournament than a team that lost once in conference during the regular season, but won its conference tournament. Of course, I’d even want to start arguing that both merit serious consideration, but the undefeated rule would set a high and reasonable guideline.

2. In many cases, this might supersede Number 1 (though not in Austin Peay’s case in 2003-2004), but perhaps there should be a win total that mandates inclusion in the NCAA tournament. I think of 25 wins as a starting point for the discussion, but I could see it as 26 or 27, too, to ensure it’s not set too low. I envision this as a win total just for the regular season, before one’s conference tournament. Mandating that you make the tournament if you have 25 regular-season wins would guarantee that teams like Creighton and Davidson on the men’s side (both of whom won 25 games in the regular season) make the tournament, even though each lost in its respective conference tournament. It would also guarantee a spot for Utah State on the men’s side (who won 27 games during the regular season) even if it loses in the WAC tournament. On the women’s side, teams like Bowling Green (yes, the influence of my own loyalties on my positions here is clearly showing with mention of this school and I’ll gladly acknowledge that), Montana, South Dakota State, Middle Tennessee State, Wisconsin-Green Bay, and Marist would have spots. Among these six teams, it looks like South Dakota State and Middle Tennessee State would be or would have been, respectively, okay this season, but the other may have to (or might have had to) sweat out the selection process without a conference tournament championship in hand. I’ve intentionally not included schools from more prestigious conferences in these lists, since the point is moot for them; they’re getting in anyway. This is something to help teams from less prestigious conferences be rewarded for what, frankly, are outstanding regular seasons. Raising it from 25 to 26 or 27 would pare those lists down a bit, but, at least based on teams on those lists, a standard of 25 regular-season wins certainly seems reasonable.

3. A team has to win at least 20 games in order to qualify for the NCAA tournament. So, for instance, Providence and Arizona are discussed on the men’s side as bubble teams, yet each lost today to finish the season at 19 wins. Both are questionable as at-large teams for the NCAA tournament, but both are still getting consideration and may still get in. In a day and age in which teams usually play a minimum of 29 games and, including exempt tournaments and conference tournaments, this turns into 32, 33, 34 games quite easily, winning less than 20 games just doesn’t seem impressive enough to be an NCAA tournament team. So, in this scenario, Providence and Arizona would not be in. The caveat here is that, unlike rule number 2 above, conference tournament wins can count toward one’s win total. So, had Providence and Arizona each won today, each would then have earned consideration for the NCAA tournament. That doesn’t mean each would be in, but it would mean they could be considered. It seems like that would provide an interesting, useful, and beneficial level of intrigue to the conference tournaments.

Of course, I do realize that these rules are not without their downsides. Rules 2 and 3 might encourage teams, especially teams from more prestigious conferences, to schedule less dauntingly in their out-of-conference fare. Yet, I’m not sure that would be too great of a trend to make a big difference to matter. I also realize that the strength-of-schedule critics would argue that a team like Arizona has beaten a number of top-level teams, while Davidson, though they played some of these top-level teams, did not defeat any, and that this should be considered in Arizona’s favor. I understand that point of view and, again, I recognize that as a loyal alum of Bowling Green State University, I do have a bias based on that loyalty here (of course, I also attended Michigan State and Arizona State, on the other side), yet I think these kinds of rules are worthy of consideration and, at least, further discussion in this forum and in more prominent forums, particularly as we might attempt to create a system of college athletics that contains more equity for what have come to be known as “mid-major” schools.