Taking a Stand

In a time with many controversial topics in society, many people choose to voice their own opinions. People hold demonstrations, strikes, and fundraisers in order to raise awareness or gain public support. Although many ordinary citizens love to take stands on certain issues, professional athletes and other prominent figures refuse to step into the spotlight. Kelly Candaele and Peter Dreier discuss this phenomenon in their article, Where Are the Jocks for Justice?.

Athletes are increasingly taking a stance on controversial issues

They claim that endorsements from sponsor’s and greater economic compensation having rendered political and social activism from star athletes obsolete. Their argument makes complete sense. Players would rather protect their multimillion dollar contract then speak out on an issue that may or may not make a difference. Can we blame them? The authors reveal a downward trend over the last couple of decades in terms of player’s activism, but there is some cause for hope in the future.

Are Sports Worth the Risk?

Sports have become ingrained as a major part of modern society. Sports have many benefits; for instance they provide competition, exercise, entertainment and business. These factors make sports a key piece in the nature of society. This is especially true at the University of Michigan. I was able to attend the Michigan basketball game over break where they lost in a close game to Villanova. One of the most significant events of the game was when Michigan freshman D.J. Wilson suffered a knee injury.

One in Three NFL players suffer brain trauma in their career.

He is expected to miss 3-4 weeks, possibly even longer. Although the injury isn’t very serious, it got me thinking about the growing injury concerns in sports and the changes that are being made. In recent times, controversies
have struck the sports world. One of the more significant ones is whether some sports are proving to be too dangerous and if so, what changes need to be made.

State of Nature: Outwit, Outplay, Outlast

Growing up, Survivor was always one of my favorite TV shows to watch. I loved watching ordinary people compete in a setting with much less restrictions than in the real world. Survivor’s motto is “Outwit, Outplay, Outlast”. I feel that Survivor is the perfect modern representation of the state of nature described by Hobbes in The Leviathan. The goal of Survivor is to be the last remaining person in the game. You need to battle the elements and strategize to avoid getting voted out by your fellow tribe mates.

More than just a TV show?

Hobbes proposes his concept of the state of nature, saying that without a governing body the state of society would be in total conflict and chaos. The show Survivor places a group of people in a society without the normal governing body of our society. This is one of the best ways to demonstrate the state of society without our governing laws. Hobbes believes that the state of humanity is inherently violent. Without rules, violence between mankind is natural and inevitable according to Hobbes. It was never a surprise to see physical altercations and sabotage in the game of Survivor. Players would lie, cheat, and steal in order to advance in the game. These would otherwise be against the rules in our modern society. Hobbes believed mankind is inherently selfish and would fight against others in order to survive. In Survivor, the TV game show, people will do whatever they have to move forward in the game and survive the vote at tribal counsel. This mostly came in the form of blindsiding even your closest allies and friends.

The Dichotomy of Women’s and Men’s Sports

It is a popular belief that women’s sports are inferior to men’s, perhaps not just inferior but irrelevant. Although this belief is starting to fade, it is still very wide spread. Mika LaVaque-Manty gives a taste of this view in The Playing Fields of Eton through the comments of tennis star John McEnroe. McEnroe once compared the elite players in women’s tennis, Serena and Venus Williams, to average male players or good college athletes. If people view women’s sports at such a low level, it’s not surprising why they receive less airtime, lower funding, and very little attention.

Could this be how people view women in sports?

An article in USA Today speaks to idea of why people watch and prefer men’s sports to women’s. It suggests a main root of the cause is the lack of media coverage. I believe there is some merit to this argument.

Machiavelli: The Ultimate Quarterback Coach

Would Machiavelli be a great football coach?

Anyone who knows Machiavelli knows his revolutionary ideas on political rule. In The Prince, Machiavelli spells out how a ruler should preside over his state. The Prince, in modern terms, is a political playbook for any ruler. But, can it serve as a playbook in other facets; for instance, for football quarterbacks? Machiavelli’s concepts can be applied to modern day football, making him the ultimate quarterback coach.

Machiavelli thinks that a prince’s focus should be on mastering the art of war. He says a prince must physically practice by studying the territorial landscape and mentally practice by learning about previous military engagements. The same advice applies to a quarterback preparing for a game. A good quarterback will study the field and plays before the game, as well as watch the past game tapes played by their opponents. In both war and football, preparation is key for success.

Why do we follow the rules?

In class, we were given the opportunity to play, for all intents and purposes, a game of “Risk”. Growing up on the game, I am fairly familiar with the rules and strategies. The rule that caught my attention in this version was the fact that countries were asked to show their moves at the same time. However, if a team wanted to, they could easily see other team’s moves and then make their decision to attack, fortify, or support. This got me questioning why people follow the arbitrary rules of a game, many of which are self-imposed.

Is playing the game, worth succumbing to the rules?

In The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia, Bernard Suits suggests the concept of a lusory attitude. This notion requires players to abide by the arbitrary rules of the game in which they are playing. For this particular game, we were told that we must reveal our moves at the same time. If a team were to change their move after seeing another teams move, it would be a violation of the rule placed on us. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the winning team. It felt great to win; but had we broken this essential rule, the win would not have been as rewarding.