BCS playoff now a necessity

The fact is, we need a play-off. The last few weeks of the College Football season have seen an incredible number of twists and turns, and the pollsters have struggled to react accordingly.

 

When #1 OSU and #2 Michigan were set to square-off in one of the most hyped games in the sport for a long while, the coaches and press polls must have been relaxed. One side would beat the other and the #3 ranked team would step up and take their place. But of course, the game turned out to be a classic rivalry encounter, and Michigan played a blinder, coming closer to the previously untouchable Buckeyes than it seemed any other team could.

So this provoked talk of a rematch, and with some justification. USC were the only other legitimate contenders to a National Championship game vote, and even they were struggling, beaten by lowly Oregon State earlier in the year.

But it seemed to the pollsters that USC were the team to back now. A rematch would set a dangerous precedent in their eyes, cleverly ignoring the fact that Michigan were still arguably #2 team in the country. The upcoming Notre Dame-USC game would give the coaches and media the justification they needed to put the Trojans into a clear #2 spot and set up a reasonably well rounded match-up against OSU.

 

But then of course USC got careless, and lost to UCLA in surely the shock of the year. At the final whistle you could almost hear the coaches and media crying with frustration. What now?! The name of Michigan suddenly came back into the picture, but this time it was joined by Florida. The latter, despite the SEC’s reputation as the most competitive and difficult conference, had been dismissed earlier in the season, and was now only in the frame thanks to the Big 10’s scheduling, which meant that Michigan had been inactive since before thanksgiving. In that time, the Gators had played twice, and won both games, although crucially in an unconvincing manner, which mirrored the pattern of the whole of their season.

 

But despite Michigan holding a large vote lead just a couple of weeks ago, by the final BCS rankings, Florida have overtaken them. Could the voters have been swayed by amazing Gators performances? No. Could they have voted for the Gators to avoid a potentially controversial, although perfectly justifiable rematch game with Michigan? Yes.

 

The very fact that Florida coach Urban Mayer was actively campaigning against a rematch (which of course favoured his team’s chances) shows the politicisation of the sport as it currently stands.

 

We need a play-off. As Kirk Herbstreit pointed out, the BCS bowl games could double up as a ‘final four’ for the football championship. The #1 ranked team would play the #4 ranked team, the #2 would play #3. The winners would then advance to the National Championship game itself. This could even be expanded to the top 8 teams in the final poll. This way we could see what would happen on the field when Florida and Michigan square up. And the added significance of still being in contention would add even more value and prestige to the bowl games.

 

We simply can’t have this same controversy year after year.

 

copyright Ben Parker 2006

Ajax and Judaism

I was aware that Ajax Amsterdam was a club that had Jewish roots, due to the areas where Jewish communities have lived in the city for many decades. However I hadn’t realised that the fans (largely non-Jewish) actively parade Israeli flags and that many of the Ultras have tatoos of the Star of David adorning themselves.  It is not used as a celebratory symbol though, far from it. Some Ajax fans have merely adopted the anti-semitic taunts of opposing fans and tried to made light of it by taking up the ‘Jewish club’ identity. It is used as another means of identity for fans of the club, but also as a barrier between them and other fans of rival teams.

It has become divisive, in a country that is infamous politically for both the anti-Islamic comments of former MP Pim Fortuyn, later assassinated, and of controversial film maker Theo Van Gogh . Van Gogh, a friend of Fortuyn (who tried to claim that he was more centre-right than extreme right wing), used his 1980s newpaper columns to air his extreme and provocative views on a number of subjects, and his tirades included his criticism of the Jewish people for their ‘preoccupation with Auschwitz’ and jokes about the gassing of Jews. He rejected all forms of organised religion, and by the late 1990s he was targeting Islam with equal force. His comments and contribution to the production of the controversial film, Submission, angered many in the Muslim community, and he was subsequently assassinated by an Islamic extremist in 2004. His death led to debate in the Netherlands by both liberal and extremist groups regarding the apparent cultural divide between different ethnicities in Holland and whether the traditionally tolerant Dutch population had become more right wing in their opinions.

 Proof of this intolerance is evident at Eredivisie matches when opposition fans chant anti-semitic songs at the Ajax fans, make hissing noises mimicking the gas chambers and chant in support the names of the Palestinian militant group Hamas. These are not Dutch clubs that have an Islamic link, (as if this would make such abuse acceptable anyway), however it proves that fans light heartedly use another form of identity not necessarily relevent to themselves and use it in hatred that leads to violence. In return, the Ajax ultras use it as an excuse to make anti-Islamic and racist jibes. Racism in this circumstance is used not in any widely held set of beliefs, but merely as a provocative and attention grabbing tool to unite ultras and intimidate others.

Perhaps recognising the potential danger of the club being seen to be allying itself to a political or religious ideology, Ajax club chairman John Jaakke released a statement in the New Year of 2005 stating that, ‘Ajax is being presented as a ‘Jewish club’ and some of our supporters have taken to calling themselves ‘Jews’ as an honorary nickname … I want to state for the record that Ajax wants to shed this image and will do what is necessary to achieve this’.  He added: ‘I am sure our supporters have no anti-Semitic feelings. However, in a tense society such as we live in today, it can stir such feelings in others…The paradox that we have the image of being a Jewish club but that many Jews find it difficult to visit our games has to end.’

copyright 2006

Basketball in America and racism

It suddenly struck me a year or so ago when watching an NBA game that the vast majority of the crowd packed into most of the arenas in the sport were white, middle-class Americans.  Long gone are the basketball courts that were built for a team where the sport’s roots lie, in the downtown area of American cities. Basketball is associated as a street sport, and as part of black culture, a game of self expression and energy. Yet at the top tier of the game it is a sport marketed at a white audience, and thus an uneasy relationship exists.

Whilst most of the players at the top level of the American game are black, their energy and exertions on the court floor are seldom matched by enthusiastic support in the seats. The arenas have moved into America’s suburbs (indeed many of the NBA teams have moved cities completely), where team owners can reach the largest revenue potential amongst the wealthy, predominantly white, middle-classes. 

The nature of the relationship means that there is a distinct clash of cultures between the players, who have worked their way up the rungs of the high school, College and into professional level and who now earn millions of dollars, and the white middle classes who come to watch them. The uneasy nature of this relationship is often demonstrated in the racist taunts that many players still receive. The infamous Pistons-Pacers brawl in the NBA in 2004 was made far worse by the taunts and items thrown from the crowd that rained down on the sparring players. You do not have to look long in NBA fan forums to read phrases such as ‘what do you expect from niggas?’ and  general undertones of ignorance and prejudice. This is mirrored in the awkward attitudes that the commentators exhibit on reporting games.

Charles Barkley, author of Who’s afraid of a Large Black Man and former NBA great indicated that ‘black athletes and black celebrities are not black people’, that their success in a public arena is a shield against racism. It is possible to often hear sportscasters in the States describe a black athlete’s ‘great natural ability’, the hidden insinuation that he or she was somehow born with the ability to be great at a sport, and that they did not have to work as hard at their game to reach the top level as a result. In Jon Fasman’s article in the Observer Sport in July 2005 he aludes to this, and reports that Bob Herbert of the New York Times once summed it up by saying that the phrase ‘natural athlete’ has developed into ‘a genteel way to say ’nigger”.

It is certainly true that the NBA appears to be aware of its main market. It has crudely manicured itself to be more appealing to a middle class support base, evidenced by the controversial dress code, introduced last year, which forced players to attend press conferences in team tracksuits rather than in their own clothing. Many sports analysts saw this as a deliberate attempt to eradicate the ‘bling’ culture that surrounds basketball players.

 What is interesting is that the problems so evident in basketball appear to be less prevelent in  American football, the nation’s most popular sport. You see far more black faces in the crowd,  standing shoulder to shoulder with the white fans. Part of this is undeniably as a result of the larger sphere of influence that the large stadiums in both the NFL and the College game can attract as opposed to the small basketball arenas.  Another factor is that the crowd in football can develop a real relationshp with the players on the field representing their team. One key difference is that the crowd can have a real impact on the way a football game turns out, is more vocal in its support, and experiences a roller coaster of emotions due to the nature of the sport in comparison with the relatively steady nature of basketball. By the end of a close encounter, a crowd can feel an emotional attachment developing with the team and specific individuals on the side.

 There are also differing roles for players of the sport. With football there is far more room for individual recognition and individual skill and ability and it is also a very physically demanding sport for all the players. Sports writers discover the person behind the player in football, and as a result fans feel they know the players as a person rather than just as an athletic robot.

Racial issues aside, there is a crying need for the NBA to attract a more lively fanbase to the games. Compared to the lively following and indeed national popularity at least once a year that College basketball has, the NBA’s fanbase is decidely more muted at the games.  Lowering the ticket prices should be one measure introduced, to allow a wider variety of people to be able to afford to see the games live. Sadly the main problem is that the arenas that had existed in central locations have been exchanged in favour of the air conditioned palaces in white suburbia.

 Ben Parker

copyright 2006

Button’s win fails to raise significant interest in a dying sport

Maybe it is because Jenson Button is simply not enough of a likeable character, but the Briton’s win at the Hungaroring on Sunday failed to instill in me the patriotic fervour that had clearly got to James Allen. Allen, who had screamed ‘What’s happening??!’ in the manner of a petulant child when the Hungarian race director managed to miss Nick Heidfeld’s collision with Michael Schumacher, became hoarse with overhyped excitement when Button crossed the line in first place after starting his 113th Grand Prix. Co-commentator for the day, Honda test-driver Anthony Davidson, gleefully mocked Martin Brundle for making this the one race he would miss in 2006. The result was mildly pleasing for British fans, and of course F1 made the front pages of the sport sections across the country. But the sport is still suffering from a distinct lack of support.

But it cannot be simply a lack of British success in the sport that has seen its popularity wane over the last decade. Instead it is the fact that motorsport is seen as a luxury, a play-thing for the rich and famous. No kids from the poorest parts of the country have even the opportunity to make it anywhere near the top in F1, and in this respect Formula One can never expect to match the popularity of sports such as football here in the UK, and american football in the US. People simply cannot relate to those competing in this highest tier of motor racing, and the apparent lack of willingness from those at the top of the sport to change its policies remains an obstacle to progress.

What Formula 1 needs is a rags to riches story, or better, a change to its recruiting structure to ensure that great potential racers in the UK who lack the funds are not overlooked. It is hard to believe that all those drivers currently in F1 were miles ahead of their opposition, rather that it was they who had the financial support to see that they made it.

Motorsport in general in the UK is losing a battle against football, rugby and cricket. The days of the popular British Touring Cars of the late 1990s, where the action was frenetic, the names unknown but became stars overnight and the fans easily able to access driver and afford to see races is now but a distant memory. The BTCC provided an affordable way for casual fans to see good quality motorsport on their doorstep. Ironically the series itself went downhill at the turn of the millenium as the result of spiralling team costs to run the cars.

Both willing participants and fans are being priced out of the sport. The typical Grand Prix crowd in the modern day resembles more closely the Royal Ascot meet than in days gone by. The longer the current situation continues, where the closest many fans can get to the action is through TV and magazines, the less coverage the sport will receive, and this will have a knock-on effect of the chances of continued and well supported British success on the track.

Ben Parker

copyright 2006

A love for American Sports

It was not until I heard Radio 5 Live’s ‘enthusiastically’ led commentary of Jonathan Pearce at the Superbowl in the spring of 2004 that I really began to follow up my interest in American sports. Pearce is not always known for his coherency at the best of times, and when I as a 15 year old with no prior knowledge of the sport came to listen to his machine-gun fire delivery of the events unfolding across the Atlantic I was confused and somewhat lost. However if there is one thing that Pearce conveyed to a considerable UK radio audience that night, it was the excitement, passion and drama for a nationally loved sport. I was instantly hooked and wanted to know more.

 Sadly, like many British sports fans, prior to that point I had had no inclination to learn about sports across the pond. I shared many of the same ignorant views that I now hear when I mention that I am a fan of the NFL and MLB. Most common of which are that American Football is merely a camp version of rugby for weaker players, that baseball players are all steroid junkies, and that American fans are ignorant of the history and culture that globally followed sports such as Football have. The only judgement that I came away with from talking to people such as these was that it was actually British sports fans more than their American counterparts who were the most ignorant.

Therefore I set out with not only the thirst for knowledge of sports that I had never seen before, but perhaps also to get an insight into American culture via an arena that is rarely explored in the UK Press, and to prove to myself what I thought was the truth-that there must be more to the sports in the US than they were given credit for. (ie-none)

Happily I discovered that all of the common preconceptions were completely misjudged. Yes American sports can be brash and loud, but they are also exciting sports to watch. American sports are frequently criticised for being overly commercial, but when these sentiments come from a football fan it is a difficult accusation to defend. The idea that football in the UK has not become commercialised is impossible to defend, where all the club shirts are plastered with corporate logos, the players’ footwear being dictated by the sports company and the traditional Saturday 3pm start butchered in favour of the television companies whims. It was refreshing to myself when watching American Football for the first time to see no sponsors on the shirts of the NFL teams or on bilboards around the perimeter of the field. It is of course still a highly commercialised state of play, but the idea that American sports fans are unable to identify this and be as critical as the typical British football fan moaning about the ‘over-commercialisation’ of their sport is also incorrect.

There are of course allegations levelled at American sports by Brits that are easier to throw away. The old Rugby players being made of ‘harder stuff’ masculine nonsense is easily pushed aside when you see some of the force behind tackles in the NFL. The players wear padding for the necessary protection, the lack of which in eras gone by had seen terrible injuries, thankfully which are now prevented. And since when has collecting bruises been the sign of ‘being a man’ anyway? Such childish points are easily dismissed.

The drugs issue is one that is contentious in American sports. Baseball has perhaps been tarnished the most, especially in the light of the BALCO drug lab scandal, that most famously implicated the San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds. It is perhaps the organising forces of baseball’s apparent lack of willingness to tackle the problems, by imposing pathetically small fines on players caught cheating that has most damaged its credibility. However, that is not to say that the majority of baseball players are drug users. and the problems of drugs in sport is clearly not an American-sport disease.

I have now been following professional American football for well over two years, and watched almost every televised game enthusiastically on the fuzzy picture of Channel Five. What I was perhaps most interested to discover about this sport was the tactical element. It seems that everyone in Britain’s pubs during a football match can tell you that American sports are all about power, hard hitting and that no brains are required. The NFL is certianly a physical league, but the intelligence of all the players on the field cannot be questioned when they have to remember their own individual assignments, as well as reacting to unforseen developing situations around them. American Football is certainly more taxing on the brain than football.

There are also many positive elements that couild be taken from American Sports that would be welcome in British equivalents. The use of video replays in the NFL is hugely successful and provides extra drama and excitement to game scenarios. The lack of obvious cheating that makes an unwelcome appearance in the Premiership week in and week out is also positive.

British sports fans often have the superiority complex, where they believe that the sports played here, primarily football, are simply more culturally valuable than any of the US equivalent. They (as I used to), see American sports as more modern, emotionless and soulless. The reality is anything but. American Football can be traced back to the football-rugby split that mixed the elements of the game, and can be recorded as far back as the first collegiate game in 1869. Baseball, whether it grew out if the sport of rounders or not, was at one stage highly popular in the UK.

What is most interesting about the latter sport is that its history has been immaculately preserved. The game has barely changed fundamentally, in comparison to football in the UK, where it is all about the present era. Ask most American baseball fans and they can reel off stats of players from times long ago-the players from the present day are matched up against those of the beginning of the 20th Century. Can you imagine UK sportswriters comparing Rooney to the likes of Stabile?

British fans are enraged when the term ’soccer’ is used, yet it is merely a shortening of ‘association football’, the code for the game. They are furious when they hear the term ‘World Champions’ being used when a Baseball team wins the World Series. It is arrogance of the highest order they say. Yet the reality is that the winner of the World Series really is champion of the world-the American Major League is the highest quality baseball league on the globe, and its rosters are filled with players from the strongest baseball playing nations, from Venezuela to Japan. The real arrogance comes from the British side of the water. We believe that our sports are somehow ‘better than theirs’. This childish notion can only be as a result of insecurity, the fear that in the modern age, as football struggles to fight its financial battles, that the American businessmen takeovers will somehow fundamentally change the sport forever.

This fear has effectively become branded as a form of racism. As soon as an American shows interest in buying out a Premiership football club, as we have seen both with Malcolm Glazer and more recently Randy Lerner’s efforts at Villa, the British press and fans stir up a storm of fury. We disguise this prejudice in mocking tones, but it is something that we should be ashamed of, and a problem that must be addressed. 

Ben Parker

copyright 2006

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!