The Morals in Sports Debate… Men Behaving Badly

April 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

Here we sit, on the heels of yet another star athlete scandal.

Between Dog fighting, sex parties on boats, domestic violence, rape charges, drugs, drinking and driving, infidelity, and fighting in bars (just to name a few), I find myself thoroughly repulsed by the misdeeds of the athletic elite within our society today. And if the disturbing frequency with which new reports and allegations are released serves as any indication of what is really going on in the private lives of these people, then I am both saddened and alarmed.

Far too often, athletes have made poor decisions (that usually victimize another human being) and it is time that somebody took a SERIOUS stance against this deplorable behavior. A strong, clear, and consistent message must be communicated.

The Business of Sports

The “business” of professional sports is one of image. In a world where visibility and exposure is king, millions of dollars can hang in the balance. If an athlete wants to make millions on the field, they must portray success. If they want to make even more money in endorsements, they must appeal to the public. Simply put – Image is EVERYTHING!

Every business in America, including professional sports organizations, strives to portray an image of being a positive “corporate citizen.” There are plenty of “good guys” in sports today, like Phil Mickelson, who spend much of their time and money in philanthropic endeavors. Those deeds are publicized because they look good for everyone involved – The charity benefits from exposure, the athlete benefits from positive press, and the league benefits through the support of these good deeds.

While those organizations prosper from the radiating glow of being associated with an act of good PR at the hands of one of their representatives, they must avoid the radiating stench of bad press. The last thing that any organization wants to do is to condone or ignore inappropriate and illegal behavior.

The need for POSITIVE corporate citizenship is magnified in the world of sports, though, because of the added social responsibility that athletes have as role models to the public.

Social Responsibility

I don’t care that Charles Barkley uttered his famous line – “I am not a role model.” It is not up to him to decide. The very real fact in today’s society is that athletes ARE viewed as role models, whether they SHOULD be or not. Thanks to marketing campaigns from corporations such as Nike, Gatorade, and Gillette, society is led to believe that they can (and should) aspire to live the same lives as athletes.

And who can blame the youth of America for falling prey to this marketing strategy? After all, what part of life as a superstar athlete does NOT appeal to you? You can date super models, make millions of dollars, be adored by tens of thousands, and possibly be immortalized as a legend, all for playing a game that many would pay to play.

Clearly, people in America (and around the world) aspire to be like these athletes. Most athletes fell in love with a sport because they themselves idolized an athlete during their younger days. Whether it was watching Magic on the court, Montana on the field, or Nicklaus on the links, every single one of them had the same thought… “Someday, I’m gonna be like HIM!”

Fans idolize athletes – it is as simple as that.

A Matter of Protection

Unfortunately, many athletes today do not possess qualities that would make them WORTHY of being a Role Model. As pointed out by ESPN.com writer Tim Keown, there are just some people (like Roethlisberger) who don’t deserve life on the pedestal. Because we don’t have the luxury of picking and choosing the Role Models of society, though, there must be some other way to help protect us all from social rejects who have no regard for anyone other than themselves.

Society must be protected from idiots with too much money and ego, but too little common sense. The leagues must be protected from being associated with these dregs of society, and must take measures to protect their investment into the development of these athletes. And realistically, these players must be protected from themselves, before they do serious and irreparable harm to themselves and others.

This is where a strictly defined and enforced Moral Conduct Policy comes into play.

Keep in mind that I am not proposing that we strip athletes of their freedoms as if they were already criminals. I understand that they are grown adults who deserve the right to act freely. However, because much of their own livelihoods (and the success of the greater organizations that they represent) is based solely upon image, the various sports organizations should take the steps necessary to formally identify those actions that are viewed as being detrimental, and should impose severe penalties in discouragement of those actions.

For example:

Good – Going out to a bar with a couple friends for a celebration

Bad – Going out to a bar with a loaded gun in your pocket while sexually forcing yourself on an unwilling person

This SHOULD be common sense, but that is clearly missing in some people. Because many of these athletes have PROVEN incapability for governing their own behavior, someone must govern it for them. There is far too much at stake today, both from a social and a financial standpoint, for this type of self-destructive behavior to be permitted unchecked. By defining specific actions as appropriate or inappropriate, the officials within each league can establish a platform by which they can correct this disturbing trend.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Morals in Sports Debate… Sympathy For The Infamous

April 22, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Bleacher Fan.

 

Ben Roethlisberger has opened Pandora’s Box and he doesn’t even know it. No, I am not referring to the NFL quarterback attending the grand opening of a seedy strip club in a drunken blackout state. I am referring to the fact that Roethlisberger’s conduct has sparked a huge controversy that is larger than one might imagine. The allegations against Big Ben are so deplorable that he is being discussed in the same category as Pacman Jones and Michael Vick. In fact, the public backlash against the Steelers’ QB has actually drawn some of the attention off of Tiger Woods, which is saying a lot here lately. The controversy over Roethlisberger’s behavior has prompted many to question whether sports leagues should attempt to crackdown on player misconduct in their personal lives by enforcing moral regulations. This may come as a shock to those who know me, as I am generally seen as a person of high moral character, but I actually do not support this stance that leagues should be involved in regulating the morality of players’ off-field behaviors.

I want to make it clear that in no way do I support the infamous actions of players like Ben Roethlisberger, Tiger Woods, or Pacman Jones. I find the behavior that these stars are accused of reprehensible and hugely irresponsible. I do, however, think that they have a right to a personal life. I take issue with the notion that somehow fans, sports media, and league officials are in a position to pass judgment on stars for actions in their personal lives. Whatever happened to the philosophy of “judge not, lest ye be judged yourselves.” Some of you may be saying “Listen Babe Ruthless, I never did any of the stuff those guys did,” and perhaps you are right. But I am willing to bet there is some mistake in your personal life, large or small, that you would not want plastered on the cover of the tabloids, discussed over the airwaves, and streaming across the bottom line of ESPN. The only reason the public is aware or even cares about these players’ behavior is because they are famous. If Tiger Woods wasn’t Tiger Woods the golfer, but Eldrick Woods the certified public accountant, would you really care that he cheated on his wife? I am guessing not, and I do not think there are many people out there that would feel comfortable with the level of exposure that professional athletes’ personal lives endure.

Similarly, I doubt many people would want their compensation tied to their personal conduct like professional athletes. When professional athletes do something stupid in their private lives they may be fined, suspended, and/or lose sponsors, but when the average person makes a bad personal decision the consequences do not necessarily carry a financial impact. That is a double standard, my friends, and while I do not support their immoral behavior, I think athletes get the short end of the stick on this one. When the average person cheats on their wife the consequences may include losing one’s house, half their possessions, alimony, or child support, but they usually do not get suspended from work or lose their job because of it. Tiger Woods’ extramarital affairs caused him to lose millions in endorsement deals because of his highly publicized personal indiscretions. Athletes’ lives are scrutinized enough without their every action having to pass before a moral police that wields power over their playing time and wallets.

Athletes have every right to be act like jerks. It is practically constitutional. Citizens are entitled to lives free of excessive government entanglement, and their rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Freedoms are granted to the good and bad, the moral and immoral just the same. So long as an athlete’s behavior is neither illegal nor in violation of a league rule, then they should be free to engage in that action regardless of whether it is popular or “moral”. Attempting to micromanage someone’s legal personal behavior is not reasonable for a sports league to attempt, and it is certainly not in keeping with the principles of our democratic government. If we allow the NFL, NBA, and MLB to decide what’s right and wrong, moral or immoral, where does it end? Will they one day get to fine players for not showing hustle? Will they be empowered to dock players for not displaying enough heart? That is a slippery slope that I do not want to see sports go down.

In the end, if off-field conduct is not illegal or directly impacting a player’s on-field performance then it should not be regulated. One day people like Big Ben, and everyone for that matter, will have to answer to The Man Upstairs, and I don’t mean Roger Goodell. Until that time, let’s leave the judgment to the Big Guy because He is qualified and we are not. 

 

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Tiger at the Master’s Debate Verdict… Master’s of Distraction

April 9, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer.

Well, he’s back. And he can still golf pretty well. So much for speculation on Tiger Woods missing the cut at The Master’s.

The debate about Tiger’s return at The Master’s has sparked some interesting conversations and feedback. One point everyone seems to agree on is that we do not question Tiger’s choice to come back at The Master’s as being a good thing for Tiger. I think that is clear. From Southern manners to the tightly controlled crowd, it makes sense. The question for this debate is, does it make sense from the perspective of the PGA Tour.

The importance of television ratings cannot be undersold. Loyal Homer did an excellent job in his argument of defining that point with the numerical context of an 18 percent dip in ratings without Tiger. The lack of “buzz” at an event is anecdotal and potentially circumstantial. While I am sure it was there, it is hard to judge anything based on a feeling about buzz at an event won by an aging golfer. The point that 650,000 folks watched the Monday press conference is fairly remarkable. Whether he is loved or hated now, at least we know that Tiger is still interesting. People tune in for interesting.

Another valid point from Loyal Homer is that the number of questions other golfers will field about Tiger will probably dip since Tiger can field the majority of questions about Tiger again. An interesting potential byproduct – what if the other golfers, without distraction, begin to pull away from Tiger on the course? Make no mistake, for the PGA Tour to remain successful while absorbing Tiger’s return, Tiger still needs to be good. REALLY good. But the groundwork is laid, though no one in the history of golf can focus like Tiger Woods.

Bleacher Fan highlighted some interesting comments from Augusta National Chairman Bill Payne. But, it is hard to tell at this stage if his comments are insightful or full of denial. My gut tells me they are full of denial. The implication that The Master’s – and on a grander scale, the PGA Tour as a whole – does not need Tiger Woods to survive is arrogant and disconnected. Perhaps the PGA Tour could limp along in obscurity as it did before Tiger leapt onto the stage. But the PGA Tour – and Payne – are frustrated with Tiger because his actions forced them to contemplate a scenario they likely never believed would confront them – a Tiger-less PGA Tour. I disagree with Bleacher Fan’s assessment that, because the golf world is lukewarm to Tiger’s return, that the Tour cannot survive it, or even thrive because of it. As the money and attention start pouring in again, the nobility and privilege woven into Payne’s words will be unsurprisingly suppressed.

For me, the Vick-Woods comparison is very difficult to pull off. It’s like comparing cats and dogs (ha!). I also resist the urge to anoint Vick’s comeback to the NFL a successful one. Vick’s actions upon his comeback were tightly controlled and barely visible – unless they were arranged to be visible. What helped is that Vick wasn’t a good player anymore, and he wasn’t the savior of the NFL. The NFL did not, and does not, need Vick to remain successful. That is the NFL way. The Tiger way IS the PGA Tour way. The Tour desperately needs Tiger to maintain the standing investors enjoy and expect.

As Bleacher Fan writes, one obvious difference in how the returns of Vick and Woods are different is in how the public and media are handling them. After one interview from 60 Minutes, Vick earned respect back and was convincingly contrite. Questions about Tiger’s authenticity and contrition persist. And stories like this one will endure. Whether Tiger was really just snapping some photos with his phone, or texting Elin, we will never know. Could be a hookup. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with Tiger’s comeback – but it is also the reason he will always garner attention. His camp controls everything so tightly that snapped pictures of him smiling at his phone – the same phone that he used to make a panicked call to the woman who arranged his “romantic liaisons” – will always be questioned. Vick, and the NFL, do not have to deal with that.

To Bleacher Fan’s point, the media and fan response will transition to asking questions about what Tiger is doing instead of what he did. And Bleacher Fan is correct that the approach from Tiger’s camp likely will not change. Their first reaction is to squash and control. Consider the alleged story about the National Enquirer agreeing to shelve a Tiger exposé several months ago so Tiger would appear in a sister publication, Men’s Fitness. The persistence of “media everywhere” and the accountability of social media – regardless of its accuracy – will keep Tiger’s exploits in the headlines indefinitely. While that is not ideal for an entity like the PGA Tour, which believes it thrives on gentlemanly standards and manners, the Tour must accept its new reality.

Even if the PGA Tour can no longer control the type of attention it gets – like a three year old who throws a tantrum to get his parents attention – it will still get noticed because of that Tiger fella, good or bad. Tiger will continue to get attention, thus the PGA Tour will continue to get attention. Ratings will be up, interest will be up, and revenue will be up. Traditional golf fans will be angry and lash back at the inevitable changes, but it is unavoidable.

As Bleacher Fan stated in his argument, the PGA Tour will continue to get a lot of attention because of the approach from Woods’ camp. Where he and I differ, however, and why Loyal Homer wins this debate, is that the attention will not crush the PGA Tour or suck the life out of it. The Tour will adapt and thrive. And Tiger will remain a big part of that. Any attention is good attention. Just like the three year old throwing the tantrum.

In short, the PGA Tour needs Tiger to remain interesting. No Tiger means no public interest… which means no revenue. Maintaining public interest trumps everything, and Tiger is the key. Like it or not, the PGA Tour made the decision to hitch itself to Tiger’s wagon a long time ago. And this scandal is survivable. In fact, it is an opportunity for growth.

What is clear to me through all of the hubbub around Tiger’s return is that how the PGA Tour handles the return matters. A lot. If they over-use Tiger in their event promotion, a lot of casual fans will be turned off. If Tiger dominates the Master’s, as he has in the past, the Tour will have a marketing decision to make – are “things” back to normal, or should Tiger be the newest villain on the block that everyone loves to hate.

While golf is certainly not basketball, it is no secret that the NBA was saved by the rivalry between Larry Bird and Magic Johnson in the early 1980s. There were clearly two opposing sides and fans lined up behind the side that best suited their respective preferences. While race was a factor in Magic-Bird, and race will not be a significant component here, the Tour still has an opportunity to turn this into a rebirth. Continue to make the story interesting and people will tune in. Guard against the short-term value of a boost in ratings from a marquee event. Be smart about managing Tiger’s presence and promotion and folks will watch – no matter how they feel about Tiger.

Perhaps it is unfair to assign the word “heal” to Tiger’s re-emergence on the Tour. To heal implies that the Tour will return to what it once was. I think it’s clear that the Tour will no longer ever be the same. But the opportunity to turn this attention into an easily understood story that has the capacity to draw casual fans close to the game cannot be dismissed. For that reason, I believe Tiger’s presence on the Tour is a good thing. While a definitional healing may not be in the cards, the PGA Tour has a chance to recover and reinvent. A chance it would not have without Tiger’s return at Augusta.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Tiger at the Master’s Debate

April 8, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer.

We all know what the biggest story is headed into the weekend in Augusta at the Master’s. Yep, the comeback of Fred Couples will be closely watched by everyone.

At least his practice round was.

That Tiger fella is back on the PGA Tour beginning with the Master’s today through the weekend. While most of the press will spend a lot of time and energy focusing on whether Tiger’s wife, Elin, sneezed (wherever she is) and what that might mean for their marriage, The Sports Debates is focusing squarely on the comeback’s possible ramifications for the PGA Tour.

The PGA Tour needs to heal. Tiger’s absence, no matter what press releases say, has hurt the Tour. The Tour suffered a potentially major blow to television ratings and popularity when its star became embroiled in a self-created scandal. The Tour desperately needs Tiger to play golf – well – and begin to live up to the carefully crafted corporate image that fooled so many of us for so long.

It was clear that Tiger was eventually going to make a comeback to the Tour. His decision to re-emerge at the Master’s can easily be questioned, however. The media circus he has created does not seem to fit the gentlemanly disposition of the Master’s tournament. From the standpoint of the Tour, Tiger coming back at a lesser known event that would not normally get a significant amount of attention would be the best possible scenario. Tiger playing the Master’s after being away from golf for so long could be a colossal failure (read: what if he misses the cut?). If the Tour needs to heal, does a lackluster Tiger help that cause?

Fortunately The Sports Debates is here to answer a very timely question: Will Tiger’s presence at the Master’s help the PGA Tour heal, or just continue to bring negative attention?

Loyal Homer, TSD’s persistent Tiger Woods fan, will argue that Tiger’s presence at the Master’s will do a lot to help the PGA Tour heal. Bleacher Fan will argue that Tiger’s presence during the Master’s will only serve as a distraction from good golf and will simply feed a media frenzy that is hungry for the type of stories that belong on people.com.

Let’s reach back into history, writers. Is their precedent for this scenario? If not, what precedent should be set and why?

I know I will be watching the Master’s this weekend, and Tiger playing in the Master’s has a lot to do with that (for the record, I will be rooting against him). But, what will the PGA Tour look like on Monday morning? Will the Tour be on the road to recovery or back at the drawing board?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Tiger at the Master’s Debate… The Truth Shall Set You Free

April 8, 2010

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

Tiger Woods has chosen the Masters to mark his infamous return to golf. If the comments of Augusta National’s Chairman, Billy Payne, are any indication of how the rest of the golf world feels, his return will not be a positive one.

There is a right way and a wrong way for an athlete to return to competition once they have been involved in ignominy of any kind.

Or perhaps I SHOULD say there is a right way and Tiger’s way.

In returning to competition the “right” way, the focus of the athlete’s return is not on the scandal itself, but it is instead on the athlete’s performance in the game. Michael Vick’s return to the NFL was a great example of the “right” way to come back.

When Vick finally returned to the game of football, the focus was not about his dog-fighting scandal, because there were no questions left to ask about his actions. In the time leading up to his return, he was very transparent in his behavior, making himself accessible to the media whenever they wanted to chat. More importantly, though, was the fact that his apologies and actions POST-scandal all seemed to be genuine and heartfelt.

Sure, there were protests surrounding his return, but those protests were not a focal point any more. The voices of dissent had already been heard, and because they had nothing new to protest, and there were no unanswered or unresolved situations to further fuel their fire, their complaints were considered yesterday’s news.

Vick had taken back control of the situation by giving the press and the public what they wanted. He partnered with the NFL in the build-up to his return, and they cooperatively organized his transition back into competition. He answered all the questions, no matter how unpleasant it may have been for him, and the general public seemed to be satisfied with his responses. In doing so, his return was not about what he DID, but instead was about finding out what he will DO now that he is back.

As a result of that positive and cooperative effort, both the NFL and Vick benefitted from his return to the game. Instead of Vick’s presence on the field being a DISTRACTION, he became one of the most intriguing characters of the previous NFL season.

Tiger Woods and the PGA should have taken a page from Vick’s book.

Where Vick was open and accessible, Woods has been reclusive and inaccessible. Where Vick gave the appearance of genuine sincerity, Woods has portrayed resistance and after his seemingly insincere apology, the only SINCERE regret I believe he feels is that he was caught. The result of his foolish commitment in trying to avoid the scandal (which ironically appears to be the only commitment he CAN honor) is that the unsatisfied public will continue to dig and question until they get what they feel are satisfactory responses. Just ask guys like Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, or Mark McGwire about how easily the public forgets.

Sure, the scandal was set off by off-the-course indiscretions that had no bearing on the PGA Tour, but now there is speculation of possible HGH use, which would have impacted his play ON the course. As the scandals surrounding Woods continue to swirl unchecked and unaddressed, they will increasingly draw attention FURTHER from the game of golf.

This whole situation has already been a major distraction from the PGA Tour, and Woods wasn’t even playing. Just imagine the damage that will be done if he begins to win tournaments again amid speculation that he may have used HGH. Because Woods’ credibility has been damaged, and he has failed to portray a SINCERE act of contrition with regard to his peccadilloes, the public is less likely to believe his denials of HGH involvement. A snowball effect ensues, where the layers of doubt build higher and higher.

The public’s quest for the truth will ultimately supersede any interest in the competition that will take place on the course. While the officials at Augusta may be able to exert some influence over the media during the Masters, they cannot extend their control beyond the confines of this one tournament. The Woods saga will eventually become a distraction to the PGA Tour, and as each day passes that questions go unanswered (or new accusations arise), the press will become more insistent on seeking information.

This situation cannot be swept under a rug, and it will not just go away. If anything, the American public is forgiving, but until Tiger addresses the elephant in the room and portrays a SINCERE attempt at repentance, the general public will not be willing to forgive, and they will CERTAINLY not be willing to forget.

The PGA may need Tiger Woods back in competition, but they need a Tiger Woods who is not mired in controversy even more.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Suspending Tiger Woods Debate – Caging a Tiger

March 3, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

What is a professional sports organization to do when its biggest star has fallen?

Tiger Woods has been the single greatest draw in the PGA since he burst onto the scene in 1996. His superstar status, combined with a pristine public image, placed him at the head of the list of America’s wealthiest athletes (a prestigious list to headline).

The fact is that Tiger Woods became the biggest name in American sports. But you know what they say – the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Loyal Homer discusses the problems that Tiger has brought on himself since his indiscretions became public. He has already lost in millions from sponsorships and endorsements, and may be losing his family. Whether or not you believe they are warranted, those are pretty stiff penalties to pay for cheating on your wife.

Loyal Homer also asks the question “What law did Tiger Woods break?”
The answer to that question is ‘None’. Tiger did not commit a single crime. So why are all of his sponsors dropping him? If he didn’t break any laws, they have no need to distance themselves, right?

WRONG!

Sponsors are severing ties with Tiger for one reason – he is no longer a positive ambassador to represent their organization. And just as sponsors are taking measures to distance themselves from Tiger in the interest of protecting their brands, I am awarding the verdict to Babe Ruthless for accurately highlighting the responsibility of the PGA to protect its brand first.

As Babe Ruthless points out, the PGA has established itself as a “gentleman’s game”. Honor and respect are a MAJOR factor in a sport where the athletes are expected to report their own violations and keep their own scores (for example). There can be no more dishonorable perception than the one currently held by Woods, and the PGA must take action to address that problem.

There can be no denying that Tiger’s scandal has become a huge distraction to the Tour. There can also be no denying that his return to the game will create a brand new media frenzy, which will become another major distraction. The problem with the situation is that right now, Tiger Woods still controls all the cards.

He is clearly not willing to publicly partner with the PGA in dealing with the carnage from this scandal. Rather than take the responsible steps of working WITH the PGA in transitioning himself back into the game, he has become a recluse. He has withdrawn completely from society, only popping his head up out of the sand when he wants to make a public statement, refusing to answer ANY questions in the process. He continues to try and dictate exactly what happens around him, with little to no regard for how it affects others (a trait he appears to have mastered through his infidelity).

When he ultimately decides to return to competition, one can only assume he will attempt to handle it in the same controlling and selfish manner. He will hold a press conference to announce his return to the game, likely having given no forewarning to Tour officials, and the PGA will be left to negotiate the logistics of a press circus that was unanticipated, but will most certainly ensue at that first tournament.

Tiger needs to understand, though, that he is not bigger than the PGA Tour. The PGA does not exist to cater to each of his whims and desires. While he has become a major financial draw for the organization, it existed just fine BEFORE he came along, and it will continue to plug along after he has left the game.

There is no way to avoid the many problems for the PGA and its OTHER players (who SHOULD be the PGA’s primary concern right now) upon Tiger’s inevitable return to the game. The PGA can take measures, however, to PREPARE for it by setting their own terms for his return. It would allow them to regain control of the situation, which is necessary to help protect their brand.

By suspending Tiger Woods, the PGA can send a very clear message to Tiger that his actions were not acceptable for an ambassador of the game of golf, and that it will not tolerate distractions as grand as his from the game. It is the Professional GOLFERS Association, not the Professional TIGER WOODS Association. The PGA needs to act in the best interest of ALL of its members. 

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Suspending Tiger Woods Debate – FINALLY, A Tiger Woods Debate That Pertains to SPORTS

March 2, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer.

You may not have heard anything about this, but someone mentioned to me the other day that there is some golfer named Tiger Woods who apparently cheated on his wife, Elin Nordegren. The media hasn’t done much to cover the story, but from what I can tell this Tiger fellow has admitted to several affairs, and has since withdrawn from further play in the PGA to attend “rehab”.

At least the PGA won’t be affected by this…

And today’s lesson in sarcasm was brought to you by “Tiger Watch!”, the 24-hour news source which has already brought you such groundbreaking reports as – “Elin put gas in her car WITHOUT wearing Tiger’s ring!” and “Elin took Tiger coffee today!” (GASP!)

Seriously, this has gotten WAY out of control!

ESPN.com has even gone so far as to commit a full section of their golf page online to the “Tiger Tracker”. Now, in addition to finding out about the PGA schedule, players, statistics, etc., golf fans can also get a full complement of dedicated media coverage strictly focused on Tiger Woods. Some of the Pulitzer-worthy headlines from this so-called news source are “Finchem: I should have briefed players on Tiger”, “Tiger apologizes, unsure about return”, and “Tiger’s caddie: Heckling won’t be tolerated.”

My personal favorite, though, is “Faith can bring Tiger discipline, Dalai Lama says”!

I’m not making that up – Not only has the Dalai Lama weighed in on “Tiger-Gate”, but ESPN has actually seen fit to follow it as a newsworthy story. The situation is absolutely ABSURD!

The sad reality is that Tiger’s philandering has soaked up far too much of our time and attention. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that more people know about Tiger’s sordid affairs than they do the Toyota recall, a much more important and RELEVANT issue going on in America right now.

As for the PGA, this scandal has been covered more than all of the league’s other headlines combined. For example, did you know that the PGA has already had EIGHT different tournaments take place this year? And although most folks could not tell you a single tournament winner so far in 2010, I’d be willing to bet that EVERYONE knows about Tiger’s “apology” offered during a press conference where no questions were allowed, only a few cameras were invited along, and Tiger simply read a statement that he would not yet be returning to golf.

Which brings us to our question of the day – Should the PGA suspend Tiger Woods?

Clearly, this media frenzy has become a distraction in the PGA. From the scandalous story itself to the aftershock effects of misplaced media focus, the PGA has lost their biggest star and all attention has left the game to instead follow the tabloids in a Paparazzi-esque hunt for the next shocking headline. Still, it must be pointed out that Tiger’s actions had nothing to do with the game of golf. He did not cheat in any way (on the game, that is), and he was not acting on behalf of the PGA during his peccadilloes.

So what is the PGA to do?!

Babe Ruthless will argue that Tiger Woods should be suspended upon his return to golf, while Loyal Homer will take the position that Tiger should not be penalized by the PGA for this situation.

I’ve gotta run, though, because I just heard on TV that Tiger cut the cheese twice during his workout this morning, and I don’t want to miss the rest of the story!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Is Phil Mickelson a Cheater Debate – Cheating is in the Ping Eye of the Beholder

February 10, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer about whether or not Phil Mickelson should be perceived as having cheated in golf.



Cheating is a very strong accusation, especially in the world of golf. Considered a “Gentleman’s game,” golfers pride themselves on honor and integrity. It is one of the only sports where self-governing play is expected. Players keep their own scores and are expected to assess their own penalties when necessary.

Phil Mickelson, who is generally considered one of golf’s good guys, does not seem to be a cheater. But here we are, discussing a scandalous accusation that Mickelson is manipulating the rules to put himself at a position of advantage over his competition. That is also known as, cheating.

Loyal Homer states that the Ping Eye2 wedge that Mickelson uses creates a ten-percent greater rate of spin on the ball than clubs with “approved” groove patterns. This increased spin can give a greater level of control on chip shots out of the rough, which could make the difference between a birdie and a par. As a result, Loyal Homer claims that Mickelson gains a distinct advantage over those following the rules.

Where Babe Ruthless disagrees, a point that ultimately earned the verdict today, is in pointing out that Mickelson does not have an advantage over the rest of the pool. In fact, EVERY player has the ability to use the same club that Mickelson does. Whether other players choose to use that club or not is their decision, but at the end of the day, they CAN use that club.

Mickelson may be taking advantage of a loophole in the system, but he is not cheating. An example of cheating would be kicking the ball a little closer to the hole when no one is looking, or picking up your ball to improve a lie in the rough. Using a club that everyone else can use is just playing the game.

The real problem here, as Mickelson himself points out, is in the vague presentation of the rules. Blaming Mickelson for using a club that is permitted in play is like getting mad at someone on the highway for driving five miles-per-hour slower than the speed limit. In both cases, people interpret the rules differently, but nobody is actually violating the rules. Just because you do not like getting stuck behind someone driving 50 in a 65 mph zone does not mean they are bad drivers (Editor’s note: Bleacher Fan drives like a grandma.), or that they are doing something wrong.

Accusing Mickelson of cheating is misdirected attention that distracts from the real problem. If the use of this club truly affects the how level the playing field is then it is the responsibility of the PGA to prohibit it. Until that takes place, play on, Phil!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Is Phil Mickelson a Cheater Debate – There may be a Cheater in Golf, and it is NOT Tiger?!

February 9, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer about whether or not Phil Mickelson should be perceived as having cheated in golf.



If I asked you what one word BEST described Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, and Alex Rodriguez, what word comes to mind? Most people would say, “Cheater.” Yet, when McGwire, Canseco, A-Rod – and a host of other so-called “cheaters” – used steroids there was no penalty for the use of those particular substances. Still, they violated the spirit of the rules prohibiting the use of illegal substances in baseball, and are perceived as cheaters.

So if I asked you for one word to now describe one of golf’s favorite sons, does the same word come to mind? Well, it does if we are talking about Tiger (HEY-OH!), but he is not who I am referring to today. I am actually talking about Phil Mickelson, and there is at least one person out there who HAS accused Mickelson of cheating in the game of golf.

Twenty years ago, the United States Golf Association (USGA) passed a rule banning the use of certain wedges because of the groove pattern they used. The ruling, which was adopted by the PGA, was created because the groove pattern on these wedges produced a greater amount of spin that what was considered acceptable in competition play.

A caveat to this rule, though, was the grandfathering in of clubs that were manufactured before April 1, 1990. Because the USGA and the PGA feared negative backlash from major manufacturers of clubs (and the players who used them), they applied the rule only to those clubs produced after the rule was in place. If a player was using a club manufactured BEFORE April of 1990, they would be allowed to continue using that club, despite the newly banned groove pattern.

Phil Mickelson’s Ping Eye2 wedge is one of those clubs.

Several players on the PGA Tour have voiced concerns about the use of clubs such as Mickelson’s Ping Eye2, but it was not until last week, when fellow Tour member Scott McCarron boldly referred to it as “cheating,” that it became a heated topic.

Although McCarron has since apologized for his accusations, under the threat of legal action from Mickelson for slanderous statements, the words are out there. Enter, The Sports Debates.

Under the current rule structure, is Phil Mickelson cheating if he continues to use his Ping Eye2 wedge?

Mickelson is technically not breaking any rules with the use of the wedge, but many feel that he is violating the spirit of the rule which bans that groove pattern, and is unfairly taking advantage of a loophole in the system in order to give himself a competitive edge that his opponents do not take advantage of.

Loyal Homer will argue that Mickelson is cheating, despite the loophole in the rules which technically permits the use of his wedge, while Babe Ruthless will argue that he is not.

As for Bleacher Fan, I will be contemplating the sad state of current affairs for the PGA Tour which, without Tiger’s storied feats on (and apparently off) the course to talk about, has nothing better to focus on than the groove pattern of Mickelson’s wedges. Is that REALLY the biggest story that the PGA has to offer now? What’s next – a scandal about Padraig Harrington, dimple counts, and repairing divots?!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The USGA Betting Debate – A Little Blustering Never Hurt Anyone!

July 21, 2009

Read the debate intro and Sports Geek’s argument that the USGA was justified in their decision.



(editor’s note: Bleacher Fan is on vacation. Sort of.)

Greetings from the deck of the S.S. Badger! If you ever get a chance, take a ride across Lake Michigan on one of the famous “carferries” – you will not be disappointed!

However, after a trying journey to my vacation destination I’m a little tired and crabby. So, I feel like I’m in just the right mood to tell the USGA what I think about their decision to revoke Dusty Schmidt’s amateur status. IT STINKS!

Schmidt, who had recently returned to the game of golf after recuperating from a heart-attack five years earlier, decided to issue a “Million Dollar Challenge.” You see, Schmidt was also a professional poker player, and he saw an opportunity to combine the things he enjoyed – golf, poker, and competing for money – and offered $1M to any person who could beat him both at 72 holes of golf AND several hands of heads-up poker.

Well, nobody took him up on his offer, so the challenge went dormant, or so Schmidt thought. Apparently, the USGA felt that his challenge, which never materialized and is therefore nothing more than idle conversation, was “in violation of the spirit of the game.”

So the question I have for the USGA is… “What about his actions was so wrong?”

Was it that he made a public offer looking for competition in a proposition game? I’ve got news for the USGA – that’s what a Skins competition is. When two people play the same hole, and the person with the best score wins prize money, THAT’S proposition golfing. So it’s okay for a professional to play a proposition game when the prizes are funded by sponsors, but an amateur is not allowed to put up his OWN money in a proposition game? That doesn’t seem fair to me!

Was it the fact that Schmidt brought the “seedy” element of gambling into this fine, upstanding gentleman’s game, besmirching the good image of this noblest of sports? Before I hear an answer to that question, let me be clear on something – John Daly, a PROFESSIONAL golfer, can publicly admit to drinking, gambling, and drug addictions. He can be charged with domestic violence, can physically assault fans of the sport – DURING PLAY, no less – and be charged with public intoxication… and he only receives a six month suspension from the PGA. But, an amateur who does nothing more than offer a prize to anyone who can beat him at both golf AND poker is acting inappropriately and should have his status revoked?! Where’s the consistency?!

I understand that the USGA and the PGA are two different organizations, but they represent the same game, and so fans will naturally associate the two as a single body. If the interest of the USGA is to protect the image of the game of golf, they are going about it the wrong way. Especially when you consider the fact that friendly wagers in private golf games happen every day!

Instead, the USGA should partner with the PGA to identify what type of behavior is REALLY unbecoming of a golfer – such as committing a crime – and let the guys who just want to have some fun playing the game they love have their fun.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.