Meet the Faculty: The long overdue part two
This is the second piece in our “Meet the Faculty” conversation with Joseph Lawrence that began here. So far we’ve covered a large chunk of pop culture (particularly music) and even rapped a bit about Dr. Hunter S. “Uncle Duke” Thompson, may he rest in peace.
SG: Okay, so we finally arrive at sports. Not surprisingly, many of the same themes that come up when you talk about music, movies and TV apply again when discussing sports—particularly at the college and pro level. Namely, there are so many outlets for information that it seems overkill is likely to be the biggest hurdle any sport has to overcome. The NFL has avoided overkill through parity—a new team or storyline emerges every season, it seems.
What concerns me, though, is how much sport seems to have increased in popularity, but diminished in passion. From the players to the fans, it gets harder and harder to find dyed-in-the-wool sports fans. Growing up, I was a Hawks/Braves/Falcons/Georgia Tech fan. Never mind that they sucked. I still loved them. When the Hawks briefly flirted with greatness in the mid-80’s, it was my first experience of being a fan of a really good team.
Of course, if there was ever a bad time to have your franchise’s best teams ever, 1985-1990 was it. Between the Lakers, Celtics and Pistons, you had three incredible franchises. Plus, I would argue that the league was better top-to-bottom from 1980-1993 than at any other time in history.
Still, I remember there being a palpable excitement about basketball in Atlanta in that time, just like the excitement about baseball in that city from 91 to 93. After the baseball strike, everything seemed to change for every sport. Even the World Series title for Atlanta in 1995 didn’t excite me and my friends quite as much as the 91 and 92 teams did. I think we permanently turned a corner with that strike—throughout sports.
JPL: Obviously, with the skyrocketing salaries and crazy fame that comes along with being a pro athlete now, it's a lot easier for one to be cynical about sports then it was say, when our father's were growing up. That we know.
However, I think part of your perception, that the passion is out of sports, has to do with the fact that you are simply getting older. You and I are about the same age, and I'm going through the same thing really. Every sports fan has to go through this. It's called, for lack of a better term, "growing up." The passion is still out there, it's just that as adults, we can't access it anymore.
Using me as an example, I was born in 1970, and we moved to Maryland when I was like four. I grew up watching the Orioles in their golden years. I used to worship guys like Eddie Murray, Jim Palmer, Rick Dempsey, Al Bumbry, and of course, Cal Ripken. I watched every game I could, and listened to the others on the radio. I even kept score for many games. I was obsessed—in a good way.
When I played little league ball in 1982 for the Moose Lodge 654, I carried a Ripken rookie card in my back pocket for every game. He won the Rookie of the Year that year. I unfortunately also realized that I couldn't hit the curveball that year. Alas.
Looking back on it now, I realize that carrying around that baseball card as a good luck charm was corny as hell, but it was very real to me at the time.
My point is that, that sort of worship doesn't exist for you and me anymore. If it did, there would be something wrong with us quite frankly. At the heart of all of these sports, they are just kids’ games. The passion that you are talking about is a child's passion. That's why you don't see it or feel it anymore. That's also why you miss it so much.
When Cal retired a few years ago, I was in my early 30's. It sounds strange, but to me it really felt like him retiring was the definitive "end of my childhood.” It was a weird feeling. Here I am, a 30-year old grown man at the time, but I had never really considered myself to be a "grown up.” I'm not saying that there was any deep significance in that moment other than the fact that it allowed me, for second, to clearly recognize the inevitable passage of time in the context of my own life.
I'm never again going to out and out worship another player like I did with Ripken or Murray. I mean, it's kind of hard to idolize guys who are 15 years younger that you. In fact, it's downright impossible. Those days of really feeling it are gone. Those feelings and that passion is for some other kid out there who is right now repetitively smacking a baseball into the worn leather of his freshly oiled glove, surrounded by a bunch of Brian Roberts’s (or whoever’s) memorabilia in his room and dreaming about playing in the Bigs.
I think that the good news is this, though. There is a still a place out there where us adults can still feel an almost childlike passion for sports; something that we can "feel a part of." That is a passion for your college alma mater. Rooting for your alma mater is different than rooting for a pro franchise, because one is legitimately "a part" of the alma mater. So I think that “us old guys” can still look forward to a lifetime of feeling at least some level of that childhood passion, when we get behind GSU, or wherever you went to school.
One reason I think that college sports in particular remain popular (at least at the Division I level) is that sports has become a part of pop culture, and D1 schools certainly fall into that level of pop culture. This means that a real college football fan (i.e. a fan that went to the college in question or has had immediate family go to that college) has an additional level of connection to that aspect of pop culture.
I was never in the Ramones (or there’s a 75 percent chance I’d be dead), but I did go to school with Adrian Peterson. So when I see AP making a tackle in the Super Bowl on special teams, the connection is a lot more personal, even though I saw the Ramones live three times and it’s a hell of a lot easier to play the three chords in “Beat On the Brat” than to run through 275-pound defensive tackles. (Of course, I was also a sports writer covering Peterson’s career, so my attachment goes a little deeper, but you get the analogy).
One reason I think the NFL has continually built more and more fan loyalty where the NBA and baseball have dropped off is that the NFL has a salary cap and parity. Every time I see a sports writer talk about parity as a “diluted product” I want to mail that guy (or gal) a crap sandwich, especially when those same writers whine about prima donnas making too much money for the integrity of [insert NBA, baseball or, for a more international flair, futbol]. Pick a position, McCain. A salary cap and a limit on the number of franchises in a professional sports league are the two ways to assure that the product on the field continues to be compelling for the ages.
Again, the cap creates a loyal and passionate fan base because being a poseur bandwagon fan can’t be camouflaged in a balanced league. In 1978, you could be a Steelers fan for like 10 years and say you’d been one all along – no one knew if you were for real or you just liked a winner. Outside of New England, there’s no franchise dominating the NFL, so if you’ve were wearing a Rams hat in 2001 and then suddenly you’re sporting the Baltimore Ravens on your dome and then Tampa Bay gear after that, it is fairly likely you just like to be associated with a winner (which says a lot about your psychology, by the way).
Conversely, a league with parity fosters passion because a whole city now has a collective interest rooted in mainstream pop culture. When the Falcons went to the Super Bowl, people who would have been trading punches on a normal afternoon in Hahira, Georgia, were waving and smiling because both of them had a Falcons’ hat on.
It’s worth noting that my first major league baseball game was in 1983 at Memorial Stadium. The Orioles whipped the Yankees. Eddie Murray hit a slam. I didn’t really know where to mention this.
JPL: Ah, 1983.
A good year; the last time the Orioles won the World Series. Has it been that long? Jeez. Old Memorial Stadium was a grand old gal. I have two Memorial Stadium seats from the auction they held before they demolished her. They are "totally awesome," as Jeff Spicoli might say.
Regarding your take on the lack of fan passion, I really don't have a problem with the amount of money professional athletes make. Look at the amounts of money they generate, and it becomes pretty easy to justify those salaries. People who complain about that get on my nerves.
I do agree with you that salary caps work to produce parity, and that MLB needs one in a bad way. Take it from a fan of one of the "other" AL East teams. It's tough for my O's to compete when we have to play the two highest-salaried teams 18-21 times a year, each. My Birds might not be the best example though, as they have more issues than Cybil.
I think it's obvious that the reason why some sports have salary caps, while others do not, is directly related to how powerful the players' union is for that respective sport. I mean, comparing the MLBPA and the NFL players’ union is like comparing Al Qaeda to the kids who put the cherry bomb in your mailbox last Halloween. The NFL union has no balls, and very little power.
For example, I continue to be amazed, given the fact that injuries are far more likely to happen in football than in any other pro sport, that the NFL does not guarantee player contracts. The MLBPA, on the other hand, has a veritable Cobra Clutch (for all you Sgt. Slaughter fans out there) on MLB.
Marvin Miller was a great lawyer, and he built an incredibly strong union for baseball players. However, I think that the strength of that union, while it has served its members well, is actually hurting its players and the league now, whether they know it or not. The MLBPA is so strong that I really don't see a salary cap in baseball coming anytime soon. I hope I'm wrong though. A new commissioner could change everything. Until then, we'll continue to have a rich/poor/broke scenario in MLB. Haves and have-nots.
As far as college sports, specifically GSU, I don't think that the anti-FBS contingent can use the haves v. have-nots argument as justification to stay put, and get away with it.
By very definition, a move UP assumes that we are coming from a lesser place. That place, FCS, is a place of the have-nots. The whole point in moving up is to change that circumstance. So it's sort of silly for these people to point out that we won't be able to compete with the Michigans and USCs of the world right out of the gate. We're going to be have-nots, as compared to Michigan, for quite some time, but at least moving up a level gets us going toward that direction again.
That argument also ignores that there is a clear and established path and process in transitioning from FCS to FBS. Transition being the key word there.
It is such a red herring when people say that GSU needs to raise UGA-level money before we think about moving. That argument is so disingenuous. Why?
Because it assumes, quite incorrectly, that GSU could raise such a level of money without the administration making a FBS plan public.
The raising of the necessary money, and the leadership of the administration on the issue, go hand in hand. They are not mutually exclusive, as much as Sam Baker would like to insist that they are.
In your writing on the football issue, I sort of sense that you think Sam has done a good job as AD. I'd be interested to hear your justification, if that is correct.
As you know, I am of the opinion that Baker's policies of the last 5-7 years have done serious harm to our entire athletic program. We are now, starting to see the consequences of his actions—or inactions if you prefer. As I said to someone earlier today, you can't blame BVG for the basketball or baseball APR mess.
SG: Wow, a lot of good stuff there. I really shouldn’t let it slip that we were supposed to have a 250-word limit per response, but I think the conversation has been worth it. I like that you pointed out the role of the players’ unions in this parity debate. I like the NFL and love non-guaranteed contracts, because players can’t mail it in, even after signing a big deal. That said, I think there needs to be a full NFL pension for any player who plays one full season (currently it takes three years of service to qualify), a partial NFL pension for any player who makes an NFL preseason roster and lifelong 100 percent healthcare as a provision of the full pension. The NFL must make the pension adjust for inflation and valuate it starting along the lines of an upper-middle class income ($70,000/yr) with ascending value based on seasons of service. Add those provisions and I think you’ve struck a perfect balance between management and the union.
I think you covered baseball’s union pretty well. The NBA actually has the best management/union dynamic, but the league just has too many damn teams and the referees are killing the game.
I don’t think solutions are nearly so easy at the college level, and particularly not at a school like Georgia Southern. I’ll just answer your points and then let you take the lead on that issue…
[CASUAL READER ALERT: If you don’t care about I-AA college football or Georgia Southern, please stop reading now. We’ll let you know when we get back to the sort of stuff normal people talk about.]
First, I-AA was never meant to be compared as an up-or-down with I-A. The original purpose of I-AA was to create a financially-viable way for smaller Division I schools to play football without getting slaughtered by the “football gods” like Notre Dame, Penn State, Georgia, et al. Moving from I-AA to I-A basically became a financial consideration under the “idyllic” underlying philosophy of the NCAA. Of course, the Napoleon Syndrome had every I-AA school to ever make the playoffs bring up the idea of making the jump and competing with the big boys. Once the funding to make the move was available, the jump was made—woe be unto Louisiana-Lafayette and its brethren. Those schools considered the cost only to make the move, not to maintain it.
As you know, I have recently taken a new position that Georgia Southern should also look into moving up. I have clear caveats, though. Since the move to I-A would cost about $2.5 million additional dollars above current athletic budgets (a number I got three years ago, it may be somewhat more), the school should bank at least $7.5 million during a three-year transition (one final I-AA season and the two NCAA mandated transition years). This is less than one year of UGA’s athletic budget, which reinforces your point about not needing Bulldog-level money. If you can’t bankroll the first three seasons of I-A during a three-year campaign to elevate the program, then don’t be afraid to hit the brakes, either. If the corporate and private donations come as they should when/if GSU announces a move up, the 7.5 big, big ones should be in place before the last true I-AA game ends.
Second, moving up is mostly about being in position when the BCS makes its next move. I don’t think Georgia Southern will ever compete on even a semi-regular basis with the Michigans and USCs of the world. It just won’t happen. Even Boise State was a perfect storm of a senior-laden team peaking after over two decades in I-A. Even then, the Broncos needed three unforgettable plays and overtime to beat a good-but-not-great Oklahoma team. So why move up?
Because there are already three tiers of D-I football—I-A haves, I-A have-nots, and I-AA.
When (not if) the BCS eventually makes a power play to either (a) seal off I-A from any more teams moving up and siphoning off their revenue or (b) kicking out the lower-tier teams altogether or (c) breaking off completely from the NCAA and negotiating their own TV contract for the full season, then the best place for schools like Georgia Southern, App State, UMass, Delaware, Youngstown State, Montana and other legitimate football schools currently at I-AA to be is with the lower-tier I-As. That block of schools will have the real power to (a) form a better, 85-scholarship championship football league (b) legally cock-block the BCS, possibly forcing a playoff at the sport’s highest level or (c) live off the settlement money the NCAA will pay those schools to not be a pain in the ass.
As for Sam, you misread me. Baker is a micromanager. He’s a pain in the balls to many sportswriters and has somewhat less than a holistic view of what college competition is all about. He’s too temperamental for his position, too concerned about being right and not at all in tune with how to disseminate the athletic department’s vision.
I think Sam is a good builder of infrastructure, even if he’s just an opportunistic one. The baseball stadium, Paulson improvements, track facility and top, top, top notch golf facility are all great strides for the athletic department. The lack of academic progress by student-athletes, though, is inexcusable—not when Georgia Southern’s president has made academic distinction the two words most commonly associated with his administration.
How much Sam’s hands are tied by the administration vis-à-vis FBS is an unknown. But Baker likes to control the flow of information and will come more unglued than Tony Soprano after Meadow was threatened if any media outlet probes too deeply into the inner workings of the I-AA/I-A dynamic within GSU.
Will GSU make a move to I-A with Baker at the helm? When Brian Van Gorder was hired, I thought the wheels might be turning in that direction. Now, I think not.
Has Sam got enough (or powerful enough) enemies to be removed as AD at Georgia Southern? No. And honestly, if the Eagles start winning again under new football coach Chris Hatcher, I think he’ll look pretty rosy again a la the Paul Johnson era—at least until the BCS/Division I-A crisis reaches a head. Then he’ll look like a tool.
JPL: Those sound like good ideas to apply to the NFL, but the problem is that Gene Upshaw is really a horrible union leader, and a worse negotiator. I mean, the NFL is really the one pro sport where catastrophic and lifetime injuries occur at a relatively regular rate, whether that is a series of concussions, brain damage, knee or hip issues, paralysis, etc.
It's crazy that the NFL players of the past, many old Baltimore Colts, have to scrape and scrounge to survive and pay medical expenses for injuries that occurred during their playing years. Johnny Unitas was an example of that. At the end of his life, the man had so much ligament damage in his hand and wrist, from literally hundreds of cortisone shots he took while he was playing, that he couldn't even sign an autograph with that hand before he died. It's a travesty that a league so rich should treat its founders like that.
Mostly, I blame Upshaw though, because he allows it to go on.
But back to the FCS/FBS thing:
Look, I have no real desire to rehash what I have written over and over again for part of 9 years over at Southern Connection. Pretty much anyone who cares knows what my opinion is. I'll say this though (Mostly because I just can't help myself when it comes to talking about this issue):
Whether the I-A/I-AA system was meant to be hierarchical or not is not really the issue. The fact is, I-AA was always perceived, and rightly so, as an inferior product to I-A in almost every respect, with the exception the playoff system. That basic truth needs to be recognized. First by our administration and then the fans. The only people who believe that I-AA is big-time football are the fanatics that post on I-AA message boards.
It's similar to your former PR argument, in an earlier entry. The concept that I-AA is equal or even close to equal to I-A doesn't line up with what the public believes to be true. As a result of that perception, GSU ends up looking like a D-II school to most people because of our affiliation with the SoCon and FCS.
I disagree that we are doomed to never compete with the Michigans, etc., of the world. I think that most people believe that a playoff system in FBS is an inevitability. Once a playoff system is in place, then much like the NCAA hoops tourney, a lot of Boise/Marshall/GSU-type schools will indeed be competing on that level. I'd like us to be in the best position possible when that happens. That is why I think we should be proactive and move up ASAP to start building a good I-A program with a good reputation for when that day comes.
There's always going to be a disparity between us and the larger schools, but I don't see how people can use that as a reason to put the brakes on growth. It's illogical, Dr. McCoy.
I don't buy your thought that the BCS is going to break away from the non-BCS I-As. Those non-BCS I-As provide the competition, revenue, and overall nationwide interest that the BCS wouldn't get if it broke away. You very succinctly outlined a few of the "headaches" that the non-BCS I-A's could create for the BCS if it tried to break away. I think those hypotheticals that you gave are right on the money, and show that the non-BCS teams actually may have more juice than you give them credit for.
I do, however, buy your thought that the NCAA may at some point seal off I-A/FBS from any further I-AA migrations. That, in my opinion, is the quickest, easiest, and most likely way for the BCS to protect its huge piece of pie. Seal off any further migrations, and then deal with the other non-BCS I-A's as they have been doing thus far. That ban on new migrations is also a proposition that protects the non-BCS I-A's from losing their piece of the pie to upstart I-AA's.
That is why it is imperative, in my opinion, for Georgia Southern to act quickly.
On top of that, even if the NCAA does not lock us out, we may end up locking ourselves out if we squander a chance to get into the Sunbelt—the only geographically-viable FBS conference that would fit Georgia Southern. (Also, a conference that has been demonized to an absurd degree by pro-FCS people. The facts show that the Sunbelt is an up and coming, entry-level FBS conference, not the pit that so many people have been fooled into believing.)
Regarding our A.D., I think that Sam's numerous and continuing strategic errors completely outweigh his accomplishments on infrastructure.
I also think that he really isn't that great at infrastructure either, mostly because he has been (openly) so willing to cut corners on projects, and settles for "good", but not "excellent.”
The last straw though, is this latest APR scandal.
Who has stepped up to take accountability? Why have no heads rolled? These are incredibly serious issues affecting our three big revenue sports, and instead of telling us where we went wrong and how we are going to fix it, Sam is telling us to be "optimistic.” Is this administration telling us that nobody is at fault here? It would seem that way, given the fact that we really have no answers on this issue. Just more excuses. It angers me to an incredible degree, and I really don't see how the media and the locals down there just let it go.
[We're talking normally again, folks.]
On a totally unrelated note, I am going to predict that Tony Soprano gets clipped on Sunday. (Sam is to Grube and GSU, what Pauly Walnuts is to Tony and the "family").
Damn your 250 word rule!
SG: I think Tony's cooperation with the Feds on the terrorism case is his saving grace and both Phil Leotardo and Pauly sleep with the fishes while the Sopranos move into Witness Protection. We'll see.
Thanks for the good conversation. I think you read correctly into my assessment of the many possibilities in NCAA football--the most likely, I think, is the seal-off scenario. But don't pooh-pooh the "we'll take our ball and go play our own game," especially since the NCAA couldn't forbid member schools from playing BCS schools any more than it forbids playing NAIA schools.
You are the first interview in this "meet the faculty" series, so you get to start our first tradition (since you raped the 250-word limit and dragged me down with you): all of my guests get the last word. Our conversation plainly illustrates how pop culture is actually modern culture. I'd like to hear your take on what is actually wonderful about pop culture.
And the next time you're in Statesboro, the Vandy's is on me.
JPL: What's wonderful about "Pop" is that it's one of the few distinctly American "cultural" inventions. (Weirdly enough, that is also what's bad about it, but that conversation is for another day.)
I think it's interesting how pop culture is expanding in the 21st century, and that it is more of a world-wide phenomenon now. Look at how many popular American TV shows are based on British show concepts from the BBC, for instance. The Office(which by the way, if you like the Brit version like I do, then you'll also like Extras on HBO)and Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? are two somewhat recent examples of this, just off the top of my head.
I just started reading The World Is Flat, by Tom Friedman,(about 3 years after I intended to do so) and he really seems to have a grip on how globalization is changing the way that we as Americans have to operate in the business sector, and even the way we all think in general. I actually think that one can apply many of the same concepts that Friedman cites as global changes in international business(i.e. the world flattening) to the globalization of pop culture as well. Obviously America still dominates in the realm of pop culture, but more and more, we are seeing international projects have success in America. I think that is a very good thing, and it helps fight the "strip mall-ization" of the world that really was in full effect in the 90's. That kind of Wal-martian global cultural domination can only lead to resentment, and I think those emotions have been clearly visible in other countries by riots in which the local Starbucks or McDonald's gets trashed, or by other more dangerous anti-American sentiments globally.
In the future my hope is that globalization, specifically as it relates to pop culture, will be a unifying force for the world, rather than a divisive one as it was in the 90's. I think that America's expanding embrace of foreign pop culture will continue to enrich both us and the entire world.
What I really love about pop culture, though, is its ever-constant evolution, and that it is driven primarily by young people.
It's cliche to say so, but I am sick and tired of old, angry white guys ruling the world (for the record, I am white).
Modern pop culture is a wonderfully stealthy, and relatively non
History tells us that much, as the collapse of the Soviet Union was arguably partly due to its peoples' desire for blue jeans and rock n' roll.
When looked at with that perspective, pop culture really transcends the traditional school of thought which labels it, "trivial" and "material.”
I could probably write more about what is wrong with pop culture, but you asked for the good. On that note, I think that if pop culture continues to be that unifying force which I described, especially for young people, then it can overcome the many negatives that are also often associated with a “pop culture sensibility.”
Thanks for the conversation, Scott. I enjoyed it a lot. So much so, that I think I discovered my inner-blogger.
As a result, I am launching Opie's Uncensored GSU Sports Blog, where I will comment on GSU sports, all things topical, or just stuff that I find interesting. I'm aiming for a sort of Tony Kornheiser radio show vibe for my blog, in that it will be centered on sports, but I will often venture into the pop culture/entertainment realm as well.
I hope to have my first entry up by Monday, 06/11/07.
I also anxiously await more installments from The Institute and the rest of the faculty. I hope I haven't been a bore.
Peace in the Middle East.
Since concluding this conversation, we have all learned that both Joe and I were theoretically correct about the ending of the Sopranos, since no piece of film or television has ended that ambiguously since Rhett walked out on Scarlett. Of course, that was deemed to be a “classic ending” while everyone railed that David Chase had sold his soul to the devil and given Sopranos fans the finger. People with no sense of history annoy me.
If you want more of Joe, check out his blog or my “comments” section, which I playfully call “Joe’s other blog.” We’ll probably even get back in touch with him during football season on the soon-to-be-released Institute of Higher Sports blog.
|