Social Media: Sexual Appeal as Taboo for College Athletes?

Twitter is a social media Web 2.0 application platform that has created an ability to interact like never before. In 140 characters or less, one can give periodic updates on what they are doing at any given point throughout their lives. It creates a system of communication where anyone with an Internet connection can communicate with and learn about the ideas and thoughts of another in real-time by sending “tweets.”

Facebook is another social media application that also creates a system of communication by allowing one to connect and share with people in their lives through a virtual platform. From posting updates on your wall, sharing photos and videos with friends, to instant messaging, newsfeeds, events, and collaborative gaming with others around the world, Facebook empowers users through a virtual medium that has become ingrained as a way of life for over 600 million people.

Harnessing the power of social media to reach millions of fans, many college athletes now consistently maintain double lives: one in the physical world and another in the virtual world. For those that can’t make it to their games, they provide first-hand perspectives on what their lives are like as students and athletes, from the adrenaline filled ambience of gameday all the way to their interactions with the media and other classmates around campus. Most have Facebook pages and Twitter accounts and use them readily.

If their lives in the physical world as student/athletes are overseen and perhaps comprised by the NCAA and their governance, shouldn’t college athletes maintain the right to conduct their virtual identities as they please? If they are truly “STUDENTS” first, and athletes second, shouldn’t they be able to use social media such as Facebook and Twitter, just like their classmates, family, and friends do?

As rumors swirled in late December that Ohio State football players were involved in NCAA violations, OSU quarterback Terrelle Pryor took to the world of social media to claim his innocence, tweeting “I paid for my tattoos. GoBucks.” Yet, the day later, he and several of his teammates were suspended for the first five games of the 2011 season for selling awards, gifts and university apparel and receiving improper benefits.

Fearing that his tweet might receive unfavorable attention from his coaches, the NCAA, and others, he quickly moved to delete the post. The NCAA has made its stance on this issue public and clearly demonstrated that they will also intervene in the virtual world, very similar to the physical world.

This incident is only the tip of the iceberg. The next major obstacle will occur when beauty enters into the equation. In a nation where sex appeal equates mass marketing opportunities, hence potential dollars in the pockets of athletes, and, of course, additional intervention by the NCAA, will athletes who possess sex appeal be able to profit off of their identities in the virtual world, or will they receive further scrutiny for their use of social media?

Skylar Diggins, an exceptionally attractive athlete on the Notre Dame women’s college basketball team, is just one example where sex appeal could be leveraged. After her team made it to the semi-finals in the NCAA women’s college basketball tournament, she dropped 28 points and six assists on the heavily-favored Connecticut Huskies, sending the Fighting Irish to the national championship game against the Texas A&M Aggies. Subsequently, her name has become a household one. According to Yahoo!, her Twitter follower count jumped from 6000 to more than 56000 since the tournament began and searches for her name jumped 2700 percent following the game. Also, rap superstar Lil’ Wayne sent her a Twitter tweet personally, stating, “”Good lukk to my wife Skylar Diggins and the Fighting Irish.”

One can only imagine how many opportunities she will have, now that her name is indeed a household one, since bursting onto the national scene due to her athletic prowess and sexual appeal. Perhaps only time possesses the answer to the former question; yet, given recent trends, it seems as if things may stay the same and somehow, some way, form or fashion, digital age athletes will see these opportunties readily come available and subsequently become under investigation by the NCAA.

Let’s hope that the NCAA begins to think outside of the box sooner than later, before more and more of these sort of “issues” emerge. They should create policy that allows athletes to be athletes while they are at “work” and permits them to leverage their freedom of speech via social media in their spare time as students and Americans. If they stand to profit from their endeavors, God-given talent, abilities, and even beauty, then that’s nobody’s business but their’s.

No, We’re Not Just a Bunch of Dumb Jocks…We’re Just a Bunch of Financially Unfit Athletes: The NCAA and the Dire Need for Revenue Sharing in College Athletics

The NCAA is a non-profit organization with tax exempt status that governs and administers all Div I, I-AA, II, and III college athletic programs in the United States. As its mission states, “THE NCAA’s CORE PURPOSE IS TO govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.”

It was founded in 1906 to protect young people from the dangerous and exploitive athletics practices . Over a century later, it has morphed into a $757 million dollar revenue-producing business annually that administers and governs the multi-billion dollar revenue-producing enterprise of college athletics.
HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” recently did a special report on the NCAA to investigate the manner in which they run their organization. Several staggering financial facts were revealed. First, it revealed that the latest tax filings for the NCAA in 2009 shows a top tier of 14 executives making an average salary of over $425,000 annually. Secondly, while both the NFL and NBA player associations have agreements for their athletes to receive 57% of all revenues, the NCAA hasn’t even considered the creation of a similar policy.

For example, from 2005-2008, the University of Alabama Div. I football program generated 125 million dollars in revenue. If a similar agreement were put in place for college athletes, the Alabama football players would stand to make $500,000 in annual salary and roughly 2 million dollars over the duration of their careers. A staggering figure that is still nevertheless dwarfed by the current annual salary of their head football coach, Nick Saban, who makes over 2 million dollars per season.

So, with all the revenue being generated, shouldn’t college athletes be entitled to some form of profit or revenue sharing?

Most have seen the latest public service announcement of the NCAA, which matter-of-factly plays on the stereotype that all athletes are nothing more than a collective of physically fit and mentally inferior folks, by questioning their audience if they “still think we’re just a bunch of dumb jocks?” This perspective is intriguing, given the fact that the NCAA treats athletes just like a group of dumb jocks who are too stupid to recognize the massive amount of dollars that are being created from their activities. While no one in the NCAA directly participates in the events that actually generate these astronomical amounts of revenue, their executives don’t care because, after all, the dumb jocks will never realize what’s going into our pockets and not into their’s.

The college athlete is the true employee of the NCAA enterprise. They are the dedicated souls that rise at the crack of dawn in an effort to prepare for upcoming seasons, the large majority of which don’t even have enough money to buy themselves a meal after their workouts. Their minds are oftentimes weary and their bodies typically hurt from the constant stress and strain, yet they remain dedicated to furthering “the win at all costs” agenda that is shared by their coaches, university administrators, and alumni, all in an effort just to keep their scholarship and stay in school.

The regimen of the college athlete never stops, it just continues, as they are forced to train and train and train, workout after workout after workout, while the NCAA administers and governs from their executive offices and their coaches scream and yell from the sidelines. Don’t get me wrong–I completely agree with the existence and purpose of the NCAA. Without it, unethical activities involving college athletes would probably grow exponentially. Yet, for it to become nearly a billion dollar enterprise without their staff becoming direct participants, while athletes, the “true” employees, many of which who come from disadvantaged, impoverished neighborhoods, aren’t paid a single penny, is corrupt and perhaps borderline criminal.

How can the blood, sweat, and tears of athletes equate to billions for another and absolutely nothing for themselves? Yes, these athletes do receive free tuition, room, and board, but this pales in comparison to what the NCAA, colleges, universities, coaches and staff all receive.

If an NCAA executive can make nearly half a million, a coach can make 2 million plus annually, and universities can make billions, why shouldn’t their be a policy in place that mandates some form of revenue sharing with athletes? It’s as if only the privileged few are allowed to further their wealth while the disadvantaged thousands remain just that–financially disadvantaged–with no other option than to train harder, jump higher, and run faster.

If I was fortunate enough to be a part of “the privileged few,” after its all said and done and I was on my deathbed awaiting the afterlife, I’d be pretty nervous about whether or not the Man Upstairs would permit me to walk through His pearly gates!

Shadows of the Great Recession: The Modern State of the US Housing Industry

Homeownership was once the primary driver for personal wealth in the United States. Widely acclaimed as the framework from which American Dreams began, many purchased homes without worry due to the presumed security elicited from a belief that the value of their asset would only grow with time.

Homeownership

We have all heard the stories and phrases that presented a house as the “best investment” that one could possibly obtain, given the tax advantages and long term benefits of appreciation. “Home prices will always go up with time” is another wildly popular statement that has been told to many of us throughout our lives, and, until recently, we would be insane to think or believe otherwise.

However, with the downturn of the economy in 2008 and subsequent housing market crisis, many have now began to think otherwise, as many homeowners struggled and paid their last dimes to purchase assets that, in turn, have only lost tremendous amounts of value over the past several years. The hands of these homeowners are now tied, whereas many of their homes were well overpriced when they were initially purchased and now only return negative equity that may decline even further with time. In many cases, this negative equity has been so drastic that thousands upon thousands simply decided to let their homes go into foreclosure and cut their losses before they became worse.

The current health of this housing sector provides insight into the direction of the overall US economy. Despite some gains since the crisis, recent data suggests that the housing market is still far from being out of the hole. In fact, recent data suggests that things are only getting worse as many more mortgages look to be headed further underwater.

Yahoo! Real Estate claims that the housing market is “three times worse than we think” reporting that sales of new homes hit a record low in February 2011 and “shadow inventory” (foreclosed and distressed homes that have yet to hit the markets), are looming over the horizon.

This has prompted construction to slow to its lowest point in over a decade and shadow inventory only reveals additional challenges that will only further delay any sort of recovery. Currently the unofficial shadow inventory stands at roughly 1.8 million homes. When combined with the nearly 2 million homes listed as “severely underwater inventory” (homes where owners have lost 50% or more of their equity), the future outlook for the industry only gets worse. The impact of the former, when combined, could lead the National Association of Realtors’ 8.6 month official backlog to triple to more than two years.

The silver lining in this depressing scenario is that many more may be able to purchase homes at depressed prices. Perhaps they will now be able to obtain the American Dream of owning a home; yet, one can’t help but feel sorry for the millions of lives that the housing market has negatively effected.

Our America as we know it has changed due to the Great Recession. Only time will tell how much things will continue to change in the housing industry. Let’s just hope that the change somehow turns for the better, and not for worse.

Satyagraha: How the Teachings of Gandhi Could Inspire Better World Relations

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) was the most important Indian political and spiritual leader of the 20th century. After an arranged marriage at the age of 13, he traveled to England six years later and attended law school at the age of 19, before returning to India to practice in his new profession.

With an unsuccessful first year as a practicing attorney, Gandhi was offered a job with a Indian businessman with interests in South Africa and relocated to this region to assume the daily responsibilities of his new occupation. While there he witnessed the severity of racial discrimination, as many Indians had lost all civil rights to European colonists, who unabashedly referred to them as “coolies” and treated them as if they weren’t “full” human beings.

Subsequently, Gandhi became a leader within the Indian community and pioneered “satyagraha”: a political movement of non-violent protest against the oppressive rule of the British.

Gandhi developed satyagraha (pronounced SAHT ya GRUH ha) into a national movement, stressing passive resistance, nonviolent disobedience, boycotts and, on occasion, hunger strikes. As his life’s work, he utilized satyagraha as a framework for peaceful protest and played a major role in the 1906 Zulu War, World War I and II, as well as in helping India gain its independence.

Gandhi has influenced many great political leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela, both of whom incorporated non-violent resistance into their own life’s work as a means for progressive change and social liberation.

If more societies followed satyagraha and believed in the premise of peaceful protest, international relations around the globe could actually improve. For a country like the United States, one overly consumed with both race and war, imagine how impactful boycotts could be? A nation mobilized as a collective behind this belief could drastically alter the demand for products created by others by just saying “we won’t buy.” This would also perhaps alter their perceptions simultaneously, given the financial pain this notion would cause.

If this strategy was successful, it wouldn’t be long before other nations bought into this philosophy and way of living, and followed their lead. Maybe thoughts such as these are somewhat idealistic, given we live in a world where nuclear missiles and money talk, and “all else” walks; nevertheless, the concept is itself very interesting and equally promising if it were explored and adopted by others.

What’s your opinion? Is peaceful protest no longer a viable solution for the modern world that we live, or could it possibly work and ultimately serve to create more self-sustainable, nonbelligerent societies around the globe?