When activism becomes the obligation of the well-known…

The flurry of racial controversy surrounding a recent New York Post cartoon — a cartoon which appeared to many to allude in an offensive manner to President Barack Obama – has now migrated to the sports world. In today’s New York Times, columnist William Rhoden makes the connection, criticizing the silence of black professional athletes in days following its publication.

To conclude the piece, Rhoden offers an anecdote focused on New York Knicks guard Nate Robinson. Rhoden apparently confronted Robinson on the issue of the cartoon, and Robinson, after denying that he had even heard of the cartoon in question, offered a simple explanation for his lack of opinion: basketball was his gig, said Robinson; “It’s what I do best. It’s what I know.” Everything else, he admitted, was simply beyond his expertise.

Rhoden’s follow-up to this anecdote is terse and smug, dripping with self-righteous understatement. His analysis of Robinson’s answer ends the column: ”See no evil. Speak no evil. That’s one way to get through a career unscathed.” 

The piece, to my eye, reflects this vague and simplistic social condemnation in more ways than one. First and foremost, Rhoden’s dismissal of athletes who fail to speak of this racial consciousness rests on a basic premise that turns his argument upside-down. In a country with a Constitutional right to free speech, he argues, players should not shy from voicing their opinions for fear of roiling the waters of their fanbases. But look, the thing about free speech is that it inherently allows for the publishing of offensive New York Post cartoons in the first place. What would Rhoden have these athletes do? Call for the firing of the cartoonist? Boycott the Post? And wouldn’t these actions be a violation of this free speech that Rhoden so casually and one-sidedly employs?

Secondly, the Nate Robinson anecdote, used by Rhoden to illustrate the callous apathy of athletes, suggests to me something entirely different: humility. What is so terrible about a man who has recognized his ignorance? Is it wrong that he refuses to comment on an issue about which he has little knowledge? Would anyone be well served by Robinson opining on something he knows nothing about?

Of course, it isn’t as simple as all that, and I know too little of Robinson to completely let him off the hook. Indeed, I have little respect for those whose incuriosity spits in the face of opportunity. But to recognize one’s limitations as well as strengths, to know oneself and one’s failings; these are traits fully deserving of my respect. They are traits that William Rhoden might be well-served to adopt.

Well, I’m considering Penn State, Miami, North Carolina, USC, OSU, Texas, and probably a few more schools too…

For far too many people, today will be filled with non-stop television coverage of Signing Day, the day that high school seniors declare which colleges they will attend football factories will craft them into NFL superstars. To be sure, Singing Day has been significant for as long as university sports programs have been lucrative. The change in recent years has been the extension of this significance to include fans. For weeks, ESPN has proudly been announcing its multiple hours of coverage of the event, consisting, essentially, of young men signing a piece of paper, donning their chosen school’s paraphernalia, and then, I guess, returning to their high school cafeteria. Conventional wisdom now dictates that we should care a great deal who goes to what school, on the assumption that the more top-150-ranked players a school signs, the better that school’s future teams will be. 

This prompts me to ask some questions: 1) How can we possibly know with any accuracy the effect these boys will have on college teams? 2) Once they are playing for these teams, does anyone care to recall the player’s perceived “value” back when they were in high school? 3) How on Earth can anyone create a successful ranking system for kids often not yet 18 years old? Deadspin, per usual, is on top of it:

No one really knows how any of these kids are going to do in college, or whether one recruiting class is better than another. (That’s why they give you so many scholarships, because they know that half your choices will be bad ones.) How big is the difference, really, between the No. 3 RB and No. 8 RB and who says the top middle linebacker from the state of Pennsylvania is really the top? And it doesn’t matter anyway, because as soon as they enroll everyone forgets about them and where they were “ranked” by some scouting service no one understands.  

In truth, the fervor surrounding Signing Day reminds me of why I hate 95% of what’s become of sports opinion journalism: it just doesn’t matter. The kids will play, their teams will win or lose, and all of it will happen regardless of what ‘experts’ get paid to predict. Give me hard facts and box scores any day. After that, I’ll stick to loving games and seasons while they are happening.

Update: If you’re interesting in a more high-brow examination of the efficacy of predicting NFL success, check out Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker piece, written last December, which creates a parallel between sports scouting and our education system.

Joe Morgan breathes a sigh of relief

Sad news, brought to us via Deadspin, regarding the departure from the blogosphere of ‘Fire Joe Morgan’, a site dedicated to sharp and witty critique of sports journalism. Truly, this is a sad turn of events, although I’m sure the niche will be filled in no time. I’m watching Michigan play Northwestern at the moment, and Pam Oliver just offered up this gem:

Nothing will stop a fast tempo more than a drop.

Believe me, it’s hard not to find and take apart this stuff, especially on football Saturday.