Followers of my blog will know that I support the legalization of gambling, including wagering on sports. So I was excited to learn this morning that the governor of my state (Arizona) signed into law a bill that legalizes sports betting. The bill also includes daily fantasy sports and other forms of fantasy sports wagering. This site has a good summary of the legal changes.
Some of my blog posts on sports, gambling, and fantasy:
Markuson examines the different theories of where baseball comes from: the different pre-baseball ball games that were played widely in America and England in the 18th century and how they may have influenced the development of what become known as baseball. He covers how the professional leagues developed in the second half of the 19th century. He discusses how the baseball itself changed the game as the baseball changed. It even goes into how baseball fields themselves changed and developed as baseball evolved (and the changing fields drove some of the changes in the game as well).
If there is one thing you can take away from this course is that Terrance Mann in Field of Dreams was wrong. I love the movie and the speech Mann makes, but he was wrong. He says: “The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It’s been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time.” Sorry, but the history of baseball shows that it has changed again and again just like America. As America rebuilt and reinvented itself through the decades, baseball has changed right along with it, reflecting America’s greatness and her worst faults.
The book starts with an examination of how sports fit into the university. The American system of commercial sport within universities is unique and part of what Clotfelter wants to do is sort out why and how we end up with the system we have. This helps set up some of his main questions: why, given the many problems that seem to come with commercialized college sport, do universities keep these programs and seek to grow them? Where do (and do) these programs fit into the mission of the university? His conclusion is that commercial sport play important and crucial roles in the modern American university and these shouldn’t be ignored or downplayed. Part of his diagnosis for some of the problems of big-time sports is precisely because the centrality of college sports has not been fully and honestly acknowledged.
Clotfelter then turns to teasing out the consequences for the university of having college sports. He explores, using some clever statistical studies, the impact that college sports have on the academic outcomes, social and community outcomes, and financial outcomes of the university. Some of these are concerning (the negative impact on academic standards and progress) and some of these are positive (the entertainment and happiness produced for the broad community of fans). But in the end, not much of what he finds is all that surprising but seeing it connected to data helps sort out the various ways high-level commercialized sport can impact the university and what it does.
Lastly, he looks at some possible reforms. Some of these are likely to happen soon(ish) though with unknown consequences (such a name, likeness, and image reform). Others are more radical and unlikely to move beyond the pages of academic works.
One of the more interesting conclusions Clotfelter suggests is that while money drives a lot of what goes on in college sport, it doesn’t seem to be the ultimate end or purpose. That is, what he finds is that university leaders and stakeholders that support big-time college sports are ultimately doing it because they want to win. Money is essential to building successful programs, but the end goal is not profit, it is wins: “Despite the palpable commercial value of college athletics, however, it bears repeating that the primary objective of athletic departments is not to make for its own sake. Rather, it is to produce winning teams, for which money is virtually an ironclad necessity” (153).
I appreciate that Clotfelter walks a balanced line. He is quite critical of many aspects of big-time college sports, but also notes the value it brings to the university and society more generally. He brings forward data to help figure out both the harm and the value so that we can better evaluate college sport, but also to more helpfully target criticism and reform. Those looking for either a morbid focus on salacious scandals or enthusiastic cheerleading of the wonders of college sport will need to look elsewhere.
This is an important and helpful work for those interested in understanding the context of big-time college sports. It is not overly technical or mathematical, but it does rely on statistics and other tools of the social scientist. It’s not a casual, beach read, but it’s not a difficult read either. I could also see pulling specific chapters out for assignment in a course. With a little context, many of them can stand alone. In the final analysis, I do not think one walks away with a clear path to realistic reform or even definitive answers to the main questions about college sports, but the book, just as the title indicates, provides a solid foundation for understanding the relationship of big-time college sports to American universities.
Filed under College, economics, Reviews, Sports Studies
The IAPS meeting at the Pacific APA will focus on Ethics for Sports Fans. The Pacific APA is being held remotely, April 5-10, 2021. To attend the session, you will have to register for the APA.
April 6, 3-5 PDT
Chair: Shawn E. Klein (Arizona State University)
Speakers:
“A Fair Shake for the Fair-Weather Fan”
“Fanmanship”
You can register for the APA: https://www.apaonline.org/event/2021pacific
Filed under APA, Conferences, Fandom, IAPS
I’m thrilled to announce the publication of the newest book in the Studies in Philosophy of Sport Book Series.
Surfing and the Philosophy of Sport uses the insights gained through an analysis of the sport of surfing to explore key questions and discourses within the philosophy of sport. As surfing has been practiced dynamically, since its beginnings as a traditional Polynesian pursuit to its current status as a counter-culture lifestyle and also a highly professionalized and commercialized sport that will be included in the Olympic Games, it presents a unique phenomenon from which to reconsider questions about the nature of sport and its role in a flourishing life and society. Daniel Brennan examines foundational issues about defining sport, sport’s role in conceptualizing the good life, the aesthetic nature of sport, the place of technology in sport, the principles of Olympism and surfing’s embodiment of them, and issues of institutionalized sexism in sport and the effect that might have on athletic performance.
Table of Contents:
Available now at Amazon, Lexington, and other book sellers.
Studies in Philosophy of Sport Book Series
Series Editor: Shawn E. Klein, Ph.D. (sklein@asu.edu // sportsethicist@gmail.com )
The Studies in Philosophy of Sport series from Lexington Books encourages scholars from all disciplines to inquire into the nature, importance, and qualities of sport and related activities. The series aims to encourage new voices and methods for the philosophic study of sport while also inspiring established scholars to consider new questions and approaches in this field.
Filed under Books, Philosophy, publications, Sports Studies, surfing
I had a fun conversation with Matthew Blittner, Daniel Green, and Walt Bonné from the Outside The Studio radio show/podcast on Friday. We talked about how the perception of sports betting has changed over the last few years and what some of ethical implications of the legalization of wagering on sports are.
The podcast is available on Apple, Spotify, and elsewhere: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/outsidethestudio/episodes/2021-02-12T14_21_55-08_00
The Washington Football Team ended the 20-21 season with a 7-9 record. Normally, this means an early start to the off-season. But Washington will host a playoff game. 7-9 was good enough to win the pitiful NFC East this year, and so not only does Washington make the playoffs, they also, as division winners, host the 11-5 Tampa Bay Bucs in the Wild Card Round.
This doesn’t happen too often. The Carolina Panthers won their division and made the playoffs in 2014 with a 7-8-1 record and the Seattle Seahawks won the NFC West in 2010 with a 7-9 record. Both went on to win their Wild Card games and lose in the Divisional round. (The strike shortened season in 1982 also had teams with losing records in the playoffs.)
On one hand, there is no basis for an objection. The conditions for qualifying for the playoffs are set prior to the season and a winning record is not a condition for winning the division. The division winners make the postseason and host the game.
On the other hand, this just seems wrong. The postseason is supposed to be a tournament of the best teams in the league to determine the champion. Shouldn’t a winning record be a pre-condition for qualifying? Isn’t this unfair to teams with better records who don’t make the playoffs?
This year is not as egregious as previous years. In 2010 while Seattle hosted a playoff game, the Giants and the Bucs stayed home, both with 10-6 records. In 2014, Philadelphia had a 10-6 record but didn’t make the playoffs. This year, of the teams not making the playoffs, only the Arizona Cardinals have a better record. But at 8-8, they also failed to have a winning record.
Given the way the NFL schedules its games, there is a case to be made for the way the NFL does things regarding the playoff qualifications. If each team played each other at least once, then the Eagles, Bucs, and Giants would have a better case. But with the unbalanced schedules, the divisional structure, and the fact that some teams do not play each other in a given season, what is ‘fair’ here gets very murky very quickly.
Still, I’d favor adding some kind of rule that requires all playoff teams to have winning record (and maybe allow for .500 teams) and only allow a team with a losing record in when no teams with winning records remain. The team with the best record (or tiebreakers) that otherwise didn’t make the playoffs would get the playoff spot instead. The teams would be re-seeded with this newly qualifying team being the lowest seed.
For example, under a rule of this sort, in 2010, Seattle wouldn’t have made the playoffs. Instead the Giants would have qualified (based on tie-breakers). They would have then been the sixth seed.
Maybe this wouldn’t work or would introduce other problems. Still, at the very least, the team with the losing record shouldn’t be able to host the playoff game. That’s just embarrassing.
This is the reading list for the PHI 394: Philosophy of Sport (Spring 2021).
Defining Sport
Sport and Play
Sport and Games
Sport and Art
Theories of Sport: Formalism
Theories of Sport: Broad Internalism/Interpretivism
Theories of Sport: Practices and Narratives
Theories of Sport: Deep Conventionalism
Concepts of Competition
Officiating Technology
E-Sports as Sport
Mind and Body
Epistemology
Filed under Arizona State, Classes, Philosophy, Sports Studies
My review of William Morgan’s newest book, Sport and Moral Conflict: A Conventionalist Theory, was posted on the Nordic Sport Science Forum.
William Morgan is one of the leading thinkers in philosophy of sport. He is the author of several books, including widely-used textbooks, and many seminal journal articles. The publication of a new book by Morgan is thus significant. And his newest book, Sport and Moral Conflict, is a significant book: it is a must for any philosopher of sport to have on his or her shelf.
While it can be dense and turgid at times, overall it is intellectually engrossing. It is a book I know I will return again and again for its trenchant analysis and thoughtful insight. Indeed, though I disagree with important aspects of Morgan’s argument, I am already making use of it to supplement my current teaching and writing.
Read the rest: https://idrottsforum.org/klesha_morgan201217/
Filed under Books, Philosophy, Reviews, Sports Ethics, Sports Studies, Uncategorized
Readers of this blog might be interested in this Call for Papers:
—
Journal of Intercollegiate Sport
Special Issue Call for Papers
The Myles Brand Era at the NCAA: A Tribute and Scholarly Review
Guest Editors
R. Scott Kretchmar, Professor Emeritus, Penn State University
Peg Brand Weiser, Associate Professor Emerita, Indiana University and Adjunct Instructor, University of Arizona
The Journal of Intercollegiate Sport will be publishing a special issue devoted to the living legacy of Myles Brand, the 4th president of the NCAA (2003-2009). Papers may address any aspect of Dr. Brand’s presidency—his philosophy, leadership style, initiatives, impacts, successes and challenges. Contributors are welcome to contact either guest editor if they have questions about a potential submission.
Themes that authors may address include, but are not limited to, the following:
Submission Guidelines:
Manuscripts should follow the guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (www.apa.org), and should be prepared in accordance with the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport “Authors Guidelines.” These guidelines and the submission portal are available here:
https://journals.ku.edu/jis/about/submissions
Manuscripts must not be submitted to another journal while they are under review by the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, nor should they have been previously published.
Manuscripts should be submitted no later than July 15, 2021 using the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport submission portal (https://journals.ku.edu/jis/about/submissions).
Authors should indicate in their cover letter that the submission is to be considered for the Special Issue on the Myles Brand Era.
Guest Editors – Contact Information
R. Scott Kretchmar: rsk1@psu.edu
Peg Brand Weiser: mbweiser@arizona.edu
A portion of the sale will help me run this site.
A portion of the sale will help run this site.
