The Bizarre Firing of Bobby Knight

So Indiana finally fired Bobby Knight. This is something that should have happened a long time ago.

I was pretty sure Knight’s career was over when I saw him give a press conference over the weekend which had me laughing out loud. Describing the many restrictions and ultimatums he had been given about his behavior back in May, Knight looked out at the sea of reporters and actually said something like “I’d have to be a moron to do what this student alleges I did.” Does Knight think people outside of Indiana believe he is a mental giant? I turned to my wife and wondered why Knight was confessing on national TV.

Myles Brand’s press conference announcing the firing was also surreal, since it was basically one long apology by Brand for having to fire Knight. Not surprising from the same cowards who refused to fire him back in May even after it became apparent that Knight lied about his claim that he never choked Indiana basketball player Neil Reed during a 1997 practice. Unfortunately video tape surfaced of that incident. Some of the other stuff that Knight either admitted to doing or refused to deny doing were so bizarre that he should have been fired a long time ago.

Everybody talks about what an incredible record Knight had, 661-240, but in fact any number of people could get high performance out of their employees or players by using unethical methods. It is almost as if Knight’s supporters deny this and reason back that since Knight wins it must mean that his methods aren’t really unethical.

Good riddance Bobby Knight.

Source:

Coach’s tirades overshadowed titles until the end. CNNSI.Com, September 12, 2000.

Public Subsidies: Sports Team and Theme Parks

    USA Today had an article last week (More Bowls, More Problems, Sept. 7, 2000) discussing how sports subsidies have gotten so out of control that cities and states are even beginning to subsidize bowl games — the irony being, of course, that the bowl games are supposed to be the big ticket source of money that makes college football profitable and justifies all the subsidies already thrown at that sport.

    In fact, most college football teams — even when they’re nationally ranked — tend to lose money or just break even. The costs of running a big time Division I football program are enormous. The university I work at, Western Michigan University, has a small time Division I program that occasionally beats a lower-level big team (the football team here beat Iowa over the weekend, for example) but is just as often over-matched by the Mid-American Conference opponents it faces. And the available data indicates the team is a net liability on the balance sheet.

    Anyway, what really surprises me is how far down the subsidy mania has passed. In Kalamazoo, where I live, the city commission several years ago decided to underwrite the construction of a small stadium in an effort to lure an independent league baseball team and soccer team to the city. I remember distinctly talking to a friend who is now a city commissioner who thought that lots of people would turn out to watch and this would really help revitalize the city. I, on the other hand, maintained there was a limited market for athletes whose abilities were less than a good college team, and that the project was destined for failure.

    A couple years ago, the city announced it was going to have to spend $2 million bailing out the stadium project after the baseball team pulled out due to low ticket sales, and the soccer team had similar problems.

    But does that dampen people’s enthusiasm for government-sponsored entertainment? Of course not. Many years ago as a teenager I happened to be one of the few Americans unlucky enough to visit another state-backed entertainment scheme — Autoworld. If you haven’t seen Michael Moore ridicule Autoworld in his film, “Roger and Me,” here’s the deal: the failing city of Flint decided it could revitalize itself if it spent many millions of dollars of taxpayer funds creating a museum/theme park centered on the history of the automobile. Flint projected millions of visitors, but in fact after it opened it quickly tanked with very few visitors compared to the projections and the money that had been spent. The only thing I remember about it that was semi-interesting was the video arcade which had a sit-down version of a popular Star Trek arcade game at the time (whereas the arcade near my house only had the lame-o stand-up version).

    So you’d think, based on the history of Autoworld, that people would be skeptical of such projects. Not here in Michigan. There’s a halfway decent flight museum on the edge of town. The current proposed boondoggle is to spend upward of $80 million of taxpayer funds to turn it into an enormous museum/theme park of air and space flight. It’s Autoworld all over again. The backers have projections showing that literally more than a million people would probably visit the center on an annual basis, which would completely revitalize and transform the city.

    Build it and they will come is apparently the only economic theory that government officials understand is build it and they will come.

    Which is kind of surprising since there is already a very nice flight and space center about 40 minutes from Kalamazoo which not only has some cool planes like our little flight museum does, but also has a space capsule from one of the Apollo missions as well as moon rocks, etc. It’s a fun place to go but it hardly attracts millions of people each year.

    The bottom line is the same for these large theme park projects as it is for sports teams: if it really will generate millions and millions of dollars in revenue then it doesn’t need public support. Such a project should easily generate more than enough private financing. If, however, supporters have to resort to public financing because private funding is unavailable, this is the best indication that the project is not worth doing.

Sixteen percent of Americans are Libertarians?

    Rasmussen Research, an independent polling organization, recently performed one of the few large, scientific polls of American political attitudes based on the World’s Smallest Political Quiz which attempts to gauge political views more broadly than just liberal, conservative and moderate.

    The interesting thing is that although the poll found that, based on their answers to policy questions, 16 percent of Americans are libertarian oriented, only 2 percent of those polled self-identified themselves as libertarians.

    In fact among those who self-identified as libertarians, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan each received almost as much support as Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne. Something’s wrong when even a majority of self-identified libertarians reject the Libertarian Party.

ALF Releases 10,000+ Mink In Iowa

The Animal Liberation Front recently claimed responsibility for the release of about 10,000 mink valued at $400,000 from a farm in Iowa in one of the largest animal releases by the group to date. Activists struck the Earl Drewelow and Sons Mink Farm in northeast Iowa, opening pens that held about 14,000 mink.

A North American Animal Liberation Press Office release claimed that all 14,000 animals had been set free, but an Associated Press story reported that about 4,000 of the mink remained in their pens.

Meanwhile of those animals that did escape, hundreds were killed by passing cars on nearby highways.

“These mink are farm animals, know nothing about life off the farm and are completely dependent on the farmer,” Lenny Drewelow, co-owner for the farm, told the Associated Press. “They will die in a few days without human help.”

In its press release, the NAALF quoted ALF spokesperson David Barbarash as saying,

Today’s raid marks the 68th action of its kind carried out by the ALF and other people since 1995. The war against the fur industry is far from over, as long as animals are kept in cages and killed for vanity luxury items.

Sources:

14,000 Mink Set Free In Iowa. North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office, Press Release, September 7, 2000.

Vandals free 10,000 animals from Iowa farm. The Associated Press, September 8, 2000.

You Play Like A Girl!

John McEnroe stepped into yet another controversy at then end of August after The New Yorker published an interview in which he said that the best women’s tennis players in the world wouldn’t stand a chance against a middling male tennis player. Asked specifically what he thought of the rise of Serena and Venus Williams, McEnroe told the magazine that “any good male college tennis player could beat the Williams sisters and so could any men on the senior tour.”

That might have been a bit of an overstatement, but the underlying sentiment is certainly correct — competing against women, the Williams women are fascinating to watch. Mix them in with the male circuit and they’d be very lucky to get past the opening round of a tournament. This is largely a matter of biology — the additional upper body strength that the male players have would totally overwhelm the women players.

This can be seen just by watching men’s and women’s tennis, and actually benefits the women to a large degree in that the women’s game is more interesting to watch. The men’s game is all about power, power, power. As in other sports the physical training has advanced so quickly that men are now hitting serves at 130 miles an hour. Much the same occurs in the Women’s National Basketball Association. The best WNBA team would get demolished by a middling NBA team, but in some ways the women’s game is more exciting since the men’s game as devolved to feats of physical prowess over skill. In many ways, in both sports revolutions in training as well as the huge sums of money have led to men’s teams who are able to play well above the game.

It was fascinating to watch the politics of gender in sports play out at a national event held in my home of Kalamazoo this August — the Little League Softball World Series. Until the early 1970s, Little League teams were strictly sex segregated; boys played baseball and girls played softball. Under threat of lawsuit, the Little League organization allowed girls to play on baseball teams and in the early 1980s a girl played for the first time in the Little League Baseball World Series. Of course there were all-male teams who at first didn’t want to play with girls — some claimed the girls would get hurt — but the sex barrier eventually fell.

At some point in the 1990s, however, the Little Leagues realized they still barred boys from playing softball and, fearing a lawsuit, they removed the sex requirement for softball. Which brings us to this controversy. When the only baseball league in their town folded up, several boys decided to join the local Little League softball team and their team made it to the world series held here in Kalamazoo, Michigan. And a firestorm ensued.

Parents of all-girl teams were extremely irate that young boys were playing baseball. Many told reporters they were afraid that the boys, with that extra upper body strength, would end up hurting the allegedly fragile girls. Other said it was simply unfair for boys to be competing with girls. Paralleling the protests when girls tried to play baseball, one team chose to forfeit its game rather than play on the same filed as boys.

Although the team the boys played on didn’t have a perfect record in the tournament, they did walk away with the championship. The person who oversaw the tournament responded by vowing to do everything in his power to make sure no boys were involved in next year’s World Series.

Which brings us to the main point of contention — do women always have to compete in separate but equal sporting contests? Writing about McEnroe’s comments, The Sporting News’ David Kindred summarized the view that women will always have to compete separately,

Men’s and women’s tennis are different games, just as women’s soccer, basketball and track and field are different from the men’s games. Women’s sports are to be appreciated for what they are, not denigrated for what they’re not.

On the other hand, both athletes as well as feminists don’t seem content for Venus Williams to be simply one of the best women’s tennis players, in large measure because of the fear that it sends a bad social message — if Serena Williams is simply a good woman’s tennis player who would get blown away in a direct competition with professional male athletes, does that mean that women who are successful in other areas of life don’t truly compare with men? That is an absurd idea, but it is also one that both anti-feminists as well as some feminists both lend support. The anti-feminists, of course, are always prepared to pounce on something such as the biological advantage men have in upper body strength to argue that this applies to every other attribute as well. On the other hand, some feminists are so committed to the principle that there are no fundamental differences between men and women that the obvious counter-examples threaten to bring down the entire edifice of sexual equality.

The confusion over exactly what women’s sports is simply mirrors the confusion that still remains in the larger society over the role of women and what genuine equality entails.

Source:

McEnroe reverts to childish blather – or does he? Dave Kindred, The Sporting News, August 31, 2000.

Worst Movie Ever: Highlander 2, Renegade Version

I have been reading reviews the last few days just ripping apart the latest “Highlander” movie as being pretty much incomprehensible. On the other hand, a lot of people seem to have problems following science fiction movies (as I was leaving “The Matrix,” for example, the woman ahead of me was complaining that she “didn’t get it”), so I will withhold judgment.

While it might not really be the worst movie ever, if you want to see a very bad movie rent “Highlander 2: The Renegade Version”. Okay, even though I like the original “Highlander” film, I will admit that that movie was a bad film unless you are a sci-fi junkie, and the theatrical version of “Highlander 2” was even worse. The irony is the director of the film complained about how the American distributors of Highlander 2 cut it all up and ruined it, so they went out and re-edited the film, changed the narrative and did a bunch of other crap to make the movie they wanted to release. After watching it, you will understand why the American distributors cut it so heavily!

First, although the characters are the same, there is absolutely no narrative continuity between the first Highlander film and the Renegade 2 version. The Renegade 2 version starts on some alien world with an incomprehensible plot twist involving a rebellion led by Christopher Lambert’s character and goes downhill from there. There are special effects shots in the new film that look like they were rejected from that wretched “Spawn” film.

I do have a small caveat, in that this is one of the few films I found to be so bad that I had to stop before reaching the end — and I tried on 3 or 4 occasions to give the film a fair shot. Unfortunately, there is this ridiculous scene about 20 to 30 minutes into the movie where the evil alien overlord from the other planet sends a couple of his minions to kill Lambert and there’s this stupid action scene, complete with flying skateboard a la “Back to the Future,” which is the aforementioned reject from “Spawn” scene. After all this crashing and just ridiculous level of explosions, Lambert ends up pushing his female companion against a wall and they have sex. The first time through I just busted out laughing. The next few times through I get to this scene and I am verging on physically ill because its the culmination of the start of a movie that is so bad you have to wonder if it was not done intentionally as a way of highlighting the idiocy of some sci-fi films.