I’ve tried to write an introduction to this post quite a few times, but haven’t come up with anything that made me happy. So I’m going to skip it and get straight to my point.
I wish they would stop playing the Star-Spangled Banner at the beginning of sporting events.
Not the least of reasons is the fact it is incredibly difficult to sing. To be sure, when the anthem is sung well, it sounds great; some good examples are Marvin Gaye in 1979 or 1983 or Whitney Houston before Super Bowl XXV. More often than not, however, the person who sings the National Anthem is likely to strain themselves stretching for a high or low note at least once, and that person is most likely a skilled, if not professional, singer.
(Canada, for one, has a much more voice-friendly anthem, and here is a video of an a capella group singing both so you can compare for yourself. Note, however, the group went to the lower octave on “free” in the next to last line. Not that you can blame them.)
Beyond the difficulty of singing the anthem, however, is the ritual itself.
The Star-Spangled Banner is played over thousands upon thousands of times before professional and collegiate games alone (meaning every MLB, NBA, NFL, NASCAR and NCAA contest along with most NHL games). Frankly, that strikes me as borderline religious.
What I find peculiar is that while I think the “patriots” of the country would agree with me, at least some seem to find the religiosity to be a good thing. (Notice how “flag” and “nation” are written.) The argument seems to be that since we live in a free country, we should feel compelled to sing the anthem out of “respect” and “gratitude”.
I would then ask this: What or whom precisely are we all supposed to pay homage and show appreciation to?
– The government? That would be ironic indeed, since “we the people” give the government its power according to that little document called the Constitution.
– The military? That would carry the same sticking point as the government, with the additional problem that such homage assumes that any task the government uses the armed forces for is a legitimate one. (In other words, this is the difference between believing the those who serve in the military are willing to protect us and are protecting us because the government says they are.) This passes patriotism and comes dangerously close to nationalism… though something tells me most “patriots” aren’t exactly uncomfortable with that, either.
– The Founding Fathers? Well, that would turn them into demigods of a sort, and hence elevate the National Anthem to a hymn. That would seem to be problematic to the religious and non-religious alike, not to mention the idea of all men being “created equal.”
– The American Philosophy/Heritage/Ethos? Ignoring all the flaws in the American ideas of freedom that have been corrected since the late 18th Century (and the ones that have yet to be), the philosophy behind this country came from men. Intelligent men, yes, but men all the same. If praising the Founding Fathers by singing the anthem doesn’t raise them to superhuman status, claiming their ideas are worthy of such exaltation certainly would.
Besides that, most people don’t attend more than a handful of sporting events per year, if they go to any at all. Therefore, there are plenty more opportunities Americans could be given to show their thanks for their liberties. We could have the anthem played at the beginning of concerts and plays for those who prefer the fine arts. It could also be played during times and through mediums most Americans are likely to hear it, such as rush hour on the radio and before the prime time schedule on television. Better still, why not institute a daily rendition of the anthem each morning, where every free man, woman and child can place their hands over their hearts and gratefully sing along?
But that sounds an awful lot like what you hear countries such as North Korea and China do — the communist/socialist totalitarian regimes the “patriots” allege the United States would become because of us who don’t think playing the Anthem before games is necessary.
The “patriots” also claim singing The Star-Spangled Banner ought to be a matter of pride, but doing things such as displaying the American flag at home or on your person are arguably bigger displays of national affection, because those are individual choices. Playing the anthem in a crowd does not elicit pride from those who don’t have it. Browbeating may get someone who chooses not to sing to do so, but then that person’s performance would be far from proof of his pride. Even a person’s voluntary participation in the ritual isn’t ironclad proof; for many it would be less uncomfortable to sing than to be confronted by people who take mortal offense to anyone who doesn’t share their zeal.
If honor is truly the reason behind its performance, then even without the ritualistic overtone, playing the National Anthem at sporting events each and every day makes the practice clichéd. To make playing the anthem a truly special occasion, limit it to games played on the days or corresponding weekends recognized as patriotic, such as Memorial Day, Independence Day and Veteran’s Day. When it is played, however, organizers should feel free to pull out all the stops — invite troops to stand on the field or court, bring in top musical talent, fire off pyrotechnics, arrange a fly-over, and so on. (And if the “patriots” feel shortchanged by the return to anthem-less sporting events, there is nothing stopping them from singing a rousing version or playing a recording in their own homes even on the days they don’t go to a ball game.)
I have no problem with having pride in one’s nation, because whether the “my-country-right-or-wrong” crowd believes me or not, I love being an American, despite how often I find myself frustrated by this country’s government (and citizens). I don’t have a problem with being appreciative of the military either; I have friends and old schoolmates in the Armed Forces, and I admire them for their willingness to protect this country. However, I don’t think it is necessary or appropriate in a place that proclaims to be “The Land of the Free” to make its citizens feel pressured to participate in something that feels eerily similar to a prayer to the nation.
Touchdowns and term papers
June 11th, 2010 | No Comments »I have a friend who might be one of the six native Texans who hates football.
That friend and I met at SMU, which happens to be the one and only college whose football program received the “death penalty” (i.e., prohibited from fielding a team for a season) from the NCAA, something the school only recently recovered from, some two decades later. He posted his thoughts on the sanctions handed down to the University of Southern California by the NCAA as compared to SMU, but everything boiled down to his belief that college should be about academics rather than sports. I was going to answer him directly, but the response became so long it seemed like a good post.
Before I get to that, allow me to provide a little more contextual information, just in case someone needs it.
While Southern California did not receive “death”, they did receive the following penalties: a loss of thirty athletic scholarships over the next three years, forfeiture of 14 wins, including those of their 2004 championship season (although since the championship itself is not an NCAA event, the idiocy of forfeiting wins is only underscored here), four years’ probation and, the hardest of all, a two-year ban from bowl play.
Why is the bowl ban the worst of the sanctions? Well, whether we like it or not, college football is 1) a business and 2) the equivalent of the minors for the NFL.
As far as the first reason, no bowls mean no bowl revenue. As USC is one of the most successful teams in a prominent conference, the potential loss would be well into eight-digit figures.
The second reason could make talented recruits choose to go elsewhere. For star athletes, one of the biggest tools to being drafted by a NFL team is exposure, and not being seen during the most prominent time of the season could be hard to take, even if it is, as Coach Lane Kiffin claims, “the best place in the country to play football”.
Hence, while the penalties are not to the extreme that SMU dealt with (USC does not have to start over with recruiting, for example), on their face they are comparable.
Anyhow, as an admitted nerd and fan of academics (if not academia) as well as sports, I wanted to show that the two things are not mutually exclusive, even on college campuses.
———-
For Chevrolet, Corvette is a loss leader. That is to say that neither Chevy nor their dealers make much money off of the sales of the iconic sports car. However, many who purchase the Corvette quite often go back to their Chevy dealers for other vehicles. Further, the Corvette also is a very appealing car to most, so people who see it might take a look at the Chevrolet brand when they otherwise wouldn’t have. Hence, the Corvette serves a dual purpose as a marketing tool and loyalty hook.
For most colleges, college athletics are a net money loser. The only sports that are profitable for some colleges are men’s basketball and football. If the argument is college football should go because too many colleges sink too much money into it, then the argument could be made that all sports should go.
Why do so many colleges spend money trying to establish or maintain competitive football programs? A successful football team can bring in revenue from alumni and fans buying tickets and purchasing paraphernalia (you don’t have to be anywhere near Ann Arbor or Columbus to see Michigan and Ohio State shirts or decals), as well as potential students who see the school’s athletic success as a reason to consider and attend the school. In short, college football is the university’s version of the Corvette, even if some of the programs are more like Geo Metros.
Yet there seems to be a basic assumption that money spent on athletics (and more specifically, football) would otherwise be spent on academics. For schools looking to build athletic programs, that could very easily be the case. Donations, on the other hand, are based on the desires of others, and someone who loves football may not be willing to give as much or anything at all for any other reason, or even any other sport.
Furthermore, it is not impossible for a university to be excellent in both academics and athletics. The schools of the Big Ten Conference, along with (former Big Ten member) the University of Chicago form the academically-focused Committee on Institutional Cooperation.
Would it be nice if degrees and academic studies could be marketed like touchdowns and bone-crushing hits? I’d like to think so. But I know that sports in general are easier to sell, more relevant and, let’s face it, more fun to most people.
While a university should be focused on academics (why call it a university otherwise?), it is too simple — and frankly, unfair — to say that should be its only focus. Just ask Myron Rolle.