The death of Dan Wheldon is certainly a tragedy. As a person who doesn't really care for NASCAR or IndyCar, watching a successful young man, with a wife and kid die prematurely in a largely preventable manner is heartbreaking regardless.
Not that it changes anything about the death, really, the fact that he won the Indianapolis 500 back in May certainly leaves an even greater bitter taste in the mouth.
And I am okay with the amount of coverage that his death has received. Obviously, for a sport that is as popular as IndyCar, it should be expected. But my problem is what some media outlets are choosing to cover in this tragic incident.
The day after Wheldon's death, it was widely circulated that just the night before he died, he and his wife were tattooing the other's initials on their body as a sign of their love and dedication. A personal decision, done for personal reasons, because of personal feelings for their love.
So tell me why that story deserves a segment on Sportscenter? Not just a story about the death, but specifically about the tattoos. Why does there need to be an AP recap of that? Why should that story appear on Deadspin? A personal moment and gesture, made public to turn this hardship into a tear-jerking, sob story.
The nature of the sporting world has removed the privacy once protected for intimate moments such as Wheldon and his wife's. The media searches for every angle of a story to capture readers and viewers, exploiting the indelible pain that Wheldon's wife experiences.
Facts are what should be reported. And the public certainly receives the facts. But intimate anecdotes like this should remain private. No parties, particularly Wheldon's wife and family, benefits from it.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
Monday, 17 October 2011
For the Sake of Tradition, and Higher Quality Play
If you are a soccer fan and you haven't had the chance to check out this piece on ESPN about a possible change to the EPL's setup, I highly suggest taking a couple minutes to read it.
For those of you who don't want to, I'll rehash it here. Basically, as foreign ownership of English Premier League teams increases, the mumbling of a possible alteration to the system of relegation and promotion grows more audible. Each year, the bottom three teams from the EPL are relegated to the first division, and the top three teams of the first division take the place of the teams relegated.
This is the way it always has been in the EPL. I am not usually one to defend tradition, especially in the cases were tradition is outdated and no longer beneficial. But to abolish one of the central points of the EPL seems utterly absurd. In my opinion, having a relegation system keeps teams from becoming complacent. There is a constant need to improve the team, the youth system, the coaches, everything, because if teams don't, then they run the risk of relegation.
What does foreign ownership have to do with a desire for change? These men who own the teams want to protect their investments, and if their team is relegated, then their team's value will depreciate. But look no further than our backyard to know why this a bad idea to get rid of relegation. In American professional sports, too many owners care about their team as a business, and not as a sports team. For every one Jerry Buss (Lakers owner), there are too many Rob Sarvers (Suns owner), Donald Sterling (Clippers owner), and Michael Heisley (Grizzlies owner) who are too concerned with whether their team turns a profit rather than wins games. And if the EPL stopped relegating teams, then we would see an rise in the number of owners who care more about money than they do championships.
Relegation and promotion guarantees a more competitive league from year to year. It is the way the league has always been and should remain. But if more foreign ownership continues to move into EPL territory, it could put an end to the system. For the sake of tradition and the quality of the game, I sure hope not.
For those of you who don't want to, I'll rehash it here. Basically, as foreign ownership of English Premier League teams increases, the mumbling of a possible alteration to the system of relegation and promotion grows more audible. Each year, the bottom three teams from the EPL are relegated to the first division, and the top three teams of the first division take the place of the teams relegated.
This is the way it always has been in the EPL. I am not usually one to defend tradition, especially in the cases were tradition is outdated and no longer beneficial. But to abolish one of the central points of the EPL seems utterly absurd. In my opinion, having a relegation system keeps teams from becoming complacent. There is a constant need to improve the team, the youth system, the coaches, everything, because if teams don't, then they run the risk of relegation.
What does foreign ownership have to do with a desire for change? These men who own the teams want to protect their investments, and if their team is relegated, then their team's value will depreciate. But look no further than our backyard to know why this a bad idea to get rid of relegation. In American professional sports, too many owners care about their team as a business, and not as a sports team. For every one Jerry Buss (Lakers owner), there are too many Rob Sarvers (Suns owner), Donald Sterling (Clippers owner), and Michael Heisley (Grizzlies owner) who are too concerned with whether their team turns a profit rather than wins games. And if the EPL stopped relegating teams, then we would see an rise in the number of owners who care more about money than they do championships.
Relegation and promotion guarantees a more competitive league from year to year. It is the way the league has always been and should remain. But if more foreign ownership continues to move into EPL territory, it could put an end to the system. For the sake of tradition and the quality of the game, I sure hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)