Theory: The NBA is the New ‘Attitude Era’ of Pop Culture

There are few spaces in time that evoke more gleeful nostalgia for people my age than the Attitude Era of Wrestling. The era began around the time I was starting high school, an age where young people such as myself were finished with the boiler plate simplicity of childhood cartoons and simple narratives of “good guy versus bad guy”. We wanted heroes that were compelling and villains that had an edge to them. More than anything, we wanted antiheroes that shunned tradition and freely expressed themselves. The WWE (then the WWF) gave that to us. Whether it was completely by design or not, the characters and plot lines that emerged from that era of wrestling gave the audience what it craved: dramatic theater that seemed real and relatable. When the era ended, wrestling was never quite the same. The advent of social media, and a new breed of NBA superstar has achieved the remarkable and recreated an attitude era of its own. The void that was left in pop culture by the tamping down of the WWE’s delivery became filled by the storylines and characters we see competing on the court, and smack-talking in the media for the time in-between. It has led to immense popularity of the league and the high-level interest in its athletes that you simply do not get in any other sport.

By the early to mid 90s, I was done with wrestling. As a child in the 80s, I loved watching Hulk Hogan and all the others and then having fake matches with some friends on the playground at recess. By the time adolescence was taking hold, I found myself drifting away from that world and gravitating full-time to sports. It was more entertaining to see the competition unfold in real time, with no “assistance” from people running out of the back, or a referee getting knocked unconscious only to be revived at a determined time. The “good guy”, which was usually depended on what team you rooted for, did not always win. Michael Jordan emerged as the most popular athlete in the country, the Buffalo Bills failed to win their “title match” four times in a row, and I dare say the 1993 Phillies were an incredible group of athletes to observe.

It wasn’t until a high school friend convinced me in class one day that wrestling had a new face that I began to pay attention once again. He began explaining to me the evolution of Stone Cold Steve Austin. When he told me that Austin gained his new bad guy persona by saying he whipped Jake the Snake’s ass, I was immediately intrigued. Jake the Snake had been one of those wrestlers from the era when I watched as a kid, generally a good guy. When I was told that they allowed that to happen, I felt compelled to begin to tune in. It was just as the Monday Night Wars were heating up, with rival WCW showing on TNT Monday Nights as well. WCW had lured away much of WWE’s older talent that had name recognition. They also turned Hulk Hogan into a bad guy (RIP Mean Gene). Hogan led the new group of wrestling in WCW called the “nWo” which stood for the New World Order, signifying that the old ways of doing business were dead. Every Monday night I began to tune in to see what would happen next.

As I watched, I noticed it wasn’t the same old storylines, wrestling had evolved. Stone Cold was supposed to be a heel, but the crowds could not get enough of him. The supposed bad guys who were supposed to be booed were so charismatic and so refreshing in the face of the babyfaces that the crowds made their choice. The Rock encountered the same thing, in an arc that molded his career into what it is today. The Rock was first presented as WWE’s first third generation wrestler and came in fresh-faced and in, shall we say, colorful attire. The audience, bored by another wholesome, fresh-faced upstart began to boo him, chanting “Rocky sucks” over and over again (he was known as Rocky Maivia then). The powers that be had no choice but to turn him heel, and had him join the group The Nation of Domination, which was a play on a black militant group (the world was in a different place in the 90s). He started off by going down the checklist of what bad guys should do; he interfered in matches, he cheated to win, he clashed with supposed fan favorites. However, something else happened during this time, and that was his work on the microphone began to increase his popularity. His slick delivery and insults were not the traditional “the audience sucks, I’m gonna smash this wrestler in the cage” type of rhetoric. Much like Austin, The Rock came with a slick delivery and insults that made the crowd laugh instead of boo. It got to the point where the crowd started chanting “Rocky, Rocky” when he was speaking and yelling out his catchphrases. The rest is movie box office history.

It wasn’t just the bad guys that were turning good, the good guys where riding the edge of being bad. The group Degeneration X were headlined by fan favorite Shawn Michaels, one of the few wrestlers that could be described as a bad guy fan favorite before the Attitude Era began. The rise of DX became almost a battlecry for young people in that time; the very words of their theme song indicated they stood for counterculture and were directly against the stuffy traditions their parents and the boomer generation were trying to hold them too. The world had changed, the President of the United States was on trial for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office (a moment which DX hilariously mocked), OJ Simpson’s trial had permeated all manner of media, there was no disputing a new day had dawned in how Americans consumed and craved entertainment. There was no more wool being pulled over the eyes of the audience, they knew, they were in on the stories, they just wanted the stories to raise their eyebrows.

For many reasons.the Attitude Era eventually ended in 2002. After WWE acquired WCW, and the Rock and Austin began to fade away, the company rebranded. The company moved toward a more “PG” style of entertainment and while it retained many of its fans and still remains a popular entity today, it lost many casual fans that had been drawn in by the extreme stories and characters that had liberty to do and say just about anything.

The NBA was struggling from a period I call The Jordan Hangover during this time. With MJ retired, the league began chasing the next MJ instead of rebranding itself. Was it Kobe? Was it Allen Iverson? It became obvious that no one could fill those shoes (pun somewhat intended). Subsequently, the NBA went through a few phases of title runs with the Lakers and Spurs, and LeBron James ultimately entered the fray. While he was and always will be compared to Jordan, LeBron was a different type of superstar. His high school games had been broadcast on ESPN. He was allowed to join the league right from high school and began scoring 20 a night right off the bat. He was anointed and self-aware, but at the same time he had detractors and a long line of critics that would jump on any move he made. I think he became who he is today because he could handle all of that weight. Talk to any NBA fan and they can recite their list of players that came in with the hype of a freight train, but left the league with the whimper of a pushcart. LeBron had the hype and delivered. His performance in Game 5 of the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals heralded his true arrival. However, his inability to win a title ultimately drove him to the tipping point that changed the game in more ways than one.

There were certainly moments that evoke the Attitude Era between the end of the WWE version and the NBA version, I don’t know if I would call them precursors but I think they were the tremors that foreshadowed the quake. The Shaq-Kobe split, Ron Artest and along with him the Malice at the Palace, the  Stoudemire suspension in the Suns-Spurs series. More than anything, these moments that sports is always entertainment, and unscripted, which always delivers the potential for stand alone moments. There were moments, however, July 2010 was when it really all began. While LeBron had plenty of detractors, he had never done anything that was worthy of a good deal of backlash. He performed well on the court, stayed out of trouble off of it. He faced criticism for not bring his team a title but he had plenty of defenders. When he entered free agency in the summer of 2010, many knew he would most likely not return to Cleveland. The Decision was met with extreme hostility outside of South Florida. Similar to Hulk Hogan’s heel turn, many became devoted to not only cheering against LeBron, but writing him off forever.  On July 9th, 2010, LeBron was introduced, along with Chris Bosh, joining Dwyane Wade in MIami for a truly over-the-top press conference. It was so ostentatious that videos have been made with the nWo theme playing over it. The NBA was truly never the same.

LeBron has had quite a journey since then. He faced immediate backlash and ultimately expressed regret over the way he announced his decision, but the joining together of the “Big Three” in Miami was a success. LeBron floundered in the first of four straight NBA Finals the team would reach, losing to the Mavericks, but they went on to win two titles. LeBron ultimately went back to Clevaland and did the impossible, gaining them a title in 2016. His free agency departure from Cleveland was with less commotion the second time around, but still sent ripples across the league because he’s LeBron James. 

While LeBron remains a central figure in the league, and expands his influence outside of it, his decision and arrival in Miami in July of 2010 was the next stage of evolution for the league. The maneuvering around of star players in free agency is only half the story, the other competent are the athletes themselves finding their way in this new league. There are only a handful of veterans, most riding the bench for teams, that were in the league during the Jordan Hangover (props to Vince Carter for being in the league in the 90s and still playing). The new NBA athletes grew up when LeBron entered the league, they know who Michael Jordan, many wear his shoes, but they were young or not even alive when Jordan was at his peak. The internet was around from their youth, and they’ve had social media accounts for a significant amount of time. The NBA players today know the value of “brands”, and they also know that particularly in their sport players that are valuable hold a considerable amount of leverage, and can maximize that leverage through the media. The NBA superstars of today parallel the Attitude Era wrestling superstars of yesterday in many ways. 

Stone Cold Steve Austin’s gimmick was that he didn’t like his boss and would stop at nothing to piss him off and humiliate him. Nowadays when an NBA star is not happy with his coach or his contract, he makes it well known. Jimmy Butler essentially worked his trade out of Minnesota by using the media. The Rock became popular off his quips and catchphrases, often insulting his opponents. Smack talk, often through social media, is commonplace in the NBA between athletes now. One of wrestling’s staples were their superstars cutting “promos” in which they would set up storylines or attempt to verbally take down opponents. This past offseason Kevin Durant went on CJ McCollum’s podcast and basically told him that he could not beat the Warriors. This led to a social media spat with McCollum calling Durant soft for his decision to join the Warriors. The valuable angle to these types of back-and-forth is that it is out there on social media for everyone to see and react to. It’s a promo that is interactive, and unfolding in real time. 

The other great element to what the NBA has going is that much like the Attitude Era there are no clear lines for heels and babyfaces. If you like Joel Embiid’s taunting of the Timberwolves, you love Joel Embiid. If you don’t like him, you’ll tune in to see him fall in the playoffs. Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant’s split leaves the decision up to you; there is no good side or bad side, it all comes down to whose game you respect. 

Above all else, it is the drama that sustained the Attitude Era and that has lifted the NBA to new heights. Off-season and free agency speculation has become it’s own entity, dominating sports discussions in the summer. Fans cannot get enough of stories of in-fighting and social media moments where players are caught showing their true feelings on their team, management, or other players. The empowerment and recognition of this power by the players has been telling. Kawhi Leonard went the Sting route last season by sitting quietly in the rafters and moved to Toronto, causing huge waves without saying a word. The Spurs were thought to be a buttoned-up organization, but even they could not prevent a player defecting out of their system. This ability to craft their own story and generate so much content that #NBATwitter is thing, just has not permeated to other sports. Athletes in those sports do make statements and get into arguments on social media, but it doesn’t have the personality that the NBA superstars bring to it. While some sports fans lament of how the NBA used to be, with players giving generic answers to media questions and being content to wallow on a team for years while collecting top dollar but never winning many games, that era is over for players that want to control their brand. Judging by the popularity of the sport in its current form, the league is right where it wants to be.

The NBA may not be an exact replica of the Attitude Era. For one there were storylines and phrases said back then that are not appropriate for this day and time. However, the same desire for unfiltered content and ambiguous heroes in those stories exist. The superstars are young and brash, and are not afraid to express their discontent with management. They are loud and express themselves in a variety of ways, including their dress. They have developed cult followings and fans that will ride with them no matter what, going to great lengths to counter attacks on their performance. They in-fight, smack talk and bicker with each other, reaching to petty levels of back-and-forth. They take any slight against them extremely personal. These elements made the Attitude Era ascend to the heights of pop culture, and it’s making the NBA as popular as ever.

Let Millennials Kill Things

A popular trend in social media, and most likely conversations by individuals over 40 year of age, is to lament on how Millennial are "killing" certain aspects of American life. The most common "victim" are types of food, but other ways of life, or industries are also falling prey to this phenomenon. Older generations are finding the age group known as Millennials to be letting certain institutions of society crash to the very ground, and in the words of one of my favorite comedies of all time:

I am not Millennial, although in full disclosure I am not too far removed from the generation. I am in an interesting generational designation, as I am a late member of Generation X. This essentially means I was young, but cognizant of the 80s; I owned cassette tapes, witnessed the rise of MTV, and can actually say I could speak full sentences the last time the Mets won a World Series.The 90s kid trends are not foreign to me, and by the time I was turning into an adult, a new millennium was forming. 

Like any generation, Millennials take too much blame for the ills of the present. However, with the proliferation of nostalgia-fueled baby boomers and Gen Xers along with he dawn of the internet age we live in, they get criticized heavily at seemingly every turn. While the screams rain down from the older generations on what Millennials are doing to the fabric of our country's society, I urge them to put away their umbrellas and face the criticism with a determined grin, allowing the old world to fall and civilization to evolve.

While Gen-Xers such as myself have criticized the Millennials for various trends and problems (I may have uttered a disparaging word about the Millennial population while trying to hire for a low-paying position that was not glorious but a foot in the door in my industry years ago, some of it is inevitable), the real culprit of abuse is from the Baby Boomer generation. No group of populations in the country are more responsible for the quagmire we find ourselves in presently than the generation that followed the WW2 generation, often referred to as the greatest for their ability to defeat fascism from encasing the globe. The Boomers then led America on a twisted ride of cold war scares, political turmoil, unregulated industrial growth, globalization and exploitation of foreign populations, and so on and so on. 

These Boomers did not stop there though, as they still continue to dominate the current landscape. The average age of members of Congress is the oldest its ever been, the average age of cable news viewers are in the range of Boomers, and a large contingent of the US workforce are Boomers that have either retired or are on the brink of retirement. They are still actively influencing and positioning the country in ways that strictly benefit their generation, and in ways that will be paid for by generations here long after they go away. Which brings me back to these types of articles and "studies". The only constant is change, the world turns, even if we don't feel it move. The advancement of technology in my lifetime alone has affirmed that in the future there will be processes that are so streamlined life itself will be completely different.

[As an aside, many times when I am getting picked up or picking someone up from the airport, I marvel at how we ever got along in this process without smart phones. Seriously, I recall the days of hearing what time a flight was landing and wishing for the best of luck, hoping you had the right time and gate information and if something went amiss, or even the slightest detail was not able to be texted to one party: chaos]

It would be asinine to apply "age-old" techniques to modern day living. It's impossible to think the same way that previous generations did growing up. There is too much information readily available, and too many options to stand by an antiquated entity. 

Food

We'll start with chain restaurants as an example. Casual chain restaurants are in decline because Millennials don't want to sit down at the same restaurants repeatedly for sub-standard fare no matter how many appetizers you can stuff in onto your order at a quality price. The world of food has shrunk; no longer do you have to seek out variety in your restaurant diet, it's right there in your locale and often times can be ordered straight from your phone. Before the explosion of information, you were going to restaurants you saw commercials for on TV, or that your parents had brought you to when you were a kid. There is no longer the requirement to follow in those steps. Everything from Asian to Mexican to fusions of all kind exist at your fingertips. Chains are spurned because they offer the same food, usually unhealthy, served in the same blase manner. The market of consumers has spoken and they want food that is thoughtful, tasty, and for the most part healthy (or at the very least natural in its ingredients).  Are we not, as Americans, champions of the free market? Chain restaurants offer little in what Millennials are looking for, and while they may have a time and place, it is in the background of the future of food consumption.

Another restaurant chain type that is in its downfall are those such as Hooters, which offer not only mediocre food, but the opportunity to gawk at scantily clad women while doing so. I'm sure many anthropologists will have opinions as to why young people are less and less likely to frequent such establishments, but I have a few theories. One is, of course, the internet. While there is no such replacing seeing attractive women in person (as of yet), having the internet at ones finger tips provides almost limitless amounts of opportunity to view scantily clad (and less so) women at ones leisure. Why pay a premium price when you can sit at home and enjoy the same thing for free? Even Millennials can recognize a value. I would also content that women in the general population are less formally dressed than they used to be. I am not eliciting judgment and it may just be a shifting of freedom for women's expression, but yoga pants and the like allow women to be comfortable when out and about, not to the degree of a Hooters waitress in most cases, but enough where male's curiosity are not driven to the point where a pair of short orange shorts will provide entertainment.  My main hope, and it may be wishful thinking, is that restaurants such as these, are not worth it from a lifestyle standpoint for young people, and that includes the men and the women. In this day an age should a woman be forced into parading around in such attire with males gawking at them while chomping on bar food? The established boundaries for when and where women can be viewed as nothing but objects are being redefined and hopefully, clearly defined.

The last topic on food I will hit upon is specific food items that Millennials are associated with either killing or obsessing over. There is a long list of food Millennials have put on deathwatch, just a few being American cheese, mayonnaise, and cereal. In contrast, foods such as Avocados have skyrocketed in popularity. This tracks back to my earlier point that Millennials want food that is yes, many times convenient, but they also want fresh and they want relatively healthy for the most part. American cheese represents that square, plastic-looking, processed product that doesn't seem to qualify as beneficial to your nutrition. With the access to more and more information, young people are more aware of the harmful effects that either the food industry was not aware of, or the food industry deliberately hid (I'm looking at you, sugar) from the American public for years. Reiterating that as long as food and options are plentiful the new generation wants the real deal, as in real food.  Items such as mayo represent white goop that is packaged in a jar and sold from the middle aisles of a grocery store, while now there are dozens upon dozens of condiments, spicy and exotic, that can be used to enhance food. Why settle for the same old goop? I would think that the older folks would be ecstatic that one of the most popular foods of a generation is a healthy fruit, yet when Millennials are criticized one of the most popular euphemisms to refer to is that Millennials would rather spend money on Avocado Toast than important life expenditures such as cell phones and retirement. 

This is not a simple, "eat what you like" raw raw speech for the Millennials, it is simply an affirmation to demand more in your diet. Just because your parents and their parents stuffed themselves with processed food and unhealthy byproducts, doesn't mean you must suffer the same. Make the market adjust to fresh, real food. Lifestyle

When I was a kid growing up in Catholic School it was drilled into me that you grow up, you go to school, you go onto college, you immediately get married and get a job. You didn't know anything else, your parents and their generation, and the church was telling you this is the cycle of life and it is immutable. But as we see now, it is quite the opposite. Millennials are taking this knowledge and expanding their experiences before they settle down. The common phrasing is something to the effect of "30 is the new 20", but the essence is that the time for exploration and experiences is while you are still young. There is no obligation to find a partner right away and settle down. Job mobility is such that you don't have to feel locked into a certain job, you can move on and try something new since you are not tied down. The bottom line is that Millennials are getting married later and buying homes later in their life. It is actually a good thing for Millennials in one sense; most young people starting out in their 20s do not know how they are, or what they want out of life. Getting married young and locking yourself into a position can lead to hardships down the road. This, I believe, is why divorce rates on the decline in the younger population that is getting married later. If you are older and more mature, you know what you want and in turn are more certain you have the right partner when it is time to settle down.

A flip side to the wandering Millennials is that it decreases their ability to increase wealth. Housing has never been more expensive, and other life expenses such as health insurance continue to soar. These leads to Millennials backing off big life decisions, renting for longer, and not being able to avoid certain luxuries such as diamonds (this is one of my favorite reactions to the twitter post about Millennials not buying diamonds). The Boomers still hold a lot of the cards when it comes to these issues.. Wages are stagnant while cost of living has continued upward. Even if you wanted to settle down, could you afford to or would you have to work years before you are in the position the previous generations enjoyed where a house and car and amenities can be had if you had a good job. This leads to frustration when the Boomers take the position of young people being lazy and not wanting to work. For the most part they do, but the deck is stacked against them. The cost of an education from an institution of higher learning is most likely to come with student loans that stay with you for years to come. And they wonder why more and more younger people are moving back in with their parents after college, it's to survive and attempt to make headway on their personal advancement. "Make Stuff Affordable Again" would be a fitting slogan for those struggling right now, who are working toward a comfortable station in life, with or without their Avocado Toast.

The Future

The last point that really needs to hit home with Millennials is the future of our society. Not just social media and how its data and interactions are handled, but what can be done to assure there are generations after that have a chance to live in a prosperous world. The recent revelation from a scientific study by scientists around the world have concluded that if the present course is maintained, we could see the collapse of this iteration of civilization within 22 years. That is galling, but not surprising given the direction of the country the past 60 years, but especially the past 20. Instead of leading the way on innovation and sustainability, we allow these monolith corporations (which are responsible for most of the carbon problem to begin with) to continue their damaging practices and buy off anyone who wants to take our world in a new direction. I am all for capitalism, and the free market, but it has to be a market that leaves us with an actual planet to exist on. Left to their own devices, the corporate climate of the Boomers have decimated the environment, increased the wage gap, avoiding paying billions in taxes that could go into the country's infrastructure and other services. There is so much opportunity out there for leading the way in clean business practices, but as long as the old guard holds the power, they will make the rules and they will feed information to the public that our demise is really just a hoax.

All of the issues I've discussed comes back to my main point: the pining for days gone by needs to end, and the Millennials need to take charge of this world. The Boomers and others have had their time, and while they used it to enrich themselves and lay the bill with the rest of us left. I believe their damage can be mitigated. I implore Millennials (who again I am not one of) to let old establishments die, and use the resources we have now and the foundations of this country we have built to make a better world. Let things such as nonviable industries die, do not bend to the rules of previous generations because they tell you that's how it was back in their day. 

College Football is Back, and I Will Be Watching

College Football is back! Since I was a young lad I have enjoyed watching college football; the pageantry, the passion, the rivalries, the tailgates, the hours of lying on a couch and being entertained. In college I was fortunate to attend during a time when my university was at the height of the sport and won a national championship. That only fueled my intense focus on the sport even more. But wait......aren't there a litany of problems in college football and college sports in general? Yes, yes there are. Problems that may affect the passion one has for the sport, possibly diminishing it enough not to watch or at the very least, watch with keeping these issues at the forefront of one's mind? Again, yes. This was supposed to be a pure, unadulterated and unfettered celebration of the return of America's premiere secular experience, it's now going to turn into one of those unbearable think pieces on the state of the game and how it relates to society, isn't it? Also, yes.

I suppose we can start at the fundamental argument of football itself. We all know football is a violent game, once so violent that in the infant days of college football it was almost outlawed due to the severe injuries and in some cases, death of ts participants.   It has only been recently that focus in the form of research and litigation that the overall merits of the game versus health of players has been examined. 

The most chilling accounts are of former players that have had severe declines in physical and mental health after leaving the game. Some have had the courage to have their bodies and in particular their brains donated to science to be examined after their death. The result have been mostly cases of severe CTE. What was more haunting than anything in the college football realm was Washington State quarterback Tyler Hilinski committing suicide this offseason and subsequently being found to have CTE. This was a player, in the most protected position in the game was found to have CTE while he was still in college. It gives some people pause to cheer on this sport that could have such grave implications. Increasingly, we are seeing lawsuits brought on by former college football players as the NCAA scrambles to fend off the lawsuits with one hand, and develop reasonable and protective concussion protocol with the other.  Unlike the NFL, college football is a scattered enterprise, comprised of hundreds of schools in their own conferences and at various levels of competition (Divisions I, II, III, NAIA, etc). These various levels of existence create various levels of funding and medical training staff. You do not have to be an SEC starter to be affected by an injury that will stay with you for years beyond your time on the field.

So how does one reconcile the potential crippling nature of the sport? Some don't mind, others will point to the voluntary nature of participation. While it is true that college football athletes are not held in captivity and forced to participate like gladiators of Rome, in certain cases football is the only means by which an individual can improve the status of their livelihood, or at least that is what they are told. The best I can offer is to recognize the issues that are happening, and not ignore them. Player safety has to be paramount, even when the game is based on violent collisions. Rule implementations have sought to decrease the worst kind of collisions by eliminating hits targeted at the head of other players, or by using the helmet as a launch weapon. There needs to be increased oversight of both coaches and players when it comes to injuries. Coaches want their best players to be out there, and players want to play just about no matter what. Still, when a player is lying motionless on the field after a big hit, or a player wobbly stumbles to the sidelines, the feeling of the why I watch and invest so much in watching creeps up the back of my neck.

The other prime element that makes for uncomfortable watching is the system of amateurism within college football. Having worked in the industry of college athletics, I could spew a book worth of thoughts on the framework of amateur college athletics in this country. To boil it down, the players deserve more. I do not believe they should be salaried employees, but they need to be compensated more than they already are at present. My main issue settles around the right for a player to use his(or her for female sports) image and likeness for monetary gain. I won't go into details here, but it can be accomplished without making it the wild west for boosters. Johnny Manziel, for all his flaws and faults deserved to capitalize on the swell of popularity while he played at Texas A&M. Whatever he was getting compensated for under the table, or outside the rules is irrelevant to this argument. If you are a public figure of note and entities around you are reaping the monetary benefits of your success, something is wrong. Again, I am not advocating for the third strong long snapper to get the same rate as the starting quarterback, but when billions in television deals, ad revenues and apparel sales for the school and other entities are being collected, something has to be done.

The laziest argument to be made for this issue is to simply say a scholarship/education is sufficient for these individuals at their collegiate institution. This is laughable considering the strides in awards the players are able to receive within the past decade. Scholarships can now go up to the university's listed cost of attendance which accounts for expenses outside of the traditional tuition, room and board, and books scholarships had been allowed to contain in the past. Furthermore, medical and academic expenses have no limit in terms of what the school can provide. Travel expenses, including for family members, have been expanded. If an education was enough, why has there been an increase in what players receive.Still, most polls show the public is in favor or just about even on the topic of paying collegiate players. The populace likes their tradition, especially when it comes to college football. As I watch on Saturdays, I again have that bad taste of knowing some of these players who will not make a living playing football professionally will have failed to make their due in college due to archaic rules. One glimmer is that things have changed and continue to change with great momentum in this area and in time we could see proper compensation or at least something closer to it. I doubt that is of comfort to those on the field now.

If I had to target one other major area which puts a significant cramp in my enjoyment of the sport of college football, it is the deification of coaches. Coaching a successful college football program is difficult, exceedingly so. My intent is not to diminish that or the profession in general. The problem I have is the autonomy, and in some cases the recklessness with which they are allowed to operate. I won't begrudge the enormous salaries, we do live in a free market now, don't we? It is amusing to me, however, how often athletic departments can get taken for a ride on a coach that has not proven much. This includes bloated buyouts on the back end so when a coach does fail or flame out in spectacular fashion, they are given a suitcase full of cash on the way out the door. Well, come to think of it, I guess that is little different for high-level executives in the corporate world. 

My grievances are more of certain individuals to resemble even a small slice of what they portend to be to their athletic departments, universities, the public at-large, and the parents of the players they coach. Too many times, and sadly mostly after tragedy occurs, we hear of how a coach operated with impunity, and fostered an environment that either put his players in danger or allowed his players to be a danger to others. There are countless examples, but I would like to focus on two. One is Butch Jones at Tennessee. There was a clear culture issue going on during his tenure there but the sole incident that burned me up was when a wide receiver was assisting and helping to report a victim of sexual assault by his teammates, Jones called him a traitor for betraying his teammates. The player also faced the wrath of his teammates and ended up transferring. Jones denied the allegations, but I remain dubious. Even if Jones is correct in that he never told the player that, it indicates the kind of toxic culture that can be fostered in football programs. Where crimes, and particularly those against women are not punished and reported correctly and those that want to report them fear the repercussions.

The other incident is the recent tragedy at Maryland. A young man lost his life because he was being put through physical conditioning drills while displaying signs of distress. This followed with players providing information to ESPN about the coaching and strength staff bullying players, and forcing them to workout without proper safety precautions. Furthermore, the article has a quote from an anonymous staff member saying they wouldn't let their son play in the program. This really infuriates me because it is the number one duty of athletic staff members to lookout for the welfare and well-being of student-athletes in their charge. Being aware of a bad situation and remaining silent is just as much of a horrid act as the perpetrators themselves. It is mind-blowing to me that in this day and age, with all the lives that have been lost in previous incidents, including recently, and everything we know about the science of performance, that we still have coaches that are pushing kids to extreme limits. Working them out past the duration that is healthy and denying them proper hydration. This doesn't mold men into battle-tested warriors, it puts their health and lives at risk. In game situations, you see trainers everywhere, water is provided at every turn, and if a player is fatigued he gets substituted. Why some feel the need to restrict these safeguards in training because they think it will make them perform better I'll never know. If you are familiar with the story of Bear Bryan't Junction Boys, you think to yourself that situation would never happen today. Unfortunately, there are coaches out there with this mindset. It is clearly a foolish and risky behavior.

These coaches are held on such pedestals they often think themselves beyond reproach. Urban Meyer's situation is still unfolding while he will remain as the coach at Ohio State, but the lengths that people have gone to in order to defend him and keep him there as their coach is telling about the culture across the country. These cultures are so embedded, they want their program to win and remain protected from outside forces, even in the face of criminal and horrifying atrocities. These people cannot be reasoned with, and any attempts at finding the real stories behind their coaches' scandals are met with extreme blowback. I don't know what exactly happened at Ohio State, but I know it wasn't good, and there were most likely negative situations that were not dealt with because of wanting to keep the status quo in place, which was winning football games.

These are not singular attacks on specific programs, if you root for a major college football program, myself included, you have witnessed a situation where the consideration of the football program or a high profile coach has been placed before human decency or even the law. It definitely affects how I have viewed the "purity" of college football. But in the end, is any large enterprise we consume a pure endeavor? We can answer "no" rather quickly because these all deal with human beings, and the fallibility humans show, particularly in college football, is both unsurprising and a reflection of bigger problems in society as a whole. However, with all this considered, knowing everything I know, being witness to how the sausage gets made and unable to simply be blissfully or willfully unaware of the blotches, I continue to watch. Not only that, I get excited to watch, I get animated when I see something online about my team or other teams that are meant to elicit a reaction. I won't say that I can't help it, or that I am an addict. It is a conscious choice to continue to consume college football. Despite the negatives, it is a great spectacle, with great story lines, characters, traditions, and a following that evokes every emotion imaginable. I don't watch in defiance of the apparent negatives, but with the acknowledgement that I am experiencing something I love, that I wish it will to strive to be better, and that is imperfect.  

Plugging In, Tuning Out, and Jotting Down

It has been six years since I have written anything down, whether it is pen to paper or a blog post. I could concoct a list of reasons why this is so...and I will in this post. When I began this blog, it was mainly to be a source for me to drop my brain onto somewhere so that it didn’t stay jumbled in my head. I didn’t expect much readership then and I definitely still do not now, however I think it will be good for me to continue to write these posts again, and even include some short stories I have had concepts for in my head. As Epictetus said, “If you wish to be a writer, write.” and while I have no illusions of ever making a living as a writer, I do want to be able to perform the activity on a habitual basis.

So first, I will roll out the reasons (and/or excuses) as to why there has been no posts in the last number of years.

The main reason is laziness. Most people do not like to admit to themselves as having a lazy nature or any appearance that they are not constantly in motion or striving to get as much accomplished as possible. However, I am being honest with myself here, many times I was simply too lazy to sit down and write. I’ve always had a proclivity for putting things off, whether it was school work, work projects, or the mundane tasks that surround our everyday lives. I am perfectly satisfied with existing in a state of inaction in regular functions, most to my keep my mild amusement. I’ll binge watch a show, I’ll catch a sporting event I have no rooting interest in, I’ll simply walk or run outside to pass time. What I must work on is sitting down and hammering out these words; that is, if I wish to write as much as I envision in the coming years. 

The second reason was the ability to find other outlets in which to express a thought or opinion. This mainly comes through Twitter. There are few comment sections I find worth the time of wallowing in, but I began a lot of fruitful, real-life friendships through posting in the comment section of a sports blog many years ago. As time went on, most of those individuals moved onto Twitter. With the recent turn in American politics, Twitter has become a focal point of social conversation, and mostly not in a positive way as I will get to later. However, it is a way to express one’s self and even get some feedback bounced back with others you know and some you may not. 

I do not think in a linear fashion, my mind does not travel from A to B very often. You can see it in the way I would take notes at work. A single plain sheet of white paper would be spattered with notes, contact information, and important reminders. Different color ink, some sections blocked off with asymmetrical lines. My brain trail takes off in one location and then begins to wander and almost radiate in a cloud-like fashion. By the end of a thought process, I’ve almost lost the original point or picked up a few other tangential ones along the way. That is why I avoided condensing everything into posts on here, but it is also the reason that I need to start doing so. 

Returning to my thought about writing things on the internet, the glaring issue right now when it comes to sharing ideas or making statements on the internet is the tone of the conversation at the moment. There are many, perhaps too many think pieces on what is going on right now, but my commentary is simply that the focus has never been more on “sides” than it is now. People are so adamant to have their ideas validated, find like-minded people to give them a virtual confirmation of their opinion that a lot of reason is being left behind. No matter which side you fall in to socially or politically, everyone has to have their side win and be right, on every single issue. It makes you want to exit the conversation, so that the only ones left in the room are those screaming at each other, and hence those are the people that get the attention. I don’t know a solution for it, and it seems social media opened up the Pandora's Box on good social conversation. I’ve mostly kept any commentary on politics, religion, or societal improvement to myself, except when someone makes a cohesive, well-articulated point. Even then, in the tweet replies or comments you can find enough people from the other side of the issue there to blast common sense and useful discourse to oblivion.

The other reasons mostly are a mix of simple life experiences that most can relate with in some way. You get caught up with work, you enjoy your free time to hang out with friends you make, and then when you are alone, you just want to decompress. Then, as in my case, you meet someone, and if you are doing it right, you are devoting a lot of time to that person and the relationship. If it works out, you make the long-term commitment, which we did about a month ago. 

In a period of reflection, I came to the conclusion that I wanted to write again, and have it pasted somewhere, even in a dimly lit corner of the internet because it would be helpful to me, I always felt that writing gave me an avenue to release mental tension. I’ve enjoyed attempting to be creative in the past and I’ve had many ideas pop into my head over the years, some that no doubt have floated away due to me not writing them down. There is also an inspiration factor, as I have seen some close to me put out great work, including becoming authors. This is something I should do, it may not be as necessary as I once thought, yet I am determined to keep myself to it.

So where to begin? As I mentioned, I don’t have a linear journey planned. I am unsure of the frequency of content. Brain to paper (or blog in this instance) will be an adventure, and there will be successes and failures of varying degrees of magnitude. So off we go, wherever it takes us.

The Small Value of Advice

Can I give you some advice?  It is perhaps one of the greatest bullshit rhetorical questions there is.  When someone asks you that question, their advice is going to follow.  Taking away the line used by movie villains in their first on-screen meeting with the protagonist, the advice you give or get when it comes to matters you consider vital to the head and the heart is minuscule.  In fact, it is damn near irrelevant.

I think I overthink things.  In my first post here I shared what was on my mind regarding making decisions.  I postulated that my mind was already decided before I went through any amount of agonizing pondering over something that was important to me.  Often times during that process I seek out the opinions of those whom I deem to have opinions worth hearing.  I do listen to what they say, and it is folded into the milieu of white noise that is surrounding the problem set before me.  Sometimes it is just to hear a different take on the issue, or it could be I enjoy getting the thoughts out of my head and out into the open to see how they sound bounced off someone else.  The truth remains that the conclusion rarely comes down to what someone else's input is. We are all selfish by human nature.  Anyone who has independent thought might seek the wisdom of others, but ultimately it is your opinion that weighs the most.  The best thing advice can do is perhaps trigger or reinforce a thought in your mind which was already there, helping you further along your course. 

Haven't we all been there: a close friend is in a bind, usually an emotional one...usually involving how they feel about another individual.  They confide in you and may even ask what they should do.  To you the choice is obvious: the other person does not treat them well, the other person does not like them, you don't like the person they become when they are around the other.  Since outright stating these facts is a risk, we usually dance around it.  You try to subtely make them see what is right there in front of them like a 4 year-old searching for the last foam puzzle piece.  The truth is that they don't want to hear the truth.  If they are a true friend they value you as a person, but they don't want to hear what they already know.

Of course as a friend it is one's duty to tell them anyway.  Words are chosen delicately or should be.  If you are too blunt your advice could turn into preaching in their eyes and uncountable number of friendships have dissaptated over this kind of dispute.  Yet time after time I have watched as people ignore the advice that many are giving them, simply because in their own mind they are compelled, or duped to believe they are compelled, to make that decision.

Before I can judge someone else too harshly on willfully ignoring the facts of the situation, I look to myself.  There have been many times I have ignored valuable advice in order to satiate the direction of my mind.  It comes to the point where you either have to say that it is inevitable and internalize the situation as to not have to hear that advice anymore or you make the change.  There is the small chance that the advice is fallible but you are not going in lockstep with it in the first place, if you do end up choosing that course of action it was of your own mind.  Your friend was just giving you their 2 cents.

Why I Cannot See Myself on a Desert Island

It's a classic scenario.  Stranded on a desert island somewhere in the tropics.  Just you alone with your thoughts.  It is often used as an example to determine your preferences; people will ask, for example, if you could only bring one book/cd/supermodel to the island which would it be.  Those hypothetical situations are not what I think of when someone mentions a desert island.  When it is mentioned I tend to think more in the realistic scenario of getting stranded on an island by myself without immediate hope of rescue.  While on certain days I would welcome the chance to escape this white collar drudgery and on others I would love to put my Crusoe-esque skills to the test (if I have any) there is one glaring detail that I cannot get over.  It prevents me from ever wanting to be marooned on the aforementioned island or archipelago.

[flashes back to 5th grade]

It all started in class.  We had a pop quiz and the questions were on the chalkboard.  Mrs. Bradin, our teacher who had bells palsy had written quite legible and large with her good arm the questions.  I was not seated in the back of the class but all of a sudden I realized I couldn't read the questions.  I had to literally walk right up to the board to read them.  That is when I knew I had bad eyesight.  It should not have come as a shock given both my parents wore glasses.  Still, in a small catholic school where even the slightest movement attracts attention and judgement, this was a hefty blow.  Now there is nothing wrong with glasses, and those that had worn them from a young age had that marker as part of their image.  Sure some were labeled nerds, Saved By The Bell certainly helped in perpetuating that stereotype, but there were middles and higher ups on the social ladder of our 40-some number of classmates that wore spectacles.

However, right as we were about to enter middle school my eyes expressed their genetic make-up.  I am nearsighted.  Without visual aids I cannot see anything 3 feet in front of my face.  Not good timing in this case.  I broke the news to my mom and off to the eye center we went.  I got the news and got perhaps the most unattractive silver framed glasses possible.  The selection process was set up for disaster.  Here I am already loathe to be selecting eyegear and combined with my intolerance for shopping of any kind I nabbed the first pair of rims I see just to end the process quickly.  I ended up looking like a young Bill Gates, the frames were just not flattering.  Of course I was too socially sensitive about the whole thing.  I got a few pokes and prods but after awhile I was just another kid with glasses.  I could see the board when needed, although it did not give me supposed egghead powers like Homer.

A couple years later I was given liberation from the ill-fitting glasses and introduced to contact lenses.  I've been with them ever since.  After some initial trouble with them it's second nature to take them out and put them in.  I've had a few different kinds but right now I use the one-month disposable.  They work well enough but sometimes I still have trouble with distance.

The point of that whole digression was to emphasize how important the lenses are to my vision.  If we flash back to the present and assume I am on some kind of voyage over open water, be it air or sea and a wreck leaves me stranded on an island, vision is my top concern. 

Assuming my contacts stayed in during the chaos that brought me to the island, I have no longer than a month to enjoy accurate vision.  To further this problem, I take special care to remove my contacts each night.  I know with the type I use it is important to take them out while I sleep, both to clean the lenses and give my eyeballs oxygen.  It's one of the basic tenants of contact care (I am aware there are a few types out there that allow for sleeping).  Assuming I have to leave them in while sleeping because I won't have a case and solution, stretching their lifetime out beyond the one month would be iffy.

Now in the movies or other stories there are usually some kind of convenient turn of events that allows for the stranded character to make due with his hardships.  Tom Hanks had some Fedex boxes wash ashore (which I concede is plausible) but I assume that whatever luggage item carrying my contact case and solution will be lost at sea.  The chances of me holding onto them are slim and even if I did, I only would have brought a finite amount of solution and only one spare set of contacts.

I can imagine trying to get as much done as I can while having adequate eyesight: trying to build a fire, stockpiling coconuts, checking all flora and fauna on the island, determining a help signal.  However, once those contacts reach untenable levels of crustiness I will have to throw them away.  At that point the world will be a very well-lit blur.  I will have to stumble around, most likely using some kind of walking stick.  At night I won't be able to see anything, with or without moon or fire.  If I were to develop a fishing technique it would be terribly difficult without the use of vision.  Not having the contacts would reduce my chances of surviving and even worse, of getting rescued.

This knowledge prevents just about every desert island scenario from being a fantastical adventure.  Of course there are many other things that could and probably would go wrong.  I could suffer an injury without proper medicine.  Some kind of wild animal could get me.  There could be inadequate amounts of food or water.  I might not be able to start a fire (I was never a Boy Scout but I think I could get a fire going eventually).  Much like Piggy's vision being central to survival for the Lord of the Flies, I don't want to envision how I would have to stumble about no a tropical island with horrible vision.  If forced to I would naturally do my best to survive and possibly my eyes would get a little adjusted to not wearing the contacts all the time but not something I would look forward to going through.

So if the conversation turns to what book I would bring with me to a desert island I can answer that easily (Count of Monte Cristo), but if it is time to imagine survival scenarios I hope it never comes to the point where I'm left with -6.25 vision.

Haiku #347

The fall leaves wear frowns

Burned orange, dry gold and brown

Winds betray vibrance

A humorous take on this latest venture of mine from just about my favorite show ever.

The Philosophy of the Choices We Make

I am not the sharpest piece of cutlery in the drawer, yet I am not the dullest piece of iron in the scrap heap.  What the horrid analogy in the opening sentence of this blog is attempting to allude to is that people often tell me I think or dwell on aspects of life too much.  It is a self-realization I have had since I was a young person and it does not necessarily mean I am a person of higher intelligence.  You can play basketball every day of your life (warning: all my writing will contain analogies this vague) but not be really that good at it.  Sure you will develop a certain comfort level with handling the ball, shooting, etc., but your natural ability and talent takes you as far as you will go.  So while I often will ponder, ruminate and even sometimes marinate far too long on the workings of the universe it doesn't mean I have attained a higher level of metaphysical understanding.  In truth, I'm probably more lost than I was when I started out.

I've come to realize that it will not stop me from this exercise, and that got me thinking about....my thinking.  I'm not the only one who wonders about how we as humans make choices.  There are certainly a wide spectrum of opinions on the subject.  I can't speak with absolutism (should anyone though?) on the theories which religion and science have brought forth but I can relate my experiences.  In the end that is really all we have to go on.  I do think that the knowledge you gain from study in accompaniment to how you process your life experiences should form how you view existence.  This is mostly because in the end you are the one person you are irrevocably attached to.  The difficult part is tempering the passion of your convictions when relating them to others; a problem I do not believe the world has solved or has the ability to solve.

One of the tenants of life I learned growing up was that people had free will.  I can't say for certain if that is what most kids are taught growing up.  Believe it or not I was even taught this in the Catholic grade school I went to.  In my 7th grade religion class workbook it had the passage that read: "God gave man the free will to choose between right and wrong."  I was so entranced I pulled out my yellow highlighter and vigorously covered it in bright neon ink.  Here I was, at odds with the stringent teachings of dogmatic Catholic faith that told me about everyday how it was God's way (according to them) or the path of damnation and in a book used to teach me about that way was this revelation.  It fostered my belief that we all had a clean slate in front of us, that nothing was pre-destined in our lives and the choices we made were what made our lives into what they would become.  I cannot say for certain that the noble principle I formed back then is wrong, I just know I don't exactly believe it anymore.

As I got older and was exposed to more of what life has to offer (the good and bad) I began to think that maybe there was a natural flow to life and our choices.  I never got as far that all of life was a forgone conclusion and all our choices are merely steps that we have no control over as we wind down our eventual path.  My freshman year of high school our English teacher made us memorize "The Road Less Traveled" by Robert Frost.  "Two roads diverge in a yellow wood and sorry I could not travel both" it begins.  I think the poem itself is more of a parable of going against conformity and the benefits that can bring but it made me think of how there are only two roads in this yellow wood.  The choice is up to you but you are destined to choose one or the other.  This brought about my thinking that one's life could take a series of dramatic turns based on the choices they make, however one only has a certain amount of choices available.  These choices were limited by all the circumstances the universe had constructed to put them in that very spot.  From there it was the individual's free will of choice that made all the difference.

So for a long time, through my 20s I was one of the mind that it was my choices that had put myself in the position I was in for better or worse.  Within the encompassing frame of my existence I was actively forging the direction of my life.  However, during this time the velocity of my life had slowed and for a good stretch of time I referred to my situation more as a crossroads than two roads diverging.  Suddenly circumstances didn't seem to matter as much.  The bottom line is that my choices seemed to be more inevitable outcomes than meticulous culminations of rational thought in my head.

I used to give a lot of snark (hopefully in my head not outwardly) when acquaintances or even friends of mine would give me the "everything happens for a reason" line.  I still view that line with disdain, mainly because of course there is a reason for everything that happens but it is not always a good one.  It is a throw away line in my opinion to make people feel better when bad shit happens to them.  It is like when a bird shits on your car and people tell you it is good luck or if it is raining on a bride's wedding day people offer to her that it is a sign of good luck.  Cause and effect does not always bend in your favor.  I do know that religious people subscribe to the "everything works out in the end" theory of life so I just accept that is what they believe and I try not to deride it.  I say try but I can't get completely on board with that. 

 [I am not anti-religion as I have noticed this post might insinuate so far.  I consider myself a believer in a higher power, I just don't know who or what it is and what it's purpose is in regards to the human race.  Railing against organized religion may make me seem like another hipster atheist who says they are spiritual but it just is not true.  My aim is not to deconstruct religion or God in this post but the tie-ins to my experiences in the past with the subject and with many friends whom are connected deeply with their respective churches is necessary to my thoughts.]

I sometimes get the "this is God's plan" line but I can't sit back and say oh well, the churning of my mind is all facilitated as part of a grand design.  Once again I bite my lip for my friends merely trying to comfort or encourage me.  Once again as time went on though, something to this effect crossed my mind.  It had nothing to do with God, or at least in a theological sense.  I began to wonder recently in the past months whether my actions and decisions were all as inevitable as I previously thought.  I hearkened back to many crucial life decisions I had made in the past few years.  I felt as if there were choices in front of me, but in the end I went with the one that I felt compelled to make.  The one that was inherent in me to choose.  Even the decisions that seemed to pull me off a planned track or derail what could have afforded me a more stable situation seemed to be an involuntary function. 

There are theories out there (I heard about it on the podcast Radiolab) that the universe goes on and on and that since there are only a finite number of chemicals and molecules out there (given in a ginormous variety) and a finite way of arranging them (also huge number) that somewhere along the lines there is another you out there, arranged in exactly the same way with the same body and brain making the same decisions you are.  This simply means the chemical make-up of your brain will determine everything about you and if you were created with exactly the same molecules you would act and decide the same way.

To me this goes to the other extreme of where I first started out.  Most of the time I meet in the middle when my two extremes clash and this was no different.  Lately I feel that there is most definitely an open choice before me, but my brain is going to compel me to choose one way no matter what.  It's not exactly a forgone conclusion, but when it comes down to it myself knows myself for lack of a better phrase.  There might be people out there that are capable of making that other choice, but right now personally I cannot see it. 

Perhaps this comes from my experiences and how my earlier life choices influenced the course of events.  Now having gone through that my emotions and rational mind are in tune to what I really want and all the ponderous thought that would go into a decision are merely just a brain exercise.  Deep down my mind knows which path I will take, and it get's to that decision much quicker.  This can leave me slightly unnerved that I am merely floating along.  It also gives the feeling that I should make the opposite of a important decision just to break that pattern but then you fall into the classic conundrum of that's exactly what my brain knew I would do and it ends up being the choice you make anyway.

So where this leaves me on my first meandering post of this blog is that for right now it appears I am compelled to make certain choices in my life.  Not necessarily because of a higher power guiding me and definitely not because of a moral obligation of righteousness.  It is merely what my mind knows what I want.  I will never be impulsive, I always will over-analyze these choices, but from inside the walls of my cerebrum all that thought is just a way to pass the day, much like this blog.