Jack Golub – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Sat, 31 Dec 2022 14:51:24 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Jack Golub – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Golub: Daryl Morey, a Chinese Revolutionary https://stanforddaily.com/2019/10/14/golub-daryl-morey-a-chinese-revolutionary/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/10/14/golub-daryl-morey-a-chinese-revolutionary/#respond Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:01:21 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1158532 Up until last week, Tilman Fertitta had made a mildly bad impression as owner of the Rockets. He gets the “mildly” modifier because plenty of other owners have done the same. He loves to talk to the media, whether it be to publicly doubt Daryl Morey, perhaps the most innovative and successful GM in the league, or complain about his players.

The post Golub: Daryl Morey, a Chinese Revolutionary appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Up until last week, Tilman Fertitta had made a mildly bad impression as owner of the Rockets. He gets the “mildly” modifier because plenty of other owners have done the same. He loves to talk to the media, whether it be to publicly doubt Daryl Morey, perhaps the most innovative and successful general manager (GM) in the league, or complain about his players. Despite recently buying the team for a then-record $2.2 billion (only eclipsed by new Nets owner Joe Tsai’s $2.35 billion; we’ll get to him later), Fertitta has tried to duck under the luxury tax. After Morey’s tweet in support of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement, Fertitta raised his malfeasance to the next level. Almost immediately after reading Morey’s tweet, Fertitta took to the twitterscape to condemn his GM and explain that the Rockets are “apolitical.” His tweet — the instant refutation of his GM’s words, the hypocritical insistence on an impossibility — kicked the snowball down the mountain.  If all goes well, the ensuing avalanche has only just begun.  

As an international cultural force, the Houston Rockets organization doesn’t get to choose to be apolitical. The absence of political stance, like, say, advocating for democracy in a repressive, authoritarian led territory, is itself a political stance. If the Rockets as an organization truly were apolitical, then they would have had no comment on something their employee said. If they were truly apolitical, their owner would not regularly go on CNBC and wax lyrical about the joys of capitalism and the need to enable big business billionaires to make more money so that they might be able to higher a few more minimum wage workers. Fertitta was wrong to apologize for Morey. If he threatened to fire Morey unless Morey deleted his tweet and semi-apologized, which is my guess as to what happened, he was wrong there, too. However, his ill-advised attempt at preserving his Rockets’ Chinese market no matter the ramifications might end up being a good thing.

Following up on the Fertitta tweet and the widespread condemnation of Chinese “companies” like Tencent and the CBA, the NBA stumbled into the arena. In a bumbling, hardly legible statement befitting the Notes app screenshot via Shams tweet delivery it rode into the internet, the NBA’s statement stopped just short of condemning Morey while trying hard to apologize to China. In their Mandarin version statement, they fully condoned Morey. Who knew someone on Twitter might be able to speak both languages.

Their statement wasn’t enough for China to reverse its ban on all things Rockets, but it was enough to incur the ire of basically all of America. The NBA, in its cultural unifying glory, managed to bring Beto O’Rourke and Ted Cruz to the same side of the debate. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver naturally followed up with a heartier affirmation of freedom of speech. China responded in kind, blasting Silver for his misunderstanding of freedom of speech and cutting off TV access to the NBA, including the games that were being played by NBA teams in China. As an aside, China’s response was lunacy. They said that freedom of speech does not include statements that challenge national sovereignty. First of all, who are you, China, to decide what freedom of speech means in the U.S.? Second of all, if China itself stopped challenging the national sovereignty of its various territories, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Alas, Silver stopped short of exposing the hypocrisy.

Why did the NBA have to walk such a tight line? China is a larger market than the U.S.; more people in China watched Game 6 of the recent NBA Finals than people in America. Like many other big international corporations, the NBA has capitulated to China’s authoritarian control. It accepts unfair rules. Because China so heavily censors its citizens’ access to internet and so severely threatens any public opinion unaligned with the government, people in China don’t get the opportunity to form their own opinions. The NBA, then, makes itself beholden to government officials. Nets owner (making him an NBA governor) and Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai nicely conveyed China’s stance. Tsai probably doesn’t have a choice in what to say, given the immense pressure he must be under from his government.  It’s telling in itself that Tsai, the Taiwan-raised, American-educated, capitalist superhero, has no choice but to stick to the script the government gives him.

 At first glance, Tsai’s Facebook letter reads like a well-informed explanation from the perspective of someone personally involved in Chinese politics. If you read with the slightest critical lens, though, it’s a different story. Tsai laments foreign intervention in China, including the British-instigated Opium Wars. Britain sought to grow its economic power by selling opium to the Chinese. Here, Tsai is reminding us that China is intimately familiar with using political strategy to enable economic greed. It seems China has learned its lesson and managed to reorient the political power structure to serve its own needs. Instead of letting other countries wage war in order to profit, China now sets the political table to its choosing. If other countries want to profit, they must play by China’s rules. China still represents a giant untapped (or not yet fully tapped) market, but now Xi Jinping’s authoritarian regime uses its people to solidify its own stranglehold on power.

Eventually, Tsai concludes with the party line: The Hong Kong protestors are separatists. The Chinese people deserve the support, or at the very least the immunity from, democracy-hungry Westerners because they don’t want to lose Hong Kong again. I’m sure the 18th Century British empire would empathize; they probably hated losing their favorite colony, too. 

On another note, it really irks me when Chinese officials talk about how so many average joe Chinese people are outraged by what’s happening. Maybe if they didn’t censor their internet and gave their citizens any sort of freedom of speech then we, the entire world, might actually know what the Chinese people think. But they do, so we don’t.  

Finally, Tsai’s use of the word separatism explains that his stance is coming straight from the propaganda mothership that informs all Chinese news outlets. If Hong Kongers are separatists, mainland China is an oppressive colonial ruler. If there truly is one “People’s Republic,” then legitimate elections for representatives with real power shouldn’t be too much to ask.

Here is why sports matter and why this moment is about to reverberate far beyond what any of us can imagine. China’s political situation is mostly on lock. News is so censored that most Chinese don’t know what’s going on. The few that do refuse to speak out — a refusal that makes a lot of sense when weighed against the imprisonment and potential death that certainly awaits anyone who dares to criticize the government. It is all but impossible to imagine a scenario where a political push for democracy springs up and spreads throughout China.  

What’s more likely is that China encounters an economic slowdown, making its people susceptible to losing trust in their government. Then, they would be susceptible to a social disruption instigating anger among the people. China is hurting from the trade war just like we in the U.S. are. While the government has undoubtedly used the trade war to further solidify resentment towards the U.S., at some point people will ask their government for change. What happens if the government can’t come through?

Silver acted like he needs China. He sort of does. But more than he needs China, China needs him. The NBA is more popular there than it is here. It’s estimated that nearly 500 million Chinese people watched an NBA game last year. China has bought in. And while China has gained success in the global economy through efficient production, it’s hard to make a close substitute for pop culture. Instead of kowtowing to China, Silver should flex his muscles. It’s not just about defending an employee’s right to freedom of speech; the NBA does business with an authoritarian regime, and it just might have the clout to induce change.

The Chinese government overplayed their hand. So far, international businesses have underplayed theirs. If the various international entertainment companies that have run afoul of Big Brother Xi can organize, their collective impact (or the loss of their presence) could be enough to make some people angry. The NBA should turn their “building bridges” talk away from China and towards the other members of the international entertainment industry that have so far acquiesced. 

Organized together, these companies could deliver the catalyzing blow to the Chinese social order that might precipitate political change. They must organize together. If the NBA does not take leadership and not only stand up for itself, acknowledging its own power, but also bring in others, then the Morey snowball will slow to a stop. If the NBA truly is a values-based organization, they will not let some of their customers dictate what those values are. They will, as TNT reminds us in every Game 7, win or go home.

Daryl Morey isn’t a Chinese revolutionary. Not yet. But, I hope one day we can look back and see that his tweet triggered a global evolution from prioritizing economic interest to recognizing and fighting injustice. Free Hong Kong. Free China. Revolutions of our time.

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Daryl Morey, a Chinese Revolutionary appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/10/14/golub-daryl-morey-a-chinese-revolutionary/feed/ 0 1158532
Golub: I’ve got to see a Warriors game https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/06/golub-ive-got-to-see-a-warriors-game/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/06/golub-ive-got-to-see-a-warriors-game/#respond Mon, 06 May 2019 07:04:35 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1154263 I’ve been thinking lately that I gotta go see a Warriors playoff game. Oracle Arena may be old by NBA standards, but it’s a booming, beautiful house of basketball. Plus, after this year when KD finds a new team, the Warriors dynasty will hopefully reach a merciful conclusion (Merciful to the rest of the league, that is; I hope they crash and burn and all hate each other and Draymond has to be held back from strangling someone). It’s my last chance to watch what will go down as one of the iconic teams in basketball history in one of the sport’s historic landmarks.

The post Golub: I’ve got to see a Warriors game appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I’ve been thinking lately that I have to go see a Warriors playoff game. Oracle Arena may be old by NBA standards, but it’s a booming, beautiful house of basketball. Plus, after this year when KD finds a new team, the Warriors dynasty will hopefully reach a merciful conclusion. Merciful to the rest of the league, that is; I hope they crash and burn hating each other, and Draymond has to be held back from strangling someone. It’s my last chance to watch what will go down as one of the iconic teams in basketball history in one of the sport’s historic landmarks.

Checking Stubhub now, it looks like it’ll run me at least $150 to get the cheapest nosebleed available. Is that a sound financial investment? If I stay home I can probably get a better view of the game on TV. But there’s something about witnessing the game in person that makes it feel real. It defies logic.

Sports teams are luxury buys, not careful financial investments. Owner’s don’t own teams because they are trying to make more money. Look at the Worst Owner in Sports®, James Dolan. He owns MSG, which owns both the Knicks and the Rangers, in addition to Madison Square Garden, itself. Yet he spends most of his time throwing money at actually talented musicians so that they might join him on tour. The purpose of this example is not to trash his hot balloon-sized inflated ego combined with an utter lack of talent. Instead, it demonstrates that owning a team is not a decision based on finances but one based on status.

When Lacob and Co. bought the Warriors, they didn’t do so because they were looking to diversify their assets. They wanted to own the Warriors. It’s the reason that explains why Lacob brags about being “light years” ahead of other teams and acts like he is somehow personally responsible for this era of greatness. His ego feasts on the Warriors’ success. His team is valuable to him for its impact on his image. As a result, he is going to make decisions about the team based on what’s best for his image. Which is why he is moving the team to San Francisco.

In order to believe in the good of building a new stadium in a city that is desperate for more housing, you must first defy logic. I’ll credit the Warriors for not getting any public money, although if you asked their president Rick Welts about it he’d tell you that it was practically a crime that they had to pay for their new stadium all by themselves. It doesn’t make sense for the Warriors to get a brand-new arena when there are so many homeless people. Sure, Oracle is old. It’s not like the fans aren’t enjoying it or that the team is struggling for it. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

That’s where I get stuck. I really want to watch this era of greatness in person. I want to be there even if it doesn’t make sense. Am I willing to spend hundreds of dollars to that end? Is it just for me to give that money, when it might not make sense, to a team that’s going to use that money to take up space in a city that is sorely lacking for that resource — space? Maybe I’m making a moral quandary out of nothing. I’ll probably end up still going to a game. The decisions we make as fans send signals to our teams. By buying tickets, we condone behavior. Consider the implications.

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: I’ve got to see a Warriors game appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/05/06/golub-ive-got-to-see-a-warriors-game/feed/ 0 1154263
Golub: Why Olympic swimming matters https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/29/copied-sm-golub-why-olympic-swimming-matters/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/29/copied-sm-golub-why-olympic-swimming-matters/#respond Mon, 29 Apr 2019 07:04:12 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1153814 I got to listen to Katie Ledecky and Simone Manuel talk with Julie Foudy last week for the recording of Foudy’s Laughter Permitted podcast. All three of them (if you don’t know who Foudy is shame on you, but also shame on me because I didn’t know either — she’s a Stanford alum and former US national team soccer standout) shared funny and endearing stories from their athletic careers. The one who stood out to me most, though, was Simone Manuel. She got a little overshadowed by Katie’s star power, which is understandable. But I think she made the most important point of the whole conversation.

The post Golub: Why Olympic swimming matters appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I got to listen to Katie Ledecky and Simone Manuel talk with Julie Foudy last week for the recording of Foudy’s Laughter Permitted podcast. All three of them (if you don’t know who Foudy is shame on you, but also shame on me because I didn’t know either — she’s a Stanford alumna and former U.S. national team soccer standout) shared funny and endearing stories from their athletic careers. The one who stood out to me most, though, was Simone Manuel. She got a little overshadowed by Katie’s star power, which is understandable. But I think she made the most important point of the whole conversation.

Manuel, of course, is the first black female swimmer to win an individual medal in swimming.  Hers is a triumph of talent over odds, of strength over stereotype. Black kids, society tells us, are supposed to dip their toes in the pool and then jump out scared. Manuel dunked her whole body in and jumped out with some gold hardware. She was a breakout star of the Rio Olympics and now, a few NCAA titles later with the new status of “professional,” is solidifying her spot in the national sports culture hierarchy. Ledecky might get more hype than the rest of the team combined, but Manuel is the one to kick odds to the curb while churning her way to a new records and new understandings of what a champion swimmer looks like.

During the podcast Foudy asked her what it meant for her to be that first black female swimmer to win. I thought to myself, “That’s a dumb question, how is she supposed to answer it?” How could she even understand the magnitude of that accomplishment? How could anyone? In response, Manuel talked about swimming in general. She shared stories of fans modeling themselves after her, of parents telling her their daughters want to be the next Simone Manuel’s. She told the audience about how she now represented swimming to so many people. Then came the statistics. I don’t remember the numbers exactly — something like 60 percent of Black kids can’t swim. Then about 50 percent for Latinx kids and 40 percent for White kids. Those numbers are big. I didn’t realize it while she shared them, but I realize it now.

Manuel explained how impactful she was, thanks both to her Olympic-hype star power and her deliberate work to influence people. Thanks to her success in the pool, she has been able to get kids to learn how to swim regardless, or perhaps because of, their status as minorities. She is a gamechanger, literally, welcoming a whole new population of competitors into her sport.

It was a nice, heartwarming answer that the audience met with happy applause. It was cool to hear. But I was left wondering: Why did she talk about swimming in general? Foudy asked her a question about her status at the best of the best at the highest level of competition in her sport.  She answered by talking about kids gaining a basic life skill. I felt like Manuel had wandered off course. In reality, I was the one with my eyes closed.

Like I said before, those statistics are huge. When 60 percent of black kids can’t swim, it doesn’t just mean that the pool of potential Olympic swimmers is smaller. It doesn’t even mean only that black kids aren’t able to participate in high school sports. It means that more than half of black kids in the U.S. aren’t able to participate in a basic recreational activity. Swimming isn’t just a sport; it’s a core element of life for millions of people. All those kids of color that can’t swim are being denied the full experience of life. They lack a fundamental life skill.

When Manuel explained the impact of her winning gold medals, she realized that, by virtue of excelling in a sport that exceeds the bounds of sports, she is more than an athletic role model. She is a force for social change. It’s rare that sports success itself, as opposed to the power or influence that it generates, makes the world a better place. Simone Manuel is a rare athlete.

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Why Olympic swimming matters appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/29/copied-sm-golub-why-olympic-swimming-matters/feed/ 0 1153814
Golub: Tiger’s Redemption https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/16/golub-tigers-redemption/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/16/golub-tigers-redemption/#respond Tue, 16 Apr 2019 08:23:26 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1152756 Congratulations to Tiger Woods on winning the Masters. While I’ve barely followed golf, I have to admit I was excited he won. I felt happy for him.

The post Golub: Tiger’s Redemption appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Congratulations to Tiger Woods on winning the Masters. While I’ve barely followed golf, I have to admit I was excited he won. I felt happy for him. After years of pain, debilitating injuries and hurtful and immoral personal decisions, Tiger finally clawed his way back to the summit of his sport. I didn’t understand why I was happy. I’d considered myself a passive Tiger fan up until his downfall, at which point I let go of most of the positive feelings I had for him. When he started popping back up on SportsCenter I hoped, weakly, that he might win something. I never reconciled my desire for him to succeed with my judgment of his actions. I still haven’t.

He has been on this road to redemption for years. He took a long, long time to return to golf after winning the 2008 US Open on a broken leg and torn ACL. When he did come back, he was a fragile shell of his former self. Eight surgeries, countless promising starts derailed by his body’s inability to survive an entire tournament, and zero major wins defined his post-2008 career. It looked like it was done. He thought he was done, too.

Why are we so happy to see Tiger win again? When he first skyrocketed to stardom, Tiger was a young phenom bubbling with talent. He became the youngest player ever to win the Masters.  We hopped on board the bandwagon and rode him as our champion. As a young Black man, he offered golf an excitement it hadn’t had in a long time, maybe ever. Tiger Woods. He was electric.

Maybe we root for Tiger because we are wound inextricably in his story. Here was the object of our dreams, a cultural totem. With his iconic maroon shirt and personal Gatorade drink line, he was an American legend — unique and powerful. We invested emotionally so much into him that when he disgraced himself, we disgraced ourselves, too. We venerated him as the best of who we were. When he turned out to be not so great personally, that gave us reason to doubt ourselves. His screw up meant we made a mistake. In order for us to regain our worthiness, he had to regain his.

He won by a single stroke on Sunday, capping off an impressive final day with a steady five-stroke par. His last two strokes were fitting. The first was a long putt. He played the green perfectly — almost. It broke just touch late and lipped the cup. A skillful effort off by only a couple degrees. The final putt was a footlong dessert. Those last two strokes sum up Tiger’s history nicely. So many times, he seemed to play well only to fall off at the end. He was putting in the work but the results kept coming up short. The guy who had once rocked the sport couldn’t seem to get a break. Every step in struggle, though, made a difference. He paved his path back to the top through failures. Each loss was the next iteration of a Tiger reborn. This win, like the final hole, represents all his work coming to fruition. After grinding for so long, he finally had what he needed. His lead, the product of that work, allowed him to miss his second-to-last putt and still come out on top with the win.

Jacob Riis, muckraker journalist and author of “How the Other Half Lives” said once that “When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.”  That final putt was nothing special, except that it was the final one. At long last, Tiger broke through and redeemed himself. He needed to win the Masters in order to reclaim his status. While he was fiery and fun as a younger player, it was his ever-growing collection of trophies that solidified his support. When he stopped winning those, he lost his sheen. Tiger needed to win the big one again in order to signal to us that he was a worthy vessel for our love. By triumphing once again, he showed that he deserved our fandom all along. He proved to us that maybe, just maybe, we were worthy ourselves.

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Tiger’s Redemption appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/16/golub-tigers-redemption/feed/ 0 1152756
Golub: Why do colleges have sports? https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/08/golub-why-do-colleges-have-sports/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/08/golub-why-do-colleges-have-sports/#respond Mon, 08 Apr 2019 07:01:40 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1152104 The existence of college sports is confusing. Despite holding the student-athlete moniker, college athletes are often treated like professionals. This past weekend, you maybe watched the Final Four for men’s basketball. It was a professional-level spectacle complete with NBA commentators and played at US Bank Stadium, the home of the NFL’s Minnesota Vikings. The NFL, by the way, happens to be the highest grossing sports league in the United States. The second highest? College football. This statistic speaks to our country’s disregard for players’ health in the face of gigantic profits, sure, but it also shows how commodified college sports is.

The post Golub: Why do colleges have sports? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The existence of college sports is confusing. Despite holding the student-athlete moniker, college athletes are often treated like professionals. This past weekend, you maybe watched the Final Four for men’s basketball. It was a professional-level spectacle complete with NBA commentators and played at US Bank Stadium, the home of the NFL’s Minnesota Vikings. The NFL, by the way, happens to be the highest grossing sports league in the United States. The second highest? College football. This statistic speaks to our country’s disregard for players’ health in the face of gigantic profits, sure, but it also shows how commodified college sports is.

These athletes are technically classified as students — no doubt so that the NCAA and colleges can continue conspiring to not pay them — but are asked to commit to their sport like professionals. They practice, watch film, workout and compete as if they were getting paid. And then they are asked also to be students. Which can come across as a bit of a joke. Because we are on a quarter system, Stanford Women’s Basketball often has final exams in the middle of the NCAA tournament. It’s not an environment conducive to academic success.

Now, Stanford is more academically rigorous than most other schools, and Stanford athletes are required to do more schoolwork than athletes at schools with similar athletic programs. By and large, though, college athletes do not get the same classroom education as non-athletes. Which begs the question: How educational are college sports?

How is it that participating in sports is valuable when applying to college, but not valuable for completing it? By way of example, consider a college swimmer. Stanford recruits swimmers because Stanford has decided that something about being an elite swimmer -— the drive and discipline, or creativity, or maybe sheer excellence -— makes one deserving of a spot at Stanford. When this swimmer arrives on campus, they will be asked to make swimming a full-time job in addition to being a student. They will spend hours a day on their sport. They will travel around the country and miss classes and other opportunities in order to swim. A huge part, likely the majority of their Stanford experience — their education while in college — will consist within their sport. And yet, all this work will barely matter from Stanford’s perspective. Despite the hours and energy they put in, they will not get any class credit for swimming aside from the measly eight units of physical education that any other student can get for going to enough yoga or scuba diving classes. Can someone please explain to me why being an elite athlete makes someone worthy of getting into Stanford and not worthy of graduating Stanford?

The solution, I think, is to give athletes course credit for their sports. They are developing valuable skills that will help them later in life. Stanford claims to educate the future leaders of the world; well, sports are one of the few subjects students spend time on that deliberately teach leadership skills. Stanford should recognize the valuable work its athletes put in and reward them for it. Right now, Stanford only cares about athletes’ achievements superficially.

This superficial care leads us to another question: Why do college sports exist in the first place? The easy answer is money. But only a couple sports — football, basketball — are profitable. Why do all the other sports exist?  Apparently, they aren’t an integral part of a college education; otherwise, their participants would get credit. Are they simply part of the Stanford image? An investment to keep Stanford’s status as America’s Dream School? Are they part of a noble commitment to excellence in every way possible?

College sports sometimes feel like an add-on to the rest of the college. No other higher education system in the world incorporates sports the way we do. The recent admissions scandal pulled recruiting and college sports in general into question. In order to figure out how admissions and sports should work, we first have to figure out why we have sports in the first place.

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Golub: Why do colleges have sports? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/04/08/golub-why-do-colleges-have-sports/feed/ 0 1152104
Golub: Why you should care about Bryce Harper’s $330 million https://stanforddaily.com/2019/03/05/golub-why-you-should-care-about-bryce-harpers-330-mil/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/03/05/golub-why-you-should-care-about-bryce-harpers-330-mil/#respond Tue, 05 Mar 2019 08:13:56 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1150765 A team finally took the plunge: the Phillies signed Bryce Harper to a thirteen-year, $330 million contract, the richest in the history of American sports. With any contract of that gigantic value, a player will struggle to live up to the deal. The Phillies, then, are prioritizing dramatic change over spending efficiency.

The post Golub: Why you should care about Bryce Harper’s $330 million appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
A team finally took the plunge: the Phillies signed Bryce Harper to a 13-year, $330 million contract, the richest in the history of American sports. With any contract of that gigantic a value, a player will struggle to live up to the deal. The Phillies, then, are prioritizing dramatic change over spending efficiency.

It’s been a decade since they sniffed relevancy (when they lost to the Yankees 4-2, a series that culminated in a fun game six where Hideki Matsui casually decided he was gonna clear the bases every time he came to bat), so it makes sense that they try something drastic. Is shoving all this money at Harper going to solve their problems, though? I can’t tell you much about their roster; I don’t particularly care. I doubt Harper will deliver them to the relevancy they crave. Rarely does transcendent individual talent produce a championship; instead, a strong team enables the stardom of a few to shine a little brighter than it would otherwise.     

Knowing that Harper can’t carry them to a title, it seems like a poor value proposition to pay Harper that much. Super-duper-stars like Harper don’t just contribute on the field. Their celebrity draws fans, in-person and on TV. They generate revenue at crazy rates – Harper broke the 24-hour jersey-selling record for any American athlete, and the Phillies sold 100,000 tickets in the same timeframe – making them not just success stories for themselves, but efficient plays for the team. For an owner more concerned with making money than getting rings, players like Harper are a great fit.

But he’s probably not worth the money on the field. That $330 million most likely could be better spent elsewhere, especially as baseball shifts to a tactical arms race for specialized relief pitchers. If one wanted to build the team most likely to succeed, they would allocate those resources differently. Harper is a baseball billionaire; his income is not a reflection of his output as much as the value society places upon him. The fact that these two measures don’t equal each other is concerning.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will tell you that every billionaire is a policy failure. To those aligned with her highly liberal views, one person amassing such wealth is a sign that there is a fundamental problem in the distribution of income. It is a feature of inequality-generating, American hypercapitalism. When CEOs accumulate billions of dollars while employing workers who make the minimum wage, or less, in other countries, they seem to be extracting wealth more so because they can than because they need it. I’m not sure that every billionaire is a policy failure, but I do think there is often a mismatch between how society determines the worth of individual and the value that an individual creates for their organization. If I were a Phillies fan, seeing Harper get paid so much would piss me off.     

Where is this article going?  I don’t know. It was due 25 hours ago, and I had to write something. The point is, sports matter. Looking at economies of sports shows us our American values. Maybe it’s a great thing for Harper to make so much money. Maybe he deserves it all, and it’s good management by the Phillies to give it to him, even if he is a whiny %*$^&. We love dumping huge amounts of money at the doorsteps of individuals, trusting that their singular greatness drives our national pride. Maybe it doesn’t.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Why you should care about Bryce Harper’s $330 million appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/03/05/golub-why-you-should-care-about-bryce-harpers-330-mil/feed/ 0 1150765
Golub: Musings on hush money https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/26/golub-musings-on-hush-money/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/26/golub-musings-on-hush-money/#respond Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:50:38 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1150301 The NFL made two big splashes in the news in the past week. The first: settling with Colin Kaepernick over his collusion case. Kaepernick, after a career-derailing struggle, triumphed victoriously over the corporate monolith. Or, alternatively, Kap capitulated and let the rich owners buy him out. One such owner made the second splash: Pats owner […]

The post Golub: Musings on hush money appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The NFL made two big splashes in the news in the past week. The first: settling with Colin Kaepernick over his collusion case. Kaepernick, after a career-derailing struggle, triumphed victoriously over the corporate monolith. Or, alternatively, Kap capitulated and let the rich owners buy him out. One such owner made the second splash: Pats owner Robert Kraft got implicated in an FBI prostitution and human trafficking sting. Kraft, one of the most influential owners in the league, paid for sex. Among the hierarchy of the NFL’s concerns — CTE and death, domestic violence, systemic racism — prostitution seems to be low down on the list.  But maybe it shouldn’t be. Maybe, like the settlement with Kap, it is an example of the NFL’s ability to throw money at questions of slavery to scare them away.

Colin Kaepernick, like Kyrie said last week, doesn’t owe shit to anyone. He deserves our praise and admiration for standing (kneeling) for what he believes in. When he first sat on the bench, and then later switched to kneeling, during the national anthem, he was acting according to his personal beliefs. He saw the racist police brutality that was gunning down young Black men and felt that he could not honor a country who permitted such injustice. He didn’t plan it to start a national campaign. So, it’s his prerogative to settle when he pleases.

Bomani Jones, in an article for The Undefeated, points out that Kaepernick has been held up as our generation’s Muhammad Ali despite taking (what should be) far less controversial of a stance. Ali broke the law by refusing to fight after getting drafted. Regardless of your thoughts on the morality of his decision, he acted in defiance of official government policy. Kaepernick, on the other hand, chose to kneel while listening to a song. There is no constitutionally enshrined protection for standing for the national anthem. There is, however, a right to freedom of speech. Kaepernick did what he was supposed to do; it was his opposition that elevated his act from speaking his mind to staking a bold challenge of the state of affairs of our country.   

I wish Kaepernick would’ve stuck out his lawsuit longer, so that he could dirty the NFL’s “shield” as much as possible. As I wrote in a previous article, there are some elements of NFL playership that characterize racial oppression. (No, I’m not saying NFL players are slaves. But there’s a reason it keeps coming up that white owners have a “slaveholder mentality” or that teams don’t give players freedom, and the reason isn’t that all Black players are divas.)  Although he was protesting the country at large, Kap gave attention to a side struggle – that of the players. Continuing the lawsuit could have furthered that cause. It would’ve been nice for him to make that sacrifice. But it’s fine that he didn’t.

He doesn’t owe it to anyone to martyr himself. He’s lost so much money in potential earnings from salary and sponsors that he probably does need some financial support. Even if he doesn’t, he never asked to stop getting paid. He wanted to keep playing. The Trump and uber-conservative opposition elevated him to Social Justice Warrior polemarch so that they could use his perceived slight towards the military and the country as justification for racial injustice. Once they did that, Kap was done. He was thrust into this role of civil rights negotiator and socio-political bellwether upon which the media and masses projected their judgments of America. The fact that he was able to exit still making a lot of money (between $60-80 million, according to rumors, between him and Eric Reid) is remarkable. It also means that, while the NFL lost, it was able to pay to protect its image.

One man that did a lot of paying and not a lot of image-protecting is Kraft. Already known for his deflated balls, Kraft reaffirmed the general hatred he and his team receive with this scandal.  While prostitution at face value doesn’t seem to be so extreme a topic as racial injustice, the case is not obvious. The FBI was investigating Kraft’s favorite vacation spot because of its suspected status as a human trafficking hub. Human trafficking, of course, is slavery. It is a hundred-billion dollar enterprise, including nearly one million trafficked internationally per year (there is not a lot of precise data because it’s so hard to track). When the full picture is painted, we may learn that Kraft was sponsoring slavery to satisfy his sexual desires. Disgusting. Now, it’s not too hard to see where Kraft gets the idea that he can pay for the unfair treatment of other human beings. The NFL, in its own special way, treats its players like prostitutes.   

How will the NFL respond to Kraft’s implication? It probably will fine him a lot of money. Given that Kraft has been paying fines for years, I doubt he’ll mind that much. By extracting money from Kraft, the NFL will show that it takes the inherent dignity of human beings seriously. What will it do with that money? Pocket it, or perhaps save it to pay off the next Kaepernick.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Musings on hush money appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/26/golub-musings-on-hush-money/feed/ 0 1150301
Golub: The price of imparity https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/11/golub-the-price-of-imparity/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/11/golub-the-price-of-imparity/#respond Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:40:17 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1149432 The Anthony Davis saga has me confused.  On the one hand, I’m mad that he requested a trade.  I don’t want him to go to the Lakers, I don’t want LeBron to manipulate the whole league, I don’t want the Pelicans to have to give up their best player in franchise history, and I don’t want AD to give up on the Pelicans.  On the other, it’s about damn time. Since the year after they drafted him, the Pels have consistently made short-sighted, risky moves that lowered the ceiling and didn’t even make them that good in the present. They have given no indication to anyone that they will build a championship-caliber team around Davis and Jrue Holiday (who, by the way, is the biggest victim here).  Should Davis waste his prime hoping that they get lucky and stumble into a Western Conference Finals appearance? No. He shouldn’t. Davis is the product of a new era of player control and player movement, an era that is changing how teams build their rosters and how fans think about their teams. This new age of player movement is killing league parity and – here’s the fun part – can also explain the political polarization of our country.  Let’s begin.

The post Golub: The price of imparity appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The Anthony Davis saga has me confused. On the one hand, I’m mad that he requested a trade. I don’t want him to go to the Lakers, I don’t want LeBron to manipulate the whole league, I don’t want the Pelicans to have to give up their best player in franchise history and I don’t want AD to give up on the Pelicans. On the other, it’s about damn time. Since the year after they drafted him, the Pels have consistently made short-sighted, risky moves that lowered the ceiling and didn’t even make them that good in the present. They have given no indication to anyone that they will build a championship-caliber team around Davis and Jrue Holiday (who, by the way, is the biggest victim here). Should Davis waste his prime hoping that they get lucky and stumble into a Western Conference Finals appearance? No, he shouldn’t. Davis is the product of a new era of player control and player movement, an era that is changing how teams build their rosters and how fans think about their teams. This new age of player movement is killing league parity and — here’s the fun part — can also explain the political polarization of our country. Let’s begin.

By requesting a trade, AD follows a long line of stars who would rather join an already-good team than stick it out with their crappy team. Recent examples include LeBron, Jimmy Butler, Paul George, KD, LeBron, Melo, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard and LeBron, among others. Good for these players for exerting ownership over their careers. As salaries get higher and contracts get shorter, teams have less wiggle room with which to play. They need their stars to be happy and committed, or they need to get rid of them quick if they aren’t. From the players’ perspective, this change is good. They get to play on better teams that will boost their profile, giving them benefits in terms of brand (i.e. more money) and legacy. Who wouldn’t want to play on a great team? However, the result of these changes has been a loss of parity among NBA teams.

Now that stars hop around to link up with one another, the NBA has become top-heavy. In the Eastern Conference, four teams share, in my estimation, 11 stars: Giannis Antetokounmpo, Khris Middleton, Brook Lopez (just kidding, love him though), Kawhi Leonard, Kyle Lowry, Marc Gasol, Joel Embiid, Ben Simmons, Jimmy Butler, Tobias Harris, Kyrie Irving, Jayson Tatum and Al Horford (ish, just give me this one). The rest of the East? Maybe 10 combined. Oladipo is injured, there’s Blake Griffin, Nikola Vucevic made an all-star team, Kemba is pretty good, Bradley Beal, Zach LaVine (nah)… yeah it’s hard. The top four teams in the East have more talent than the rest of the conference combined. The West has more teams with stars, but it isn’t much better. And the West itself has way more stars than the East, representing this star inequality on a macro level.

With stars concentrated heavily among few teams, most teams don’t have a shot at making real noise in the playoffs. Whether they like it or not, the best thing they can do is tank for a high draft pick and hope to find their own star. They are basically playing in a different league, one that has opposite goals. When two differently-leagued teams play, it often gets ugly.

The stars aren’t necessarily doing anything wrong; if anything, the owners and league administration should be blamed for creating a structure that encourage stars to join one another. However, in the short-term the players are the only ones that can fix the problem. By consolidating their power, they diminish the integrity of the league. They polarize.

As a professor once told me, the Deep South begins a mile and a half outside of every city. It was a good line. One of the big political issues we face today is that we segregate by political affiliation. There are red states and blue states; red areas and blue areas. Cities are liberal and everywhere else is conservative. How did this separation occur? I’m no social scientist, but I’d hazard a guess that people like to be around like-minded others. As one place gains a reputation for being liberal, more liberals want to go there. It creates a positive feedback loop. The same type of people consolidate. If you grow up in a Rust Belt state and go to college (a feature that correlates with liberal ideology), you probably will end up wanting to move to a big city after you graduate. As a result, you get a big city, or maybe a state, like California, filled with liberals. Meanwhile, the old town, or state, is left empty. Why is our country so divided? Our echo chambers aren’t just technological. They are physical; we construct them when we decide where we want to live. It’s as if the big cities and the surrounding areas are in two different countries.

While trying to begin the arduous process of figuring out which presidential candidate I want to support, I took the “I Side With 2020” quiz online. One of the questions gave me pause: Should the electoral college be abolished? My instinctual response said yes. One person, one vote. Why let old rules from horse-and-carriage days let someone get elected who isn’t the most popular candidate?  But then I looked through some of the responses. One offered that the electoral college should stay; otherwise, candidates would only campaign in big cities. It would be far easier to go to cities and spend a few days filled with highly populated events than to traverse the suburbs. Seems like Democrats would hold a significant advantage. That doesn’t really seem fair.

It’s hard to make a system that encourages candidates to speak — literally and figuratively — to all Americans without privileging some votes over others. That’s a big problem. It’s a problem created by self-fashioned homogeneity. Just as the NBA would be more exciting and competitive if stars dispersed themselves evenly across teams, our country would be healthier and stronger if liberals dispersed themselves evenly across geography, or if cities were more welcoming to conservatives, or some other alternative that results in a more balanced population. You get the point.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

 

The post Golub: The price of imparity appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/11/golub-the-price-of-imparity/feed/ 0 1149432
Golub: I don’t get it, Knicks https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/04/golub-i-dont-get-it/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/04/golub-i-dont-get-it/#respond Mon, 04 Feb 2019 08:10:10 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1149112 I honestly don't get it.  My life as a Knicks fan has been a tumult of shattered-hope sadness.  There is a special kind of despair that results from getting the same misguided dream ripped to shreds every year.  The Dolan Era of Knicks basketball is an arsenic-poisoned abyss. Stay away, for your own safety. This trade makes me irate — I hate it with a fury I don’t like to give to sports teams I’m not a part of.  It just doesn’t make sense.

The post Golub: I don’t get it, Knicks appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I honestly don’t get it.  My life as a Knicks fan has been a tumult of shattered-hope sadness.  There is a special kind of despair that results from getting the same misguided dream ripped to shreds every year.  The Dolan Era of Knicks basketball is an arsenic-poisoned abyss. Stay away, for your own safety. This trade makes me irate — I hate it with a fury I don’t like to give to sports teams I’m not a part of.  It just doesn’t make sense.

Even if Kristaps Porzingis had told the Knicks that he’d only take the qualifying offer then leave (which would be unprecedented for a player of his caliber, as he’d be leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table and sacrificing long-term security even though he’s the tallest player in the NBA and would at that point be only a year removed from ACL surgery), and the Knicks decided they had to trade him, it’s still A FULL YEAR OF PORZINGIS!! I refuse to believe that they couldn’t get more than Dennis Smith and a couple weak first-round draft picks.  With every other team in the league interested in acquiring Porzingis — and many like the Raptors, Celtics, Clippers, Suns, Nuggets, etc. able to make compelling offers — why would the Knicks settle for such a crappy return? Look, I can understand it if Mills and Perry were worried about star players with only a year left on their contract. Recent history (Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard, Paul George) suggests that it’s hard to get a return commensurate with the star’s value. Fair. If I were Scott Perry, I might well be willing to bite at the first good offer I get.  This wasn’t it. They could’ve gotten something better had they taken their time.

Alas, let us not forget the other components of the trade.  Tim Hardaway Jr., of the maligned three-year/$71 million contract, is not a flawless piece.  He is, however, a reliable shooter/playmaker who averages nearly 20 points a game. Courtney Lee is a prototypical three-and-D wing, the type of role player that every team needs. Trey Burke is a little worse, although he comes without the contract baggage. It’s not as if THJ, Lee and Burke had no value on their own. These guys can hoop. The Knicks didn’t need someone to take them off their hands.  They literally used Porzingis as sweetener for contracts that weren’t even that bad. They could’ve traded those players separately for an okay return.

I’m angry.  I’m frustrated.  Most of all, I’m sad.  I thought relatively new GM Scott Perry was supposed to be good.  I thought president Steve Mills finally had wrestled control away from Dolan.  I thought coach Fizdale would build a winning culture. In the end, it’s the same old shit.

We just don’t learn. We cleared the floor for two max slots a few years ago, getting only Amar’e.  Then, compounding our mistake, we traded away half the team to get another star, Melo, who was going to sign with us in free agency after the season anyways.  Instead of LeBron and D-Wade surrounded by some young players, we got Amar’e, Melo and some duds. This year, we’re thinking KD and AD, or Kawhi and Kyrie, but more likely than not, we’re going to wind up with Kemba and Tobias Harris.  Is that a superteam?

The worst, and I mean the worst, part of this trade is not that it is so bad, but that despite being so bad it isn’t even that surprising.  The Knicks haven’t re-signed a first round pick since 1994! And it’s not like we haven’t made good picks. While I wish KP would’ve been willing to stick it out and bring the Knicks back to glory, I can’t blame him for being fed up with a perennially mismanaged team.  The history of the Knicks is a bumbling march through shortsighted blunders, littering the roadside with ill-conceived plans and empty promises. The trade doesn’t make sense, but then again, it does. It’s classic Knicks decision-making. Maybe at this point, the only person left to shame is myself for getting fooled again.

But just wait ‘til we get Kyrie and KD though…

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: I don’t get it, Knicks appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/02/04/golub-i-dont-get-it/feed/ 0 1149112
Golub: Trump’s antics bring power to athletes https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/28/golub-trumps-antics-bring-power-to-athletes/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/28/golub-trumps-antics-bring-power-to-athletes/#respond Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:04:56 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1148788 A hallmark of the Trump presidency is its fear-based approach to governing.  Dangerous Muslim terrorists; corrupt, colluding fake news media; caravans of violent migrants coming to eat our children and curse our livestock, or something -- evidently, Trump has no qualms with fomenting fear to advance his agenda.  (To debate another time: does he have an agenda?) As harmful as this Trump presidency may be, his strategy leans upon tried and true methods of political manipulation. One such example: McCarthyism.

The post Golub: Trump’s antics bring power to athletes appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
A hallmark of the Trump presidency is its fear-based approach to governing. Dangerous Muslim terrorists; corrupt, colluding fake news media; caravans of violent migrants coming to eat our children and curse our livestock, or something — evidently, Trump has no qualms with fomenting fear to advance his agenda. (To debate another time: Does he have an agenda?) As harmful as this Trump presidency may be, his strategy leans upon tried and true methods of political manipulation. One such example: McCarthyism.

Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch hunt consisted of a fear-based approach to governing. Its policy of containment instigated and fed upon panic and distrust. This panic and distrust was not limited to the political real because McCarthy didn’t interrogate politicians only.  He went after Hollywood, too, calling in many top stars to testify against their suspected communist affiliations. His foray into film wrought an unintended consequence: He built a bridge between politics and celebrities.  By putting high profile actors under a political spotlight, he gave them the opportunity to expand their influence. Thanks in part to an impressive interview performance and willingness to inform the FBI of potential communist threats, then-Head of the Screen Actors Guild Ronald Reagan jumped from heartthrob actor to governor of California and, eventually, president of the United States.  In Reagan’s case, McCarthy’s reckless political overstepping enabled someone with little political experience or background to leap into high office. Reagan’s entry into politics paved the way for someone like Trump to eventually become president. When a movie star divorcee carried the fervent support of the “Moral Majority” all the way to the White House, he created a breach in the wall of traditional political establishment, a breach that has never fully closed and that Trump snuck his way through. Reagan, after all, was the first to promise that he would “Make America Great Again.”

The reason you came to the sports section to read all that, besides your insatiable hunger for knowledge, is that the political outsider legacy that Trump carries, combined with his politics of panic that create more potential for political outsiders to breach political spheres, has opened opportunity for athletes to assume political power. As influential as LeBron is, Trump’s attacking him has boosted LeBron’s political influence to massive heights. When Trump attacked Kaepernick and other kneelers, he gave NFL players protesting the anthem more media coverage than they ever would have gotten otherwise. When he disinvited the Warriors from the White House (after they said they wouldn’t go), he gave coach Steve Kerr a larger platform to protest Trump and divisive partisan bickering. Trump’s witch hunt for the people that have ruined America’s great past has pulled those people into his sphere of power. Trump has paved the way for today’s sports superstars to transition to tomorrow’s political leaders.

However, Trump’s antics are not the sole supports of this new bridge. One of today’s pressing political issues is the police shootings of unarmed, young, black men. Today’s star athletes are mostly young, black men. These athletes’ standings as, simultaneously, a focus of Trump’s attention and representatives of an oppressed demographic amplify their voices to a national, policy-potent level. It’s too early to tell right now if athletes will cross this bridge into the political realm after their playing days are over. We won’t know until years from now how far the repercussions of this moment will reverberate. What we know is that the situation is ripe for a sweeping change. It feels like it’s happening. It’ll be exciting to watch.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Trump’s antics bring power to athletes appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/28/golub-trumps-antics-bring-power-to-athletes/feed/ 0 1148788
Golub: Enes Kanter, the American harbinger https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/14/golub-enes-kanter-the-american-harbinger/ https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/14/golub-enes-kanter-the-american-harbinger/#respond Mon, 14 Jan 2019 08:12:45 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1148204 Enes Kanter couldn’t go to London because he feared for his life.  Dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, via his evil henchman and former NBA player Hedo Turkoglu, has consistently threatened, mocked, and insulted Kanter for Kanter’s opposition to ruthless totalitarian xenophobia and political suppression.  Ironically, Hedo was a heady player known for his ability to handle and facilitate. Turkoglu claimed Kanter lied about fearing for his life. He called Kanter a fraud for hiding the fact that he couldn’t get a visa to enter the UK.  

The post Golub: Enes Kanter, the American harbinger appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Enes Kanter couldn’t go to London because he feared for his life. Dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, via his evil henchman and former NBA player Hedo Turkoglu, has consistently threatened, mocked and insulted Kanter for Kanter’s opposition to ruthless totalitarian xenophobia and political suppression. Ironically, Hedo was a heady player known for his ability to handle and facilitate. Turkoglu claimed Kanter lied about fearing for his life. He called Kanter a fraud for hiding the fact that he couldn’t get a visa to enter the UK.  

Through — where else — his favorite medium of communication, Twitter, Kanter revealed that Turkoglu is a gutless political crony. Survival, not visa issues, forced Kanter to stay home. What a shame that was, for those fans in London and everyone else around the world who would have watched the game, or the Instagram highlights, or the reddit comment threads.  Corrupt politics threatened a life and slightly worsened many others, all because of the desire to retain power.

Kanter is an NBA enigma. What he lacks in on-court utility, he makes up for with chemistry-building intangibles and entertainment. Kanter, a goofball who infamously got sick and missed a game (maybe) because he ate seven burgers right beforehand, is an NBA Twitter Hall of Famer. He roams the highest tier of social media status. While he might not be able to guard him on the court, Kanter jostles with Joel Embiid in a battle of low-post brutes for NBA Twitter supremacy. He is one of the most charismatic players in the NBA, a fan favorite, and a loving teammate. On a tactical level his game is outdated and inefficient; he’s a post-up monster that’s too slow and ground-bound to protect the rim on defense and not a good enough perimeter shooter to space the floor on offense.  

Enes Kanter is an American immigrant. He came to the United States because it was here that he could make the most of his talents and hard work. After a short, unsuccessful stint with the Utah Jazz, he entrenched himself in Oklahoma City as a beloved and devoted community member. The Thunder fans still love him and celebrate him when he returns. Despite his lack of playing time this year, Knicks fans (real fans) still appreciate him. Even though he didn’t get the big contract he wanted last summer and almost certainly won’t get it this summer, he gets paid tens of millions of dollars to play a game he enjoys, to the benefit of millions of worldwide fans. He is an inspiring example of the magic created by uniting character, freedom of speech and comical individuality. Our world is better because Enes is in it.

Say what you will about Trump; he’s no dictator. He doesn’t have the ability to unilaterally oppress his constituents. However, he does have a lot of power and he’s wielding it for political gain even as it causes devastation. His refusal to sign any funding bill without funds for the wall he promised México would pay for leverages his (relative to Erdoğan) limited power into unilateral decision-making authority. Trump constantly threatens freedom of speech. He threatens the rights of immigrants. In doing so, he threatens the promise of America that allows for someone like Enes to flourish.  The fact that Enes can play in the NBA tells us how far America has come. The fact that he couldn’t play in London warns us of where we are going.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

 

The post Golub: Enes Kanter, the American harbinger appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/01/14/golub-enes-kanter-the-american-harbinger/feed/ 0 1148204
Golub: The difference between quiet leadership and no leadership https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/27/golub-the-difference-between-quiet-leadership-and-no-leadership/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/27/golub-the-difference-between-quiet-leadership-and-no-leadership/#respond Tue, 27 Nov 2018 13:30:54 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1147230 Spurs coach Gregg Popovich made waves recently when he dropped the “bombshell” news that former player Kawhi Leonard, the star who sat out a whole season with a suspect injury and refused to communicate with his team, was not a leader.  In response, Kawhi got angry and claimed he was a leader. That makes sense. He’s a star player looking to get a supermax salary; he’s not gonna say he isn’t a leader. I don’t know what Kawhi thinks or how he conducts himself in his team’s locker room.  His relatively quiet demeanor gives us a cool case study into what it takes to be a good leader.

The post Golub: The difference between quiet leadership and no leadership appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Spurs coach Gregg Popovich made waves recently when he dropped the “bombshell” news that former player Kawhi Leonard, the star who sat out a whole season with a suspect injury and refused to communicate with his team, was not a leader. In response, Kawhi got angry and claimed he was a leader. That makes sense. He’s a star player looking to get a supermax salary; he’s not going to say he isn’t a leader. I don’t know what Kawhi thinks or how he conducts himself in his team’s locker room. His relatively quiet demeanor gives us a cool case study into what it takes to be a good leader.

Susan Cain, in her book “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking” writes of the Extrovert Ideal. This idea is characterized by “the omnipresent belief that the ideal self is gregarious, alpha and comfortable in the spotlight.” Cain goes on to include how the extrovert skews more towards action over contemplation, favors risk in place of certainty, prioritizes speed over patience. If you’ve ever watched Kawhi hoop, his game mirrors his internal disposition. He always moves at his own pace; even when he’s sprinting at full force his body looks locked in control.  He takes his time to read the defense and to get to his spots on the floor. He plays like a giraffe runs, with mechanical grace.

Kawhi Leonard is an introvert, through and through. His preference for taking his time, for keeping to himself and for avoiding the spotlight do not automatically make him a bad leader. Before last season’s debacle, he earned compliments from his teammates for his commitment and discipline. However, he may well be a bad leader. My impression of him since his trade fiasco has dipped negatively. He didn’t get loud in the spotlight but he also didn’t talk individually with his teammates and focus on cultivating strong relationships. However, just because there are non-leaders who are quiet doesn’t mean that one can’t lead quietly.

There are plenty of leaders in the NBA who lead quietly. Former teammates praise James Jones, two-time NBA champion and current Suns GM, as a fantastic leader and teammate. His nickname, fittingly, is “champ.” Never does he seek the spotlight. The winningest player in NBA history, Bill Russell, was a quiet leader. (Disclaimer: He won 11 titles back when there were only eight teams and two rounds of the playoffs, so his accomplishments are a bit overrated.) (Second disclaimer: I hate the Celtics and try to diminish their accomplishments in every way possible.) He focused on communicating well with his teammates and playing his game the best way he knew how. He didn’t command attention the way his contemporary Wilt Chamberlain did. It’s no coincidence that Russell bested Chamberlain at almost every turn. Quiet leadership can be the best kind of leadership.

Sometimes, though, a lack of transparency can be confused with quietness.  When Kawhi kept his health status private and refused to talk to his teammates, coaches or the front office, he wasn’t being a leader. Not wanting to discuss something is not a reason to avoid it. Good leaders seek the difficult conversations. Stanford, our beloved home, has struggled with its leadership lately. Student Affairs, in particular the branches of ResEd and OCS, have often kept their inner workings secret from the people they purport to serve. Administrative bureaucracy and efficiency rarely make friends, so it is understandable, albeit frustrating, when our administration takes a long time to devise a policy or conclude an investigation. What is less understandable is an utter lack of transparency and a lip service commitment to valuing, appreciating and maybe even empathizing with student input and rarely using it. It’s one thing to hold a forum allowing students to share their thoughts on alcohol policy; it is another entirely to include students in the decision making process of that policy.  

When ResEd announces the next incarnation of its attempt at an alcohol policy — who knows, maybe they’ll decide it’s a good idea to try to ban alcohol entirely — students will likely get angry. They’ll get angry because their opinions weren’t heard and they’ll stay angry because they don’t trust their administrative leaders. Maybe they’ll have had good motivations, just like Kawhi might’ve secretly always wanted what was best for his team. At the end of the day, leadership is about more than intent. Good intentions alone do not satisfy good leaders. A quiet intent with a harmful outcome is not quiet leadership; it’s cowardice.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

 

The post Golub: The difference between quiet leadership and no leadership appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/27/golub-the-difference-between-quiet-leadership-and-no-leadership/feed/ 0 1147230
Golub: The fall of Carmelo Anthony https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/13/golub-the-fall-of-carmelo-anthony/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/13/golub-the-fall-of-carmelo-anthony/#respond Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:40:27 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1146757 Melo was destined to be one of the greats.  Armed with a knife of a jab step, a buttery jumpshot, and two first names (think: Michael and Jordan, Kobe and Bryant, LeBron and James) Melo could score like few other players in the history of the game.  In what was probably his most successful year individually, 2012-2013, he hung a cool 50 on LeBron James’ Heat, nearly exclusively scoring on jumpshots. That game finds me as his crowning achievement. He shot the shots he wanted, and he was so good it didn’t matter that they were all well-defended.  He was a master artist who came of age a little too late, like a ragtime drummer born just at the tail-end of jazz’s heyday. I can’t say I’m an unabashed Melo fan. I’ve long criticized him, including getting into a fight with my high school point guard about how Paul George was better because he played defense.  I eventually conceded my point out of deference to the Knicks, but deep down I still thought I’d rather have PG. Blemishes will stain Melo’s career when it’s all said and done, which is increasingly appearing to be closer to fruition than I expected. And that’s okay. It’s what he deserves.

The post Golub: The fall of Carmelo Anthony appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Melo was destined to be one of the greats. Armed with a knife of a jab step, a buttery jumpshot and two first names (think: Michael and Jordan, Kobe and Bryant, LeBron and James) Melo could score like few other players in the history of the game. In what was probably his most successful year individually, 2012-2013, he hung a cool 50 on LeBron James’ Heat, nearly exclusively scoring on jumpshots. That game was his crowning achievement. He shot the shots he wanted, and he was so good it didn’t matter that they were all well-defended. He was a master artist who came of age a little too late, like a ragtime drummer born just at the tail-end of jazz’s heyday. I can’t say I’m an unabashed Melo fan. I’ve long criticized him, including getting into a fight with my high school point guard about how Paul George was better because he played defense. I eventually conceded my point out of deference to the Knicks, but deep down I still thought I’d rather have George. Blemishes will stain Melo’s career when it’s all said and done, which is increasingly appearing to be closer to fruition than I expected. And that’s okay. It’s what he deserves.

Let’s start where we always must start — the end. It seems mother nature didn’t take too kindly to our midterm election results and decided to express her white-hot fury in sprinting blaze and choking smoke. I’m no earth sciences major, so I can’t tell you that the fires devastating California are caused by a universal imbalance (perhaps, even, injustice) in the way humans interact with one another and our planet. Earth science folks, please help me out. Likewise, I cannot tell you that the Rockets’ struggles are caused by Melo’s lackluster play. Or even that his lackluster play is caused by his stubborn insistence on shooting his long two’s and playing defense if and only if he feels like it. But I have to use the information I have available to me. And that information, combined with what I saw last year on the Thunder, tells me that Melo is no longer a positive contributor to a good basketball team.

Current Melo is a flawed player, not a team killer. The Rockets’ struggles this year reflect a roster hurting from the loss of two of its top defenders and diminished play from their new $40 million man Chris Paul. The only reason Melo is under such scrutiny is because of last season’s debacle on the Thunder. Despite trying to change his game to fit a new stretch-four role, Melo couldn’t up his efficiency and gel the way GM Sam Presti had hoped. So he was traded (to get waived), and added to a team that finished a few bricked threes away from making the Finals last year.

Melo has never been the consummate teammate. He doesn’t do the little things, he’s not in top-notch shape and able to out-hustle or outwork other guys. He hasn’t updated his game as quickly or innovatively as other players. He has largely settled for what he is — a very, very good basketball player. To me, that will be Melo’s legacy.

I went to a talk last week on Facing Hate in America. In it, on the topic of racism and anti-semitism, panelist Rabbi Kirschner said that sometimes it’s better to have things stay under the surface. There are words and phrases pulsing so strongly with hate that their existence itself is violence. Let them sit unspoken, so that they might not hurt anyone but their holder. (Stick with me right now, here comes a leap of a connection). Melo has never been one to keep things under the surface. When he felt dissatisfied, he let his team, and the media, know. Sometimes, that was wrong. Sometimes, it hurt his team and himself. At the end of the day, he has always been true to who he is and has not tried to front as something that he isn’t.  

Melo the star is meeting his ignominious end. He was never good enough to lead his team to the promised land. He racked up all-star appearances in tandem with first-round flameouts. It is sad to see him go, yes. But at least he has that New York chip still stuck on his shoulder. Faced with the choice of drastically changing his role on a team to survive or doing the best he can in his unique style, he has picked the latter. Like Sinatra said, he did it his way. His is a mantra that I liked, then hated, and now finally understand: Stay Melo.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Golub: The fall of Carmelo Anthony appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/13/golub-the-fall-of-carmelo-anthony/feed/ 0 1146757
Golub: The wasp and the cockroach https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/05/golub-the-wasp-and-the-cockroach/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/05/golub-the-wasp-and-the-cockroach/#respond Mon, 05 Nov 2018 10:30:01 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1146282 Despite a LeBron-less path to the top of the Eastern Conference, the Charlotte Hornets continue to buzz unnoticed.  They sit firmly in the playoff race at 5-5, having lost a few close games and having stomped some unworthy opponents.  Cardi B’s favorite baller, Kemba Walker, has picked up where he left off last season. He currently averages a cool 28.0 points per game on 46% shooting, to go with nearly six assists per game.  However, for all his accomplishments, Kemba has never gotten his due. Part of the reason might be his inability to beat the best. Heading into this season, Kemba’s team faced LeBron’s team twenty-two times.  Twenty-two times, Kemba lost. Why? Kemba has the chip on his shoulder and flashy handles of a Hornet, but LeBron, poised and composed, is more like a wasp.

The post Golub: The wasp and the cockroach appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Despite a LeBron-less path to the top of the Eastern Conference, the Charlotte Hornets continue to buzz unnoticed. They sit firmly in the playoff race at 5-5, having lost a few close games and having stomped some unworthy opponents. Cardi B’s favorite baller, Kemba Walker, has picked up where he left off last season. He currently averages a cool 28.0 points per game on 46 percent shooting to go with nearly six assists per game. However, for all his accomplishments, Kemba has never gotten his due. Part of the reason might be his inability to beat the best. Heading into this season, Kemba’s team faced LeBron’s team 22 times. Twenty-two times, Kemba lost. Why? Kemba has the chip on his shoulder and flashy handles of a Hornet, but LeBron, poised and composed, is more like a wasp.

And on the subject of insect metaphors, the extent of LeBron’s apine nature extends beyond just comparing him to Walker. Now that LeBron has flown West, the state of the burning dumpster fire he left behind — the Cleveland Cavaliers — demonstrates the true wasp-ness of the King. Emerald jewel wasp-ness, to be precise.

Emerald jewel wasps, according to wasp enthusiast Cooper Shea, are a species of small parasitoid wasps of the family Ampulicidae, which are all specifically adapted to hunting adult cockroaches. These wasps are solitary and lack the social organization of more advanced Eusocial Hymenopterans, such as social wasps, bees and ants. While LeBron’s business and media savvy stand unparalleled among athletes, he does maintain a tight inner-circle. Jewel wasps have a highly specific method of capturing prey in order to provision their small, single cell burrows to raise the next generation. Analyzing this method sheds light on the mechanics of LeBron’s pre-meditated construction and destruction of his hometown Cavs. Following Miami, LeBron knew exactly what he wanted from a team and exactly how to get it.

Upon finding a suitable cockroach, a jewel wasp stings its target in order to temporarily paralyze it. The wasp is small relative to the cockroach, so it stings it first to protect itself from grappling with the somewhat dangerous prey item. In LeBron’s case, he paralyzed the Cavs’ decision-making process by offering the possibility that he might return home in free agency. After the cockroach is forcefully pacified, the wasp stings it again. This time though, the wasp inserts its stinger into the main ganglia (brain) of the cockroach, searching for a specific area with its sensor-filled, somewhat prehensile stinger to inject more venom. This second sting effects the cockroach in varied ways. First, the cockroach begins compulsively cleaning itself for 30 minutes. Think of this part as the initial roster construction: grab other stars like Kevin Love in exchange for unknown potentials like Andrew Wiggins, trade future assets for shooters like J.R. Smith or Kyle Korver, bring in heady vets like James Jones, Richard Jefferson and Channing Frye. Just as the wasp sometimes takes this time to dig a burrow, LeBron spends his first season (and future regular seasons) not playing defense and preparing for the part that really counts — the playoffs.

Once it has prepared its prey, the wasp begins to dig in. The wasp returns to the cockroach to bite an antenna off of the hapless creature and inject it with more venom.  This venom’s primary effect is to disable the fight or flight reflex of the cockroach. Once LeBron has assumed control of the team’s decision-making apparatus, he aligns its goals with his own. LeBron always saw his second Cavs stint as a short-term play. Get in, win as much as possible in as short a time as possible, including at least one championship, then get out. Once he’s maneuvered into a spot influential enough to chart the course of the organization, he zooms in on his goal. The cockroach loses the ability to create enough mental impetus to begin to move. The critical parts of the cockroaches motor circuits are intact and functioning, but they are disconnected from its choice to move. Taking advantage of this ineptitude, the wasp leads the considerably larger roach to its burrow, using the antenna of the cockroach as a meat leash. Unable to connect their transactions to a long-term sustainable future for the team, the Cavs organization, mainly the brain trust of owner Dan Gilbert and whichever GM he is about to fire, bends to LeBron’s will.

After leading the cockroach into the burrow, the wasp lays an egg on the abdomen of the cockroach then seals the burrow from the outside to protect its progeny.  After winning a title and solidifying his chokehold on the organization, LeBron begins thinking ahead to his next phase. The organization, unable to plan coherently, sacrifices any semblance of roster cohesion by trading away all sorts of players for aging vets like George Hill and unproven young guys like Jordan Clarkson and Rodney Hood. To polish off his masterwork, LeBron gets the Cavs to give his future team, the Lakers, a first-round pick (Mo Wagner) and clear away contracts like Clarkson’s and Larry Nance Jr.’s in order to make room for all-defense first-team center Javale McGee, fast-break maestro Lance Stephenson and the walking bucket Michael Beasley. The Cavs’ fate is sealed.

The cockroach is left to to await its horrifying fate, as perfectly conscious as a cockroach can be. The venom’s effects wear off eventually, but eventually is beyond the time frame of the cockroach. The wasp larva burrows inside the cockroach and feeds off its insides, avoiding the vital organs to keep the host healthy until every bit of nutrition has been extracted. The Cavs’ makeshift roster stays intact long enough for LeBron to drag it to the Finals, where he ditches it in a small blue recycling bin intended for items that need a new home. The wasp will mature inside the cockroach, eventually erupting from its sorry carcass and starting the cycle over again (in LA).

And you know what?  Good for the wasp. No one really likes cockroaches anyway.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: The wasp and the cockroach appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/11/05/golub-the-wasp-and-the-cockroach/feed/ 0 1146282
Golub: “Let’s make a Black baseball team.” https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/30/golub-lets-make-a-black-baseball-team/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/30/golub-lets-make-a-black-baseball-team/#respond Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:30:32 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1145875 “Let’s make a Black baseball team.” William C. Rhoden, author of Forty Million Dollar Slaves, shared that idea, speaking on behalf of former MLB manager Jerry Manuel.  It would reinvigorate interest in the game from Black players, he said. It would make baseball more exciting. Most importantly, it would connect the game to Black culture and bring along more all-time greats like Hank Aaron, like Willie Mays.  It’s a fun idea.

The post Golub: “Let’s make a Black baseball team.” appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“Let’s make a black baseball team.” William C. Rhoden, author of Forty Million Dollar Slaves, shared this idea, speaking on behalf of former MLB manager Jerry Manuel. It would reinvigorate interest in the game from black players, he said. It would make baseball more exciting. Most importantly, it would connect the game to black culture and bring along more all-time greats like Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. It’s a fun idea.

It made me think of W. E. B. Du Bois’ Talented Tenth plan. Quick refresher: Du Bois believed the future success of African Americans hinged on a talented, highly educated tenth of the population to serve as leaders. It is the idea of a group achieving success on its own and then riding that success into a merge into mainstream. “The Negro race, like all races, is going to be saved by its exceptional men,” Du Bois wrote in his essay Talented Tenth. Examining the idea of an all-black baseball team under the framework of Du Bois’ thinking might be useful to figuring out if it’s worth it. Do we really need an all-black baseball team?

The past World Series (f*** the Red Sox) was billed as landmark because it, in a first for the Fall Classic, pitted two managers of color against each other. Less visible were the black players; the two World Series rosters combined to field four (and the Dodgers had one more on their team who didn’t make the WS roster). It seems the proliferation of black managers hasn’t trickled down. It’s a weird issue for baseball to face. In previous columns I’ve looked at the racial makeup of the NBA and NFL, noting how those majority-black sports leagues struggled to hire front office executives and include owners who looked like their players. The MLB has taken steps since last year, when it had the fewest black players on Opening Day Rosters since the 1950s, to include more black players. They now have each team fill out a detailed survey, including the race of the their players, coaches, scouts and front office throughout their farm systems. This Diversity and Inclusion Annual Report is supposed to boost baseball’s Black player population.

Growing concern over football could suggest an opening for baseball to reach more black players.  The MLB appears intent on capitalizing on that opening. Maybe an all-black team could spark interest. Why does the MLB need to spark interest though? Is it simply because they want to maintain their position in the sports hierarchy — the money and status that come with it? Why is it unacceptable for baseball to have such few black players? This question, I think, gets at the root of the issue.

Du Bois believed in the Talented Tenth plan as a means for bringing equality to African Americans. He was fighting for civil rights. Would the proposed all-black baseball team be a leading force to give black people the rights they are lacking on the baseball field? I’m not too sure. There’s racism in baseball, sure. Ask Adam Jones about the despicable Fenway Park bigots. (Like I said, f*** the Red Sox.) But I don’t think the MLB is worried about black players on the field. I think they’re worried about black fans in the stands. The reason it’s “unacceptable” for there to be such few black players in the MLB is because of the future. The largest MLB fan demographic by far are white men over the age of 55.  What happens when they die? Who is going to fill the 50,000 seats for 81 days a year that stadiums offer? Who is going to watch on TV or YouTube, or stream games directly onto their VR contact lens headsets controlled by AI? The MLB needs to reach more, younger fans in order to sustain its status. If it can reach black fans, or use black players to reach all younger fans by employing an all-black team, why not do it?

However, this idea didn’t come from the MLB. It came from a black manager and an outspoken advocate for black athletes. Maybe there is an intrinsic value to black culture and baseball culture overlapping. Perhaps it could tie black people into the social fabric of America. Better yet, perhaps it could tie 55-year-old white men into the social fabric of black culture.  That would be something cool to see.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

 

The post Golub: “Let’s make a Black baseball team.” appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/30/golub-lets-make-a-black-baseball-team/feed/ 0 1145875
Golub: Controlling the NBA media https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/16/golub-controlling-the-nba-media/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/16/golub-controlling-the-nba-media/#respond Tue, 16 Oct 2018 17:30:12 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1144951 Jimmy Butler, the workhouse, the self-made star, doesn’t wanna be in Minnesota.  It’s hard to blame him. Appearing to have all the ingredients for sustained success, this iteration of the Timberwolves has failed to come close to reaching its potential.  Despite the production of all-star unicorn Karl-Anthony Towns, the unmatched natural talent of “Maple Jordan” Andrew Wiggins, and the defensive tenacity of coach Tom Thibodeau, along with Jimmy Buckets, the T-Wolves only managed to snag the eighth seed last year.  When Butler was injured for the last quarter of the season, the team had a losing record. They can’t seem to put all the promise together. There’s constant bickering, passive-aggressive shots, and unproductiveness on the court. This team whines with potential.

The post Golub: Controlling the NBA media appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Jimmy Butler, the workhouse, the self-made star, doesn’t want to be in Minnesota. It’s hard to blame him. Appearing to have all the ingredients for sustained success, this iteration of the Timberwolves has failed to come close to reaching its potential. Despite the production of all-star unicorn Karl-Anthony Towns, the unmatched natural talent of “Maple Jordan” Andrew Wiggins and the defensive tenacity of coach Tom Thibodeau, along with Jimmy Buckets, the T-Wolves only managed to snag the eighth seed last year.  When Butler was injured for the last quarter of the season, the team had a losing record. The Timberwolves can’t seem to put all the promise together. There’s constant bickering, passive-aggressive shots and unproductiveness on the court. This team whines with potential.

What makes this saga so interesting to me is how Butler has leveraged his power. He is still under contract for this season. If he sits out the entire year, he’ll still be on contract next season. The team can fine him for every practice and game he misses. He can ask for a trade all he wants; at the end of the day, he still has to play. So, Butler needed to find a new way to pressure his team.

To show his displeasure with management, Butler stormed onto the court late, won a couple scrimmages with the worst players on the team, cursed out his general manager, and marched off the court to do an interview with Rachel Nichols.  Few players could get away with such behavior, but the way Butler handled his business reveals how players utilize the media in a way they never have before. While mainstream news media has polarized and politicized its coverage as a means of influencing its audience, NBA media has been molded by its subjects. It has been taken advantage of.

Look at what happened this summer with Kawhi Leonard. Leonard never spoke publicly until a while after he ended up in Toronto. His team constantly leaked news to specific reporters who then tweeted and talked about how Kawhi was treated unfairly. When the rumors of him heading to LA grew scarily real, Lonzo Ball’s camp leaked news about a meniscus tear. The crazy thing is: the meniscus tear was months old. Ball hadn’t wanted the news to come out, but once his name started getting mentioned as trade bait he used the media to try to keep his spot in LA safe.

The Ringer published a fun article recently that looks at the art of the “sidle.” “Sidling” refers to reporters catching NBA stars when they are alone in order to get the juicy gossip. The article described sidling as an innovative new mechanism reporters use to compete with one another and get the best scoop. There’s another way of looking at it, though. Players don’t just happen to give access to certain reporters. While reporters are trying to build trust, players are assessing how well they can use these reporters for their own ends. When LeBron gives Chris Haynes some news on the down-low, he’s not doing it as a favor to Haynes. He knows Haynes is going to serve LeBron with that news, whether it means waiting til the end of a playoff series to criticize teammates or giving him cover to switch teams. Adrian Wojnarowski, of “Woj-Bomb” fame, is notorious for puffing up players, agents or executives so that they’ll give him the early scoop on a trade or signing. Those relationships are symbiotic.

The NBA isn’t as bad as the NFL in terms of player empowerment. Almost all contracts are guaranteed. Average salaries are higher and average careers last longer. Both league’s players still struggle to wield power. One big feature that separates NBA players from their NFL counterparts is how their sport allows their individuality to shine. Players can take advantage of their personality and identity. Whether it’s LeBron’s “The Shop” giving a voice to all sorts of players, from himself to Mo Bamba, or Enes Kanter using Twitter to fight for justice in Turkey, players are using the tools available to them to extend their reach beyond the limits set by their contracts. Those tools include traditional media. As traditional media dies off in favor of faster, shorter, meme-ier social media, players are employing it for their own ends. Traditional media almost always favors those in power. It’s exciting to see media used by those struggling for it. Jimmy Butler may be a star, but T-Wolves owner Glen Taylor is the one who writes the checks. He gets the final say. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t get to use the media for his own needs. Butler does.

That reality is a bit uncomfortable; I’d rather get a media experience with objective news and analysis. However, it is far preferable to the Fox News/MSNBC world of media. I don’t want to be told what to think. At least in the NBA, it’s those who at the bottom of the ladder that are shaping narratives.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Golub: Controlling the NBA media appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/16/golub-controlling-the-nba-media/feed/ 0 1144951
Golub: An expectation of consent https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/08/golub-an-expectation-of-consent/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/08/golub-an-expectation-of-consent/#respond Mon, 08 Oct 2018 09:22:50 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1144434 Today is Christopher Columbus Day, a symbolic celebration of our country’s lifelong commitment to the erasure of Native Americans without their consent. Two days ago was Stanford football’s Set The Expectation game, a symbolic celebration of football’s commitment to present itself as an upstanding, positive institution while it exploits players’ bodies and in many cases […]

The post Golub: An expectation of consent appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Today is Christopher Columbus Day, a symbolic celebration of our country’s lifelong commitment to the erasure of Native Americans without their consent. Two days ago was Stanford football’s Set The Expectation game, a symbolic celebration of football’s commitment to present itself as an upstanding, positive institution while it exploits players’ bodies and in many cases severely derails or takes their lives, without their consent.  The Senate, thoughtful as always, chose to celebrate “Setting The Expectation” by sending a lying, partisan, alleged sexual assaulter who didn’t get consent to the Supreme Court where he will try to take away women’s reproductive rights, without their consent. America: at least we’re consistent.

 

Over the last year and a half I have questioned the morality of American football.  I’m going to save a lot of what I have to say for a later column. For now, I want to make clear two things.  One, college and professional football players do not – and are unable – to give informed consent. Two, football’s hypocrisy mirrors that of our country’s.  Maybe they should be able to play, maybe it’s okay for the sport to exist. The piece that matters to me is that players don’t know the health consequences of playing.  They might not ever really be able to know, considering how hard it is to imagine getting dementia at 40 or becoming depressed at 25. Football is fun. It brings people together.  Besides CTE, it also cultivates valuable life skills in its players. For many college football players failed by shitty schools, football is their only path to a college degree. I don’t want to take away anyone’s opportunity to play football.  What I want is for players to know what they are getting themselves into before they commit. Because playing college and potentially professional football is a lifelong commitment.

 

Another lifelong commitment is an appointment to the Supreme Court.  We already know what value Kavanaugh places on consent, whether that be sexual assault or reproductive rights.  When faced with the choice of doing a thorough investigation to gather more information on someone who has just become one of the nine core arbiters of justice for our country or scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee chose the latter.  (To be clear, I think Democrats like Senator Feinstein also acted brazenly and politically by trying to weaponize a traumatic story, again for political gain, as opposed to seeking justice first.) Maybe a thorough investigation would reveal that Kavanaugh is telling the truth and has never committed any sort of crime.  While that’s unlikely, given that false report rates for sexual assault are the same as most other crimes, between 2 and 10%, it’s not impossible. Why didn’t the senate take its time, then? Why didn’t they give themselves and the country the chance to be informed before making a lifelong decision?

 

Getting consent can be hard.  Being honest can mean admitting that we are not as great as we say we are.  Stanford claims to be a home for intellectual vitality. A cutting-edge research institution that develops the leaders of tomorrow.  The place where the wind of freedom blows. It must be hard to feel that wind when your skull is compressed in a helmet-to-helmet hit.  The “Intellectual Brutality” football shirts look a little less funny every time I see them. A little less funny and a little more true.

 

The US is the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Oh we do have brave people – Dr. Ford comes to mind. And we often are a global example for freedom.  Two days ago, though, we showed how far we still have to go.

 

If football really wanted to Set The Expectation, they would devote a lot of their million-dollar earnings each year to researching health impacts of the game.  They would give players detailed explanations of the costs of playing. They would stop skirting NCAA-imposed hourly limits and instead be leaders. They would treat consent the way the SARA office teaches us: informed, affirmative, ongoing, can be revoked at any time.  You can’t give consent if you don’t know what’s going on. Likewise, we look to the Supreme Court as moral leaders for our country. If it takes every scrap of questionable behavior getting thrust into the spotlight to attain such a status, good. It’s hard to be a leader.  That’s the type of expectation that we need.

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Golub: An expectation of consent appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/08/golub-an-expectation-of-consent/feed/ 0 1144434
Golub: What it takes to survive https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/01/golub-what-it-takes-to-survive/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/01/golub-what-it-takes-to-survive/#respond Mon, 01 Oct 2018 09:03:12 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1144124 “You must really like the Suns,” my friend suggested, pointing to my purple T-shirt emblazoned with “PHOENIX BASKETBALL” across the chest.  It was an innocent mistake; one people make all the time when I wear my Diana Taurasi Phoenix Mercury shirt. The orange spherical logo is placed aside, so that the big letters are all you see unless you look closely.  I cherish that shirt. Later in the day I hooped on the Wilbur courts, doing my best to warmly welcome frosh with an L. The shirt feels like it belongs in a pickup game.

The post Golub: What it takes to survive appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“You must really like the Suns,” my friend suggested, pointing to my purple T-shirt emblazoned with “PHOENIX BASKETBALL” across the chest.  It was an innocent mistake — one that people make all the time when I wear my Diana Taurasi Phoenix Mercury shirt. The orange spherical logo is placed aside so that the big letters are all you see unless you look closely. I cherish that shirt. Later in the day, I hooped on the Wilbur courts, doing my best to warmly welcome frosh with an L. The shirt feels like it belongs in a pickup game.

I explained to my friend and the rest of the all-male room what team and what player my shirt represented. Before I could even finish, I was asked, “But why would you rather watch the WNBA? Wouldn’t you rather see people dunk and make crazy highlights?” The question bothered me.

I’d never put it out that I preferred the WNBA. I hadn’t even said I liked WNBA basketball, though my shirt suggested I did. Immediately, though, my assumed interest in women’s hoops was met with challenge and disbelief. “Wouldn’t you rather see people dunk?” echoed in my head. By now, several seasons into my WNBA fandom, I’ve had plenty of conversations about the merits of watching women play a sport that appears to advantage men. It’s never an easy discussion.

The question bothered me because it assumed the existence of a battle between women’s and men’s basketball. It forced me to pick a side. I don’t have to make that decision. The seasons don’t overlap at all (no, NBA free agency and summer league does not count). The question was designed to strike down the right of the WNBA to exist without ever giving it any space to claim. I doubt my friend understood the implications of his question. What he unwittingly committed, though, was the closed-minded crime that might sink the WNBA.

My friend was right: I would rather watch the NBA than the WNBA. I do find the NBA more exciting. I do love the jaw-dropping athleticism, like when Giannis gallops down the entire court and dunks in about two and a half steps. That never happens in the WNBA. Just because the WNBA is not as exciting as the NBA doesn’t mean it isn’t worth watching.

People who pay attention to ratings talk about how the WNBA should add some gimmicks to the game. Lower the rims. Add a four-point shot. Do something to mix it up and make women’s basketball appeal in a way that men’s does not. Those ideas are misguided. The WNBA doesn’t need to change so that it can compete with the NBA. It needs a spotlight so that it can succeed or fail on its merits alone. ESPN has one regular WNBA writer. As far as I know, only playoff games make it to national TV. When the Storm won the WNBA championship, the New York Post announced the news in a tiny rectangle nestled between baseball box scores. The NBA champion always gets the back cover and usually many more pages after that.

Part of the reason the NBA has continued to grow its popularity is because it is so easy to access more information about your favorite players and teams. There are legions of professional blogs, websites and newspapers dedicated to bringing the NBA to life. There are multiple national TV games every single week. You could say the NBA has earned its impressive amount of media coverage, with which I’d agree. Forty-five years ago, the NBA finals were tape delayed. However, the media coverage creates a positive feedback loop, enabling and encouraging growth. What the WNBA needs, before one can say if the league is sustainable, is media coverage befitting a sustainable sports league.

Imagine if all 12 teams had multiple dedicated beats. If on summer Friday nights you got a doubleheader. If you and your friends could play fantasy women’s basketball, a world where the complexities of the game are reduced to numbers anyway. The WNBA doesn’t deserve equal attention from fans; it deserves the opportunity to prove its worthiness. If, after a prolonged stretch of detailed media coverage, the league still isn’t popular, then maybe it shouldn’t stick around. But it needs that opportunity first. It shouldn’t have to sacrifice itself to get that fundamental right. Think of it as The American Dream, sports-league version.

Going back to my t-shirt, maybe the Mercury made its logo so small in comparison to the “PHOENIX” on purpose. Perhaps it would help them sell more shirts. In order to survive, the team decided it was willing to sacrifice their brand and hope the NBA connotations of “PHOENIX BASKETBALL” could boost its sales. I don’t blame them. The WNBA is doing what it takes to survive; now it’s time for the media to play its part.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: What it takes to survive appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/10/01/golub-what-it-takes-to-survive/feed/ 0 1144124
Golub: On the anthem https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/25/golub-on-the-anthem/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/25/golub-on-the-anthem/#respond Fri, 25 May 2018 10:30:43 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1141591 Trump’s groundbreaking meeting with North Korea was canceled because “hostile” behavior on their part. Trump explained that this missed opportunity “is a tremendous setback for North Korea.” In related news, the NFL announced their new national anthem policy which, believe it or not, they claim to have thought about carefully. They have decided that players are not allowed to express themselves or their views in any way that does not include standing for the entire national anthem. (They do get the choice to wait in the tunnel off the field.) This new policy is a disgrace to the NFL for a number of reasons, some of which I’ll discuss here.

The post Golub: On the anthem appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Trump’s groundbreaking meeting with North Korea was canceled because of “hostile” behavior on their part. Trump explained that this missed opportunity “is a tremendous setback for North Korea.” In related news, the NFL announced their new national anthem policy which, believe it or not, they claim to have thought about carefully. They have decided that players are not allowed to express themselves or their views in any way that does not include standing for the entire national anthem. (They do get the choice to wait in the tunnel off the field.) This new policy is a disgrace to the NFL for a number of reasons, some of which I’ll discuss here.

The “compromise,” to use NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s word, ignores the supposed good-faith negotiating that took place last year, resulting in a multimillion dollar commitment by the NFL to support social justice groups. They explicitly stated that the negotiation was not in exchange for the players to stop protesting. And yet, here we are.

Goodell also stated that teams would be able to implement their own rules that were consistent with this new imposition. This decision could open the door to owners deciding to bench or suspend players because of their stance on the anthem. It could even potentially allow them to legally cut or blackball players for political reasons wholly separate from football. That a player’s job security is endangered not by their value but by their owner’s personal beliefs is as dangerous as it is un-American.

I’m not saying the NFL’s ownership and commissioner rule with a brutality on par with North Korea’s totalitarian government. What I am saying is that the values our country, and specifically the NFL, nominally holds run counter to this new policy. Pitting these values against the backdrop of North Korea illuminated the contrast. We admonish North Korea for phony patriotism, exemplified by forcing citizens to attend military parades or to cry for the death of a dictator. Forcing people to line up as if they were prisoners is not patriotism; it is oppression. Do those actions not seem similar to making players stand for the national anthem? If not in scale, at least in substance. Texans owner Bob McNair’s comment of being scared of “the inmates running the prison” comes into focus.

America is a better country than most. Being an NFL player, despite the serious health consequences, can create a better life for players than many millions, if not billions, of people around the world currently experience. I feel a little uncomfortable criticizing the NFL when human trafficking runs rampant in some parts of the world, and slavery still exists. Just because there are worse conditions, however, doesn’t make this new anthem rule right. Often for better and sometimes for worse, many Americans see our country as a global leader. Being not the worst shouldn’t be our goal. If the NFL is serious about representing American values, it should ditch the paternalism that denies freedom and represent the type of patriotism that encourages evaluation based on excellence, not opinion.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: On the anthem appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/25/golub-on-the-anthem/feed/ 0 1141591
Golub: Can a black coach survive the NBA https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/golub-can-a-black-coach-survive-the-nba/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/golub-can-a-black-coach-survive-the-nba/#respond Fri, 11 May 2018 06:51:46 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140926 Who are the best coaches in the league? The typical fan might rattle off a list like: Gregg Popovich, Steve Kerr, Rick Carlisle, Brad Stevens, maybe Erik Spoelstra. It’s not often that you hear of a black coach celebrated for his success. Raptors coach Dwane Casey had a great season this past year, and likely will win coach of the year. But, his team got bounced from the playoffs early on. Already, critics are calling for him to be fired while uplifting white coaches like Brad Stevens.

The post Golub: Can a black coach survive the NBA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Who are the best coaches in the league?  The typical fan might rattle off a list like: Gregg Popovich, Steve Kerr, Rick Carlisle, Brad Stevens, maybe Erik Spoelstra. It’s not often that you hear of a black coach celebrated for his success. Raptors coach Dwane Casey had a great season this past year and likely will win coach of the year. But his team got bounced from the playoffs early on. Already critics are calling for him to be fired while uplifting white coaches like Brad Stevens. I don’t mean to blame Stevens, the media or any particular person for the lack of positive media coverage for black coaches. It stems from a lack of success currently for black coaches. I think the fact that the best coaches in a league predominately comprised of black players are mostly white is a problem. And I want to know why it exists.
The NBA didn’t always look like it does today. In 1976, the freewheeling, athletic, experimenting American Basketball Association merged with the National Basketball Association. The pre-merger NBA was to today’s Association as curling is to hockey. Boring and oh-so-slow. While the ABA only brought in four teams, its impact on the NBA was immeasurable. Basketball became more exciting, highlighted by the new floor spacing, three-point shot and events such as the slam dunk contest and three-point shooting contest.  The merger also brought in an influx of black players. These black players made the game more athletic, as they played above the rim. Julius Erving, or Dr. J as he was known, epitomized this style of basketball.
For as long as there had been black players in the NBA, there have been unfair stereotypes about black players. At first, they were deemed not as athletic as their white counterparts. Post-merger, this ludicrous proposition was proven false. It was proven so false that the notion today is laughable.
Next, the stereotype was that they were not as skilled. Maybe they could run and jump as fast and as well as white players, but they couldn’t dribble or shoot as well. Like its misguided predecessor, this falsehood was also debunked. Then, when people were really grasping for straws, they put out the idea that black players weren’t clutch. Sure, they were just as skilled (not to mention plain better). But when the game was on the line, they couldn’t come through in the clutch. Shockingly, this stereotype also proved to be false.
Finally, people criticized black players for not being a smart. They weren’t team managers, they couldn’t run the offense or defense or think of the game at a high-level. While this stereotype has also been exposed as racist junk (see: LeBron, Chris Paul, Rajon Rondo, et al.), it lingers. As a result, there’s always been a disproportionate number of black coaches giving the racial breakdown of NBA players. Today, even though the NBA hiring practices enable more racial diversity then other major sports league, they lag far behind in representative hiring practices for strictly basketball jobs like head coach, GM and president. My beloved Knicks, after hiring David Fizdale to join the team of Steve Mills and Scott Perry, are something of a unicorn in the NBA. Those three, the three most important decision makers, are all black. The 2017-18 list of NBA head coaches features seven black coaches out of 30 total: Dwane Casey, Tyronn Lue, Doc Rivers, JB Bickerstaff, Alvin Gentry, Nate McMillan, David Fizdale. The NBA is roughly three-quarters black. Hmm. It’s hard to pinpoint where on the progression from player to coach black players get shut out. I’ll try to figure it out. Expect more next week.
Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Golub: Can a black coach survive the NBA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/10/golub-can-a-black-coach-survive-the-nba/feed/ 0 1140926
Golub: Russ and Kanye https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/04/golub-russ-and-kanye/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/04/golub-russ-and-kanye/#respond Fri, 04 May 2018 08:34:07 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140523 Not like this. Not like this. This wasn’t how it was supposed to happen. Sure, I thought they might not win the Finals. I knew, deep down, that this team was fatally flawed in a way Golden State would be able to exploit. But I was so sure it would take the Warriors. I was so determined that they’d at least make the conference finals. Instead, they lost to the Jazz. Not like this.

The post Golub: Russ and Kanye appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Not like this.  Not like this. This wasn’t how it was supposed to happen. Sure, I thought they might not win the Finals. I knew, deep down, that this team was fatally flawed in a way Golden State would be able to exploit. But I was so sure it would take the Warriors. I was so determined that they’d at least make the conference finals. Instead, they lost to the Jazz. Not like this.

When the Thunder’s season ended, I was sad. But, like anyone who watched their first round series, the writing had been on the wall since game 2. Clearly, this team was not firing on all cylinders. Instead, it was firing on one. That one, Russ, did all he could. He flung the ball at the rim in every which way imaginable. He even made them into the hoop a bunch of times, too. He set his teammates up with makable shots. He grabbed rebounds by the handful. He plunged face first into battle, trying to drag his teammates with him. It didn’t work.

This will be the last article I write about Russ for a very long time. It’s not easy. In fact, it hurts. I have to learn to embrace all of Russ, including his shortcomings. I don’t think he’s to blame for their loss, but it’s time I grew honest with myself. By way of example, let me discuss Kanye.

I’ve always liked Kanye. I’ve never loved Kanye. Doesn’t matter if it’s the old or the new Kanye. Yet, when he started to tweet up a storm, I saw something. Something special, magical even. What I saw was before “slavery was a choice,” before Trump and dragon energy. I saw love. If you take the time to read all of Kanye’s tweets (it’s only about 350, last I checked), you’ll find that the media attention on him has been absurdly skewed towards the most controversial of his claims. Here are some tweets that resonated with me: “You are free. You’ve already won. Feel energized. Move in love not fear. Be afraid of nothing.” “Everyone should be their own biggest fan.” “Question everything.” “Express what you feel not what you’ve been programmed to think.” “Sharing is community, holding information is capitalism.” Read those tweets, and tell me they’re selfish, racist, thoughtless or cruel. You can’t. Because they aren’t.

I read Kanye’s tweets, and I saw a philosophy of free love and free thought that I needed in my life. I saw something I was missing that would fulfill me. I tried to share what I saw with other people. As you can imagine, it did not go over well.

Met with incredulous stares and vigorous debate, I was surprised; how was everyone missing what I could so clearly see? When the TMZ interview about slavery came out I was there to defend him. Yeah, that comment was dumb. Matter of fact, it was more than dumb. It was wrong, it was hateful and it needed to be rectified. However, it didn’t mean Kanye was wrong about everything else or that Kanye was bad.  The idea he was trying to communicate was that the mental prison of slavery — the mental prison of society — is far more insidious and harmful in the long term than physical slavery. Kanye, in his comment, meant that slavery is at least as much mental bondage as it is physical. Obviously, that’s not how most people heard it. Like I said, at first I was ready to jump to his defense.

That’s exactly what I did. I defended him walking around campus, I defended him sitting at lunch and dinner, I defended him on my phone, I defended him all alone … I defended him. Finally, the counter-debate was strong enough to bust through my stubborn skull, and I entered a period of deep introspection. Was I wrong about Kanye? Was he actually racist? Had he really gone crazy? Was this all a lie?

It couldn’t be. In a short few days, I had come to appreciate Kanye’s visionary thought in a way I never did through his music. I wanted to think like him, mostly. But my friends had forced me to question myself. Could I love someone who was racist? Could I love someone who was wrong? Part of the backlash against Kanye only proves his point. Society makes it very hard today to have an unpopular opinion and be able to discuss it with people who disagree. One gets demonized for having the “wrong” view. People dismissing Kanye without reading his entire body of (twitter) work exemplified what was wrong with society, in my opinion. I still think people need to search for more context and challenge their preconceptions. However, my own views have evolved as well.

At the end of this brilliant, confounding intellectual journey, I found the real Kanye. He is a lover. He believes in free thought and in breaching social norms. He knows nothing about politics. Despite being a rapper, he isn’t very good at concisely conveying complicated concepts when it comes to twitter or interviews. While I can understand his love for Trump (for he loves all people, and he is inspired by Trump’s accomplishment of something no-one thought possible), he picked a horrific example because Trump is one of the most publicly hateful people of our time. Slavery is perhaps the most hateful piece of the world’s history puzzle. Kanye revealed that he hasn’t quite figured out this philosophy of love and free thought as much as I thought he had. Maybe he isn’t even the best messenger for it. As a starry celebrity, though, he still is responsible for being a good person. He failed to do that recently. I think he should apologize. I still think he’s magical, but I can’t say I’d follow him.

I wouldn’t have been able to write that paragraph two days ago. I was too enraptured with the beauty of the best of Kanye West. Likewise, I now have more perspective on Russ. Russell Westbrook is my favorite player in the NBA, bar none. He is easily my second favorite player of all time, slotting in snugly behind Steve Nash. His foaming passion for the game buzzes through my body sitting on the couch as he blitzes through defenders and hammers the ball through a hopelessly thin rim. I still don’t know what Kanye meant by dragon energy. Whatever it really is, Russ has it. Or maybe he’s just a dragon. I love Russ, and I will continue to love Russ for as long as he plays. After this past season, unfortunately, I have to open my eyes a little wider. I have to stop distorting reality, ignoring the plethora of bricky pull-ups. I need to remember the lazy defensive possessions or insane gambles for steals that allow him to streak across the sky like a meteor when he gets the ball but all too often end up in an easy shot for the other team. Russ is flawed. He still is a top 5 NBA player, and he absolutely earned his MVP award last year. In order to make it back to the finals, he probably has to evolve as a player. Like Kanye, I still believe in the good in Russ. I know he has what it takes to be the best player on a championship team. I’m worried. I’m worried because he is sorely flawed and because he does not seem to realize it. His next season might just determine his legacy. Just as Kanye’s next album will determine the same.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj@stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Russ and Kanye appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/05/04/golub-russ-and-kanye/feed/ 0 1140523
Golub: Exploring LGBTQ acceptance in the NBA https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/26/golub-exploring-lgbtq-acceptance-in-the-nba/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/26/golub-exploring-lgbtq-acceptance-in-the-nba/#respond Fri, 27 Apr 2018 06:28:27 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1140182 Overall, the NBA has a reputation of being relatively open-minded when it comes to sexuality and gender differences. Jason Collins became the first openly gay athlete in major pro American sports when the Brooklyn Nets signed up midseason a few years ago. Since then, though, the NBA hasn’t done much.

The post Golub: Exploring LGBTQ acceptance in the NBA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Reggie Bullock made some small ripples recently when he asked for the NBA and its apparel provider, Nike, to make rainbow jerseys for teams in support of LGBTQ people. Before I go any further, big ups to Bullock for speaking out on LGBTQ equality. Bullock, whose transgender sister was killed, is coming off a career-best season but still is only a role player. He doesn’t enjoy anything remotely resembling the job security a player like LeBron has that allows him to be as outspoken as he wants on whatever he wants. Efforts like his are noble and change-making. Overall, the NBA has a reputation of being relatively open-minded when it comes to sexuality and gender differences. Jason Collins became the first openly gay athlete in major pro American sports when the Brooklyn Nets signed up midseason a few years ago. Since then, though, the NBA hasn’t done much.

After the Rockets’ series-clinching win against the Timberwolves, superstars James Harden, Chris Paul and stud role player Clint Capela did a joint interview. Capela, in describing the team’s sustained performance in the deciding Game 5, used the phrase “from the tip to the end” of the game. Immediately after, Harden, seated to his right, joked “pause.” CP laughed; Capela missed the joke and kept talking.

By itself, Harden’s joke is pretty much harmless.  Generally the “pause” joke comes after someone says something that wasn’t intended to reference sex but could be construed that way (especially for gay sex). It’s the type of high school locker room joke that is funny only to pubescent straight boys. It demeans gay sex and, more broadly, is an example of sexualizing gayness. As the categorizing title implies, sexual orientation involves who one wants to have sex with. But that’s not all it is. Being gay, for example, is about romantic interest as well, not just sex. Alas, I digress. That’s a topic too complex for me to dig into on a beautiful Thursday afternoon.

Anyways, for a superstar player and the likely MVP of the season to make that type of joke should embarrass the Association in general and Harden in particular. Clearly, the NBA has lots of work to do in the name of LGBTQ equality.  Harden was in the middle of a press conference where he could honor his team for advancing in the playoffs.  It was a regularly scheduled press conference, something Harden has done a thousand times in his career. And it’s not as if Harden wasn’t generally being professional. When asked if he and the team would celebrate advancing a round in the playoffs, Harden gave a measured, stoic answer, explaining how the team had higher aspirations, and this was a good step forward. Why couldn’t he bring that same professionalism to the rest of the press conference?

To those who would say the NBA shouldn’t address political issues on an institutional level (like a jersey design), I have two responses. First, is equality for LGBTQ people a political issue?  It shouldn’t be. The Bill of Rights offers freedom of expression; my best guess for the reason it doesn’t mention sexuality explicitly is because our founding fathers were too ignorant to be aware of it. Second, the NBA has made political statements via jerseys before. Back in 2010 when the Arizona legislature had just implemented new legislation against immigrants, the NBA let the Phoenix Suns wear their Noche Latina jerseys (every year the NBA does a Latin Night AKA Noche Latino where teams were jerseys that have their team names in Spanish) in their series against the San Antonio Spurs in protest. Given this precious example, I see no reason for the NBA not to make LGBTQ pride jerseys. As an added bonus, teams get to sell an extra type of jersey. Which, for the cynical among us, is always the endgame.

The NBA has the potential to fill its empty approval of LGBTQ equality with inspired support. Following Bullock’s advice and making rainbow jerseys would be a great step forward, to use Harden’s description of his playoff series win.

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Golub: Exploring LGBTQ acceptance in the NBA appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/26/golub-exploring-lgbtq-acceptance-in-the-nba/feed/ 0 1140182
Golub: Russell’s reading rooms https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/20/golub-russells-reading-rooms/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/20/golub-russells-reading-rooms/#respond Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:30:25 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1139736 I have more to say about Russell Westbrook. If you missed my column last week, do me a favor and check it out. Today, I want to talk about Russ’ far-reaching impact beyond his explosive on-court performances.

The post Golub: Russell’s reading rooms appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I have more to say about Russell Westbrook. If you missed my column last week, do me a favor and check it out. Today, I want to talk about Russ’ far-reaching impact beyond his explosive on-court performances.

In the wake of West Virginia’s teacher strike, which concluded about a month and a half ago, protests for greater investment in education (in terms of funding for schools and teachers’ salaries) have spread rampantly among deeply conservative states. One such state is Oklahoma. Russ, as generous in his community as he is menacing on the court, is heavily involved in education. His organization, Russell’s Reading Rooms, promotes literacy and serves children from low-income neighborhoods by giving them access to books and a safe environment in which to read and discuss them with friends. He isn’t content to lay back with his non-political non-profit, though. About 10 days ago, Russ chimed in on the Oklahoma teacher’s strike with an explicit endorsement.

Education is very, very important to me. The teachers are standing up for something that obviously they believe in — that’s helping the kids get a better education — obviously them getting paid more. More funding for the schools is very, very important. I’m definitely all in for that because I believe education is key for a lot of things going on in society.”  

While he doesn’t get the same recognition as, say, LeBron on spotlighting social inequalities, Russ uses his platform for social good.

The reason I’m writing about Russ’ involvement is that his work is more than some community service from a good samaritan.  The Thunder resides in one of the most conservative states in the country and has perhaps the most conservative owner, Clay Bennett, of the entire NBA.  When Westbrook backs the public school teachers, he has no choice but to oppose the political stances of his fans and his “owner.” A while back, I wrote a column on the painful and oppressive power structure caused by white men owning teams comprised of black players. As we saw with Kaepernick and are seeing with his former teammate — and first joiner of the kneeling movement — Eric Reid, a political viewpoint that runs counter to those of owners is enough to prevent one from a job, no matter how talented the player is. Westbrook is risking his popularity and livelihood by taking a political stance.

His involvement in this specific issue, public school education, is telling. While public perception of NBA players’ backgrounds is flawed (for example, a player is more likely to make the NBA if they come from a wealthier background, a reality which runs counter to the “escape from the ghetto” narrative), many NBA players do come from low-income backgrounds and limited access to education. This lack of access to good education restricts the opportunities to advance socioeconomically without getting lucky with something like a career in entertainment (i.e. sports or music).  Russ’ stance in favor of teachers is an alternate manifestation of the recurring players vs. owners dynamic. Except, in this instance, he doesn’t have anything to gain personally. All he can do is harm his image in the eyes of employers or fans. As I discussed in my previous column, Russ already receives more than his share of criticisms from the media. The last thing he needs is more baggage. Nevertheless, he takes the hard road to make a difference for others. That’s leadership. That’s what it means to be a true floor general.

Contact Jack Golub at golubj “at” stanford.edu

The post Golub: Russell’s reading rooms appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/20/golub-russells-reading-rooms/feed/ 0 1139736
Golub: Where is the love? https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/13/golub-where-is-the-love/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/13/golub-where-is-the-love/#respond Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:14:18 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1139368 I prefer to save this space for discussing issues vital to society. I seek to illuminate intersections of sports and race and politics to demonstrate larger themes present in our country and our world. For these reasons, I am going to use all of my remaining words to highlight one of the greatest scandals perpetrated by the media, ever. Yes, I am talking about the utter lack of coverage of Russell Westbrook's 2017-2018 season. In case you haven’t noticed, Russ has just averaged a triple-double for an entire season. The only thing more remarkable than this fact is that it is he has done it for the second year in a row. Here is the list of all NBA players, besides Russell Westbrook, who have ever averaged a triple-double for a full season: Oscar Robertson. Here is the list of all NBA players, besides Russell Westbrook, who have averaged a triple-double for multiple seasons, either consecutively or not:

The post Golub: Where is the love? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I prefer to save this space for discussing issues vital to society. I seek to illuminate intersections of sports and race and politics to demonstrate larger themes present in our country and our world.  For these reasons, I am going to use all of my remaining words to highlight one of the greatest scandals perpetrated by the media, ever. Yes, I am talking about the utter lack of coverage of Russell Westbrook’s 2017-2018 season. In case you haven’t noticed, Russ has just averaged a triple-double for an entire season. The only thing more remarkable than this fact is that it is he has done it for the second year in a row. Here is the list of all NBA players, besides Russell Westbrook, who have ever averaged a triple-double for a full season: Oscar Robertson. Here is the list of all NBA players, besides Russell Westbrook, who have averaged a triple-double for multiple seasons, either consecutively or not:                               .

Yes, the list is empty. Russ’ dominance over the game is unprecedented, and the lack of media coverage on his accomplishment is astounding in its ignorance and disappointing in its injustice. LeBron, having a great year, no doubt, is averaging 27 points, 8 boards and 9 assists. While that stat line is impressive, it falls short of Russ’ 25-10-10 and looks immature next to the 32-11-10 that Westbrook put up last season. Yet LeBron is the one with the ESPN headlines and the MVP consideration. Yeah, the Thunder haven’t had the most impressive season. But I’d argue they are just as impressive as the Cavs given that the Cavs play in a far weaker conference, and that the Thunder beat the crap out of them in one game and only narrowly lost the other head-to-head.

To clinch his triple-double, Russ put up 20 boards and 19 assists in the final game of the season.  He has got to be the only player in the league that could affect the game so deeply and still not get attention for it. Look, he likes to get on people’s nerves. He’s standoffish with reporters and he competes with a snarling fury that makes it hard for some fans to appreciate him. I am aware of his less inviting features. But to let those minor flaws distract from transcendent greatness is to dim the flame of human achievement. Russ is a fire-breathing freight train sent from the heavens to liberate us from the shackles of our prison-cell-minds. Maybe we don’t appreciate him the way we should because we cannot understand him.

Russell Westbrook is human, probably. The intensity with which he plays, however, cannot be contained in human form. That is why he grimaces and bellows after a big play; why he smashes the rim with a tomahawk dunk so full of rage it could fell an army; why, after draining a three-pointer, he injects his three fingers into the side of his head like bullets to his brain. His veins pulse with a roaring energy that doesn’t rub people the wrong way so much as it burns them, leaving their skin sizzling. LeBron gets all the hype because he’s a tactful media manipulator, easily negotiating the common land mines other public figures carelessly step on. Russ is a tank, rolling straight over said land mines and not even noticing when they explode.

Russell Westbrook does not get the love he deserves. This man gives everything he has to give every single game he plays. There are very few players of which the same can be said. If he’s not your favorite player, fine. If you don’t think his triple-doubles are otherworldly that’s okay, but pay attention to what they mean. He is the rarest combination of talent and drive. For him to average a triple-double for two seasons in a row proves that he has reached a rare plateau. Now that the playoffs have arrived, get ready for that plateau to rise just a little bit higher.

Contact Jack Golub at golubj “at” stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Where is the love? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/04/13/golub-where-is-the-love/feed/ 0 1139368
“The Answer” to the NBA’s stance on hip-hop https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/08/the-answer-to-the-nbas-stance-on-hip-hop/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/08/the-answer-to-the-nbas-stance-on-hip-hop/#respond Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:41:44 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1138083 I recently rewatched Allen Iverson’s infamous “we talkin’ bout practice” rant. It reminded me of how the NBA today still feels the repercussions of one of its most original players of all time. One way his impact is felt in particular is through the NBA’s relationship (when I say NBA I’m referring to its administration, […]

The post “The Answer” to the NBA’s stance on hip-hop appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I recently rewatched Allen Iverson’s infamous “we talkin’ bout practice” rant. It reminded me of how the NBA today still feels the repercussions of one of its most original players of all time. One way his impact is felt in particular is through the NBA’s relationship (when I say NBA I’m referring to its administration, especially then-commissioner David Stern) with hip-hop. At first, the NBA embraced hip-hop. As it gained popularity in the 80s, songs like Kurtis Blow’s “Basketball” could be heard blared through arenas across the country.

The 90s continued to embrace hip-hop culture, as in 1991 the NBA organized for MJ to host Saturday Night Live alongside Public Enemy. Shaquille O’Neal took the title of first published NBA rapper with “(I Know I Got) Skillz” in 1993. Other players, such as Cedric Ceballos, Kobe Bryant and Allen ‘The Answer’ Iverson would go on to produce rap music of their own, though to limited commercial success.  Some time after, the NBA reversed its stance on hip-hop culture and actually took measures to counter it.

However, in the early 2000s the mood towards hip-hop culture, and even black culture, had soured. 2004 brought maybe the worst event in the history of the NBA: The Malice at the Palace. A fight erupted between the Indiana Pacers and Detroit Pistons at the Palace of Auburn Hills. The violence spilled over into the stands, as fans got involved. In 2005, the NBA implemented a rigorous dress code. This code mandated that players wear business casual attire, and it banned, among other things, headgear of any kind, headphones, chains, pendants, medallions and sunglasses while indoors. Many viewed these stringent requirements as an attack on hip-hop culture.

The dress code symbolized the NBA’s reversal towards hip-hop. The league was quick to embrace and take advantage of hip-hop as a marketing tool, but at a certain point it decided that hip-hop culture had become a problem that needed to be dealt with. Iverson rose to stardom exactly during this time period, so I decided to take a look to see if he could have had anything to do with it …

In 1993, Iverson was arrested and convicted for hitting a white woman in a bowling alley fight. This story, detailed in the 30-for-30 documentary “No Crossover: The Trial of Allen Iverson, shot Iverson into the national spotlight and ensured his status as a divisive public figure.

Iverson would challenge many stereotypes. He was known for challenging his coaches, which confirmed beliefs that blacks weren’t team players. But he wasn’t necessarily a freak athlete (he stood 6 feet tall and weighed a mere 165 pounds) and he gave everything he had while he was on the court. Known for his tenacity, Iverson dispelled stereotypes that blacks didn’t hustle. Of course, Iverson’s antics usually overshadowed his hard work as a player. His legendary “We talkin’ bout practice?” media session encapsulates the character that many saw him as.

Here’s my speculation: the turning point for the NBA, and maybe the most significant move Iverson made off the court, was recording music. Allen Iverson’s song “40 Bars actually drew the ire of the league, and appeared to be a landmark moment in the Association’s turn against hip-hop.

David Stern, then the commissioner of the NBA, heavily criticized the violent and discriminatory lyrics of the song. In response, Iverson changed the lyrics, but never ended up publishing his album. I think it’s very possible that “40 Bars” crystallized Iverson’s image as a thug and acted as the final straw to swing Stern’s opinion on hip-hop culture.

How does the NBA feel about hip-hop today? It’s a complicated relationship. Many hip-hop artists are associated with NBA teams or perform at their games. The dress code has relaxed and allowed for players to express themselves in, um, interesting ways (shout out to my man Russ Westbrook). At the same time, the NBA is a majority white owner, majority white fan league in a majority white country. It doesn’t want its players to appear to be threatening thugs. (My next column is gonna follow up on that issue of a player’s image, probably.) While he may be relegated to the BIG3 league now, AI remains instrumental to the modern NBA.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post “The Answer” to the NBA’s stance on hip-hop appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/08/the-answer-to-the-nbas-stance-on-hip-hop/feed/ 0 1138083
Golub: NCAA works exactly way it wants to https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/02/golub-ncaa-works-exactly-way-it-wants-to/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/02/golub-ncaa-works-exactly-way-it-wants-to/#respond Fri, 02 Mar 2018 10:17:44 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1137619 The NCAA should be nearing a breaking point. But in reality, things are going exactly as planned. Recently the NCAA has been confronted by its hypocritical, unethical behavior ranging from lax observance of rules to maliciousness all the way at the top. The upshot is that Mark Emmert, president of the NCAA, is ignorant, insidious or both. Either way, he needs to go.

The post Golub: NCAA works exactly way it wants to appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The NCAA should be nearing a breaking point. But in reality, things are going exactly as planned. Recently the NCAA has been confronted by its hypocritical, unethical behavior ranging from lax observance of rules to maliciousness all the way at the top. The upshot is that Mark Emmert, president of the NCAA, is ignorant, insidious or both. Either way, he needs to go.

Two big scandals have been uncovered recently. First it was the revelation that Larry Nassar, a team doctor for Michigan State and the US Gymnastics team, is a serial child molester. Many sources claim that Emmert was personally told of reports about Nassar as far back as 2010. More recently, the FBI probe into college basketball has shed light on one of the worst kept secrets in all of the NCAA’s shadowy dealings: “Pay to play.” It’s where agents and universities work together to illegally pay players first to play for that university and then sign with the agent. Given that every few years another big-name coach gets suspended or fired for recruiting violations, this development isn’t really a surprise. What’s more surprising, at least to me, is that Emmert still has his job. I’m no legal scholar, but given the breadth and depth of illegal activities occurring under his domain, I’d hope Emmert has to stand trial.

The NCAA exists to make money. If it were a selfless non-profit looking out for the good of all student-athletes, maybe it would enforce its own rules. Instead, the NCAA has, over the course of many years and many, many rule violations, developed a neatly scripted plan that would be beautiful if it weren’t so treacherous. First, it creates the opportunity for misconduct by maintaining that its athletes are students first and amateurs; therefore, they deserve to make no money beyond getting their education paid for. Too often, this measure disproportionately harms black athletes. Basketball and football, the two huge money makers for the NCAA, predominantly feature black athletes. And these two sports don’t have a well-developed farm system, like the minor leagues in baseball. As a result, athletes who could sign multi-million-dollar endorsement deals or make some money selling autographs aren’t allowed to profit on their own likeness at all. The NCAA and individual schools get to sign TV deals, sell tickets and merchandise, and use those players for branding, to the tune of billions of dollars a year. Meanwhile, the athletes get nothing. Can you blame DeAndre Ayton (if it turns out that he did get paid $100,000) for taking the money when he’s worth probably twenty times that on the open market in terms of endorsements? Especially if he or his family needs it.

The next step in the NCAA’s plot to create a need for itself is to knowingly let the schools break the rules. The NCAA is essentially a broken promise. It’s a set of rules that it gets to punish schools for. If schools didn’t break the rules, it wouldn’t exist. So the NCAA turns a blind eye to all the money being thrown around (The recent revelations are certainly just the tip of the iceberg. Whether or not we get to hear about more.) because it gets to profit off of those players and teams. Then, years later, when the players have been exploited and wrung for profit, the investigation process begins. The NCAA takes their sweet time with investigating, because they want to make sure the players get to play (read: make money for the NCAA). Only after they’re out of college do the investigators swoop in. The reason some current big stars are under investigation now is because of the FBI got involved. I’m sure otherwise they would have “discovered” in three or so years that Ayton, Bridges, and other current guys named recently might have done something wrong. When they’re done investigating, they put the cherry on the sundae: vacate wins. It’s an empty gesture from a crooked, cracked shell of an organization. They tell us that Louisville didn’t really win the 2013 national championship, or that Jim Boeheim has only won 921 games, or that Reggie Bush didn’t win the Heisman. It’s silly. You can’t undo history, and they know that. It’s a resolution that proves that people are bad, the NCAA is good, all while keeping the money flowing. The result is that the NCAA gets to gleefully show how necessary they are in such a corrupt world, all while not actually doing anything to stop the corruption. Corruption which, if you’ve been following along, they incentivize by not allowing players to profit off their own likenesses. The NCAA creates the need for itself and pretends to fill it. It’s like a sports Ponzi scheme. (Maybe. I don’t really know how a Ponzi scheme works. Let me know if I’m completely wrong.)

It all makes sense. Mark Emmert still has his job because he does it perfectly. He is just credible enough that he gets away with seeming incompetent, when really he’s doing exactly what he’s supposed to. I hope that the FBI’s involvement will finally push the NCAA, or the universities themselves, or someone (anyone!) else, to change the system.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: NCAA works exactly way it wants to appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/03/02/golub-ncaa-works-exactly-way-it-wants-to/feed/ 0 1137619
Golub: Rise of the ‘jumb docks’ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/23/golub-rise-of-the-jumb-docks/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/23/golub-rise-of-the-jumb-docks/#respond Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:32:16 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1137226 “Must they run their mouths like that?” she spat, the condescension dripping from her mouth. It sounded like a parent bemoaning a misbehaving child, or perhaps a president complaining about fake news media. Surely, whoever had run their mouth must have said something awful. Right?

The post Golub: Rise of the ‘jumb docks’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“Must they run their mouths like that?” she spat, the condescension dripping from her mouth. It sounded like a parent bemoaning a misbehaving child or perhaps a president complaining about fake news media. Surely, whoever had run their mouth must have said something awful. Right?

Fox News host Laura Ingraham began a segment a few days ago by announcing, “This is a jumb dock alert, ding ding ding ding ding!” The error in speech was hers. Ingraham is a conservative political commentator and host who decided she needed to reprimand LeBron James for calling out the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Much love to LeBron for speaking out against Trump, but he didn’t really say anything new or, to be honest, inflammatory. LeBron said Trump doesn’t “give a f*ck” about the people. Ingraham took issue with James’ comments in a racist and unfounded way. Allow me to explain.

Ingraham found James’ commentary to be “barely intelligible, not to mention ungrammatical,” although she had no trouble understanding exactly the point that James made. Might I suggest to Ingraham that she takes a minute to look up African American Vernacular English. Hopefully, she would discover that James’ language use was, in fact, grammatical in AAVE, a language that black Americans developed as a result of centuries of oppression and lack of access to Western schooling in our country. But wait, it gets better.

“There might be a cautionary lesson in LeBron for kids,” Ingraham goes on to warn. “This is what happens when you attempt to leave high school a year early to join the NBA.” Oh boy. First of all, Ms. Ingraham, LeBron didn’t attempt to leave high school a year early. He graduated high school and then went to the NBA.

Second of all, he didn’t “attempt.” LeBron is one of the all-time great and most accomplished athletes, ever. I wish Ingraham would’ve stopped there, but she just kept digging: “It’s always unwise to seek political advice from someone who gets paid 100 million dollars a year to bounce a ball.” What supposed political advice did LeBron offer? That a president should care about the people he’s leading? I wouldn’t call that advice as much as common sense. And to top it off, James doesn’t get paid $100 million to bounce a ball. He gets paid just under $31 million to run an offense, be a nearly unguardable scorer, basically coach his team on the floor and represent his franchise to its city and the media. (In theory, he also gets paid to play defense, but he hasn’t done much of that this season.) I imagine that job is a bit more challenging than hosting a radio show.

Let me be clear: I do not think everything LeBron says is great or accurate or important. The guy knows how to manipulate media and has done so to his advantage multiple times, at the expense of teammates, GMs and owners. He’s not exactly the torchbearer for social justice in our generation. That said, his views are valid.

If Ingraham wanted to detract from James’ commentary thoughtfully, perhaps she could’ve commented how he makes so much money that he is out of touch with working class Americans (this take, though, is problematic given that James grew up poor to a single mother in Akron). Or, she could’ve tried an intricate argument about how cursing and insulting the president without being specific about what he’s doing wrong or what he should do better is not the most constructive statement. But Ingraham didn’t do that. Instead, she began by calling him a “jumb dock.”

Like a parent commiserating with other parents about whiny children, she asked her audience, in relation to athletes making common sense observations: “Must they run their mouths like that?” Ingraham does have both a college and graduate degree, things James does not possess, and she makes a living thinking about and talking politics. If she wants to wield her educational prowess, she better use her skills to do due diligence. Her description of James’ comments and her ensuing insults were careless, racist and on multiple fronts flat-out wrong. If Ingraham can’t adequately understand and characterize James’ views, what credence should she get?

It’s fine to insult LeBron. I do it all the time. What isn’t fine is to make assumptions based on his race and his job and to then disqualify him from public discourse because of those assumptions. Trump is often unintelligible and ungrammatical, and he had no background in government before running for president. Yet here we are, listening to what he says. It is fitting that Ingraham began her spiel trying to denigrate athletes and tripping over her own tongue. A measure of humility would serve her well. Maybe those “docks” aren’t the only “jumb” ones.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Rise of the ‘jumb docks’ appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/23/golub-rise-of-the-jumb-docks/feed/ 0 1137226
Golub: Media maneuvering at the Olympics https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/16/golub-media-maneuvering-at-the-olympics/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/16/golub-media-maneuvering-at-the-olympics/#respond Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:45:30 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1136897 I was skeptical when North Korea joined the Olympics. I still am. What I’m really struggling to wrap my head around, though, is the disciplined, dainty 229-women strong squad of cheerleaders. By now I’m sure you’ve seen their chants and songs, sometimes singing and swaying to them even while other music blares over the loudspeakers.

The post Golub: Media maneuvering at the Olympics appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I was skeptical when North Korea joined the Olympics. I still am. What I’m really struggling to wrap my head around, though, is the disciplined, dainty 229-women strong squad of cheerleaders. By now I’m sure you’ve seen their chants and songs, sometimes singing and swaying to them even while other music blares over the loudspeakers. You might have heard about how they walk in neat lines, go to the bathroom in small, orderly groups and don’t engage with anyone outside of their government handlers. What is going on?

In reading reports, I’ve come across a surprising number of people who find them exciting or enthralling. One South Korean teenager remarked how it was her first time being up close to anyone from the North. She said it instilled in her how the South and North are really “one people.” The North Koreans call them the “army of beauties.” They are selected based on strict criteria that doesn’t sound too different at first from what one might expect from an American cheerleading squad. They have to be a certain height (above 5-foot-3), good looking, good performers, and then also not have family members who live outside of North Korea.

The consensus seems to be that the cheerleaders are an attempt by the North Korean government to humanize themselves and their country. They’re supposed to make us realize that look, those people up there are real too. And maybe their insane dictator isn’t so crazy after all. That’s a nice goal. It really is. I love the idea of using sports to influence politics. Sports can provide an avenue for diplomacy that isn’t otherwise available. It’s in the best interest of worldwide peace that North Korea engages authentically in diplomatic relations, instead of spewing antagonistic threats. I wish I could believe that the “army of beauties” was a human olive branch, and not an extension of the army.

I don’t think the cheerleaders themselves have sinister intentions. I hope they’re having a good time. If it weren’t for the propaganda machine of the North Korean government, they wouldn’t get to travel south and watch the Olympics. They are a walking, singing, smiling, beautiful, installment of fake news. After all, an army of beauties is still an army. Regardless of their individual intentions, the cheerleaders are an attempt to conjure a warm, personal image of a cold, heartless government. It’s not shocking that a dictatorship that lets millions of its people starve doesn’t quite get what it looks like to be friendly. The harsh constraints on the cheerleaders’ behavior demonstrate the utter lack of empathy and compassion from Kim Jong Un and co.

Meanwhile, Trump hasn’t felt a need to send an American cheerleading squad. We might not have universal healthcare or a fair and sensible immigration policy or just policing or good schools for all children or an inextinguishable right to vote here in America, but at least we have a better image than North Korea. However, the U.S. isn’t standing on the sidelines. Instead, giant American corporations like Coca-Cola and McDonald’s have gobbled up advertisements everywhere. Coke didn’t bring cheerleaders, yet they too are pushing their message. Their attempts to humanize themselves and be appealing utilize the Olympic athletes themselves. How many Olympians drink coke on a daily basis? How many North Korean cheerleaders are so cheery at home? Hmmm…

It’s easy to get angry with the North Korean government and to distrust their motives. While there is a big difference between sugar coating oppressive dictatorship and sweetening the image of fat and high fructose corn syrup filled foods, North Korea isn’t the only one staging a media offensive on the battleground of the Olympics. The Olympics are supposed to be about the pinnacle of human achievement – the best we as a species have to offer athletically. That makes for a great marketing opportunity.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Media maneuvering at the Olympics appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/16/golub-media-maneuvering-at-the-olympics/feed/ 0 1136897
Golub: A dehumanizing trade deadline https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/09/golub-a-dehumanizing-trade-deadline/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/09/golub-a-dehumanizing-trade-deadline/#respond Fri, 09 Feb 2018 09:00:46 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1136504 Yesterday morning I excitedly talked with a friend about the flurry of trades the Cavs pulled off to pretty much swap their entire backcourt for a new one. We were yapping about how the Lakers stole the Cavs’ first-round pick and debating whether they had enough time to integrate their new players, when another guy commented how the whole trade system “didn’t make any sense.” He is a soccer (or as he would say, “football”) fan, and he thinks it’s silly that teams have to actually trade players to acquire new ones, as opposed to simply buying them. While the soccer system of rich teams buying all the players they want is ridiculous to me, it is “more like the real world,” as this “footballer” claimed. Trades in general, highlighted by a furious surge of exchanges right before the trade deadline, are weird things. And they make it easy to lose sight of the people who are actually getting traded.

The post Golub: A dehumanizing trade deadline appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Yesterday morning I excitedly talked with a friend about the flurry of trades the Cavs pulled off to pretty much swap their entire backcourt for a new one. We were yapping about how the Lakers stole the Cavs’ first-round pick and debating whether they had enough time to integrate their new players, when another guy commented how the whole trade system “didn’t make any sense.” He is a soccer (or as he would say, “football”) fan, and he thinks it’s silly that teams have to actually trade players to acquire new ones, as opposed to simply buying them. While the soccer system of rich teams buying all the players they want is ridiculous to me, it is “more like the real world,” as this “footballer” claimed. Trades in general, highlighted by a furious surge of exchanges right before the trade deadline, are weird things. And they make it easy to lose sight of the people who are actually getting traded.

I often struggle to remember that NBA players are in fact people, and not just persons filling a role in the sports-entertainment institution. In a group text (my go-to  place to process such earth-shaking events), I was typing reactions to the three-way trade between the Cavs, Jazz and Kings, and I caught myself expressing shock at how the Jazz would give up a valuable young player, Rodney Hood, for “Crowder’s carcass.” As soon as I realized what I was saying I froze. Did I really just refer to Jae Crowder, a living, breathing human being, who is one of the best two-hundred or so basketball players on the planet, as a “carcass”!? (Jae, if you’re reading this I apologize. That was terrible for me to think. I was, I hope, just going for some alliteration. I respect your game, you’re a tough player, and I met one of your cousins — he’s a good dude). That’s an extreme example, but glance at any online discussion like those on r/NBA and you can easily find players described in similar terms. “That’s a sick deal, two expirings and a pick,” wrote one Lakers fan, in reference to Isaiah Thomas and Channing Frye, who, along with being really good at what they do, have contracts that expire at the end of the season. We get so caught up in wanting our teams to increase their talent and decrease their costs, and we forget that the people getting paid to bring, or increase, their talents are real people.

Isaiah Thomas is a real person. He has a family and, after moving from Sacramento to Phoenix, and then less than a year later to Boston, and then after a couple years to Cleveland, he was ready to settle down. Too bad for him; he gets to pack up and bring everyone over to Los Angeles. In LA already is Lou Williams, who just signed a cheapo 3-year deal to stay put with the Clippers. After playing for four teams in four years, he was willing to not seek his maximum salary (because he’s been unstoppable lately) in exchange for some stability. Of course, the Clips might turn around and trade him next year if they’re trying to rebuild, anyways.

What does it mean to be valuable? I’ve already used the word to describe a player in this article. Seeing a player just for the value they provide in a sports-entertainment setting is dehumanizing. Now I can hear the criticisms already. Dehumanizing?! We’re talking about basketball! And they make millions of dollars! Okay so maybe our perception of NBA players isn’t the most pressing issue facing society right now, but maintaining an awareness of an athlete’s humanity matters for two main reasons: 1. So that we listen when they talk about more important issues; and 2. So we learn not to let institutions strip people of humanity.

The NFL sees bodies as expendable. (Alas, I have so much to say about the Super Bowl and commercialism and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. speeches. Please check out Clinton Yates’ article about the riot celebrations in Philly for The Undefeated and Dave Zirin’s blog entry from Edge of Sports). The NBA isn’t quite as extreme, but it still is hard to hold onto the humanity in players when we are constantly quantifying who they are with stats, advanced stats and contract figures. I’m not saying the experience of athletes compares to the plight of prisoners, but the process by which an institution shades our perception and convinces us to lose sight of humanity occurs in professional sports just as it occurs in prisons across our country. People get mad when athletes talk about social issues because the way we talk about sports lends our perception of athletes to economic terms. In a thoroughly industrialized and developed capitalist society, this line of thinking comes as no surprise. Stay woke, I guess.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: A dehumanizing trade deadline appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/02/09/golub-a-dehumanizing-trade-deadline/feed/ 0 1136504
Women’s basketball roundtable: Oregon roundtrip https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/31/womens-basketball-roundtable-oregon-roundtrip/ https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/31/womens-basketball-roundtable-oregon-roundtrip/#respond Thu, 01 Feb 2018 02:43:33 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1135887 After several weeks of absence, Stanford women’s basketball is finally back in the AP Poll, checking in at No. 24. What does this tell you about the way this team has improved since the start of the season? Jack Golub (JG): Absolutely, the team has improved; it is a young group that keeps getting better […]

The post Women’s basketball roundtable: Oregon roundtrip appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
After several weeks of absence, Stanford women’s basketball is finally back in the AP Poll, checking in at No. 24. What does this tell you about the way this team has improved since the start of the season?

Jack Golub (JG): Absolutely, the team has improved; it is a young group that keeps getting better as the season progresses. I think the ranking can be misleading, though. The Cardinal fell out of the top 25 after a series of losses to premier programs like UConn, Ohio State (twice) and Baylor. What I think shows their improvement the most is their annihilation of Arizona State the second time playing them. The Cardinal were able to run their offense effectively. Coach Tara knows what she’s doing and they’ll peak at the right time.

Alexandre Bucquet (AB): Obviously the team has improved, especially in terms of chemistry. All but three baskets were assisted against Arizona on Sunday, and the Cardinal were able to consistently find open looks, particularly from distance. Despite the fact that the Wildcats are a struggling program, I think this shows the way the team has improved: They play better as a single unit, no matter who’s on the floor. The freshmen, especially Kiana Williams, really fit well into this team, where everyone seems to have found her place in the rotation. The execution of this squad needs a test again a really strong opponent, and I think this road trip provides just that for the Cardinal.

 

After the game against Arizona on Sunday, head coach Tara Vanderveer compared the team’s game to that of the Warriors, selfless and collective. What was the highlight of the game for you?

JG: They lit it up! Big-time shooting performance. My legs got tired from jumping up to celebrate the threes they were knocking down. What’s especially impressive was that most of their shots from long-range came off of great ball movement. In other words: It wasn’t a fluke. The team earned the open looks and took advantage of them. That type of execution is exactly what the Cardinal need, especially since the team runs a highly structured offense.

AB: The shooting. The team displayed a tremendous confidence bolstered by the early success-rate from three-point range. Stanford’s first seven field goals were three-pointers, and the team finished with 14, just two shy of a record for the program. Getting going early has been an issue sometimes for the Cardinal this season, but once they get the ball rolling, it’s tough to come back. The team will need the same explosiveness from the get-go in Oregon this weekend. Whether it’s senior Kaylee Johnson with her rebounding on both ends of the floor, senior Brittany McPhee or junior Alanna Smith with their scoring abilities, or Williams with her shooting, the Cardinal will need a first-quarter spark to pull off the upsets.

 

The Cardinal are currently tied for second in the Pac-12 with UCLA and one game behind Oregon, and are traveling to Oregon to face the No. 16 Beavers and the No. 6 Ducks. What does Stanford need to beat OSU, and then to potentially earn its first top-10 win against Oregon?

JG: I peeked at Dre [Bucquet]’s answer but I agree with him: Sustained intensity. Marta Sniezek set the tone on the first defensive possession against Arizona by forcing a turnover. The team has got to play with that physicality and intensity from the start, both defensively and offensively. If the Cardinal can control the boards and force turnovers, they’re going to set themselves up to win. As the team showed this past weekend, it can execute on offense. Maybe the Cardinal won’t hit 14 threes in each of these next couple games, but as long as they’re getting those good looks they’ll put points on the board. It’s the 50-50 balls that so often decide close games; it might be that diving Sniezek steal or Johnson offensive putback or Carrington flying in out of nowhere for a defensive board that makes the difference.

AB: To beat those top teams, Stanford needs to play four quarters of basketball. Too often (e.g. against Washington and during their second match against UCLA), the Cardinal will play with less intensity during the beginning or the end of the game. It is crucial that the team avoids that this weekend. Stanford can’t afford to go down early and have to fight back up. On the other hand, when Stanford plays intensely for 48 minutes, it can compete with anyone: It upset UCLA at home during its Pac-12 opener by consistently answering every Bruin charge. Starting strong and finishing strong is the key for the Cardinal this weekend.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj and Alexandre Bucquet at bucqueta ‘at’ stanford.edu.

 

The post Women’s basketball roundtable: Oregon roundtrip appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2018/01/31/womens-basketball-roundtable-oregon-roundtrip/feed/ 0 1135887
Golub: NFL players, don’t stop now! https://stanforddaily.com/2017/12/01/golub-nfl-players-dont-stop-now/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/12/01/golub-nfl-players-dont-stop-now/#respond Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:00:16 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1134236 Please: don’t stop now! The news that the NFL is pledging $89 million over seven years to sponsor social justice work is heartening. When I last wrote about the NFL protests, I was dismayed by what I saw as a lack of direction. I wanted you, the players, to make specific demands of the NFL and society at large. The Players Coalition, led by Malcolm Jenkins and Anquan Boldin, has done just that, negotiating a plan for owners to donate millions of dollars every year, escalating from $5 million this year all the way up to $12 million from 2021 through 2023. And that’s just for national causes. On the local level, owners would donate $250,000 per year, with players matching that amount. This proposal from the NFL is a win. It is not perfect, and I will address some of its flaws below, but first it is crucial to acknowledge this victory. When Colin Kaepernick first sat for the anthem over a year ago, his prospects for effecting social change seemed slim. This proposal represents the culmination of protests from all of you, from all 30 teams across the league. It shows that you, our athletes, have the power to improve society. It shows that sports can make a difference. And it shows that the NFL is desperate to preserve its image.

The post Golub: NFL players, don’t stop now! appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Dear NFL players,

Please: Don’t stop now! The news that the NFL is pledging $89 million over seven years to sponsor social justice work is heartening. When I last wrote about the NFL protests, I was dismayed by what I saw as a lack of direction. I wanted you, the players, to make specific demands of the NFL and society at large. The Players Coalition, led by Malcolm Jenkins and Anquan Boldin, has done just that, negotiating a plan for owners to donate millions of dollars every year, escalating from $5 million this year all the way up to $12 million from 2021 through 2023. And that’s just for national causes. On the local level, owners would donate $250,000 per year, with players matching that amount. This proposal from the NFL is a win. It is not perfect, and I will address some of its flaws below, but first it is crucial to acknowledge this victory. When Colin Kaepernick first sat for the anthem over a year ago, his prospects for affecting social change seemed slim. This proposal represents the culmination of protests from all of you, from all 30 teams across the league. It shows that you, our athletes, have the power to improve society. It shows that sports can make a difference. And it shows that the NFL is desperate to preserve its image.

That last point is what I want to focus on. As great a victory as this proposal is, now is not the time for you to rest on your laurels and enjoy your hard-earned success. Now is the time it is most necessary to keep pushing. The NFL has cracked, and if you keep demanding change the wave of your activism will soon demolish the dam that is the NFL. What this proposal demonstrates is that the NFL is in a position of weakness. Time and time again, the owners and commissioner Roger Goodell have revealed that they are motivated solely by money. They tried covering up CTE and the other deleterious effects of playing football, and they continually refuse, unlike other major pro sports leagues, to give most players a guaranteed salary, which is particularly malevolent when one considers that the average NFL career lasts only a couple years and often ends in violent injury. And they only took a hard stance on domestic violence when they got thrown into a public outcry.

The NFL does not care about its players, just like it doesn’t care about us average fans. It cares about your talents and our wallets. With this motivation evident, why, then, would Goodell and those owners pledge nearly $100 million to *gasp* social justice? It’s simple. In their calculations, the lost revenue from the controversy surrounding player protests (the NFL’s fanbases are historically pretty conservative, and if there’s one thing conservatives hate more than social change, it’s anything that might somehow possibly be contorted into disrespect of the military — the player protests cover both) is on track to surpass the amount of money they are offering to spend on social justice issues. This decision is an economic one for the NFL.

And that’s why you can’t stop.

The deal has some flaws. Firstly, a couple players, namely Eric Reid (one of the first to join Kaepernick in kneeling) and Michael Thomas, have criticized the deal, saying Jenkins and Boldin negotiated it unilaterally. They claim that the Players Coalition no longer represents the players, if it ever did. These claims are deeply worrisome. Another issue with the deal itself is that half of the work geared towards local organizations, or rather, half the funding, is supposed to come from the players. No. That’s not the point of this deal. This deal is not so the players and NFL can work together. This point is for the elitist institution that is the NFL to sacrifice some of that treasured profit to serve the communities upon which it in many ways relies. The owners aren’t the ones without guaranteed contracts. They aren’t the ones with a rookie wage scale or a salary cap limiting how much they can make. Hell, they don’t even pay for their own stadiums; they get local and state governments to do that. It makes absolutely no sense for players with incredibly short and disposable careers to pay the same amount, even if it is only for part of the deal, as the multi-billionaire owners who reap in the profits year after year. Texans owner Bob McNair said the owners don’t want the “inmates running the prison.” You ever hear of a prison warden and their prisoners funding equally a social justice project?

You can’t stop now because you have proven your power to disrupt the NFL’s money-making machine. You can’t stop now because you have shown us all that your commitment to standing (kneeling) for what you believe in deeply moves people, especially those with whom you disagree. Keep demanding social justice initiatives from the NFL beyond just money. Ask for more from your owners; instead of donating, how about evolving their businesses so that they serve marginalized communities? Ask your owners to revise their hiring practices to ensure racial and gender employment equality. Make the owners pay for their own stadiums, rather than using up taxpayer money. Keep fighting for justice.

America is locked in a battle for our national identity right now. Are we truly the land where all men are created equal? Or are we the country where our founding fathers, who wrote that famous line, owned slaves? Our president clearly leans to the latter, as do the owners and commissioner of the NFL. You are on the other side of that seesaw, pushing the country back towards equality of opportunity for all. Keep pushing! Don’t stop protesting. Now you know you have the leverage. Grip it tighter than you hold the rock on a one-yard goal-line plunge. Life, like football, is a game of inches. This deal is a huge step forward, but 100 yards is a heavy distance. We still have a long way to go.

Much respect,

Jack

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: NFL players, don’t stop now! appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/12/01/golub-nfl-players-dont-stop-now/feed/ 0 1134236
Golub: An irrational fear of European big men https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/golub-an-irrational-fear-of-european-big-men/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/golub-an-irrational-fear-of-european-big-men/#respond Fri, 17 Nov 2017 06:04:22 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133646 As you all know, the Unicorn has been balling out. His progression from skinny European project caterpillar to Messiah butterfly has shaken New York City (and probably the rest of the world) to its core. KP’s got me thinking though; why are we so scared of drafting European big men? Sure, they get drafted, but there are always major concerns about their physicality and durability. They seem to be viewed as having a much higher “bust” potential. I was curious if this is true so I did a bit of research, but first let’s recount the circumstances surrounding his draft.

The post Golub: An irrational fear of European big men appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
As you all know, the Unicorn has been balling out. His progression from skinny European project caterpillar to Messiah butterfly has shaken New York City (and probably the rest of the world) to its core. KP has got me thinking though: Why are we so scared of drafting European big men? Sure, they get drafted, but there are always major concerns about their physicality and durability. They seem to be viewed as having a much higher “bust” potential. I was curious if this is true, so I did a bit of research, but first let’s recount the circumstances surrounding his draft.

Kristaps Porzingis hails from the illustrious city of Liepaja, Latvia. Fast forward a few years back. Knowing the Knicks’ history since our last really good teams in the 90s, I knew like any other Knicks fan that we would have to build through the draft. Which really hadn’t been our strong suit, with Isiah Thomas (who now is president of the Liberty, despite being accused of sexual harassment and, you know, sucking at running a team) trading away draft picks left and right for all-time greats like Eddy Curry. So, I came into the draft praying that we would get a franchise-changing player.

However, I was scared of KP, as Melo took to calling him. Despite his obvious potential and talent (he played well for Sevilla, a high-level Liga ACB team), I worried he would be a bust and for no other reason than that he came from a different country. This led to a moment of introspection for me: Was I discriminating on the basis of nationality, or was there legitimacy to the notion that foreign big men are more likely than their American counterparts to fail to live up to their potential?

We all know success stories of foreign big men, from Dirk or the Gasol brothers to current young bigs like Nikola Jokic or Jusuf Nurkic, but of course there have been some major, cringe-worthy and vomit-inducing busts (no offense Darko, or Nikoloz Tskitishvili, or Bargnani…). But it’s not as if American prospects are any less variable.

To begin, I set parameters on what draft prospects we’re looking at. First off, it didn’t make much sense to look at any draft picks beyond lottery picks, as those have too much inherent variability (it’s hit-or-miss regardless of nationality). I defined big men as players listed as power forwards or centers. To set clear standards, I excluded foreign bigs that attended college in the U.S. (you’re welcome, Olowokandi). Lastly, it wouldn’t have been fair to count all lottery picks up until present day since that doesn’t give some players enough to time to show their potential, so I looked at players from 1996-2010.

The list featured some clunkers, like Bargs, Biedric and Milicic. And it had a couple solid players, like Nene. Of the 12 foreign big men picked in the lottery, three went on to become all-stars: Yao, Pau and Dirk.

To compare, I checked out American (only American-born — I apologize to all foreign-born, American-college-attending players that I am neglecting) lottery bigs from the same drafts. Unsurprisingly, it was a much, much longer list! So there was certainly more variation in the results, running the gamut of franchise player to total bust. Of the 76 American bigs drafted, 21 were chosen as all-stars. And with so many selections, naturally all sorts of players came out of the ranks, from big-time busts who were gone in a few years to solid role players, to all-stars, to all-time greats.

Using some highly advanced statistics that don’t get taught at Stanford (probably because it’s too advanced), I divided the number of all-stars by the number of picks to come up with my All-Star Success Rating (or, if you prefer, ASSRating) for big men lottery picks.

Foreign players had a 0.25 ASSRating, while American players did every so slightly better at 0.28. The success rate doesn’t seem to show much of a difference. The Americans edged out the foreigners, but there were so few foreign bigs selected in comparison that we don’t have enough data for me to feel confident about that 0.25 number. Besides, 25 percent is just so round, isn’t it?

Unfortanately, it’s hard to get more data by going back in time because very few foreign big men were drafted in the lottery before the late 90s. It appears we don’t have the data to stereotype all foreign bigs as bad news (or as anything). I guess I had nothing to worry about with Porzingod. And it looks like he’s already on his way to becoming the greatest Knick of all time. If he isn’t already.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: An irrational fear of European big men appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/16/golub-an-irrational-fear-of-european-big-men/feed/ 0 1133646
Golub: Frank Ntilikina is Rwandan https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/10/golub-frank-ntilikina-is-rwandan/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/10/golub-frank-ntilikina-is-rwandan/#respond Fri, 10 Nov 2017 19:17:39 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1133127 I promise my piece is about something serious. Please, though, indulge me for a brief couple of sentences to share some joyous news. Here it is: The Knicks are good! 6-2 in their past eight games good! Led by their majestic unicorn savior, Kristaps Porzingis, New York’s favorite basketball team is in a tie for […]

The post Golub: Frank Ntilikina is Rwandan appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I promise my piece is about something serious. Please, though, indulge me for a brief couple of sentences to share some joyous news. Here it is: The Knicks are good! 6-2 in their past eight games good! Led by their majestic unicorn savior, Kristaps Porzingis, New York’s favorite basketball team is in a tie for fifth-place in the Eastern Conference. Is it early? Yes. Could so much more still go wrong? Absolutely. Am I loving it all regardless? Damn straight. If you had told me before the season started that the Knicks, at any point after embarking from the beautiful lack of L’s that is 0-0, would be fifth in the East, I might’ve cried. I’ll take it!

Someone who just recently has gotten the love is rookie point guard from France, Frank Ntilikina. The 19-year-old Frankie Smokes is hounding opposing ball handlers on defense, slinging slick pick-and-roll passes and hitting timely shots, like his two cluuutch threes against the Pacers. The Frenchman has been balling out, repping his new city and his old country. Only, Ntilikina isn’t French. Not really.

Ntilikina’s parents are Rwandan. They fled the country during the Rwandan Civil War, moving to Belgium, where Ntilikina was born. A few years later, the family immigrated to France, where Ntlikina stayed and played basketball until he joined the Knicks. Despite what your TV or computer screen tells you, Ntilikina is Rwandan. I think it is important that we recognize the truth, because this confusion is far from a superficial issue. When we evade Ntilikina’s real history, we exacerbate our ignorance of Rwandans basketball players, specifically, and non-Westerners, in general.

Ntilikina’s French club, SIG Strasbourg, deserves credit for his development. Ntilikina had been affiliated with the team since he was 5 years old. It was under that guidance that he developed into the savvy player he is today. By no means do I want to criticize France. On the contrary, I am thankful to France for having the economic security to attract the Ntilikina family and for building the basketball infrastructure to develop Ntilikina into an NBA-worthy player. Had Ntilikina’s parents decided to stay in Rwanda, we wouldn’t be talking about him today.

The reason we need to acknowledge Ntilikina’s country of origin (if not in birth then in spirit) is that Rwanda needs this respect which we are denying. Given that most people probably only know it for its 1994 genocide or silverback gorillas, Rwanda could use the credibility that says its people are valuable and worthy of respect. I scrolled through the Wikipedia page of famous Rwandans and didn’t recognize a single name. Not one! Sure, that tells you my history isn’t the best. It also should tell you, me and everyone else that we aren’t paying enough attention to this country, one with a population of nearly 12 million people.

This situation isn’t uncommon in the NBA. Thabo Sefalosha is usually listed as being Swiss, even though he spent many of his formative years in South Africa. Luol Deng and Serge Ibaka play for England and Spain, respectively, in international competition, even though Deng is Sudanese and Ibaka is Congolese. You could form a potent team (I’d venture to say a playoff team in the East) with only African-born players. When we associate players with the countries in which they gained fame, we continue a positive feedback loop that leaves basketball-underdeveloped countries ignored. In turn, general sentiment that these countries can’t or don’t produce good players is reinforced. With that sentiment in mind, it’s hard to invest in developing young basketball players in these countries. Yeah, the NBA does its Basketball Without Borders camp each year, but that only reaches a tiny population of players, and it doesn’t guarantee anything. Because the NBA doesn’t focus on where some of its players come from, it is missing out on a huge and underserved basketball community. Our society does the same beyond basketball.

If you’re feeling like this thought process is a bit of a stretch, you’re right. To be honest, it might not matter that much to Rwandans that we Americans think of Frankie as French. The crucial aspect here is that this mislabeling is a microcosm of something we do in Western society. We assign special value to the people with whom we identify, so we look out extra hard for those people and, when we find people who seem a little different, we attempt to figure out how they can fit the mold. The way I see it, if we’re so easily missing Ntilikina, who else are we missing? How many other exemplary individuals are making an impact in our society and we don’t even know where they come from? If we don’t make the effort to recognize the countries behind these people, we will never know that these countries, especially nations in the “developing world” or “Global South” deserve our attention. We must open our eyes to these role models to shatter our stereotypes.

I hope some media members take it upon themselves to highlight Ntilikina’s Rwandan heritage. Even though the dude’s got a skyscraping billboard standing over the city, it is his homeland that’s being overlooked.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post Golub: Frank Ntilikina is Rwandan appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/11/10/golub-frank-ntilikina-is-rwandan/feed/ 0 1133127
Golub: Powerless apologies https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/30/golub-powerless-apologies/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/30/golub-powerless-apologies/#respond Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:00:06 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1132054 Houston, your sports teams have a problem.

First, Houston Texans owner Bob McNair made a huge mistake nearly a month ago. His mistake, which came to light only last week, was referring to NFL players as “inmates,” as in, “we can’t have the inmates running the prison.” McNair realized his mistake and said he was sorry: “I apologize to anyone who was offended.”

The post Golub: Powerless apologies appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Houston, your sports teams have a problem.

First, Houston Texans owner Bob McNair made a huge mistake nearly a month ago. His mistake, which came to light only last week, was referring to NFL players as “inmates,” as in, “we can’t have the inmates running the prison.” McNair realized his mistake and said he was sorry: “I apologize to anyone who was offended.”

Second, Houston Astros slugger Yuli Gurriel made a big mistake. After hitting a homerun against Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Yu Darvish, Gurriel sat in his dugout and pulled his eyes into a slant. He then referred to Darvish as “chinito,” Spanish slang for a Chinese boy. While, in Gurriel’s native Cuba, “chinito” is often used to describe all Asians, I’m guessing it wasn’t of supreme importance to him that Darvish is of Japanese and Iranian descent. Thankfully, Gurriel apologized. “I didn’t want to offend anybody,” Gurriel said after the game. “I don’t want to offend him or anybody in Japan… I want to apologize to him.” Phew. Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed, and everyone who did wrong apologized for being offensive and made things right.

My sarcasm might not come across well in written form, so let me be more explicit: THIS IS NOT OKAY. McNair, Gurriel, team personnel and to a large extent, the media, are missing the point. McNair’s and Gurriel’s mistakes were not that they said something that could have offended people. Their mistakes weren’t even mistakes. Their “mistakes” were racist attacks, period. Maybe McNair really meant inmates in a purely metaphorical way. Perhaps Gurriel was simply expressing relief at finally doing well against a Japanese pitcher. (These were the two lovely excuses offered.) Even if we accept these feeble alibis — which, in case you were wondering, I don’t — their actions still reflect their racism. If they made mistakes, the mistakes were that they forgot to cover up. These two men acted wrongly. In apologizing to people they offended, they entirely missed why people are upset. The reason what they did was wrong wasn’t because it could have hurt people’s feelings. What they did was wrong because it was morally reprehensible. Had no one been offended, their actions wouldn’t be any better. By apologizing for offending people, McNair and Gurriel proved to us that they aren’t sorry at all.

To be fair, sports apologies are almost always silly to begin with. A player/coach/executive/owner makes a “mistake,” gets vilified on social media, his public relations guru pushes him (almost always a him; this is America after all) to apologize so that sponsors don’t quit, and we call it a day. Maybe, if the person is especially sorry, they do some work to spread awareness. It’s a tried and true formula that our society has accepted as worthy remorse and penance for the bad deed.

There is a problem here.

This process treats the original act as a mistake, as a moment of thoughtlessness. In reality, the issue is the opposite. The reason why a racist comment or gesture is so harmful is because of the thought behind it. Maybe that thought is implicit, and it only sneaks out because the perpetrator isn’t paying attention. I honestly believe McNair’s comment reflected only an implicit racism. That’s still racist! The Texans players understand. They know that nearly all of the NFL players who take a knee in protest are black. That’s why almost all of them protested this past weekend. I read an article on Sunday asking its readers to try to understand what McNair meant. The article made a strong point that much of the backlash could have come from people quickly reading what McNair said and instantly coming to a conclusion. Yes, we should take our time to understand others. But there’s a flipside too. McNair needs to try to understand what his comment meant for the black people we have oppressed in our country. He needs to come to terms with his own racism. The fact that he thought inmates running the prison was a worthy analogy is plenty bad enough on its own.

Let’s zoom out a little bit. Obviously, this issue isn’t contained to Houston’s sports teams or Houston or even sports. McNair and Gurriel deserve criticism, though they are not alone. Racism is an issue in our country not because it offends people of color but rather because it is unjust. Racism, all by itself, regardless of whom it impacts, is wrong. It’s time for apologies to acknowledge this truth. Our country has experienced protests in the name of race for its entire history. These protests will continue until we own up to the root evil of racism. It’s not enough to free slaves or end Jim Crow laws or commute unfair drug sentences on their own. These measures are a form of apologizing for the ills racism causes, and so they are needed over and over again. What we need instead is to address racism itself. I don’t know how best to do that. But a great place to start could be with some honest, self-aware apologies.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Powerless apologies appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/30/golub-powerless-apologies/feed/ 0 1132054
Golub: Liking Lonzo in the era of hate https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/26/golub-liking-lonzo-in-the-era-of-hate/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/26/golub-liking-lonzo-in-the-era-of-hate/#respond Fri, 27 Oct 2017 04:55:11 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1131975 I feel bad writing this, but I kind of want Lonzo Ball to succeed in the NBA. Yeah, I know his father is a deranged megalomaniac who can’t seem to go a day without pissing someone else off. Lonzo is too fun to watch though. He doesn’t play like his dad talks. He is a […]

The post Golub: Liking Lonzo in the era of hate appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I feel bad writing this, but I kind of want Lonzo Ball to succeed in the NBA. Yeah, I know his father is a deranged megalomaniac who can’t seem to go a day without pissing someone else off. Lonzo is too fun to watch though. He doesn’t play like his dad talks. He is a terrific passer, he rebounds the ball and works on defense, he isn’t super athletic, and, while he isn’t afraid to shoot, he doesn’t force many bad shots. While he’s pretty good, his game doesn’t fit the LaVar blabbering.

However, even though Lonzo is a promising rookie basketball player, his reputation and following is extremely polarized, especially for someone who on his own shouldn’t be controversial. Yes, Lonzo has his problems. He is flashy with his shoes and his cars, he sometimes has a quiet arrogance that you can’t quite make out over the din of LaVar’s boasts, and he thinks he’s a great rapper (in case you were wondering, he’s not). None of that is exceptional, though. Plenty of other rookies act similarly and don’t get trashed for it. The ire for Lonzo is on another level of hate. And it’s because of the way sports discussions work today.

Social media, the pervasiveness of hot takes and the great demon spawn that is the Internet (how’s that for a hot take) have made it easier than ever to hate, publicly and loudly. Just as LaVar has continued to build the Big Baller Brand through his Facebook-streamed reality TV show, millions of people have easily accessed these online public spaces to snap back at him. Lonzo can’t escape the ire of those people. Check his name on Twitter or Facebook, and you’ll find thousands of comments instantly, each with a strong opinion. He is caught up in a storm of polarized public opinion that he played virtually no role in making. Now, he benefits from this reality, too. He gets way more attention than he would otherwise, thereby making his brand more profitable than perhaps it should be. It’s all part of LaVar’s plan. As it turns out, if you’re gonna hate on the Ball family, you’re giving LaVar what he wants. Still, even if the Big Baller Brand loves the hate, I don’t. I think the gaping chasm between Lonzo fans and haters makes it hard for everyone to appreciate his game.

It’s no surprise that the conversation around the Ball family is so polarized. You have to love them or hate them, and nothing they do can change your opinion. You see, LaVar Ball is the Donald Trump of basketball. Only, instead of utilizing his ego and grandiose claims to attract voters, he uses those same traits to ignite the media interest in his sons and his Big Baller Brand. But, LaVar has something that Trump does not. The thing he has been bragging about most, his son, could actually prove him right. Lonzo probably won’t ever be a superduperstar like Steph or LeBron (as LaVar says he will), but it’s not crazy to think he could be an all-star or win a championship. This truth is what separates LaVar and the Donald. With Trump, I’d be shocked if the border wall actually gets built or if Obamacare is ever actually replaced.

Ultimately, I just want to watch Lonzo play. I want to see him sling crosscourt passes to open shooters, bounce drop offs to his rolling big man and every once in a while jut his right leg out for that step back with the broken-arm release and watch it zip through the net. I also want the Lakers to lose because I don’t like them. But that’s besides the point.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Liking Lonzo in the era of hate appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/26/golub-liking-lonzo-in-the-era-of-hate/feed/ 0 1131975
Golub: Societal Pressure Rigs Fan Conversation https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/13/golub-societal-pressure-rigs-fan-conversation/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/13/golub-societal-pressure-rigs-fan-conversation/#respond Fri, 13 Oct 2017 07:29:41 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1131020 The past week of baseball gave us a great example of how we all succumb to societal pressure. In Game 2 of the ALDS, Joe Girardi, manager of the New York Yankees, made a couple critical blunders that likely cost his team the game against Cleveland

The post Golub: Societal Pressure Rigs Fan Conversation appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The past week of baseball gave us a great example of how we all succumb to societal pressure. In Game 2 of the ALDS, Joe Girardi, manager of the New York Yankees, made a couple critical blunders that likely cost his team the game against Cleveland.

First, with his team up 8-3 and grandpa ace CC Sabathia on a roll, Girardi switched him out for the vaunted Yankees bullpen. Only, the vaunted pen, starting with big time middle reliever Chad Green, didn’t do so hot. They gave up four runs in the inning, thanks to a grand slam from Francisco Lindor.

The real mistake in that inning, though, preceded the grand slam. With a 1-2 count, two outs, and two guys already on base, Green threw an inside pitch that glanced off the bottom of the bat’s knob and jumped into catcher Gary Sánchez’s glove. Strike three is what the call should have been. Instead, the umpire thought the batter, Lonnie Chisenhall, was hit in the hands by the pitch. So Mr. Chisenhall jogged straight out of the 19th century where he got his name and right to first base.

Girardi, without a crystal-clear replay showing the ball miss Chisenhall’s fingers, opted not to challenge. He failed to challenge even though his catcher knew and tried to tell him, and even though overturning the call would get them out of the inning safely. Lindor hit a grand slam minutes later, and people started calling for Girardi to be fired before the ball could land in the bleachers.

The attacks against Girardi blew me away. Here was a guy who has managed the Yankees for a decade, won a World Series (although for the Yankees, one championship in ten years isn’t much to brag about), and coached an overachieving group of young players — the Baby Bombers — into a decisive Game 5 against the best team in baseball.

This team wasn’t even supposed to make the playoffs to begin with! Yet Girari has one crappy inning and suddenly it’s time for him to find a TV job. Come on now. The reaction to that game fed off itself, until the public sentiment surrounding Girardi erupted into the kind of vitriol usually reserved for teams that aren’t still in the playoffs. And the worst part is, people soon started leaking “news” that Girardi had to win the series to avoid being fired. I believed it.

Separately, on Tuesday, Game 4 of the NLDS between the Washington Nationals and the Chicago Cubs got rained out. Despite the extra day of rest, allowing star pitcher Stephen Strasburg to pitch with full rest, Nats manager Dusty Baker chose not to start him because he was feeling a bit “ill” from mold in the hotel.

Just like with Girardi, talk shows and Twitter exploded alike at this news. Pundits and former greats eagerly weighed in, sharing their profound insight as to how weak and uncommitted to the team Strasburg was. Unless he was on death’s door or couldn’t walk, people said, Strasburg needed to pitch. Some people probably thought he should pitch even if he couldn’t walk. Strasburg heard the angry mob and rose from his bed to lockdown the Cubs for seven innings and help carry his team to a final showdown in Washington. Would he have pitched had the masses not joined up in arms against him? I doubt it.

Public sentiment is a weird thing in sports. People that don’t know what’s going on can influence the game, provided they have enough followers or they can bellow a juicy enough rant. Baseball, with all its tradition and glory and unwritten rules, subscribes to societal pressure even in its most important moments.

I can’t complain now though. My Yanks are through to the ALCS, thanks to DIDI (!!) going off and Gardy wringing out 12-pitch at-bats and that vaunted pen returning to its intimidating ways. The (artificially-induced) pressure was there on Girardi, but he came through and kept the postseason party going at least one series longer. And now that your offseason, Cleveland, has started earlier than expected, please, change your racist caricature of a logo.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Societal Pressure Rigs Fan Conversation appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/13/golub-societal-pressure-rigs-fan-conversation/feed/ 0 1131020
Golub: Where will the NFL protest go from here? https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/06/golub-where-will-the-nfl-protest-go-from-here/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/06/golub-where-will-the-nfl-protest-go-from-here/#comments Fri, 06 Oct 2017 19:05:59 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1130722 Where is this all going? That’s the question I find myself asking in response to the rapid spread of Kaepernick-inspired protests across the NFL. Over the past two weeks, every single team has shown its unity in one form or another. The recent instigator for this surge in demonstrations was, of course, President Donald Trump […]

The post Golub: Where will the NFL protest go from here? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Where is this all going? That’s the question I find myself asking in response to the rapid spread of Kaepernick-inspired protests across the NFL. Over the past two weeks, every single team has shown its unity in one form or another. The recent instigator for this surge in demonstrations was, of course, President Donald Trump tweeting criticism of players kneeling for the national anthem. While it comes as no surprise that Trump made people angry by tweeting, the scope of displays in response to his tweets, which called on NFL owners to fire players who took a knee during the anthem, is impressive. Yet while the demonstrations made an impact through their sheer quantity, the meaning behind those actions isn’t so clear.

When Colin Kaepernick first sat during the national anthem, he wanted to draw attention to racism. More specifically, he sought to highlight police brutality amid a spate of public and disturbing deaths of black people at the hands of police. (Whether or not these deaths qualify as murders I leave for you to decide.) His personal protest proved successful by galvanizing support from across the country, including a few other NFL players. He never, however, offered specific standards for what change he was looking for. When it was mostly him protesting on his own, that was okay. He didn’t have the leverage by himself to catalyze change. But now his call to action has caught on, and the lack of a detailed plan might derail these protests even as they grow in number.

The best protest movements combine high-minded ideals with concrete demands. When preaching about the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of exercising his right as a citizen in a democracy and protesting to fight for freedom and justice. Beyond touting those virtues, he recognized that the mechanics of the protest were just as important as the values behind it. The boycott had specific objectives, calling on all citizens to not ride the buses until the bus company agreed to dismantle its racist seating restrictions. (If my history is a little shaky please forgive me; I’m only one week into my MLK class.) Kaepernick spoke only to the ideal of resisting oppression, not to the specific resolutions he wanted or the plan for how to get there. As a result, his movement has grown to include people who might not align fully with his values.

The more unwieldly the mobilized player movement becomes, the less likely it is to accomplish anything concrete. News headlines like to claim that all teams protested in some fashion over the last two weeks. Those so-called protests, though, were often not protests of police brutality but rather signs of unity. For many teams, that exhibit took the form of locking arms or simply waiting out the anthem in the locker room. Those teams emphasized how everyone on the team supported one another. That’s great! I’m a fan of togetherness. The thing is, teammates supporting one another doesn’t directly relate to protesting racism. It is easy for every team and many owners, some of them Trump donors, to take part in these demonstrations because their purpose is so vague. Even the players who acknowledge the racial injustice-motivated component of their protests don’t or can’t say what exactly they hope to have happen. With a lack of direction, I don’t see these protests leading to the type of change Kaepernick wanted.

Now, someone might argue that there’s nothing wrong with lacking a well developed plan. “We want athletes to use their platform to call attention to issues,” one might say, “not to figure out the policy solutions to the issues themselves.” That’s a good point. I agree that it’s unfair to expect NFL players to have the time to write up policy papers on racist policies. I don’t mean to say that these players must come up with all the answers and know every step of the process to accomplish their goals. The point I want to make is that if these players don’t start to outline the intent of their protests in as precise terms as they can, the ideal behind their stance fades from the spotlight. Their critics get to hijack their movement.

If you look at the discussion around these protests today, most of it centers around the value of free speech. In an age of ever-widening political polarization, freedom of speech merits discussion. But that’s not the topic Kap was trying to bring up. That’s not what this movement was supposed to be about.

It’s not too late for players to regain control of their movement. They still can offer specific proposals or demands. The NFL is taking fire from many sides right now, with one if its biggest agitators being the medical community. Football, we have learned, is really, really bad for the brain. With the NFL relying on its players to continually sacrifice their well-being for its multi-billion-dollar product, the players always have potential leverage. Because NFL teams are so big, and salaries so rarely offer guaranteed money, it’s easy for a team to cut a player that is causing a “distraction.” What’s less easy is for a team to cut all its players. The current player movement has failed to create change, but it has succeeded in drawing in a huge population. With their strength in numbers, these players have a real opportunity to fight for justice. I hope they take advantage of it.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Where will the NFL protest go from here? appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/10/06/golub-where-will-the-nfl-protest-go-from-here/feed/ 2 1130722
Golub: The intersection between sports and politics https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/21/me-edits-golub-the-intersection-between-sports-and-politics/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/21/me-edits-golub-the-intersection-between-sports-and-politics/#respond Fri, 22 Sep 2017 06:02:12 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1130115 So tweeted Jemele Hill, co-host of ESPN’s SportsCenter 6 AKA The Six, on September 11th. Personally, The Six isn’t my favorite. I haven’t vibed with Hill and co-host Michael Smith going back to their ESPN2 show, His & Hers. That said, I admire their individualism and courage in the face of far too many racist criticisms. Those hateful complaints, of course, come from the fact that ESPN stooped so low as to put two black hosts together for the same SportsCenter show. The horror.

The post Golub: The intersection between sports and politics appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
“Donald Trump is a white supremacist.”

“Trump is the most ignorant, offensive president of my lifetime.”

“If he were not white, he never would have been elected.”

So tweeted Jemele Hill, co-host of ESPN’s SportsCenter 6 – also known as the Six – on Sept. 11. Personally, the Six isn’t my favorite. I haven’t vibed with Hill and co-host Michael Smith going back to their ESPN2 show, His & Hers. That said, I admire their individualism and courage in the face of far too many racist criticisms. Those hateful complaints, of course, come from the fact that ESPN stooped so low as to put two black hosts together for the same SportsCenter show. The horror.

Her words (the quotes above are just a few highlights) sparked a bevy of responses, some from supportive fans, some from angry viewers and a few from media antagonists hungry to hype up both themselves and their brands. One of my favorite tweets came from Britt McHenry, formerly of ESPN: “No way you could say something like that in the media about Obama without backlash or trouble,” she proclaimed. Yes, Britt! I wholly agree. There is approximately a 0.00 percent chance you could tweet out that President Obama was a white supremacist and have no one become angry about it, mainly because Obama wasn’t a white supremacist. To top it off, I am awed by McHenry’s stubborn lack of objectivity. Her tweet is a prime example of the fiery “backlash and trouble” Hill has indeed received. In another example, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, spokeswoman for President Trump, said Hill’s comments were a fireable offense.

Look, I don’t mean to single out Ms. McHenryx for her tweets. She shared how she felt, and that’s her right. However, her complaint (again, in her Twitter feed) that she was “reprimanded for conservative-leaning tweets [that she] favorited” back when she worked at ESPN don’t help her case. Does she deserve the right to share her political opinions without rebuke while Hill doesn’t? Smells like a double standard to me, although I think McHenry should be free to like conservative-leaning tweets if she chooses. Impartiality aside, she gives us a great example of the challenges of sports journalism today by raising two important questions:

1) Is it okay for a SportsCenter anchor to call President Trump a white supremacist?
2) Are we okay with politics intersecting with sports?

To the first question, ESPN has answered negatively. They published a press release one day later, admonishing Hill and assuring all of us that “she recognizes her actions were inappropriate.” I respect that some people come to ESPN to escape reality and take solace in the simplified world of wins and losses. Luckily for them, Hill didn’t spew her anti-patriotic liberal propaganda on air. Instead, she did so through her personal Twitter account. No one who wants to only think about sports needs to follow her on Twitter. As a counterpoint, one might say that as a public figure and representative of ESPN, Hill is always responsible for what she says, even if she does so in her own time and through her own platform.

In a later statement, ESPN took this stance. That’s a good counterpoint. Even so, ESPN is in the midst of a transformation. Desperate to preserve their legacy as the worldwide leader in sports in a world where social media has overtaken traditional media, ESPN has labored to become more social media savvy. In true social media form, ESPN now devotes precious air time to memes, tweets and Instagrams. It calls for their on-air personalities to not only report but also personally relate to viewers. Starting off a show with Klay Thompson making a fool of himself in a Chinese club has nothing to do with wins and losses. That’s what modern sports news looks like, for better or worse. ESPN doesn’t get to cherrypick when it comes to its anchors’ personalities. If one of them spots, in her view, an obvious injustice that merits mentioning, she is going to talk about it. If ESPN doesn’t want its anchor to criticize Trump (in a tweet and in her own time, no less), they should pick someone more bland next time. (Unfortunately, we don’t have time to get into whether it’s okay for anyone to call Trump a white supremacist. He shouldn’t take offense though; I hear they’re good people.)

The second question is a bigger one that requires more context. It’s also a bit of a trick question; the question isn’t, “Do sports and politics intersect?” because the answer to that question is absolutely “yes.” Following the blow-up from Hill’s tweet, ESPN CEO John Skipper sent a companywide memo stating that, “ESPN is about sports. It is not a political organization.”

That bugged me.

I agree that ESPN shouldn’t be a political organization that leans one way or the other, but let’s not pretend sports haven’t always been political. Racism has prevailed as the dominant political issue of our country since our independence, and nowhere is race more evident than in sports. Roughly three-quarters of NBA players are black, while only one owner – Michael Jordan – is black. NBA players may not be treated as slaves, but squint a little and it’s not too hard to see the NBA’s white owner/black player setup mirroring the power structures of early American history. Sports like basketball and football that lean heavily on black athletes, not to mention baseball’s ever-growing reliance on Latino athletes, to play for white men (usually) force us to consider race. The man at the center of this current sports vs. politics debate, Colin Kaepernick, didn’t pull politics into a controversy-free zone. He simply used a sport-political space to make a statement. After all, isn’t the very singing of the national anthem inherently political? Likewise, Jemele Hill hasn’t infected sports with politics.

Are we okay with sports and politics intermingling? Sanders clearly doesn’t think so, but she doesn’t get to decide what’s acceptable. The truth is, we have to be okay with politics colliding with sports. Just like you, if you’ve made it this far, have been okay with reading a “sports op-ed” about media and politics. Clearly, ESPN doesn’t want its personalities to talk politics. They want to protect their customers from hearing opinions contrary to their own. The best way to do that is to make sure those customers don’t hear any opinions at all. That’s ESPN’s prerogative. Jemele Hill, though, is a journalist. Her journalistic integrity dictates that she will share her observations and analysis as honestly as she can. If an unpopular opinion finds its way in her work, so be it. The way to end our echo chamber crisis isn’t to seal off the sports world from any opinions at all. History has taught us is that bad things happen when we try to silence journalists. Instead, let’s reaffirm something we all know: Sports is about much more than what happens during the game.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: The intersection between sports and politics appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/21/me-edits-golub-the-intersection-between-sports-and-politics/feed/ 0 1130115
Golub: Loyalty in sports https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/15/golub-loyalty-in-sports/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/15/golub-loyalty-in-sports/#respond Sat, 16 Sep 2017 02:11:09 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1130061 It makes me uneasy that Derek Jeter is going to be the new CEO of the Miami Marlins. Jeter, as you might have heard, is one of the greatest Yankees and New York athletes of all time. From the moment he broke into the big leagues, he shone as a brilliant beacon of hope and pride for all New Yorkers. And he gave all baseball fans, even Yankee haters, someone they could respect. (Unlike, say, a certain Apple watch-using team in New England.) Throughout his career he never failed to display the highest levels of competitiveness, sportsmanship, leadership and, to his beloved franchise, loyalty. But now he’s set to run the Marlins. Confused? Me too.

The post Golub: Loyalty in sports appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
It makes me uneasy that Derek Jeter is going to be the new CEO of the Miami Marlins. Jeter, as you might have heard, is one of the greatest Yankees and New York athletes of all time. From the moment he broke into the big leagues, he shone as a brilliant beacon of hope and pride for all New Yorkers.  And he gave all baseball fans, even Yankee haters, someone they could respect. (Unlike, say, a certain Apple watch-using team in New England.) Throughout his career he never failed to display the highest levels of competitiveness, sportsmanship, leadership and, to his beloved franchise, loyalty. But now he’s set to run the Marlins. Confused? Me too.

The Kyrie Irving/Isaiah Thomas trade between the Cleveland Cavaliers and the Boston Celtics reignited a yearly NBA debate: whether or not loyalty exists between players and their teams.  Kevin Durant (KD), of course, shared his opinion with the world last year when he left the Oklahoma City Thunder, the team that drafted him and the city that embraced him, to join the 73-game-winning team that had just defeated him in the playoffs, the Golden State Warriors. In a recent interview with Bill Simmons, he explained, “So, there is no loyalty in sports,” and later, the only real loyalty that exists comes from “…relationships that you have with trainers and teammates and anybody in the organization.”

His claim that loyalty was nonexistent would have been much harder to believe had his interview not come on the heels of the Celtics’ choosing to trade their star point guard Isaiah Thomas for the younger, healthier (and flashier) Kyrie Irving. Thomas, known for his small stature and large scoring average, loved Boston with all his heart. He played the day after his sister died in a car accident, played a day after dental surgery from losing a tooth and having a couple more teeth shifted, played game after game even as his hip injury grew worse and worse. In a touching essay for The Players’ Tribune, Thomas tells us how he “fell in love” with Boston.  He proved his loyalty through his sacrifice. The Celtics’ front office, however, never reciprocated.

Danny Ainge, general manager for the Celtics, was never loyal to Isaiah, just like he wasn’t loyal to Kevin Garnett (KG) and Paul Pierce when he shipped them out to the Brooklyn Nets for a boatload of draft picks. Ainge is ruthless and will do whatever he thinks gives his team the best chance of ultimately winning a championship. Through his (emotionless pits for) eyes, Ainge simply is doing his job. He’s not being loyal.

KG himself provides an interesting example. After toughing it out for years on the Minnesota Timberwolves, only making it out of the first round once, he finally asked for a trade to a contending team.  All the time he was in Minnesota, he played his hardest and carried his team.  In the end though, he has some regret. “Loyalty is something that hurts you at times,” he said in 2010. Looking back, he wishes he would have left his team sooner. So, KG was loyal… until he wasn’t.  Which brings me to the biggest lesson I learned from this hectic sports summer. Loyalty in sports is real, but it’s not permanent.

Kyrie never asked for LeBron to come. He sucked up asking for a trade one year ago after they won a title, because he was committed to his team. Eventually, it was time for his loyalty to end.  KG was loyal to a fault, in his opinion. Upon realizing that he had reached his limit, he left to win a ring.  For him, it was the right decision. Even his Minnesota fanbase doesn’t hold it against him. He was loyal for most of his career. Loyalty exists, and it can make a big difference for a player, a team and even a city. Yet loyalty doesn’t have to last forever in order to matter.

Of course, loyalty is still demonstrated through actions. If Ainge and the Celtics have revealed anything about their loyalty to their players over the last few years, it’s that they couldn’t care less. They ditched Kendrick Perkins, center from their 2008 team that won the championship, dumped KG and Pierce, traded Rajon Rondo, starting point guard of their 2008 title team, as soon as he was healthy enough to trade and even traded their coach, Doc Rivers, although he may have wanted to be traded seeing as the team was rebuilding. At least Ainge is consistent.  And unlike some of those former players, he doesn’t hold a grudge against Ray Allen for leaving that team in free agency. Ainge has never been loyal to his players; for him, there is no loyalty.  But, contrary to KD’s take, there can still be loyalty in sports.

To return to Jeter, he was loyal to the Yankees for his entire career, and, likewise, they were loyal to him. He never gave less than his all and he never tried to leave. The Yanks, in turn, made him their featured player, paid him a ton of money and never asked him to move positions after it seemed he was getting too old to play shortstop. Their relationship was as loyal as they come.  But now his playing career is over. Representing a different team in a new capacity doesn’t diminish his Yankee loyalty. That glorious relationship has run its course.  As hard as it is to swallow as a Yankees fan, Jeter the executive is not beholden to the same relationship Jeter the player was. It’s just starting a new career. Or, to borrow KD’s much-maligned phrase, it’s his Next Chapter.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Loyalty in sports appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/09/15/golub-loyalty-in-sports/feed/ 0 1130061
Golub: Athletes are worth more than their net worth https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/07/golub-athletes-are-worth-more-than-their-net-worth/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/07/golub-athletes-are-worth-more-than-their-net-worth/#respond Wed, 07 Jun 2017 08:04:00 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1129084 Once we’ve bought in, once we see these athletes as our role models and representatives, their impact cannot be quantified by numbers or dollar signs.

The post Golub: Athletes are worth more than their net worth appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
There’s been a lot of talk lately about how athletes get paid. While that can be a productive conversation, I’m going to ask that for the remainder of this column you forget about gender pay gaps and revenue streams. Ignore the serious issues around sports for just a moment. Instead of analyzing an athlete’s net worth, let’s think about how athletes, and sports in general, affect their fans. Let’s consider the athletes we call our heroes.

Sports simplify life. They bring the binaries that we use to guide our existence — right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, success vs. failure — into distinct focus. A big reason so many people love sports is because of this analogous relationship with our lives. You know how people always ask you, “What’s the meaning of life?” and then you spend the rest of your existence trying to answer it? No such question plagues athletics. The point is clear: perform. The goal is to win, and maybe have fun along the way.

As much as this competition can be simple, it is not reductive. What a game loses in complexity it gains in transparency. We can see how hard our favorite athletes work. Each game tests their selflessness and courage and they carry us with them in their quest for triumph. The clarity of their action makes it easy for us to get emotionally invested. Once we’ve bought in, once we see these athletes as our role models and representatives, their impact cannot be quantified by numbers or dollar signs.

How can you measure the way someone makes you feel? I get it, we aren’t all in love with our favorite athletes. But these people have a larger impact on us than we realize. An incredible comeback leaves me buzzing for the rest of the day. A crushing loss drags me down, making me irritable. Sports are popular because they influence our emotions. The people pulling those manipulative marionette strings are our favorite athletes. Our heroes. Sometimes, we don’t even know who these people are until they do something that snatches the breath from our lungs.

I remember one such moment, where I was sitting in Stern dining hall, the TV pulling my eyes in close. There must have been 30 or 40 people in the small TV area, all of us joined by our rapt focus on Stanford’s men’s soccer team.  We were in penalty kicks in the national championship game, and if our goalkeeper, Andrew Epstein, didn’t save this shot, the season was over. When he flinched and then dove to his left and saved the shot, the dining hall erupted. Everyone went nuts. Two plays later, he dove the other direction and stopped another shot, securing the championship. Gleeful shouts overflowed the room. You couldn’t hear a plate crash to the ground the sound of our joy was so deafening. And all this for one guy none of us had ever met falling over twice in a controlled manner. (No offense; it was dope.)

My little brother likes to make fun of me for getting so intense about a game, but if he had been in that room with me he would have understood why I care so much. He isn’t invested in the players or the teams, so the outcome to him is merely one number and then a smaller number. But if you care about the teams, about the players, about the cities and the people they represent, well, then the outcome isn’t a number at all. It’s a triumph or a tragedy. It is the battle between good and evil, and the side that prevails has told their fans that they are worthy.

It’s easy to get caught up in seeing sports for the result. Look at the NBA and its “ringzzz” culture, where the only measure of greatness is how many championships you can wear on your hand. Titles aren’t the only way to measure a player’s worthiness.

One of my favorite games I’ve ever watched is Kobe’s Farewell. I don’t like Kobe or the Lakers; I never have. Yet watching him give his soul to the game as he dropped 60 (60! On 50 shots!) on the Jazz in his final game sent tears down my cheeks. It was greatness; it was sacrifice. As both teams were eliminated from playoff contention, the game was meaningless. Until it wasn’t. Until Kobe turned the basketball into a hammer and sculpted a priceless homage to the game itself. It wasn’t pretty but gutsy. Kobe, with his last measure of devotion, honored the game and all its fans by hammering away until his last blow. He didn’t get a ring or any kind of award for that performance. Everyone who watched, however, was changed. And we all got a stirring memory to hold onto forever.

When Tiger Woods got arrested for DUI, a sadness hit me. It didn’t matter that Tiger went to Stanford or that he was my favorite golfer (I don’t really like golf, anyways). I got sad because Tiger was an icon. He was a legend whose air of greatness pulsed around him and his red Sunday shirt. Of course, Tiger has already fallen since those glory days. This DUI was less a shock and more a reminder that he has his problems. I felt sad because his arrest pointed to that void where the buzz of his heroism used to hum.

Tiger may not ever climb his way back to the pinnacle of his sport, just like Kobe will never again lace up his classic low-tops. In the life cycle of sports, eventually there comes death. The memories our heroes have given us, though, never die. The impact of athletes does not settle to a bottom line. Instead, it flows with us through the rest of our lives. And then, when we are old and grey, we can recount the epic stories (which by then, surely, we have exaggerated) that still bring us excitement. That’s why we care. Before we get back to discussing how athletes get paid, it is important to recognize how they are always worth so much more than any dollar amount.

 

Contact Jack Golub at golubj ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Golub: Athletes are worth more than their net worth appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/06/07/golub-athletes-are-worth-more-than-their-net-worth/feed/ 0 1129084