Where Do You Draw The Line?

[Greenmonsters]

At what point, if any, should athletes become subject to public review, comment, praise, or criticism?

Not a question that I haven't considered previously, but one that has re-surfaced in my mind after reading several recent threads.

What do you think? I don't claim to have the answer, just more scenario complications and related questions as noted below.

Amateur or professional? With recognition that the amateur now means something far different today than it once did.
Is there a specific age or level? 18? College? Pro?
Should D2 and D3 be subject the same as D1?
What about scholarship v. non-scholarship players?
Public v. private schools?
Is a scholarship player at a public university different than any other state employee?
What if the NCAA adopts direct athlete financial compensation?
Should it vary by sport? Public visibility/exposure? TV exposure?
Posting of video selfies v. posting of video by others? Skills videos?
Little League superstars v. 1-And-Doners v. 4-yr scholar athletes?
And lastly, does or should gender influence our thinking?

As far as how this pertains to common practice at DFP, I don't have a problem with constructive comments and criticisms as long as it doesn't become personal and we remember that a good or bad swing doesn't necessarily make one a good or bad person. Personally, I have chosen to not post images of my DD at DFP, but truly appreciate those that do in the interest of helping others.

 

[Jquick823]

The money aspect of paying a college athlete is this to me. If you want to pay them weekly, monthly or whatever that's fine. Equal pay for all athletes at said college but remove athletic scholarships and make student athletes ineligible for academic money. HOLD ON DON'T KILL ME YET lol.

The idea that a college football player or basketball player can't afford a pizza at 2am is real and so is the fact that the school makes a ton of money off of these 2 sports. Don't like it? Don't play. For forum purposes I say this. The Softball player as the same U is up at 0500 doing weights, in the gym after class doing weights, in the field house hitting extra and is traveling also but theirs no outcry for our daughters. Yep Softball isn't a money sport at all schools, but I bet the NCAA makes a killing off of the WCWS on ESPN.

To me if you can't afford a pizza at 2am while in college you couldn't afford it in high school but we aren't paying them to play. The country is becoming government/handout dependent instead of forcing hard work and determination. No pay for college athletes in money sports as they are mostly scholarship players and thus receiving the best paycheck they could receive a college degree.

 

[GOINGDEEP]

At what point, if any, should athletes become subject to public review, comment, praise, or criticism?

Just my opinions:

Athletes are basically representatives, that may be community, sport, school, college, state, country, etc. There has and always will be review, comment, praise, criticism, of any form of representative. As adults, it's our job to monitor and control obsessive commentary, especially about..........or in front of minors.

As far as how this pertains to common practice at DFP, I don't have a problem with constructive comments and criticisms as long as it doesn't become personal and we remember that a good or bad swing doesn't necessarily make one a good or bad person. Personally, I have chosen to not post images of my DD at DFP, but truly appreciate those that do in the interest of helping others.

No question that the hitting threads are quite entertaining. A handful who generally try to help, a handful who try to help but don't communicate very well, a handful who know just enough to be dangerous, a handful who's only purpose is to argue. Like the caveman syndrome, who can swing the club the hardest? But when you really peel the layers back, a great hitter has more going on from the neck up, than the neck down.

 

[YOCOACH]

At what point, if any, should athletes become subject to public review, comment, praise, or criticism?

Let's be honest, with the invention of the internet, cell phones, social media and instant access to information, the role of privacy itself has changed. In other words, there is none. People walk around talking on their cell phones carrying on a "private" conversation yet think that everyone they pass within earshot isn't paying attention. Give just about anyone under the age of 50 a name, a city and a computer and they can find out more about that person than the person themselves remember. Many people are sexting now, knowing the dangers beforehand, and yet are continually surprised when their naked picture pops up somewhere. All sorts of people continue to post on Facebook, tweet on Twitter, make videos on Vine and all sorts of other things and then wonder how strangers know so much about them. There is no privacy any more and it's basically due to technology and instant access to information even though, against all logical reasoning, people seem to have the same expectation of privacy as before.

So the question shouldn't be 'at what point is it right...' It should be "When it happens how far as a society should we be allowed to go and under what circumstances?

 

[BobInMadison]

One thing to think about is what would be fair game for the local sports pages?

One of my friends has a daughter who was a star long distance runner in HS, and wound up 2nd team all-American in college. In her case, the local newspapers followed her running career from the time she was a freshman in HS. OTOH, the newspapers pretty much left her teammmates alone.

Similarly, there have been a handful of kids who have been real stars in HS, such as football players, a handful of great SB pitchers, and a great volleyball player.

By the college level, only a few players are mentioned in the papers, unless they are on the football team. For women's athletics, they will occasionally write about a star athlete in softball or volleyball or rowing or track, but only someone really exceptional.

Anyone who makes the Olympics is written about quite frequently.

In addition, they have their prep player of the week. Every week they pick a local HS, and do a profile of both a male and female student-athlete. These are generally great multi-sport players with high GPAs who otherwise wouldn't get much press. In all these cases, the players are active participants, and fill out questionairres.

For a local softball star, the papers never run hit pieces, tearing some poor girl or woman apart. Almost always puff pieces, such as a Wisconsin 3B who made great fielding plays and tied the school records in HR and RBI despite having a knee brace.

For DFP, I would suggest the following guidelines:

For a player on the US team, or a pro player, you are dealing with a public figure. Be kind, but not much expectation of anomymity. Similarly for a star NCAA DI player.

If someone sends in a video and asks for comments, praise and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism are in order. ("She needs to stop dropping her shoulder while hitting" is OK, "She sucks!" is not.)

FOr a shameless brag thread, the name of the player should only be mentioned if the OP mentions it.

Otherwise, I would err on the side of privacy. I have used the initials of a few players in the Madison area, but never the names. I didn't even mention the name of NN, a star pitcher who was Gatorade State Player of the Year for Wisconsin one year. However, I wouldn't find fault with anyone who would mention such a player by name, since her name was in all the newspapers.

Just my opinion. Reasonable people can disagree with me.

 

[abbygale]

I think if it you wouldn't want it written about your kid, then don't write it about others.




Of course, there will always be the passive/aggressive dits.

 

[NorthMS]

It boils down to using good judgement. I don't need a guideline to know what's acceptable and what's not. That's not to say that I always do right, but I usually know right away when I don't.

Constructive criticism is just fine in my book. Too many people get told they are great today when they aren't. But, constructive criticism HAS to be done in the right context and tone.

I've had numerous negative thoughts run through my head while watching a game, but I have the sense to leave those thoughts in my head.

 

[29dad]

It boils down to using good judgement. I don't need a guideline to know what's acceptable and what's not. That's not to say that I always do right, but I usually know right away when I don't.

Constructive criticism is just fine in my book. Too many people get told they are great today when they aren't. But, constructive criticism HAS to be done in the right context and tone.

I've had numerous negative thoughts run through my head while watching a game, but I have the sense to leave those thoughts in my head.

Agreed. I don't think it's possible to have a specific rule about this.

As regards the gender issue raised by the OP, that's a bit of a pet peeve of mine. If it's okay to discuss Russell Wilson transferring from NC State to Wisconsin, why can't we mention that Jane Doe transferred from Alabama to UCLA? All this cryptic "JD now pitches for UCLA" drives me nuts. Some of it I understand if it's based on confidential or inside information, but these are grown women playing big time college sports with a big time ESPN contract and discussing them by name shouldn't be taboo. It's certainly not taboo for male athletes, so why the double standard?

 

[Indiana]

Good thread... this is a tough one and a question I've often wondered about. Back a gazillion years ago (according to DD - ha ha) when I played high school and college field hockey, there were a few local articles written about my teams, and one about me specifically. The articles pretty much all said the same things - that I played, who I played for, when my games were, the outcomes, and how I felt about things (which boiled down to a few soundbites - "great!" "awesome!" and whatever else a teenage girl can think up, which isn't much beyond the superlatives when put on the spot). I would have been MORTIFIED if the articles critiqued my abilities in a specific manner (and there was lots to criticize, if anyone wanted to write about it), or worse, critiqued my character ("she missed that shot on goal, therefore she is a terrible person").
Our college program was not a "big program", and nobody besides parents and boyfriends (and the occasional roommate who needed a quiet place to study) ever came to our games. Even when we played against better known teams, nobody cared. So I certainly didn't have an obligation to any fans, but maybe I did to the school that let me take classes and graduate. The campus paper wrote about us sometimes, and they gleefully reported on a gruesome injury that I sustained at an away game. That was about the most personal an article ever got.
Do athletes, who are at school due to their sport (whether it is money, or being permitted to matriculate at a highly competitive academic school), have an obligation to their fans? And do these fans have a right to critique their skill? I suppose the answer is "yes" to both questions. The mom in me says, though, that we should be kind. These are kids. I don't know.... it's nice reading everyone's opinions - very thought provoking. In response to 29Dad - I don't see it as much as a guy/girl thing, maybe because I am a woman, I feel more comfortable talking about other women? Maybe men are a little bit more conflicted when it comes to discussing female athletes? Or maybe we're all exercising sensitivity on this board and are comfortable discussing a well-known, household name such as Russel Wilson (and let's be honest - most household-name athletes are guys - who outside of our circle knows who Kelsey Stevens is?). Maria Sharapova (pro tennis player) has been critiqued PLENTY. Same with Serena Williams. Maybe someone here who belongs to a baseball forum can offer some insight - are the boys named and critiqued openly?

 

[Greenmonsters]

... Maybe someone here who belongs to a baseball forum can offer some insight - are the boys named and critiqued openly?

Good question, curious to know.