I was late to get on last week, so I will kick it off this week. All of you seem to have great topics, I will be looking forward to class tonite. With regards to a playoff, there is not one single justifiable reason not to have one except tradition. The other divisions have playoffs, and are finished with their seasons long before the bowl games take place, disputing the contention exams would be affected. The system could be run through the existing bowls providing them with their games, and the conferences with a share of the revenue. It would provide excitement, and so what if someone with 3 losses turns it on and wins it all, everyone loves an underdog, just look at the Jaguars and Panthers this year. In short, a playoff is a great idea.

Look at all the excitement during March Madness. If college football had a playoff system this would be even better than March Madness. Think about how many bowl games go almost completely unnoticed because they have absolutely no implications. Playoffs will happen its only a matter of time before the NCAA realizes that its a must.

I was interested in what Dr. Lombardi said about how the NCAA would gladly accept a playoff system because the bowl games are beyond their jurisdiction. I did not realize that possibly the real voice behind a playoff system was the NCAA. That their need to be in charge of everything was so pervasive that a conspiracy of sorts would be formed and that that force was really the mastermind of this discussion.

I also thought the whole spin on the NCAA conspiracy was an interesting one. Makes you think!

As we all have found, the NCAA is extremely power-hungry... them not wanting a play-off system makes perfect sense... they would lose some of their control. As far as the question of having a football play-off system goes, it's pretty tough to answer. I think we all thought the idea of Northwestern's Cinderella story is pretty neat... that story could not have occurred in the play-off system. It's not as though I am stating anything we don't already know, I just think we must keep these things in mind when trying to decide on an appropriate solution. I doubt very much that the NCAA will give in to people like Coach Spurrier and go for the play-off thing... who knows? Personally, I like it the way it is. The bowl games are a tradition and I'm afraid that some people's idea of "progression" will destroy yet another long-time tradition,... call me sentimental.

I agree with you for the most part yet, when these ever important playoff games roll around, there could be a problem. These games would be very important because one loss in an early round of playoffs means no chance for the title. So, every team will fight tremendously hard to stay alive putting every effort forth. This in turn will most likely lead to injuries. Not just offensive lineman injuries, we're talking joe superstar quarterback injuries. Then when the final game rolls around, one team could have a huge advantage over the other. What then of controversy?! Imagine a team saying "Well, if it was a month earlier, we would have kicked their ass!". Every team's rooster would be decimated by the time the big game rolled around. It would be like super bowls of the 90's-blowouts! And who would want to watch third stringers no one ever heard of throwing to whoevers who are tackled by who? That wouldn't bevery interesting for fans.

In regard to the question about the format of a college football playoff, it can be developed the same way as the NBA playoffs, of course with the exception that it is only one game, rather than the best of 5 or 7 series. Take the top 8 teams in the country, and set up brackets, like #'s 1 vs.8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs.6, and 4 vs. 5. After the first round, only 4 teams remain, and then only 2. This would, in effect, be a true national championship game.

Brilliant idea Sean! It is about time we have a playoff in college football. I think it would be fun and exciting. Your example of how to go about this play off system is right on target!

I think it is time for a national championship playoff.Sean's bracket idea is great, and if the bowls were used for these games the tradition would be preserved. For the more mediocre teams,there could be a seperate tournament like the N.I.T.The conferences could also be rewarded via the number of teams they enter into the tourney and their eventual ranking.

This is a very intrigueing concept. A National Invitational Tournement for college football. It could work! The top 16 teams go to the NCAA tournament and then the next 16, or maybe even 32 go on to the NIT. It could even take place in the BIG APPLE too! This would give smaller schools something else to play for instead of killing their chances and going home after the season. Or, the bowls could remain active just for these schools. But that probebly wouldn't work. I can't see people filling up a stadium to see Oregon play Texas Tech with no implications. I could be wrong. Who knows!

A playoff system is what we need, and have been needing for the longest time. Having it in division 1 football would just kick Ass!!! Just about every other sport has it, so football should have it also. I beleive it would add excitement to the all ready exciting game and generate even more money for the all ready greedy schools and conferences. It's just not fair when you have two undefeated teams, and one of them doesn't win it. There's no controvesities any more, what more could you ask for. Make the season two games shorter and add about two or three more games to lead for the undisputed national champion!!! It's just too bad for the smaller and sorrier football programs, they just lose out. All I can say is to try to improve on the recruiting. Only the strong survive, you can't please everyone.

I respect your opinion and think that it is a very good on at that. The thing is that there are a lot of people out there who do enjoy the fun of argueing about who should be in what bowl and,"Hey! They dont belong in that bowl!! (Notre Dame)" Your view is that we shouldn't worry about pleasing everybody and let the baby schools sit out if they cant keep up! Good point. Very well taken!

Of course we should still have college bands! Just because a rock star sounds good on a PA system does not mean he/she should stop touring! By the same token, let's not limit the beauty of live rock and roll! Too much of today's world is bogged down with rules, regulations, and limits. College bands have managed to maintain proper etiquette over the course of many years WITHOUT drastic sanctions being imposed on them. Maybe once in our life we have learned that a FEW SIMPLE guidelines are better than overkilling an organization with with millions of rules about what they can and can not do! By giving bands the opportunity to play predominantly at their own will, we have given OWNERSHIP to the band members themselves, and not some "higher up." My momma' always said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Hence, let the band play on!!!!

The thought of having taped, canned music at the football game would be really limp! I enjoy the different levels of intesity that the band produces, depending on what is happening in the game. When it is the forth quarter and the opposing team is forced to call time out because of a sack or something, the band really gets pumped and I have to smile.

What would a college football game be like without a band? Bands add to the intensity of a game, just like Barry said. Heck, my mom still chants her college fight song when the Buckeyes play Michigan on tv. Bands are a must. Play on.

I am a student manager for the Florida football team. Therefore, every Saturday that the Gators play I am on the field with the team. I for one enjoy the band very much. The band does provide inspiration at key times during the contest. I believe that the loudest the crowd gets all day is during the cheer come on Gators get up and go. Feel proud band member, you are appreciated.

I definetly agree that college football NEEDS live Bands performing. Not that I don't LOVE seeing the Gators keep the score board running, but I can't imagine only watching the massacre without any real celebration. The Band really is the backbone that collaborates with the fans to keep moral up for the team. I, for one LOVE IT, ...."GO..GATORS"

It seems like the overwhelming response is in favor of bands at the games. I agree with this for all the reasons stated: motivation of the fans, entertainment, participation, etc. Also I think that bands are an important part of tradition in American college football. Was there ever a time when marching bands were not part of a big college football game? Wendell did a great job of explaining the history of marching bands and how they evolved in sports. More than just rallying the fans, the band represents the support of the team and has for a long time. Replacing bands with broadcasted fight songs over a P.A. may entertain the fans but it cannot replace tradition.

I must say that I never really thought about the band being an essential element to college football. Not only that I've started noticing how big music is in today's society. Never again will the band N word spew from my lips again.

You got it! As I stated earlier, I happen to be one of those semtimental types, so of course for me, college football just wouldn't be the same without the band. I can remember my friend saying to me, "Why in the world are you going to pay $45 to go see Billy Joel when all you have to do is listen to a CD?" She soon realized after being dragged to another concert that it's just not the same. Listening to a band on the PA rather than having them right there is totally missing the point of having them play in the first place. They are there to proclaim school spirit, to get the crowd into the game. One of the big things I miss about going to a home Jaguars game is the lack of a band. It creates a totally different atmosphere. Believe me... you guys are appreciated despite all those party-poopers who say you just take up space in the stands. They would realize soon enough that you guys are the life-line of the crowd... more so than the cheerleaders (in my opinion anyway). You guys are "the Pride of the Sunshine" and would be greatly missed!

I'm what, like the 30th person to cheer for the band, but I can't resist! I don't think the band is part of the football game itself, but it is certainly part of the football game experience. Without the band, who's going to start the chomp? Me? I'd sure try although I don't know how effective I'd be. The band is what the home field advantage is all about...they get the crowd loud and cheering and then the other team just can't get out of the swamp fast enough. BUT I kinda think that's what you're asking. Is this advantage fair to the game(certainly not if we're playing in Tallahassee)? Kirsten

Like everyone else, I believe that the band is an essencial part to the game. The band helps to get the crowd motivated and adds to the fun and excitement of the games. Listening to it over the PA just wouldn't be the same!

So, do you think that the next step in the perilous journey is the ultimate form of invasive search; that being the BLOOD TEST?

In terms of the NCAA'S need to generate as much money as possible, how far will this organization or in some peoples view "cartel" go in their quest to put forth the proper product?

Does the NCAA care about the individual athlete and his or her health, or is the real concern of this governing body the question of how can money best be generated?

Please coment on any that you find interesting.

                      Thanks!

In response to the question pertaning to the NCAA's actual concern for athletes vs. the appeal of trying to make profits, I think the topic which I am going to present next week has in a way, influenced my response. It does not appear that the NCAA cares that much for any of the member institutions, as it seems that making revenue and profits are their primary goal, no matter what the cost. In relation to the governance issue, the NCAA did not start as an organization whose goal was making profits, it was done for "the love of the game". I do not feel that this is their goal anymore, and I think that the integrity and morality of college sports suffer as a result.

I think that you are probably right. It appears that the student's wellfare is way down the list of priority.

I don't think this issue is about whether the NCAA cares about the athletes. They are not doing drug testing to make sure that the athlete is not hurting his/her body by doing drugs. The tests are to ensure that all athletes are on a level playing field (as we discussed). It's in the interst of fair competition. Therefore, I think that the NCAA has every right to conduct random drug testing.

From what I have read and heard in class I have concluded that the class believes their are two possible valid reasons the NCAA conducts random drug tests. The first concerns the athletes health and the other reason is to make money. As stated above, a mandatory blood test is now considered unconsentual surgery, which is not legal or ethical. If the NCAA cares about an athletes health, they can not argue that required surgery is necessary. If health or money is the most powerful concern behind the NCAA's attitude can only be discovered by their actions.

Regarding the drug testing policy in the NCAA, I believe that the governing body does have a right to test student athletes for the use of drugs. Many of these young athletes are recruited heavily and their parents are sold on the idea that their son or daughter will be taken care of at school. Colleges have an obligation to the athletes and their parents when they put them on the roster and play for their school. I believe that a student athlete is very distinguishable when it comes to drug testing. Unlike some regular person who attends the university without financial assistance or sports involvement, the athlete is involved in something that brings in money and endorsement to the school. For this reason it is necessary for the NCAA to ensure the safety of those athletes. Each athlete in his or her own way at a university brings money to the NCAA, atleast indirectly. The NCAA Therefore is in a position where it must attempt to limit the use of drugs. Look at the NCAA as this huge corporation full of older people who go out and seek younger people(intercollegiate athletes) to work for them. The NCAA has no choice but to protect their student athletes. Drug testing is imperative.

Hi!

I also think that there is the need for testing, because I can not think of a better way to ensure a level playing field.

But I think that the obligation may be to the people who finance the cause and expect a good "Product" as Dr. Lombardi implied at the end of my presentation. The articles that I read would tend to support your claim of obligation to the student. I am not sure how much this is actually true though.

What do you think? Could it be that the NCAA's main concern is MONEY!! Sounds rather retorical does it not?

I feel that the main obligation that the NCAA has in drug testing is to keep a level playing field. If the athlete makes the decision as an individual to take performance enhancing drugs, it is not the NCAA's responsobility to save he/she from his/her own stupidity. If it is a university policy to use performance enhancing drugs in athletics, then the NCAA should come down hardcore, both for the safety of the athletes and to promote fair play.It seems to me though that the NCAA is fighting an unwinnable battle. In the Jordan piece in our reader it talks about the task of regulating outside financial influences.Financial influences like gambling are still a major issue in college athletics and combined with drug use and other outside factors(sports agents, recruiting) I'm afraid it is too much for the NCAA to handle.

In my previous message I mentioned the Jordan piece, which was the wrong one.I meant to reference the Savage piece which does address the financial problems of gambling and extravagant spending.

Racing animals like greyhounds or horses are tested by the state for performance enhancers. Why? Is it to protect the public? I don't think so. It is to provide the image or the perception that the state is doing everything to insure fair play. The bottom line is the state will not risk losing revenue because the patron is concerned about fixed races or what have you. Likewise the NCAA is more concerned with perceptions. If it became popular public perception that blatant cheating occurred in college sports there is a chance fans would walk away. The other concern I think that has possibly arisen is would the NCAA be liable for an atletes death from performance enhancers or steroids if they did not test? My concern is not so much in the testing as in the publication of a positive drug test. I feel that for someone to get branded a drug user because he/she is an athlete could hurt him/her in a potential career.

I agree with Hubbel...the NCAA Must test student athletes for numerous reasons. First, it keeps the level of the playing field the same. Games will be won because of talent, and not because an entire offensive line is on stereoids. Second, drug testing will protect the health of the athletes. By implementing drug tests, NCAA makes a loud stand against the dangers that performance enhancing drugs can have on one's body. Lastly, drug testing keeps athletic programs in order. Especially in today's technologically advanced society, modern medicine is uncovering many exciting new drugs that may enable an athlete to better his/her performance. In order to face these challenges that we shall face in the near future, it is critical that the NCAA maintain tight control over the advancements created by modern medicine.

In conclusion, as long as there are decisive, clear cut objectives that the NCAA follows when issuing a drug test, I see no problem with drug testing. However, the NCAA can not overstep their bounds and test outside of the performance enhancing arena. If by chance strict guidelines and objections are not set, then the NCAA will lose not only its credibility, but it will also lose the public's respect for legitimizing random drug testing.

Please try and figure out what insight comes to the issues of governance from the materials in the first sections of the reader. Many of the issues that you discuss will have connections to the materials in that section, although of course not all. The diary of Bill Reed is especially interesting in what it says about how coaches operate, and the material from the Savage report of 1929 and the Frederick Jackson Turner piece offer some interesting perspectives from a much earlier time. While these may not address directly the question of drug testing or the band, you may find it possible to extract some understanding of the structure of governance and the focus of interest from these earlier times and compare it to what you see today. There are some dramatic constants as well as significant differences. Give it a shot.

To answer Barry's second question of " Would drug use increase if there was no testing?" The answer would be yes. Athletes always want to have the extra edge in performance. If certain drugs are known to enhance performance, I believe athletes would use them and the coaches would recommend it. They would know the consequences of the drugs but with the pressures the athletes already are exposed to, it would lead the athletes to use them to solve other problems that they may have. If the NCAA did not test athletes, I think one would see a decline in performance because they would over use the privilage of what these certain drugs do.

Hi! Thanks for responding. I believe that you are right. Drug use would increase. I had not really thought about the level of competition going down, but I must agree again. I can just see people using steroids for any and every problem that arose. Some of the research I did showed that people like Brian Bosworth of the University of OK. used steroids for rehabilitative mesures due to sholder and knee problems. Doctors do not prescribe anabolic steroids to reduce swelling. That did not matter to Bosworth. He decided that he knew better than any doctor. After all he was the BOZ!!

I was also interested in the the idea that steroid use may actually cause some injuries due to over burdening the tendons and joints.

I definately think the use of drugs would increase due to a lack of regulation. I can only imagine the amount of pressure these athletes are under to do well... some might stop at nothing. However, I didn't think of the idea of performance levels declining as well. These kids could be injured for life! They also might be able to play for a limited amount of time due to problems arising from the drug use. This would be a very serious problem. I do think testing is necessary, yet as said in class, this process in order to perform its intended function accurately, must be fixed. I fear that too many are getting away with using these drugs. They are creating an unfair advantage against those who abide by the rules. Something must be done. The NCAA as a governing structure is responsible for creating a fair and even playing ground.

Why should we begin a playoff system in college football? These kids already play enough games. They are not professionals, and they shouldn't have to play as many games as professional teams do. College football needs controversy to protect the intensity of every game alive. A playoff system would mean that a team could lose a game and definitely still have a chance for the coveted title. With the system we have now, you must be fortunate as Florida was to regain a chance. And so what if FSU cries about it, if you remember they only won their National Championship because Boston College beat Notre Dame. It is a rare case when their is not a clear cut champion in college football. Even this year Florida was obviously the best team in football. We simply dominated a conference that went 5-0 in the bowl season. Even while losing at FSU, we were clearly the better team. We got a punt blocked, dropped a touchdown, had one called back, missed two field goals at their place and only lost by 3 points. Not to mention having 2 starting offensive linemen hurt. so relax about the playoff system and let it uniquely unfold every year. And let the controversy continue.

I like your responce to my topic. Controversy is a big attention getter today. I makes people stop and watch EVERY game just so they dont miss the upset of the year. Controversy fuels arguements, kinda like democracy. I mean come on, we live in a democratic society and we are used to hearing peoples opinions heard. Very strong point. Also a good comment about Florida winning a conference that went 5 - 0 in bowl games. I didn't realize that.

It would be a lot of games,but it is needed. Take for example, the time Miami and Washington split the title because they both went undefeated.(I'm pretty sure it was those teams)Here a playoff system would solve this problem. You said that it was too much time, well the NCAA could use the three weeks that each team has for preparation of the bowl game as weeks as which they can play.You got to remember that most of these guys who play football come to school for that sole reason. I do not think they would mind playing a few more games, after all it does come down to money.(for the school)

They can even set up a playoff system where if two teams like UF and OSU, end the season with the same record and won their bowl, play each other so their won't be a controversy. After all it would just be one extra game.

When Colorado and Georgia Tech had to "share" a national championship without never even coming close to playing each other was a huge error on the part of the NCAA. Now those two teams have somewhat of a tainted championship.

I believe that Washington and Georgia Tech were tainted, but not because they shared the title. Georgia Tech was the BYU of 1996. They had a weak schedule in a weak conference. FSU was not yet a part of the ACC. Georgia Tech should have never been considered.

I don't know why I did not think of that. Why don't we just do it like we have been doing it and then let the teams tied for a National Championship duke it out.

In regard to Bryson's presentation the other night, I disagree with one point. It does not seem to me that FSU or ASU had any claim to a national championship, regardless of the fact that they had only one loss. The reason for this is that to have any real claim to the crown, you must win your bowl game. That's why they are played, to determine a champion for that individual rivalry. It seems ridiculous to me that any of their fans would try to make a claim on our trophy, because their teams didn't come through when they had to.

Another good point. ASU and FSU dont have anything to whine about because they indeed lost their bowl games. Alot of other opinions differ because of their total win-loss record. To be the champion you have to win the championship game! Makes good sence to me!

In my presentation the other night, I left out an important part about the possible play-off bracket. I drew on the board a bracket showing 8 positions. I can see how it is "leaving the little guy out." What I meant to draw was a bracket showing 16 positions, not 8. This opens up opportunities for more schools to make the final cut. So #1 would play #16, #2 would play #15, and so on.

Thanks for clicking! Everyone has their own idea about how a playoff could be run. Others see no need for them. Both sides have strong and valid points. I know everybody has biases, but I am stuck in the middle with this issue. Thats why I like to sit back and read everybodies ideas.

How well could the NCAA set up a 32 team playoff system?

- Maybe conferences get 2-3 automatic bids? - Maybe only a certain # of independents can get in? - Maybe set up wild card spots for those teams who are on the edge? - Or maybe throw the whole idea in trash?!?!

I think the 32 team tournament could definitely work. Of course your always going to have arguments about who should get in and why were they excluded. However, I think 32 would be a good number because the pros allow 10 or 12 teams in the playoffs out of 29.

Hi, We all have a tendency to look at money as a one-dimensional item when in fact it is multidimensional. Money is but a surrogate term for resources, and in many cases the resources we require to succeed do not come denominated in dollars. So, for example, we accumulate prestige out of our academic and athletic program which allows us to get the resources of very smart students and very good faculty. We do not pay more for these people than we would pay for more or less ordinary folks because money is not the only coin of the realm. Sometimes prestige gives access to the resources you need to succeed, sometimes location or context or opportunity are more important than pure money. Thus, when you analyze historical situations like intercollegiate sports, money is surely important but it is not the only resource involved.

When we talk about resources (money, access, opportunity, quality, whatever) we cannot assume that we understand these things unless we know whose interests are involved. The interest of the student athlete and the coach are similar but not identical. The interest of the university president and the coach are similar but not identical. The interests of the universities in the NCAA are similar but not identical. And the interests of fans, alumni, television stations, sponsors, agents, and pro teams are similar but not identical. It is the constantly changing mix of interests that determines to a large extent how we will resolve any particular issue. You can think of each participant as having a circle of interest which overlapps with other participant's circle's of interest. Where the intersect is often where things get done. One of the goals of many interest groups is to get more of their circle of interest inside the area that overlapps with others so that more of their intersets are supported.

In history, we learn a great deal by identifying these circles of interests and then by observing how the relative balance of these intnerests changes over time and how the circles themselves change in size and scope over time.

Sports does this process in a very clear and visible way, unlike other domains where the interests are much more difficult to identify and observe.

Hi!

The overlapping of circles caused me to present my topic the way I did. If you can get really good material, or information, it appears that the truth comes in to focus a lot better.

Are more presigious professors liable to come to UF. due to our position in the world of colligiate athletics?

I think that a successful sports program is one way to get circles of interest to overlap. Independently, the individual academic programs may have different circles of interest than one another. Each one may want to focus on having their programs more recognized. However, having a successful sports program such as a National Championship football team, helps the national recognition of the university overall. Hypothetically, a smaller school may have a #25 ranked academic program but if people in general are only aware of the top 10 programs, having some other form of recognition (such as a #1 football team) may cause people to rank a school's program higher in their own minds. Consequently, I think having an extremely successful athletic program causes circles of interest to overlap. Suddenly everyone become interested in the athletic program.

Dr. Lombardi would certainly know the correct answer to these questions, but personally I don't think that a successful athletic program would neccessarily attract faculty. Students? Definately, but faculty I don't think so. In the world of higher learning, professors know what schools are the best, afterall who cares about ivy league football? But what prof. wouldn't want to teach there? The athletic program just brings in the bucks. Kirsten

Hi, I think Kirsten has a point. Faculty are ambivalent about big time sports. Many like sports a lot just like everyone else, but it is rarely the case that faculty come to a university because it has a good sports program. Instead, faculty focus almost exclusively on two things: 1) the overall academic quality of the university, 2) and most importantly, the academic quality of the department of their speciality. So if I am a historian, I'm interested first in whether this is a major league insititution, if it is, then I'm interested in whether among major league institutions it has a good history department and even more important whether it has a good Latin American History department. I am also interested in whether it has a good library. So probably Football draws few faculty but it does provide a context in which faculty get just as caught up in the fan enthusiasm as anyone else.

John

I definetly agree that faculty doesn't take into account a school's fooball record when choosing a school, and I hope I can continue and say a school's football record isn't the number one factor in an ideal students decision. However, an athlete does take into account the school's athletic program, such as scholarships, recruiting etc..I believe a certain school's interest pertaining to certain inner programs is based on excellence, maybe only for the reason that excellence merits MONEY. Even in highschool its the same way, if your school's theatre program brought in money, theatre would be the school's focus.

I appreciate everyone's affirming words about their high regard for the band. Here's the problem, even though, to my knowledge, there is no hot controversy raging about marching bands, we need to discuss them. If you wouldn't mind rereading my questions at the end of my little blurb, I would appreciate some more responses. Also, I have the following.

Often, the band receives complaints that we just aren't loud enough. People don't hear us, and they're upset. The band was moved from the middle of the East stands, ostensibly to be heard by more of the stadium. It didn't work. Should the band be broadcast live over the PA? If bands are so loved by all, then shouldn't they be heard? What do you think about the SEC restriction that bands may not use amplified equipment (guitars, synthesizers, drum machines, etc...)? The NCAA has no such restriction.

College Bands spend an average of 10 hours a week learning and rehearsing music and drill. In addition, numerous groups ask the band to come perform during the year, and the work load keeps piling up. Often it gets to be too much, to try to go to school, work, and march. Should the band not march halftime? It seems that the most important role for the band is support from the stands. How about allotting some athletic scholarships to the band? (that last one sounds goofy)

Give me some input or I'll start asking even sillier questions!!

Hi, The governance of bands represents an effort to keep the bands as a support component to the game rather than come to dominate the game. As bands grew larger (as you indicated in your talk), the possibility of the band having a significant impact on the game because more than theoretical, and so some regulations from institutions, conferences, and the NCAA came into effect. This is the same issue that involves other large noisemakers. The sport will regulate out those noise makers that technology would enhance to the point of distrupting the game or causing injury to people in the stands (a zillion decibel horn for example). This is the same as the rules that prevent people throwing things on the field and so on.

Football in particular and other sports like basketball also, are shows and shows have ritualized structures in which the band plays a very important role. You can see this in the development of the band from the pep bands of the early years of college football to the military bands and their derivatives today. A game without a band is like a concert without an intermission or an opera without an overture. People expect certain things from their shows, and the band provides a key component of the show that has come to be football. The evolution of the elaborate halftime show that has many more things than just a band is the ultimate extension of this. Superbowl half times are not about bands.

The Band has another function, of course. It symbolizes that this is a game of students in college because the band is all students and its role is to be the formalized representation of student spirit. Consequently, the band helps differentiate the college game (a game of students) from the pro game (a game of professionals). So in pro games we have hired cheerleaders, and invited bands from highschools around and about, but everyone knows these are not the real thing.

John

It is gratifying that everyone seems to be in full support of the band and in absolute revulsion about canned music. Most everyone agrees that something is missing from the game when the marching band is not present. Bands are also becoming more of an attraction at other games, like basketball and sometimes, volleyball. This trend to include the band into more of the sporting events seems to say that the powers that be feel a need for the presence of live musicians at the contests.

The problem is that the bands must adapt. It is an antiquated system. The music of yesteryear was very playable and the people in the stands could sing along with their favorite popular tune. Modern music is not as readily performable without electronic equipment. To my embarrassment, the band attempted to play a "2-unlimited" set a couple years ago, and it came off as expected: hokey, cheesy. How can we reconcile the disparity between that poplular music and the popular band? Professional show bands are virtually extinct, even though they seemed an indispensible facet to entertaining society. The marching bands must adapt or face a similar fate.

Should the SEC allow the bands to use electronic equipment? How else can the bands become more appealing from a modern perspective?

I believe that the Bowl Coalition will eventually triumph
with the Rose Bowl acceding to the will of the firm national
title movement.  Hopefully, this will preserve the bowl 
system and allow to the #1 team to be undisputed at the end
of the season.  Football, unlike the 15 other male intercollegiate
sports has a vested interest in being different.  The bowl 
system will allow for even the smaller schools to play in a 
bowl, even though it may not be as lucrative as the bowl 
alliance. Should this not work and there is still a dispute
over the rankings at the end of the season, I would be in 
favor of the playoff system similar to the those in other
male sports. I would have to say, though, that this could only
be accomplished by keeping the bowls intact in some form.
For instance, the Carquest, Gator, and Blockbuster bowls, etc.
would comprise the first round.  The final four and the 
championship would be at the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange
Bowls on a rotating basis.  This would keep the bowls intact
and still have a playoff system.  I could never understand those
old sticks in the mud like Gene Stallings (formerly of the Tide)
who fought even the Bowl Alliance.  He could be safe and conservative
by resisting this change because he already had his national
title.
  As to the band, I could never imagine it being as much fun
if the band's CD of fight songs were played and the band was 
left out in the cold to sell more seats.  The great thing
about the band is its spontanaity.  You could'nt duplicate the
occasional unexpected cymbal crash if the band wasn't there.
No wonder baseball is so boring, they have the organ already
pre-recorded.  If a CD was used instead of the band, the game
would just become more background noise.  The band is an 
integral part of the game and to take it away, well, are we 
willing to risk the loss of their continuity when we make the
wave?
   The question of drug testing is, I think, one of the clearest
definitions of sportsmanship.  Atheletes aren't allowed to cheat
on the field, why should they be allowed to cheat off the field?
Some civil libertarians agrue it an illegal search, but this
doesn't hold water because who is making them play and compete?
It is on that basis that I think that drug testing should be 
mandatory, without question.  How can we otherwise sports be
played without some rules to give everyone a fair shot? 
Also, as per drugs other than performance ones, it is the same
arguement. Finally, in answer to your question about military
drug testing, I read a study that said since the institution
of drug testing in 1980, drug usage in the armed seevices has
declined by 90%.  Interesting, huh!   

They started testing people in the military because there was a fear that officers would be fragged! In other words, men with guns should probably not be using mind altering drugs. You know, got to defend the country and all that stuff.

I was in the Marines during the 80's and for the safety of all people concerned, testing was and is a neccesity. However, Are the 7% or so of athletes who use drugs in such sensitive positions that the lives of others are put in harms way? Is life as we know it going to stop unless "big brother" NCAA steps in and protects us through this search of their urine? We are in college of our own volition. Should we also be scrutinized in the manner as these athletes are tested.

I can see it now. I get to math class. I have not done my home work. I am tired and pretty sure that my teacher is going to ask me to explain some mundain charictaristic of the Remon Sum, when suddenly some guy jumps out from his black dodge and tells me that I must pee in a cup if I want to continue to go to class, receive financial aid, and or graduate. We can give these people real tall black leather boots to wear as well and maybe a riding crop could be optional.

It is invasive, and I didn't like the image that was brought forth in class of our athletes being tested. Maybe the athletes need a Union in order to protect their rights.

In response to your fears, I would have to say that they are largely histerical. I know you are playing devil's advocate, but I am not advocating the large scale drug testing of everyone. While I would hope that none of us would disagree with the testing of the military, commercial pilots, or in other areas like that where people have other people's lives in their hands, the question remains as to who else should be tested. In the area of sports, testing is justified in that it requires fairness and sportsmanship in order for sports to effectively function. I do not believe that this is invasive because no one asked them to play. It it were invasive, then a football player could then just as easily argue that the out of bounds is invasive of his right to receive the ball. The point is that for sports to function, the players must be willing to follow the rules, which is in essence the giving up some of their rights, like the right to deck a referee for bad calls. Likewise, no asked people to become pilots or join the military (in the context of there being no draft). I would not advocate the testing of high school students in general because that is invasive. Truancy laws require high school students to go to school until the age of sixteen. I define invasive as the government forcing something upon you without your consent. By playing on a team, you are consenting to follow the rules, and that includes not taking drugs to improve performance, which is in effect cheating.

I also believe that athletes should be tested, and that it is not invasive. When the NCAA was started, it was agreed that the member institutions would give up some of their rights in return for protection and equal opportunity. Well, this issue of drug testing by the NCAA seems to fit right in with this denouncing of certain rights in return for others.

This is a question that I have been wondering for the longest time. I think back when I was in high school, and I remember most of the people who were in it were dorks. I am wondering why there's that stereotype, but yet it appears to be true. There is someone who lives near me who is in band and he is one of the biggest dorks that I have ever seen. He has nerdy glasses, he is fat, his jokes aren't funny, and he is dirty and doesn't practice good hygeine in the bathroom, I am wondering why.

And we'll keep on fighting to the end.

I must confess that I find it difficult to not take offense at your question, especially in light of your past comments about racial prejudices and societal bias. I must assume that you are merely misguided and not insulting my intelligence, and I refer you to Dr. Lombardi's comments. My only comment is this:

     Why are muslims violent?
     Why are jews whiners?
     Why are christians judgemental and self-righteous?
     Why do blacks commit more violent crimes?
     Why can't whites dance?
     Why are latinos womanizers?

If you take these questions to a larger perspective you see how offensive and absurd they can become. Everybody should know that one cannot judge an entire group of people by the acts of a few individuals, even if they seem to be in the majority. You need to ask your friend why he's "dorky". Asking me would be like me asking you one of the above questions.

It seems to me, that we're all in college and are past the stereotypical cliques of highschool. I mean besides the stereotypes that plague our nation, or world for that matter, about certain nationalities, religions, or sexual preference. I find it tidious to decipher who the nerds, jocks, geeks, or @#$%^ were in highschool, and IF, and I repeat IF it can be related to a certain club or team one was a part of.

Kareen's comments about a band stereotype that assigns negative characteristics to all members of a group based on some shared characteristics of some members of a group brings an interesting historical question into focus. Stereotypes almost always have a distorted basis in fact and serve a purpose that makes this distortion become, in the minds of some, a substitution for fact. As a long-time band member I can say that I have known many dorky colleagues in the band, but also I have known some pretty righteous people also. At the same time I've heard Band and other folks characterize football players as dumb jocks, and to be sure, from time to time I've known a number of not so smart Jocks although I've also known many very smart football players. So, the question is what is the basis of the stereotypes? And why do we use them? Dumb Jocks so we can find a way to explain how come we don't play the game? Dorky band members so we can find a way to explain how come we can't play an instrument well enough to get into the Band? Do we see each group in terms of its dominant characteristic (athletic talent for jocks and musical talent for band members) and for mental laziness we attach a name that reflects but one dimension and even that one not so well. Ah well, what's in a name? My college team was called the Sagehens, and now I'm a Gator. You will have to sort this out for me.

John

I completely agree with your assertion that the root of labels is misunderstanding and prejudice. I distinctly remember reading that Terry Dean had a 3.8 and was pre-med. Well, not only is that something to look up to, but it debunks the myths that fester today. This is why I would never advocate the paying of athletes. The main reason all of us should be here is to get an education, even though football is a great and essential diversion. If players were paid, and I know they work hard around people and companies that make millions, they would lose the sense of their main purpose for being here. As employees of the UAA they would even further the their association as dumb jocks. Very few college players actually make into the NFL, much less the top of that organization. It is still essential to have an education to insure that one posesses the right tools to make it in life should those stars not come quite within reach.

We come upon our prejudices about football players and band personeel through what we see from our standpoint. We see that we have to have higher SAT scores and GPA than athletes on scholarship to get into this school. This lets us assume that all the people on the football team are less intelligent than us. Likewise, we see the people in the band do odd things with their bodies and their instruments and we assume they are dorks. But for someone to be truly applicative of their intelligence, they must be able to see where someone else is coming from to perhaps see why they believe what they believe and whether or not that requires reassessment.

I think that football players ("dumb jocks") might be smarter than the average student. This holds for cheerleaders and band members too. With the distractions from studies like practice, practice, practice...they must be really intelligent, hard workers to maintain any kind of GPA...I have a hard enough time and I'm not on any team :) Kirsten

I agree that student athletes must be very smart and highly organized. With 20 hours of practice a week on top of school, I am very impressed by all they accomplish. I bitch and moan if I have to go to the library, and I have a very relaxed schedule.

Stereo-types are used all over. They are used in sport-settings, as you mentioned. They are used in school-settings, like nerds and geeks and bullies. They are even used when talking about history. For example, If you are British you automatically hate the Irish and vice versa. If you are hispanic, then everyone assumes you speak Spanish and are from a latin country or place. They are used to identify a specific group of people. A group that has done something in the past or was something in the past for them to receive that kind of classification. History has made stereo-types, they were used in the past and they will continue to be used in the future. Football players are always going to be portrayed as dumb jocks, and band members are always going to be portrayed as geeks, even though both these groups are not. It is stereo-types fellas, it is how we label groups of people!

  Jody

It sounds that you are somewhat ambivalent to stereotypes. This is understandable. The last comment however did not sit so well. I believe stereotypes are a natural tendency. They might not be totally correct but they do have a legitamacy to them. Of course it is ridiculous to say that everyone in a certain category behaves in a certain way. Stereotypes develope when there is a tendency for a certain way or behavior. At the end of his paragraph Mr. Valdes said that jocks are not dumber and band members are not geeks. Since obviously some jocks have to be dumb and some band members are probably dorks this statement is just as false as the rude stereotype. Who is more correct though? That is the question.It is just unfortunate that we have to use such questionable stereotypes like dumb and dork which is totally subjective anyway.

I entitle my response to remind everyone of the dangers of taking labels and prejudices too far. Rodney King made that famous remark, that probably defines where race relations stand this decade, in the wake of the L.A. riots in 1992. The point is that while prejudices exist as to who are "band dorks" and "dumb jocks," an educated person cannot be drawn into such conclusions completely. All of us have prejudices, they are the inevitable product of our environment. We are not born with any, we develop them. However, the question is whether we act on those prejudices. Sure, from our perspective, some people in the band are dorky, and I'm sure they see the fans sometimes as fair weather and apathetic. But the question is whether we assume that the next person in the band we meet and the next person on football team is a "dork" or a "dumb jock" respectively. I call it the marginal propensity to assume, and that in my humble opinion is what separates bigots (not that that word is the most correct in this context) from those who have prejudices and don't let them cloud their actions (i.e., everyone else).

If someone thinks they can get away with doing something that is wrong that person is more likely to do it than a person who believes they will be caught. I think that this is true regarding drug use amoug athelets too. If their was no testing drug use would increase because the fear of getting caught and suffering the consequences would diminish.

I believe it is acceptable for those who take drugs to be kept from competing, however, not because they have an advantage over others, but because drugs are illegal. In all aspects of life there will be people who have advantages over others; it could be because they have more money or are more intelligent. It isn't fair to say that a person with these advantages cannot participate in aspects of life in which they would have an unfair advantage over others. However, it is only when they do something illegal to gain that advantage that they should be barred from participating.

The forth amendment to the constitution protects the people from illigal search and seizure. There must be probable cause in order for the state to look for any wrong doing. This is why the police must show a search warrant before entering a dwelling that they feel may have some type of contriband.

What did the student athletes do that caused them to be under suspicion? What is the probable cause? Simply saying that the state must make the playing field level is not good enough because this argument would allow the state to have free rien in what ever endevor of search it deemed worthy. As it is the courts decide how neccesary a search is before administering a warrant.

The students rights under the constitution are diminished because the NCAA says that they are! The courts seemed to go along with the NCAA after other members of the government made it apparent that the war on drugs would reach into the realm of collegiate athletics, regardless of what the initial rulings on this matter were.

I am able to see both sides on this issue. However, I have serious problems with the extent of power with which the NCAA has shown as far as their ability to rewrite the constitution when the situation presents its self.

There is no doubt that the band is a very important part of intercollegiate sports, especially football. No matter how far the band might seperate as far as functioning, it is still an inevitabley huge part of crowd and team spirit.

I would like to comment on something that came up at the end of the band discussion last Tuesday. The issue of some of the Gator Band fight songs being out of date demographically and perhaps politically was very interesting to me since I am in the Race, Class and Gender group. "We Are The Boys" could be criticized because we are not just boys anymore. This song also says that we are the fairest. Well this is certainly not true anymore. These technicalities could certainly be used by an opponent of this traditional song. The Suwanee Song however does not mention anything technically wrong. It really disturbs me when even the mentioning of the word Dixie or any other kind of reference to the south is considered in poor taste. I understand that alot of Florida checked out of the south a while back and that many of the new drivers of this state have no real roots in the south and therefore little sympathy for anything distinctly southern. To criticize "Suwanee" however, is just taking it too far. The word Dixie in the context of the song simply refers to our geographical location. If that is so bad then why is everyone coming here.