Female Superstars: A Brutal Irony

If you're a fan of Tennessee women's basketball, you were probably quite stoked when Brittany Griner was ejected in last nights game. After all, she was abusing the Lady Vol's defense like it was some grade school travel team. Only problem is that when she did get ejected for leaving the bench after a hard foul on a teammate, there was less than a minute left and she had already done her damage. In fact, had she stayed out just a minute or so more, she would've ended with a triple double of points, rebounds and blocked shots.  Griner made what should have been a marquee matchup into a rout, and its rumored that Sarah McLachlan has agreed to put her famous hit "The Saddest Damn Song Ever" onto a collage of Lady Vol's players in a desperate PR move to nurse their broken egos.

The problem here is that even while Griner ripped their defense to shreds and had a great game, they actually held her below her season average and for once, the Lady Bears's leading scorer wasn't the 6' 8" forward. I'm assuming she's a forward, but if you're looking for an ESPN box score to tell you her (or any player's) position, you're in for some disappointment. But thats another issue entirely. The problem here is that while the mens college basketball system has super powered teams and just as many up and coming superstars, everything more or less equals out  because on any given day, any mens team in the country could play a very close game with or beat a powerhouse squad, such as Duke. The reason? Distribution of talent. The depth of skill that is prevalent in men's college basketball means that every game has that chance of and upset, a barn burner, a court rusher. We thrive on that chance, and what better chance for a team to upstage a contender than March Madness, the national month of Cinderella teams.

Who DIDN'T see that 12 seed beating that #5? Or that #3? Or the #1?

I digress. The point I'm making here is that while Griner may be the poster child for women's basketball ( and the only one that most people care about right now), she is also the single biggest example of what is wrong with women's basketball. One player, of larger than usual size or length, makes a huge impact on any game she plays in, as evidenced by Griner's success. However, this problem is not solely limited to Griner. Candace Parker, Maya Moore, Tina Charles. All of these players have been elite level women's players who dismantled other womens teams to a level previously unheard of. In a way, I feel like this dominance is not good for women's basketball. Sure, Griner makes Sportscenter when she dunks in a game, but her success projects the image that the competition she is playing against is just all the more awful. So when Baylor dismantles Chattanooga 91-31 and doesn't break a sweat, the credibility of womens basketball takes a hit. Griner is, forgive my expression, like a man amongst boys out there, and no one likes a bully.

This all may be a little bit overwhelming to some readers. Its okay. Sit down, take a drink of water, get in the shade, and think about it. If sports fans love to watch men's college basketball because every game can be riveting, at least for a little while, wouldn't they enjoy the same aspect out of women's ball? Frankly, if you're not enjoying the Brittney Griner show, you certainly won't enjoy any aspect of the 88-19 or 91-31 wins that the Lady Bears are becoming synonymous with.  Men's superstars are kept humble by the pure number of other players who can make them look bad or keep pace with them on a given night (Right Lebron?). This sort of unofficial balance system makes sure that no team racks up some dynastic record of perfection, such as the UConn huskies had for several seasons, and like what the Lady Bears are doing this season at 38-0. When Griner leaves, Baylor will probably fade back into the pack, and teams will be fighting over the next Griner to help them dominate for the next four years. This is not a trend you want your sport to be following.

Look, I'm not here to decide which girls can or cannot play college basketball. It's not up to me, regardless. I'm simply stating that Griner and players like her can be a vicious double edged sword, and I'm simply expressing caution, that the NCAAW doesn't cut themselves too deep. Take me away, Sheryl. 

Drugs in Sport: An Ethical Question

"Steroids are for guys who want to cheat opponents" -Lawrence Taylor


The battle over steroids and other medical drug use in sports has been around for decades, moving from a laughable issue in the 70's to a full fledged argument today. Entire careers and records have been shattered and tainted beyond repair by the use of anabolic steroids, yet the practice continues even today. When I think about the possible TRUE number of athletes who use steroids who just haven't been caught yet, I can't help but shudder. What we see as a settled issue may just be the tip of the iceberg, and we're not out of the woods yet. While steroids have been a thorn in the side of the MLB in the past several decades, they have afflicted all sports in some degree.

What I see as the real issue here is not the drugs themselves, because steroids do have a lot of practical medical uses that can change lives, I'm seeing a bigger issue with the athletes themselves and the culture they live in, one that promotes winning at all costs.

In this sort of supremacist society, there is no shortage of people willing to do whatever it takes to get tat extra edge, and in a super competitive training camp setting, many players will do what they need to to stay ahead of the competition. For many athletes, the fame and fortune in front of them outweighs any possible negative consequences and makes taking steroids that much easier.

An interesting topic of discussion has surfaced recently in this debate with the notion of allowing steroids and other drug use in all sports settings and trying to regulate the process instead of trying to stop it. Theoretically, this would allow Brett Favre to play around 15 more years in the NFL, so right then and there, this idea loses my support. However, the proposed plan brings up some interesting ideas. Would we see the majority of pro athletes take advantage of this law and use the drugs, or would most stay clean? You have the "good guys", the Tim Tebows and the Peyton Mannings of the world, who would probably not take the pills, and then you have the notorious roid-heads like Jose Canseco and Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire, guys who popped more pills in one week than the entire cast of The Matrix.

C'mon Morpheus, no more fooling around. Both colors, I want your entire supply. 

If players are going to find ways to take the drugs regardless of current rules, would it be better to change our stance and attempt to regulate, control and potentially profit from this habit? Some players would benefit from using certain drugs to recover from injuries and prolong their careers just a little bit longer. The level of competition would be raised as a majority of players reached all new levels of physical fitness, which could make the game more entertaining. Are we willing to open the flood gates to potential problems to reap the benefits that come with drug use in sport? How far will sports fans allow the game to stretch and still watch?

Just because an idea is new and revolutionary doe not make it a good idea, and I think this plan falls into that category. Allowing athletes to use steroids opens up a whole new can of worms, and the sports world is not set up to handle those sort of issues. If we allow steroid use on the premise of making money, it will just further cement the growing belief that sports is, and always has been about money.