TOW #24 - After Penalty, 23 Wins Recorded Only in Memory

The NCAA is a corrupt, hypocritical, selfish, and exploitive organization.  There, I said it.  What many journalists, and especially high-ranking officials with universities, can’t say, I, as an unimportant 11^th grader, can say.  Dan Barry recently wrote an article about the Missouri basketball team and the 2013-14 season in which all of their 23 wins were vacated for breaking NCAA rules.  Barry used listing and quoting as a way to prove his inherent argument that the NCAA is not a fair organization.  He listed the “violations” that led to the vacation of wins:

That a booster had provided “impermissible benefits” to three student-athletes and one prospective student-athlete. These forbidden benefits included the all-too-familiar no-show jobs, housing, a modest amount of cash ($520), iPads, meals and the use of a local gym.

That a second booster provided student-athletes and a few family members with a reduced rate at a hotel — with transportation provided by a student-manager for the team — as well as some meals and a ride on a recreational boat.

And that a former assistant coach provided a donor with the telephone number of the mother of a player looking for housing. Although the family paid the market rate for the housing, the coach’s actions violated N.C.A.A. bylaws.

Clearly Barry lists these with the intent of showing that the “violations” were not suitable for the immense punishments put on the team.  Along with the wins being vacated, the team lost money, scholarships, and many more important components to a successful college basketball team.

Additionally, Barry uses direct quotation to help his inherent argument that the NCAA is corrupt.  He quoted the head coach as saying ““Let’s don’t be naïve about the level,” he told investigators. “Our business is corrupt.”  Barry creates ethos by using this quote because it is the head coach, not the reporter, saying it.  Also, it contributes to his argument that the entire NCAA runs a corrupt and unfair business.  It is overbearing and irresponsible.

TOW #23 - College basketball: Villanova title gives boost to Big East

March Madness is the most spectacular phenomenon in all of sports.  For about 3 weeks each March and early April, the entire country turns its attention to 68 teams competing for one national championship.  While in reality only about 10 teams each year actually have a shot at winning the championship, there is, without fail, always a Cinderella team waltzing its way to the elite eight or final four (or even the championship game, *cough cough* Butler).  This year, it objectively appears that Syracuse was that Cinderella team since they made the final four as a 10 seed.  However, they did not really possess the magic and likeability that most Cinderella teams have.  Instead, I would argue that Villanova, the national champion, was indeed the Cinderella team of the tourney.  Even though they were a 2 seed, has a remarkable regular season, and won the Big East, there is an air of magic around them.  They, unlike Oklahoma, UNC, or even Syracuse, probably don’t have an NBA player on their roster.  Instead, they are a group of blue collar, hard working, passionate individuals guided by the most likeable coach in college basketball, Jay Wright.  Their team passing, tough defense, and clutch shots allowed them to be crowned the King of the Dance.

However, Villanova, and its conference, the Big East, don’t see this as a Cinderella story.  They all knew just how good Nova was.  This year, Seton Hall won the Big East tournament.  Their athletic director said after Nova’s win “Nobody in the league is all that surprised. It's a battle every night."  I have no trouble believing that the Big East rates itself among the Power 5 conferences, and rightly so.  However, the fact of the matter is that the Big East is considered below the Power 5 conferences, justly or not.  In that sense, Nova was not just the Cinderella team, but rather Nova was the representation of the Big East as the Cinderella conference.

This argument was based off the article: http://www.northjersey.com/sports/college-sports/college-basketball/new-look-big-east-survives-and-advances-1.1541598

TOW #22 - "Seeing Double"

When, in the course of watching television, a commercial so powerful, impactful, and/or memorable appears, it is only justifiable to share said commercial with your friends.  In fact, the mark of a truly great commercial is the sharing of it with others.  Companies pay for consumers to watch commercials, so when consumers go out of their way to watch and share a commercial, you know that it is a quality commercial.  This kind of memorable experience is what I had when I first saw Sonic’s commercial titled “Seeing Double.”   In this commercial, two people are eating Sonic’s food with a new deal that gives customers two drinks, two sides, and two meals for $10.  Obviously, because of the theme of things being paired, they are “seeing double.”  Then, the hilarity ensues.   The two guys look to their left and see an almost identical pair of people in an identical car.  The one guy says to the other, “play it cool, see if they want to hang out.”  So the other guy looks out the window and shouts in the least “cool” way possible “hey you guys wanna hang out some time?”  The other pair of guys promptly roll up their window.  This ad is genius for two main reasons: 1) the punch line is completely unexpected; and 2) it is a creative way to sell their promotion.  The entire commercial sets the audience up to believe a regular conversation is about to commence, but instead Sonic throws the kitchen sink at the audience with a completely unexpected joke.  This makes the audience laugh, and is therefore more inclined to consider Sonic’s promotion.  This is where the second part comes in.  Sonic not only gives important information about he promotion itself, but they also relate it to the joke with the theme of “seeing double.”  This ends up linking laughter and Sonic, so the audience will be much more inclined to end up going to Sonic in the future.

TOW #21 - Why am I Right-Handed?

Are you right handed at least?  I got this question at least 25 times throughout my time wearing a sling because of my broken collarbone, and each time I put on a face of appreciation and relief as I replied “Yes, at least I’m right handed so I can still write.”  About 90% of the population is right handed, an overwhelming majority.  Simple logic, and what we are taught growing up, is that the reason is “genetics,” and we tend to leave it at that, failing to further question what “genetics” means.  In her article “Why am I Right-Handed?” Maggie Koerth-Baker writes about the much more complicated nature of the question of dexterity.  She utilizes expert authority and an interesting concept to achieve her purpose of informing the public about the interesting idea of what makes someone right-handed.

Baker, a writer and statistician, does not have the authority to speak directly about the genes and biological expertise needed to tackle this issue.  So, as a good writer always does, she finds experts and quotes them to create a strong argument.  Baker quotes Chris McManus, a scientist who was one of the first to publish the dextral/chance model.  She also gets John Armour’s opinions, who is a professor of human genetics at the University of Nottingham in the U.K.  She then has these two scientists, who have conflicting views on the controversial subject, go back and forth and create a mock debate, in a sense.  This establishes the credibility of her throughout the article.

Baker also uses a interesting concept to sell this article to potential readers.  She markets it as a new series that answers hard science questions asked by toddlers.  She says, “Sometimes, their little brains can lead to big places adults forget to explore.”  This cool idea creates what may sometimes be dry topics into something exciting, fun, and new for readers.

TOW #20 - Hockeytown Doc (first half)

I have just concluded reading the first half of the book “Hockeytown Doc: a Half-Century of Red Wings Stories from Howe to Yzerman” by Dr. John Finley.  This book is a collection of stories from the former physician of the Detroit Red Wings.  Overall, I enjoyed the first half of the book.  It provided some amazing, hilarious, and heart-wrenching stories.  I had two main takeaways: firstly, the stories Finley writes about are simply amazing and even though the writing style and flow of the book perhaps is not as good as a professional writer, the kinds of stories that are being told overshadow that fact.  Secondly, Finley does not provide a ton of background information on the Detroit Red Wings, so unless you are a Red Wings or NHL fan, this book may seem alien, which it did to me in a couple of places.

One example where it is evident that Finley is not a professional writer is in his story about concussions.  He writes, “Players who have suffered from the long-term effects of head injuries are left with permanent disabilities, so early detection, treatment and minimizing or avoiding them in the first place is of utmost importance” (Finley 57).  It is somewhat of a choppy sentence, and the use of “so” in the middle seems a little bit amateur.  He is clearly not a master of rhetoric, but he goes on to write and incredibly intriguing passage about his take on concussions.  Thus, he can hide his few flaws as a writer with his interesting character.

The other main takeaway for me was how little hockey I knew before reading this book. I found myself having to look up players, names, dates, competitions and more all the time.  But at least I knew the basics of the NHL; if someone read this book not knowing much at all about hockey, they were be incredibly confused and lost. 

I enjoyed the first half of the book and look forward to the second half…hopefully some more interesting stories will be shared.