Archive for the ‘berry tramel’ Category

Linking Up: August 17

August 18, 2009
Here’s what running through Homerism’s head as I await Rhett Bomar’s (legitimate) professional debut:

*Carey Murdock, editor of SoonerScoop.com, looked into Mike Balogun’s former semi-pro league, inspiring him to write this missive to the powers that be at NCAA headquarters.

Unfortunately for Balogun, the NCAA typically doesn’t allow much latitude in these types of situations. It would shock Homerism if The Bricklayer was reinstated. Pretty sad state of affairs.
*Chad Millman, ESPN’s new “sports wagering” writer, has a pretty cool article on the latest rage in football handicapping.
*Saw Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story this weekend. I just don’t get these spoof flicks. Plus, is there a more blah actress than Jenna Fischer in the business today?
*Florida’s Brandon Spikes says OU plays dirty. This is like all the complaining you hear from Florida fans about OU supposedly holding the whole time during the national championship game. You won the game, Gators. Move on.
*Sports bloggers have seemingly made an entire niche industry out of rankings and lists, so I’m well aware that this complaint is rife with irony. Homerism is as guilty of it as anyone. However, today’s deluge of pontificating on college football’s top “villains” is the kind of just-skirting-the-line-of-news junk from ESPN that really rubs Homerism the wrong way. Instead of actually trying to do some research and reporting that might produce some semblance of insight into the great game of college football, we’re treated some pointless, warmed-over drivel that puts the Worldwide Leader right in the middle of the conversation.
The most infuriating part is how the rest of the sports media helps perpetuate the ESPN monolith. Note, for instance, this recent blog post from Guerin Emig, OU beat reporter for the Tulsa World: “ESPN, Sooners off to a rough start.” Every Mickey Mouse–get it?–college football writer with an Internet connection is out there posting predictions on 2009 season. Yet, when ESPN does it, somehow it becomes news?
(And, yes, as I previously mentioned, the irony isn’t lost on Homerism.)
*Wow, listening to Jon Gruden talk about the Wildcat on Monday Night Football is making me a little uncomfortable. He’s going to need a cigarette when he’s done. Meanwhile, Jaws sounds like a spurned schoolgirl with Chucky in the booth.
*Couldn’t you see something like this happening at OU during the Howard Schnellenberger days?
*A young black football player giving a “shoutout” to Mike Vick… AND he never paid a parking ticket?! Draft at your own risk, NFL!
*Hope you’ve been keeping up with the ongoing 2009 season preview project the good guys over at GatorsFirst are working on. It’s interesting to see how a bunch of other blatant homers view college football at large.
Advertisements

An Ugly Take on Athletes’ Ugly Behavior

May 13, 2009

Up to now, Homerism has tried to steer clear of the Justin Chaisson issue until the situation had reached some kind of resolution. Until I read Daily Oklahoman columnist Berry Tramel’s twisted take on the predicament, that is.

(I’m not going to waste time rehashing the particulars of Chaisson’s plight, but, obviously, it presents a thorny problem for OU coach Bob Stoops and the University of Oklahoma administration.)

If you’re looking for a good indicator of the column’s overall lameness, Tramel uses a dated allusion to Father Flanagan throughout the article, likening Stoops–or at least Stoops’ aspirations–to the saintly priest known for his work with wayward youths.
Anyway, as best I can tell, Tramel reckons big-time football coaches like Stoops believe they can put troubled recruits back on a righteous path by offering them structure and discipline. In other words, it’s just a matter of changing their environment. He points to ex-Sooner recruit Josh Jarboe and Oklahoma State standout Adarius Bowman as examples of kids from troubled homes sent to D-I Boys Town with a chance to turn it around.
To Tramel, however, Chaisson is a different case from Jarboe and Bowman, because his problem is clearly a deep-seated issue of “anger management.” It’s a flawed part of his DNA that likely requires years of therapy to address. Therefore, Tramel concludes, Chaisson presents a bigger risk.
Where to begin?

Maybe it just happens to be a matter of coincidence, but I read Tramel’s column as a tacit endorsement of a shallow stereotype that seems to have been pulled out of Crash or some other hackneyed junk masquerading as pseudo-social commentary playing on Starz over the weekend. Namely, white guys like Chaisson know better than to have screwed up so badly; they have some distinct character deficiency and are an aberration to their species. Black kids, on the other hand, are just too dumb or unrefined to be expected to live up to the expectations of civilized society. Either that, or the parents–strongly implying “welfare princess single moms”–raising these children just aren’t capable of teaching them right from wrong.
Granted, Chaisson is alleged to have assaulted and kidnapped his girlfriend before driving her to the desert and threatening to kill her. The violent nature of the charges certainly is disturbing. Is it really so different from Jarboe carrying a pistol onto high school grounds, though? What, pray tell, did Jarboe need that firearm for? Had he decided to take a detour through the school en route to the firing range? (Note, by the way, that Tramel neglects to mention Jarboe’s latest troubles since leaving OU.)
Conversely, couldn’t it be that Chaisson is the product of his environment, a juiced-up meathead whose background taught him to settle his problems in the manner that he did? Steroids kinda being a hot button these days and all.
White or black, nature or nurture; people screw up. It happens for any number of reasons. It shouldn’t make a difference in how Stoops addresses off-the-field transgressions. Yet, in Tramel’s world, somehow it does.
Jarboe’s dismissal set the precedent for just how “zero” Stoops’ zero-tolerance policy is supposed to be in such cases. Whatever his reasoning, let’s hope he applies an equal standard to Chaisson. And let’s hope that standard doesn’t rest on the same kind of offensive nature-nurture presumptions that appear to underpin Tramel’s analysis.