The Sports Doc Chalk Talk

Sports might be the best place to observe “the intimidation factor.”  Whether it trash talking on a basketball court, a high-and-inside fastball from a baseball pitcher, or an after the whistle purposeful shove in football, it’s quite commonplace to witness athletes trying to get in the heads of their opponents and knock down their level of mental toughness. Interestingly, intimidation comes in many different forms, ranging from perfectly legal (and even strategic), to downright unsportsmanlike and dangerous.  An inside fastball in baseball is an example of the former, while a purposeful cheap shot punch after the whistle is an example of the latter.  As sport psychologists often note, controlled, sportsmanlike aggression may be a good thing, but uncontrolled, illegal, and unsportsmanlike behaviors are never warranted.

In the 1970′s, Jack Lambert was the perfect example of a scary dude.  Lambert was a middle linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers and was known as much for his aggressive tackling as he was for his missing front teeth.  While not the most imposing guy physically, Lambert seemed to always be in the heads of NFL quarterbacks for his fearless play.  In hockey, The infamous Broad Street Bullies (Philadelphia Flyers) of the 1970′s were also known for their rough-and-tumble play, and in basketball the Detroit Pistons of the 1990′s were known as the “Bad Boys,” primarily for the aggressive play of Bill Laimbeer, Rick Mahorn, and Dennis Rodman.  And in baseball, just about any pitcher who throws around 100 MPH and isn’t afraid to come inside gains instant respect from hitters.  As you can see, intimidation plays a part in nearly every sport — but the big question still remains: Does it work? That really depends on your definition of “works” and how far you will go to win games.

When intimidation “works,” it’s usually because of the following reasons:

A.) It leads to an opponent purposely being knocked out of the game.  Obviously this is nothing I would ever encourage, and I hope no coach would ever instruct players to purposely knock an opponent out of a game because of a cheap shot.  The reality, however, is that it has now been revealed that some coaches and teams do in fact encourage players to do whatever is necessary to win – including KO’s of the opponent – as evidenced in the recent New Orleans Saints bounty-gate. It goes without saying that intentionally looking to hurt an opponent is at the very least unsportsmanlike, and at worst could even be illegal.  As you can see, this type of intimidation “works” only in the sense that it lessens the abilities of the other team, although it also completely circumvents the assumed fairness, integrity, and sportsmanship we should all expect in sports.  Fortunately, coaches and athletes that ascribe to this type of “winning” are, in my experience, a very small percentage of sports participants.

B.) The more accepted form of intimidation is when it is kept within the rules of the game – like the pitcher who pitches inside to gain back the plate, or the boxer who engages in a stare down before the start of a fight.  In these examples intimidation may work if it does one thing – takes an opponent off his or her game. For example, if an inside fastball prompts the batter to give up more of the plate on the next pitch, most baseball purists would say that makes perfect sense.  Similarly in boxing, if the pre-fight stare down leads to the opponent being anxious and scared (and subsequently “off” his game), then most would agree the intimidation “worked.”  Conversely, examples of crossing the line would be when a pitcher intentionally throws at a guy’s head, or a boxer takes an unobstructed  cheap shot at his opponent during the pre-fight instructions.

Whenever an athlete is able to throw his or her opponent off by legal, sportsmanlike intimidation, then it is left to the individual to decide whether he or she would find it appropriate to do.  The potential “payoff” in using intimidation in sportsmanlike ways occurs when the opponent stops thinking about what he is supposed to do (and loses focus and confidence), and starts thinking about how afraid he is of the opponent (and thus increases sports anxiety).  In sports, this is known as taking a player “off his game.”

Are sports intimidation tactics good, and do they “work” by increasing the chances for sports success?  As you can see there are different ways in interpreting that question, ranging from intimidation being inappropriate and possibly illegal on one end of the spectrum, to smart sports strategy on the other.  What we do know is that when an opponent is far more worried about you than he is about what he is supposed to do on the next play, then you can make an argument that intimidation “works.”  This does not mean to imply that every athlete should look to intimidate his or her opponent, but to instead illustrate how the mental aspects of sport competition can enter into and impact the outcomes of games.  Many factors go into how an athlete should prepare for his or her sport, including how their personality traits are best used to both stay within the rules of the game and get in the head of their opponent (if they feel that is even necessary).  Even the type of sport enters into whether to develop intimidation skills — meaning you are far less likely to see evil stare-downs in bowling than you might in football.

www.drstankovich.com

Check our our high performance sports apps — many are listed just to the right of today’s column!

As a college sports fan, do you ever wonder where all the corruption, loss of integrity, and sometimes outright cheating originates?  More specifically, I am talking about the stories about student athletes receiving improper benefits followed by extremely light penalties  from the university?  Alvin Kamara’s recruiting experience with the University of Alabama might just provide us with many of those interesting answers.

It should be noted that to date Kamara is still an uncommitted high school junior RB from Georgia and has done nothing wrong, nor has he been accused of any wrongdoings to my knowledge.  Similarly, as bizarre as the story you are about to hear sounds, apparently Alabama has done nothing wrong yet, either.

It was reported today that Alabama is so incredibly interested in recruiting Kamara that they sent him 105 recruiting letters…in one day.

The Invincible College Recruit

Of course, in this day and age where amateur athletes receive many more valuable “gifts” than recruiting letters, this story seems at first to be nothing more than funny.  Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes much easier to see where the future potential problems lie after this stunt, and how blurred the paradigm between university and student athlete has just become due to Alabama’s actions.  Some might say this “genie” isn’t going back in the bottle anytime soon.

When student athletes are recruited to colleges there is a normal ego rush in learning that they are one of the select few to be chosen to play at the next level.  The job of the coach, and athletic department at-large, is to entice the athlete to choose their school, and to do this they usually give the recruit the royal treatment.  As you might expect, there are always potential problems during this process, most notably when the psychological paradigm between college and player shifts so dramatically that the player knows he actually calls all the shots.  In these instances, the athlete becomes infallible, invincible, unstoppable, and inevitably “the man.”

Assuming Alabama lands Kamara, can you see how upside-down this relationship has already become — even before he has attended his first practice??  How do you say “no” to the kid you gushed over so badly that you sent him 105 letters in one day??? How do you maintain the same discipline measures for this player as you do the walk-on players, or even any of the other scholarship student athletes from the other teams at Alabama?  This kid’s “different,” remember?

The Difficulties in Enforcing Discipline

If Kamara chooses Alabama and he eventually messes up, is it fair to hold him 100% responsible for his actions after his college treated him like Elvis during the recruiting process?  After all, this young man has been developed into a superstar by Alabama’s letter writing campaign (amongst other things) — and when 18 year old student athletes feel like this, it’s pretty easy to see why they sometimes make really bad decisions based on their self-perceived invincible status.

For the institution (Alabama in this case), how will they play by the rules if Kamara chooses their school and then goes out and breaks rules and laws?  How do you come down on a guy when this is the same guy you laid rose pedals at his door?  He came because of the royal treatment you gave him, and now you want to discipline him??  You want him to play by the same rules as every other player, but you didn’t treat him like that during recruiting — so why now the change? You did everything you could to make him feel immortal, and now you want him to be held accountable and responsible?? I mean, you sent him over 100 letters in one day telling him that he could walk on water, eat fire, juggle chainsaws, and leap tall buildings in a single bound —- and now you want him to comply with those silly NCAA rules and regulations???  If I’m Kamara and this eventually happens, I want to know who changed the game?

Kamara and Alabama are not the only examples of this warped psychological paradigm that often develops.  Letter writing campaigns like what was recently done at Alabama happen at other schools, too (or some other similar practice).  The student athlete is given the keys to the castle, while the university sports administrators and coaches nearly break their collective necks trying so hard to not look or notice when rules are broken.  I mean, how do you crack down on the new “money man” for your school?

How Does a Responsible Coach Really Act “Responsibly?”

Responsible coaches know the importance of playing by the rules and maintaining the integrity of the sport, but they also know that you don’t just roll up that red carpet you had out for the top recruit, throw it in the back of the van, and then all of a sudden crack down on him.  No, it doesn’t work that way — remember, this kid can transfer so you better learn to become aloof and look the other way — it pays better if you do.

Coaches also know that if you don’t roll out the red carpet and surf & turf dinners, then you probably won’t land him, as there are hundreds of other coaches out there that will spoon feed his every need if it results in an eventual signing.

“Amateur” sports are really an impossibility when you think of them in these terms.  In order to get the best kids you have to be over-the-top, outlandish, endearing, and full of promises.  Some might even say you have to sell your soul to the devil. But after the young man signs, it is expected that you alter the landscape and coach-player dynamics 180 degrees, and “hold the young man accountable” for his actions.  Then, when a kid screws up, society wants to blame him and hold him accountable — but the reality is he was never held accountable from the start of the recruiting process!

Unfortunately, this model simply doesn’t work, and it’s really obvious the reasons why.

www.drstankovich.com

Over the weekend an interesting article ran in the New York Times (How Big Time Sports Ate College Life), highlighting the growing concerns that college sports, especially football and to a lesser degree basketball, are quickly becoming the focal point of many of America’s finest institutions.  The article asserts that increasingly more students are choosing their college primarily based on the success of the football program, often overlooking the supposed real attraction of why people should go to college in the first place – for the the academics. The colleges, on the other hand, seem happy to acquiesce by spending millions of dollars on athletics, as well as building bigger and fancier sport venues.   The question, however, is the same one that seems to come up time and time again — that is, what are American colleges these days, institutions of higher learning or sports entertainment (with some academics on the side)?  Sport and society within the realm of college in America has never been so interesting to dissect.

Reasons to Continue Spending Big $$$ on College Sports

The biggest arguments for the rapid and continued growth of college sports include:

A) they generate excitement, and therefore attract more students, and

B) they generate revenue.

There is no disputing that college athletics can do both of these things, but these arguments become more interesting the deeper you delve into them…

With respect to generating excitement, it seems as though college sports have always done this, even before all the big money. In fact, at Duke, the Cameron Indoor Stadium holds less than 10,000 fans, yet is still one of the most exciting places in America to catch a game.  Interestingly, Duke has decided to not expand their venue over the years and instead keep it small by today’s standards, essentially losing millions of dollars each year as a result.  This is very different than most colleges today who routinely add as many seats as possible in order to generate every last potential dollar.

The truth is that even when college sports were not so glitzy and glamorous, students still went nuts and supported their respective teams fiercely — and students in the past still wanted to go to big-name universities even before they dumped tens of millions more dollars into their programs.

The Costs of “Selling Out”

When it comes to generating more revenue by bulking up an athletic department, it’s hard to argue that bigger college sport investments usually equal bigger college sport revenues.  The problem, however, are the costs associated with what some would call “selling out” in order to make every last buck.  What are the consequences with students, professors, and alumni who feel the academic pursuit and standards have been terribly compromised just in order to have a better football team?  And how must professors feel when college presidents justify huge coaching salaries by gushing over the money their football coaches bring in, when in fact professors (who make pennies on the dollar in salary compared to coaches) often bring in big bucks of their own to the university through research grants?

Why Not Gambling Casinos, too?

Continuing on with the argument about the good in endlessly dumping money into college athletics is the question of the ‘ole “slippery slope.”  As it becomes more and more clear that colleges seem to be willing to do almost anything to have a good football team, what’s next?  Would placing gambling casinos next to the football stadium be such a bad idea?  Wouldn’t they guarantee revenue if a college decided to put a few around campus?  Gambling is legal in most states today, it generates excitement, and offers odds that only the house can win!

Will We Ever Go Back?

It will be interesting to see if any college presidents in the future decide to put a halt on the growth of college athletics while re-emphasizing that colleges are about academics first and foremost.  Critics have argued that it will be impossible to “put the genie back in the bottle,” and they may be right.  Still, many people would like to see college priorities go back toward emphasizing and supporting academic pursuits before athletic endeavors, even if the odds of this happening appear bleak.

My guess is that the current model of prioritizing athletics before academics in terms of spending will not change until it absolutely has to, and it’s hard to say when that will happen.  In all likelihood, something will eventually happen — some watershed moment where reasonable minds will prevail and begin to discuss going back to a pecking order that more reflects what the word “university” was meant to be.  I say this as I suspect there will eventually be a backlash by university professors, administrators, and students at some point, perhaps through social media efforts to unite or some other concerted way to illustrate their unhappiness with their perceived devaluing of academics.  Will the money in athletics become the primary focus of universities in the future, or will see a shift back to prioritizing academics first?

www.drstankovich.com

Barry Bonds is in court fighting off claims that he used (and then lied about using) steroids while playing baseball and breaking Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record. To this day, Bonds has denied to the sport media any knowing steroid usage during his career, yet all the factual data seems to point to his guilt (like how he increased his home run total while aging into his 40’s, something never before seen in 100+ years of professional baseball).

My guess is only a small number of people actually know the truth about whether Barry Bonds used steroids, but common sense would certainly suggest that it’s quite likely he did use. Similar to how Roger Clemens saw his career numbers get better with age, Bonds had super-human statistics as his body (and head) grew in size. These things just don’t happen naturally.

Interestingly, aside from common sense telling me Bonds probably used steroids for the latter part of his career, my training in empirical science applied to sports psychology also suggests things simply don’t add up. More specifically, one of the greatest lessons I learned while applying the scientific method to solving problems was to be parsimonious in my efforts. What this means is instead of looking too deep or intricately into situations, take note of your initial “gut” impressions. When collecting data, be thrifty, economical, and prudent —- and be weary of emotionally charged impressions.

When I approach the Bonds case with this mindset, it absolutely feels as though he cheated terribly in his pursuit of very important and historical baseball homerun records. You can probably also guess, using parsimony as a primary factor, how I feel about others who have been in the news for questions around integrity, including Jim Tressel, Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens, and many of the others who have responded with tissue-thin excuses for their alleged behaviors.

While it’s not my job to be the moral police and judge others, I do feel a responsibility to encourage people to own up to their actions for the bigger societal gain. For Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, millions of young baseball players can benefit by hearing the truth about the dangers of using steroids — as well as the factors that lead each to begin using in the first place. In Jim Tressel’s case, there is no question he has done many amazing things to help his players, but his current situation simply doesn’t add up. For as much good as he has done, the bizarre excuses he offered about FBI investigations and pseudo confidentiality simply defy the laws of parsimony.  Should we really believe his response, or do our immediate human instincts suggest a bigger cover up?

As a fan, I encourage you to “trust your gut,” to a certain extent, when you hear stories about athletes and coaches breaking rules and laws. What were your first reactions to the stories I mentioned above? Does it feel weird believing that none of the allegations in these cases are true? Of course, it is very important to weigh objective evidence when making impressions, but don’t forget about what simple evidence offers as you formulate what you believe to be true.

We all make mistakes in life, and all of the men accused of breaking rules/laws do deserve to have their side heard – as well as be permitted to “make things right” through the penalties they will likely serve. Still, it is important to maintain a high level of integrity in sports, even if it means some high-profile people will have to own up to their actions which go against their previous sports leadership persona, unfortunately.

www.drstankovich.com

Former University of Florida head football coach Urban Meyer recently called into question the integrity and role modeling displayed by many of today’s D1 college football coaches, claiming that most succumb to the big money payoffs reaped from building a winning team.  Meyer’s accusations have cast light on the regular tasks college coaches are required to do in order to put together winning teams, and as you are about to read these tasks often do challenge ones personal level of integrity.

Common Integrity Tasks for College Coaches

• Recruitment. The biggest revenue producing sports in college are football and mens basketball. Programs who field winning teams earn tens of millions of dollars, making it very worthwhile to do everything possible to win. The problem, however, is that increasingly more high school athletes today are simply not interested in school, or even strict social guidelines for that matter. As a result, college coaches during college recruiting regularly enter homes of kids that blatantly talk about their future goals of going “to the league.” Coaches, therefore, have to either a) convince the youngster of the importance of school, and turn away talented future athletes who they feel won’t cut it, or b) accept these kinds of kids and hope and pray they will stay eligible long enough for the windfall of money that comes with being a top team.

• Finding eligibility majors and classes. As freshman student athletes arrive on campus, they are expected to choose a major and put in the appropriate amount of study time to be eligible to compete (at minimum). Unfortunately, not all student athletes care about this expectation, and some could care less about school at all. Still, even in worst-case situations these student athletes need a major, or possibly one more class to stay eligible with the NCAA. College coaches, therefore, have to temper their conscious when watching their student athletes choose “dummy” majors and classes simply so they can remain eligible and compete.

• Spin jobs and damage control. When you regularly recruit kids who are not tuned in to the academic side of being a student athlete, it shouldn’t be a surprise that future off-field problems and issues are almost certain to occur. Coaches, therefore, must be on 24/7 alert, always ready to face a wave of media and talk about the latest arrest, DUI, gambling issue, theft, or domestic abuse.  How much information coaches share, their level of honesty, and with whom they speak to can all become concerns around integrity.

• Alumni relations. College alumni, especially those who are big sport fans, are easy financial targets to college athletic departments when looking for funding for that new field, court, or stadium. As a result, coaches must regularly shmooze up alumni, often working “deals” that teeter on NCAA bylaws and regulations. Car deals are a perfect example of this – and may explain why so many hot “loaners” from dealerships are being driven around campus by 20 year old student athletes.

• Preparing the student athletes who don’t make it for life after sports. It’s always been interesting to me how hot and heavy coaches are when recruiting the “next” great athlete, but rarely can be found when a student athletes career ends and he doesn’t go on to the league. Aftercare programs to help with sport retirement, even in 2011, are rarely available, placing some responsibility on coaches to help their student athletes when things don’t work out. Of course, this is not a legal requirement for coaches, but it is a moral one that centers around integrity.

How Urban Meyer’s level of integrity differs so much from his contemporaries is unclear to me, as it impossible to say how many times he made questionable integrity decisions himself.  What is known is that 31 of his student athletes got in trouble with the law under his watch, making it that much more difficult to place him in the “good” group while we scoff at the integrity of his peers.

www.drstankovich.com