Girls Flag Football

I can't say I expected my next blog post to be about girls flag football, but reading about it in the NY Times today made me want to comment. First, I should point out that I don't really have any interest in watching women sports (maybe a passing interest in Women's World Cup soccer) but I am still nevertheless a strong supporter of Title IX. I don't think funding for sports in HS programs and college programs should be overwhelmingly favoring male sports even if they are overwhelmingly more exciting to watch (sorry ladies). The point of sports programs, if we take them at face value at educational institutions (which I do), is to encourage young people to develop some of the skills and character traits we value highly in society - teamwork, camaraderie, ambition, fair play, mutual respect, etc. It is also important that these kids have fun! If the kids aren't having fun, for whatever reason, the point of the sports program is essentially lost. That's why I find almost all of the perspectives concerning female flag football teams in this article to be so misguided. First, I need to admit that I had no idea that high schools had female flag football teams. But I'm glad that they do and, from appearances in this article, so do all of the girls who participate. That's why its infuriating to read about how all of these high-minded flag football advocates and critics alike, have lit upon the position that these teams have no worth or deserve to be eliminated because colleges don't offer scholarships or higher division opportunities for these girls beyond club sports. Excuse my blunt language but that is HOGWASH! Yeah, I said it! HOGWASH! It's disappointing the our society has come to determine an athletic program's worth by its abilities to produce professional athletes but, I repeat, that is NOT the purpose of educational athletics! It's not...I'm sorry. The suggestion that these programs be cut because, as some people advocate because - they don't offer higher ed opportunities; they "steal" athletes from other scholarship sports like swimming and gymnastics; they have not increased the total proportion of female athletes - is insane. In this article we have both well-intentioned and ill-intentioned actors looking to cut the program in the name of the female athletes they supposedly represent. But you know who doesn't actually have a voice in this NY Times article? The female players themselves! Ask them if they want their flag football team cut because they don't offer Division I scholarships. While I haven't conducted an official poll on the question, I'm pretty sure I can guess their response. Additionally, history suggests that, in time, colleges could begin to form Division I-III flag football teams when demand is sufficient to warrant them (as it's done in legions of sports before it). That's why statements like this one, from a supposed advocate for women's sports, are so infuriating:

Ms. Hogshead-Makar, who also serves as the senior director for advocacy at the Women’s Sports Foundation, said girls missed the educational benefits if they did not take a sport seriously.“That’s one of the things that makes sports such an important experience,” she said. “You’re always striving to get to that next rung.”Ms. Hogshead-Makar said flag football’s time should be up.“We’ve had 10 years of girls who have not been given other sports opportunities,” she said. But she said she would be open to changing her stance if she saw commitment by universities or the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

It would be impossible for me to disagree with a statement more completely. If people at the top of sports foundations, both male and female, are actually thinking like this, they need to be summarily dismissed. Given the percentage of athletes that are good enough to make it to the highest rung in a given sport (you know, something like 0.001%), its embarrassing to think that this is the way our leadership really thinks. These people are actively missing the point of athletic competition and shouldn't be in any position to influence policy or speak on its behalf.

The Ultimate Fighter: Episode Recap

It looks like I'm on an every other week schedule with these recaps, my apologies. Last week, Court McGee lost a controversial decision to Nick "The Promise" Ring. That fight was pretty close, but I would have scored it 20-18 as well. McGee scored more punches, but Ring landed a ton of kicks and did enough to eek out each round. That being said, he did not show enough to warrant being the first selection by Tito and was overall less than stellar. We also see that "The Promise" may have a knee injury that was exacerbated in his fight with Court. We'll see how that plays out along with the rash of other injuries this season.

On a side note, I'd like to put this blog on the map by outing Nick Ring. Here is how I know he is gay, not there is anything wrong with that.

1. Gayest. Nickname. Ever. The promise ring? Really? That would be gay if it were someones nickname in a ballet competition.

2. Early in the season he got mad at Jamie Yager for "name calling." Last time I heard that I was on a playground, in 1984.

3. When he was called to fight Court, he stood up, raised his index finger and said "no you didn't." Nuff said.

The fight this week was between last pick Joe Henle and Seth Baczynski, who was brought back after the injury to Chris Camozzi. Everyone seems to agree that Henle is too inexperienced to win a fight with a well rounded fighter like Seth, but he was able to win his prelim by submission, so who knows. Onto the fight. The very very boring fight.

Round one goes back and forth with both fighters scoring takedowns and attempting submissions. Baczynski nearly finishes Henle with a choke, but Henle is able to reverse and nearly sink in a choke of his own. Ultimately, Seth spends more time on top and wins the round.

Round two starts off with them trading a few jabs, which is a welcome change from the first round, but inevitably they end up on the mat again. Joe controls the entire round, and although he attempts a few submissions, he never lands a single strike of consequence. His coaches said he had bad stand up, and this fight was a highlight reel of bad stand up. Despite a late push from Baczynski, Henle wins this round and they go to Sudden Victory.

Round three isn't worth recapping. Henle is completely out of gas and spends the entire round on his back. Not a ton of damage done to him, but it was as one sided as a boring fight could be. Baczynski wins by decision and moves on.

After the fight, Kyacey Uscola and Kris McCray are chosen to fight each other for the wild card selection. Also, filling in for injured Rich Antonito is Court McGee. Which means, essentially everyone gets a second chance this season.

Paul Daley's Release from the UFC

What happened in the aftermath of the Josh Koscheck/Paul Daley fight was extremely uncalled for and classless. Immediately following the cheap shot I said to myself that Paul Daley will obviously be suspended. When his expulsion from the UFC came down, you can't help but wonder if the comments that Dana White made on the brawl after the Strikeforce: Nashville card on CBS a few weeks ago put him in a position where he had to make an example of Paul Daley.

It's tough to say. It seemed harsh at the time but I've seen Million Dollar Baby. I've seen what can happen when someone gets in a shot after a bell.

**I actually tried to find the sucker punch from Million Dollar Baby on YouTube but had to stop after a few minutes because it felt weird.**