BroadwayVik
Active member
There is something very human about taking interest in sports. The word "sport" has a positive connotation in our culture: A car may be considered sporty, a person who plays well is considered a good sport.
Look around the world and it would be challenging to find a culture that did not uphold sports and athletics competition. The participants need to optimize their bodies' conditions relative to the demands of play. The discipline they develop into muscle-memory takes hours and hours of repetition with striving along the way for improvement. They develop their abilities to the point that they are able to demonstrate them before large numbers of people who often admire their dedication that they are now are putting into direct competition. The exercise alone is good.
There is human drama, there are ranges of emotions, there are thrills and cheers and boos and fears. Names and reputations are made and some forgotten. A standard is achieved by which those who take it to heart tend to excel in their occupational lives in the same manner of their sports discipline. They learn to communicate athletically, to accomplish athletically.
So what about those who detest athletics? What can be said about them? Perhaps they tried it and it did not work out. There could have been mean coaches who ruined their perspectives for them. They may not have interest in athletics because their own bodies were designed for some other mission in life. But that is being a bit egocentric, isn't it?
If there were a non-athletic person who excelled in another field, would it be wise for athletes to disdain the field he or she were in? Certainly not. By the same token, is it wise to disdain athletics simply because one is not designed for athletics him- or herself?
It probably comes down to the issue of how money is spent. For many years, the cost of tuition for a single term has been about 100 times the minimum wage. But now the minimum wage would need to be about $26 an hour for that to remain true. It is a social crime that tuition costs are now between twice and three times what they once were.
I think one way to respond for Portland State is to organize the scholarships that are available and let none lie fallow. Increase efficiency on awareness and distributing scholarship funds. And then create a drive to provide scholarships for the most deserving of academic causes. Student athletes and the athletic department could lead in this reorganization in cooperation with financial aid. How? By taking an athletic approach to the subject. Perhaps the financial aid folks are "in a slump," "off their game," "not bringing their A game."
Since money is such a hot topic for students to resent athletics, athletics can respond by becoming more the students' friend and leading the charge to get them more money to cover these lousy-high tuition costs. Then, once the students get the message that these vitally healthy athletic men (and women) are their political friends and allies, perhaps they will consent to taking time to go to a game to blow off steam and yell.
Look around the world and it would be challenging to find a culture that did not uphold sports and athletics competition. The participants need to optimize their bodies' conditions relative to the demands of play. The discipline they develop into muscle-memory takes hours and hours of repetition with striving along the way for improvement. They develop their abilities to the point that they are able to demonstrate them before large numbers of people who often admire their dedication that they are now are putting into direct competition. The exercise alone is good.
There is human drama, there are ranges of emotions, there are thrills and cheers and boos and fears. Names and reputations are made and some forgotten. A standard is achieved by which those who take it to heart tend to excel in their occupational lives in the same manner of their sports discipline. They learn to communicate athletically, to accomplish athletically.
So what about those who detest athletics? What can be said about them? Perhaps they tried it and it did not work out. There could have been mean coaches who ruined their perspectives for them. They may not have interest in athletics because their own bodies were designed for some other mission in life. But that is being a bit egocentric, isn't it?
If there were a non-athletic person who excelled in another field, would it be wise for athletes to disdain the field he or she were in? Certainly not. By the same token, is it wise to disdain athletics simply because one is not designed for athletics him- or herself?
It probably comes down to the issue of how money is spent. For many years, the cost of tuition for a single term has been about 100 times the minimum wage. But now the minimum wage would need to be about $26 an hour for that to remain true. It is a social crime that tuition costs are now between twice and three times what they once were.
I think one way to respond for Portland State is to organize the scholarships that are available and let none lie fallow. Increase efficiency on awareness and distributing scholarship funds. And then create a drive to provide scholarships for the most deserving of academic causes. Student athletes and the athletic department could lead in this reorganization in cooperation with financial aid. How? By taking an athletic approach to the subject. Perhaps the financial aid folks are "in a slump," "off their game," "not bringing their A game."
Since money is such a hot topic for students to resent athletics, athletics can respond by becoming more the students' friend and leading the charge to get them more money to cover these lousy-high tuition costs. Then, once the students get the message that these vitally healthy athletic men (and women) are their political friends and allies, perhaps they will consent to taking time to go to a game to blow off steam and yell.
