Analysis of why athletes with injuries continue to sit out

From ESPN.com and Fox Sports

Analysis by Nick Toombs in SRM 334 (section 2)

The article that I chose is about Patriots Tight End Rob Gronkowski sitting out. The article is an ESPN piece highlighting player comments saying that they believe Gronkowski has been ready to return for a while. His team feels that he is ready to play but Gronkowski is waiting on clearance from his own independent physician, Dr. James Andrews. Several players are quoted within the article suggesting that Gronkowski appears to be ready to go based upon his performance in practice. There has also been tension between the organization and the player stemming from media coverage of Gronkowski partying with his injured arm during the offseason.

This article was retrieved from ESPN and was written by senior NFL writer Ed Werder. ESPN has had extensive coverage of Rob Gronkowski since he has entered the NFL. ESPN specifically plays a huge role in the types of sports stories that get major attention in sport media and they can influence the public’s perceptions of certain situations. By continually posting stories that suggest a rift between the Patriots organization and Rob Gronkowski, the media can create conflict whether real or perceived. ESPN ‘s reporting on this particular situation has been biased. Since they control most of the sport media market, they can sway public perception based upon their reporting. The article is titled “’Resentment’ toward Rob Gronkowski” which suggests negatively about the Patriots tight end. ESPN largely dictates what will become big news and what will not with every other sport media outlet available because ESPN is the leader in the industry.

This article is an opinion piece written by ESPN. Rob Gronkowski is a polarizing figure in sports, which makes this story necessary to be reported on in ESPN’s eyes. This article relates to this course because it shows how the media affects public perception. ESPN is a major news outlet so when they publish negative stories about a particular individual, the consumer of the information is subconsciously influenced. It is also in the best interest to publish as many stories about Gronkowski as they can because they can determine what becomes “newsworthy.
 
---

Analysis by Ayrton Glasper in SRM 334 (section 2)

Recently, the media has brought into the public eye, the questionable injury status of two top football players. Jadeveon Clowney, defensive end for the South Carolina Gamecocks and Rob Gronkowski, tight end for the New England Patriots, have been scrutinized by the media because of their lack of appearance on the playing field. Steven A. Smith, NFL Game Day, ESPN’s Sports Center, and sports magazines across the nation, to name a few, are dissecting under the microscope why these two very talented football players are either sitting on the bench with “injuries” or playing “hard” during practice yet nowhere to be seen on their respective game days. 

Firstly, Jadeveon Clowney a junior at South Carolina University gained instant fame, thanks to the media, with his “perfect hit” in the January, 2013, Outback Bowl. Due to much off-season hype, Clowney was soon reported to be the frontrunner for the Heisman Trophy. However, with a slow start to his season, multiple minor injuries, and making the decision to sit himself out of a game, media controversy on this talented footballer snowballed. Many football analysts question whether Clowney does not want to play this year in fear of risking a serious injury as did his teammate last year, Marcus Lattimore. It has been reported that such an injury could not only ruin his chances of getting drafted as a first-round pick but also derail him from a prospective NFL career with a huge contract. We as fans can only wonder how much of what is being reported by the media is true. Is Clowney being selfish by falsifying or exaggerating his injuries and only thinking of his future with the NFL, or are his injuries legitimate?

Secondly, the controversy surrounding Clowney and his “injuries” has been compared of late, to similar questionable behavior from Rob Gronkowski of the New England Patriots. The “Gronk” as he is known in the sports world, has also been plagued with injuries. Earlier this year, he underwent back and arm surgery causing the media to closely follow and constantly report on his possible return to the football field with the Patriots. To the media’s bafflement, even after hard weekly practices, the Gronk is still absent from the field on game days. Analysts are scrutinizing the reasons behind him not playing. Is this another case of not playing in order to avoid any risk of getting hurt and losing millions? It has been reported that under the Gronk’s $54 million dollar contract extension of 2012 with the Patriots, he could lose a huge chunk of it because of an injury. So could the media be right? Is the Gronk being selfish and delaying his return to playing football because of the contract the millions at stake?The media has brought a significant amount of attention, many would say too much, to both of these talented players by constantly reporting and debating on the reasons behind their lack of playing time on the football field. We the public can only speculate how much of these reports are true. We can only judge from what we read and see from the various videos, interviews, and articles however, at the same time we must also take into account that the media can be bias and have a subjective opinion on the topic/discussion. As far as these two players are concerned, the media appears to portray them as being selfish with underlying monetary reasons behind their so called “injuries.” Fact or fiction? Today, the media is highly advanced and with modern technology and the introduction of “twitter” and mobile “apps” for example, sports media coverage is intensive, fast, and easily accessible. The public now has access within minutes, even seconds, of any breaking news, scores, and all kinds of updates. Through the new communication model the media and fans can relay and respond respectively to all of the latest sports news.

David Price realized Twitter rant was a mistake

From USA Today

Analysis by Courtney Wright in SRM 334 (section 1)

After the frustrating game 2 of the ALDS, David Price took to twitter to let his followers be aware of how he felt. His frustrations stemmed from the TBS commentator’s comments on air and David Ortiz’s reaction to his two homeruns. On national television, TBS commentators Dirk Hayhurst and Tom Verducci said, “This is the playoffs, you can’t take any chances. He was out there past his prime. He should have come out sooner”. Price reacted to the commentators by insulting them and calling them nerds while implying they had never played sports at a higher level. 

After the media took such notice to Price’s rant, he decided to send out an apology to all those who were offended by his words and disappointed with what he said. Along with tweeting an apology, Price reached out in person to the media and to David Ortiz. Ortiz replied with saying how they respect one another as players and that is was “no big deal”. The media made it seem like Price had it out for Ortiz and vice versa, when in reality it was just post-season competition, there were no personal vendettas against each other. 

In light of the media coverage of Price’s twitter rampage, Rays’ GM, Joe Maddon, chimed in with his opinion of setting social media restrictions by stating, “I really hate to try to legislate behavior when it comes to these kinds of moments…David did the right thing after he did the wrong thing”. He does not think it is his place to make such decisions for his athletes and that they must learn from their mistakes and to respect the media. As we have discussed in class, respecting the media is important behavior by professional athletes in our modern day society. Price made it known how sorry he was for his actions and has learned a lesson he will most likely not make again any time soon.

---

Analysis by Monica Paolicelli in SRM 334 (section 1)

After David Ortiz, of the Boston Red Sox, hit a homerun and watched it intently from home plate, David Price was furious with his performance throughout the night with a 7-4 loss. He called it a “dark spot in his career” and the TBS commentators could not agree more. Dirk Hayhurst and Tom Verducci commentated this ALDS game 2 and Hayhurst said “Price should have been pulled from the game earlier, you can’t take any chances. He was out there past his prime. He should’ve come out sooner.” Price was extremely embarrassed by this and criticized the TBS broadcast crew as being nerds and water boys during their sports careers. He took to Twitter with this tweet after the game, “Dirk Hayhurst … COULDN'T hack it … Tom Verducci wasn't even a water boy in high school … but they can still bash a player … SAVE IT NERDS” -@DAVIDprice14. Price’s criticisms proved nonsense as Verducci has covered the sport of baseball for decades and Hayhurst made the majors. David Price is saying that only those at or above his talent and accomplishment level have the right to criticize his performance. Do commentators, for any sport, have the right to criticize performance when a professional player is playing badly? I believe that they do have this right to inform the public audience with who is having a record-breaking game and who is having a bad performance that night. Athletes like David Price need to be aware that they are on television with a wide audience and will likely be criticized for performance. The media has the right to produce stories based on performances, even though they have never played professional baseball. This current event is all about respecting social media as well as professional commentators. David Price was angry, took to Twitter, and he definitely learned his lesson. He sent out an apology tweet shortly after explaining how he embarrassed himself, his family, and his organization. General Manager, Joe Maddon commented about installing social media policies throughout the organization with, “I really hate to try to legislate behavior when it comes to these kinds of moments … David did the right thing after he did the wrong thing.” Respecting all the constituents involved in sports media as well as coaches and other players takes a lot of self-control and humbleness. This is rare to find in professional sports where all athletes have stellar backgrounds and multiple honors.

"Will Controversial Sports Team Names Be Gone in Five Years?"

From Adweek

Analysis by Natalie Bernstein in SRM 435 (section 1)

The article we chose to discuss was by Adweek and it was entitled “Will Controversial Sports Team Names Be Gone in Five Years? Prominent Native American Activist Says Yes” by David Gianatasio. In the article, Gianatasio shows how this year’s fight to change the Redskins name has gained a significant amount of momentum. He provides examples of this through quotes from various people who are closely linked to the Redskins name. While most people seem to agree that there needs to be an immediate change, people like Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, says he will never change the name.

From a marketing standpoint, this type of rebranding is going to cost a significant amount of money, not to mention the thousands of fans that will be infuriated. The question also arises that if they change the Redskins, a name that has been around for eighty-one years, will people even accept the change? Will they buy the new merchandise? This instantly makes me think of JMU’s Rose Library; the name was changed from east campus a couple years ago and students still refer to it by its old name, and this is just a library. When examining a multi-million dollar organization, changing the name will not solve all of the protestors’ problems. I doubt people will instantly stop referring to their favorite team as the Redskins, and I predict that it is going to be a challenge for several years after the official switch. However, with all of the negative sides to changing the team name, I believe the Redskins don’t have a choice. When broadcasters and other media sources refuse to even speak the team name, you have a major problem. Everyone is focusing more on the racism and less on the sport of football. So hopefully this change will bring people back to what this sport is all about with a politically correct name, that way both sides are happy. 

This topic is relevant to our course because it deals with a sports team who is about to undergo serious rebranding. When the name gets changed, the Redskins are going to have to come up with a completely different marketing strategy in hopes to make the name stick.

---

Analysis by Connor Massei in SRM 435 (section 1)

This article questions whether or not the Washington Redskins and other controversial professional sports franchises will change their name within the next five or ten years. The article gives quotes and examples for reasons as to why these franchises will change their names as well as to why they will not. The article explains that with current pressure and support from Native Americans as well as from other groups, these organizations and the Washington Redskins in particular may not be able to resist changing their name in the near future. However, Redskins owner Dan Snyder has been quoted as saying he will never change the team name.

Analyzing this article from a marketing perspective brings up some interesting points. I feel that if the Redskins were to change their name, sales in different departments would, at least initially, decrease. I think fans would shy away from buying new team merchandise because they have previously spent money on merchandise when the team was still referred to as the Redskins. I also believe that ticket sales would initially decrease. I think the organization would lose a substantial amount of supporters because so many people are against a name change. I wouldn’t be surprised if some fans boycotted going to games as long as the Redskins have their new name. It could be difficult to market the franchise as the Washington-anything-other-than Redskins. Redskin fans and NFL fans in general are so used to seeing and hearing the Redskins’ name that it could cause problems for marketing and promotion teams when trying to make a different team name catch on.

This article is relevant to the course because whether or not you think controversial team names should change, it undoubtedly would affect these franchises from a marketing standpoint. They would have to figure out ways to promote the new name, logo, or even fight song. Fans would have to be persuaded to continue to buy game tickets whether they supported the name change or not. Marketing teams would have to use many of the strategies and things learned in class in order to successfully deal with the changing of any professional sports team name.