Tilghman story an opportunity to educate, rather than punish

The comment by Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghman that led to her two-week suspension was clearly an attempt, under the bright lights of live television, to make a witty remark.

That her reference to Tiger Woods and "lynching" brought reaction was not a surprise.

Her friendship with Tiger Woods, at whom the jesting comment was directed, helped alleviate what could have been an even more severe network—and public—reaction.

Woods said, essentially, that he was friends with Tilghman; that she was not trying to be hurtful and that we all make comments that we wish we had not made.

Interestingly, former NFL great Jim Brown, a person of color who has a long history working with troubled inner-city youths, commented publicly that he would have liked to have seen Tiger take a stronger public stand.

This is not the first time Brown has called upon Woods to do more in this area.

But surely everyone, including Brown, Woods and many of the rest of us, have indeed, as Tiger mentioned, made comments we wish we could take back, upon reflection.

The reference to “lynching”, an explosive word to be sure, was obviously unfortunate and in poor taste given the context in which it was used.

But the real opportunity here, it would seem, is to use this inadvertent error by Tilghman to educate people, young and old, about why the word can be offensive to the African-American community, and to thoughtful people everywhere.

This is an ideal opportunity, not to make an example of Tilghman, but to bring forward the terrible events that led to this word becoming an understandably sensitive subject. This can be done in schools and through the media at large.

If we only penalize and judge, and never instruct, how will young people, for example, ever really learn about history and social injustice, whether it be the treatment of minorities in the U.S. or how Jews and others were treated by the Nazi regime in the Second World War?

When a public figure clearly, and intentionally, makes hurtful and thoughtless comments, that is one thing.

In this instance, it is an opportunity not for punishment, but for discussion, education, and for creating genuine awareness and learning.

Loyalty for athletes, but not their coaches?

College football coaches—and pro, for that matter—in the United States are known for preaching constantly about teamwork and loyalty.

They do this with goods reason. Football is obviously a demanding sport, physically and psychologically, and there are obvious benefits to working together as a tight-knit group to achieve difficult goals against top competition.

Ironically, however, many of these same individuals simply do not practice what they preach.

Every December, we see a number of high-profile College football coaches leaving their team before the current NCAA season is even finished to accept a coaching position elsewhere.

Two recent examples of how individuals put themselves ahead of their athletes and their schools and programs come from Bobby Petrino and Rich Rodriguez.

Petrino left his job as head Coach of the NFL Atlanta Falcons literally less than 24 hours after coaching the team on Monday Night football to take a job with the University of Arkansas.

Clearly, while he was supposedly preparing his struggling pro team to play a league game, he was also negotiating with officials at Arkansas.

That is a no-no.

In a similar vein, Rodriguez was recruited by the University of Michigan in the weeks before his Western Virginia team played in an important Bowl game. He has since been sued by the University of West Virginia, according to various published reports, and has expressed disappointment that he would be treated in that manner.

It is impossible to believe how these individuals can preach loyalty when they are prepared to leave a team in the midst of a season for a "better opportunity" elsewhere.

Rodriguez, ironically, did not even coach Michigan in their upset Bowl victory over Florida. Just as interestingly, his former West Virginia team, also an underdog, played inspired football in beating their Bowl opponent Oklahoma with an Assistant Coach running the show.

It’s easy to understand that coaches want job security. But when you already have that, and you leave the players, especially at the college level, that you yourself recruited and convinced to come to your school, it is very hard to understand.

A year ago it was Nick Saban insisting he was not leaving the Miami Dolphins for the University of Alabama, only to wisk off to a press conference to announce that he was indeed taking the Alabama job.

If you are a young student athlete thinking about going to University in the U.S. to play football, based on a particular coach, you may be well advised to ensure you are going to that University for a number of good reasons, not simply because of the "Coach".

Otherwise, you may hear a lot of words and a lot of promises, and end up feeling as though you were left at the altar.

It's all about... me.

In an English Premiership soccer tilt this past December, powerhouse Manchester United was in full control of a game against a lesser opponent.

With a 3-0 lead, emerging star Carlo Tevez had scored twice already in the contest.

Fairly late in the contest, United was awarded a penalty kick. Cristiano Ronaldo prepared to handle the shot, as he is the player designated by Coach Sir Alex Ferguson to take such opportunities.

When Tevez quietly approached Ronaldo, the team’s “superstar”, to ask if he could take the kick to complete his “hat trick”, Ronaldo reportedly said “no”.

Ego and self-interest have always been a huge part of sport. In fact, many would argue that those are “qualities” that top athletes need, along with self-confidence, to ensure their success at the highest levels.

But Ronaldo’s response was a flawed one, nonetheless.

It is understandable that a proud athlete like Ronaldo would want to take that kick, as that is one of his designated jobs with United.

Perhaps he said “no” to his own teammate, Tevez, and later regretted it, though this is unlikely given Ronaldo’s history.

It could also happen that a player would let Tevez, or any other teammate, take his place in such a situation, and do the “right” thing publicly, but privately be unhappy about it.

This response would be quite human.

But the true leader, the real “team player”, would take it upon himself to give the opportunity to a teammate. He wouldn’t wait to be asked.

It could be argued that Tevez was being selfish, too, by even making that request; that he was putting his own personal glory ahead of his team.

But an athlete with class would not even have to be asked. He would have gone over to Tevez and insisted his young teammate take the shot.

That it didn’t happen is not a surprise. Just disappointing, and yet another poor example for young athletes around the globe.

Time for a priority check

Just days ago, in Southern Ontario, a "brawl" of sorts broke out during a hockey game.

That in and of itself is not stirring news. But when we discover that the participants were not professionals or even junior age players, but rather 8 year-olds, it does beg some questions, including:

- Where are the "coaches" in these situations? At the NHL level, in this day and age, coaches are suspended in situations where they are seen to not be "in control" of their players—players who themselves are grown men. Are these youth "coaches" not "in control" of their players?

- What messages are these young, impressionable children (they are children, not "athletes", at this age) receiving from their coaches?

- If we can’t "blame" the children for this kind of event, then where do we look? What influence are parents having, for example? The media?

We’ve all heard time and again that the "problem" is that parents all think their kinds will make it to the pro level, and thus are over-invested in their kids. And this leads, based on that theory, to misplaced priorities, etc.

But surely we’re not having brawls at the age of 8 because ALL the parents of these kids think they are raising future NHL’ers.

Are we taking youth sports way too seriously? Are our priorities in fact messed up? Do we keep score too soon? Is the pervasive ‘winning at all costs’ attitude seeping all the way down to the youngest levels of the game?

It’s too easy to generalize, but this is serious stuff. Not the "sky is falling" kind of serious, perhaps, but it’s serious when little kids start hockey brawls.

Hockey Canada and various provincial Associations have spent tons of money in recent years on education—ad campaigns directed at parents, seminars for coaches, clinics on not hitting from behind, players wearing STOP patches, studies on concussions and much more.

But as long as Canada wins gold every year at the World Juniors, everyone is happy.

What’s a brawl or two on the way to what’s really important?

Criticizing a teammate has its price

I’ve spoken often in these commentaries about the importance of being a true team player.

This applies at any level, from elite youth sports to the professional ranks.

It is not easy to be a team player. Every athlete, every competitor, wants to be on the field of play, wants to contribute to their team’s success and wants to be recognized in some fashion.

This can put you at odds with the “team” concept when you are the one called upon to take a seat—especially if you are generally a “starter” and expect to play.

The fact that in sports we count not only wins and losses (a team stat) but goals and assists, or home runs and touchdowns (individual stats) makes it even more difficult.

We hear, for example, about the NFL running back that gains 2,000 yards in a season, but most fans could not name two of the offensive linemen who made the blocks to allow the all-star back to shine.

This makes the player who contributes in subtle but important ways less visible to most fans, though generally not to astute coaches.

One recent example of the difficulty in being a ‘team player’ came as the U.S. women’s soccer team was preparing to play the semi-final of a World Cup qualifier against Brazil.

The U.S. coach decided to play a veteran keeper over a younger goalie, Hope Solo, who had played well leading up to the Brazil game.

The U.S. lost 4-0 and afterwards, on her personal web site, Solo commented that,

"There's no doubt in my mind I would have made those saves," Solo said. "You have to live in the present. And you can't live by big names. You can't live in the past."

The implication was clear: the U.S. squad started the other goalie based on past reputation; she (Solo) would have made the stops the other goalie didn’t.

And Solo said so publicly.

Reaction to her comments was quite negative.

Seemingly trying to work her way through the reaction—so as not to appear as though she had “jumped ship”, in terms of standing by her teammates—an ESPN web story later related the following:

On Friday, Solo said while she still doubts Ryan's strategy, she did not mean to hurt Scurry.

"Although I stand strong in everything I said, the true disheartening moment for me was realizing it could look as though I was taking a direct shot at my own teammate," Solo said, according to the Web site. "I would never throw such a low blow. Never."

Is it easy to understand Solo’s frustration at being benched before the biggest game of the year?

Certainly.

But did she, in effect, cross the invisible line when she made her initial post-game comments?

Yes again.

A day later, the U.S. team’s Head Coach removed Solo from the squad, perhaps only temporarily. But she was not even on the bench when the U.S. won the event’s third-place game.

The coach’s comment:

“We have moved forward with 20 players who have stood by each other, who have battled for each other. And when the hard times came -- and the Brazil game was a hard time -- they stood strong."

The inference was clear: Solo, in making her comments—and subsequent apology notwithstanding—had indeed crossed that invisible line.

I have often reiterated that the media criticizes athletes for being vanilla, but in the same breath often admonishes them when they are candid and honest.

In this instance, Solo’s sin was not simply being honest and speaking her mind, but seemingly putting her own feelings above those of the team, in a public forum.

Is this fair?

Coaches want athletes who are confident, who believe in themselves. Solo was showing, by her comments, that she believed very strongly in herself.

But when she made the comments, she also, perhaps inadvertently, criticized her own teammate.

Reports suggest the U.S. may now bring in other goalies as part of the national squad going forward.

There is sometimes a price to pay for speaking out. In this instance, the comments will be remembered for a long time in the soccer world, and will no doubt follow Solo.

A steep price, for sure.

The cooling-off period between the game and the time she created her web comments might have provided Solo with the opportunity to massage the rough edges of her true feelings.

For reasons only she can answer, she chose to go a different route with her public comments.

Once made, you can’t take them back.