Throughout this civic issues blog thread I have covered a multitude of topics ranging from the NFL’s lack of innovation regarding CTE to having NIL deals could be ruining college sports. I have discussed the realignment of the NCAA and its detrimental effects on student-athletes and the demons lurking in the shadow of the United States Gymnastics team. Considering all of these topics, there are still much larger controversies in the history of sports that are still evident today. To name a few there has been long-lasting gender and racial discrimination that prevails in small-minded fans. For my final blog post, I want to discuss the NCAA Women’s Basketball March Madness. I want to talk about the racial and gender discrimination that still prevails today which became evident reading the comments and watching the stories of the women’s college tournament unfold.

The main two teams to watch this year were the reigning national champions, LSU, and the one-woman of Caitlin Clark and her squad, Iowa. These two teams faced off last season in the women’s national championship where LSU was victorious. They were high off of their win however there was a lot of controversy surrounding LSU player Angel Reese. During the championship game, Reese was seen living in the moment and taunting the other team by doing John Cena’s “you can’t see me” hand motions. She received a ton of hate saying she was classless, petty, and not a good representation of the sport. This may seem insignificant but Caitlin Clark did the same taunt early in the tournament however she was revered as having swag, being real, and seen as the GOAT of women’s basketball. Angel Reese is a black woman and Caitlin Clark is a white woman. Each phenomenal in their respective positions however the media pinned them ask each other. They labeled Reese a villain and Caitlin Clark a hero for the sport. 

It goes much deeper than just these two players. If you noticed I only mentioned LSU and Caitlin Clark however neither of these teams won the National Championship in 2024, the South Carolina Gamecocks did. Although the game averaged 18.7 million viewers the Gamecocks did not see nearly the same amount of media coverage as Caitlin Clark. They had a perfect season, going 38-0, but it seemed as though the media picked their token women’s basketball savior. Even other players noted that black women deserve more recognition in the sport such as UCONN star Paige Bueckers. In addition to pinning women against women, there is still a stigma over the amount of media coverage women’s basketball is getting overall. Male fans, who have never touched a collegiate court in their life, are actively hating in ESPN’s comment section about the coverage of women’s basketball. Compared to the 18.7 million viewers the women’s game had, the men’s only generated 14.8. If it is about marketability and relevance the women seem to be holding their own just fine when they receive the attention they deserve. 

Although it is disheartening to know that discrimination is still prevalent in today’s sports world, I hope that moving forward there does not have to be good and evil. I hope that there is just a game filled with female stars. Sports are a fantastic source of physical and social benefits for everyone and the media plays a large rule in the prevalence of negative narratives pinning women against women and men against women. I hope moving forward everyone can do a better job at letting the game remain what it is, which is just a game meant to be fun and bring people together. It is not meant to tear them apart.

For my last passion blog, I want to discuss an artifact that outlasted the rest and significantly impacted my confidence today. I have always struggled to love my hair. I have naturally thick, curly hair. When I was younger I did not know how to style or control my hair healthily so I would constantly pull it back into a ponytail or a high bun on the top of my head. I fit in at the time because a staple in these hairstyles was a headband. I would wear a headband every. Single. Day. This is the artifact I want to discuss and how I eventually realized that my hair was a gift and not a curse. 

In elementary and middle school the biggest trend with the girls was headbands. I, in particular, had a massive collection ranging from thick Lululemon and Nike headbands to medium and thin Under-Armor ones. I had a variety of colors so that I could coordinate them with the questionable outfits I wore as a child. The tension I put on my head every day was not healthy for my hair, but I finally had an excuse to keep all of my hair under control that fit in with the trends of the time.

Today, headbands are more for aesthetics meaning they are usually made of cloth and worn for the day because it makes the outfit look cute. However, back when I was wearing them, I wore the ones with a gel grip on the underside and I would pull the headband back from my forehead so that the grip was extra tight. During that time I also found the flat iron, which I could write about in-depth, but the point is that I used heat on my head every day while wearing a headband to pull it all back. In all, it caused significant hair damage. My hair went from long, thick, and curly to short, thin, and barely curly. When I finally lost the headbands I realized they left the front pieces of my hair short and frail. I was so convinced that keeping my hair straight and away from my face was the most convenient way to handle it that when I put away all the products I realized all I caused was destruction.

I look back on pictures of myself now and simply laugh. I have long since been on a hair journey to learn what products I should to maintain the curls. I only straighten my hair in the colder months of the year and after I douse my head in heat protectant. The most important thing I learned was to love my curly hair. I wear my hair naturally more than any other way. I learned to appreciate the versatility of my hair. I can wear my curly hair down, up, half-up, etc. There was never a need for the headbands or the flat irons, but I was young. I am extremely grateful that I caught myself before it was too late and I would have had to restart completely. It took years, but I have never been more comfortable wearing my hair naturally than I am today.

The focus of my advocacy project is getting girls into sports, mainly softball and baseball, from a younger age. I was a special case growing up because I was put in a tee-ball with my older brother at the same time he started. I never knew what it was like to not be a part of a team, or a community. The reason I am focusing primarily on softball and baseball is because it is what I grew up playing competitively my whole life. My topic is loosely connected to my Persuasive Essay, but more to my Civic Issues blog which covers all different aspects of sports. My advocacy project differs because it focuses on girls age groups 5-12 instead of college and professional-age athletes. Also, it strays away from the economic situations occurring in college and professional sports and focuses on the emotional, physical, and physiological benefits of sports for children.

The main goal of my project is to advocate for the benefits of playing sports starting at a younger age to learn good physical health practices, teamwork, collaboration, boost self-esteem, and have fun. Physically, exercise delivers oxygen and nutrients to their tissues and helps their cardiovascular system work more efficiently lowering their risk of heart disease, coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, and heart attack later in life. Sports teach children how to work with others and learn how to utilize different players’ strengths and weaknesses and develop the best strategies to work together to accomplish a common goal. Emotionally, sports help children develop ways to manage and process highs and lows. In turn, they are becoming more and more mindful of the strategies that help them overcome and manage them.

My target audience is parents of young girls who do not know whether or not to put them into sports. Even in the year 2024 Studies have shown that adolescent girls tend to have low self-esteem and more negative assessments of their physical characteristics and abilities than boys have. Girls are also underrepresented in sports. For kids ages 6-12, the Aspen Institute’s State of Play report found that 39% of boys played a sport regularly in 2018, while 31% of girls did. By age 14, girls drop out of sport at twice the rate of boys. This is disheartening considering sports can have immense, positive effects on confidence and self-esteem which young girls especially could use going into their teen years. My theory is that since girls tend to start sports later than boys they do not feel as qualified and passionate about the sports as their teammates who started younger or the other children their age. This is what I believe causes the higher drop-out in sports in the teen years for because their confidence in their ability fades as others surpass them. My advocacy project is all about advertising youth girls softball and baseball camps so that parents know where they can start their daughters on their journey.

Some motivations and values that this advocacy project appeals to is mental health, general wellness, and pride. Sports are a great way to boost the mental health of young children that they can carry with them into their teens and adulthood. General wellness is benefited from the physical benefit exercising and playing sports is a great way to promote wellness while also having fun as a child. Lastly have pride in ability and strength is beneficial for girls who suffer the most from low self-esteem and confidence issues in the future.

The site I chose to analyze was the official website of The Church of Scientology. The website’s initial impact statement, in summary, says that they help the world through global social betterment and humanitarian programs such as “The Way to Happiness”, “Criminal Reform”, “Drug-Free World”, etc. Scientology has had some controversy in the past being labeled as a “cult” organization to some and others as a “misguided religion” followed by Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and Jon Travolta. The Church of Scientology accepts donations from aspiring Scientologists. The amount the person is willing to donate will determine the auditing and training they can receive. The website states that the donations are the church’s primary financial support and fund all the church-sponsored religious and social betterment activities.

The logical appeals of the website start with the causes it is said to support. Along with the ones mentioned above the church is also supposed to contribute to support “Applied Scholastics”, “Narconon Drug Rehab”, “Human Rights”, “Mental Health Reform”, and “Volunteer Ministries”. After analyzing the different sectors that the church supports it provided evidence that they have trained 135,000 educators which reached 38,000,000 students worldwide, they have handed out more than 100,000,000 truth about drugs booklets, and they have partnered with over 6,000 organizations and government agencies united for human rights. Although the logical appeals are strong the underlying truths about their “non-profit” organization undermine the work they do. The organization has been exposed for hiring recruiters to attract participants that donate money however the money is used to generate large revenues for higher members of the church instead of the listed causes. 

The visual appeals of the website are meant to draw attention and invoke excitement. The home page is filled with bright lights, vibrant colors, and bold text. The whole page is meant to entice. It almost feels similar to a city at night such as Las Vegas. This may be appealing to some however I find it quite tacky. There is an immediate advertisement for a local Scientology church, Scientology TV, and Scientology books for sale. In more muted colors and smaller texts, they have their acts of social betterment and humanitarian support however these are overshadowed by the big and bold headings of the recent events the church has had such as celebrating the founders birthday, church opening events, and light-up nights. For a non-profit organization there are many links for online courses, services, films for sale. 

Lastly the website clearly displays their founder L. Ron Hubbard. I want to understand what made the man credible to start his own religion and organization. The Scientology website says that the founder was an adventurer, exploxer, author and philosopher. This is interesting to me considering he does not have any background in religious teachings nor a background in religious studies/education. Based on the chronological order of his life he was a war veteran, a college dropout, and a writer of pulp fiction before he wrote “Dianetics” the basing of his teachings. I understand that he experienced and achieved a lot throughout his life however the chronological order of his life gives me no reason to believe this singular man should be trusted as knowing anything about religion and happiness. 

Analyzing the The Church of Scientology website I found a lot of gimmicks. I found a non-profit that leaves people penniless after spending their wealth on “teachings” with no proven effectives. I found a website and organization that distracts and entices with bright lights, flashy stages, and many links to spend money. Lastly, I found a religion based off a book written by a man who dropped out of school his second year of college and had no prior religious education. I would not trust this organization nor their teachings however the promises they make and the shell organizations they support have attracted too many people to say it is not effective.

Penn State’s athletic director, Patrick Kraft, should allow Penn State’s individual sports teams, besides football, to choose whether or not to join the 2024 realignment based on the feasibility of that team. I think that this focus is important because football accounts for a small overall percentage of student-athletes at Penn State however they are set up to incur the least amount of discomfort and turmoil from the 2024 realignment. Looking at the BIG-10, the realignment is set to add USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington. The realignment is set to generate large revenue for college football, with media outlets funding their realignment. The idea is with never-before-seen math-ups between power-house schools the viewership, merchandise sales, and stadium revenues are all set to increase.

Crucial aspects of this topic center around the impact of the 2024 collegiate realignment on teams that play more games, have less funding and have more extensive travel schedules than football. The football team only plays on Saturdays, has the most funding, will face less stress, miss the least amount of school, and will profit off of the exposure through NIL deals coast-to-coast. I chose this topic because before I entered college I was a student-athlete in an under-funded softball and soccer team. It is disheartening to see that even at the collegiate level there seems to be a disregard for student-athletes who do not play for the football team. Some could argue that football generates more money than any other sport however does this give colleges the right to disregard the mental health of the rest of the student-athletes? To me, the answer is no. 

The book I decided to get from the Penn State library was “Sport Consumer Behavior: Marketing Strategies” by Daniel C. Funk. The author is the Associate Dean for the overall administration of the School of Sport, Tourism, and Hospitality Management at Temple University. He has a master’s and Ph.D. in sports management from The Ohio State University and has written multiple research papers in sports marketing, sport management, and sports tourism. This book is a useful resource because it discusses US college sports and gives insights into the dynamic commercial environment of intercollegiate athletics in the United States. One chapter describes women and sports by giving insights into the growing rise and importance of female fans and female athletes. Overall it describes the current market for college sports and the differences in the commercial ability of each sport based on their funding, engagement, and environment.

Some research questions that will guide my research into this topic are: ‘How large are the funding disparities between college football teams and other collegiate sports’, ‘What are the significant impacts of increased traveling on mental health, missed school work, and financial stability to individual collegiate sports teams’, and ‘How do colleges plan to supplement the funding required for smaller sports teams to travel cross country’? An accumulation of the financial burdens, intense travel schedules, and emotional toll the 2024 realignment is going to have on every other sport besides football is reason enough to at least give the individual teams a choice whether or not to participate. There should be no reason that a cash grab for collegiate football should place all of the burden on teams not as equipped to handle the significant changes.

One thing I will always appreciate that my mom committed to was waiting to buy me a phone. I saw my friends walking around with the iPhone 5 and iPhone SE while I had to wait until the seventh grade before I got my first phone. Even then it was not an iPhone, but an Android. I mean no disrespect to Android or Android users however the iPhone at my school was the thing to have. My brother who is a year older than me also had to wait for a smartphone however we both got the joy to experience other technological joys before they were all combined on a single screen. We played a multitude of games on my mom’s computer to pass the time. Now looking back it does not feel like I was just passing the time. I distinctly remember one game in particular being Fireboy and Watergirl.

Fireboy and Watergirl was a two-player game on CoolMath Games. The game was a puzzle that took my brother and me on an adventure through the forest, ice, and light temples. We would work together to solve the maze without Watergirl, my character, stepping in the fire and Fireboy, my brothers’ character, stepping in the water. The opposing elements worked in harmony to solve the puzzle that started easy however got challenging quickly enough that it kept my brother and I entertained for a significant amount of time. The game kept us keen, eager, and inquisitive. 

I always remembered being jealous that his avatar was controlled with the up, down, and side arrows while mine was controlled with the WASD buttons. I reminisce on the teamwork and bond that this game was able to grant us. The school work at the time was almost non-existent outside of the classroom and instead of watching YouTube or staring at a small phone screen for hours, we were able to use our brains to complete levels. I know that a screen is still a screen and my eye-sight is a repercussion of my time spent playing video games however I would not trade those moments for sight that does not require glasses. Bonding with my brother, learning to have each other’s back, and simply having a fun time are what I will remember for the rest of my life. I also think that the mental power it took to beat the levels correlated to being able to adapt and thrive in school, but I could be making that up…

Fireboy and Watergirl were the catalysts for a variety of other gameplay to come. We ventured into the Minecraft world which could have a whole blog of its own with how much time we spent creating treehouse mansions, mining for diamonds, and eventually losing the world when we inevitably forgot to save it. When my little brother was old enough to play with us we moved on to Fortnite. At that time I had finally gotten an iPhone so we were all able to play squads. We have incredible memories of getting our first Victory Royal, having each other’s back, and bonding over something that did not have an age limit. All of these games were able to have their special place in my mind because I started gaming as a way to connect with my older brother and then eventually both of my siblings. Fireboy and Watergirl walked so that these other games could run.

The BIG-10 conference for college athletics was created in 1896 with Ohio State, University of Iowa, and Indiana University being added later. For decades college athletics has been divided, seemingly, into regions. These divisions, except for isolated instances, have prevailed for over a century however 2024 is the beginning of a new era. The demise of the PAC-12 conference. The 2024 realignment will forever change the power conferences in the United States. Leaving no conference untouched the PAC-12, BIG-12, ACC, BIG-10, and many others are seeing unprecedented additions and losses. Looking at the BIG-10, the realignment is set to add USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington. The realignment is set to generate large revenue for college football, with media outlets funding their realignment. The idea is with never-before-seen math-ups between power-house schools the viewership, merchandise sales, and stadium revenues are all set to increase.

With projected increases in profits, how could this realignment be anything but a win-win for college football and those who profit from it? The main concern is with lesser-funded sports suffering with the conditions of the new realignment. For football, the cash grab seemed like a no-brainer. They have the funding, the transportation, and the ability to promote their already profitable NIL deals coast-to-coast. Considering football only plays one game a week with a bye-week included in their schedule the effects are minimal to the increased mileage the realignment holds. I ask what will happen to women’s softball? What will happen to men’s baseball? These teams travel either by charter bus or commercial airlines. These teams are playing 2-3 games in a week. These teams are going to miss more school, experience more mental health challenges, and overall more difficulties with increased traveling as a whole. The lack of rest and sleep will result in increased mental stressors.  

The already over-used transfer portal is looking increasingly good to student-athletes who were not taken into consideration. Some students chose their college because it was close to home and their travel schedule was a reasonable distance. This meant their friends and families were able to attend their games without the financial and professional problems of traveling long-distance costs. Arizona State softball player Shannon Cunningham said “I chose to play in the Pac-12 because of the ability to play close to home and in front of family…I chose the PAC so my family didn’t have to worry about far travel or giving up all their vacation time just to come to see me.” The decade-old rivalries will be lost and replaced with new competition, for some, on the other side of the country. All for the benefit of college football which is experiencing the least amount of repercussions. 

Volleyball, soccer, swimming, and basketball, in case some forget, are all affected by the realignment. Imagine being a student at USC and having to play two games at Maryland and then Rutgers. There is a five-hour flight from LA to Maryland however the time difference means you have lost three hours. You go play a high-intensity game, take a two-and-a-half-hour train ride to Newark, play again, and then take another six-hour flight back to L.A. All of this just to wake up and attend class the next day. Where does it end? What will make these conferences see beyond the dollar signs and finally appreciate the hundreds of other athletes who are being harmed by the realignment?

When entering your freshman year of college there are many unpredictable and daunting aspects—finding your route to classes, achieving good grades, and building a group of quality friends that make the transition into college easier. Freshmen might think they have time to decide where they want to live in the coming year, but they have less than they think. At Penn State University the housing department opens up the portal on e-living for the next year of housing on October 1st in the fall semester. This is less than two months after freshmen have stepped foot on campus and begun their college careers. They now must ask themselves “Do I want to live on campus or off campus?” “Do I have roommates you trust and can live with for a year?” “Can I afford it?”

Freshmen scramble to decide where their financial situation allows them to live and whether or not the quick friends they have made are willing/able to agree on a place to live. There is a multitude of factors to take into consideration such as location, transportation, and dining. There has been an increase in the prices that off-campus landlords have been allowed to set forcing students to either move further from campus or stay on campus. On-campus housing has its issues with overcrowding forcing more students into supplementals and needing more options for apartment-style living for the amount of demand. From personal experience, it seem to agree with most freshman that I have talked to that if they had more time their satisfaction with their living arrangements would be higher and they would experience less stress.

I want to understand how other universities have combatted the probably that is housing on college campuses, focusing specifically on the date that they make freshmen decide whether or not they want to live on or off campus. The University of Arizona stated that “By opening roommate tools in March, our hope is that students are completing their own profiles and searching for/selecting roommates, and not their parents”. They have found that pushing the housing deadline back for new students allows their parents to be more involved in their decision and accounts for students who are looking to transfer the following year therefore they can easily remove them from the applicant pool. Other schools such as Drexel, UPenn, and Standford do not force students to fill out housing applications until the spring semester. UPenn has an on-campus retention rate for second years of 60% in comparison to 34% of students at Penn State. I believe that the significantly lower retention rate of students is partly due to the swiftness of when students must decide where they are living the following year. 

I believe that pushing the deadline back to at least the spring semester allows students time to decide whether they would like to transfer, make stronger bonds with their future roommates, and examine all choices available. Pushing back the date may allow students to analyze what on-campus housing has to offer and combat the extreme prices offered in the prime location of downtown. I think that the housing application deadline is harming Penn State students with its trickle-down effects financially, socially, and emotionally.

With the Grammys just occurring this past weekend I found plenty of comment sections that detailed their frustrations with how the event played out. The Grammys are awards presented by the Recording Academy of the United States to recognize outstanding achievements in the music industry. There was a lot of controversy surrounding music this year. To highlight a major focus of this was Taylor Swift. From the Era’s Tour to Kansas City Chiefs games, Taylor Swift has been the topic of discussion for the majority of this past year. At the most recent Grammys, she won “Best Pop Vocal Album and her fourth “Album of the Year” with her album “Midnights”. 

To delve deeper into the perspectives on Taylor Swift winning her thirteenth and fourteenth Grammy, I went to the post of Taylor Swift winning “Best Vocal Pop Album” that the Recording Academy’s Instagram page posted. The post begins with U2’s Bono, a band that has won 22 Grammy’s, announcing the award to be Taylor Swift. It then pans to Taylor Swift’s reaction and her subsequent speech. Her first line in her speech is “This is my thirteenth Grammy.” She continues by saying “I know that the way that the Recording Academy voted is a direct reflection of the passion of the fans.” Then she tells a secret that she is releasing her brand new album “The Tortured Poets” on April 19th. Immediately after leaving the stage, she posted the album cover.

With a lot to take in from her win and her speech, I focused on a comment thread that began from what seemed to be a fan of Taylor Swift, to see if there were any aspects of productive deliberation. In summary, she questioned why people feel envious and feel it necessary to say that Taylor does not deserve the award. She then discusses how much she has done for the music industry and mentions how hard she works. The responses varied from statements of agreement such as “Taylor [broke] 73 records with the release of midnights in 2023 alone and 2023 is her biggest year.” This response I found to be very deliberative because it added supporting facts to their perspective by not only acknowledging her Era’s tour success, but also the exact amount of records she had broken. There were others in partial agreement “I agree she would win most hard-working artists but when it comes to vocals she shouldn’t even be in the nominees lol.” I found this comment to be still somewhat deliberative because it shows respect for an opposing perspective, but their delivery of their opinion on Taylor Swift was not based on any facts therefore less deliberative than the first statement. A lot of responses were in flat out disagreement of the deliberators comment saying things such as“There are thousands of artists that sound so so much better than her.” I think this comment was the least in the realm of deliberation because there was no acknowledgement of the opposing perspective, their viewpoint was not backed by facts, nor did they expand or give insight to the other artists they believed were better therefore not allowing room for further deliberation. 

I think that the polarity with which people either love or hate Taylor Swift adds an intense undertone to this comment section. The comment thread had hints of deliberation in acknowledgement of Taylor Swift’s successes and shortcomings while still providing facts to support their opinion of her. The majority of the comment thread however was not productive. It lacked understanding and open-mindedness that is needed to address both sides of an issue while furthering your perspective. It is discouraging to see such a lack of respect between both sides and I hope that social media is able to help aid deliberation in the future instead of harming it.

During the 2021-22 school year, there were reportedly over 520,000 student-athletes in the NCAA. As an example of the amount of revenue college athletics has generated, take a look at collegiate football. The average annual total revenue for a football program is more than $20 million. The talent and dedication to a variety of sports and programs that athletes put in to make their respective games competitive and entertaining are what brought fans to buy tickets and merchandise. So why is it that players were only allowed to start profiting from their name image and likeness two years ago when colleges have been profiting for decades? 

For a little bit of history on NIL, players previously were not allowed to profit off of merchandise sales, podcasting, camps/clinics, etc. The NCAA argued for years that allowing athletes these opportunities would create a pay-to-play era in collegiate sports. Essentially they feared schools with increased popularity and opportunities would be able to have their pick of the litter from prospective student athletes with promises of more money at their school. In my personal opinion, I believe that this had already been taking place in collegiate sports just through the promise of apartments, vehicles, and other beneficial materials instead of money. Even though these actions will continue to take place, the introduction of NIL will require fewer under-the-table deals to be brokered to acquire athletes.

NCAA Division I athletes reportedly earned an average of $3,711 in the first year of NIL. College athletes collectively made an estimated $917 million from NIL payments in the first year, with the most lucrative deals flowing to football and men’s basketball stars. The fears of a pay-to-play era have yet to come to fruition, but I can acknowledge that dangers may be on the horizon. Some states have more restrictive guidelines on the specific details of NIL deals players can make. In the future, this could determine whether programs prosper or get left behind. I think that there should be a federal that sets the same rules for players across the country to level the playing field. In honesty, the field is never coming to be completely level though. Some schools acquire larger amounts of funding for athletics than others and could always, under the table of course, motivate students to choose their program. However, with the prospect of profiting being made available, there needs to be a universal law to keep college sports unpredictable and competitive. 

Athletes should have the right to promote and profit from the brand they have worked tirelessly to create for themselves. I never understood how schools would receive the whole sum of money from selling jersey’s with players’ names on their backs. I am glad that now the players who bring people out to spend money on tickets, concessions, and merchandise can benefit from their talent. Even though I support the introduction of NIL into collegiate sports I still truly believe that players with passion and heart for their sport will always outperform those just there for a cash grab. I hope that collegiate athletics will remain intense and inspire younger athletes as it inspired me.