Inclusion Vs. Exclusion in the World of Sports

Gary Sheffield and the Yankees. Barry Bonds and baseball. Mid-majors and the BCS. The fans and bowl tie-ins. The World Cup and, well, the world. The Yankees/Red Sox in their chase for Johan.

What do they all have in common? Inclusion or exclusion. One or the other can be found anywhere:

Gary Sheffield was claiming racism during his stint with the Yankees, voicing his feeling of being excluded due to race. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter-if the feeling's there, something must be wrong, with the organization or the person in question.

Barry Bonds has become the product of a witch hunt. Why? Because he broke Hank Aaron's homerun record. There was a debate on "Around the Horn" yesterday as to whether Bonds' case is huge or not; what I took was sure, it's huge because he's the HR leader, but no, because the government is really screwing up and continuing to chase somebody who did may or may not have used steroids when it was legal. The whole "Jose Guillen" argument is this: Guillen got 15 games for HGH usage, but others like Rick Ankeil did not, because there wasnt enough evidence. However, they all were proven to have used them...when there was no rule prohibiting the usage of HGH.

This double standard is really sickening, and it makes me despise the MLB right now.

Mid-majors have the field stacked against them in college football; the big-shots are sometimes afraid to schedule the good mid-majors, fearing the upset and possible derailment of national hopes. But this prevents the small schools from proving just how good they are. Thus, they're excluded from the elite club we call the BCS conferences.

The fans, for the most part, I feel have been alienated by conference bowl tie-ins. Do we really care about a Boston College-Michigan State game? The ACC No.2 (they were in the title game, they're #2), vs. Big East #8? And that's the tip of the iceberg, but I've already posted on this. Anyway, the fans, as a result, do not get the best possible games, and we, the paying supporters of the sport, have no say in what we want to watch. Would anybody else be more willing to watch the Rose Bowl if it was USC-Georgia? I know I would.

The exclusion doesn't stop there, however: Payrolls have a slight effect on how things are done. We all know why it's down to the Yankees-Red Sox with the "Johan sweepstakes," because they're the only ones who can afford to think about something like this. No salary cap means less competition in the free agent market. Could you see Santana getting an offer from Pittsburgh, or Texas, or Washington? Didn't think so, because they have nowhere near the funds required for such a task. They're excluded from competing for the best talent, and I believe that translates to less productivity on the field.

I will say this: Everything's not all bad. The World Cup presents the positives in one event: You ever notice how countries drop everything to watch their national team throw down on a soccer field for 90 minutes or so? Soccer has a unifying effect; everyone in the country, no matter what race, religion, ethnicity, etc. is cheering for the same side. Not only that, but every country, for a brief period of time, is equal with every other; Trinidad and Tobago is on the same footing as the United States when the whistle blows.

I'm sure there are other things that have included people; the death of Sean Taylor made many sports fans unified in their fanship of the Redskins for a while, I'm sure. And besides Red Sox fans, who didn't want to see the Colorado Rockies take down the big boys? With respect to some of you bloggers, I was, for a short period, a Colorado fan.

What I'm trying to say is this: The world of sports as we know it has a lot to fix. We all can see that. But it could start with leveling the playing field a bit. There are some circumstances that can't be helped, I realize this, but many others CAN. But as long as priorities are screwed up with the powers-that-be, I fear we'll never see these discrepancies taken care off.