In the Zone

If I had to sum up the experience of being “in the zone” in one word, I would go with “numbness.” The sensation and rare experience of being “in the zone” is truly unique. Not everyone is lucky enough to experience the feeling, so if you have then you are truly fortunate.

Trying to express this phenomenal experience is not an easy task, but I can try: time seems to slow way down and everything around seems to be barely moving, similar to those slow motion scenes in movies. Feeling this way is like being on another level of consciousness.

When you’re “in the zone” during a game, you do not consciously make decisions and playing the game becomes truly instinctive. You are aware of your surroundings, but you feel that nothing around you matters.

There is a feeling you get that nothing can go wrong, which feels rather good. We all have heard the phrase “failure is not an option” … well this seems extra true when your in the zone. You are so concentrated on the game that it feels like you are not even concentrating; sounds weird right?

For those that are saying to yourself, “Have I ever been in the zone?” Nope. You haven’t, simple as that. The experience feels “out of body”, and you would know if you’ve felt it.

An adrenaline rush is not the same thing either. Adrenaline definitely plays a part in the experience, but there is no “fight or flight” when you’re in the zone; only “flight.” Unlike a fight or flight adrenaline rush, there is no fear or stress.

If you are struggling getting a grasp on this concept, maybe some videos will help. Here, watch Tracy McGrady single-handedly beat the San Antonio Spurs and Reggie Miller defeat the Knicks. Both are good examples of a player’s being “in the zone.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jbtt6OGLms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtPaMgyz4ec

Watching these videos will not allow you to fully understand the sensation, but at least you can get an idea. This phenomenal feeling is one of the beauties of sports. You can’t get this feeling by sitting at your desk or playing video games.

If you have been in the zone before and you think I left anything thing out then let’s hear it in the Smack Talk forum.

Written by Hollen O’Kelley
Edited by Andrea Herman

Image Source: otrsportsonline.com

Post to Twitter

Budget cuts affecting the Student Athlete

Tough economic times have led to difficult decisions in regards to university budget cuts. Schools must choose which programs to keep and fund, and which ones to dismiss of entirely. There have been cuts at many of the University of California campuses, to the extent of reducing the number of courses offered to furloughing professors and even eliminating majors. Student athletes in particular are effected by the changes in university investments. Unfortunately for the small population of student athletes, most of their peers would choose to get rid of the well-funded athletic programs. Cutting funding for athletics poses a huge problem for student athletes. Most student athletes know that their efforts to succeed in college sports may not result in a professional career. However, many are passionately attached to their sport and would be devastated if their sport was no longer supported by their school. Asking an athlete to give up an activity that they participate in everyday is unfair and this action takes away part of the full college experience that they were offered upon admittance.

Among the UC campuses across the state, so far UC Davis, Cal, UC Irvine, and UCLA have all made drastic budgetary cuts to their NCAA athletic programs, some were even terminated. In the spring of 2010, UC Davis cut four varsity sports: men’s wrestling, swimming, and indoor track and field, and women’s rowing. These cuts are projected to save $5 million dollars over the next five years. Although this seems to be a reasonable solution to the university’s struggle to stay out of debt, it is a significant loss for student athletes. Most of these students have dedicated hundreds of hours over the course of their life to learning and mastering their sport. Regular students would likely feel the same disappointment if their club or organization was cut due to lack of funding.

It is hard for students who are unaffiliated with sports to understand the commitment that athletes have to their sport. The time that athletes spend with their sport, either with the team at practice or otherwise, is often twenty plus hours a week. Students who do not play a sport in college sometimes do not take into account that athletics is quite similar to an extra curricular activity, such as a club or church group. Those in sports and other university activities share a common problem: competing priorities of attaining a higher education and giving attention to their individual passions. The voice of the student athlete represents a small minority on campus, which can often become buried during budget cuts.

If the University of California campuses are forced to make budget cuts to athletic teams, prospective students will consider the impact of this when selecting which college to attend. This may weaken the UC teams substantially, for much of their athletic strength comes from intelligent students willing to sacrifice time away from school for their school’s sport. Athletes currently in college when their sport gets cut due to finances are faced with the tough decision of whether or not to transfer to a school that does offer them the opportunity to compete. Many students have become too attached to their school’s spirit, friends, and professors to ever consider leaving. So how can an athlete be compensated for an experience that they were expecting to have at their university? Besides transferring, there really is no other option for competing at the same level. Many NCAA teams that are cut will convert to club sports, but this is only a lesser substitute. Sport club teams are only minimally funded and often are unable to compete against NCAA teams. Cutting NCAA sports is not simply a hindrance to student athletes, it changes their life in a huge way.

Written by Bianca Sievers
Edited by Andrea Herman

Image Source: studentprintz.com

Post to Twitter

Paying College Athletes: The Death Penalty for College Sports?

You hear all the time from professional sports critics that pro athletes are selfish and play for nothing more than a paycheck. These critics also claim that college sports are superior because the athletes play for the so-called right reasons…but is this really true?

With yet another improper benefits scandal surfacing in the NCAA, the seemingly endless debate over whether or not college athletes should be paid is as prominent as ever. Just when you thought the illegal incentives violations couldn’t get worse, the University of Miami came along and took the issue to a whole new level. This time, the scandal is so serious that there is talk of the NCAA ordering the death penalty for the Hurricanes’ entire sports program.

The rate of incidents involving improper benefits in the NCAA have unquestionably continued to increase in magnitude and frequency, which is further tarnishing the public image of collegiate athletics. These violations inevitably lead to the ever so popular idea of paying college athletes. This loaded idea comes with a whole host of issues that have experts and fans arguing about what is the best move for the NCAA to take.

Those who favor paying college players argue that college institutions ultimately use their star athletes as a means to generate significant revenue. They argue that giving these athletes a salary would be a sensible way to limit schools from branding their players to gain profit, and would also eliminate incentive violations.

Last time I checked, not all Universities are financial equals, which is a major issue when it comes to paying players. If dollar amounts become a factor, powerhouse schools will undoubtedly have an advantage recruiting players, leaving little or no hope for any other school to reel in solid players. Paying players may also cause a scarcity in the presence of beloved Cinderella teams. Decreasing the number of Cinderellas and giving the powerhouses even more of an advantage in recruiting could change the college game altogether.

If college players are paid to play will they become as money hungry as some believe the pros are? Although us pro sports fans feel that professional athletes play with equal passion, we can’t argue that there is special vibe and heart to the college game that makes it distinct from all other brands of sport. College athletes have commonly been portrayed as playing for reasons that go far beyond the value of a paycheck, which is an aspect of the NCAA image that must be saved.

A paycheck will naturally attract a player fresh out of high school and could change the atmosphere of a college campus. Paying student athletes will set them apart from other students on campus, which can diminish the value of the players being just like “any other student.” Students’ spirit for their team may decrease if they feel they are not equals to the players on the team.

Can college fans trust that their teams will maintain the love-of-the-game dynamic when money is involved? Or have we all decided that the ongoing scandals have ruined this dynamic anyways, so why not just pay’em?

To maintain popularity in the sports world you have to have an edge, and the edge that makes college sports so exciting for fans would disappear faster than LeBron James in the fourth quarter if the NCAA decides to pay its players (Sorry LBJ, low blow). The college game needs fixing, and paying players is one plan that could change the game forever.

Written by Conner O’Kelley
Edited by Sarah Gross

Image Source: doughroller.net

Post to Twitter