Arik Marks wrote:

>Fair play, to me, equals playing the game within the rules, with appropriate
>sportsmanship thrown in.  Would you give up last line change at home in the
>interest of "fair play?"  Or tell the opposing baseball team "nah, today you
>guys get last ups." ??  I don't think so.
>  
>

Those are great examples of what could be changed so rules don't promote 
an artificial and unnecessary advantage to one team beyond what can't be 
avoided.  I'd vote for changes that, say, leave those specific 
determinations to chance, at least for regular season games.  Whether 
some such rules might appropriately award a higher seed an intended 
advantage in post season play is a separate question..  If I'm not 
mistaken, football rules have changed over the years to make the effects 
of what already had a chance outcome, the initial coin toss, less 
one-sided.  Frankly, if there's any justification for rules that 
consistently award last line changes or at-bats to one team, it strikes 
me as more logical that it should be the visiting team. 

>That said, I think that NCAA tournament homefield should be eliminated if
>its ever fiscally possible.  It definitely benefitted us while I was at
>Michigan, but that doesn't make it fair.
>  
>

I whole-heartedly agree. 


>I went to the business school.  Need I say more?
>  
>

That's all I can say.


>And while I'm all for free speech, you can have it in your house or on the
>street corner and go to town.  Same with your cowbell.  But go to a rink,
>where you purchase a ticket, which is a revocable license, which has terms
>and conditions, and you forfeit your right to free speech in excahnge for
>seeing the game. 
>

That seems a proper statement of existing law, but I felt the cowbell 
issues were inconsistency from venue to venue and the opportunity for 
schools to write rules to their own advantage.  My feeling is still that 
colleges serve their role best when they promote the most level playing 
field for each contest, which is different than seeking all possible 
advantages on our field because they'll do the same when we go to 
theirs.  I realize my preference isn't the prevailing practice and I 
don't expect it will be, but I think it's useful to be able to describe 
what the best situation looks like.  I don't think much thought is given 
to that.

The law probably grants the same authority to managers of Yankee Stadium 
and of a college hockey rink, but I think the objectives of a college 
should influence how its management exercises that authority.  
Legitimate scholastic objectives are teaching students self-directed 
behavior and respect for dissent and nonconformity.  Michigan 
undoubtedly deserves some of the black eye it's earned from student 
behavior at Yost, not to imply that everything that made opposing fans 
uncomfortable was wrong.  If behavior is truly in poor taste, I think 
college admins should first try to influence as strongly as the point 
needs to be stated but only use the legal right to coerce when it's 
clear that legitimate rights of others are infringed. That's a risky 
determination that depends on subjective judgment and the facts of each 
case.   

>Would you allow signs that say "F*(K player X
>and his mother" in the name of free speech?  Where do you stand on schools
>throwing out spectators for yelling similar things?  (My undergrad
>institution is all over this one...)  Or to go a rhetorical end, how would
>you feel about the maize and blue crowd, 100,000 strong at a football game
>if it chose to chant "Hail to the victors valiant, Hitler really was our
>hero, well, well, we'll kill the jews the next time around."
>  
>

I'd say you chose examples where unjustified behavior already passed the 
point where college admins should exercise the authority the law grants 
them to protect others.  Most of those stories commenced earlier than 
the point at which you described them and often  the real trick is 
identifying just when such action becomes warranted.

>Not my sentiments, I'm Jewish.
>  
>
I'm only Jewish when I have to remember the kosher rules at my friends' 
house.

>So I say yell and scream all you want to support your team.  But you can't
>have your cowbell.   If you want a cowbell, then get your school to get a
>pep band, and make sure that they show up at every game.  Or bring it in to
>your home games, if your school chooses to allow it.
>  
>

I don't know if a cowbell is precisely the mechanism to enable visiting 
fans to offset home field advantage but I favor equalizers and cowbells 
deserve consideration in that regard.  And if any colleges deny visiting 
fans the options their own supporters enjoy at the others' rinks, shame 
on them.

Bob
Go Blue!