On College Football Expansion

Update: Nebraska joining the Big 10 (now 12 schools) as soon as Friday.

If you are a serious sports fan, then you know that conference expansion in college football has been a legitimate news item for weeks now. Let me give you a brief summary of the news.

There's 6 "major" conferences in college football (Southeastern, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Atlantic Coast, and Pacific 10) and several other "mid-major" conferences. Each major conference contains 10-12 teams (except the Big East has 16).  Currently at stake, several of the big conferences- namely the Pac-10 and the Big 10- are trying to lure several big schools from some of the other major conferences in order to create a super-conference. Why would they do such a thing?

First, it would expand conference influence into other others of the country. For instance the Pac-10, so named because most of its schools sit in proximity to the Pacific Ocean, is trying to lure Texas to its conference along with several other schools in the Texas area. The Big 10, located exclusively in the American midwest, is also trying to lure Texas. Though the moves make little sense in the geographic distinctions of the conference, they do make sense for the second reason.

Second, all sports fans know that these moves are about money. The bigger the conference gets, the more likely it gets high-dollar television contracts, bowl appearances, and more national exposure. In short, these things equal more revenue. Lots more revenue. And football makes a lot of money because it's awesome. Okay, I realize that last sentence isn't an argument. As a matter of fact, it's total bias on my part. I grew up salivating on the University of Tennesee and its football program. But despite my love of the sport, I must state my opposition to conference expansion. That opposition for conference expansion is rooted in my love of college athletics.

As a matter of fact, I love college football and basketball more than the NFL and the NBA. Professional sports undoubtedly demonstrate a higher degree of skill than do college sports, but I nonetheless love college athletics more. There are several reasons for this view.

First, college athletes aren't paid in the traditional sense. Sure, they recieve scholarships and, sure, there's some dubious recruiting tactics, but by and large the sport is more free of the influence of money on the athlete than is professional sports. There are players who play merely because they love the sport. And it shows in the competitive arena. Players in college give all the energies they can for the good of the team. Their motivations, similar to that of those in the military, is to honor and serve in the best way possible, and to love those they serve with as best as possible. College sports are, to a degree, lesser influenced by selfish ambition. And unselfish attitudes can flourish much more in professional sports.

Second, college athletics unite more types of people than do professional sports. Being from Tennesee, I always have a difficult time explaining my love for southern college football to people here in Colorado. While folks in Denver love the Broncos and the Rockies, their passion for their teams is like a three-year-old's infatuation with a toy. Quite frankly, it doesn't last long and it's rather feeble. Not so with college teams. People in Memphis, removed from the University of Tennessee by 7 hours, are still as rabid as the fans in Knoxville. Louisianians rally around LSU more than the Saints, even though the Saints just won the Super Bowl. Believe me- this is true.

College football gives us some of the best glimpses of community our culture can offer; it gives us unselfish teams and a united and more passionate and larger fan base. Both of those virtues are disrupted by conference expansion, which cares nothing of regional or state allegiances and cares solely about the selfish ambition of money.

I know conference expansion is likely. But I also know that Tennessee will still play Alabama on the third Saturday in October every year. Hope remains.

To Facebook or not to Facebook

Facebook has become quite the topic of controversy as of late. It's continuing assault on user privacy even made the cover story at Time magazine this week. Some highlights from that article:

• "[T]he site is premised on a contradiction: Facebook is rich in intimate opportunities — you can celebrate your niece's first steps there and mourn the death of a close friend — but the company is making money because you are, on some level, broadcasting those moments online."
• "...Facebook keeps finding itself in the crosshairs of intense debates about privacy. It happened in 2007, when the default settings in an initiative called Facebook Beacon sent all your Facebook friends updates about purchases you made on certain third-party sites. Beacon caused an uproar among users — who were automatically enrolled — and occasioned a public apology from Zuckerberg."
• "And it is happening again. To quell the latest concerns of users — and of elected officials in the U.S. and abroad — Facebook is getting ready to unveil enhanced privacy controls. The changes are coming on the heels of a complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on May 5 by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which takes issue with Facebook's frequent policy changes and tendency to design privacy controls that are, if not deceptive, less than intuitive...  The 38-page complaint asks the FTC to compel Facebook to clarify the privacy settings attached to each piece of information we post as well as what happens to that data after we share it.
• "In April, the site started giving third-party applications more access to user data. Apps like my beloved Mob Wars used to be allowed to keep your data for only 24 hours; now they can store your info indefinitely — unless you uninstall them. This spring, Facebook also launched something called Instant Personalization, which lets a few sites piggyback onto Facebook user data to create recommendation engines. Once again, as with Beacon, users were automatically enrolled."

I'm assuming that if you're reading this post, then you probably have facebook. Does this alarm you?

If not, then this should. You have almost no private information on facebook anymore. If people want access to your info, then they have it so long as they pay facebook enough for it. It doesn't matter if you only allow friends to see everything and not anyone else, facebook can sell your content. Why? Because they own it, and not you.

For more interesting reading, take a look at the top 10 reasons to delete facebook.

So where does that leave us? Is privacy a virtue in and of itself? Not necessarily. True communion with others is a much higher virtue. Isolation is not a virtue. But facebook provides a false community.

But that desire for community isn't entirely bad. See my post from a year ago about how Twitter is like prayer. We want to be known. We want to know that someone out there really cares. They really care if we stubbed our toe and we posted it on facebook. They really care that our favorite movie is To Kill a Mockingbird. But though the desire is real and good, it is also taken too far. The desire for intimacy with others becomes narcissism on facebook, a perpetual "look at me" game. And you know what? Those third-party companies co-opting facebook's info do care. They care about making money off of you, and they know your favorite books and that you stubbed your toe too.

And this makes facebook a far-from-perfect model of real community. Can it be wielded properly? I still think so. But is my identity and personal knowledge perpetually compromised? I think so. Buyer beware.

Refugees and Stolen Stuff: A Picture in Contrast

So how much do luxuries really matter? Allow me to recount the ways it really doesn't.

Some friends of mine and I have been spending some time with a refugee family from Iraq, new to the U.S. for about 2 months now (I've spoken of this family before on this blog). on Sunday, they had 4 of us over to their house for lunch, and they wanted to take us on a picnic, Iraqi-food style. This family has a husband and wife plus 6 young and energetic daughters, so going anywhere isn't a simple task. As such, we decided we'd walk to the park a few blocks from their home.

But before we went to the park, we got to spend some time with the mom and eldest daughter. In all our communication problems (they don't speak much English), we were able to discern some of the horror stories they saw and heard while living in Baghdad. It was an eery and sobering experience to hear of the things they saw in Baghdad at the height of the war there. I never realized how international affairs really shape people on the ground. I never thought I'd create a friendship with those who knew those atrocities firsthand.

Once some other family members got ready, though, we headed off to the park. We spent hours there eating delicious food, kicking soccer balls, throwing frisbees, and watching the girls ride their bikes. These girls are so full of life one would have to be on death's doorstep not to be enlived along with them. It was a true joy and a delightful afternoon.

Eventually time came for parting as everyone grew tired. I said my goodbyes and walked off to my car. And when I got to my car, I realized my iPod was missing. I knew I had listened to music on the way to their house so I thought I had just misplaced it in a bag or it had fallen below a seat or something. But after ten solid minutes of searching my car, I came to the conclusion that my iPod was gone and likely stolen. I also remembered a very brief time when my car was unattended and I might not have locked it.

Though I was frustrated with myself for not being certain about the car being locked, I was never too angry. Do I think stealing is wrong? Absolutely. Your reading the words of a guy who gave lectures to his friends in high school about the wrongs of illegally downloaded music. But I never got angry. For some reason I couldn't.

My outgoing senior pastor (he's leaving for a new post and I wish him well) always commends to those he leads to read prayer requests of the persecuted Christian church worldwide (here or here). He suggests that American Christians practice this discipline first so that we can be mindful in prayer for Christians all over the world. Second, truly caring about persecuted Christians sometimes diminishes the petty difficulties in life.

And in that vein, that was the disposition of my heart yesterday. I did not consciously think, "I will not get angry." I just wasn't. I had just spent hours with a family who experienced unimaginable horrors (there are many stories I could share but choose not to for anonymity's sake; believe me, they are tough stories). My picture of suffering was incredibly limited when compared to theirs.

Perhaps this is why Jesus remarks:

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Mt. 5:10

I'm certainly not suggesting that I am righteous, nor am I suggesting that my friend's were persecuted because of righteousness. What I am suggesting is that experiencing, knowing, and caring for those in real persecution allows one to be more receptive to the character of Jesus. And this is a worthy pursuit in life.