Was it a harmless prank taken a little too far? Was it a protest of the very public negotiation about possibly updating Wrigley Field? Was it a superstitious ritual meant to break the famous Cubs curse? None of these questions can be answered by anyone except the crazy who packaged up the goat head.

As of press time, the culprit remains at large, but five suspects who may have had a hand, or head, in the unorthodox delivery come to mind.

•Bill Murray : Notorious Cubs fan and Chicago native, Murray is the perfect mix of prankster and goofball to pull off a stunt like this. There is a whole website, BillMurrayStory.com, dedicated to tales about the actor showing up in unlikely places, doing ridiculous things to unsuspecting citizens, then saying, “No one will ever believe you.” While some are admittedly fake, others are undoubtedly real. The actor is known for his strange shenanigans, such as in 2006 when he randomly showed up at a college house party and did the dishes before leaving. I wouldn’t put it past him to protest Wrigley renovations with a goat head.

•Ozzie Guillen: Another notorious crazy person, Guillen was the manager of the Cubs’ cross-town rivals, the Chicago White Sox, from 2004–2011. He was fired from his next position as manager of the Miami Marlins less than a year after making pro-Fidel Castro remarks. Perhaps he’s bored now that’s he’s not an MLB manager anymore and decided to prank his former rival?

•Carlos Zambrano: The Cubs traded known hothead pitcher Zambrano to the Marlins in 2012, and, like Guillen, he lasted just one season there. Now a free agent, Zambrano has been unable to sell his Lakeview home, which he recently put back on the market, according to an April 10 Chicago Tribune report. Maybe he’s taking his real-estate frustrations out on Ricketts? He has been known to lose his cool on occasion.

•Fredbird: In a bout of beast-on-beast crime, Fredbird, the mascot of Cubs rival St. Louis Cardinals, could have decapitated a goat and sent its head to Wrigley as a scare tactic. However, his lack of thumbs, or any moveable fingers for that matter, may make it hard to package and deliver the head.

•Rahm Emanuel: Chicago’s feisty mayor has a history of sending dead creatures to people in the mail. As the story goes, Emanuel once sent a decomposing fish to a pollster who ticked him off during a congressional campaign in 1988. At the time, it seemed negotiations between the city and Wrigley owners were at a standstill, and maybe good ol’ Rahm wanted to make things interesting.

The first and most explosive example is the recent scandal involving former Rutgers University men’s basketball Head Coach Mike Rice. For those of you behind on your scandal news, here’s a recap: Rice was fired April 3 after videos of him yelling homophobic slurs and physically assaulting players during practice were leaked. It was later revealed that Rutgers administrators knew about the abuse last year, prompting the public to demand top administrators be fired, as well.

Rice’s most disseminated quote from the video is, “You f—king fairy. You’re a f—king fa—t.”

That same week, an NFL internal investigation determined there was no “specific evidence of any violations” regarding allegations that teams asked potential players about their sexuality during the NFL combine, according to an April 4 Washington Post article. Although the league found no wrongdoing on its own part, Nick Kasa, a player at the combine, said he was asked “if he liked girls” during team interviews.

It is not enough to call these incidences terrible and wrong because that’s obvious. To prevent such hatred from occurring, it is necessary to examine why these situations continue to happen and address the problem at the source.

Sports communities are known for their intolerance of gays, a sentiment often attributed to the machismo culture of men’s sports. But perhaps we are misdiagnosing the root of the problem.

A handful of people in power at sporting institutions are bigots, but some of them, like NFL free agent Brendon Ayanbadejo, are outspoken gay rights activists. This is no different than the mixture of bigots and activists within society in general, yet the sports community is often singled out. The sad reality is that there are still people in our society, lots of them, who hate gay people. This dichotomy is just a reflection of the societal norms that allow people to believe that it is OK to oppress someone’s personal freedoms because of who they are. Mentalities need to change before we can see change in individual communities like sports.

Unfortunately, we live in a country that still sends the message that gay people are somehow lesser citizens. The fact is gays don’t have equal rights, whether it’s the right to play sports without having their sexuality questioned, legal protection from hate crimes or the right to marry whom they love. Perhaps once society sends the message that it’s OK to be gay, sports communities will follow suit.

Until that time comes, incidents like Rice’s homophobic slurs and the NFL’s less than proper interrogating will continue. We should continue to call them out for being hateful and discriminatory to fight the misconception that gay people don’t deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Urlacher and the team could not reach a contract deal, and on March 20, he became a free agent. The Bears franchise maintained throughout the contract talks that they wanted to keep the eight-time Pro Bowler, but their negotiation strategy, or lack thereof, said the team had other intentions.

Urlacher’s camp made several contract proposals, ranging from a two-year $11.5 million deal to a one-year $3.5 million compromise, according to a March 20 article on ChicagoTribune.com. The only offer the Bears made was for one year and $2 million, an offer Urlacher told the Tribune, “wasn’t even an offer, it was an ultimatum.” Last season, Urlacher made $7.5 million, according to the Tribune article.

The team’s unwillingness to negotiate makes it clear that they did not want to fight for Urlacher, a player who has fought for them on the field for 13 years, regardless of what their public statements say. Obviously they clung to the popular opinion that Urlacher, at the ripe old age of 34, is too old to be a valuable football player.

Urlacher’s departure is incredibly unfortunate, but ultimately he made the right move. If the Bears don’t want to pay him what he is worth, it makes sense to go elsewhere, no matter how hard that decision may be. After all, sports is a business.

But right move or not, it’s still sad to see that Urlacher’s loyalty wasn’t worth enough for the Bears to offer him a fair contract. He leaves behind not only big defensive cleats to fill but also an invaluable leadership role. The Bears have essentially bet on quarterback Jay Cutler stepping into that role, but I don’t see leadership as one of his strong points.

More importantly, the whole situation exemplifies the league’s blatant dismissal of loyalty as a virtue. Even in business, loyalty is valued, and the Bears should have reflected that in their contract offers to the surefire Hall-of-Famer.

But Urlacher isn’t the first player to break team ties over contract negotiations. Recently, wide receiver Greg Jennings defected from the Green Bay Packers to join the Packers’ biggest rival, the Minnesota Vikings. Former quarterback Brett Favre did the same thing after playing for the Packers for 15 years. Urlacher’s break was swift but might not be painless.

Ultimately, we will have to wait until the season starts to assess the damage of Urlacher’s departure. His presence was a key force in the Bears’ dominating defense last season, and with a shaky offensive performance last year, fans better hope the newly hired Head Coach Marc Trestman can instill some consistency in Cutler.

Kwang-Wu Kim, who met with the college community Feb. 13 as a presidential finalist, has officially been elected to the position by the Columbia board of trustees, according to a Feb. 26 email sent to the college community by Allen Turner, chair of the board of trustees and Richard Kiphart, chair of the presidential advisory panel and a board member.

Kwang-Wu Kim has been elected to succeed Warrick L. Carter as Columbia’s president. RENA NALTSAS | THE CHRONICLE

Kim’s tenure as president and chief executive officer of Columbia, will begin July 1, according to the email. Kim will replace current President Warrick L. Carter, who in May, 2012, announced his early retirement, which becomes effective this August. Kim’s selection comes after a 5-month-long search for Carter’s replacement, led by the presidential advisory panel and the search firm Isaacson, Miller.

The email stated that the surveys submitted by students, faculty and staff after two open forums with Kim on Feb. 13 reflected “a near-perfect fit between Columbia and Kwang-Wu’s experience as an artist and academic.”

Kim is currently the dean and director of the Herberger Institute of Design and the Arts at Arizona State University, where he oversaw the 2009 reorganization and expansion of the institution, which includes the schools of art, theater and film, design, music, dance and an interdisciplinary school of arts, media and engineering, as well as the university art museum, as previously reported by The Chronicle Feb. 14.

At the two forums, Kim spoke about his plans to increase fundraising efforts, especially alumni donations to the college. He also addressed the college’s need for a strong provost, the prioritization process, the role of the board of trustees and the presence of a president on campus.

Kim will leave his position at ASU June 30, one day before he officially begins his duties at Columbia.

According to Kendall Klitzke, a junior television major and president of the Student Government Association, she is pleased with the presidential advisory panel’s unanimous decision to nominate Kim to the board of trustees.

Klitzke, who was the student representative on the panel, said she thought the process was efficient and is glad that the Columbia community is included in the excitement of getting a new president.

She said  she believes Kim’s candid and accessible approach will continue when he is president and that he expressed interest in student meetings and feedback through out the process.

“I am very excited for Kwang-Wu Kim to become the leader of this institution and the community,” Klitzke said. “I am sad that I am graduating so soon because I would love to get four years of Kim, but I can’t.”

Louise Love, interim provost, said she enjoyed meeting Kim during the open forums. Upon talking to various members of the college community, Love said she was pleased to hear unanimously positive responses about Kim.

“I think [Kim] is a wonderful choice for president,” Love said. “I enjoyed his authentic demeanor and his knowledge of the college. I think [the college] is very excited to have him [as Columbia’s next president].”

During the forums, Love said she noticed Kim has a balanced knowledge about Columbia, as well as an outside perspective on moving forward as an institution. She also said she supports Kim’s plan to hire a provost to work closely with the president on academic decisions, as reported by The Chronicle Feb. 14.

“I think [Kim] will be very true to Columbia’s mission and culture, but also move [the college’s] agenda forward,” Love said.

Be sure to check back with ColumbiaChronicle.com for continuing coverage of this breaking news story. 

This player has been dominating headlines, commercials, sports radio talk and the collective Internet for about a year now, which would be normal if he was also dominating the basketball court. But he isn’t. He hasn’t scored a point since April 28, 2012, yet he continues to be a media darling, which is why I refuse to use his name. He doesn’t need any more attention.

Sports analysts and fans have been acting as though the unnamed player is the only person on the team. Sure he was once their star, but the Bulls are doing pretty damn well without him so far this season. I care more about that than the constant blather every time he comes within 50 feet of a basketball court.

Yes, his return will be welcomed and exciting, but until he makes his glorious comeback, there is no news. There are 13 other players who are actually registering statistics and who are more deserving of front pages and center spreads.

Luol Deng and Carlos Boozer have stepped up in our unnamed player’s absence, averaging 16.8 and 11.8 points per game this season, respectively. Granted, that’s not as many as Mr. Anonymous, who averaged 22.3 points per game during the 2011–2012 season, but Deng and Boozer’s performances, along with the slamming stats of Joakim Noah, have made up for the superstar’s injury.

Plus, it’s not like Schmerrick Schrose is the only player to ever get hurt and then recover. Several of his fellow Bulls—Kirk Hinrich, Rip Hamilton, Deng, Boozer and Noah, to name a few—have also been injured this season, but their pain and suffering hasn’t been insufferably and tediously documented for a whole year, despite being pretty predictable.

Don’t get me wrong—I have nothing personal against He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-named, but his omnipresence in my day-to-day life is starting to irritate me. It’s as if no athlete in professional sports has ever been injured and this is a new, fascinating case study on how people recover. News flash: It’s not. There have been plenty of others before him and there will be plenty more after.

I fully understand the irony of writing a whole column about someone whom I’m imploring other people to stop discussing. But it needs to be said because it seems like Chicagoans have their heads so far up his highness’ ass that they can’t see anything beyond him, including the basketball court.

I guess what I’m trying to say is: Shut the hell up about Rose already. Unless he’s putting up points, I don’t want to hear it.

These seemingly mythical beings exist in larger numbers than you think. I know because I hear them, see them and talk to them on a daily basis.

And it’s not just players; it’s fans. Heated arguments, rivalries, competition and other joys that come along with fandom are common chatter for many students.

For a lot of sports-minded students, their athleticism remains a distant reminder of glory days, but a group of Columbia students are elevating the college’s game by working hard to make sure there’s a place on campus for the physically inclined.

The Renegades have been around since 2004 when Chris Schroeder, a member of the club baseball team at Columbia, pushed for a student athletics association and founded what is now the Renegades.

Since then, the Renegades have expanded, thanks to the hard work of the students who administrate the group. The Renegades’ roster now includes baseball, ultimate Frisbee, cheerleading, soccer, basketball and several other sports.

During my first two semesters writing for The Chronicle, I got to witness the passion, dedication and frustration inherent in running an organization that generates interest but not necessarily support. Abby Cress, president of the Renegades, is a saint for working so hard to make sure we an have outlet for those who would rather hold a tennis racquet than a paint brush.

Unfortunately, the community gives next to nothing back to Cress or the rest of the Renegades. Some people don’t even know they exist. But it’s time that all the sports community’s talk turns into work and participation. Those who sign up to start teams need to lead them. Those who play on teams need to show up to practice. And we, as a community, need to show up to support the Renegades.

Most colleges have stadiums and student centers to unite the community. At Columbia, we have neither. As students, we can’t build a student center, but we can build a community around our sports teams or the numerous events the Renegades hold each semester.

These events could be the common language of Columbia students, yet we refuse to acknowledge or support their existence. We have the power to create a community of our own, and there are others working hard to facilitate that opportunity. It’s time we take advantage.

For more information on Renegades events, go to Facebook.com/ColumbiaCollegeAthletics or email athletics. Also check out our weekly multimedia supplement “Chit-Chat with the Renegades” at ColumbiaChronicle.com.

Russia has proposed a statewide ban on exposing minors to “homosexual propaganda,” which is expected to pass before the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, according to a Feb. 7 USA Today article. The inopportune timing of this proposal makes this both a sports and international issue, as well as a human rights issue.

It goes without saying that banning public displays between gay people is both bigoted and backwards, but the relative silence of the sporting community and the International Olympic Committee is just as disturbing. According to the USA Today article, an IOC spokesperson said in an email that the organization won’t comment on the proposed ban because it has not been voted on but emphasized its commitment to nondiscrimination. The committee has said little else regarding to the issue.

For those unfamiliar with PR-speak, that basically means the IOC wants to keep its nose clean of anything controversial or contentious by avoiding talking about what is clearly a huge issue.

Groups such as The Federation of Gay Games have openly criticized the IOC’s avoidance of the issue, telling USA Today that, “The IOC is very happy to claim victories when good things happen and say they are not involved when bad things happen.” That basically sums up the IOC’s philosophy.

And it hasn’t just been Russia’s proposed anti-gay law that it’s refusing to address. The 2014 Winter Games have already generated plenty of whispers and skepticism as to how Russian President Vladimir Putin is handling the project of turning Sochi into an Olympics-worthy destination.

According to a Feb. 6 New York Times article, the transformation will be the most expensive in Olympic history, totaling $50 billion, easily surpassing the $42 billion China spent in 2008 for the Summer Games in Beijing. Human Rights Watch released a report Feb. 6 detailing gross exploitation of workers involved in Olympic venue construction. IOC’s response? To pawn the indiscretions off on OlympStroy, the company in charge of construction in Sochi, and saying OlympStroy had done inspections and found only “a small number of violations.”

Russia’s homophobia and exploitation of workers are basic human rights issues that warrant an immediate response from the IOC. Avoiding these issues makes them just as responsible for the violations. I understand that international diplomacy is important when dealing with things like this, but they should ask themselves what they’re protecting by not speaking up. While I love the Olympics, the execution of sport shouldn’t be an excuse for the execution of basic human rights.

His proposal consists of creating a bachelor’s degree program for Division I athletes who intend play professionally. He posited that such a program would remove the hypocrisy of allowing athletes to skate through or skirt academic requirements while preparing future pros for a perfectly legitimate career in professional sports.

In theory, this seems to be a perfect solution. Pargman likens this option to those who study vocal or instrumental music in college, which is an apt comparison considering both career tracks are performance-based.

Practically, I’m not sure Pargman’s proposal scores. Creating such a program would require colleges to spend extra money on new professors, administrative time, advertising and recruitment. According to a 2013 American Institutes for Research report, Division I Football Bowl Subdivision colleges already spend three to six times as much on student athletes than they do educating non-athletes. Spending more money on programs for student athletes hardly seems fair to students who are not athletically inclined.

In addition, the cost would only benefit the tiniest subset of athletes. According to an NCAA report last updated in September 2012, only a small fraction of athletes who participate in Division I sports go pro. The report analyzed men’s and women’s basketball, football, baseball, men’s ice hockey and men’s soccer, and found the likelihood of an athlete in any of those sports going pro is­­—in all cases except hockey—between 0.7 percent and 1.6 percent. Outside that small subset, most athletes will, as the NCAA puts it, “go pro in something other than sports.” Spending even more money than the already egregious amount allocated toward this tiny subset of an institution’s population is both irresponsible and unfair.

Some will argue that the money athletes generate for the school offsets these extra expenses. In fact, if one excludes football, Division I athletic budgets overwhelmingly come from student fees and institutional and government support, not sports revenues or contributions. Football may be the exception to the rule, but if we were to only include football players in this degree program, enrollment would be ridiculously lower than it would be if all professional league-bound college athletes were included.

Ultimately, the conception of a professional sports degree is well intentioned but misguided. What colleges should be focusing on is how to better appropriate funds to serve the entire student body, not just a small fraction.

After a Jan. 16 Simeon and Morgan Park High School boys basketball game, players started shoving each other in the handshake line, according to a Jan. 23 Chicago Tribune article. After the fight was broken up, head coaches Robert Smith and Nick Irvin continued to yell at each other, the article said.

The coaches were suspended Jan. 23 for violating the Chicago Public Schools’ code of conduct, according to a statement from Barbara Byrd-Bennett, CPS CEO.

After the shoving match subsided and the coaches stopped screaming, a 17-year-old Morgan Park student was fatally shot in the parking lot of the gymnasium where the game was held, according to the Tribune article. Reports were quick to mark the incident as unrelated to the postgame brawl, but its time and proximity to the game makes me think otherwise.

These are not the only examples of violence with connections to sports. It seems that every year, fans stab or shoot each other after their rival teams face off or a player is indicted on violent charges. But what makes the situation with Smith and Irvin especially disappointing is that as coaches, they should be role models. They should be able to pull themselves back from the throes of competition and exemplify a pacifistic response to violent outbreaks, especially when their players are exposed to contrary behavior in other facets of their lives.

However, there was one person in this whole situation who shined as a role model. Byrd-Bennett, in her suspension of the coaches, stood up to the paradigm of treating athletes and coaches like they are exempt from punishment. Too often, the necessity to reprimand is overlooked because there’s a “big game” coming up or because the boos of angry fans who feel robbed of their entertainment are too loud. It’s refreshing to see Byrd-Bennett ignore those conventions and do what is right by making an example of these two failed role models.

The only way to control the function of sports in either preventing or perpetuating violence is to give players admirable and ethical role models as coaches, like Byrd-Bennett is attempting. Coaches, like teachers, have the opportunity to go beyond their duties of imparting knowledge and really change the lives and behaviors of their students and players. Because sports often provide a more intimate and dedicated group of students, the opportunity for this kind of influence is intensified for coaches. If more people like Byrd-Bennett can recognize that potential and do everything to make sure it happens. I still believe sports can be the answer to violence, not the inciter.

The hierarchies that exist within teams and the expectation for camaraderie create the perfect breeding ground for older or more experienced players to assert their control by putting new members through ridiculous and dangerous rituals in the name of “team spirit.”

Such was the case with an unnamed high school freshman at Maine West High School in Des Plaines, Ill., who was allegedly beaten and sodomized in September by his new soccer teammates after he made the varsity team. A lawsuit his parents filed on his behalf Nov. 19 alleges that school officials and coaches knew about hazing rituals but did nothing to stop them.

What’s most disturbing about this case is not the disgusting and unforgivable things a group of teenage boys allegedly did to a classmate or what appears to be gross negligence of the adults involved. What makes me sick to my stomach is the eerie familiarity of the nightmare described by the boy’s parents and attorney.

I look back fondly on the sense of purpose being on a team gave me. Sure, we gave our new teammates a hard time and made them do all the grunt work, but that’s different…right? When I think about the justification for that kind of behavior—carrying on traditions of a long-standing power structure established by players before us—they sound disconcertingly similar to the explanations given by those who perpetrate heinous hazing offenses.

Certainly our innocent teasing was different than the assault allegedly carried out by the soccer players at Maine West, but they are just different degrees of harassment. I think all athletes should ask themselves: When do traditional hazing rituals become criminal?

Illinois, one of 44 states that have anti-hazing laws, defines an act of hazing as when a person “knowingly requires the performance of any act by a student … for the purpose of induction of admission into any group, organization or society associated or connected with that institution.” The law goes on to outline two criteria that would qualify an incident as hazing: when “the act is not sanctioned or authorized by that educational institution” and when “the act results in bodily harm to any person.”

If the actions detailed in the lawsuit turn out to be true, the behavior of the players meets the legal definition of hazing. It’s time we take a look at our sports culture and re-evaluate what it means to be part of a team. Otherwise we will continue to send the message that rape and assault constitute “team bonding.”

The bad news of Cutler’s concussion, the result of a helmet-to-helmet hit with Texans linebacker Tim Dobbins, was offset slightly by news of the $30,000 fine Dobbins had to pay the NFL, but it was still disturbing.

Two other quarterbacks left games with concussions that same week. Alex Smith of the San Francisco 49ers and Michael Vick of the Philadelphia Eagles were also confined to the sidelines after being hit on the head a little too hard.

In a Nov. 15 New York Times article, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said last week’s spike in reported concussions is proof that the league’s efforts to encourage more players to acknowledge their injuries so they can be properly treated are working. While he may have a point about getting players to address their injuries, his assessment of the week’s events is naive and dangerous.

The NFL needs to pursue other options to reduce the number of head injuries. So far, they’ve thrown more padding, money and rules at the problem, but maybe they’re thinking in the wrong direction.

It seems counter-intuitive, but taking away players’ protective layers could potentially protect them better. Reducing the size and weight of football helmets could also diminish instances of head injury because it eliminates the potential for helmets to be used as weapons. I think about it the same way I’ve been taught to think about knives and guns: Any weapon you carry can also be used against you.

It would also make players more aware of how they tackle. There’s not much motivation to focus on technique when there’s six inches between you and the player you’re tackling. Not to say that players aren’t cautious, but huge helmets and pads can foster a false sense of security and a disregard for safe tackling techniques.

Sports that have an equal or greater degree of violence than football, such as hockey and rugby, don’t have the same degree of head protection as football. According to a study by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, hockey and rugby players experience a lesser number of head injuries. This is an indication that coddling players’ noggins may not be the best guard against concussions.

It’s imperative that the NFL gets cracking on finding ways to prevent head injury, but maybe they’ve been approaching it all from the wrong angle. Football players, especially nonchalant Bears quarterbacks, deserve to be protected to prevent a repeat of last season’s second-string catastrophe, even though I have more faith in Jason Campell than I did Caleb Hanie.

Her name is Samantha “Sam” Gordon, and she has become the latest Internet sensation via a video her dad posted of her playing peewee football in an all-boys—well, formerly all-boys—league in Utah. The mini quarterback is distinguishable from the rest of the players in the highlight reel, not because she’s a girl, but because she’s clearly an incredible football player.

Gordon is a coach’s dream. This season she has scored 35 touchdowns, made 65 tackles and ran almost 2,000 yards, and she plays both offense and defense. She is lightning fast and knows how to break
a tackle.

Did I mention that this is just her first season? After switching from soccer to football, Gordon made the team after beating everyone in almost every agility drill during tryouts. When asked about her stellar stats, Gordon was very humble.

“It’s just fun because all the boys are like, ‘Whoa, it’s a girl,’ she said.

Needless to say, Gordon has become the tiny face of lady athletes everywhere who have been fighting for a fair chance to play sports at competitive levels. Whether she knows it or not, she has revived the conversation of whether girls should be able to play “boy’s sports” like football.

There has been talk about whether it’s irresponsible to let a fragile little girl compete with the big boys of peewee football. In the video, you can clearly see that Gordon is smaller than most of the boys she plays with. Luckily, this kind of reaction has been contained, and most who’ve viewed the video are encouraging of her. But the fact that it is still an issue makes me equally sad and infuriated.

Football is a brutal sport for anyone to play, regardless of size or gender. The end. There have been many small male quarterbacks: Drew Brees, Michael Vick and Doug Flutie, to name a few. While their stature may have been an issue, their safety never was. It should be this way for Gordon. If we’re going to have this discussion, let’s talk about size, not gender.

It is encouraging that so many people have accepted that a girl can outrun and outplay the boys, but until the conversation about gender becomes obsolete, society still has a ways to go in terms of gender inclusivity. The conversation needs to shift from X- and Y-chromosomes to the X’s and O’s of the playing field.

I will always regret that I never played football as a kid. Looking back, had I thought it was an option, it would definitely have been my sport of choice. If badasses like Gordon continue to do their thing, hopefully girls in the future will try out for the team. Football has always been a symbol of the gender inequalities in sports, but more girls like Gordon will continue to prove that running, throwing or tackling like a girl is not a bad thing.

If those prospects don’t seem bleak enough, owners and players haven’t met for negotiations since Oct. 18, and even then it was for only for an hour.

Although I tend to believe all lockouts are stupid and people who can’t meet a negotiation deadline should be fired, at least the NFL and the NBA were able to salvage their seasons during their most recent lockouts. They’ve never locked out a whole season, unlike the NHL and Commissioner Gary Bettman, who shut down the entire 2004–2005 season.

Sure, the lockout has spurred many funny memes and YouTube videos (check out “NHL Lockout Explained with Beer”), but no hilarious Internet parody can remedy the heartbreak of living without hockey. The cancellation of the Jan. 1 Winter Classic is a crushing blow akin to getting coal for Christmas even though you’ve been good all year. Most importantly, it would be the strongest indicator thus far that owners are serious about locking out the entire season.

What pisses me off the most about this lockout is that neither side is trying very hard to come to an agreement. Plenty of people are very passionate about professional hockey, and it’s infuriating that there seems to be no urgency to resolve the issue. The players are off doing their thing in Russia and Switzerland while collecting escrow checks, and the owners are retreating to their vacation homes and wiping their bums with money while we plebeian fans mourn the prospect of another lost season.

Instead of waiting for the NHL and the Players’ Association to nipple twist each other into reaching a deal, we fans should band together and learn to play hockey ourselves. Then we can sue the NHL for all the resulting concussions and use our settlement money to start a new professional hockey league. That would be much more satisfying than watching the Bulls play without Derrick Rose.

But in all seriousness, this lockout trend is getting ridiculous. “Labor negotiations” is just a euphemism for “I already make a lot of money, so there’s not a fire under my butt to get anything done.” Sure, both sides want a fair deal, but they had the whole offseason to reach one.

Owners and players need to be held accountable for these standstills. Fans should be boycotting regular season games (if there are any) and refusing to give money to a league that doesn’t have our best interests in mind. It’s hard, but it may be what has to happen to break the lockout cycle.

Lindsey_Full

Upon hearing this wonderful news, I immediately began to wonder which of the four New York women Bryant identifies with the most. I’m pretty sure anyone who loves “SATC” has fancied himself or herself a Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte or Miranda.

Kobe is obviously a Carrie because he is the star of the show, and he wrote a column (duh, Carrie wrote columns). Twinsies!

But why stop at characterizing Kobe? I think in honor of Halloween, other athletes should channel their inner ’90s woman and take on their own “SATC” character.

Peyton Manning as Carrie Bradshaw: Carrie has always been the leading lady, and so has Peyton. They also share that “it” factor that makes them charming and likeable. Both have been through painful breakups—Carrie with Aidan Shaw and Peyton with the Indianapolis Colts. Both had a stellar 2001 season, too. Peyton rushed for a career-high 157 yards, and Carrie got back together with Aidan, whom I always liked better than Mr. Big.

Ryan Lochte as Samantha Jones: Samantha is known for her insatiable libido and unreserved attitude toward sex, and Ryan gained sex-symbol status during the 2012 London Olympics. His mother told Today.com that “he goes out on one-night stands.” Ryan later clarified that she meant to say “dates,” but I’d be willing to bet those dates ended with more than a goodnight kiss. Ryan is the bachelor to Samantha’s bachelorette, and I bet they would jump each other’s bones if given the chance.

Russell Westbrook as Miranda Hobbes: Miranda is a hardworking lawyer who takes a more practical approach to dating. She’s the foundation of the four friends, and Russell plays the same role as guard for the Oklahoma City Thunder. Russell and Miranda also share a nerdy charm. Russell sometimes gets overshadowed by teammate Kevin Durant, just as Miranda sometimes got overlooked because of Samantha’s one-liners and Carrie’s boy drama. But she’s stable and solid, just like Russell.

Tim Tebow as Charlotte York: There is not a more obvious connection between the “SATC” girls and a professional athlete. Charlotte is the prude of the ladies, and Tim is the virgin of the NFL. Tim has created a public image around his Christianity, and Charlotte was a Christian too until she converted to Judaism for fiancé Harry Goldenblatt.

New developments in former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon’s class action lawsuit against the NCAA has revived the debate about paying college athletes. O’Bannon’s lawsuit accuses the NCAA of violating anti-trust laws by using the names and likenesses of athletes in video games and other commercial ventures to generate money without permission. He is proposing that money from the licenses be put into temporary trusts that players can access upon graduation.

While O’Bannon’s proposal seems fair, some players are seeking more than revenue from licensing rights. Last October, 300 NCAA athletes petitioned the association to give them a cut of the billion-dollar college sports industry. Supporters contend that because athletes work long hours and endanger their bodies, they are entitled to compensation.

The fact is, a large majority of players are paid in the form of scholarships, some worth tens of thousands of dollars. That’s more money than most college students get paid to work in their respective fields.

From my perspective, college sports are like internships. For athletes who plan to go pro, it provides the opportunity to simulate future job experiences and recruitment opportunities for paid positions. Players who don’t want to make sport their profession are getting a discounted education that will hopefully lead to jobs, post graduation. That’s a ton more than other students get.

It’s self-centered for college athletes to think they’re the only ones working for free. Yes, the school and the employees involved in big name athletic programs make lots of money and the players get squat, but that’s no different from college students getting hired as unpaid interns at big companies who profit from their work. Colleges use former students’ likenesses and successes to recruit new students and make more money, much like the NCAA’s treatment of former athletes.

If there’s any issue here, it’s not just college athletes getting paid, but all college workers. If student athletes want to fight for something, they should join forces with the rest of their exploited student body and fight for fair and equal pay across the playing field. Otherwise, they’re just perpetuating the stereotype of athletes being self-centered and entitled.

This proclamation makes Cruz the first openly gay boxer, a feat he and the sport should be incredibly proud of. This makes boxing more progressive than football, basketball and hockey, considering those sports have never had a publicly gay, actively playing athlete.

First, I would like to congratulate Cruz for being so brave. It could not have been an easy decision to come out in a sport that has such a machismo mentality, which doesn’t always breed acceptance. Cruz had to know he would get some negative reactions, but he came out anyway and is now a role model for athletes in every sport.

Hopefully, this is the beginning of a trend. While I believe women’s sports have traditionally been very tolerant of all sexual orientations, men’s sports have some catching up to do. There has been a lot of progress in the past five years, which was augmented by the You Can Play Project, which I reported on for the The Chronicle April 9.

The project got a lot of professional athletes together to declare their support of gay athletes, which is an important step forward. But what the project was missing was an openly gay pro athlete.

Traditionally, professional athletes come out after they retire, like Esera Tuaolo, who came out in 2002 after he retired from the NFL. John Amaechi came out in similar fashion in 2007 after ending his career as an NBA center. Both men are brave for doing so, but what professional sports needs now is an active player to show the world that gay men can be just as good at sports as straight men.

That’s exactly what Cruz has done. His success in the ring should be a big wake-up call to the bigots out there who think homosexuality somehow defines people as weak or not athletic because it simply is not true.

I’m not saying that every gay man in professional sports should be forced to come out just to prove a point. I understand that coming out is a deeply personal decision, and such a public announcement may not be the right choice for everyone. But I think young athletes and fans can benefit from having an openly gay athlete for a role model.

Cruz’s proclamation will hopefully clear a path for other closeted gay athletes to come out and prove to the world that it doesn’t matter whom you love but how you play your sport.