The People's Sports Network | War-torn.com

Archive for October, 2011

Are you planning on taking a camping trip in the near future?  If this is your first time going camping, you will need to get camping gear to take with you, as you may not already own it.  While your first impulse may be to head on down to your local sports store, did you know that you have another option as well?  You do.  In addition to buying your own camping gear, you may also be able to rent it.

When it comes to determining whether you should buy your own camping gear or just rent the camping gear that you need, you may have a difficult time deciding what to do.  If you are wondering what you should do, you will want to continue reading on.  Below, the pros and cons of both buying your own camping gear and renting your camping gear are outlined.

As for buying your own camping gear, you will find that the biggest con or downside to doing so is the cost.  Depending on what you need to buy, it can get pretty expensive to purchase your own camping gear.  With that in mind though, there are a number of camping gear equipment pieces, like camping tents or sleeping bags, that can be purchased for affordable prices.  If you are looking to camp on a budget, you can still buy your own camping gear, but you just need to know where to look.

Although there are a number of downsides, like the price, to buying your own camping gear, you will also find that there are a number of pros or plus sides to doing so as well. One of those plus sides is the fact that you will own the camping gear in question. This means that you can use it as little or as often as you would like.  If you are planning to take a number of camping trips in the future, you will find that it is easier, as well as cheaper in the long run, to buy your own camping gear.

It is also important to mention the freedom that you have, when buying your own camping gear. When buying your own camping gear, you can buy basically whatever you want. For instance, if you would like a camping tent that is the color black, you are free to do so.  When you buy your own camping gear, you have the ability to be picky if you want to be.  With a large selection of camping gear pieces to choose from, from a number of different retailers, the decision as to what you want to buy is yours to make.

If you are unable to buy your own camping gear or if you would prefer not you, your other option is to rent your camping gear.  When it comes to renting camping gear, you will also find a number of pros and cons. As for the cons of renting your camping gear, you may find that you are faced with a limited selection of camping gear pieces to choose from.  Many camping gear rental stations only carry the basic items, like tents, hot plates, and coolers.  While you may have some choices, you will mostly find that your selection is limited.

As for the pros or plus sides to renting your camping gear, instead of buying it, you will find that the cost is much more affordable. Despite being relatively affordable, different camping gear rental stations charge different rental fees.  You will also find that camping gear can typically be rented for as little as one day or as long as a couple of weeks. Renting your camping gear is nice if this is your first time going camping and if you are unsure as to whether or not you would be interested in doing so again.

As you can see, there are a number of pros and cons to both buying your own camping gear and renting it.  In addition to the two above mentioned options, you may also want to think about borrowing camping gear from someone that you know.  You may even be able to do so free of charge.

The Alaska King Salmon is the official state fish and ultimate prize for any fisherman looking for the excitement of landing a big one. King Salmon in the world famous Kenai River are plentiful and huge. Sport fishermen in the Kenai have caught trophy salmon weighing nearly 100-pounds, and it’s not unusual for anglers to haul in 40 and 50 pounders. Thousands of people travel to the Kenai River and, with a licensed river guide, pursue its most prized bounty– the King.

What do you use for bait? There are a few types of rigs that are best for attracting Alaska King Salmon. Spin-N-Glows, Vibrex Spinners, and plugs are three effective lures that usually provide optimum results. Two common fishing techniques used on guide boats on the Kenai are back trolling and drifting; while a third and relatively new method called back bouncing is also proving to be effective.

Back trolling usually incorporates Spin-N-Glows and salmon eggs or plugs. Some other effective lures for back trolling are Magnum Wiggle Worts, Flashtrap Spinners, Tadpollys, Kwikfish and Flatfish. In addition to the lure, you may also, depending upon the current, depth of the water, and location on the river, utilize divers, trolling weights, and diving lures. Baits that move erratically and rotate, especially those that create the illusion of a water creature in distress, will help attract salmon.

When back trolling, the guide has the boat work against the current, running the motor at the same speed or a bit slower than the river. This helps hold the boat in the same position on or to move slowly down the river. The boat should be moving downstream slower than the current while the lures are downstream ahead of the boat. Usually the bait moves close to the bottom of the river with a diver or weight attached 18 inches away from it to allow for proper depth. You’ll know you’ve got a King Salmon on your line when the rod goes down and stays down.

Drifting is similar to back trolling except the bait is allowed to gently bounce off the bottom of the river while the boat drifts with the current. Weights are used to keep the line at the correct depth. This technique is difficult to master since it’s not necessarily east to differentiate between a fish taking the bait and your line hitting off the bottom. A pause in the movement of the line often indicates a hit.

With back bouncing, the bait is bounced off the bottom as the boat is slowly backed over a hole. Sink-N-Glows, a Vibrex spinner or similar lures when properly weighted often yield good results. When fishing, if you feel a tug set the hook chances are there is a salmon there.

If using a plug, you’ll want to utilize K-15’s or K-16’s – you need something large. Divers work well to get the plug to the right depth and colorful, gaudy colors are recommended due to their ability to attract attention.

If you’re planning on fishing the Kenai River and can’t locate the right type of lure at home, don’t worry. Some of these items may not be accessible in your region of the country but bait and tackle shops throughout the Kenai have no lack of Spin-N-Glows, Vibrex spinners, Tadpollys, Kwikfish and more.

If you elect to book your fishing trip through a licensed guide, you’ll find that their knowledge, skill, and supplies will result in a less stressful and a more productive trip. When you go fishing for the Alaska King Salmon you want to exploit every opportunity you have to make your limit, enjoying some of the best fishing on this earth.

Since the conception and foundation of Hockey, this sport has crossed from Canada-the birthplace of the sport and across the pond to Europe and back to the United States. As far as competition at the international level. The international men’s ice hockey world championships are highly regarded by Europeans and less regarded by Americans because it coincides at the same time the Stanley cup playoffs happen. Unfortunately, Canada, United States, and other countries with a large concentration of NHL players have not always been able to round up their best because many top players are playing for the Stanley cup trophy.

For many years professionals were barred from playing at the international level, and now that many Europeans are playing for the NHL, the world championships no longer represent the world’s top players. Hockey was an event that’s been a part of the Olympic games since 1924 with Canada winning 6 out of 7 gold medals, United States won the gold medal in 1960, Russia won all, but 2 gold medals between 1956 and 1988, but it was professional Americans, Swedish, Finnish, and Canadians that were banned from Olympic competition. U.S. non-pro college students went on to beat the Russians and win the gold medal in 1980 in Lake Placid, New York.

It was then that a new surge in the popularity of the game that most Americans weren’t paying too much attention to. The 1972 and 1974 Summit series had solidified Canada and Russia as hockey rivals. The Canadian Cup where the best of the best nations were able to play later followed it. The Canadian cup later became the World Cup of Hockey with the United States winning in 1996 and Canada winning in 2004. Since 1998 NHL professionals have played in the Olympics giving the top players more opportunity to compete and face off with other professional players from different countries. There have been 9 women’s competitions and women’s hockey has been in the Olympics since 1998 and in the winter of 2006 marked the world championship or Olympic face with Canada and Sweden not Canada and the United States.

Women are coming into the fold on own in this sport and are competing just as hard as males. Females still have a long way to go in terms of really being there with males at the domestic and international levels. Hockey was always that sport dominated by males and yet women still have long way before they’re really taken seriously in the hockey world. Hockey is still enjoyed by millions of people in Canada and the United States and still to this day still breaking attendance records by the throngs of loyal fans who still love this sport and has made it a family tradition to go to games and for it becoming a pastime like Americans treat baseball, football and basketball.

Hockey to some people is like poetry on ice it’s got its own set of rules and it’s a separate world altogether from any other sport whether its professional or not. Hockey to some people is like the air they breathe and people really can get into this sport like it’s a soap opera. The whole concept of hockey is just what it is people playing a pretty heavy game that can very physically demanding since you have so many different personalities you’re going up against.

Some people will spend hours playing hockey well into the late hours since some rinks will stay open to accommodate those hockey buffs who want to spend 2-3 hours thrashing around a cold rink slapping a hard rubber circle around.

If you are interested in football, especially in college football, read on to learn some interesting insight into the roots of the game.

In the 1890s college football had already created strong emotions of love and hate. Big-time eastern football had demonstrated that it could draw large crowds, create alumni support, and build an identity that would attract new students. The fact that it had little to do with classical education bothered only the traditionalists on campus and a handful of crotchety purists elsewhere who wrote critically of football in magazines, newspaper articles, and official college reports.

Outward appearances may have changed, but the gridiron problems in that era appear remarkably similar to the present. In the 1890s big-time recruiters and alumni contacts scoured the eastern prep schools for talented juniors and seniors ready to entice them to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. Occasionally, unscrupulous alumni convinced students to quit high school before they graduated in order to enroll at an institution with a big-time team. Boosters funneled tuition money to poor but athletically talented boys from the coal fields of Pennsylvania and the industrial towns of the Northeast to preparatory schools in order to prepare them for big-time college athletics. Some of these young men were in their mid-twenties when they finally entered college. Other athletes went from school to school selling their services, phantom players who had no academic ties with the institution.

Big-time alumni football entrepreneurs—the counterpart of today’s athletic directors—arranged a schedule of games which began with weak teams and worked up to big money games held in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. Gridiron profits supported stadium building, sumptuous living quarters and training tables for players, as well as Pullman cars for retinues of trainers, massagers, alumni coaches, and other hangers-on who followed the team to the big games. What was left over went to support an array of lesser sports that big-time football had eclipsed.

At the major football schools critics complained that football players became the campus elite, admired by their fellow students and regarded skeptically by many faculty. In the absence of professional football, players basked in the attention of the media, and the names of the gridiron stars appeared regularly in the sports pages of big city newspapers. Even college faculty and presidents had to be properly worshipful of football and its elite because they knew that football advertised their schools and helped to retain the loyalty of alumni. As a result, they often ignored or remained blissfully unaware of scams to admit unqualified students, play athletes who never enrolled, or resort to stratagems to keep weak players eligible.

Though booster organizations did not exist outside of alumni groups, booster alumni and townspeople, student managers, and even faculty engaged in unethical acts. A Princeton alumnus named Patterson entertained football players and made every effort to entice them to his alma mater. Authorities at Swarthmore lured the huge lineman, Bob (“Tiny”) Maxwell, from the University of Chicago and arranged for the president of the college to pass his bills to a prominent alumnus. Professor Woodrow Wilson, a fanatic Princeton enthusiast, shamelessly used football when he spoke to alumni organizations and vigorously opposed football reform in the 1890s and early 1900s. In contrast, Theodore Roosevelt, a Harvard graduate, who gloried in the strenuous life and strongly supported Harvard football, turned against football brutality in 1905 and initiated the first efforts in his capacity as president to reform the spirit in which big-time football teams competed.

We know that the prototype for athletic organization began at eastern institutions in the 1880s and 1890s. Yale’s Walter Camp, “the father of American football,” became the model for the coach and athletic director. While pursuing a business career, he also acted as Yale’s de facto vice president for athletic operations, who dominated the rules committees and ceaselessly publicized the game. From the profits of big games in Boston and New York, Camp created an ample reserve fund that supported lesser sports, afforded lush treatment for athletes, and provided the money that eventually went toward building Yale Bowl, the first of the modern football stadiums. By making Yale into an athletic powerhouse, Camp built the school’s reputation, making it second only to Harvard. Because he succeeded so well, Camp became the first big-name foe of sweeping football reforms—and an especially hard-core opponent of the forward pass.

By the turn of century the deaths of players in football led state legislators to introduce laws banning the gridiron game. Players for big-time teams, critics charged, were coached to injure their opponents or “put them out of business.” The nature of the game, with its mass formations and momentum plays, made football less an athletic contest than a collegiate version of warlike combat. Eventually the violence in football led to attempts to reduce its brutality through reforms. New rules put a strong emphasis on better officiating and on less dangerous formations, but they did not necessarily improve the athletic environment.

The deaths and brutality presented an excellent opportunity to root out the worst excesses of the runaway football culture. In the 1890s and early 1900s, responding to public opinion, professors and presidents spent a great deal of time talking about the overemphasis of intercollegiate athletics—and, in some cases, passing rules at the conference and institutional level to regulate college sports. Why, then, did college presidents and faculty, who had far more authority over their students than their modern counterparts, fail to control the gridiron beast? Put differently, why did school presidents and faculty often themselves become part of the athletic problem?

. One problem might be that faculty members played major roles in introducing early football. In addition to Woodrow Wilson, who served as a part-time coach at Wesleyan, an English instructor at Oklahoma who had recently come from Harvard, Vernon Parrington, taught the fundamentals of football on the windswept practice field in Oklahoma. At Miami University of Ohio the president called upon all able-bodied members of the faculty to go out for football. In a game between North Carolina and Virginia a member of the North Carolina faculty scored the winning touchdown. Often the faculty proved helpful to the budding football programs in other ways such as giving athletes passing grades or writing articles arguing that football built intellect. Only a handful, like Wisconsin’s Frederick Jackson Turner, made a determined effort to root out the abuses in the culture of college football such as the intense media attention given to the sport and its tendency to cushion star athletes from academic requirements. That was more than a century ago. When we turn to the 1980s and 1990s what do we encounter? Outward appearances of football may have changed, but the problems appear hauntingly similar. Big-time football teams induce players to attend their institution with offers of cars and money as well as running booster operations to funnel cash to blue-chip players. Players who obtain special admission or enter the institution fraudulently do so only to play football and often leave without graduating. Schools manage to keep their players eligible by manufacturing credits or by easing them into simple courses in which they are assured of receiving passing grades. Some coaches engage in violence toward players in practice and even try to drive them out of school so that they can use their scholarship slot.

Athletic departments and institutional officials have become obsessed with the potential for profits from televised big games or bowl games. Big-time teams in the NCAA try to manipulate the organization so that they will be able to have more coaches, scholarships, and only minimal academic requirements. Players commit acts of violence and brutality, then manage to avoid the consequences. College presidents whose salaries and prominence fall far short of the head football coaches dutifully show up at football games and related alumni events, treading cautiously around the mire of big-time college athletics.

All of this has added up to major athletic scandals, most of them involving big-time football. Scandals such as the pay-for-play violations at Southern Methodist and Auburn from the late 1970s to the early 1990s man-aged to create internal disruptions and negative publicity at numbers of big-name institutions. Yet, in spite of the obvious flaws in college football, it continues to enlarge its grip on the major universities. The athletic foundations persist in enlarging their massive gridiron complexes, selling the rights to buy tickets for upscale luxury boxes and suites, and then collecting additional revenues for the sale of high-priced tickets. The major teams have created indoor facilities out of donations that might have gone to deserving but impoverished non-athletes for scholarships. While quasi-professional student-athletes play the game, ordinary students have little to do with the sport. In an atmosphere of highly specialized career coaches, publicists, trainers, and tutors, college football reflects more than ever the professionalism that reformers long ago set out to de-emphasize.

No one would deny that football constitutes one of the most entertaining and enjoyable spectator sports. In the early days some faculty believed that the student enthusiasm for football would enable the institutions to alleviate the pervasive antisocial behavior of undergraduates. Being aware of its appeal, most athletic critics and reformers attempted to change football rather than to abolish it. The few colleges that dropped football did so it because the school had no choice or, occasionally, because a college president happened to wield unusual power at a critical moment in football’s history. Far and away the largest group of thoughtful gridiron critics have attempted to reform football and to reshape it in such a way that it fit more reasonably and appropriately into the spirit and life of the university. Why have they not succeeded?

Beginning in the 1890s and continuing into the 1990s, reformers have spent tens of thousands of hours attending meetings and conferences, devising new rules to solve the latest problems that have cropped up, and generally trying to work out better systems for their own institutions; in the early 1900s moderate reformers founded the NCAA to deal with deaths and brutality and to put football securely under the thumb of the faculty and college presidents. Again in the early 1950s, in a groundswell of outrage against cheating, gambling, and subsidies for athletes, college presidents and faculty members tried to create stricter standards to reduce the greed and professionalism in football rather than to drop it altogether. In the 1980s and early 1990s an outbreak of scandal in big-time football resulted the same response of temporary uneasiness and halting reforms which had become by then a pattern in the history of college football.

The outbreak in the 1980s once again clearly emphasized the failure of reform to bring about real change. In three major periods of gridiron upheaval the colleges have been unable or unwilling to eliminate the causes of chronic cheating. While political reforms by Congress and the states have achieved some enduring success, football and big-time athletics generally have had to face the same issues again and again—much like Sisyphus repeatedly pushing the stone uphill. Why does big-time football manage to be almost constantly in a state of crisis? Is there some quality about football, or college sports generally, or a flaw in higher education which causes this turmoil? If the Greek ideal of education stands for the training of body, spirit, and mind, why have the colleges failed so abysmally at their mission?

Good question, isn’t it? But the answer is beyond the subject of this article – and, unfortunately, beyond the expertise of the college football experts.