As we are getting to the end of this course, signs are becoming clearer that all communication theories are getting more understandable when it comes to sports. Yet, this week's topic focuses on how the NCAA has a persuasive policy on how the NFL has a policy for all the upcoming draft prospects because of what happened with the Laremy Tunsil fallout on Twitter.This week's featured article talks about how players should be careful of their actions of what they do outside the field, with certain experiments with drugs or booze for examples. Rules are being applied that hacked, or better yet controversial posts on social media should NOT be tolerated. Any infraction of the rules would result in a drop in the draft or better yet, a chance to go undrafted in the draft before getting picked up by another team through free agency.
Based off of that statement, it depends on how people follow the current policy of the dissent. If it's something that proves to be so severe, this would hurt their credibility as superstars that would blossom into future Tom Bradys, Richard Shermans, Jerry Rices and even some Ezekiel Elliotts that would make such an impact for a team. Plus, it could lead to a big downfall in the process, that doesn't include the likelihood of getting fined for being a part of a charity event in my hometown. This would mean fines for that person in the process.
Likely prospects, which feature potential #1 pick Myles Garrett, should be very careful of their actions or otherwise things would not turn out in their direction they are going in. If others follow suit, the same could happen. The article has also talked about how the gambling rules can become such a key thing to break after the likes of such iconic stars including Navarro Bowman, Marshawn Lynch and James Harrison have broken the rules of gambling for a wrestling league, according to that article's sources. The league may have cancelled a competition for some various reasons.
I believe this would be a great way to talk about similarities to the reading from this week that talks about the freedom of speech and the athletes that follow it. When Meg Penrose wrote about how posts can interfere with success, I kind of agree with her big theories and keen research about how everything can change with even the smallest post on Snapchat. The term with athletic performance and others should be factors at how it can screw over that star and would have his persona shut down by an incredible scandal revolving around the fact they broke such a rule and hurt their organization's domination.
So, based off of this evidence, this would be a very accurate assumption of how social media can be such a make or break thing for those who can possibly make it big in the real world and would become an icon for many people that want to follow in their footsteps as icons that would be a hall-of-fame caliber factor for a spot among the biggest greats to ever roam the planet in the sport they have participated in and made significant impact in their lives.
The less they post their credibility, the better results they will get as long as they don't mess up their moves with one bad post that might be anaylzed by the fans that can "publicize the liason" of athletes and their wicked ways, as said by a group of critics that have discussed the process of the policies and actions being seen or unseen by a group of fans that could turn away from the guy or girl if things don't turn out to be safe.
No comments:
Post a Comment