Earlier this week, the star forward on Brigham Young University’s nationally ranked basketball team was suspended for the season after violating the school’s Honor Code. The 6-foot-9 sophomore didn’t plagiarize any term papers, nor did he commit any felonies. No, Brandon Davies was booted from the team after admitting to administration officials that he’d had sex with his girlfriend.

The issue of course is that Davies committed to an honor code required of all students and employees of BYU. It is the price of admission to study or work at an institution that is inescapably clear about what it stands for.

In addition to chastity and leading a virtuous life, the code everyone at BYU must sign stipulates the standard of behavior is honesty, being law-abiding, not using obscenities, respecting others, attending church regularly, and abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee.

For a very religious school that aspires to influence millions of people around the world with the hope of converting them to the Mormon religion, the attention garnered by the men’s basketball team this season had to be a public relations windfall for the school’s mission. With Davies off the team, the potential for a nationally captivating run through the brackets later this month has diminished substantially.

The team had just moved up to a No. 3 ranking and was projected to be a No. 1 seed in the NCAA tournament. This past season has been the biggest and most important in BYU basketball history, and Davies was an integral part of the team. He was the starting forward, leading rebounder and third-leading scorer for the Cougars.

There are hundreds of examples of players who have violated team and school rules and been able to come back to the team in time for an important game. Why was Davies banned for the entirety of the season? Would a three-game suspension have been punishment enough? Would the message still have gotten across to Davies? Only BYU administrators can truly answer that.

You have to give the institution credit: it holds up to its beliefs and is not afraid to muck its hand athletics-wise for a larger purpose when painfully necessary. However, the truth is that in one fell swoop the Cougars have gone from Final Four contenders to being on the verge of extinction. And for what? The university could have suspended him for one game and no one would have looked down on the decision.

When the story first hit the internet, the Twittersphere went crazy. That’s right, with violent upheavals in the Middle East, a new iPad announcement, and Charlie Sheen redefining “radical”, Brandon Davies was a top 10 trending topic.

The chatter on Twitter was deafening and polarized, with SocialMention.com reporting that he’s getting tweeted about every 7 seconds. From what I can tell, half the tweets were in support of BYU’s decision.

A quick note to the PR professionals at BYU, keep your message consistent!

Now that BYU has cast judgment and let the world know about it, it just seems hypocritical to allow him back on the bench only hours after the verdict. Moreover, after the Cougars’ 102-78 victory over Wyoming, which clinched them a share of the Mountain West Conference’s regular-season title, allow Davies to clip a piece of the net at the Marriott Centre?

As he did so, the sell-out crowd on hand chanted “Davies! Davies!” and gave him an ovation nearly as powerful as that bestowed upon senior star Jimmer Fredette. This capped an afternoon during which the students chanted in support of Davies several times as he sat at the end of the BYU bench.

Talk about inconsistent messaging.

BYU Coach, Dave Rose became a touch defiant Wednesday, after the Cougars practiced in a gym adjacent to the Thomas and Mack Arena, when he was asked what kind of message he is trying to send by having Davies on the bench.

“There is not a message,” he said. “This is about our team. OK? And we decided to bring him because we thought it would be good for both of us.”

What are your thoughts?

Apparently the league is currently 71.8 per cent African-American, 18.3 per cent international and 9.9 per cent white American. Outside the Lines seems to think the lack of white American basketball players is a matter of profound concern for the NBA, which is a league run by white Americans, coached by white Americans and marketed to white Americans.

Wait right there. You mean, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Manu Ginobili, Darko Milicic, Peja Stojacavic, Eduardo Najara, Danilo Gallinari, Primoz Brezec, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Marco Bellinelli, Jose Calderon, and Rasho Nesterovic don’t count as White because they weren’t born in America?

To underscore the “whiteout” of the NBA, they chose to follow the trials and tribulations of Kyle McAlarney, a former standout point guard from Notre Dame whose dream is to play in the NBA. According to McAlarney, his race is keeping him out of the league.

Watch a short clip of Kyle’s story HERE

Nevermind that he stands only 5’11 or that he was invited to play summer league with the Los Angeles Clippers by Mike Dunleavy, a former white NBA player who is the team’s general manager and coach. Currently, McAlarney plays in the NBA’s D-League, scoring 9.3 points per game. Not once is his arrest for marijuana possession as a sophomore mentioned. Yet, he is the poster child for the white American quest to play in the NBA. Dunleavy- whose 6’9 son, Mike Dunleavy, Jr. currently plays for the Indiana Pacers – didn’t pass on McAlarney because he’s white. He passed on him because he’s not good enough to play in the NBA.

My question to PR people and sports enthusiasts is : does the NBA need white players so badly that it is to ignore standards and let them in even when they are clearly not qualified? and does the NBA need a new image, one with a balanced mix of white and minority players?

 The top high school athletes in the country are popping up all over the web. Kyrie Irving, the 9^th ranked basketball player in the class of 2010 according to Rivals.com, played out much of his recruitment on Twitter. He’s not the only one.

Harrison Barnes, the #1 basketball player in the country, announced his college of choice using an innovative social media tool.

In the middle of his press conference on ESPNU, Barnes said he would be attending the school “of the coach I’m about to Skype”, then dramatically stood up on the podium and walked over to a laptop to use the video messaging service Skype to video conference North Carolina coach Roy Williams.

In the moments following Barnes’ declaration to play for Roy Williams, thousands of tweets containing the word “Barnes” filled the social networking site. That’s thousands of people across the nation discussing Barnes. That’s thousands of users following those discussing Barnes instantly reading about Barnes’ decision. Barnes quickly rose into Twitters’ top 10 trending topics.

The result of this new movement? The “Social Athlete”.

The “social athlete” is communicating with fans on a personal level. Direct communications tools like Twitter, Facebook and Skype have young athletes not only crafting their message, but developing entire recruitment campaigns. Many athletes are thus beginning to build their personal brand as early as high school.

This focus on personal branding by athletes at much earlier ages makes sense. The top high school players and their handlers see the potential and realize they’ll be in the NBA after just one year of college. But, what will the effect be?

Can the “social athlete” be a catalyst for eliminating the NBA rule that mandates players be one year out of high school before they can enter the draft?

It’s a possibility. Let’s be real. That rule isn’t about academics or physical development, it’s about marketing. Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant were fine, but when 5-6 high school players a year began going straight to the NBA, fans didn’t know who they were, so they weren’t marketable. Now, with social media, these players are becoming household names at earlier ages.

The question though, is this focus on personal branding at such a young age a good thing? Probably not. I’m sure one person out there is loving it. I’m looking at you David Stern!

I know what you’re thinking, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, did it actually make a sound? Well, apparently it does. Arya Towfighi, a Clippers season-ticket holder of Iranian decent, is not happy with the Clippers broadcasting duo of Ralph Lawler and Michael Smith. Towfighi  filed a complaint with Fox Sports.

Not a shining moment from Lawler and Smith, no question about that. Lawler is one of the most respected play-by-play men in the NBA and hasn’t missed a broadcast in 25 years.

In response, the Clippers are planning an “Iranian Heritage Day” for their home game against the Memphis Grizzlies. They will be selling discounted tickets and featuring performances by the Persian dance academy.

This is a great PR move by an organization that has recently received negative press for discriminating against minorities. Owner Donald Sterling recently agreed to pay nearly $3 million in a settlement for a lawsuit brought against the real estate tycoon for discriminatory practices towards Black, Latinos and families with children at various apartments that Sterling owns in the Los Angeles area.

View This Poll

My question to PR people and sports fan is, how does the NBA draw the line between colourful commentary and offensive racial stereotyping?

So while waiting for the 2010-11 season to come around and with nothing to offer their fans this year except the league’s highest ticker prices (second to the Los Angeles Lakers), logic would dictate that the Knicks would jump all over an opportunity to add one of the league’s most talented and exciting players to their roster.

The Knicks had this chance….and passed.

Ten-time all star, owner of four scoring titles and former MVP, Allen “The Answer” Iverson signed a free-agent contract with Philadelphia 76ers on Wednesday, three years after their acrimonious split led to his trade and seemingly ended any chance of his return. Iverson’s brief retirement is over and he’s expected to make his debut Monday at home against Denver.

It seemed like a natural move for the Knicks to add the electrifying scorer to their backcourt, giving the team a lift and boosting ticket sales and marketing efforts. With all of the current Knicks possessing no national name recognition (and barely any locally), Iverson’s presence would at least give the New York fans, media and overall sports scene a much needed buzz.

So what was the problem?

Well, along with a killer cross-over move and an uncanny ability to put the ball in the hoop; Iverson carries a tremendous amount of baggage and a reputation as an extremely selfish player (even by today’s standards) and a detriment to team chemistry and a winning team structure.

His off the court “antics”, including gambling issues and run-ins with the police, are well-known. But Iverson’s attitude as a player can be best summed up with one statement he made during a press conference following a disappointing 2002 playoff series loss while with the Philadelphia 76ers. Iverson was asked about the critical comments head coach Larry Brown had made regarding the guard’s efforts and dedication towards practice.

Now along with attempting to clean up the mess with their roster, the Knicks have also been cleaning up an overall public relations mess. Since the departure of Hall of Fame center Patrick Ewing 10 years ago, the Knicks have suffered both on the court and off.

Long story short, poor decisions by upper management have caused a number of embarrassing off-the-court episodes that have been played out in the media for the rest of the sports world to see.

So with their eyes on the bigger picture, the Knicks broke from the recent tradition and put the long term strength and health of the organization’s brand above the instant gratification of a few more wins and a few more tickets sold.

Although Iverson would have most likely made the team better in the short run, the Knicks management understood the public relations risk he posed and decided it wasn’t worth it.

When evaluating players in today’s age of professional sports, organizations have much more to consider than just talent and ability. Teams have to also recognize the public relations impact a high profile athlete will make on their community and organization.

By not signing Iverson, the Knicks demonstrated a strong concern for brand and image. Of course, the bottom line with any professional sports team is winning. But it’s about building a champion, not collecting talented malcontents to compete for third place.

All real winners and championship teams represent well on the court and off. And the Knicks seem to be headed in that direction.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

I’m sure you’ve all heard about the recent Larry Johnson fiasco by now, but if not, check out this video:

It’s a shame that many of the stories involving athletes and Twitter only come to light when something negative happens. Everyone seems to ignore the athletes who DO understand social media. Athletes like Shaquille O’Neal, who have truly mastered the art of promoting their brand through sites like Twitter. It’s also a shame that some teams and leagues have tried to prevent athletes from tweeting due to potential controversies.

Prevention is not the answer. Education is.

 Twitter has given athletes the opportunity to connect with fans. Check out how active Kevin Durant, Dwight Howard, Terrence Williams and Candace Parker have been. They all love answering fan questions and being able to communicate with fans without traditional media barriers. On Twitter, Shaq had made posts telling fans where he was located and if they were one of the first people to find him that he would give away free tickets to his game. How cool is that?!?!

Being active on social media platforms also makes players more attractive to endorsement partners and opens up opportunities for direct monetization online. As well, the blogs and mainstream media are also more apt to cover someone that has an engaging Twitter account. I truly believe that Terrence Williams wouldn’t be as popular as he currently is with the NBA bloggers if he didn’t have a social media platform to showcase his unique, outgoing personality.

However, in today’s world, one wrong action online or offline can severely damage an athlete’s brand and earnings. Athletes need media training on how to use the Internet to protect and enhance their brand, connect with fans and take advantage of new monetization opportunities.

How many more stories like this are we going to see before we start giving athletes access to better training?

Pro athletes must now be as careful as a political candidate or a company CEO. Say the wrong thing, and your reputation or approval rating will drop quicker than a Brad Lidge sinker (when he’s Lights Out).

Media training should become a necessity with periodic workshops throughout the season and off-season.

In the meantime, PR professionals should teach athletes these basic PR rules:

• Always talk in good times and bad (Mitch Williams himself will tell you this);
• Never say “no comment;”
• Don’t lie;
• Never say something you do not want to see in print;
• Remember to speak in 10-second sound bites, which means simply to keep in mind a long answer (or the preceding question) may be left on the cutting-room floor.

View This Poll

Public relations is not  a new concept, and as such I am perplexed over the lack of skill and precision that has taken place with the Woods matter.  As a result Woods has suffered damage to his personal brand.

First, no one in his situation should put out a statement to the press, as he did, that the rumors circulating were malicious and not true if in fact there was fire with the smoke.  

Second, do not ever say to the press that there are no more questions to be answered, and no more to be added to the story.  That is about the worst thing anyone can say to the press when there is indeed a boatload of more questions that needs to be answered.

Here are some quick points that Team Tiger must consider when crafting their next move in this complicated situation:

1) Take a note from David Letterman: In America, the truth sets you free. Conversely, we remain slaves to that which is perceived to be deceitful. By being so stoic, Tiger Woods is doing himself no favors, and the public will ultimately get angry.

2) Tiger can conquer the world, but he can’t control it: Tiger Woods can demand that the world allow him to have privacy in his personal affairs, but the truth is that Woods has earned over a billion dollars by asking for the public’s attention. You can’t turn your fame on and off like a faucet.

3) Making a deal with the devil: Tiger Woods was labeled to be squeaky clean and he gets paid as if he were squeaky clean. The big problem is that when the world finds out that you are only human, it’s going to cost you. Tiger is not quite the endorsement steal that he used to be, but he was probably never as perfect as his sponsors pretended that he was. In some ways, this might be a liberating experience for Tiger Woods.

4) Sports can’t quite conquer all: Tiger has earned roughly 10 percent of his billion dollar fortune playing golf. The rest has been earned with appearances, endorsements and other extra perks. So, the idea that Tiger can simply win on the golf course and make this all go away might be a bit flawed. The rules of financial gravity change when you are the greatest golfer that the world has ever seen.

Truth is, with a strong PR strategy, Woods’ scandal could present a hole in one to humanize his personal brand. Woods and the sports media have cultivated the image of a super-human athlete, but have kept his personal life mostly private. Tiger has always been in his own endorsement category. If he can humanize his brand it will provide an opportunity for him to authentically leverage his influence and garner major endorsements.

Tiger should humanize his brand via social media outlets, specifically with Twitter and real-time raw video. His Facebook presence has a polished and promotional tonality leaving fans wanting a glimpse behind-the-scenes. He’s been this untouchable perfect sports icon and fans, consumers think of him as a superhuman versus a real person. If he had allowed people to see the person behind the superstar personality, perceptions and expectations could have been different in recent events.

Obama said it best: “YES WE CAN.”  Tiger can use this scandal to humanize himself and essentially rebrand his image… just a thought. What do you think?

For the Calgary Flames, a sneaky bit of queue-jumping has exploded into a public relations horror, leaving the team to explain why millionaire hockey players deserve what shivering children and seriously ill Albertans do not.

So how did these different sports teams respond to this unique controversy?

The Flames released a statement and answered questions but never acknowledged any wrongdoing.

 “We sought counsel and guidance on this matter and determined it appropriate given the facts available at the time,” the statement said pointing out it had all been arranged through Alberta Health Services.

Flames’ president Ken King was adamant in his defence of the players saying, “Our players did not seek to avoid a line-up. They didn’t ask for special attention, they followed the direction of our physicians, they followed the organization’s direction.”

King is adamant that the Flames organization believed there was plenty of vaccine to go around, even as they filed down to the private location where their personal supply of vaccine was waiting.

It’s unfortunate no one in the Flames group reads either of Calgary’s major daily newspapers, which shared front-page headlines that day, warning of the looming flu vaccine shortage.

“Shot Shortage Warning,” was this paper’s bold black-and-white headline on Friday, when the Flames and their families were enjoying VIP vaccine treatment.

Still, the Flames boss says no one knew of the impending clinic closures.

King admits the team was skipping past long lines at Calgary’s five public clinics, but the team had no clue Albertans might soon be denied vital vaccination.

“We were pretty comfortable knowing we were not disrupting people — the lineup notwithstanding — but under no circumstances are we going to take a shot away from somebody,” said King.

“If anybody said you can have this, but that’s going to mean somebody else isn’t going to, that’s a whole different move — at the time, they were saying high-risk people should get it and all others who want it can, too.

“I can guarantee you, if that was the case, then we wouldn’t have taken it.”

On Saturday, the Flames held a meeting with season ticket holders “to answer their questions about members of the team receiving the H1N1 vaccine ahead of high-risk Albertans.”

Flames president and CEO Ken King said he wanted to hold the meeting so season ticket holders could get all the facts about what happened.

The Vancouver Sun spoke with media relations officials for the many Canadian NHL teams:

Ottawa Senators spokesman Phil Legault also said no players have received the vaccine. “We are waiting in line just like everyone else here in Ottawa,” he said. “They’ll wait in line until it’s their turn.”J.J. Hebert, media director for the Edmonton Oilers, said players are waiting to be vaccinated. “At this point we are still waiting direction from our team medical staff,” he said.

A spokesman for the Vancouver Canucks said the team is “taking every precaution possible to protect our staff and players from illness. . . We will provide players and staff with the option of flu shots at the appropriate time.”

What are your thoughts? How should the Flames respond to the public outrage surrounding their H1N1 shots?

Well, in my opinion, it would help if the Flames could make amends by playing a game for charity and donating the proceeds to Sick Kids’ hospitals. They have a history of working with children’s hospitals and would remind the public of the good charitable work they already do. They should also publicly apologize for their actions instead of shifting blame on others… just a thought.

It’s no secret that Reebok, which was purchased by Adidas in 2006, saw a 34% drop in profit in the last year. Part of this may be due to the recession, but Reebok has been suffering for years now as they are unable to grab market share from Nike and other major competitors.

It’s not surprising to me that someone from their marketing department decided to come up with a different marketing strategy for their new EasyTone shoes, which claim to firm up a woman’s butt and legs.

Sound like a great plan? Keep reading.

Their slogan: “nice booty, great sole” features a series of provocative ads (television, print and YouTube) that tell women that using Reebok’s easy tone shoe will make them more sexually desirable to men.  Nice angle, right? Women are generally concerned about their appearance – just look at the amount of spending that goes into beauty care products. Plus, there’s no question that sex does sell.

Reebok’s Easytone sneakers are supposed to firm and tone your butt to such an extent that the actress in one of their ads actually has to halt her pitch several times to chide the cameraman for lingering on her posterior. “Dude!” she says, and the camera, momentarily startled, goes back to business. It follows her like a puppydog and then, once again, the actress has to remind it to focus a few feet north.

These sneakers apparently build your body 12 different ways, just like Wonderbread. Reebok claims these sneakers provide 28 per cent more gluteus maximus muscle activation, and 11 per cent more calf and hamstring activation.

What’s great about this campaign from a PR perspective is that it’s right in the middle of a very fine line. It gets people talking and starts a conversation, building awareness of Reebok’s new ad and product, thus creating a buzz. In fact, these ads have been so successful, even men have been asking when they can buy themselves a pair! Who doesn’t want toned legs and a cute butt??

The controversy really hits when Reebok decided to come out with this ad, which features a woman’s chest, clad in a demi-bra that might just be one size too small. There are voices. The voices are talking to each other. It takes a moment to realize that … the woman’s boobs are having a private conversation. They’re discussing how much they hate the butt that also happens to be attached to their host’s body. The butt gets the attention, they argue, and it’s not all good.

Eventually, the battling boobs agree that Reebok’s EasyTone sneakers will solve the problem, because they are “proven to tone your butt more than regular sneakers.” Why this should calm them isn’t clear, but it could be an example of boob-logic that we aren’t meant to comprehend.

I don’t know about you, but when I have trouble sleeping at night, I tell my boobs to hush up. Naturally, I am thankful there is a brand of sneaker that will settle those late-night arguments.

Rightfully so, some women feel that Reebok crossed the line with these ads and degraded women. Women are reduced to a series of body parts and rewarded for appealing to the camera’s eye. The (male) camera tells women that exercising will make them objects of male desire.

So how should Reebok respond to these accusations? Should they “run with it” or devise an appropriate PR response?

My suggestion is they should stop running the ‘boobie ad’, issue an apology and possibly engage in some women seminars where they embrace the idea of loving your body – no matter what size, shape, gender you are. However, they should emphasize the importance of an active lifestyle, especially with today’s obesity rates. Their spokesperson, Kim Kardashian, is a perfect example of someone who loves their body while staying active – Kim has actively been promoting this concept by publicly telling young girls to love their bodies and curves. Loving your body shouldn’t mean chugging down a McDonald shake in 1 minute flat.

While Reebok did push the envelope on this campaign, it can easily be resolved by taking responsibility for their mistake, issuing an apology and engaging their audience to discuss this broader issue. In fact, they have an opportunity to turn this whole campaign around by creating dialogue on women and body issues, obesity issues and promoting an active lifestyle…and dare I say it? Reebok Easy Tone shoes!

Just a thought. I mean, how effective is a campaign when select groups from its target audience are offended???

What are YOUR thoughts?

After being released from prison, Vick was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles for nearly $7 million. It has now been over two months since Vick signed to the Eagles and the question remains: can he repair his reputation? According to an article in the New York Times, one of Vick’s biggest challenges will be how teams and the public will receive him – his personal branding.

Sure, Mike Tyson made it back into the ring after his many mix-ups with the law and Ray Lewis is one of the most adored defensive players in the NFL, and he was involved in an actual homicide. The problem is that this country is very sensitive about their pets, so the uphill battle Vick faces in the eyes of the public will be very difficult.

While in prison, Vick got a head-start on his PR and rebranding campaign by forging a relationship with the Humane Society and announcing that he will be working with the organization to discourage dog fighting and educate youth about its evils. He appeared on 60 Minutes and said a lot of the “right” things in the CBS interview- unsurprising admissions of shame and a new appreciation of animals. But there was something else in the segment that sounded like it would be a PR push: change the topic to work ethic. The interview turned into a discussion about how Vick went from a ‘lazy’ player into someone who is truly dedicated to the game and ultimately a changed man.

“I was lazy,” Vick said. “Last guy in the building, first guy out. I know that, I hear everything people say. And that hurt me when I heard that, but I knew it was true.”

His PR team has been carefully placing stories emphasizing Vick’s work ethic. In a Foxsports.com story about Vick’s first day of practice, Alex Marvez stated, “Vick’s work ethic also impressed. He and and reserve quarterback Adam DiMichele were the last players to leave the practice field on a sweltering afternoon”.

So does this mean Vick’s reputation  is back on track?

E-Poll Market Research has done some extensive polling work on Vick and results show he is the most disliked person in sports.  E-Poll numbers show that the majority of people dislike Vick and things haven’t changed since he was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles.

On Aug. 10, E-Poll’s survey revealed 75 per cent of the population disliked Vick. A survey taken this Wednesday revealed that the percentage that disliked him had only dropped to 71 per cent. The percentage of people who liked him was 13 per cent, virtually unchanged from when he was first charged.

What’s your take? Does Vick’s reputation stand a chance for recovery or is it over for him?