Archive

Starkey: Court-storming stupidity must stop | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World Sports

Starkey: Court-storming stupidity must stop

KansasKansasStBasketballJPEG05353
Kansas State fans rush the floor after defeating Kansas on Monday, Feb. 23, 2015, in Manhattan, Kan.

I’m not sure when profanity-laced chants became an accepted part of the college-basketball experience, but as embarrassing as they are, they’re not dangerous.

Court storming is another matter. It’s out of control. It’s stupid. It’s hazardous. And it needs to stop.

Fans pay to watch from the stands. That is where they belong — before, during and after the game.

On Monday, Kansas State students stampeded after a win over Kansas. One idiot elbowed Kansas forward Jamari Traylor. Coach Bill Self was pinned against the scorer’s table. Assistant Kurtis Townsend, trying to protect players, grabbed a fan.

Fun stuff.

On the same night, after a high school game in West Hartford, Conn., police broke up a brawl that erupted during a court rush. Around this time last year, a melee broke out when Utah Valley State fans blitzed the court after a win over New Mexico State.

It’s amazing there aren’t more incidents, considering the lethal cocktail such scenarios produce. The losing team is wrapped in negative emotion, its players and coaches exposed to manic and possibly liquored-up fans seconds after the buzzer.

You hear people say, “What’s the risk? You can get hit by a bus, too.”

Yes, well, transportation is necessary. Court storming isn’t. Particularly when it’s, say, No. 14 Maryland beating No. 5 Wisconsin. Or Cal beating Oregon for the 10th straight time. Yet those instances produced a court rush.

Possible deterrents: 1. Fine the home school like the SEC does (although it should be stiffer than $5,000 for the first incident). 2. Beef up security. Police dogs, like the ones they use at Florida, have an amazing way of curbing one’s desire to move forward.

A radical way to end the idiocy would be a mandatory forfeit. Court storming would disappear faster than creative offense.

Too drastic?

Tell that to Joe Kay. He was an Arizona high school star headed to Stanford in 2004 when his life changed forever. After his dunk finished off a rival school, fans raced onto the court. Kay was crushed. His carotid artery was torn. He is permanently paralyzed on one side.

“Granted, I was small potatoes,” Kay told ESPN.com in 2013. “But it seems nothing was learned.”

ESPN, incidentally, fuels the fire. Kids want to get on TV. ESPN obliges. And don’t be surprised if, after leading “SportsCenter” with yet another court storm, the network directs you to “Outside the Lines” for an examination of the dangers of court storming.

At Pitt, sanity prevails. The Oakland Zoo has an unwritten rule: Don’t storm the court under any circumstance (there hasn’t been a court rush here since an upset of No. 12 Syracuse in 2002 at Fitzgerald Field House). Whether it’s beating WVU on a last-second shot seven years ago or No. 8 Notre Dame and No. 12 North Carolina this season, the Zoo stays put.

“When you rush the court, you’re telling the other school they’re better than you,” Zoo president Nick Brenner says. “Once in a while (a student) will tweet, ‘The Oakland Zoo will storm the court.’ Everyone else will tweet, ‘No, they won’t.’”

Students responsibly self-policing? That might be the best solution of all.

Joe Starkey co-hosts a show 2 to 6 p.m. weekdays on 93.7 FM. Reach him at [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.