Inclusion Vs. Exclusion in the World of Sports

So, I just finished my final paper for English on the topic "Inclusion vs. Exclusion," and I have to do a presentation on the subject Tuesday. So, if you have a great sports suggestion for me to incorporate, I'm all ears

Gary Sheffield and the Yankees. Barry Bonds and baseball. Mid-majors and the BCS. The fans and bowl tie-ins. The World Cup and, well, the world. The Yankees/Red Sox in their chase for Johan.

What do they all have in common? Inclusion or exclusion. One or the other can be found anywhere:

Gary Sheffield was claiming racism during his stint with the Yankees, voicing his feeling of being excluded due to race. Whether that's true or not doesn't matter-if the feeling's there, something must be wrong, with the organization or the person in question.

Barry Bonds has become the product of a witch hunt. Why? Because he broke Hank Aaron's homerun record. There was a debate on "Around the Horn" yesterday as to whether Bonds' case is huge or not; what I took was sure, it's huge because he's the HR leader, but no, because the government is really screwing up and continuing to chase somebody who did may or may not have used steroids when it was legal. The whole "Jose Guillen" argument is this: Guillen got 15 games for HGH usage, but others like Rick Ankeil did not, because there wasnt enough evidence. However, they all were proven to have used them...when there was no rule prohibiting the usage of HGH.

This double standard is really sickening, and it makes me despise the MLB right now.

Mid-majors have the field stacked against them in college football; the big-shots are sometimes afraid to schedule the good mid-majors, fearing the upset and possible derailment of national hopes. But this prevents the small schools from proving just how good they are. Thus, they're excluded from the elite club we call the BCS conferences.