Mike Wallace Reporting…: Understanding the Misunderstanding about Wallace’s Understanding

There will come a day, hopefully soon but at least within our lifetimes, where news about an athlete — or anyone — being gay is not news at all.  A time where someone says, “I’m gay” and the response is simply “And…?”  There will come a day where homosexuality is a non-issue.

Today is NOT that day.  Today, current NBA free agent center Jason Collins let it be known to the world that he is gay.  And it is front page news.  Now, i understand that given the current times that we are in where gay marriage in the United States is still a very sensitive issue that this is definitely newsworthy.  But will we ever get to that point where no one even has to say this?

Now, do i think that it is great that Collins “came out” in a sport where machismo runs rampant?  Sure.  But, let’s not make him out to be Jackie Robinson here.  Black athletes were not allowed to play; gay athletes have not been (officially) barred from playing.  There is a distinct difference.  Plenty of gay athletes have played various types of sports without (direct) hindrance.

On the other hand, gay athletes must often hide who they are because of the fear and intimidation factor.  In this sense, then Collins is attempting to “open the door.”  Most gay athletes only let it be known after they retired from their respective sport.  So, what Collins is doing is great.  However, in an ideal world, we’d just say “And…?” and just move on, not thinking twice.  Instead, not only is it news, he is a bit more praised than perhaps he needs to be.  In this way, i agree with Tim Brando’s initial statement concerning hero-worship.  Hopefully he can serve as an example for other gay athletes to find the courage to be themselves and still play the sport they love.  But, using “hero” is a bit much.

And, of course, because this is news, there are reactions.  And, besides Brando’s reaction, there is Mike Wallace, current wide receiver for the Miami Dolphins.  Wallace’s reaction was simple:

All these beautiful women in the world and guys wanna mess with other guys SMH…

Now, look.  It is one thing to be intolerant and ignorant about something.  There are far too many people in this world who brush off homosexuality as “evil,” “immoral,” “confusion,” “wrong” or that it is against God and a host of other code words to ostracize gays and lesbians.  There are way too many people who levy a new level of hate towards gays without much reason behind there thinking.

But, I do not think Wallace’s comments qualify as such.  Yes, Wallace might be intolerant of gays, but he did not pull a Chris Culliver here.  And we do not honestly know if Wallace is intolerant or “homophobic.”  What we know, going only by his tweet, is that Wallace cannot understand why a man would love another man.

Is this so difficult to understand?  Not understanding homosexuality, but understanding Wallace’s comments.  When i read the headline about the first “homophobic comment” to come out regarding Collins, i expected something Culliverian…or worse.  Instead, the comment is simply one of (mis)understanding; Wallace, who loves women, not understanding how a man can love another man.

It is more simple than the media is making it out to be.  There are decisions that many people make that we wonder why they do that.  On a grander scale, that is what Wallace is asking.  Again, there is a difference in rhetoric here.  Acceptance and understanding are two different things.  It is possible to accept homosexuality while at the same time not understanding it.  Liken it to how some people who are pro-choice are actually not for abortion, believing that the choice is individual even if they do not support an abortion itself.

Thus, i think that there was been a great misunderstanding about Mike Wallace’s understanding about homosexuality.  I think it is fair for someone to not understand homosexuality.  Again, there are many lifestyles and choices that we do not understand.  Why is this any different?  For many, the concept of homosexuality is very difficult to grasp, especially since they are not gay.  So, should we not also make an attempt to understand why others don’t understand.

Let me be clear in closing.  I want to say who cares about Collins “coming out.”  But, the problem is that we are not there.  One individual having the courage — and it is indeed courage, do not attempt to diminish that! — to stand up for who he really is is still only a tiny step in a longer quest.  So, Collins is still an ambassador for millions of people who still must hide in fear because of intolerance and ignorance.  But, we must separate that ignorance for understanding.

Besides, there is far worse being spouted off by ignorant people that reflect why “coming out” is still newsworthy.  Observe just a sampling of the morons:

And then, there is this gem, which exemplifies why this is still a big issue and will continue to be so.

 

Gonzaga Could Be the Most Criticized #1 Seed Ever

The Gonzaga Bulldogs could end up being the most criticized #1 seed ever, if the unthinkable happens.

As a 16-seed last year, UNC-Asheville pushed #1 seed Syracuse to the brink before finally falling to the Orange.  Princeton, as a 16, gave Georgetown all it could handle in 1989 before losing by one point.  In that same tournament, East Tennessee State came within a basket of taking out top-seeded Oklahoma.  And Murray State took Michigan State to overtime before the 1-seed Spartans finally won by four points.

Yes, no 16-seed has ever beaten a 1-seed in the men’s tournament.  And, we all hold out hopes that it will finally happen to a juggernaut like Duke or Kansas or Kentucky.

However, here is Gonzaga — the major team in the “mid-majors.”  The team that goes out and looks for competition and has built itself up to being a perennial contender and power.  And though it was Butler that broke through and made the championship game as a mid-tier school — twice — Gonzaga is still the team people look at to finally give the “little guys” the best change to take home the title.

Gonzaga’s long, hard road to respectability finally paid off with a coveted 1-seed.  This after being ranked #1 in the polls for the first time ever!  And, even though some opine that it is undeserved due to the Bulldogs’ conference, Gonzaga did what the could with their non-conference schedule.

And yet, here is the dilemma.  We want to see that 16-seed pull the biggest upset in tournament history.  But, if it happens against Gonzaga, would it be bittersweet?  If Southern pulls off the shocker, how will it be perceived?

The win would not come against the so-called “big boys.”  Yet, it would still be a 16-seed doing the unthinkable.  On the other hand, some will say that such an upset would not have happened had Gonzaga been “properly seeded.”  They will argue that the Bulldogs should have never been a top-seed and will use the upset to buoy their argument that Gonzaga is overrated.

It is a tough spot for the ‘Zags.  A win is ho-hum…moving on.  But, the “epic” loss that we as basketball fans yearn to see — 16 knocking off the 1?  Devastating!

In the end, maybe Gonzaga blows out Southern and the game becomes simply a lost memory.  But, they could possibly be under the most pressure of any 1-seed facing a 16-seed in the history of the tournament.  And, they will probably be the most scrutinized if they do anything short of making the Final Four.

It all starts soon.

Texas Tasting Some Sour Grapes in Rivalry with A&M

In 2012, the Texas A&M Aggies began playing football in the SEC.  Not only was this the beginning of a new conference for the Aggies, but it also marked the first time in 99 years that Texas A&M and Texas were not in the same conference.  And, as a result, a rivalry that dates back to 1894 came to an end.

However, Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodd recently suggested that the rivalry may be rekindled.  But…there is a catch:

They left.  . . . They’re the ones that decided not to play us. We get to decide when we play again. I think that’s fair. If you did a survey of our fans about playing A&M, they don’t want to. It’s overwhelming. I know. I hear it.

Huh?  Maybe it is just me, but i seem to remember that it was Texas that opted not to continue the rivalry.  Granted, scheduling was an issue, but I am sure that something could have been worked out with, say, Wyoming.  You’re Texas, for crying out loud!  You have your own fucking network!  Make it happen!

Ah, yes.  The network!  Some will point out that the creation of the Longhorn Network was the catalyst for the Aggies’ exodus.  But, let’s be honest.  Texas A&M has long desired to join the SEC.  The potential move in the 1990s — during a time when Texas acted elitist and eyed a move to the Pac-10 — was blocked due to political meddling.  Eventually, the Aggies joined the Big 12.  So, really, the SEC move was the fulfilling of a near two decade-old dream.  It just needed the right fuel to start the fire.  That’s where the Network comes in.

So, Texas can try to blame the Aggies moving to the SEC for ending the rivalry, but when you look at the context, even Stevie Wonder can see what was going on there.

The thing is, A&M wanted to continue the rivalry.  It was Dodd who said, “Piss off, Aggies!”  And, he probably used those words, too.  Texas felt that they were better than A&M and did not need the Aggies to justify their existence.  So, the Longhorns went about their way, saving the Big 12 all by themselves because they are the only team that can do it, while Texas A&M goes to get destroyed in the SEC.

Wait!  Huh?  The Aggies didn’t get destroyed in the SEC?  They actually played very well?  They beat the eventual BCS champions?  And, their QB became the first freshman to win the Heisman???  Oops!

Maybe that is why Dodd released such an odd statement.  Maybe that is why he insinuated that Texas fans don’t want to restart the rivalry.  Maybe A&M’s successful jump left Dodd with a taste of sour grapes.  He probably hoped lil’ brother would fail, but when it did not happen, he became bitter.  And, at present, it does seem that the two programs are heading in opposite directions.

That Dodd had the audacity to now blame the Aggies for the end of the rivalry is ludicrous.  At best, both parties are to blame.  But, just stop with the elitist “we’ll play ‘em when we’re ready” schtick, because had the two met last year, the Longhorns would have likely been demolished.

Texas legislator Ryan Guillen proposed a bill that would require the two universities to play each other in football every season.  However, is it really a “rivalry” worth saving?  Certainly there is a huge emotional attachment to the rivalry, but in terms of competition and on-field results, the rivalry is more like Tennessee-Vanderbilt.

If the Aggies are going to renew an old SWC/Big 12 rivalry, I hope that it is with Texas Tech.  I want to see more goal posts in the stands!

Beatdown by Stack: Twitter “Wars” and Fans Getting Hit Back

You asked for it.  Poking bears with sticks.  Laughing.  Thinking that you know more about a given sport than the athletes that play it; the coaches that manage it; the referees that regulate it.

You sit in the comforts and anonymity of your home, pounding away at computer or smartphone.  Sending out incendiary messages about your [least] favorite player, or how your team sucks because of x, y, and z.  This is the “privilege” of being a fan — a voice to criticize.  And this is the new “right” bestowed upon those fans — taking to Twitter, Facebook, or blogs to air out those well-crafted critiques.

Back in the day (whenever that “day” was), fans would voice their grievances at bars or around the water cooler (do workplaces really have water coolers?).  Now, they vocalize that anger digitally.  The thing is, before the avenue of criticism was a one-way path down a canopy road out in the middle of nowhere.  Now, those words are travelling down a well-lit highway running right through sprawling metropolises of information…and it is heavily populated.

Now, athletes — long secret targets of criticism — can now see their “fans” lobbing firebombs in their direction.  How does he still have a job?  Two points on 1 of 9 shooting…again!?  Are negative QB ratings even possible????  Well, at least he had one strikeout in his 1/3 of an inning pitched!  All such words of encouragement are floating around for athletes to see…and some are firing back.

That is apparently what happened when Jerry Stackhouse — who surprisingly still has a roster spot [honestly, i thought he was finally out of the NBA] — fired back at smartass criticism from a know-it-all fan.  Or, several fans apparently.

The Twitter exchange is covered well via other venues (see HERE and HERE, as well as the Twitter accounts of this cat and this one).  So, I leave that there.  The dialogue and actual exchange itself is not the purpose of this article.  I’d rather focus on the fact that Stackhouse stepped up and fired back…and fans get all pissy about it!

In full disclosure, I am far from being a fan of Jerry Stackhouse.  I hated him during his days in Chapel Hill, and disliked him as an NBA player.  So, I am not siding with him because of some personal bias or infatuation with Stack.

However, in this minor “Twitter war,” I side with Stackhouse.  The fans that criticize him seemed “shocked” that Stackhouse would become offended that they are criticizing him.  It seems appalling to them that he would even offer up a response.  Apparently, because they are privileged as fans, they can voice their harsh criticism of players without retribution.  Apparently, the freedom of speech only applies to fans.

But, Jerry Stackhouse does not see it that way.  Hell, he’s “never been a fan” so he shouldn’t have a voice in return, according to some.  However, Twitter does give him a voice.  And he decided to use it.  And use it he did!  Why?  Because Stackhouse has a right to speech…and a right to respond!

No one is claiming that fans do not have a right to criticism.  Entertainment, be it sports, film and television, or books, is an industry where open criticism is expected.  But this industry is also populated with actual people with real emotions and real feelings.  They think and react just like you.  So, while fans are allowed to voice their opinions, so are athletes.  Or, at least, they should be able to do so.

Yet, there is a mistaken belief that athletes should remain silent; they should just take criticism because it is “a part of their job.”  It is?  I am fairly certain that nowhere in Jerry Stackhouse’s contract does it state “put up with fans’ shit.”  And, I am not sure why Stackhouse responding to fans is “unprofessional,” as some defenders of these fans have suggested.  Why not hold fans accountable as well?  Why not call their constant complaining “unprofessional”?  If Stackhouse and other athletes are supposed to be “professional” and refrain from interacting with fans, then why not require fans to also act “professionally” and support the team AND its players rather than spewing venom?

And…what is wrong with Stackhouse searching for his own name?  Are you telling me that you have never searched for your own name?  Hell, I bet since all of this broke, ol’ “BSchulzBKN” has searched for her/his name many times.  Or searched for “NetsKiNG.”  Hell, this dude is out posting everywhere s/he can to offer up her/his side of the story.  ”Look at what Stack said to me.  Boo-hoo!”

Again, I am not defending what Stackhouse wrote in response.  I hate the “get your followers up” line and the “what if I came to your cubicle and criticized you” blast [Talib Kweli, a rapper I like, drops a similar line on his Gutter Rainbows album...I hated it there, too].  But, what I am defending is Stackhouse’s right to respond.  Hell, he even tried to keep it low key by sending the dude a private message.  This “fan” was the one who took it public and blew it out of proportion.  And, who really knows what this “fan” deleted in response [not claiming that the fan did, but you never know...perhaps one of BSchulzBKN's 200+ followers can let me know...if one of those followers happen to be one of the six people to actually read this].

So, blast away fans!  Keep up the good work of spouting off your opinions and expert analysis on Twitter.  Just do not be surprised when the targets of your expertise fire back.  Or, to quote the “great” Jerry Stackhouse:

It’s Amazing how people love to spit venom on others until a little bit splashes back on them…then they become victims!!

Northern Illinois Does Not Owe You a Damn Thing!

It was predictable.  As sure as the sun rises in the east.  As sure as so-called “Mayan Apocalypse” would be a letdown.  As sure as a Christian Slater movie would be a flop.

Yep.  From the moment the BCS Bowl Game Announcements were made, you knew that this was going to happen.  You knew it from the second the Orange Bowl match-up was announced.

No, I am not talking about Florida State beating Northern Illinois.  I am talking about the aftermath.  The “see, I told you so” bullshit.  You knew this was coming.

I know no one outside of DeKalb that actually gave the Huskies a real chance.  Sure, I wanted to see NIU pull the upset.  But, I also knew better.  And, when I made my predictions via Yahoo! Sports, I gave it 24 confidence points (Oklahoma State beating Purdue got 35, for the record).

But, I also felt that NIU would hang around.  They would put up a fight.  But, over time, Florida State would be too much and pull away late.  That is basically what happened.

And yet, people almost seem shocked at the outcome.  As if the dominance was one that they did not see coming.  I write this because most of the post-game criticism has been the “see, NIU did not belong here.”

Says who?  Are you simply ignoring the facts of the game?  Are you overlooking the system that is in play?  Are you forgetting who NIU’s opponent was in the Orange Bowl?

Going into the game against Florida, there were some vocal supporters lauding FSU as being overlooked in the BCS Title Game discussion.  Here was a team that had one-loss — a one-point loss to a mediocre NC State team — that was being treated more like NIU or Kent State.

At one point after the Clemson game, FSU looked very much like a team destined to play for the title; a return to glory.  The defense was suffocatingly fast.  Remember that the Seminoles were second in the country in yards allowed per game (253.4 per game).  Yes, it was against pathetic ACC competition, but this looked like a return to the defenses of the 90′s.  The offense was not too shabby either — top 25 in both points per game and yards per game.

So, FSU at one point was BCS title material.  The loss to the Wolfpack hurt, but they still had a shot going into the Florida game.  But, in the end, the lost.  They then took the ACC title and disappointingly accepted the wrong invitation to Miami — Orange Bowl instead of the BCS National “Championship” Game.

NIU did what they were supposed to do, according to the BCS rules.  Nebraska sucked enough to blow the Big Ten title to the third-best team from the Leaders Division and opened the door for a MAC team to make their BCS debut.

NIU versus Louisville would have been a more comparable match-up.  The Huskies versus Kansas State would have been intriguing.  Even Northern Illinois versus Oregon would have probably produced fireworks.  Would NIU beat any of those three?  Maybe not.  But, the level would have been closer.

Instead, the Huskies faced a very tough FSU team.  One that had the potential to be in the title game, but choked.  It was perhaps the worst possible BCS match-up for NIU, save maybe Florida.  And, thus, the outcome should not have been a surprise.

Recall the 2008 Sugar Bowl between Hawai’i and Georgia.  The Warriors were undefeated going into that game, though that record was buoyed by a fairly weak schedule.  The Bulldogs were pissed off…angry that they were passed over for the BCS title game for LSU (the SEC champs; Georgia finished second in the East behind Tennessee).  Like FSU, Georgia had title-quality talent but fell just shy of the title game.  And, like FSU, Georgia was far superior compared to Hawai’i.

It was not the Warriors’ fault; it was a terrible draw for them.  They still “deserved” to be there.  Georgia was just that much better.

I would argue that NIU is actually better than Hawai’i was in 2007-08.  But they faced a team that was simply better in all aspects of the game.  It is NOT an indictment on the Huskies, the MAC, or the “small guys.”  It is simply an indication of how good FSU is as a team; or at least, the potential the Seminoles possessed.

So, NIU owes you nothing.  They do not need to apologize for having to jump through hoops just to make it to a big-money bowl game.  They do not have to justify their moment in the spotlight.  And, they do not have to prove that FSU was the superior team.

We knew that from the beginning.  We know that Florida State could have scored more had they not had miscues or a terrible third-down conversion rate (made only less-terrible by NIU’s abysmal third-down conversion rate).  But, that does not mean that Northern Illinois did not belong in a BCS bowl game.  It just means that FSU is that much better than NIU.  Plain and simple.

So save your sad “overrated” chants (really, Nole fans!?  that’s what you’ve come to?).  Save your “they don’t belong” spiel.  Save your “see I told you so” bullshit.

Because, all of those things could apply to the Seminoles and their pathetic conference.  Remember, with this win, the ACC is now 3-13 in BCS bowl games.  Who really belongs?

The Devolution of Internet-based Sports Media

Television is garbage.

My parents had been saying that for years, claiming that the Ninja Turtles had no real educational value.  I told them that was ridiculous — I learned more about ancient artists, Japanese culture, musical styles, and talking brain-things in mechanical suits because of TMNT.

Nevertheless, the slide of modern television is evident in the oft-held misnomer of MTV, which is less about music (and even less about music videos) and more about stupidity.  The Weather Channel now trots out reality shows instead of blue-screened weather forecasts backed by Muzak.  And cable news is just a litany of over-the-top talkers and pointless segments.

Sports is not beyond this, which is something that we covered back during THE DECISION!  SportsCenter has devolved into more of an entertainment show than a highlights show.  Interviews are now being conduct between quarters of basketball games.  Terrible shit.  Perhaps the catalyst for this was that anyone could get scores and whatnot off of the Internet; so SportsCenter in particular — and ESPN in general — needed something to maintain the attention on themselves.  But the gossip, “storylines” and other bullshit has made many of the programs on sports television unwatchable.

But, the Internet-based sports medium is not immunity to this slide towards gossip and other garbage.  Again, part of this has been covered here before with the fear reporters have of bloggers.  And perhaps that is why we are seeing more and more garbage come from “reputable” Internet sites.  And the site that is driving the trash-truck is Yahoo! Sports.

But it is not necessarily just gossip, as writers at Y! Sports have started taking to attacking other journalists, or being generally hypocritical.  There are numerous examples, but I will highlight just two that have occurred in recent months.

Short-term Memory

On 8 November 2012, Dan Wetzel wrote an article attacking one of my most hated things in reporting — anonymous quotes and polls that attack players.  It was a well-written piece that focused predominantly on attacks from an “anonymous” NFL general manager on Detroit Lions center Dominic Raiola, as well as a “players’ poll” about the most overrated coach in the NFL.

Protecting witnesses and whistleblowers is understandable; protecting cowards is NOT.  I mean, when punter Chris Kluwe is displaying more manhood with his opinions and statements than the supposed “real men” [and, i mean that out of respect to Kluwe], then maybe it is not something that should even be published.  So, Wetzel was correct to attack this trend.  Awesome!  Way to take those to task!!

But wait!  What is this!?  Nearly a week later, Yahoo! Sports publishes an article drawing attention to “anonymous sources” criticizing backup QB Tim Tebow.  To be fair, Yahoo! did not conduct the survey or write the original, but by publishing it they became any accessory to the “crime” of publishing garbage.  Even Wetzel joined in by writing about the Tebow situation and referencing the New York Daily News article, though he did try to throw in a quick disclaimer and a link back to his “anonymous polls and comments are bad” article.

So, publishing anonymous quotes and polls are bad, but writing articles in order to draw in more reads is badass!

Kaepernick’s Tats Draw a Crowd

Colin Kaepernick is the shiz-nit!  He was a fave of mine during his days at Nevada when i though that he deserved more publicity for Heisman (when Denard Robinson was getting the same treatment for doing the same).  I am glad to see him getting a fair chance at QB, even if it did come due to an injury (and one that took the starting job from a player who was actually doing well).

And look at those tats!  Stunning!  What a beautiful man!

Well, tattoos are good for some, but not for others.  Writer David Whitley, writing for SportingNews and AOL’s Fanhouse, published a piece describing the “horrors” of a tatted-up QB — the “CEO” of the football team — ushering in a new trend that sullied that sacred image.  Drawing parallels between tattoos and prison culture, Whitley wonders about the messages it sends to have the face of a franchise carry some ink.  After all, the only QBs with excessively visible tattoos were the likes of Michael Vick and Terrelle Pryor (trying to hold back the laughter on labeling the latter one a QB) — you know, deviants!  Perfect for the “prison culture” of tattoos!

Of course, that article led to criticism of Whitley making racist insinuations about having tattoos meaning one is a criminal; that only blacks (and only black quarterbacks) have tattoos.  And, since the connection is made early on about prisons, the Great Leap Forward is that Whitley believes blacks are criminals…since criminals have tattoos.  And…wait, huh?

Whatever was trying to be argued, Yahoo! Sports quickly jumped up to be the savior of the day; to shit on another website’s work; to be the torchbearer of civil rights in sports!  Blogger — ERRRRR, columnist — Doug Farrar wrote an article about how Kaepernick’s parents were “mad as heck” and not gonna take it anymore!  Farrar goes on and on, lecturing about how Whitley is irresponsible and a joke and incoherent.

But, after reading Whitley’s article and comparing it to Farrar’s response, I wonder if the latter even took a moment to absorb what the former was writing.  I mean, Whitley’s article was certainly not the most eloquent article written, but let’s not pretend that any sports writer is publishing Shakespeare-esque prose.  Nevertheless, his point made no attempt to draw parallels between tattoos and race.  Farrar even quoted Whitley giving examples of “white” QBs with tattoos.  The only difference beyond race between Roethlisberger and Vick is that Big Ben’s tats are more hidden.  Well, that…and Big Ben has actually played in and won a couple of Super Bowls.

Could it be that the only examples of other quarterbacks with such visible tattoos are black QBs?  What other comparison could be made?  I’ve studied issues of “race” (it is obvious that Farrar has not) enough to know that there is hidden racism in subtle statements.  But I do not think this one qualifies because of the general references prison and motorcycle gangs (thinking Hell’s Angels).  You have to wonder if, vicariously, it is Farrar is making the “racist” connection by inserting his assumption into Whitley’s article.

But, the bigger picture is that Whitley’s article seems to be almost satirical in nature.  In a way, it is self-deprecating because he has inserted himself into the role of the old fogey, dreaming of the days of Johnny Unitas.  It almost reminded of one of The Simpsons episodes where Grandpa Simpson was kvetching about Joe Namath’s crazy hair compared to real man Unitas.

I took Whitley’s article as tongue-in-cheek.  It was as if he was playing off of the “horrors” of tattoos and the past stereotypes of those tats and flipping into a piece that displayed the absurdity of the arguments against tatted QBs and embracing the change.  Even if Whitley has some acute fear of tattoos, as he expressed in his article, I took his article as not seriously admonishing the tattoos but embracing it and the change in mentality.

Still, that did not stop Farrar from ripping him and Fanhouse.  Farrar’s piece came off as a potshot at a rival Internet publisher.  He even insinuated that Whitley thought that the tattooed Kaepernick was some sort of “apocalypse for the 49ers franchise”…I could never find where Whitley even came close to suggesting that.  Yeah…nice going Farrar.

In the end, I think it was a satirical piece where Whitley used his own preference against tattoos to draw out the stereotypes of tattoos and note that things are changing…for the better.  And, especially given Sporting News‘ editor Garry Howard publishing a response to the criticism, I am more inclined to side with Whitley (even if his justification is a retroactive one).

Farrar criticized Whitley for apparently not “have time for stuff like interviewing, homework, or film study,” but maybe Farrar should have taken more than five minutes to, you know, speak to Whitley and understand where he was coming from before publishing this drivel.  Yeah, working sucks.  It goes both ways.

Maybe Whitley was being racist and judgmental, maybe he wasn’t.  Farrar doesn’t know because he did not bother to find out.  Instead, he decided to attack a journalist from a competing sports site.  How judgmental!

Putting the “Yahoo!” in Yahoo! Sports…um…

There are other examples that are less controversial, including recently attacking Steve Czaban (somewhat justifiable in the criticism, but Czaban has always pushed the envelope and called it as he saw it; why kvetch now?) and Rob Parker (who was asking for it, but Yahoo! then went out of its way to delivery shots at ESPN).  But these two are tame compared to the Tebow story and the Kaepernick story.

Or, non-stories, as it should be.

Yahoo! Sports still has a great fantasy sports interface going for it.  But that their sports “reporting” has drifted into gossip and attacks on other media outlets and journalists is started to erode the site’s appeal as a reputable sports news site.

Now, Kiss and Make Up: Oakland A’s Become Jealous of Detroit’s Kiss of Death

Al Alburquerque has a name that belongs in comic books.  The alliteration just seems so perfectly made-up that he should be fighting Peter Parker.  Of course, that ignores reality as Al is a real person, as is Mister Alexander.

What also ignores reality is that false “outrage” that the Oakland Athletics have over Alburquerque’s on-the-mound gesture during Game 2 of the ALDS.  And, it ignores the realities of the A’s own antics.

Let’s start with the event.  Top of the ninth; two outs; game tied at four; runners on the corners.  Al Alburquerque is in for one batter — Yoenis Cespedes.  Alburquerque delivers a 1-1 pitch that Cespedes weakly taps back to the mound.  Our hero corals the ball, in the heat of the bottom gives the ball a little peck on the cheek, and underhands it over to first for the final out of the inning.  Alburquerque is later delivered the win after Don Kelly drives in the winning run in the bottom of the ninth.

Awesome time!  Except for the A’s.

They were fuming over the affair, calling it “immature” and “unprofessional.”  Jonny Gomes even reference the mythical baseball gods, apparently hoping that Odin will show up in Oakland and take care of Alburquerque.

DAMN YOU, ALBURQUERQUE!!!  DAMN YOU FOR SULLYING THE PURE AND HOLY GAME OF BASEBALL!!!!

Yeah, mythical baseball gods that must write the mythical “unwritten rules” of baseball.  I suppose every spring, a giant bunny rabbit shows up in Florida and Arizona to deliver baskets of baseballs for all the pious baseball players.  Well, everyone except Alburquerque…who i guess is on the “naughty list” now.  Or at least on the Wikipedia naughty list:

I guess the need for “maturity” only extends to baseball players and not to fans.

Wait a minute?  Baseball gods?  Unwritten rules?  Who is immature and unprofessional!?

Alburquerque’s reaction, while perhaps unusual, differ none from a reliever wiping his forehead or deeply exhaling after getting out of a tough jam.  It is no different than Joba Chamberlain fist pumps; no different than the entire team jumping out of the dugout after a mid-inning home run; no different than tossing one’s helmet in the air before pouncing onto home plate following a walk-off shot.

It’s called emotion!  And baseball is very finicky when it comes to expressions of it.  How long can a batter admire his towering home run?  How deep does a pitcher’s fist pump go when recording a big out?  How hard must a high-five connect after a diving catch in the outfield?  Maybe if someone wrote these down, we could all understand how far to go.  Then again, some rules are written down and there is still ambiguity.

Like the Aroldis Roll, that the kiss was uncommon is what signals it out.  But, he was caught up in the emotion of a very tight, very hard-fought game.  The out was huge.  And, Alburquerque “simply had an instant reaction to the moment.” It is like in soccer when a goalkeeper gives the goalpost some affection after a shot clanks off of the wood…even though the game is not over yet.

Of course, that is soccer [or futbal].  This is baseball, a subjectively emotionless, “mature,” and oftentimes boring game.  And it is made even more boring by these attempts to suck the emotion — the true human element — out of the game.  We have previously railed against the lack of emotion in baseball.

But, apparently, some things are okay:

This is okay…unless he kisses his bat.

Nothing to see here…move along, people!

Assholes and elbows.

Just playing paper, rock, scissors…tis all!

Not sure if the baseball gods would approve of this.

Acting mature and professional.

Yeah.  Kind of strange to see.  Such an outcry over showing emotion from a team that also shows a lot of emotion.  Irony?  No.  Hypocrisy?  Absolutely.

The A’s have been showing “emotion” and, to paraphrase Josh Reddick, acting “unprofessional” and “immature” all year.  But, they had no problem with it then.  Now that someone — or some team — is turning it back on them, it is simply “unprofessional” and displeasing to the baseball gods.

Go back just a couple of weeks ago to 22 September.  The A’s were playing the New York Yankees.  After scoring four runs off of three homers in the top of the 13th inning, the A’s began celebrating in the dugout, at least according to Yankees’ first baseman Eric Chavez.  Chavez called the antics “high school-ish” and “unprofessional.”

Wow!  That sounds familiar!  Jonny Gomes responded by trying to claim that the players were “playing the game to have fun.”  Again, when your team acts a fool, it’s just rookies trying to have fun (though, Gomes, Balfour, Crisp, and Reddick are NOT rookies…and while Cespedes is a rookie, his life experiences living in Cuba should have “matured” him more).  When the other team does it, it is smiting the baseball gods!

Remember when A-Rod soiled Dallas Braden’s mound?  Hell, I liked that he was willing to get pissed off.  But, it was, once again, another of those “unwritten rules.”  But it was the A’s becoming upset at someone else breaking those secret rules.  Seems like Animal Farm is the norm.

The A’s are down 2-0 in the series.  They have more important things to worry about than Al Alburquerque making out with the baseball.  Try worrying leaving 31 runners on base (15 as a team) and 3 for 10 with runners in scoring position.  Try worrying about the heart of the order — Cespedes, Brandon Moss, and Reddick — going a combined 5 for 22 (0.227) over the two games.  And try worrying about the deficit you face that is completely unrelated to Alburquerque’s emotions.

After all, it was only a kiss; it was only a kiss!

A Few Good Idiots: The Oregon State Blackout and Race

Oregon State’s athletic colors are black and orange.  So, naturally, given the trends in sports of having [insert color here]-outs for specific games, it seems natural that Oregon State have a “blackout,” playing off of the team’s colors and the word itself.

However, Oregon State University initially opted this week to suspend their planned “blackout” events.  And people flipped!  But nowhere was the “outrage” more pronounced than in the dreaded comment section of Yahoo! Sports article about the situation.

I am not one to spend time and sift through comments for articles.  The comment sections can provide for some humorous moments (mostly unintended and not humorous in a good way) and i usually know which articles are going to attract the most train-wrecks.  But, generally i tend to avoid them.

However, knowing what potentially awaited in the comment section of the Yahoo! Sports article, i could not resist taking a peek.  And yes, the Yahooites did indeed flip their collective lid.  As always, the commenters, emboldened by the anonymity of the Internets, felt their balls swell to the size of cherries and fired off one stupid statement after another”

• would it be less insensitive if they called it an “african-american-out”?
• you know you relieze black people are black so is everyone else supposed to give up the color black i notice most racistism is by blacks get over it you are black
• how about the offended monkeys stay the f at home if they oppose it
• Big (aka politically correct) Brother says we can’t use the word “black” anymore.Hasn,t this Obama thing run its course? Got to get over the slavery thing.
• Don’t want to anger the cry baby naggers. Send the naggers back to Africa please.

Of course, to be fair to the Yahooites, moronic comments are not limited to the pages of Yahoo! Sports.  For example, some prick named “Greg McLean” posted a comment to an article on The Daily Barometer‘s website stating, “Oh great…here we go again. Gotta love those self important pricks out to be a buzz kill.”

The “buzz kill” is not that Oregon State chose to suspend the “blackout.”  It is that a few “self-important pricks” thought it would be simply hilarious to ridicule an entire group of people and make a mockery of the event.

Quick backdrop.  During the 2007 season, a group of Oregon State students, led by Casey Grogan, suggested that Beaver fans “blackout” Reser Stadium as a sign of intimidation (towards visiting Arizona) and also unity (among the Oregon State fans).  It was following in the trend that was starting to become more common than unique (and was railed against here).  Great idea.

Then, stupidity took over.  Apparently, The Daily Barometer printed a cartoon that some interpreted as “blackface” [i've tried in vain to find that cartoon, but to no avail].  Then, some took hold of that cartoon and decided to dress in ways that reflected racist caricatures and wear blackface and afro wigs.

Though, most Oregon State fans probably genuinely took the “blackout” for what it was intended to do — rally fans.  It paid off as the Beavers won their first Pac-10 game of the year.  But, the images of the “blackface” sullied the blackout.  It was hard to ignore what some were attempting to do.

Two waves emerged from that incident.  One wave saw the minstrel-esque expressions of Beaver pride [hmm] as offensive.  The other wave lashed out at those offended, feeling they were blowing it all out of proportion and that the offended should not be so thin-skinned.

Flash-forward to this season.  When the idea to have a “blackout” this season emerged, there was enough apprehension to step back from it.  This, of course, led to the outcry.

However, the outcries miss the point.  Reading the Yahoo! comments, most did not read why some people were offended by the blackfaced people.  They likely just read the headline and thought, “Oh, them blacks don’t like it coz it uses the word ‘black’.”

However, what these idiots are missing is that the outrage is not over the use of “blackout.”  If that were the case, such events at Florida State, Texas Tech, and BYU (ironically against Oregon State) would bring forth more controversy.  The name itself is not controversial.  It is why white people are not up in arms over “whiteouts” at Penn State.

The controversy stems from the fact that a few morons ruined it for everyone.  They made a mockery of a call for camaraderie, acting as though dressing to denigrate an entire group of people is funny.  It gave pause to the university because they were not sure if people could act “civilized.”  Does the university move forward with the blackout and hope that the morons have finally graduated [just a shade under a decade] or dropped out?  Or, is there something inherent in Oregon State culture, something that most would associate with the South?

The Oregon State administration opted to suspend the event.  Was it the right thing to do?  Maybe not [see below].  Was it the wrong thing to do?  Not at all.  Are people right to get upset that others are offended by what they see as a stereotype of their “race”?  Absolutely not.

Yes, it is their “right,” but they are attempting to try to say that it is okay to use caricatures that harken back to an era where those people represented through blackface were being made to appear stupid and oafish (and, in some cases, less than human).  Ironically, many of these same people would become offended if someone made fun of Christianity or attempted to slight Jesus Christ.  Many white Southerners become offended when they are stereotyped as slow, ignorant racists.  Why can black people not express their feelings of offense over something that historically has misrepresented and miscast their culture?

One of the more interesting comments from the Yahoo! article was that “People need to grow up and quit feeling entitled to change traditions or events because of the color of their skin and quit ruining everything for everyone else.”  Grow up?  Maybe people should “grow up” and quit thinking that it is okay to shit on an entire group of people.  THESE are the people that are ruining it for everyone else!!!!!  It is not “entitlement” but a request not to be treated like shit!

Those that support the “blackfacing” would argue that those people had the “right” to express themselves.  But why can blacks not have the “right” to express themselves!?  What makes one group’s “right” more important than another groups “right”?

Yet, despite the worries of the potential repeat of the 2007 debacle, suspending the event was actually the worse possible solution.  The reason is that it allows the few idiots to dictate policy, and in turn shifted the anger away from the idiots to those that spoke up and took a stand because they were offended.  As John Canzano notes in his article on The Oregonian website, the Oregon State administration ran when they had a chance to make a statement and show how the university would not allow the idiots to run the show.

Fortunately, Oregon State reversed their decision and have decided to have the “blackout” anyway.  As Oregon State president Ed Ray noted, “I’ve got to believe in the people in my community. If we don’t test it now, then when?”  We need to hope that people are smarter and better than what those few demonstrated in October of 2007.

People want to say that slavery ended long ago and that blacks should move beyond race — not everything is “racist.”  But when are whites also going to move on from “race” and realize that promoting caricatures is not funny, not ingenious, and NOT their “right”?  Ironically, these people that are arguing that blacks should not be so easily offended are actually demonstrating that they are also easily offended; they are easily offended when someone calls them out on their stupidity.

They want to say that it is 2012 and we should move beyond race.  Yes, it is 2012…and we should be past thinking that such caricatures are acceptable!  If blacks should have to “get past race,” then so should whites.  By mocking a group of people based on the color of their skin AND NOT SEEING ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT, these idiots and their “supporters” demonstrate that even whites have not moved beyond race.

President Ray stated that the Oregon State community can “make a powerful statement about who we are and what we stand for with this simple act” of showing unity in the blackout, and that those few idiots do not represent the university or the 21st century.

Hopefully, we see that powerful statement on 20 October and 17 November.  Unfortunately, Yahoo! commenters and others have already made a “powerful statement” that we have not moved beyond “race” and willful ignorance still exists.

Uncle Popov College Football Table (Week 5)

Took a couple of weeks off actually updating, we are back to weekly updates.  And, things continue to level off.  Memphis still sucks, while Alabama and Ohio State take hold of the top spot.

Washington had the biggest jump, going from 72nd to a tie at 38.  Middle Tennessee State also had a big jump with its win over Georgia Tech.  Arizona and Wake Forest both fell 23 spots.

Here is the Top 23:

Rank	TEAM	Points	Last Week
1	Alabama	19	2
1	OhioState	19	8
3	Georgia	18.5	5
3	South Carolina	18.5	2
5	California-Los Angeles	18	2
6	Notre Dame	16.5	1
6	Louisiana Tech	16.5	9
8	Ohio	15	11
8	Texas	15	20
10	Florida	14.5	5
10	LSU	14.5	5
10	Louisville	14.5	19
13	Northwestern	14	15
13	Oregon	14	15
15	KansasState	13	9
15	ArizonaState	13	23
17	Clemson	12.5	25
17	OregonState	12.5	25
17	Nebraska	12.5	30
17	San JoseState	12.5	30
21	Miami (FL)	12	29
21	Rutgers	12	11
21	Western Kentucky	12	25

And, the Basement:

117	BostonCollege	0	114
117	California	0	114
117	Navy	0	114
117	New MexicoState	0	114
117	Southern Mississippi	0	114
117	Eastern Michigan	0	114
123	Army	-1	114
123	Memphis	-1	124

Click here to see the entire table for Week 5.

It’s Official: The NFL is Full of Whiners, Too

Stop it!  Just stop it!

You did it last year.  You did it two years ago.  Hell, you did it ten years ago!!!  So, just stop it.  It is getting old.

The “it” is whining.  And namely, whining about officiating.  But now, it is all about the replacement referees.  And while the routine of complaining about missed calls and lousy officiating is old, it appears that many players, coaches, and even fans are suddenly suffering from amnesia as they pretend this is a new phenomenon that exists only with replacement refs.

The quick background on the issue is that the NFL could not reach an agreement with the referee’s association.  Therefore, the NFL “locked out” the refs.  It is, of course, no different from last season during the NFL’s stalemate with the players.

But the NFL is in a tough spot.  Last season, with the lockout of the players, the league was willing to cancel the entire season.  Of course, this had a lot to do with the guaranteed money that would come from the television deal even if games were not played.  Nevertheless, while there could have been a possibility for replacement players, it seemed that the NFL was more willing to cancel the season rather than “force” replacements into the fold.  An argument could be made that the NFL would rather miss a season than have their brand suffer through what some may perceive as poorer quality football [on par with the UFL].

The situation with the referees is much different.  The NFL could not — nay!  would not cancel the season because of the referees, an element of the game that is supposed to be invisible and never in the spotlight.  You cannot have a season without “real” players, but you can have a season without “real” referees.

And so, the NFL attempted to move forward with these replacement referees.  And all hell broke loose…at least that is what we were made to believe.

Complaints ranged from the referees making the wrong spots to favoring heavily towards the home team.  Players, fans, coaches.  All complained.

But where is the problem?  Is it the replacement referees fault?  Is it the NFL?  Or is it more than that?

Blaming the Low-Hanging Fruit

The replacement referees have made mistakes.  That sentence should be filed under “obvious” in the dictionary.  So they are to blame for they are the ones spotting the ball incorrectly, granting extra challenges, and claiming simultaneous possession.  They do not get a pass on that.

However, they do get the benefit of the doubt for two reasons.  First, realize that they have suddenly been thrust into this position.  Instead of “replacement referees,” let’s call them “rookie refs.”  When a rookie player comes into the NFL, there is typically an understanding that there will be some bumps in the road.  The playcalling is much more complex and the athletic ability of all the players is much more balanced than in college.  Rookies will make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes are magnified, especially when the mistake lands the player in the “dog house” [see David Wilson].

If there are expectations that rookie players will make mistakes, then why not expect the same with “rookie” refs?  I mean, imagine that the Baltimore Ravens decided to start rookies at EVERY position!  That is what fans have faces with replacement referees…it is as though they are all rookies.  And, unlike players, the refs have to be out there at all times.  So the chances to make errors increases.  Yes, some calls have been egregious.  But, I think we are not placing these referees into the right context.

Again, these are NOT NFL referees.  The best correlation would be taking a middle school teacher and placing them into a college professor position with the expectations that they could handle the different nuances of the classroom environment and material without any issues.

Second, are we to believe that so-called “real” refs do not make mistakes.  The Seattle miracle was unbelievable, but the Seahawks have been on the other end of terrible officiating.  Recall Super Bowl XL, where even head official Bill Leavy later admitted to “kick[ing] two calls in the fourth quarter and impact[ing] the game.”  Which team was punished for those bad calls?  The Seattle Seahawks.  Or, the “Phantom Touchdown,” where in 1998 New York Jets quarterback Vinnie Testaverde scored a touchdown without even crossing the plane of the end zone.  Not only was Seattle at the receiving end of that low blow, but it also cost them a playoff spot as well as their head coach.

And, the list could go on and on to include the no-call of DeAndre Levy grabbing the facemask of Joe Webb, which could have given the Minnesota Vikings another shot at upsetting the Detroit Lions.  Or the mythical forward pass thrown by Jay Cutler in a 2008 game against the San Diego Chargers.  Or Calvin Johnson getting robbed of a touchdown in Week 1 of the 2010 season.

All of these gaffes were not committed by replacement refs, but by the “real refs.”  Hell, there is even a website called “Refs Suck,” which is dedicated to bad officiating and blown calls.  With the “real” refs now returning, what makes people believe that these “qualified professionals” will not continue to blow calls as they have in the past?

Simply, the replacements are easy to blame because they are only a temporary fix and not a permanent part of the NFL’s long-term agenda.  Thus, it is easy to blame the “outsider” rather than blame the major components of the machine.  Why criticize the money-makers or the League when you can go after the low-hanging fruit?

The $1 Experiment

If the replacement referees were partly to blame, the NFL makes up some of the remainder.  The NFL did not want to flinch to the lowly referees.  Caving in and giving them a slightly larger crumb of the massive pie that is the NFL was not on their agenda.  They’d rather face humiliation with an “inferior” product than give in.

But it is more than just the NFL’s stubbornness that is the problem.  By throwing these replacement referees into the fire, the NFL basically set them up to fail.  The NFL could not possibly have believed that the replacements would slide right in without a hitch.  So, they were set up to falter.

Basically, the NFL pulled out a scene from the movie Trading Places, where Roger Goodell and the NFL are the Dukes, and the replacement refs serve as Billy Ray Valentine.  Of course, Valentine foils the Dukes’ experiment by turning the tables on them, but basically it was as though the NFL could pull anyone in and make them a referee…all over a measly $1 (or, tiny piece of the NFL pie).  Unlike Trading Places, the experiment failed.

Still, blame the NFL for this.  But, there is one more group that deserves blame…in fact, one group that might deserve the most blame.

Anarchy in the NFL: Players and Coaches Lose Control

Let’s see.  Bill Belichick grabs an official.  Kyle Shanahan verbal murders another.  Ray Lewis is allegedly intimidating refs.  A tons of other players are pushing the limits to see what they can do.

So, why is there no blame being levied against the players and coaches who are attempting to take advantage of the situation?

We all remember the scenario in school.  You arrive at school and the teacher is late.  Then, an office assistant comes in to notify everyone of the best school day of the year — substitute teacher day!!!!!!!!!!  And, of course, the first thing that crosses your mind is “What can we get away with today?”

Hey teacher, we already covered Reconstruction.  Hey teacher, we usually take a break every 30 minutes.  Hey teacher, Deep Throat really is about Watergate!

When the substitute teacher day happens, students push the limits.  They want to see how far they can go.  Students know what they are supposed to do, but they suddenly set the rules on fire and flush it down the toilet.  They are going to act out because they know (1) the substitutes powers are limited, (2) the sub will be gone tomorrow [or at least soon], and (3) they do not have respect for the sub.

That scenario should seem familiar because the same thing happened while the replacement refs were being used in the NFL.  In the end, what we are seeing is players AND coaches acting out because the “real” refs are away.  When the sub is in, students all become morons.  Apparently, when the replacements are on the field, players and coaches all become morons.

Would Jim Harbaugh attempt to con a “real” ref into giving him another timeout?  Would Ray Lewis (or any other player) attempt to be overly intimidating towards refs?  Would Belichick grab a “real” ref like he did on Sunday?  [On second though, Belichick probably would do that].

Players and coaches knew that the replacement refs were not going to be around long so there was no reason to show them the proper respect afforded to “real” refs.  Hell, even using the term “real refs” reflected that lack of respect.  And, without that respect, players and coaches felt that they could get away with more.

And, by doing so, at least from the players’ perspective, they put their own health — and the health of their peers — in danger.  This does not absolve the replacement refs from being strict with their calls and doing their job.  But, the players pushed the boundaries on their own.  These are professional athletes, for crying out loud!  They know the rules just as well as the refs do.  And yet, they purposely chose to ignore them in order to see how much they could get away with on the field.

The replacement refs make for easy scapegoats once again because if a player gets hurt, they can blame the replacements for not “controlling the game.”  But, when the players are not respecting and pushing the limits, they are only endangering themselves.  The replacement refs are simply a justification for “acting out,” especially if someone became hurt.

Perhaps New York Giants defensive lineman Justin Tuck said it best when he noted that the replacements were doing their best, that they were in an unenviable position, and that the “regular guys…miss calls, too.”  We could add to this that when the replacement refs get calls right or have a fairly-called game, we hear nothing about it.  All that we hear is the negative.

But, replacement refs were not the one offering to give away extra timeouts or replay challenges.  Replacement refs were not the ones trying to get away with murder (and not in the Ray Lewis sense).  Replacement refs were not the ones who even asked to be thrown to the wolves.  And, apparently, replacement refs were not the one in charge of the replay in the controversial Green Bay-Seattle game (and, according to ProFootballTalk, “real” refs may be to blame for not overturning the call).  Blame needs to be placed on players, coaches, and (as many have done) the NFL.

With the “real” refs now back, I suppose the players are suddenly going to “behave” and stop trying to watch Deep Throat in class.  All this will do is not damn the players but it will be painted that the “real” refs know what they are doing [and, to be fair, they do have a better sense of how to handle pampered NFL'ers] while it was all the replacement refs fault for the bad play and flubbed calls.

The “joy” over the return of the “real” refs humors me.  Everyone is making a big deal about “getting back to work.”  Yahoo! Sports even used a picture of a referee (a “real” one, i presume) shaking hands with Oakland Raider fans!!!  I guess players, fans, coaches, and “real” referees are all going to sit around and sing “Lesbian Seagull” while roasting s’mores!

But, this reeks of that feeling where you want your ex back.  You know, the time apart makes you feel all nostalgic about the happy times you spent with psycho!  The walks in the park.  The romantic dinners.  The gentle touch.  The fingernail-on-chalkboard sound of her laughter.  The fact that she criticizes all of your friends.

That’s right!  Now that the NFL has gotten back with their ex, it will not be long before those happy butterflies turn into terrorizing Mothras!  And players, coaches and fans will once again criticize officials.  And Raiders fans will be trying to stab refs in the back rather than shake their hands.

So, quit whining!  The replacement refs are gone and we now have “real” refs to fuck over games!