Tony Dungy woudn't want to "deal with" Michael Sam

I've thought about the "the hard part is cutting him" angle too, and I actually think it's a ridiculous thing to worry about. It would be a story for about 36 hours. Slate would throw up a quick and completely ill-informed column asking whether Sam was cut because he was gay, there would be a lot of frustration and outrage from people looking for a quick column ("They should have kept him anyway, to send a positive message!" someone would write, not for one second pausing to examine how insulting it might be to Michael Sam to tell him he deserves a charity roster spot), and then it would be over. The next "thing" would happen in sports, and the outrage cycle of Twitter would reboot itself, and it would be resigned to a footnote. I'm quite fascinated by the way certain sports franchises (like, say, the Red Sox) make decisions based on the fear of 24 hours of bad press, failing to understand how quickly the news cycle turns over these days.

Let's say, for example, that the Rams cut him. Or put him on the practice squad, which seems like a very reasonable fate for a late round draft pick. What's the legit angle of outrage that could legitimately hold up to more than 10 minutes of scrutiny?

The team that boldly drafted an openly gay player is now discriminating against him!

Um, what?

 

And wasn't this angle raised a lot regarding Tebow, or at least mentioned? That teams didn't want to sign him because of the shit they would eat from the religious right when they cut him/sat him?

 

This is great. And true.

Plus, what people forget is once Sam gets the chance, part of which he had at the combine, and part of which he'll have in training camp and beyond, there will be concrete, extensive documentation on the quality of player he is. If he gets cut, it will be completely justified through his performance on the field in an actual, measurable way.

 

Political activists are typically both reasonable people and also well-informed about the nuances of sports.

 

How much of a stir did it cause when Sam's shitty combine caused him to drop to the seventh round? I mean, real stir? The teevee screamers and the look-at-me brigade with their "hot takes" don't count.

 

All of these big strong football coaches claim to not give two shits about the opinions of media members -- and I think in large part that's true.

And, now, we're supposed to believe their worried about the media criticism they would get from Slate and other non-sports media? I don't buy it.

 

I'm not convinced they differentiate. Tony Dungy doesn't know Slate from his own asshole, I'm sure. But my experience was that media relations people work up a packet of clips every morning for the head coach, who then goes through the roof when exposed to a piece that's remotely critical, whether it comes from Pro Football Talk, ESPN.com, or Talking Points Memo.

 

I mean, if it were me, it'd be pretty disconcerting to be accused of bigotry where none exists.

Then again, I'd have documented every measurable aspect of Sam's football ability and acumen in order to make a rational football decision on him. I also wouldn't, you know, make bigoted comments while hiding behind "God," so there's that, too.

 

LOL. I'm sure that's true. We used similar clips in politics, and in the corporate world, I remember sales people complaining about all the press some competitor was getting for some initiative, when the only place the news ran was in a press release.

 

There was one time I recall being in one of "those meetings" with my head coach where he started bitching and moaning about some "article" that had set him off.

It was a message board post.

 

I've seen head coaches livid at reporters over things posted in the on-line comments of a story. Seriously.

 

Ha. See my post seconds before yours.