OT: DFW sports anchor rant re: Michael Sam
Dale Hansen, the Dallas-Ft Worth ABC news affiliate sports anchor, went on a rant that has gone viral. He went off on the NFL and the hipocracy regarding Sam's qualifications and the perception the NFL is left with regards to his draft stock.
Like or hate him, he makes some very strong points.
February 13th, 2014 at 11:59 AM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 12:00 PM ^
I remember Dale from the Pony Excess 30 for 30.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:04 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^
"Sam is/was a 3rd-5th round pick, even before public ally coming out"
The SEC is gonna be PISSSSED about this...
February 13th, 2014 at 12:09 PM ^
This Michael Sam thing is still news? Somebody please make it end and bring back my Tebow 24/7 coverage!
February 13th, 2014 at 12:28 PM ^
Maybe the sooner people like you stop whining, it won't be.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:29 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 12:18 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
But most (not the Browns lol) are creating a product that they want to see win and fill up stadiums. If the media descends on Michael Sam, creates a huge firestorm and then causes division in the franchise, the team and the fan community -- is that worth the pick? I don't know. And don't act like it couldn't happen. It has happened.
Witness Atlanta and Michael Vick. AND PLEASE NOTE - I am not equating the two in terms of behavior. Michael Sam is a human being and Michael Vick aided criminal and inhumane activity. But I am equating the two in terms of the potential (yes - POTENTIAL) media firestorm. The season Michael Vick's dog-running came up - ATL's season went down the tubes.
You can't dismiss that so easily. And I sincerely hope it doesn't happen this way because it will bring out the worst in all sides of the issue.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:00 PM ^
This is a terrible excuse for not doing what is right. Your making exactly the same argument that was made when Jackie Robinson joined MLB. Is that any reason to take away a man or woman's rights. It's interesting that even Al Campanis was one of the biggest proponents of Robinson playing. That puts comments like yours to the right of even Al.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^
To be accurate, Al Campanis resigned (I assume, given what happened, it was of the corporate "please resign or we will fire you" variety) two days after this interview. I have to say, this still probably ranks as one of the most mind-blowingly embarrassing ways that anyone has destroyed their career, at least in the age of the television interview. Koppel gave him opportunities to clarify too, but Campanis continued to dig the hole with patently racist and stereotyped remarks.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:56 PM ^
Yes true, and a bit sad as well. Because it turns out that despite Al's racist views, he was one of the biggest proponents of furthering the rights of minority players, starting out with Jackie Robinson as his roommate. Fortunately he was at retirement age so it didn't destroy his career. But his legacy is a bit sad given he'll be remembered for his Koppel interview and racist views and not for his previous actions. The silver lining is that as a result of his interview, the league put in a number of policies that accellerated the opportunities for minorities in management positions. I don't think we'd be where we are today if it wasn't for Al's unfortunate downfall.
And I believe Sam, by coming out and starting a national discourse, has decided that there is a similar opportunity today.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:26 PM ^
A serious question: If you scoff at the notion that having gay players in the locker room (something that I personally don't care about) causing any kind of discomfort for straight players, do you also believe that we no longer need separate locker rooms based on gender? What about bath rooms? And if women have any problem with this, would you just tell them to grow up or stop being so whateverphobic or get over it?
I get it: You get to brush off straight people being concerned about anything because they are straight and anything that doesn't fit your worldview is instantly some kind of -ist or -istic. But try thinking about it from the standpoint of a victim group (RE: Women in the same situation as straight men in this case) and get back to me.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 12:37 PM ^
No, I'm saying the opposite. Straight men are not considered a victim group and thus their concerns do not matter to anyone, despite in this case having a valid point.
Answer one of the hypotheticals I've posed: In a scenario where gender-based locker rooms were abolished, would you look a woman in the eye who has complained about males looking at her while showering and tell her to "get over it"? Tell her that its her problem, not the men? Because that is what we are doing to the players who are voicing any concern over this issue.
I'm not even saying they are right. I'm saying they have a right to their concerns and their concerns can be considered valid and they shouldn't just be brushed off as homophobic for voicing their opinion, which is what many, many people on this blog are doing in their effort to stumble over one another to grab the torch labelled "MOST TOLERANT HUMAN EVAAA".
February 13th, 2014 at 1:48 PM ^
So I should ask my gym to screen every guy to see which one is gay? I'm concerned by gay men being in here, and I don't want to shower with them? Yes, that's realistic. Sometimes you just need to toughen up and get over it.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^
I'm sure you'd feel the same way if a man was ogling your daughter. You'd just tell her to toughen up and live with it.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:05 PM ^
Seriously...every single comment you make talks about a man checking out your daughter.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:08 PM ^
And everyone deflects from the question because they know they are being hypocritical.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
And instead deflect to a scenario that has nothing to do with the actual topic. This isn't hypocritical at all.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:47 PM ^
I've been reading your drivel for over an hour and it makes no sense.
I get it: you obviously have embraced the "Everyone else gets to be a victim and get special treatment so why can't I" mentality and are using it to play some kind of faux devils advocate.
So what?
I don't like seeing 90 yr old men in the men's locker room. I deal with it.
I look like Al Borges & I'm sure some people may be uncomfortable with me. THEY can deal with it.
I've always known there were gay people in my locker room (perhaps, but doubtful they were checking me out) I deal with it.
I don't care if if locker rooms are co-ed because I'm a funtioning adult.
Neither I NOR my wife & daughters would have a problem with it either as long as there some basic safeguards.
My wife is bisexual and my best friend is gay (no really) and it may be amazing to you, but neither have been thrown out of locker rooms for excessive oogling nor arrested for blood curdling sexual assaults . . . Should they take turns changing in the broom closet?
They male female locker room system has been the standard for thousands of years because Men & Women are biologicaly different, and the vast majority of people are straight.
You keep asking how people would feel,? Well, Id feel fine, and so would all genders in my family. There are uncomfortable situations we face every day that we don't feel the need to cry to the world about.
What kind of answer are you looking for? Do nothing? build 16 types of locker rooms?
Hold the hand of every poor NFL millionaire that feels "icky" in the shower now?
what is your damn point?
February 14th, 2014 at 1:41 AM ^
actually answered his question. nailed it.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:19 PM ^
Do you really think that some gay man in your locker room is interested your ugly ass? HaHaHa.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^
is that there already are women in NFL locker rooms. They're already walking around naked in front of straight women, there's also a near certainty that they've done the same with gay men before.
I haven't been in an NFL locker room and I certainly didn't ask out loud but from being in a couple NHL locker rooms (as a minor, by the way) the guys that are walking around naked don't give a shit who sees them.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:54 PM ^
The main issue with men and women sharing a locker room is primarily that women can become actively, very reasonably frightened by big dudes (who could easily overpower them) checking them out naked.
The last woman alone in the locker room would be understandably scared by sharing it with a bunch of guys.
No such issue exists with Michael Sam. He's obviously not going to try to sexual assault his teammates, but he really wouldn't be able to anyway. There's no fear of harm. I find the discomfort pretty weird - you know there's some straight dudes taking a peek for the sake of comparison. I wouldn't feel any added discomfort naked around a guy because that guy was gay.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:20 PM ^
So now you're judging all men by their appearance (i.e., bigger and stronger than females)?
Let's just arrest all white men with glasses and tucked-in checkered shirts who drive vans as pedophiles every time they get close to a playground. Because it might make other people uncomfortable because that's the stereotype.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:30 PM ^
It's biology and physiology. Human males are generally bigger and stronger than human females.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^
So you're saying that smaller, physically weak males should be allowed to shower in the women's locker room?
February 13th, 2014 at 2:15 PM ^
February 14th, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
Smaller, physically weak males should be allowed to shower at home. If there are NFL players afraid that some gay player might see their junk, the NFL should repeal the prohibition on changing in a stall in the locker room bathroom, and should repeal the requirement that players must shower in the locker room showers rather than at home.
Two simple rule changes (I assume these are NFL rules, or else your argument is fucked) would solve the whole problem, and no NFL player could argue that they were forced to allow gays to check their junk.
February 13th, 2014 at 4:41 PM ^
Is this a joke?
In a general sense, men are bigger and stronger than women. This can lead to problems: look up rape statistics, and you'll be amazed to find that it's usually men attacking women as opposed to men on men or women on men.
Lots of women would feel uncomfortable being naked around random men because, on a general level, there's the possibility of sexual assault. That isn't really the case in an NFL locker room.
Let's see what delighfully incoherent place you take this next.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:51 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^
finding any empathy for millionaires feeling uncomfortable about showering around an openly gay man.
You don't have a right to not be uncomfortable.
I almost hope he comes to the Texans and absolutely dominates. I think it would do wonders for the rainbow barrier that still exists in this town (despite Houston having a very large gay community).
I say "almost" because it's selfish to expect the guy to spear head gay rights or do anything but play football.
February 13th, 2014 at 12:35 PM ^
Not a rant - just an extremely well thought out and articulated descruction of the "we're just not comfortable with it" bullshit arguement. I wonder why the same players who "arent comfortable" around Sams ARE comfortable around players who cheat on their wives, father children out of wedlock, do large amount of recreational drugs, "make it rain" at strip clubs and beat women. THOSE dudes are A-Ok but not a gay man - oh heavens no.
That makes some folk "uncomfortable". "Hey NFL - 1957 is on the phone - they want their bigotry back"
February 13th, 2014 at 1:53 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 12:57 PM ^
uofmfan_13 has actually gone and answered the impossible to answer question of "Who is the biggest f'nig idiot on this entire site". I didn't think that was actually possible. I guess I know now how to get -30,000 points.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:01 PM ^
actually.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:36 PM ^
I missed a digit. Didn't know you could even go that low.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 1:08 PM ^
I bet you Michael Sam gets drafted right around where he's supposed be and preform's as if he was a straight male in the same situation.
All the political BS (both elephants and donkeys) has really turned a non-issue into a certifiable situation.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:10 PM ^
is common, not an exception. The root cause of all of this "controversy" is fear. And it has been an irrational and debilitating fear for decades preventing collective advancement.
In the past people would respond dismissively: "Yeah, gee, that's too bad (about the bigotry)".
Now the response fromn the younger generation seems to be: "Just what the hell is wrong with you, dude/lady?".
I'm pleasantly surprised by the societal attitude adjustment on thhis Michael Sam story. Plus I find that the trolling and ridicule of unfounded intolerance makes for great entertainment.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:37 PM ^
This is the most refined, thoughtful rant I've heard in a long time. Mike Valenti would have just exploded in a pile of goo.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:39 PM ^
that a smart GM might be able to get good value for Sam because he will go below market value. Good drafting is all about getting more value for your pick than you should. If he slips past where his true value is, then someone should grab him. If their team is really so immature that the locker room can't handle having a gay guy in it, well they aren't going to win s*** anyway.
February 13th, 2014 at 1:57 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 2:17 PM ^
The sooner this type of news doesn't result in a 150+ post thread, the better.
February 13th, 2014 at 2:23 PM ^
Arguments that change will cause distraction can be used to defend any form of discrimination or backwards thinking that has ever existed. The Jackie Robinson analogy that a previous poster made was a great one, but just one of a near infinite number. Arguing that Sam is not worth the sideshow is nothing more than a rationalization that one needs because he cannot just come out and say he doesn't like gay people.
The most cowardly version of this defense is the front office guys that won't even admit that they're the ones with the problem: "Gee, I would love to have him on my team because I am just SO open minded and tolerant. But you know, football culture, the guys in the locker room, you know... some other mean people that are not me would have a problem with it. So much as I'd love to see progress on this issue, aww shucks, what can I do as a multi-millionaire that is otherwise accustomed to making big decisions and controlling a major sports franchise?"
February 13th, 2014 at 2:51 PM ^
February 13th, 2014 at 9:28 PM ^