OT: DFW sports anchor rant re: Michael Sam

Submitted by GoWings2008 on February 13th, 2014 at 10:44 AM

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 11:02 AM ^

To start out with I am rooting for Sam and hope he gets drafted by the right team.  I really can't see how there would be any character concerns with a guy who could come out from the background he did and still have the courage to be who he is.  It is very admirable.  

That said, these type of rants are exactly why teams have reservations about drafting him.  Let's say he gets drafted and doesn't perform well and therefore isn't a good candidate to make the team, which GM in his right mind is going to cut Sam knowing the firestorm that will cause?  Combined with the pressure that in order to succeed in today's NFL you have to hit on a  high proportion of draft picks, you'd better be damn sure Sam is a fit in the locker room as drafting him kills your flexibility.  You also can't be honest and put your name behind those statements as you'll get crucified in the media.

So good for these announcers for staking their claim to the moral high ground (/s), I just hope they know they're not strengthening Sam's case.


February 13th, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^

pound desks and scream moral high ground when it's not your ass on the line. These talking heads need to STFU. Not one single person is going to be swayed on their stance because of what these assbags yell. 

The thing that's going to kill him is the spectacle. There's 20 other egos in that locker room that want some media time and all it's going to be is Sam, Sam, Sam. Right or wrong and PC don't mean shit when faced with reality.


February 13th, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^

The team that cuts him will be the same team that DRAFTED him. Who is going to give shit to the team that valued him most highly on draft day if they subsequently cut him?

"Gee, the Lions must be really homophobic because they knowingly drafted the first openly gay player and then cut him."


February 13th, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^

People are perfectly capable of being irrational. They are also likely to remember the most recent bad thing you did rather than all the good things you did previously.

Is it really hard to imagine people concluding that a team is gutless because they fired a guy the minute there was conflict in the locker room that they didn't forsee?


February 13th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^

your argument loses any weight when you mindlessly throw in the PC reference.  It suggests, as I am sure you mean to do, that those who disagree with you are not genuine in their opinions--but are only saying what they say because they want to be PC.  You do appreciate that because of the anonymity of boards like this posters have little reason to be PC.  It is that very anonymity that empowers some to expose their racism, homophobia and the like---and let me be clear, I am most definitely not including you in those groups.


February 13th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^

These talking heads are all getting out and throwing around their Strong Take on this subject. It's no coincendence they're towing the PC line. Whether they agree with it or not they're getting their kudos in for supporting Sam.

My point is it does not matter one iota what these guys say. You really think a bunch of dudes in a locker room are going to reevaluate their stance either way becasue of what Bob Costas or Drew Sharp or Brian Williams says on the matter? 

They are fanning the media shitstorm flames. That's what's going to make teams hesitate more than the actual thought of sharing a locker room with a dude who likes dudes.


February 13th, 2014 at 2:26 PM ^

Although you may be right about the spectacle of it all affecting his ability to find success in the NFL, I think you are underestimating the effects that taking a stance/pounding the desk in moral indignation might have on the anchor and overlooking the fact that he is also operating in a world where his ass is on the line. If he takes a stand in support of Sam and critical of the NFL, he might be alienating his viewers and if he alienates enough of them-or his superiors or whoever owns the station-then he will face real consequences. Additionally, he is going to have to answer to hundreds of people who he interacts with normally who might not appreciate his viewpoint. Obviously it's easier to preach from a soapbox, but his soapbox might not appreciate the consequences of his advocacy and he might suffer the consequences.

Also, I think you underestimate how his perspective might change how people think. One of his main points was criticism of the NFLs hypocrisy when it devalues responsibility or moral/human/family values for fiscal and team success. Instead of allowing people to focus the debate on whether this is right or wrong or whether he will negatively impact the locker room, he expands the conversation by analyzing how the NFL has reacted to scenarios that raise similar abstract moral or team concerns in the past. He seems to be trying to expand how people look at the situation.


February 13th, 2014 at 3:16 PM ^

I was thinking more along the lines of people who don't agree with the gay lifestyle are not suddenly going click the light on and embrace it because of these guys. It didn't occur to me that they might lose viewer or readership.

The gay thing isn't a hot button issue with me so it wouldn't occur to me to do that. There are plenty of talking heads I don't listen to because of other political views but this one is not one of those views that moves my needle either way.


February 13th, 2014 at 5:35 PM ^

And you're probably right that many if not most people who do not support the homosexual lifestyle or homosexual rights aren't going to come to the light, so to speak, because someone on TV is talking about it. Nonetheless, the hope is that expanding the dialogue about the situation can often be helpful in getting people to think about things differently, especially about how the NFL, or more specifically NFL GMs and executives, handle the situation. I can't speak for how locker room a or nfl players will react to this situation and they might not be swayed by the media fixating on it, but you never know. And if we are already going to be bombarded by asinine sports journalists debating all manners of sports in massive generalities, in completely unsupported opinions, and passing off highlights and fluff pieces as actual journalism, I don't mind a few more talking heads focusing on it. When so many other parts of American culture seem either 100% okay with a homosexual lifestyle or at least indifferent to it, it raises the question as to why it's such a hot bed issue in the NFL.


February 14th, 2014 at 10:08 AM ^

This is some terrific desk-pounding and screaming, especially because it is desk-pounding and screaming in outrage that people are calmingly or humorously making excellent points without pounding desks or screaming.

Not one single person is going to be swayed on their stance because of what you yell.


February 13th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^

my reply is that it would be weird for a team (GM, owner, coach) who would cut someone for being gay would sign him in the first place. My guess is that he's a fourth round pick. I hope its the Colts, who,have an owner who would back this guy, a team with the right combination of leadership and personality (Pat McAfee) to do this, and--most importantly, I'd hope-- a need for depth at 3-4 OLB.


February 13th, 2014 at 11:20 AM ^

There will always be unreasonable people, but I think most would realize that - as you say - you don't draft a guy who you know is gay and then cut him because he's gay.  There would also presumably be game film (from the preseason, if nothing else) if Sam were cut.  You could then point to on-field results.


February 13th, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^

I see your point, but I just don't see the benefit of the doubt being given, even to a team drafting him.  The argument in my mind would be something along the lines of, "You drafted him to get the headlines and then used him, but you weren't really confortable with his orientation and so you cut him for it." with the accompanying proliferation of "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions.  It's a situation that I think all teams want to avoid and it is a consideration as drafting him does cause a loss of roster flexibility.

Again, I hope he gets drafted by the right team and is judged by his merits on the field, but there is a little bit of the animal farm "more equal than others" aspect to this story and you can't blame GM's for being leery of it. 


February 13th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^

Just like it took character and guts for Sam to get to this point, it will take equal character and guts for a GM to make that pick knowing the situation as you described it.  But I bet there are some out there that will have what it take to stand in front of a camera and say "we drafted him because we thought he could help us on the feild and we didn't care about his private life, and we cut him because he just wasn't good enough at football"

It is going to be very interesting no matter how it plays out. 



February 13th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^

You missed the point. If he can't play and cut him, then equality is attained. Right now, people want to see him treated as equaly as others: let his play dictate how important he is, and his play says he is the SEC co-defensive player of the year. The last few have all been in the first round. Now granted, measurables are different between Sam and the others, yet facts say he can play. And regardless of the locker room, if the lockerroom argument isn't an issue for murders, drug abusers, HGH users, women-abusers, etc...then why would this all of a sudden be an issue for Sam?

When the draft comes, where do you think he will go?

If he goes in the beginning of the fifth round, you are saying there are <120 players better for the NFL than the SEC co-defensive player of the year...unlikely. 

carolina blue

February 13th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^

It's a different type of discomfort. The comparison to African Americans is the closest to this, but is still not a valid comparison. I think it's more ignorance than anything. The detractors think that Sam is going to be all "hey, it's shower time...who's getting naked first?" With someone that's gay in locker room, this strikes at their fear of being sexually harassed by another man. However misguided this feeling is, I think these people legitimately feel this way and it can't be completely discounted.

Like I said, it's ignorance, but that doesn't change the fear.


February 13th, 2014 at 11:18 AM ^

I can imagine a 20 year old who's never been aware of knowing a gay man thinking that there might be a problem in the locker room.  The fact that Sam was not just accepted but was a leader at Missouri speaks volumes, though, and I think players who get to know him will quickly realize that they have nothing to worry about.


February 13th, 2014 at 12:32 PM ^

So if you had daughters, you'd be fine with them sharing a locker room with heterosexual males? You'd be cool with your wife attending a gym that freely allowed men and women to frequent the same locker room? 

I mean, I personally wouldn't care. I just think its absurd we act like this shouldn't concern some people.