Today, it’s Three Guys Who Never Agree, as Pepe and Diesel have so graciously allowed me to enter their space for a college football discussion. A But what about the kids?? Part II, if you will…
Much discussion, amongst the media and amongst me and my friends and family, the last few days has centered on the latest round of the college football carousel, which has lost all kind of control ever since Tommy Bowden left his undefeated Tulane squad between the final regular season and bowl game. Ironically, Rich Rodriguez was his offensive coordinator then, and he has recently done the same, this time leaving West Virginia, his alma mater, for Michigan. Another non-stop discussion on the radio dial has been Atlanta’s Bobby Petrino “quitting” on his team “in the middle of the season,” which implies there was more than the actual three games remaining of a wash-out season. Because we apparently have nothing else to listen to, and it’s football, blowhards nationwide have overreacted to both of these instances, calling these men “quitters,” “traitors” and, perhaps most comically, “guys I wouldn’t want my son to play for.”
In my best Chris Rock voice, Can we please cut the fucking shit already?
An annoyance I have is our continual holding of athletes to a higher standard than everyone else, even though, time and time again, we are reminded of how idiotic this is. It’s now crept into us holding coaches to higher standards, as if these “leaders of men” are any different. We’re avoiding the idea that coaches, just like us simpletons, want to max out their potential and have the best possible life, just like we hope to. The only difference is their window to do that is exponentially smaller than ours, based on simple time frames, pressure and short attention spans.
Plenty has been said about Bobby Petrino, so it would be redundant for me to bring them all up here – these mainly center on the outside influences that destroyed the season before it began for Atlanta, an average to slightly above average team at best heading into the season if none of those things happened in the first place. Is it wrong for Bobby Petrino to leave Atlanta during the season to head for Arkansas? Perhaps, but it’s not necessarily his fault – if he wants to move to Arkansas, he has to get started right away. By staying for those three final NFL games to see out the season, he would have lost at least one season in Fayetteville, all because of the NCAA’s reluctance to push National Signing Day, which is the root of all the December coaching changes, back a little bit.
The gap between the end of the regular season and the bowl games is too precious to lose when going after those final pieces to the recruiting class, so schools like Michigan and Arkansas have their hands forced into “stealing” other teams’ coaches while the season is still going on. It’s the same reason why Arizona had to go and get Mike Stoops, even though he was the defensive coordinator in a national championship race at the time. But that’s the business timeline the NCAA has set up. The NBA doesn’t open the free agent market on May 1st for a reason, yet college football wants everything signed and sealed by February 6th with battles taking place well before that. Teams don’t have any time to lose.
Football, college and pro (and, who are we kidding, high school), is business - a fact that everyone acknowledges but fails to understand. Everybody thinks they can contend for a national championship, even though it’s proven every year that it is arguably the hardest goal to accomplish in team sports. There are far too many obstacles to overcome and, unlike the NFL, there are no equal playing fields when it comes to competitive advantages and disadvantages.
Which brings me to Rodriguez, who’s become the latest “traitor” on the paving the path to a successful career in coaching football. Nobody bats an eye when an assistant coach, who has a far closer relationship to players than the head coach and is often the one making promises, leaves to take another job, yet we all get up in arms when the head coach moves to greener pastures.
Whether you think Rodriguez’s career move is great or deplorable, you have to understand that the timing of his decision was neither his nor Michigan’s fault. College football has the longest offseason in sports, yet there’s little breathing room between the end of this season and the beginning of next. In fact, they overlap, and the loser in most cases is the end of this season, because next year, of course, is the year we win it all!
But what about the kids? they always say. Seems like one set of them is going to be neglected either way. They should be expecting it by now - it’s the nature of the beast for college football hires to be handled like this. But it doesn’t have to be, does it?
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Why won't this story die? You know, like the dogs?
I'm posting about Michael Vick again. Kick me in the nuts the next time you see me. But apparently, it's all anybody wants to talk about. Every Vick post on this blog has a bunch of pissed-off comments. ESPN has a different Vick-related story top dead center every day. Right now, it focuses on the future of the dogs in question. (And the front page headline steals one of my story titles, goddamnit.)
Since apparently suggesting this in my last post irked so many people, let me just say it: nobody involved in the Vick case cares about the dogs. Not Vick (obviously), not the prosecutors (who care about their careers), not the media (big story), not even PETA and all the "dog lovers" who are up in arms (it's an excuse for self-righteousness).
And you know what? I don't. I don't fucking care about the dogs. There, I said it. I don't care. I don't want to hear about it anymore. Those dogs are going to be euthanized, and I don't care. Eights others were killed by Vick and/or his codefendants, and really, when it comes down to it, I don't care. He's pleading out, and he'll get sentenced, and that's all I need to know. I don't need all this goddamned hypocritical outrage.
(This is really beside the point, but to tell the truth, I think those pit bulls ought to be euthanized. They're never going to make suitable pets. I don't think pit bulls in general should be pets, either, but I deleted a long aside that used to be here because that issue's not really relevant and I don't want to get off track here.)
But whatever. Like I said, the pit bull thing is beside the point. If you're outraged by the Vick situation, or if you're outraged that I would say that I don't care about the dogs, you might be saying right now, animals were killed in gruesome fashion! I care about animals!
Bullshit. You care about dogs. And you care about dogs for two reasons: because they're cute, and because they make you feel important. It's not just the cuteness -- horses are far better-looking and more majestic than dogs, but they don't come when you call them or fetch a tennis ball, so far fewer Americans love or own them. A horse loses its utility -- breaks a leg, say -- and you kill it or sell it to a slaughterhouse, and nobody says a thing. Trust me, I've seen it happen. You kill Fido because he loses his sense of smell, and you're inhuman.
Or maybe you want to try the brain-size argument. Dogs are smarter than cows, so their pain is worse, and their lives are more important. First of all, that's asinine, because you have no way of knowing what the pain of any animal is like, and you have no authority to place importance on it. Second, even if you did, dolphins are a whole lot smarter than dogs, and most of you dog lovers don't give a rat's ass where your tuna fish comes from. So save it.
The food thing is where people often get pissed off at me (I'm thinking of a person, and his name rhmes with Lyan), because I think you can't honestly wring your hands over Michael Vick's pit bulls unless you're Vegan. "Oh, oh, but you're not Vegan, Pepe, you hypocrite!" Well, I'm not pretending to care about the dogs! I eat a steak, I realize the cow suffered and died ... OK, now this sounds too much like Mass, but you get the idea. I know the chicken didn't want to die to feed me. And I'm OK with that. I don't get outraged about the chicken, I don't get outraged about the dogs. I don't think either one is morally correcter.
"But the dogs suffered! Cows don't suffer!" First of all, yes they do. I'm not going to link you to the videos because I don't want to hear how shrill I'm being. But you can find them. Just because you want to think all the cows and chickens and turkeys and pigs you eat die instantly from a shot to the head and go to livestock heaven doesn't mean it's true.
It's been mentioned here on the blog that beating a dog to death is sadistic, whereas eating meat is not. What a load of shit. So it's really so morally superior to eat the flesh of an animal that somebody else killed by stunning it with a bolt gun applied to its forehead, or by electrocuting it (fitting, considering so much of the Vick uproar regarded the electrocution), then slitting its throat while it was still alive and hanging it up to bleed to death? Why is that better? Because it's feeding you? I've got news for you -- the cow doesn't feel better because it's serving your purpose. And your purpose of enjoying a dead animal's flesh is no nobler than Michael Vick's purpose in killing dogs that were no longer useful to him.
(And by the way, we don't know that he did it sadistically, as some have so hyperbolically stated. We don't know that he enjoyed doing it, or that he tortured them. His plea agreement admits to killing dogs, and the indictment said that eight dogs were killed, using various methods, by a group of three people. This whole hyperbolic notion of him slamming a dog against the floor and laughing has no basis in fact at this point in time. Read the documents. Yeah, maybe shooting them would be more humane, but shooting cows and horses would be more humane, too! Oh, but now I'm defending Michael Vick, because if you don't act outraged and exaggerate what's actually known, that means you must be defending his actions. That's right, I love dogfighting! Sort of like I'm a traitor because I've never supported the Iraq war.)
Would I want Michael Vick to dogsit for me? No! But neither would I want my local slaughterhouse worker to do it! And I know this concept is just absolute anathema to America, but just because you make somebody else do your dirty work doesn't absolve you!
But here's the last and biggest reason I don't care about Michael Vick killing dogs, and I don't want to hear anything more about it, not another word, not another raised indignant voice. Leonard Little killed a 47-year-old wife and mother while driving drunk, did 90 days in a work house, got another DUI years later, and still plays in the NFL. And you've probably never been this outraged about that. Rae Carruth played in the NFL and had his wife murdered. It was in the news, but the outrage was nothing compared to the Vick response. Dwayne Goodrich, a former Cowboy, was speeding in his BMW and mowed down three men who were trying to free a person from a burning car. Two of them died. Very little outrage. Giants DE Jeremiah Parker and his girlfriend beat her 4-year-old son to death, and you've probably never heard of him. The list goes on: 46 domestic violence arrests for NFL players since 2000. NFL players hurting people, killing people. Not dogs -- humans.
And there's been scant national outrage over that. So please, everyone, shut up about the fucking dogs.
Since apparently suggesting this in my last post irked so many people, let me just say it: nobody involved in the Vick case cares about the dogs. Not Vick (obviously), not the prosecutors (who care about their careers), not the media (big story), not even PETA and all the "dog lovers" who are up in arms (it's an excuse for self-righteousness).
And you know what? I don't. I don't fucking care about the dogs. There, I said it. I don't care. I don't want to hear about it anymore. Those dogs are going to be euthanized, and I don't care. Eights others were killed by Vick and/or his codefendants, and really, when it comes down to it, I don't care. He's pleading out, and he'll get sentenced, and that's all I need to know. I don't need all this goddamned hypocritical outrage.
(This is really beside the point, but to tell the truth, I think those pit bulls ought to be euthanized. They're never going to make suitable pets. I don't think pit bulls in general should be pets, either, but I deleted a long aside that used to be here because that issue's not really relevant and I don't want to get off track here.)
But whatever. Like I said, the pit bull thing is beside the point. If you're outraged by the Vick situation, or if you're outraged that I would say that I don't care about the dogs, you might be saying right now, animals were killed in gruesome fashion! I care about animals!
Bullshit. You care about dogs. And you care about dogs for two reasons: because they're cute, and because they make you feel important. It's not just the cuteness -- horses are far better-looking and more majestic than dogs, but they don't come when you call them or fetch a tennis ball, so far fewer Americans love or own them. A horse loses its utility -- breaks a leg, say -- and you kill it or sell it to a slaughterhouse, and nobody says a thing. Trust me, I've seen it happen. You kill Fido because he loses his sense of smell, and you're inhuman.
Or maybe you want to try the brain-size argument. Dogs are smarter than cows, so their pain is worse, and their lives are more important. First of all, that's asinine, because you have no way of knowing what the pain of any animal is like, and you have no authority to place importance on it. Second, even if you did, dolphins are a whole lot smarter than dogs, and most of you dog lovers don't give a rat's ass where your tuna fish comes from. So save it.
The food thing is where people often get pissed off at me (I'm thinking of a person, and his name rhmes with Lyan), because I think you can't honestly wring your hands over Michael Vick's pit bulls unless you're Vegan. "Oh, oh, but you're not Vegan, Pepe, you hypocrite!" Well, I'm not pretending to care about the dogs! I eat a steak, I realize the cow suffered and died ... OK, now this sounds too much like Mass, but you get the idea. I know the chicken didn't want to die to feed me. And I'm OK with that. I don't get outraged about the chicken, I don't get outraged about the dogs. I don't think either one is morally correcter.
"But the dogs suffered! Cows don't suffer!" First of all, yes they do. I'm not going to link you to the videos because I don't want to hear how shrill I'm being. But you can find them. Just because you want to think all the cows and chickens and turkeys and pigs you eat die instantly from a shot to the head and go to livestock heaven doesn't mean it's true.
It's been mentioned here on the blog that beating a dog to death is sadistic, whereas eating meat is not. What a load of shit. So it's really so morally superior to eat the flesh of an animal that somebody else killed by stunning it with a bolt gun applied to its forehead, or by electrocuting it (fitting, considering so much of the Vick uproar regarded the electrocution), then slitting its throat while it was still alive and hanging it up to bleed to death? Why is that better? Because it's feeding you? I've got news for you -- the cow doesn't feel better because it's serving your purpose. And your purpose of enjoying a dead animal's flesh is no nobler than Michael Vick's purpose in killing dogs that were no longer useful to him.
(And by the way, we don't know that he did it sadistically, as some have so hyperbolically stated. We don't know that he enjoyed doing it, or that he tortured them. His plea agreement admits to killing dogs, and the indictment said that eight dogs were killed, using various methods, by a group of three people. This whole hyperbolic notion of him slamming a dog against the floor and laughing has no basis in fact at this point in time. Read the documents. Yeah, maybe shooting them would be more humane, but shooting cows and horses would be more humane, too! Oh, but now I'm defending Michael Vick, because if you don't act outraged and exaggerate what's actually known, that means you must be defending his actions. That's right, I love dogfighting! Sort of like I'm a traitor because I've never supported the Iraq war.)
Would I want Michael Vick to dogsit for me? No! But neither would I want my local slaughterhouse worker to do it! And I know this concept is just absolute anathema to America, but just because you make somebody else do your dirty work doesn't absolve you!
But here's the last and biggest reason I don't care about Michael Vick killing dogs, and I don't want to hear anything more about it, not another word, not another raised indignant voice. Leonard Little killed a 47-year-old wife and mother while driving drunk, did 90 days in a work house, got another DUI years later, and still plays in the NFL. And you've probably never been this outraged about that. Rae Carruth played in the NFL and had his wife murdered. It was in the news, but the outrage was nothing compared to the Vick response. Dwayne Goodrich, a former Cowboy, was speeding in his BMW and mowed down three men who were trying to free a person from a burning car. Two of them died. Very little outrage. Giants DE Jeremiah Parker and his girlfriend beat her 4-year-old son to death, and you've probably never heard of him. The list goes on: 46 domestic violence arrests for NFL players since 2000. NFL players hurting people, killing people. Not dogs -- humans.
And there's been scant national outrage over that. So please, everyone, shut up about the fucking dogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
