Idiot Sports Announcers Watch (v. 1.3)—Don't Call It a Comeback!

Don't call it a comeback
I been here for years
Rockin' my peers and puttin' suckas in fear ...
....
Shotgun blasts are heard
When I rip and kill, at will
The man of the hour, tower of power, I'll devour ...
....
Listen to the way I slay, your crew
Damage! [uhh!] Damage! [uhh!] Damage! [uhh!] Damage!
Destruction, terror, and mayhem
Pass me a sissy so suckas I'll slay him ....

—LL Cool J, "Mama Said Knock You Out"

This morning, I took Berkeley on our "long" walking route, about four miles total.  Along the way, we popped into the vet clinic for something like six vaccine booster shots—who knew dogs could get bird flu?  Of course, I also love the whole "bring in some poop" process—$22 to look at it, $4 to throw it away—not glamorous work, but it pays better than what some might argue is similar work at McDonalds.  About $160 later, Berk is officially the Superman of puppies.

On our walks, I listen to a variety of podcasts on my iPhone via Stitcher radio.  Most of the podcasts are for poker or sports topics, and this morning, I happened to load up the Dan Patrick sports talk radio highlights for this past Wednesday.  What I heard made my blood boil.

Patrick was interviewing Rich Eisen, a major figure and lead commentator for the NFL Network and NFL.com, official media arms for the league.  Patrick asked Eisen if he had to buy an NFL jersey for his young son, would he pick Michael Vick (Philadelphia Eagles star QB embroiled in a dog fighting scandal), Brett Favre (Minnesota Vikings star QB involved in a sexual harassment scandal), or Ben Roethlisberger (Pittsburgh Steelers star QB enmeshed in two sexual assault scandals)?  Eisen stated that, because his wife was a dog lover who worked with the ASPCA, he definitely wouldn't buy a Vick jersey.

Then Eisen and Patrick went where they shouldn't have gone.  Patrick suggested that Vick, who is having a statistically remarkable season on the football field, should be a contender for the NFL's "Comeback Player of the Year", awarded each season to a player who has demonstrated perseverance in overcoming adversity (typically an injury).  Eisen emphatically stated that Vick already has Comeback Player of the Year "locked up".  If true, then the NFL has truly abandoned any pretense of caring about character over cash.

It's not just Eisen and Patrick drinking the Vick-comeback Kool-Aid.  This week's Sports Illustrated cover story also refers to Vick's "comeback" and "rebirth".  In fact, it seems many (if not most) major sports writers and broadcasters are firmly in the "bygones" camp in covering Vick, choosing to applaud Vick's athletic exploits with barely more than an apologetic "he deserves a second chance" nod to his criminal past.

ESPN columnist Rick Reilly suggests that, "in a backward way, Vick has been the best thing to happen to pit bulls" because he raised public awareness of pit bull fighting.  Well yes, by all means, let's give Vick a citizen of the year award for his efforts.  And while we're at it, let's give O.J. Simpson an award for raising public awareness of spousal abuse.  Reilly also suggests that we forgive Vick because he's "remade" himself into the "the most exciting athlete in American sports" by paying more attention to his diet, training more diligently, and working harder in practice.  Ya know, there are plenty of exciting athletes out there to applaud who seem to have learned those lessons without needing 18 months in federal prison for motivation.  Perhaps we could find two or three of them to hold up as paragons of virtue?

Another ESPN columnist, Bill Simmons, actually went further into absurdity in justifying his Vick worship.  Simmons actually repeated Reilly's "Vick did a favor for animal rights" nonsense, only he explicitly drew the comparison to O.J. Simpson and spousal abuse!  While we're at it, let's take a moment to recognize Tiger Woods for his strong work in support of traditional family values.

Simmons also suggested we are all "hypocrites" about animal cruelty because most of us enjoy eating meat.  I'll go Simmons one better.  Growing up on a farm, I've actually been a part of the meat industry on the production side.  I've castrated pigs, branded cattle, and been on a slaughterhouse "kill floor".  The difference between those in the meat industry and people like Vick is that the meat industry does not engage in animal cruelty for sport and gambling.  The purpose of the meat industry is to provide food, while the purpose of dog fighting is let a bunch of guys get their jollies watching two dogs tear each other to shreds in what are generally lengthy, bloody battles.  The meat industry minimizes the pain inflicted on animals (or at least does not cause gratuitous suffering to animals), while dog fighting thrives on maximizing brutality.  Michael Vick doesn't get off the moral hook for electrocuting dogs merely because many of us enjoy a good steak or pork chop.

Simmons also makes the absurd suggestion that Vick—animal torturer and felon—is a better person than LeBron James—basketball superstar who has never been so much as arrested—because "LeBron steadfastly refuses to admit his 'Decision' [to leave his hometown Cleveland Cavaliers for the Miami Heat] was ruinously handled from start to finish." Seriously?  You want to stake the credibility of your support for Vick on that argument?

Now, there is one point where Reilly, Simmons, Patrick, Eisen, and their ilk are absolutely correct—Vick has served his prison time, and if the NFL and the Eagles want Vick representing them, that's their business.  Even though many felons after prison find themselves shut out of lucrative employment opportunities, Vick is under no obligation to turn down millions of dollars if some team is willing to pay him for his services.  If Eagles fans and fantasy football enthusiasts want to root for or gush over Vick, that's their right. Heck, I even understand the sentiment for Vick's fans—"Vick may be a felon, but he's our felon".*

Here's the thing.  Just because Vick has served his time, and is saying and doing all the "right" things, doesn't change the fact of what he did.  Vick financed an illegal dog-fighting business, looking to profit off of the torture of animals as a form of entertainment and gambling.  Vick also wasn't merely a passive investor, he got his hands dirty—and literally bloody—by participating in the killing of several dogs.  Vick wasn't someone committing a youthful indiscretion, nor was he caught in an addiction beyond his control. So please, can we all stop the nonsense talk about how Vick has overcome "adversity"? Adversity is something that happens to someone beyond their control; adversity is not the consequence of a personal moral choice. Adversity is an injury, an illness, a family tragedy. Vick's serving time in federal prison was a well-deserved punishment, not adversity.

For those fans who can stomach Vick's past off-field conduct, Vick's current on-field performance is certainly exciting.  For sports journalists, Vick's resurrected career is an attention-grabbing topic for punditry.  For the NFL and the Eagles, Vick's athletic prowess is certainly lucrative.  Frankly, if the league is sufficiently bereft of dignity and talented, non-felonious stars, Vick's cornucopia of highlight reel plays might well make him worthy of being named league MVP.

But, please, don't call it a comeback.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As you make your year-end charitable contributions, please keep these worthy organizations in your thoughts, or look up your local chapters of these groups and donate your time, cash, or needed supplies, or even help an animal find a new, loving home.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
The Humane Society of the United States
The Animal Rescue League (ARL) (Iowa chapter)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Just a reminder, when someone is dismissive of criticisms of Vick because "all he did was kill some pit bulls", here are some examples of the breeds of dog Vick consigned to torture and death.

(Image source).

(Image source).

(Image source).

(Image source).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
*  There are plenty of sports teams at all levels of play fielding players of questionable moral character.  Coaches, fans, owners, and/or administrators alike all have to reach some decision on where to draw the moral line regarding whether they employ, coach, or root for a particular player.  Even my beloved Huskers are not immune.  In my mind, Tom Osborne's legacy will always be tainted by his decision in 1995 to reinstate Lawrence Phillips to the team after suspending him for physically assaulting his then-girlfriend.  Although Osborne likely had Phillips' best interests at heart, and the Huskers did not need Phillips (they had a pretty serviceable backup RB in Ahman Green), nonetheless the fact remains that the Huskers chose to keep a pretty unsavory character on the team on the way to a second consecutive national title.  And Husker fans cheered.

Idiot Sports Announcer Watch (v. 1.2)—Dana Jacobson Defies Oprah

This morning, I had a meeting out near my house, so I worked at home for a bit.  I had on ESPN2 in the background, to catch a bit of the sports talk shows Mike & Mike In the Morning and First Take.  On First Take, the ever-exuberant (sometimes overly exuberant) Dana Jacobson was hosting, and was engaged in a phone interview of Jets' receiver Santonio Holmes about his role in the Jets win over the Texans, when suddenly (around the 2:05 mark):

Holmes lets out an exclamation.  Jacobson quickly realizes Holmes is driving while doing the interview.  Holmes indicates another driver cut in front of him while moving into his lane.  Jacobson tosses out the witty comeback, "Does he not realize you're Santonio Holmes?!?  What's he doing?"  [Umm, just guessing, he has no clue Holmes is driving anywhere near him.].  Jacobson then chides Holmes, noting that "Oprah would be mad at us for having this conversation while driving."  [If there had been an actual collision, Oprah is a ways down the list of people concerned.].  Finally, Jacobson settles on an awkward segue, advising Holmes to "Save those hands!  They're game-winning hands!"  [Yup, get in a wreck, go ahead and lose your legs or suffer brain trauma, just so long as your hands are safe!].  All in all a couple of shining minutes of peppy coverage trivializing a near-tragedy.  Bravo, Dana Jacobson! 

Out of curiosity, I wonder how the ESPN suits felt about Jacobson continuing the interview for another few minutes post-mishap.  At that point, ESPN knows Holmes is on the phone, and has narrowly avoided a collision.  Even if Holmes was not at all at fault, ESPN is still knowingly engaging him in an interview while he drives.  It just doesn't look good.  God forbid any sports star actually gets in a collision during a phone interview.  In any event, it's really not a laughing matter.

Much like this:

Jacobson has some liquid inspiration before insulting

Notre Dame, Touchdown Jesus, and, well, plain-ol' Jesus.

Idiot Sports Announcer Watch (v. 1.1)—Out With a Brain

The return of football season means the return of a crAAKKer feature that went on hiatus after its initial debut—the Idiot Sports Announcer Watch.  Let's face it, there is really no reason to watch sports on TV between the conclusion of March Madness and the beginning of football season, with the exception of golf majors where Tiger Woods or Zach Johnson are in the hunt on Sunday.  But with the return of football, it's time to discuss the most annoying development in sports reporting and commentary—the abandonment of grammar when discussing player injuries.  The typical offending statement goes something like this:

"The Happy Hippos' defense is going to be challenged tonight, since star cornerback Joe Smith is out with a knee.  Rookie Billy Joe Jim Bob Johnson is really going to have to step up and elevate his game."

Setting aside the silly sports clichés—we can cover those in future posts—since when did folks who supposedly hold journalism or other college degrees start thinking the formulation:

"Smith is out with a [body part]."

was an acceptable grammatical replacement for:

"Smith is out with a [medical condition]." ??

This isn't difficult.  If you want to report a knee injury, you can say "ACL rupture", "meniscus tear", "knee strain", or simply a generic "knee injury".  See how easy it is to make your sentence grammatical, merely by adding one little word? 

The silliness of the "out with a [body part]" formulation is evident from the fact that even the offending announcers themselves do not use it consistently.  Have you ever heard an announcer report that a player with a concussion was "out with a head" or "out with a brain"?  How about a player suffering from the flu being reported as "out with lungs", or a little salmonella resulting in a player being "out with a small intestine"?

Look, I understand that language evolves constantly, and it is probably foolhardy to rail against such a relatively harmless grammatical error.  But, sports are widely watched by kids, and if they hear non-grammatical usages, they tend to adopt them, which can only be detrimental (assuming, of course, that educators and employers still care about things like grammar).  Also, given that many of these same nitwits in the sports biz will debate grammatical esoterica like whether "RBI" or "RBIs" is the proper plural form for the abbreviation for "runs batted in"*, I think a little grammatical respect is appropriate for "out with a [condition]".

Incidentally, there will be no further posts today.  I'm out with a sinus.

----------------------------------------------------------
*  For the record, I don't give a flying pig which one you use.  But, I think "RBI" as a plural sounds stilted and pretentious.

Idiot Sports Announcers Watch (v. 1.0)—ESPN Lacrosse

Welcome to the first in what will become a recurring blog theme—idiot sports announcers.  For our first entry, we go to a surprise entry from the world of lacrosse ...

This afternoon, I was watching the Virginia vs. Johns Hopkins lacrosse match on ESPN2. Lacrosse has been blowing up in terms of participation over the past decade—see articles HERE, HERE, and HERE for a sense of the rapid expansion of lacrosse at all levels of play.  Matches are often covered on ESPNU and ESPN2, and are fun to watch.  The action is fast-paced, there is plenty of scoring, and there is a strong element of athleticism to the game, which makes it entertaining even for those of us who've never played the game.

Midway through the second half, the color commentator* was talking about a player who had grown up outside the traditional lacrosse hotbeds in the Northeastern part of the country.  Using my DVR to try to create an accurate transcript, here's the commentary:

[This player is] Another example of how lacrosse continues to grow in non-hotbed areas. Places like Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, Seattle, Washington. There are more great players coming out of those areas playing at all sorts of different schools. And that’s why parity now exists in Division I college lacrosse. There’s only 60 schools, there’s only so many places you can go. Gender equity slowing the growth of Division I men’s lacrosse.

Our commentator starts by making an interesting point about the growth of lacrosse across the entire country, emphasizing how lacrosse is now a national sport, and how that development of the sport nationally has made the sport as a whole more competitive.  He has me hooked.

Then, our commentator decides to be an idiot, blaming parity in college lacrosse on "gender equity".  Apparently, our commentator feels that more men's lacrosse teams would be fielded by Division I colleges if "gender equity" weren't required.  He doesn't explain his position further, so the purported cause-effect relationship between "gender equity"  and the lack of men's lacrosse teams can only be surmised to be a reference to Title IX requirements for gender equity in athletic opportunities.

The problem for our commentator's thesis is that Title IX does not prohibit any school from fielding a men's lacrosse team.  All that Title IX requires is equitable treatment of women in providing athletic opportunities.  A school can comply with Title IX in one of three ways:

1. Have a female participation rate for athletics roughly equivalent to the percentage of women in the student body;
2. Demonstrate a steady increase in athletic opportunites for women; or,
3. Demonstrate that it is meeting the athletic interests and needs of its female students.

Interestingly, according to an article by Gene Garber at ESPN, there are only an average of 25 Title IX complaints per year related to collegiate athletics at all levels, and no school has ever lost federal funding due to Title IX violations. 

Given that somewhat more men than women play Division I lacrosse (there are more women's teams because women tend to have smaller squads), it appears complaints about a lack of opportunity for male lacrosse players are misplaced.  In any event, Title IX does not prevent schools from fielding men's lacrosse teams (or other men's athetic teams) if they wish to do so.  Title IX only requires schools to provide more opportunities for female athletes, which often leads to budgetary concerns—a school can either find new funds to finance women's athletic teams, or it can reallocate part of its sports budget away from men's sports programs.  Thus, schools without a men's lacrosse team have made a budgetary decision not to support a men's lacrosse program, pure and simple.  Blaming "gender equity" or Title IX is simply wrong, and does a great disservice to the public, fueling common resentments against Title IX and women's athletics programs.

To our idiot announcer:  Let's set aside your inexplicable ignorance about an important federal sports law, which every announcer at a network like ESPN should be able to discuss intelligibly.  As a practical matter, you aren't going to help men's lacrosse by whining about "gender equity".  Helping keep lacrosse as a whole popular is the best way to increase opportunities for all lacrosse players, as increased popularity will increase the funds that can be generated by the sport in terms of tickets, TV rights, team sponsors, memorabilia/apparel sales, etc.  More money will lead to more teams.  No need to tear the women down to buld up the men.

--------------------------------------
* I could not locate the name of the color commentator through a search of ESPN.com.  If I can find the individual's name, I will update the post.