After another close voting, Jason evens up our season-long Turf Wars battle at 1-1 as you sided with his case for Bill Belichick being suspended. Are you listening Roger Goodell?
The official scoring was 57% to 43% (63 votes) in favor of Jason.
This week the debate on the plate is "Will the Chicago Bears Make The Playoffs?". Our very own Ross Mandel believes very strongly that the Bears are no better than a .500 team who will fail to defend their NFC Championship. Meanwhile, Jason believes this is a no-brainer, that the Bears, led by their great defense, should easily recuperate from their early season struggles and finish atop the NFC North.
Lets Get Ready To Rumble!!!
TURF WARS #3
OPENING STATEMENTS
JASON: The Chicago Bears didn't end up in the Super Bowl last year by accident. A superb defense carried them through the weak NFC North division as well as the NFC entirely, and helped them land in Miami practically untouched. Unlike last year, the Bears are starting off 2007 on a bad foot, but history shows that doesn't mean much. Despite being 1-2, the Bears have faced three playoff teams from 2006, the only team in the NFL to have that schedule. In 2005, the Bears stumbled out of the blocks, going 1-2. But they were able to rebound by winning the division behind now third-stringer Kyle Orton. Also in 2005, the Carolina Panthers started the season 1-2 and advanced to the NFC Championship game. In 2006, both the Giants and the Chiefs began the season with that record and made it to the playoffs. 1-2 is just a number right now. There's no reason to count out the Bears, especially in that division, as a playoff contender. It's hard to have faith in a team like the Lions, the Vikings are obviously rebuilding, and the only competition the Bears will face is in Green Bay Packers, who have an aging quarterback and a mediocre at best running game. The Bears should still be the favorite to win that division, which means an automatic playoff berth.
ROSS: No reason to count the Bears out? Here's a list for you: 02 NY Giants, 03 Bucs and Raiders, 04 Panthers, 05 Eagles, 06 Steelers...ALL Super Bowl teams who failed to make the playoffs the season after their Super Bowl appearances. Injuries, free agency, and failure of players to repeat performances from the Super Bowl season all contribute to the Super Bowl "hangover". When teams get to the Big Game, and even when they get to the playoffs, things have to come together. This season, it's pretty clear that things are falling apart for the Chicago Bears. Rex Grossman has finally been displaced, but now where will this startlingly average team turn to for its whipping boy? To say Grossman is the only thing separating the Bears from the playoffs is short-sighted. What about the injuries to FIVE defensive starters, including Mike Brown, who is out for the season, and Tommie Harris--whose absence last year rendered the Bears D punchless? What about the rushing offense with Cedric Benson? The guy they cleared the roster for is coming up amazingly small when BIG is what they need from their rushing game. You want to say Brian Griese will add the spark needed? I say he's a journeyman, cut by three teams, coming off a shredded ACL. Those who expect miracles from this palooka are going to be disappointed. Grossman is lost for this season, Griese is average at best...with a defense ranked in the middle of the pack right now, and one that is decimated by injuries, it's clear that the 07 Bears will be the latest team which fails to make the playoffs a year after making the Super Bowl.
REBUTTALS
JASON: The injuries are going to hurt them…but they dealt with injuries last year as well. The change at quarterback, now bringing in Brian Griese, is going to ignite this team, and with good reason. No one - except Lovie Smith - was truly confident in Rex Grossman. Now they have a seasoned veteran to hang their hat on. Griese isn't a hall-of-fame quarterback, that's why he's coming off the bench. But he's someone who knows the game, knows how to make a play when it's needed and can help jump start this struggling team. Just take a look at the remainder of their schedule. Only four teams of the last 13 games made the playoffs last year, and with a strong defense and "new" offense, the Bears will be able to capitalize on their mediocre opponents. Cedric Benson was a question mark coming into the season as whether or not he could handle the load. But look at the defenses he's been up against (San Diego, Dallas). With upcoming games against Detroit, Philadelphia and Oakland, there's no telling what Benson will be able to do. The Bears are taking this division without a fight.
ROSS: Griese is going to spark the Bears' offense? Why? Because people want him to? He's a journeyman. A stiff, cut by three teams. You know why? Because he's a backup. You don't want your backup to play 13 games. The offense is ranked 30th. Griese may be an improvement over Grossman, but to say he's going to be the answer over the course of the season is insane. And when he sputters, then what? You're gonna put Grossman back in? Nah. You mention the "soft schedule" the Bears have, but to go off of last year is part of the faulty assumption many fans make: last year's success means nothing in the NFL, that's why so many teams fail to make the playoffs a year after playing in the final game of the previous season. As for Benson, he's soft. He's gutless. He's averaging 3.2 yards per carry and has more fumbles than TDs! And even if you're a Griese backer, you have to admit there will be some adjustment time...and can they afford it? With the high scoring Lions up next and the league's 16th (read: average) ranked defense with injuries piling up...and a team without an offensive leader or a running back--how will they outscore the Lions? How will they win at Green Bay? They're staring 1-4 in the face! You think they're winning this division easily? How? With an awful offense and an injury-plagued mediocre defense? Last season their defense was crazy good--but how'd that defense look against Dallas? This is a team going nowhere.
THE BIG QUESTION
MODERATOR (FOR JASON)- With a quarterback controversy that seems destined to divide the locker room, a running back duo that has combined for four fumbles (3 lost) and six potential starters out on defense for an extended period of time, how can the Bears possibly overcome this? The coach is
on the hot seat and the offense is ranked 30th in the league. What makes this a playoff team?
Jason: Let's say it does take some adjustment time for Griese and the offense, and the Bears have to tough it out for a few more games. Even then they'll be able to capitalize on a weak NFC and still grab a wild card spot. Why? Because of playmakers -- undeniable stars on their team that can carry them to the playoffs. Wouldn't you like to have a perennial Pro Bowl linebacker covering just about anybody, anywhere on
the field (see: Brian Urlacher)? Or how about a game-breaking special teamer who's on his way to the hall of fame…in his second season! With field position like that on every drive, it doesn't matter how bad your offense is, you're gonna score at some point. As for the injuries, yeah, they're going to hurt the team. But good teams
overcome this type of adversity, and the Bears are a good team. Two straight division titles and a Super Bowl appearance aren't by chance.
MODERATOR (FOR ROSS) - The Bears are sitting in 9th place in the NFC at 1-2. It is a strong belief across the league that defense wins championships. With the NFC being a weaker conference than the AFC, what's to say that Chicago, a team that has dealt with plenty of adversity in the past can not overcome this? There are 13 weeks left of football to play. Their final five games are a cakewalk including NYG, WAS, MIN, GB, NO. Please explain your logic for such a talented team collapsing.
Ross: Collapsing to me means 4-12. Going 8-8 isn't a collapse, but it's going to happen, and that's bad enough to miss the playoffs. Their defense was, as I said earlier, insane last season. However, this year is a different year--things change, guys get hurt--as they have with the Bears. Offenses can go from average to terrible--as it has with the Bears. Last season, Bernard Berrian didn't drop passes. This year, he can't hold onto the ball. Last season the Bears scored 79 points in their first 3 games and were 3-0. This season their offense is behind Kansas City's! You mention a weak schedule--how do we know how bad the schedule will be at that time? The Redskins and Packers certainly look like they could handle the Bears easily...and let's not forget they have games at Philly, at Seattle, and host Denver. How is that an easy schedule? If the Bears were playing with last season's defense, I'd say they had a shot...but they're not. People who keep assuming that THIS year's team is LAST year's team are what keep Las Vegas going. The fact is, the Bears are LAST in the NFL in points scored and now they've changed quarterbacks--to a guy who hasn't seen real action since he tore his ACL! Not a good recipe for a team who
wants to make the playoffs. PLAYOFFS???
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
JASON: The NFC as a whole is weak, there's no denying that. One of last year's wild card teams (NY Giants) made it into the playoffs with an 8-8 record. With only two teams in the NFC still undefeated, its
pretty likely that 2007 will be much like 2006, and the wild card teams will be average -- at best -- and limp into the postseason. After just three weeks, anything can happen, and there's no way the reigning NFC Champs can be counted out. They still have a great shot at winning the mediocre NFC North crown, and if not, like you said
Ross, they'll probably be good enough to go 8-8. Which, as mentioned before, means a playoff berth. No, they're not the same dominant team they were last year. But they still have the majority of the components that got them to the playoffs. With so many factors (weak division, weak conference, average schedule) lining up in their favor,
the Bears can practically be written in for a playoff spot.
ROSS: Playmakers? Urlacher is a solid player, but he's an island out there on defense now. He and his ZERO sacks and 3 INTs last season. And Devin Hester is amazing, but settle down with the HOF inductions after one good season--is Dante Hall even on anyone's radar?. He's so amazing that teams are no longer going to kick to him. He's already whining about it, telling them to "play football" and kick him the ball. The facts are this: the Bears are abysmal on offense and Brian Griese, who may have a good week against the defensively challenged Lions, is simply not a guy who can lead a team to the playoffs by himself. And with no WRs to speak of, and a shaky RB, he's going to. The locker room is another factor--a lot of the Bears are already whining about the offense letting the team down. It was easy to see how that affected the team as a whole when they stunk up the joint DEFENSIVELY against Dallas. A weakened, injured defense that resents the offense, a journeyman QB, a subpar RB, no WRs, locker room griping--and a team on the rise in their division in the Packers...all of this adds up to a .500 season for this team. Playoffs are not in the cards. Maybe next year.
WOW! Strong arguments made all around the board here. It's time for you to weigh in. Will the Chicago Bears make the playoffs?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Welcome to Turf Wars Battle #2- fresh off a week two bye, Ross and Jason are back to battle it out.
Ross was a winner by a margin of 57% to 43% during week one in their debate whether or not Mike Vick should be reinstated by the NFL.
Today's topic up for debate: Should Bill Belichick be suspended?
Jason believes that Bill Belichick should be suspended.
Ross is arguing that he should not.
OPENING STATEMENTS
JASON: Bill Belichick cheated, plain and simple. He hasn't denied it, nor has he even attempted to pretend that any of this "scandal" was false or misleading. When it comes down to it, Belichick was behind the taping of sideline signal-calling one way or another. Just because he wasn't actually holding the camera doesn't mean he wasn't part of it. And because of that, he cheated. Furthermore, if taking an illegal substance to help you gain a physical advantage in the game of football warrants a minimum four-game suspension, why is this any different? If gaining an unfair advantage physically is considered cheating, then so is spying on the opposition's play callers and their signals. If you get caught taking steroids, it costs you a quarter of a season. So why shouldn't Belichick be punished via suspension just like the players he coaches? Is a coach above the system? If he is, then Commissioner Goodell needs to make a change, and fast. If Belichick orchestrated the spying, as it seems he did, fining him $500k isn't enough. Taking away draft picks hurts the team, not Belichick. As a coach and employee of the NFL, he needs to be punished more than the Patriots' franchise itself.
ROSS: First of all, I'll agree: Belichick and the Pats ARE guilty of cheating. No one, including Belichick, disagrees with that. But I'll tell you how it's different from steroids -- videotaping isn't against the LAW. That being said, clearly breaking the rules deserves punishment, and financially, Goodell fined him the limit -- half a million dollars. In addition to that, he is docking the Pats at least one draft pick, more than likely a 1st-rounder. Since the game wasn't affected by this videotaping, Goodell decided a suspension wasn't warranted. As for your statement that taking the picks away doesn't hurt Belichick -- that's simply not true: he will be the coach there for a long time, having just signed an extension! I think that losing a pick equal to Laurence Maroney, or whomever they'd take late in round one hurts the team MORE than the coach missing a couple of games. Furthermore, how can you not blame the TEAM for its coach's actions when you're blaming the COACH for an assistant's videotaping? The coach is responsible for his staff the same way the ownership is responsible for its staff, which includes the head coach.
REBUTTALS
JASON: Unfortunately, this is the only time where there's been physical evidence of the video taping. No one knows how long this has been going on for, but many teams around the NFL have been outspoken about it. Franchises like the Pittsburgh Steelers and Indianapolis Colts have had members of their teams come out in public saying they heard Patriots' players repeatedly calling out the plays from the sideline before the ball was even snapped. Just last week, former New England tight end Christian Fauria spoke with members of the media and said he "never saw any cheating," in a sarcastic tone while laughing, according to reporters. It is very possible that this has been going on longer than just week one of 2007, and in order to sustain its absence from the game, a more severe punishment needs to be handed down rather than this slap on the wrist. $500k doesn't mean too much to a guy who's been making millions for a few years now, and draft picks aren't going to hurt -- all that badly -- to a team that's a perennial Super Bowl contender with a core group of veterans.
ROSS: More severe? The fine was the largest EVER for a coach. How much more severe than that can you get? Not surprisingly, the media and others in the NFL have eagerly piled on Belichick -- they can't stand his attitude and elusiveness and his winning, respectively. The Steelers and Colts are whining -- too bad. Where were their complaints when it happened? Were they too meek to make noise that was loud enough to get the media's attention? That's hard to believe. So now, when there's evidence of a transgression, everyone piles on. Piling on is America's pastime now. Mike Shanahan said, "Our guy keeps a pair of binoculars on their signal-callers every game . . . With any luck, we have their defensive signals figured out by halftime. Sometimes, by the end of the first quarter." So what does that tell you? That New England deserves to have its coach suspended because they used a camera to do it? Come on. They're being docked draft picks -- that's a big deal. The commissioner thinks the "maximum fine and forfeiture of a first-round draft choice, or multiple draft choices, is in fact more significant and long-lasting, and therefore more effective, than a suspension.” I agree.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
JASON: It's pretty clear that with the talent New England has this year and with the performances they've put on in the opening weeks of the season, they're headed to the playoffs. That means they'll lose their first-round pick, which will be somewhere in the high 20s to low 30s. Obviously that is punishment...to the team. You mentioned an extension for Belichick. What if he decided after this season to hang it up? Then the Patriots' franchise is getting shafted, not Bill Belichick, for the actions he was involved in and allegedly organizing. Suspending the coach during the season for one game or more, in which all 16 games count, would be a crushing blow to any team, especially one that has relied so heavily on its "genius" play caller during it's run of Super Bowl championships and post season appearances. You think Belichick was given a harsh punishment? How about forcing him to sit home, without pay, while his staff is forced to call the plays -- that they want to call -- as he sits and watches.
ROSS: So if Belichick remains the coach for 8 more seasons, then the punishment is OK with you? You're saying that the level of justice the punishment serves is dependent on how much time Belichick spends there? That makes no sense. So what if he DOESN'T retire after this season? Are you then on MY side? As for his coaches calling their own plays -- are you joking? Do you think those assistants got to be his assistants by blowing off Belichick's game plan? They would make the same calls during the games as he would. Do the Yankees fall apart when Torre gets suspended? No, because Mattingly, or whomever the shill is knows what the top man expects. Suspending Belichick would accomplish nothing more than satisfying people's desire to pile on and receive their pound of flesh. That's not what justice is about. The tape was seized before the end of the first quarter. It didn't affect the game. That fact matters. Justice is served by the discipline handed down by the commissioner -- just because everyone hates the Patriots doesn't mean they should receive extra punishment.
THE BIG QUESTION
MODERATOR: Jason, you can state a case that this is an intelligence-gathering type of incident, not an on-the-field performance enhancing advantage. When teams initiate early contact with college players, they lose draft picks (informational gathering). This penalty seems to be along the same type of lines. Why should this incident be treated any differently?
JASON: This incident isn't about Belichick trying to scout the best players or get information about what his team can be worth over the course of the next 2, 3, 4 years. The NFL is about winning now, and that's what Belichick was aiming for. The tape would've been used to the Patriots advantage in the second half of the game, but more importantly, during the second meeting of these two teams later in the season. I know Belichick and his staff weren't creating a physical advantage on the field, but were gathering information for a preparation advantage. Losing talent that may -- or may not -- help the team a few seasons down the road has no bearing on what the Patriots are trying to do this season. The NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" league, and winning is king. Suspending Belichick now, rather than possibly hurting the franchise seasons down the road doesn't make sense. The fine is hefty, obviously. But that doesn't matter, it doesn't send the signal to other coaches and their staffs that this kind of behavior won't be tolerated. Goodell needs to take Belicheck off the sideline for at least one week to make sure this doesn't happen again.
MODERATOR: Ross, you said that this incident did not impact this particular game, but one would think this has taken place in the past - possibly why Eric Mangini may have known about it. The Patriots were in clear violation of the new rules that Commissioner Goodell implemented during the off-season, much less, Belichick had the audacity to disobey the rules in week one, versus a former employee. How is there is not fault and responsibility that needs to be accounted for?
ROSS: There absolutely IS fault and responsibility -- Belichick has accepted the blame and apologized for his mistake. He is being held accountable for it to the tune of $500,000 and the loss of a 1st round pick! That's a punishment. That's being held accountable. Teams who have been found guilty of tampering --another serious transgression -- have been punished with the loss of draft picks. You bring up the "former employee," who is obviously Eric Mangini of the winless Jets...Do we really believe that he didn't know the Pats did this before, if they did? Where exactly was Mangini's outrage when he was on the other side of it? Please. He was a part of it, and now when his team gets the crap kicked out of it, he's pointing the finger across the sideline? Sure, Belichick did it, but then why shake his hand after the game in the center of the field? If Mangini was SO upset at the cheating, why congratulate Belichick at all? Because he didn't think it was such a big deal, that's why. If he actually thought his signals were being used against him, do you think he would have shaken Belichick's hand? I'd like to think not. Belichick WAS held accountable -- I only hope the piling on is the same when someone else gets busted for breaking the rules.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
JASON: It's clear that Belichick disobeyed, went around, broke the rules or however you want to say it. It's also pretty evident that it's happened in the past according to other players, teams, and former coaching staff members. It seems odd that it would take place against the Jets, a division rival, and their coach, Eric Mangini, a former Patriot coach, in week ONE. Mangini knew what he was doing. He, just like the rest of the league, saw the stock of talent on the New England sideline and just like Belichick, needed an advantage. Why not rat him out? He knew it was going down, so he did something about it. He shook Belichick's hand after the game just like the two embraced at midfield last year, probably because Belichick was so thankful that Mangini kept quiet. And if Belichick is such a "genius" then why did he even need to do this? He put his team at risk -- by losing draft picks -- and cast a shadow over the entire franchise. The only whiff of success the Patriots have ever had has been under the Belichick era, and now we know why. His legacy, much like so many others in sports accused of cheating, will be tainted, at least slightly, and he'll have to live with himself. Now, if Roger Goodell wants to continue to resurrect the image of the NFL, he needs to drop the hammer on Belichick and suspend him to send a message to the rest of the league. He cheated. End of story.
ROSS: LaDanian Tomlinson said that the Patriots "actually live by the saying, If you're not cheating, you're not tryin'." Is that right? Well, what words does Shawne Merriman live by, exactly? The fact that Tomlinson doesn't see the hypocrisy of his statement is further proof that people are blinded by success -- the success of others. If this was happening to Jeff Fisher, the justice handed down from Goodell would have been the same, but the media frenzy and public outrage wouldn't have been nearly the same. Belichick broke the rules. He was held accountable. I mean, if you want immediate "hurt" to be put on Belichick, why not suspend Tom Brady -- that would surely hurt them more than a Belichick suspension, wouldn't it? All people seem to care about is "what would hurt Belichick more?" when the real question is, "What is a fair punishment for this violation?" People don't like Belichick's arrogance, his ego, his success...that's fine, but to say he deserves a heavier punishment because of those things is laughable. Flip it around -- if he was a nice guy, beloved by all of the media, adored by fans of all teams as a great guy and a great coach, would people be clamoring for LESS of a punishment? If you say "yes" to that, then you're consistent in your belief that justice isn't blind -- that irrelevant personality flaws should affect the handing out of justice. If you think the punishment would be the same, even if Belichick was beloved by all, then ask yourself this: Why shouldn't it be the same if he's NOT beloved? Justice needs to be blind, and in this case -- it was.
Ross was a winner by a margin of 57% to 43% during week one in their debate whether or not Mike Vick should be reinstated by the NFL.
Today's topic up for debate: Should Bill Belichick be suspended?
Jason believes that Bill Belichick should be suspended.
Ross is arguing that he should not.
OPENING STATEMENTS
JASON: Bill Belichick cheated, plain and simple. He hasn't denied it, nor has he even attempted to pretend that any of this "scandal" was false or misleading. When it comes down to it, Belichick was behind the taping of sideline signal-calling one way or another. Just because he wasn't actually holding the camera doesn't mean he wasn't part of it. And because of that, he cheated. Furthermore, if taking an illegal substance to help you gain a physical advantage in the game of football warrants a minimum four-game suspension, why is this any different? If gaining an unfair advantage physically is considered cheating, then so is spying on the opposition's play callers and their signals. If you get caught taking steroids, it costs you a quarter of a season. So why shouldn't Belichick be punished via suspension just like the players he coaches? Is a coach above the system? If he is, then Commissioner Goodell needs to make a change, and fast. If Belichick orchestrated the spying, as it seems he did, fining him $500k isn't enough. Taking away draft picks hurts the team, not Belichick. As a coach and employee of the NFL, he needs to be punished more than the Patriots' franchise itself.
ROSS: First of all, I'll agree: Belichick and the Pats ARE guilty of cheating. No one, including Belichick, disagrees with that. But I'll tell you how it's different from steroids -- videotaping isn't against the LAW. That being said, clearly breaking the rules deserves punishment, and financially, Goodell fined him the limit -- half a million dollars. In addition to that, he is docking the Pats at least one draft pick, more than likely a 1st-rounder. Since the game wasn't affected by this videotaping, Goodell decided a suspension wasn't warranted. As for your statement that taking the picks away doesn't hurt Belichick -- that's simply not true: he will be the coach there for a long time, having just signed an extension! I think that losing a pick equal to Laurence Maroney, or whomever they'd take late in round one hurts the team MORE than the coach missing a couple of games. Furthermore, how can you not blame the TEAM for its coach's actions when you're blaming the COACH for an assistant's videotaping? The coach is responsible for his staff the same way the ownership is responsible for its staff, which includes the head coach.
REBUTTALS
JASON: Unfortunately, this is the only time where there's been physical evidence of the video taping. No one knows how long this has been going on for, but many teams around the NFL have been outspoken about it. Franchises like the Pittsburgh Steelers and Indianapolis Colts have had members of their teams come out in public saying they heard Patriots' players repeatedly calling out the plays from the sideline before the ball was even snapped. Just last week, former New England tight end Christian Fauria spoke with members of the media and said he "never saw any cheating," in a sarcastic tone while laughing, according to reporters. It is very possible that this has been going on longer than just week one of 2007, and in order to sustain its absence from the game, a more severe punishment needs to be handed down rather than this slap on the wrist. $500k doesn't mean too much to a guy who's been making millions for a few years now, and draft picks aren't going to hurt -- all that badly -- to a team that's a perennial Super Bowl contender with a core group of veterans.
ROSS: More severe? The fine was the largest EVER for a coach. How much more severe than that can you get? Not surprisingly, the media and others in the NFL have eagerly piled on Belichick -- they can't stand his attitude and elusiveness and his winning, respectively. The Steelers and Colts are whining -- too bad. Where were their complaints when it happened? Were they too meek to make noise that was loud enough to get the media's attention? That's hard to believe. So now, when there's evidence of a transgression, everyone piles on. Piling on is America's pastime now. Mike Shanahan said, "Our guy keeps a pair of binoculars on their signal-callers every game . . . With any luck, we have their defensive signals figured out by halftime. Sometimes, by the end of the first quarter." So what does that tell you? That New England deserves to have its coach suspended because they used a camera to do it? Come on. They're being docked draft picks -- that's a big deal. The commissioner thinks the "maximum fine and forfeiture of a first-round draft choice, or multiple draft choices, is in fact more significant and long-lasting, and therefore more effective, than a suspension.” I agree.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
JASON: It's pretty clear that with the talent New England has this year and with the performances they've put on in the opening weeks of the season, they're headed to the playoffs. That means they'll lose their first-round pick, which will be somewhere in the high 20s to low 30s. Obviously that is punishment...to the team. You mentioned an extension for Belichick. What if he decided after this season to hang it up? Then the Patriots' franchise is getting shafted, not Bill Belichick, for the actions he was involved in and allegedly organizing. Suspending the coach during the season for one game or more, in which all 16 games count, would be a crushing blow to any team, especially one that has relied so heavily on its "genius" play caller during it's run of Super Bowl championships and post season appearances. You think Belichick was given a harsh punishment? How about forcing him to sit home, without pay, while his staff is forced to call the plays -- that they want to call -- as he sits and watches.
ROSS: So if Belichick remains the coach for 8 more seasons, then the punishment is OK with you? You're saying that the level of justice the punishment serves is dependent on how much time Belichick spends there? That makes no sense. So what if he DOESN'T retire after this season? Are you then on MY side? As for his coaches calling their own plays -- are you joking? Do you think those assistants got to be his assistants by blowing off Belichick's game plan? They would make the same calls during the games as he would. Do the Yankees fall apart when Torre gets suspended? No, because Mattingly, or whomever the shill is knows what the top man expects. Suspending Belichick would accomplish nothing more than satisfying people's desire to pile on and receive their pound of flesh. That's not what justice is about. The tape was seized before the end of the first quarter. It didn't affect the game. That fact matters. Justice is served by the discipline handed down by the commissioner -- just because everyone hates the Patriots doesn't mean they should receive extra punishment.
THE BIG QUESTION
MODERATOR: Jason, you can state a case that this is an intelligence-gathering type of incident, not an on-the-field performance enhancing advantage. When teams initiate early contact with college players, they lose draft picks (informational gathering). This penalty seems to be along the same type of lines. Why should this incident be treated any differently?
JASON: This incident isn't about Belichick trying to scout the best players or get information about what his team can be worth over the course of the next 2, 3, 4 years. The NFL is about winning now, and that's what Belichick was aiming for. The tape would've been used to the Patriots advantage in the second half of the game, but more importantly, during the second meeting of these two teams later in the season. I know Belichick and his staff weren't creating a physical advantage on the field, but were gathering information for a preparation advantage. Losing talent that may -- or may not -- help the team a few seasons down the road has no bearing on what the Patriots are trying to do this season. The NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" league, and winning is king. Suspending Belichick now, rather than possibly hurting the franchise seasons down the road doesn't make sense. The fine is hefty, obviously. But that doesn't matter, it doesn't send the signal to other coaches and their staffs that this kind of behavior won't be tolerated. Goodell needs to take Belicheck off the sideline for at least one week to make sure this doesn't happen again.
MODERATOR: Ross, you said that this incident did not impact this particular game, but one would think this has taken place in the past - possibly why Eric Mangini may have known about it. The Patriots were in clear violation of the new rules that Commissioner Goodell implemented during the off-season, much less, Belichick had the audacity to disobey the rules in week one, versus a former employee. How is there is not fault and responsibility that needs to be accounted for?
ROSS: There absolutely IS fault and responsibility -- Belichick has accepted the blame and apologized for his mistake. He is being held accountable for it to the tune of $500,000 and the loss of a 1st round pick! That's a punishment. That's being held accountable. Teams who have been found guilty of tampering --another serious transgression -- have been punished with the loss of draft picks. You bring up the "former employee," who is obviously Eric Mangini of the winless Jets...Do we really believe that he didn't know the Pats did this before, if they did? Where exactly was Mangini's outrage when he was on the other side of it? Please. He was a part of it, and now when his team gets the crap kicked out of it, he's pointing the finger across the sideline? Sure, Belichick did it, but then why shake his hand after the game in the center of the field? If Mangini was SO upset at the cheating, why congratulate Belichick at all? Because he didn't think it was such a big deal, that's why. If he actually thought his signals were being used against him, do you think he would have shaken Belichick's hand? I'd like to think not. Belichick WAS held accountable -- I only hope the piling on is the same when someone else gets busted for breaking the rules.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
JASON: It's clear that Belichick disobeyed, went around, broke the rules or however you want to say it. It's also pretty evident that it's happened in the past according to other players, teams, and former coaching staff members. It seems odd that it would take place against the Jets, a division rival, and their coach, Eric Mangini, a former Patriot coach, in week ONE. Mangini knew what he was doing. He, just like the rest of the league, saw the stock of talent on the New England sideline and just like Belichick, needed an advantage. Why not rat him out? He knew it was going down, so he did something about it. He shook Belichick's hand after the game just like the two embraced at midfield last year, probably because Belichick was so thankful that Mangini kept quiet. And if Belichick is such a "genius" then why did he even need to do this? He put his team at risk -- by losing draft picks -- and cast a shadow over the entire franchise. The only whiff of success the Patriots have ever had has been under the Belichick era, and now we know why. His legacy, much like so many others in sports accused of cheating, will be tainted, at least slightly, and he'll have to live with himself. Now, if Roger Goodell wants to continue to resurrect the image of the NFL, he needs to drop the hammer on Belichick and suspend him to send a message to the rest of the league. He cheated. End of story.
ROSS: LaDanian Tomlinson said that the Patriots "actually live by the saying, If you're not cheating, you're not tryin'." Is that right? Well, what words does Shawne Merriman live by, exactly? The fact that Tomlinson doesn't see the hypocrisy of his statement is further proof that people are blinded by success -- the success of others. If this was happening to Jeff Fisher, the justice handed down from Goodell would have been the same, but the media frenzy and public outrage wouldn't have been nearly the same. Belichick broke the rules. He was held accountable. I mean, if you want immediate "hurt" to be put on Belichick, why not suspend Tom Brady -- that would surely hurt them more than a Belichick suspension, wouldn't it? All people seem to care about is "what would hurt Belichick more?" when the real question is, "What is a fair punishment for this violation?" People don't like Belichick's arrogance, his ego, his success...that's fine, but to say he deserves a heavier punishment because of those things is laughable. Flip it around -- if he was a nice guy, beloved by all of the media, adored by fans of all teams as a great guy and a great coach, would people be clamoring for LESS of a punishment? If you say "yes" to that, then you're consistent in your belief that justice isn't blind -- that irrelevant personality flaws should affect the handing out of justice. If you think the punishment would be the same, even if Belichick was beloved by all, then ask yourself this: Why shouldn't it be the same if he's NOT beloved? Justice needs to be blind, and in this case -- it was.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
TOP PROGRAM IN AMERICA: ND vs. U of M
This week as a special treat we have allowed Notre Dame Insider Shannon O’Keefe to take off her journalists hat and invited Brad Kurtzberg over from Fantasy Football Insiders to go mano-a-mano. Did I mention Shannon is a Notre Dame grad and Brad is a Michigan alum?
OK Maize and Blue fans and Golden Domers let's here it for your schools! I'm assuming neither one of you is up for making a case for your team to win this week's game (how could you?), so lets duke it out for top program in America! Who has the better tradition? The better fight song? Nickname? How about the uniforms? More importantly the helmets...is it that "just sprayed on shine" of ND or the winged helmets of Michigan?
BRAD: Hey Shannon. Let's start with something simple...Michigan is still the #1 NCAA Div 1-A school in total wins and winning percentage. Plus, I do believe it was Michigan who taught Notre Dame how to play football and helped start its program back in the day.
SHANNON: So you got us in the first game. Congratulations, 1887 was a big year for you guys. But really, there's no comparing the history. Notre Dame's program is the stuff of legends. The four horsemen. Knute Rockne. Even Rudy exists in the public sphere in a way that no second rate Michigan defensive lineman ever could.
(We have) 13 National Championships to your 10. And you're only leading us on the all-time winning percentage by two hundredths of a point. Even our rickety offensive line could hold you to two hundredths of a point.
BRAD: Legends, yes but how much substance is there behind the legends? So, Notre Dame has had a better PR Department. Everybody knows Notre Dame is a favorite of the polls and always has been. Their popularity gives them that, but not what's really on the playing field. Rudy is perhaps the ultimate example. The guy was in on one meaningless play at the end of a game and they made a movie out of it. Pure PR but it doesn't make for a better program, just a more well known one.
As for ND offensive line holding Michigan to two hundredths of a point, obviously, they haven't or we wouldn't be ahead of you by them.
U of M and Notre Dame are two of the most distinguished and best run programs in the country. But Michigan is more substance than the "legend" of Notre Dame.
SHANNON: Legends are different from fairy tales. A strong Sports Information office is a huge plus, I agree. But you can't spin good press out of bad programs. People feel inspired by Notre Dame. As a kid, I watched Rocket Ismail run and run and run and it made me want to go to Notre Dame. I watched Forrest Gump run too, but it didn't make me want to go shrimping.
I think what you're saying is that there is an intangible at Notre Dame, and you're right. People who have no connection to the place cheer their whole lives for our team. Because they feel inspired to do so. I like thinking that people feel inspired by Notre Dame. I like feeling inspired by Notre Dame. Talk about inspiration - look at the recruiting class for '08. We already have 19 commitments (to your 15), including one five-star stud and 14 four-stars. Dayne Crist, the third best pro-style quarterback in the country, still wants to come in behind Jimmy Clausen, still wants to learn from Charlie Weis.
I respect your program. I've been to the Big House, and it's impressively large and impressively loud. But I'd take Clausen's young and inexperienced arm in Notre Dame Stadium any day over Mike Hart's legs in the Big House. It might not make sense on paper, but that's inspiration for you.
BRAD: I respect the tradition at Notre Dame...Touchdown Jesus, Knute Rockne etc...But give me Michigan....highest attendance in all of college football...100,000 plus per home game since before most of us were born...the most living alumni of any American University....the most wins and highest winning percentage of any Division I-A school....unique helmets that make a statement and oh yes, the best darn fight song in college football (I'll give u ND as a close 2nd). If "The Victors" doesn't stir up your blood and get you ready for college football, you're either not a college football fan or you're from Ohio....
SHANNON: This is the best part of college football, and the reason why I'll never love the NFL quite as much. I actually think about helmets and fight songs and alumni when considering the quality of the program. I actually feel a little bit gushy about Notre Dame football. I think our helmets are better because they're painted with real gold – from the Golden Dome! - which sounds ridiculous but somehow makes it all feel more legit; ties it all together; makes you believe in God, Country, Notre Dame. I think our fight song is better (though, to be fair, Michigan's is grand). There's nothing like having a couple of pre-game beers and then streaming into the stadium while the band knocks out the fight song. For a second there, I really thought I'd rather be in South Bend than Manhattan. That's how amazing it feels to be there. That's why I love college football.
The real question is what's going to happen to an already struggling Michigan team without Henne. Our freshman quarterback has had a game plus to work out some kinks, plus the kid is preternaturally poised. Seriously, I've never seen anyone so ready to play. Ryan Mallett may have been around for spring practices, but let's see how long he lasts in the fall.
BRAD: I think both QBs have their work cut out for them. Being a freshman QB is very tough in this day and age. I think ND has a slight advantage because Mallett has not been preparing to start until this week.
As for ND's helmets, they are really spray-painted. They are sharp, but silver or gold helmets are just painted while other colored helmets are actually their final color. One thing I do like about ND is their green jerseys, which they only use on special occasions. Think about the great players that have played for both teams, the fight songs, the facilities, the helmets, the traditions...Notre Dame and Michigan....can anything BE more representative of the greatness of college football. Even in an off year for both teams, it gets the juices flowing. Good luck, Shannon, but GO BLUE!
SHANNON: Back at you, Brad. I look forward to the game against Michigan every year - always exciting, and exactly what college football is supposed to be. Best of luck. I think the game is going to get a bit ugly and that both offenses will stutter, but I believe we'll pull this one out in the end. Go Irish!
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
TURF WARS: WEEK ONE
Welcome to the official regular season kickoff of our Turf Wars edition- Our weekly debate series between Ross Mandel and Jason Koestenblatt.
Today's Question: Should Mike Vick ever be allowed to play again in the NFL?
OPENING STATEMENTS
ROSS: Rehabilitation- the purpose of the criminal justice system. Michael Vick admitted his role in a disgusting dogfighting ring and will spend some time in prison. The idea of this prison stint is for him to be punished AND rehabilitated. He knows he did wrong. He's going to pay for it, more than he knows. But to say he should be banned forever? Not only is this wrong from a second chance point of view, but it's wrong from the NFL's point of view. How many players have committed serious crimes, yet played another day? Plenty. The question isn't "Would you WANT Vick on your team?" It's "Should he be allowed to play?" Sure--it's up to each team to decide, but they need to have the choice. I don't see how- after he's paid his debt, the NFL can say "THIS crime is worse than everything before it." I don't see how the NFL can say "He hasn't been rehabilitated. He doesn't deserve a second chance." It won't happen. Plus--we all know that talent wins out over character, no matter what is said publicly. He should be able to play again.
JASON: There's no way anyone can condone the actions of Mike Vick. What he did was wrong- obviously and instead of being the man that he claims to be, he lied to his fans, his teammates, his employer and Commissioner Roger Goodell. Not only were his actions illegal in the eyes of the court, but downright grotesque and immoral. No matter who the commissioner is, and fortunately it's the iron-fisted Goodell, an upright, ethical man who wants his business to survive- won't allow a conVICKted felon back into his organization. Unfortunately, Ross, you have a good point. Players have done terrible things before and lived to play another game. But that has to stop here and now and Mike Vick must be made an example of.
REBUTTALS
ROSS: Leonard Little killed someone while driving drunk. He somehow got 90 days in jail and 4 years probation. Six years later, he was again busted for DWI! His punishment? A three-year contract extension. This is the league Vick plays in. This is the league Goodell runs for the owners. This is a quote from an NFL GM: “He'll still be young when he gets out of jail. There will be 15-20 teams waiting to sign him, trust me. Teams will say “F PETA' and F the bad pub this is one of the most talented players in the last 10 years. I'll take my chances.” Teams will say one thing publicly but when he gets out of jail, we’ll all be looking at him hard. We're all whores in football. You know the saying, we'd sign an axe murderer if he has ability.” This is the league Roger Goodell runs. Do I need to mention the endless list of players accused of serious crimes? From Ray Lewis, to Sean Taylor...these guys were in serious trouble. Fred Evans--charged with battery of a cop! He had to be tasered! His punishment--yeah, he got cut from the Dolphins...then picked up by the Vikings! Coach Childress put his spin on it, "I think it's going to have a positive impact on our team," Childress told the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Sunday. "We thoroughly researched this kid. I look at each situation individually. It doesn't mean character's not important. It's very important to me and to this football team. I think we've got a good group in the locker room and I think he'll benefit from being in this situation." Yeah, character's important...just not as important as winning. THIS is the league Roger Goodell runs. Time will pass. Outrage will pass. The stigma won't, but that doesn't mean Vick won't have learned his lesson. The man deserves a second chance, especially after people like Leonard Little are given more than that.
JASON: Let's use Adam "Pacman" Jones as an example. He was arrested several times between the day he was drafted up until his meeting with Goodell earlier this year and the commissioner decided to suspend him for the season because of his off-the-field actions. Why? Because he knows that not only is Jones creating a bad reputation for his team and the NFL, he doesn't want these promising young athletes with too much money to think they're more powerful than the system. That's where Vick comes in. Jones hasn't even been convicted, yet he's rightfully being punished. Vick is going to jail no matter how you slice it, and when he gets out, not only will it take him at least a year to rehabilitate physically, but the NFL will be the undisputed American sport, and although people's hearts tend to change, I trust our society, and the NFL, to make sure Mike Vick learns his lesson and never steps foot on a professional football field again.
COUNTERPOINTS
ROSS: His physical state doesn't matter. Pacman was suspended for a year. But he will be given a second chance and he was involved in a shooting which left a man paralyzed! How could Michael Vick--even now--think he's more important than the system? He is, as you said, going to prison! You don't believe in second chances? Of course you do. When he's paid the price, people will be satisfied. And he WILL pay the price. He's not going to skate on this. People want justice, and they're going to get it here--three years of his prime earning potential gone. Any future endorsements, gone. He will get an opportunity to prove that he's leaned his lesson--that's what he deserves, but not before we've seen justice served.
JASON: Lest we forget what other major sports have done to make their business more upright and fan-friendly. The NBA requested that all players not dressed in game clothing be dressed appropriately when sitting on the bench. Why? Because the image of the game was beginning to get tarnished by the "thug" nature of it's players. Now let's jump back a few years. Ever heard of the all-time hit king, Pete Rose? He bet on his sport, and his team -- legally -- but was banished from the game...forever!! Mike Vick ILLEGALLY bet on an ILLEGAL dogfighting ring. Why should this gambling thug, who gives the finger to his own fans, allegedly knowingly spreads STD’s in foreign countries and kills dogs for fun, be given a second chance? Vick is on his ninth life right now, and there's no way Goodell, the NFLPA or any team in the league can allow this disgusting human to put on spikes again. He's a disgrace to the game and an embarrassment to himself.
THE BIG QUESTION
FOR ROSS: Mike Vick lied to the owner, he lied to the team- he denied and lied to the public through personnel statements until he knew that there was too much evidence. Some feel that his apology was not really sincere at all, more so an act. Even his father has gone on public record of saying that this is “his (vick) thing”. The new commissioner is obviously trying to set a standard in what will be tolerated. Mike Vick goes against everything the new policy stands for. What makes Mike Vick worth a second chance?
ROSS: He deserves a second chance because he can face the music. He's going to pay for his crime, literally and in prison time. When someone commits a crime, we want to see them face justice. In this case, Michael Vick will be served. He did commit these heinous acts. He will pay for them. That's what the justice system is for. Once that's happened, he deserves a second chance. What more can we ask from our justice system, and the NFL's disciplinary system, than justice? Of course, at this point, he hasn't paid so he can't be given the chance. Whether this was "his thing" or not, it was immoral and illegal. Now he will pay for his crime. But after that, he'll continue to pay, as he should, with unforgiving fans and the constant reminder of his transgression. When is the punishment enough? The criminal justice system has decided what his punishment will be. Roger Goodell, to his credit, has NOT said Vick is banned forever. He knows, as I do, that to wait and see is the right move. To wait and see whether or not this lying man whom committed terrible acts is truly sorry. If he is, if he's learned his lesson, he will be allowed the chance to redeem himself. And redemption and comebacks--that's what America loves.
FOR JASON: There’s no question that dog-fighting is a hideous crime and a serious offense. Although, there are some who say that it is not much worse than hunting deer. Is Vick’s criminal act so bad that he should not even be considered for a second chance? State your case.
JASON: It's well understood throughout society, with the exception of some organized groups, that animals are considered inferior beings to humans. It's easy to see why people think killing dogs is harmless when so many Americans hunt deer, birds and other WILD animals. But many times, these instances are part of the "circle of life" or whatever you want to call it. Hunting deer is usually for the use of its parts, to feed the hunter. But the killing of a dog, a domesticated animal, and the bankrolling of a ring that pitted trained pets against each other, just so a group of people could watch and enjoy this- as entertainment, is heinous and downright evil. Vick's intention wasn't to put the dogs out of their misery, he was responsible for the actions at his home that included the raping, beating a and savage killing of these household animals. No, Vick doesn't deserve a second chance in the NFL. When he exits jail and is "rehabilitated" that's one thing, but if the organization that he lied to and was responsible for putting a dark cloud above in 2007 thinks that readmitting him to the organization is a wise move, then they are the ones to blame. Vick is a criminal that doesn't deserve to go back to the NFL.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
ROSS: Look, I'm not a Michael Vick fan. I realize what he did was shocking, disgusting, terrible, etc. But I can't sit here while Leonard Little, who KILLED A WOMAN while driving drunk, then got busted AGAIN for the same crime, is allowed to play and say Vick can't have a second chance. To ignore precedent is impossible. Furthermore, the Falcons don't HAVE to sign Vick, nor does any other team. What I'm arguing here is that the teams be given the CHOICE to sign him. Whether a team SHOULD sign him is not the issue here, but rather should Vick be allowed the opportunity, after he has done his time, to ask teams if he can play for them. If no team wants him, fine. But to say he can't ask? That's too extreme. Especially in light of the hundreds of other players who have committed crimes- and while we're at it, where was the outrage when Leonard Little was let back on the field? Where were the newscasts covering his KILLING A PERSON? That coverage was nothing compared to what Vick's case garnered. Why? Because we love our dogs. More than we love strangers. But you know what else we love? We love comeback stories. We paid to see Mike Tyson fight when he got out of prison. We pay to see criminals every weekend on the football field, and we all know it. We give everyone a second (and sometimes 3rd, 4th and 5th) chance and we will give one to Michael Vick.
JASON: Here's the bottom line: Mike Vick committed a crime. A disgusting, horrid crime. Yes, there's been many players, in many sports, who have done terrible things in their private lives. So many of them have been given second chances, only to mess it up again. Ross, you brought up Leonard Little and his DWI charge after killing a woman. He was given a second chance, and he screwed it up. If the NFL had acted sooner on Pacman Jones, would he have been involved in the other crimes he's accused of? We don't know for sure, but maybe he would've learned from his ignorance earlier and saved himself from a lifetime of trouble. For Vick, if the NFL really loves it's players and the talent that makes it a multi-billion dollar industry, it WON'T let Vick participate when he gets out of jail. Why? So he he can say he beat the system and now can go back to his regular routine? Giving Vick a second chance to play in the NFL once he leaves prison would be a mistake by the league and could potentially hurt Vick even more. So often do these athletes think they're above the law- that they make themselves believe it and live it. Giving the team owners the option to hire Mike Vick is a terrible mistake because someone would have to fill a need somewhere and would have no problem justifying the "rebuilding" of Vick's athletic ability and more importantly, his image. Letting Mike Vick back into the league would be a terrible mistake by Roger Goodell and the NFL and it's players would be better off learning from his mistake.
So there you have it ladies and gentleman…Be Sure To Cast Your Vote!!!
Today's Question: Should Mike Vick ever be allowed to play again in the NFL?
OPENING STATEMENTS
ROSS: Rehabilitation- the purpose of the criminal justice system. Michael Vick admitted his role in a disgusting dogfighting ring and will spend some time in prison. The idea of this prison stint is for him to be punished AND rehabilitated. He knows he did wrong. He's going to pay for it, more than he knows. But to say he should be banned forever? Not only is this wrong from a second chance point of view, but it's wrong from the NFL's point of view. How many players have committed serious crimes, yet played another day? Plenty. The question isn't "Would you WANT Vick on your team?" It's "Should he be allowed to play?" Sure--it's up to each team to decide, but they need to have the choice. I don't see how- after he's paid his debt, the NFL can say "THIS crime is worse than everything before it." I don't see how the NFL can say "He hasn't been rehabilitated. He doesn't deserve a second chance." It won't happen. Plus--we all know that talent wins out over character, no matter what is said publicly. He should be able to play again.
JASON: There's no way anyone can condone the actions of Mike Vick. What he did was wrong- obviously and instead of being the man that he claims to be, he lied to his fans, his teammates, his employer and Commissioner Roger Goodell. Not only were his actions illegal in the eyes of the court, but downright grotesque and immoral. No matter who the commissioner is, and fortunately it's the iron-fisted Goodell, an upright, ethical man who wants his business to survive- won't allow a conVICKted felon back into his organization. Unfortunately, Ross, you have a good point. Players have done terrible things before and lived to play another game. But that has to stop here and now and Mike Vick must be made an example of.
REBUTTALS
ROSS: Leonard Little killed someone while driving drunk. He somehow got 90 days in jail and 4 years probation. Six years later, he was again busted for DWI! His punishment? A three-year contract extension. This is the league Vick plays in. This is the league Goodell runs for the owners. This is a quote from an NFL GM: “He'll still be young when he gets out of jail. There will be 15-20 teams waiting to sign him, trust me. Teams will say “F PETA' and F the bad pub this is one of the most talented players in the last 10 years. I'll take my chances.” Teams will say one thing publicly but when he gets out of jail, we’ll all be looking at him hard. We're all whores in football. You know the saying, we'd sign an axe murderer if he has ability.” This is the league Roger Goodell runs. Do I need to mention the endless list of players accused of serious crimes? From Ray Lewis, to Sean Taylor...these guys were in serious trouble. Fred Evans--charged with battery of a cop! He had to be tasered! His punishment--yeah, he got cut from the Dolphins...then picked up by the Vikings! Coach Childress put his spin on it, "I think it's going to have a positive impact on our team," Childress told the St. Paul Pioneer Press on Sunday. "We thoroughly researched this kid. I look at each situation individually. It doesn't mean character's not important. It's very important to me and to this football team. I think we've got a good group in the locker room and I think he'll benefit from being in this situation." Yeah, character's important...just not as important as winning. THIS is the league Roger Goodell runs. Time will pass. Outrage will pass. The stigma won't, but that doesn't mean Vick won't have learned his lesson. The man deserves a second chance, especially after people like Leonard Little are given more than that.
JASON: Let's use Adam "Pacman" Jones as an example. He was arrested several times between the day he was drafted up until his meeting with Goodell earlier this year and the commissioner decided to suspend him for the season because of his off-the-field actions. Why? Because he knows that not only is Jones creating a bad reputation for his team and the NFL, he doesn't want these promising young athletes with too much money to think they're more powerful than the system. That's where Vick comes in. Jones hasn't even been convicted, yet he's rightfully being punished. Vick is going to jail no matter how you slice it, and when he gets out, not only will it take him at least a year to rehabilitate physically, but the NFL will be the undisputed American sport, and although people's hearts tend to change, I trust our society, and the NFL, to make sure Mike Vick learns his lesson and never steps foot on a professional football field again.
COUNTERPOINTS
ROSS: His physical state doesn't matter. Pacman was suspended for a year. But he will be given a second chance and he was involved in a shooting which left a man paralyzed! How could Michael Vick--even now--think he's more important than the system? He is, as you said, going to prison! You don't believe in second chances? Of course you do. When he's paid the price, people will be satisfied. And he WILL pay the price. He's not going to skate on this. People want justice, and they're going to get it here--three years of his prime earning potential gone. Any future endorsements, gone. He will get an opportunity to prove that he's leaned his lesson--that's what he deserves, but not before we've seen justice served.
JASON: Lest we forget what other major sports have done to make their business more upright and fan-friendly. The NBA requested that all players not dressed in game clothing be dressed appropriately when sitting on the bench. Why? Because the image of the game was beginning to get tarnished by the "thug" nature of it's players. Now let's jump back a few years. Ever heard of the all-time hit king, Pete Rose? He bet on his sport, and his team -- legally -- but was banished from the game...forever!! Mike Vick ILLEGALLY bet on an ILLEGAL dogfighting ring. Why should this gambling thug, who gives the finger to his own fans, allegedly knowingly spreads STD’s in foreign countries and kills dogs for fun, be given a second chance? Vick is on his ninth life right now, and there's no way Goodell, the NFLPA or any team in the league can allow this disgusting human to put on spikes again. He's a disgrace to the game and an embarrassment to himself.
THE BIG QUESTION
FOR ROSS: Mike Vick lied to the owner, he lied to the team- he denied and lied to the public through personnel statements until he knew that there was too much evidence. Some feel that his apology was not really sincere at all, more so an act. Even his father has gone on public record of saying that this is “his (vick) thing”. The new commissioner is obviously trying to set a standard in what will be tolerated. Mike Vick goes against everything the new policy stands for. What makes Mike Vick worth a second chance?
ROSS: He deserves a second chance because he can face the music. He's going to pay for his crime, literally and in prison time. When someone commits a crime, we want to see them face justice. In this case, Michael Vick will be served. He did commit these heinous acts. He will pay for them. That's what the justice system is for. Once that's happened, he deserves a second chance. What more can we ask from our justice system, and the NFL's disciplinary system, than justice? Of course, at this point, he hasn't paid so he can't be given the chance. Whether this was "his thing" or not, it was immoral and illegal. Now he will pay for his crime. But after that, he'll continue to pay, as he should, with unforgiving fans and the constant reminder of his transgression. When is the punishment enough? The criminal justice system has decided what his punishment will be. Roger Goodell, to his credit, has NOT said Vick is banned forever. He knows, as I do, that to wait and see is the right move. To wait and see whether or not this lying man whom committed terrible acts is truly sorry. If he is, if he's learned his lesson, he will be allowed the chance to redeem himself. And redemption and comebacks--that's what America loves.
FOR JASON: There’s no question that dog-fighting is a hideous crime and a serious offense. Although, there are some who say that it is not much worse than hunting deer. Is Vick’s criminal act so bad that he should not even be considered for a second chance? State your case.
JASON: It's well understood throughout society, with the exception of some organized groups, that animals are considered inferior beings to humans. It's easy to see why people think killing dogs is harmless when so many Americans hunt deer, birds and other WILD animals. But many times, these instances are part of the "circle of life" or whatever you want to call it. Hunting deer is usually for the use of its parts, to feed the hunter. But the killing of a dog, a domesticated animal, and the bankrolling of a ring that pitted trained pets against each other, just so a group of people could watch and enjoy this- as entertainment, is heinous and downright evil. Vick's intention wasn't to put the dogs out of their misery, he was responsible for the actions at his home that included the raping, beating a and savage killing of these household animals. No, Vick doesn't deserve a second chance in the NFL. When he exits jail and is "rehabilitated" that's one thing, but if the organization that he lied to and was responsible for putting a dark cloud above in 2007 thinks that readmitting him to the organization is a wise move, then they are the ones to blame. Vick is a criminal that doesn't deserve to go back to the NFL.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
ROSS: Look, I'm not a Michael Vick fan. I realize what he did was shocking, disgusting, terrible, etc. But I can't sit here while Leonard Little, who KILLED A WOMAN while driving drunk, then got busted AGAIN for the same crime, is allowed to play and say Vick can't have a second chance. To ignore precedent is impossible. Furthermore, the Falcons don't HAVE to sign Vick, nor does any other team. What I'm arguing here is that the teams be given the CHOICE to sign him. Whether a team SHOULD sign him is not the issue here, but rather should Vick be allowed the opportunity, after he has done his time, to ask teams if he can play for them. If no team wants him, fine. But to say he can't ask? That's too extreme. Especially in light of the hundreds of other players who have committed crimes- and while we're at it, where was the outrage when Leonard Little was let back on the field? Where were the newscasts covering his KILLING A PERSON? That coverage was nothing compared to what Vick's case garnered. Why? Because we love our dogs. More than we love strangers. But you know what else we love? We love comeback stories. We paid to see Mike Tyson fight when he got out of prison. We pay to see criminals every weekend on the football field, and we all know it. We give everyone a second (and sometimes 3rd, 4th and 5th) chance and we will give one to Michael Vick.
JASON: Here's the bottom line: Mike Vick committed a crime. A disgusting, horrid crime. Yes, there's been many players, in many sports, who have done terrible things in their private lives. So many of them have been given second chances, only to mess it up again. Ross, you brought up Leonard Little and his DWI charge after killing a woman. He was given a second chance, and he screwed it up. If the NFL had acted sooner on Pacman Jones, would he have been involved in the other crimes he's accused of? We don't know for sure, but maybe he would've learned from his ignorance earlier and saved himself from a lifetime of trouble. For Vick, if the NFL really loves it's players and the talent that makes it a multi-billion dollar industry, it WON'T let Vick participate when he gets out of jail. Why? So he he can say he beat the system and now can go back to his regular routine? Giving Vick a second chance to play in the NFL once he leaves prison would be a mistake by the league and could potentially hurt Vick even more. So often do these athletes think they're above the law- that they make themselves believe it and live it. Giving the team owners the option to hire Mike Vick is a terrible mistake because someone would have to fill a need somewhere and would have no problem justifying the "rebuilding" of Vick's athletic ability and more importantly, his image. Letting Mike Vick back into the league would be a terrible mistake by Roger Goodell and the NFL and it's players would be better off learning from his mistake.
So there you have it ladies and gentleman…Be Sure To Cast Your Vote!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)