The_Admiral Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 There's obvious a lot of people (pro/against Sam) curious how the showering situation is and how that may/may not be affecting the team. It's far from "obvious" to me. I suspect most people really don't care. If anything, I think most people are kind of irritated with ESPN for unnecessarily broaching it in the first place. Also, as for ESPN's coverage being "part of journalism," there is no journalism at ESPN now that they've become a promotional arm of their content suppliers. Sure, they let Bob Ley and Keith Olbermann talk when they think no one's watching, but that's sort of their self-policing version of how radio stations run public affairs programming at 5 in the morning. ESPN's responsibility is to promote its leagues and itself, not to report. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Why is espn saying "Michael Sam is trying to become the first openly gay football player in the NFL." He already is, he got drafted and played in the preseason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Preseason doesn't count. Personal statistics aren't kept, players aren't paid for the games, and they don't accrue pension credit for playing in them.When he is on a 53-man roster, when actually makes it into a game, then he'll be the first openly gay man in the NFL. Right now he's "just" the first openly gay man to participate in an NFL practice, albeit a glorified one. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Sometimes I just wonder...All it would take is one week of everyone (or most people) not watching ESPN or reading news articles etc. about this kind of thing and all of the media hype would go away. It would just be about a players ability on the field.For this reason I personally refuse to blame the media hype that surrounds Michael Sam on the media itself. As well as all of the baggage that goes with that.That's the thing....no one was really mentioning Michael Sam during the preseason, other than the couple sacks he had on Manziel and doing that money sign (whatever it's called). ESPN called attention to Sam being gay by bringing up the showering in the locker room.Who should we be blaming, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marble21 Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Who should we be blaming, then?I guess what I was trying to say is that it would only take a small effort each, to contribute to a big change collectively. I don't honestly believe anything like a mass boycott would ever happen unless they massively crossed the line. Just a thought that crosses my mind from time to time.It's not a major issue sure, but it would be nice to watch/read sports news and it actually be mostly about sports. Not the current soap opera we have been getting recently. UBI FIDES IBI LUX ET ROBUR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainmaker17 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Why does Sam wear 46, a non DE/LB number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still MIGHTY Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Why does Sam wear 46, a non DE/LB number?Because he wears 96And wore 52 in college | ANA | LAA | LAR | LAL | ASU | CSULB | USMNT | USWNT | LAFC | OCSC | MAN UTD | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Why does Sam wear 46, a non DE/LB number?apparently its a reference to 1946 when the color barrier was broken in the MLB and NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainmaker17 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 He's wearing 46 with Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 He's wearing 46 with Dallas.And his practice squad LB teammate is wearing 43 (Keith Smith).Until both are on the 53, their current number means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainmaker17 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 He's wearing 46 with Dallas.And his practice squad LB teammate is wearing 43 (Keith Smith).Until both are on the 53, their current number means nothing.Which is what I figured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Why does Sam wear 46, a non DE/LB number?apparently its a reference to 1946 when the color barrier was broken in the MLB and NFL.The NFL, maybe. But Jackie Robinson broke baseball's barrier on April 15, 1947. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Why does Sam wear 46, a non DE/LB number?apparently its a reference to 1946 when the color barrier was broken in the MLB and NFL.The NFL, maybe. But Jackie Robinson broke baseball's barrier on April 15, 1947.I guess I shouldn't believe everything i read on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicfurth Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Word is that the Rams cut Sam for fear of boycott and protesting. Unsure of plausibility but I thought I'd keep the conversation going. http://www.prnewschannel.com/2014/09/02/rams-cut-michael-sam-to-thwart-massive-demonstration-boycott-from-christians-planned-for-sunday-top-d-c-lobbyist-says/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Man, I am dumber for having read that press release. Those sites are where people who can't get their releases picked up by legitimate media post them in hopes of generating google hits. It's just the pathetic ravings of a lone scumbag who claims he personally cost Sam a roster spot. What an embarrassment to Christianity. Word isNo, it isn't. And big picture, we still have a long way to go. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Man, I am dumber for having read that press release. Those sites are where people who can't get their releases picked up by legitimate media post them in hopes of generating google hits. It's just the pathetic ravings of a lone scumbag who claims he personally cost Sam a roster spot. What an embarrassment to Christianity. So, short answer is "No, they didn't." Bigger picture, we still have a long way to go.I find it hard for someone to get 42000 picketers over one gay man, that really is a stupid article there would have been more picketers than those in the stadium, and if that is the case why didn't the picket in the preseason. I'm going to say he was cut on merit and leave it at that and had nothing to do with him being gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Word is that the Rams cut Sam for fear of boycott and protesting. Unsure of plausibility but I thought I'd keep the conversation going. http://www.prnewschannel.com/2014/09/02/rams-cut-michael-sam-to-thwart-massive-demonstration-boycott-from-christians-planned-for-sunday-top-d-c-lobbyist-says/ False. They've been trying to kill attendance for years. If they were worried about a boycott they would have promoted him to the starting lineup. That said, I think the Rams are about the only team in the league that could have "White Supremacist Night" and actually boost attendance. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Word is that the Rams cut Sam for fear of boycott and protesting. Unsure of plausibility but I thought I'd keep the conversation going.http://www.prnewschannel.com/2014/09/02/rams-cut-michael-sam-to-thwart-massive-demonstration-boycott-from-christians-planned-for-sunday-top-d-c-lobbyist-says/False. They've been trying to kill attendance for years. If they were worried about a boycott they would have promoted him to the starting lineup.That said, I think the Rams are about the only team in the league that could have "White Supremacist Night" and actually boost attendance.This post should've been in the self-loathing section in the Rams' Why Your Team Sucks deadspin article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 According to Peter King, the NFL made some calls to multiple teams to gauge their interest and/or consider signing Michael Sam to their practice squad. Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20140904-report-nfl-officials-asked-teams-to-consider-signing-michael-sam-to-practice-squad.eceIf this is true (it's not like Peter King is some schlep reporter), this is not good for the NFL and their image. There'$ a rea$on why the NFL want$ Michael $am being in $ome capacity on the playing field....any gue$$e$ why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted September 5, 2014 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Peter King's NOT a schlep reporter?Even if what you're implying is true, those who choose THIS as their reason to get mad at the NFL for being profit-driven are only making themselves look like a bunch of mouth-breathing hicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.