Former Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy has come under fire recently for a comment he made with regard to St. Louis Rams draft pick Michael Sam, whom came out as being gay prior to the draft.
Dungy told the Tampa Tribune that he wouldn't have drafted Sam, "not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth...things will happen."
In response, most of the media has been rather critical of Dungy's comment(s). Michael Sam, himself, responded very well, and lightened the mood a bit with a joke when asked about Dungy's quote. I, for one, have mixed feelings on the matter. Tony Dungy has a right to his own opinion, just like we all do. The problem here isn't that, however. The problem is that Dungy makes it sound like players whom attract a lot of media attention, for whatever reason, aren't worth the trouble. They cause a distraction and teams don't need that. The problem with that reasoning is the fact Tony Dungy stood up for quarterback Michael Vick after he got out of prison, and has stood up for Tim Tebow being given another chance as a starting quarterback in the NFL. What do these two players have in common? They draw a lot of media attention. The media was in love with Tim Tebow for the one season he was the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos (part of the season anyway). When Michael Vick was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles, some animal rights groups said they were going to organize protests against the team for signing the embattled quarterback. Some Eagles fans said they'd never go to another game. Even though Vick wasn't the team's starter for his first year there, it seemed as if then head coach Andy Reid got more questions about Vick than any other player on the team. So, the question should be, why the double-standard? Why is a player, whom was convicted of being involved in a dog-fighting operation, worth the distraction, but not an openly gay player? Why is a player, whom is a die-hard Christian that can't throw the ball very well yet wants to be a starting quarterback, worth the distraction, but not an openly gay player? If Tony Dungy had been consistent in all three scenarios (and others), this wouldn't be as big of a story, and most people would probably say, "I don't agree with him on the matter, but I understand." However, when the guy stood up for media-attention giants Michael Vick and Tim Tebow, only to shoot down Michael Sam, that makes one wonder what Tony Dungy is really saying.
Given Dungy's before-mentioned history on the topic, his comment could probably be translated as, "As a Christian, I believe in second chances, so if I were coaching, I'd happily give a convicted man like Michael Vick that second chance. Also, while Tim Tebow may not be the conventional type of quarterback, he's got a great heart, is a good Christian man, and is a winner of a person, so I'd happily sign him too. Homosexuality is an abomination before God, though, so I'd rather not sign Michael Sam."
Tony Dungy has every right to his own opinion, but it appears as if he's battling an inner-conflict with regard to the concept of a team distraction, so he may want to go back to the drawing-board and attempt to find some consistency on the matter. If he's unable to do that, he may have to deny himself the reality that he doesn't believe in equal opportunity for certain players in the NFL. Ironically enough, minorities like him were in that same boat not too terribly long ago. Due to that, I think he'd be more understanding of the matter. I can only imagine what Dungy's reaction would have been many years ago when a team thought about signing an African-American player, and someone in the front office said, "No, no, no! He'd be too much of a distraction!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/07/22/why-tony-dungys-comments-about-michael-sam-arent-really-a-surprise/
Dungy told the Tampa Tribune that he wouldn't have drafted Sam, "not because I don't believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth...things will happen."
In response, most of the media has been rather critical of Dungy's comment(s). Michael Sam, himself, responded very well, and lightened the mood a bit with a joke when asked about Dungy's quote. I, for one, have mixed feelings on the matter. Tony Dungy has a right to his own opinion, just like we all do. The problem here isn't that, however. The problem is that Dungy makes it sound like players whom attract a lot of media attention, for whatever reason, aren't worth the trouble. They cause a distraction and teams don't need that. The problem with that reasoning is the fact Tony Dungy stood up for quarterback Michael Vick after he got out of prison, and has stood up for Tim Tebow being given another chance as a starting quarterback in the NFL. What do these two players have in common? They draw a lot of media attention. The media was in love with Tim Tebow for the one season he was the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos (part of the season anyway). When Michael Vick was signed by the Philadelphia Eagles, some animal rights groups said they were going to organize protests against the team for signing the embattled quarterback. Some Eagles fans said they'd never go to another game. Even though Vick wasn't the team's starter for his first year there, it seemed as if then head coach Andy Reid got more questions about Vick than any other player on the team. So, the question should be, why the double-standard? Why is a player, whom was convicted of being involved in a dog-fighting operation, worth the distraction, but not an openly gay player? Why is a player, whom is a die-hard Christian that can't throw the ball very well yet wants to be a starting quarterback, worth the distraction, but not an openly gay player? If Tony Dungy had been consistent in all three scenarios (and others), this wouldn't be as big of a story, and most people would probably say, "I don't agree with him on the matter, but I understand." However, when the guy stood up for media-attention giants Michael Vick and Tim Tebow, only to shoot down Michael Sam, that makes one wonder what Tony Dungy is really saying.
Given Dungy's before-mentioned history on the topic, his comment could probably be translated as, "As a Christian, I believe in second chances, so if I were coaching, I'd happily give a convicted man like Michael Vick that second chance. Also, while Tim Tebow may not be the conventional type of quarterback, he's got a great heart, is a good Christian man, and is a winner of a person, so I'd happily sign him too. Homosexuality is an abomination before God, though, so I'd rather not sign Michael Sam."
Tony Dungy has every right to his own opinion, but it appears as if he's battling an inner-conflict with regard to the concept of a team distraction, so he may want to go back to the drawing-board and attempt to find some consistency on the matter. If he's unable to do that, he may have to deny himself the reality that he doesn't believe in equal opportunity for certain players in the NFL. Ironically enough, minorities like him were in that same boat not too terribly long ago. Due to that, I think he'd be more understanding of the matter. I can only imagine what Dungy's reaction would have been many years ago when a team thought about signing an African-American player, and someone in the front office said, "No, no, no! He'd be too much of a distraction!"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/07/22/why-tony-dungys-comments-about-michael-sam-arent-really-a-surprise/
Comments
Post a Comment