Posts Tagged ‘ESPN’

Let Mo’Kelly know if he’s reading “too much” into ESPN’s (writer Jemele Hill) “comparison” of Gilbert Arenas, Javaris Crittenton and Plaxico Burress.

Yes, the ultimate “point” may be different, but it still runs too close to Mo’Kelly’s sentiments for his liking…complete with “morality clauses” and “stupidity” references.  Not to mention saving one’s career versus saving one’s life…

Just a “coincidence,” to be sure.  Then again, maybe Mo’Kelly is just being sensitive.

___________

It remains unclear whether Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton were joking around or serious when ill will about a card game allegedly led to guns’ being drawn in the Washington Wizards‘ locker room a few nights before Christmas. But if the Wizards and the NBA want to send a message to players that this behavior is unacceptable, here is what must be done once local and federal authorities finish investigating the matter.

	Plaxico Burress

1. Arenas and Crittenton should be suspended for the rest of this season.

2. The Wizards should use the morality clause to void the rest of Arenas’ $111 million contract, which after this season will tally $78 million.

3. The Wizards should be fined considerably — I’m thinking a high six figures — for even allowing Arenas to store his guns at a public arena and league facility, regardless of whether the guns were kept in a locked area. Bringing a gun inside a NBA facility is prohibited.

NBA commissioner David Stern doesn’t have to act swiftly, but he must act harshly. Players can’t fool around with firearms in a locker room.

Some reports suggest Arenas wasn’t serious when he laid three guns on a chair near Crittenton’s locker and invited him to choose one to settle their beef over an unpaid gambling debt, but who jokes like that? Besides, if you believe what Crittenton’s longtime friend Kendrick “Bookie Ball” Long told the New York Post — the first to break the story — Crittenton clearly missed the punch line of Arenas’ “joke.”

“[Crittenton] was just defending himself,” Long told the Post.

Although I believe that New York City’s grandstanding mayor Michael Bloomberg used Plaxico Burress‘ case for cheap political gain, it can’t be overlooked that Burress took a loaded firearm into a nightclub, thus putting a lot of innocent people at risk.

Full story HERE.

http://twitter.com/mrmokelly

Subscribe to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE

Tiger Woods is in uncharted waters, which should go without saying. Woods heretofore has been above reproach, regardless of the measuring stick you place alongside his life and career.

Woods’ mastery on the golf course has only been matched by his mastery of his public image. He is a man of few words and even those are carefully chosen. Woods has been incredibly disciplined (and successful) in staying out of the tabloids generally and trouble specifically. He has been the “perfect” endorsement machine, unrivaled on the links and unblemished in a scandal-sense off of them.

Until now…

Woods is presently enduring a negative publicity firestorm surrounding his one-car accident outside his home early Friday morning. The “official” story changes almost daily. One moment his story had wife Elin “extricating” him from the wrecked Cadillac Escalade thanks to a 7 iron, and in the next version she did no such thing. One moment Woods planned to talk to the police to clear the air and the next he reneges. In lieu of clearing the air altogether, he released a public statement to (among other things) “admit fault” about “something.”

“I’m human and I’m not perfect.”

• Tiger Woods

Really Tiger? Who knew? Thank goodness for crisis publicists and lawyers, otherwise both descriptors would’ve remained a mystery.

To which, some members of the press such as Rick Reilly of ESPN have

Rick Reilly

demanded “answers” as to what did or did not take place. Reilly argues that silence is neither golden nor exemplary behavior from one who influences so many.

Agreed.

Instead of shedding light on the situation and quelling the controversy, he created more questions and shadows surrounding it. If Tiger is truly “human” and imperfect, then he should act accordingly and not offer carefully crafted, ambiguous statements written by a lawyer.

Chris Brown

Woods’ statement reeked of something very Chris Brown-esque, accepting responsibility in non-specific terms for an undisclosed indiscretion, while also being very specific in the pleas for privacy and understanding.

Understanding?

If Woods wants “understanding” then he must be clear with the public. What the world’s greatest golfer does in his own house behind closed doors is his business. The moment it spills over into the street, requiring officers and an ambulance, all bets are off.

Woods posted a 5-paragragh response (see below) regarding the incident and managed to say absolutely nothing. To the half-way intelligent individual, it was almost insulting.

Almost.

Woods would have done better to say nothing, since coming clean seemingly was not his intention. Straddling the fence only prolongs the PR agony. When superstars seem more concerned with protecting endorsements, under the guise of “privacy” the subsequent backlash is inevitable and unmistakable.

Woods must be completely forthright with the public. Using the thin veil of “privacy” is exactly that; thin, flimsy and rather transparent when held up to the light. It’s weak and a cop-out. Nobody said the public needed the gory details, but surely we deserve some semblance of the truth.

Here is the statement in its entirety as posted on tigerwoods.com

As you all know, I had a single-car accident earlier this week, and sustained some injuries. I have some cuts, bruising and right now I’m pretty sore.

This situation is my fault, and it’s obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I’m human and I’m not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn’t happen again.

This is a private matter and I want to keep it that way. Although I understand there is curiosity, the many false, unfounded and malicious rumors that are currently circulating about my family and me are irresponsible.

The only person responsible for the accident is me. My wife, Elin, acted courageously when she saw I was hurt and in trouble. She was the first person to help me. Any other assertion is absolutely false.

This incident has been stressful and very difficult for Elin, our family and me. I appreciate all the concern and well wishes that we have received. But, I would also ask for some understanding that my family and I deserve some privacy no matter how intrusive some people can be.

Yes Tiger, we can readily assume the situation is embarrassing and you wish to keep away from public scrutiny. At the same time, this statement reaffirms “something” beyond just an “accident” occurred. If it were ONLY a wife helping to get her husband out of the car, ambiguity would not have dominated your subsequent statement.

Although Woods is bothered by the “many false, unfounded and malicious rumors” he makes no effort to dispel them. Until he makes the truth plain, it is well within our rights to publicly speculate about an “incident” involving a man, woman, golf club, wrecked car and a 4+ minute 9-1-1 call. If he wanted to keep “it” private, he should’ve kept “it” indoors and without police and paramedic intervention. The inability to do so is more than worthy of public discussion.

This situation is my fault, and it’s obviously embarrassing to my family and me. I’m human and I’m not perfect. I will certainly make sure this doesn’t happen again.

Make sure WHAT doesn’t happen again Tiger? WHAT is “obviously embarrassing?”

If Tiger has been wrongly accused of infidelity by the National Enquirer a definitive denial would have been in short order, if not a lawsuit. To date, Tiger has offered neither.

“This situation is my fault.”

WHAT situation?

Tiger Woods is a fantastic golfer, subject to all the frailties of the imperfect human condition. That much we know and have always known. But until he can offer a reasonable explanation for this incident as opposed to testing the limits of our stupidity; the media will rightfully apply pressure until the truth emerges.

Good Met Evil One Day...

Nationally syndicated conservative talk show host and lightning rod Rush Limbaugh has made known his plans to purchase the St. Louis Rams of the National Football League.

Although NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has indicated that Limbaugh’s application for franchise ownership is in its primary phase of consideration and in conjunction with Dave Checketts (owner of NHL’s St. Louis Blues); the response around the league and in the media has been considerable.

Considerably negative that is…

The first shoe to drop came in the form of an email from NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith last Saturday:

“I’ve spoken to the Commissioner [Roger Goodell] and I understand that this ownership consideration is in the early stages, but sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred.”

Then, Rev. Al Sharpton on Monday entered the fray contacting Goodell, alleging that Limbaugh has been both divisive and “anti-NFL” over the years.

As you could imagine, any story with Limbaugh and Sharpton bookending it immediately moves the discussion towards race.  One side predictably calls Limbaugh a racist…which he is. And the other side calls Sharpton a “race-baiter”…which he is.

But both sides are missing the point.  This really shouldn’t be about Limbaugh or Sharpton when the NFL makes its decision.

Well, yes and no.

Race is part of the discussion but Mo’Kelly would submit it is not and should not be the focal point.  The reasons why Rush Limbaugh has no business as an owner in the National Football league inevitably ties back to it being a bad business idea…with SOME of it tied to race.

There are two histories to consider here; Limbaugh’s and the NFL’s.  Let’s first look at the NFL.

The National Football League is by far the most popular spectator sporting league in America, if not the world.  The ratings for even NFL PRE-season games easily dwarf the ratings for the World Series and the NBA Finals.

Game 5 of the 2008 World Series garnered a 9.6 rating, the highest of the series.

Game 1 of the 2009 regular NFL season on Fox earned a 16.5

Game 1 of the 2009 NBA Finals, Lakers V. Orlando earned a 5.7

The NFL has no sports entertainment peer and much of it has to do with its marketing and stringent controls.  From the fines levied at players for supposed excessive endzone celebrations or to not meeting the league’s standards for uniforms and regulations, the NFL has been in supreme control of how its product is marketed and perceived.

And damn well they should…

Roger Goodell

That’s just on the field.  Off the field, Roger Goodell has been diligent in his efforts to curtail “incidents” with the implementation of a league-wide player conduct policy.  Regardless whether one agrees with Goodell’s policies and rulings thus far, the historical precedent had been set.

The NFL is not interested in controversy.

In fact, many players have branded it as the “No Fun League” due to the amount of rules and regulations required of them.  The NFL is clear it wants considerable say in the behavior of those who represent the league on any level.

As for Rush Limbaugh, his history is equally relevant in this discussion.  From his remarks generally about African-Americans over the years to Donovan McNabb specifically, it’s fair to say that Limbaugh has consistently inspired controversy from both the television and radio studio.

“Sorry to say this, I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go.  I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a Black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”

Rush Limbaugh on Donovan McNabb – 10.2003

Yet, the controversial nature of Limbaugh doesn’t begin or end with just issues of race.  There’s a long line of non-African-Americans also waiting to express their dislike of Rush Limaugh and what he espouses.

Rush Limbaugh as an NFL franchise owner (majority stake or otherwise) means he is de facto a representative of the league.  Each and every time Limbaugh should open up his mic on his radio show and tells an African-American caller to “take the bone out of his nose” or refers to the President of the United States as “The Magic Negro” or even chides Colin Powell, former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff as a “race loyalist” for supporting said “Magic Negro”…he would be representing the NFL.

I’m not sure the NFL is ready to stomach the hatemail the next time Limbaugh compares the Democrats to Nazis, but like it or not…as an owner he would represent the NFL.

And speaking of anti-Semitism, former Cincinnati Reds owner

Marge Schott

Marge Schott could not possibly purchase a baseball team in today’s world.  It would simply be bad business for the team and for Major League Baseball.

“Everything you read, when he came in [to power] he was good…They built tremendous highways and got all the factories going…Everybody knows he was good at the beginning but he just went too far.”

Marge Schott – 1996

It’s likely why Mark Cuban’s ownership bid was turned down I mean, ignored by the Chicago Cubs.  No, Cuban isn’t a racist but sports franchises are now hyper-sensitive to public personas and the public perception they yield.

And damn well they should (although I think the Cubs whiffed on Cuban.)

The rub in this instance is that although Limbaugh would be a representative of the NFL, the league would not have any editorial control over Limbaugh’s daily radio program.  Each and every single day, Rush Limbaugh manages to deeply offend someone and that anger would then be tied to the St. Louis Rams and to the NFL.  The routine and inevitable hatemail and calls for boycott of advertisers supporting Rush Limbaugh would also then become the NFL’s problem.

Every subsequent story regarding the “questionable” remarks of one Rush Limbaugh would inevitably include the words “owner of the NFL’s St. Louis Rams” in the opening paragraph.  The NFL doesn’t want that and given its stature surely doesn’t need that.  In the game of dominoes we always say, “not all money is good money.”

Same applies here.

Controversy makes for good if not great radio.  Conversely, it’s a horrible business model for the NFL in 2009.

Where race intersects the discussion of bad business is in the racial makeup of the majority African-American NFL.  We saw how this played out on ESPN with Limbaugh as a “football commentator.”  ESPN cut bait quckly, as Limbaugh’s baggage immediately became ESPN’s baggage. Note this important Limbaugh historical footnote.  The NFL doesn’t need to extrapolate out what Limbaugh “might” mean for the NFL in terms of press.  It already has a verifiable, historical example in which to reference.  And if there’s anyone who’s good friends with the NFL, it’s ESPN.

Friends don’t let friends drive drunk or make the same mistakes they once made.

The NFL doesn’t need gimmicks like glow in the dark footballs or steel cage matches in which to inspire ratings supremacy.  It is already king of the hill.  All it needs to do is keep using common sense and good business sense.

Allowing Rush Limbaugh to become an owner would be indicative of neither.

The NFL is a private business entity and can hire whomever it sees fit to represent or endorse its product.  Good business sense says that Rush Limbaugh as an owner is no better a decision than Rev. Al Sharpton.  The reasons are the same and race is only a piece of a much larger discussion.

There is only risk with no reward for having the NFL associating itself with Rush Limbaugh and all the baggage he brings.  To reduce this into a discussion of Sharpton or race misses the point and further marginalizes the real issues of race.

RELATED: Mo’Kelly’s NY Times editorial on Limbaugh, Leadership and Obama

http://twitter.com/mrmokelly

Subscribe to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE

Serena Williams

In honor of Serena Williams winning her 3rd Wimbledon (over her sister Venus no less)…it makes it a fitting time to revist an editorial Mo’Kelly wrote on the sibling “supremacy” comparison.

Williams Vs. Manning.

No contest, not even close.  Not even on the Mannings’ BEST day is their any comparison.  And mind you, this editorial was written AWHILE ago.  The only siblings to add to their resumes since then are…

The Williams’…so keep that in mind.

The following editorial was written last year, almost to the day.  I guess one could say it’s an annual event to heap praise upon the Williams sisters.  They have in fact EARNED it…annually no less.

Also keep in mind, Serena’s win in 2009 is a rematch of LAST YEAR’S final, won by Venus.  There’s no comparison here, not even close.  No disrespect to the Mannings for they did not invite this comparison.  This is for ESPN and the subsequent fools who did and their collective non-recognition of greatness in the process.

ESPN Poll Exposes Realities of Race in America 7.5.2008

http://twitter.com/mrmokelly

Props to www.crossphazer.com for posting this…

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.2545876&w=425&h=350&fv=fhidelogo%3D0%26content%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fcache01-videos02.myspacecdn.com%2F138%2Fvid_bf05a5adaa274b30b2f57d4ed71e37be.flv%26logoalpha%3D0.5%26iconcolor%3D0xFF0000%26poster%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi44.tinypic.com%2Fzmxtn9.png%26glowcolor%3D0xFF0000%26nhidelogo%3D0%26showlogo%3Dfalse%26external%3Dtrue]

The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, http://www.MrMoKelly.com.  Mo’Kelly can be reached at Mo@MrMoKelly.com and he welcomes all commentary.

http://twitter.com/mrmokelly

Subscribe to The Mo’Kelly Report HERE

Whenever this country wants to get a gauge of the mood or inclinations of its populace, it usually resorts to the simple and unscientific “poll.”

Yes, there are “scientific aspects” of opinion polls, in terms of statistical sampling and monitoring the control variables as any good scientist would. All of which are done to bring about the most accurate and verifiable results. But at its root, an opinion poll is by definition unscientific.

Ask Mo’Kelly a question on Tuesday and then ask him the same question on Wednesday and the answers might likely be different, for no discernible reason.

Such is the nature of polls.

People can answer them largely at their whim, with no guarantee as to being reasonable, rational or intellectually honest in the process.

One week Senator Obama is leading in the polls, the next he’s trailing…nobody knows for sure and nobody really knows why as to the former or the latter. The only thing “for sure” is that there will be another equally head-scratching poll conducted the following week.

Regardless, every pollster will argue that a poll is a “snapshot” of a moment in time. Meaning, with new information to process, people often reassess their answers or at least the veracity of them.

Maybe…maybe not.

Mo’Kelly would say most polls elucidate how full of s@#$ we Americans are. The statement applies to ALL Americans irrespective of color, class or gender. When the Gallup organization approaches you and asks you whether you “would” vote for an African-American (or a woman) for president, we understand what the “right” answer is and often choose to toe the line of political correctness. We answer the question with blithe and indefatigable ignorance as to the truth of how African-Americans are largely viewed in this country.

It’s connected to why Senator Obama was openly questioned as to why a jazz singer in Denver would replace the national anthem with Lift Every Voice and Sing; (see link) even though Obama has no connection whatsoever to the Denver mayor’s office or the jazz singer Rene Marie.

RELATED: Singer Sings ‘Black National Anthem’ Instead of National Anthem

Just FYI, John McCain was not asked about the incident or requested to comment publicly and McCain CAMPAIGNED in Denver on July 3^rd.

Note, both linked articles regarding McCain and Obama came from the SAME Colorado news source. In short, there is the illusion of inclusion and racial respect but the realities are in stark contrast.

But back to polling…

ESPN Sportscenter and ESPN.com recently queried their audiences, ”Which is the better pair of current sports siblings?”

Two choices were offered: (See picture above)

A) Peyton and Eli Manning

B) Venus and Serena Williams

As of Saturday July 5, 62,293 votes had been tallied, 69% of which were for the Manning brothers. You should see where Mo’Kelly is going with this. Mo’Kelly won’t resort to cheap taunts of racism to support his points.

But…

Mo’Kelly will dare anyone to reasonably explain how the Manning brothers are anywhere NEAR the accomplishments of the Williams siblings, yet are considered “better” by more than a 2-1 ratio.

The following are the facts and are inarguable in nature.

Venus Williams –

16 Grand Slam titles (7 singles, 7 doubles, 2 mixed)

· 5 Wimbledon titles

· 7 runner up Grand Slam finishes

· 47 titles overall, (37 singles)

· 21 singles runner up finishes

· 482-115 for her entire career

Serena Williams

17 Grand Slam titles (7 singles, 8 doubles, 2 mixed)

· 2 Wimbledon titles

· 42 titles overall (31 singles)

· 382-81 for her entire career.

To put that in its proper tennis dominance perspective, imagine TWO Martina Navratilovas at the same kitchen table. The real question is if it weren’t for canceling each other out, might one or the other have ended up being the single greatest tennis player of all time?

Peyton Manning

1 Super Bowl win (1 total appearance overall)

Eli Manning

1 Super Bowl win (1 total appearance overall)

Mo’Kelly takes the ESPN poll MORE seriously than any CNN/Gallup poll in this instance, because the ESPN poll arguably more accurately reflects the HONESTY of Americans. More than 2/1 have greater “respect” for the accomplishments of the Manning brothers, even though they are nowhere close to the Williams exploits. No, Mo’Kelly won’t use the “R” word, but he will continue to cite statistical fact. Feel free to further “justify” it any way you want. Mo’Kelly will stick to the facts.

The fact of the matter is that the Mannings (although incredibly talented) haven’t scratched the surface of the Williams greatness. Not to mention, prior to the Super Bowl (and even arguably afterwards) Eli Manning was considered a marginal QB at best. If all four athletes retire today…Only three make their respective Hall of Fames and guess who doesn’t?

Remember, even Trent Dilfer has ONE Super Bowl ring as a quarterback. Try and name ‘all’ of the “marginal” tennis players who have won Wimbledon multiple times. Mo’Kelly will give you all week to field an answer.

Exactly.

Notre Dame football coach Charlie Weis begins his fourth season at Notre Dame this August. That would be the same fourth season NOT granted to his predecessor Tyrone Willingham. Do remember that when Willingham started off 8-0 in his first season, he was given a handshake and a pat on the head. When Weis began 5-2, he was re-upped with a ridiculous 10-year extension.

When Willingham won in his first year, his detractors accused him of “winning with (i.e. ‘thanks to’) Bob Davie’s” players, Willingham’s predecessor. When Weis “won” in his first year, he was credited with “better developing Willingham’s players.”

When Willingham was fired after his 3^rd season, he was fired in part because of “the program not going in the right direction.” Willingham finished 6-6.

When Charlie Weis finished his 3^rd season at 3-9…there was no talk of “the program not going in the right direction.” In fact, there were those who STILL blamed Tyrone Willingham, 3 years removed. After 3 years, Tyrone Willingham…21-16. Charlie Weis…22-15. And if Weis didn’t play ALL of the service academies in his first season; Willingham likely has the better overall record.

It is what it is.

Brief statistical analysis of Willingham vs. Weis HERE

This isn’t an indictment of ESPN per se, as historically the network has been both credible and sincere in its attempts at presenting issues of race equitably and intellectually honestly. Specifically, hosts such as Colin Cowherd (The Herd on ESPN Radio) and Jim Rome (The Jim Rome Show and Jim Rome is Burning) have been intelligent, thoughtful and thought-provoking when addressing the issue of racial inequities in sports. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

In more recent news, retired and undefeated boxing champion Floyd Mayweather Jr. criticized the HBO announcing team for alleged biases against him and other Black fighters; arguing that White fighters akin to middleweight Kelly Pavlik receive unmerited/undue acclaim.

As for Mayweather’s criticism, it gets to be a bit more murky. Mayweather readily admits he has relished the role of “villain” in his fights. Meaning, he’s the “bad guy” and he’s glad about it. Meaning, he knows most fans don’t “root” for the “bad guy.” It’s a role he’s embraced and more times than not he has presented himself to be a certifiable jerk. That much, we should all be able to agree. If Mayweather is any less “popular” or less likeable…that’s on him. A similar comparison could be made to (ahem) “all-time home run leader,” Barry Bonds.

At the same time, there is an undeniable bias against African-American athletes in terms of the perception of their contributions. Mo’Kelly understands what Mayweather is hinting at and the sentiment he’s attempting to express. Mayweather using himself as the centerpiece of his argument is misguided but the overriding point is well-taken nonetheless. The exclusion of the late Buck O’Neil (the first African-American coach in all of MLB) from The National Baseball Hall of Fame, yet inclusion of names like .260 career hitter Bill Mazeroski is unforgivable.

Un-for-givable.

Racism at its root, is the devaluation of another people and their collective accomplishments. It’s more than the exclusion of people from diners or the orchestra seats of a performance hall. It’s far more insidious than simply being denied the right to vote. Such inequities are the more blatant outward manifestations of an inner disposition.

At the very foundation of racism is the thought process which espouses inherent inequality. We can identify it in this manner – when all things are equal, they still aren’t equal; for reasons having nothing to do with the yardsticks used to measure greatness.

The Williams sisters are likely the greatest sports siblings in the history of all professional sports, bar none. Their combined accomplishments are far greater than any the world has seen. And 2 mere Super Bowl rings amongst two brothers in a TEAM sport will never change these facts.

No, of course, it’s not “racism,”…just be sure to ema
il Mo’Kelly when you find a more suitable synonym or euphemism. Let’s not get sidetracked by “labels” but surely let’s wallow in intellectual honesty. It’s time, in this supposed “post-race America” to begin to have an honest and open dialogue in earnest as to why race still matters. Until we do, race will forever plague and prevent us from reaching the level of enlightenment we allege to have achieved. No number of Obama nominations will ever change the reality of what is in our hearts. Equality is more than just an issue of legalities, it also encompasses respect…and clearly the latter is lacking.

Thanks ESPN for that dose of reality, though unintended.

RELATED: Mo’Kelly Interviews Former ESPN News Anchor/Current Fox Sports Anchor Danyelle Sargent

Mo’Kelly Interviews WISC-TV Sports Anchor George Johnson Re: Don Imus Affair

The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Newstex and Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, http://www.MrMoKelly.com.

Subscribe in a reader or by email

Help Bring Mo’Kelly to National Radio HERE

Morris W. O’Kelly can be reached at Mo@MrMoKelly.com and he welcomes all commentary.