This is the Houston Astros' 50th Anniversary, and all indications are that they will celebrate by losing two games for each year they've been around. They're also going to wear a bunch of throwback jerseys, including one from the earliest days as the Houston Colt .45s.
But hold up, slow up, stop, control, says the MLB Commissioner's office. Houston can't display the Colt .45s logo- that is, a smoking gun- on their jerseys.
I'm torn on this. Generally speaking, I'm uncomfortable around guns and sensitive to policies that want to add a few more measures of control to them. On the other hand, "Colt .45s" is an awesome, evocative team name, perfect for Texas, and the logo is kind of cool.
In a broader sense, I'm not really sure what Baseball is accomplishing here. Any time Baseball wants to try to help decrease gun violence- or at least, not offer tacit support of gun culture- I'm right behind 'em. And the game certainly has every right to protect and maintain it's brand, and if that includes eschewing the imagery of violent weapons, very well. I certainly wouldn't argue that the New York Glocks or the San Francisco AK-47s would be team names chosen in good taste.
But at the same time, that logo is a stylized drawing of an Old West-style revolver. Isn't that a little antiquated?. In fact, it's probably a little closer to the Braves' tomahawk chop than it is anything that promotes violence in the modern world.
I dunno. On balance, I suppose I don't mind Baseball doing this. I just wonder if they couldn't have chosen their battles better.
Showing posts with label Violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Violence. Show all posts
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Some More on the Saints
I said in the previous post that just punishing the Saints won't be enough. We also have to reform the culture around the NFL, because sure, it's just that fucking easy, isn't it Colby?
The fact is, it's really fucking hard, and I'm not sure how to even begin. Roger Gooddell really has tried to rein in the most despicable, violent hits. But at some point, I fear he's trying to beat up the ocean. Not only has he been mocked for his efforts, but really, how do you play football without the hits? And if you have to allow the hits, where do you draw the line so that it's clear what's acceptable and what isn't? How do you craft a punishment that actually deters players, and doesn't just make them do a loss/benefit calculation?
And if you're part of the sports media, and hits are a legitimate part of the game, how do you report on them, how do you note who is good at them, without in some way condoning them? How do you stop the fans from getting excited about them? Jesus, I've spent two blog posts soul-searching about them, and I still get excited about them.
This is why I'm worried that Troy Aikman is right. It's hard to separate football from the violence, and it's hard to keep justifying the violence- especially when it comes time for us to start thinking about letting some of our kids play football. This isn't hockey, where there are major leagues and tournaments that really tone down on the violence. How do you have football without tackling?
This is one of those times where I hope I'm not nearly as smart as I think I am.
The fact is, it's really fucking hard, and I'm not sure how to even begin. Roger Gooddell really has tried to rein in the most despicable, violent hits. But at some point, I fear he's trying to beat up the ocean. Not only has he been mocked for his efforts, but really, how do you play football without the hits? And if you have to allow the hits, where do you draw the line so that it's clear what's acceptable and what isn't? How do you craft a punishment that actually deters players, and doesn't just make them do a loss/benefit calculation?
And if you're part of the sports media, and hits are a legitimate part of the game, how do you report on them, how do you note who is good at them, without in some way condoning them? How do you stop the fans from getting excited about them? Jesus, I've spent two blog posts soul-searching about them, and I still get excited about them.
This is why I'm worried that Troy Aikman is right. It's hard to separate football from the violence, and it's hard to keep justifying the violence- especially when it comes time for us to start thinking about letting some of our kids play football. This isn't hockey, where there are major leagues and tournaments that really tone down on the violence. How do you have football without tackling?
This is one of those times where I hope I'm not nearly as smart as I think I am.
When the Saints Go Kicking Heads In
An official NFL investigation has reported that the New Orleans Saints maintained a "bounty pool" for the last three seasons, in which the defensive players were paid cash for injuring opposing players. The "pool" was maintained by defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, and head coach Sean Peyton knew about it (As did GM Mickey Loomis). Animaniac Blogger Mike got the ball rolling on this already, but this story is important enough to warrant a few posts. Don't be surprised if we return to it later this week.
Mike has admirably covered how horrible this is, and correctly noted that these players and coaches- in my mind, especially the coaches and GMs- need to be punished. My only addition is that that won't be enough.
The fact is, I'm barely surprised by this. I didn't predict it by any means, but there is an easy, logical progression from the general demeanor of the NFL and football media to actions just like this. It's not just that hits are a fundamental part of the game, and that the field of play creates several "blind spots" (such as the bottom of the pile) where the players can outright attack each other with impunity- though they are, and it does. It's not just that injuring a star player is an effective- though abhorrent- tactic. It's that we openly laud a lot of the violence in the NFL.
We count down the biggest hits on Tuesday morning, with Chris Berman and his crew hooting and hollaring all the way (Note: the NFL has asked that we stop doing this. It has also been mocked for doing so). Roger Gooddell's efforts to reign in the most violent excesses of the game are widely mocked by the media and harshly criticized by the players. "Bounties" have actually been openly talked about in fan circles for YEARS, and while nobody holds Kissing Suzy Kolber up as an authority, the language is still out there. And I'm as bad as anyone. I've gone into multiple games openly rooting for Brett Favre, Aaron RAHDJAHS! and Tim Tebow to break their collarbones (must be something about quarterbacks with ostentatious touchdown celebrations, I guess).
My point is, current NFL culture incentivizes a lot of violent behavior, and does not really explain where the line is. And as that's the case, of course some people are going to cross the line. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish the Saints players and coaches; the fact is, EVERY team was operating in the same culture, and the Saints are the only ones who did something so ridiculous (...I hope?). So, obviously, players, coaches, and teams still have a choice here. But when the entire defensive organization of a team is implicated, along with the head coach and GM, this clearly goes beyond the "few bad apples" defense. The NFL must punish the Saints for this, but if it doesn't also change the culture that allowed this, it won't be enough.
One more point on this. The Saints were ranked 24th in defense for 2011. 25th in '09, when the Saints won the Super Bowl. 2010 was obviously different, with the team coming in 4th, but still, the trend is clear: the "Bounty Pool" was not producing appreciably better defense. And if all the violence isn't producing better football, what's the point, exactly?
Mike has admirably covered how horrible this is, and correctly noted that these players and coaches- in my mind, especially the coaches and GMs- need to be punished. My only addition is that that won't be enough.
The fact is, I'm barely surprised by this. I didn't predict it by any means, but there is an easy, logical progression from the general demeanor of the NFL and football media to actions just like this. It's not just that hits are a fundamental part of the game, and that the field of play creates several "blind spots" (such as the bottom of the pile) where the players can outright attack each other with impunity- though they are, and it does. It's not just that injuring a star player is an effective- though abhorrent- tactic. It's that we openly laud a lot of the violence in the NFL.
We count down the biggest hits on Tuesday morning, with Chris Berman and his crew hooting and hollaring all the way (Note: the NFL has asked that we stop doing this. It has also been mocked for doing so). Roger Gooddell's efforts to reign in the most violent excesses of the game are widely mocked by the media and harshly criticized by the players. "Bounties" have actually been openly talked about in fan circles for YEARS, and while nobody holds Kissing Suzy Kolber up as an authority, the language is still out there. And I'm as bad as anyone. I've gone into multiple games openly rooting for Brett Favre, Aaron RAHDJAHS! and Tim Tebow to break their collarbones (must be something about quarterbacks with ostentatious touchdown celebrations, I guess).
My point is, current NFL culture incentivizes a lot of violent behavior, and does not really explain where the line is. And as that's the case, of course some people are going to cross the line. I'm not saying we shouldn't punish the Saints players and coaches; the fact is, EVERY team was operating in the same culture, and the Saints are the only ones who did something so ridiculous (...I hope?). So, obviously, players, coaches, and teams still have a choice here. But when the entire defensive organization of a team is implicated, along with the head coach and GM, this clearly goes beyond the "few bad apples" defense. The NFL must punish the Saints for this, but if it doesn't also change the culture that allowed this, it won't be enough.
One more point on this. The Saints were ranked 24th in defense for 2011. 25th in '09, when the Saints won the Super Bowl. 2010 was obviously different, with the team coming in 4th, but still, the trend is clear: the "Bounty Pool" was not producing appreciably better defense. And if all the violence isn't producing better football, what's the point, exactly?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)