7 comments Mark Cuban Says Brittney Griner Could Play in the NBA and Jemele Hill Somehow Takes Offense to This

I'm pretty sure JemeHill (I combine her first and last name because it is fun to type it that way) could take any compliment given to a person and turn it into an insult. Mark Cuban had the audacity to say Brittney Griner could play in the NBA or that he would think about drafting her. To add insult to injury, it appears Cuban was entirely serious. I say "to add insult to injury" because this comment by Mark Cuban offers a false promise that is setting back women, women's sports, the WNBA, and most likely the world's chances to avoid a nuclear war with North Korea in the mind of JemeHill. JemeHill is very offended by Cuban's comment. She is offended out of proportion for how much she should be offended. She thinks Mark Cuban is saying Griner needs to play men's sports to legitimize herself, when he was simply saying she is a great basketball player and he would think about drafting her. It's easy to take offense to something when you seemingly look for things that piss you off and skew the intended meaning of other otherwise innocent statements.

I have no doubt that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban was sincere when he said he would draft Brittney Griner, or at the very least, perhaps invite her to play for Dallas' summer league team in Las Vegas.

But it was an offensive thing to say! How dare Mark Cuban give out compliments!

I wonder if JemeHill would have liked it better if Cuban had stated women had no business playing in the NBA? My guess is if that happened we would get a column from her stating women could play in the NBA and that Mark Cuban was wrong to suggest Griner couldn't make it in the NBA. You can't win sometimes.

But unfortunately that's not how Griner responded. Instead, she tweeted to Cuban: "I would hold my own! Lets do it."

I can't believe Brittney Griner is willing to demean herself by taking Cuban up on an invitation to play in the NBA. Just when you think women's athletics can't be set back any further something like this happens. 

My problem with Cuban's offer has nothing to do with whether I believe Griner can play with men. The gap in physical strength would be a huge issue for her, 

Right, but it is still nice for Mark Cuban to Tweet that he wouldn't mind Griner playing for the Mavericks. It's not going to happen, but it is a nice compliment. Only a demented person could find a way to take offense to this offer.

just as her quickness and array of post moves might be an issue for some of the men she would play.

We have talked about women playing basketball against men before. No, Brittney Griner would not be too quick for the men that would guard her in the post. If Griner has good moves, it would be offset by the fact she is going to struggle to get position in the post due to the gap in physical strength that JemeHill just mentioned.

I would imagine that Griner already has spent a good deal of her career playing against boys and men recreationally. But how she could fit in the NBA isn't really the point.

No, it really is the point. Mark Cuban said Griner could play in the NBA. Griner said, "Let's do it." JemeHill wrote a column about how this offer to play in the NBA offers a false promise to Griner. The entire discussion and this entire article is about how she would fit in the NBA. I don't see how anyone can believe this article is/should be about anything else.

What I don't like about Cuban's comments is that it perpetuates the dangerous idea that great female athletes need to validate themselves by competing against men.

Well it's not about how Griner fits in the NBA when JemeHill decides to take a comment and blow it up into something bigger than it really is. Mark Cuban's comment doesn't perpetuate the "dangerous" idea female athletes need to validate themselves competing against men. It says Griner has validated her skills against women and Cuban thinks she is good enough to play against men, despite the gap in physical strength and because of the post moves JemeHill just mentioned. Notice how JemeHill immediately evaluates Griner's ability to play in the NBA and then decides this evaluation (that she herself just made) is "dangerous." It's a compliment that Mark Cuban was paying Griner. Just take it as that.

This season, Griner was the best college player in women's or men's hoops.

In JemeHill's opinion it is "dangerous" to try and evaluate Griner against men, but this is the second time in this fairly short column JemeHill has compared Griner to men's basketball players. So apparently this is a dangerous comparison, unless JemeHill would like to make this comparison, in which case the comparison only goes to show how great Brittney Griner is at playing basketball.

Griner doesn't have anything to prove. But because of Cuban's interest in her, it's opened the door for people to talk more about what Griner can't do, rather than appreciate what she can.

But what I don't get is why JemeHill is criticizing this discussion people have about what Griner can't do even though SHE HERSELF JUST TALKED ABOUT WHAT GRINER CAN'T DO! JemeHill said:

My problem with Cuban's offer has nothing to do with whether I believe Griner can play with men. The gap in physical strength would be a huge issue for her, 

No one is forcing JemeHill to make this comparison, she is choosing to do so on her own free will. Mark Cuban's comment doesn't highlight what Griner can't do, but highlights how good of a women's basketball player Griner is.

Once Cuban's comments spread, it was open season on Griner. She's too slow to play with men. She isn't physical enough. She doesn't have the athleticism.

But these are comments JemeHill just made herself. She is essentially citing her own reaction to Cuban's comment as an example of how some will make it open season on Griner. JemeHill's own reaction and comments about Griner are the very comments JemeHill finds troubling. She basically finds herself "dangerous" for making these comments.

I've come to believe JemeHill doesn't have a ton of talent. She has to take offense, change the subject or talk around an issue in order to be able to write a column. Even once she takes offense, she still can't help but create a problem that doesn't exist or cite her own opinion as the only supporting evidence for her column.

Everything she accomplished is being measured against professional male players, and that simply isn't fair.

The reason she is being compared to NBA players is because she has been so dominant in college. Considering (in my opinion) no women's basketball player could thrive in the NBA, it is a compliment to even suggest Griner could. It doesn't take away from Griner's accomplishments. Plus, JemeHill herself is the one not being fair to Griner and comparing her to NBA players. She does it in this very article.

As the WNBA draft approaches, the conversation should be about how Griner's college stardom can translate to professional success, and perhaps boost the WNBA to another level in popularity. 

Good luck with that. I don't know if Griner has the ability to pull in people to the WNBA who haven't ordinarily watched women's basketball.

This Griner situation reminds me of how, every so often, people would wonder whether former Tennessee coach Pat Summitt should coach men.

This seems like an interesting topic of conversation. There have also been people who wondered if Coach K could coach NBA players. Simply by wondering if Coach K could coach NBA players over a full season doesn't mean he has to validate himself by coaching these players? No, of course not. How good of a women's basketball coach would Phil Jackson have been? I think he would have been a better women's basketball coach than a men's basketball coach, but that's just my opinion. Me wondering how good Phil Jackson would have been at UConn coaching women basketball players doesn't mean Jackson needs to validate himself by coaching women.

I don't doubt that Summit could do it, but I reject the idea that Summit needed to coach men to legitimize what anyone with common sense already knew -- that the woman can coach.

JemeHill can be such a pain in the ass sometimes. Simply asking if Coach Summit could coach men (and no one says she "should" coach men, it's always if she "could" coach men) isn't saying she has to coach men to legitimize herself. This is another example of JemeHill creating an fake argument that she can dispel in order to better prove her point. She does this quite frequently. JemeHill will make up a point of view that few or no people hold, then will rebut that argument in a column and believe she proved something. She will write something like, "The idea LeBron isn't the best forward on the Heat roster is ridiculous," and then start to disprove this argument few or no people are making.

I would not compare Griner playing in the NBA to Danica Patrick competing against men in NASCAR. For one, NASCAR is one of the few sports men and women can compete with one another without strength or stature being an issue.

Only someone who hasn't ever watched a NASCAR race would make this statement and believe it to be true. Being a NASCAR driver takes conditioning and strength. The difference in men and women's bodies can be seen in this sport. There's a reason Dale Earnhardt Jr. claims part of his resurgence is a better dedication to conditioning and getting in shape.

The only things that matter in NASCAR are reaction time, endurance and, of course, the car.

I don't like NASCAR, but this is a very simplistic way to look at it. It's like saying the only things that matter in basketball is being athletic and being able to shoot. 

But having not won a race in NASCAR and having barely won anything as an IndyCar driver, she has invited criticism about whether she's good enough. Madison Avenue loves her, but can she win? 

And why has she barely won anything? Is it because she isn't very good or the fact she is a tiny person gives her a small disadvantage when driving against men? I'm asking, because apparently JemeHill is a NASCAR expert and claims there is no disadvantage to a woman driving a race car as compared to a man driving a race car.

But as we saw with Patrick, there is a lot of pressure that comes with competing in a male-dominated sport. And while Griner dealt with high expectations at Baylor because the team looked practically unbeatable, vying for a spot on an NBA team would bring scrutiny unlike anything she experienced in college. 

And of course the insinuation Griner could handle this scrutiny is a huge insult to Griner, women, and women's sports.

From Billie Jean King versus Bobby Riggs to Patrick versus the pack, there has always been an infatuation with women who compete against men.

And an infatuation with men who compete against women. It can go both ways.

In 1979, Ann Meyers signed a contract with the Pacers and tried out for the team. Even though she didn't make an NBA roster, her efforts to play in the NBA never damaged her credibility.

So history says if Brittney Griner tried out for an NBA roster then her credibility would not be damaged, but somehow JemeHill thinks it is different 34 years later when society and the NBA is possibly more accepting of a women's ability to play basketball.

That's not how it would work today.

This is not a statement of fact simply because you hold yourself in high esteem and make this statement. This is purely an opinion.

If Griner flirted with the NBA and failed, it would do a lot more damage. There would be an obsession with her successes and failures. Every missed and made shot would be replayed repeatedly on TV and throughout social media.

I don't know if it would do any real damage. It would simply reinforce what some people already believe, that an elite women's basketball player can't compete with elite men's basketball players. Maybe that's JemeHill's biggest fear, the confirmation that elite women can't compete with elite men in basketball. I don't see it as the end of the world. Men's college basketball teams can't compete with NBA teams and I don't think that takes anything away from the men's college basketball game. We saw a woman fail at kicking at the NFL Combine recently and it hasn't destroyed women's sports, so perhaps we would see Griner struggle and simply move on with our lives.

One of the greatest players in women's college basketball history would risk being relegated to being the punch line of far too many jokes.

I already joke about her even before she has played one game against men. (Mean comments to follow) I'm not entirely convinced Brittney Griner isn't a guy. She has kind of a deep voice and I'm not passing up the idea she could just be a really girly-looking guy. I don't say this because I enjoy being mean to women athletes or because she is good at basketball, but because she has kind of a deep voice and I'm not entirely convinced she doesn't have a different set of chromosomes from other women basketball players. If a male basketball player had a high-pitched voice I would wonder if he wasn't really a girl. It's fun to be mean like this.

Or worse, considered a failure.

I don't think she would be considered a failure. Ann Meyers wasn't considered a failure 34 years ago and I really believe the more progressive attitude towards women sports means Brittney wouldn't be seen as a failure just like Ann Meyers wasn't seen as a failure.

There is no question that Griner could gain much more exposure if she, say, decided to play in a few summer league games. But the NBA doesn't need any more marketing help. The WNBA, however, desperately needs more players and personalities like Griner. 

This is a completely different argument. Whether the NBA or the WNBA needs more marketing help is irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether Cuban's statement that Brittney Griner could try out for the Mavericks is a false promise or not. Let's stick to the subject at hand and not try to distract the audience from your weak argument.

Too many people already treat Griner like a freak because of her size.

It's not her size that gets me. It's her voice. That's a very different voice for a female. I don't think she is a freak, but I can't help but notice her voice isn't very lady-like. I always love it when a writer says something like "too many people" and then doesn't cite a single piece of evidence or a statement by these "people" to support this argument. It's like they are hoping by just making a blanket statement everyone will assume the statement is factual.

The last thing she should want is for the NBA to use her as a sideshow. 

I'm sorry, what was this article about again? Wasn't this article supposed to be about how Mark Cuban's comment made it seem like Brittney Griner had to legitimize herself by playing in the NBA? What ever happened to that argument (as weak as it was)? The column ended with JemeHill saying people think Brittney Griner is a freak and then saying the NBA shouldn't use her as a sideshow. So just remember girls (girl? who I am kidding, no girls read this blog), if someone tells you that you could play in the NBA then don't dare take this as a compliment because that is a huge insult to you and everyone thinks you are a freak. 

6 comments What? Jemele Hill Wrote a Column about Race?

You may not believe this, but JemeHill has written a column about race that feels like it isn't well-thought through. This time she goes after Steve Williams, who is better known as Tiger Woods' former caddy, for his comments about Tiger Woods' asshole. Obviously when Williams said he wanted to shove something up Woods' black asshole this was incredibly racist to JemeHill. This caused JemeHill to think of other racist terms Williams may use to refer to Tiger Woods and decides these imagined terms are what makes Williams such a terrible racist. So even if Williams' language wasn't racist, just imagine what else he could say about Woods! There's no further proof required to know Williams is a huge racist to the point he probably refuses to go out at night while the sky is black.

JemeHill also has some harsh words for Tiger Woods, who absolutely refuses to see things from JemeHill’s point of view publicly on race. Clearly this doesn’t mean Woods’ point of view could be correct or does this mean his view has any merit, but just shows how in denial about race Tiger Woods truly is. It is like her own version of a racial dictatorship where those fellow minorities who don't agree with JemeHill are cast as being out of touch or have an ulterior motive to ignore "the truth."

If Steve Williams is bold enough to tell a room full of people that he wanted to shove Adam Scott's WGC Bridgestone Invitational win up Tiger Woods' "black a------," then what does Williams say about Woods in private?

Who knows what else Steve Williams says? I am sure it is 100% more racist than his comment about Tiger Woods’ asshole. JemeHill isn’t satisfied with merely looking at Williams’ comments and determining if they are racist or not, she has to add other potentially fictional layers to this situation in order to make Williams seem even more racist. She isn’t satisfied with commenting on the current comments, she has to add other layers to further her own agenda.

I think it's a fair question.

Well, you did create the question just now. So I’m not shocked you think your own question is a fair one.

Williams was among his peers at the caddie awards in Shanghai when he added that biting racial qualifier to express his utter disdain for Woods, who fired him in July.

A normal person would think, “What a jerk comment by Williams. He’s clearly a bitter man.” Then this normal person would move on with his/her life. Not JemeHill. She wonders how she can blow these comments into an even bigger deal in order to write a column. It isn't that Williams' comments aren't stupid or he doesn't seem bitter, I am not just sure his comment about Woods' "black asshole" deserves to be subjected to further analysis such as this.

So I immediately wondered if what Williams says about Woods in private is even more candid, even more venomous and, yes, even more racial when he isn't in a crowd.

And that's the scary part.

So here is what we have so far:

Steve Williams said something bitter and racially-toned about Tiger Woods.

JemeHill wonders if Steve Williams says even worse things about Woods in private and then creates thoughts of how venomous Williams is privately.

JemeHill thinks the idea of Williams making terribly racist comments in private is scary and immediately begins writing a column about how the imaginary things she herself believes Williams says in private makes him an even bigger racist.

So we have JemeHill reacting to a racially-toned comment by expanding this one comment into an entire set of thinking she believes Williams to hold privately and then proudly begins to write an article as if the imagined thoughts she had are real statements Williams made. To think I re-tweeted something JemeHill wrote the other day. Embarrassing for me.

When Golf Channel anchor Kelly Tilghman used a lynching metaphor in early 2008 to describe how Woods' younger competitors should treat him -- this was back when Woods was still the top player in the world -- the remark felt clumsy and misguided, but not necessarily racist.

That comment felt more racist than talking about someone’s black asshole. Given the racial undertones of lynching I can see how that remark can be considered racist by some. Saying the color of someone’s skin and then talking about their asshole…not so much. Of course, I wouldn’t expect any consistency from JemeHill.

Williams' statement, on the other hand, seems so vindictive that it stinks with entitlement and racism.

So the amount of vindictiveness in a statement also determines the racism of the comment, but only if the correct amount of entitlement is present. Got it. I feel like I need to be presented with an official formula adding in the amount vindictiveness and entitlement that puts a statement up to the threshold of racism.

So unlike Adam Scott, Williams' current boss, I'm not willing to give Williams a free pass and excuse what he did as simply a poor choice of words.

Much like comments later in this column about Tiger Woods, because Adam Scott doesn’t agree with JemeHill’s point of view these comments were racist, he is giving Williams a free pass. So you either agree with JemeHill’s point of view or there is something wrong with you and you are giving Williams a free pass. I have no issue with those who bring up race in a discussion, but I have a problem when those who talk about race and believe their point of view is infallible enough to where it should be universally shared.

It's more than that.

You want it to be more than that.

Williams' words seem calculating.

Because we all know when a person threatens to shove an object up someone’s asshole this is a well-thought use of wording.

Williams' bitterness toward Woods is understandable. Woods fired him after he'd caddied 13 of Woods' 14 major victories.

It’s business. I’m not sure Williams should still be bitter, but if he is then maybe that’s understandable.

But here is where things get murky. After Williams caddied Scott's Bridgestone victory, he said it was the most gratifying win of his career.

Gratifying? How racist! It was gratifying to beat Tiger Woods, who is a minority by the way. If Steve Williams finds it gratifying to beat Tiger Woods at golf, in what other ways would Steve Williams like to beat Tiger Woods? Perhaps physically, with a whip? If Steve Williams wants to lash Tiger Woods with a whip while Tiger is in submissive position then that reeks of racism. I can’t believe Steve Williams said it would be gratifying to beat Tiger Woods with a whip. How racist!

Really? Winning Bridgestone is more gratifying than 60 wins and 13 majors? That's like someone saying an NFL wild card playoff berth is more fulfilling than making it to a Super Bowl.

Clearly Williams is using some hyperbole when making this statement. Still, I can see how a single win over Tiger Woods would be more gratifying than the wins with Woods were. Athletes are able find wins that aren’t in championship games to be the most gratifying of their career. I would imagine there are some Red Sox fans who find defeating the Yankees in the 2004 ALCS to be more gratifying than winning the World Series. An athlete beating a team that cut or released him could also be a very gratifying win compared to a playoff victory.

But this time, it just seems as if Williams' bitterness has morphed into something far more personal and toxic.

Of course JemeHill has no proof of this. She is taking his statement about Tiger’s “black asshole” and turning into the tip of the potentially fictional iceberg of what Williams says privately. If you combine Williams' fictional private thoughts about minorities with his satisfaction at winning a golf tournament as a caddy for a different golfer, then you can turn it into Williams’ toxic racial vendetta against Woods. I just think this is a hard leap to make. There are a lot of assumptions and imagination required to get to this conclusion.

The fact that he injected Woods' race into a description of how badly he wanted to show Tiger up is a troubling indicator that this wasn't just about usurping his former employer.

If we want to get technical, Woods isn’t actually black. He considers himself to be “caublanasian.” So would it have been as offensive if Williams said he wanted to shove it up Tiger’s Asian asshole? Maybe Williams did mean the comment to have racial undertones other than merely being a description of a portion of Tiger’s race, maybe he didn’t. The point is we can only take the comment on its face and turning the comment into something bigger by creating other layers of what Williams COULD think or MAY believe is pure speculation. Yet, JemeHill bases much of her entire conclusion on this speculation.

It seems like Williams was especially displeased that he'd been fired by a black man.

The only way you can get to this point is to read way too much into what Williams said. He said something stupid, but nowhere in “Tiger Woods’ black asshole” does it say he is mad he got fired by a black man. If anything, he was mad he got fired for doing his job well and is angry he seemed to be the sacrificial lamb to help explain Woods' struggles on the course post-divorce.

Williams might as well have told the audience, "How dare this black so-and-so fire me?"

Williams may as well have said that, except HE DIDN’T SAY THAT. To get this point you have to make a ton of assumptions:

-You have to assume Williams made the comment in a manner intended to be racial.

-You have to assume Williams has private thoughts which are much more racist than this one comment and this one outward comment was a small representative of the private thoughts Woods has towards minorities.

-You have to assume Williams is still bitter he was fired by Tiger Woods.

-You have to assume Williams did not like being fired by Tiger Woods because Tiger Woods is black and not for any other reason.

-Then you have to assume he was expressing his dislike for being fired by a black man by quickly allowing his long-held and previously unseen private racial toxicity to be seen in public.

-Finally, you have to assume the best method Williams had of expressing he didn’t like to be fired by a black man was to threaten to shove an award up this black man's ass.

And that is racist.

In the completely fictional conclusion you have come to, that would be racist. It would also be racist if Williams had come to the podium in black-face wearing a red shirt, eating fried chicken, drinking grape soda and then pretended to have sex with a porn star while screaming racial slurs. That would be very racist. Of course, much like actually Williams saying he didn’t like to be fired by a black man, this didn’t happen.

JemeHill should be embarrassed to write like this. She is not even misconstruing Williams’ words, but is actively making up words Williams never actually spoke and then gives them a reason behind Williams saying these fictional words based on beliefs we don’t know for sure that Steve Williams actually has.

Woods, who spoke of the incident for the first time on Tuesday, also characterized his former caddie's comments in the same manner.

"Stevie's certainly not a racist," Woods said in advance of the Australian Open.

Tiger, JemeHill thinks you are just turning a blind eye to the racist situation she just singlehandedly created. Since you do not agree with her position, and because there is no way she is wrong, you are in denial about race in America.

I don't know what's in Williams' heart,

Apparently you do since you just wrote an entire column speculating what you believe Williams actually believes and meant by his comment. You can’t write an entire article speculating and dissecting what Steve Williams said, while creating racial undertones, and then say you don’t know what is in Williams’ heart. Your writing says something different about what you think you do and do not know.

so I can't address his overall attitudes toward people of color.

Which, again, you just did address his overall attitude toward people of color.

And considering how much Woods has spent his career trying to be racially neutral -- despite arguably being the most noteworthy person of color to play professional golf -- it isn't surprising that he would once again sidestep anything involving race in his response to Williams' comment.

Or Tiger Woods may actually believe Steve Williams isn’t a racist and didn’t intend this comment wasn’t racially motivated, but he believes it was just a really poor choice of words. JemeHill thinks this is nonsense, because by not agreeing with her point of view, Tiger is just in denial. She feels there is absolutely no possibility she is misunderstanding the situation or her point of view is wrong. That would be impossible.

It was Tiger who reportedly told racially insensitive jokes to GQ writer Charles Pierce in a 1997 profile that followed his historic Masters win.

If Tiger tells racially insensitive jokes to Charles Pierce for an article then imagine the filth that comes out of his mouth in private!

(Cue joke about porn stars and weird sex games that Tiger probably played with his mistresses while he was married)

At some point, Woods has to understand that no matter how many cute nicknames he devises to explain his complicated ethnicity, and no matter how much he'd like to pretend his race is not an issue,

Yet again, JemeHill struggles with what words actually come out of a person’s mouth and what these words mean. Tiger never said race wasn’t an issue, he just didn’t have a problem with Williams’ comments from the point of view of race.

it still matters to some people.

Like JemeHill. Because if she couldn’t write about race then she would have nothing else to write about. So the conclusion JemeHill has reached is Tiger Woods pretends race is not an issue and that is why he didn’t find Williams’ comments to be racially-tinged. I realize race matters to some people, but JemeHill is really stretching to go from Steve Williams saying he wants to shove an award up Tiger Woods’ black asshole to Williams meaning he couldn’t believe he got fired by a black golfer.

JemeHill has to understand no matter how many assumptions she wants to stretch out in order to get to the “real” meaning behind Williams’ comment, no matter how much she’d like to pretend Williams’ comment meant more than an urge to shove something up Woods’ butt, it doesn’t mean her point of view is correct.

7 comments Jemele Hill Writes a Column Saying a QB's Race Is Still a Factor, Thereby Helping To Make Race for a QB Still a Factor

JemeHill, as we all know, enjoys talking about race factors in her columns. Sometimes she is pretty good in what she writes, other times she is less than good with what she writes. Today I think she is less than good. She talks about a quarterback's race is still a factor in the NFL. Of course by writing this, she helps to make sure race is still an issue for a quarterback. I don't think all discussions of race should be swept under the rug because they are still relevant, but too many of the discussions are intellectually lazy. JemeHill's discussion on Cam Newton and Mike Vick is an example of one of these intellectually lazy discussions.

I feel like there are times JemeHill wants there to be a double standard for black quarterbacks so she will have something to write about. In the article I am about to cover she is complaining that Mike Vick, a quarterback who has gotten two $100 million dollar contracts in his career is treated differently because of the color of his skin. Maybe that’s true in some parts of the United States, but he is also treated differently in the NFL because of his immense skill set.

The reason Touré's ESPN The Magazine piece entitled "What if Michael Vick were white?" is stirring such an emotional debate

Is because it is race-baiting at its absolute worst?

Is because it takes a complicated issue and intentionally introduces controversy in the debate simply to sell magazines?

Is because it is a lazy way to discuss a complicated issue?

Is because most sports journalists would be ashamed to put their name to a column that so obviously tries to be controversial by initiating an irrelevant and ridiculous discussion that is based purely on speculation?

is that a lot of African-Americans just innately believe that white people's actions -- whether they are failures or successes -- are perceived differently by the mainstream.

Ben Roethlisberger will be called a rapist by opposing fans for a good portion of his NFL career and he has never been convicted of rape. He definitely isn’t beloved by NFL fans for a crime he wasn’t convicted of, yet this stigma continues to follow him. So Vick isn’t the only quarterback who got in trouble with the NFL and isn’t beloved by fans. The difference is that Vick actually got convicted for his crime and Roethlisberger did not, but both got convicted in the court of public opinion. I understand African Americans can believe Vick gets treated differently, but the fact he was convicted for a crime he admitted to doing and wasn’t immediately forgiven doesn’t mean the mainstream is racist. Besides, if you are indicating mainstream opinion is an intelligent and well-thought out position then you haven’t looked at the Top 40 music chart in the United States from to week-to-week.

When Tim Tebow bowls over a couple of defensive players for a touchdown in a meaningless preseason game, it's considered a display of his toughness and leadership. But when Vick launches himself at Troy Polamalu after throwing a costly interception, it's considered risky and stupid.

This is why I call JemeHill’s point of view to be intellectually lazy. She takes two hypothetical incidents like this and creates racial undertones where they may not be any present. She reaches a conclusion without looking at the entire incident.

The first biggest difference in these two incidences is that Tebow is a much bigger guy than Vick, so running over a defensive player is something his body could better handle.

The second biggest difference in these two incidences is that Tebow is on offense trying to score, so using his big body to score is using his skill as a quarterback on offense for his team’s benefit. Mike Vick launching himself at Troy Polamalu after throwing an interception is Vick playing defense (essentially) and he is launching himself in the air at a defender who is bigger or of equal size to him.

The third biggest difference isn’t even a difference because it is an incident that JemeHill conveniently ignores for the sake of making her point. In the Panthers third preseason game, Cam Newton, who from all appearances is not a white quarterback ran over two Bengal defenders on the way to scoring a touchdown. This was a highlight plastered all across ESPN and Newton was lauded for his ability to score like this.

This is exactly why JemeHill is being absurdly lazy in an effort to try and prove a point that doesn’t exist. Take “Tim Tebow” out of the sentence above and put “Cam Newton” into the sentence and that is exactly what happened in real life. Exactly the same. It was a meaningless preseason game. He launched himself at defenders to score a touchdown and was lauded for toughness and leadership. Newton isn’t white and JemeHill ignores this in an effort to have reality achieve what she wants people reading her column to believe.

The same goes for appearance. The Denver Nuggets' Chris "Birdman" Anderson, who is white, has so many tattoos that you can barely see his actual skin. And despite a troubled past that includes serious drug abuse, he's a fan favorite who is characterized as a free spirit.

But that wasn't the way a lot of people felt about Allen Iverson, whose tattoos and diamond necklace were airbrushed out when he appeared in the NBA's publication, HOOP magazine, in 2000.

So we are going 11 years back to find a time when a magazine airbrushed out Allen Iverson’s tattoos and diamond necklace in order to prove a point? Yet again, these aren’t necessarily similar situations. JemeHill tells there is a double standard because Chris Anderson is treated well by fans, while Allen Iverson one time had his body and jewelry airbrushed by a magazine.

Much like the Vick/Tebow example above, JemeHill is using two different sets of criteria to attempt and point out a double standard. She compares Chris Anderson's treatment by the fans to Allen Iverson's treatment by a magazine. HOOP magazine doesn't speak for NBA fans as a whole, especially since Iverson long had one of the best-selling jerseys among NBA players and was loved, even more so than Chris Anderson, by fans.

We try to pretend these double standards don't exist, hurling the phrase "race card" at one another that cheapens any kind of contextual racial discussion.

Hurling the “race card” seems to be what the first couple paragraphs of this column were all about. I come to this conclusion based on the fact JemeHill tried to prove a double standard by using two situations between white and black players that weren’t analogous to each other. Her first example was disproven to be true just a week or so ago and her second example basically consisted of saying, “Fans like a white player with tattoos, but one time a black player with tattoos was treated badly,” while ignoring the black player with tattoos is probably more beloved than the white player with tattoos.

There was an understandable outcry after Richardson proclaimed on "The Charlie Rose Show" that before he made Cam Newton his franchise quarterback-in-waiting and the NFL's No. 1 overall pick this year, he asked Newton if he has any tattoos or piercings.

Oh yes, the story that people knew back in April but the media just picked up a few weeks ago. As a Panthers fan I don’t care if Cam Newton has tattoos and understanding the business side of the NFL I can see why Jerry Richardson proclaimed his dislike of tattoos to (the possible) face of his franchise. The idea an employer can tell his employees what to look like, what to wear and how to behave isn’t foreign to most of the citizens in the United States. To JemeHill and anyone else who needs fodder for a column this is a huge story that needs to be addressed right now.

Clearly, Jerry Richardson as the owner is close-minded for not wanting Cam Newton to get tattoos or piercings. Quite possibly Richardson is close-minded, but when the Panthers signed Jeremy Shockey he expressed his displeasure at Shockey’s tattoos. One of Richardson’s favorite Panthers of all-time from a personal perspective is Steve Smith, who also has tattoos. I think Richardson in his “old man who was born before World War II” way was trying to say he doesn’t like tattoos to a player who currently did not have any, not make a statement on race relations in the NFL.

Depending on what you've read, Richardson is either just a concerned capitalist or an outright racist.

There is absolutely no in-between. Jerry Richardson is either an outright capitalist or huge racist. Way to draw a line in the sand when it isn't required.

In his column addressing the flap, my good friend Dave Zirin wrote, "No word if he then checked Newton's gums" -- a pointed reference to how blacks were physically appraised by prospective owners at slave auctions.

By saying that, Dave Zirin has managed to perform a journalistic feat that is the envy of JemeHill. Zirin managed to make a classless comment which reflected as poorly on him as it did the subject he was talking about in a pathetic attempt to increase his pageviews by further sensationalizing a story. That's what frustrating is there can't even be an honest discussion about a column that says shit like this. He's taken a situation where the owner of a football team said he would rather his quarterback not have tattoos or piercings and turned it into an example of a slave auction. All for publicity of course, which is funny because I had not read this comment until now, but apparently it worked because JemeHill linked her good friend's column on ESPN.com.

But Richardson wasn't being a racist. He was doing Newton, who will start the Panthers' final preseason game Thursday, a favor.

Here comes the part where JemeHill creates a fake argument and then disproves it.

"Everyone thinks Andrew Luck won't be a quality NFL quarterback without Jim Harbaugh as his coach but here is why he will be."

If you've been listening to any of the discussion generated by Touré's piece on Vick, it's obvious that some people will never forgive Vick for operating and financing a dogfighting operation despite the two years he served in federal prison for the crimes.

THAT is the takeaway for JemeHill on the "what if Mike Vick were white" discussion? Some people will never forgive Vick for operating and financing a dogfighting ring? She read the article, which had a ridiculous premise in the first place, and thought, "Boy, people certainly won't forgive Mike Vick for financing a dogfighting operation." Perhaps I give her too much credit.

There are white players the public will never forgive for their crimes as well. Ben Roethlisberger is a great example. He's not beloved by many fans, outside of Steelers fans.

I love that very nearly the same day JemeHill posted this article, Vick got a $100 million dollar extension. It's hard to argue he gets a bad rap or is held to a different standard when he gets handed an 8 figures contract...for the second time in his career. Regardless, it doesn't matter because JemeHill isn't interested in an honest discussion about black quarterbacks and how they are perceived. She is interested in pushing through her point of view, no matter what other realities may say.

Now, the primary reason Vick has reclaimed fans and generated another $100 million contract is that he's one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL.

I am pretty sure this part of the article was edited in after it was announced Vick got the $100 million contract so JemeHill could stammer around and explain how a quarterback who is receiving his second $100 million contract is held to a different standard.

So Vick is held to a different standard than white quarterbacks, but not really because his performance level on the field is so high? So is there a double standard or not? If JemeHill is arguing there is a double standard for black quarterbacks based on their level of performance, this goes for every quarterback in the NFL. If Matt Schaub gets arrested next week for hitting a woman in the face, he will be much more beloved in one year if his performance stays at a high level. That's just sports.

But let's credit Vick's image overhaul for assisting in his career resurgence, too. Perhaps he's been coached by a public relations professional; but in his interviews now, Vick appears much more polished than he was in his Atlanta Falcons days. He is saying the right things and seems more thoughtful.

So again, is there a double standard for Vick? Because that was the argument JemeHill is attempting to further, but now she is stammering around saying, "Well yeah, but he's a great player and he's changed the public's opinion of him...he's more polished now."

Don't say there is a double standard and use Vick as an example of this double standard and then back your way off using him as an example. So we are to believe a black quarterback who has a great public image and performs at a high level won't be treated differently than a white quarterback? That goes as well when comparing a white quarterback to a white quarterback. Just think about the perception of Matt Ryan compared to that of Jay Cutler. Cutler doesn't give a shit what people think, while Ryan doesn't have the chip on his shoulder that Cutler does. So Ryan gets more of the benefit of the doubt from fans and the press.

Whether his willingness to be a spokesperson for PETA is genuine or a well-crafted ruse, it likely factored into Nike's decision to reinvest in an endorsement contract with Vick.

I think JemeHill destroying her own argument right now.

Not that Newton has done anything as heinous as Vick -- it'll garner a big shoulder shrug from me even if it is one day revealed that he took money while a player at Auburn -- but Newton nonetheless should be taking notes on Vick's transformation and heeding Richardson's words.

Why would Newton take notes on Vick's transformation? They are completely different players and Newton hasn't been arrested (lately) for a crime nor has he been to jail. I'm confused.

It isn't clear if the Panthers owner ever asked Jimmy Clausen, the team's incumbent starter, or any other white quarterback, about having tattoos or piercings.

That's because Richardson doesn't have to.

Oh I get it! There isn't really a double standard, but in the absence of proof let's just assume there is one. Let's also ignore that Clausen has outperformed Newton in the preseason and Newton has been handed the starting job. JemeHill doesn't want that to be relevant.

Does it count if Richardson had called Clausen "doughboy" in reference to his weight? Well, he did. I wonder if Dave Zirin and JemeHill chalk this up to Richardson's slave auction tendencies?

Clausen could get "thug life" tatted on his stomach like Tupac and it would either go largely unnoticed or just be fodder for a "Saturday Night Live" skit.

Again, JemeHill didn't do all of her research to know Richardson is very outspoken at times about his players. He called Clausen "doughboy" for his physical appearance. So we just ignore that when discussing comments Richardson made on Newton's physical appearance?

But if a prominent black athlete -- especially a high-profile quarterback, the No. 1 overall pick and the de facto leader of the team -- has tattoos or piercings, it takes on an entirely different connotation.

Maybe it does for some people, but Richardson's comments to Jeremy Shockey about his tattoos and his comments about Clausen's physical appearance show to Jerry Richardson it doesn't matter what color a player is or what position he plays, he pays attention to a player's physical appearance.

Newton's first goal is to help the Panthers win games, of course. But his next one should be to take advantage of all the opportunities that come with being the franchise guy.

In asking Newton about his tattoos and piercings, Richardson wasn't subjugating him. He certainly was looking out for the best interests of his franchise, but he also was approaching Newton businessman-to-businessman.

Wait, wait, wait. So there is a double standard for black quarterbacks in the NFL, as seen how Jerry Richardson treated Cam Newton and how Mike Vick is treated fans, except there isn't really a double standard?

There's a reason the majority of franchise quarterbacks in the NFL carry themselves a certain way,

This is what I don't enjoy about reading JemeHill's columns. So is there a double standard or not? It seems like JemeHill is saying there isn't a double standard and Richardson treated Newton the same way he would treat another franchise quarterback in regard to his image.

Richardson supposedly told the heavily tatted Jeremy Shockey he could "do without the tattoos," but last I checked, teams weren't hinging their franchises on tight ends.

So knowing this, perhaps it is overreacting a bit when a comparing Richardson to a slave owner at an auction? Of course, I am sure Dave Zirin didn't care to do any research and wrote a column he thought would cause the most controversy and could get his name in the mouths of the public.

More is expected of a quarterback. And more is given to a quarterback, too.

So basically JemeHill has talked her way around this issue so much we have no clue what she actually believes. One minute she is talking about a double standard for black quarterbacks, the next minute she is saying there isn't a double standard, then she doesn't seem to disagree with an article comparing Richardson to a slave owner, and finally she is saying a lot is expected of a franchise quarterback so it comes with the territory.

Richardson already is a successful businessman. He understands that how you present yourself is as important as what you know and how you perform.

Especially if you're black.

What? I'm not saying there hasn't been some sort of double standard in the past, nor may there be one in the future, for black quarterbacks. Nearly everything JemeHill wrote towards the end of this column when discussing Cam Newton discusses how franchise quarterbacks are held to a different standard than other NFL players, so Newton is also held to that standard. Then in the last sentence, she makes a statement that Newton will be held to a higher standard without really describing to us how this is true.

A franchise quarterback is supposed to hold himself publicly to a certain standard, so if there is any double standard JemeHill has shown, it is for quarterbacks, not just black quarterbacks. I think JemeHill has failed to really provide any evidence in this column that Vick and Newton are being held to a different standard from white quarterbacks. She may be on the right track, but she has possibly chosen the wrong way quarterbacks to prove her theory.