5 comments Buzz Bissinger Does a Bizarre Second-Hand Story In-Depth Profile of Nick Foles; Wants Foles to Be Less Boring Apparently

Philadelphia Magazine commissioned Buzz Bissinger to do an in-depth profile on Nick Foles. It turns out Buzz did this in-depth profile about Foles, his childhood and his experiences in the NFL without talking to Foles' parents nor Nick Foles himself. I'm not exactly sure how this works, but it seems hard to do an in-depth profile without access to three major players that can give the story depth. Obviously an in-depth profile can be done without access to the subject, but without access to the subject's immediate family and rely entirely on those who knew Foles in high school? Not college, high school. Sort of seems like this was a project better left uncompleted. Who better to give Nick Foles' story depth than he and his family? Still, Buzz pushed on and continued the story. Why did Buzz Bissinger write this story? "Friday Night Lights" of course. "Friday Night Lights" is a book based in Texas and Nick Foles is from Texas. Buzz is like that one-hit wonder band that goes up on stage in a club and talks about the one hit they had and how it opened so many doors, despite the fact the band is onstage in a club playing to 200 people at the current time. Anyway, here are my favorite parts of this in-depth profile of Nick Foles...an in-depth profile written without the whole "depth" thing that seems so crucial. Bissinger pays in kind and tries to provide as little depth in his analysis of Foles as a person and football player.

In a school of remarkable achievement and affluence, Nick Foles perfectly fit the Westlake socioeconomic profile and was its BMOC. He was the quarterback of its football team, the Chaparrals, on their way to the Texas state championship game in the highest 5-A classification. He was equally gifted in basketball; he’d started as a freshman. His girlfriend, Lauren Farmer, was a standout cheerleader and homecoming queen.

By the way, most of this profile could be summed up by simply having Buzz Bissinger write, "Nick Foles isn't like most other quarterbacks in the NFL who grew up as the star of his football team. He's not flashy, doesn't enjoy the spotlight and comes off as boring."

If Buzz did this then it would sum up about 1000 words into just one sentence. Also, a lot of this reads as, "This one guy who played football in high school with Foles said..."

But Foles pawed around the edges. The only middle he was interested in was a football huddle, 

(groans in pain at this last half-sentence)

and even there, he led by the example of his toughness and arm, which gave receivers chest bruises.

Apparently the chest pads in Texas are really shitty.

The truth was, Nick Foles was something of a nerd, a guy who hung around with a small posse of mostly non-football nerds — eggheads, kids who would go on to careers in finance and private equity and engineering.

I find it interesting that someone who goes into engineering, private equity and finance would be called a "nerd" by Buzz. So does Buzz consider a nerd to be someone who doesn't play sports? Otherwise, a person can go into finance and not really be a nerd. It's clear Buzz doesn't know too many people in these professions or he would realize these aren't careers for eggheads or non-football nerds.

“Dude, come on, you’re the quarterback, go out and have some fun,” high-school teammate Matt Nader pleaded with him, fruitlessly.

I feel like quotes from high school teammates that Foles probably can't remember too well at this point really gives this story little depth. These aren't quotes from Foles' teammates who played with him in college, but played with him in high school. People change from high school to their mid-20's. Not that this should stop Buzz from just assuming Foles is the exact same now as he was in high school of course. This article has to be written, potential accuracy be damned. Buzz needs the cash.

He was the kid you wanted dating your daughter, because he would have her home at 9:30 after you said 10. He was socially awkward, with a naive and goofy sense of humor. He dressed as if he had never seen clothes before. His hair was oddly styled in an ersatz pageboy, curling below his ears like a drainage ditch and covering his forehead in uneven wisps, thin grime on a windshield. His face was a cup of Napoleon Dynamite and a tablespoon of golly-gee-willikers and a teaspoon of Gomer Pyle.

He was boring. Rinse, repeat a few times in this column. You get the point that Buzz keeps repeating.

He tried at school, and even took Latin.

What a nerd! Foles seems like such a nerd to Buzz that he's surprised Foles didn't try to have a career outside of sports like all the other nerds did.

During his senior spring-break trip to Mexico, while most everyone else spent the afternoon recovering from drinking, he jogged, because there was nothing for him to recover from. He threw a football around with a kid from the Austin area. When Nick asked the kid to name his favorite player, he said, “Nick Foles!” But the kid didn’t recognize that he was having a catch with the actual Nick Foles. And Nick Foles was too reticent to tell him.

One more time...this is early in this in-depth profile and Buzz is already restating what he's already said, just using a different example. It's that kind of article. Foles can be boring and non-flashy. We get it. It's not a character flaw.

But he is still quiet. He still leads by example. He still plays video games. He still wears the hair suit of humility. He still pathologically refuses to do anything that draws attention to him. It’s admirable. Actually, it’s boring. It’s unrealistic and annoying now, self-subsumption as a form of conceit.

And of course Buzz knows this expert analysis of Foles as a person from the zero hours he spent with him in writing this story. But hey, a few guys Foles knew in high school and wanted to have their names in print agreed, so it must be true, right?

I asked Nick Foles for an interview for this story. My request was rejected. According to his agent, Justin Schulman, Foles doesn’t want to do anything at this point that highlights his success and not the team collectively. Uh, it’s a little late for that, son, given that you’re the hottest-rising quarterback in the NFL. You are the attention draw.

Yeah, Nick Foles. You have no right to pick and choose which interviews you are going to do. You are a star and are up for public consumption no matter whether you like it or not. Along with that, you have to do every single interview or else the author of that interview will take offense and do a hack-job based on second-hand sources who knew you almost a decade ago. Hey, you are the one that caused this mess by existing, so don't blame Buzz.

I was asked to do the story because of the enormous common bond that Foles and I share: Texas high-school football.

Yes, this enormous bond is based on the fact Buzz wrote a book one time about high school football in Texas, a book which came out LONG before Foles played football in Texas. If that's an enormous bond then I have an enormous bond with Jason Schmidt because one time I saw him in a mall in Atlanta. We were both shopping there.

He’s defined by it, and I memorialized it in the book Friday Night Lights. The request for his time went from a couple of days to a couple of hours anywhere in the country. This story isn’t about wrenching sensitive secrets. It’s obvious and legitimate.

This story is about being able to call Foles "boring" without actually spending time with Foles. After all, Buzz can write an article where a bunch of people who used to know Foles call him boring and the author calls Foles boring too despite never having spent time with him. It's lazy in a "I need to write this article and I'll be damned if anything will stop me, such as the information I have about the subject may not be entirely accurate" way.

Is he capable of leading the Eagles to the Super Bowl one day? Was the 2013 season aberrant? How will he handle the pressure? Fans need to try to figure out what ticks inside him to remotely know any of the answers.

This profile was crucial to the Eagles winning the Super Bowl this year. Congratulations Nick Foles, you have just cost your team the Super Bowl by not being interviewed by Buzz Bissinger. Your insistence on focusing on the team has now cost your team. Your fans don't understand you, so that means you can't win a Super Bowl.

Instead, what has emerged is a one-dimensional choirboy caricature reflective of a player and a team and a league terrified of individuality.

Seems fair. If a three-dimensional profile isn't possible, just print a one-dimensional profile. I mean, Buzz needs the money and Philadelphia Magazine wouldn't mind the publicity. It's not Buzz's fault this profile is one-dimensional, he was forced to write it rather than realize it is unfair to write a one-dimensional profile and not make cash as a result. Money over Foles.

Foles is selling himself, and being sold by the born-again Eagles, as the anti-DeSean: contrite, non-charismatic, cautious, churchgoing, Caucasian. The perfect poster boy for Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie and commissioner Roger Goodell’s vision of a new NFL theme park where players have no discernible personality and the Twitter account is laced with Glories to God.

If true, this is horrific. Athletes who are quiet and don't try to draw attention to themselves? It's the end of sports.

I don’t believe this is all there is to Nick Foles. I definitely don’t believe it after spending extensive time in Austin talking to teammates and coaches and parents in the roots of Texas and high-school football that so define him.

Buzz spent EXTENSIVE time in Austin talking to people who don't really know Foles all that well now. He could have spent 10 years in Austin and if he didn't talk to Foles or Foles' family then he's only getting second-hand information about Foles by only speaking with Foles' high school teammates.

TO KNOW NICK FOLES, you go back to the base.

Or you could interview him in order to know him. If that's not possible, then you don't really know Nick Foles.

Which means going to the community that encompasses Westlake High School. Its predominant zip code, 78746, is an Austin equivalent of Beverly Hills, 90210. Its population of some 27,000 is small and homogeneous and oppressively white...The median house value in 2011, $610,800, is roughly five times the Texas average. The median family income of $167,295 is almost three times the state norm. There are 82 families who own five or more vehicles, and 1,251 who live in homes with five or more bedrooms.

Buzz spent extensive time on Wikipedia finding these statistics.

Foles didn’t have a single black teammate when he played his senior season in 2006.

Nick Foles is racist like Riley Cooper! No wonder Cooper had such a great 2013 season, he had a fellow racist throwing him the football.

This says nothing about his or anyone else’s racial attitudes. It does say that Foles grew up in a bubble of entitlement and shockingly narrow social experience.

I guess it would be too much for Buzz to acknowledge Foles doesn't have a bubble of entitlement. That's not part of this profile. It's too neutral-y to fit into what Buzz has written.

A large number of students at Westlake are the sons and daughters of lawyers and doctors and high-tech capitalists and private equity managers and business executives.

It's a city of nerds.

No one will ever say that Nick Foles is snotty. But he is obviously white, 

Very observant of you, Buzz! Maybe you didn't need to actually interview Nick Foles to see what makes him tick. You obviously have insights into him like this one.

His high-school teammate Matt Nader tells me that the best way to assess the rising fortunes of the Foles family was by observing the improvements made to their house over the years.

Matt Nader also said, "You are going to use my name in this profile, right?"

Currently assessed at $1.5 million, it was hardly a rancher when the Foles family bought it in the late ’90s. But over the years, the basement was finished and a new garage was put in, according to Travis County appraisal records. Then came the uncovered deck and a first-floor porch almost the entire length of the house.

Buzz also spent extensive time at the Register of Deeds and the permits office researching this information. No matter what you think about Nick Foles, Buzz Bissinger has uncovered the secret of the Foles family increasing the value of their house, which was to constantly improve the curb appeal of it. Investigative reporting at it's best. So when did the Foles family plant new flowers in their garden? I wonder how this reflected their socio-economic standing through the years? Was it a two-car or three-car garage and did the family have a riding mower? HOW OFTEN WAS THE MOWER'S BLADE SHARPENED?

It was Larry, better than any coach or recruiter or pro scout, who knew how good Nick could be if he was pushed. So Larry pushed, perhaps because his whole life has been about pushing. He was the kind of parent who tried to make not only every practice at Westlake High, but also every junior-high practice.

It seems Buzz spent some time at the "Bill Simmons School of Unnecessary Italics."

Raised in Petal, Mississippi, Larry Foles had nothing growing up. He told hiladelphia Daily News Eagles beat reporter Les Bowen (Larry Foles and his wife, Melissa, also declined to be interviewed for this story) that his parents split when he was 13, prompting him to drop out of high school and move to Oregon in the early ’60s to work manual labor for 90 cents an hour. He returned to Mississippi and became the general manger of a Shoney’s.

Is the Hiladelphia Daily News a cheap knock-off of the Philadelphia Daily News? Apparently Buzz was so busy researching land records and interviewing that a friend of Foles' father he didn't have time to write a "P." There's only so much extensive work Buzz can do. Something has to suffer.

When Nick signed a letter of intent with Arizona State University before his senior season, it was Larry who made initial contact with the school, as opposed to the other way around. When Nick decommitted from Arizona State and went to Michigan State University in 2007, Larry got an apartment in East Lansing. When Nick was deciding whether to leave Michigan State after a year, it was Larry who became his spokesman.

In an age where "family friends" and "advisors" help a college athlete make decisions, it's not so bad that Larry Foles helped make decisions for his son is it?

Hager did manage to corrupt Foles just a bit, late in their senior year: Foles conducted an ultimately losing battle with cognac and vermouth and ended up facedown on the carpet, mumbling incoherently to his girlfriend on his cellphone.

It seems doubtful it has happened since.
 
Which is a shame.

I would have absolutely no idea why this is a shame. Nick Foles chooses not to drink. It's his decision. Whether he drinks or not has no bearing on his ability as a quarterback. Fail by Bissinger.

THE GREATEST ATHLETES all have arrogance; no matter how thick the playbook of humility, it still seeps through

Really? Tim Duncan. Derek Jeter. Tony Gwynn. I can go on.

You can see it and you can feel it. Except with Foles.

This is a lie, right? Buzz didn't see or feel it with Foles, mostly because he didn't interview him at all for this profile.

Michael Vick is a great guy. It was an extraordinary team effort. The offensive line deserves all the credit.
 
Give it a little bit of a rest, kid.

Yeah, stop being unselfish so Buzz has a more interesting article to write. It's your obligation as an NFL star to give Buzz something interesting to write about.

But there’s still an aura of softness about him, no fire. Maybe it’s the hee-haw face. Maybe it’s the stream of selfless platitudes about others. Maybe it’s that at 25, he’s still very much a boy among men with the Eagles, with no interest in the extracurricular world of clubbing.

There's something wrong with Nick Foles because he doesn't meet Buzz Bissinger's idea of what a great quarterback should be. The problem with Foles is he can't meet Buzz's expectations. Based on Buzz's extensive research, this is a problem with Foles and not with Buzz himself.

Or maybe it’s the reality that if he fails in football, he has the likely cushion of going into an enormously successful family business. It’s the intangible hunger factor that appears to be missing.

From earlier in this article:

His son has inherited his relentless work ethic; during June and July, when Westlake players work out on their own, it isn’t unusual for them to hit the weight room. Teammates watched agape as Nick Foles toiled in an hours-long regimen of throwing and running in the lugubrious Texas heat.

Nobody can deny Nick Foles’s toughness, at six-foot-five and 240 pounds. He played the last 12 games of his senior year at Westlake High with a torn labrum in his throwing shoulder without telling anyone or complaining about the pain.

Yeah Buzz, about that...

I'm sure Foles has worked his whole life as a quarterback not caring whether he actually made it or not to the NFL, because there's always the option of going into a different business. I'm sure that's a logical conclusion to be made here.

Teammates remember him being hurt a lot of the time. “What’s the deal with Foles?” was the sentiment of wide receiver Staton Jobe. “Is he going to be injured his whole career?”

Well yeah, because he's soft.

Foles broke the career passing-yardage record at Westlake held by Drew Brees, throwing for 5,658 yards. But he wasn’t a hot recruit. The rap was that he was too slow, a system quarterback in a school that has produced nine quarterbacks who have gone on to play that position in college football since 1992 — at best, he was a backup.

So it absolutely makes sense that Arizona State recruited him and then he ended up at Michigan State. Who has ever heard of those schools?

Duke made an offer, which back then was slightly better than being chosen last in a pickup game. Texas El Paso sought him out, which was the Gulag. The major Texas schools weren’t interested.

What an embarrassment to only have two D-1 schools interested in you. Who would want to play at a D-1 school? Interesting how these two schools were the only ones interested in Foles, except he ended up at Arizona State magically.

Signing with Arizona State became a mess when the coach who wanted him, Dirk Koetter, was fired and replaced by Dennis Erickson, who in turn was so impressed by Foles that he went out and recruited another quarterback.

I love how Buzz writes, "...he wasn't a hot recruit" and then it's like, "Well, after he ended up at Arizona State..." I am under the impression Arizona State is a pretty good school for football.

Also, college coaches recruit multiple quarterbacks in one recruiting class all the time. This isn't college basketball where a player can be recruited over in his own class. It's completely conceivable that Dennis Erickson loved Foles, but he wanted to recruit another quarterback for that class. This happens very, very frequently.

After walking away from Arizona State, Foles signed late in the recruiting season with Michigan State. He got into the first game of the season in 2007, and that was all.

Foles continued his trend over loserdom by appearing in a game as a freshmen, which obviously happens all the time.

He was competing with Kirk Cousins (a redshirt) and Brian Hoyer, both future pros.

Using Bissinger logic, the fact Michigan State signed Foles meant they didn't think highly of Kirk Cousins. I think you can see how stupid this logic is.

Foles transferred to Arizona. He battled with Matt Scott for the starting job and lost it, until Scott played poorly and Foles got his chance. The team went to two consecutive bowl games under Foles, in 2009 and 2010. His senior year was a team disaster. He put up great numbers, throwing for 4,334 yards and 28 touchdowns. But Arizona won only four games.

Mostly due to Foles' lack of toughness and the fact he always had the fallback of working for his dad...obviously.

The newest rap was that Foles had played in a gimmicky offense with few sophisticated reads. But he was named to the Senior Bowl and, in his typical pattern, was so lackluster in practices that several draft experts showered praise instead on Brandon Weeden.

This is the same Brandon Weeden that was drafted in the first round. I feel like this deserves a mention since Buzz seems to indicate draft experts showering praise on Weeden was unusual or indicative of Foles being terrible.

Foles then played, with the best performance of any quarterback, and was thought to be a possible first-round pick. Then he made the single worst mistake of his career. He entered the NFL combine.

Among quarterbacks entering the draft in 2012, Robert Griffin III ran the 40-yard dash in 4.41, Russell Wilson in 4.55, Andrew Luck in 4.67 and Ryan Tannehill in 4.62. Foles’s time was 5.14 seconds — the worst of the quarterbacks who entered. Pro Football Weekly called him a “lumbering pocket passer” who gets “panicked in the pocket” and said he “is consistently off the mark” and “is not an inspiring field general,” on a par with former fifth-round pick John Skelton of the Arizona Cardinals.

This analysis of Foles also mentioned he may need time to adjust to the NFL game, which turned out to be true. This of course doesn't help push the narrative Buzz wants pushed so it gets left out.

Foles still doesn’t inspire full faith among fans. He shouldn’t. One-year wonders in professional sports form an endless chain. He was unknown last year, and the unknown is often a player’s best asset until it becomes known.

Of course on the flip side of this, Buzz criticized Foles not giving his time for an interview by stating,

Uh, it’s a little late for that, son, given that you’re the hottest-rising quarterback in the NFL. You are the attention draw.

So Buzz seems to be confused as to whether Foles is an unknown and should be doubted or he is the hottest rising quarterback in the NFL. I guess it can be both, but it's interesting how Foles becomes a potential one year wonder when Buzz isn't arguing about Foles' obligation to do this interview.

When Chip Kelly talks about Foles as the franchise quarterback, it always feels like he’s lying, because he’s both good at it and a smug wiseass.

I don't think Kelly should be worshiped in some circles like he is, but I think this is a bit judgmental.

Foles isn’t a pressure quarterback. He lost the state championship in high school, lost both of his bowl games, and looked confused in the second half of the loss to the New Orleans Saints in last year’s playoffs.

And of course it's all Foles' fault his team lost these games. 

In 17 pro starts, he’s thrown only one game-winning touchdown pass in the fourth quarter or overtime. (Compare that to Andrew Luck, who threw six in his first two seasons.) Sometimes he just flings it up there in the hope that someone is around to catch it, although without DeSean Jackson, that’s become far less likely. The Eagles also played a weak schedule last year.

Along with the in-depth profile of Foles, we get this in-depth analysis of Foles from Buzz. I wonder how many times Foles has had the opportunity to throw a game-winning touchdown pass in the NFL? Not that his ability to throw a game-winning touchdown pass should matter in a dick-measuring contest completely reliant on opportunities to throw a game-winning touchdown pass of course.

A&M scored early in the game to take a 7-0 lead. Westlake came back with a 16-play drive that consumed roughly seven minutes. As Paul Nader and Barbara Bergin — he a nephrologist, she an orthopedic surgeon — 

Both nerds in the mind of Buzz Bissinger.

Foles and Nader came off the field. Nader went to the bench with the other offensive linemen. Offensive line coach Steve Ramsey came over to critique what had gone right and what had gone wrong during the drive. An ice towel was placed on the back of Nader’s neck. He suddenly fell and landed on his back with his cleats still propped up on the bench. It was so bizarre that Hager thought he was joking and told him to get the fuck up.

Larry and Melissa Foles were there. They watched, like their son. A whisper shuddered through the sidelines that Matt Nader was dead.
By some miracle, Westlake carried an automated external defibrillator to games. There was no state requirement at the time to have it on the field; it had been given as a gift. It had never been used — another piece of equipment lugged around by the trainers. But it was charged and ready to go.

There came a pulse.

He came to consciousness. An hour later at the hospital, there was nothing wrong with Nader. He was fully alert. It all seemed so freakish and unreal. Except that he would never play another down of football. He had gone through ventricular fibrillation, a condition in which the heart stops pumping blood. While there was no certainty it would happen again, the risk was too great.

I'm really glad Matt Nader is okay, but this story doesn't serve a purpose other than to reinforce what was already known about Nick Foles. He's a nice guy and treats others kindly. This is the sort of story that gets told to Buzz Bissinger through his interview process and he knows he needs it somewhere in the story, so he shoehorns it in wherever possible as tangentially related to Nick Foles.

So maybe Nick Foles doesn’t have the edge of Peyton Manning. Or the come-from-behind fearlessness of Tom Brady. Or the gravitas of Drew Brees. Or the feet of Russell Wilson, or Colin Kaepernick, or …

He carries with him the fragility embedded into everything. The dividing line you never know. 

And again, Buzz knows this by interviewing people who used to know Foles well in high school and not by actually having spent time with Foles. I know these sorts of profiles happen all the time, but in a situation where the author is imparting characteristics onto his subject he finds to be true, it usually helps to actually interview the subject as confirmation these characteristics are indeed true.

But unless he stops being chickenshit and goes into the middle, he will never guide the Eagles to the place that only tantalizes us.

Russell Wilson
Joe Flacco
Eli Manning
Brad Johnson
Peyton Manning
Mark Rypien
Trent Dilfer

I can go on, these are a short list of boring quarterbacks who won a Super Bowl. These are quarterbacks who won a Super Bowl without being flashy or trying to gain the spotlight from his teammates. It's not an all-inclusive list. Basically, I have no fucking idea what Buzz Bissinger is talking about.

We are tired, Nick. We are already dependent on you. So man up to be the man.

So as soon as Foles puts himself before the team then the Eagles can win a Super Bowl? Unfortunately history has shown this assertion to be incorrect.

Sidle up to a bar on the road and order a slug of single malt, not a double shot of milk. It’s okay to address LeSean McCoy as “Shady” instead of “Sir Shady.” Don’t ever publicly say again that your favorite movie is The Lion King.

If there were a list of "Non-relevant items as to whether Nick Foles will ever win a Super Bowl" these three items would lead the list.

Acolytes get to heaven. Strut gets you to the Super Bowl.

As seen by the list above, this is absolutely untrue. Strut doesn't get you to the Super Bowl. Playing the quarterback position well does get you to the Super Bowl and Nick Foles played the quarterback position well last year. Maybe next time when ascribing personal characteristics to a subject during an in-depth profile it would help to talk to that subject or his parents. You know, it seems less bullshitty and a little bit more like any negative comments aren't only made out of frustration the subject wouldn't grant you an interview. 

4 comments Buzz Bissinger Thinks the NFL Sucks and Wants to Turn the NFL Players Into Girly-Men

When I think of Buzz Bissinger, the very first thing I think of is an angry old man screaming at bloggers. The second thing I think of is just how incredibly manly and tough he comes off as being on the television and in print. It's this very obvious toughness that caused him to write a column saying the NFL sucks, and even if it didn't suck, the sport is unwatchable because football doesn't require the players to be as tough as Buzz is. Actually, Buzz says the NFL has "Namby-pamby rules," so whatever that means, that's what Buzz really thinks about the NFL. Good burn, Buzz. Good burn.

The National Football League regular season ended Sunday …

Awaiting punchline...I'm sure it has something to do with the NFL being "namby-pamby."

If you were interested in the social ramifications of the murder-suicide by Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher (none),

It's almost been well two months since Jovan Belcher killed his fiance and then killed himself. That's not really that long of a time. Yet Buzz thinks the social revolution to ban all weapons and stop domestic violence entirely hasn't worked, so there's no point in continuing the fight. Buzz thought we could get all domestic violence stopped at the very most a week or two after Belcher killed himself and his fiance. Clearly no one cares anymore, since social change is so easy to do in such a short time span.

the continued debate over concussions (point taken), a possible rule change to dilute a game already too diluted (terrible idea),

"We need to eliminate concussions as much as possible, but keep the game as violent as it currently is. There's no way these are contradicting statements."

and this amorphous thing called the NFL culture,  in which players act violent off the field because they are violent on it (duh), then it was maybe the best regular season ever.

I love how Buzz takes "the NFL culture" that a small percentage of NFL players participate in and then uses it to just say players act violent off the field because they are violent on it, like this doesn't go for other sports as well. There are plenty of NFL players who don't act violent off the field, just like there are plenty of baseball players who act violent off the field even though they don't play a violent sport. I don't know if NFL players act more violently than athletes in other sports, but there are NFL players who aren't violent, and violent athletes who play other (non-violent) sports.

If you were interested in the quality of play—watched only out of Pavlovian habit or fantasy football or gambling—then the 2012 season ranks among the worst. 

This is an opinion, not a fact. Don't pass off your opinion as if it were fact. I enjoyed the 2012 NFL season. Maybe that makes me a "namby-pamby" person.

Not as bad as the 2011 season, in which a Pop Warner second-stringer could have passed for 5,000 yards because of defenses neutered by rule changes and stripped of aggression. But close.

In conclusion, Buzz Bissinger thinks every NFL season sucks. So we should obviously listen very intently to him when he says the 2012 season was boring, since he has such an open mind and doesn't seem to just dislike the NFL. 

On Monday seven coaches got fired, and it should have been eight, with the New York Jets’ beyond-bombastic Rex Ryan.

Let's try to hang with Buzz Bissinger as he desperately attempts to prove his next point. Buzz says seven head coaches got fired and it should have been eight head coaches that got fired. So based on this statement, Buzz seems to not have an issue with these seven coaches being fired, and actually thinks there should have been eight head coaches fired.

Owner impatience is one reason, 

Wait, so if these coaches deserved to be fired then the owners really weren't being impatient were they? In fact, Buzz doesn't seem to think the owners were impatient enough because he also thinks Rex Ryan should have been fired. So he shouldn't say the owners were impatient when he thinks more head coaches should have been fired.

but so were listless teams that played such quarterback studs as Ryan Fitzpatrick, Nick Foles, Brady Quinn, and roughly 35 different ones from the Arizona Cardinals.

And the 2012 season was, of course, the first season where mediocre quarterbacks started any games for NFL teams...which is why the 2012 season was no good. No NFL teams had ever started shitty quarterbacks prior to this past NFL year.

The NFL is troubled. It’s not because of concussions or violence off the field

I think Buzz meant to type, "It IS because of concussions or violence off the field" because that's a much more accurate statement. 

or the league’s own politically correct, pussy-whipped ad campaign for improved safety.

Apparently Buzz's solution to the concussion and violence off the field issues is to make the game less safe overall, which would decrease player's safety. I'm not sure how that makes sense.

I'm not going to argue the league isn't working hard to make it seem like they care about player safety, but the NFL isn't in trouble because of the ad campaign for improved safety. The NFL is (potentially) in trouble because the league has a violent product. The NFL has had to adapt based on the litany of ex-players who are having their lives changed for the worse physically because of the time they spent playing in the NFL. The NFL is in trouble because the public is realizing more and more football is an inherently dangerous game and players are going to be severely injured playing the game, whether it is in the short-term or the long-term, no matter what the NFL tries to do. I don't like the kickoff moving up five yards, but I get why the NFL did it. They have to try and adapt to make the sport 5% less dangerous, or otherwise the sport would really be in trouble. The product is still watchable, no matter what Buzz says.

It is because the product itself is largely unwatchable, too many dull teams playing too many other dull teams,

There are always dull or shitty teams. The product is still watchable. The NFL has had to balance the fact it is an inherently dangerous sport with attempts to improve player safety. It's not exactly easy to do, but the measures they have taken can be frustrating at times (like the discussion over whether an offensive player moved his head and caused the helmet-to-helmet contact a defensive player got called for), yet the product is still very much watchable. It had to be changed in response to the concussion issues that ex-players were experiencing after their playing career was over.

I'm not sympathizing with Roger Goodell, but this is the balance he has to strike. On one hand you have those like Bill Simmons who criticize him for not paying attention to concussion issues early enough or doing enough to prevent players from experiencing concussion-related issues. On the other hand, you have those like Buzz Bissinger who thinks the game is being pussified and the changes are making the game unwatchable. He has to keep the violent spirit of the inherently dangerous sport while also increasing the safety of the inherently dangerous sport. I don't sympathize with Goodell, but he can't and won't please everyone.

the only excitement now guessing the halftime entertainment at the Super Bowl and which performer will trip or simply keel over from old age. Or wondering if the day will ever come that Tim Tebow throws an incomplete pass still in-bounds.

I hate to make a generalized statement (ok, I really don't hate it), but if you didn't enjoy the NFL this year then there is a possibility you don't like NFL football. This has been an exciting year for NFL fans. New stars have been drafted, new (and old debates) have started, and this is a year where there isn't one dominant team in either conference that seems destined to make the Super Bowl. So if Buzz doesn't find excitement in watching the NFL this season, it is possible he just doesn't like to watch the NFL. I am sure he would argue he does like the NFL, just not with the current rules, but that's a cop-out. The game hasn't changed all that much from five years ago. The NFL has cracked down on hits to the head, they don't allow defenders to man-handle receivers and are overall more concerned with player safety, but the game isn't unrecognizable.

Football is violent because it was designed to be violent. Football hurts because it is meant to hurt. 

I 100% agree with this statement. Football is a violent sport that is designed to be violent and is difficult to play any other way. The problem that Buzz fails to grasp is that the NFL has to stay violent while also working harder to protect the NFL players. I'm not pushing the panic button, but the NFL had to make changes to save face in light of the concussion lawsuit brought by ex-players and the documented suicides of ex-NFL players caused by depression. Some of these suicides have been speculatively linked to concussions. Football is violent and to ensure the sport didn't go the way of boxing Roger Goodell and the NFL had to make tweaks to the game as opposed to putting their head in the sand hoping these concussion problems go away. Football is violent and that's the problem. If we want to still watch football on Sundays then the NFL had to change.

Hitting is not for the faint of heart, and I proudly number myself among the cowards after getting slammed into the ground on a missed tackle in eighth grade that I still remember.

Right, imagine getting slammed into the ground 20-30 times in a game by an overly-grown man (who weighs 220-300 pounds). That's the nature of the NFL. It is violent, but had to change slightly to endure as a sport. The fact Buzz admits he is a coward only shows that his tough guy act in calling the NFL "namby-pamby" is a farce.

But some of the referee calls this year in which contact was so clearly incidental, defensive linemen gyrating into contorted ballet to not touch the quarterback but still getting flagged, were ridiculous.

Like most things in life, we can blame Tom Brady for this. Defenders aren't allowed to make contact with a quarterbacks head or dive at his knees. The way the NFL protects quarterbacks was a big issue prior to this season, so Buzz's whining about how the NFL protects quarterbacks didn't cause the 2012 NFL season to be no good. Buzz is just being crotchety.

Football still is football, but every year it edges closer to a tamped-down ersatz version thanks to Roger Goodell, the Mother Teresa of professional sports commissioners.

And yet, Buzz still misses the point that the NFL had to change or face more concussion-related lawsuits and a backlash from certain sectors of the public. Adapt or die. The NFL couldn't go allowing helmet-to-helmet hits to continue unabated while pretending to care about their player's safety. Of course that isn't the issue here. Buzzs think the NFL shouldn't have done anything at all to make the sport less violent, which not only isn't realistic, but also shows a fundamental ignorance of the player safety issues the NFL faces.

If Mother Goodell

Catchy nickname. I'd also like to point out Buzz is using a off-shoot of Mother Teresa's name in a negative light. Mother Teresa spent her lifetime helping out those less fortunate and more needy, but to Buzz Bissinger this just showed how pussified and weak she was.

has his way, don’t be surprised if “huddles” become “meditations,” “timeouts” turned into yoga breaks, posturpedic mattresses placed in the pocket to further protect the quarterback.

Buzz is the same guy who took one hard hit as an 8th grader and quit playing football forever. This is the guy who is complaining that football is becoming too soft. Admitting he is a wimp shouldn't cause the fact NFL players aren't wimps and this takes a toll on their body over the long-term to be ignored.

Now there is serious talk about banning kickoffs. Kickoffs are adrenaline-spiked kamikaze, players running at full speed trying to decapitate each other. 

Based on that description I can't see why the NFL would look to ban kickoffs.

It seems that Buzz has a fundamental inability to understand how and why the NFL is trying to make the sport safer. Yes, football is an inherently violent sport and to remove this violence is to change the sport so basically it would no longer resemble football. Yes, I get there are people who think the NFL has gone too far to protect players, but this is something that needed to be done (dramatic voice inserted) to save the sport. Football will always be violent, but the last thing the NFL needed was the perception they don't care about the players, so they tweaked the game to make it a slightly safer sport.

Stop watching the sport if you don't like the changes. I used to love the NBA and rarely missed a game, but some of the rule changes and changes in the way the game is played makes it no longer my favorite professional league to watch. The NFL had to change in some ways. I don't always like it, but I also think the players understand the new rules and the sport hasn't been changed so much to me that it is no longer recognizable. Again, Buzz is being crotchety. I hate the new kickoff rule, but when Buzz describes it as,

"adrenaline-spiked kamikaze, players running at full speed trying to decapitate each other"  

I can see this statement as an argument to eliminate the kickoff entirely.

Journeyman players whose only skill is total disregard for their bodies become legends, albeit short-term ones. It’s part of the visceral thrill, and no single play in football can shift momentum more than a kickoff return for a touchdown.

And there still are kickoff returns for a touchdown. If you notice, Buzz has slowly changed this article from "The 2012 season stunk and the league is becoming namby-pamby" to "I hate change and the NFL is ruining the product, but I still think concussions are an issue yet want to ignore that because I have a 3pm deadline to meet and can't think of anything else to write."

If that’s the case, it is only fair that other sports surrender—no more pitching inside in baseball for fear an errant throw might hit a batter, no more body checks in hockey, no more headers in soccer, bowling balls made of papier-mâché for the sanctity of those pins taking such brutal beatings.

Let's hold back the reins a bit you little drama queen. None of these sports, outside of maybe hockey, have had so many documented cases of ex-players having experience health-related issues after their playing days like NFL players have. Terry Steinbach isn't walking around in a daze or threatening to kill himself because he got beaned in the head 20 years ago. Pele isn't in a wheelchair due to too many headers during his playing days.

The evidence does mount that not only concussions but repetitive hits in football (how the hell are you going to get rid of that?) can have terrible after-effects.

The NFL knows this, which is why they are cracking down on helmet-to-helmet hits and trying to make the game as safe as it possibly can be. Buzz can't acknowledge the effect of concussions on NFL players and then claim the league is becoming namby-pamby and protecting players too much. He has to see the financial and societal reason for the NFL making the rule changes.

The adoption of a new rule pushing kickoffs from the 30 to the 35-yard line did result in 20 concussions in 2011 as compared to 35 in 2010. If you subtract kickoffs, the number of concussions rose from 235 in 2010 to 246 in 2011, although part of that increase may be due to more stringent reporting.

"May be due to more stringent reporting." May be? I would say this increase is directly and unequivocally connected to the more stringent reporting. Teams are becoming more and more aware of the signs of concussions and are focusing more on what concussions symptoms after a game is played can look like. With increased knowledge of concussions comes an increase reporting of concussion symptoms. There aren't necessarily more people with AIDS than there was 30 years ago, it's just there is a greater awareness of the disease.

Head injuries are an occupational hazard of the game.

I 100% agree players know what they are getting into. I also think the fact the players know what they are getting into isn't any reason to not try and make football safer.

A study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health showed that pro players from the 1960s and 1970s, and 1980s had lower mortality rates than the male general population.

Well that just proves football is really safe then, doesn't it? What this study doesn't include is the assumption pro players are more physically fit than the male general population, which would explain the higher mortality rate of the general male population. Being fat and out of shape kills people too. This study also doesn't include the quality of life of pro players versus the general male population. I'm not sure how to include this, but just because pro players aren't dying doesn't mean their quality of life isn't worse than the general male population.

To improve player safety and still maintain the necessary bloodlust spectacle of the game, the answer lies in better equipment, not in continued politically correct dilution. Some say helmets cannot be improved, but in the age of technology and advance medical discovery we live in today, that’s balderdash. 

Namby-pamby balderdash to be exact.

Goodell also has to get off the increasingly wearisome holier-than-thou kick. He recently opposed instituting sports betting in Atlantic City. It may please the holy rollers who also own an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons for Armageddon, but football would be a higher form of bocce ball without gambling.

This really has nothing to do with why the 2012 season wasn't very good. This is what happens when you give a crotchety old man a forum to complain, he can rarely stay on topic.

It needs gambling, given the swill we are forced to watch.  

There have been exceptions this season. Minnesota Viking running back Adrian Peterson may go down as the best runner in NFL history, and the same with Denver Bronco quarterback Peyton Manning after leaving the Indianapolis Colts.

How about the fact there are five outstanding offensive rookies that came into the league this year? How about the fact there are exciting second year quarterbacks in the NFL? None of this excites Buzz apparently. Things were better back in the good old days, whenever the hell that was.

But ponder the playoffs this weekend, and do you really want to see Christian Ponder at quarterback for the Vikings (17th in the league with a 53.8 total quarterback rating as calibrated by ESPN)?

Yes, I do. I saw Brad Johnson/Trent Dilfer win a Super Bowl and T.J. Yikes win a playoff game last year. Christian Ponder won't be the first or the last mediocre quarterback to lead his team to the playoffs. There have been plenty of other mediocre quarterbacks who have done this same thing in the past, so Buzz has no point.

As good as they have been, do you really trust two rookie quarterbacks in Robert Griffin III (6th) of the Washington Redskins and Andrew Luck of the Colts (11th), still young mixtures of exciting and woeful?

What the hell does it matter if I trust these quarterbacks or not? This doesn't make the NFL any less exciting to have two rookie quarterbacks (actually three) starting games in the playoffs. Does Buzz has some bizarre idea that the NFL can only be exciting when the best quarterbacks are all in the playoffs? Then why he didn't he like the 2012 regular season? All of the great quarterbacks played during the 2012 season, so Buzz should have thought the regular season was very exciting. You know, 2012 isn't the first year some NFL teams had shitty quarterbacks.

Does Houston Texans quarterback Matt Schaub (14th) do anything for you, given that he has thrown three touchdowns in the past five games? Or Andy Dalton of the Cincinnati Bengals (22nd)? Or Joe Flacco of the Baltimore Ravens (25th)?

The playoffs are not just about what quarterbacks are matching up against each other. Football is a team game and the playoffs are exciting because of the teams that are playing each other. The playoffs can't simply be dismissed as boring because every quarterback in the playoffs isn't elite based on an ESPN rating for that quarterback.

The big guns—Manning and New England Patriot Tom Brady and Atlanta Falcon Matt Ryan (maybe)—have first-round byes.

So the 2012 NFL season would be less boring if these elite quarterbacks didn't have a first round bye and had to play in the first round? Also, if both Brady and Ryan were playing with concussions this would prove they aren't namby-pamby pussy-boys and Buzz Bissinger would then feel like the NFL was worth watching again.

But last year’s Super Bowl winner, the wildcard New York Giants, tripped into the playoffs with a record of 9 and 7. Two years before it was the wildcard Pittsburgh Steelers. The last time the team with the best regular season record won the Super Bowl was the Patriots in 2004. Parity has become pariah.

Yes, it is terrible the NFL has a system set up where every NFL team feels like it can compete at the beginning of each year. As much as Buzz bitches about NFL parity becoming pariah, the Giants have won two Super Bowls in the last five years, the Patriots have been to two Super Bowls in the last five years, and there have been consistently good teams in both the AFC and NFC over the last decade. So there is parity, but it isn't like every NFL season is just a crapshoot. The NFL has good parity in that you know some of the these teams that will be good, along with teams that surprise and make the playoffs.

So just make sure your local bookie is on speed dial.

But gambling isn't endorsed by the NFL and this is why the 2012 NFL season was no good, boring, and namby-pamby. Well, along with the NFL trying small changes to prevent it's players from experiencing short and long-term health issues that Buzz acknowledges exist, yet can't seem to make the connection between the financial and societal repercussions these health issues could present if the NFL didn't make these small changes. I don't like all the changes, but the 2012 NFL season didn't stink because of these changes. If Buzz thinks the NFL stinks it could be because he doesn't like the sport.

3 comments Here's a List of Things Buzz Bissinger Hates about the Olympics

Buzz Bissinger decided to kick off his columns about the Olympics by writing a column about all the things he dislikes about the Olympics. There are some things in this column I would agree with him about, but the things he doesn't like were so amusing to me, I had to post them. Buzz dislikes the Olympics in his crotchety "old man waving a fist at the sun" way that he seems to have perfected over the past few years.

Like the Burt Lancaster character in Louis Malle’s film Atlantic City, who gazes at the seedy resort shore and says wistfully, “You should have seen the Atlantic Ocean back then,” I too long for the Olympics back then.

"Back in my day, sprinters had to sprint 200 meters to complete the 100 meter dash."

"We couldn't use poles in the pole vault, we were given the branch of a tree, and we liked it better that way."

"Sometimes during an swimming event there would be fish in the pool...and it made our swimmers better than swimmers today."

"I miss the days when we could compete against Commies!"

Three of those are fake statements and one statement Buzz Bissinger really states in this column.

I miss terribly the 60s and 70s and part of the 80s when the Russians and the United States were athletically trying to kill each other, since by some miracle both countries realized that dropping the bomb was not a good option.

"Mr. Gorbachev, build that wall back up."

I'm not sure what kind of person would miss the days when two countries were at silent war with each other and one move by one country that drew the ire of the other country could cause a nuclear war...but that person who misses these days is named Buzz Bissinger.

It was fun to hate the Soviet Union.

Life for a sportswriter is better when there are black and white "good guys" and "villains." The narratives write themselves rather than having to create your own narrative or (if worse comes to absolute worse) having to use your brain to write a column without a narrative.

The medal count meant something then, not what it does today since the Chinese, being the Chinese, purposely excel in obscure sports that no one else cares about with the exception of gymnastics

We all miss the days when the world was on the brink of a nuclear war. The medal count did mean something then. Real quick without looking it up, which three countries won the most medals during the 1976 Olympics and how many medals they win? Because the Olympics meant so much back then.

Call me Ishmael, but I don’t care about the synchronized-diving competition the Chinese won yesterday, except trying to figure out how exactly one decides to go into synchronized diving.

Probably the same way one decides to go into sports journalism. Also, quoting commercials for AT&T where a dude runs while listening to an audio book makes about as much sense as why a person would run listening to an audio book.

Much like I wonder how one becomes a beach-volleyball official from Egypt—an economic outgrowth of the Arab Spring I suppose.

Because before the Arab Spring, no one from Egypt had ever thought of doing anything with their life other than herding camels and staring at huge pyramids all day. So I'm sure this Egyptian beach-volleyball official has a job opportunity because of the Arab Spring and for no other reason.

I even miss the East German team when it was fun to figure out who exactly was a woman and who exactly a man and who exactly was both or neither.

Other country's cultures are so funny. It's not like that in America where it is easy to figure who is a boy and who is a girl.

I'm not sure if this comment by Buzz is more sexist, ethnocentric, a combination of the two, or something I should just shake it off and chalk up to a guy who tries to write a column about the Olympics like he is an 80 year old living in an MTV world.

I am not in London. Like most of you I watch on television or my iPad, and I do so with great confusion.

Let me help clear up your confusion. The Olympic athletes you see on your television or iPad are not really that small and they can't hear you if you talk.

the NBC primetime version tries to give the deranged illusion that the events they are showing have not taken place yet, although they have, and you have to be an idiot not to know who has won. It strikes me as similar to the NCAA taking away 101 victories from Penn State even though they won 101 victories.

The NCAA took away 101 victories from Penn State as a punishment. Yes, Penn State won those games, but they will no longer get credit for those wins. We know Penn State won those games, but they don't count as wins anymore on the official record. NBC is not showing some events live and are pretending they are live. Again, smart people know they are not live. So I guess my remark to Buzz's remark is he doesn't have to mention Penn State in every column.

I have nothing against beach volleyball; America’s Misty May-Treanor is an incredible athlete. I find her instincts and dexterity and outstretched dives to keep the ball in play the single best Olympic performance, but I just don’t know if beach volleyball is a sport

If Misty May-Treanor is an incredible athlete and displays athletic skills while playing beach volleyball, then how is beach volleyball not a sport? It's clear it takes athletic ability, team work, and a competitive nature to play beach volleyball. So how is beach volleyball not a sport if it requires instincts, dexterity and athletic ability?

and there are virtually no rallies. Bing. Bang. Boring.

There are plenty of rallies and the rallies are more exciting in beach volleyball than team volleyball because there aren't two other guys jumping up in the air pretending to spike the ball every time the volleyball goes in the air. Ding. Dang. Dumb.

It receives inordinate attention on NBC because men like it, praying no doubt that the training bra the competitors wear will fall off and breasts suddenly assume that sexy sandy look. It receives high ratings, but so does that weird show in which celebrities like Howard Stern and Howie Mandel hit a big button.

Of course nearly all of the primetime Olympic events get high ratings...even the ones where a boob popping out of a uniform isn't possible. Beach volleyball doesn't even receive inordinate attention compared to other primetime events shown like diving, swimming and gymnatics. Beach volleyball only receives any attention because Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh had not lost a set or a match in three Olympic appearances. Every time they play, they have a chance of continuing their historic run.

So no, beach volleyball gets a primetime spot, but doesn't receive inordinate amount of attention.

Things become more aggravating when I tap the Olympic Games’ iPad app that is supposed to give me video highlights of the previous day’s events. But I surrendered after two days of getting messages that the video doesn’t work.

Ugh!! Technology. Things were so much better when viewing yesterday's highlights wasn't even technologically possible. Buzz misses those days when he didn't even have a chance to complain about video of the previous day's highlights since that wasn't something he ever imagined he could do. My diamond shoes are too tight and my wallet isn't big enough to fit all of my fifty dollar bills!

The big events during this first week are in swimming, and unfortunately I have to say that the big guns of the men’s teams not only seem unlikeable but also choke artists.

Good job trying to be Skip Bayless. Ryan Lochte and Michael Phelps are just huge choke artists. Maybe they can think about this as they weep their choke artist tears into the gold and silver medals they are bringing home.

He didn’t train very hard for London, and it showed in his first race Saturday, leading any reasonable person to conclude that he didn’t want to be there in the first place and just should have retired.

Of course Phelps' following races completely disproved Buzz's theory based completely on one race. A reasonable person would give Phelps more than one race to prove he was in good shape. We all know Buzz doesn't exactly seem like a reasonable person. I don't like Michael Phelps that much, but he's spoiled us all with his performances. Collecting just a few medals at the Olympics feels like a let down for him, but it really isn't.

France for some reason has a very good freestyle-relay team, which given France, makes no sense to me at all. Skiing yes, but the performance in World War II is still hard to forgive.

Remember, Buzz gets paid to right things like this. Apparently Buzz believes France doesn't have access to chlorinated water in order to field a swimming team and World War II is what all athletic judgments should be based upon.

I am still searching for a personality that actually seems like a personality.

Buzz Bissinger only believes an athlete has a personality if he hates technology and believes the French are a bunch of weaklings who have no business fielding a swimming team. What's ridiculous is Bissinger complains he is still searching for a personality that seems like a personality, yet he talks about American athletes who have personality...it just seems he doesn't like these personalities. Here's what Buzz had to say about Ryan Lochte:

He seemed a shadow to his competitive nemesis, Ryan Lochte. The Florida native does have a certain charm, except when he drapes about on his skateboard during those insipid NBC bits with John McEnroe, who is wearing an undershirt for chrissakes. And when Lochte puts that silver contraption in his mouth, he looks like he's auditioning for Hangover 3.

What Buzz had to say about Michael Phelps:

Michael Phelps’s official Olympic photo, with scraggly beard and hair sticking out like professor Irwin Corey, was insulting. He does irritate me when he talks, a little bit too cool for school and obviously (also rightfully) thinking he is superior to everyone else, given his incredible past performance in Olympics. During an interview with Ryan Seacrest on NBC during the opening ceremonies that was unconsciously played instead of a tribute to the 52 victims of terror attacks in London in 2005, Phelps was asked if he would consider himself the best Olympian of all time if he won his 19th medal. He could and should have been gracious and contrite.

There are/were plenty of good personalities that NBC rammed down our throats. They rammed Missy Franklin, Gabby Douglas, and Rebecca Soni down our throats over the first week of competition. Of course what Buzz wants is flamboyance...

So far, my favorite has been the Italian fencer Diego Occhiuzzi, who after beating his opponent in the semifinals to guarantee a medal, went into such paroxysms of joy that I thought he might be having an epic Italian death rattle in the style of poisoning by the Borgias. The man knows how to win with complete ungraciousness.

I like that.

Unless you are Michael Phelps, in which case his lack of graciousness is a complete turn-off for Buzz. If you are Italian and not gracious, that's showing some great personality. Buzz is never very gracious with his consistency about athletes who show a lack of graciousness.

The games are not a bust. Lochte and Phelps can still find redemption.

Redemption for exactly what I don't know. Maybe Buzz thinks they need to find redemption for not winning gold in every single event they enter.

And remember that the mainstay of the Games, track and field, hasn’t started yet.

Why do we need to remember this? Buzz is the guy saying the Olympics are boring, have no personality and things were better back in his day when Russia and the United States hated each other. Buzz is the one who things the games are a bust, yet by telling us the game just started he reminds us just how stupid the premise and complaining, by Buzz himself, in this article truly was. Good job. You just outed the stupidity of your own column.

So stay tuned.

If you can figure it out.

Figure what out? Figure out why you like writing like an old codger? Figure out why the days when potential nuclear war made the Olympic games better?

What kind of editor reads this column and thinks, "Man I can't wait to post this. Great insight and great writing. Boy, he's right technology sucks and I wish Russia was still the United States' main enemy."

6 comments Buzz Bissinger Thinks We Need a Hero

Buzz Bissinger is getting all nostalgic on us. I know usually Buzz's idea of getting nostalgic probably involves some form of yelling or talking about Tony LaRussa, but in this case Buzz looked at a recent Sports Illustrated cover and got sad. This cover took him back to the past when players were characters and they were true heroes who had their misdeeds covered up by the media---I mean when the players didn't have every little thing they said scrutinized to death until they realize the best thing to say is absolutely nothing---sorry, I what I meant to say was Buzz remembers when players weren't only heroes but also characters. It's not like this now in his mind.

Of course, Buzz never considers in this article the major reason for this, which is the 24/7 news cycle and how any player that may be somewhat of a character has this surgically removed from his personality. There are exceptions of course, like Charles Barkley, Chad Johnson and Shaq. Still, Buzz wonders what happened to athletes who are heroes and personalities and doesn't even think the reason may be due the saturated media coverage of athletes.

I picked up the most recent copy of Sports Illustrated a couple of days ago. I rarely pay much attention to the cover, but this particular one enticed and would not let go.

(cue the theme to "The Way We Were"...if there was a theme to that movie)

It was a picture of Yogi Berra taken in his prime as a New York Yankee catcher, highlighted with the singular American beauty of a Rockwell portrait. One knee scraped the ground, the other one upright.

(begins tearing up)

The chest protector was paper-thin with the faded mark of “Spalding” in the top left hand corner. The leg guards were equally humble. So was the face mask.

These inanimate objects were humble, much unlike the face masks and leg guards today, which are always vying for the fan's attention during a game. I remember that time Brian McCann's right leg guard began smoking a cigarette mid-game in last year's National League Division Series. Why? Just for attention. That's what it has come to now for these non-humble pieces of equipment players are wearing.

How about Russell Martin's chest protector? The same one that got caught in bed with a prostitute? Not a humble chest protector, unlike Yogi Berra's chest protector which just hugged his rib cage and prevented tipped balls from cracking Yogi's ribs for the love of the game, not just to get special attention.

Maybe I was just in a mood of syrup-stricken nostalgia, but what I saw was the portrait of a hero who not only played the game with relentless competitiveness but was also one of sport’s greatest characters with the witticisms that floated out of his mouth.

Here goes the usual talk of, "Players today have no personality, they are just speak about their endorsements and don't really say anything of value, unlike players in the past who said a bunch of really funny things and boy I miss those days."

You know what though? Buzz is right. Players today have learned to have zero personality in an interview or involving any comments that player may make during/after/before a game or about any situation. I wonder why this is? Actually, I don't have to wonder. It is because any little comment out of the ordinary made by a player about a team/other player/fan/object will be blown up into a huge deal by the 24/7 sports news cycle. The introduction of SportsCenter at least 1-2 times a week involves some variation of "Hear what Player X said about Player Y" or "Hear what Player X said Player Y helped him with."

I think players today do show some personality. For example, Ray Rice publicly criticizes Hines Ward for his recent DUI and it turns into a public affair? Isn't that showing some personality? Ray Rice doesn't like players who drink and drive. At the bottom of the article linked is this comment from the writer:

I'll rank this exchange somewhere around 6,829th on the list of why Ravens/Steelers games are compelling. Nice try, though, fellas.

Nice try for what? Rice made a comment, the comment went public and now he is "trying" to do something? He was just commenting about a player who got a DUI, showing some personality, and the author seems to believe it was created for the purposes of controversy. I don't know why Ray Rice made the comment on Twitter about Hines Ward, but I really doubt it was to create a Steelers/Ravens controversy. That's my point. Any comment, no matter how little or big, will get in the public eye and dissected. The best thing for a player to say is absolutely nothing.

Let's say after the Mavericks won the NBA Finals, Dirk Nowitzki had gotten interviewed after the game about beating the Heat and what it meant to him. Here is some variation of what he probably did say at the time:

"The Heat are a great team with a bunch of great players. They played hard and we were fortunate to beat them like we did. They play tough defense and any time you go up against Bosh, Wade and LeBron you know you are in for a fight."

Here's what Buzz would want him to say and what Dirk would (hypothetically) like to say if he wasn't afraid of his words taking away from the Mavericks championship:

"It feels good to beat them since the focus was on them all year and all we heard was how many championships they will win. It was like they expected to win, and everyone else expected them to win, just by stepping on the court. When you get that many great players on one team, there's going to be holes on the roster and we beat the Heat because of this. I feel like I stepped up when I needed to and the guys on the Heat team who got more recognition than me stepped back."

What's the point of saying this? What can be gained? The media would possibly agree with Dirk's sentiments, but they would also play these comments on an endless loop for the next 24 hours. When/If the next NBA season begins, LeBron would be asked about the comments, Dirk would be asked about the comments, and a candid moment would be creating "controversy." It's better to just be non-specific and not create a distraction in the future.

But the athletes they chose all stood for something. They were characters—maybe naughty such as Joe Namath and Sonny Jurgensen, maybe fiercely proud such as Jim Brown, maybe tough as nails such as Jim Taylor and Sam Huff.

Athletes today stand for something. There are tough characters, naughty characters (naughty? Is Buzz British now?), and there are proud characters. Athletes today have charity foundations and do a ton of work helping out others in need. I know the perception is there aren't tough athletes now, but that can't be further from the truth.

They weren’t afraid to show their personalities, what made them more than flesh and bone.

I don't personally care about an athlete's personality. It's always nice for an athlete to have some sort of personality, but I don't require feeling like I "know" an athlete to cheer for that athlete and his team. To be perfectly honest, much of what we know about athletes back in "the day" is sugar-coated and so affected by our nostalgia for that athlete our perception may not even be accurate.

Back in "the day," athletes could make a comment and it wouldn't necessarily be mainstream media fodder for the next 24 hours and discussed on "Around the Horn," "Pardon the Interruption," every SportsCenter, and "Baseball Tonight." This happens today. Athletes would love to show their personality and there are a few that can break through and do this. Really, there isn't a whole lot of reward in being a character. You say or do something wrong, the 24/7 media cycle eats you alive.

Each of the athletes in the issue was featured in two pictures, one taken during their playing days, the other one in the modern day taken by Walter Iooss Jr. In a short interview in the magazine, he mentioned that he went to the players directly for the project as opposed to the method that is pretty much universal today, endless negotiation with the agent.

This statement is ignoring the fact the players who had their photos taken are all 65 years or older, so it is most likely they either (a) don't have an agent or (b) aren't used to having an agent. Concerning modern day players, then Iooss WOULD probably have to go through the player's agent to take a picture because there are a lot of people vying for that athlete's time. Concerning a 76 year old man like Sonny Jurgensen who is retired, you probably don't need an agent to take his picture. A more accurate comparison would be comparing the method of taking a picture of Peyton Manning as a 34 year old and a picture of Manning as a 75 year old. I'm betting when he is 75 years old you won't have to call Peyton's agent to get him to pose for a picture.

He is right. Getting to sports figures is like cutting through cords of prison barbed wire.

Getting to actors is also like cutting through cords of prison barbed wire. Getting to high level executives with a corporation is like cutting through cords of prison barbed wire. Nearly any highly paid celebrity or near-celebrity is a person who will not be easily accessed. This really isn't exclusive to sports figures. Also, easy accessibility doesn't mean a player has more personality.

And given the wishy-washy personality mush of gray pudding that is the athlete today, all of them sounding the same with those soporific, somnolent sound bites, I am not sure the effort of getting their cooperation is even worth it.

Again, I would argue the reason for this has less to do with the lack of personality in players, but more to do with the fact personality isn't encouraged on the field and off the field there isn't much advantage in having a personality because of the media coverage.

For example, the NFL has pretty much done all they can to ensure players like Chad Johnson, Terrell Owens and Steve Smith (Carolina) don't show personality in the form of touchdown celebrations. The NFL fined these players and outlawed celebrations on the field. This goes for defensive players as well. If they celebrate or do some form of a prepared celebration after a sack, out comes a flag and perhaps a fine. Teams can't do a prepared or coordinated celebration after an offensive or defensive touchdown either or out comes the flag and possibly a fine as well. The NFL has sucked the personality out of the players while on the field.

As far as players who speak and show personality, if you aren't Charles Barkley or Shaquille O'Neal then you probably can't get away with saying anything interesting. Rashard Mendenhall gave his thoughts after the death of Osama Bin Laden and because they didn't reflect the majority thought or opinion of the public, he was forced to apologize (somewhat). What's interesting to me is there are more outlets for athletes to interact with the public and be "real," but less incentive for them to interact in a "real" way with the public. Anything and everything that is said can be pulled into the news cycle as "news" and judged accordingly. There is really no incentive to say very much of substance.

“I loved football the most when you could see the players’ faces when there was mud on them,” Iooss went on to say. “Now they wear plastic masks and play on artificial turf.

Every player doesn't wear a plastic mask, so this is an untrue blanket statement. You can still many NFL player's faces under the mask. I also find it interesting in regard to the safety mandate the NFL seems to be attempting to achieve, I would think a safer helmet (and thereby one that has more protection for the face) would be something everyone, including Iooss wants. Yeah, it was great for a player in the 50's or 60's to have most of their face showing, but it isn't so great when a player takes a hit to the chin and bites his tongue in half or breaks his face.

Sports are bigger than ever. It occupies us more than ever. It is ever exploding. There are still routinely great performances. But behind those performances there is less and less human dimension, either colorful or heroic.

This is nothing but pure opinion being passed off as fact. I still think there are instances of the human dimension in a player's performance. It hasn't all gone away. I don't even really know what to say about the performance not being colorful enough. I'm not sure that is required for a great performance. This just sounds like incoherent whining from a person who misses the way he views sports in hindsight, but may not have viewed these sports that way at the time.

For example, there are so many moments I watched at the time and thought it was a great moment, but that moment's importance and drama has been magnified greatly in retrospect. David Tyree's catch against the Patriots was just a great catch at the time, while four years later it is one of the best plays in Super Bowl history. The Kobe Bryant-Shaquille O'Neal pairing with the Lakers was just annoying to me a decade ago, but now it is representative of two great players playing together at their peak before their relationship completely fell apart. Our opinion of a player/moment changes over time like this.

No men and women who speak with conviction, or are willing to take a stand regardless of risk,

Not Luke Scott, right? That's right, he doesn't count because we don't agree with him. Luke Scott speaks freely and is criticized accordingly for his views.

How about Steve Nash? Was his statement not definitive enough?

How about John Rocker? Again, we don't agree with him, so his speaking with conviction isn't the type of speaking with conviction Buzz wants to hear.

Carl Everett? What a nut job! He doesn't believe dinosaurs existed? Clearly, he's crazy then.

Actually, I'm not sure what Buzz wants to hear. I'm doing my best to remember older athletes, other than Jim Brown, that took a political stand or spoke with conviction while they were playing sports. I'm having trouble remembering too many. I'm sure there were quite a few, but especially given the social changes that have taken place over the last 60 years where athletes in the past had more reason to speak with conviction about injustice, I am not sure I believe today's athlete speaks with less conviction. If today's athletes do speak with less conviction, it is because speaking with conviction is craved by the media, mostly just so they have a chance to write easy stories and attack that athlete if they don't like that athlete's point of view. So unless it is a non-controversial issue, there isn't a reason to speak out with conviction for fear of criticism.

or are just delightfully funky and insane.

Again, this has been sucked out of athletes by agents because there is no advantage to being funky or insane. Still, a lot of this funk and insanity would not be seen that way now, but would be met with criticism. I bet Buzz thinks it is so fucking cute that Doc Ellis threw a no-hitter while he says he was tripping on acid. How funky AND insane!

Imagine if Tim Lincecum says he won a NLCS game stoned or he pitched in any game stoned. The reaction from the media, and probably Buzz, would be swift that this is not acceptable and is a terrible message to children. Funky and insane is now dangerous and a harm to society as a whole.

Babe Ruth's carousing with women and drinking is just a personality characteristic we loved about him. That Babe loved women and loved to do some drinking!

If a famous quarterback goes out and gets drunk and dates attractive women, well the media thinks he should just focus a little bit more on his job and less time being a lush. What was a personality characteristic for Babe Ruth is detrimental to the team now.

Athletes do occasionally post interesting and provocative tweets on Twitter, only to immediately retract them by claiming post-traumatic Twitter syndrome once there is the slightest whiff of controversy.

I love how Buzz is acting like these athletes get a little negative feedback and then get scared and retract the Tweet. In the case of Rashard Mendenhall, his employer actually came out and distanced himself from Mendenhall's opinion, which may have influenced the backtracking. Many outrageous comments wouldn't simply be blurbs at the bottom of a newspaper page anymore, which is only viewable to those who subscribe to the paper. The outrageous comments would be discussed and disseminated over the Internet in no time, with the appropriate judgments being made about that player and his comments.

I can't blame a player for holding back a little on the controversial comments. Assuming people even care about his/her opinion, why share your thoughts with a world when you can't control where those thoughts end up? If you can't control your own message and how it is interpreted, what's the point of the message? Especially in the case of athletes, who fair or not, probably don't have a hell of a lot of important and relevant things to teach me about life in general. So even if an athlete becomes outspoken on a topic he/she knows, his/her sport, there is a chance someone will be offended by the comments and let that athlete's employer, or another influential figure in that athlete's life, know it.

On MLB.com you can see highlights of any baseball game you want almost instantly after they have occurred, not to mention watching your favorite team in stunning clarity on your iPhone.

Not only is complaining about progress like this kind of stupid, but it is also completely off topic.

Sports are not color and character today. Sports are content, endless reams and reels of it. Athletes are also carefully trained in the Zen of nothingness.

This is because when athletes actually say something, it gets them in trouble. Buzz is about to rattle off cliches athletes use, these are cliches I hate, but I will put below them what the athlete wants to say and let's think how the 24/7 sports news cycle would run with these comments.

I was just lucky today.

AJ Burnett hasn't ever been able to get me out. I feel like I can get a hit off him anytime I want.

No player on that team can guard me.

I just came out feeling good today.

Really? You think Andrew Bynum can guard me? He's never been able to do before, why start now?

My opponent put up a heck of a fight today.

The Dolphins defense tried to stop me, but our offense is miles ahead of their defense. They really tried, but the fact we were able to score with ease should tell you how good the Dolphins defense really is.

This honesty and personality would not be a positive thing in the long run. The media loves loud mouth players because they create news stories.

I took time off from this column for a few weeks to finish the first draft of a book. What took place in Sportsworld in my writing absence?

I think Buzz has ADD. What took place in his absence really isn't relevant to the lack of characters and personalities in sports. We all know if nothing exciting happens in sports while Buzz is working on a book, then that must mean there aren't enough heroes in sports.

The lockout of the players in the National Basketball Association, the continuing lockout in the National Football League,

Yes, these lockouts are depressing, but let's not make the NFL and NBA lockouts into anything more than what they truly are. Disagreements among wealthy owners and players over how much money they will have to share in the next bargaining agreement. Both lockouts are only indicative that each side can't agree on how the money should be split and has nothing to do with a lack of heroes in sports.

an absolute snore of a Major League Baseball season in which the only excitement has been the soap opera of Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt versus baseball Commissioner Bud Selig,

This has been a pretty good baseball season if you ask me. I think the only people who criticize baseball every year are those who haven't paid enough attention to the season or just doesn't like to watch a lot of baseball.

and somebody whose name nobody in America can honestly pronounce winning Wimbledon.

If it ain't American, Buzz don't want to hear nothing about it! All these foreigners winning American sports is why there ain't no heroes anymore.

This would probably be a good to be bring up the fact Novak Djokovic is a tennis player with a pretty interesting personality and is successful in his sport, but I guess that doesn't count because to Buzz he is a foreigner.

Are there any athletes in the modern-day era of sports either truly heroic or just truly colorful?

Novak Djokovic. I know, I know, this doesn't count because Buzz doesn't like to watch sports. I don't see how his ignorance about the personalities in a certain sport can be ignored while he is lamenting the lack of colorful personalities in sports.

I can think of Pat Tillman, who left a budding pro football career to join the military and so tragically died in the mountains of Afghanistan from friendly fire. I can think of New York Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter on the basis of how he has played the game with the quiet intensity and class reminiscent of DiMaggio.

Oh, that's such bullshit. Buzz Bissinger really just compared Pat Tillman, who died while serving his country, to Derek Jeter because he plays the game of baseball with class. This is just ridiculous. I'm not sure which is more ridiculous though. The comparison of Jeter to a war hero or the cliche use of Jeter as a baseball player who plays the game with quiet intensity and class reminiscent of another Yankee who used to spend his time banging celebrities.

Actually the indirect comparison or putting in the same category of Jeter and Pat Tillman is easily the most ridiculous part of these two statements.

I can think of New York Jets football coach Rex Ryan, who has one of those brains missing the section that deals with self-censorship. But that’s about it. And in the same league with Yogi or Namath or Ali? Not even close.

And your point? Plaxico Burress guaranteed a Giants victory before the Super Bowl against the Patriots much like Joe Namath did in Super Bowl III. I guess that's not the same thing because it doesn't make Buzz nostalgic.

Maybe the lack of zest and spontaneity and heroism in sports doesn’t really matter. The recent NBA playoffs were marvelous.

So the current baseball season is a snore, but the NBA playoffs, where very few series (only 1 if I am not wrong) went to seven games and wasn't generally overly exciting was "marvelous?" I'm confused now.

Also, the zest and spontaneity has been taken out of athletes, so they don't really lack if, they just don't display it. Athletes also aren't heroic on a grand scale necessarily, but many athletes do great things for charities and those who are needy on a more micro-level. You known, "The NBA Cares" and stuff like that.

But LeBron is also hated because he did not turn out to be the throwback hero we wanted him to be. We loved the fact that he was a hometown kid playing for his hometown team. We loved the thought of him staying there forever and winning the championship.

It would have also been nice if he hadn't publicly announced where he was playing this past season during an hour long special, complained in Cleveland he needed a better supporting cast and then not stepped up when he did have one, and seemed to have bought the hype about his own greatness.

He has also left us searching for another hero, someone out there unique, someone out there refusing to follow the same lemming flow, someone out there willing to stay true to his roots.

Or maybe not seem like such a dick.

Everything seems to go back to LeBron James for Buzz Bissinger doesn't it?

You will be far better off buying the new Sports Illustrated and staring into the cover, looking for every crevice of detail in that picture of Yogi Berra, drinking in the nobility and the toughness and the eyes of lurking mischief.

Here's another reason why we don't seem to have as many heroes in sports nowadays. Sportswriters used to follow the players around, like they do now, except they covered up or did not report many of the athlete's misdeeds. Mickey Mantle was a great player, but with his drinking and off the field adventures how do you think he would do in today's game in dealing with the media? I'm guessing he wouldn't fare as well in the nostalgia department.

I would submit part of the reason many of these older players are seen as heroes is because that's the public perception fans were given of these players. Not that baseball players in the 50's and 60's were terrible people, but in the 24/7 sports media cycle of today, I would bet many of these heroic players would have even their smallest misdeeds or comments made public. The media seemed to view these players are heroes years ago, which is very much not true in today's sports. The media has a much more jaded view of players now I believe.

“It ain’t over till it’s over,” Yogi once said so famously.

If an athlete today were quoted as using the word “ain’t,” he would have his agent announce through Twitter that he was suing for libel.

Oh yeah, because athletes today are very uptight in making sure they use correct grammar in all things they do or say.

I have a feeling if he looked back in 15-20 years, Buzz Bissinger will be missing characters like Shaquille O'Neal, Chad Johnson and Terrell Owens, while wishing there were players who were outspoken and stood up for things like Steve Nash and Drew Brees did.

9 comments Buzz Bissinger Wants To Know Why Everyone's Hating On LeBron James?

Buzz Bissinger just doesn't get why no one seems to like LeBron James right now. He seems to believe many people are reveling in the Heat's loss NBA Finals to the Dallas Mavericks and blaming James for the loss. Well it's true, many are. It may not be right, especially to ignore the Mavericks great play and defense that led to them winning the NBA title, but some of the blame can be put on James. There are people who dislike LeBron James for a variety of reasons, the least of which are they negatively view "The Decision" and his perceived inability to embrace the spotlight in big games.

I haven't ever really liked James simply because he plays on teams that are rivals to my favorite teams and I think he is a bit of a phony. The reason other people are hard on James is he calls himself "King James," he wears a wristband that says "King James" on it, so he sets the expectation he will be great on the court. When he isn't, some people take pride in watching him fail. For a few years James wanted Cleveland to get him more help in the form of quality players and then he goes down to Miami as the help to join up with two other quality players and can't win a championship on his first try. That's one of the reasons LeBron is so disliked right now, but Buzz still doesn't get this.

I was listening to the press conference of Miami Heat coach Erik Spoelstra Sunday night after the team’s humiliating loss to the Dallas Mavericks in the National Basketball Association finals. I knew of the media’s perverse obsession not only with the dismal play of LeBron James but also with James himself.

Buzz "knew" of the media's perverse obsession with the dismal (LeBron really didn't play dismal) play of James. As a member of the media, Buzz was able to intuitively know about this perverse obsession the media has with James firsthand. Those crazy media members! Buzz is too good to play to this obsession the media has...or is he?

Buzz writes for "The Daily Beast" about once a week or once every other week. This column is the third time Buzz has written about LeBron James since March 11 and this encompasses 10 total columns over this span. So it seems Buzz either enjoys the pageviews LeBron James gives him or he has a small obsession with LeBron as well.

What's even better is on March 11, 2011 Buzz wrote a column titled "King James Can't Handle the Pressure." So at that point, it seems Buzz was one of the journalists writing about how King James was playing poorly (or at the Heat were) and he was one of the journalists obsessed with James' dismal play. Here we are now though, with Buzz wondering why everyone is commenting on James' performance and hating on him. Apparently Buzz saying LeBron can't handle the pressure was just motivating James and not criticizing him. See, Buzz was trying to make LeBron be a better person, not criticizing LeBron unfairly like all the other perverse obsessed journalists are. At least I am guessing that's how Buzz sees it or he had forgotten he wrote that March 11 column.

I still thought the first question at least would have something to do with the Mavericks and how well they had played.

These are questions asked by the media directed towards the Heat head coach remember. Not the Mavericks head coach. The media isn't there to hear from the losing team about how well the Mavericks played, but Spoelstra's thoughts on the performance of the best player on his team...the same team that was favored to win the NBA Finals and the same team that was assembled to win an NBA title in their first year together. So I think questions about LeBron James directed to Erik Spoelstra should be somewhat expected.

The first question was about James. The second question was about James. The third question was about James, all of them in the same vein of what went wrong with him and why had he been so lousy in the Heat’s six-game losing effort.

Yes, the media is obsessed with James' performance. Considering the fact LeBron James made a huge public display of going to Miami and trying to win championships, the fact he didn't win a championship is a big story. More importantly, it is a big story that was created, developed, and nurtured by LeBron James (or his handlers) since July of last year. So as much as I think the media overhypes nearly everything, it isn't like James is an innocent bystander in all of this. He made a huge public show of going to Miami, predicted multiple championships and then didn't seem to step his game up to win the first of those championships.

It was like that all through the finals for James, constant and withering criticism of his play, constant dissection of every comment and every body movement. Anthony Weiner’s sexting? James made him do it.

Yes, poor LeBron James should be a martyr for putting himself directly in the spotlight as wanting to win multiple championships with the Heat and then not delivering on the specific thing he had put himself in the spotlight for. This is what I am always complaining about. An athlete/public figure wants all of the public adoration when it is convenient to further their career, but they want privacy and the public to go away when it no longer fits their agenda. James can't shrink into the background when the time comes to win the title he came to Miami to win and expect no criticism.

Now I do think the James criticism is overboard at this point. James didn't play quite as poorly as many made him out to play and the Heat probably will win the NBA title next year. So it isn't like this was a one year thing where the Heat will/should be broken up. To lack the understanding of why the criticism is overboard is being intentionally blind to the truth...that LeBron James has craved and looked for the spotlight his entire career. It has made him millions of dollars and now the spotlight isn't in his favor, but this doesn't mean some of the criticism should halt.

Starvation. Drought. War.

James. James. James.

Let's cut back on the martyrdom for a guy who Nike used in an advertising campaign to make the Cleveland fans "Witnesses." It is hard to feel bad for a guy who is portrayed as a deity-type figure.

He truly is the most hated athlete in all of sports.

No, he's not. I personally still hate Brett Favre way, way more. Favre was on SportsCenter the other night because he was throwing a football with little kids. Apparently this is news. He needs to go the hell away.

Did you see that smile? What about the way he bent down to tie his shoelace? And how about guzzling from the water bottle during a timeout as if he was the only one who was thirsty? What a selfish bastard.

(Bengoodfella gives Buzz Bissinger five minutes to calm down and stop stomping his feet on the ground in a childish manner)

Yes, the criticism is overboard. Exaggerating the way the criticism has gone overboard serves no purpose. You won't ever see me write that LeBron James is done from an endorsement point of view, the Heat should break up their team or LeBron "doesn't know how to win," because that's stupid. But, with great power comes great responsibility (not to go "Spiderman" on you), so with the power LeBron had to have everyone interested in him going to Miami he also had a responsibility to follow through on what he promised. He just wasn't able to do that this year. There is an overabundance of criticism and criticism that is probably a little harsh, but when you paint yourself as a savior this criticism is going to come when you don't execute the savior role well.

The rats ate up every crumb, regardless of the significance. The goal was to maliciously condemn him, and to that extent the media rats got their wish:

This coming from the guy who wrote an article earlier this year titled, "King James Can't Handle the Pressure."

How about some quotes from this article. Remember, Buzz isn't condemning LeBron here, not at all. This isn't Buzz with what he calls in this article "a perverse obsession with the dismal play of James," because Buzz doesn't have to play by the rules he himself sets up.

The result is a player who is psychologically soft, not a leader, still a cut-up kid masked by the physical maturity of his body, always placed on a pedestal by his coaches and teammates even when he deserves to be knocked off and dressed down and told that he has the stuff of a loser, not a winner.

If James was crying after the loss to the Bulls, it may well stem from a creeping fear that he cannot be counted on when it counts the most.

As for being a team leader, the very notion is a joke. James doesn’t have the presence; his affect is flat and dull, eager to avoid confrontation because of a difficult childhood in the Akron projects in which his only goal was to stay away from trouble.

The team was lousy when he got there in 2003. There were no expectations upon him; even as the team got better and better there were still no expectations upon him. It was a perfect situation for him, an excuse in every pocket of his finely tailored trousers—

This is the defining season of LeBron James. He must deliver an NBA championship. It is his eighth year and his career pivots on a pyramid. Jordan won in his eighth season. Magic Johnson won in his first. Larry Bird won in his second. They had the cast they needed and so does James. The trouser pockets are empty of excuses.

the more it seems likely that King James will never be the king of anything except the court and castle of adulation.

Buzz spends an entire column criticizing LeBron James for nearly the exact same things, and in nearly the exact same way, Buzz is criticizing other people for saying about LeBron in this column. Feel free to go to the March 11 column and see I didn't cherry pick quotes. I left some quotes out. It's pure hypocrisy.

He is Public Enemy No. 1 of the tear-down culture in which human foible, unintentional mistakes, and boneheaded stupidity are not allowed. There used to be a period of grace. But not anymore. One gutter ball and you’re out.

Read those above quotes again. If you don't find hypocrisy in what Buzz wrote in March and what he is writing now, then you need to read the quotes yet again. This is pure "Do as I say, not as I do" writing.

But the vitriol, the spewing hatred spit out with such gleeful self-satisfaction by commentator after commentator, has sunk to a new level of nuclear negativity.

To an extent, I do agree. Adrian Wojnarowski seems to really enjoy putting LeBron down, but I am sure there are also good arguments for how LeBron is now becoming a victim of the media attention he has always adored and created for himself.

Why is he hated more than Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who was accused of sexual assault and is considered a stone-cold jerk by most players in the National Football League?

He's not really. Let's not confuse "hate" with "really enjoying his failure." I don't hate LeBron James the way I hate other athletes. Do I enjoy LeBron's failure more than I do most athletes? Yes, I do. Not because I hate LeBron James, but (he is a rival of my favorite team as well) because he, Wade, and Bosh made a big show of coming to Miami to win championships because LeBron felt he didn't have enough help around him in Cleveland. So do I enjoy him not winning a title when he has enough help from his supporting cast? Yes, I do.

What I enjoy more is it then turned out he was the one who seemed to rely on his supporting cast (by passing the ball in the fourth quarter and seemingly not outplaying Dirk) rather than step up and take over the game. LeBron didn't play terribly, so anyone who says he did is wrong. He did seem to pass the ball to his teammates or pull away from taking over the game in spots where we expected him to not pull away. He didn't step up and be great when he had in the past indicated he would step up if he just had the supporting cast on his team to help him get to the point where he could be great. I think that is the source of much of the discussion on James.

He wanted to play with teammates who could help him get him to the Finals so he could take over the game. His greatness seemed to be wasted among teammates who couldn't help him get to the big game in Cleveland. LeBron just needed to get there with teammates that could support his quest and didn't rely on him to do everything in the big game. Then it turned out when he got to the big game he didn't step his game up as we expected him to. It appears LeBron wanted to be a great player among other great players rather than the best player on a great team.

Yes, we all know that James left Cleveland without grace or class. Yes, we know that the Heat, in some ridiculous version of a Las Vegas floor show, had the big three of James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh greeting Miami fans in a raucous pep rally as if they had already won the championship before the season had even started.

Both of these things can't just be glossed over. This was all a part of the build-up to what was going to be a championship team. Much of the reason LeBron is taking criticism is because he hyped up his signing with the Heat so much. He didn't have to have a special on ESPN about his decision to go to Miami and he didn't have to attend the Heat pep rally. But he did. It made him look like a conquering hero before he had done the required conquering.

On the other hand, James wanted to go to the place where he thought he had the best chance of winning. Where should he have gone? The Golden State Warriors? Why stay in Cleveland?

No one is criticizing the move. It is the way the move was done and really no one should care about that anymore. It's old news.

In baseball, players do that all the time in free agency, and no one makes a peep about disloyalty. Has there been any sustained criticism of Albert Pujols for not signing with the St. Louis Cardinals, where he has played his entire career?

Albert Pujols still plays for the Cardinals and hasn't joined another team in free agency yet. That's a major difference in these two situations. They aren't even comparable.

Should pitcher C.C. Sabathia have stayed with the Cleveland Indians because it would have been a really nice thing to do for the city?

Again, Buzz Bissinger must have some mental deficiency where his brain doesn't understand the correct way to make comparisons. Sabathia was TRADED from the Indians to the Brewers, he did not just sign with the Yankees after leaving the Indians. It is likely Sabathia would not have signed with the Indians, but for the sake of comparison to LeBron James this is a bad comparison.

Baseball free agents are almost always looking for millions more.

Except for Cliff Lee, who was the best pitcher on the free agent market this past offseason and turned down more money to play in Philadelphia.

The book I co-wrote with James, Shooting Stars, did not do particularly well. Maybe the fault was in the execution. Maybe the theme, about James and the four friends he befriended who all played together at St. Vincent-St. Mary high school in Akron, just wasn’t sexy enough.

Perhaps people don't like you and don't want to read books you co-write.

He wasn’t the one who called himself “The Chosen One.” The moniker was bestowed on him by Sports Illustrated when the magazine did a cover story on him as a junior in high school.

Of course LeBron James was FORCED to do the cover of Sports Illustrated, right? He had no choice in the matter is what Buzz wants you to believe. LeBron did what every high school athlete would do and agreed to it. It isn't like he didn't have a choice in the matter though. He could have declined.

He wasn’t the one who forced ESPN to show several of his games live on national television his senior year.

LeBron is the one who has a "King James" bracelet though. He never did anything to dissuade the media and public from thinking he was anything more than the greatest player on the planet.

He wasn’t the one who created a constant media circus.

This is absolutely untrue. LeBron has allowed the constant media circus to be all around him. He made a public spectacle of his free agency, he did nothing to dissuade Heats fans he was their savior by tempering championship expectations, when LeBron played for the Cavs he signed off on a "We are Witnesses" ad campaign that was essentially a tribute to his greatness, and he has made nearly his entire career of being called "King James." It's even his fucking Twitter handle. So James had trumped up his greatness his entire career, so what follows is the media circus.

Fans were lying in wait for James to come into the NBA with the patina of being the greatest ever when he had not played a single game. Instead James pleasantly surprised everybody with the Cleveland Cavaliers.

So if at that point everybody loved LeBron James. It is obvious he was loved at one point in his career. What could have happened since 2003 that would make people feel differently about him? I would partially explain the public feeling differently about him because the public is pretty fickle on how they feel about athletes and I would also partially explain the public's feelings on LeBron James by the actions he has taken since 2003. So as much as Buzz Bissinger would like to pretend it isn't true, LeBron's own actions have shaped public perception.

He was approachable and humble while proud as any successful person in life must be.

I am sure he was approachable to sportswriters or for any other media member who could help hm become more popular and wealthy. As I have stated, LeBron craved and wanted the attention early in his career because it served his purposes. This makes him the exact same as nearly every other athlete by the way. James wanted to be the most known and successful basketball player and athlete on the planet, so now he is becoming exactly that. There is a negative side to being this well known and popular and that is the criticism an athlete receives when things go wrong.

Still, I doubt he was approachable by the general public, even when he was just breaking into the NBA.

But I think that the fundamentally decent essence of LeBron James is still there. Is he more guarded? Who wouldn’t be, given the avalanche of negative publicity he has gotten this season?

Poor LeBron. He wouldn't have wanted the publicity if he knew it wouldn't be all positive publicity.

Did it affect his play during the finals? Of course. Shutting out the constant noise of hatred is impossible.

I really don't believe it is hatred. Is it criticism of his play in the NBA Finals based on the spectacle that he (or his camp) caused? Yes, it is. Again, LeBron created this constant noise himself. He made a huge public spectacle of the move to Miami and he guaranteed multiple championships. To an extent some criticism and joy at the Heat failing to win a title is understandable. He put himself on the pedestal and we are more than willing to knock him down.

Through all of this talk about LeBron James not stepping up it seems to have been forgotten the Mavericks played well enough to win the NBA title. They did a good job of defending LeBron and frankly they deserved to win the series.

In the tear-down culture in which we engorge ourselves like ticks bloated on blood, I guess he truly is the King.

I guess we could say, as Buzz did previously, LeBron James just couldn't handle the pressure.

The criticism of LeBron has reached a boiling point, I don't know if I would disagree with that. It doesn't take much work to figure out exactly why this criticism is coming the way of LeBron. Is it too much? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean some of the criticism or feelings about LeBron aren't somewhat justified.