0 comments Howard Bryant Says Chip Kelly May Be Racist In the Same Way George Washington Hated People from New England

I was surprised to learn this blog already had a "George Washington" tag. Of course the previous post had nothing to do with George Washington and was about a transgender basketball player. Here at BotB, we tackle the issues no one else will touch long before anyone is willing to address the issue. Today, possible editor-in-chief, but possibly not editor-in-chief so let's just keep wondering for another couple of years about it, of "The Undefeated" Howard Bryant says that Chip Kelly may not be racist. He just has the same cultural issue that George Washington faced during the Revolutionary War with the New Englanders. Bryant is clear in stating he's not wondering whether Kelly is racist or not, because that would be absurd, but the idea Kelly could have a problem with certain races is not absurd. Apparently that's different from being a racist by tying it into a broad cultural issue where Kelly suffers from the same non-racist semi-racist tendencies that the rest of society has.

FACED WITH A challenge far more grave than winning the NFC East, George Washington was named commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in June 1775.

"A challenge far more grave than winning the NFC East..."

Hey, George Washington never had to match wits with Chip Kelly, stop Odell Beckham Jr, shut down the Cowboys' running game or pretend to block so that Robert Griffin gets murdered by a pass rusher. Washington also never had to worry about his best general being lost for a year due to an ACL tear.

Before embarking on campaigns against the British, his first battle came in taking command of troops he hated. Washington reviled Massachusetts soldiers.

And just like how George Washington hated Massachusetts soldiers that he had no option but to work with, Chip Kelly deals with hating the players that he ultimately has a choice on whether to work with or not.

According to Edward G. Lengel's General George Washington: A Military Life, Washington "regarded the common soldiers of that colony as 'an exceeding dirty & nasty people.'"

Sadly, "Boston Strong" at one point wasn't an uplifting message of hope and unity, but a reference to the poor bathing habits of the Massachusetts colony. 

In 1776, author David McCullough likewise writes that Washington found New Englanders "to be men of a decidedly different sort than he had expected, and he was not at all pleased."

You may ask, "What does this have to do with Chip Kelly?" Don't worry, it will never be made entirely clear as to what George Washington not liking Massachusetts soldiers has to do with whether Chip Kelly is a racist or not. It seems Howard Bryant just got done reading a few books about the Revolutionary War and can't wait to share the knowledge he's learned. 

Reliance on a workforce has never required respecting or understanding it.

This is true. Most people who have a supervisor can agree they are relied on by their supervisor, but not respected or understood by this supervisor. While knowing reliance on a workforce never required respecting or understanding it, also know not relying on certain people in the workforce doesn't mean you don't respect or understand them. It just means you don't want them to work for you anymore. 

Steelers corner Brandon Boykin seemed to understand this about his former coach in Philadelphia, Chip Kelly. Boykin's belief that Kelly had difficulty relating to black players was met with the kind of disingenuous, passive-aggressive shock that explains why the topic of race often feels so intractable in this country.

It's not all disingenuous, passive-aggressive shock necessarily. It's more, "Oh okay, so this guy says Chip Kelly is a racist. I'm sure that could be true, but his opinion doesn't necessarily serve as concrete evidence his belief is correct." 

The public and the media machine largely dismissed Boykin's comments as preposterous, a predictable reflex whenever a black athlete suggests the white mainstream fails to understand the black experience.

I don't understand another person's experience in life, so I obviously don't understand "the black experience" which seems to be a collective experience of one group of people (a classification that I find to be oversimplifying things just a bit, but I get why it's done). To say "the white mainstream" fails to understand the black experience seems a little bit like Bryant is stating that just one group doesn't understand the black experience. I would bet that if an Asian group of people claimed to understand the black experience then Howard Bryant would think that's ridiculous. Yet here, he makes it "the white mainstream" as the group that fails to understand the black experience. This is a bit of finger-pointing at one specific group which is pretty lazy on Bryant's part.

Boykin then clarified his remarks, even though the Eagles provided all the necessary clarity in 2014 when they gave Riley Cooper a five-year, $25 million contract seven months after the receiver's use of a racist slur.

Again, I can't explain why the Eagles gave Riley Cooper this contract. Was it racism, was it the fact it wasn't a terrible contract for a 26 year old coming off a career year? I can't answer that and any attempt to answer this question is just speculation. 

Boykin, the thinking went, could not possibly be correct because, as a coach, Kelly leads dozens of highly paid black men, which is nearly as absurd as saying the manager of a nightclub cannot be sexist because the dancers he hires are women.

Any attempt to prove a point has to start with overstating your opposition's position. Bryant emphasizes "could not possibly" in an attempt to make it seem like Boykin's statements were taken as absolutely incorrect and not as potentially factual statements that simply lack any sort of evidentiary basis. Bryant overstates the thinking of those who don't immediately come to the conclusion Kelly is racist in order to prove that no one took Boykin's statement seriously. I'm not sure that was the case. The statement is taking seriously as an accusation, but an accusation that lacks concrete evidence, outside of Boykin's experience with Chip Kelly. Overstate the opposition's view in order to make yours seem more reasonable. That's the way to go.

So it would be unsurprising if Chip Kelly were a racist, or if he were simply uncomfortable with young black men. It would be equally unsurprising if neither of these things were true, 

But remember, we are working under the assumption that out of these two equally unsurprising things one of them is more likely true than the other. They are equal, except the assumption leans towards one conclusion over the other. I'm not sure that's the definition of "equal" or not.

but the anxious instinct to suggest Boykin was speaking irresponsibly ignores the fact that the tension he described between him and his white boss was unremarkable.

What? It was normal tension that results between a boss and an employee? But of course, it can't be normal tension because Boykin was being treated differently by Kelly. The assumption of being treated differently must stand. That's how it has to be if the equally unsurprising conclusions that Kelly is or is not racist leans in the direction Bryant feels it does. He has a conclusion he must reach. 

There aren't any employees in this country -- even among the white males who represent the default position of American leadership -- who haven't had at least one boss who didn't "get" them.

What if I told you that my employer doesn't "get" me because I'm a male? What if I told you that mostly females are hired by my employer and it only furthers my belief this is true? I'm sure Howard Bryant would think it's absolutely ridiculous that an employer would seem to favor one sex or another and dismiss my feelings. Because I'm among the default position of American leadership, so my irresponsible feelings are just the result of disliking being on an equal playing field with others and not a result of an actual true belief I have. The bottom line is people will believe a side of the Chip Kelly "is he racist or not?" story and then make up reasons why they believe it from there. It's how it goes and this includes Howard Bryant as one who does this. 

An "Is Kelly a racist or isn't he?" narrative is just the lazy masquerading as the profound, especially when Boykin never actually called Kelly a racist.

Bryant can decorate it however he wants with a discussion of George Washington, but "Is Kelly a racist or isn't he?" is essentially the conversation he is having in this column. 

The NFL already has a problem with black people, the ones who don't stay in their lane, the ones who talk. The problem is true of football, just as it is with Major League Baseball and dozens of other industries across America, including the media.

I have found major sports have a problem with any person who doesn't stay in their lane and who talks too much. I'm sure since Howard Bryant has worked in dozens of other industries across American (eye roll) he knows this to be true. I can say that other industries have a problem with any person who doesn't stay in his/her lane at work and gives their opinion more than it is wanted. I understand this is a part of Howard Bryant's experience, but rest assured, this is also the experience anyone who doesn't stay in their lane at work has as well. Sometimes in an effort to be treated more fairly, it's necessary to understand that the treatment you are receiving, even though it may not seem that way, is in many ways how others are treated as well. 

Every black person in America knows he must learn to navigate the white world to advance -- but that world needn't know very much or anything about him. It's the price of being a minority. Life isn't fair.

I can't argue with someone else's experience. Though again, I think Howard Bryant is going back to the "Is Kelly a racist or isn't he?" well and covering up for it by claiming systemic racism. Bryant is essentially making the argument Kelly is a racist because on a macro-level there is systemic racism. That's a whole other discussion that probably has very little to do with George Washington's feelings about the Massachusetts colony during the Revolutionary War. 

It is why the four most important teams in the history of baseball -- the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals and, yes, the Dodgers of Jackie Robinson lore -- have never hired a black manager.

To call these four teams the "most important teams in the history of baseball" seems to be confusing "important" with successful. It's how "fame" and "notoriety" seem to get confused at times as well. 

If these dynamics were not at work, neither the NFL nor MLB would have to force teams to interview minorities whenever a job comes open.

Yes, if the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals would just hire a black manager sometime soon then MLB and NFL could do away with any type of initiative intended to help minorities get interviews as a team's head coach/manager.  

What coaches don't have a problem with is Boykin's talent. There are 32 NFL teams and almost zero white starting running backs or cornerbacks.

As I said before, the whole "Well, Kelly HAS to work with these minorities because there aren't any white running backs or cornerbacks" position for why Kelly may be racist doesn't always work well for me. Yes, Kelly could still be a racist and sign or trade for non-white running backs or cornerbacks, but the point still remains that Kelly coaches these players and looks for a certain type of non-white/white running back or cornerback for his team. Kelly is looking for a certain type of running back or cornerback for his system. He's notoriously picky about players who buy into his system.

Washington disliked his workforce, but he needed it to win the war. Same goes for the NFL.

Great tie-in here. Because Washington can not choose his workforce, while Kelly has the ability to a greater extent to choose his workforce. That's what Kelly is doing and whether Kelly is choosing African-American players he can "control" or those who fit his system and personality is up for debate. Just know statements from ex-players that Kelly is sort of racist should be taken with the same grain of salt as evidence from ex-players that Kelly isn't racist. The conclusion you want to draw without further evidence one way or another is your own. Just don't draw your conclusion on this issue and act like the equally as unsurprising other conclusion is simply not just as likely. That's what Howard Bryant seems to be doing here. 

Kelly might have an issue, he might not, but the routine reflex to dismiss the obvious historical reality that people from different racial, cultural and class backgrounds might struggle to understand one another in the workplace is a much bigger problem than Chip Kelly ever could be.

So the conclusion is that people in a workplace won't always get along? Howard Bryant has to go so far back as to use George Washington as an example of this? Anyone who has a job knows this is true. It turns out that everyone who doesn't understand someone else in the workplace because of a different background may or may not be racist. It's funny, because I don't understand people who come from my same background either. It's almost like people are different from each other and every misunderstanding can't be placed into a little box with a convenient label.

1 comments Marcus Hayes Wants Chip Kelly to Deny He's a Racist

You may have heard ex-Eagles players say that Chip Kelly is racist. Pretty much every bitter ex-Eagle who Kelly has let go this offseason has claimed some form of this accusation. I don't know if Chip Kelly is racist or not, but I do know the mere suggestion he is a racist doesn't mean he needs to call a press conference and dispute this notion. This is where Marcus Hayes and I differ. He thinks Kelly should address the notion he is racist. Kelly needs to disprove the negative, which is not always easy to do. There are other writers who actually care to do research, and try to find out the truth without just assuming Kelly is racist, that have written very clearly about what Kelly's problem with players truly may be. That's no good though. Marcus Hayes wants Kelly to deny the accusations. Prove you aren't racist, Chip! Start counting how many black friends you have. That always works.

AS IT TURNS OUT, it really is about creating a culture; an inclusive culture.

Unless it's on his terms, Chip Kelly doesn't seem interested in that.

Chip Kelly is interested in an inclusive culture. An inclusive culture of his choosing. It may be racist (who knows?), but he's interested in a culture of inclusion around his team...it just has to be the culture of inclusion that he chooses. 

Over the past five months, an astounding amount of energy has been spent trying to disprove the observations of three Eagles who, at the risk of their own ruin, said they believe Chip Kelly has a problem with black men.

I'm not going to preface every sentence I write with this, but I don't know if Chip Kelly is racist. I do know the words of three ex-Eagles may or may not prove this is true. A lot of energy goes into disproving observations of these ex-Eagles because Kelly is having to disprove a negative. Marcus Hayes, prove you aren't cheating on your wife. Two ladies in the office swear you are cheating with a lady from HR. 

Predictably, what each of them said was amplified by the sensitive nature of the subject. Predictably, there was a massive rush to disprove it, and thereby make everyone's life less prickly.

Rightly or wrongly, nobody wants to be called a racist. I write "rightly or wrongly" because even racists don't want to be called racist. It's always called something else by these people who I perceive as racist. Something that softens what they are.

First: Validly or not, at least some of Kelly's players feel marginalized.

Being marginalized because Chip Kelly doesn't think these players fit the culture isn't the same thing as being marginalized because Chip Kelly is a racist. Read Mike Freeman's column on Kelly. It's enlightening. 

Second: Kelly refuses to even acknowledge the issue.

Acknowledging the issue means it is an issue. A control freak like Chip Kelly wants to control the conversation and his having to speak on his racist/non-racist tendencies isn't controlling the conversation.

His responses: If they feel that way, too bad.

Marcus Hayes has to know that people in the position that Chip Kelly is in, as the head coach of an NFL team, can't respond to every criticism of him. Kelly can't stop people from speculating about him or criticizing him. He sees these accusations/insinuations as noise, so he ignores it as long as possible. 

Not a hint of culpability. Not a whiff of empathy.

Think about that.

Again, he doesn't think he's racist, so he's not going to have a hint of culpability or a whiff of empathy. What person would lean back and think, "You know, maybe I am a huge racist..." It takes a lot of introspection that Chip Kelly simply isn't going to engage in during or prior to an NFL season. 

If the CEO of any other high-profile, billion-dollar company repeatedly was linked to racism by three former outstanding employees, all of whom risked being blackballed; and if that employer dismissed it by saying the employees were angry they were displaced; know what you would have?
 
Donald Trump. 

You mean the guy running for President who is among the leaders for the Republican nomination right now? And also, nearly every CEO of a high-profile, billion-dollar company will have accusations of some form of ageism, sexism, racism, other -ism's directed at either him or his company. It comes with the territory. It doesn't mean these accusations are true and it doesn't mean these accusations are false. It happens to a CEO and his/her company at some point.

If three former players told reporters that coconut water in smoothies upset their stomachs, Kelly would examine the chemical composition of coconuts from each continent.

Examine himself for imperfections?

Apparently, that's a waste of time.

The same guy who stated that Chase Utley is more beloved in Philadelphia because he's white, thereby causing him to get away with more crappy play, as compared to Jimmy Rollins and how he is treated, wants Chip Kelly to do some real introspection and figure out who he is as a person. I'm sure Kelly does know his imperfections, but he also believes these imperfections make him the successful person that he is. Sometimes our greatest flaws have to be managed because these flaws are often a part of why we are successful. So Kelly sees his control freak tendencies as a good and bad thing. Others see racism and others don't. It doesn't mean Kelly needs to address accusations of racism.

Certainly, players in Pittsburgh and Buffalo will ask Brandon Boykin and LeSean McCoy questions about Kelly. Don't be surprised if guys in Seattle get an earful from Cary Williams, or if New England players are enlightened by Bradley Fletcher. 

Later in this column, Marcus Hayes will suggest that Boykin, McCoy and Cary Williams risked their professional career in coming out and stating they believe race plays a part in Chip Kelly getting rid of them. This may be true, but the fact all three of these players found new teams and didn't have trouble finding new teams, leads me to believe the risk to their careers is being exaggerated by Hayes. I don't believe a player will be blackballed for calling Chip Kelly racist. It's the NFL, where absent murder (and if the player is out of jail now...well...) a guy will get a chance to prove he can play football if he has skills.

McCoy, after his trade to the Bills in March, said Kelly rid himself of all of the best black players. Well, with the exception of left tackle Jason Peters, the best black player, that's true.

I choose to believe the Mike Freeman article is correct. It's not a race thing and there are certain players that Chip Kelly simply has trouble relating to. He prefers all control and that is hard to make work in the NFL. Maybe Kelly is slightly racist in the same way a lot of people are unintentionally racist or sexist, but I don't think it's an active plan by Kelly to rid the Eagles of black players.

Kelly's response: McCoy was stung by the trade.

Which, by the way, is something that seems absolutely true. Until the Bills dangled money at McCoy, he wasn't going to play for the Bills. McCoy was stung by the trade by all counts.

Former left tackle Tra Thomas, after a two-year stint on the coaching staff, said Kelly's locker room was populated by players who think Kelly might be racist. Well, after what McCoy and Boykin said, that, too, has been proved true.

Kelly's response: We gave Thomas a chance to coach.

This isn't exactly what Chip Kelly said. Marcus Hayes, again, prefers to exaggerate to prove his point. Kelly said,  

"I didn't really see it, but I heard about it," he said. "I was just disappointed. We gave Tra a great opportunity. He came in on a Bill Walsh minority internship program. Mr. [Jeffrey] Lurie was nice enough to keep him on for two years - one on offense, one on defense - [to] see if he could find a job in the NFL. So I hope Tra does find a job in the NFL. We don't have a job open."

That's still pretty cold, of course. Is this coldness due to racism or because Chip Kelly just has trouble relating to other humans? I think there is evidence both ways. 

Boykin sent a carefully worded text message to a black Comcast SportsNet reporter that read, in part: "[Kelly is] uncomfortable around grown men of our culture . . . [Kelly] can't relate and that makes him uncomfortable." Boykin stressed that he and his teammates in the locker room often discussed the atmosphere that Kelly created.

Kelly's response: Boykin was "disappointed" that he was traded.

Except you know, well, I will let Marcus Hayes acknowledge what Kelly said and then dismiss it immediately as not enough. Which, by the way, is how any comments by Chip Kelly would be dismissed if he did publicly comment on whether he was a racist or not. 

That answer changed last week, when Kelly said the repeated assertions did, in fact, bother him . . . but, really, Kelly seemed more annoyed than troubled.

And again, if Kelly spoke further about his feelings on whether he was racist, then he would come off as annoyed and the circle would go unbroken. 

He should be troubled.

He probably is annoyed. He's annoyed because he would prefer to focus on the upcoming season and doesn't consider himself to be a racist. So because he doesn't think he's racist, then these distractions around the team annoy him. 

McCoy, Boykin and Thomas also are former Eagles; a status that, in the Jeffrey Lurie era, carries privilege and inclusion matched by few other franchises.

Each jeopardized that birthright with these comments.

Each jeopardized this birthright except for the fact none of the three were coaching or playing for the Eagles at the time they made the comments. Boykin and McCoy had been traded to other teams, so they were safe to give their opinion at that point. 

So why make them?

The popular and lazy explanation is that they were bitter they were let go.

Another explanation is that this is truly how they perceive Chip Kelly, as a racist. This, of course, doesn't mean their perception is actually true. What may come off to some as racism comes off to another person as simply being a control freak and difficult to talk to. Maybe there is an explanation between "being bitter" and "Chip Kelly is a racist." This doesn't make for a column that gets pageviews of course.

That is illogical. Each had too much to lose.

Not really. Maybe Tra Thomas, but LeSean McCoy and Brandon Boykin really didn't have much to lose. It's not like they played for Chip Kelly at the present time and McCoy had even gotten a brand, new nice contract from the Bills. What would he have to lose by speaking his mind on Kelly? The argument these players had too much to lose would be true if they made these accusations while still affiliated with the Eagles. Then I could understand this argument.

The more sensible explanation: They simply spoke what they believed to be true.

Yes, but what they believe to be true isn't necessarily true. To continue with the Donald Trump comparison, Trump claims to believe what he says is true as well. It doesn't make the stupid-ass things Trump says true. It's possible the perception these Eagles have is caused by groupthink based on the perception that they have of Kelly. They have a right to feel that way, but it doesn't mean Chip Kelly needs to address the fact he isn't a racist. Besides, if Kelly said he wasn't racist, would Marcus Hayes be like, "Oh well, he addressed it. Now I believe him." I don't believe Hayes would say anything like that at all.

Probably not. I have no idea if Kelly is racist or not, but I do know there is evidence that Kelly is just the type of guy who is militant when it comes to "You are with me or you aren't" and that could be coming off as race-related. 

All three were dispatched, on the face of it, with good reason.

Marcus Hayes should now prove he isn't racist. 

McCoy ran both the football and his mouth with little discipline. Thomas was never more than an aspiring assistant with no coaching credentials. 

Well, that explains why Kelly said he gave Thomas a chance and didn't seem sad to see him go.

Boykin is shorter than the cornerback template Kelly wants.

Stop with the arguments rationally explaining why Chip Kelly traded Boykin. Why would a control freak coach choose to want players that fit a specific template he wants? That's not something that would happen. 

Several other players, coaches and scouts, both black and white, have been similarly dispatched.

None has echoed these sentiments; not yet, anyway.

Perhaps they believe Kelly treated them fairly.

Some players have said Kelly treated them fairly. Why doesn't Chip Kelly come out and state whether he treated these players fairly or not? WHAT'S HE AFRAID OF? 

Or, perhaps they understand this sort of talk can ruin them in the NFL.

Ah yes, a conspiracy. Of course. So now the assumption is that the others feel the way Boykin, Thomas and McCoy feel, but they are too afraid to say it out loud? Once the idea Chip Kelly is a virulent racist has been proven, I guess the idea others are afraid to speak up isn't a bad assumption. Chip Kelly is racist and more players would like to say this, but they are afraid to. This is something that is pure speculation being passed off as an argument supporting Hayes' point of view.

As far as we know, most of this angst stems from the Riley Cooper and DeSean Jackson incidents and the way Kelly, Lurie and Howie Roseman handled them.

Cooper, a white receiver, was caught on video directing the N-word toward a black security guard in an alcohol-fueled rage during a country music concert in the summer of 2013, Kelly's first season. Cooper took a brief leave from training camp, then rejoined the team.

This move was always going to bring up questions. Letting Cooper stick around after he did this was a questionable decision. I'm not in the Eagles locker room, but I can't imagine there still aren't some long-term repercussions from keeping Cooper around. 

Jackson, a black receiver, enjoyed a career season in 2013 . . . then was cut a few months later. He also was subjected to a smear campaign that, to any sensible observer, was engineered (clumsily) by the team. Meanwhile, Cooper's fine 2013 season earned him a lucrative extension.

I have to admit, I don't know what was up with the whole "DeSean Jackson is involved with a gang" campaign that got him out of Philadelphia. Lost in this is that Jackson also had a lucrative contract with the Eagles and if for whatever reason he isn't buying into Chip Kelly's ideas...

Beyond Boykin's implication that Kelly is not totally colorblind, it should have been equally disturbing that Boykin, in his clarification statements, said that Kelly routinely ignored players:

"There would be times where he just wouldn't talk to people. You would walk down the hallway and he wouldn't talk to you."

Oh my God, no! Chip Kelly wasn't cordial? Forget being a racist or not being a racist, being cordial is expected of a man in Chip Kelly's position. 

This seems bizarrely dysfunctional, at the very least. But it might explain, if not validate, what McCoy and Thomas saw and felt.

Did Kelly only not talk to players who weren't white or he didn't speak to every player on occasion when he ran into them in the hallway? If Kelly only didn't speak to players who weren't white, then the players are validated. If he didn't speak to all players, then this anecdotal evidence doesn't support their contention. 

Consider, too, the "grown men" phrase Boykin used. Boykin was careful to delineate between Kelly's dominion over his college players at Oregon, a powerless group with virtually no recourse against Kelly's whim; vs. "grown men" in the NFL whose futures Kelly has less power to determine.

Marcus Hayes is having it both ways now...or at least he wants to. Marcus wants to say other players don't speak up or the players who did speak up did so despite the fact it could hurt their career. But then when Marcus wants to prove his point about Boykin using the language "grown men" he points out that Kelly has less power to determine the future of an NFL player than he used to. So which is it? Are some players not speaking up for fear Kelly will destroy them if they do or does Kelly not hold this much power over NFL players? 

Fairly or not, he has been painted by three men as a leader who, at best, is insensitive to his environment; at most, as a leader who unfairly leads.

Fairly or not, it's just assumed Chip Kelly is a racist, so he must immediately address and confront any ideas that he is in fact a racist. 

This is stunning, because Kelly's willingness to implement his innovations have cast him as a genius. Moreover, Kelly preaches culture over scheme.

So his preaching of culture is what could have led to him getting rid of these players. They didn't fit his strict culture specifications and so they were gone. Fair? Possibly not. Racist? Possibly, but it's an assumption I would feel better making if there wasn't also evidence given (anonymously) from Eagles players that Kelly is just very, very rigid in what he wants and is dictatorial. You fit in with what he's trying to do or you don't. He comes from college football where coaches are allowed to do that. In the NFL, personality from player is embraced. A dictatorial style is seen as not fitting what these NFL players want. Hence, Chip Kelly is being called a racist, rather than these players admitting to themselves that they simply didn't fit what Kelly wanted. I'm not saying this is true, but it is as much of a possibility as Chip Kelly being racist is a possibility. 

Still, he refuses to adjust, and that allows a malignant culture to fester in his own building.

Actually, that could have been the point of Kelly releasing some of these players. He didn't want a malignant culture to fester, so he traded these players. Right or wrong, he doesn't allow a malignant culture to fester in his building, so he gets rid of players who he doesn't see as a "fit."

2 comments Here's a Scorching Hot Take About the Redskins Naming Controversy

Careful, I don't want you to burn yourself. There is an old, old hot take coming from Mike Sielski who gives no-nonsense looks at Philadelphia sports for Philly.com. Well, maybe this isn't a no-nonsense look at Philadelphia sports (it's more for Washington D.C. sports), and it's more nonsense-filled than no-nonsense, but that's okay. See, his hot take says that reporters and sportswriters not only should use the term "Redskins" even if they find it offensive, but they have a journalistic obligation to use the word. They are being dishonest to their readers by simply referring to the Redskins team as "Washington." There is also something about being an unreliable narrator, which only proves the author may not know what a true unreliable narrator is.

The Eagles play the Washington Redskins on Saturday.

That sentence wouldn't appear on the editorial page of The Washington Post, or under the bylines of various sports columnists around the country, or in the student newspaper at Neshaminy High School in Bucks County. Those publications and people have decided that the word "Redskins" is so offensive, as a slur against Native Americans, that they will not use it.

No more offensive than the way Daniel Snyder runs the Redskins, but that's beside the point (puts up the tag about Daniel Snyder being a terrible owner). 

To these writers and media outlets, the NFL team in the nation's capital is always "Washington,"

And nobody is confused by them being called "Washington" because there is only one NFL team in Washington and that is the Redskins. I don't even notice when a columnist uses "Redskins" or "Washington" and not the word Redskins. Maybe I'm super-racist and am not aware of how racist I am. Otherwise, if a writer doesn't want to use the word then it is up to him or her. I only notice when a writer does something stupid like Gregg Easterbrook does and writes "R*dsk*ns" to where it calls attention to the fact he's using the word, but not really. 

never "the Redskins," and they are of course free to take such a principled stand.

Except they aren't free to take this principled stand. 

It's just that they really shouldn't.

See? They are free to take this stand, except not really. 

Here's why: This idea might come off as old-fashioned, especially in our diverse and ever-expanding media world,

Usually when a writer says he's going to come off "old-fashioned" he is about to complain about others censoring what he wants to say that some find offensive, clinging to old ideas against the use of new ideas or knows what he is about to write is a load of crap but wants to make it seem like the idea is tied to old values and not backwards thinking.

but if you're a reporter or a columnist or a newspaper or a magazine or a news website or maybe even an independent blogger or pretty much anyone who practices what can be called journalism, your primary responsibility ought to be the same: Report the facts as accurately and completely as possible, present them as accurately and completely as possible, and don't let any agenda - political, social, personal - get in the way of those goals.
 

Absolutely. I'm going to write two sentences as if I were a sportswriter or journalist and you as the reader tell me if by changing a single word if I have let any agenda get in the way of reporting the facts accurately and completely. 

"The Redskins announced today that they were going to be benching Robert Griffin and Jay Gruden would be the new starting quarterback, while Jim Haslett will take over head coaching duties. The Redskins have decided to put Robert Griffin on the trade block." 

"Washington announced today that they were going to be benching Robert Griffin and Jay Gruden would be the new starting quarterback, while Jim Haslett will take over head coaching duties. Washington has decided to put Robert Griffin on the trade block." 

So in substituting "Washington" for "Redskins" how in the hell have I let any agenda I have affect how the facts are presented? Are the facts more incomplete now that I didn't call them the "Redskins"? Does the reader become confused about the news I am presenting? Not at all. So while if I refused to use the word "Redskins" then I would obviously have some sort of social agenda, it has not and it will not, affect the news or reporting that is contained in these sentences. There is no commentary involved and the reader doesn't get different news simply because I don't use the word "Redskins." 

You start with that foundation, and you build your news story, your analysis, your commentary (however mealy-mouthed or strident) from there. That's the promise you make to your readers.

The problem with banning "Redskins" as a reference to Washington's football team, then, is that you're breaking that promise right off the bat.

But using "Redskins" or "Washington" isn't breaking the promise, it's simply referring to the NFL football team in Washington by one name rather than the other. That's all. I don't care if someone uses the word "Redskins" or not. It doesn't matter to me. As long as they are called the "Redskins" I will probably use the term. But the use of "Redskins" or "Washington" doesn't affect the overall reporting by a journalist like the author wants to believe happens. 

You're revealing immediately that, in what's supposed to be your role as a reliable narrator, you are actually unreliable.

The definition of an unreliable narrator is a narrator whose credibility has been seriously compromised.

It's a narrator who can't be trusted because the narrator makes mistakes, speaks with bias and lies. How in the process of reporting a story about the Redskins is the narrator lying, making a mistake in his report or having a bias when simply referring to the team as "Washington"? The information is the same and nothing is being withheld from the reader.

You're telling your readers: We have a principle or an agenda that goes beyond informing you. In fact, we'll withhold information from you if we believe it runs counter to that agenda.

What information is being withheld? If anything, a journalist is being reliable in allowing the reader to see off the bat he won't use the term "Redskins" because he/she finds the term offensive. A reader can catch on quickly to an unreliable narrator and the narrator is still considered unreliable, but in the case of journalists reporting on the Redskins, there are no lies or a bias that can come from not using the term "Redskins." The information is the same no matter which term the journalist uses. 

Once a news organization places such advocacy ahead of thorough, precise, honest reporting, it fails to stick to the fundamentals of journalism, and it puts its credibility at risk

How does Peter King fail to stick to the fundamentals of journalism by calling the Redskins "Washington" in his columns? He's reporting the same information he would otherwise if he did call them the "Redskins," but he's just not using the term. 

This author is taking a no-nonsense approach and filling the reader's eyes with nonsense. As long as a journalist isn't secretly creating fake stories that make the Redskins look bad because they won't change their team name (which there is no evidence any journalist who won't use the term "Redskins" is doing this), there is no advocacy being placed ahead of journalism. 

But there is at least a general consensus in our society and culture about which words rise to the level of vulgarity, and that consensus hasn't been reached yet with respect to "Redskins" - at least, not as this particular sports franchise still uses the word.

Fine, it's not a vulgar word as defined by the FCC. I would love to read how the author can explain simply referring to the Redskins as "Washington" is hurting a journalist's credibility. He won't do that. He prefers to simply state that it makes a journalist who won't use the R-word look like an unreliable narrator or as lacking credibility, but won't explain how the information given to the reader by an author who won't use the R-word is different to cause this imprecise, dishonest reporting. 

Remember: No one's suggesting that, for all his faults, owner Daniel Snyder wants to retain the franchise's name for the express purpose of demeaning or mocking Native Americans.

Unintended consequences. Snyder knows some people are offended by the word and regardless of whether he is retaining the name because he doesn't want to change it or because he wants to mock Native Americans is irrelevant. So regardless of his intentions, some Native Americans feel demeaned or mocked. 

I like how the author doesn't give a shit about the unintended consequences of Daniel Snyder keeping the Washington team name as the "Redskins," but he creates unintended consequences that don't actually exist when referring to journalists who report on the Redskins but call the team "Washington." Daniel Snyder doesn't mean to mock Native Americans, but journalists who don't use the term "Redskins" are lying to their readers and putting their credibility at risk. Got it. 

(Does Snyder want to continue making millions of dollars by keeping the name and its recognizable tradition? Sure. Does he want to avoid upsetting the team's fans and sacrificing ticket sales? Absolutely. That makes him rather greedy, which means he's pretty much just like any other NFL owner.)

This is pure speculation, but I would imagine Daniel Snyder would sell as many t-shirts and sell as many tickets to games if the Redskins were called the "Washington Bureaucrats." Okay, maybe not that EXACT name, but you get the point. There is tradition behind the team name, but fans tend to get over things and re-naming the team gives them a chance to buy all new Washington apparel. 

The objections to the name are grounded in the notion that the word itself is offensive, no matter how or why it's used or why the franchise won't change it, and therefore it should not appear in print or online.

And some journalists choose to not use the term "Redskins" which doesn't change the meaning of what they write at all. The information is still the same. 

But if we're to apply that logic to similar terms or words, there should have been media who referred to this former NFL quarterback as Chris Guy Who Went To Louisville. See if you can find anyone who did.

Okay, so it's really hard to take this guy seriously when he writes shit like this. For a guy who writes in a "no nonsense" fashion these are two sentences full of nonsense. Chris Redman's name was "Chris Redman," so that's why he was referred to in that fashion. He could change his name, but it's not considered to be offensive like "Redskins" is deemed offensive. One is the name of a professional sports team and the other is the last name of a human. I don't see the parallel being drawn. 

I'm not arguing that the franchise should change its name or that it shouldn't,

Of course not. A person would be silly to think deeming those who refuse to use the term "Redskins" as lacking credibility and being dishonest is even close to supporting the Washington Redskins not change their team name. There is a much stronger parallel to Chris Redman having to change his name because no one finds it offensive. 

and I'm not arguing that it's wrong for a media member to support a name change and say so publicly.

Support the name change and do it publicly, but just don't write it down, then go about doing your job. That's the key. Support the name change. That's fine. Just don't use the term "Washington" in place of "Redskins" because that throws all journalistic credibility out the window. 

But I am arguing that even if Snyder were refusing to change the name solely because he was an overt bigot and racist, the journalistic responsibility to provide information to news consumers supersedes the desire to avoid offending anyone.

The information shouldn't change if the author is using the term "Redskins" or "Washington." I'm not sure how this is so confusing. 

"Redskins" is the official name of a franchise in the National Football League. It is a fact. You report facts.

They also play in Washington D.C. and calling them "Washington" is also reporting a fact. It's a very weak argument to claim journalistic credibility is being ruined by using "Washington" in place of "Redskins." This stand against the use of the R-word is just a refusal to use the word, not the very basis upon which a journalist discusses the Washington Redskins. Using the word or not using the word should not affect the coverage. 

You call them the Washington Redskins because it's their name, and because that's supposed to be your job.

If a journalist can call them the "Redskins" then why not call them "Washington"? And it's not necessarily "your job" to refer to the Washington Redskins as the "Redskins." The job is to present information about the NFL team in an accurate fashion. Calling them "Washington" should have no effect on that end goal.

8 comments MMQB Review: Nothing Noteworthy Has Happened in the NFL Over the Last Month Edition

The last time Peter King wrote MMQB prior to going on vacation for a month he was preparing to freak out over Russell Wilson becoming a free agent. In that time we have learned that Wilson will still continue to pretend he wants to be a baseball player, is not having sex with his girlfriend and has a direct line to God. So that's nice. Peter wrote he isn't convinced the Seahawks and Wilson will split, but prepared for it to happen. Now that he's back from vacation, Peter writes this week about Ken Stabler's Hall of Fame chances (which is important to discuss immediately now that Stabler had died), thinks the Redskins should change their name now that the Confederate flag was removed from the South Carolina state capitol, finds Bono to be pensive, and reveals Roger Goodell's random pointing at a map means the NFL wants to play a football game in Brazil now.

Oh, and Peter wants to make it clear he will not fire Andy Benoit for not enjoying women's sports. If Benoit didn't enjoy U2 or Allagash White, that would be a completely different story. His ass would be fired then.

Well, saddle up. Time to get back on the football merry-go-round.

Join the parade, Peter. You are the one who has been gone, not your readers. The football world does still spin when you aren't around.

The NFL’s still slumbering, with most teams away for another week or so. I’d like to thank my Monday column subs over the past month—Jenny Vrentas and Robert Klemko and Andrew Brandt of The MMQB, and long-snapper/American icon Nate Boyer of the Seattle Seahawks—for allowing me to research my Beernerdness section so diligently and to go to bed early on four straight Sundays. I could get used to that.

Yes, but you must continue to work in order to support your family. Just a working class guy. That's all Peter is. He's got to pay the mortgage in that New York penthouse somehow.

This is my 32nd season covering pro football, and 19th writing this column. So many compelling stories on the way.

This is the most compelling offseason since at least last offseason.

We’ll have time next week to get to some of the nitty-gritty camp issues, and we’ll hit the Tom Brady appeal hard when that verdict comes out.

Peter is going to tap the ass of the Tom Brady appeal so hard when it comes out, it's going to need three alarm clocks to wake up so it can gather it's clothes and go back home before the morning comes. 

But the two things that struck me over the past few days were the death of Ken Stabler and the continuing story that never goes away—but should—of the Washington team name controversy. Let’s lead with those this week.

After a month off from writing MMQB, Peter leads with a story that has been in the news for two years and commentary on a quarterback who played three decades ago. IT'S THE MOST COMPELLING OFFSEASON I CAN RECALL!

Ken Stabler, the Oakland/Houston/New Orleans quarterback who is doubtless one of the most colorful characters in NFL history (just read this 1977 Sports Illustrated story if you’ve got any questions), died last week of colon cancer. He was 69. Most of his football friends had no idea he was that ill.

In the wake of his death, a fervent debate has been re-ignited: Should Stabler be elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

If an athlete's death re-ignites the conversation on whether he should be in the Hall of Fame or not, then that athlete should not be in the Hall of Fame. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but I feel strongly about it. We all die. It's sad, but the fact Stabler died shouldn't have an impact on his football career from 30 years ago just because it's sad he died and he was a colorful character.

Stabler, to me, is a borderline candidate from a very difficult time to judge the worthiness of quarterbacks because stats of quarterbacks from 40 years ago can be so misleading. I’ll give you some of the arguments I’ve heard over the years and in recent days, and then give you my thoughts.

One month off from writing and a discussion about the Hall of Fame leads MMQB. I wish these compelling stories on the way would hurry up and get here.

Argument: Stabler’s on the seventies all-decade team, so that should merit inclusion on its own. The Team of the Seventies, as voted by the Pro Football Hall of Fame voters at the end of the decade, actually had Roger Staubach as the number one quarterback, with 13 votes. Terry Bradshaw and Stabler were next, with three votes apiece. Right or wrong, nine players from the first and second teams of that group are not in Canton. I’ve never thought that because you were voted to an all-decade team that it should be an automatic ticket to the Hall.

This is like the "Jack Morris has the most wins over this arbitrary subset of seasons so he should be in the Hall of Fame" argument that has been made.

From 1973, when he took over the starting job, Stabler quarterbacked the Raiders to a 50-11-1 regular-season record over five years. That five-year stretch is easily his biggest argument for enshrinement, and if he ever gets in, I’d point to that and say, “You’ve got to be pretty good to win 50 out of 62.”

When the biggest argument for the Hall of Fame (an individual achievement) is mostly on his team's achievement then that is a sign of a shaky Hall of Fame argument.

Argument: If Joe Namath is in, Stabler should be in. Here’s where stats get screwy and, to me, unimportant. Namath was a more prolific passer (197.6 passing yards per game, to Stabler’s 151.8) but not the winner Stabler was. (Namath: 62-63-4; Stabler: 96-49-1.) Each won one Super Bowl.

Not that Joe Namath didn't deserve induction, but if the argument for Stabler is based on another player getting in the Hall of Fame, then Stabler doesn't deserve induction. Just because the Hall of Fame lowered their standards for one player doesn't mean all players who are up for induction should be held to that lower standard.

Among recent quarterbacks, Kurt Warner had the strangest career—he came from stocking shelves to the NFL and had two bookend great runs surrounding a five-year donut hole mid-career. But Stabler’s career was exceedingly odd. It’s almost a career in quartiles:

1968 to 1972: The JV Years. On the bench behind Daryle Lamonica and George Blanda, mostly. Just two starts in five years.

1973 to 1977: The Golden Years. Leads the Raiders to the playoffs for five straight years, demolishes the Vikings to win a world title in January 1977, and twice leads the league in touchdown passes and passing accuracy.

1978 to 1980: The Divorce. After going 9-7 in both ’78 and ’79 and throwing 52 interceptions over those years, Al Davis trades him to Houston for Dan Pastorini. Stabler never wins another playoff game.

1981 to 1984: The End. Doesn’t have a winning season, and the interceptions keep coming. With how hard Stabler lived off the field, it’s amazing Stabler started 14 games at age 38 for the Saints in 1983.

So Stabler would be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame based on five seasons? Otherwise, he was a backup or mediocre quarterback. If Stabler was a boring person and sportswriters didn't even like him that much would this conversation about his being in the Hall of Fame even be happening? I'm betting not.

So that’s five great seasons. Five. Look at his next three. It’s true you can’t overrate numbers and compare the players of the seventies to the players of today by stats. But in the three seasons after those five sublime ones, Stabler threw 80 interceptions. That’s got to count for something.

Stabler threw 83 interceptions during his "Golden Years" with the Raiders. In fact, during his career Stabler threw 28 more interceptions than touchdown passes. Double in fact, during Stabler's "Golden Years" with the Raiders he threw only 20 more touchdown passes than interceptions. I understand it was a different time, but take away those great years with the Raiders and Stabler was just mediocre. Add those five great years with the Raiders and Stabler was still mediocre with a five year run where he somehow managed to throw fewer interceptions than touchdowns.

I believe the Hall of Fame, in the vast majority of cases, has to be about sustained greatness. Stabler was great for five seasons. Some people would say that’s enough, along with the Super Bowl and being the greatest quarterback the Raiders have had. And I think it’s a good argument. For me, it’s just not a winning one.

I don't even think this is a good argument. Joe Flacco is the best quarterback the Ravens have ever had and he's won a Super Bowl. Does that mean he's destined for the Hall of Fame?

But hey, the good news is this is the top story for Peter in MMQB after taking a month off.

When I watched the governor of South Carolina eloquently speak about what a great day it was for the people of the state that the Confederate flag would no longer fly over the state capitol, I thought what a great job the leaders of that state had done in framing the divisive issue.

Yes, the "leaders" of the state that led the charge to take 150 years to remove the Confederate flag and only took it down after people were killed and the backlash against the flag flying over the capitol became too much to bear politically. Perhaps I have a different definition of "leader" than Peter does. It's probably the same way that the rest of the world has a certain definition of "factoid" and Peter chooses to make up his own definition.

A good percentage of South Carolina citizens felt the Confederate flag was a slap in the face to the African-Americans of the state—and to so many others who found the flag an offensive reminder of segregation. And so Gov. Nikki Haley and a cadre of smart political leaders, in the wake of the race-related murders of nine black churchgoers, finally got rid of the flag.

Nikki Haley did a great job of getting her arms around the issue, but it doesn't change the fact it took the murder of 9 people and 150 years to get her to get her arms around the issue. That's not leadership.

Then I thought of the Washington team name and wondered: Why is it taking so long for the right thing to happen in football?

I mean, these are sort of two different issues, but kind of the same. 

Clearly, the name of the team is offensive to a swath of American society, and particularly to many Native Americans...And last week the name was in the news again. A federal judge in northern Virginia confirmed the legality of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to cancel the team’s trademarks, effectively saying the patent office was correct in saying the team name may be disparaging to Native Americans.

And yet, Peter insists on keeping the last name "King" which is disparaging to democracies where there is no monarchy to serve as a figurehead for the rest of the country.

The federal trademark cancellations wouldn’t be enforced until the team exhausts the appeals process in the federal courts, but if and when that happens, not having recourse in the federal courts against trademark infringers will make it more complicated for the team to stop the selling of knockoff T-shirts or hats, especially if those goods are being imported from other countries. That sets a dangerous precedent for a league and a franchise that are such excellent merchandisers.

This may be the first time in a decade that someone would copy something the Redskins have done, rather than consciously avoiding copying something that the Redskins have done. 

The league, though it’s highly unlikely top officials want to support a cause on the wrong side of history, will for now continue to help Washington owner Dan Snyder fight the brushfires. But to what end? Why waste all this energy when the name is going to change eventually?

Because Peter, the Redskins and Daniel Snyder don't think the name is going to change eventually. While you are working under the assumption the team name will change, this view isn't shared by the Redskins organization. They aren't being obstinate on this issue because they just enjoy being that way (well, maybe Daniel Snyder is...there's a chance), but Daniel Snyder and some others in the Redskins organization think they are on the right side of history.

Don’t misunderstand: I don’t think the name of a football team carries the societal importance of the Confederate flag. But wrong is wrong, offensive is offensive.

The Confederate flag is not on par with the use of the Redskins team name, but Peter immediately thought of the Redskins name when the Confederate flag was removed from the capitol building, and there is no difference in the offensiveness. So other than Peter linking the team name "Redskins" and the Confederate flag in his mind and thinking offensive is offensive, the societal importance of each are totally different.

And though the percentage of Native Americans who are offended by the team name is possibly not as high as the percentage of African Americans offended by the Confederate flag, what percentage of people offended would be acceptable? Twenty percent? Thirty?

23.9%. That is the acceptable percentage.

Somebody needs to be a leader in the Washington case, the way the mayor of Charleston and the governor of South Carolina were in the wake of the tragedy there.

Leadership would have been removing the flag prior to nine people being murdered and not upon seeing the political ramifications of not removing the flag were worse than the blowback from the residents of South Carolina who still support the Confederate flag flying over the capitol. Nikki Haley did not want the flag removed until she had to take that position. I'm not against her or not criticizing her for this, but it's definitely not what I would leadership.

Club owner Dan Snyder’s not going to be it; Allen certainly is smart enough to be it, but he’s too tied to Snyder, obviously. I doubt Roger Goodell could be the man to do it—now—because the team is so intent on fighting this to the death. It’s a pity.

And of course Goodell could never take a position against what one of the owners want. He'll harshly sanction NFL teams for breaking rules and violating the sanctity of the game, but he's perfectly fine with an NFL team having an offensive team name.

“It was Veterans Day, and I’m a veteran, so I took the day off.”

—Then-Houston quarterback Ken Stabler, in 1980, to rookie beat man John McClain of the Houston Chronicle. Seems that Stabler skipped practice one November day, and the Oilers didn’t know where he was, and he came in the next day as usual. McClain found him at his locker after practice, smoking a cigarette.

These are all fun stories, but imagine the media backlash from writers (like Peter King) if a starting quarterback took off Veteran's Day because he claimed to be a veteran. Johnny Manziel would get killed for even doing one of these things, much less everything that Stabler did. Here is what he would be criticized for if this took place in 2015:

1. Disrespecting the military by claiming to be a veteran even though he has never served in the military.

2. Skipping practice without telling the Oilers.

3. Smoking a cigarette.

4. Not being properly focused while the team was 7-3 and trying to win their division.

5. Setting a bad example for his teammates and then there would be an addendum where the writers would blame Stabler for the Raiders going 18-14 over the previous two years, while pointing to Stabler's below-standard performance during those two seasons.

So this is a fun anecdote, but any type of "character" an athlete shows in 2015 by smoking a cigarette after skipping practice because he claims to be a "veteran" would result in him being chewed up by the media and spit out. Since this happened 35 years ago, it's just a silly way of pointing out what a character Stabler was. The media (and Peter) ignores how they would treat a player who did this type of thing in the present day.

“Snake made Johnny Manziel look like a Buddhist monk.”

—Retired former Raiders beat man Bob Padecky, who wrote a stunning story in the wake of Ken Stabler about the time he went to Alabama to try to interview Stabler … and found himself arrested and charged with cocaine possession. These are the kinds of stories that just don’t happen anymore.

Kenny Stabler may have set this beat guy up for cocaine possession. What a ruse! Classic Stabler!

These stories don't happen anymore for a reason. That reason being the media chokes all the character out of players (see: Puig, Yasiel) and the leagues are more concerned with image than fun (see: NFL throwing flags for TD celebrations).

“A lot of new faces in the locker room and a lot of new coaches. I think the changes are for the good.”
      

—San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick, to Charles Whissan of the Nevada Appeal, on all the turnover among the 49ers.

I'm not sure what Peter finds to be noteworthy about this quote. When and why would Kaepernick ever say that the changes in the locker room and the new coaches are for the worse? This is standard athlete-speak (go back to how the media chokes character out of players...Kaepernick got criticized for his tattoos and backwards hat, think he would be dumb enough to say he misses Jim Harbaugh?). Any change is a good change. That's what most athletes will say until the point they shouldn't say this anymore.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Five vacation highlights from a vacation spent fairly close to home over the past three weeks:

1. Running along the Charles and around Fenway Park and down tree-lined Commonwealth Avenue in Boston. No doubt: prettiest five-mile city run in America—and I am spoiled because I get to run in Central Park.

"I am spoiled because I get to stalk women on their phone while they are running in Central Park."

There, I fixed it.

3. Seeing U2. Saw them in Boston the other night. Unique show. The combination of a huge screen nearly the length of the floor at TD Garden and the graphics and the overall setup was reminiscent of those cartoony line drawings in “Juno.”

Peter says the U2 show was unique, then states the overall setup of the show was reminiscent of drawings from a movie. So it was a unique show, except for the part where the show wasn't unique.

A more pensive Bono, I thought, in this show.

A pensive Bono, huh? Not precocious? I wonder what was wrong with Bono since he was so pensive. Perhaps he's realized his fan base consists mostly of middle-aged men, people who forgot to delete the latest U2 album off their iTunes account, and fans of Apple commercials.

One of the biggest cheers of a raucous night came when Bono thanked Tom Brady for his charitable work for Bono’s (RED) initiative to fight AIDS and other diseases.

I'm surprised they cheered Bono for this. Usually the fans in Boston would boo Tom Brady for helping to fight AIDS. It's good to see the mention of Brady during the show didn't deflate the crowd, though I'm not sure how a show with a pensive lead singer and drawings from "Juno" can be seen as raucous. I wasn't there though, so I clearly don't know.

4. Hitting PNC Park. There’s a big difference between a Friday night Pirates game in 2015 and one, say, three or four years ago. I know. I see a game in Pittsburgh most years with family, and the game I saw against Atlanta a couple of weeks ago was mostly packed. No spreading out over a few seats anymore. So good to see excitement for baseball in Pittsburgh, a downtrodden baseball town for so long.

The Pirates have been pretty good for a couple of years now. The excitement being back isn't new for this year.

Our freedoms includes the freedom to do dumb stuff like cramming as many pig scrap cylinders into our gullets as possible. Hooray?

— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) July 4, 2015

Florio was referring to the July 4 hot dog eating contest on Coney Island in New York, which I despise. 

No one gives perspective like Mike Florio. Few sportswriters support each other across mediums like Mike Florio and Peter King. Florio writes about parts of MMQB on Pro Football Talk and Peter King mentions Mike Florio as much as possible. It's an NBC brotherhood thing, surely. 

In a country where 16.2 million children daily do not get enough to eat (according to an agency called No Kid Hungry) because of financial constraints, adult human beings force hot dogs down their throats in a “Competitive Eating” contest. Gag me.

Gag you? Gag you with what? Food? What an insensitive asshole you are, Peter. You want to be gagged with food when there are 16.2 million children DAILY who don't get enough to eat?

And it’s celebrated on TV, and people write about it. Think about it, people. Think about watching on television a contest of people over-eating grotesquely. It’s sick.

No one has to think about it, because they can just watch it on television brazenly being celebrated. So sick. Now let Peter tell you about how much coffee and beer he drank this week, while mentioning a delicious dinner he had with Donnie Banks.
 
Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think my first thought when I read the sheriff’s report on the Aaron Kromer altercation with “boys” at a beach in Florida was, “What was Kromer thinking?” An arrest report from the sheriff’s office in Walton County, Fla., on Sunday claimed the Buffalo Bills’ offensive line coach—and last year’s Bears offensive coordinator on Marc Trestman’s ill-fated staff—was apparently angry that three boys used beach chairs belonging to Kromer.

According to the sheriff’s report, the boys said Kromer confronted them, and Kromer threw a fishing pole belonging to the boys into the water. Then he pushed one of the boys to the ground and punched him in the face, the report said. That boy, according to the report, “stated Kromer also told him if he reported him to the police he would kill his family.” This is very unlike the Kromer I know.

While obviously threatening to kill his family and acting this way isn't acceptable, let's never forget (old man rant) that some teenagers are entitled individuals who probably need to be punched in the face at least once a year. Perhaps that's just my experience. Kromer needed to be the adult in this case, but there are so many teenagers (and I deal with kids 18+ and up everyday) who have absolutely no concern for authority or adults. They think they can do or say whatever they would like and there are no repercussions. The entitlement factor is quite high in some teenagers, as established by their parents that they are indeed entitled to certain things. Kromer was still very much in the wrong, but I have experience where some semi-adults 18+ and up think they can say what they want and act as how they see fit. Kromer needed to be an adult, but some kids just need to be fucked up every once in a while as a reminder that it can happen.

Kromer supposedly was much bigger than this kid. I wouldn't defend him because he was out of line, but in general, sometimes when you are young you need to get punched a time or two to straighten you out. That's my (terrible, possibly) point. I'm sure the kid isn't blameless and the fact Kromer was so much bigger goes to the idea you don't want to screw with people bigger than you (if that was indeed the case). I know I acted like a jerk on a few occasions when I was younger and if anything had happened out of it then I would have been seen as more blameless for the incident than the other party because I was a kid. I have no point other than Kromer was out of line, but kids can be assholes...which everyone probably knew already.

2. I think it’s hard to fathom why the two football players who lost a total of three fingers in July 4th fireworks accidents (Giants defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul and Tampa Bay cornerback C.J. Wilson) would be so entranced by fireworks when the risk in handling them is so great.

It's shocking to Peter King that professional football players wouldn't appropriately weigh the costs and benefits of handling fireworks. Professional football players in their 20's are so well-known for making great decisions, because they certainly don't feel like they are invincible or anything.

If I’m the Giants, I’m supporting Pierre-Paul at his time of crisis, hoping he signs his one-year free-agent tender contract, though they’re not certain how much production they’ll get out of him this year. For now, the best idea for the Giants is to not pressure Pierre-Paul into anything; he’s got to learn how to live without his lost index finger before he worries about Steve Spagnuolo’s new defense.

I think it's great the Giants are going to point a finger at Pierre-Paul and give him a hand when he certainly needs it. The Giants should give Pierre-Paul their digits in case he wants to send out a feeler and claw his way back on to the team.

3. I think of all the stories about Stabler I read over the weekend, this tale by John McClain about Stabler’s 1980 season in Houston was most stunning:

“In November, the Oilers went to New York to play the Jets at Shea Stadium. Stabler partied into the wee hours, blowing curfew and infuriating his coaches. Early Sunday morning, Stabler’s teammates saw him struggling to get out of a cab about the time they were preparing for the pregame meal. Hung over from his night on the town, Stabler was awful in the first half, throwing four interceptions—one returned for a touchdown—and the Oilers trailed 21-0 at halftime.

“In the dressing room at halftime, coach Bum Phillips was addressing his players, and some could hear Stabler throwing up in a bathroom area. Finally, Stabler emerged, sobered up and wiping his face with a towel. He told his teammates he was ready to go. Stabler threw four touchdown passes in the fourth quarter, including one to Richard Caster to make it 28-28.

Again, this is a situation where the sports media today would kill Stabler for playing a game hungover, and then point out that no matter whether the Oilers almost won the game or not, Stabler cost his team the game in the first half. Sportswriters like Peter King love relaying these stories, yet if this happened today then it would create a 24 hour news story with hot takes galore.

I’d love to know how an event like that would be covered today—and what a 2015 NFL head coach would do if his starting quarterback did something like that the night before a game. It’s virtually unimaginable.

It's not so much what a head coach would do, but how would fans and the media react to this happening? Johnny Manziel has a few beers at a bar during the week or attends a sporting event and the media eats this up.

5. I think I counted six “Free Brady” T-shirts at Fenway Park on Saturday night … and one “Fire Goodell” shirt.

So Peter is saying that Red Sox fans support Tom Brady? Whaaaaaaat? Very unforeseen.

This #5 point was the second in a series of points made by Peter about the Patriots deflating footballs.

4. I think there’s a pretty good news blackout over the Tom Brady sanction.

6. I think my feelings about the ball-deflation findings haven’t changed: I don’t think the Wells report proved Brady directed anyone to deflate footballs.

7. I think sometime in the next two weeks you’ll see the league come out with a new policy on measuring the pressure in footballs before, during and after games.

All four of these points are about the exact same topic and part of the same discussion. Why are they in four separate numbers of the outline? All of these thoughts should be under one number. Peter puts all of his non-football thoughts under #10, and these are all thoughts that have very little to do with each other, yet Peter puts all of his thoughts on the Patriots deflating footballs under four separate numbers in his "Things He Thinks." This probably only annoys me, but it does annoy me. He separates out similar thoughts on the same topic over several numbers in his outline, yet combines thoughts on different topics under one number in his outline.

8. I think the league is serious about considering playing a game in Brazil.

(Roger Goodell is blindfolded, spun around four times, and then points out a country on a map) "That's the country where the NFL will be expanding next!" 

The best chance is a future Pro Bowl. A fact-finding team from the NFL went to Brazil this off-season and studied sites and found heavy interest in the NFL and also found—thanks to the new stadiums built when the country hosted the World Cup in 2014—plenty of stadium sites that would be good fits for an NFL game, in terms of stadium size and sight lines for American football.

I'm not against the NFL being played in other countries simply because I love America and it's favorite sport so much. I feel like there are several places in the United States that could use an NFL team, I don't like the idea fans only get 8 home games a year and one of those could be taken away, and expansion into other countries hasn't really worked in most of the major professional American sports. Take away hockey succeeding in the United States and Canada (though there have been issues with hockey in certain American cities) and there has only been one city in a foreign country that has successfully supported an NBA and MLB team over time. That city is Toronto with the Raptors and Blue Jays. MLB left Montreal and the NBA left Vancouver. There's not just one reason for why these cities didn't work out, but this was expansion into North America, much less expansion into London or taking the game to Brazil. Who am I to question the NFL though?

9. I think, on the subject of international football, there’s another interesting twist in the wake of the league’s agreement last week to play at least two games per year beginning in 2018 in the new Tottenham Hotspur stadium scheduled to open in 2018 in North London. The league could look for another London stadium to play games in beginning in 2017, with the deal with Wembley Stadium ending after 2016. The league could continue to play some games in Wembley, but it is interested in exploring other London sites too because Wembley has limited dates available in the fall. So the league will explore using Twickenham Stadium, an 82,000-seat rugby venue on the outskirts of London, for occasional games beginning in 2017. 

Roger Goodell wants the NFL to take over the world, but there is a huge difference in finding fan interest in the NFL for three games a year in London and actually having the fan support to put an NFL team over in London. There may be interest in three games per year with different teams each time, but is there interest in the NFL or is there interest in supporting an NFL team? Because there is a difference in Londoners supporting the NFL and Londoners supporting an NFL team. It's like the difference in taking care of your sister's children for a week during the summer and actually having children of your own to take care of. Who am I to question the NFL though?

The NFL’s obsession with football on the continent is not going away—not when the league sells 250,000 tickets for three London games now, and not with rising TV interest in Europe. By the way, this will be the first season a package of two games per Sunday will be on TV, live, throughout Germany. The NFL would consider a game or two in Germany, but only if the local TV response is good.

Oh great, now the NFL is going to Germany. At a certain point, the NFL is going to be asking NFL fans to support a team in their city while only getting to attend six games per season, plus those all-important preseason games that the NFL makes the fans pay full price for. How about that as a great idea? How about the NFL takes those pointless preseason games overseas and force this huge fanbase overseas to pay full price for tickets to a shit exhibition game and no longer tie season tickets to the purchase of full price preseason tickets? That sounds like a great idea to me.

I'm very protective of regular season NFL games being played in a team's home stadium. Next thing you know the NFL is going to want to play playoff games overseas in a desperate effort to expand.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

a. I can’t figure out which weekend sports moment was better: the second-set tiebreaker in the Wimbledon’s men’s final between two incredible athletes, or the Andrew McCutchen come-from-behind, walk-off homer in the 14th inning for the Pirates over the archrival Cards. If I had to pick, I’d take the tennis, which—and I’m not tennis authority—

We know the second that Peter says he doesn't know much about a topic, he'll then make a definitive statement about said topic. Look no further than any of his comments about the NBA. Peter is not a tennis authority, but here we go...

is about as good as the sport gets.

"I know nothing about tennis, but I know tennis doesn't get better than what I just watched. Sure, you may claim I need to know something about tennis to state it doesn't get better than this, but that's silly. I'm Peter King. I just write shit and that makes it true."

b. And Serena Williams’ mastery of her game … I doubt there is a more dominant athlete in any sport today.

Peter is no authority on tennis, but he knows Serena Williams is the most dominant athlete in any sport today.

"I know nothing about colleges, but I doubt there is a better university in the country than the University of Phoenix."

How can you claim to not be an authority and then make a definitive statement on the topic you aren't an authority on?

c. At least now we know what your word is worth, DeAndre Jordan.

He had not signed anything and changed his mind. It's fun for laughs, but Peter is lying in pretending that if he made a verbal agreement to join Fox Sports, and then "SI" made him a better offer and Peter decided not to leave, that he would say, "Oh, well my word is my bond" while passing up more money and going to a place he doesn't want to be.

f. If I were the NHL (which is tough, because leagues are not people), I’d expand to Seattle and Quebec City, and eventually move the Arizona team to Las Vegas.
g. Seattle would be a great NHL town. And Quebec, come now. Do you even have to ask?

No, because you are the one asking.

j. Somebody please take the pins out of the Joel Embiid voodoo doll. Man, is that horrible luck for Embiid, lost for another year with that foot injury.

Big men with injuries in college. When will NBA teams start to learn?

Embiid couldn't even get through one year in college basketball, how was he going to make it through an 82 game schedule in the NBA with back and foot injuries? Back and foot injuries are the worst for a big man, much less a young big man. I never quite saw the draw of Embiid due to these injuries. I guess it was all the potential.

l. Wait until next year, Sox fans. Nothing’s changed about this team since April 1. Not nearly enough pitching.

Welp, Peter's brother-in-law is selling those Red Sox season tickets again. Who wants them? There's no way he can cheer for a losing team like the Red Sox. Peter completely understands.

o. While I was on vacation, Andy Benoit of The MMQB got in social-media hot water in the midst of the Women’s World Cup excitement for tweeting that he had no interest in women’s soccer, and no interest in any women’s sport for that matter. Many of you were furious with Benoit for the anti-woman stance.

It wasn't anti-women, it was anti-women's sports.

My response: I am a women’s sports supporter; my two daughters played lots of sports growing up, and I had more fun at their softball and field hockey games in high school than I remember having at my own high school games. I loved watching the Women’s World Cup games. I was in a group of people—including Benoit and our staff—during one of the early-round games, and I asked that the TV in the room be put on the U.S.-Nigeria game over Game 6 of the Cavs-Warriors NBA Finals (though the soccer game was over when the basketball game was still in the first quarter).

This would mean a lot more if Peter hadn't repeatedly stated how much he despises the NBA. Though of course this doesn't stop him from making definitive statements about the NBA.

But I’m not going to tell Andy what sports to like, and what not to like. He’s one of the best analysts of the inner game of football today, and that’s what he’s being paid to do—analyze football. There may be some of you who say that because of Andy’s stance you’re going to stop reading him, or stop reading our site, and that is your right. But I won’t punish one of our staff members because he says he doesn’t like women’s sports.

Way to hold your ground, Peter. I don't think Benoit should be punished for his opinion, but using the logic that Peter uses here, let me try something out. Say I get paid to analyze politics. I'm a political reporter and I Tweet that I don't like baseball because I find that the influx of Hispanic players are ruining my enjoyment of the game. Do you think I would be punished for my stance on baseball? I'm not paid to analyze baseball, and it's simply my opinion that Hispanic players have added a flair and attitude towards the game I don't enjoy. Does that mean I should be punished and would I be punished?

I don't know the answer to this, but using Peter's logic for defending Andy Benoit, because I'm not paid to analyze baseball it is fine for me to hold an opinion on baseball that is slightly offensive. I mock Andy Benoit, yet I don't care about his opinion enough to think he should be punished. It's just interesting that Peter seems to believe because Benoit isn't paid by THE MMQB to analyze women's sports then his stance on women's sports aren't within the realm of punishment.

p. Coffeenerdness: Madness of Starbucks Dept.: Often, I bring my reusable cup to Starbucks. Often the barista will take a small cup as a receptacle for the three or four shots of espresso for my drink, depending on the size, pour the shots into my cup, then toss the small cup away. You’re supposed to be eliminating waste, not causing more of it.

Then stop going to Starbucks every single day and ordering this drink. It's an easy solution. If they don't change their behavior and it bothers you, then change your behavior. Or just continue to bitch about it in MMQB because you want to bitch about it. You know, either way.

q. Beernerdness: My top four new beers from my time off:

Crux Half Hitch Imperial Mosaic Pale Ale (Crux Fermentation Project, Bend, Ore.). One of the best noses I’ve ever experienced in beerdom. It’s a strong pine smell, with some citrus and lots of strong fruit. And the taste is good too … just be careful. It’s 9.5 percent alcohol content. Half a beer sometimes is just fine.

Holy crap, grow a pair. One beer at 9.5% alcohol shouldn't get you drunk or even tipsy.

t. Hope to see many of you at the Boomer Esiason four-miler in Central Park Saturday. It’s for a great cause—the fight against cystic fibrosis.

You can find Peter trailing behind a group of women trying to listen to their cell phone conversations, while writing down as much of it as he can.

The Adieu Haiku

Something I don’t get:  
Players who love fireworks.
Let pros handle, please.

Yes, let the professional firework handlers take care of setting them off. You know, those people who have gone to school to handle fireworks. 

Something I don't get: The Adieu Haiku. 

4 comments Yeah, It Sucks Donald Sterling Sold the Clippers for $2 Billion But What Did Scoop Jackson Expect to Happen and What's His Solution?

Scoop Jackson sort of throws a little gasoline on a fire and then walks away in this column. He says the value of racism was confirmed with Donald Sterling's sale of the Clippers to Steve Ballmer for $2 billion. That's pretty much all Scoop says and then he stops writing. There are so many things wrong with this article. 

1. The NBA forced Sterling to sell the Clippers. Did Scoop think the team would be sold for $1? Did he think Sterling would receive a check from a potential buyer and then it comes up non-sufficient funds when he tries to cash the check and so he had lost his NBA team and had no money from the sale? Did Scoop think Adam Silver would send two thugs to rob Sterling of his money before he could cash the $2 billion check? (And yes, I know it isn't a check)

2. Isn't this a better lesson in free market economics? The NBA forced Sterling to sell. He did and his team is valued on the free market at $2 billion. The free market won, not racism.

3. What's the solution? Scoop, in typical shitty fashion, throws out all sorts of racial indicators for why Sterling is able to make so much money selling the Clippers, but he provides zero solutions. What would he have suggested happen? The NBA force Sterling to sell and then he gets $0 of the sale? Other than general whining about Sterling making money off a team he rightfully purchased and was forced to sale, what's the solution? Scoop has none. He prefers to throw gasoline on a fire and then walk away, letting others figure out how to stop the fire.

4. If Sterling had sold the Clippers for even $1 billion, then wouldn't that have also shown the value of racism? What's $2 billion compared to $1 billion? In fact, if Sterling got $500 million for the Clippers, he still has made a shit-ton of money off the sale of the Clippers and will continue to be super-racist and super-rich. It's a weak argument Scoop is making where the only real solution he would seem to enjoy is that Sterling doesn't make a dollar off the Clippers team that he is being forced to sell. That's not realistic. While Sterling may be a racist asshole, being a racist asshole isn't a crime (well, unless you are a racist asshole that discriminates on who he will rent property, which also describes Sterling...of course the NBA was totally fine with that at the time), and saying racist things doesn't mean you should forfeit all property and possessions. Sterling lost his NBA team. That was a victory. Forcing him to sell the Clippers and give him $0 of the proceeds of the sale for being racist isn't a realistic solution.

How sad is this?

A man gets publicly exposed for being a transparent racist and is universally vilified on every media and social platform known to man. He is forced out of the NBA by a commissioner who seemed to take unbridled pride in initiating the process of removing the owner from the league.

Sterling was forced to sell his team. He lost his NBA team, but would get money in return. He got $2 billion in return for selling a franchise in a huge market with two big stars on the team and a head coach who has an NBA Title. The Clippers have value, and so when the team is sold, Sterling reaps the reward of this value in the form of money.

now is on the verge of being rewarded with one of the largest windfalls in professional sports history.

$2 billion.

I wouldn't say he is being rewarded. He's being forced to sell the team and clearly doesn't want to do this. After being forced to sell, there was an offer of $1.6 billion from Oprah (I guess Scoop sees Oprah as part of the problem now for propping up and trying to make a racist wealthy?), so Steve Ballmer topped that offer. Sterling didn't commit a crime, he was forced to sell his team and there is no way to make sure he doesn't make money on the team he is being forced to sell.

Scoop isn't interested in the solution, he's interested in bitching, calling something racist and then moving on with his life. 

The Los Angeles Clippers, the same team that just six months ago Forbes valued at $575 million (13th on the NBA Team Valuation list), now has an offer for almost four times the worth of its January value (which is also four times higher than the most money ever exchanged for an NBA franchise).

NBA teams don't often go up for sale and NBA teams in Los Angeles don't often go on sale. The Lakers were valued in that same Forbes article as being worth $1.35 billion. There was an offer of $1.6 billion for the Clippers on the table. This isn't a case of Ballmer bidding against himself. There was another offer on the table that would have made Donald Sterling filthy rich and the lead face on that bid was a black female. Not coincidentally, Scoop leaves this part out of his screed about the unfairness of life and how racism is now valued at $2 billion.

And they say racism has no value -- or place -- in America.

Sterling was forced to sell his team. That was his punishment, even if it doesn't seem like enough. What's the solution? Is the solution to force Sterling to sell his team then say, "But you will have to actually give your team away for $0"? I'm pretty sure the legal system wouldn't be on the NBA's side in that situation.

On the surface there's almost no other way to look at this. Somehow Donald Sterling's comeuppance became a come up.

If the initial thought is "That's racist" and you don't care to look at this from a free market perspective, then yes, there's no other way to look at it. You just have to keep your eyes closed and hold tight to your assumptions. It wasn't Ballmer bidding against himself. He had competition who was offering closer to $2 billion than $1 billion.

Yes, there are other factors that should be taken into consideration,

And of course, Scoop WILL NOT be considering these other factors. Full speed ahead, racism wins.

I'm very interested to know what Scoop expected Sterling to receive in return for selling the Clippers. I get the feeling he would be bitching even if the franchise was sold for $600 million. After all, that still makes Sterling a very wealthy man and the same argument that racism pays could be used in this instance as well. So the only other way to look at this from my perspective is that regardless of how much the Clippers sold for, Scoop Jackson was writing an article about how racism pays.

I'm not saying that other NBA owners will look at this situation and use it as a template drive up the value of their teams. But what can't be ignored is that if none of this Sterling B.S. had ever happened, the value of the Clippers if sold today might have been "around $900 million," as ESPN business reporter Darren Rovell said on "Mike & Mike."

This is pure speculation based on Rovell's opinion. Not to mention, Sterling would not even be selling the Clippers if this situation had not occurred. That's the punishment right there. He is forced to sell (not give away) his team. And again, a pertinent point that Scoop isn't acknowledging is that a black female person bid $1.6 billion on the Clippers. Sure, this still means that racism wins, but it certainly gives a new perspective on the situation. 

How did the consequence of the public's disgust over the racist comments, beliefs and feelings of an owner become an upgrade to the value of a business by $1.1 billion in less than 30 days?

So if Sterling had "only" made $900 million on the sale then Scoop would have had no issue with the sale of the Clippers, as if $900 million is pocket change, and racism got a good kick in the ass? I really, really doubt it. This same column would be written.

What precedence does this set? What example beyond just the sale of the team does this leave?

Keep asking open-ended questions and providing zero answers. You are doing great, Scoop! Complain about the problem, but provide no solutions.

Yes, the situation was unique. Yes, there was a deadline in place that drove the interest in the team to a whole other stratosphere. Yes, Steve Ballmer desperately wanted a shot at getting an NBA team (he'd attempted it in the past and the deal fell through), so he was willing to make sure he overbid on the market value to keep other interested buyers away. 

These would be "the other factors" taken into consideration as to why the price was driven so high. You know, market factors that Scoop probably doesn't understand nor does he care to understand when screaming about racism. I'm baffled at what Scoop expected. Does he consider $900 million to be a really fair amount for Sterling to receive in return for the Clippers? That seems like a lot of money to me.

True, this is L.A. we are talking about, not Milwaukee, where the recent $550 million sale of Bucks was often used as a comp for the going price of non-championship-caliber NBA franchises.

If you can't understand the difference in value of a lottery team in Milwaukee and a playoff team in Los Angeles then you simply aren't trying to understand. The Clippers have two young franchise cornerstones in a very attractive market. The Bucks may (maybe) have some franchise cornerstones in a market that is not Los Angeles.

The punishment for being outed as a racist against blacks and other minorities in this country still pays dividends.

This would have been true no matter whether Sterling got $550 million or $2 billion. It's all a lot of money. Seeing as how he was forced to sell the team, I simply don't know what outcome Scoop was expecting.

And true, Sterling himself may never see or be able to personally do anything with the money, but his family will benefit greatly.

The entire Sterling family shouldn't be punished because Donald Sterling is a racist. I'm pretty sure he wasn't leaving his family destitute when he died anyway.

Generation after generation of Sterlings will reap the extra estimated billion-dollar benefit from the sale of the Clippers because it was discovered their patriarch felt about blacks the same way as a plantation owner.

No. Generation after generation of Sterlings will reap the billion-dollar benefit from the sale of the Clippers because he bought them for $12 million in 1981. I like how Scoop is using the punishment of Sterling, forcing the sale of his team, as some sort of culpable action that was in some way a positive designed to benefit Sterling. The NBA couldn't simply get rid of Sterling, they did what they could do, which was force him to sell his team. Now his racist ass has nothing to do with the NBA. It was a pretty extreme move, but now Scoop is upset about how this just made Donald Sterling more money. I have a feeling if the NBA didn't make Sterling sell the Clippers then Scoop would be upset about that.

There is a deeper discussion to be had here, but I'm not going to have it in this space because Scoop isn't interested in that discussion. He writes a column that only touches on issues of race and then stops writing. He's interested in bitching about every possible outcome rather than creating solutions or providing alternatives for what he thinks the outcome should have been.

Similar to the financial benefits still reaped today off the business that was slavery.
Okay, Scoop. Let's stay on the topic. I'm still waiting on the idea for a solution to this situation.

The sale of the Clippers is just another reminder of how America at the core works. Money over everything. Not black, not white, but green. Money first, and everything else in second place.

The NBA forced Sterling to sell the team. He sold the team. Now Scoop Jackson is mad Donald Sterling made money off the Clippers. Did he think they would go for $15.99 at a yard sale? NBA franchises are valuable and Sterling was going to be a rich man when forced to sell the team.

Damn the message we were supposed to learn. Damn whatever we were supposed to take away from the activities and behavior that yes, took away his team, but gifted four times the original business's worth.

The lesson is that Sterling is a racist and the NBA made a statement they aren't going to let openly racist people own an NBA team. Again, the NBA can't force Sterling to sell the team and then say he can't keep the money from selling the team. Just in the same way if Scoop Jackson wrote something offensive and was fired as a writer for ESPN I couldn't stop him from receiving a severance package. It wasn't a gift to Sterling, it was the value of his franchise as decided by what someone was willing to pay for said franchise.

Where is the expected justice -- now that the country could no longer deny who Sterling really was -- that he would be made to pay?

FOR THE 50TH TIME, WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN DONALD STERLING SOLD THE CLIPPERS?

In a free, predominately white male-owned and operated enterprise system, if a dollar can be turned into $2 billion, more power to the person who can do it.

Actually, $12 million was turned into $2 billion. Also, if Steve Ballmer had not purchased the Clippers then Oprah would have been the one to turn Sterling's $12 million into $1.6 billion. I'm sure Scoop would have had an issue with a black, female woman paying to take over an NBA team from a racist. He would probably write something like, "This is how it is in America, to stop racism it costs $1.6 billion. RACISM CAN BE BOUGHT OFF IN AMERICA!"

Which means the only thing more American than Donald Sterling is America itself.

Great deep thought to end the column and then be out. There's nothing more American than bitching about something and having absolutely no clue how to fix it nor providing any solutions. It sucks Donald Sterling made so much money, but what was the alternative? The NBA forced Sterling to sell the Clippers, so he did, and now he made money off the sale. Maybe $2 billion is considered "too much" but is $600 million a much better lesson to Sterling when he bought the team for $12 million?