July 24, 2014

While We’re Waiting… Goodell, Meyer and player safety

While We’re Waiting is the daily morning link roundup that WFNY has been serving up for breakfast for the last several years. We hope you enjoy the following recent collection of yummy and nutritious Cleveland sports-related articles. Anything else to add? Email us at tips@waitingfornextyear.com.

WFNYBanner www

“NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has not been a stranger to hypocrisy in his tenure and he is off to impressive start in August. Goodell is always willing to throw his body in front of a controversy and act as a human shield for the owners, so that he is always the bad guy and takes all of the negative press away from them. In that respect, Goodell is fantastic at his job even if he appears to be a vile person to both players and fans in the process. It is only the first of the month and Goodell is already at least ankle deep in two instances of incredible hypocrisy: First, in the morning with some predictable but stunning comments about the situation with Riley Cooper and then later in the day with comments at a press conference in Berea about the owner of the Cleveland Browns, Jimmy Haslam.” [Smith/Dawg Pound Daily]

—-

“Woods started his day on No. 10. He made the turn to the front of the course at even par, then posted four birdies without a bogey on the back. He hit 16 of 18 greens in regulation, the best percentage of any player on Thursday. Woods has won four of the five Bridgestone Invitationals in which he’s posted a first-round 66 or lower.” [Jackson/FSO]

—-

Interesting chart on how Dwight Howard affected free agency for each team. “Top free agents are often likened to dominoes for their powers of cause and effect, but the momentum of those stars’ signing shouldn’t be misconstrued as some straight-line chain reaction. For the most coveted players, a simple decision can stretch to the ends of the league in ripples and tangents. Franchises around the NBA move players and clear salary-cap space to compete for just a few superstars. One team fulfills its pursuit by getting a signature on the dotted line. Countless others scramble in the lead-up and the aftermath of that signing, with little to show for their efforts but barren rosters and unused cap room.” [Mahoney/Point Forward]

—-

Very interesting video of Urban Meyer talking about how the game is going to change because to keep players safe. [Bucknuts]

—-

“Most have forgotten that Winslow was even with the Seahawks last year, but that release still bothers Winslow, Kimberly Martin of Newsday reports.

“You know, last year,” Winslow said on Thursday. “I don’t know what happened in Seattle. That was on Pete (Carroll). But I’m here now and this is a great opportunity for me.

“What happened in Seattle, I couldn’t control that. They cut me after training camp. That was out of my control. And they cut me over money. So they put me in a bad situation. I’ve never been put in that situation…It’s just frustrating what happened. And I’ll leave it at that. “You just don’t do a vet like that.”

To be fair, the Seahawks didn’t cut Winslow over money. The Seahawks cut Winslow over a lot of money.” [McIntyre/Shutdown Corner]

  • Ezzie Goldish

    I really have to take issue with the DPD piece. Both examples are ones where the author has ‘decided’ something is an issue, then calls Goodell a “hypocrite” for not having those same assumptions.

    The Redskins’ name “controversy” is absurd. Every poll on it has shown massive support, particularly from Native Americans. This comes off as (excuse me) the old example of white people being offended on behalf of those who aren’t offended themselves. That’s in a way more racist.

    As for the difference between players and owners, does he really think it is about the owners being owners? Or perhaps (!) it’s about one being a complex white collar case where the owner claims innocence, and where there’s no “punishment” he could give him regardless, and the others being cases where players had often (always?) acknowledged responsibility and often for more dangerous crimes (DUI, assault, etc.)?

  • Harv 21

    Ah, Kellen. Classic case of a brain that cannot accept that the body is years removed from potential stardom. It was a great move to ship a physically damaged guy as soon as he hires Drew Rosenhaus to force a new contract with a holdout. Mangini was no genius, but he sure understood addition by subtraction.

  • MrCleaveland

    On the other hand, Winslow’s entitlement mentality is as healthy as ever.

  • Harv 21

    Some things are impervious to even the worst motorcycle accidents and multiple roster cuts.

  • Steve

    The famous SI poll is simply put, BS. There is no evidence that the survey was done properly, and SI refuses to reveal any details, down to exactly how the question was worded. No serious study would take those results even remotely seriously. As for polls among other races? White people aren’t offended by denigrating other races? You don’t say.

    I’m sure Frowns will make an appearance, and he can (and already has) say it better than I can. But the hoops we jump through to defend blatant racism are pretty appalling.

  • Bobby

    Please link to the scientifically valid polls that show massive support from native Americans for the name redskins.

    Not Seminoles, not Braves, not warriors.

    REDSKINS.

    Please also define massive. 70-30?

    How dare you confuse utter marginalization in a society that tried to exterminate them with “support” or non-offense.

    What an example of a tone deaf white person deciding who should be offended.

  • mgbode

    the only way to support keeping the name would be to talk to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and see how they feel. if they think changing the name to Redhawks has been beneficial, then there’s really no support. if they wish they didn’t make the change as many likely don’t realize the association anymore, then there is some argument.

    personally, I don’t like the Redskin name. they can change their name to Archers or something keep the history without using that term. but, that’s just my opinion on it.

  • Steve

    One, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma are not the only ones affected here.

    And the change wasn’t made so that people could notice the association. It was changed because of how the original nickname was so inappropriately chosen.

    No one takes Little Black Sambo seriously anymore, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t created with ill intentions and has no place in today’s culture. It’s the same with the Redskins nickname.

  • Steve

    *and thus he has no place in today’s culture*

  • saggy

    i always wonder what would have been if he didn’t get hurt.

    but then, i’d probably be wondering what would have been if he didn’t hold out for QB money, since, you know, he is as valuable as any QB. If Tom Brady didn’t have TE’s to throw to he’d just be Greg Brady.

  • C-Bus Kevin

    Chief Wahoo (that name is so offensive) will be (and should be) one of the next to go. I’m a huge Tribe fan, but when I see that logo, I cringe.

    It’s normalized for me to some extent, because I grew up with it, but when I put the gear on my small kids, it really gives me pause.

    Let’s go with the Cleveland Spiders. Or, we could throw back to another team lost to history, and call them the Cleveland Browns (after the old Browns baseball team). That way, ESPN would give both teams more name drops because they’d have to make the distinction of the Cleveland Baseball Browns, just like they unnecessarily so with the New York Football Giants.

  • mgbode

    when did I say they were the only affected? they are one team that I know that has gone through this exact change of name. as such, there thoughts are incredibly relevant IMO. much more than mine or yours.

    and the change was done at the pressures of the NCAA and amid alot of tension and not unanimous among the students, faculty or tribe. be an interesting discussion to see where they stand today.

  • Steve

    When you say the only way would be to talk to that specific tribe, I’m not sure what else you’re saying.

    And we need to get past this idea that the change was made because of pressure from some group. The change was made because the name was offensive, and created in a hateful manner. The NCAA applied pressure because those things were true.

  • mgbode

    the only way would be to support keeping the name would be to talk to a Tribe that has already gone through the name change and see if they feel the change was unjustified now that it has been 16 years.

    they very well may think it was for the best.

  • Harv 21

    Greg Brady … that gave me a mini snort/coughing fit.

  • Garry_Owen

    They have been exhibiting the old Cleveland Blues uniforms and team quite a bit this year. I have half been expecting that they would propose a change to this name, and I actually rather love it. If Cleveland fans know anything, it’s the blues; and it would go well with other Ohio teams (Browns, Reds, Blue Jackets).
    Regardless, “Indians” and “Chief Wahoo” both need to go need to go. Like now. Like 50 years ago.

  • mgbode
  • Garry_Owen

    That would be offensive to dudes everywhere.

  • Ezzie Goldish

    http://www.timesdispatch.com/sports/professional/football/redskins/article_26b0f8d8-eb22-52f0-87df-c05e24bbfc0e.html

    More importantly: In a study performed by the National Annenberg Survey, Native Americans from the 48 continental U.S. states were asked “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or does it not bother you?” In response, ninety percent replied that the name is acceptable, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer.[7]

    Also, this year: http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-latest-story-2

  • Ezzie Goldish

    That’s incorrect. In a study performed by the National Annenberg Survey, Native Americans from the 48 continental U.S. states were asked “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or does it not bother you?” In response, ninety percent replied that the name is acceptable, while nine percent said that it was offensive, and one percent would not answer.[7] King, C. Richard. The Native American Mascot Controvery: A Handbook p.268. Peter Harris Research Group. (2002) Methodology for Sports Illustrated survey on the use of Indian nicknames, mascots, etc. Document produced by The Peter Harris Research Group and shared with Ellen Staurowsky in January 2003.