It’s hard to ignore because the economy is the engine of our society. When we are all making money and spending money, things are good. We can catch a baseball game here or a football game there and support our favorite teams. But when money is tight and we aren’t able to spend as much, things are bad. Those little luxuries, such as going to a hockey game or some other sporting event. As of yet, I haven’t really seen a negative impact on professional sports due to the economic issues our country is facing.

That is the question for this week: Will the economy affect professional sports’ attendance?

(Don’t forget to cast your vote in the poll!)

My argument is this:
I don’t think it will affect professional sports’ attendance in a big way. Sure, some people will be cutting back. But not totally. People will not stop attending games for any sport. In bad economic times, sports gives people something to cheer about. It almost like an escape from reality. The lure and thrill of competition, the feeling of exhilaration when your teams wins, even the agony of defeat is worth every penny. Professional sports will always draw crowds, even in uncertain economic times.

The results of the N.Y. Giants poll are in! The question was: Are the New York Giants the best team in the football? Most of you think no, they are not. (I agree with that by the way.)

For previous editions of For Argument’s Sake, go here.

Post from: EveryJoe

Will The Economy Affect Professional Sports’ Attendance

Look up “old curmudgeon” in the dictionary and you will see a picture of Al Davis. Davis fired Lane Kiffin yesterday without so much as a friendly handshake. (Sources from ESPN say he was fired over the phone without pay.) Then Davis had the nerve to give a press conference in which he proceeded to bash Kiffin and call him a liar.

Why is it that every coach Davis has fired has been at fault. They are the ones with the issue. They are the problem. After a while, when this happens repeatedly, a mature and self-aware person would take a look at the situation and begin to wonder … is it me and not them?

But that would mean that Al Davis would have to be self-aware and mature and the “just win, baby” philosophy wouldn’t apply. Yeah … that’s not going to happen any time soon.

So what I want to know is this: Is Al Davis the worst owner in football?

(Don’t forget to cast your vote in the poll!)

My argument is this:
Do I really have to make an argument here? I think this one pretty much speaks for itself. Davis is the worst owner in football. And if he really wants to “just win” then he should stop getting in the way of his coaches and players and just let them do their job. Even Jerry Jones knows when to shut his mouth. Davis is hindering the progress and evolution of the Raiders organization. He’s no longer part of the solution, he’s part of the problem. And no reputable coach or player would want to voluntary step into a situation like that. Look how Randy Moss underperformed under Davis and his dysfunctional system thrived under Craft and Belichick? . See the difference? Enough said.

The results of the Roger Clemens poll are in! The question was: Should the Yankees have honored Clemens? I don’t think anyone cares because nobody voted!

For previous editions of For Argument’s Sake, go here.

Photo provided by Newscom

Post from: EveryJoe

Is Al Davis The Worst Owner In Football?

The Yankees organization paid its respects to Yankee Stadium the other night and honored the many talented players who have graced the field over the years.

Roger Clemens tuned into the historic ceremony and final game from his living room. Only, he was surprised and equally saddened to see that his name wasn’t mentioned at all.

So what I want to know is this: Should the Yankees have honored Roger Clemens?

(Don’t forget to cast your vote in the poll!)

My argument is this:
What does Joe Torre think? He wasn’t mentioned either and I think his snub was a bit more harsh. He did a heck of a lot for the Yankee organization and I think it was a personal dig by Hanky boy Steinbrenner . As for Clemens, I have a different opinion. I don’t like the guy and I don’t believe a word he says. I think he took steroids and I think he thinks the rest of us are idiots to try and maintain his innocence despite mounting evidence against him. He should have taken a note from Andy Pettitte and Jason Giambi and just admitted the truth. People would have more respect for him for fessing up, for facing up to the consequences of his own actions.

The fact that Clemens acts arrogantly and as if he is above the law has clouded his legacy as one of the greatest pitchers ever beyond repair.

The Yankees didn’t honor him because they thought it would cause a distraction. And like Barry Bonds, that is what Roger Clemens has become. He’s no longer a celebrated baseball icon … he’s a distraction. And unless he starts singing a different steroid accusation tone, he better get used to it.

The results of the Ed Hochuli poll are in! The question was: Should Ed Hochuli be punished by the NFL? I don’t think anyone cares because nobody voted!

For previous editions of For Argument’s Sake, go here.

Photo provided by Newscom

Post from: EveryJoe

Should The Yankees Have Honored Roger Clemens?

Anyway, NBC is getting some flack for failing to mention that diver Matthew Mitcham, an Australian gold medal winner in the Beijing Olympics, was gay. Now, there are other gay and lesbian athletes who competed at the Olympics. The only difference is that Mitcham is out to the public. He came out about six months ago and was the only out gay male athlete competing at the games. That’s a pretty big deal, I would think. But NBC didn’t mention a thing about it.

Mitcham’s mother and significant other were in the stands to support him, a trip that was fully funded by Johnson & Johnson (props to them for that!). Mitcham posted the highest score ever given to a single dive during Olympic competition.

But alas, Mitcham wasn’t featured in any side story and his medal ceremony was only posted on line. (I guess it should be noted here that after receiving his medal, Mitcham climbed into the stands and gave his mother and significant other a well-deserved hug. That, too, was not shown on air).

The NBC administration said this, “It’s not possible to cover the entire personal story of every athlete regarding their performance. … It’s just not possible to single out coverage.”

So what I want to know is this: Should NBC have mentioned that Olympic diver Matthew Mitcham was gay?

(Don’t forget to cast your vote in the poll!)

My argument is this:

As a gay individual myself, I think that having an out gay athlete at the Olympics is important, but it’s not the reason why Mitcham was there. He was there to compete. He was there to win a gold medal. He wasn’t there to be an advocate.

I think that his come behind win deserved a bit more attention and, yes, his medal ceremony should have been showed. It would have been nice to see him rush into the stands to hug his mother and his significant other, have the NBC commentator say, “that’s so and so” and then that was it. A nice moment captured on television — nothing more, nothing less. It would have been nice if it was just a non issue. Because, really, that’s what it should be. Mitcham shouldn’t have been given any special treatment because he is gay or any less special treatment because he is gay. It should have been mentioned as an aside, but not focused on.

I think NBC should have at least commented on the fact that Johnson & Johnson stepped up and financed his mother and his partner’s trip to Bejing. And that’s it. Is that so hard? Would that have really been such a big deal? It would have recognized the significance without making it a gay issue or supposedly offending anyone either.

That’s my take. If you choose to leave a comment below, please be respectful.

The results of the Alicia Sacramone poll are in! The question was: Was Alicia Sacramone robbed by the judges? An overwhelming majority of you think that, yes, she was totally robbed and should have won the bronze medal.

For previous editions of For Argument’s Sake, go here.

Photo provided by Newscom

Post from: EveryJoe

Should NBC Have Mentioned That Olympic Diver Matthew Mitcham Was Gay?

There’s been a few “scandals” throughout the gymnastic competition, mostly on the girls’ side of things. There’s been whispers about the “real” age of the Chinese girls’ gymnasts. There’s been hemming and hawing about the judges being too critical of the U.S. team. And there’s been complaints about how the judges low-balled Alicia Sacramone during the individual vault competition.

So what I want to know is this: Was Alicia Sacramone robbed by the judges?

(Don’t forget to cast your vote in the poll!)

My argument is this:
I don’t know a thing about gymnastics scoring. I’ve listened to the analysts, some of who say the scoring was fair and others who say Sacramone was scored unfairly. What I understand is this: the start value has a huge influence on the overall score. If you have a start value that is high but don’t execute the routine all that well, you can still score higher than someone who has a lower start value and executes the routine to perfection. Does that make sense? Yes. Is it fair? I don’t know. I suppose if someone takes on a harder routine they should be scored higher, but isn’t that also a risk to take? If you take on a more difficult routine then it is on you to make it great, difficult or not. That is the risk you take. I say if the routine is flawless, score them higher. But if someone falls on her knees during the routine (cough, Cheng Fei), that should have been a HUGE deduction as opposed to someone (cough, Sacramone) who doesn’t fall on her knees during a routine.

But what do I know? I’m just a viewer.

Now, I don’t think everyone should be crying and shouting “conspiracy.” The bottom line is that the home country has always influenced the judges, whether we like it or not. The U.S. has gotten our fair share of “homer” judges in past Olympics. So you really can’t blame the Chinese for that.

As for Sacramone … I just feel bad for the girl. She didn’t pull her weight in the team competition. And even though the U.S. won a silver medal, I’m sure she feels responsible for essentially losing any gold medal hopes for the rest of the team. The individual vault competition was supposed to be her shot at redemption. It was supposed to her one chance to salvage what she deems as a disappointing Olympic run. But it didn’t go her way.

Instead, Cheng Fei edged her out of a bronze medal with a knee-landing vault. A 33-year-old gymnast from the German team (who I give MAJOR props) won the silver. And Hong Un Jong from Korea took gold.

I don’t think Sacramone was robbed. But I do think she’ll be thinking about these 2008 Olympic games for the next four years … maybe even for the rest of her life.

The results of the Michael Phelps poll are in! The question was: Who’s the greatest athlete of all time? Wow. Michael Phelps ran away with that one. Almost everyone vote him as the greatest athlete of all time. That’s a pretty bold statement!

For previous editions of For Argument’s Sake, go here.

Photo provided by Newscom

Post from: EveryJoe

Was Alicia Sacramone Robbed By The Judges?

So what I want to know is this: Is he in the running for the greatest athlete of all time? Can we even give one individual that honor?

Dan Patrick was talking about this on his radio show this morning. He let his audience decide, which is what I’m going to do.

So … who’s the greatest athlete of all time? (Don’t forget to cast your vote in the poll!)

My argument is this:
I don’t think you can name just one person. Take Michael Jordan for instance. He is probably the greatest basketball player ever, but he couldn’t play baseball at all. So how can you name him as the greatest athlete? And how do you choose which sport is more athletic than the next. Ali was probably the greatest boxer of all time, but he probably couldn’t keep up with Phelps in the swimming pool.

Many people think Jackie Robinson or Jim Thorpe could fall into the category of greatest athlete because they proved their versatility in other sports and/or athletics.

I can’t give a name because I don’t think you can pick just one person. There’s too many variables. How can you justify Tiger Woods against Roger Federer? You can’t? Yet they are both the best at their individual sports.

It’s one of those questions that doesn’t have just one answer. And I’d love to hear yours.

If I had to pick — had to — just one person I’d say Muhammad Ali.

Video provide by YouTube

The results of the Erin Andres poll are in! The question was: Was Erin Andrews’ outfit out of line? Most of you don’t see what the big deal was and think that her outfit was fine.

For previous editions of For Argument’s Sake, go here.

Post from: EveryJoe

Who’s The Greatest Athlete Of All Time?

The topic I’m referring to isn’t so much a topic really as it is a person. And that person is Erin Andrews.

What I want to know is this: Was Erin Andrews’ outfit out of line?

Andrews is a looker. She’s also a sports fan. Combine the two and you’ve got the makings of one fine, knowledgeable sportscaster.

Women have had to work just a little bit harder through the years in order to gain respect in a male-dominated profession. And before all of you fellas start going off about how I’m being sexist … please. It’s a fact of life. Just ask Robin Roberts or Michelle Tafoya.

They have not only had to prove themselves to their co-workers and bosses, but also to the viewing public that they know what they’re talking about. It’s a hard thing to do. How do you embrace your femininity and sports related masculinity together? How do you present yourself? Do you use your beauty or your brains to your advantage?

I’m not an idiot and neither are you. We know that having a pretty face is an asset. It’s the nature of being on television. But some people, Mike Nadel in particular, seem to think that Erin Andrews went a little too far in embracing her femininity. He said she crossed the line. He referred to her “skimpy outfits” and her uncanny ability to “play the sexpot” while interviewing in the Cub’s Clubhouse.

He not only insulted her personally he also insulted her intelligence and patronized her by saying, “Are you doing a baseball game today or a modeling assignment?”

The Chicago Sun-Time beat writer, Gordon Wittenmyer, agreed with Nadel, remarking that Andrews misinterpreted the “clubhouse” as the “nightclub.”

Wisconsin reporter Trenni Kusinerek, weighed in from the female perspective. She was quoted as saying, “I wish she’d realize how damaging it is to an entire gender when she carries herself in that manner. It sets us all back to a time where female sports reporters were all seen as husband hunters who were only in the business to catch a cheap glance.”

This issue has sparked a debate between sports columnist around the country, from The Palm Beach Post and the Chicago Tribune.

So … was Erin Andrews’ outfit out of line? (Don’t forget to cast your vote in the poll!)

My argument is this:

Honestly, I didn’t think it was that big of a deal. It’s a better ensemble than most of the pantsuits I see on a regular basis.
But, if I am comparing her to the likes of Michelle Tafoya, then I would have to say that she could stand to dress a bit more appropriately. Tafoya looks beautiful and professional without compromising her position. She pulls off that balance between being feminine in a male dominated arena.

There’s an essence of professionalism that one must exude as sports reporter — for men and women. And Andrews needs to take that into consideration. Maybe she’s perfectly comfortable and confident with what she wears. Even so, I would not resort to calling her a “sexpot.” She’s not Paris Hilton. She’s obviously extremely knowledgeable about the sports she covers.

Do I think she’s setting women back a few years? No, I don’t. But I can understand the argument. We women talk often about how we want to be respected for our knowledge and not our looks. And Andrews has definitely shifted the focus away from that.

The bottom line is that Andrews has a responsibility to act and look professional on television, not only for the sake of ESPN but also for the sake of her viewing audience, the teams and players she interviews, young women who aspire to be sportscasters, other sportscasters and herself. I don’t think she intentionally dresses “sexy” but this incident may cause her to dress a little more conservative in the future.

The results of the Brett Favre poll are in! The question was: Where is Brett Favre going to end up? Well, some of you seem to think he’ll be traded, others think he’ll return to back up Aaron Rogers. But we now know that a trade is almost eminent. None of you thought the Packers would release him.

For previous editions of For Argument’s Sake, go here.

Photo provided by Newscom

Post from: EveryJoe

Was Erin Andrews’ Outfit Out Of Line?

Mark Murphy flew to Mississippi last night in order to tell Brett Farve not to come to camp. But Favre faxed his reinstatement letter to the NFL yesterday. Because of that move, the Packers now have 24 hours to either release Favre from his contract or place him on the active roster.

This is chess not checkers. It’s the Packers move. It’s 24 hours until checkmate.

There’s no way this thing is going to end well for either side. There’s going to be a supposed winner and a definite loser. And what I want to know is this:

Where do you think Favre is going to end up?

There’s no right or wrong answer. I just want you all to weigh in. We have 24 hours to speculate. 24 hours to wonder while Ted Thompson has 24 hours to sweat it out. And Favre? Well, he’s got 24 hours to go until he finds out what’s going to happen next.

To be quite honest, I don’t know what’s going to happen. This thing has spiraled out of control and gone where I hadn’t expected it to go from the beginning. Do I think Favre will remain a Packer? I don’t know. Do I think the Packers will release him? I don’t think they want to, but they may have to in order to avoid the distraction at camp. They may just throw up there hands and say, “Fine! You win Brett. Get out of here.”

If that happens, then Favre will seemingly emerge as the winner. But in the eyes of the fans he has worked his entire career to gain, he will most definitely be viewed as the loser.

The results of the WNBA Brawl poll are in! The question was: Is last night’s fight in the WNBA going to make you watch now?
The majority of you say no, you won’t watch the WNBA anymore than you do already

Post from: EveryJoe

24 Hours Until Checkmate

Considering what happened in the WNBA last night, I thought this question would be perfect. I was listening to Dan Patrick this morning, who I absolutely adore, and his lead-off topic was about the brawl in last night’s game. He posed the very same question … was last night’s fight good for the WNBA considering that their ratings aren’t that great and that it brought some attention to the league? Is any publicity good publicity when it comes to sports?

Although it was embarrassing to watch, I wonder if he’s got a point. The clip was all over YouTube and it was a front page headline on ESPN.com. But will one fight make people watch more games? The next time the LA Sparks and the Detroit Shock play one another, will their be a bigger audience. Will people tune in to see what happens next?

My argument is this: I don’t know. All I can say is that I won’t be watching to see if any more fights breakout. But I was a fan from the beginning. I like watching the WNBA. I’m not going to be affected by this anymore than I was affected when fights broke out in the NBA. I already watch on a regular basis. I don’t need another reason to tune in.

So, I’m asking those of you who don’t normally watch the WNBA. Is this fight going to make you watch now?

And what’s up with Detroit? Why do all the fights happen in Detroit? Ahem … Ron Artest…Indiana Paces … ahem.

Anyway, I’ll be interested to read your comments on this. And for a closer look at the brawl with some insight analysis, go here.

The results of the Brett Favre poll are in! The question was: Is Brett Favre being selfish?
Well, there’s a tie. It seems that half of you think he is being selfish and the other half thinks he’s just a football player who doesn’t want to give up the game just yet. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see where he ends up next.

For previous editions of For Argument’s Sake, go here.

Post from: EveryJoe

For Argument’s Sake

It’s hard not to talk about this situation because it’s so prevalent in the sports media outlets. It’s everywhere. It’s even on this blog.

So for this week’s thought provoking question, I thought I’d go right to the heart of the matter. Most people are talking what the Packers administration should or shouldn’t do, and what they have or have not done. But what about Favre? He’s not completely innocent in this situation either.

But is he being selfish?

My argument is this: No, I don’t think he’s being selfish. I just think that he’s a dedicated football player who truly loves the game, isn’t ready to let it go just yet, and is stuck at a perplexing point in his life where he’s not in his prime but he’s not too old to play either. The bottom line is that Favre just doesn’t know what Favre wants. He wants to play but he’s not sure if he’s up to it. He’s ready to retire but he’s not ready to give up the game just yet. He’s confused and I can understand that. The past three years have been much of the same question for Favre — is he or isn’t he going to retire. But this year was different because the Packers didn’t want to wait for his answer. They wanted to know back in March and they had every right to ask because in previous years they had set everything aside to wait for Favre’s answer. This time they asked for an answer up front and Favre told them what he thought they wanted to hear.

Favre’s retirement press conference was highly emotional. I remember watching it and aching for him. But I also remember him saying that he wasn’t planning on making a comeback — this was it, his last hoorah, so don’t expect him to make any attempts at playing again. But Favre was not fooling us, he was fooling himself. He’s just a guy who’s stuck in that in between world of too old to be young and too young to be old. We will all be there someday and we’ll all be forced to ask ourselves if we’re ready to hang it up or wonder if we’ve still got some fight left in us.

I feel sorry for Aaron Rodgers in this mess. He’s just a kid who got signed and is ready to play. He shouldn’t have to sit in the shadows while Favre figures out his midlife crisis. He deserves a chance to play. You can’t hand him the key’s to the Range and say, “here you go kid, it’s all yours,” and then ask for it back. The Packers made their decision on their starting quarterback when Favre made his own decision on retiring. There’s nothing left to do but move on. If that means Favre should go to another team then so be it.

Favre isn’t being selfish because he’s not asking the Packers to put him back in the starting position. He isn’t expecting that. What he did ask for was a release, which I don’t think is asking too much. Now he’s asking for a trade. If the Packers don’t grant him a release, don’t trade him and force him back into retirement, well … that, to me, is being selfish.

The results of the Chris Duhon poll are in! The question was: Is Chris Duhon the answer to Starbury?
The majority of you believe that he’s not because he isn’t a true point guard.

For previous editions of For Argument’s Sake, go here.

Post from: EveryJoe

For Argument’s Sake