Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Gregg Doyel, you've successfully confused the shit out of me



I'm not sure how many people read the "mainstream" sports sites anymore. I'm talking the ESPN.com, SI.com, CBSSportline, etc. of the world. We tend to get our sports new either directly from the television or from other blogs that appear to be more "plugged in" than jack asses like Big and I. That being said, I'm not sure if the mainstream sites have hired people to write shtick to draw readership.

Whitlock's a great example of it. Easterbrook is a boring example of it. Riley and Simmons are vanilla examples of it. But Gregg Doyle might be the most head scratching version of it.

Read Doyel's latest article.

Yeah, I'm as confused as you are.

He starts by admitting that Tim Tebow is a great college football player and appears to be a genuinely good person off the field. He does mention that yes, the media tends to fawn on him. Then he just loses me. To paraphrase: He's not the best college football player ever. Sure he's won all the accolades and championships. Sure he's done things that puts him in the upper echelon of players. Sure he leads his team, but he's not really that great. Urban Meyer is great, and not Tim Tebow. Then Doyel goes on to say that if Tebow was at Purdue or Auburn, then he's not this great.

So, you mean to tell me that only players who played on shitty teams are allowed to be the best players in college football history? Tommy Frazier was on arguably one of the best college football teams ever, so he's not great? Vince Young? Reggie Bush? Archie Griffin? Only guys like Barry Sanders and Doug Flutie are allowed in the conversation because they were on bad teams? Huh?

Then, I get really confused. Doyel mentions that Tebow is a devout Christian. He says that Urban Meyer, also a devout Christian, believes that Tebow's faith and apparent practice of that faith's teachings makes Tebow a good role model, a good person and good for college football.

That, and this is coming from a non-Christian, seems like a fair and accurate assessment from Meyer to me. I think a guy who holds true to his moral teachings and does his best to spread them and do good is, believe it or not, a good role model, a good person, and is good for the face of college football.

Then Doyel throws his haymaker:
If Tebow were a Muslim or a Mormon, and Meyer's daughter texted him with Tebow's chosen verse from the Koran or from the Book of Mormon, would that be "good for college football, good for young people, good for everything"

Of course not.
So, wait. The argument that Doyle uses is that Tebow's faith is looked at as a good thing because it's the religion of the masses? If he was not a Christian and still followed moral teachings and did good things and was a good person, that would be a bad thing?

What the hell is the point of Doyel's article? Can someone explain it to me? Did I not read it correctly?

Look, I'm not one for the Tebow-jobs that the media does, but he does actually seem like a good person and if he's the face of college football for one more year, is that such a bad thing?

1 comment:

Big said...

I understand his point, and he tryed to walk that line of questioning mass opinion without having the mass just shut you down and plug their ears and yell NaNaNaNa.

What he's saying in the artical is that too much is being put on the idea that Tebow is a christian. Instead of looking at this young man and saying "thats a good young man because of what he does outside of football," people look at him and say, "he's such a good christian, i hope my boy grows up to be just like him."

can you see the diference there? That's what the artical is about for the most part. He says people look at the releign thing too much. If he were a morman, would we all love him so much for being so devout?