I'm amazed at how we've become a nation of Gladys Kravitzes. There's exactly one sex life on this planet I give a damn about and that's mine. What others do is the least of my interests.
I'm not sure, at this point, at this level, it is possible to be who you are without it being thrust into the public eye. So at least here, he can own the message, rather than have it generated for him. If, in a perfect world, he just did his thing, and if asked, he responded "of course," then this thread never happens. But we aren't there yet.
Let's hope so, but this is also the league that just keeps rotating coaches, rotating backup QBs and has many biases still in it. There was even a piece a few years ago about the bias against white running backs, for instance. Even if you were good, you most likely were not going to get a sniff because, well, you just can't be fast enough if you are...you know. So, we will see. Let's hope it doesn't turn into some mess, one way or the other, and he goes where he should, if at all.
We haven't become this, we have always been this way. Supermarket tabloids have made a killing off of sexual innuendo/misconduct for decades and decades. Human condition, I am afraid.
In that situation, it would come down to the things that decide such coin flips in professional sports. Who are the agents for the players? Where did they play their college ball? Does he have some friends already on the roster? Who did the coaching staff like best in the interview process? His sexuality would be about the 6,777,888th tiebreaker.
It's far worse now. The National Enquirer was always the lunatic fringe in the past. Now, that journalistic style is the blueprint for the mainstream media.
if you think he's the difference between you getting your ass fired and not, his sexuality will be down on the list of problems. not many nfl GMs have the liberty to not take guys they think can help them win. I could see it dropping him on the draft board of a few teams, but I doubt if he's still available say in the final round that these same guys wouldn't take him at all.
Two of the absolute best players in the NBA are gay and everyone in that league knows it. Nobody gives enough of a damn to care or out them. The amount of give a damn about this issue is vastly overblown.
If he was a sure-fire top 10 pick, then no. He's a 3-5 rounder, and some owners aren't going to want him around because some owners are idiots. It will not be a GM-level decision.
maybe because they think it will be a circus, but i'd bet after the first few games it wouldn't make much of a difference. god forbid it gets leaked that some owner said "I don't want a gay on my team." Would even a legit bigot be willing to take that chance?
You put more stock into the ability of some owners to think long-term than I do. I'm not saying that every team would be like this, just a few.
Look at what a prominent booster said about Charlie Strong. Yeah, I could see some 70 year old curmudgeon saying something stupid.
I could see Irsay doing this to, but yeah, good call and I had to remind myself of that when I started thinking through.
except the few that inherited, most made the money to buy the team somehow and generally that means they aren't the type of people to risk bad financial decisions because of their personal beliefs. I could certainly see it happening, but I can't imagine it being more than a couple of owners.
Irsay loves trying to play the hero. If anything, he'd be likely to have Sam drafted higher than warranted to soak in the good publicity from the mainstream media.
The chick filet guy is the exception to the rule. Most, as hat suggested, want to be liked by the media and wouldn't dare try to damage the brand.
