While driving around today for work I tuned in to some sports talk radio, and the boys on the air posed the following question:
When comparing Michael Vick's situation (harming dogs) to Tim Donaghy's (betting on games, officiating them accordingly, etc.), it's easy to conclude that killing dogs is the more heinous crime. However, which of the two is more heinous from a purely sports viewpoint? Which affects the respective sport more?
The commentators went on to discuss how it is obviously Donaghy's situation that is more harmful to its respective sport because it underminds the integrity of the league and so on.
Now, I agree with that point in its most basic sense. Donaghy's betting on games and making calls to affect their outcomes definitely underminds the integrity of the NBA; whereas, Michael Vick's situation really only affects the Falcons and Vick himself. Right?
Well, maybe not. Let's think about it. The Donaghy situation, while a big deal, seems at this point to be an isolated incident. So while it definitely had a greater affect while he was calling games, the long-term effect(s) on the game could be minimal. However, in Vick's case the damage to the league might be greater than expected. First, you have the issues with sponsors. They've all already jumped ship on Michael, but how will they continue to view their relationship with the NFL -- especially when things are considered in light of the other image problems with the NFL. I think the commissioner's office clearly felt something greater could happen which I believe led to the decision to keep Vick out of training camp. Which in itself raises a new issue / sets a new precedent. Dealing with off-the-field issues is something that the NFL clearly needs to continue to examine how they do. But now that Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, and likely Vick have (will have) received year long suspensions for their actions, a precedent has been set. How will the NFLPA respond to this? And how will that affect later bargaining agreements? These are all issues that will grow much larger for the NFL largely due to the Vick situation.
So yeah, while Donaghy's actions were damaging to the games he officiated, I believe (and certainly hope) that their effect on the NBA as a whole will be limited. On the other hand, the NFL may now face a world of questions surrounding its image and handling of off-the-field issues due to Mr. Vick -- making that situation arguably more damaging to the NFL than Donaghy's is to the NBA.
At least that's my take on it. Thoughts from anyone else? Please share.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
as mr. choi has put up above, donaghy now says he can name 20 other referees who bet on games, so if this all pans out, the nba could be totally screwed. champions' legitimacy is called into question, security of the league is called into question, and the public loses faith in the league.
it's a difficult time for all four major leagues, but i find it difficult to compare them because of different standards in the leagues. baseball's big steroid question has changed the perception of the game for many, while over in the nfl, shawne merriman tests positive and sits four games (which if he didn't sit, we would have a new single season sack leader i believe). violence in hockey and baseball has been rising (see islanders, "you dead dawg"). the nba (regular season) and the nhl (all the time) face problems with viewership.
as regards to the sponsorship thing, i think advertisers will realize that the nfl is still the most popular sport in america, so nothing big will change there. sure, if a player fucks up, his sponsorship deals are done, but there are enough football players to fill a new bristol high football commercial.
i feel the nfl has been against vick from day one and now the public has already condemned him. theory: bobby petrino started vick on the dog fighting path in order to get brian brohm for the falcons next year.
seriously though, vick may very well be guilty, but it's not really fair. first, vick is easily the biggest fish to fry in this whole thing. because it was his house and he's an nfl quarterback, he will burn, while guys who might have used the rape stand ten times as much will get plea bargains for selling vick out (don't get me wrong, if vick is found guilty in a court of law, he should do his time, but i don't think we should condemn him on the words of some shady acquaintances and jumpy animal rights activists. let the trial go on and then jump on him.)
i just hope j-harr takes the falcons to the playoffs this year and the superbowl next year and in the press conference he says something like "i'd like to thank dog gaming enthusiasts for giving me my shot in this offense."
very well put mr. (not so) anonymous. now that this new break in the donaghy story is out about the 20 names, my claim that it's an isolated incident clearly needs revision. if he in fact does give these names then the NBA has real trouble -- really bad trouble.
as for vick, you make a great point. it's a shame that he's going to get hung out to dry by all his "buds" because the court system wants to punish the big star. reminds me of a south park episode involving a mr. michael jackson.
certainly vick deserves punishment if indeed he is found guilty of these allegations, but should he really be the one who has to bear all the blame of this ordeal? doesn't seem right. but i guess that's what happens when your "friends" are all willing to sell you out.
Post a Comment