Michael Sam could be the first openly gay NFL player

[smastroyin]

As sad as that is...the Times couldn't even find his mother for a comment.
 
People should go read the whole piece, you'll be cheering for him to make it. 

 

[singaporesoxfan]

For what it's worth, the Times piece is very different in tone from an earlier NBC News article and interview with the dad, where the dad calls it a "courageous decision":
 
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-sam-comes-out/michael-sams-dad-after-im-gay-text-shocked-proud-n26571
 

"I asked him about his career and everything, and he said he was just going to do it," the father said. "And I said, OK then. He's in control and he's grown. No matter what, he's my son and I still love him."
 
 

 
 
This Fox Sports article also has the dad saying that he was shocked but also proud: http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/michael-sam-s-dad-learned-last-week-his-son-was-gay-021014
 

 
”I was shocked,” Michael, Sr., said. “I’m proud of him. He’s my son.”
 

 

[mpjc]

Cover of Sports Illustrated. 
 

 
The tag line seems to put the pressure on for someone to draft him: "America is Ready for Michael Sam" and, in a side box "Is the NFL Ready for Michael Sam?"

 

[Devizier]

Sad but very common among African American men, particularly of his generation. That will be an under reported aspect of this story because it is politically awkward.

 
This is from your personal experience?
 
Citation needed, etc. etc.

 

[Euclis20]

 
This is from your personal experience?
 
Citation needed, etc. etc.

 
This isn't a particularly unusual statement.  Via the Pew Research Center, from last May:
 

 
 
http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/06/in-gay-marriage-debate-both-supporters-and-opponents-see-legal-recognition-as-inevitable/

 

[ivanvamp]

I am rooting big-time for the kid, and to be honest, I would like to see him on the Patriots, for several reasons.  
 
But have we really reached the point where it's not ok to have a different opinion of homosexuality than the majority?  
 
I mean, look at that poll Euclis20 posted above.  (and yes, I know this is about SSM, not homosexuality, but obviously they are related topics)
 
We can look at the 51% of Americans that favor SSM and say, see, our culture accepts it.  But that's still 49% of people who do NOT accept it.  In the African-American community, just 39% support SSM.  That leaves 61% not supporting it.  Even among Democrats, yes, 59% support it, but that's still *41%* of Democrats that do not support SSM.  

 

[Average Reds]

Sam's parents are not together. Sam said his family was supportive. This story says he broke the news to his dad by text just before he told the entire known universe. Doing the math, I'm going to guess that Sam's dad isn't very involved in his life.

Now dad is getting his 15 minutes by shitting in his son's dreams, kind of like Cam Newton's father did. Fuck those guys. But especially fuck Mr. Sam -- whatever his past relationship with his son has been, he had a chance to do something good for his son at a moment when he could really use the support, and he chose to do the opposite.

How incredibly sad -- I just can't wrap my head around it.

 
Unfortunately, I've seen this dynamic play out a number of times and it is heartbreaking to witness.
 
There's never an easy way to come out to someone who - by age, religious/cultural indoctrination, personal inclination or whatever - is hardwired to think that homosexuality is sinful, horrible behavior.  But I would also suggest that if you know you have such a person in your life, coming out via text the day before your sexuality becomes a national story may not be the most productive way to communicate the news.
 
This does not absolve the father for his atrocious behavior.  I would hope that anyone who thinks like this and yet cares about their son would have the common sense and good graces to refuse comment.  But again, his father's reaction is painfully similar to scenes I've witnessed in the past.

 

[dcmissle]

 
This is from your personal experience?
 
Citation needed, etc. etc.

Yes. When I moved to DC I bought a modest row house in an all black, working class neighborhood not too far from RFK. Lived there for several years among people like Sam Sr., who along with their white working class counterparts outside the city were and remain the spine of the Redskins fan base. As enlightened as they were on racial matters -- I could not have been treated more decently or welcomed more warmly -- they were and remain very culturally conservative and atypically religious compared to society at large.

 

[soxfan121]

I am rooting big-time for the kid, and to be honest, I would like to see him on the Patriots, for several reasons.  
 
But have we really reached the point where it's not ok to have a different opinion of homosexuality than the majority?  
 
I mean, look at that poll Euclis20 posted above.  (and yes, I know this is about SSM, not homosexuality, but obviously they are related topics)
 
We can look at the 51% of Americans that favor SSM and say, see, our culture accepts it.  But that's still 49% of people who do NOT accept it.  In the African-American community, just 39% support SSM.  That leaves 61% not supporting it.  Even among Democrats, yes, 59% support it, but that's still *41%* of Democrats that do not support SSM.  

 
I would urge you to look at polls taken in the 1950s and 1960s about whether the Civil Rights Act should "be accepted". Long story short, there is and always has been resistance to social change. 
 
IMO, anyone can have any opinion they want on homosexuality. What those individuals cannot do is restrict the rights, liberties and freedoms given to every citizen. IOW, the Klan can have their meetings, shout their slogans and have whatever beliefs they want. But they can't harass people, they can't deny employment to people and they can't keep people from eating at whatever establishment they want. 
 
And frankly, there's always a non-zero percentage of shitheads represented in every poll taken. 

 

[ivanvamp]

 
I would urge you to look at polls taken in the 1950s and 1960s about whether the Civil Rights Act should "be accepted". Long story short, there is and always has been resistance to social change. 
 
IMO, anyone can have any opinion they want on homosexuality. What those individuals cannot do is restrict the rights, liberties and freedoms given to every citizen. IOW, the Klan can have their meetings, shout their slogans and have whatever beliefs they want. But they can't harass people, they can't deny employment to people and they can't keep people from eating at whatever establishment they want. 
 
And frankly, there's always a non-zero percentage of shitheads represented in every poll taken. 

 
Yeah I hear you on this.  I'm not really talking about the politics of it, just the opinion part of it.  The dad, for example, isn't doing a thing to keep Sam from pursuing his dream of playing in the NFL.  He apparently just thinks homosexuality is wrong.  Now, it's his kid, so I wish he was nothing but supportive (and others have posted comments that indicate that he is supportive), but it's not wrong of him to have a different opinion of homosexuality than what is mainstream.  Again, among African-Americans, the mainstream opinion is actually strongly against homosexuality, so he's basically "normal" in that regard.
 
Anyway, that's the last I'll say on this.  Like I said, I hope the kid succeeds and I would love to see him on the Patriots.  Good luck, Mr. Sam!!!

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

His dad should be hoping it all works out for Michael.  Per the NY Times
 

 
He grew up about 40 miles southeast of Houston near Galveston Bay in Texas, the seventh of eight children. Three of his siblings have died and two brothers are in prison.

 
If he thinks having a gay kid is bad, at least his gay kid is doing better than 5 of his 7 siblings.

 

[Infield Infidel]

 
This isn't a particularly unusual statement.  Via the Pew Research Center, from last May:
 

 
 
http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/06/in-gay-marriage-debate-both-supporters-and-opponents-see-legal-recognition-as-inevitable/

 

Yes. When I moved to DC I bought a modest row house in an all black, working class neighborhood not too far from RFK. Lived there for several years among people like Sam Sr., who along with their white working class counterparts outside the city were and remain the spine of the Redskins fan base. As enlightened as they were on racial matters -- I could not have been treated more decently or welcomed more warmly -- they were and remain very culturally conservative and atypically religious compared to society at large.

 
If anything, the religious element in the black community is the driver of opposition. The black community is more religious and has considerably higher churchgoing rates than the nation at large. The interesting thing for me in the poll is it breaks down white protestant views, but it doesn't show black religious views (they may not have had a large enough sample)
 
Plus polls are kind of all over the place on this. This NBC/WSJ poll has blacks and whites basically the same. 

 
The brightest split on both polls for me is under 50/over 50. Like basically everything ever, the generational gap is large. 

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

So apparently the Jets DRoY Sheldon Richardson was a roommate of Michael Sam. His quotes on the matter are an interesting read, and bodes well for Sam to fit into an NFL team:
 

I lived with Michael Sam, regular guy, has his own sexuality. With me living with him, it was a little unusual at first, but it's stuff you look past,
 
It wasn't anything unusual. He was my guy, my home boy.
 
He was a great teammate, a great person, If guys [in the NFL] can't get past that, then, I mean, it's just crazy. You wanted a football player, you got the football player. I promise you his sexuality has nothing to do with him playing on the football field. He is a completely different person [on the field]. He puts this face on, no smiles, serious business. He's a killer.
 
I wasn't there when he came out to the team, but like I said, seen him pretty much every morning, every day, so just something you get used to,
 
He left the house, went to school, went to class, went to practice, came home. Conversed when we wanted to, but it wasn't anything unusual.
 
I am [proud of him], actually. He had his best season when he came out to the team. So I'm actually happy for him and it worked out for him, didn't go the opposite way, because I know he was scared and nervous just for him to be himself. Just him getting that monkey off his back was well worth it because he had his best season of football at Mizzou.

 

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets-sheldon-richardson-was-michael-sam-s-roommate-1.7037134

 

[Ralphwiggum]

 
Yeah I hear you on this.  I'm not really talking about the politics of it, just the opinion part of it.  The dad, for example, isn't doing a thing to keep Sam from pursuing his dream of playing in the NFL.  He apparently just thinks homosexuality is wrong.  Now, it's his kid, so I wish he was nothing but supportive (and others have posted comments that indicate that he is supportive), but it's not wrong of him to have a different opinion of homosexuality than what is mainstream.  Again, among African-Americans, the mainstream opinion is actually strongly against homosexuality, so he's basically "normal" in that regard.
 
Anyway, that's the last I'll say on this.  Like I said, I hope the kid succeeds and I would love to see him on the Patriots.  Good luck, Mr. Sam!!!

 
Context is important and the fact that this may be a fairly mainstream opinion amongst African American males may shed some light on why Sam's father said what he said, but it doesn't make it right.  Something can be both a mainstream opinion and also wrong.  Stop looking for ways to let the guy off the hook, he's a terrible parent.
 
Regardless of one's personal views on homosexuality, as a father it is unfathomable to me that a person would do anything other than support their child in whatever way they could if they were undertaking something like Michael Sam has undertaken.  The fact that Michael Sam's father failed to do this may not be unusual, but I am comfortable calling it wrong.

 

[Reverend]

But have we really reached the point where it's not ok to have a different opinion of homosexuality than the majority?  

 
 

 
Yeah I hear you on this.  I'm not really talking about the politics of it, just the opinion part of it.  The dad, for example, isn't doing a thing to keep Sam from pursuing his dream of playing in the NFL.  He apparently just thinks homosexuality is wrong.  Now, it's his kid, so I wish he was nothing but supportive (and others have posted comments that indicate that he is supportive), but it's not wrong of him to have a different opinion of homosexuality than what is mainstream.  Again, among African-Americans, the mainstream opinion is actually strongly against homosexuality, so he's basically "normal" in that regard.

 
I this this notion of whether or not it's ok to have an opinion outside the majority or the mainstream is a bit of a red herring. The morality of a position does not turn on whether or not the majority agrees or does not. Certainly, norms are embedded in culture and society and all that, but hardcore cultural relativism is dead and buried. So the issue should turn on whether or not the opinion is moral, immoral, or neither.
 
Can an opinion be immoral? Perhaps. Certainly, we know that the articulation of an opinion can cause harm, which means there is the possibility said articulation could be immoral. Because of that, morality may at times require the repudiation of such immoral articulations, in the ole "All the is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing," sense.
 
And this isn't mere sophistry. For anyone who hasn't read it, I wold urge them to read this 2012 Rolling Stone piece on the suicide cluster that developed in a Minnesota school system when the schools decided to take a "neutral" stance on issues relating to gay sexuality. It's terrifying, and an abject lesson that neutrality or agnosticism as to the views of others may not be a moral option in some instances.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Ron Borges takes Jonathon Vilma to task for his shower room comments in today's Herald.
 
http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/ron_borges/2014/02/borges_reaction_to_michael_sam_true_discomfort
 

"I think that he would not be accepted as much as we think he would be accepted,’’ Vilma said. “I don’t want people to just naturally assume, like, ‘Oh, we’re all homophobic.’ That’s really not the case. Imagine if he’s the guy next to me and, you know, I get dressed, naked, taking a shower, the whole nine, and it just so happens he looks at me. How am I supposed to respond?”
 
Well, here’s a suggestion and a thought. First, that sounds pretty homophobic. Second, try putting on your clothes and going home.
 
 

 
Vilma may well be homophobic and these comments may reveal that.  People with biases or phobias are adept at wrapping their words in ways that could be read in more than one way.
 
But would Borges answer that way -- "try putting on your clothes and going home" -- if he was talking to someone on a co-ed team of some sort?  And if not, what's different about a man getting fully naked in front of a woman who might find him attractive than getting naked in front of a man in the same boat?  Of course, this goes both ways, and would Borges answer a woman the same way regarding men in the shower?  I know that some of us would, in fact, welcome the chance to shower with members of the opposite sex but that isn't exactly where society is just now, in my estimation.
 
Now maybe the answer is that there is simply no way around this particular situation.  Or maybe guys like Vilma can simply carry a towel around and just be a little less free and easy if they are uncomfortable being naked in front of someone who is attracted to men. 
 
But I don't think those comments are necessarily code for bias and think that Borges' reply is a bit too simplistic. 
 
A few related points:
 
One, I know very little about Vilma.  Maybe he's generally a creep and this was more of the same.  As I said up top, this could be his way of trying to sound good while really being homophobic, and maybe Borges knows more about him in general than what he's writing here.
 
Two, I'd take 53 of any kind of person (short of guys like Aaron Hernandez, Walter White, etc.) on the Pats if they were the players BB thought would help the team win.  True, I hope Bill can take advantage of a market inefficiency and draft Michael Sam lower than he otherwise could have (just like he often does with other players who are passed over for any number of resasons), but if he picks Sam in any round, then Go Sam in NE.
 
I suspect that some will read this and think that my post is also wrapped in homophobia.  It's not.  My post reflects the question I had about men and women in the shower that I had when I read Borges' article.  I will, however, cop to some bias here.  Bias against almost everything Ron Borges writes...

 

[dcmissle]

 
 
If anything, the religious element in the black community is the driver of opposition. The black community is more religious and has considerably higher churchgoing rates than the nation at large. The interesting thing for me in the poll is it breaks down white protestant views, but it doesn't show black religious views (they may not have had a large enough sample)
 
Plus polls are kind of all over the place on this. This NBC/WSJ poll has blacks and whites basically the same. 

 
The brightest split on both polls for me is under 50/over 50. Like basically everything ever, the generational gap is large. 

Yep. Generational change is the pivot point of almost everything important right now. Within 10 years, weed will probably be legal in 20 states. Within 5 years, I bet, this is not an issue. The vast majority of people in HS today have friends who are openly gay. Dungy, Francesa and the courageous guys who anonymously confided their opinions don't know it, but their extinction event has already occurred.

 

[Reverend]

But would Borges answer that way -- "try putting on your clothes and going home" -- if he was talking to someone on a co-ed team of some sort?  And if not, what's different about a man getting fully naked in front of a woman who might find him attractive than getting naked in front of a man in the same boat?  Of course, this goes both ways, and would Borges answer a woman the same way regarding men in the shower?  I know that some of us would, in fact, welcome the chance to shower with members of the opposite sex but that isn't exactly where society is just now, in my estimation.

 
Two points:

1. Vilma has already showered with guys who are attracted to men, he just didn't know who they were at the time.
2. Sam certainly has his own moral obligation not to leer at people and make them feel uncomfortable, but that's true of any scenario involving sexuality. One wonders if straight men are the most concerned about such because they are, historically, the worst offenders; Sam has managed to deal with this for some time without problem.

 

[smastroyin]

1)  Inter-sex locker rooms are only a big deal because of the way we put so much shame on sexuality in public places (at least after a certain age - for teenagers maybe the hormones would be too much)
2)  I'm not sure why a gay guy seeing another guy naked is a big deal.  I would hope that most straight men could resist sexual assault if they saw a naked woman.  Are you saying they can't?  
3)  The type of behavior that you are afraid of is something that my own experience comes more from guys that are in the closet than out.  
4)  Gay guys aren't gigantic horn dogs or sexual predators that are going to be sexually aroused every time they see a penis.
5)  This is the same argument that kept women out of locker rooms for so long (Patriot Missile) but since those days, I haven't heard about a lot of female reporters or players that can't handle it, so, again, kind of a red herring.

 

[johnmd20]

1)  Inter-sex locker rooms are only a big deal because of the way we put so much shame on sexuality in public places (at least after a certain age - for teenagers maybe the hormones would be too much)
2)  I'm not sure why a gay guy seeing another guy naked is a big deal.  I would hope that most straight men could resist sexual assault if they saw a naked woman.  Are you saying they can't?  
3)  The type of behavior that you are afraid of is something that my own experience comes more from guys that are in the closet than out.  
4)  Gay guys aren't gigantic horn dogs or sexual predators that are going to be sexually aroused every time they see a penis.
5)  This is the same argument that kept women out of locker rooms for so long (Patriot Missile) but since those days, I haven't heard about a lot of female reporters or players that can't handle it, so, again, kind of a red herring.

 
Man, it really is dumb. Is dressing in front of a gay man going to cause someone to catch homosexuality? It is also a total red herring. A gay guy isn't going to just stare at the cocks of straight men, who are his teammates, in the shower. It is such a non event and a fake and pathetic way to foster homophobia.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Quote isn't working for some reason, but in response to Theo, what smastroyin said.  It is amazing to me in this day and age that anyone would care about this.  I'm sure Sam's behavior in the locker room will be above reproach, so it will be no different for Vilma than undressing in front of his other male teammates that he's undressed in front of his whole career, some of whom have probably been gay and he didn't know it.
 
Borges is a hack but he's also right in this case.  Put on your clothes and go home.  What's the other option, have separate showers for the gay players? 

 

[TheoShmeo]

Yeah, fair points all.  I just don't know if Vilma looking at this differently than you guys do is proof that he's coming from a place of homophobia.
 
Maybe he just has a different perspective.  Maybe for him showering in front of someone he knows finds men attractive would be awkward, just like showering in front of women might awkward.  And maybe that's unreasonable and unworkable.
 
To be clear, I'm not advocating separate showers or anything of the sort.  I just object to the easy demonization of Vilma on this basis (assuming there's nothing else underlying Borges' opinion).
 
That last parenthetical carries extra meaning for me re Borges.  He and I got into a long e-mail exchange several years ago around his never ending pounding of Belichick.  In that context, he admitted that what was behind, at least in part, his BB rants was the "fact" that BB was lobbying for Pete Carroll's job even before Carroll was fired in NE.  Maybe he is using this recent comment -- as wrong headed as some view it -- to further his Vilma agenda.

 

[dcmissle]

Yeah, fair points all.  I just don't know if Vilma looking at this differently than you guys do is proof that he's coming from a place of homophobia.
 
Maybe he just has a different perspective.  Maybe for him showering in front of someone he knows finds men attractive would be awkward, just like showering in front of women might awkward.  And maybe that's unreasonable and unworkable.
 
To be clear, I'm not advocating separate showers or anything of the sort.  I just object to the easy demonization of Vilma on this basis (assuming there's nothing else underlying Borges' opinion).
 
That last parenthetical carries extra meaning for me re Borges.  He and I got into a long e-mail exchange several years ago around his never ending pounding of Belichick.  In that context, he admitted that what was behind, at least in part, his BB rants was the "fact" that BB was lobbying for Pete Carroll's job even before Carroll was fired in NE.  Maybe he is using this recent comment -- as wrong headed as some view it -- to further his Vilma agenda.

 
That is an interesting nugget, in two respects.
 
First, Borges may not have intended it, perhaps because his main target was Grier, but Borges had some of Pete Carroll's blood on his hands.  Ron Borges and Will McDonough went to work on those dysfunctional Pats with pliers and blow torches, and I think were absolutely a factor in the house cleaning that led to BB's hiring.  Both writers demonstrated the value of a village scold because they exposed all the insanity in column after column, which made the status quo untenable to maintain.
 
Beyond that, this reminds me of a story that circulated when Parcells was clipped.  Leaving the facility, BB  and Kraft eyed each other for a long time.  Kraft since said that he wanted BB, and vice versa, but the parting with Tuna was too personal and bitter to make that feasible at the time.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

But Vilma isnt' saying "hey, this might be kind of awkward at first, but I'm sure we'll figure it out", which I think most people would understand.  He's saying "this guy isn't going to be accepted in NFL locker rooms because he's gay and I don't want a gay guy looking at me when I am naked" which I would at least hope most people would recognize is absurd.
 
In terms of undressing in front of men vs. undressing in front of women, is it awkward to undress in front of women because they might be sexually attracted to you?  Or is it awkward to undress in front of women because they are women and have different parts then men, and we are just not used to being in those settings with women?  To me it is the latter.  It has nothing to do with sexual attraction (in which case getting undressed in front of a lesbian would be OK?  That doesn't make sense).  If it was the norm to have co-ed bathrooms and showers and we were used to seeing naked women in those settings, I don't think it would be that big of a deal.  It has nothing to do with who is sexually attracted to whom, which I think most open minded people would figure out fairly quickly, even if they were somewhat uncomfortable at first with the idea of undressing next to someone who is openly gay.
 
Lastly, I hate you for making me defend Borges.

 

[Drocca]

Theo, this is not about the New England Patriots.

 

[Reverend]

 
In terms of undressing in front of men vs. undressing in front of women, is it awkward to undress in front of women because they might be sexually attracted to you? 

 
How about the awkwardness that sets in when you discover that the gay guy is not attracted to you and you find yourself a bit put off by that?
 
"Really? Not even a little bit? WTF--why not??"

 

[86spike]

Maybe players who don't want to get naked in front of a gay guy should just drive home sweaty and shower there all alone.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

Maybe players who don't want to get naked in front of a gay guy should just drive home sweaty and shower there all alone.

 
Yeah, I just don't really get it.
 
Vilma: "What happens if a gay guy looks at me while I'm naked and he likes it?!"
 
Reporter: "Are you worried that he's going to rape you?"
 
Vilma: "No...but, he's enjoying looking at me and it makes me uncomfortable!"
 
Every woman that's ever worked out in a gym ever: *dumbfounded look*
 
Maybe we should just put some women in the locker room to shower with the guys after the game. That way the gay guys aren't getting the added benefit of eye candy during a shower.
 
Jealousy problem solved.

 

[Super Nomario]

Ron Borges takes Jonathon Vilma to task for his shower room comments in today's Herald.
 
http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/ron_borges/2014/02/borges_reaction_to_michael_sam_true_discomfort
 
 
Vilma may well be homophobic and these comments may reveal that.  People with biases or phobias are adept at wrapping their words in ways that could be read in more than one way.

Being a reporter must be awesome. You ask people questions, and then when they answer you, you skewer them for their responses! How great is that?
 
It would have smarter for Vilma to keep his mouth shut, but I think his perspective is real. There is going to be some discomfort. There are going to be players who won't accept Sam (or any gay teammate) right away. Vilma was honest about it; I think we can assume there are lots of other players who didn't talk to the media (or lied to the media) who feel the same way. Is it better if Vilma doesn't say what he says and we just have everybody saying "no one is going to have a problem with it" and that isn't 100% true?
 
The interesting thing, I think, is how mundane Vilma's concerns are. He's not saying Sam shouldn't be allowed in the NFL. He's not saying Sam should have his own shower. He's just saying that he's not sure how to respond in that situation. That's the sort of thing that's going to blow over after maybe a week when he realizes that nothing unusual is happening and you should respond exactly the way you do with the rest of your teammates. If Vilma represents the ignorant bigot here, I don't think Sam's going to have any problems.
 
FWIW, Vilma clarified / back-pedaled on his statements: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/saints-linebacker-jonathan-vilma-clarifies-homophobic-views-prior-151112471--nfl.html
 
EDIT: also, it's worth noting: Vilma's statements were posted on 2/2, before Sam came out, about the abstract notion of a gay teammate. Arguably that shouldn't make a difference, but I think there's a distinction between thinking about the hypothetical situation of a gay teammate (where literally the only things you know about him are that he's a gay teammate) and an actual human being.

 

[Reverend]

FWIW, Vilma clarified / back-pedaled on his statements: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/saints-linebacker-jonathan-vilma-clarifies-homophobic-views-prior-151112471--nfl.html

 
The headline of that article is so poorly worded as to be Onion-esque.

 

[johnmd20]

 
The headline of that article is so poorly worded as to be Onion-esque.

 
"Vilma Clarifies Homophobic Views." That really is satirical.

 

[judyb]

Maybe players who don't want to get naked in front of a gay guy should just drive home sweaty and shower there all alone.

It's just such a shame that these poor pro sports teams can't afford to provide their athletes with shower curtains and bathrobes.

 

[MainerInExile]

 
So apparently the Jets DRoY Sheldon Richardson was a roommate of Michael Sam. His quotes on the matter are an interesting read, and bodes well for Sam to fit into an NFL team:
 

 

http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets-sheldon-richardson-was-michael-sam-s-roommate-1.7037134
 

Don't you make me like a Jet!

 

[Infield Infidel]

In an mostly unrelated article about Rhodes Scholar Myron Rolle, he outlines some of the differences between the college and NFL locker room. Might explain a bit about how Mizzou was accepting, and why the NFL might not be. The whole article is a fascinating read. 
 

 
During Rolle's time in the NFL, he was, in some ways, shocked by the culture; not of the sport, but by the culture of the entitled professional athlete and the resulting power imbalance. Star players had their own reclining, lounging chairs in the film rooms and traveled to and from the practice field on golf carts. Other players sat in regular chairs and walked. Coaches, particularly recent hires, held little power over the tenured star athletes with big contracts, often overlooking their behavioral missteps and rule violations. In Tennessee, Coach Jeff Fisher even circumvented the locker room on his way to his office, going the long way around, giving his players control over their own space to govern as they saw fit. It was up to the veterans and stars to establish the rules, a potentially dangerous recipe if they were irresponsible and not up for the task.
After experiencing college football at FSU, where Coach Bobby Bowden was the unquestioned leader and where a "team first" attitude ruled, Rolle found the individualism of the NFL disconcerting. "You're playing more for yourself and your family than for your organization," he said. "In college, everything was garnet and gold. You bleed it. You're playing for your brother on the sideline, ‘cause you know he's gonna be there tomorrow. But in the NFL, you know you're not playing for the ‘T' on the side of the helmet. You're not playing for the color of the Steelers. You're playing more because they're paying you to play and you have a family to take care of. And when you don't have that loyalty, I think it makes the game a bit more individualized. What stats do I get? What incentives can I get that can help get me more money for a contract bonus or something like that? Can I get to the Pro Bowl?"

 

[Marciano490]

Don't you make me like a Jet!

 
It's a low bar if we think those quotes are the best we can hope for.  They read to me like "he's one of the good ones who didn't make his sexuality my business." 

 

[veritas]

 
It's a low bar if we think those quotes are the best we can hope for.  They read to me like "he's one of the good ones who didn't make his sexuality my business." 

 
Yeah, reading those quotes made me a little bit uncomfortable. "it was a little unusual at first, but it's stuff you look past", "I promise you his sexuality has nothing to do with him playing on the football field. He is a completely different person [on the field]".
 
Also, all this nonsensical concern about changing and showering with a gay player, how insecure/homophobic are these guys? Quick anecdote: I used to work at a very large company, large enough we had our own fitness center. The fitness center and locker rooms were usually packed during lunch time, full of co workers changing and showering together. Including plenty of openly gay men and devoutly religious men. Honestly no one gave a shit at all, dudes saw each other naked then went back to work and sat in boring meetings together after.
 
And yes I completely realize the atmosphere and demographic of my industry is nothing like an NFL locker room. But I'm sick of that being an excuse for workplace discrimination. The "well we have to shower and stuff together" is a total cop out. Do your fucking job and act like a normal person, you're really not that special. There are plenty of other people who have jobs that force them to work long hours in intimate settings with straight and gay people of the same and opposite sexes.

 

[swiftaw]

Great commentary on the situation buy a sports reporter on a Texas news station of all places: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/dale-hansen-michael-sam-gay-nfl-video_n_4775165.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

Yeah, reading those quotes made me a little bit uncomfortable. "it was a little unusual at first, but it's stuff you look past", "I promise you his sexuality has nothing to do with him playing on the football field. He is a completely different person [on the field]".
 
Also, all this nonsensical concern about changing and showering with a gay player, how insecure/homophobic are these guys? Quick anecdote: I used to work at a very large company, large enough we had our own fitness center. The fitness center and locker rooms were usually packed during lunch time, full of co workers changing and showering together. Including plenty of openly gay men and devoutly religious men. Honestly no one gave a shit at all, dudes saw each other naked then went back to work and sat in boring meetings together after.
 
And yes I completely realize the atmosphere and demographic of my industry is nothing like an NFL locker room. But I'm sick of that being an excuse for workplace discrimination. The "well we have to shower and stuff together" is a total cop out. Do your fucking job and act like a normal person, you're really not that special. There are plenty of other people who have jobs that force them to work long hours in intimate settings with straight and gay people of the same and opposite sexes.

Sheldon Richardson is currently 23 years old. He has been in the nfl for a year and spent two years at Mizzou. The point I'm making is thst he was likely a 19-20 year old kid who previously may have not had much experience with or been friends with any openly gay men. When you put it in perspective that he very well could have been an immature kid, coming from a background where homosexuality was not well known, then yea, him saying it was uncomfortable at first is something I can understand. The rest of the quote is him gushing about Sam, what a good teammate he is, how good of a football player he is, how his sexuality is such a non-issue, etc....

I don't really understand what's uncomfortable about thst quote. Yes many people have pre-conceived notions about homosexual men,myes those notions often come from a place of discrimination and bigotry. To expect everyone to instantly drop those thoughts is not reasonable, no matter how wrong they are. Social change and the reversal of bigotry takes times,this is not instant gratification. If anything those quotes from Richardson make me feel confident thst many nfl players will be accepting of Sam as a football player and a person.

 

[mauf]

Richardson wasn't just Sam's teammate; he was his roommate. I don't know about you guys, but I knew more than I cared to about my college roommates' sex lives. I'll bet most of SoSH's enlightened denizens haven't lived in that kind of close proximity with a man who they knew was gay, and that more than a few of them would be uncomfortable with it at first.

Besides, let's be clear about what we're expecting. Sure, it would be great if Michael Sam could be as open about his sexuality in a locker room setting as straight men are about theirs in that same setting, but that's not going to happen. The realistic goal is tolerance -- Sam will go about his business, and other players won't make his private life their business. If most of Sam's NFL teammates are half as tolerant as Richardson, we'll look back and laugh at the people who thought this issue might be a distraction.

 

[Montana Fan]

"I'd much rather shower with Michael Sam than Charles Haley." - Troy Aikman

 

[Super Nomario]

Greg Bedard with a mostly-negative scouting report:
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/02/13/michael-sam-film-study-nfl-draft/
 
His points in brief: Sam played hard but was rotated heavily, put up a disproportionate amount of his production in a small number of games, faced RTs (and struggled against better ones), lacks pass-rushing moves and explosive athleticism, seems sound and coachable but doesn't have great instincts, and projects better as a LB conversion project due to his size than as a DE.

 

[Average Reds]

Great commentary on the situation buy a sports reporter on a Texas news station of all places: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/12/dale-hansen-michael-sam-gay-nfl-video_n_4775165.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

 
Yeah, I was actually coming here to see if anyone posted that video.  Kind of puts it in perspective.

 

[Infield Infidel]

Donte Stallworth wrote a really good piece about how different locker rooms deal with distractions.
 

 
 
Still, because Michael Sam will likely be the first, there will be questions from his teammates and management for whatever team drafts him in May. But those questions don’t automatically become distractions. Distractions happen when the leadership in the locker room is poor and unequipped to handle internal problems, and how any team manages situations like these is the important factor. When it comes to Sam, teams will already know what they are getting, and so there are no surprise distractions. They should be equipped to handle any questions from day one, and if the team that drafts him isn’t prepared to handle those, it has bigger problems than Michael Sam’s sexuality.

 

 
 
In my experience with Bill Belichick, the head coach of the New England Patriots, I feel he would handle this by not making it a big deal to begin with. Bill would walk in on day one, as he does every year, and tell his players that he expected them to treat everyone in this organization with respect and a professional attitude. Anything less in that organization is intolerable. Some of Belichick’s biggest mantras are “speak for yourself,” “put the team first,” and “do your job.” He doesn’t harp on issues and he means what he says, and his guys respect him for it. As far as media is concerned, he’d say that only Michael Sam (if he chose) should be speaking on the subject. Belichick’s team would handle the issue on the first day and never deal with it again unless it absolutely had to be addressed.

 

[Granite Sox]

Donte's a pretty thoughtful guy. I liked this piece as well, including the contrast in style between Belichick and Harbaugh/Newsome. I'm glad Stallworth is making his voice heard.

 

[seageral]

double post

 

[seageral]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/michael-sam-standing-ovation-missouri-basketball-game-article-1.1616021

 
 
Sam gets standing ovation at missouri basketball game.

 

[Infield Infidel]

here's a list of what each NFL team has said about Sam
 
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/02/20/3311171/32-nfl-teams-said-michael-sams-coming/

 

[soxfan121]

here's a list of what each NFL team has said about Sam
 
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/02/20/3311171/32-nfl-teams-said-michael-sams-coming/

 
Great link, thanks. 
 
Guessing, based on those comments, Sam gets drafted by St. Louis. 
 

Executive vice President of football operations and chief operating officer Kevin Demoff, via St. Louis 101ESPN
“I don’t think there is a need to make a statement. Michael Sam is a prospect who should be judged by what he did on the field. Obviously here in Missouri, our fans and Mizzou fans know about the impact he had for the Tigers. I would say rather than worrying about what the NFL will handle or not, look at what happened at Missouri—tremendous leader for his team, talked with his teammates in the summer, nothing got out, and not only did he have his best season, Mizzou had one of the best seasons in school history.”
 

 

[Reverend]

here's a list of what each NFL team has said about Sam
 
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/02/20/3311171/32-nfl-teams-said-michael-sams-coming/

 
I can't decide if I like Houston's official or Philly's unofficial response best in the coveted "Who gives a shit?" category.
 

 

[Shelterdog]

 
I can't decide if I like Houston's official or Philly's unofficial response best in the coveted "Who gives a shit?" category.
 

 
I kind of loved BB's answer for this reason (“We evaluate all the players, including Michael Sam, based on who they are and who can best contribute to our team.They all have strengths, they all have weaknesses. No two are identical. Our scouting staff has performed extensive work on him.”)  He took some effort and went out of his way to make the same exact pointless and  meaningless statement that he would say about every other player in the draft.