As I've done in previous (but not all) weeks, here's the Sunday night email that I sent to Scott. It largely saves you from hearing the tap tap tap of me taking notes during the podcast.
Here we go...
The Cleveland Browns lose not simply because Brandon Weeden had a bad day, but it's impossible to get over that embarrassing shovel pass he threw. In a week where Brandon Weeden was simply outplayed by someone like Thad Lewis in Buffalo, is it fair to hope we never see Weeden play again for the Browns? Is that an overreaction? Does Weeden still give the Browns the best chance to win even if we all know he has no future as a starter in the league? Is he even the best backup available to play for the Browns right now?
I want to do some follow-up on Chief Wahoo. The debate raged on after we talked last week. You and I agree on the topic, but it's worth looking at a couple of the arguments. I don't represent these arguments/questions, but they are ones that I saw in the comments of a WFNY post this week in which Andrew from WFNY was saying it was time for Wahoo to go. It's not even unanimous among WFNY writers, by the way.
1. First of all, we've talked about political correctness. Why is it alright to bow down to the P.C. pressure on Native Americans with regard to Chief Wahoo but still hate political correctness in other arenas?
2. Following up on the first question, what is your response to the slippery slope argument that if you allow Chief Wahoo to go that all sports team names will be scrubbed next?
3. How much of this whole debate boils down to the fact that people really just hate to be told what to do?
Now for some of my new personal enlightenment on the topic, here's what I've been thinking about since the Wahoo debate has been re-ignited among Clevelanders.
I started thinking about the Redskins name and all the hubbub over Riley Cooper's use of an n-bomb. The NFL might be able to survive the Redskins name and just not care about criticism if they weren't also the same league that jumped through hoops whenever anything remotely racist was said by one of the players. The Riley Cooper situation further reveals a hypocrisy with the NFL's willingness to have the word Redskins as a team name.
What would the Indians do if one of their players referred to someone as a "f***ot" in a post-game presser? I'm sure the player would be punished by the team, league or both like Kobe was in the NBA. If you're going to run a business that is so sensitive to controversial and discriminatory language by a player, you really can't stand by Chief Wahoo.
Chief Wahoo is actually antithetical to MLB's business plan. Pro sports are built to be these big safe things for mass audiences. That's all the more reason that these antiquated names - now racist by most everyone's modern definition - have got to change. Did the world change around them? Did standards change? Yes. That observation doesn't allow you to ignore reality.
I want to finish up on a positive note. The Cleveland Cavaliers are a team that I don't know very well right now, but I want to get to know them better. This team might be deep, but in the very very promising kind of way. They're not deep in the Miami Heat kind of way with proven stars only capable of playing 12 minutes per game because they are aged. These are up and coming depth pieces and the Cavaliers will get to choose the best of them over the course of this year. I'm simultaneously excited for the present and the future with these Cavaliers even though it's just pre-season.
That's what I've got. Look forward to talking to you tomorrow.
