On Monday afternoon while on vacation with my family, I was quite surprised to read excerpts from an interview I gave several weeks ago related to this year’s NFL Draft, and I feel compelled to clarify those remarks.
I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that I would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team. At the time of my interview, the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael’s first season had been announced.
I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way—by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit.
The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked.
What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.
I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field.
My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.
perhaps Dungy's other statements on the topic of homosexuality are relevant here (the ones that I could find).
2007 (talking about his support of an Indiana ban on same sex marriage):
Quote:
"We're not trying to downgrade anyone else," said Dungy, coach of the Super Bowl champion Indianapolis Colts. "But we're trying to promote the family — family values the Lord's way," Dungy said. "IFI is saying what the Lord says. You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be."
But it's not that he has anything against gay people because of his religion.
He just doesn't want a media circus. (which he wasn't even talking about. He's actually saying that "something will happen" in the locker room. I imagine he's worried about Sam trying to snatch some sausage in the shower.)
"I wouldn't want to deal with all of it. It's not going to be totally smooth...things will happen."
His "adjusted" comment:
"[P]laying in the NFL is, and should be, about merit...I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction."
It would have been pretty easy for him to make the second (more precise) comment in the original interview. But he didn't. And if he believes playing in the NFL is based on merit, why would he pass on a guy due to a potential media distraction? Wouldn't that mean it wasn't about merit?
The distraction angle is a pretty transparent shield Â
My reference to tebow is that his persona is that of a deeply religious person and i wanted to see if any Christians also had the same belief and feeling as Dungy has..
I find it almost impossible that he is the ONLY person who feels that way..
my question to you is..In his original statement, there are the three dots in there..was there more context in that statement?..It seems to be broken off and resumed..
"[P]laying in the NFL is, and should be, about merit...I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction."
So this is what pushed you over the edge into saying Tony Dungy is a homophobic bigot? OK, I take it back. You didn't jump to conclusions at all.
here is the what he answered..i don't thin it was any backtracking at all..
On Tuesday, via a statement released to multiple media outlets, Dungy defended Sam's right to play in the NFL while saying he gave an "honest answer," and that his comments were made several weeks ago when "the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael's first season had been announced."
"I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
"I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
"I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
"I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way -- by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit," the statement read. "The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach.
Mike and Mike
The Tampa Tribune's Ira Kaufman discusses his interview with Tony Dungy and Dungy's comments during the conversation about drafting Michael Sam.
More Podcasts »
"But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
Umm... his original quote is what incited the entire discussion. Excuse me for assuming we're both aware of his original comment. You went on to say that his original comment coupled with his clarification lead you to the conclusion that Dungy is a homophobic bigot. And the fact that you would associate yourself with such distinct, heavy-handed words with the quotes above is startling.
Others have called him an asshole. I'd have a hard time arguing with that. It's an assholish thing to say. Be a man, run your squad and get everyone on the same page... winning a championship. You, however, take an absurd leap and use these words so carelessly.
It's not any one statement that's led me to my opinion it's many statements over a period of many years that has led me to my opinion.
Nuance. Again, not your friend.
Yeah, more bullshit here. At first it was just the things Cam and Exit outlined, now it's opinion you've apparently formed based on vague references to "statements over many years." Absolute nonsense.
And oddly enough, you asked me earlier when you at any point claimed Dungy's faith added to your assessment of his bigotry. Then a post or two later you're telling me to read Cam's posts where Dungy is quoted talking about the Lord and family values. Do you even know where you stand?
Right. They were. They were quotes regarding the Lord and family values.
So you want me to read Cam's quoted text (much of it quotes about Dungy's faith) then you want me to not deduct Dungy's faith contributed to your assessment that he's a bigot.
And oddly enough, you asked me earlier when you at any point claimed Dungy's faith added to your assessment of his bigotry. Then a post or two later you're telling me to read Cam's posts where Dungy is quoted talking about the Lord and family values. Do you even know where you stand?
In fact, what I was doing in that post was illustrating that, like you were able to (correctly) assume that I used Dungy's religious leanings as part of my assessment, you used my known anti-religious bias to make your assessment of my position.
You see, you were able to use previous statements I've made over time to inform your opinion that I was using his religiosity as some basis of my opinion of him. You were correct. I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was just asking how you knew that when I hadn't explicitly stated it here.
Likewise, I was able to use my understanding of Dungy's religious leaning to inform my assessment of his position regarding Sam even though he hadn't explicitly stated it.
So much so, that offline, I told Brett I was laying the groundwork for this, that you'd fall for it, and not get it.
Except I deducted information to form an opinion as to why you would call Dungy a homophobic bigot. I used this information to characterize my belief of your assessment in an open dialogue with you. Additionally, there was sufficient evidence for me to draw this conclusion. As you just alluded to, you are anti-religious. I don't quite understand how you're proud that I was able to "trick me" into highlighting that you associate religious faith with bigotry. Congrats.
Secondly, as I noted, I used the information (that I "figured out" from your game, I guess?) to assess your opinion. You then had the opportunity to respond to me. Additionally, I think that considering my assessment was accurate, you wouldn't be offended by what I concluded?
You however have apparently imposed the same logic on far less information about Dungy (I've had far more interaction with you than you have with him, of course) to create truly dreadful labels. Bigot. Homophobic. And you state them carelessly. Does anyone get hurt? No, but it speaks to your character.
I alluded to your vague, unsubstantiated references of times where Dungy "hinted" at homophobia in the past and how they were a diversion from your initial stance that everything I needed to know can be found in Exit and Cam's posts.
I acknowledged that when I said that it is odd a guy who constantly claims it's best to have more information before forming an opinion to use words as heavy-handed as the ones you've used to characterize someone who, you say, "hints" at homophobia.
in an attempt to deny equal rights to homosexuals.
And I know people hate the analogy, but folks have used religion to deny rights to others time and again. Yep, even in this country.
What I find sad is that although it has been done plenty, folks will recognize it in history and scoff at those that did it while willfully ignoring and even defending those that are currently doing it.
Go ahead and believe that fags will burn in hell or don't "agree" with their lifestyle (still haven't really figured out what the hell that is supposed to mean). That's your right. It isn't however your right to deny them the same rights that you have. All men are created equal, yada yada, yada...(excluding of course hispanics, asians, and wimmin)
Oh, and those worthless Irish drunks. Fuck them and the ginger scourge that they've unleashed on the world.
If you think bigot and willfully ignorant are heavy handed words Â
I'd suggest that if bigots and the willfully ignorant don't want to be called as such, they either take their medicine when it's called out, keep their opinions to themselves, or, and here's a wild fucking idea, re-evaluate those ideas and see if maybe they've somehow been mistaken.
RE: If you think bigot and willfully ignorant are heavy handed words Â
I'd suggest that if bigots and the willfully ignorant don't want to be called as such, they either take their medicine when it's called out, keep their opinions to themselves, or, and here's a wild fucking idea, re-evaluate those ideas and see if maybe they've somehow been mistaken.
If you don't think "bigot" is a heavy-handed word then I certainly am not the one who needs to grow up, Wuphat. It is a life-long label of intolerance for some... In most cases, hopefully, it's deserved.
So when you call Tony Dungy a "homophobic bigot," and then diminish the strength of such terms, you prove that you have no business using them in the first place.
But I think his comments had more to do with value vs. distraction. Is a slow tweener who's ceiling is most likely being a special teams player worth all the media attention your team is getting and being asked questions about it 24/7? Some franchises like the attention and want to be part of history, some don't want the attention if it's not worth it.
If Jadeveon Clowney was gay, he'd still be going #1 because the value is worth the distraction. But by reading Tony Dungy's other comments, it just seems like he's not a diehard homosexual fan.
imo he's clearly hiding behind the "too much media attention" angle.
There really won't be THAT much media attention with this story. There was barely a mention of Jason Collins during the NBA season. Sure they'll talk about him on Sportcenter if he gets cut or makes the team, and there's always a potential "NFL player says he doesn't agree with Michal Sam" story in the middle of the season. But I look at Jason Collins and I see a guy who was barely mentioned in the NBA this year. Why would Michael Sam create such a huge media frenzy when we just saw the lack of buzz that Jason Collins went through this past year? When Collins signed with the Nets, boom story. After that we went on with our lives.
This is 100% a team chemistry issue that Dungy is too much of a coward to admit to. He's hiding behind nonsense like "distractions from the media" when he's the same guy that supported Michael Vick, a player who was going to cause to cause a ton of distractions in the media. Makes no sense. He tried to cover up his hypocritical comments by making even more hypocritical comments. Dude is simply put a liar and a coward. The media distraction excuse is a joke. If you're a head coach and don't have the confidence in your ability to handle this kind of "distraction", you're a shitty coach.
on ESPN is along those same lines as Dungy--"Well, Sam isn't that good so it isn't worth the distraction" Eh, listening comprehension and big picture, assholes?
Dungy is the ONLY person who has these views..I almost think people don't really like Dungy for his support of Michael Vick...
I also don't understand what him being the first Black Coach to win a SB has to do with anything..
I didn't like it when Dungy supported Vick. I don't like Dungy's views on Sam. I wouldn't like it if Coughlin came out with these same comments. I don't think any of those views are inconsistent with one another, and I'd imagine most here have the same thinking.
has very little to do with my thoughts on this. It just makes it a lot easier to present his hypocrisy when his main argument is "potentially distracting media attention".
Even if Dungy didn't support Vick, I would still find it incredibly easy to see right through his BS "media distraction" excuse.
i don't listen to NBC? or whatever channel he's on so i never heard his views on Vick..i know he did support him..I never thought highly of Vick but i also am not a animal lover, so my views may be a lot different from a lot of others..In no ay do i condone what he did..
Like I pointed out before, there are vast groups who point to their religious beliefs to object to something..see: being against gay marriage..
i think in this case. more are objecting to what Dungy said because of his support for Vick..Just my opinion..
I know I know there are many christians out there who do agree with a person who is gay..many..
Does the "why" matter? I am sure there are others who would not want Â
Sam on their team for the distraction it may cause or for non-religious reasons. I do suspect Dungy's view is t least partially based on his beliefs but it might not be and it does not matter what the view is based on in any case. If the guy should not be discriminated against then the reason you would do it does not matter.
Wait. Are you saying that there are people out there that like short people?
I was asked whether I would have drafted Michael Sam and I answered that I would not have drafted him. I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team. At the time of my interview, the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael’s first season had been announced.
I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way—by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit.
The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they’re good enough to play. That’s my opinion as a coach. But those were not the questions I was asked.
What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization.
I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
I wish Michael Sam nothing but the best in his quest to become a star in the NFL and I am confident he will get the opportunity to show what he can do on the field.
My sincere hope is that we will be able to focus on his play and not on his sexual orientation.
Dungy comments on his comments - ( New Window )
2007 (talking about his support of an Indiana ban on same sex marriage):
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/colts/2007-03-21-dungy-remarks_N.htm
2011: (tweet in response to the President's gay marriage stance)
http://www.dennyburk.com/tony-dungy-on-pres-obamas-gay-marriage-stance/
But it's not that he has anything against gay people because of his religion.
He just doesn't want a media circus. (which he wasn't even talking about. He's actually saying that "something will happen" in the locker room. I imagine he's worried about Sam trying to snatch some sausage in the shower.)
What's he talking about here? Sure sounds like the locker room to me.
Yet in the quotes posted above he says the opposite?
His "adjusted" comment:
"[P]laying in the NFL is, and should be, about merit...I do not believe Michael’s sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction."
It would have been pretty easy for him to make the second (more precise) comment in the original interview. But he didn't. And if he believes playing in the NFL is based on merit, why would he pass on a guy due to a potential media distraction? Wouldn't that mean it wasn't about merit?
He knows he can't say it's because Sam is gay, so he throws out a red herring.
Does he really expect people won't see through?
He knows he can't say it's because Sam is gay, so he throws out a red herring.
Does he really expect people won't see through?
Ask MiLB. I'm sure he'll give you a nice yes or no answer.
He knows he can't say it's because Sam is gay, so he throws out a red herring.
Does he really expect people won't see through?
So much for not jumping to conclusions.
He says he wouldn't want the distraction in his locker room... so you... you know.. he obviously hates the gays!
Again, nuance is not your strong suit.
My reference to tebow is that his persona is that of a deeply religious person and i wanted to see if any Christians also had the same belief and feeling as Dungy has..
I find it almost impossible that he is the ONLY person who feels that way..
So this is what pushed you over the edge into saying Tony Dungy is a homophobic bigot? OK, I take it back. You didn't jump to conclusions at all.
Buuuuulllllshit. Guy's an asshole.
On Tuesday, via a statement released to multiple media outlets, Dungy defended Sam's right to play in the NFL while saying he gave an "honest answer," and that his comments were made several weeks ago when "the Oprah Winfrey reality show that was going to chronicle Michael's first season had been announced."
"I was not asked whether or not Michael Sam deserves an opportunity to play in the NFL. He absolutely does.
"I was not asked whether his sexual orientation should play a part in the evaluation process. It should not.
"I was not asked whether I would have a problem having Michael Sam on my team. I would not.
"I have been asked all of those questions several times in the last three months and have always answered them the same way -- by saying that playing in the NFL is, and should be, about merit," the statement read. "The best players make the team, and everyone should get the opportunity to prove whether they're good enough to play. That's my opinion as a coach.
Mike and Mike
The Tampa Tribune's Ira Kaufman discusses his interview with Tony Dungy and Dungy's comments during the conversation about drafting Michael Sam.
More Podcasts »
"But those were not the questions I was asked. What I was asked about was my philosophy of drafting, a philosophy that was developed over the years, which was to minimize distractions for my teams.
"I do not believe Michael's sexual orientation will be a distraction to his teammates or his organization. I do, however, believe that the media attention that comes with it will be a distraction. Unfortunately we are all seeing this play out now, and I feel badly that my remarks played a role in the distraction.
Nuance. Again, not your friend.
Umm... his original quote is what incited the entire discussion. Excuse me for assuming we're both aware of his original comment. You went on to say that his original comment coupled with his clarification lead you to the conclusion that Dungy is a homophobic bigot. And the fact that you would associate yourself with such distinct, heavy-handed words with the quotes above is startling.
Others have called him an asshole. I'd have a hard time arguing with that. It's an assholish thing to say. Be a man, run your squad and get everyone on the same page... winning a championship. You, however, take an absurd leap and use these words so carelessly.
Nuance. Again, not your friend.
Why try?
It's like punching yourself in the dick.
When I was referring to what Exit cited, I was referring to the first quote.
It was my mistake for not making that explicit.
Nuance. Again, not your friend.
Yeah, more bullshit here. At first it was just the things Cam and Exit outlined, now it's opinion you've apparently formed based on vague references to "statements over many years." Absolute nonsense.
And oddly enough, you asked me earlier when you at any point claimed Dungy's faith added to your assessment of his bigotry. Then a post or two later you're telling me to read Cam's posts where Dungy is quoted talking about the Lord and family values. Do you even know where you stand?
Right. They were. They were quotes regarding the Lord and family values.
So you want me to read Cam's quoted text (much of it quotes about Dungy's faith) then you want me to not deduct Dungy's faith contributed to your assessment that he's a bigot.
Again... complete, argumentative nonsense.
In fact, what I was doing in that post was illustrating that, like you were able to (correctly) assume that I used Dungy's religious leanings as part of my assessment, you used my known anti-religious bias to make your assessment of my position.
You see, you were able to use previous statements I've made over time to inform your opinion that I was using his religiosity as some basis of my opinion of him. You were correct. I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was just asking how you knew that when I hadn't explicitly stated it here.
Likewise, I was able to use my understanding of Dungy's religious leaning to inform my assessment of his position regarding Sam even though he hadn't explicitly stated it.
So much so, that offline, I told Brett I was laying the groundwork for this, that you'd fall for it, and not get it.
Congrats.
I guess I need critical thinking classes.
Secondly, as I noted, I used the information (that I "figured out" from your game, I guess?) to assess your opinion. You then had the opportunity to respond to me. Additionally, I think that considering my assessment was accurate, you wouldn't be offended by what I concluded?
You however have apparently imposed the same logic on far less information about Dungy (I've had far more interaction with you than you have with him, of course) to create truly dreadful labels. Bigot. Homophobic. And you state them carelessly. Does anyone get hurt? No, but it speaks to your character.
So again... congrats?
You seem to be ignoring that he's made them, because I'm certainly not saying that all religious people are homophobes or bigots.
You see, part of my informed opinion is that he's explicitly made comments that hint towards being anti-gay to some extent.
I acknowledged that when I said that it is odd a guy who constantly claims it's best to have more information before forming an opinion to use words as heavy-handed as the ones you've used to characterize someone who, you say, "hints" at homophobia.
And I know people hate the analogy, but folks have used religion to deny rights to others time and again. Yep, even in this country.
What I find sad is that although it has been done plenty, folks will recognize it in history and scoff at those that did it while willfully ignoring and even defending those that are currently doing it.
Go ahead and believe that fags will burn in hell or don't "agree" with their lifestyle (still haven't really figured out what the hell that is supposed to mean). That's your right. It isn't however your right to deny them the same rights that you have. All men are created equal, yada yada, yada...(excluding of course hispanics, asians, and wimmin)
Oh, and those worthless Irish drunks. Fuck them and the ginger scourge that they've unleashed on the world.
I'd suggest that if bigots and the willfully ignorant don't want to be called as such, they either take their medicine when it's called out, keep their opinions to themselves, or, and here's a wild fucking idea, re-evaluate those ideas and see if maybe they've somehow been mistaken.
I'd suggest that if bigots and the willfully ignorant don't want to be called as such, they either take their medicine when it's called out, keep their opinions to themselves, or, and here's a wild fucking idea, re-evaluate those ideas and see if maybe they've somehow been mistaken.
If you don't think "bigot" is a heavy-handed word then I certainly am not the one who needs to grow up, Wuphat. It is a life-long label of intolerance for some... In most cases, hopefully, it's deserved.
So when you call Tony Dungy a "homophobic bigot," and then diminish the strength of such terms, you prove that you have no business using them in the first place.
Depending on what country you're in.
And, no, bigot is not heavy handed if the shoe fits, and IMHO, it fits Dungy just fine.
And it's also my opinion that Dungy doesn't think he's being one. That doesn't make him any less of one from where I sit.
If Jadeveon Clowney was gay, he'd still be going #1 because the value is worth the distraction. But by reading Tony Dungy's other comments, it just seems like he's not a diehard homosexual fan.
There really won't be THAT much media attention with this story. There was barely a mention of Jason Collins during the NBA season. Sure they'll talk about him on Sportcenter if he gets cut or makes the team, and there's always a potential "NFL player says he doesn't agree with Michal Sam" story in the middle of the season. But I look at Jason Collins and I see a guy who was barely mentioned in the NBA this year. Why would Michael Sam create such a huge media frenzy when we just saw the lack of buzz that Jason Collins went through this past year? When Collins signed with the Nets, boom story. After that we went on with our lives.
This is 100% a team chemistry issue that Dungy is too much of a coward to admit to. He's hiding behind nonsense like "distractions from the media" when he's the same guy that supported Michael Vick, a player who was going to cause to cause a ton of distractions in the media. Makes no sense. He tried to cover up his hypocritical comments by making even more hypocritical comments. Dude is simply put a liar and a coward. The media distraction excuse is a joke. If you're a head coach and don't have the confidence in your ability to handle this kind of "distraction", you're a shitty coach.
Disillusioning.
(...Right, Tony?)
I also don't understand what him being the first Black Coach to win a SB has to do with anything..
I also don't understand what him being the first Black Coach to win a SB has to do with anything..
I didn't like it when Dungy supported Vick. I don't like Dungy's views on Sam. I wouldn't like it if Coughlin came out with these same comments. I don't think any of those views are inconsistent with one another, and I'd imagine most here have the same thinking.
Even if Dungy didn't support Vick, I would still find it incredibly easy to see right through his BS "media distraction" excuse.
Like I pointed out before, there are vast groups who point to their religious beliefs to object to something..see: being against gay marriage..
i think in this case. more are objecting to what Dungy said because of his support for Vick..Just my opinion..
I know I know there are many christians out there who do agree with a person who is gay..many..
I'm not sure self-fulfilling prophecies count.