Opinions to go Online

When ESPN hired Rush Limbaugh, it was expecting — and desiring — controversy and polarizing commentary. But race — in all its permutations — is still too taboo. Not even the bombastic but influential Limbaugh and his large constituency — which includes a surprising number of NFL players — because they’re rich — could transcend that.

First, let’s put this into its appropriate context. In a politically correct culture it is hard, if not impossible, to distinguish between racial and racist. If you’re in the media, you have to watch your wording in an ordeal of self-censorship. You have to use the proper code words.

If you say a player can beat you with his “athleticism,” what color might he be? If you say a player can’t beat you with his “athleticism” but is like a “coach on the field,” what color do you think of? Happens all the time.

If you said black athletes were behaving like boorish clowns by their celebratory, look-at-me antics on the field, are you a racist? Well, it so happens that white players, except for the occasional tight end out of the University of Miami, don’t do that.

Suppose you disagreed with Temple University basketball coach John Cheney who wants black recruits admitted to Temple regardless of academic standing. Cheney will tell you it’s part of giving kids a chance and a ticket out of the inner city cul-de-sac.

Are you a racist if you argue that the university — any university worthy of the higher education label — is not the place for remediation? Does it matter if you argue that uncompromised standards really send a helpful signal to inner city, “student-athlete” wannabes that grades do count as much as scoring averages? Does it matter if you argue that a “no” to an academically substandard black “student athlete” probably means “yes” to the next best black player with decent grades and test scores?

Back to Limbaugh.

His views on who wants to see black quarterbacks succeed is not way off target. It’s just that it would have been much more on target a decade or two ago. Currently, more than a quarter of NFL starting quarterbacks are black, among them Duante Culpepper and Steve McNair, who are franchise-type players. It’s a long way from James Harris going solo as a quarterblack.

Would the media like to see more black quarterbacks succeed? That’s not all that relevant. Reporters are not supposed to cheer from the press box — whether it’s for the home team or the homeboyz. But most sign on to a liberal agenda, of which race is the centerpiece in this country. So the answer is probably yes. The more stereotype-busting QBs, the better. So what else is new?

Interestingly enough, when Limbaugh made his stop-the-presses comments, those best positioned to respond–and refute–what he said, fell silent. That includes his ESPN colleague and former player Michael Irvin, who is black. Ironically, the flamboyantly outspoken Irvin, who always has something to say, said nothing.

The NFL’s take is more important.

It remains embarrassed — and subject at any moment to Jesse Jackson extortion — because in a league dominated by black players, it has so few black head coaches. Ownership is white. Most of the fans and advertisers are white. It’s getting more like the NBA. It’s like the Romans watching the Christians lose to the lions.

So the next best thing for NFL show-and-tell is the highest-profile position on the field: QB. What better way to say, in effect, “We really are progressive. We’re not part of the Al Campanis-Jimmy the Greek generation. We think black players assuming the consummate cool-under-fire, make-good-decisions, lead-your-men-in-battle position reflects well on the NFL. It helps bury those old stereotypes about blacks being gifted athletes who weren’t as smart as their white counterparts. It helps buy us time until we can showcase more black head coaches.”

Back to McNabb. For all their loutish behavior, Philly fans are pretty savvy sorts. Most of them, especially after the Eagles’ season-opening, offense-challenged losses to the Bucs and Patriots, wouldn’t dismiss out of hand Limbaugh’s comments on McNabb being overrated. He looked awful.

Philly fans remember Randall Cunningham. He had enough, uh, athleticism to have his own highlight video. But in big games, they will tell you, you couldn’t count on him to make good decisions. Ron Jaworski took them farther.

They see haunting parallels in McNabb, who’s better than Cunningham. They will tell you that the biggest fault of the Eagles offensively is that there is a concerted effort to force McNabb into being more of a pocket (read: white) passer than he is comfortable being. He was free to freelance –and do what he does best and put up big numbers — when the Eagles were a non-contender.

But since the Eagles became better balanced, he’s been asked increasingly to play within a system. (As with backups who replaced him late last year and won.) But when he stays in the pocket, within the system, Philly fans will tell you, he’s not nearly as effective, and he won’t be leading the Eagles to any Super Bowls that way. And he will look overrated in the process. The fans are frustrated as only Eagle fans can be.

And in moments of despair and candor, they’ll tell you that the Eagles are better if McNabb stops trying to be too much of a traditional pocket passer, reading defenses and looking off DBs. If that sounds like they want him to be less like a stereotypical white quarterback, they don’t care. If it sounds like they want him to be more like a stereotypical black quarterback and use his legs a lot, they care even less. They don’t want a black Koy Detmer. They just want to win.

For the record, the hard-core fans in Philly are much less upset about the Limbaugh flap than are some presidential candidates and the local media, which is as liberal on race as most media most places.

Recently Vanderbilt University made news for something other than good academics and bad football. Its chancellor, Gordon Gee, announced some rather revolutionary changes regarding athletics. He left no doubts about his intent when he proclaimed that “there is a wrong culture in athletics, and I’m declaring war on it.”

The opening skirmish was to kill off Vanderbilt’s athletic department as a separate entity. He said that with the skewed priorities over Division 1-A sports “the tail is always wagging the dog.”

Gee, whose previous presidential stints were at West Virginia, Colorado, Ohio State and Brown, also proposed tying graduation rates to scholarships and linking TV and conference revenues to graduation rates. He also wants every athlete to complete a core curriculum, thus assuring that “graduation” actually means something.

“We know the model we have right now is broken,” underscored Gee.

The only thing wrong with Vanderbilt advocating such radical changes is that it’s, well, Vanderbilt doing the advocating. They have little to lose. In football, they lose anyhow.

Would that it were Ohio State, where Maurice Claret seems finished with his suspension-shortened, sham-student, pro football apprenticeship. Or maybe Auburn, where former coach Terry Bowden said boosters had paid recruits to sign, a scenario that surprised no one close to the program. Or a bunch of other places where, if it weren’t for double standards, there would be no standards for major college football and basketball players.

So, Chancellor Gee’s efforts notwithstanding, the genie of “student-athlete” mercenaries and the corrupting influence of network television and athletic-shoe companies isn’t likely to be rebottled any time soon. It’s more likely Brown will play in a BCS bowl.

But kudos to Gee for taking such a public stand. But it is too bad, however, that he didn’t take such a principled stance when he was at West Virginia, Colorado or Ohio State. That could have been meaningful, not symbolic and quixotic. Then, again, he probably would have been run out of Morgantown, Boulder or Columbus for his heresy.

For once, I’d like to get through an entire major college or pro football game without it seeming like a BET video had somehow been spliced in.

Enough of the punk gibberish and the boorish gestures on the field. Enough of players “celebrating” the most mundane of accomplishments in the most preening, “look-at-me” manner.

And enough of those fans who excuse all of the above in the name of “enthusiasm” shown by the home team. For example, to applaud and even revel in Warren Sapp’s juvenile, end-zone “tribute” to Beyonce Knowles after his TD reception against the Falcons, is to be part of the problem.

And speaking of race, which we obviously are, how outrageous is it for Keyshawn Johnson to be claiming revisionist racism regarding the TV coverage and commentary accorded last year’s heated, sideline exchange with Jon Gruden? The media — being the media — played up the incident pitting the brash, talented, outspoken receiver and the hands-on, ego-driven, charismatic head coach. It is what it is.

Johnson now sees the confrontation through a racial filter. That’s because the media didn’t similarly overplay another sideline incident — the recent confrontation between Raiders’ quarterback Rich Gannon and his head coach Bill Callahan and offensive coordinator Marc Trestman.

According to Johnson, much more was made of his animated exchange with “blond, pretty boy” Gruden than is being made of the veteran (white) QB Gannon going ballistic during Oakland’s 31-10 drubbing by Denver. Only institutional racism, reasons Johnson, could account for such media-treatment disparity.

Johnson referred to the perception that he is a “loudmouth receiver from the ghetto,” while Gannon is perceived as a “class-act quarterback.” And he’s right. Only it’s more than perception.

Johnson has spent an entire career honing and reinforcing a loud, bodacious, “the rules don’t apply to me” image, both with the New York Jets and here with the Bucs. While the sideline incident with Gruden was overblown, it was not out of character for Johnson, who is never spotlight-challenged.

On the other hand, Gannon has long been known as one of the league’s more respectable, good guys. His shouting session with his coaches was a behavioral aberration, not a personality extension. It was a one-day news item. End of story. Johnson vs. Gruden was media red meat, but not because of societal racism.

There’s a reason Johnson is also called “Meshawn.” And, no, that’s not a racial slur.

Just play the damn games.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Robin Roberts, the old Philadelphia Philly Hall of Fame pitcher. The Temple Terrace resident has a new book out, “My Life in Baseball.” I noted it was absent the requisite sensational or scandalous elements. It was a nice read by a nice guy.

Roberts claimed he didn’t “pull any punches.” He simply wrote about “his life” and the way he lived it, he explained.

In a subsequent conversation, however, Roberts amended matters some. In answer to the question about whether there was a sequel in the works, he didn’t miss a beat and deadpanned: “Yes, and I’m going to call it ‘Everything I Left Out.'”