The curious case of Tim Tebow

There's a guy I've been friends with for probably close to 30 years in spite of the fact that we're about as politically different as two people can be. He's an extremely conservative Christian, and I'm ... well, I'm not. It has made for some lengthy discussions over our disagreements on the Facebook machine.

But I felt less argumentative and more intrigued the other day when he posted the following about Tim Tebow backing out of an appearance at First Baptist Church in Dallas.
  

"What do you think? Should Tebow have backed out of this event?"

For those unaware, the First Baptist pastor, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, "has taken polarizing social stances, fanning flames of controversy in exactly the kind of way that the NFL works tirelessly to avoid."

"In a 2011 interview, for instance, Jeffress declared that Islam and Mormonism were religions that are 'heresy from the pit of hell,' took a hard line against Judaism, and claims that America is being 'brainwashed' into accepting a homosexual agenda." 

"Also in 2011, he criticized the Catholic church as 'the genius of Satan' and 'corrupted' by cults. Say what you will about Ray Lewis, but his public displays of religion were inclusive and inspirational, not exclusive (well, except for the ones that excluded everyone who wasn't Ray Lewis)."

As someone who doesn't care what religion you belong to, or none at all, as long as you're not hurting anybody; supports gay rights and is married to a Catholic (although Mrs. Last Honest would probably be the first to tell you she's not a particularly good Catholic), I don't like Jeffress' worldview. I think it's safe to say he wouldn't like mine, either. So be it.

But back to Tebow, my friend didn't offer an opinion about the First Baptist event, and I'm not going to either. However, it did get me to thinking about Tebow's place in American sports culture, the likes of which I'm not sure we've ever seen.

Of course, the possibility exists that whatever Tebow's beliefs on other religions, gay rights, abortion or any other social issues, his Christianity has other priorities. His messages on Twitter announcing he was cancelling his appearance (the quote below is from the article about him backing out linked above) could perhaps hint at that.

"While I was looking forward to sharing a message of hope and Christ's unconditional love with the faithful members of the historic First Baptist Church of Dallas in April, due to new information that has been brought to my attention, I have decided to cancel my upcoming appearance. I will continue to use the platform God has blessed me with to bring Faith, Hope and Love to all those needing a brighter day. Thank you for all of your love and support. God Bless!"

Yet there is another possibility, which to me is where things get interesting.

Tim Tebow is extremely popular and extremely polarizing. How popular? If you believe Deadspin, the dude caused ESPN to change the way it covers sports. That's some serious stroke, folks.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, with the possible exception of the areas in and around Gainesville, Fla., a lot of that appeal is due to his open and overt Christianity. Now that I'm on that limb, I'm going to wander out onto a branch and say that the people who love him for his Christianity are probably conservative.

He's one of them, except for one little thing. While I don't have any illusions -- let's just say I don't envision him doing any events with Chris Kluwe or Brendon Ayanbadejo any time soon -- Tebow has pretty much stayed out of politics. Even the content from Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad from a couple years ago that caused so much controversy before that game wound up being a whole lot of no big deal.


So what that leads to is Tebow being a pretty polarizing athlete, but for two reasons that aren't necessarily polar opposites. Yes, some people find his public expressions of faith off-putting, but the dislike for that pales in intensity to that of the people who love him for it, and the backlash that does exist is probably as much about him not being a good NFL quarterback and all the attention he gets in spite of that.

Yet however much he may turn some people off, particularly those on the left, I don't think there are too many people who hate him, which means he's safe to do endorsements. (I actually think this TiVo ad is pretty good. I'm OK with people who can laugh at themselves.)


The only way I can see this sort-of-uneasy truce between what people are pretty sure he is and not holding it against him is him becoming what he hasn't shown to be yet ... someone who would call Islam and Judaism "heresy from the pit of hell," say America is being "brainwashed" into accepting a homosexual agenda or other such stuff ... or at least someone who would publicly associate with a pastor who feels that way.

That could give his critics as much reason to despise him as much as his fans love him, because then, it's personal.

Now, let me say again that it is entirely possible that Tebow is not interested in espousing his Christianity the same way Jeffress does. Absent any evidence to the contrary, he is due the benefit of that much doubt from the people who are offended by Jeffress' beliefs.

However, the story of the cancelled First Baptist Church appearance does show that if Tebow and his advisers are interested in maintaining his commercial viability, he walks perhaps a tighter rope than Michael "Republicans buy sneakers, too" Jordan ever did.

Perhaps the worst kind of sports fan

"I can't believe they still boo Chara."

This was from one of my co-workers Thursday, the day after the Boston Bruins played the Montreal Canadiens in Montreal, where the fans apparently treated Zdeno Chara with the minimum high regard that they always do.

Without even getting into the fact that Chara is the captain of the Canadiens' hated rivals, I did remind her there was an incident a couple years back that might have colored fans' views of him.



Let us not forget that there was talk of prosecuting Chara for that hit.

My co-worker, her memory refreshed of Chara running Max Pacioretty head-first into a pole, could only reply with, "He didn't do it on purpose. They should just get over it!"

I don't think he did it on purpose, either, and told her so, but saying Montreal fans should "get over it" defies all logic.

The conversation caused me to think that my co-worker may be the worst kind of sports fan ... the one whose passion (and to be clear, she is a serious, serious Bruins fan) makes them not just a hypocrite (as all fans are), but blinds them to all logic so much that a rational conversation can be nearly impossible.

My advice for Gus Johnson

Gus ... Gus ... Gus ... GUS!!!!

Sorry, didn't mean to yell there. I just wasn't sure you could hear me over whatever it was you were talking about.

I must confess, I was not thrilled to hear that you were being groomed to Fox's lead announcer for the 2018 World Cup. I might have even said something on the Twitter machine about it being the latest in Fox's seemingly never-ending efforts to screw up every sport there is. For one thing, if I ever find the guy with the robot fetish ...

You see, Gus, to be honest, I'm not a fan. What used to be endearing enthusiasm has turned into what I call Garces/Brown Syndrome. Since I doubt you've been following this blog since its inception, it's when a person becomes so defined by a particular characteristic (in your case, getting somewhat excited over things) that it consumes them.

Simply put, you've become shtick. And it annoys me greatly.

However, if you're going to do the gig, you might as well do it as well as you can. In that spirit, I would like to offer you a few friendly bits of advice.

1. Learn the game

I've been following soccer a little more than casually for the past few years. It's actually kind of exciting, getting to know more about a sport that I didn't grow up with and really had no knowledge base about. I'm getting better, but if I got plopped in a broadcast booth, I would drown in a deep pool of flop sweat and suck.

So I can appreciate your learning curve, and it's encouraging to see that you understand it, starting with calling yourself a "novice."

I'm also heartened that it looks like you're doing the work, calling MLS games on the radio, taking a trip to Europe to see games and meet with people and even playing pickup soccer games.

All very good. May I also suggest reading anything you can find from Jonathan Wilson? Sure, 90 percent of it will go over your head, especially when he gets deep in the weeds on tactics. but the 10 percent that sticks will be valuable.

2. Seriously, about the yelling

Listening to you cover a football game is like the announcing version of the running back who gets all puffy-chested and James Dean-like (h/t former co-worker Ray) for picking up four yards on 3rd-and-3 or the linebacker who does a little dance when he stops a runner for a six-yard gain. There's a lot of excitement that doesn't need to happen.

The thing about soccer is that you'll get your moments to be the Gus Johnson that so many people know and love. They just tend to sometimes be few and far between, and they can come out of nowhere.

And the moments don't even have to be goals. There are a lot of exciting moments where the ball doesn't go into the net. My favorites are the shots that appear out of the blue by ROO-NEY! or DROG-BA!

When someone actually scores, especially if it's spectacular, by all means, let it go. I can envision your goal calls being almost as famous as Ray Hudson's, albeit for the volume and not necessarily the flights of whimsy with the English language.



But I beg of you, just pick your spots. (While you're at it, apply that to the rest of your stuff, too.)

3. Tell us how you really feel

You're an American announcer, which means you belong to the school of no players or coaches ever doing something wrong or not being good at what they do unless there's some sort of extenuating circumstance like a bum knee or a sleepless night before the game due to nightmares of an announcer yelling in his ear all night.

But while you're watching English games on Fox Soccer Channel all weekend (which I'm sure you're doing), take note how honest the announcers are. They're all quite skilled at noting how many golden scoring chances Liverpool blows -- lots of opportunities for practice -- and if a player messes up, they say so. If a coach makes a boneheaded move, they say so. I'm pretty sure I've heard them say a team has flat-out quit.

You also should learn the closest thing they have to a euphemism ... "That was optimistic," for a shot that should have never been taken and wasn't going in unless the net was in Row ZZ.

Now I understand that you may not be comfortable with such bluntness, especially if you're not sure your opinions are warranted. If that's the case, then just don't stop your partner from doing it. It may seem weird at first, but it's OK.

Good luck.

The NHL's labor woes, explained

Stu Hackel wrote a piece for Sports Illustrated's website on Gary Bettman's 20 years as NHL commissioner, the gist of which seemed to be that there are some things he has done well and other things he hasn't done so well.

But there was one passage that jumped out at me.

It's in labor relations that Bettman's best and worst qualities come to the fore. He was primarily hired, after all, to bring an NBA-type salary cap to the NHL and to represent the owners in their dealings with the players, the league having lost the cozy relationship it previously enjoyed with the NHLPA during Alan Eagleson's tenure.

That's one way of putting it. Another way is to say that certain owners, such as the guy who is considered by some to have led the owners during the lockout, miss the days when Eagleson repeatedly, and criminally, sold out his players.

Is there any wonder why the owners can't stand a union leader who actually battles with them?

RGIII's knee must be more important than anyone else's

I wonder what Jay Cutler is thinking right now.

In case you missed it, Robert Griffin III hurt his knee pretty badly Sunday in the Washington Redskins' loss to the Seattle Seahawks. I didn't actually see the injury when it happened, but I realized something was going on when my Twitter blew up, largely to say Redskins coach Mike Shanahan should, at a minimum, be fired for leaving a hobbling Griffin in the game. (Dave Zirin's Twitter is a good example, and he also calls Redskins owner Dan Snyder to task for the condition of the field.)

But I want to know what Cutler is thinking because it was a little over a year ago when he did come out of a Chicago Bears playoff game with what turned out to be a torn MCL ... and was ripped for it. I must admit that I wasn't impressed at the time, and only have the barest of excuse that I didn't realize how hurt he was at the time.

And what's Philip Rivers' take on the whole thing? He played in a playoff game for the San Diego Chargers in 2008 with an ACL injury and after surgery the previous Monday that he kept a secret. I don't recall people saying Chargers coach Norv Turner should have been fired for possibly ruining his young quarterback's career.

Now I'd like to think that the concern over RGIII's injury is due to a greater understanding of what football players put themselves through to entertain us, part of an evolution that accelerated rapidly after Junior Seau's suicide and has continued to pick up steam ever since, and the realization that there are instances when players need to be protected from themselves by coaches or medical staff.

But it's when I start thinking that way that my good friend Cy Nical, who basically assumes the worst in everyone and everything, shows up to ask if the concern over RGIII is due to his being an extraordinary talent and an engaging, magnetic, popular personality as opposed to Cutler and Rivers, who people don't really like that much.

I hope Cy's wrong, but he's right more often than I (or perhaps even he) would like to admit.

Lance and Oprah ... yawn

In April of 1997, Ellen Degeneres came out as being gay ... which pretty much everyone knew already.

What caused me to think of this long-ago, completely unsurprising story? The news that Lance Armstrong would be talking to Oprah Winfrey on OWN "in his first no-holds-barred interview," which will air Jan. 17 from 9 to 10:30 p.m. Eastern.

"Armstrong will address the alleged doping scandal, years of accusations of cheating, and charges of lying about the use of performance-enhancing drugs throughout his storied cycling career."

Of course, the drug question is the only remotely interesting part of the interview, but really, how interesting is it?

If he continues to deny that he took drugs, even after being stripped of his Tour de France titles, it's something that he has already said hundreds, maybe thousands of times. 

If he finally admits he did drugs, he's acknowledging something that everyone already knew -- even most of the dead-enders have finally come around -- just like when Ellen Degeneres came out.

Some people have made their peace with Armstrong because "everyone did it" or "he has done so much good" or "I like him." I've already made my thoughts on this line of reasoning known, and I've long thought of him not just as a cheater (it was either that or Superman, given that he had cancer that doctors thought would kill him but came back to dominate a sport where everyone else was doping), but an outwardly arrogant jerk.

But however people feel about Armstrong, one interview with Oprah isn't likely to change that.

The curious case of the double tickets

If you've gone to any decent number of sporting events, you've probably had this conversation at least once:

"You're in our seats."
"No we're not. These are our seats."
"No ... this is ..." followed by the section, seat and row.
"OK, let me check ..." 

Mrs. Last Honest and I had one of these conversations today at Gampel Pavilion before the UConn-Notre Dame women's basketball game today (Notre Dame 73, UConn 72 ...you don't need a three-pointer Kaleena! ... we should all want to be Kelly Faris when we grow up), and there was no reason to believe it wasn't going to end up like 99.99 percent of these conversations do.

One of us was going to realize we had the wrong row, section or seat -- like about 10 minutes later in our section because someone misread a G for a Q -- and there would be a "sorry about that," a slightly embarrassed smile and everyone would end up where they belonged.

Except that didn't happen. We both had the exact same seats.

Mrs. Last Honest bought me the tickets for Christmas on StubHub. (What would have made this whole exercise even crazier is if I had bought her tickets to the same game for Christmas, which I was contemplating.) The other husband in this little adventure got them in his stocking for Christmas from his daughter. He didn't know how she had gotten them, but given they were identical to ours except ours were in color and his were in black and white (which actually is important later), I knew she had gotten them the same way.

Mrs. Last Honest and I got to the game first, so when I was chatting with the guy who would soon become my new best friend for the next little while, he said that when they scanned his tickets, they told him those seats had already been scanned, but when he went to the box office to inquire what was going on, they let him in anyway.

Since lap-sitting was clearly out of the question, the two of us set off to solve the problem, first enlisting help of arena staff, who sent us to a manager. The manager was convinced he had the solution ... that the black-and-white tickets clearly had to be a photocopy. Yup, aside from the complete lack of logic of such a conspiracy on our parts, there apparently was no consideration given to the possibility of us having a color printer and them having one that only printed in black and white.

So it was off to the box office we went, where ... they were utterly convinced his tickets were a photocopy.

Seriously.

I'm sure for the outside observer, there would have been considerable comedic value in watching us repeatedly (as in we had to do it more than once) tell the people in the box office that we had not met until just a few minutes ago. Fortunately, we got through to them (and I don't mean to portray all the Gampel staff as dunces ... they were actually very friendly throughout), and they found another couple tickets for our friends a few rows in front of us, so except for the result of the game, everyone lived happily ever after.

Well, except for maybe one person ...

Remember a few paragraphs back when I mentioned that, other than the color, the two sets of tickets were identical? That even extends to a name and account number on the printed ticket, so we have a pretty decent idea of who sold the same tickets twice. Now, it may have been an honest mistake -- that'll be up to UConn and StubHub to find out after we inform them -- but if two season tickets at Gampel are suddenly available, you'll know why.