Vickkampf: the Panther is in the Shop Again

At the end of the Falcons-Eagles game last night, I had the same feeling as I did after Michigan-Notre Dame: should I be happy that my team won or concerned by the manner in which they won.  On the one hand, the Falcons got a critical win to avoid an 0-2 start.  They kept pace with the Saints and Bucs.  They came off the mat when they were down by ten in the fourth quarter.  With the game in the balance, they mounted two long touchdown drives against a defense that had been shelling them for most of the game.  And they did all of this against a team that is clearly one of the two best in the NFC.  (The hierarchy in the NFC: Green Bay and Philly are clearly on top, the Saints are third, and then everyone else fills in behind in some convoluted order.)

On the other hand, yeesh.  The Falcons pretty clearly won because Michael Vick sustained an injury in the third quarter.  Prior to Vick’s injury, the Eagles were pretty much moving the ball on the Falcons at will.  After the injury, the Eagles had to deploy third-string quarterback Mike Kafka, leading a bunch of NFL types to make the same Metamorphosis jokes that college fans exhausted several years ago.  Despite this good fortune, the Falcons still let the Eagles mount a late drive, a drive that ended not because the Falcons made a great defensive play, but rather because Jeremy Maclin – a player who had killed the Falcons all night – dropped a pass on fourth down.  At one point before Vick’s injury, the Falcons were being outgained 350 to 152.  The local pro football collective looked at times like they belonged in the NFC West.  Only the good fortune of scoring touchdowns after a lengthy fumble return by Ray Edwards (great play by Peria Jerry to force the fumble, but everything that happened thereafter was luck) and then an interception that wasn’t really an interception by Kelvin Hayden* had kept the Falcons in the game in the middle stretches. 

* – All of Andy Reid’s game management issues that Bill Simmons has lampooned for years were on display in this game.  Reid erred by not using his timeouts at the end of the first half when the Falcons were inside the Eagles ten and time clearly wasn’t an issue.  He didn’t challenge the Hayden pick.  He wasted a timeout discussing the fourth down play at the end with Kafka, thus depriving the Eagles of a chance to mount a drive after the fourth down attempt failed.  Reid is a good coach in most areas, but he is usually found wanting in the areas that fans can most easily judge. 

There was really no aspect of the Falcons team that looked good.  The running game was productive on Michael Turner’s first two and last two carries, but in between, there was a whole lot of nothing.  Matt Ryan threw two picks and averaged only 5.6 yards per attempt.  Whether the failings of the passing game were the result of Ryan playing poorly or the offensive line getting abused on just about every dropback is an open question.  If the NFL is a passing league and the key on defense is getting a pass rush without blitzing, then Eagles fans have to be feeling a lot better than Falcons fans this morning.  On defense, the Falcons struggled to cover Maclin and DeSean Jackson and they didn’t get a sack on any of the Eagles’ 37 pass attempts.  But hey, the Falcons injured Vick by throwing him into one of his teammates, so there’s that.

On the surface level, this was a win straight out of the 2010 playbook in that the Falcons got outgained, but still managed to beat a good opponent.  However, the formula isn’t even working anymore.  The Falcons won last year despite pedestrian yardage numbers because of three strengths, but none of the strengths were evident last night:

1. They were fourth in the NFL in first downs, showing a low variance offense that was able to control the clock and score.  Last night, the Eagles had 27 first downs to the Falcons’ 20.

2. They were third in the NFL in fewest turnovers surrendered.  Last night, the Falcons threw a pair of picks.  In a similar vein, the Falcons were third in the NFL in fewest sacks allowed, but last night, Ryan was sacked four times and was running for his life on most of the rest of his dropbacks.

3. They were excellent on special teams.  Last night, the Falcons had an 18-yard punt from Matt Bosher (Bosher is a major step down from Michael Koenen) and also saw Pro Bowler Eric Weems make a series of dreadful decisions on punt and kickoff returns.

There are two possibilities here.  The first is that the Falcons simply played two bad games to start the season and they will right the ship in the coming weeks.  The second is that the 13-3 season in 2010 was a mirage based on factors that will not or cannot be repeated and regression to the mean is going to hit with force this fall.  I’m leaning towards the latter.   

We Have Now What we Have Always Needed, Real Partnership with the Government.

Deadspin is pretty much useless to me because it’s become the US Weekly of sports blogs, but I remain a fan of its slogan: “without access, favor, or discretion.” That saying is the “all the news that’s fit to print” of the blogosphere. Think about the slogan when you read two pieces: Peter King’s hagiography of Roger Goodell ($) and S.M. Oliva’s dissection of the NFL as an embodiment of crony capitalism at the Mises Economics Blog. (HT to Chris Brown for the latter link. And yes, I get the point that I’m left-of-center and quoting the von Mises Institute.)

I finally got around to reading the King piece this weekend and found myself wondering whether it would be any different if it were written by the NFL’s PR department itself. (The irony here is that Goodell got his start as a PR guy for Ken O’Brien when the Jets took O’Brien as one of the least heralded members of the famed 1983 quarterback class.) In Cliff Notes style, here’s what you can learn from King’s eight-page piece:

1. Goodell successfully handled a racially-loaded incident in a bar in college.

2. Goodell sent a security detail to Tank Johnson’s house instead of Johnson buying a gun.

3. The NFL is very popular, but the labor dispute will be complicated.

4. Goodell’s childhood was marked by protecting his siblings, realizing that he would have to outwork everyone else, and following his Dad’s political career, which ended with a principled stand against the Vietnam War. We end up with this rancid comparison:

Goodell lost the 1970 Senate election, receiving just 24% of the vote in a three-party race. "But what did he retain?" Roger says. "His principles. His integrity. His character. It had a big effect on all of us."

On the future NFL commissioner, especially. "Roger has so much of his father in him," Tagliabue says. "He listens to all sides and has the courage of his convictions. I used to see it a lot when he was dealing with state legislators and governors. He understood the pressure elected officials were under."

Yes, Peter, we all see the similarity between Charles Goodell taking a stand against Vietnam that provoked a backlash from his own party and Roger Goodell convincing politicians to fork over large chunks of the public treasury to enhance the bottom lines of the NFL and its wealthy owners. Real conviction on both sides.

5. Goodell took care of his mother when she had terminal cancer.

6. Goodell convinced Jerry Rice not to go to the USFL, returned pro football to Cleveland, and was correct to side with Jerry Jones on the potential of local sponsorship deals.

7. Goodell is a man of the people who talks to his ordinary customers.

8. Mike Vick wants to make Goodell proud after lying to him about his involvement in dog-fighting. (Seriously, this story about Goodell’s steely glare to Vick is ludicrous. Was Vick really going to admit to a serious federal offense and thus make the Commissioner of the NFL a material witness? Goodell’s question to Vick was a classic sideline reporter question with only one potential answer, but Greg Aiello King retells it with vim so fans can feel good that the NFL commissioner takes a hard line on scofflaws with cornrows.)

9. Goodell will bend on the NFL’s position that the season should be extended to 18 games – an unprincipled, meritless position in light of the emphasis on head injuries and thus, an obvious negotiating ploy - but he is a stalwart negotiator who will win in the end.

The inclusion of the 18-game schedule issue is the only nugget in a long cover story that could possibly be construed as negative for Goodell and King promptly defuses it by saying that Goodell and the owners will back off that demand. Hell, even the cover – a ground level shot looking up at Goodell, surveying all he has conquered as the serious man of industry – comes right out of your average political campaign. Sports Illustrated is the major national media entity that should be able to display critical thinking when it covers the labor dispute because ESPN and the other networks are beholden to the league as a result of their broadcast deals. Instead, SI devoted major space to allow the NFL to fire an early salvo in a PR war. (In SI’s defense, they did a very good job covering head injuries in a lengthy cover feature this season, so it’s not as if they have nothing to contribute.) King’s piece reeks of a writer who wants to maintain a good relationship with the entity that he covers. The desire for access pollutes the final product.

In contrast, the Oliva piece is a great takedown of the NFL and Goodell. In the same way that lots of voters are against “big government” while ignoring the fact that they are beneficiaries in a host of ways (their position isn’t “I don’t like spending;” it’s “I don’t like spending on other people”), lots of otherwise conservative people love a sport that makes a mockery of the free market. Inept owners like the Fords in Detroit and the Browns in Cincinnati continue to rake in profits from unassailable positions because the NFL protects bad management. (I would pay through the nose to see a meeting of NFL owners in which a promotion/relegation system is discussed.) These owners benefit from the heavy public subsidies that every franchise receives in one form or another. Oliva then lights into Goodell as being emblematic of the league’s authoritarian bent:

There is, in fact, a strong “intellectual property” mentality throughout the NFL. Literally this is reflected in the league’s fanatical prosecution of its trademarks and copyrights. But on another level, there’s a belief in “The Shield,” the image of a league that must be protected at all costs from any hint of negative press.

When Roger Goodell became commissioner, he took this idea to laughable excess. No longer content to enforce the league’s on-field rules, Goodell anointed himself a crusader against all perceived wrongs. He routinely suspends players for off-field incidents – even mere allegations — that have nothing to do with the actual game of professional football. His rationale is that any action by an NFL player that may reflect poorly on him also hurts the league somehow. (Of course, that doesn’t apply to Goodell’s employers, the franchise operators, who are free to be sleazy, racist, and dishonest businessmen, e.g. Daniel Snyder).

Then again, as a lifelong NFL bureaucrat, Goodell is simply extending the league’s on-field thinking to off-field situations. The NFL product is increasingly bureaucratic and not very “consumer friendly.” The league obsesses over trivial matters — fining players $5,000 for wearing the wrong socks, banning all truthful criticism of officiating mistakes, changing rules on the fly in the middle of the season — to the point where we’re no longer talking about private businessmen but quasi-governmental officials. Indeed, what private business outside of professional sports has a “Commissioner”?

Not that any of this is surprising. When the majority of league stadiums are government finances, that mentality seeps into the league’s operations. When you attempt to circumvent the laws of economics by continually subsidizing poor management, what you’re left with is a even poorer management.

The one problem with Oliva’s critique is that Goodell’s crackdown on players who are not charged with crimes (Ben Roethlisberger) or, in one case, are alleged to have committed a tawdry offense that isn’t even illegal (Brett Favre) is actually a free market response. The NFL has to be careful with resentment on the part of its fans towards its players. That resentment has elements of race and class (a combination of conservative and liberal themes!) and is stoked by the sports media, which often have little food on their table, but have a lot of forks and knives and have to cut something. (See the comment in King’s piece by a tailgater in Cincinnati.) By becoming the avenging angel for fans, Goodell is responding to taste of the market. Not all bad qualities of the NFL are the result of its suckling at the government teat. Then again, if the point is that the NFL is an emblem of authoritarian, state-aided capitalism, then Sheriff Goodell fits right in.

Vickkampf: Werner von Braun Is Now Making Rockets for the Other Team

Michael Vick returns December 6. You think there might be a little coverage of that event at the Georgia Dome? G-d help us all if the Falcons are struggling at that point.

I have to admit that I'm interested to see what Andy Reid does with Vick. He's clearly not bringing him in to compete for the starting spot. Donovan McNabb is entrenched as the starter and the Eagles spent a second round pick on Kevin Kolb in 2008. The Eagles' primary offense is a variant of the West Coast Offense, which proved to be a poor fit for Vick's skill-set when Jim Mora and Greg Knapp were calling the shots here.

Rather, I suspect that Reid is going to deploy a version of the Wildcat. College fans should be familiar with the offense that Reid is going to use, as it will most likely look a lot like the Spread 'n' Shred that is all the rage in college football right now. NFL types will look confused and call this offense the Wildcat, but Vick is an actual quarterback and the Wildcat (as I understand it) usually involved a running back or wide receiver taking the snap. If Reid does his homework and watches enough college tape, he could create a devastating offense using Vick as the quarterback, Brian Westbrook as the runner, and Jeremy Maclin and Desean Jackson as the slot receivers. Imagine the pressure a defense would face with Vick and Westbrook running the zone read and Jackson and Maclin working into plays as pitchmen. This wouldn't be the Eagles' base offense, but for 15-20 plays per game, it would be incredible. Additionally, the Eagles would avoid the main reason why Vick couldn't run the Spread 'n' Shred in the NFL: the injury risk. If Vick is running the offense for 15-20 plays, then he isn't going to take the same pounding that he would if he ran the offense full-time.

I have all sorts of questions about the implications of the Eagles running a college offense with Vick. First, Andy Reid is a West Coast Offense guy. Can he figure out how to run a different offense now that he has the right personnel for it? Second, NFL teams have a lot of practice time, but do they have enough to deploy two very different offenses? Third, if the Spread 'n' Shred is successful for 15-20 snaps per game, will there be pressure on the Eagles to expand the package? If Vick is doing well for the Eagles, does Miami create a bigger package for Pat White? Will another team in the NFL go to the Spread for 50% of its snaps? Or all of its snaps? Will this create a bigger draft market for college quarterbacks who run the offense? Like that guy in Gainesville whose name escapes me right now?

I am, in Fact, Alive

Work has interceded for the past two weeks. I was in trial last week, but that's in the rear-view mirror, leaving me with time to vomit out the thoughts that have been percolating in my spare moments for the past two weeks:

1. Co-sign on the various writers (including my old buddy Stewart Mandel) pointing out that the presence of the Arizona Cardinals in the Super Bowl is a good argument against a large playoff. (It is not an argument against a plus-one or even an eight-team playoff as long as the eight-team playoff is the eight highest-ranked teams as opposed to six conference champions and two at-large teams.) For all the playoff advocates who demand that college football be "settled on the field," what was settled on the field when New England beat Arizona 47-7 in December? New England finished 11-5 and missed the playoffs. Arizona finished 9-7 and not only made the playoffs, but got home games against Atlanta and Philadephia, two teams that had better records against more difficult schedules. It's not just that the NFL playoffs are becoming increasingly random; it's that the system rewards undeserving teams.

2. I have a lengthy "why are the Hawks so much better?" post percolating in my head and a lot of the explanation will have to do with Mike Bibby turning the clock back by six years. So here's the new question: do the Hawks re-sign Bibby? They'll be paying for his decline years, he'll probably be overpriced, and one has to question spending a lot of money on a guy who has had such an uptick in performance in a contract year. On the other hand, the Hawks have no apparent replacement at the point guard spot. After spending years without a point guard, do we really want to go back to the days of having several talented swing men and no one to feed them the ball? Plus, Bibby's primary value is his shooting as opposed to his quicks, so he might age more gracefully than a point guard who depends on athleticism.

3. When contemplating Mike Vick's return to the NFL, I assumed that the political orientation of his new city would be important. He needs a fan base with a low percentage of PETA members. San Francisco is definitely not what I had in mind. On the other hand, people love dogs in every state (wasn't that a line in Obama's 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention?), so it might not make a difference.

3a. I really don't see Vick's return to the NFL going well. He was never strong at technique or decision-making, but his athleticism made up for his shortcomings as a passer. Two years in Leavenworth cannot be good for Vick's athleticism. Vick might make sense if a team signed him, along with Vince Young and Dennis Dixon, and employed a modified version of the zone read offense, but we all know that college offenses can't work in the NFL.

4. After the 413th rendition of the Thomas & Friends Roll Call song for my two-year old, I decided to take matters into my own hands. I started teaching him various fight songs in the guise of "animal songs." Thus, he requests the "Elephant Song" and I hum the Alabama fight song for him. There's an "Alligator Song," a "Dog Song," a "Lion Song," a "Tiger Song," a "Bull Song," a "Badger Song," a "Bumble Bee Song," and a "Goat Song." (There is no "Wolverine Song" because he already knows Hail to the Victors as the "Michigan Song"; it's a part of his post-bath routine. Last night, he warbled some of it, proclaiming Michigan the "concrete heroes.") This plan has gone off flawlessly. Occasionally, I think I can handle this whole fatherhood thing.

5. The extent of my thoughts on John Smoltz leaving: good for him. The Braves are in no position to seriously compete for the World Series, certainly not with three holes in the outfield. Smoltz probably has one last year left in his arm. He should play for a team with a chance of winning something major. He doesn't need to be toiling for a team whose upside looks to be around 80 wins, certainly not when one of his best talents is his postseason performance. At least he didn't go to the Mets. I'm also comfortable with the Braves letting Smoltz go. The Braves are a mid-market team, which means they can't compete every year. It's better for them to acknowledge that fact and plan for the future than it is for them to bust their humps to max out at 85 wins. (One counter: the "plan for the future" approach is a little inconsistent with signing Derek Lowe.) In short, we don't need to have our collective panties in a bunch that the Braves and John Smoltz went through a divorce because the divorce makes sense for all concerned.

Three Years Ago...

So I was thinking this weekend as the Braves were getting pummeled twice at home by the hapless Nationals that the Hawks are officially the best pro team in the city. The Falcons and Thrashers are one of the two worst teams in their respective leagues, while the Braves are meandering under .500 and have put together one of the worst outfields in recent memory. Meanwhile, the Hawks are coming off of a season in which they made the playoffs and pushed the eventual champions to a seventh game. Yes, the Hawks did so after finishing eight games under .500 and they didn't come close to winning a game in Boston, but work with me here.

Anyway, it was only three years ago that the roles were completely reversed. At this time three years ago, the Braves were en route to their 14th straight divisional title. They were in the process of reinventing the team with a corps of players from the minors, led by local products Jeff Francoeur and Brian McCann. The Falcons were coming off of a season in which they made the NFC Championship Game. They had Michael Vick, one of the biggest stars in the NFL. The Thrashers had not yet made the playoffs, but they had assembled a nucleus of Ilya Kovalchuk, Dany Heatley (one month from being dealt to Ottawa), and Kari Lehtonen. The future of all three teams looked bright. Only the Hawks were in the toilet, as they were coming off a season in which they won a whopping 13 games and finished with the worst record in the NBA.

What are the lessons here? I can think of a few possibilities:

1. As bad as things appear for our local sports collectives, fortunes can change in a relatively short amount of time. With progressive drafts and salary caps (in three of four sports), three years is an eternity in American professional sports. That said...

2. This is Atlanta and bad things will happen.

3. The Braves, Falcons, and Thrashers were all stocked with young players, but bad decisions from management of those three teams (the Thrashers and Falcons far more so than the Braves) caused the teams to founder. This is a clear lesson for the Hawks. Assembling good young talent is only the first step. That young talent needs a supporting cast. The players also need hobbies that don't violate federal law.

Jason Whitlock is the Crazy Uncle in the Attic

I'll admit that at one stage in my life, I enjoyed Jason Whitlock's commentary, mainly because he was the one counter-point to the Northeast-obsessed middle-aged white guys on the Sports Reporters. He was also a guy who was willing to discuss race, which is subject to so many taboos that the topic has become almost impossible to cover. Lately, Whitlock has completely lost me, as he's become an eccentric blowhard. Specifically, he's become the go-to guy for prejudiced white people to say "see, I'm not racist when I say [insert prejudiced statement here]; Jason Whitlock says the same thing!" Sports Media Watch absolutely destroyed Whitlock on this front:

Whitlock's articles supposedly tell black America to sit down, shut up, and take responsibility. 'Real talk', apparently. Which would make sense if black America was one individual person, instead of a race of millions of individual people, each with their own mind. One of the main tenets of prejudice is the stripping away of individuality from the group being targeted. Whitlock certainly excels at doing this, as his articles frequently depict black America as one indistinguishable mass, especially young black America. It is this lumping of black America into one group that can allow Whitlock to so foolishly suggest that All Star Weekend was a calling people felt in the pit of their stomach, and to suggest that hip hop music is the cause of every ill within black society...

His articles are designed to get attention, to be controversial, and to always please the majority. Whitlock is considered the “rational” black man, the one who can see beyond his race, and look at things from the right point of view. He never plays the race card, and doesn’t blame white America for everything -- or anything at all, for that matter. He is a true 'credit to his race'; sadly, one imagines that he would beam with pride upon hearing such a statement. He tells it like it is, in that he tells the majority what they want to hear.

Even if one agrees with what he says, one must concede that he is transparent. Whitlock has no interest in the fortunes of black America, and is simply giving people what they want – validation. And that validation has resulted in multiple copycats. Whitlock has awoken a sleeping giant, one that took one look at what he wrote, and realized: “If he’s doing it, I can do it too.”

Jason Whitlock, worst of the sports media in 2007.

I like the idea of African-Americans (or just about any group) engaging in collective self-criticism. I'm also receptive to the idea that the standard for blacks being racist is much higher because of the historical context that colors race in this country (read: 250 years of slavery followed by a century of Jim Crow). All that said, it's hard to argue that this statement by Whitlock is not racist (HT: Mayhem in the AM):

Pete Carroll might be the one guy who could handle the special problems unique to coaching a professional football team in Atlanta, the hip hop capital of the Dirty South.

Carroll has built a college powerhouse in Snoop Dogg and Suge Knight's backyard. Maybe Carroll could do the same thing in the house that T.I. built.

To me, there's a reason Atlanta's basketball and football teams consistently stink. There are just too many distractions for young, rich black athletes and the look-at-me, bling-bling attitude that permeates Atlanta isn't conducive to building a team atmosphere.

This comment is so bad on so many levels. First, the generalization involved are truly striking. Atlanta is collectively written off has having a "look-at-me, bling-bling attitude" that acts as an explanation for why the Falcons and Hawks aren't good. Whitlock's comment personifies lazy journalism. Instead of actually analyzing why the Falcons and Hawks have been bad, which would require evaluation of a variety of bad personnel decisions, Whitlock opts for a one size fits all, pop psychology generalization that would make even Kirk Herbstreit blush.

Second, the comment doesn't make any logical sense. Unless you assume that Atlanta has excessive distractions and a look-at-me attitude, but Los Angeles doesn't, then USC's success refutes the argument entirely. The most successful college football program of the decade resides in the nation's capital for distractions, glitz, and superficiality. How is USC able to handle these distractions, but the Falcons and Hawks aren't?

Third, if you view Michael Vick's downfall as the cause (or at least a microcosm) of the Falcons' failures, then Whitlock's point is factually inaccurate. I have no doubt that Whitlock was thinking about Vick when he wrote that passage. As George Dohrmann and Farrell Evans of Sports Illustrated described in a well-done piece on Vick, Vick's problem was precisely the opposite of what Whitlock describes. Vick never made friends in Atlanta, he never put roots down, and he never made any effort to integrate himself with one of the preeminent African-American communities in the country. Instead, he kept his old friends from Newport News and he flew back to Virginia when he had free time. The problem for Vick wasn't that he was influenced too much by the city; it was that he made no effort to integrate to his new home. But why pay attention to actual facts when you can denigrate a metropolis and two of its sports franchises with a sweeping, unsupported, prejudiced generalization?

Vickkampf: the Voice of Reason is...Terrence Moore?

I'll give credit where credit is due: Terrence Moore has an outstanding column this morning regarding the Vick supporters that ESPN crammed into the Georgia World Congress Center to create as much drama and division as possible. Here's the highlight:

So, after several hundred folks on Tuesday night represented many among the “they” by embarrassing themselves and an entire city on national television with senseless booing and hissing during what was supposed to be a civil debate, they couldn’t care less.

This is beyond disgusting, and it needs to stop. Those nationally and locally who keep suggesting that Michael Vick has become a martyr around Atlanta because of the city’s legendary ties to the civil-rights movement are spitting on the graves of Martin, Malcolm, Sojourner, Rosa, W.E.B., Booker T and Frederick.

I only caught about 20 minutes of the Town Hall Meeting when I got home from work the other day, but my prevailing reaction was that the people in the audience have formed a cult of personality around Michael Vick and are completely blind to any form of rational thought on the issue. I'd like to think that the story should not be viewed through a prism of race and that it's just about one guy with remarkably poor judgment pissing away a promising career, but that's a hard position to take when he is backed by the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP. The people in the audience hooted at anyone who said anything remotely critical of Vick, including Terrence Moore (black), Terrence Mathis (black), and Chuck Smith (black). I won't even begin to discuss their outrage at the notion - advanced by Chuck Smith, John Kincaid, Neal Boortz, and just about anyone else with an ounce of clear thinking - that Vick should play again, but that he won't do so in Atlanta. OK, I'll say one thing about that. One of the first statements out of Vick's mouth after he pled guilty was to apologize to Arthur Blank and the Falcons for lying to them and letting them down. How in the world could Vick possibly come back to a team that he screwed, as himself acknowledges?

Overall, I'm happy that ESPN wasn't able to find our white racists to create a Geraldo atmosphere, although I'm sure that it's not for lack of trying. I'm happy that the panel of speakers was multi-racial and demonstrated agreement as to the seriousness of Vick's predicament and the future for him and the Falcons. And in a weird way, I'm happy that the extreme wing of der Vickgruppen were exposed as being totally irrational. All that said, I'm sad that the NAACP (or at least the Atlanta chapter) has stooped to this level, I'm sad that ESPN thought that this show would be a good idea, and I'm sad that I watched 20 minutes and then spent 15 minutes writing about it.

Vickkampf: Let's Have Kurt Waldheim and Yuri Andropov Debate the Implications

I've got that Cracker song What the World Needs Now song stuck in my hear right now. You know, the one that says that the world needs a variety of things "like I need a hole in my head."? The cause of my humming is ESPN's decision to convene a town hall meeting to discuss the racial impact of Vickkampf. And to ensure that Atlanta is portrayed to be a short step away from Sarajevo after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the panel will include Terrence Moore and Neal Boortz. Does anyone doubt that Bob Ley (whom I normally like and respect) and company sat around trying to decide who the biggest bombthrowers would be on the racial issue and came up with Moore and Boortz? And oh how they'll giggle when Moore asserts that Atlanta is too racist to host a Super Bowl or Boortz whips out the "ghetto trash" line that he used to describe Cynthia McKinney (the only instance in which I felt sympathetic to Ms. McKinney). Gee, I wonder why ESPN invited Terrence Moore as opposed to Mark Bradley (assuming that they didn't invite Bradley).

I typically have serious reservations about employing anything close to the "the races get along down here, but the Yankee media is stirring up trouble," since that was typically the line used by just about every white racist in the South in the 50s and 60s. In fact, I heard that line from a white resident of Jena, Louisiana on the radio this week, so apparently, it's still on the first page of the "don't pay attention to the fact that our town prosecutes blacks and not whites" playbook. That said, I am definitely not pleased by ESPN's approach. I don't recall them convening a racial town hall to discuss Barry Bonds (another issue on which opinion split on racial lines). Why? Because the narrative concerning Atlanta and the South involves race, but the same narrative doesn't apply to national issues like Bonds. G-d forbid anyone suggest that San Franciscans or New Yorkers might also feel differently about Bonds on the basis of racial experience. Similarly, there hasn't been a racial town hall in Philadelphia regarding Donovan McNabb's perception that he's treated more negatively than white quarterbacks.

Like Jeff Schultz's inept "let's use pop psychology to explain why Georgia can't score in the red zone" explanation, ESPN's approach also highlights a real failing of the modern media: the tendency to find the most diametrically opposed points of view and air them in the interest of "balance." This comes up all the time in the political context. The Supreme Court will issue a decision on, say, gun rights and CNN will go to the split screen with Wayne Lapierre in one box saying crazy things, someone from a pro-gun control group saying something less crazy, and then the anchor in the third box egging the two of them on. As a result, the viewer gets two extreme views as opposed to a measured, intelligent take. I can guarantee you that Moore and Boortz will do the same on the Vick issue. One caveat: Moore didn't really write anything incendiary about the Vick case and he smartly didn't turn Vick's travails into a referendum on race relations. Maybe ESPN won't get the Racial Dresden that they're clearly pining for.

Vickkampf: We've Reached the Schoolhouse at Reims

Surprising no one, Michael Vick looked at the mountain of evidence confronting him - seven witnesses, along with (one would presume) bank statements, credit card receipts, telephone records, digital pictures, etc. - and decided to plead guilty yesterday. The guilty plea won't end this oft-exasperating story, but it will at least end the "did he do it?" questions and it puts us in the place of evaluating the impact:

Vick

Assuming that Vick misses two years through a combination of incarceration and a suspension from the NFL (a reasonable assumption at this stage), he is going to be an interesting test case for the proposition that America will forgive anyone who appears contrite. There's no doubt in my mind that Vick will offer a tearful apology. Whether the apology is perceived as sincere or as an attempt to pave the way for a return to the NFL is another matter entirely. Once he makes that apology and serves his time, the normal course of action would be for the general public to forgive and let him get back to earning a living. Memories tend to be short and the freshness of the allegations in the indictment against Vick will fade.

That said, Vick is accused of a unqiue crime that will really test the tendency to forgive. There is a reason why "puppy-killer" is a euphemism for the worst sort of crime that a person can commit. There is a reason why men cry during Bambi, but not in any one of a bevy of movies where humans (including totally innocent humans), are killed. People will forgive a lot, but cruelty to animals is one of the deadliest of sins. The fact that Vick will be pleading guilty to hanging, drowning, and beating dogs that didn't meet his standards for fighting will be hard to forgive. The fact that he bought the Moonlight Road property shortly after being drafted, which implies that having a dog-fighting operation was a dream for him in the same way that I dream of taking an RV from coast to coast if I won the lottery, is even worse. This might be the first instance of an athlete apologizing to absolutely no effect.

The Falcons

I've said this before, but Vick's ultimate surrender to the charges against him is a good thing for the Falcons, at least in terms of the long term prospect of fielding a legitimate Super Bowl contender. After four seasons as a starter and six seasons as an NFL quarterback, Vick had showed us where he was and probably what his peak level would be. He had a terrific arm and unbelievable running ability, but his ability to read a defense and throw accurately and with touch to his receivers was not great and had not improved in several years. He was a slightly above-average quarterback being paid to be Manning or Brady. He left us no reason to think that he would progress beyond that level, as he did not show significant improvement and his work ethic was questionable.

Thus, the Falcons were in a bind. They could not build a great team around Vick because of his huge salary cap number. Vick was good enough to keep the team at the 6-8 win level, thus ensuring that they would not bottom out and get to rebuild immediately through the Draft. He was not good enough to get the team beyond that level. Additionally, because he was so popular with the fan base and because the Falcons' fan base isn't equal to the fan bases in other cities as a result of the devotion to college football in the area, Vick could not be dealt. Thus, the Falcons were stuck with almost no prospect of moving from average to very good until Vick had a major injury or did something off the field that would end his tenure in Atlanta.

Now, the Falcons are out of that bind. They will likely bottom out this year (unless Joey Harrington is better than we think), they'll take a quarterback at the top of the Draft next year, and they'll be able to build a more promising team. Call me crazy, but a team with a nucleus of Brohm/Norwood/Anderson/Hall/Houston is fairly appealing to me. If Petrino's system works in the NFL and Rich McKay hits on his draft picks (and I like what he did last year), then this team could be very good in three years. (After evaluating Brohm's stats for my college football fantasy league, it occurs to me that Petrino's system, which puts a premium of short, accurate passes, would not have been a good fit for Vick. It would have been a great fit for Matt Schaub. Harumph.) Additionally, losing Vick will make McKay a better drafter because instead of worrying about surrounding Vick with the right pieces (and thus reaching for questionable receivers), he can simply focus on building a complete team.

Len Pasquarelli makes a valid point about the fact that winning won't necessarily lead to butts in the seats:

It could well be that Atlanta finds it easier to win games, after absorbing the initial shock of having to play without Vick, than to win back the allegiance of a city in which many patrons now feel betrayed.

Only a few weeks ago, the Falcons announced that they were making available a few more season-ticket packages, this after everyone had been led to believe the Georgia Dome was sold out for the 2007 campaign. Whispers are that the tickets were returned by fans distraught at the accusations against Vick (and the possibility that those charges might be merited). At least one group of Falcons' ticket holders has already met to discuss the potential for a class-action suit against the Falcons because they feel Vick's absence has devalued their investment. And unless the Falcons sever ties to Vick before the club's first regular-season home game, on Sept. 23 against rival Carolina, there almost certainly will be picketers at the Georgia Dome.

From a business and socioeconomic standpoint, there is also the issue of the demographics of Atlanta, a town in which the majority population in the city proper is African-American. That the Falcons have played to full houses for much of Blank's tenure isn't attributable mainly to the fact he sold tickets in the upper reaches of the Georgia Dome for $10 a game, it's because of the presence of Vick, who has been embraced by the black community.

Vick was the perfect player for this city: an exciting, African-American player at a traditionally white position who put the Falcons on the map. The African-American fan base is critical for the Falcons because it tends to be a little less enamored with the local college football teams and thus represents the core fan base for the local NFL product. It is going to be hard to maintain that fan base, even if the team does win, because there's something less appealing about a conventional NFL team (white QB and coach) as opposed to what the Falcons represented with Vick. There will also likely be feelings that the Falcons did not do enough to defend Vick, even though it's painfully obvious (at least to me) that there was no defending him once the indictment was made public.

The Vick experience also illustrates the danger of marketing a player as the embodiment of a team. That concept is usually far more prevalent in the NBA, but the Falcons became associated with Vick more than just about any team in the league is associated with a particular player. (The Colts and Manning are the only team that comes close.) The PR blowback from Vick's Untergang is going to be harsher for the Falcons than it would be for just about any other NFL team. This is the problem with the NBA model of marketing.

The NFL

The NFL is far too strong for an episode like Vickkampf to derail its surging popularity. That said, the Vick experience will almost certainly impact the way that owners and GMs view their players, although there are a couple different directions that the reaction could take. Jonathan Cohn argues that the Falcons acted as an enabler for Vick, thus confirming for him the lessons he likely learned in high school and college that he was above the law. In the end, he skated on a series of petty offenses and thus got nailed on a really big one.

One reaction that management might have is that such enabling needs to stop. Intense background checks might become the norm before teams spend high draft picks or make serious contractual commitments to players. (This ought to be an even bigger imperative in baseball and the NBA, where contracts are guaranteed.) Management will decide that it needs to become more distant towards and skeptical of its players. On the other hand, different teams might decide that the need for handlers for their players is even greater. A rational owner could read Cohn's article and conclude that the Falcons' mistake was that Billy "White Shoes" Johnson wasn't around him enough. If only the Falcons would have been even more paternal towards Vick, then they could have stopped him from pissing away his best years in a federal pen.

And one final note

I chose the "Vickkampf" title to this series of posts not to compare Vick to Hitler or the Nazis, but rather because I like using German phrases. That said, I was struck by the irony today that if I were tasked with the idiotic task of distinguishing Vick from Hitler, I'd start with the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian who loved animals in general and his Alsatian Blondie in particular. So there.

Vickkampf: Himmler Goes to Switzerland to Try to Strike a Deal

The team prosecuting Michael Vick are now three-for-three in getting his co-defendants to plead out and offer testimony against Vick, so the soon-to-be-former Falcon is considering a plea himself. It seems highly likely to me that Vick is going to take the offered plea, given that his lawyers are presumably advising him that the case against him just went from strong to quite strong with seven cooperating witnesses instead of five. The open question is what sort of deal is being offered by the U.S. Attorney (along with the variable that the presiding judge is always free to increase the sentence that the prosecutor recommends). If the Feds are taking hard line and demanding five years or more, then Vick might decide to fight it, since a plea will probably mean the end of his football career. On the other hand, if the Feds are offering a year or less (either in terms of the actual sentence or the practical equivalent of "three years and you'll be out in one" [not that the U.S. Attorney can really control that]), then Vick will take it. He'll miss this season and then be back in 2008, assuming that Roger Goodell decides that his year in prison counts as his NFL suspension.

As for a destination, with the Raiders having just spent a #1 pick on a quarterback, the most likely refuge becomes Dallas, especially if Tony Romo doesn't light the world on fire. If there is one owner who would: (a) love the spectacle of signing the most infamous player in the NFL; and (b) not care about the PETA protests (especially with PETA's relative popularity in Texas), it would be Jerry Jones. Vick is in some serious trouble, but the people who think that he should be banned for multiple seasons (or for life) have lost all sense of proportion. If Leonard Little and Ray Lewis can play in the league, not to mention the various players who have been convicted of crimes involving violence against human beings, then Vick can play too. He deserves to be punished. Given that it's looking inevitable that he will miss this season, lose all his endorsements, and be cut by the Falcons before signing an sure-to-be inferior deal with another team, he will certainly be punished. At a certain stage, the piling on will need to stop.

Atlanta and Race

ESPN is either being contrarian (good!) or apologetic (bad!) in running a lengthy piece attempting to explain why so many African-Americans in Atlanta support Mike Vick. The piece is well-written and acknowledges the importance of history, which is a good start. It does a good job of explaining why race tends to permeate so many issues, including sports issues, in Atlanta. We all sometimes forget that legally-mandated discrimination was a fact of life not that long ago and that that experience will naturally affect the worldview of the people who were on the receiving end of that discrimination. My worldview is affected by being Jewish, even though a lot of the events that I use to base my perceptions took place in the more distant past than the end of Jim Crow.

All that said, I'm not buying the goods that Wright Thompson is selling at all:

1. The piece does a little to acknowledge that Atlanta is far more progressive on racial issues than the rest of the South, but this point really needs to come through harder. In the 1950s, Atlanta was roughly the same size as Little Rock and Birmingham. How did this city grow to 4.5 million residents? How did this city become a home to numerous huge multinational corporations like Home Depot, UPS, Coke, and Delta? How did this city get teams in the three major professional sports in the second half of the 60s, not to mention the Olympics in 1996? There are a variety of explanations, but as compared to Birmingham and Little Rock, one factor is that we didn't have Orval Faubus or Bull Connor. Atlanta always had a more moderate city government that ameliorated the worst aspects of Jim Crow. As a result, the city avoided the pariah status that much of the rest of the South gained when images of fire hoses and police dogs were beamed into living rooms in the rest of the country in the 50s and 60s. Atlanta's mayors have been African-American since 1974. The district attorney in Atlanta is African-American, as is the chief of police. These seem like fairly relevant facts to me in describing the question of race in Atlanta.

The article, to paint a more lurid picture of racism in Atlanta, does a little bait and switch by devoting a lot of attention to the Monroe lynchings. Monroe is 45 miles outside of the city. I doubt that many Atlantans would dispute the notion that there is a lot of prejudice in rural Georgia, just as there is plenty of prejudice in rural Michigan (Michigan Militia, anyone?) or rural Idaho (death threats to Ian Johnson, anyone?). I don't think there's a real connection between what happened in Monroe and what goes on in Atlanta, but the article subtly implies that they are connected, as if Monroe is nestled on the edge of the perimeter.

2. One historical aspect that the article totally misses is the fact that the federal government, which is the entity prosecuting Vick, was a major ally for the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. African-Americans may have some legitimate historical grievances with the FBI (especially the Hoover FBI and its treatment of major civil rights leaders), but the FBI and the federal courts were one of the progressive elements in the South in the 50s and 60s. Often, federal judges were the only judges in the region who were willing to enforce laws to protect African-Americans. Similarly, the FBI often stepped in to investigate crimes when local law enforcement sat on their hands. The defensiveness on the part of many African-Americans regarding the federal charges against Vick is irrational for a number of reasons and one of those reasons is that the charges are being brought by a U.S. Attorney instead of a local D.A., as the latter position brings with it a lot of connotations from the 50s and 60s that the former does not.

[Update: I brought this point up to an African-American friend at lunch and he countered by saying that I'm not taking Katrina into account when considering how African-Americans view (or should view) the federal government. I thought that was a good point.]

3. Fundamentally, the biggest problem with the article is that it seeks to excuse an irrational response. I will freely concede that African-Americans are justified in being distrustful of law enforcement based on their historical experience, but can that be used to justify anything? If Dwayne Wade was caught on camera shooting a girlfriend and there were 27 witnesses to the crime, all of whom told consistent stories, would it be defensible to take Wade's side? No. Regardless of the role of collective historical experience in framing opinion, there has to be a rational consideration of the facts as presented.

In this instance, you have four witnesses and a co-defendant all saying that Vick was an active participant in a dog-fighting ring. At least one of those witnesses was apparently able to tell the FBI where there were dogs buried on the property, which enhances that witness's credibility. You have a property owned by Vick that has numerous, obvious signs that it was used for dog-fighting. You have an 18-page indictment that is notable because of the specificity of the allegations. Just about any rational observer would look at that evidence and say that it is more likely than not that Vick is guilty. It's fine to say that we are free to change our minds depending on the defenses asserted by Vick at trial, but right now, the case against him is compelling. Historical experience is important, but it shouldn't be an excuse to crowd out rational thought. In fact, one could make the case that there is a subtle paternalistic prejudice in arguing that African-Americans shouldn't be expected to view the charges against Vick in an analytical manner.

To his credit, Tyrone Brooks gets it:

State Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta), however, said [SCLC President Charles] Steele called him last week to talk about honoring Vick. Brooks, a lifetime SCLC member, said he counseled against it.

"I said, 'Stay on point, the convention is bigger than a particular man,' " Brooks said. "There are a lot of young people who need our help. Michael Vick is not one of them."

Vick had the money to pay for a top-notch legal defense, Brooks said, and he noted the quarterback hadn't been an SCLC supporter.

The veteran legislator said the SCLC should recruit Vick to assist in its programs after the convention but not become his public defender.

"What has he ever done except throw a football, run a football?" Brooks said. "I don't think he has done anything to deserve any special recognition."

As with any political organization, the credibility of civil rights organizations like the SCLC and the NAACP is critical. Some members of the civil rights movement already damaged their credibility in the Duke lacrosse case (which is what makes some of the criticism of a "rush to judgment" a little weak); the movement does not need to further hurt its credibility by jumping to the defense of Michael Vick, especially since (as Brooks points out) Vick does exactly lack for a competent legal defense. The time will come when the SCLC and NAACP will need to defend someone or something important and they don't want to be the boy who cried wolf because of Michael Vick.

Vickkampf: Cue a Bruno Ganz Tirade about Betrayal

I have very little to add to Lester Munson's breakdown of Tony Taylor's plea deal. Money graf:

Taylor has signed an agreement that requires him to cooperate with the prosecutors and tell them everything he knows. If he is caught lying, he faces serious trouble. He will be interviewed extensively. In a highly unusual procedure outlined in Taylor's plea agreement, he can be subjected to lie detector tests on the information he gives. He will also testify before the grand jury, probably before the new indictment is filed next month. And he will testify at the trial that will begin Nov. 26. Taylor is also obligated to turn over all of his records and files, evidence which could be even more compelling than his testimony.

Taylor is not going to be a garden variety defendant who flips and can be portrayed as having done so solely to save himself. OK, that's probably all true, but if he produces records and all of his major allegations pass lie detector scrutiny (although I'm not sure if that latter fact will be admissible), then it becomes a lot harder for Billy Martin to destroy his credibility on the stand.

Munson also provides the details on a RICO charge that ought to worry Vick:

One of the admissions Taylor makes in his agreement with the government is that the kennel and the dogfighting were part of a "business enterprise." Vick and his lawyers do not want to hear about any "business enterprise." It could become the foundation for a racketeering charge in the new indictment to be filed next month. A racketeering charge would raise the stakes for Vick and the others. If they're convicted of racketeering, they could face stiffer prison sentences and forfeitures of anything they own. It was bad enough for Vick to have to defend himself against charges of a conspiracy that lasted for six years in five states. A racketeering charge would make it even more difficult for Vick and his five lawyers to mount a defense.

This changes the stakes, as the upper end of Vick's prison sentence moves well above five-to-six years. This is not going to end well.

Vickkampf: What Else Would We Discuss?

Paul Campos provides an ounce of reality as various members of the media attempt to outdo one another in expressing outrage of the local professional football collective's signal-caller. The same people who are bloviating about Vick being one step removed from Pol Pot are likely also having a nice Porterhouse for dinner, ignoring (or willfully unaware of) the fact that a cow was likely slaughtered in conditions at least as inhumane as the dogs at Moonlight Road. There is a real element of hypocrisy here (and I'm part of it as much as anyone else, since I eat meat and still responded to reading the indictment by saying that I could not root for a Falcons offense with Vick under center). We like dogs and keep them as housepets, so they apparently have more rights than a cow or a pig (and pigs are fairly bright animals, so yay for me being kosher). I had similar thoughts (admittedly without a snappy intro referencing George Orwell or an interesting reference to the class angles involved) during the initial stages of the story:

Is it really rational to make dog-fighting a felony, but then to permit the slaughter of cows and pigs in oft-inhumane conditions? I suppose that the distinction is that cows and pigs provide food to humans, so there is some utility in their killing, but dog-fighting provides no utility other than base-level entertainment. And is the possibility of eating venison the reason why hunting is legal, but dog-fighting is not? There is probably also a distinction that dog-fighting is inevitably very painful for dogs, whereas a deer being shot by a hunter or a cow being slaughtered in a meat-packing facility creates less suffering for the animal, although I suspect that in practice, the difference is not too great. Finally, there is no reason why protection of some animals is illegitimate because we don't protect all animals in the same way.

All that said, after reading the indictment, there is a distinguishing factor between generic cruelty to animals in the meat-packing industry and what Vick is accused of. When Vick was supposed to be a passive investor and/or a guy who went to a couple fights, but didn't have significant involvement in running the operation, then the analogy made sense. Vick was participating in a cruel enterprise, but meat-eaters are sitting in a glass house when they throw around those charges. Now, assuming that the facts in the indictment are true (and the Feds are typically zealous about not throwing around accusations that they can't prove), Vick participated in every aspect of the operation. He didn't just pay for the facilities at which the fights happened; he tested out young dogs for aggression and then bludgeoned, electrocuted, or shot the ones who didn't perform. That goes beyond being a passive participant/meat eater into someone who can perform inhumane acts without batting an eyelash. There's a psychopathic element there that pushes Vick down the continuum of moral culpability. (Insert standard caveat that Vick has not been convicted of anything yet and he could just be guilty of keeping the wrong company, blah blah blah.)

Spare Me

Virginia Tech: America's Team? I don't recall LSU becoming America's Team after Katrina (the Saints? Sure.), but why would we get emotional about one of America's great cities getting pulverized and almost 2,000 people dying when we can get emotional about 32 people being shot (unless we assume that the lives of college students have more value than the lives of poor Blacks who could not get out of the way of a hurricane)?

I'm probably going to sound callous in saying this, but I think there is excessive attention being paid to the Virginia Tech shootings, mainly by the sports media because they want to turn it into a Sal Aunese/Hank Gathers sobfest, complete with fuzzy camera shots and babbling about innocence lost. The shootings were a tragedy and Seung-Hui Cho should burn for them, but regardless of whether you measure a disaster by loss of life or by property damage (or some combination thereof), it is not a history-altering event that is going to cause me to suddenly root for Virginia Tech. Instead, it is being treated by ESPN and others as an opportunity to sell a storyline that has little or nothing to do with the actual games they cover.

And yes, the fact that Michael Vick is Tech's most prominent football product has something to do with this, as does the fact that the Falcons other prominent Hokies are busy defending themselves after their dogs attack bystanders or getting arrested for marijuana possession. Per Cory McCartney, I'm supposed to start rooting for a cohort of players who, if they emulate their predecessors, will reveal themselves to be unlikeable people when they reach the NFL because those players attend the same institution (marginally) as 32 people who were shot by a deranged psychopath. Uh, no.

Vickkampf: the Oder has been Crossed

A morning linkapalooza now that the local pro football collective's star quarterback has been indicted:

Lester Munson at ESPN.com has a solid description of the legal challenges that Vick faces. His story jibes with a conversation I had last night with a friend who is a criminal defense attorney (and a very good one, at that). The initial thought I had after hearing the allegations against Vick was that "sure, that sounds bad, but the evidence against OJ sounded a lot worse and he walked." That isn't an applicable analogy because federal prosecutors are a different class altogether from Chris Darden and Marcia Clark, not to mention the fact that the FBI is a lot better at assembling evidence than Mark Furman. I left the conversation thinking that Vick was cooked once the feds got tired of the Surry County prosecutor and launched into their own investigation.

Munson also references the fact that Vick is in the Fourth Circuit rocket docket, which means that Vick might stand trial during or shortly after the season. In terms of the Falcons' perspective, that isn't a bad thing because it means that Vick's legal situation will be resolved relatively quickly.

I don't think that Bobby Petrino knew it when he took the job, but he's now Terry Bowden. He's stepped into the equivalent of a team on probation, which means he'll get mulligans for the first year or two in Atlanta and no one can blame him if the team doesn't do well. I was mildly optimistic about Joey Harrington until I looked at his numbers and realized that the change of venue to Miami did nothing to improve his stats. Just like multiple witnesses testifying against Vick are going to be more difficult to beat than one or two, sucking for two NFL teams makes it harder for me to play the "Harrington sucked because the Lions suck" card. And as for Vick, it's hard to imagine that he'll be able to put a looming criminal trial with significant prison time at stake out of his mind and focus on playing football. The million dollar question is whether the rest of the team will be affected. I'm generally not a big fan of the line of reasoning that any off-the-field issues prevent other players from doing their jobs, as that reasoning treats players like emotionally immature children. The Falcons' players still have every individual incentive to play well. That said, they now have a built-in excuse not to succeed and that could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Both George Dohrman and Mark Bradley focus on the lurid nature of the allegations in the indictment against Ookie and Friends. The widespread dissemination and discussion of the indictment is a major, major problem for Vick. It was one thing for Vick to vaguely be associated with dogfighting. I could rationalize his role as being that of a passive investor who was culpable in the sense that he let his friends commit terrible acts, but he wasn't involved himself. Now, there are very specific allegations that allow anyone who reads the indictment to paint a truly disturbing mental picture of what Vick allegedly did on the property. It is hard for me to escape the conclusion that the allegations are more likely than not to be true, given the level of specificity and the fact that it is not just based on one eye-witness. Moreover, it is very hard for me to paint the mental picture that the indictment invites me to paint and then root for a Falcons offense with Michael Vick under center. As time passes, the impact of reading the indictment will fade somewhat, but is that a good thing?

One other note on the media coverage of the indictment: 790 the Zone did a terrific job this morning at lining up quality guests and having an intelligent discussion of the impact of the indictment. That said, the one thing that bothered me was Steak Shapiro repeatedly discussing the fact that the indictment was going to lead to further polarization, with white racists on one side and African-Americans apologizing for the indefensible on the other. (For instance, one gentleman called in this morning alleging that Vick was being indicted as part of some sort of cover-up for the Feds' failure to "get" Scooter Libby [then what was that whole commutation about?] and investigate voter fraud.) Steak admitted that most people fall in the middle, but that the extreme voices are the ones who end up on the radio. The inescapable conclusion from his admission is that sports talk radio increases the level of polarization by highlighting the extremists and giving them a platform such that their opinions seem far more common than they are. Then again, I listen, so I'm contributing to the process as well. And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?

My Head Hurts

My commute to work takes about 15 minutes. During that period of time, I got to hear the following shining examples of Socratic reasoning:

1. On 680, Perry Laurentino is launching into a tirade about African-Americans supporting Barry Bonds and Michael Vick. When Laurentino attacks African-Americans for supposedly defending dog-fighting, Christopher Rude makes the obvious point that while dog-fighting is a bad thing, the question is whether there is a link between Vick and dog-fighting. Laurentino responds that it is "legalistic" to demand such a link. Sure.

This comes on the heels of Laurentino dismissing soccer as a "Communist" sport earlier in the morning. Let's see. The NFL has complete revenue sharing, a hard salary cap, and it derives a significant portion of its profits from state subsidies in the form of publicly-funded stadia. European football leagues have minimal revenue sharing so the best-run and/or most popular clubs can retain the money that they generate, relegation that punishes ineptly run clubs (you think that Bill Bidwell would continue to rake in profits in the Bundesliga? His team would be in a regional league right now, battling Kickers Offenbach or KFC Uerdingen 05, which is what is supposed to happen in a meriocracy.), and no salary caps so the best players can get their true market value. Which sport is "Communist" again?

2. I switch over to 790, where they are discussing Alex Rodriguez. After Chris Dimino volunteers a very interesting stat that A-Rod is hitting .520-something in the 9th inning this year and has seven game-winning hits, Mike Bell (admittedly after putting on the self-parody "Sparky the Sportscaster" moniker) attempts to argue that A-Rod winning games for the Yankees in a year in which they aren't playing well is meaningless. That makes perfect sense. The Yankees are threatened by not making the post-season for the first time in over a decade. A-Rod is the one guy keeping the team afloat and in striking distance of a playoff berth. So naturally, that means that A-Rod can't come through when the chips are down. The argument might be the Platonic ideal of the fallacy of "clutch hitting." Any game that A-Rod wins is by definition not a big game, so the sample size keeps changing and shrinking to fit the hypothesis that he's a choker. Cue Bobby Bowden's observation that "the big one" is always the one that you don't win.

Vickkampf: Not Another Step Back...without a Large Cap Hit

Kudos to Tim Tucker for this lucid explanation of Mike Vick's contractual situation. A lot of the article is devoted to explaining to the casual fan that NFL contracts are not guaranteed and that the Falcons aren't really committed to paying $130M to Vick. That said, Tucker lays out the case that cutting Vick would cost $6M and change against this year's cap and $15M and change against the team's 2008 cap. With the salary cap projected to be about $115M in 2008, that would be a hefty charge, but not impossible.

The most likely scenario is that this year is Vick's audition for Bobby Petrino. To date, Vick has been a slightly above-average quarterback who's been paid as if he's Brady, Manning, or McNabb. If Vick improves in Petrino's offense, then the team will keep him and possibly look to negotiate his salary down a little so they can make a run at the Super Bowl by adding pieces. If Vick stagnates, then he'll be gone for football reasons. I don't think the dog-fighting allegations will be anything more than a secondary consideration, since it appears that he is not going to be charged, let alone indicted.

That said, the allegations are going to be hanging over Vick and will likely be considered by Blank, McKay, and Petrino when they make a decision on Vick's future. The Falcons braintrust are too smart not to realize that the federal prosecutors might indict the individuals running the ring from Vick's house and then seek to flip one or more of them in return for testimony against Vick. (Len Pasquarelli does a good job with this "Vick isn't out of the woods yet" piece. The Feds' decision to go after Vick will likely be determined by whether they see Vick as a major player in the dog-fighting ring. In my heart of hearts, I think Vick knew what was going on and was a passive investor, but wasn't a major player. In that case, it seems unlikely that the Feds will go to the trouble of flipping a major player in order to get a famous, but relatively minor participant, unless they want Vick to be a sacrificial lamb to highlight the evils of dog-fighting.

Getting back to the on-field issues, Mark Bradley is optimistic about the team. (Bradley seems to be on fire recently. I can't stop linking him.) Vick's Sturm und Drang offseason has colored the views of most national pundits regarding the Falcons, most notably Fox Sports, which ranked the team 29th in the NFL a few weeks ago. Vick got too much credit when the team won and now his off-field problems have caused opinion to swing too far in the opposite direction. The team had a very good Draft, they have a better coaching staff, and the overall talent level seems to be heading in the right direction (although I have concerns about the offensive line adapting to Petrino's offense). Vick may be distracted right now, but he's never been that good, so would a slight decline in performance really be that notable? It isn't as if the Falcons are dependent on Vick the way the Colts are on Manning. Additionally, part of me is giddy with excitement over the possibility of Vick playing with a major chip on his shoulder and viewing this season as his chance to shut all of his critics up. This off-season has made it much harder for me to root for Vick the person, but there is a good chance that I'll be happier with Vick the player come September.

Catching up mit Vickkampf

John Clayton doesn't think that Vick is going to be suspended($) because of the lack of proof that he was involved, at least at present. What I'd like to see from Clayton is an explanation as to how Pac Man Jones could be suspended early in the legal process (I don't think he's been indicted, has he?), but the NFL has to wait for the indictment process to play itself out in Vick's case. It couldn't have anything to do with Vick's stature in the NFL relative to Jones's, could it?

Surry County DA Gerald Poindexter (whom I have to remind myself not to refer to as "Buster") has declined to execute a warrant to search Vick's property for dog remains, which is either consistent with the charge that he's slow-playing his investigation for political/laziness reasons or it's consistent with the notion that he's being extra-careful to deny Vick any procedural defenses in the event that he does bring charges. In any event, the search of the property is not a major issue, since there is a wealth of evidence to show that dog fighting took place at the property. The key question is going to be who was present at the fights and who was funding and running the operation.

I suppose I should also link ESPN's anonymous source article, in which a "confidential source" claims that Vick is into dog fighting in a major way. I generally don't have problems with anonymous sources, since they provide most of the interesting political news that is ultimately accepted as true. (See, for example, the disclosures regarding the warrantless wiretapping program implemented by the Bush Administration.) I also think that this is yet more smoke that Vick was not merely a victim of not controlling his friends and relatives. All that said, I would have liked to have seen ESPN show their work by devoting some time to explaining why this particular source is credible. How do I know that this just isn't some guy who wants to lay the groundwork for notoriety and happens to know about dog fighting?

One other thought on the ESPN article: don't think that I didn't grin when I first read the article and it depicted Vick betting a significant amount of money on his dog while he was still attending Virginia Tech.

I should also link SI's piece on the investigation and on dog fighting in general, which is really well-done. It demonstrates that when SI and ESPN go head to head on investigating and writing, SI can be trusted to do a better job. If nothing else, the Vick episode has highlighted the prevalence and ugliness of dog fighting and George Dohrmann's piece does the best job of painting that picture.

Vickkampf: Clinton Portis is as Helpful an Ally as Italy

Professor Portis, what do you think of laws that make dog-fighting a felony?

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property; it's his dogs. If that's what he wants to do, do it."

Clinton Portis, devoted libertarian.

It's hilarious to me that "Portis" then issued a statement that he does not condone dog-fighting. I'm sure that "Portis" had a lot to do with that statement being issued. Seriously, why do teams even bother with statements like that that absolutely no one believes are the real beliefs of their purported authors? Is there a single sentient being who believes that Clinton Portis really believes the content of the statement?

Portis doesn't make this argument, but he got me to think a little about the laws that make dog-fighting illegal. Is it really rational to make dog-fighting a felony, but then to permit the slaughter of cows and pigs in oft-inhumane conditions? I suppose that the distinction is that cows and pigs provide food to humans, so there is some utility in their killing, but dog-fighting provides no utility other than base-level entertainment. And is the possibility of eating venison the reason why hunting is legal, but dog-fighting is not? There is probably also a distinction that dog-fighting is inevitably very painful for dogs, whereas a deer being shot by a hunter or a cow being slaughtered in a meat-packing facility creates less suffering for the animal, although I suspect that in practice, the difference is not too great. Finally, there is no reason why protection of some animals is illegitimate because we don't protect all animals in the same way.

Moving on from my mental exercise, the latest news in the case is that the police found several letters addressed to M. Vick on the property. Color me unimpressed by that revelation, as Vick's name is listed as the owner of the property, which means that he would have received junk mail there. I doubt that the Surry County prosecutor would base a case on a few stray credit card applications and a beige envelope from Publisher's Clearinghouse with Ed McMahon's smiling face on the outside.

If I were a betting man, I would guess that there are witnesses who saw Vick at the property and possibly at dog fights as well, but these witnesses will ultimately be reticent to testify. Vick will not be convicted of anything and may not even be indicted, but the evidence will be sufficient for Roger Goodell to conclude that Vick lied to him when he said that he was never present at the property. Goodell will then suspend Vick for a game or two, most white Falcons fans will conclude that Vick is a bad guy, most black Falcons fans will conclude that Vick was the victim of the justice system and the blood-thirsty media, and no one will come away satisfied.

Vickkampf: the Virginia Prosecutor is Leery of Vick's Potential Counter-Assault

The latest Vick developments for today:

680 the Fan ran a radio report from a Hampton, Virginia radio station that alleged that a number of investigators in Surry County are angry at the local prosecutor for refusing to ask them about the evidence that they have compiled against Vick, such as statements from witnesses that they attended dog fights at the property in question and Vick was present for those fights. If true, the prosecutor's behavior is weak, but understandable in the sense that he's an underpaid government employee who is likely close to retirement and the last thing he wants is a knock-down, drag-out fight against the defense team that Vick would likely deploy. No one wants to be the next Marcia Clark. It's much easier for him to hardball criminals who don't have the money to defend themselves properly.

The whole scenario highlights what drove me so crazy about the racial reaction to the O.J. case. African-Americans generally rejoiced in the verdict because they viewed the matter through a racial prism, but if they took a step back and viewed the case as a matter of class instead of race, they would have realized that O.J. walking was an indictment of the system that rewards wealth at every turn. Likewise, Vick might not get prosecuted because his potential defense team is enough to deter most prosecutors from bringing charges. Thus, the result is the exact opposite of the "law enforcement out to get the black man" dynamic that I suspect motivates many African-Americans in their defense of Vick. In short, the legitimate issues that African-Americans have with the criminal justice systems are a matter of money rather than bias and Vick's case will, in all likelihood, demonstrate that fact yet again.

Ray Buchanan, showing his typically strong spine, is backtracking on the remarks he apparently made to Chris Landry of Fox Sports Radio. It's hard to imagine what motivation Landry has to lie about Buchanan's remarks. The best scenario I could come up with is that Landry might be friends with Jim Mora Sr., who also works for Fox Sports Radio, and the Moras are having their vengeance on Vick.

Mark Bradley has a typically strong effort describing the fatigue that any sports journalist would likely feel having to cover Vick's various off-field issues and his hollow denials of same:

In the grand scheme, it won’t be a grand jury indictment or a Goodell suspension that undoes Vick with this franchise. It will be the aggregate effect these untoward headlines have on those around him.

I saw the same thing happen with the Braves and John Rocker (who was, I should stipulate, infinitely less popular with his teammates than Vick is with his). They simply got sick of answering questions about him and his latest stunt.

And that’s the way it works. Vick can refuse to talk about anything but football, but industrious reporters will troop to other Falcons and ask, “What do you think about Vick?” It happened Friday, when the imported receiver Joe Horn spent much of his post-practice interview defending the quarterback with whom he hasn’t yet played a game.