It‘s starting to become too much of a recurring theme that it’s becoming an valid question
The Mina's and Zach Lowe's get respect as well because they openly admit there are certain things they won't know as they never played the game. Ryan Clark, Orvolosky, and Marcus Spears all talk about them being on text threads with Mina and she'll ask their perspective on things as athletes because she'll never have that understanding. They don't get on here like Schrager and try and tell former pros how they would react and get all sensitive when told he wouldn't fully understand that. Instead of getting all sensitive he should listen to the perspective of the athlete and show them respect as former pros.I enjoy former and current athletes in media, I do think it creates a nice balance and gives their peers a comfortable place to talk and answer questions but once you go to "you've never played the game" it just becomes annoying. Yes, there are certain perspectives you can give and add context to something a normal fan wouldn't know/see but 80% of these guys get on these shows and become hot take artists and i dont learn anything new from them. Its obvious at this point, you dont need "to play that sport professionally" to break it down as people like Mina Kimes, Zach Lowe and countless other analysts/journalists break down their sports as well if not better for the average fan than the former athletes just wanting to reiterate how nobody really knows what an athlete goes through
I’m sorry but this sounds soft. I didn’t think any of that in real time. If anything, they made him apologize so as to not cut this guy’s credibility off before anyone knew who he was and probably because he was sensitive.
Well, I agree and disagree. So generally speaking, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy i.e. this reputable person said it so it must be true. But what’s not wrong is establishing that someone is an authority and then pointing out the skill set and methodology and mind set that you get from that and what creates that and then applying it to a situation. Most athletes are actually trying to lean on the latter but aren’t as well-spoken. Those that rely on the former are mostly doing so because the audience is dumb and doesn’t care for the intricacy of the latter. People like to feel they are smart without doing any of the work. Bellicheck is an authority because he studied the game at its highest level and gained experience - he’s a coach. That is entirely different from being a talking head that isn’t remotely that well-versed. People take it to heart because they like to believe they know more about sports than they actually do because they watch it like a sitcom and understand plot points but wouldn’t know a thing about how to actually produce the show or put together a script.
for hurting a white Jew’s feelings on live TV.
The fact that the interaction carried off air is more than likely why he's apologizing.Apologize for WHAT? It’s a damn debate show. They say what’s needed to get their points across, that’s what the show ASKS FOR. Using the ,”you never played the game”, card is subjective, and its definitely needed AT TIMES, and this was one of those times. Sometime these non-players need to fall back and get things from a PLAYER’S perspective, something they don’t KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.
ESPN making Ryan apologize is a
If Ryan had the same interaction with a Black non-player panelist, it’d be a non-story, and definitely no apology. Let’s call of what it is.
Ask Ryan Clark that question as no one would have known that the were a 2nd altercation if he didn't say anything about it.
