Clinton Portis Had An Unpopular Opinion

Brief background: Michael Vick is being investigated for being involved in a dog fighting operation in Virginia. Earlier this week, Clinton Portis made some statements defending Vick.

"I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog," the Washington Redskins running back told WAVY-TV in Virginia. "If that's what he wants to do, do it."

Now, commissioner Roger Goodell is laying into Portis for his statements.

The Redskins, and to a lesser degree Portis, have backed off of the statements in an attempt to cool the situation down (here's Portis's interview with NFL Total Access about it. It's a Realplayer clip, if that kind of stuff means anything to you.) My question is, why is Portis's statement so terrible in the first place?

For the money I invest in the NFL every year, I want entertainment. Most of that comes in the form of games, but some is necessarily going to come from the personalities of the players and the ridiculous shit they say and do. Not illegal stuff; that's out of bounds and I understand that. But Portis offered an opinion about a player who, to be fair, has not been charged with a crime yet. Do I agree with his opinion? No. I enjoy dogs and I enjoy fighting, but I don't think the two should be combined. But part of the value I get from the NFL is to hear Portis say that and chuckle to myself. He should be allowed to say it without fearing some forced repercussion.

Every talking head that works at all in football (or really any of the major professional sports) has at one time joked about the cliche and scripted statements that players and coaches make. They're just all so damn boring. Day after day of "one game at a time" and "building the best team we can" and thanking Jesus for your gifts. I endure them because sometimes there's a morsel of news buried in there, but mostly I have to play Press Conference Bingo to get through them. It's why I enjoyed listening to Bill Parcells's conferences... he was interesting to listen to and he offered pointed opinions fearlessly. But someone like Clinton Portis who isn't as high up the NFL totem pole as Parcells gives his unfiltered opinion and the NFL (via Goodell) railroads him for it? That just sucks. Just because someone's opinion does not conform to some secret NFL guidelines does not mean he should have to apologize for it. That's bullshit. The NFL won't suffer because Portis thinks dogfighting isn't so bad. PETA members who are also football lovers (both of them) who are in the market for an NFL jersey probably won't pick Portis's, but they'll pick someone's. Portis may be financially penalized personally as a result of an unpopular opinion, but that's the way the market works, and that's his risk to take. The NFL will lose nothing and may in fact gain some eyeballs to see what fool thing he says next during this long and dull offseason.

Remember that interview Max McGee gave around the time of Super Bowl I? He was asked a question about Vince Lombardi's 11:00 curfew and he responded with, "Well, I fuck a lot of broads between 8:00 and 11:00." Classic. No one demanded an apology for his misogyny; people could just choose to agree with him or be disgusted by him at their own discretion. For his part, McGee went on to be a very successful football commentator and establish the Max McGee National Research Center for Juvenile Diabetes. Turns out McGee is a pretty nice guy, and Portis probably isn't an animal abusing Mississippi redneck who deserves to be shouted down. Please, people, don't encourage the NFL to be even more vanilla than it already is by demanding apologies for things that don't affect you.