Green Bay Packers

You into the Brett Favre Saga? Me Neither

Maybe I am alone; maybe I am out of touch; maybe I am just missing something. No matter what, I do not think it’s a bad thing.

When I woke up this morning, I made my normal voyage over to I don’t like ESPN, never have and never will, but I need to make the trip in order to keep the proverbial enemy closer.

And there I see it.A tag-line that seems as foreign to me as Louisiana electoral procedure. A tag-line that I would have hoped would be considered a cold-blooded lie. A tag-line so incomprehensible I was not sure whether to be afraid or laugh.

“Are you on Brett Favre watch? Us, too, so here’s the latest from him:”

ESPN asked me, did not wait for my response, and told me anyway what was going on.

The network told me that he had not gone to camp, yet. That he hadn’t been traded, yet. That he hadn’t sent in his letter of reinstatement, yet.

Basically, ESPN told me that Brett Favre’s situation is exactly the same as it was three hours after he retired.

And people care about this?

I look down the right side of the page to view the other, so-called secondary headlines. These are things that news, nay, status quo reports about Brett Favre trump, apparently.

Gold medal-winning gymnast Paul Hamm withdraws from Olympic games.

Goose Gossage inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Rafael Nadal wins the Rogers Masters to close in on Roger Federer’s top ranking.

And those are just the news reports that interest me.

Champions were crowned in the Arena Football League, Tour de France, and World Cup of beach soccer. An unheralded golfer came back to beat John Cook to win the Senior Open Championship. A feature-length article about a player traded to the Harlem Globetrotters is almost impossible to find.

All of these, each and every one of them, clearly news, and each and every one of them is trumped by nothing.

And I’m supposed to believe that I’m the only person who does not care?

I am jonesing for football season unlike anything else, but this was never what I wanted. I never wanted a 24-hour-a-day media frenzy into each action Brett Favre has taken. Why would I? What am I learning? What do I get out of it?

Yet apparently, this is what everyone wants, at least according to ESPN.

Yes, ESPN thinks everyone wants to know everything Brett Favre, well, hasn’t changed, from the last update. We apparently want to know every team that he hasn’t been traded to, whether it is the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the Minnesota Vikings, the New York Jets, or whomever. Of course, we also want to know the thoughts of all the players on all of these teams that Brett Favre has not been traded to.

Gene Wojciechowski, never one to shy away from the easy, obvious argument, claims that nothing has happened because Green Bay is in a no-win situation. The Packers don’t want to trade him to an NFC North team or wave him to where he signs with an NFC North team, but they also don’t want to alienate Aaron Rodgers further. They also owe Favre at the very least the ability to play somewhere if he wants to play.

And that’s all fine and dandy.

But we knew that four months ago.

We knew four months ago; we knew in the middle of his retirement speech when he said, “I still can play” and just a minute later reaffirming that with, “I know I can play;” we knew when he threw that interception in overtime against the New York Giants in the NFC Championship that Brett Favre would be back in 2008, even if it was not with the Green Bay Packers.

And yet, somehow, this entire saga in which nothing has happened is news? I don’t get it.

When Brett Favre gets traded, that is news.

When Brett Favre gets waived, that is news.

When Brett Favre is reinstated by commissioner Roger Goodell, that is news.

When Brett Favre reports to training camp, any training camp anywhere, that is news.

But when Brett Favre answers his telephone, when he considers doing something he’s been considering for five months, when he fills out a form that means nothing until sent, that is news? I really just don’t get it.

Maybe I am alone when I think ESPN is being just a tad bit presumptive when it assumes we are all hooked on the Brett Favre watch, stalking his every movement like only ESPN knows how.

Or maybe I am just out of touch.

But I’d like to think that I’m not. I’d like to think that there are some slightly more significant things going on in the world of sports.

I’d like to think Bruce Vaughan’s birdie on the first playoff hole of the Senior Open Championship is a better story. It’s a story that signifies that a career journeyman who never finished better than a tie for 22nd in one year on the PGA Tour, who previously only won two minor-league tournaments in his life, can still compete with and defeat someone who won 11 PGA Tour events in a major championship.

Isn’t that what we want to hear?

There are definitely more riveting, more charismatic and heartwarming stories out there, even if ESPN is too caught up in the nothingness to let you know what is happening.

By bsd987

I have written for since 2004 and was named a featured writer in 2006. I have been Co-Editor of the site since January 1, 2009. I also write for where I am a founding member of the Tennis Roundtable and one of the chief contributors to both the Tennis and Horse Racing sections.

I am "Stat Boy" for's weekly podcast, Poor Man's PTI.

I am currently a Junior at Rice University majoring in History and Medieval Studies. My senior thesis will focus on the desegregation of football in Texas and its affect of racial relations.

Please direct all inquiries to [email protected].

Burton DeWitt
Co-Editor of

17 replies on “You into the Brett Favre Saga? Me Neither”

You make great points, but… you might look at it another way. Nothing truly matters right now in the eyes of ESPN, other than Favre. Tiger isn’t playing, Baseball has a ways to go before the casual fan begins to care, and I don’t know many folks who are completely tuned up for the Olympics or USA Men’s Basketball, which is sort of sad I might add. So, in other words, nothing else warrants coverage like Favre. Also, the fact that Green Bay is the sport’s most historic and loved franchise probably has a little something to do with it. I think.

 Football, no matter how many Baseball fans argue the fact, has become America’s Sport, maybe not it’s Past Time, cause personally I think Alcoholism is America’s Past Time, but it has become an absolute Powerhouse compared to other sports. You don’t hear people overly excited about their MLB or NBA Fanatasy Draft do you? So, your points are very well stated and noted, seriously, but I just don’t think you quite grasp the idea of the phenomenon that is Favre. Yeah, you probably know his numbers, his records, a bit about his personal life, but no one has ever truly jeopardized their legacy like this before. I mean how could Green Bay’s Good Ol’ Golden Boy screw this up? And no matter who argues it, it is and has always been Favre’s fault. His indecisiveness, arrogance, and ego have caused these problems.

 It’s absolutely intriguing even to people who aren’t football fans. But most of them seem to know who Favre is, and they want to see what will happen. Bottom Line.

 Plus, the T.V. ratings are through the roof!!!!

um… “no one has ever truly jeopardized their legacy like this before.”

O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, Isaiah Thomas, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Jim Harrick, Dave Bliss, Richard Nixon and many others have all done something stupid that has “truly jeopardized their legacy.” I’m really not sure how you can claim “no one” has.

JEOPARDIZED… Not tarnished. The guys you listed found a way to completely tarnish their legacies beyond repair. Brett isn’t there yet. Did you read what I wrote?

Oh and… before you get all crazy with the comparisons, there aren’t any that exactly match these circumstances, no matter where you try to look.

Boy it really seems like I’m the only one who truly gives thought to there comments ans replies sometimes…

well I was going to reply civilly and explain that those people all found a way to jeopardize their legacy well before they tarnished it. Many other people have jeopardized it without completely tarnishing it (Andre Agassi, Jenifer Capriati come to mind), eventually repairing it completely.

I was mentioning people who jeopardized it and then tarnished it completely. For example, Dave Bliss jeopardized his legacy by giving illegal scholarships to players at Baylor and SMU; he tarnished it when it became clear what he told his players to say to cover it up.

But your third comment crossed the line. Where the ** do you get off claiming you are the only person here who puts thoughts into what you say? Seriously? All I was saying was that you were wrong to claim that nobody had jeopardized their legacy like this before. Yes, the people I mentioned tarnished their legacy, but don’t you think they endangered it first?

I’m really not sure what gives you such an air of supremacy because you have not written anything to earn such a pedestal.

I point out one line in your comment that I disagree with and you shoot down everyone on this site’s throat? Where do you get off doing that? I am more than willing to have a civil, intelligent argument with you but when you say something like you did in that last line you have crossed the line and shown yourself to be an arrogant, uneducated ass.

Feel free to post any retort. I’m most likely not going to carry on the correspondence.

There is no… air of supremacy as you, ever so delicately, put it. I most certainly didn’t jump down the other writer’s throats either. I know what I wrote, and I know what implications are tied to it. So before you start calling someone an uneducated ass, why don’t you relax a little and take the comment at face value.

It truly does sometimes seem that I’m the only one who does my homework, checks the numbers, and validates my claims. Some replies are very inaccurate and not thought out. Your article seemed very clear and concise, but then your response to my comment seemed brash and aggressive, which led me to believe that you may not be as dedicated or educated as I had originally thought. Each writer displays their own subtleties, I hope that whomever reads my columns can understand why I chose the words that I chose. I chose the word JEOPARDIZED for a reason, I could’ve very well have used endangered, but jeopardized seemed to fit my argument better. It’s less threatening, and doesn’t seem to have as much negativity tied to it. Understand where I’m coming from?

And you can’t tell me that you haven’t written or read an article where someone just seemingly threw together some stats that really don’t make any sense. I take my writing very seriously, as do you, so when someone spits random numbers or facts at me, I try to check the credibility. And UNEDUCATED ASS is harsh, I’m a English/Journalism student, so please, let us be a little more mature than resorting to obscenities and name calling.

Now, that we cleared that up, let me say that I agree with you, that the others most likely endangered their legacies before completely ripping them to shreds. But my point is, that no single athlete/celebrity has (key word) deliberately put the franchise that made them a household name in such a stranglehold, when they themselves are at fault. Favre brought this on himself, and he’s making the organization pay for it. Not fair! And I, along with most other sports fans, have never seen this happen before, that is why it’s so intriguing.

Okay, now that I’ve retorted, I hope you respond. You and I have never corresponded before, so it’s understandable that you saw my comments as arrogant and negative. But they weren’t intended that way. Not really a big deal.

tis cool Tis cool. I just took offense to that last comment that you made. I did not mean to come across as harsh in my first comment. Anyway, we’ve settled this and hopefully further encounters won’t be as jagged.

I don’t know… what your intentions were when you wrote that comment but it is flat out insulting. Maybe you were meaning it to insult bsd but I think it is a slap in the face to everybody on this site. I think everyone who makes a comment or writes an article has some thought behind it, especially the guys who have been here for 5+ years (bsd987). I don’t know how a guy who has been here a little over a month gets off saying something like that. If you’re going to insult the community like that, for no reason, you might as well not even write here.

You’ve got to be… kidding me! It was just an observation that I made because I had noticed a few inaccuracies in a number of stories. I take my journalism very seriously, and I feel that if you are going to try and articulate and argument relating to sports, you need to have correct information. If everyone on the site wants to take what I wrote, and observed mind you, personally then I feel sorry for them. I speak my mind, always have, always will. Burying the hatchet with bsd and for the two of us to gain a understanding of each other was what I wanted to accomplish, and I did. He understands where I was coming from, I understand where he was coming from.

Criticism is a part of journalism, you have to learn to deal with it. I’ve been subjected to some pretty harsh criticism at my University for articles I’ve written about our athletes. Does it bother me? Not anymore, cause I’ve learned to roll with the punches, and not take everything personally. So relax IUfan62, I’m not trying to insult the entire community. And trust me pal, If I were, you’d know it!    

I’m perfectly… relaxed. In fact judging by your writing, you are the one that needs to relax. Criticism is accepted on this site, if not encouraged, but it has to be constructive. You’re comment is not constructive at all, it provides no references, it is just a vague criticism that helps no one become a better writer and sounds more like an insult to me. I have no problem with you speaking your mind and when everyone does it makes the site better, but you just have to make sure that if you are criticising someone it is inorder to make them a better writer. I really have no interest in fighting with you, I just want to make it clear to you what this site is about and what exactly is accepted here. I truly hope that this doesn’t discourage you but that you can contribute to this site and become a valued member of our community. I just want you to understand how things work here, that is all.

I understand… where you’re coming from, I do. I’m not going to fight with you either, but let me just say this, not all criticism necessarily needs to be positive. I wasn’t raised to be someone who sugar coats everything. I’m not going to tell people what they want to hear all the time, it disillusions them. Think about it for a second, if a person is always dished their criticism in a manner that is soft and protective, or positive for that matter, they’ll never be able to get over someone telling them, “this really sucks!” I’ve heard that on many occasions and I gotta tell ya, I’m so damn relieved I did! I’m not sensitive, I take it as a challenge.

The comment I made was a general observation about articles I have read on this site. Some of em suck! Not all of em, but some of em!  And I’m not tooting my horn here either. I’m not above this criticism, and actually I don’t want to be. I would be ecstatic for someone, whether it be you IUfan, bsd, Bostonmac, kroberts, or any of my fellow writers, to find errors of any sort in my articles, whether they be statistical, grammatical, or any other _cal, and be brutally honest if my articles suck. I admire honesty, especially brutal honesty. I’m not perfect, and I’m always looking to improve on my writing. Besides, if you’re brutally honest, a lot of the times there aren’t any questions about what you didn’t like, it’s pretty clear and concise.

Criticism is criticism, not always positive. Actually more often than not, it’s negative. So if my observation was insulting, than I’m sorry. Not sorry for making the comment, but just sorry that you took it as an insult.


But here’s what…. you don’t understand. No criticisms have to be sugarcoated here or be an illusion. What it needs to be is constructive, where the writer can improve because of your comment. It is not okay to say “your writing sucks!” It is okay, though not really reccomended, to say, “this article sucks because of…to make it better you can…” That is the point i’m trying to make and the point of this site. Your comment was not constructive. Constructive and “sugar-coated” are 2 totally different things and I hope you realize that soon enough. Your comment was harsh, which is absolutely fine, but you provided no comment that could improve anyone. It was just a harsh comment with no substance. That’s the only thing I have a problem with. If you want to be that guy who is brutally honest that is fine by me, just as long provide the writer with somewhere to improve.

bsd i love this article. im printin it out now for a girl i know (who loves favre) to see it.

haha haha thanks. I should update it now as 90 minutes ago ESPN and ESPN2 (and I’d bet ESPNEWS) were talking about Brett Favre at the same time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *