Slate's Bizbox
fraywatch: What's happening in our readers' forum.

Let's Talk About SexA candid debate on today's "hook-up culture."

Compiled by Adam Christian
Posted Friday, Feb. 23, 2007, at 12:00 AM ET

(Continued from page 3)

Sunday, Feb. 4, 2007

This should be an easy assignment. Say a thing or two about American football, and attract more readers today than ESPN's Web site will. No problem.

According to my research, "football" is very popular among my fellow Americans. It sort of resembles chess, but with a lot more physical contact.

Today is, like, the biggest day of the year for football enthusiasts.

Here at Slate, Tommy Craggs thinks Colts quarterback Peyton Manning is a total dork, but that's a good thing. In the Sports Nut Fray, reactions are all over the field.

CaptainBadonkadonk (of the Booty Raider), agrees about the dorkdom, but doesn't think that's such a good thing:

I'm convinced that Manning's real issue is that, as a person who appears to indulge in a great deal of thought before each play, his pondering-to-completion ratio is shockingly high. Especially compared to, say, Michael Vick. Improvisational QBs seem to conjure magic or hustle or something intangible.

Manning, on the other hand, seems to assign himself presnap tasks that no other QB deems necessary. Is that because he's a genius? Maybe so. Maybe he'll get a ring to prove it. Or maybe he's a suckup overachiever who beats up on bad teams in the regular season but can't compete at a higher level. A nice suckup, I'm sure.

Representing for the dorks, but not so down with Peyton, topbroker attributes Manning's success to nepotism:

A main thesis of Michael Lewis's "Moneyball" is that traditionally oriented judges of baseball talent (scouts, and others) often fail to see the talent because they are misled by the image. […] Nowhere is Lewis's thesis better borne out than with quarterbacks, who, as Tommy Craggs's article on Peyton Manning makes clear, have to live up to a characterological as well as a physical archetype. […]

The reason quarterbacks always seem to look like a handsome Big Man on Campus is because they are chosen for that quality as much as for their football skill. The two qualities typically have to coincide for them to have a chance at stardom. There must be hundreds of "big ol' dorks" and other misfits who were potentially stunning quarterbacks who were screened out by image selection as early as grade school. Only a few Doug Fluties who defy the image squeak through to accomplish something.

So how did Peyton Manning succeed as an atypical but brilliant quarterback and Cal Ripken succeed as an atypical but brilliant shortstop? Well, the fact that they were both born into the upper echelons of their sports might have had a lot to do with it. Few could be more favorably situated to overcome the perception issue.

According to ilua, Manning is great, and a pox upon you for saying otherwise. Peyton isn't a dork—he's just ugly:

Peyton Manning has a distinctive face. He's not "handsome" like Tom Brady. Admit it, all you Manning haters are just uncomfortable admiring someone who can't be played in the next Big Football Blockbuster by Leonardo DiCaprio.

Peyton Manning is a better sportsman than Tom Brady: he doesn't whine and pout and throw hissy fits like Tom Brady. He is a better quarterback than Tom Brady: he proved that two weeks ago. I'm almost sure that he's a nicer guy, if Tom Brady shares personal qualities other than his short temper with vain celebutantes.

But yeah, he's not as good looking. I guess that's reason enough to insinuate that he's a homosexual and call him a nerd. Too bad he doesn't wear glasses: I'm sure you would enjoy throwing them in the mud.

I'm not sure what he thinks of dorks, but RMLReturns clearly has a dim view of Peyton:

This man is not a quarterback-he is a dollarback!

Manning is making more $$$$$ off the field than he will ever earn on it. To be able to make this kind of cash without ever winning a Super Bowl is a little strange. […]

Manning had the deck stacked for him. An easy schedule, refs with Colts jerseys under their stripes, and more national hype telling him how great he is than he knows what to do with. All of it largely based on wins against less competitive teams. When he beat the Patriots (who were fighting the flu trying to avoid dying on the field in the 2nd half) he was playing a team which overcame the odds all year with injuries and a bleeding wound of star players leaving for money-including the beloved Vinatieri who has actually been the guy getting the points in games against real defenses for the colts this year. […]

If the Colts do win, it will be because of the Patriots losing one Adam Vinatieri. He might be doing most of the scoring Sunday.

'Nuff said.

If you're a total dork, and you're into football, come discuss the game in our Sports Nut Fray. I'll be catching up on my knitting, so play nice. GA … 11:45pm PST

VIEW AS SINGLE PAGE
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Moira Redmond is a freelance writer and a former Slatester. You can e-mail her at .
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post