Heisman: The Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda

A brief preface: All of the candidates who will be at the Heisman ceremony tomorrow night are worthy. They are all terrific college football players, and this is not meant as a slight towards any of them. But as we all know, the Heisman Trophy is awarded to, as I have said before, the most popular offensive player on a popular team. Or, as Shaun Powell of NBC sports puts it in this article, it goes to an offensive player on a visible team who helps his team win games.

The real question is why the Downtown Athletic Club and the media insist on calling this an award for the most outstanding player in college football? At least half the time that player plays defense, yet a defender has never won. And no, I don't count Charles Woodson because he did it all, and that's why he won.

Powell brings up Hugh Green who was runner-up in 1980, and the closest a purely defensive player has ever come to the bronze running back. I also remember Warren Sapp being a finalist in 1994. I don't remember how he finished in the voting, but I think it was last. Of course, to talk about the defensive snubs doesn't do justice to the other group of players disrespected by this award: the offensive linemen. They protect the quarterback and open holes for the running back yet are hardly ever mentioned here. There have been a few named as finalists, none to my knowledge in my lifetime with the last being John Hicks in 1973. The truth we all know is, as Powell states, that the other positions aren't sexy enough.

So I do have a bias and a problem with the Heisman, which plays into who I think should win. To answer that you first have to answer the question of who should be there. Much like the Academy Awards has done by expanding the number of nominees for Best Picture (the theory being that it opens the award up to more commercial fare and genres such as comedy), the Heisman should expand the number of finalists to eight. If there were eight finalists this year it may look something like this:

1. Mark Ingram, RB Alabama
2. Ndamukong Suh, DT Nebraska
3. Colt McCoy, QB Texas
4. Jerry Hughes, DE TCU
5. Toby Gerhart, RB Stanford
6. Eric Berry, DB Tennessee
7. DeAndre McDaniel, S Clemson
8. A.Q. Shipley, C Penn St.

If the options looked like this you would run into the potential issue of a winner who doesn't garner a majority of the vote. I say so be it, that's usually the case as it is with 4 or 5 finalists. And if these were the finalists my top 3 would be Suh, Berry, and Gerhart. Again, it's not that the Heisman got it wrong with the finalists, but that it continually snubs over half the potential field. And that's why everyone says Suh can't win the trophy.

And Suh is exactly who should win the trophy. Nebraska did not have a great offense all year, it was the defense and Suh who carried them to within one second of winning the Big 12 Title. Ingram as good as he is didn't always perform his best in big games, and the argument can be made that QB Greg McElroy was actually the Crimson Tide's best offensive player. McCoy was horrendous at points this season, and that's not indicative of a Heisman winner. Tebow failed to live up to his own legend this year and his numbers fell short of the ones he posted when he won it two years ago. Then there's Toby Gerhart, who was certainly the offensive and team MVP of his team, who showed up with a huge effort in every game that mattered.

So, considering who the finalists actually are and that Suh likely won't win, Toby Gerhart should win. Honestly, in my mind it's between he and Suh. Gerhart had more yards than Ingram, more touchdowns, meant more to his team and did it all while taking 21 credit hours of classes! I know the last part doesn't factor in to voting but it's freaking impressive.

But I don't think Gerhart will win. Who will win is Mark Ingram. Why? Because Alabama is in the National Championship Game, because he did have a great season, because he has a great story, because nearly 1/3 of Heisman voters cast their ballots BEFORE last weekend's games, and because Alabama has never had a Heisman winner. I give an outside chance to McCoy, because voters may vote based on what he did in his career (most wins in NCAA history). Are any of those the right reasons to vote for the winner? No, but it's reality. And again it's not that Ingram is undeserving, he was outstanding this year. He just wasn't the most outstanding.

But we'll see tomorrow whether I'm right and history repeats itself, or whether we take a step in a new direction.

MTF: All Apologies Edition

I've not had an MTF post in a while, and for that you have my sincerest apologies. However, in my defense I've not come across many movie trailers I feel worthy of being splashed across these pages. As you may or may not know my criteria are that the films look like they can be pleasing or entertaining to some demographic, even if they don't appeal to me, or they at least be so bad as to elicit a laugh. And I just haven't seen a lot that answer those criteria, but that may be starting to change! Or at least I hope.

Tenderness
This film has had no buzz, despite a good cast, and is getting a very sudden release date. That usually means one of two things: 1) The film isn't very good and the studio is releasing it now to get it on this year's books and not have to worry about it next year or 2) The studio decided it may be award worthy and wanted to get it out there in time for Awards season. It's hard to tell which it may be based on the trailer. All I know is that it's a psychological thriller starring the inimitable Russel Crowe and Laura Dern.

A Single Man
Two things stand out to me about this film. One, is that it seems Colin Firth is finally given a role he can really sink his teeth into. I think Firth is a terrific actor who breathes life into what normally could be considered standard roles. The fact that he always shines in ensemble pieces is testament to his ability. For that alone I would see this film. Second, it looks good, or at the least very interesting. And that, I hate to admit, does surprise me. Why? Because this is the feature film debut of Tom Ford, the fashion mogul. He's now adding "director" to his long list of enviable titles. It's surprising because most people in fashion typically strike as being all about the surface, about how looking good is 7/10 of life. The potential of this film seems to fly in the face of that stereotype, at least as it pertains to Ford. And this article from the National Post suggests this is indeed a very personal and emotional move by Ford. He seems to have wanted to direct this movie for the right reasons, and those reasons don't seem to include ego.

The Young Victoria
Could be interesting, though it looks like more of your standard English royalty/period epics, which is both a good and a bad thing. This one is about the real-world education of a young princess Victoria as she travels the road to becoming Queen, navigating past the dangers of the insincere and corrupt. This film is supposed to be a star-making turn for Emily Blunt. We'll see.

A Prophet
This foreign film was judged the best at the Canne Film Festival, and while I don't typically like crime dramas, this entry in the genre looks insanely good. Check it out.

Death at a Funeral
A remake of a film made two years ago!? Yep. In this case an American remake of the dark British comedy of the same name. This actually looks like a pretty faithful and funny adaptation, and I'll probably see it out of curiosity if nothing else. But it'll be hard to beat the original, which I think is a classic of the dark comedy genre. And I do like how they got Peter Dinklage to reprise his role as the jilted lover. That's a good move. This one stars Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Tracy Morgan, and Danny Glover.

College Football Quick Hits

A lot happened this weekend in college football. A lot that each deserve their own time and attention. I don't have that time, suffice it to say if we've learned anything about the state of college football it's that there is a substantial amount of parity in the game. That shows from the BCS selections to who's being talked about for the Heisman. And what we are seeing and will continue to see until the government is forced to take action (which is coming and soon, as in beginning this week). Until then this game continues to be a good ol' boys network with the haves trying to hold on to what they have while paying lip service and handouts to the dissatisfied have nots.

Sure, the BCS selected two non-BCS Conference teams to play in their games, but they also selected them to play each other, which exposes the cowardice of the power conferences. Let's be clear about one thing here: they're scared. 

The BCS Very Early Predictions:

Rose Bowl—Oregon won a tough, contested PAC-10 this year, while Ohio State had to play only two big conference games. Winner: Oregon will roll over Ohio St. (helping to expose the Big Ten for the very weak conference it is).

Sugar Bowl—The question is how Florida rebounds from the SEC Title Tilt defeat to 'Bama. This should be a shootout, but Florida's D overcomes Cincy's lack of one. Winner: Florida.

Orange Bowl—To stop Georgia Tech's wear you down option you need to have some team speed on defense. What does Iowa not have? Team speed on defense. Ferentz is a heck of a coach (my opinions on the conference's strength notwithstanding) but I don't think even he can overcome that. Winner: Georgia Tech in what will be the lowest rated of all BCS bowls

Fiesta Bowl—The game itself almost takes a backseat to the controversy. The BCS may have put these two together to avoid being embarrassed on the field but what do they do when they're embarrassed off the field: This will be the most hyped, most watched game of the bowl season. Winner: TCU, who could and should be playing Alabama.

National Championship Game—Texas has made it here despite a very lackluster season (as lackluster as being undefeated can be) while Alabama made it through the gauntlet of the SEC. Winner: Alabama

The Heisman Trophy

The two QB's chosen as finalists—Florida QB Tim Tebow and Texas QB Colt McCoy—were invited solely based on their legacies and legends. They were the 8th and 18th highest rated QB's this year, respectively. Convincing cases can be mounted that any of the top 6 rated QB's should be their instead. Those 6 are Boise St.'s Kellen Moore, TCU's Andy Dalton, BYU's Max Hall, Notre Dame's Jimmy Clausen, and Houston's Case Keenum. The Heisman trophy is what we thought it was: an award given to the most popular (offensive) player at a popular school, period. 

Ndamukong Suh is another finalist, and deservedly so. He won't win. The only reason the word "offensive" was in parentheses above is that Charles Woodson won the trophy, and he was a defensive back. But he only won because he also returned kicks, and if I remember wide receiver. The Defense gets no love from Heisman.

Who the Heisman finalists are:

Tim Tebow, QB Florida

Colt McCoy, QB Texas

Mark Ingram, RB Alabama

Toby Gerhart, RB Stanford

Ndamukong Suh, DT Nebraska

Who the Heisman finalists should be (I list 6 instead of 4, because it's such a tight race in my mind):

Toby Gerhart, RB Stanford

Ndamukong Suh, DT Nebraska

Kellen Moore, QB Boise St.

DeAndre McDaniel, S Clemson

Rudy Gilyard, WR/KR Cincinnati

Mark Ingram, RB Alabama

The Woods Speculum

I am a man with very defined and strong feelings about infidelity (in short: despicable, immoral, egotistical and completely without integrity or concern for others), and I do have high expectations for celebrities who are held up as role models. Most of those celebrities and role models nowadays exist in the bodies of athletes. And athletes may not be worse than the average guy when it comes to morality, but over the years they've shown that they're certainly no better. 

Michael Wilbon talks about the latest hullabaloo concerning Tiger Woods in a new article, that you can find here. In it he talks about the athletes that occupy a certain list, the differences between them and Tiger, and ultimately how none of this matters or will affect his legacy. And I don't think Wilbon is wrong, but I do think he attempts to make one point in his article that he doesn't stress enough, or maybe just not in the right way.

That point is that Tiger Woods' infidelities don't matter to us, and shouldn't matter to us, because it's a private matter for he and his family. Tiger is a golfer and if there's a story concerning his golf game we should be interested, otherwise we should just ignore it. Wilbon also does highlight a sentence from Woods' press release that I also want to highlight. "Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions." Amen.

As a society we've become, as someone phrased it on the radio yesterday, very good at minding other people's business. We've become a society that loves to gossip and excels at it. We're better at gossiping than we are at educating our youth, holding our politicians accountable, or conducting our professional lives with ethic and integrity. Why? Why are we so good at sticking our nose in other people's crap? Do people look to take down those in the spotlight to make themselves feel better about their own shortcomings and failings? I don't know. What I do know is that we're obsessed with gossip. Countless tabloids, blogs and shows are committed solely to that very topic.

As stated at the beginning of this post, I have very strong feelings about infidelity and you know something? I don't care that Tiger Woods cheated, or may have cheated. I don't care because I don't know him, I'm not friends with him, and his infidelities have no impact one way or another on my day. Tiger Woods is an athlete, where his behavior regards athletics I care. Where his behavior regards his personal life I draw the line. I will not be one to cast stones at a a man I don't know in a situation I am not intimately knowledgeable about. 

Do his supposed moral transgressions and sins bother me? Certainly, as they would with anyone. Is his business anywhere for my nose to be sniffing? No, because personal sins shouldn't require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't mean public confessions. I don't feel the need or the right to get myself entangled in the intricacies of Tiger's personal life, and unless your name is Elin Nordegren Woods you shouldn't either.

Surrenders and Defeats

Surrendered:

Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots, last night—Monday, the 30th of November, 2009. Cause: An exhaustive beat down by the upstart New Orleans Saints took all the fight out of the once big-dog-on-the-block. 

With 5 minutes left in the game and the Patriots trailing 38-17 the New England offense trotted back on the field and symbolically raised the white flag by keeping Tom Brady, Randy Moss and Wes Welker on the sideline. It was a move made by a team that was tired, outplayed and outcoached and who couldn't wait to get back on the plane to Boston.

What it really symbolizes is the end of an era. When the team that didn't know the meaning of the word quit—the team that would leave its starters in when it was winning 59-0 or 44-7—gives up in front of the entire nation in prime time, it is symbolic. Being defeated in this way means they are effectively abdicating the throne. They haven't won the Super Bowl in a few years, but they were held up as the gold standard. But no more. The throne is empty, and we're looking for the next in line. 

Defeated:

The nation of Chile, soccer fans, and advocates of fair-play and ethical business the world over.

Cause: A seemingly corrupt and bullying FIFA organization.

First, FIFA—the international governing body of soccer—caused an uproar when they upheld France's draw with Ireland despite video evidence, and an admission from Thierry Henry, that Henry was offsides and committed a handball foul before passing to his teammate for the tying goal. The decision to uphold the match outcome flew in the face of FIFA's own precedence—in 2005 they ordered a match between Uzbekistan and Bahrain replayed because of a "technical error" on the part of the referee. The fact that they wouldn't do the same when France, one of the world's best and most famous teams, is involved smells of favoritism.

Second, FIFA informed Chile that they would lose their World Cup spot if a Chilean Club team did not drop its lawsuit against FIFA. This is absolute corruption and bullying. It's unethical, and unbelievably not illegal. The nation of Chile and the Chilean Men's National Team has nothing to do with the Club team and their lawsuit, and they shouldn't be allowed to dangle the World Cup as the bait to get out of a lawsuit (which tells me they were probably liable in the suit). What Chile should have done was turn around and sue the World Cup and its governing body FIFA. Instead they persuaded the Club team to drop the suit and the nation still gets a spot in the 32-team final. But it's not right and it's not fair.

What these two incidents do is shine a very critical light on FIFA. I, for one, have absolutely zero confidence in their integrity and no trust that they operate fairly or cleanly. This is a corrupt organization that does all it can to make sure its favored nations are always the ones playing for the crown, and I cannot trust any decision it makes or rule it instates. Ireland, Chile, and fans worldwide should boycott the World Cup as a result of these affronts. But they won't. The world will tune in to South Africa as expected, and FIFA will continue to collect money and power over all the soccer-playing nations of the world (i.e., every nation in the world).

MTF: Pre-Thanksgiving Edition

Across the Hall

OK, so based on the trailer I'm thinking this thriller has a very predictable twist. However, it does seem to be a welcome return to the taut suspenseful thrillers of yesteryear. The kind that went by the wayside once the movie-going public fell in love with the slasher film, which in turn has become so ugly as to now turn those fans off. Also, this is the second trailer I've seen in a month where the filmmakers are making a return to the snappy noir style. And that I like.

Nine
A new trailer for Rob Marshall's adaptation of the Broadway musical is here. Though it's less trailer, and more of a musical number from the movie featuring a collage of clips and Kate Hudson's surprising voice. Looks intriguing. Check it out.

Crazy Heart
I saw this title and I thought "Crazy Heart would be a good name for a drama about an aging Country rocker played by Jeff Bridges." Imagine my delight when I found out that's exactly what this film is! Seriously, this does look very interesting, and also stars Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Defamation
Interesting looking documentary about anti-Semitism and what it means to be a Jew in America. The documentary is an exploration by an Israeli Jew who grew up surrounded by Jewish people and has never experienced anti-Semitism, so he sets off to find out exactly what it is, and how dangerous it is. Among the many interesting sound bites in the trailer is this one from an American Jew, "Without the state of Israel I don't believe there is a safe Jew in the world."

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief
I posted the teaser for this film and commented that it seemed to have potential but that Chris Columbus seemed to have way too many shots of guys pulling hoodies over their heads. Then I posted the trailer and commented that I was less than impressed by the footage they chose to reveal there. Now I can post you the international trailer and say that I am pleased. Finally. While it may not have the built-in audience or the compelling storyline of the Harry Potter series, this does look to be a fun and interesting first film in what I assume is hoped to be a series. The only problem I have? Uma Thurman as Medusa. I suppose it makes sense, Medusa's supposed to be beautiful but I always envision something sinister about her look (aside from the snakes). But who knows, we only got a peek.

MTF: Kick-Ass Edition

Kick-Ass
Awesome. Really. Looks hilarious and, well, the title of the film says it all...the movie looks kick-ass! Here are two posters, the first is the newest one. The others are a 4-poster compilation that kicks-ass.




Clash of the Titans
You know Sam Worthington, that guy you've never heard of who you're suddenly hearing about because he's supposed to be everywhere? Well, here he is...about to be everywhere. First came the trailer for Avatar, in which he's the star. Now comes the teaser for Clash of the Titans, in which he's also stars as Perseus. I have hope for one of these movies being decent enough to sit through. *HINT: It's not the one with the blue Jar-Jar Binks'* So here now is a teaser for a mythological Greek adventure with a hard rock soundtrack...I said I have hope, I didn't say it wasn't cautionary or conditional.

Date Night
Steve Carrell and Tina Fey star in this hilarious looking action-comedy about a couple caught up in a case of mistaken identity. Looks like a great date night, despite the terrible poster. Also stars Common and seems to have cameos from Mila Kunis and James Franco.


Grown Ups
It's the reunion of one of SNL's best casts along with Kevin James, and while I do hate the comparisons you have to imagine were Chris Farley still alive he would have been in this movie instead. But I do like James and he does bring a different sort of overweight, physical comedy to the table...think intelligent and embarrassed rather than dim and embarrassing.

The Yellow Handkerchief
A familiar concept with an odd, potentially-pretentious title, but could be good and is compelling due to the presence of the seemingly monotone-yet-always-intriguing William Hurt. Also stars Mario Bello, some guy I've not heard of, and Kristen Stewart.

In Defense of Jay (not a reversal of position)

People are now dumping on Jay Cutler, questioning his abilities to lead a team and be a great quarterback. I do seem to remember saying all of this months ago, and I do seem to remember being the one Bears fan who was pissed at the trade. And I still think #12 is the best QB on the roster. (That would be Caleb Hanie for those of you not keeping score at home.) Is Hanie more talented than Cutler? No. But he's a smarter quarterback, he's more accurate, and honestly, the kid's got some skills. He could, and should, be a starter in this league.

Now, I hate to defend Cutler but I've watched every Bears game and I feel I must. The losses by and large are not his fault. He hasn't played great or made the best decisions, but he's had no help.

• Ron Turner has abandoned the running game. Turner, at his best, is an average coordinator with the occasional trick play. But his play calling this year has been atrocious (see the Atlanta game—every drive: 1st down pass, 2nd down run, 3rd down pass). He's always been in love with the big armed QB, with no clue on how to use it holistically.

• The O-line doesn't provide a lot of protection, case in point, the Cincinnati game in which Cutler threw 3 picks was probably a Pro Bowl-caliber performance by him. Watch that game film and I guarantee you will not see one single play where he drops back in the pocket and has time to get his feet set. Not one. And that's in a game where the D didn't show up so every play was a dropback.

• And when the O-line does show up, like last night (they're still not great), the Wide Receivers don't help. While the line protected him most of the night (aside from a couple really good hits that he took), the WR's didn't work to get open. That's not entirely a talent issue, it's a youth issue. Hester is in year 2 as a WR and he's raw. He's still learning the position. Once he does he'll have game breaking ability but he'll never be more than a #2. Johnny Knox is a good talent but he's young, it's too early to tell if he's a #1 but, personally, I see him more as a possession WR with the ability to break the occasional play. The rest? Not so bueno. Greg Olsen is overrated, every time he catches the ball he goes right to the ground. Dude drops when he gets touched. And that's when he's not busy dropping balls.

Last night of the 5 INT's, at least 2 maybe 3 were Cutler's fault. The last one was just a bad, bad pass. An inaccurate pass, which would not have happened were #12 in there. But two of them were clearly the receivers fault, one of which was returned to the 14 yard line allowing Gore to score on the next play in a game in which they ended losing 10-6. In other words, the only touchdown of the game was set up by Devin Hester falling down.

Bottom line I won't pile on Cutler because the Bears have SO MANY problems. I still don't think he's a winner—I don't like his body language, or the fact that every time they showed him on the sideline the only dude talking to him was a trainer (or was it his personal assistant?) with the occasional exception of Olsen. I think he has a HUGE sense of entitlement to go with a huge ego, a lack of accountability and way too much confidence in his own abilities. But he can be humbled, and he can learn. I don't know if he will, but hopefully that's what's happening this year.

In Defense of Andre Agassi

In the words of the conflicted comic superhero, Wolverine, back off bub.

That's what I say to everyone who is dumping on Andre Agassi right now. Especially former tennis stars like Martina Navratilova and Marat Safin. People are suddenly treating Agassi like a pariah for his admissions that he went through a time where he was clinically depressed and used crystal meth, a time when he didn't want to compete and tanked matches. I hear people talking about him saying "oh he's just trying to sell books and make money," while others, like those tennis stars, are crying that he should "give back his titles and his winnings."

Now, how do I put this delicately to all these critics and cynics? Both of those statements are idiotic. Delicate enough? All these people are acting willfully stupid and taking the petty opportunity to pile onto a man who has taken a huge risk in admitting his own flaws, his own shortcomings. It's another symptom of the dark side of the human condition. The bright side of the condition, of course, is that we cheer for the underdog, for the unconventional winner, which Agassi once was. The dark side is that we love to tear down those on top, which is how Agassi went out: on top of his game, married to a beautiful former tennis star, with a slate of titles to guarantee his placement among the game's all-time best.

The public's reaction now has nothing to do with what he's admitted and everything to do with his perceived status—a man with everything. People cheer for the underdog, but despise the winner (see: NY Yankees). It makes no sense. It's to say that I am going to pull for you and be with you as you climb the mountain, but the moment you reach the summit I am going to try to push you off. It's backstabbing, it's mercenary, and it's the way of most fans (and apparently some athletes).

Agassi the Younger, before depression, divorce, and crystal meth.

Let me answer each of the critics two biggest complaints here.

First criticism, the complaint: he's just trying to make more money. Rebuttal: Agassi already has money. He still has endorsements, he has businesses, and more than likely was getting paid handsomely for speaking engagements. Money is not what this man needs. If anything he wrote this book knowing it was going to hurt his income. Who wants to pay a guy $20,000 for a speaking engagement if the guy has admitted to doing crystal meth?

Bottom line: This criticism is an ignorant and knee-jerk reaction. We've been conditioned by celebrities to expect that they're hiding something, and that when it does come out it's something so terrible that it's hard to forgive. For athletes, that usually means performance-enhancing drugs or domestic abuse (or, you know, nearly severing your ex-wife's head with a knife). Agassi's terrible confession: he was depressed. Get over it.

Second criticism, the complaint: he should give back his money and winnings for lying to tennis. The rebuttal: This one, honestly, would be laughable were it not so ridiculous. Give back his money and winnings from what? From the period in his life when he was depressed, doing meth, and not wanting to win. Maybe people just don't understand so let me explain. Andre Agassi was depressed, he has even said that the worst feeling in the world to him at this time was the idea of winning and having to play again the next day. He wasn't winning, he was losing! And even if he wanted to win he couldn't because he was on meth! Look, meth is not what one would call a "performance enhancer." This isn't steroids he was on, this was crystal meth—a drug that has you tweaking for days with a racing heartbeat and a complete inability to focus. It's hard to do anything on meth, let alone focus on winning a match.

Bottom line: If anything these matches should be replayed! I'm joking, of course, but that's no more ludicrous than the suggestion that he return titles that have no bearing on this period of his life. He was depressed and on a drug that hindered performance. He wasn't winning, he was in fact doing just the opposite. He dropped from number one in the world to number 141. And then he managed a terrific second act by turning his life around he climbing back out of that personal and professional hole. He climbed from the bottom of the tennis rankings all the way back to the peak—to number one—and along the way he found true happiness with his current wife, former tennis star, Steffi Graf.

He should not burned at the stake for these admissions. Rather, he should be applauded for having the courage to make an admission with the complete understanding that it would not only damage his reputation but hurt his ability to make money (which is largely dependent upon that reputation).

Agassi the Elder, post-depression, -divorce, and -meth.

I, for one, defend the man and believe him to be a man of integrity. He compromised that integrity once, and it's eaten him alive ever since. When he played the game, at least when he played it right, with passion and to win, he played it fearlessly. He was also the best return man in the game. Well, that same fearless quality is what has allowed him to publish this book admitting his own faults. By doing so he put the ball in our court, and the public has served up fury and anger, but be wary of his service return—it's vanquished many an opponent on the court, and I don't believe he will just go away now that the public is forcing him to play a game for his reputation and his character.

Lastly, my advice is to stick with the old proverb, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Perhaps, all you casting your stones at Agassi now do so because you're afraid to look in the mirror at your own faults. After all, if this once unblemished hero can have made such terrible mistakes, then what awaits in your own reflection?

Please, see the man for what he is: greatly humbled and trying to atone for the misdeeds of his past. Misdeeds, by the way, the he did not have to admit. This isn't baseball, and he wasn't on a list. He wasn't forced to admission. He came to the public, to tennis fans, and said, "Look this is what I did, I don't have to tell you but I want you to know, because you always deserved my best and I didn't always give it. For that I am sorry." He is prostrate and asking forgiveness, this is his confession. Be gracious in return, accept the apology and forgive the man.