OT: Colts QB Andrew Luck retiring from the nfl per adam schefter

[dougthonus]

I'm morally confident that booing a player that's injured or cheering at an opposing player due to injury is wrong. Those are generally accepted as classless.

I've specifically made that distinction, and never said anything about thr bold being wrong because those circumstances are clearly different.

Luck didn't just suffer an injury here. No one is booing him for being hurt. People are booing him for quitting and giving up which certainly seems like a thing you would allow for in booing. He clearly could keep trying to recover even if he had to miss the season and spend it all rehabbing.

He has chosen to quit because he's not mentally up for the challenge of going through more rehab at this time. I'm not judging him as a person for it. I would probably have mentally quit too, and probably much, much earlier. However, it wasn't his only path, but it was a path that was most devastating for fans.

Why does someone who is trying their best but is just performing poorly getting booed pass the bar for allowable booing? Is it their fault that they can't meet expectations of a fan?

Why does someone who leaves in FA for another team pass the bar for allowable booing? He still gave his all for your franchise and made the best decision for himself. Much like Luck gave his all to the franchise then made the best decision for himself.

I don't see why you can feel so confident in any of these things as morally right or wrong. Especially given the essentially meaningless impact of booing anyway. As I said, probably all of us have memories of childhood taunting which is much more deeply personal than random nobodies booing you for 30 seconds.

I got booed by the entire sold out United Center once. Still managed to live a successful life. Probably much louder than the boos Luck heard this day which were probably not the loudest boos he's heard in his life either. To the extent these boos bother Luck more, it is because of his own personal feelings of disappointment, remorse, and regret around the decision and the honest real time feedback that his decision did hurt people.

At any rate, there were people 300 years ago who were confident in the morality of slavery. Go back further and people were confident in the morality around pedophilia. People were confident in the morality of oppressing minorities. There were a set of German's confident in the morality of killing off everyone who wasn't part of the master race.

People have been widely confident on the morality of things that we would consider probably about the most evil things you can think of right now. It's hard to me to think that 30 years from now our views on booing a professional athlete will be the same as they are today and that there is a morally correct answer here.

[DuckIII]

Quite honestly, while I understand and applaud Luck for making the decision that is right for him. I also think fans have every right to boo the heck out of him and if that's hard for him to hear then so be it. It's hard for fans to have their season collapse on them out of no where too because if his decision.

Having the right to do something is fine. Exercising that right can still mean you are a douchebag for doing it. Is it “hard” for fans? Sure. But the reality is the vast majority of fans are capable of not booing in that situation.

The ones who do are just being overly emotional, selfish, childish and irrational. Which is understandable because that is just how some sports fans are. But understandable and appropriate are not the same thing.

[DuckIII]

Doug, you’re digging yourself into a pretty deep hole here trying to justify booing a player for retiring over ongoing injury issues. Invoking the changing morality over owning human beings is a pretty big reach, and so is noting that in the grand scheme of things getting booed isn’t a big deal.

Something doesn’t have to involve fundamental human rights or permanent emotional trauma to be wrong. You think it’s grand for fans to boo an injured player for retiring, fine. The arguments are threadbare however.

I’m confident is saying it’s morally wrong. Easy math. Albeit not something I give much more thought to once I leave the topic.

[johnnyvann840]

I'm morally confident that booing a player that's injured or cheering at an opposing player due to injury is wrong. Those are generally accepted as classless.

I've specifically made that distinction, and never said anything about thr bold being wrong because those circumstances are clearly different.

Luck didn't just suffer an injury here. No one is booing him for being hurt. People are booing him for quitting and giving up which certainly seems like a thing you would allow for in booing. He clearly could keep trying to recover even if he had to miss the season and spend it all rehabbing.

He has chosen to quit because he's not mentally up for the challenge of going through more rehab at this time. I'm not judging him as a person for it. I would probably have mentally quit too, and probably much, much earlier. However, it wasn't his only path, but it was a path that was most devastating for fans.

Why does someone who is trying their best but is just performing poorly getting booed pass the bar for allowable booing? Is it their fault that they can't meet expectations of a fan?

Why does someone who leaves in FA for another team pass the bar for allowable booing? He still gave his all for your franchise and made the best decision for himself. Much like Luck gave his all to the franchise then made the best decision for himself.

I don't see why you can feel so confident in any of these things as morally right or wrong. Especially given the essentially meaningless impact of booing anyway. As I said, probably all of us have memories of childhood taunting which is much more deeply personal than random nobodies booing you for 30 seconds.

I got booed by the entire sold out United Center once. Still managed to live a successful life. Probably much louder than the boos Luck heard this day which were probably not the loudest boos he's heard in his life either. To the extent these boos bother Luck more, it is because of his own personal feelings of disappointment, remorse, and regret around the decision and the honest real time feedback that his decision did hurt people.

At any rate, there were people 300 years ago who were confident in the morality of slavery. Go back further and people were confident in the morality around pedophilia. People were confident in the morality of oppressing minorities. There were a set of German's confident in the morality of killing off everyone who wasn't part of the master race.

People have been widely confident on the morality of things that we would consider probably about the most evil things you can think of right now. It's hard to me to think that 30 years from now our views on booing a professional athlete will be the same as they are today and that there is a morally correct answer here.

Yeah, I'm not really sure why is this even an issue. Who the hell cares about fans booing something that disappoints them?

Besides, I think those fans, without realizing it, were booing the timing of the decision more than anything. To do this a week before the season starts really does a lot of damage to the Colts as a franchise, at the moment, and the fans were feeling it.

I agree with Doug, Luck has every right to do whatever he wants to with his body and his career. However, the fans have every right to voice their displeasure with his decision as well. Personally, I think those fans are complete A-holes for doing it, but who cares really? It's just not important, nor is it a big deal. I'm sure it probably stung his ego a little and I'm sure he'll get over it really quickly. People make way to big a deal out of fans booing players.

btw, wondering why you got booed by the UC fans?

[GetBuLLish]

I agree with Doug, Luck has every right to do whatever he wants to with his body and his career. However, the fans have every right to voice their displeasure with his decision as well. Personally, I think those fans are complete A-holes for doing it, but who cares really? It's just not important, nor is it a big deal. I'm sure it probably stung his ego a little and I'm sure he'll get over it really quickly. People make way to big a deal out of fans booing players.

You're actually agreeing with RedBulls23 and disagreeing with Doug.

[RedBulls23]

I'm morally confident that booing a player that's injured or cheering at an opposing player due to injury is wrong. Those are generally accepted as classless.

I've specifically made that distinction, and never said anything about thr bold being wrong because those circumstances are clearly different.

Luck didn't just suffer an injury here. No one is booing him for being hurt. People are booing him for quitting and giving up which certainly seems like a thing you would allow for in booing. He clearly could keep trying to recover even if he had to miss the season and spend it all rehabbing.

He has chosen to quit because he's not mentally up for the challenge of going through more rehab at this time. I'm not judging him as a person for it. I would probably have mentally quit too, and probably much, much earlier. However, it wasn't his only path, but it was a path that was most devastating for fans.

Why does someone who is trying their best but is just performing poorly getting booed pass the bar for allowable booing? Is it their fault that they can't meet expectations of a fan?

Why does someone who leaves in FA for another team pass the bar for allowable booing? He still gave his all for your franchise and made the best decision for himself. Much like Luck gave his all to the franchise then made the best decision for himself.

I don't see why you can feel so confident in any of these things as morally right or wrong. Especially given the essentially meaningless impact of booing anyway. As I said, probably all of us have memories of childhood taunting which is much more deeply personal than random nobodies booing you for 30 seconds.

I got booed by the entire sold out United Center once. Still managed to live a successful life. Probably much louder than the boos Luck heard this day which were probably not the loudest boos he's heard in his life either. To the extent these boos bother Luck more, it is because of his own personal feelings of disappointment, remorse, and regret around the decision and the honest real time feedback that his decision did hurt people.

At any rate, there were people 300 years ago who were confident in the morality of slavery. Go back further and people were confident in the morality around pedophilia. People were confident in the morality of oppressing minorities. There were a set of German's confident in the morality of killing off everyone who wasn't part of the master race.

People have been widely confident on the morality of things that we would consider probably about the most evil things you can think of right now. It's hard to me to think that 30 years from now our views on booing a professional athlete will be the same as they are today and that there is a morally correct answer here.

No, he retired because of his injuries. He's physically and mentally not able to play anymore. People booing because of he retired due to his physical and mental health is wrong.

I don't care for booing as a hole yet I'm not going to say booing in general is wrong, but I've made the clear distinction about booing players because of injury is flat out wrong. Not simply booing a player, but booing them for this specific reason.

The bold part of your post is just ridiculous false equivalence.

[johnnyvann840]

I agree with Doug, Luck has every right to do whatever he wants to with his body and his career. However, the fans have every right to voice their displeasure with his decision as well. Personally, I think those fans are complete A-holes for doing it, but who cares really? It's just not important, nor is it a big deal. I'm sure it probably stung his ego a little and I'm sure he'll get over it really quickly. People make way to big a deal out of fans booing players.

You're actually agreeing with RedBulls23 and disagreeing with Doug.

This is what I agree with mostly....

Fans by and large care about the team and care about you only if you are helping the team. They aren't completely horrible, they typically won't do things like cheer an injury or come down on you for something they perceive as not your fault, but you should expect boos if you do something that hurts their experience. You are taking their money, and tons and tons of it to provide them that experience.

Quite honestly, while I understand and applaud Luck for making the decision that is right for him. I also think fans have every right to boo the heck out of him and if that's hard for him to hear then so be it. It's hard for fans to have their season collapse on them out of no where too because if his decision.

[dougthonus]

Having the right to do something is fine. Exercising that right can still mean you are a douchebag for doing it. Is it “hard” for fans? Sure. But the reality is the vast majority of fans are capable of not booing in that situation.

The ones who do are just being overly emotional, selfish, childish and irrational. Which is understandable because that is just how some sports fans are. But understandable and appropriate are not the same thing.

If Luck was deemed physically unable to continue, then I would totally agree. That doesn't seem to be the case though. It seems that instead, he's tired of trying and is quitting because that's the best thing for him to do. I agree with him that it's almost certainly best for him to quit and agree with his decision to be selfish and do what is best for him and ignore the needs of others even when those others gave him generational wealth.

That said, I think it is fair to recognize this as a decision where Luck is being selfish. Understandably selfish, but selfish. There are many times in life that you should be selfish, and this is one for Luck. However, understanding that Luck is being selfish, those whom are hurt by his selfishness are well with in reason, IMO to make the feelings on that known.

[GetBuLLish]

I agree with Doug, Luck has every right to do whatever he wants to with his body and his career. However, the fans have every right to voice their displeasure with his decision as well. Personally, I think those fans are complete A-holes for doing it, but who cares really? It's just not important, nor is it a big deal. I'm sure it probably stung his ego a little and I'm sure he'll get over it really quickly. People make way to big a deal out of fans booing players.

You're actually agreeing with RedBulls23 and disagreeing with Doug.

This is what I agree with mostly....

Fans by and large care about the team and care about you only if you are helping the team. They aren't completely horrible, they typically won't do things like cheer an injury or come down on you for something they perceive as not your fault, but you should expect boos if you do something that hurts their experience. You are taking their money, and tons and tons of it to provide them that experience.

Quite honestly, while I understand and applaud Luck for making the decision that is right for him. I also think fans have every right to boo the heck out of him and if that's hard for him to hear then so be it. It's hard for fans to have their season collapse on them out of no where too because if his decision.

The crux of this debate is whether it's wrong (or immoral) for fans to have boo'd Luck.

The debate is not whether fans had a right to do so (strawman) or whether doing so is a "huge deal" (another strawman).

So you seem to be in agreement with RedBulls on the main issue. As am I.

[dougthonus]

The crux of this debate is whether it's wrong (or immoral) for fans to have boo'd Luck.

The debate is not whether fans had a right to do so (strawman) or whether doing so is a "huge deal" (another strawman).

So you seem to be in agreement with RedBulls on the main issue. As am I.

I think this is a good way to put it, and I'm actually not that different from any of you on this either.

Would I have booed Luck? No.
If I was there and my kids started booing Luck I would stop them.
Do I think it's right to boo anyone? No.

It's the second strawman which I disagree with though. I don't think people should define morally correct and incorrect behaviors about things that don't materially matter.

Maybe that is just splitting hairs to much, but I think society has become overly prescriptive in what is right or wrong and people feel way too much authority to define what is correct and not correct for other people and that this is the most negative when people are doing so over topics which are largely irrelevant.

Or maybe I just feel too strongly about the word "immoral". I don't think it's morally correct to boo Luck either. I think it's a type of thing which isn't important enough to define a moral standard for.

I think yelling at my T-Mobile rep is far more immoral than booing Andrew Luck as an example, and it's something I've probably done before and would guess virtually everyone has done something similar. I guess while I don't condone booing, I guess I really also just don't condone beating up people who boo either.

[dougthonus]

And like Duck, I will also exit this thread. I tend to argue endlessly over things of which I have a minor disagreement on, and I think this is one of those cases, where I actually don't really disagree with most of what anyone is saying. I just disagree with the idea of booing a sports figure as a morality judgment even though if we were all sitting next to each other and any number of events happened I'm sure that my actions would be the same as all of yours.

[johnnyvann840]

You're actually agreeing with RedBulls23 and disagreeing with Doug.

This is what I agree with mostly....

Fans by and large care about the team and care about you only if you are helping the team. They aren't completely horrible, they typically won't do things like cheer an injury or come down on you for something they perceive as not your fault, but you should expect boos if you do something that hurts their experience. You are taking their money, and tons and tons of it to provide them that experience.

Quite honestly, while I understand and applaud Luck for making the decision that is right for him. I also think fans have every right to boo the heck out of him and if that's hard for him to hear then so be it. It's hard for fans to have their season collapse on them out of no where too because if his decision.

The crux of this debate is whether it's wrong (or immoral) for fans to have boo'd Luck.

The debate is not whether fans had a right to do so (strawman) or whether doing so is a "huge deal" (another strawman).

So you seem to be in agreement with RedBulls on the main issue. As am I.

Agreed. I think we are all in agreement that the fans who reacted like that were quite the douchebags. That doesn't make it "immoral", it just makes it selfish. My point is, who cares? It's making it news and talking about them doing it that gives it any meaning. We have two pages here now talking about a bunch if idiots, who, at the end of the day, mean nothing, especially to anybody not interested in the Indianapolis Colts football team. Andrew Luck is going to take his $100 million and stroll off into the sunset. The Colts are probably going to be a much worse football team this season with some guy named Jacoby Brissett or Brian Hoyer playing QB for them. I care so little about the Colts, their booing fans, or Andrew Luck and his family that it just doesn't matter to me, either way whether they gave him a tearful standing ovation or booed him off the podium at his presser.

[League Circles]

A bunch of good posts by all you guys in a row here. I basically agree booing is wrong if one HAD TO take a moral stance on it, but that it's definitely not important enough to really feel like you have to take a moral stance. I almost think booing is just fans becoming part of the art of the show. It's not the color I'd add with my brush to thr painting, but it's not much more than a bad color choice, so to speak.

[dougthonus]

On a new note, the Colts just gave 30M to their backup QB for this season and next. He was under contract for this season already for 3.4M, which means they effectively paid him 27M for next season (but now take half that cap hit in this season).

I'm not an expert on NFL contracts the way I am with NBA, but I think this is interesting.
1: Colts have enough faith in Brissett to pay 27M dollars to get one more year of him
2: They probably paid extra to do it this way so that they make the cap hit smaller next year (presumably they'll put as much of the cap hit as they can in this season with this move)
3: For Brissett it sure seems like free money. Even if he busts out in a huge way, the amount he'd give up to effectively take 1yr/27M is very small and it gives him "never have to work again" money if he is just a bust.