Brent Musburger is a dirty old man*

[TruBlu]

This is seriously blown way out of proportion. He complimented a good looking young lady in the stands. Big Deal! The only people who should be insulted are Offensive Linemen, etc., as Brent implied that you had to be a quarterback to have a chance.

(This story kinda reminds me of another comment made by a TV announcer. Many years ago, "Dandy Don" Merideth had a classic. The sideline camera focused in on a gooood looking female in the first row at a NFL game, as they frequently do. The young lady, not realizing that she was on national TV, immediately began picking her nose. Dandy Don said "Well, she is almost perfect".)

*Some people say that I also resemble that remark.

[bjornolf]

Hey, she didn't have a problem with it. She went from 2300 twitter followers to over 228K in three days.

[BD80]

I laughed out loud when he made the comments during the game, and predicted that the young lady would be among the top 5 Google searches by morning.

I blame Notre Dame for sucking so bad that Musberger was desperate to keep viewers interested in the second quarter.

Inappropriate as the comments were, you can't say they weren't accurate

[Mike Corey]

Respectfully, to characterize Musburger's comments as a mere "compliment" seems like an understatement.

The divvying up of beautiful women to quarterbacks is a compliment of the past; women are more than prizes to be won these days. That's the crux of my complaint.

Has she capitalized on the publicity? As Jenn Sterger did a few years ago when Musburger ogled her on national television, she absolutely has, and with aplomb.

But the lack of personally stated distaste is no excuse for inappropriate behavior, which even ESPN itself conceded.

[JNort]

Inappropriate as the comments were, you can't say they weren't accurate

Forgot it was inappropriate to call a women beautiful. "Wow! What a beautiful woman" were his exact words which in no way was demeaning or inappropriate.

[killerleft]

Brent was funny, he was inappropriate. Let's hope this doesn't get blown out of proportion and end his career. After a period when he was seemingly going down hill fast, I have been pleasantly surprised that Brent has made a comeback of sorts in his professional life. Please don't interpret this to mean I think Brent is da bomb.

Let he (or she) who has never made a statement they were glad didn't make it to national tv cast the heaviest stone. Everybody knows that quarterbacks don't really get pretty girls, right? We all know Brent was making light of the fact that sports stars' girlfriends and wives are generally no more attractive than, say, cesspool swimmers' wives. Right?

[Matches]

He was pushing it a little by continuing to harp on it, but I don't see any harm in pointing out that a beauty queen is, in fact, beautiful.

[Channing]

What was Musburger supposed to do? The cameras focused on her, and sat on her for a really long time ... and then kept going back to her! Was he a little over the top? Sure. But he had to fill the time while the camera focused on her ... rule number 1 of broadcasting is avoid silent time.

[Mike Corey]

Forgot it was inappropriate to call a women beautiful. "Wow! What a beautiful woman" were his exact words which in no way was demeaning or inappropriate.

That is, of course, a mere fraction of what Musburger said.


When you’re a quarterback at Alabama, you see that lovely lady there? She does go to Auburn, I’ll admit that, but she’s also Miss Alabama, and that’s A.J. McCarron’s girlfriend. Wow, I’m telling ya, you quarterbacks, you get all the good looking women. What a beautiful woman! Whoa! So if you’re a youngster in Alabama, start getting the football out and throw it around the backyard with pops.

So this sends an antiquated message to both boys and girls. This may be acceptable in some quarters, but not on national television in 2013, as ESPN's apology demonstrates.

The message--which, quite frankly, is hardly veiled--is that women of suitable attractiveness are a prize for talented boys.

This message, echoed in reverse by Doris Burke, would be just as inappropriate. But of course, such would not happen; there aren't several decades of cultural inertia behind it to support the "boys will be boys" justification for it.

Sure, she's attractive. But the relationship and her place was immediately and nationally objectified into superficiality: it's not about anything other than getting a beautiful woman. And while some corners of psychology might suggest that is truly the driver of men, I'd suggest that's not the kind of serious conversation Musburger was attempting to spark.

That she's capitalizing on the attention is irrelevant to the grander point about how we as a culture continue to approach men and women.

Edited to add: I've received an anonymous ding that is worthy of adding here:


People like you that exude so much ignorance and are oversensitive to petty things are why this country is falling apart. Plz don't post again.
This isn't petty. This isn't ignorant. Oversensitive, perhaps, but perhaps only to the oversensitive--this is, after all, a conversation. And this country is not falling apart--that we can even have this conversation is a sign of progress. Trying to quell it is not.

[Lid]

Edited to add: I've received an anonymous ding that is worthy of adding here:

Oh goodness. This makes me come out of my shell, if only to say that we should obviously continue to remember that message board volume != actual opinions held in the real world. I'm trying not to go PPB, but will say that I disapprove of attempted censorship, and am a fan of rational discussion and thoughtfulness. Mike Corey is not the only one who holds his views.

[Matches]

The message--which, quite frankly, is hardly veiled--is that women of suitable attractiveness are a prize for talented boys.



Well, I'd say it's something more along the lines of "Being talented and successful will make you more attractive to attractive women."

Which I suppose people could still find offensive - but it is also a truism.

[Reisen]

That is, of course, a mere fraction of what Musburger said.



So this sends an antiquated message to both boys and girls. This may be acceptable in some quarters, but not on national television in 2013, as ESPN's apology demonstrates.

The message--which, quite frankly, is hardly veiled--is that women of suitable attractiveness are a prize for talented boys.

This message, echoed in reverse by Doris Burke, would be just as inappropriate. But of course, such would not happen; there aren't several decades of cultural inertia behind it to support the "boys will be boys" justification for it.

Sure, she's attractive. But the relationship and her place was immediately and nationally objectified into superficiality: it's not about anything other than getting a beautiful woman. And while some corners of psychology might suggest that is truly the driver of men, I'd suggest that's not the kind of serious conversation Musburger was attempting to spark.

That she's capitalizing on the attention is irrelevant to the grander point about how we as a culture continue to approach men and women.

Edited to add: I've received an anonymous ding that is worthy of adding here:


This isn't petty. This isn't ignorant. Oversensitive, perhaps, but perhaps only to the oversensitive--this is, after all, a conversation. And this country is not falling apart--that we can even have this conversation is a sign of progress. Trying to quell it is not.

I wasn't the anonymous dinger (I don't believe in dinging for thoughtful debate, whatever position anyone may hold), but I have to say, I beg to differ with most of this.

First, antiquated? Really? Because I would argue the practice of successful men attracting beautiful women is not only as old as humanity itself, but alive and well in 2013. Nor can we help it, no matter how much we wish to evolve our societal norms, because an attraction to "beauty" is hard coded into our DNA for very basic evolutionary reasons (read, in the absence of more sophisticated tests, things like shiny hair and pretty skin can be indicators of a mate's health). And so is an attraction to "success" (read: ability to provide for a mate).

Again, no matter how much we want it to be otherwise, women, and men for that matter, are treated differently based on looks. Studies show attractive women do better in interviews, earn more, are promoted faster, etc. etc. Same goes for men on factors such as height.

So how does thousands of years of evolutionary preference come back to Musberger's comments? Simple, it works both ways. Webb was attracted to McCarron's looks, fitness, height, success, possibly future earning potential, and McCarron was attracted to Webb for many of the same reasons. Quarterbacks and Miss Alabamas date each other for very logical reasons, and that doesn't preclude them from having similar interests, hobbies, family backgrounds, etc. etc. Musberger looked at the relationship from what McCarron was "getting" (ie. "Miss Alabama") but Webb is probably the bigger winner in this. There are a whole lot more beautiful women in this country than men with legitimate shots at a starting QB role in the NFL.

The other points are all valid of course (the director and camera man kept going back to Webb, highlighting beautiful women in sports crowds is nothing new, Musberger didn't say anything lewd). And I totally get that people that aren't beauty queens or future NFL QBs (I'm guessing that's most of us on the board) may not like it. But it's there, it's real, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Statistically, it's not a coincidence that the QB of the national champion Alabama football team is dating Miss Alabama. Musberger was completely right in saying that if you're a talented high schooler, and go on to be the QB at Alabama (or Texas, USC, Nebraska, wherever) you, too, will greatly increase your chances of dating a beauty queen. You know, if you're into that sort of thing.

[Matches]

Just to be clear, I wasn't the ding either. Not even sure how to do that. I enjoy your posts, Mike.

[Jim3k]

Sports broadcasting on TV has always (since 1969, anyway) been populated with honey shots. What is the surprise here? I don't see any.

Andy Sidaris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Sidaris#Career), the honey shot creator, should get the credit/blame for this. In essence, TV has scripted this for Musberger, so he was only doing his job. And folks get exercised over this? Surely there are more important things to hash out.

[Mike Corey]

Reisen's post is excellent, of course, but I suppose I'm not as swayed by the evolutionary urge argument as perhaps I should be.

Of course, we are attracted to whomever, based on whatever. As proportions go, and as science indicates, we're attracted to the symmetrical among us (sounds sexy, does it not?). I concede that it's a natural reaction to be attracted to others--how could I not?--and attracted to some of the more symmetrically gifted. Some tend to draw "wows" more than others. (That I draw a chorus of boos is a tale for another day. But I digress.).

But I'd argue that no matter the truism therein, is articulating it on national television appropriate? I'd argue that it is not, if for no other reason than my ultimate sticking point: in an instant, the relationship was reduced to that simple principle of a hot woman as a prize for a man, as a borderline commodity to be won, no matter anything other than the fact that a hot woman will arrive once success is achieved.

It's been suggested that this is merely a truism--success begats notoriety and better-looking mates--but I think to undress that suggestion reveals something less appealing underneath.

Edited to add: I do not mind that I was dinged anonymously so much as I mind that the comment was not shared in this conversation. If that's the opinion of one or some, so be it. But let's hash it out rather than hush it up.

[killerleft]

I certainly didn't ding anybody. But there may be sexism veiled in the thought that the quarterbacks are the ones doing the "choosing". All of the social studies I've read generally agree that women usually control who their mate (or boyfriend) will be, even if the men don't realize it:). I don't think the women have to be told by Brent Musberger who the desirable males are, or the other way around. Some things just can't be legislated.

And nothing has probably changed much over the years. The choices and decisions made still leave the door open a crack for us "undesireables", thank the gods.

[Bob Green]

Edited to add: I've received an anonymous ding that is worthy of adding here:

"People like you that exude so much ignorance and are oversensitive to petty things are why this country is falling apart. Plz don't post again."



Overall, I'm a big fan of the comments feature but you receiving this comment is unfair. You are one of the best posters on this board so I counter: Please post more often!!!

[snowdenscold]

I agree more on the side of Reisen that Mike here. We can complain about it all we want, but at the end of the day attractiveness and physical appearance are factors that affect people's judgements and choices. That's just how it is - so all the controversy here seems overblown.

Especially one article (which I won't link because I don't want to give them traffic) that went took things over the top and claimed Musburger's comments are "evidence" of "a culture of domestic violence and sexual assault in football." I mean really? They're just looking for an excuse to bring up their feelings about a tangentially related issue, and I'm not buying it. It's like the joke about the preacher who said he had a great sermon, if only he could find a text for it.

[gus]

Overall, I'm a big fan of the comments feature but you receiving this comment is unfair. You are one of the best posters on this board so I counter: Please post more often!!!

People who leave anonymous snipes are unhelfpul cowards, and an example of what's wrong with the internet.

Says the guy posting with a nickname rather than his real name.

In seriousness though -- I dislike the anonymous comment feature. I always sign my name whether it's an approval or disapproval. I find the notion of unsigned "disapprovals" completely worthless. If you can't even attach your internet nickname to a criticism, it hardly warrants any consideration from the person you leveled it against.

[gus]

I agree more on the side of Reisen that Mike here. We can complain about it all we want, but at the end of the day attractiveness and physical appearance are factors that affect people's judgements and choices. That's just how it is - so all the controversy here seems overblown.

Especially one article (which I won't link because I don't want to give them traffic) that went took things over the top and claimed Musburger's comments are "evidence" of "a culture of domestic violence and sexual assault in football." I mean really? They're just looking for an excuse to bring up their feelings about a tangentially related issue, and I'm not buying it. It's like the joke about the preacher who said he had a great sermon, if only he could find a text for it.

I think there's a difference between accepting that physical appearance is a factor in peoples' judgment (of course it is), and harping about it repeatedly on national TV. We are a product of evolution, but not beholden to it. We have empathy and intellect (also products of evolution), and should employ them. I'm not sure this incident is, on its own, really worthy of how much attention it's gotten. I didn't see the game, and only know about it from various people commenting on message boards and on facebook sentiments like "Wow, Musberger is kind of sleazy". But this is part of a larger pattern of objectifying women and reducing their worth to their physical beauty alone. Denying this attitude exists is as silly as denying that physical appearance influences peoples' judgment. This is where empathy and intellect should come to play.

[Reisen]

I think there's a difference between accepting that physical appearance is a factor in peoples' judgment (of course it is), and harping about it repeatedly on national TV. We are a product of evolution, but not beholden to it. We have empathy and intellect (also products of evolution), and should employ them. I'm not sure this incident is, on its own, really worthy of how much attention it's gotten. I didn't see the game, and only know about it from various people commenting on message boards and on facebook sentiments like "Wow, Musberger is kind of sleazy". But this is part of a larger pattern of objectifying women and reducing their worth to their physical beauty alone. Denying this attitude exists is as silly as denying that physical appearance influences peoples' judgment. This is where empathy and intellect should come to play.

I think this is fair, but here's my problem: I think so much of this pushback is because of Musberger's age. Heck, we have sports celebrities constantly doing genuinely pervy things (think Brett Favre and text messages, Joe Theisman) and a blatantly overt culture of female sexualization in sports (unnecessarily tiny bikinis in beach volleyball, honey shots at sports games, the types of women we hire as sideline reporters, halftime dancers, ringside girls in boxing and UFC, heck, the whole presence of cheerleaders in sports, and all the baggage that goes with it). This isn't even getting into "entertainment" sports like professional wrestling or lingerie football...

Yet Musberger makes what most people agree are fairly innocuous remarks (ie. he called her "beautiful" but didn't talk about any specifics of what made her beautiful, or link to himself in any ways), and it's a huge deal. My personal speculation is it's because people aren't comfortable about a grandfatherly-type commenting on a girl less than a third his age. Imagine if it had been Jesse Palmer (former football QB, bachelor contestant, and current announcer) instead. I'm somewhat skeptical we'd be getting the same reaction.

To be fair, I think it is also because he overdid it (ie. simply went to the well too many times). Full disclosure, I noticed it during the game too. But isn't that kind of silly? I mean, are we really saying "It's ok to objectify a given woman twice in a 3 hour football game, but don't do it 3 times, even if the game's a blowout, because that's completely inappropriate!"?

[DukieInKansas]

Two questions that come to my mind - caveat is that I didn't see the game so only kniow what I have read.
1. Did the camera keep going back to her and that caused the multiple comments or did the comments cause the camera to keep returning to her?

2, The flip side of the comments are that the only way McCarron would attract a beautiful woman is because he is a QB. Frankly, it doesn't say much about either one of them if the only thing keeping them together is her looks and his success at football. My guess is that is what brought them to each other's attention but not the only thing keeping them together - especially since she went to Auburn. :-)

And why are most of the camera operators men? I noticed this when I was a regular attendee at Arrowhead as they would show attractive women on the screen and overweight, usually shirtless, men. No eye candy for us women. :-(

[gus]

My personal speculation is it's because people aren't comfortable about a grandfatherly-type commenting on a girl less than a third his age. Imagine if it had been Jesse Palmer (former football QB, bachelor contestant, and current announcer) instead. I'm somewhat skeptical we'd be getting the same reaction.


I think you are right: his age is undoubtedly part of the reaction.

[sporthenry]

Statistically, it's not a coincidence that the QB of the national champion Alabama football team is dating Miss Alabama. Musberger was completely right in saying that if you're a talented high schooler, and go on to be the QB at Alabama (or Texas, USC, Nebraska, wherever) you, too, will greatly increase your chances of dating a beauty queen. You know, if you're into that sort of thing.

I agree with your post but this is what I thought was one of the funnier things to come out of this. I saw and heard tons of comments about how "true love" and "fate" worked out so well that it put Miss Alabama and the QB at Alabama together.

[lotusland]

I agree with your post but this is what I thought was one of the funnier things to come out of this. I saw and heard tons of comments about how "true love" and "fate" worked out so well that it put Miss Alabama and the QB at Alabama together.

Brent's comments were tame compared to what my buds were texting during the game. She entered and won a beauty contest so I think it's safe to say she is OK with guys noticing that she is fairly attractive for a beautiful young coed. I hope that I will still notice it when I'm 102.

[sporthenry]

So this sends an antiquated message to both boys and girls. This may be acceptable in some quarters, but not on national television in 2013, as ESPN's apology demonstrates.

I don't doubt that it might do this but then so will tons of other things. You could apply this argument to commercials and ads showing attractive women with men or as some type of prize. Why do they just show attractive women almost any time they pan to the crowd?

I just think this stuff is all around us and to ding Musberger for coming out and saying what most of us were thinking, seems unfair. If that is the only time kids come in contact with this idea of women being a prize, I'm not sure how it will take root in a kid. It would seem they need constant conditioning for this type of thing to implement itself.

And on top of this, this coincidence of the star QB getting the attractive women seems to happen quite a lot. Just look at Tebow, Ponder, Leinart (in the hot tub), Romo, Brady, Sanchez, Stafford, Tannehill, Cutler, Brady Quinn.... I can't really blame Musberger for saying something that is on most of our minds.

[Indoor66]

I think you are right: his age is undoubtedly part of the reaction.

What is wrong with 72 or 73? He ain't dead.

[gus]

I don't doubt that it might do this but then so will tons of other things. You could apply this argument to commercials and ads showing attractive women with men or as some type of prize. Why do they just show attractive women almost any time they pan to the crowd?

I just think this stuff is all around us and to ding Musberger for coming out and saying what most of us were thinking, seems unfair. If that is the only time kids come in contact with this idea of women being a prize, I'm not sure how it will take root in a kid. It would seem they need constant conditioning for this type of thing to implement itself.

And on top of this, this coincidence of the star QB getting the attractive women seems to happen quite a lot. Just look at Tebow, Ponder, Leinart (in the hot tub), Romo, Brady, Sanchez, Stafford, Tannehill, Cutler, Brady Quinn.... I can't really blame Musberger for saying something that is on most of our minds.

Well, I don't think Musburger should be dinged either, but I think this should approached as something that generates discussion.


On cue, here at work: on my trading floor we have CNBC playing without sound. They had Maria Bartiromo interviewing a woman, and the chyron said "women fund managers outperformed men in 2012".

One of my coworkers, a man in his late twenties, said "What does she look like?" referring to the woman being interviewed. He wasn't trying to be funny.

[Reisen]

Two questions that come to my mind - caveat is that I didn't see the game so only kniow what I have read.
1. Did the camera keep going back to her and that caused the multiple comments or did the comments cause the camera to keep returning to her?

2, The flip side of the comments are that the only way McCarron would attract a beautiful woman is because he is a QB. Frankly, it doesn't say much about either one of them if the only thing keeping them together is her looks and his success at football. My guess is that is what brought them to each other's attention but not the only thing keeping them together - especially since she went to Auburn. :-)

And why are most of the camera operators men? I noticed this when I was a regular attendee at Arrowhead as they would show attractive women on the screen and overweight, usually shirtless, men. No eye candy for us women. :-(

The camera kept going to her first, definitely. Maybe Musberger has some influence over that (I think it's the director instead, and Musberger just reacts). I suppose he could have just talked about something else when they showed her?

You're totally right on the camera operators, though. It cracks me up when you see a football game and a pretty girl, then a 300 pound shirtless man in 40 degree weather.

I disagree on the eye candy comment, though. Heck, 90% of the game is beefed up men running around in tight pants, no?

[Jim3k]

The camera kept going to her first, definitely. Maybe Musberger has some influence over that (I think it's the director instead, and Musberger just reacts). I suppose he could have just talked about something else when they showed her?

You're totally right on the camera operators, though. It cracks me up when you see a football game and a pretty girl, then a 300 pound shirtless man in 40 degree weather.

I disagree on the eye candy comment, though. Heck, 90% of the game is beefed up men running around in tight pants, no?

I said earlier that TV is to blame. Here's the (probable) proof: It's the director who tells the cameramen where to shoot. The camera operator doesn't do it on his own. While they're focusing, the director will tell the on-air talent (Musberger, here) about the upcoming shot. He will also provide any information about the subject of the shot, all via the earpiece. Frequently, the director or the producers in the truck will tell the talent who the subject is, what the subject's game-connected story is. Then the talent will comment within the network guidelines. That's all Musberger did.

Furthermore, Musberger's comment about quarterbacks getting the the beautiful girls was made to sidekick Kirk Herbstreit--who was a quarterback at Ohio State and who, as Musberger well knew, is married married to a former tOSU cheerleader--who is a beauty herself, thus supporting Musberger's point. [Links are available, but why? A bit intrusive, IMO.]

[lotusland]

I said earlier that TV is to blame. Here's the (probable) proof: It's the director who tells the cameramen where to shoot. The camera operator doesn't do it on his own. While they're focusing, the director will tell the on-air talent (Musberger, here) about the upcoming shot. He will also provide any information about the subject of the shot, all via the earpiece. Frequently, the director or the producers in the truck will tell the talent who the subject is, what the subject's game-connected story is. Then the talent will comment within the network guidelines. That's all Musberger did.

Furthermore, Musberger's comment about quarterbacks getting the the beautiful girls was made to sidekick Kirk Herbstreit--who was a quarterback at Ohio State and who, as Musberger well knew, is married married to a former tOSU cheerleader--who is a beauty herself, thus supporting Musberger's point. [Links are available, but why? A bit intrusive, IMO.]

I think you might be confused about who the talent is in this scenario:D Oops now I've made a comment that was disrespectful towards women - Please except my sincerest apologies.

[TruBlu]

First, I feel badly that a thread which I started in jest may have led to some bad feelings among the Duke family on DBR.

I would also like to second Bob's post. While my opinions sometimes differ with Mike's, I also think that Mike is one of the best posters and find his posts thoughtful and insightful. Keep up the good work, Mike.

Lastly, let's get back to something I think we can all agree on: GTHC

[Mike Corey]

I don't doubt that it might do this but then so will tons of other things. You could apply this argument to commercials and ads showing attractive women with men or as some type of prize. Why do they just show attractive women almost any time they pan to the crowd?

I just think this stuff is all around us and to ding Musberger for coming out and saying what most of us were thinking, seems unfair. If that is the only time kids come in contact with this idea of women being a prize, I'm not sure how it will take root in a kid. It would seem they need constant conditioning for this type of thing to implement itself.

And on top of this, this coincidence of the star QB getting the attractive women seems to happen quite a lot. Just look at Tebow, Ponder, Leinart (in the hot tub), Romo, Brady, Sanchez, Stafford, Tannehill, Cutler, Brady Quinn.... I can't really blame Musberger for saying something that is on most of our minds.

The point that many have made that this is indication of something rather common--woman as prize--is surely a good point. That is no reason not to object to it, however, upon its occurrence.

The problem isn't in acknowledging that she's beautiful--she objectively is. The problem is in what Musburger, and our culture, does after that observation.

Is Musburger getting picked on across the media because of his age? In part, absolutely. I don't think my objections are relevant to his age, however.

It's not about women and men that are successful and good-looking coming together. That is, surely, frequent. To me, this is about the assumption that a good-looking woman has a natural place: in the arms of a successful man. That was the implication of Musburger's statement to me. Is it an uncommon one? Certainly not; but here's an opportunity to discuss it.

[Matches]

But this is part of a larger pattern of objectifying women and reducing their worth to their physical beauty alone. Denying this attitude exists is as silly as denying that physical appearance influences peoples' judgment. This is where empathy and intellect should come to play.

I think that objectifying women (or men, for that matter) is not the same thing as reducing their worth to physical beauty alone. Objectification is a natural and not unhealthy part of sexual attraction. It does not preclude also connecting with people or appreciating them on a level other than the purely physical.

Too often I think those two things get conflated with one another, which has the effect of treating superficial physical attraction as a sign of disrespect to the opposite sex. I don't think it is. Certainly it would not be healthy for someone to *only* be able to appreciate or connect with women in that way, but it's completely natural for that to be part of a person's makeup, especially in a situation like this where we're talking about a camera shot of a pretty girl in a crowd.

[gus]

I think that objectifying women (or men, for that matter) is not the same thing as reducing their worth to physical beauty alone. Objectification is a natural and not unhealthy part of sexual attraction. It does not preclude also connecting with people or appreciating them on a level other than the purely physical.

Too often I think those two things get conflated with one another, which has the effect of treating superficial physical attraction as a sign of disrespect to the opposite sex. I don't think it is. Certainly it would not be healthy for someone to *only* be able to appreciate or connect with women in that way, but it's completely natural for that to be part of a person's makeup, especially in a situation like this where we're talking about a camera shot of a pretty girl in a crowd.

Now we're getting into a semantic debate, which I love.

For the record, my use of "objectify" in this context is intended to preclude "connecting with people or appreciating them on a level other than the purely physical." I think that connation is well understood and pervasive. You can't define that away (but of course, you can argue that objectification doesn't truly exist or isn't prevalent.)

[cato]

Brent's comments were tame compared to what my buds were texting during the game. She entered and won a beauty contest so I think it's safe to say she is OK with guys noticing that she is fairly attractive for a beautiful young coed. I hope that I will still notice it when I'm 102.

Why do people still use the term coed? Do we really need to differentiate between those modern schools that accept women and those that don't?

[Matches]

Now we're getting into a semantic debate, which I love.

For the record, my use of "objectify" in this context is intended to preclude "connecting with people or appreciating them on a level other than the purely physical." I think that connation is well understood and pervasive. You can't define that away (but of course, you can argue that objectification doesn't truly exist or isn't prevalent.)

I don't see it as merely a semantic difference because, as I said, I think the way the term is often used has the effect of demonizing something that is pretty innocent. (I feel the same way about the term "misogyny", which often seems to be used interchangeably with "sexism".)

But with that said, you're using it however you're using it - there's really no arguing with that. Circling it back around, I don't think that anything Musberger said about Webb precludes him or anyone else from taking her seriously as a human being.

[sagegrouse]

That is, of course, a mere fraction of what Musburger said.



So this sends an antiquated message to both boys and girls. This may be acceptable in some quarters, but not on national television in 2013, as ESPN's apology demonstrates.

The message--which, quite frankly, is hardly veiled--is that women of suitable attractiveness are a prize for talented boys.

This message, echoed in reverse by Doris Burke, would be just as inappropriate. But of course, such would not happen; there aren't several decades of cultural inertia behind it to support the "boys will be boys" justification for it.

Sure, she's attractive. But the relationship and her place was immediately and nationally objectified into superficiality: it's not about anything other than getting a beautiful woman. And while some corners of psychology might suggest that is truly the driver of men, I'd suggest that's not the kind of serious conversation Musburger was attempting to spark.

That she's capitalizing on the attention is irrelevant to the grander point about how we as a culture continue to approach men and women.



First, I feel badly that a thread which I started in jest may have led to some bad feelings among the Duke family on DBR.

I would also like to second Bob's post. While my opinions sometimes differ with Mike's, I also think that Mike is one of the best posters and find his posts thoughtful and insightful. Keep up the good work, Mike.

Lastly, let's get back to something I think we can all agree on: GTHC

A couple of observations.

First, I believe it is still OK for a young man to try to win the hand of the fairest maiden in the land. It is even OK, even if tittered at, for the young man to head off on a white charger to accomplish same. And if someone wants to make a link between the QB and the guy on the white horse -- fine with me. It is also OK to tell women they are "beautiful" in the appropriate setting (e.g. NOT in a professional context).

Second, Mussberger's initial comment was fine, but it went on way too long and he apologized. And in this way I agree with Mike C. - it was a bit excruciating. Actually, it was the director in the truck controlling the shots, so he was trapped, but he's a pro and he should have figured out a way out of it. And, as others have noted, the game was a stinker, and the crew was doing everything possible to retain viewers.

sagegrouse

[Mal]

Furthermore, Musberger's comment about quarterbacks getting the the beautiful girls was made to sidekick Kirk Herbstreit--who was a quarterback at Ohio State and who, as Musberger well knew, is married married to a former tOSU cheerleader--who is a beauty herself, thus supporting Musberger's point. [Links are available, but why? A bit intrusive, IMO.]

Great point. In my denseness, I had completed missed this angle, but I would put money on this being the sole critical factor in Musberger's misjudgment. As anyone who watched the Buckeyes play at Cameron back in November will recall, Herbstreit's wife is a very attractive woman, and it's well known that she was a cheerleader at The State University of Ohio (that's my petty way of mocking the whole "The" OSU thing). Brent has forever been downright pathological about ingratiating himself to his color analysts, and making a friendly jab at Herbstreit while at the same time reminding an audience of 50 million that his co-host is a very successful former athlete with a beauty by his side was meant to be simultaneously funny and bootlicking.

[SoCalDukeFan]

3111

This gal is married to Ryan Kalil, an offensive lineman.

BTW I am not a big fan of Brett at all. I think he was having fun with Herbstreit on the QB thing and stating the obvious on her looks. However I think he made the point too many times.

SoCal

[Mike Corey]

The last time Musburger ogled someone on air, the subject created a little career out of it:


http://youtu.be/3Pj2zV5FdYU

[BlueDevilinNYC]

Musburger ended last night's Kansas/Baylor broadcast (his first back since the BCS NC game) by calling Holly Rowe "really smokin'" in his sign off.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/01/15/brent-musburger-holly-rowe-smokin-tonight/1835159/

I'm almost positive he did this on purpose (see the emphasis on REALLY SMOKIN'). If this is the case (and if Holly Rowe was on board with the whole thing) I say good for him. Poke a little fun at the whole situation.

[JasonEvans]

Musburger ended last night's Kansas/Baylor broadcast (his first back since the BCS NC game) by calling Holly Rowe "really smokin'" in his sign off.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/01/15/brent-musburger-holly-rowe-smokin-tonight/1835159/

I'm almost positive he did this on purpose (see the emphasis on REALLY SMOKIN'). If this is the case (and if Holly Rowe was on board with the whole thing) I say good for him. Poke a little fun at the whole situation.

ESPN says Brent actually said, "It was really smokin' tonight." If you listen to the audio again, it seems he was talking about the game being "really smokin'" not Holly Rowe.

-Jason "I doubt Brent cares. If he got fired today, I am sure he would still have many millions to drown his tears in" Evans

[Mike Corey]

Just as an update of sorts, Ms. Webb appears (http://swimdaily.si.com/2013/02/11/caught-in-the-webb/)in the latest iteration of SI's swimsuit issue.

[throatybeard]

What's up with the hybrid Auburn/Alabama jersey?

[DukieInKansas]

What's up with the hybrid Auburn/Alabama jersey?

Probably because she went to the one and boyfriend went to the other.

[Jarhead]

What's up with the hybrid Auburn/Alabama jersey?

I didn't notice a jersey.

[throatybeard]

If there's a time to make this observation, it's probably now. The magazine came in my mail yesterday. There is not one iota of the cover shot of Kate Upton that looks like what nature made.

[TruBlu]

If there's a time to make this observation, it's probably now. The magazine came in my mail yesterday. There is not one iota of the cover shot of Kate Upton that looks like what nature made.

Well, here are some other things that are not "nature made": beer, pizza, chocolate chip cookies (just to name a few). Somehow, I manage to enjoy them anyway.