First and foremost, please forgive me for the pun in the title.  I'm already ashamed of it.

Shortly after the NFL season wrapped up, a story broke about Kirk Cousins and his true character.  On the day before the Super Bowl, Cousins was captaining a team of flag football players playing against a team being led by Doug Flutie.  The game was a charity game:  the players and the officials were all there out of the goodness of their hearts.

Towards the end of the game, an incident occurred where Cousins thought that one of the officials missed a penalty, namely that an opponent on Team Flutie swatted the ball away from the official spotting the ball, causing a delay in the game and running time off the clock for Cousins to lead his team to try to make up the five point deficit they held at that time.  When the official did not throw the flag, Cousins shoved the official...with no remorse.

By the way, Cousins' team still ended up losing.

The official who had been shoved reported that the reason he didn't throw the flag was because the officials were already assessing another penalty against Team Flutie, so Cousins and his team would have received extra time anyway (the same amount that they would have received had the ball not been swatted away).

Then again, this is the same guy who played harder than everyone else at the Pro Bowl, especially after he threw an interception.

Maybe Cousins should try and win a playoff game before he throws his next tantrum.

February 2 is Groundhog's Day, and it may be a pretty dumb holiday.  In fact, there are a lot of dumb holidays on our calendar...New Year's Eve/Day comes to mind.

But February 1 is actually an even dumber day in America  It's National Signing Day.

This is the day when all the star high school football players reveal which colleges they will attend in order to further their career as a football player.  High school kids have "reveal" events that they post on social media; they have press conferences; they basically are thrown into the spotlight with a production that is about as mature as trying to figure out the most unique way to ask a girl to the prom.

Someone is going to have to explain to me why we need this in our society.

I have constantly ripped those who use the exploitation of youth sports to further their goals.  I've been critical of events like the Little League World Series and why it needs to be broadcast nationally on ESPN.  This is just another example of the unnecessary junk we broadcast...and America eats it up.

It's bad enough that we are harming our youth and forcing them into adulthood with the big reveal of where they sign their letter of intent.  Their egos have already ballooned to the size of Montana.  They miss out on some of the joys of childhood and teenage years before adulthood hits them in the face with a biggest dose of reality they've experienced.  And as a culture, we can't get enough of everything related to college sports.  We are now dipping into high school sports on a national level and watching kids who may not even be legal adults yet commit to joining the college team to which we might pledge our allegiance.

Before you know it, we will be celebrating where 8th grade kids decide to go to high school...and then we'll be celebrating 6th grade kids deciding which sports they want to play...and then we'll be celebrating toddlers as they announce which elementary school they will attend...and then we'll be analyzing the decision of parents to conceive a child...and then we'll be dissecting whether or not two people in a marriage will work...

But with all that garbage being such a strong focus, National Signing Day also has one additional unique aspect to it that creates such a false sense of reality that it's time to burst the bubble.  The kids who are destined to go to college to play football, as well as their families and friends, are encompassed in a fake reality that this one special person who is announcing his collegiate intent will be the savior they all need to escape the doldrums of the average middle-class life.  It's as if their lives were nothing at all until they found this potential celebrity they could worship and pray that he returns with millions of dollars to divide among everyone in his entourage.  Both the kid and all around him use it as a day to bask in the glory of their opportunity to show the world that it's their turn to get a moment in the sun.  The ideas of personal responsibility and controlling your own destiny have become forgotten in the wake six degrees of separation from a kid who isn't even a celebrity...yet.

No wonder our culture is so messed up.

Youth football is about to look a lot different.

USA Football, the governing body of youth football, announced changes to the game of football for youth so that it might be safer to play.  It will be closer to flag football with rules such as only six to nine players on the field per team at a time instead of eleven.  Other rules include shrinking the field, eliminating kickoffs and punts, and eliminating the three-point stance of linemen.

The reasoning behind these changes is due to the drop in participation in youth football.  It's no surprise that enrollment in youth football programs is down due to safety concerns now that concussion awareness has become widespread.  So how does the sport rebound?

Well, the answer is the same as it is generally in a capitalist market if you want to people to buy your product:  give the people what they want.

On the surface, making the game safer is a no-brainer (no pun intended).  Why would anyone argue over safety concerns for children?  Well, traditionalists would argue...but these are probably some of the same people who would argue against the use of helmets in any sport that requires them.

See, the argument is always about safety versus when we begin to train our youth to be "soft."  We keep changing so much in the world because people are sensitive to everything these days.  It becomes less of a discussion about what will truly be best for our kids and more a political discussion with personal agendas and psychological overtones.

But whereas that argument has its place, football has so much baggage attached to it regarding the new medical evidence regarding concussions and long-term damage to the human brain that reverting back to the side of "don't teach our kids to be wimps" demonstrates nothing more than plain ignorance.

Some experts are predicting that, based on all the evidence coming out about how harmful football actually is to the human brain, the sport will cease to exist within the next twenty years.  And if you consider the barbaric origins of the game and the aspects that remain in its current state, maybe that's not a bad thing.  Football is entertaining, but the sport has evolved to the point where it is the modern day equivalent of the emperor watching the gladiators fight to the death purely for entertainment.

The bottom line is that football is arguably the most dangerous team sport played in America.  If our youth want to play it, they should play it in a manner that does not jeopardize their future.  Every other sport has the potential for significantly different rules at the youth level for protection, so why can't football?

This is one of the few times where the argument is clear cut.  If you're still hiding behind displeasure of your kid being "soft" if he plays by these rules, then you're simply ignorant to the reality of head trauma.

While sitting at one of my favorite pizza places having a sandwich (which is ironic in itself), I was watching a soccer game on the television that was mounted in the corner of the restaurant.  My friends behind the counter were invested in this game taking place in Europe, which is no surprise since soccer (or football, as it is more popularly known throughout the rest of the world) is one of the most universal games we have.

I noticed something interesting, though.  The crowd at this game was singing in unison while the match was going on...and they didn't stop.  It reminded me of a college football game, where sections of underage drunk students would constantly be making obnoxious noise in their attempt to will their team to victory.  Thus, it also reminded me of the traditions we hold in American football (the NFL), such as the deafening crowd noise that arises when the visiting team is on offense, in an attempt to influence the outcome of the game by not allowing the offensive players to communicate.

As a steward of the game of baseball, I always viewed this as unsportsmanlike.  No matter my role with the game of baseball (be it player, coach, or fan...because umpire is slightly different in this context), my enjoyment of the game came from watching it unfold and participating in the role I had.  If I was a player, I was never the cheerleading leader of my team; I focused on what my job was depending on where the ball was hit, or what I needed to do during my turn at-bat.  If I was a coach or manager, I was thinking strategy and when it was time to remove my pitcher for a fresh arm.  If I was a fan, I was trying to see if my thought process was aligned with the players and coaches of teams I was watching (and obviously rooting for the Yankees).  I was never trying to be the loud and obnoxious fan that was attempting to influence the game.

In fairness, however, baseball in America does have one accepted custom that has found unanimously in stadiums.  When the home pitcher gets two strikes on the opposing batter, usually the fans will stand and cheer to encourage the strikeout.  This was started by Yankees fans during the dominance of Ron Guidry and his record number of strikeouts.  And I will admit that I find myself falling in place with this custom, usually when there are two strikes and two outs in the ninth inning and we're one pitch away from winning the game.

This and the singing at a soccer match got me thinking about the different customs at sporting events throughout the world, and it led to a broad examination as to what is culturally accepted as well as a debate as to whether the cultural acceptance is actually a morally good thing.

If we stick with baseball, most of the cheering (or other fan reactions) will occur when a play is not occurring or a pitch is not being made.  Fans cheer after a player gets a hit or after a pitcher records a strikeout.  The cheering that occurs when a batter has two strikes on him doesn't have the exact same effect as the equivalent might in another sport because it is still up to the pitcher to execute that final pitch.  Fans can cheer all the want, but if the pitcher grooves a fastball, a big league hitter will still turn on it and drive it 400 feet.  Further, keep in mind that baseball is a game of failure.  The best hitters in history failed seven out of every ten times at the plate.  So when a batter has two strikes on him, the probability of him failing is already incredibly high; the cheering of the crowd "against" him really doesn't push the needle one way or the other.

Ironically, if we examine baseball in other cultures, we will find behavior that might seem unsportsmanlike, but is really traditional to the native land.  For example, in Japan, each hitter has his own march that is played/chanted by fans during his turn at bat.  This actually will include the use of trumpets and other instruments that might otherwise be seen as distracting.  Yet, this is merely to encourage the home team's hitters, especially when the odds are against them (as they are against every hitter).  So long as each march is played in accordance with the traditional rules of encouraging a hitter, it seems like this is also acceptable and not immoral in the grand scheme of fandom.  (Latin American cultures have very similar practices, as well.)

While we're on the subject of foreign sports, let's go back to soccer (or football) as it relates to the rest of the world.  The fans at these events participate in same type of behavior:  any sort of singing, chanting, or performing is not done in an attempt to influence the outcome of the game, but rather to encourage the home team.  It also creates a sense of unity among fans, which is greatly valued in non-American cultures among sports fans.  So the constant annoying sound of the vuvuzela that is heard at a Spanish soccer game is welcome, no matter how much it makes you want to rip your ears off.

Similarly, soccer (or football...I feel like I have to keep saying it) is such an aerobic sport that the play never stops, even when the ball goes out of bounds.  Players are so focused that the sound of the crowd rarely affects them, much the same as in baseball.  What's very interesting is that both of these sports have such international appeal while also having such intrinsic beauty to the way they are played that it's no wonder their popularity continues to maintain a strong presence in the international community.  These two sports are so different, yet they have more in common than you might think.

Speaking of aerobic sports, let's consider basketball and hockey.  One of the biggest differences between these two sports and a sport such as baseball is the use of the PA system during play.  In baseball, sound effects, music, and other similar things occur when action is not happening, such as in between pitches or in between innings.  In basketball and hockey, sometimes the use of the arena's organ occurs while play is live.  A basketball player may inbound the ball, and the organist might play something small and simple while the ball is being brought up the court.  Gil Imber, the organist for the Anaheim Ducks, might play something while the puck is being secured in the Ducks' defensive zone and about ready to be brought out to mid-ice.  So long as the PA system is not specifically being used to distract the players, there's no fault in using it to create atmosphere.

Fans at these events usually don't try to influence a game with the exception of the distraction of a player during free throws in basketball.  It has become commonplace for the fans sitting directly behind the basket to attempt to distract an opposing player from making the foul shots he/she gets after being fouled.  This is one of customs in fandom that doesn't serve a purpose because it may actually have an effect on the game.  A basketball player's ability to shoot free throws should be determined by his athletic skill level, not on the ability of fans to distract him/her.  We finally have our first example of poor sportsmanship in our discussion!

Let's consider sports such as tennis or golf.  These are sports where silence is required while players play.  It is curious to wonder if this is due to the high level of skill required to play either sport, or if this was some sort of "gentleman's agreement" that has been passed down through the ages.  Perhaps it is a combination of both, but it begs the interesting question of whether other sports might benefit from this in certain fashions.

Although we could examine plenty of sports, let's end with the re-examination of American football.  Fans clearly believe their crowd noise influences the outcome of a game.  Players believe it too.  In fact, teams have been known to give themselves strategic advantages (both legal and illegal) regarding noise in order to gain a home-field advantage.  Some teams have illegally used fake crowd noise over the PA system to make it even more difficult for the opponents to communicate.  The Minnesota Vikings have made it known that their new stadium is built in such a way that the acoustics of the building take the sound and reflect it directly into the opponent's sideline, as if a wave of sound was massively dumped on them.  Why is this so important?

What's really funny about this is that football is very much like basketball and hockey in that the better teams usually find ways to "muscle" their way to victory.  The execution of team skill doesn't always play out the same way, as opposed to a sport like baseball.  (And that's not to mention that baseball is the only sport without a clock...you can't "take a knee" in baseball to run out the clock like you can in football:  you have to get all 27 outs.)  Yet, even though the better teams usually win in football, teams and fans alike feel drawn to using outside factors such as crowd noise to influence the outcome of the game.

This phenomenon has one good conclusion and one bad conclusion.

The good conclusion is that these practices bring fans together and unite them with the team.  The nature of fandom is to feel like you, the fan, are part of the team and share equally in every experience.  The psychological idea of being associated with the winner is what sports marketing and management uses to create campaigns that increase revenue left and right.  Yet, fans eat it up because it gives them a larger cause or movement that unites them.  American football is almost as powerful as any religion in the nation as such, which is ironic since it's played on Sunday.

The bad conclusion (and I would argue more important) is that the desire to influence the game as such by fans and with the endorsement of the franchise shows a severe character flaw in the psyche of the team as a whole.  It's as if the team is not confident enough in its ability to out-perform the opponent, so they must use any means necessary to achieve victory.  Perhaps fans get a pass on this since they don't know any better; it's so easy to be drawn in by the association with your team and your fandom that considering this psychological issue is not even on the radar of most astute fans.  But when players encourage fans to support them, or, more importantly, when teams (especially the front office or any of the off-field personnel) encourage this type of behavior with the acoustic design of a stadium or the graphics that get shown on video boards encouraging fans to become boisterous, it makes this writer step back and ask that age old question that has yet to be answered:  "Why?"

As a post script note, I ask this follow-up question.  Is this the first catalyst into the stereotype of football players being below average when it comes to intelligence?  Does this feed into societal norm that only people who aren't smart can play football?  The range of questions that can rise from this is infinite, and the proverbial rabbit hole is so deep that it may never end.

Last week, we discussed the comments made last month during the NCAA FCS Championship Game by Alabama.  This week, we're going to piggyback on that and look at the junk that happened during the Divisional round of the NFL playoffs.

Let's start with players mouthing off so that it mimics what happened with Alabama.  Kansas City Chiefs Tight End Travis Kelce went on a rant using expletives to explain how referee Carl Cheffers (who was hours away from probably being named the referee of the Super Bowl) shouldn't even be allowed to work at Foot Locker due to a possible missed holding penalty.  Kelce, however, seemed to forget a ton of things before opening his dumb mouth, such as:

• Kelce had an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in the game that was the epitome of athletes who are actually big babies.
• Kelce had been ejected earlier this year from a game (which is not easy to do) for unsportsmanlike conduct directed at an official.
• As previously stated, the league thinks enough of Cheffers to assign him to officiate the Super Bowl, so he must be doing something right and probably doesn't need a side job at Foot Locker.

Similarly, Seattle Seahawks Defensive End Michael Bennett went on his own expletive-filled rant directed at a reporter following the Seahawks' loss to Atlanta the day prior.  The Seahawks' Earl Thomas, meanwhile, went on a rant about how New England Patriots' Quarterback Tom Brady has it so easy each year and suggested Brady wouldn't survive if they were in the same division as Seattle.  Thomas, you might recall, didn't even play in the playoff game (which wasn't even against New England as noted, but against Atlanta) while he recovered from a nasty leg injury from earlier in the season.

The Atlanta Falcons were no saints either, however.  Immediately following their victory over Seattle, Atlanta set up an event page on Facebook for their game the following week in the NFC Championship Game.  The problem?  Atlanta played Saturday; Green Bay and Dallas (whose winner would face Atlanta) didn't play until Sunday; the event was up Saturday evening.  Atlanta posted the event as their game against Green Bay in Atlanta.  (Atlanta would host Green Bay since they were the higher seed; however, had Dallas won, Atlanta would have had to travel to Dallas for the game.)  The mistake was quickly pointed out as a trolling incident meant to aggravate the Dallas community and was quickly changed to just a generic game against an unspecified opponent.  However, the location was not changed; it stayed in Atlanta, which obviously inferred it would still be against Green Bay.

Finally, following Dallas' loss to Green Bay (as if it were scripted and Atlanta was leaking spoilers), a camera captured a fight inside the stadium that featured a Green Bay fan on the ground being attacked by a Dallas fan who simply couldn't handle the fact that the home team lost.  To make matters worse, a tornado watch had been issued outside the stadium, requiring people who were still at the stadium to remain inside and take shelter.  The thought of safety to protect human life clearly did not occur to the fan or fans who decided to provoke this idiotic display of fandom.

As a bonus story, a video was immediately posted following Dallas' loss of a Cowboys fan destroying his giant flat-screen television over his team's loss.  It was reminiscent of the same type of incident that followed the Seahawks' loss to the Patriots in the Super Bowl a few years prior when the game was all but won by Seattle, only to have one dumb decision in calling a pass play allow New England steal the game in the final seconds.

Oh, one other one...Mike Trout is arguably one of the best players in Major League Baseball.  He grew up in southern New Jersey and is a major fan of the Philadelphia Eagles.  What did he Tweet out when the Cowboys lost?

HOW BOUT THEM COWBOYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even our best role models can't keep the poor sportsmanship at bay.

So what did we learn today?  If you're a professional athlete, shut up.  If you're a fan, shut up.  If you're an employee of a team, shut up.  And stop destroying televisions that some of us would love to have in our homes!