Well, Tony Dungy stepped in it. Of course nowaday's you can step in it at any moment, without ever realizing that there was an "it" there to begin with.
Dungy was asked a simple question: would you have drafted Michael Sam? He said no. The reason? Because there was going to be a lot of distraction surrounding him as a player.
Let's consider what he's saying. Every NFL organization drafts players based on, at least, this very simplistic formula:
TALENT + MISCELLANY = NET GAIN TO THE TEAM
Talent is the first item to consider. How good is this player? How good will they ultimately be? On a purely football level, is this player going to make a significant contribution to the team?
Miscellany (almost certainly not the term used by NFL Execs) is an extremely broad category that includes, but is not limited to, personality type, religious beliefs, and general off-the-field elements that might be a distraction. One distraction might be excessive media attention for something unrelated to the actual game of football.
Talent, plus miscellany, equals net gain. So an extremely talented player, for example, has a high gross margin that allows themself the ability to be quite distracting off the field. Most teams are going to deal with it because, at the end of the day, the net gain to the team is still in the positive. A player that is only marginally talented, however, may want to keep his nose clean so that they can be judged solely based on their talent as a football player.
I'm convinced that Tim Tebow probably doesn't have a job in the NFL because of the fact that his talent level couldn't overcome the unbelievable media circus that followed him around. Was "Tebow-mania" a distraction to, say, Mark Sanchez when Tebow was on the Jets? It sure looked like it. As a result, the net gain of adding Tebow to the roster was actually a negative. Other teams took notice, and it almost certainly played a roll in his inability to get a spot on anyone's roster, even if, at the end of the day, he had the talent for one of those roster spots. His talent, alone, may have gotten him a back-up spot somewhere. But the teams didn't want the distraction of all that came with Tim Tebow.
One response to this is to say that the NFL is bigotted and discriminatory towards Christians. That is, after all, the reason that Tebow got so much attention. He was an outspoken Evangelical in a day and age when most Evangelicals feel like they should just keep their mouths shut. The Evangelicals like having someone they can look up to that speaks their language. And maybe it's true. Maybe the NFL is discriminatory towards Christians. But I doubt it. The NFL likes whoever brings in the most cash, and the quickest way to more cash is to have players who make your team better.
A far better response, then, is to simply understand that most NFL teams decided that there was no net-gain to adding Tebow to the roster. Talent alone? Maybe. But add in the media circus and the crazed fans calling for the coach to put him in everytime your starting quarterback bobbles a snap and you end up with not a net gain, but a net loss. No NFL owner wants that. So they decided to pass, almost exclusively based on the fact that Tebow comes with a boat-load of distraction that his talent level doesn't justify. It just so happens that the distraction level is a result of his religious faith.
Let's move on to Michael Sam. Dungy said he wouldn't have drafted him because of the distractions, and then clarified to say that it was, in essence, because the distractions weren't justified by his level of talent. That is to say that the unfortunate truth for Michael Sam is that by being the "first" anything, you receive a lot more media attention than you probably want, and based solely the standard of your talent, more than you deserve.
Does Michael Sam deserve a shot at playing? No question. If anyone discriminated against him based solely on the fact that he was gay, they would be a bigot, as would any team who discriminated against Tebow based solely on the fact that he was a Christian. I just don't think anyone did that.
But then, that's not really the issue.
The real reason that Tony Dungy is coming under fire is that basically, he admitted that he doesn't think that homosexual rights take priority over the game of football, or at very least, something he personally does not prioritize over the game of football. What culture wants from everyone, including NFL coaches, is to recognize that the rights of the homosexual person are more important than anything else, including religious conviction, or in this case, wins (or perhaps more shrewdly, money). In other words, who cares whether it's a net gain or a net loss for your team? This is bigger than football. Isn't it a net gain for all of us?
(Remember what Dungy said..."things will happen". What if Sam doesn't get a spot on the roster, or if he never plays? Is the Ram's organization run by bigots? Or would it be okay to make a "football decision" then, even if it means that the first openly gay player drafted into the NFL doesn't become the first openly gay player to play in the NFL?)
That's why Dungy stepped in it, even though his comments were basically benign. Culture believes that sexual preference is more important than wins for a football team, locker room comfort, or money. Dungy says he, as a coach, was more interested in what was best for the football team (which, of course, is exactly what he was paid to do as an NFL coach.)
I know it's hard to separate the cause of the distraction from the distraction itself, but I hope we can. It's not Tebow's fault that the media hyped his evangelicalism. It's not Sam's fault that he's receiving the hype for his sexuality. Unfortunately for both of them, that type of distraction works against you when you're not one of the supremely talented dudes your organization is willing to put up with because you might single-handedly win them some football games. Maybe Sam & Tebow should get together for lunch. I'm sure they could commiserate.
Good for the Rams for following their convictions and deciding that even if Sam was a net loss for their organization in terms of football, it was worth the loss in order to give him a shot. I just don't think we should demonize a coach for saying that he probably wouldn't have been willing to do that.