Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s argument, and Loyal Homer’s argument about whether or not Rush Limbaugh would make a good addition to the ownership ranks of the NFL.
Brendan Behan once said, “There is no such thing as bad publicity unless it is your own obituary.” Rush Limbaugh recently tried to test that theory by bringing his reputation for controversy and divisiveness into the forefront of NFL conversation.
Limbaugh’s undeniable ability to be an influential public figure (for better or for worse) would undoubtedly attract attention to the NFL. The inherent danger of that attention, though, is the potentially negative context surrounding it. For the NFL, the question really comes down to whether or not the risk of negative press is worth the potential reward of the publicity associated with Limbaugh.
In fairness to Limbaugh, professional sports organizations already have had their fair share of controversy. In baseball, former Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott had a reputation for making very controversial comments in the public, and (as pointed out by Sports Geek), Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has a reputation for bad press in the NBA. Would it be wise, though, for the NFL to WILLINGLY open themselves up to the possibility of scandal at the hands of Limbaugh?
In addressing that question, Sports Geek and Loyal Homer voiced their arguments, but it was Sports Geek who came out on top and won the debate.
The NFL executives, players, and owners made their opinions known, with many referring to Limbaugh as “Persona non Grata.” As pointed out by Sports Geek, that is a very strong message about the impact that Limbaugh would have on the league. Contrary to Loyal Homer’s argument, Limbaugh was in fact seeking controlling interest in the Rams. The bridges burned by Limbaugh over his career would most definitely create obstacles that would interfere with his ability to effectively lead one of the league’s franchises.
How does Limbaugh expect to effectively lead an NFL organization when so many influential people in the league – both on and off the field – seem unwilling to work with him? If players are rejecting the notion of playing under him, and owners are unwilling to support his bid for ownership, why should Limbaugh expect any less resistance once a team officially became his?
I completely agree with Loyal Homer’s assessment that the St. Louis Rams need a spark of some kind to re-ignite the winning ways that have long since left the Gateway City. Limbaugh is not the answer, though. While his political opinions and commentary may not directly impact the inner-workings of an NFL franchise, the public backlash and scrutiny from those comments could indirectly impact the organization. It is foolish to assume that public opinion for Limbaugh as a person would not spill over into the opinions of the franchise he would run. Look at Michael Vick’s situation. His history of dog-fighting has no impact at all on his ability to throw a football. However, the public perception of Vick in light of the dog-fighting scandal has changed. In the public eye, there would be no distinction between Rush Limbaugh the political commentator and Rush Limbaugh the NFL owner.
My message to Rush Limbaugh is – Do not quit your day job.
Posted by Bleacher Fan 
