One thing that I have been following is the rise and decline of Eagles QB Michael Vick. It made me really mad when he got out of jail for dogfighting and every single analyst started saying how good ofa person he was now. There were many features done on Vick that described him as an angel that did charity events and spoke to children. Here's my take on it: He only "changed" for the money. At the height of the Michael Vick hype, he had earned 100 million dollars over a 7 year period. Analysts seem to forgive athletes when they start doing good and ignore them when they suck. When Vick startedplaying poorly, there were no features done on how he has changedas a person.

Also, while I am on the topic of forgiveness, athletes get way too many breaks compared to the rest of society. For example, wide receiver Donte Stallworrth killed a man while driving drunk, and only had to spend 30 days in jail. They typical citizen with regular attorneys and an average to little amount of money could have been in jail for at least 50 years. Everybody wanted to forgive Vick when he startedplaying well, but what if he had sucked from the beginning? Would these analysts have accepted him or ripped him to shreds like they did when he was arrested? I think that its ironic how these "expert" analysts want to analyze a person's life, instead of doing their job and analyzing the game only.