papazoid Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 The Cleveland Browns will honor patients, survivors & families during their nationally televised game on Oct. 3. BEREA, Ohio -- The Cleveland Browns will celebrate National Breast Cancer Awareness Month throughout October during the fifth consecutive year of the NFL’s and NFL Players Association’s “A Crucial Catch: Annual Screening Saves Lives” campaign, in partnership with the American Cancer Society, the team announced. The Browns will host the NFL’s first official breast-cancer awareness game of 2013 under a national spotlight on Thursday, when Cleveland hosts the Buffalo Bills at FirstEnergy Stadium, broadcast across the country on the NFL Network and WKYC-TV locally. The game is presented by Cleveland Clinic. http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news/article-1/Browns-celebrate-National-Breast-Cancer-Awareness-Month/4995bc23-b644-4ac1-9511-e8c59c019d50 I know some think a "month" is a little to long, but it is a very effective campaign to raise "awareness". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Its wear as much pink as you can and floss it. It turns in to a game of one upmanship Worse off, this foundation ain't exactly that solid when it comes to being a true charity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Couldn't the NFL just take all that money it spends getting players outfitted with all the pink crap and just donate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I know a lot of people who feel the NFL does too much around this (including people who work for NFL teams) and ultimately they are just doing it to appease/ increase female fan base. I don't have an opinion either way - as long as it raises money for the cause. I do think the players really get into it though. Aaron Williams tweeted that he will be sporting a pink mohawk for the game tomorrow night. I would not be surprised if EJ represents somehow as well considering his mom had/has breast cancer. I am not sure of her current state, she was going through the treatments last year. He doesn't really talk about it. His dad has been at all the games, but I think his mom was maybe only at game 1. Anyway, the NFL really gets into it, and some complain that they ignore other charities, but since I work at a very large organization I know that you can't support everything as a corporation (at least not tho this extent) and we pick a few to really support and put out there. The NFL does United Way and this, and they do it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 You'd have to think EJ will be sporting a lot of pink swag this month given his mother's history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 You'd have to think EJ will be sporting a lot of pink swag this month given his mother's history. IIRC, didn't he wear a pink dress shirt to the draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Couldn't the NFL just take all that money it spends getting players outfitted with all the pink crap and just donate it? Good Idea !!! Makes a lot of sense !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Aaron Williams has colored his mohawk pink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 In recent years, the NFL has focused on supporting three main causes: fighting childhood obesity through NFL PLAY 60, battling breast cancer with A Crucial Catch and showing appreciation for our military with the Salute to Service campaign. The NFL also springs to action in times of crisis, working with the American Red Cross to raise money and to promote healing and rebuilding after national disasters like Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82054f96/article/a-letter-from-the-commissioner the NFL does not profit from the sale or auction of cancer awareness merchandise. http://www.nfl.com/pink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mousetrap08 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Good Idea !!! Makes a lot of sense !! The only uniforms that will match with that pink is those new sissy looking ones worn by the Dolphins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) I feel incredibly strong about this topic. Some teams will end up wearing pink for 5 out of their 16 games. It is the epitome of overkill. Years from now when people look back on NFL memorabilia from this era, nearly a 1/3 of the pictures will contain players wearing pink. It is utterly preposterous. 1 game would be PLENTY. And my aunt died from breast cancer. We're all aware of it by this point. How about an entire month where players wear brown to make people aware to get a colonoscopy to prevent colon cancer. I'm only half joking. I have Crohn's Disease and I need to get them every few years. They're not even a big deal and adults are supposed to get them every 7-10 years but many don't because they're afraid. See? This post just increased your awareness of colon cancer more than the stupid pink wrist bands are going to about the one cancer that everyone already knows about!!! Edited October 2, 2013 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Aaron Williams has colored his mohawk pink. Pics or it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Monkeyhead Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 They already have a cure. This is a pink money train that the passengers will never want to come to a stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This is a sport played by men only, how about a prostate cancer awareness month where everyone wears yellow? 1 of 6 men will get prostate cancer in their lifetime, yet it gets nowhere near the funding and attention it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This is a sport played by men only, how about a prostate cancer awareness month where everyone wears yellow? 1 of 6 men will get prostate cancer in their lifetime, yet it gets nowhere near the funding and attention it should. This is a good point. I think the "Pink" month is a marketing ploy to increase female fans. At least the money goes to a good cause. But your basic point is correct; prostate cancer awareness is largely ignored. College basketball does a good job drawing attention to it with Coaches v. Cancer, and Coach B from Syracuse is a big promoter of awareness, screening and research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This thread is on a one-way highway to PPP. But I can't resist: Overkill, yes. Suspect charity, yes (read articles on how money from "awareness" is actually spent and how effective that spending is). At the expense of more relevant afflictions that are just as lethal, yes. A campaign for the campaign's sake, you bet. Kind of lame, I think so. This is a good point. I think the "Pink" month is a marketing ploy to increase female fans. At least the money goes to a good cause. But your basic point is correct; prostate cancer awareness is largely ignored. College basketball does a good job drawing attention to it with Coaches v. Cancer, and Coach B from Syracuse is a big promoter of awareness, screening and research. The money doesn't go to a "good cause." Mostly because there's no correlation between screenings and effectively thwarting fatality. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-breast-cancer.html?pagewanted=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefenseWinzChampionshipz Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 September was Hispanic Heritage Month where they do the whole Fútbol Americano thing and I'm sorry, I know it's supposed to sound funny when the soccer announcer who yells Goooooooool says Touchdooooowwwwwn but, it sounds corny to me. And I'm all for the NFL showing support to Breast Cancer in October but wearing all that pink is something I'm not a big fan of grown men wearing. This year it will be 5 games played in pink. That's too much pink I'm sorry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 September was Hispanic Heritage Month where they do the whole Fútbol Americano thing and I'm sorry, I know it's supposed to sound funny when the soccer announcer who yells Goooooooool says Touchdooooowwwwwn but, it sounds corny to me. And I'm all for the NFL showing support to Breast Cancer in October but wearing all that pink is something I'm not a big fan of grown men wearing. This year it will be 5 games played in pink. That's too much pink I'm sorry... The pink does seem conveniently emasculating, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This thread is on a one-way highway to PPP. But I can't resist: Overkill, yes. Suspect charity, yes (read articles on how money from "awareness" is actually spent and how effective that spending is). At the expense of more relevant afflictions that are just as lethal, yes. A campaign for the campaign's sake, you bet. Kind of lame, I think so. The money doesn't go to a "good cause." Mostly because there's no correlation between screenings and effectively thwarting fatality. http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all That is a very interesting article that makes some good points, its main point that screening promotion is put ahead of funding an actual cure. However, the article is confusing in its tenor: great, if they find a cure but cut back on screening, those would could benefit from said cure may catch the cancer too late. I do agree that the screening component is over-emphasized, and that funds should be directed more toward finding a cure, but the article I believe unintentionally appears to dismiss the benefits of proper screening and counseling of the findings of the screening (i.e. if she did not need the first treatment, then the Dr. should have told her that we will "monitor" this). In all, the "Hispanic Heritage" month, the "Breast Cancer Awareness" month, and any other such "month" is simply a way for the NFL to market to audiences where they see growth potential. It's really annoying. And, as "The Big Cat" pointed out, the money generated from such awareness campaigns largely is wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 That is a very interesting article that makes some good points, its main point that screening promotion is put ahead of funding an actual cure. However, the article is confusing in its tenor: great, if they find a cure but cut back on screening, those would could benefit from said cure may catch the cancer too late. I do agree that the screening component is over-emphasized, and that funds should be directed more toward finding a cure, but the article I believe unintentionally appears to dismiss the benefits of proper screening and counseling of the findings of the screening (i.e. if she did not need the first treatment, then the Dr. should have told her that we will "monitor" this). All good points. But to dig a little deeper, the emphasis on pre-screens, the partnerships involved and the disproportionate payouts to otherwise frivolous expenses (not least of which is their MASSIVE marketing budget) makes it seem--as it seems WITHOUT knowing these things for certain--that the whole thing is a beast engineered to keep feeding...itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I'd rather see the NFL make more of a commitment to the http://septembeard.org/ organization, or to http://everyman-campaign.org/ rather than go all in for a month on wearing pink . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Aaron Williams taking it to a new level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Oh boy.....here we go again with another month of the he-men continuously whining about pink hats and gloves. Over/Under on the # of new threads started on this topic during October: 11.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Oh boy.....here we go again with another month of the he-men continuously whining about pink hats and gloves. Over/Under on the # of new threads started on this topic during October: 11.5 So you don't think any of the issues raised in this thread are legitimate criticisms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 So you don't think any of the issues raised in this thread are legitimate criticisms? Not really. People criticizing the NFL's choice of charitable contributions is laughable. I'd love to know how much each of the critics had in the Charitable Contributions box in Schedule A last year. And let's be honest, it wasn't for the pink crap no one would be making any such comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Not really. People criticizing the NFL's choice of charitable contributions is laughable. I'd love to know how much each of the critics had in the Charitable Contributions box in Schedule A last year. And let's be honest, it wasn't for the pink crap no one would be making any such comments. Well, when there are other relevant charities out there for causes just as worthy, for afflictions that impact the breadth of the fan base already, how can you not question whether the motive behind promoting THIS charity with such magnitude is more about breaching a new viewer market?? That seems like a very fair criticism to me. Cynical as hell, but so criticisms tend to go. And why can't anyone have a negative opinion on the "pink crap?" What about that is invalid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This thread is on a one-way highway to PPP. But I can't resist: Overkill, yes. Suspect charity, yes (read articles on how money from "awareness" is actually spent and how effective that spending is). At the expense of more relevant afflictions that are just as lethal, yes. A campaign for the campaign's sake, you bet. Kind of lame, I think so. The money doesn't go to a "good cause." Mostly because there's no correlation between screenings and effectively thwarting fatality. http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all Good article! Somewhere along the way, breast cancer awareness became an end in itself. As the article pointed out, breast cancer awareness represents an excellent opportunity for charities to raise a lot of money and scare a lot of women. It's also a good opportunity for companies to "pinkwash" their dirty deeds; or to market to women. If they were ever to find a cure for breast cancer, that whole gravy train would be eliminated. Maybe that's why only a tiny percentage of the money raised for breast cancer awareness is spent on finding cures. My understanding is also that most of the money spent on research goes towards varients of chemo/radiation; even though there may not be much untapped potential with such treatments. On the other hand, research into alternatives to chemo/radiation typically receives very little funding; even though this is where there's the most potential for progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Well, when there are other relevant charities out there for causes just as worthy, for afflictions that impact the breadth of the fan base already, how can you not question whether the motive behind promoting THIS charity with such magnitude is more about breaching a new viewer market?? That seems like a very fair criticism to me. Cynical as hell, but so criticisms tend to go. What's wrong with breaching a new market? Now operating a business intelligently is something to be criticized? Charitable contributions are not allowed to provide any possible residual benefit to the donor? That's news to me. And who are you to rank the worthiness of charities when you're talking about someone else's money being donated? Nothing in this conversation is more cynical than that. And why can't anyone have a negative opinion on the "pink crap?" What about that is invalid? You can have a negative opinion on the pink crap. It's juvenile and petty, but you're welcome to it. It also highlights a complete lack of understanding for how marketing and awareness raising in charities works, but that's ok too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Good article! Somewhere along the way, breast cancer awareness became an end in itself. As the article pointed out, breast cancer awareness represents an excellent opportunity for charities to raise a lot of money and scare a lot of women. It's also a good opportunity for companies to "pinkwash" their dirty deeds; or to market to women. If they were ever to find a cure for breast cancer, that whole gravy train would be eliminated. Maybe that's why only a tiny percentage of the money raised for breast cancer awareness is spent on finding cures. My understanding is also that most of the money spent on research goes towards varients of chemo/radiation; even though there may not be much untapped potential with such treatments. On the other hand, research into alternatives to chemo/radiation typically receives very little funding; even though this is where there's the most potential for progress. Excellent, though (again) extremely cynical point you made there. It's like McDonald's funding research connecting the correlations between sodium and heart disease/diabetes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Not really. People criticizing the NFL's choice of charitable contributions is laughable. I'd love to know how much each of the critics had in the Charitable Contributions box in Schedule A last year. And let's be honest, it wasn't for the pink crap no one would be making any such comments. So you would have no problem wearing pink to work for a quarter of your year- or 13 weeks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 What's wrong with breaching a new market? Now operating a business intelligently is something to be criticized? Charitable contributions are not allowed to provide any possible residual benefit to the donor? That's news to me. And who are you to rank the worthiness of charities when you're talking about someone else's money being donated? Nothing in this conversation is more cynicalthan that. You can have a negative opinion on the pink crap. It's juvenile and petty, but you're welcome to it. It also highlights a complete lack of understanding for how marketing and awareness raising in charities works, but that's ok too. Haha, okay. Well, let's back up for a second. Nobody said the NFL isn't entitled to new markets. But if that's their intent, it's an awfully exploitative means of achieving it. And believe it or not, I do understand that's the point. But the way you've framed it, if Comish Goddell were to fly to every stadium Sunday and look over each of the pre-game, trotted onto the field breast cancer survivors and say: thanks for all the new fans, ladies, nobody would/should be shocked. Right. THIS IS ABOUT THE CURE! they'd say. In fact, I'd go so far as to say (and I know you'll shame for speculating here. how dare I?) that if the NFL were to release a press statement even implying that new markets have been beneficial outcome for them in their partnership with breast cancer charities, said charities would fire back a statement right away saying how disappointed they were that an organization like the NFL would stoop so low as to use the opportunities created from the pain and suffering of women as a means to attract new fans. Hell, they might even pull the whole damn plug. But that's unlikely, because lest we ignore they benefits they get from the NFL. I also never qualified any charity as unworthy, rather with all things being equal, there are other charities just as worthy that get no recognition because they don't win new markets. And--just my opinion here--I think that's kinda ****ty. OPM, sure. But just to clarify, I donate to friends who do Movember. Not looking for props here, but don't imply that I'm just a spectator in the charity game. And again, I understand how marketing works, and how the "pink crap" factors in. If you were to read any of the criticisms here rather than dismiss them out of hand, you'd know that already it's been mentioned in this thread that this marketing campaign is precisely that. But it's one that gathers its fuel from a nerve that's pretty easy to prey upon: death and suffering. So, again. In this case, not a critique of breast cancer research or the lives it stands to impact, but rather a critique of an opportunistic money grab that's come to be characterized by a branding behemoth that's now turning people off: enough pink already. I think that's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) What's wrong with breaching a new market? Now operating a business intelligently is something to be criticized? Charitable contributions are not allowed to provide any possible residual benefit to the donor? That's news to me. And who are you to rank the worthiness of charities when you're talking about someone else's money being donated? Nothing in this conversation is more cynicalthan that. You can have a negative opinion on the pink crap. It's juvenile and petty, but you're welcome to it. It also highlights a complete lack of understanding for how marketing and awareness raising in charities works, but that's ok too. It's not new. That's the whole point. It's played out now. Everyone is aware of breast cancer. Call me He Man, GI Joe, I don't care but I grew up watching this game I love and I freaking hate that the players wear pink for a quarter of the games. I'm sure we could place you in the "I don't care if they wear pink with purple poka dots as long as the win" camp but clearly, not everyone feels that way. I like tradition. I do not like black third jerseys, I did not like the new nike collars and I certainly do not like the pink thing. Edited October 2, 2013 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 So you would have no problem wearing pink to work for a quarter of your year- or 13 weeks? No I would not, I have pink socks, shirts. No pink pants though. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 No I would not, I have pink socks, shirts. No pink pants though. . . . Yeah. So do I. But one quarter of my wardrobe is not pink. That was the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountDorkula Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Yeah. So do I. But one quarter of my wardrobe is not pink. That was the question. They wear pink one day a week for ~4 weeks. While yes a quarter of the season. Its 4 days. Which is a very small time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 They wear pink one day a week for ~4 weeks. While yes a quarter of the season. Its 4 days. Which is a very small time frame. Dude. Seriously? The Bills have a uniform. The Bills wear that uniform for less than 3/4 of their games. It's not that difficult of a concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 So you would have no problem wearing pink to work for a quarter of your year- or 13 weeks? If I had willingly signed a contract stating that I would wear the uniform provided by my employer, no. p.s. love your rationale of 4 weeks = 13 weeks because guys making millions of dollars for 4 months work only work....4 months. Dude. Seriously? The Bills have a uniform. The Bills wear that uniform for less than 3/4 of their games. It's not that difficult of a concept. And they have a uniform this month too, it just happens to have a little pink trim on it. That's a pretty silly arguement considering how often teams change their uniforms these days. It's not new. That's the whole point. It's played out now. Everyone is aware of breast cancer. Call me He Man, GI Joe, I don't care but I grew up watching this game I love and I freaking hate that the players wear pink for a quarter of the games. I'm sure we could place you in the "I don't care if they wear pink with purple poka dots as long as the win" camp but clearly, not everyone feels that way. I like tradition. I do not like black third jerseys, I did not like the new nike collars and I certainly do not like the pink thing. Here you go smart guy, see if you can manage to read this: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/survey-finds-challenges-in-breast-cancer-awareness/ 25% of women over 50 have never had a mamogram, 50% have never discussed it with a doctor and fewer are doing self exams than were doing it six years ago. Yeah, breast cancer is really all "played out". That a grown man would have this much of a problem with having to see the color pink on a TV screen that he would type something so ignorant is almost unfathomable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 My son's school uses pink for Breast Cancer Awareness and also uses pink for their anti-bullying campaign. As a result, one of his favorite colors is pink ... just for the meanings alone. The other day he expressed concern that if he wore one of those rubber wrist band things that said "PEACE," that people would judge him because it's pink. I told him if anyone judges you simply because of a color, then that person is a) insecure and b) doesn't deserve your time. As far as the NFL goes, the campaign makes money. The money goes toward saving people's lives. I'm not sure how anyone could have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) Haha, okay. Well, let's back up for a second. Nobody said the NFL isn't entitled to new markets. But if that's their intent, it's an awfully exploitative means of achieving it. And believe it or not, I do understand that's the point. But the way you've framed it, if Comish Goddell were to fly to every stadium Sunday and look over each of the pre-game, trotted onto the field breast cancer survivors and say: thanks for all the new fans, ladies, nobody would/should be shocked. Right. THIS IS ABOUT THE CURE! they'd say. In fact, I'd go so far as to say (and I know you'll shame for speculating here. how dare I?) that if the NFL were to release a press statement even implying that new markets have been beneficial outcome for them in their partnership with breast cancer charities, said charities would fire back a statement right away saying how disappointed they were that an organization like the NFL would stoop so low as to use the opportunities created from the pain and suffering of women as a means to attract new fans. Hell, they might even pull the whole damn plug. But that's unlikely, because lest we ignore they benefits they get from the NFL. I also never qualified any charity as unworthy, rather with all things being equal, there are other charities just as worthy that get no recognition because they don't win new markets. And--just my opinion here--I think that's kinda ****ty. OPM, sure. But just to clarify, I donate to friends who do Movember. Not looking for props here, but don't imply that I'm just a spectator in the charity game. And again, I understand how marketing works, and how the "pink crap" factors in. If you were to read any of the criticisms here rather than dismiss them out of hand, you'd know that already it's been mentioned in this thread that this marketing campaign is precisely that. But it's one that gathers its fuel from a nerve that's pretty easy to prey upon: death and suffering. So, again. In this case, not a critique of breast cancer research or the lives it stands to impact, but rather a critique of an opportunistic money grab that's come to be characterized by a branding behemoth that's now turning people off: enough pink already. I think that's fair. It's not exploitative in the least, it's an ancillary benefit. I'm sure there are more economical ways to connect with fans if that's their only goal. And of course the NFL isn't going to annouce that part of the reason they picked breast cancer as one of their charities is to help connect to a segment of the fan base, since some Peter King type douche would make it his new LAMP-de-jour (since 'creating scandal' is the primary goal of media these days). And as with any charity, slogans like 'It's about the cure' are just that --- slogans. There may never been a cure for cancer; in the meantime the idea is to detect it when it's early enough to stop it, which is a particularly good and useful strategy with breast cancer. And that's why they wear pink ribbons at the Walkathons and why the players wear *gasp* pink gloves for *gasp* four whole games. And I read the criticisms....from geniuses like metzelaars_lives. Waah, I have to look at the color pink and it upsets me because i'm such a lemming I let the world tell me that pink = girly. Yeah, that's deep stuff. Edited October 2, 2013 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) IIRC, didn't he wear a pink dress to the draft? And we drafted him?!?!? No wonder we've sucked so long. Edited October 2, 2013 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts