ABOUT OPEN MIKE

Mike Celizic

MSNBC.com contributor Mike Celizic provides his unique slant as he takes an offbeat look into the world of sports beyond the box scores.



Hey, No Fun League -- let your hair down!

Posted: Saturday, March 29, 2008 9:34 AM

MEMO

TO: The No Fun League

FROM: The Hat Guy

RE: Hair

I understand that there are among you some people who won’t be happy until everybody in the NFL has a crew cut, is tattoo-free, is a faithful husband and devoted father, drinks nothing stronger than iced tea, and spends his free time working in soup kitchens, visiting sick kids in hospitals and autographing licensed NFL products for adoring fans.

As laudable as all of those things are, you’ve got to know when to quit with the behavior-control stuff. You already issue fines for having a droopy sock or an untucked jersey or for wearing an unapproved hat on the sidelines. Now you’re going to consider mandating hair length?

I know, I know. The rule change proposed by the Kansas City Chiefs – first in grooming, next-to-last in the AFC West – wouldn’t require that players cut their long hair. They would just have to tuck it under their helmets. How that would work isn’t exactly clear – a special hair chamber bulging out the back? But the Chiefs don’t want hair covering a players’ name, as if fans have a hard time recognizing Troy Polamalu when his hair is sprouting down the back of his jersey. That’s what they say.

I don’t buy it. This isn’t about names on jerseys and it’s not about safety. I’ve seen nothing anywhere suggesting that players can get hurt because they have long hair. Once in a while, one might get tackled that way, but if the player doesn’t mind, I don’t either. That means that the motivation behind this is some old fogey’s idea of what is “proper grooming.”

For reasons I will never comprehend, short hair is viewed in many quarters as a sign of moral character. It’s something of a military thing and also has corporate influences. You never saw Enron executives running around with hair hanging halfway down their backs, did you? And we all know what fine folk they were.

What makes the objection to long hair most curious is that it’s frequently the highly religious types who object most strenuously to long hair. Yet the Old Testament mandates beards and long hair, and the accepted image of Jesus is of a guy who the Kansas City Chiefs would not want to see on a football field.

I don’t mind the uniform rules – you let one guy get away with an untucked jersey and pretty soon you’ll have guys going out in pants that buckle around their knees ‘cuz it’s cool. But I also don’t mind people showing a little individuality. And expressing oneself through hair length is as harmless as that sort of thing gets.

Besides, the league should declare a moratorium on telling players how to dress until it brings a little class to the coaching staffs. This is a league that won’t allow a coach to wear a civilized suit and tie – and maybe a dapper-looking fedora – on the sidelines. But hoodies that look like they haven’t been washed since the Carter Administration with the sleeves torn ff are just fine. So are shorts that show off legs that should never be exposed in public – as long as they have the official sponsor’s logo on them.

Vince Lombardi wouldn’t have worn sweat pants on the sidelines. Neither would Tom Landry or Paul Brown or George Halas. They dressed up for games, and they looked sharp. Modern coaches don’t even dress well enough to be allowed on a golf course.

If the Chiefs want to clean up a mess on the sidelines, start with the way coaches dress. And stop being jealous of young guys who still have their hair and don’t mind showing it off.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I do not understand why it has to be "the religious types" that is at the top of all "you can't behave like that" list. I know many "religious types" that don't care one bit about hair length. I personally believe more in the corporate and military "thing" rather than religious. HOWEVER, to me, everyone seems to miss this point. Our kids.... they look up to our pro athletes. I do not care what the "experts" say, kids look up to pro athletes. All you have to do is raise your own kids to discover this revelation. My question, do you want your children running around with hair a quarter way down their back or tat's covering both arms to the degree that their skin can not breath? I am all for individuality but I also believe some people, as public figures, have a responsibility to the public.

Will Roper, Lakeland, Florida (Sent Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:21 PM)

I am not a religious fanatic, but I do like a clean look, I know it might sound petty, but you do have their name in the back for a reason. let them grow it as long as they want as long as their name can be seen. Please tell me what is wrong with looking clean at work, after your shift is done, go ahead and let your hair out.

David Maloney Portland, Oregon (Sent Saturday, March 29, 2008 2:57 PM)

Get a life Roper.  It's hair............

Zac, Spearfish, SD (Sent Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:39 PM)

Dear Mike
I think it would be more lame if they have a rule that prohibits road teams from celbrating in the middle of field at postgame.

Chioke Hassan,Baltimore,Md (Sent Saturday, March 29, 2008 8:53 PM)

Lighten up Will. Having long hair is not hurting anyone. My children can run around with long hair-hair is not indicitive of character. You are right about the "religous types" always being singled out-I guess they are easy targets-it is not "cool" to be a man of faith.

Daniel, N. Royalton, Oh. (Sent Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:00 PM)

Mr. Roper, children will not have hair growing down there backs or tats covering both arms unless the parents allow them to. I believe that public figures have a responsibility to the public, however we are responsible for raising our own children. We need to take some accountability and quit blaming society.

Eddie Whitehead, Charleston, WV (Sent Saturday, March 29, 2008 11:47 PM)

If I work for someone and they believe my individualism hurts the company they have every right to ask me to do whats right for the team or face the consequences.  The owners are the bosses not any one player and one players actions or inactions can destroy a corporate image to the point that it may never be overcome.  They don't have to cut their hair, just don't play in the NFL if their hair is that important.

T Kuta (Sent Saturday, March 29, 2008 11:54 PM)

This is still the United States and individual rights are important.  The league should stop the regulations at the 'uniform level' and not cross over to the players' bodies- those belong to the players and the players alone.  

The military has a very good reason for mandating short hair- personnel do not have access to proper showers for extended periods of time in the field.  For troop readiness they need to avoid lice, ticks, etc. from infecting soldiers and/or spreading through entire units.  Last I checked, the NFL still had showers for the players in every locker room in every stadium.

As for the 'It's for the children' argument, each parent must take the responsibility for raising their children.  If you find your child has a sports hero that has qualities you do not like, sit the child down and explain to them the what it is and why you do not like it.  In the end, when they are adults, they too will make their own choices.

Matt, Seattle, WA (Sent Sunday, March 30, 2008 9:24 AM)

<If the Chiefs want to clean up a mess on the sidelines, start with the way coaches dress.>

Actually, they should start with that DISASTER of a coaching staff and stop preaching / dictating what players wear and how they look. Concentrate on their training and mental health. Its a game, get off the soap box!    

Christian, Taipei Taiwan, via Dana Point (Sent Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:13 AM)

I hate to be an old fogey but players and people tend to get way ridiculous with fads.  You know its just a matter of time before the guys compete for who has the longest hair.  Unfortunately with the kinda cash they have to spend buying extensions and fake hair these guys will start looking like Rapunzel!!  You know they will.  They are highly competitive by nature and they will take it too far.  So I won't be a total old fogey how about the length be not longer than the players middle back.  So I guess I say "No" to the Hair Tuck rule.  Go Texans!!  Go Dolphins!!  Go Bears!!  Boo Colts, Patriots, Dallas and Raiders!!

Ronnie B, Houston, Texas (Sent Sunday, March 30, 2008 11:39 PM)

Cut the hair has nothing to do with "religious types", it has to do with the marketing of the game and the potential for injury.  I agree the coached should clen up their act an dress professionally...where are you Vince "When Pride Still Mattered"

Jim Hudson Ohio (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 10:17 AM)

Will, what tragedy do you see befalling your children if they let their hair grow? They'll be much more successful in life if you give them some space. I was the only one of my friends in high school who had parents that allowed me to drink. In return they always knew where I would be, who with, and they were guaranteed that I would never get in the car with a drunk. I never did. I didn't drink often either, as it really didn't seem a big deal to me, the rebelliousness of it taken away by my parent's permission. I was also the only of my friends that did NOT do drugs. These results ARE typical. So back off your kids. And if you don't want them getting tattoos, don't worry, they can't afford it without your help anyway. Hair and tattoo's are not the things to be worried about. Instill character, work ethic, and morality in them. Then let them make their own decisions and mistakes, they'll be fine. I promise that Troy Polamalu's hair won't ruin their lives...

James Bowe, NYC (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 11:17 AM)

Will Roper...
"...a responsibility to the public..." for what, exactly?

To uphold *your* view of morality, or what it means to be "upstanding"?

That's the very notion Mike is questioning here, so claiming that celebrities or athletes have a responsibility for something without justifying that 'something' is vacuous.

You speak as if you believe that everyone tacitly accepts long hair and tats are malignancies on our society... as if we all accept that such things are undesirable.

I don't care if my child has long hair. Ditto for tattoos (once the child is old enough to understand the permanence, etc.).

Did you have another argument other than what I would want for my child?

Tim, West Michigan (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 11:31 AM)

Do we really live in a society where this is still important? Aren't the religious/political/corporate schmucks who bleat for a very social dress code the same individuals who denounce socialism in all its incarnations? Gee, I can't wait to live in a world where everyone looks the same. As long as we're holding "public figures" responsible for our children's upbringing, why don't we just mandate haircuts and tattoo removal for everyone they might eventually come into contact with? What if their eighth-grade teacher, Miss Sweetiepie, has a butterfly inked on her ankle, or they're lucky enough to work in a casual environment where their boss sports bermuda shorts and a ponytail? What if you find out that sweet young man your daughter is dating happens to have some barbed wire snaking around his bicep? While we're at it, we could go ahead and sterilize every door handle, computer keyboard and phone receiver our children might ever come into contact with? Guess what - there are people your children look up to more than public figures, parents, and that's you. If you don't want little Johnny inked to the last inch and sporting dreadlocks, make your wishes known - and please, give a reason, and not just "because." If you have some sort of arbitrary (read: stereotypical) appearance standard, lay down the law. You are in charge, after all, aren't you? If your kids are too old for you to lay down the law, then consider that they have become the person they wish to be and mind your own business. I imagine, Will, that you were a scruffy establishment-fighter in your younger days too, and if you weren't, well, you may have missed the entire point of young adulthood.

Erin, Kansas City, MO (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 11:45 AM)

I beleive that if for some odd reason this rule does pass that players can not have hair hanging out of their helments we better be ready for what their hair will look like when the helments come off.  If a player is trying to get attention with his hair, one way or the other he will.  As for the hair being unsafe that is a joke and to whom propesed this rule must not even watch football.  If you want to talk safety, tell me why hands to face of a lineman is illegal but when a running back hauls off with a monster stiff arm everyone cheers?  Don't get me wrong I think the stiff arm should be legal but hands to the face is nothing more than a hand shake in the trenches and should be legal also.

Corey Koopman, Holland, Michigan (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 12:53 PM)

I've been saying for too long now that the league should do something about the ridiculous hairlength under the helmet. If you want to look like a fool off the field then be my guest. But if I'm an owner or head coach I tell my players to "look professional on the field" or take a hike.

MarkK (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 2:00 PM)

To Mike: another terrific article, as is to be expected when ripping the No Fun League.  I wholly agree in particular with your comments about cleaning up coaches' appearances on the sidelines first (Belichick looks like an angry bum).
To Will: 1st I'm not a parent yet so my opinion loses that value, however at 24 years old, I'm not too far removed from being an impressionable kid.  That said, if as a parent the biggest concern you have is your kids looking up to and emulating some athelete with long hair and tattoos, then bravo on your parenting.  If you dont have to worry about things like drugs, alcohol, smoking, violence, gangs, or random crime than your kids are lucky.

Tim, Schaumburg, IL (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 2:21 PM)

The NFL is becoming ridiculous.

Aaron (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 2:49 PM)

Will,

I think you just proved Mike's point.  I know a lot of guys with long hair and/or tattoos, and they're are no more or less moral than the short-hair-and dockers crowd.  

Maybe, pro athletes have a responsiblity to conduct themselves in a positve manner.  I just think your version of "positive" needs to move beyond the "Leave It To Beaver" era.

Brian Wolf (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 3:33 PM)

come on everyone. You all make good points but this ain't the dern 70's. How many saw the movie the mighty Titans. It wasn't cool back then to have long hair because it was related to Hippies and anti war. Where we see now and understand why we have wars. Which I'm not going to get into if it's wrong or right, but let's be more specific. When Sunshine got on the field with his flowing blond locks and females where digging it. Guess who got jealous. The Dudes with the buzz cuts. LOL. But honestly we are refering not to Troy, Or to Jeremy Shockey, but they are attacking the dreds. Or dredlocks. Which is a culture and expression of self, and even religion called rastafarism that NFL has no clue about. The truth is most atheletes do tie up thier dreds or hair, but I mean traveling so often, and with the schedule the way it is do you honestly expect then to be maintained on a constant level.? No, so just let it be, and stop trying to mold pro atheletes into what you think thier image should be NFL coaches. I guess Michael Irvin is presentable because he has a low cut? But you ignore his character. HALL OF FAME is a shame..

Ray M, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 4:22 PM)

The owners should be the ones who decide this.  They pay these players millions to perform.  If the player doesn't like it thats fine.  They can try to find a job in the 'real world' where they get paid like they do and be idolized.

Eric, Denver, CO (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 7:08 PM)

The idea of controlling how the players look is extremely problematic. Just like we've seen with the NBA recently, it feels like race (omg, no he didn't!) is key  in understanding why the "short hair" proposal is troubling.

The NFL, like the NBA, is a league dominated by black players (over two thirds). These players, of course, are "overseen" by an overwhelming majority of white coaches, managers and owners. Yes, race is alive and well in sport, and seeing that so many of football players with long hair are Players of Color, it seems that this is a classic example of  white supremacy. I mean, the NFL never objected in the 70's and 80's when a bunch of white dudes played with long hair. (Last time I checked, long hair still obstructed the name on the jersey back then too.)

And speaking of white supremacy culture, it seems that our idea of "looking professional" is pretty messed up. The fact that we parcel up, divide, and box-up what "professional" looks like screams a culture of supremacy to me--it only serves to essentialize and exclude people in order to form social hierarchies that privilege some while oppressing the rest. I mean, we don't get after the coaches for not looking "professional." But ooohh, that's right, they're white. I forgot that the rules of racial standing for whites shelter us from the hail-storm of accusations calling our appearance "unkept"--especially when we show up to work in sweats that we probably wore to bed the night before (yes, that means  you Bill Belichick).

Yes, it would be nice if it was just a game, but sports are not immune to the social hierarchies that we find in society today. And is there no better, no more explicit example of racism then the proposed hair rule? I mean, you don't see Nike squabbling over Rafael Nadal's dark locks, or the MLB complaining about Randy Johnson's mullet... or did you already forget about Beckham's long hair in '04? This proposed rule is cloaked in racist sentiment, and I am deeply frustrated with the NFL for considering this. The NFL needs to stop policing its players appearance. And if the league was really concerned about appearance, how about it started to deal with the rampant steroid use, or the blatant displays of hegemonic masculinity that allow sexism, homophobia and racism to permeate the league, from the commissioner all the way down to the fans? Ditch the proposal...

Tristan Knutson-Lombardo, Salem, Oregon (Sent Tuesday, April 01, 2008 2:37 AM)

If a person has long hair, it doesn't automatically make them a bad role model, nor does having a short hair cut make that person a good role model.  I present to you Troy Polamalu with long hair versus Terrell Owens with short hair.  Now which one do you want your kids to grow to be like?  When are we going to realize that the character and actions of the players are so much more important than what they look like?  I'd bet that if the NFL did come down with some stupid rule to ban long hair, based on his actions to date, Mr. Polamalu would cut his and not make a big deal of it at all.  Can you image Owens doing the same thing if the roles were reversed?

Paul Michaels, Scranton, PA (Sent Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:14 AM)

I hate the long hair!  It is awful to see the hair covering the names and in some cases, part of the numbers.  I even cheer against teams that have players with hair down the their ass.  Besides, if it was their own hair it would be different.  Most of the guys get extensions to make it that long.  If the want to wear it long, let them grow it, than we can discuss it.

Ray Stefl, Denton, TX (Sent Tuesday, April 01, 2008 9:55 AM)

Believe it or not, some men (like myself) simply look better with long hair.  Mine simply refuses to accept the law of gravity until it gets to about chin length.  I suppose that a football helmet could keep it in check, but I don't think that wearing a football helmet in a symphony orchestra performance would go over too well with the conductor.

JHD, Topsham, Maine (Sent Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:08 PM)

i don't see any rule in the OT saying people have to have long hair and beards. once again mike, you prove yourself a real scholar. No one said anything about a connection between long hair and morals, and most of today's "religious crowd" doesn't really make that connection either. the nfl is trying to downplay individualism because football is, and always has been, a team sport. each team wears what is called a uniform. one doesn't have to be an etymologist to figure out that that word literally means "of one kind". If these players are wearing hair out of their helmets, that's fine and dandy. Diversity is always a good thing. but the NFL has the right to impose a dress code and personal appearance code, just like any other BUSINESS.

thursday (Sent Tuesday, April 01, 2008 2:45 PM)

Hey Roper raise your children right and they won't follow after the sports and rapper types with the hair and the tats.  They follow you, their father.

Jon S., Richmond, Ca. (Sent Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:21 PM)

For all of you who refer to the NFL as the NO FUN LEAGUE - STOP CRYING
Why do any of us care one way or the other?  These athletes make millions in one year...something most of us will not see in our entire lifetime.  Most companies have a dress code policy; and I would venture to say 83% of Americans are miserable in their jobs...I have no sympathy for these athletes, and if the owners vote for the haircut, I say shut the heck up and play ball, they are the ones signing their INFLATED paychecks.  The NFL is becoming disgusting from the standpoint that these sissified athletes cry over issues that have absolutely no effect on the outcome or quality of life…Frankly, we should all find that offensive.

John, Mooresville NC (Sent Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:17 AM)

Anything that is visible reflects the image of your employer while you are "on the clock" and as such your employer has the right to dictate what is and is not acceptable in reflecting their desired image. If I work in a grocery store and they do not allow tattoos to be visible, a person with tattoos must wear clothing to cover them. This does not mean they cannot have tattoos, just not visible tattoos. Same with hair. If the policy states it must be of a certain length or contained to a certain area, then I must either cut it or contain it. That is called "corporate policy" and most people who work in the public eye, whether it is in a service position or an entertainment position that is controlled by a large corporation (when was the last time you saw a news reporter with long hair and visible body art, or body piercings?) are subject to similar policies. Big deal. I do not personally care if my grocery clerk has long hair and tattoos but most employers do. I really has nothing to do with an individuals "responsibility to society" it is just a way of projecting a certain image for the product they wish to sell. In this case the product is football, and in order to appeal to the broadest demographic they have to keep their image pretty close to the middle. They do not want to "mold the minds of our children" they just want as many people, adults and children, women and men, to tune in as possible. Believe it or not, they pay millions of dollars to marketing firms to find out exactly who they need to be catering to and what they need to do to increase their appeal. They do not just pull this stuff out of their hats, someone has done some research.

John Doe, Seattle Wash (Sent Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:27 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://openmike.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=838100