The player is embarrassed by being questioned on something that is known to 99.9% of the English-speaking world* to be meaningless filler.
The journalist is then embarrassed by the awkward response and the ensuing ass-kicking from his boss, and shortly after that he (or she) can probably safely regard their career as more or less over.
Can you not understand that?
*I mean, I’m in Australia where sportspeople do not generally Praise Jesus™ after successful matches, and even I know that when they do it in the US it doesn’t “mean” anything, it’s just one of those things religious sportspeople are expected to do- in the same way people thank their parents at Oscar speeches and that sort of thing.
Wrong. The player’s claim either embarrasses or annoys a handful of militant atheists across the globe. Nobody else cares. Including more reasonable atheists.
People keep arguing over whether or not the question is warranted, and fail to realize how stupid it is to begin with.
“I guess my lucky socks helped me win this time 'round.”
Reporter holding a “Go Dawkins!” pennant bursts through the horde of microphones “A-HA! WHAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE CAN YOU SUPPLY FOR THE LUCKINESS OF YOUR SOCKS OR THEIR DIRECT INFLUENCE ON THE GAME?”
I’m thinking we could perhaps make some headway as to the question if we looked at it a different way:
Reporter: Biff, what helped you guys win today?
Biff: Well, we each gave 110%, we came to play, we were on our game, and we worked hard to get here. Of course, I had my lucky rabbit’s foot, and Bobby avoided walking under ladders, and Jim’s four-leaf clover is in the locker room.
Now what would be a logical next question from the reporter? Would it be:
– Let’s talk about that rabbit’s foot, Biff. Do you really think it works?
Or would the logical next question be:
– That’s great, Biff. Let’s talk about that third-quarter drive…
I think it is important to remember that the broadcast is going out to sports fans, who are interested in hearing about the game. They’re not interested in theological or atheistic debate; they’re interested in how the game was played and won. That’s the issue that the reporter’s questions should address. If the athlete wants to thank his parents, his high school coach, his puppy dog, and God, that’s great; but I don’t think the reporter should dwell on those. Instead, IMHO, the sports reporter who is reporting to the sports fan should concentrate on the game just played, or perhaps the team’s chances in its next game, and nothing else. Not taking the bait when the athlete mentions God, a lucky rabbit’s foot, or whatever, does just that.
There is one difference between God and a rabbit’s foot.
My lucky rabbit’s foot is not your lucky rabbit’s foot.
But let’s say player 1 and player 2 worship the same god, and player 1 says he won because the god helped him.
That would naturally imply that the god favors player 1 over player 2. After all, typically a god is considered to be a thinking being in which case the god has made a choice to bless player 1 over player 2.
I highly doubt anyone would think the same about a rabbit foot. Wars may have been fought partially over God, but I don’t think too many groups have claimed they were justified because Lady Luck was on their side.
The god issue aside, this is as much a product of the inherent silliness of sideline interviews, and the typical lack of creativity in sports reporters. I remember thinking DFW’s thoughts on this to be unfair when I first read that piece. After all, what is an athlete supposed to answer when asked, “You just won the AFC championship, how do you feel?” A memorized cliché is warranted in such a situation.
I guess he could answer, “Well, my wife has belittling me lately, and my kids don’t look up to me anymore. So this may give me the ego boost I need to perform better sexually, and it may even improve my relationship with my teenage son who doesn’t think I’m cool anymore. Also, I feel team management doesn’t pay me enough, so I’ll be expecting a pay increase next season. Hopefully my agent is already making some calls. Oh, and dad, I knew someday I’d prove you wrong, you son-of-a-bitch. Now how do you feel about abandoning me and mom and never paying child support. You never claimed me when I was a loser; I hope you aren’t claiming me now that I’m rich and famous. Also the wide receivers played like crap today, and I’m glad the rest of us were able to pick up their slack.”
This is a prime example. Just what is LT supposed to say? He is being asked to describe how he is able to perform a physical action, one that he has both an innate ability to do and that has become second nature to him from years of constant physical training. How would I answer if asked, “How do you wave your hand?” Well, I raise my arm and move it around. Maybe a neurologist, or a research kinesiologist could give a detailed answer, but the average person can’t.
Secondly, there are shows that have prolonged, in depth interviews with athletes. In many of these the more intelligent and articulate athletes go far beyond cliché.
In defense of my hero, he was talking about athletes’ recollections in published books, which ostensibly exist to answer those kinds of questions. I feel like “Well, my wife has belittling me lately, and my kids don’t look up to me anymore…” is exactly what the audience is looking for in that context.