Well, at least Brady doesn't have to pick up the tab with this broad!

[Mike the Brit]

Well, then we need a league that pays for play. The NFL isn't that league. Look at the guy's earning big dough for nothing.

I think that the Patriots pay for play. Sometimes, of course, they misjudge. But most of the guys earning big dough for nothing in the NFL are first round draft busts (Johnathan Sullivan, etc.) The rest get very little slack in the world of revocable contracts and the salary cap.

Plus, a model is paid to do her thing, and whoever does it best, gets paid. I don't know what the criteria are either, but it seems to me the one with the great body usually wins. That's their reality.

I'm not saying that Giselle Bundchen isn't a very good-looking woman, but there are lots and lots of great-looking women out there. She gets paid so much more because she has face (and name) recognition -- "Oh look! Giselle's wearing that dress/advertising that perfume" -- so she makes the product memorable. The hype IS the performance.

Same thing in football. The so-called reality is just as much a production and manufacture as any other entertainment industry. We saw this when the rules were changed to favor Peyton Manning. Yeah, he produces better on the field now than he did in 2004. But the criteria were changed to make that fact a reality at some point.

Well, yes, the league wanted Peyton to get his ring. But he IS a great player -- they couldn't change the game so just any old favourite son could come out on top (Michael Vick? Eli?!!), could they?

I'm not really denigrating advertising/modelling -- it's an industry with its own dynamic. But it's not for me. I find the nitty-gritty of sports much more fascinating and exciting -- isn't it great when reality punctures hype?

 

[mojocaster.com]

her agent is Drew Rosenhaus

that's some funny stuff right there

 

[captain stone]

It's 2007 and we still have people referring to women as "broads"? I guess I shouldn't be shocked.

I can think of worse things that she and other "models" could be called.

 

[upstater1]

I'm not really denigrating advertising/modelling -- it's an industry with its own dynamic. But it's not for me. I find the nitty-gritty of sports much more fascinating and exciting -- isn't it great when reality punctures hype?

I agree with you wholeheartedly, which is why I'm here, obviously. But sports, IMO, are just as unreal as these other forms of entertainment. The rules themselves force teams to discriminate between players with different skillsets. I'm just making the argument that what Gisele does is not so easy to reproduce or else others would be doing it. I also don't think you have many Amazons with great bodies like hers. That's what she's selling. She's literally one in a million.

 

[patpatriot]

I can think of worse things that she and other "models" could be called.

Where does that word come from anyway? I mean "Broads" not "Models".

 

[bbabin]

Where does that word come from anyway? I mean "Broads" not "Models".

Bored at work so here's some info: http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20000612

 

[OhExaulted1]

It's 2007 and we still have people referring to women as "broads"? I guess I shouldn't be shocked.

You're right. That chick doesn't deserve that.