Denver Broncos 2005 Schedule

Contact Us
Email Us

BroncoTickets.com is a ticket broker in the business of obtaining hard-to-get and premium tickets for worldwide, national and local events. The term Denver Broncos as well as all associated graphics, logos, and/or other tradermarks, tradenames or copyrights are the property of the Denver Broncos and are used herein for factual descriptive purposes only. We are in no way associated with or authorized by the Denver Broncos and neither that entity nor any of its affiliates have licensed or endorsed us to sell tickets, goods and or services in conjunction with their events. We are not affiliated with the Denver Broncos.

Sign up for last minute specials, merchandise giveaways and more!
Email us at info@Broncotickets.com.

I've been thinking about this story since I heard about it yesterday. Four years ago Maurice Clarett was the top college football player in the country and he knew it. He decided that he wanted to go into the NFL after his freshman year at Ohio State. Unfortunately for him the NFL has a rule that says you cannot be drafted into the NFL until at least 3 years after you graduated high school - this is an effort to get kids to stay in school and get an education that can support them when their football career is done. Well, Maurice thought the rule was good for other people but not him, so he took the NFL to court.... and lost then he appealed...and lost. Anywho, in the mean time he was convicted of breaking NCAA and Ohio St. rules for taking stuff and was promptly expelled, which was fine for him because he didn't want to be at that stupid school anyway. Once he was eligible to be drafted by the NFL he was given another chance by the Denver Broncos. He showed up overweight and with an alcohol problem, which got him promptly cut from the team. Then this January he was charged with robbery and two days ago he was arrested by police for driving erratically. In his vehicle they found 4 loaded guns, an open half full bottle of Vodka, a hatchet and he was wearing a bulletproof vest. At least one of the weapons was hidden in the vehicle which will bring concealed weapon charges and at least one was an illegal assault rifle. He could now be facing decades in jail because of this one arrest, never mind the previous robbery charge.

As I said before, I've been thinking about this story for about a day now and I don't know what angle to take. In an age where sports heros are the equivalent of the Greek Pantheon, it seems clear that a greater effort needs to be made at teaching humility in sports. Clarett honestly thought that he was better than everybody, which is nothing new for an athlete, but also thought that because of that he was above the rules. While, I'm not a fan of the theory in sports that it doesn't matter if you win or lose, only that you tried your hardest (it does matter, this is sports - somebody wins and somebody loses and you play to win). In that theory is something important, what matters most is that you try your hardest not your place in history. When the media, family and friends start talking about an athlete as the best ever or comparing him/her to the greats of the sports an entitlement mentality can be developed and that's what happened in this case. The problem for Maurice is that he isn't above the rules or the law and neither is any athlete. At the end of the day athletes are only human and they are all replaceable.

I've always thought that it was great that Michael Jordan was cut from his freshman basketball team, it brought reality to his game and it made him work that much harder to be the best and never get cut again. In the end that is why people will remember MJ for a lot longer than Maurice - MJ worked hard to get to be the best, MC expected it to be given to him.

According to the Dallas Morning News, less than 1,000 showed up. I agree that the Labor Day rain held back the numbers but what happened elsewhere? Did it rain in Houston? They had a similar turnout there!

According to Reuters:

"The current round of protests kicked off with a march in Chicago on Friday. So far, its numbers have fallen well short of those seen in the first round on May 1, when protesters filled the streets of cities from California to New England."

The Chicago Sun Times reports:

"Immigration protests that drew hundreds of thousands of flag-waving demonstrators to the nation's streets last spring promised a potent political legacy--a surge of new Hispanic voters.

"Today We March, Tomorrow We Vote," they proclaimed.

But an Associated Press review of voter registration figures from Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta and other major urban areas that had large rallies found no sign of a new voter boom that could sway elections. There was a rise in Los Angeles, where 500,000 protested in March, but it was more of a trickle than a torrent."

"Protest organizers -- principally unions, Hispanic advocacy groups and the Catholic Church -- acknowledge it has been hard to translate street activism into voting clout, though they insist they can reach their goal of 1 million new voters by 2008.

"I was anticipating a huge jump in registration. I didn't see it," said Jess Cervantes, a veteran California political operative whose company analyzes Hispanic voting trends. "When you have an emotional response, it takes time to evolve."

The Arizona Republic reports Few at immigration rally :

"Organizers said they were disappointed by the turnout, which also drew about 50 vocal counterprotesters."

Bridget Johnson is a columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She reports that the marches had a smaller turnout and the usual suspects of left wing organizers and sympathizers:

"As I snapped a photo of one of the booths, fronted with a Spanish-language sign advocating unconditional military defense of China, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea, a white guy in a wide straw hat ran up to me, wielding the Workers Vanguard newspaper published by the International Communist League and trying to sell a subscription.

It's unclear how much the marchers cared about freeing Mumia Abu-Jamal (and they'remaking progress, claimed the newspaper hawker) or panning U.N. intervention in Lebanon; tucked inside the newspaper, though, was a flier advocating a fight for immigrants rights as well as breaking with the Democratic party to build a revolutionary workers party and unite in class struggle against the capitalist rulers.

Our aim is the achievement of new October Revolutions nothing else, nothing other, nothing less, reads the ICLÂs website.

The ANSWER coalition renowned for shoving itself into any event that remotely criticizes the Bush administration provided slick signs and set up shop in front of a banner reading No borders in the workers struggle in Spanish and English. One white woman near the booth wore a kaffiyeh."

Last but not least, even Lopez Obrador had his share of sympathizers!

These marches have turned off large segments of the population, including Hispanics. Wonder why?

These marches have created enemies rather than friends. It was political suicide, as I wrote in the spring!

Why? Because these are not "immigration marches". These are illegal immigrants marching. These people are here in violation of US laws. They are demanding rights rather than accepting responsibility for breaking the law.

They are saying "I'm here, therefore, you must legalize me".

Sorry. It does not work that way!

The core issue is the rule of law. These people may be nice and hardworking but they are breaking the law! Worse than that, their leaders refuse to admit that laws have been broken!

To be fair, I'm just as critical of the employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. They should be prosecuted. These employers are unfairly competing with others who play by the rules.

You cannot make exceptions to the rule of law. Otherwise, our society will turn into the countries that we left behind in Latin America!

Furthermore, the "march leaders" have arrogantly compared their movement with the black civil rights struggle of the 1960s. However, blacks were citizens of the US. These marchers are not!

Let me say it again. This movement needs a complete makeover.

In the future, let's revisit "guest worker visas". I still support some type of bilateral agreement with Mexico to connect US companies with some Mexican workers.

I believe that we can provide some transitional residency to those with children born in the US. I don't believe in separating mothers from children. At the same time, we should make it clear that the US will not grant future residency to a woman who crosses the border just to have her baby over here.

However, let's do it all by recognizing that the rule of law is step one.

No more marches, por favor!