A lot of things to unwrap. I wanted to address the ESPN broadcast and how the NFL handled it.
I'm not sure how good the Telecommunications department is at the University of Miami, but I am fairly certain they didn't have a module on how to handle a possible death on the field. Was she unprepared? Sure, but how do you prepare for something like that? I agree that ESPN should have provided her with better support in her ear. Then again, how does one really prepare for something like this?
As far as Booger's response? Unless somebody has played in the NFL or even played high level college ball, there is no way we can understand. The NFL players are a brotherhood. As much as I think Booger isn't a very good analyst, I thought he did as well as he could knowing the situation.
Fast forward to Scott Van Pelt. More experienced, more time to prepare, and also more help from the mothership. He did an excellent job of being a facilitator delegating to people closer to the situations -- an art that is all too often lost into today's "journalism."
Now onto how the NFL handled the situation. Sure, it makes perfect sense that the NFL should have said that the game would be postponed / cancelled because somebody almost perished on the field. Certainly unprecedented except when Chuck Hughes died in 1971. I want to commend the NFL. Instead of making an immediate decision, they took a short amount of time, talked to the coaches and listened to the players. Hypothetically, if the Bills would have wanted to play in an effort to support their brother, would they have been mad if the game was cancelled? I'm not sure. I do appreciate that there was communication and the NFL listened to the players. Good for them.
Oh... and Skip Bayless' twitter account had to be hacked or something. I'm still shaking my head.