Yes, there are rumors about Brett Favre playing football in 2011. This shouldn't surprise you: at this point, about the only thing more intrinsic to the NFL than Favre is the speculation about him. (And concussions.)
But while the Favre circus is wearisome at best, it's nice to see Yahoo! columnist Dan Wetzel admitting that Favre does move the bottom line:
For selfish professional reasons I'd be fine w Favre returning. He consistently provided column material that fans read in huge numbers
Anecdotally, it certainly seems like the majority of football fans have well and truly turned on Favre; ask a few for their current opinions of the ol' gunslinger, and their groans will likely tell you all you need to know about Favre's penchant for manipulating the media and soaking up attention like sunshine. And yet, as of last year, they were still reading about him.
Fans need to realize that Favre and the media both know that fans want to hear about Favre. He's an easy joke, an easier column, a pathetically easy idol to tear down. He is the easiest gateway to talking about the NFL precisely because the chances of any fan not a) knowing who Favre is or b) having a Favre opinion are infinitesimal in even the most remote parts of America.
But if those fans — who dictate coverage, of course, by choosing to tune in or turn off — really don't want Favre to be a part of their football, they should studiously avoid him. Delighting in his failures or ripping him incessantly or rewarding columnists who feed the beast is, by extension, contributing to the Favre-media complex. When the law of diminishing returns tells columnists and editors and ESPN producers that Favre is no longer any more interesting to the average fan than, say, Jamaal Charles, that's when the Jamaal Charles columns will begin.
Favre is a prime example of how, sometimes, it's smart to let go of the things we hate.