"Spend a few minutes reading College Football Resource" - Whit Watson, Sun Sports

"Maybe you should start your own blog" - Bruce Feldman, ESPN

"[An] Excellent resource for all things college football. It’s blog index is the definitive listing of the CFB blogosphere ... [A] must-read for fans." - Sports Illustrated (On Campus)

"The big daddy of them all, the nerve center of this twisted college football blogsphere" - The House Rock Built

"Unsurprisingly, College Football Resource has generated some discussion" -Dawg Sports

Top Teams 2008

After Week Seven

  1. Alabama
  2. Penn State
  3. Texas
  4. Oklahoma
  5. Florida
  6. USC
  7. Georgia
  8. LSU
  9. BYU
  10. Missouri
  11. Ohio State
  12. Oklahoma State
  13. Texas Tech
  14. Utah
  15. Kansas
  16. USF
  17. North Carolina
  18. Miami
  19. Boise State
  20. Georgia Tech
Display
RSS
Search CFR
Submission Corner
« Red Flag | Main | Can Someone Pick My Jaw Up Off The Floor? »
Sunday
May212006

Gross Naivete

For the informed college football fan, there is no greater time to practice one's eye-rolling skills than the offseason.

With rare free time and the troublemaking opportunities it presents, college football players inevitably get into trouble.  When you combine that inevitability with a bored and sensational media and illogical braying of some blogger/fans, the eyes get to roll in delerious pleasure several times a week.

In a classic case of karmic retribution to the naive and those who spoke too soon, athletes at UCLA and Texas were busted for off-field transgressions in the last week or so.

Riddle me this:

A bunch of off-field nonsense happened to UCLA's football program under Bob Toledo.  Now, similar nonsense has happened under Karl Dorrell.  What's the connection?  Well, since there are two different coaches, we can narrow this down to being an institutional issue.  That's it, it's a UCLA problem.  Those rascal Bruins, always up to trouble!

At least, that's the logic some employ.

In reality, UCLA's no different from anybody else, but their fan base and coaches are simply less willing to absorb the public relations hit that comes with winning football.  The difference between them and say, Miami, USC and Ohio State is that UCLA has a glass jaw and folds when the punches start coming---firing winning coaches and complaining to no end about the next set of coaches while demanding they make angels out of their players.

That's fine, that's their choice as a program but it's one reason they're not a top 10 historical football program despite the university's tremendous resources.  Every recent shot at winning football has been met with off-field issues.  The sooner a program recruits guys that get tired of playing in these types of games (and these types of games), the sooner a program has happy fans.  But there's a cost.  That's the way the game works. 

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

As I explained last week, these problems exist all over D-I college football, at every institution.

Is it any surprise that the majority of off-field news in the last eight years has dealt with players from Oklahoma, Miami, Florida State, USC, Ohio State, Tennessee and yes, Texas?

Notice a thread?  They've all won championships.  It's a not so dirty little secret that every elite team needs at least a handful (if not many more---see Ohio State) of kids who are rough around the edges but are great football players.

Vince Young's a good kid now, but he had a rough background and hasn't lived the most perfect life.  Think Texas wins last year's title without him or Ramonce Taylor?  Mack Brown knew what he was doing when he recruited both (and several other marginal characters) and assumed those risks.

Eric Wright and Winston Justice were guys who would need a lot of babysitting to keep on the straight-and-narrow.  That never happened, and they were a big headache for USC, but they contributed mightily to USC's football efforts in the last few years.  Pete Carroll knew what he was getting into when he recruited them (and many other questionable players).  He assumed the risks.

The bottom line is it's simply impossible to run a spotless program and win a national championship or ably contend for one.  Every team that's reached the game's greatest heights (or new heights for non-championship teams) has gotten there on the backs of a bunch of players who the program's fans would otherwise not let associate with their fine institutions.

Heck, earning a school's first 10-win season since 1998 meant playing knuckleheads like Maurice Drew, John Hale and Jess Ward, and Justin Medlock.

Is it any surprise, for example, that Georgia Tech's last 10-win season piggybacked various transgressions that put the team on probation?  The Yellowjackets have just seven seasons of 10 or more wins in their history (and just three since 1956).  Playing to the level of an elite team takes either a few miracles or mixing in players who are going to have classroom and/or off-field issues.

Say what you want about Mack Brown or Pete Carroll, Bob Stoops or Jim Tressel, but they're all shrewd, shrewd coaches, and know what it takes to reach the heights they've reached.  It's not pretty but then, they're not interested in being second-rate coaches and assume the consequences of getting where they've gotten.

I don't intend to excuse poor behavior in writing this, but it's up to the rest of us to recognize certain realities and get over our hangups about what's happening each and every year with this great sport that we follow.

It's up to each individual program to do its best to discourage poor conduct and punish it faithfully, but they're not going to stop recruiting the best football players---thus taking a flier on whatever potential transgressions they'll commit while at school.  Not when coach salaries are in the millions of dollars.  Not when the available talent isn't through natural selection out of a school's student body but through recruiting.  Not when ego is at play and the mood of a booster can determine the fate of a coach.

And even then, it's not always enough.  Not when high character guys (April 27 entry) get tagged for things nobody would have expected.

Even mighty Notre Dame isn't immune.  The last time they had a contender was 1993.  Remember the little brouhaha about players from that team that came to light?  Or how about the coach during Northwestern's miracle run in 1996?  One Gary Barnett.  Think there's a little more to his stay at Northwestern than what's been revealed to the press?  His downfall was at Colorado but he found the winning formula in Evanston.

These things come with the territory.  The bloodshed spilled all over the message boards, air waves and blog sites is thus frivolous (for the most part).  We're all guilty.  I just want to see great football, personally.

***
Update

Yes, I pulled this entry after writing it, as I continued to revise it over and over and over and finally just sat on it, figuring to keep working on it and maybe publish Tuesday...  problem was it was already published and copied elsewhere (gotta love the internet), and at this point I'm not going to continue to chase links to further augment the arguments.  Its' already out there, so here it is again, heh.

Peter at BON has a good point that it's about how you handle these situations that also matters (a point I make as well).  It's a nod towards the supposed "loosey goosey" way Pete Carroll has handled USC's off-field messes.  But in reading a lot of stories this offseason, it looks like he's got a policy of putting disciplinary matters into the hands of USC's Student Affairs office.  Occasionally he'll step in after the fact and have some kind of internal discipline, but mostly lets others determine his fate.  Interesting, and a bit risky if you ask me, but that's his way.

What I find notable is that a strict start doesn't always work.  Look at BN's rundown of early transgressions at UCLA under coach Karl Dorrell.  He suspended several players and sent a message that disciplinary issues would be met with severe punishment.  But yet, things kept happening!

Same at USC, where Carroll watched the school suspend players like Marcell Almond and Winston Justice, who had to jump through all kinds of hoops to get back into school once their punishment had run its course.  Allmond behaved upon his return, Justice didn't.  He also effectively gave back Hershel Dennis a permanent benching after his non-charge, but curfew breaking night that saw him alleged for rape in 2004.

You can do only so much, but when you've got troublemakers, things are not going to stop.  Phil Fulmer's been adding all kinds of new punishments over his career at Tennessee, but the bad conduct of a handful of his players never ceases.  We're in a bizarre reality where a lot of guys simply don't get it and maybe never will.

So no, this wasn't so much an excuse for Carroll (or other coaches), but kind of a reality check.  I simply get tired of reading all these nonsensical diatribes that some program is renegade and bad simply because of its name and a few knuckleheads that go there.  Last year the team du jour was Tennessee (Fulmer Cup! 10 offseason arrests!), this year it's USC, next year, who knows, but at some point people are just going to look stupid hyperventilating about what's happening.

***
Update #2

See, this is some of the idiotic nonsense I'm alluding to.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (32)

I think you made several really good points. I also think, though, that you're understating the importance of being heavy-handed, or more importantly, at least of APPEARING heavy-handed, when dealing with these things. Is USC a renegade problem? Definitely not. Is there a perception problem about USC right now? Absolutely. Image counts, and media relations count. Pete's image is a bit problematic right now.

Anyway, nice post overall.
May 22, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterPeter Bean
Thanks Peter.

BTW I called HP today, I'm pretty sure that, despite your guys' differences, the photoshop wasn't meant with any malice.

Once in a while the guy just gets creative (and funny).
May 22, 2006 | Registered CommenterCFR
Call it naivete. Or call it a glass jaw, if you will.

I'd much rather have both than to go through live shrugging off this kind of bad behavior off as just the cost of doing business.

Unlike Carroll, etc., maybe I don't "know what it takes to reach the heights they've reached." Maybe I have a "hangup" about demanding high standards both on and off the field. Maybe I am not jaded enough to think its "simply impossible to run a spotless program and win a national championship," or that a program "needs" some "kids who are rough around the edges." (Congrats on all the nice euphemisms, by the way)

Maybe I should just throw up my hands. Yes, let's congratulate permissive coaches and appreciate how "shrewd" they are. Accept the "realities." Bow to undeserved claims of moral equivalence.

No, I'm not willing to do that. And I don't feel bad about it one bit.

There's more to college football than just "see[ing] great football." The football is better in the pros, really, so maybe that should be your bag. But I don't expect you to understand that.
May 22, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCocoman25
The football in the NFL is a joke. It's 32 teams running the same offenses and defenses with similar talent pools on condensed rosters full of injured players.

You should throw up your hands... unless you want to cheer for some D-II program, yeah.

Or if you follow UCLA's other athletic programs, then you're fine.

But when it comes to NCAA football and basketball at the D-I level, you're entering a completely different world. Time to grow up and see the reality and get over your hangups about what's happening out there.

Is it any surprise that UCLA's last basketball title was under one coach Harrick? You think Ben Howland's running a perfectly clean program? Hah. Neither is your rival coach Tim Floyd. That's the sport though. The players come from the suspect AAU and other circuits and all the criminals, thieves, hangers-on, degenerates and con men who make a living in them.

It's the system in place and so long as you want to demand chaste, pure, unsullied players, coaches and teams at the D-I level, you're going to have to deal with an unbelievable amount of losing.

The example I pointed to earlier about how Dorrell did in fact administer strong punishments early in his career at UCLA and yet off-field trangressions kept happening is yet another example of how the game, the system, etc. is bigger than these coaches and these programs.

So yes, it is absolutely naivete and having a glass jaw on your part. Just don't get all conspiratorial about how this is simply some Pete Carroll/USC thing, or some Jim Tressel/Ohio State thing, because it's not.
May 22, 2006 | Registered CommenterCFR
With the high expectations that are expected over at BN maybe they should self impose the so-called death penalty on all their sports programs so as to ensure against these sorts of lapses in judgement in the future..

As long as human beings play sports these types of character issues are bound to come up.
May 22, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJW
Protest all you want, but, if you were honest, you'd acknowledge that your position is colored at least somewhat by your support of USC and Carroll. Deny it until you're blue in the face. In your heart of hearts, you know I'm right.

And I don't give a rip about the system. I can demand and hope and cajol all I want to get what I think is right: decent kids playing a sport more or less on the up and up. Its not, as much as you'd like to think, a good character trait to just accept a system, warts and all, and then go ahead to cheer on those souls who are best at gaming the system.

Of course, there is the reality. And, of course, there are pressures on these coaches, and kids and programs. You seem to just accept it all with the snicker of the "cool" kid who thinks all his friends do drugs, and wag your finger at anyone who isn't as high minded as yourself.

But, believe it or not, this isn't all about pushing the boundaries, winning, and adhering to any "gentlemen's agreement" to do the wrong thing.

In fact, it's people like yourself, that are all too accepting of the less honorable parts of our world, who help try to sell the rest of us on a fallacy: that everyone is bad; everyone does it; there's no use advocating for better things. And that's nothing to be too terrible proud of, as much as you may think of your perspective.
May 22, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCocoman25
Once again, way off base.

This has nothing to do with Carroll and USC and everything to do with the blindness that is out there. My post was made to shift the focus from the idea that the various teams' transgressions are an individual/school thing to rather one that confronts all of D-I college football (and basketball).

"And I don't give a rip about the system. I can demand and hope and cajol all I want to get what I think is right: decent kids playing a sport more or less on the up and up. Its not, as much as you'd like to think, a good character trait to just accept a system, warts and all, and then go ahead to cheer on those souls who are best at gaming the system"

Except until now you've been arguing from the standpoint that it's an individual thing whereas my argument is a broader one. Now you've taken on the broader argument, thus mission accomplished here.

I've said before I'd rather not see the transgressions, and see the bad guys harming their reputations and those of their universities. But I'm not going to act like off field incidents are a conspiracy or beholden to students of this or that university, because it's ridiculous.

I've now shredded that notion.

"Of course, there is the reality. And, of course, there are pressures on these coaches, and kids and programs. You seem to just accept it all with the snicker of the "cool" kid who thinks all his friends do drugs, and wag your finger at anyone who isn't as high minded as yourself"

More nonsense.

The reality is, based on your wording, everyone in college football IS doing drugs. You can fight it, but you're missing the boat when you start applying the label to individual programs as somehow different from the rest. As I said, WE'RE ALL GUILTY.

"But, believe it or not, this isn't all about pushing the boundaries, winning, and adhering to any "gentlemen's agreement" to do the wrong thing"

Of course not. But denial of what's in place and bad aim aren't excuses either.

"In fact, it's people like yourself, that are all too accepting of the less honorable parts of our world, who help try to sell the rest of us on a fallacy: that everyone is bad; everyone does it; there's no use advocating for better things. And that's nothing to be too terrible proud of, as much as you may think of your perspective"

You couldn't be more untrue. I'm an optimist and put great faith in human achievement and character. For the most part I assume the best in people.

But when it comes to this particular area of college athletics, I will do my best to point out others' shortcomings in analysis and reason.

Do I agree with the system, no.

But you know the only way to fix it? Completely dismantle what currently exists and create a new system.

The petty type of henpeck behavior as evidenced at your favorite site is exactly how not to go about changing things. It's how politics has been ruined at times in this country's brief but illustrious history.

When people get real, I'll be there to be of assistance, as I have been with the scheduling issue and other issues addressed here over the years.

My record's solid in that regard.

In the meantime I'm going to enjoy a pretty good game, as evidenced by the play on the field.

One can support a country's political system despite its shortcomings and the scoundrels who are often in charge just the same as one can support college football despite the various lurid aspects that exist within its framework.
May 22, 2006 | Registered CommenterCFR
Spin to your heart’s content.

”This has nothing to do with Carroll and USC.”

If so, answer these direct questions: Are you a USC alumni? Are you a fan of USC football. Do you own any piece of clothing that says “USC” on it?

I simply don’t believe that you have some high minded purpose in all this. In my opinion, you were angered by all of the negative attention USC has gotten in the press recently, and are now engaging in no small amount of schadenfreude over what’s happened recently at UCLA. Your original post goes to considerable lengths to pock a finger in UCLA’s eye. And you try to veil that by cloaking everything in an overarching argument that itself seeks to justify, excuse, and in a way, glorify, the transgressions of USC players and coaches as just the realpolitik of college football.

"Except until now you've been arguing from the standpoint that it's an individual thing whereas my argument is a broader one. Now you've taken on the broader argument, thus mission accomplished here.”

I do argue that it’s an individual thing, to the extent that I believe some programs are more guilty than others in this department, and some programs react differently, and better, than others. As you know, Carroll runs a loose program, and is now suffering the consequences. As you note, Dorrell has tried to run a tighter ship, even if his efforts haven’t been all together successful. You imply that not only should coaches like Dorrell not bother, but that they best get with the program and recruit some shady kids if they want to win. That leads to the broader question.

“But I'm not going to act like off field incidents are a conspiracy or beholden to students of this or that university, because it's ridiculous. I've now shredded that notion.”

You haven’t shredded anything. You’d just shown remarkable indifference to what’s going on at some schools. And though conspiracy may be too strong a word, some programs are acting intentionally (and differently than others) to maximize their chances of winning at the expense of discipline and control. You call this shrewdness.

”You can fight it, but you're missing the boat when you start applying the label to individual programs as somehow different from the rest. As I said, WE'RE ALL GUILTY.”

I agree that bad things WILL happen at every school. I disagree that all schools are doing the same things to prevent these bad things from happening, or that they all respond is the same way once they do. This is one of the primary fallacies of your argument.

”But when it comes to this particular area of college athletics, I will do my best to point out others' shortcomings in analysis and reason.”

If you mean, as long as it suits your purpose, then maybe so.

”But you know the only way to fix it? Completely dismantle what currently exists and create a new system.”

I’ll leave the macro question for another day. But I do know that individual coaches, some in particular, can do a better job of monitoring the players, keeping them out of bad situations, enforcing team rules, setting discipline, etc.

”When people get real, I'll be there to be of assistance, as I have been with the scheduling issue and other issues addressed here over the years.”

Godness gracious. Thanks. I know feel safe that the world is going to be a better place. Next stop, world peace.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCocoman25
This pile has utterly nothing to do with UCLA (or school X) and EVERYTHING to do with an sloppy attempt to justify USC's criminal culture. This is all about attempting to lump brazen, illegal behavior with winning programs popped in the past as if it's a recipe for a National Championship.

Weak, weak take - Trojan sod.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJezebel1969
Anyone who is a "die hard" division I-A football fan - specifically, those who follow the off season and recruiting - are already suspicious people. I'm one of those. Let's face it: a lot of those people get mad at infractions like marijuana possession because it hurts the team they cheer for; in the scheme of things, the majority of those who say they'd care if that kid wasn't on the team are lying.

We can all agree on things like rape and murder, namely that they are wrong no matter what and those guilty should be punished. But this concern over rogue programs, morals and standards doesn't jive with the fact that a lot of hardcore fans view these kids, at the end of the day, as means to an end. It's a lot of posturing and righteousness, and given the vulture like mentality of those who follow recruiting very closely it just doesn't make sense.

Fact: college kids are stupid. They will continue to act out. Coaches can punish all they want, but it won't stop kids from being stupid. I would prefer it if coaches punish harshly rather than lightly, but it just doesn't stop the stupidity.

I tried to read Bruins Nation but I had to stop. It read too much like an agenda for a beer hall putsch than anything else.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterjonathantu
Oh, I know. HP and I have fun knocking each other about, but it's all in good fun. Even the nasty comments. Especially the nasty comments!

I laughed my ass off at the Photoshop. Classic.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterPeter Bean
Jess Ward didn't even play for UCLA last year, he redshirted. Get your facts straight, you pimp!

The reason the programs you listed win national championships is because idiot alumni like you don't give a shit that braindead thugs are recruited as "student" athletes into their universities. They win football games, though, so insecure alumni with inferiority complexes can say to their rivals, "Ha, ha, ha, we beat you again!"

Happy days.

I don't know who's more stupid, that average college football player or the crazy alumni who focus on their hopes and dreams on these cretins.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterjustsomeswingingdick
As a bruin fan I hate the fact that people see the idiotic garbage that Bruins Nation puts up. They froth at the mouth with hatred not only at USC but at our own coach. I wish people would just ignore them, because they are morons.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterbluegold guy
I find it hilarious that Cocoman prefers the NFL to college football. Considering his team allegiances, why wouldn't he?

The other funny thing is BN's apparent attempt to place the blame for UCLA's problems at its coaches feet instead of its program and university. Therefore, Dorrell is to blame, but not UCLA. Before that, it was Toledo, but not UCLA. Before that, it was Donahue, but not UCLA.

Do you see the common thread here? It's that UCLA continually has players who get in trouble, regardless of the coach.

Further proof that, despite BN's protests to the contrary, Toledo was canned for his bad record, not his players' transgressions. Why would he get fired for transgressions when they happened before, during and now after the Toledo years?
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterHP
I just don't get it.

I think BN is on the right side of the character issue. Unfortunatelyfor BN so are a lot of SC fans but BN is blind to that because of the rivalry thing.

Here's the kicker though, is all this harping about PC not disciplining players for the sake of THE game or for the sake of THEIR game? Is it because the only way they can win on the field is if PC suspends those players who have some kind of infractions? If I were BN I'd take them head on and if BN wins they can pump their chests if they lose they could hold their heads high about fighting the good fight.

Either way they win, but their insecurity prevents them from getting out of the gutter and taking the high road.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterParagon SC
HP:

You're being dense.

First of all, let's not make too much hay out of my comment re the NFL. All I meant was that the football, from a skill perspective, is better than college. That was in response to CFR saying he just wanted "great" football. I enjoy college football a lot more for many reasons that I don't need to enumerate here.

Also, I'm not blaming "UCLA's problems," if you mean the off the field problems of late, on Dorrell, other than to argue that Dorrell should have suspended Hale and Ward following their arrest. And it makes no sense to divorce any blame at an institution from the people running that institution. While one could argue that some institutions have, and foster, a culture that contributes to problems, it's the people who are responsible for setting the rules, making the decisions and enforcing discipline. Like I said, what matters is what happens when these kinds of problems crop up, and until this recent hiccup with Hale and Ward, there is no question that UCLA has dealt more seriously and consistently with these issues than USC. You simply can't seriously suggest that Carroll doesn't run a loose program.

If you think Toledos problems with discipline didn't contribute to his firing, you had your head wedged somewhere unseemly during the relevant time period.

Finally, I'll ask the same questions that CFR dodged: Are you a USC alumni? Are you a fan of USC football? Do you own any piece of clothing that says “USC” on it? Yes or no answers will suffice.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCocoman25
Paragon:

I am happy to welcome and embrace any football fan who seriously confronts the discipline/character issue. And there is no doubt that some SC fans are on the right side of the issue. Unfortunately, the issue crops up all too often when some people write column after column which seem to have no other purpose than to try to justify the current state of affairs at USC and convince everyone its okay.

We're told that reporting a violation by another school is breaching some inviolate "gentlemen's agreement" or counseled that renegade coaches are "shrewd" rather than blameworthy. So, please understand that much of what is being said is directed at those people, not the USC alumni who are genuinely concerned about the issue (apart from how it affects things on the field).

As for the "kicker," though I can't speak for everyone, I really think of it as a matter of principal. It's about standards and rules of fairness that everyone should abide by. I am just as willing to criticize UCLA for such problems, as I did rather vocally during the Toledo years. Either way, though, I expect and hope that UCLA would beat USC a respectable number of times out of ten, and don't see this issue as a means to that end, or an excuse for not reaching it.

Finally, I don't think I've surrendered the high road. In fact, by not making excuses for the trangressions of all, I think I'm squarely upon it. Unless, of course, you think that fairly point out facts about bad things happening at rival schools is the low road. But just letting unscrupulous things happen without notice or comment feels more like the low road to me.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCocoman25
Let me take another tack Coco.

The Bush issue aside, please tell me how PC cheats? Those type of comments that come out of BN leave no room for discussion and erode BN's credibility. I've been pretty vocal as to how your blog really gets it when comes to breaking down athletics at UCLA. But when it breaks down to name calling and personal attacks it cheapens your work.

What will be the responce if Sanchez is not charged? Will you and your fellow BN posters accept the DA's findings and applaud the justice system or will it turn into another conspiracy theory of how SC owns the DA's office. Maybe he didn't do it. BTW Maualuga is a punk for his remarks.

What about Taylor at Texas? How come I don't here the same gnashing of teeth for his recent bone-head move? Is it because there was some common ground that they beat your hated rival? Because of all the ESPN love they receive I see the inverse for Duke, what happens if those kids didn't do it?. Hammer them all evenly or don't hammer them at all, any other way just lacks credibility and stinks of jealously.

Measured, non emotional responses like the ones you provide here go a long way with me to giving your side of the argument credibility.

We live in a society that is numb to the sort of bad behavior that has taken place at a number of schools recently. Not just USC and UCLA. While I certainly do not accept it as an excuse. This is a business and with the money that there is on the table there will always be someone who will look the other way in order to get a piece of that pie. It's not right but it's how it is.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterParagon SC
Paragon, of course, hits the nail right on the head.

The problem with BN is that it is a shamelessly partisan blog that, on the average day, seems more about hating USC than it is about loving UCLA. The hatred it has for USC means that it can't be taken as a credible indicter of USC. Why not ask Bin Laden's opinion of the U.S. policy in the War on Terror? Oh, right, he hates America. So he is biased.

Has it never occurred to BN that they also may have a bit of an axe to grind? Being a vicious rival blog discredits almost everything they say. Just read your average BN story and it tends to link to itself (!) to support its theories. Any attempt at fairness or telling the whole story is always thrown out the window.

As for where I went to school, why not ask the same thing of other bloggers or reporters? Bruce Feldman went to Miami. He even wrote a book on Miami. Hence, though he covers college football, he is uniquely positioned to weigh in on Miami when the subject comes up. Is he supposed to recuse himself?

Sure, I went to USC and I have never denied that. But if I wanted to do a USC blog, I would have. But having gone to USC and being around it, when the topic comes up, I am also uniquely positioned to comment on the school.

Unfortunately, BN thinks the same mentality it has--hating everything about its rivals--is the same mentality everyone else has. Which is why it can't take emotion out of things when discussing an issue.

When you start every debate with the assumption that Pete Carroll is a cheater and then work your way backwards, you are not going to get very far by way of accuracy.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterHP
One other thing: I find it laughable that the head of BN has no idea about Sam Gilbert and acts like the charges regarding Gilbert are out of left field.

Then, we understand why: He comes from across the pond, just another converted soccer hooligan. How would he know ANYTHING about what happened at UCLA before he arrived? Naturally, he doesn't.
May 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterHP

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.