This Whole Neuheisel Thing

Ksyrup · 02-13-2003, 08:15 AM

Am I missing something, or are people making way too much of the fact that Rick Neuheisel covered up his meeting with the 49ers about their coaching vacancy? ESPN's link to the article starts with "Neuheisel Lied." Isn't that a bit too much? When has a potential coaching candidate, especially one still coaching another team, ever been candid about his true intentions? How many times has a team and/or candidate outright denied any contact, then come to terms less than 24 hours later?

I don't really care about the guy one way or the other, I just find it ridiculous that he has to go through this crap but someone like Parcells, for instance, or even Franchione, skates. Just because Neuheisel was followed (I think outside of the media it's called stalking) by a reporter who listened to his private conversation with his parents, he gets to have his credibility questioned? Does anyone for a minute think that Dennis Franchione hadn't already been contacted before he gave his outright denials?

I just don't like double-standards, and I honestly feel sorry for the guy that he has to respond to crap like this while others who did the exact same thing, don't. Maybe this is just the media's attempt to pile on to a guy who's already had some "issues," I don't know. But I don't like it.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2003/0213/1508258.html

Fritz · 02-13-2003, 08:18 AM

I thought that Greenberg on the ESPn morning show was overly critical.

TroyF · 02-13-2003, 10:23 AM

Ksyrup,

I think it's because Rick has rubbed so many people the wrong way, they want to rip into him every chance they get. (raises hand)

I love watched the guy stumble like a drunken idiot. It's to bad, I like Washington a ton. I'll never cheer for them until Slick Rick is gone.

TroyF

moriarty · 02-13-2003, 10:24 AM

What? A college coach lied?

Imagine the scandal this could create. One by one the media unearths the fact that every college coach in the nation promised a recruit playing time only to sit him on the bench for four years, or promised the program would turn around ... only leading it to four more years of mediocracy.

This does seem overblown. I mean Neuheisel's made some snakey moves in the past, but so what if he lied to the media. He had a nondisclosure agreement (or whatever its called) w/ the 49'ers, so he couldn't tell the press ... and even if he said 'no comment' they would have assumed that meant 'yes'. Thumbs down on the press for this one.

dawgfan · 02-13-2003, 01:19 PM

From this Husky fan's perspective, I'm glad he came clean finally. This was going to be a big issue with the local media for as long as he kept it covered-up.

I'll give you the local timetable:

Sunday: Rumors about Neuheisel and the 49er job keep making the rounds. Local radio personality and rabid Husky fan Dave Mahler and frequent contributor (and former Husky QB) Hugh Millen both find out from sources that Neuheisel was in SF interviewing for the job. Meanwhile, when called by Husky football broadcast producer Bill Swartz, Neuheisel insists he's still in Sun Valley on vacation with his family.

Monday: Len Pasquarelli and Chris Mortenson of ESPN also confirm their sources say Neuheisel interviewed for the 49er job. Later that day, Neuheisel releases a press statement that he's not involved with the 49er job search and reaffirming his commitment to the UW. He further goes on in a press conference and on radio to assert that he did not interview for the job, even going so far as to say "I'm not lying about this." He admits he was in SF on Sunday, but claims it was regarding a golf course business venture.

Tuesday: Local columnist John Levesque reveals in his column that he was on the same flight back from SF to Seattle as Neuheisel, where he asked him if he had interviewed for the 49er job. Neuheisel denied it and told Levesque he'd been in town to golf with some old fraternity buddies. Mahler spends part of his radio show defending his sources and his contention that Neuheisel interviewed for the job.

Wednesday: Levesque writes another column where he reveals that he'd overheard Neuheisel talking about the 49er interview while having a loud cell-phone conversation in the waiting area for their flight out of SF. Local columnist Art Thiel questions Neuheisel's credibility in light of all this information. Mahler spends his radio show discussing the columns and calling on Neuheisel to come clean. Late Wednesday, Ted Cottrell's agent, while complaining about what he perceived as poor treatment of his client in the 49er interview process, asserts that the 49ers lied about Neuheisel (not interviewing) and had Neuheisel lie about it. Late last that night, Neuheisel admits he lied to the media, citing a confidentiality agreement as the reason why he had.

Now - why the big fuss? It's not really a big deal nationally, but his credibility in local media was at stake. If he'd attempted to continue the lie, his relationship to the media would've been severely compromised. Not to mention, as the leader and head coach of the football program he would be setting a poor example for his team and would be tainting the reputation of the school.

Some would argue that he did the right thing by maintaining the confidentiality agreement. If he did indeed have such an agreement, I think he was obligated to not admit to interviewing for the job, but that didn't require him to go out of his way to lie about it. Simply saying he'd been in SF on personal business that weekend, and saying he was not a candidate for the 49er position and was staying at the UW would've been truthful and not violated a confidentiality agreement. Sure, people would've read between the lines and assumed that he had interviewed, but he wouldn't have looked nearly so bad when he finally admitted the truth. And, if the confidentiality agreement did exist, it was certainly violated by the 49ers when the news of the interview was leaked to Pasquarelli and Mortenson.

rkmsuf · 02-13-2003, 01:23 PM

I can't think of a more ridiculous or time wasting story. People are seriously bored if this is what we are fed. Neuheisel is under no obligation to tell anyone anything and the only reason it's a story is the sorry state of the press. Who effing cares?

dawgfan · 02-13-2003, 01:30 PM

It's a sorry state of the press when they are attempting to report the truth? Sorry, but I consider that a frightening attitude.

If Neuheisel had been more clandestine about the whole affair it would've been a non-story. As Don James put it today, don't let people find out if you've interviewed for another job, but if they do, don't lie about it.

Ksyrup · 02-13-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dawgfan
From this Husky fan's perspective, I'm glad he came clean finally. This was going to be a big issue with the local media for as long as he kept it covered-up.

I'll give you the local timetable:

Sunday: Rumors about Neuheisel and the 49er job keep making the rounds. Local radio personality and rabid Husky fan Dave Mahler and frequent contributor (and former Husky QB) Hugh Millen both find out from sources that Neuheisel was in SF interviewing for the job. Meanwhile, when called by Husky football broadcast producer Bill Swartz, Neuheisel insists he's still in Sun Valley on vacation with his family.

Monday: Len Pasquarelli and Chris Mortenson of ESPN also confirm their sources say Neuheisel interviewed for the 49er job. Later that day, Neuheisel releases a press statement that he's not involved with the 49er job search and reaffirming his commitment to the UW. He further goes on in a press conference and on radio to assert that he did not interview for the job, even going so far as to say "I'm not lying about this." He admits he was in SF on Sunday, but claims it was regarding a golf course business venture.

Tuesday: Local columnist John Levesque reveals in his column that he was on the same flight back from SF to Seattle as Neuheisel, where he asked him if he had interviewed for the 49er job. Neuheisel denied it and told Levesque he'd been in town to golf with some old fraternity buddies. Mahler spends part of his radio show defending his sources and his contention that Neuheisel interviewed for the job.

Wednesday: Levesque writes another column where he reveals that he'd overheard Neuheisel talking about the 49er interview while having a loud cell-phone conversation in the waiting area for their flight out of SF. Local columnist Art Thiel questions Neuheisel's credibility in light of all this information. Mahler spends his radio show discussing the columns and calling on Neuheisel to come clean. Late Wednesday, Ted Cottrell's agent, while complaining about what he perceived as poor treatment of his client in the 49er interview process, asserts that the 49ers lied about Neuheisel (not interviewing) and had Neuheisel lie about it. Late last that night, Neuheisel admits he lied to the media, citing a confidentiality agreement as the reason why he had.

Now - why the big fuss? It's not really a big deal nationally, but his credibility in local media was at stake. If he'd attempted to continue the lie, his relationship to the media would've been severely compromised. Not to mention, as the leader and head coach of the football program he would be setting a poor example for his team and would be tainting the reputation of the school.

Some would argue that he did the right thing by maintaining the confidentiality agreement. If he did indeed have such an agreement, I think he was obligated to not admit to interviewing for the job, but that didn't require him to go out of his way to lie about it. Simply saying he'd been in SF on personal business that weekend, and saying he was not a candidate for the 49er position and was staying at the UW would've been truthful and not violated a confidentiality agreement. Sure, people would've read between the lines and assumed that he had interviewed, but he wouldn't have looked nearly so bad when he finally admitted the truth. And, if the confidentiality agreement did exist, it was certainly violated by the 49ers when the news of the interview was leaked to Pasquarelli and Mortenson.

I guess my only issue with all of this is, the media could do this with any coaching candidate they choose - just continue to press them, ask direct questions, etc. - but they either don't or simply don't pursue the inaccuracy of a previous statement in light of the facts as they come out, so I think it is unfair to put this one guy on the spot for doing the same thing nearly every other coaching candidate who is otherwise employed, does. If pressed and forced to tell the truth, I suspect that Mooch would have to admit that he had at least spoken to the Lions before Millen's press conference announcing Marty's firing. Or that Franchione spoke with A&M before RC was "relieved of his duties."

I guess Neuheisel doesn't have many friends in the press up there and people are looking to get this guy at any chance they can, as TroyF indicated. I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's not like he's telling people he was in Vietnam like that guy who coached the Blue Jays. What he did was a common practice among potential coaching candidates, and he did it at their request. I'm sure the same deal was struck with Erickson, it's just that he didn't have some nutjob reporter following him and listening in on conversations.

rkmsuf · 02-13-2003, 01:35 PM

My point is whether he did or didn't makes no difference. Why anyone cares outside of the Northwest what he did is beyond me.

Your quote from James makes no sense if you are intent on reporting the truth and is exactly the mantra Neuheisel followed. It's what every coach does.

Ksyrup · 02-13-2003, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dawgfan
It's a sorry state of the press when they are attempting to report the truth? Sorry, but I consider that a frightening attitude.

If Neuheisel had been more clandestine about the whole affair it would've been a non-story. As Don James put it today, don't let people find out if you've interviewed for another job, but if they do, don't lie about it.

I don't care so much that they found out and reported it, but that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion as if Neuheisel is the first coach to lie about whether he interviewed for or accepted another job. That's my issue.

I guess Parcell's deal with ESPN gave him free reign to lie about being contacted by Dallas, then to lie about what he and Jones discussed, and then to lie about not being contacted about the Kentucky job, etc. Why did he and Franchione skate but Neuheisel suddenly become a liar?

HornedFrog Purple · 02-13-2003, 01:50 PM

Of course the difference being that Franchione had those teams listed in his contract for a reason. He was allowed to speak to any of those teams at any time. Alabama agreed to it. So please explain how there are similarities.

dawgfan · 02-13-2003, 02:03 PM

My point is that Neuheisel didn't have to concoct a story, lie, and then have the audacity to say "I'm not lying about this". All he had to do was state that he's not a candidate for the job and staying at the UW, say he was in SF on personal business, and then lay low until the 49ers make their coaching announcement.

As for the James quote, Neuheisel did not follow his advice - he didn't come clean when he was found out, at least not until there was a huge media firestorm surrounding the situation. For people to be bashing the media for attempting to report the truth and deciding that a coach lying to the public is a story is asinine IMO.

moriarty · 02-13-2003, 02:05 PM

OK, how about Butch Davies. I mean how many times did he say he was definitely not going to the pros, right before he bolted for Cleveland?

(And why in the heck am I defending Neuheisel?)

edit: you got in ahead of me Dawgfan, but he did seem to go pretty far out of his way to deny the SF rumours.

rkmsuf · 02-13-2003, 02:07 PM

Well if that is how you feel I'd suggest greatly expanding your scope...be it football, politics ect...

A firestorm over anything this guy does regarding his career seems silly.

I agree with Ksyrup on this one...

Ksyrup · 02-13-2003, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
Of course the difference being that Franchione had those teams listed in his contract for a reason. He was allowed to speak to any of those teams at any time. Alabama agreed to it. So please explain how there are similarities.

But he said he wasn't speaking to A&M and was staying with Alabama, which clearly was not the case. He might have had a contractual right to talk to them, but he didn't have to lie about it. It's the lying that's my issue, not the fact that he talked to them or took the job.

Anrhydeddu · 02-13-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

I think he was obligated to not admit to interviewing for the job, but that didn't require him to go out of his way to lie about it.

If the f'n media weren't acting like stupid vultures chasing after triviality and hype, he would not have gone out of his way to lie about it.

rkmsuf · 02-13-2003, 03:09 PM

Anrhydeddu -- well put...that's what I was really feeling...

dawgfan · 02-13-2003, 03:11 PM

Let me see if I've got this straight - Neuheisel's name is linked to the 49er job search. The local media checks with their sources to find out if there's any veracity to the rumors. Neuheisel denies these rumors, concocts a fabricated story, states "I'm not lying about this" to the media, and they're to blame? They're "vultures" for doing their job?

So tell me, were Woodward and Bernstein "vultures" for pursuing the Watergate story? Yes, I know, sports and politics are not anywhere close to the same level of importance. But it wasn't a bunch of investigative reporters on this story, it was sports reporters and columnists. Are you suggesting that all they should do is be blind cheerleaders for the local guys, truth be damned?

HornedFrog Purple · 02-13-2003, 03:12 PM

Since when does no comment = lying?

Speaking of lying, why doesnt Alabama get any grief for lying to Franchione upon his hiring? It was understood that the sanctions discovered were the only penalties left that Alabama had.

Clearly that was not the case.

rkmsuf · 02-13-2003, 03:15 PM

is there any possiblility that the media is to blame for his conduct? maybe he was concerned with keeping his job since he wasn't getting the SF gig...what is wrong with that? maybe he panicked...whatever. Why are we so concerned with what he is doing?

Anrhydeddu · 02-13-2003, 03:18 PM

dawgfan, certainly not blind cheerleaders (that's just as bad) but how about just reporting facts without an agenda or self-importance hype and let us determine that we should care or not?

HornedFrog Purple · 02-13-2003, 03:20 PM

Because "oh woes me" sells.

dawgfan · 02-13-2003, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
dawgfan, certainly not blind cheerleaders (that's just as bad) but how about just reporting facts without an agenda or self-importance hype and let us determine that we should care or not?

I can't speak for national media, but just reporting the facts is exactly what the local media did. When Neuheisel then lied about the situation the local media called him on it. I'm not understanding how the media is to blame here. As for the columnists, it's their job to express opinions. From my perspective, and I'm a Husky fan, I've agreed with nearly everything the local columnists have said about the situation.

dawgfan · 02-13-2003, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rkmsuf
is there any possiblility that the media is to blame for his conduct? maybe he was concerned with keeping his job since he wasn't getting the SF gig...what is wrong with that? maybe he panicked...whatever. Why are we so concerned with what he is doing?

I'm concerned because he's the Head Coach of my Alma Mater's football team and I'm a huge fan of the program. Why does the national media care? Because he keeps making news for questionable actions, and this fits a pattern.

I wouldn't expect fans outside the Pac-10 to give a rip about the story though.

As for the media's role in his lie, he's under no obligation to tell the media the same thing he tells his boss. I would hope for his sake that he was upfront with her, otherwise he loses credibility with the person writing his paycheck.

As has been pointed out, he could've handled this in a way where he would not have lied to the media (and by extension the public) while at the same time not violating his confidentiality agreement. Had he done this, it would've been a non-story.

Anrhydeddu · 02-13-2003, 04:08 PM

Quote:

it would've been a non-story

Uh-huh. In my cynical view, job #1 is to make stories out of non-stories to sell ads and ratings. This would be esp. true of those feeding huge fans. You said it before, "sports and politics are not anywhere close to the same level of importance" but some act like that is not the case.

dawg: This is in no way a personal attack on you, it's just shootin' the bull on a hot button topic.

moriarty · 02-13-2003, 04:19 PM

Well I'm wondering if it would have been a non-story in the local media had the team finished better than 4-4 in the Pac 10 last year. Sounds like they're out to get this guy (and despite his 'questionable' actions, it's nothing a Rose Bowl victory wouldn't cure).

Then again, maybe it was just another cold rainy day in the Northwest, the line at Starbucks was too long, so the media had to find something fun to do.

dawgfan · 02-13-2003, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
dawg: This is in no way a personal attack on you, it's just shootin' the bull on a hot button topic.

No offense taken.

As to whether it was a story or not, it was all just public speculation (mainly for the sports radio folk) at first. It didn't become a story until Neuheisel made his definitive public statement that was so clearly at odds with the truth that it become a real story. You're more cynical than I am about the press - while I acknowledge that they are sometimes wrong and frequently misleading, it's still their job and duty to try and report the truth. Maybe I'm naive, but I think had he kept information to a minimum on the whole thing until the 49ers had made their announcement that it would've been much less of a story. Yes, some with an agenda in the press might've pushed the issue, but I think others would've winked and looked the other way. It's not like Rick couldn't have called these guys and told them off-the-record what the real story was.

02-13-2003, 08:18 AM	#2
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	I thought that Greenberg on the ESPn morning show was overly critical. __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

02-13-2003, 01:23 PM	#6
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	I can't think of a more ridiculous or time wasting story. People are seriously bored if this is what we are fed. Neuheisel is under no obligation to tell anyone anything and the only reason it's a story is the sorry state of the press. Who effing cares? __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

02-13-2003, 01:35 PM	#9
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	My point is whether he did or didn't makes no difference. Why anyone cares outside of the Northwest what he did is beyond me. Your quote from James makes no sense if you are intent on reporting the truth and is exactly the mantra Neuheisel followed. It's what every coach does. __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales Last edited by rkmsuf : 02-13-2003 at 01:37 PM.

02-13-2003, 01:50 PM	#11
HornedFrog Purple Hattrick Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Fort Worthless, Tx	Of course the difference being that Franchione had those teams listed in his contract for a reason. He was allowed to speak to any of those teams at any time. Alabama agreed to it. So please explain how there are similarities. __________________ King of All FOFC Media!!! IHOF: Fort Worthless Fury- 2004 AOC Deep South Champions (not acknowledged via conspiracy)

02-13-2003, 02:05 PM	#13
moriarty College Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: A negative place	OK, how about Butch Davies. I mean how many times did he say he was definitely not going to the pros, right before he bolted for Cleveland? (And why in the heck am I defending Neuheisel?) edit: you got in ahead of me Dawgfan, but he did seem to go pretty far out of his way to deny the SF rumours. Last edited by moriarty : 02-13-2003 at 02:06 PM.

02-13-2003, 10:23 AM	#3
TroyF Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	Ksyrup, I think it's because Rick has rubbed so many people the wrong way, they want to rip into him every chance they get. (raises hand) I love watched the guy stumble like a drunken idiot. It's to bad, I like Washington a ton. I'll never cheer for them until Slick Rick is gone. TroyF

02-13-2003, 10:24 AM	#4
moriarty College Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: A negative place	What? A college coach lied? Imagine the scandal this could create. One by one the media unearths the fact that every college coach in the nation promised a recruit playing time only to sit him on the bench for four years, or promised the program would turn around ... only leading it to four more years of mediocracy. This does seem overblown. I mean Neuheisel's made some snakey moves in the past, but so what if he lied to the media. He had a nondisclosure agreement (or whatever its called) w/ the 49'ers, so he couldn't tell the press ... and even if he said 'no comment' they would have assumed that meant 'yes'. Thumbs down on the press for this one.

02-13-2003, 01:19 PM	#5
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	From this Husky fan's perspective, I'm glad he came clean finally. This was going to be a big issue with the local media for as long as he kept it covered-up. I'll give you the local timetable: Sunday: Rumors about Neuheisel and the 49er job keep making the rounds. Local radio personality and rabid Husky fan Dave Mahler and frequent contributor (and former Husky QB) Hugh Millen both find out from sources that Neuheisel was in SF interviewing for the job. Meanwhile, when called by Husky football broadcast producer Bill Swartz, Neuheisel insists he's still in Sun Valley on vacation with his family. Monday: Len Pasquarelli and Chris Mortenson of ESPN also confirm their sources say Neuheisel interviewed for the 49er job. Later that day, Neuheisel releases a press statement that he's not involved with the 49er job search and reaffirming his commitment to the UW. He further goes on in a press conference and on radio to assert that he did not interview for the job, even going so far as to say "I'm not lying about this." He admits he was in SF on Sunday, but claims it was regarding a golf course business venture. Tuesday: Local columnist John Levesque reveals in his column that he was on the same flight back from SF to Seattle as Neuheisel, where he asked him if he had interviewed for the 49er job. Neuheisel denied it and told Levesque he'd been in town to golf with some old fraternity buddies. Mahler spends part of his radio show defending his sources and his contention that Neuheisel interviewed for the job. Wednesday: Levesque writes another column where he reveals that he'd overheard Neuheisel talking about the 49er interview while having a loud cell-phone conversation in the waiting area for their flight out of SF. Local columnist Art Thiel questions Neuheisel's credibility in light of all this information. Mahler spends his radio show discussing the columns and calling on Neuheisel to come clean. Late Wednesday, Ted Cottrell's agent, while complaining about what he perceived as poor treatment of his client in the 49er interview process, asserts that the 49ers lied about Neuheisel (not interviewing) and had Neuheisel lie about it. Late last that night, Neuheisel admits he lied to the media, citing a confidentiality agreement as the reason why he had. Now - why the big fuss? It's not really a big deal nationally, but his credibility in local media was at stake. If he'd attempted to continue the lie, his relationship to the media would've been severely compromised. Not to mention, as the leader and head coach of the football program he would be setting a poor example for his team and would be tainting the reputation of the school. Some would argue that he did the right thing by maintaining the confidentiality agreement. If he did indeed have such an agreement, I think he was obligated to not admit to interviewing for the job, but that didn't require him to go out of his way to lie about it. Simply saying he'd been in SF on personal business that weekend, and saying he was not a candidate for the 49er position and was staying at the UW would've been truthful and not violated a confidentiality agreement. Sure, people would've read between the lines and assumed that he had interviewed, but he wouldn't have looked nearly so bad when he finally admitted the truth. And, if the confidentiality agreement did exist, it was certainly violated by the 49ers when the news of the interview was leaked to Pasquarelli and Mortenson.

02-13-2003, 01:30 PM	#7
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	It's a sorry state of the press when they are attempting to report the truth? Sorry, but I consider that a frightening attitude. If Neuheisel had been more clandestine about the whole affair it would've been a non-story. As Don James put it today, don't let people find out if you've interviewed for another job, but if they do, don't lie about it.

02-13-2003, 02:03 PM	#12
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	My point is that Neuheisel didn't have to concoct a story, lie, and then have the audacity to say "I'm not lying about this". All he had to do was state that he's not a candidate for the job and staying at the UW, say he was in SF on personal business, and then lay low until the 49ers make their coaching announcement. As for the James quote, Neuheisel did not follow his advice - he didn't come clean when he was found out, at least not until there was a huge media firestorm surrounding the situation. For people to be bashing the media for attempting to report the truth and deciding that a coach lying to the public is a story is asinine IMO.

02-13-2003, 02:07 PM	#14
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	Well if that is how you feel I'd suggest greatly expanding your scope...be it football, politics ect... A firestorm over anything this guy does regarding his career seems silly. I agree with Ksyrup on this one... __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

02-13-2003, 03:09 PM	#17
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	Anrhydeddu -- well put...that's what I was really feeling... __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

02-13-2003, 03:11 PM	#18
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	Let me see if I've got this straight - Neuheisel's name is linked to the 49er job search. The local media checks with their sources to find out if there's any veracity to the rumors. Neuheisel denies these rumors, concocts a fabricated story, states "I'm not lying about this" to the media, and they're to blame? They're "vultures" for doing their job? So tell me, were Woodward and Bernstein "vultures" for pursuing the Watergate story? Yes, I know, sports and politics are not anywhere close to the same level of importance. But it wasn't a bunch of investigative reporters on this story, it was sports reporters and columnists. Are you suggesting that all they should do is be blind cheerleaders for the local guys, truth be damned?

02-13-2003, 03:12 PM	#19
HornedFrog Purple Hattrick Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Fort Worthless, Tx	Since when does no comment = lying? Speaking of lying, why doesnt Alabama get any grief for lying to Franchione upon his hiring? It was understood that the sanctions discovered were the only penalties left that Alabama had. Clearly that was not the case. __________________ King of All FOFC Media!!! IHOF: Fort Worthless Fury- 2004 AOC Deep South Champions (not acknowledged via conspiracy)

02-13-2003, 03:15 PM	#20
rkmsuf Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2001	is there any possiblility that the media is to blame for his conduct? maybe he was concerned with keeping his job since he wasn't getting the SF gig...what is wrong with that? maybe he panicked...whatever. Why are we so concerned with what he is doing? __________________ "Don't you have homes?" -- Judge Smales

02-13-2003, 03:18 PM	#21
Anrhydeddu Resident Curmudgeon Join Date: Oct 2002	dawgfan, certainly not blind cheerleaders (that's just as bad) but how about just reporting facts without an agenda or self-importance hype and let us determine that we should care or not?

02-13-2003, 03:20 PM	#22
HornedFrog Purple Hattrick Moderator Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Fort Worthless, Tx	Because "oh woes me" sells. __________________ King of All FOFC Media!!! IHOF: Fort Worthless Fury- 2004 AOC Deep South Champions (not acknowledged via conspiracy)

02-13-2003, 04:19 PM	#26
moriarty College Starter Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: A negative place	Well I'm wondering if it would have been a non-story in the local media had the team finished better than 4-4 in the Pac 10 last year. Sounds like they're out to get this guy (and despite his 'questionable' actions, it's nothing a Rose Bowl victory wouldn't cure). Then again, maybe it was just another cold rainy day in the Northwest, the line at Starbucks was too long, so the media had to find something fun to do.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)