Grandstanding 101

by PB @ BON on Sep 26, 2007 9:50 AM CDT in Football Comment 48 comments

If you thought Mike Gundy's tirade was pretty out there, take a look at the comments made last week by Navy coach Paul Johnson:

Reporter: Can I ask you something without making you mad?

Johnson: Maybe. I don't know.

Reporter: I was talking to a Navy fan and he said he follows the coverage and that he noticed something and I'm just going to put it to you. He says that it seems like when Navy loses you blame the players, i.e., we can't execute fundamental plays, but that the success of the team the last four years has been attributed to brilliant coaching. How do you respond to that?

Johnson: Whatever he thinks. I don't go down to McDonald's and start second-guessing his job so he ought to leave me alone.

Reporter: But do you feel like it can't be both ways?

Johnson: You know what? I could care less. I'm old enough where I could give a crap what the fans think or what you think to put it in a nutshell.

Okay, then!

There's a fine line between being zany and quotable in a good way (see: Leach, Michael) and just plain outrageous. Johnson goes way across that line in this case, in a way that would make me reprimand him if I were the school's athletic director.

And Gundy? I know there's a lot of (justified) resentment towards the media, who grandstand and take out personal vendettas against athletes all the time, but Gundy totally mishandled this. He lambasted the reporter, in public, trying to shame her, all because (supposedly) he wants to protect his kids.

That may be a noble sentiment, but there are several mitigating factors here. For one thing, Gundy is at least half the problem with the situation regarding the media. He's been incommunicative at best, flat out misleading at worst. And when the reporter asked Gundy on Monday to please clarify which parts of her story were inaccurate? He couldn't.

The media gets properly blasted for their shameful performances, but sometimes, the problem's on the other side. In this case, Gundy declined an opportunity to speak to the reporter or editor in a rational manner, declined to address the facts he disputed, and put on a grand ol' show to try to humiliate the columnist he doesn't like. That's not protecting your kids; that's grandstanding.

I'm glad it wasn't my coach.

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 48 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Johnson stole that line from Keith Foulke

Foulke said about fans booing him in 2005, "I don't care what Johnny from Burger King thinks". Sure Keith, like a Burger King employee could afford to spend $100 on one Red Sox ticket, not to mention $6 per beer and $5 for a hot dog! Talk about out of touch!

by Old Tex29 on Sep 26, 2007 9:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The rest of the quote

For the record, I think giving the rest of Johnson's conversation fills out the story a little bit, and makes him seem a lot less outrageous, at least in my book. Plus it's funny.

Reporter: Wins and losses are evenly distributed as far as credit and blame, right?
Johnson: If you could ever find one time that I said we won the game because of brilliant strategy I will kiss your butt at city dock and give you two days to draw a crowd. Find it and bring it to me. Tell that guy that if he wants to talk to me I live at [address given but deleted for the transcript] I will be right there. Come ring my doorbell and I will be glad to talk to him.

by bbatsell on Sep 26, 2007 10:22 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Johnson was spot on

Coaches, often in frustration, may point out that their team didn't execute well in a loss.
Mike Leach does this often.

They aren't blaming it on a player in particular. I guarantee you, the vast majority of coaches (Dennis Franchione is in the minority) blame themselves when their team loses the game. Execution issues or not, it is the job of the coach to prepare his team to win. If they don't execute, that falls on the coach.

That was just a simple example of a reporter trying to bait a coach, and the coach not falling for it.

by Beergut on Sep 26, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hilarious

But I would hope that Navy guys are good at, um, strategy and stuff.

I'm going to have to send this to my buddy was a LT in the Navy.

by SelimSivad on Sep 26, 2007 10:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

and

now that I think about it, I'd hope they'd be good at execution, too.

by SelimSivad on Sep 26, 2007 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i heard the coach said that

in the same tone as r. lee ermey.

by mattw on Sep 26, 2007 11:09 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Real simple...

When it comes to dealing with the media, coaches would be well-served to remember these two following age-less principles: (1) Pick your battles, and (2) When it comes to the media, even if you win, you lose.

by Horns757 on Sep 26, 2007 11:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree that

Gundy did not handle the situation correctly. As was said before a simple "this article is crap" followed by not taking any questions from her for a couple of weeks would have been fine.

But even if every thing in that article is fact, pointing out that someone's mom was feeding him after the game and trying to use that to support an attack on a kid is beyond ridiculous.

by Wells on Sep 26, 2007 11:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

true

ain't nothin wrong with being a momma's boy. Plus, I bet every OSU player feels better about their coach now and will play harder for him, knowing he cares this much about them and will back them up.

...til Gabriel blows his horn

by BigTexBD on Sep 26, 2007 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

From a coaches' perspective

What is the purpose of a coach talking to the media anyway? If I were a coach I would use every trick in the book in dealing with the media to gain any advantage that could be gained. How does it benefit a coach to tell a reporter who will start at QB in an upcoming game? Football is a game of strategy most often compared to War. Warfighters and politicians in general have learned to use the media to gain strategic advantages. Coaches have learned to do the same thing. So what's wrong with a coach being incommunicative or misleading if there is some advantage to be gained from it? Also, a coach should have every right to protect his players. College students who are amateur athletes should not be personally attacked by the media. Of course their play on the field is fair game, but whose business is it that a kid allows his mom to feed him or any of the other crap that was written about him?

by Rashad1914 on Sep 26, 2007 1:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Nothing wrong with it

But you can't simultaneously blast the paper for "getting it wrong," either. It's one or the other. Talk to them or ignore them.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Sep 26, 2007 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

disagree

If I were a coach I would use every trick in the book in dealing with the media to gain any advantage that could be gained.

IMO, a college coach's job is not just to win games, he should represent the university in a respectful manner. Such a childish tirade is total BS in my book. He had no logic, he was just shouting the same thing over and over. He blasted a paper, and did not even allowed them to respond, wtf?

In Mack We Trust.

by Cyrus on Sep 26, 2007 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Allow them to respond?

I didn't know that Gundy needed to "allow them to respond."

Dude. I think you have that backwards.

Newpaper prints baseless allegation

Gundy goes off on reporter who penned allegation

Cyrus things Gundy is a meany for not being nice to huge media conglomerate.

Wtf?

Since when do we need to "allow" the press to make rejoinder? Last I checked that ditz was all over the talk shows....

...but the editor was holding any published rejoinder pending permission from Gundy. ;o)

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

The Oklahoman is a "huge media conglomerate"? I work for a company bigger than that, and it's not even one of the biggest conglomerates.

Besides, is everybody missing the fact that he didn't go off on the paper, per se, but the columnist?

Finally, I think Cyrus' main point (as I read it) is that, whether what he did is "right" or not (and it's only "right" if anything that makes you feel better is "right"), it looked terrible to people who don't like going on television and looking like they have serious mental problems that probably should have been dealt with before they became "A MAN!!!!!"

by cocknfire on Sep 26, 2007 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh too!

cocknfire (heehee!) mentioned what I really meant. The whole point is that he went off like a crazy person, and represented his institution in a horrible way. If he didn't like the article, he could have just argued against it, why acting like that?

The point about Gundy not letting the reporter respond is that he didn't start a dialog. He didn't want to have a dialog, he just wanted to shout!

In Mack We Trust.

by Cyrus on Sep 26, 2007 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dialog?

Oh, is that what Jenni Carlson and the Oklahoman wanted?

Dialog?

Damn, my bad. I thought they were into selling newspapers.

So I suppose, in their quest for dialog, Ms Carlson's request for an interview of Gundy on the topic of Reid/Robinson was rebuffed?

Whasssat? There was no such request?

Funny way to seek dialog, that.

And, compared to a few mikes and a podium, which is all Gundy has for his pulpit (well, that and YouTube, but that ain't his doing), Jenni Carlson IS a "huge media conglomerate." The point is they buy their ink by the barrel, and use it accordingly.

The idea that yelling at their "reporter" at a presser somehow affronts them or is unfair or somehow asymmetrical is hilarious.

Also, how "crazy" or just "bad" Gundy looked is a matter of opinion. Yours. And one a lot of folks don't share.

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But, what about the players?

What opportunity do the players have to respond? None....Jenni Carlson gets to degrade the character of a player, it's printed and read all across Oklahoma, and the player has no chance to respond....

I think it's ok for a coach to respond...you may not like how he responded, but he responded in a way that he calculated (rightly or wrongly) would get the message across to an insensitive journalist who shouldn't be covering college football players....let her report on games, but she and her editor need to take journalism classes, and learn that college students are not the playground of the media vampires

by MojoMarvels on Sep 26, 2007 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

Ofcourse responding is fine, that tirade is not.

In Mack We Trust.

by Cyrus on Sep 26, 2007 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He COULDN'T point out the inaccuracies?

Or wouldn't?

Newsflash: There weren't many facts to dispute. The article and its thesis were mostly rumor & innuendo. The main point of the piece involved the MOTIVATIONS of the coaches, and this was vociferously debunked after the game by the head coach.

What was the topic or gist of said innuendo in the article? That Reid was benched for his attitude as much as for his performance.

Again, this was refuted by Gundy at the presser (I will assume you have seen the video?).

So.

Article: "Gundy benches Reid for being Mommas boy"

Gundy, at postgame presser: "that is horse poop."

There, nice and explicit for ya.

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 2:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

A couple of things...

First, as to why you communicate with the media: Because that's the fans' representative. Like it or not, without the media (and whomever you want to include in that term), coaches can't talk to the fans. That's the only way fans can get their information, barring blogs and message boards, most of which get their information (or at least the reliable stuff) from the media or from press conferences. Until fans have the time and ability to trundle down to the coaches' weekly chats themselves -- and until universities have the space to handle that -- that's the way it is. Deal.

Secondly, though, I think the most shameful part of this whole incident is getting overlooked. Who the hell cares if Gundy is right or wrong -- and, let's face it, since everbody hates the media, most people are going to assume he's right. His team, which has been struggling, stunned Texas Tech and prompted that team to can its defensive coordinator. But was anybody in the country talking about how Oklahoma State pulled the upset, how well a particular player performed or anything along those lines? No. ESPN, the Web, etc. all latched onto Gundy's rant. So the team's performance got lost in the shuffle because the coach wanted to indulge his own temper and try to make it up to a single player who got his feelings hurt. That's childish.

by cocknfire on Sep 26, 2007 3:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Johnson was a bit harsh

But you know what they say... once you start listening to the fans, sooner or later, you'll be sitting with them.

by goingforthecorner on Sep 26, 2007 3:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I dunno, PB

Gundy did tell the reporter what parts of the column were inaccurate, when he said allegations that Reid threatened to transfer if he had to compete for the QB job with Donovan Woods wasn't true.

A coach can be as forthcoming or as guarded with the media as he wants to be. In Oklahoma, Okie State knows they are going to be the second story in the Daily Oklahoman anyway (the Gaylord family owns the Oklahoman, OU's stadium is named after them, they're huge boosters of OU), so Gundy doesn't need to bend over backwards to be nice to them.

I'm not surprised Gundy didn't want to talk to Jenni Carlson on Monday. If I were him, I'd refuse to talk to her ever again, just for her stupidity.
Also, he has a game on Saturday to prepare for.

I think you're coming down too much on the side of the media on this one.
There isn't a coach yet who I've talked to who didn't agree with what Gundy did.
In the process, he fostered an "us against the world" mentality, and is bringing his team together. You think that isn't good for his program?

by Beergut on Sep 26, 2007 3:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd disagree

Gundy's got obligations beyond his team here. He has obligations to his employer, the university, and to his boosters, the funders.

My main point is this, and so far I haven't seen anyone satisfactorily answer this complaint: Gundy's mistake was not getting after Carlson for writing a crappy column. Gundy's mistake was getting after Carlson in the manner that he did.

That's how adolescents deal with shit they don't like. They throw tantrums. A smarter professional would have handled this with more discretion. Imagine, for example, that Gundy had said, matter-of-factly, "I want now to draw everyone's attention to an article in today's Oklahoman. The columnist who wrote this story misrepresented the situation surrounding one of my players. Today I am embarrassed that fans of my team have to read a paper which would be so cowardly as to publish this article. This young man has done nothing but the right thing, from the moment he arrived here."

And so on. You get the idea.

Would he have still met the goals of:

Sticking up for his player

Pointing out publicly a column he thought was absurd

The answer is yes. And we'd be talking about that stupid column instead of about the lunatic we saw on TV. Maybe there's some segment of the population which thinks what Gundy did was the right thing to do. But there are a lot of people who think that screaming and throwing a tantrum like that is just as ridiculous as the column itself.

From my point of view - he botched it. I can sympathize with his goals, but I shake my head at his actions. He looked like a clown.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Sep 26, 2007 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

adolescents?

That's how adolescents deal with shit they don't like.

Peter, a direct quote from the tirade: "I'M A MAN... I'M 40!"

Are you saying Gundy is a 40 year old teenager?

by the other Andrew on Sep 26, 2007 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This does present a problem

See!! He lied!! TO THE MEDIA!

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Sep 26, 2007 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

another question I have for Gundy

dont know why i'm putting it here, but... what the hell was he gonna do if they lost? Was he still gonna yell and scream like that?

by the other Andrew on Sep 26, 2007 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What did Gundy accomplish?

The problem is also that Gundy drew the attention of the whole country to the column. At the very least most college football fans and many others now know the (mostly uncontradicted) contents of the column. Prior to Gundy's tirade these contents were familiar to some greater or lesser proportion of the Okie state fan base. To the extent that Reid was emberassed by the column he must be particularly pleased that it has no gotten such expanded ciruculation.

marshalld

by duras on Sep 26, 2007 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gundy was embarrassed.

I think that is at the core of the emotion. That and this: He goes out of his way to defend the kid by saying he did everything right. If the kid had done everything right, Gundy wouldn't have demoted him. This basic conflict screams with each rise in Gundy's voice.

As far as the rest of it, you can catch that stuff on most any blog or newspaper when situations haven't been properly aired. An early graph of the story reveal the known elements of the story and the basic conflict with what the coach had said early in the week.

Let me explain. Cowboy coaches have gone full-speed ahead with the Zac Attack, opting to start Robinson over Reid a week ago, then sticking with him against Texas Tech today even after an embarrassing loss at Troy. Weren't we being told just last week that Reid was still the guy? All the weight with which Cowboy coaches were backing Reid has totally shifted to Robinson.

Did Gundy do a good job defusing the situation with the benching of Reid? Obviously not.

There was also something else, one of those unsourced 'insiders say' statements in the column.

Again from the article (bolding added):

Even though Mike Gundy said last week that Robinson got the nod because he had the better week of practice, insiders say that the coaches decided to bench Reid early in the week.

Head coaches control the info and I've seen them be extremely vehement in doing so. Leaks piss them off. Gundy sure seemed like someone pissed off. The statement was a vehicle for the emotion but the real reason was never revealed.

DKR was great with dealing with the public, so at ease and low key, but he could tear down or build up another team with a couple of words. That faded when the spying episode came up. The emotion was so strong that it overpowered his normally calm demeanor. (Of course, DKR was correct in his assessment.)

The very best for playing the media for both his team and against his players (as a psychological trick) was Jimmy Johnson. He had about five years worth of tricks and, unlike DKR and many others, used his emotions to help convey his points.

Comparing Gundy to those two, he's a rank amateur. Gundy blew a great situation after the victory, and it may be a long time before another comes his way.

by whills on Sep 26, 2007 9:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe so Hornsfan

but I just think that if he didn't go off on a tirade, the media, especially Jenni Carlson and her employer would never have noticed. He went off and it made her a news item...she's been on Good Morning American and who knows what else....for doing what Jason Whitlock and many other JOURNALISTS have called a piss poor job

That's not the notoriety that most journalists want. Yes, many in the media, ESPN included, are taking up for her. But she did a really poor job and I think Gundy's rant is what it takes to make sure that she and her employer at least understand that they need to pay attention to what they are saying about these individual players....complain about the coaches, the team as a whole, the program, but don't take a young student to task when he's out there giving his all every day..whether you like the way he performs or not

by MojoMarvels on Sep 26, 2007 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still can't agree

I appreciate what you're getting at, but it's beside the point. This is about what Gundy did for HIS image.

But even taking this on the point you're making, consider this: The Oklahoman's job is to sell newspaper and draw eyeballs to their website. It is a For-Profit company. What Carlson did, however lame a column it was, has been good for their business. Her paper is probably thrilled to death that she wrote a column which got the head coaching screaming at everyone to look at it.

Look at ESPN these days. We're inundated with shows containing pundits yelling idiotic things. Why? Because people react to it. It's good for business.

It makes the media deplorable, but it keeps them relevant.

Gundy did the Oklahoman a FAVOR by screaming like he did. And that brings me back to my original point - if Gundy wanted to make a point that shamed the local newspaper? He did it the wrong way. To be effective, he would have needed to make a somber, collected statement about this whole thing and what an embarrassment Carlson was.

Bottom line: people are rightly sticking up for Gundy's MAIN POINT. Gundy's right - the column was garbage! But the way that Gundy did it was completely wrong. He looked like an idiot and wound up helping, instead of hurting, the local paper.

He blew it.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Sep 26, 2007 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wll, they DO say that all PR is good PR

But how is this publicity BADBADBAD for OSU/Gundy and simultaneously GOOD for the Oklahoman?

Answer: you simply cannot make that statement (if you are into being accurate and credible, that is).

He looked like an idiot and wound up helping, instead of hurting, the local paper.

Well, if we are fair and compare Gundy to his cohort (DivI Football Coaches), I don't think he looked like an idiot at all. Charlie Weis looks like an (arrogant) idiot. Gundy looked pissed off, and there is a difference.

All of that is just opinion.

But the idea that this unequivocally helped the Oklahoman is debatable.

I do not regularly read that particular paper, so their website traffic HAS been nudged upwards by my recent perusal of their pages, brought about by this brouhaha (in fact, on Sat. nite I couldn't even get their domain to load. Traffic).

But, my eyes on their website (or paper) only benefits them IF I LIKE WHAT I SEE. After all, what I saw was Jenni Carlson, and I did not like it. I won't be going back, subscribing, or singing their accolades any time soon.

But if I strike it rich, I may well send a check to Pickens/Gundy.

Mark me down for:

Jenni Carlson - no-talent hack
Gundy - stand up guy (w/ slight temper issues not uncommon in Div I football coaches)

Just my two pennies.

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duly noted

And well said.

I disagree with you, but reasonable men can take opposite sides of this one. It's not black and white.

Oddly enough, I think Kirk Bohls has a good take on this. I don't like to turn to a journalist to make a point on a matter involving journalism, but he captures some of the big points well, I think.

One example - and he uses Mack Brown in this case to make his point:

Deep down, Brown is like most coaches in their view of the media. We're a necessary evil although they're not sure why we're necessary.

They want the positive attention, the free cars and country club membership, the exorbitant salaries and the notoriety their jobs bring them, but too many of them expect the press to back off any harsh evaluations of them as well as athletes who do not have to pay a dime of their four or five or even six years of college education.

They want to operate in relative secrecy with practices as closed as their minds, then go off when reporters try to write about what they think they know so readers/fans who pay those outrageous salaries can learn something about the teams they worship. Such flawed logic is absurd.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Sep 26, 2007 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

You are taking into account Gundy's past behavior more than I.

That is probably the main difference.

It is true that, coaches, w/out the media, would be lost. That would explain your average presser as the passive/aggressive bore-fest it (typically) is.

Until you get a Knight, Mora, or Gundy in there. Pretty damn entertaining if you ask me.

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're moving your goal posts dude

Would he have still met the goals of:
Sticking up for his player
Pointing out publicly a column he thought was absurd
Getting on SportsCenter

There. Fixed that for you.

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 8:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not sure why Gundy owes an explanation...

I don't think Gundy needs to tell the reporter which parts were incorrect. She said her piece, he said his.

I think there's an uneasy symbiosis in the relationship between the press and team/coach. Bottom line is that the press ends up doing publicity for a team and drives some of their success financially. The same goes the other way, of course, which is why they all try to get along. However, if I'm a coach and I don't think someone in the press is doing their part for me (which, admittedly, is not the actual function of the press, but from his perspective it's what he gets out of it, he couldn't care less about whatever the media gets out of the relationship...), why do I owe them a thing? He's not there to give her a job evaluation, or to train her to be better at her job.

If she feels that her "facts" are not, in fact, 75% inaccurate, then she can say so. What he should have said when she asked which parts were inaccurate was: "what are your sources for each fact in there, perhaps I can give you reasons why they got it wrong?" She would never give up her sources on it, but he has every bit as much right to expect her to do that as she has to expect him to tell her which 1/4 of her story was accurate.

by agent orange on Sep 26, 2007 4:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

True. But, again,

Gundy ALREADY pointed out which part was incorrect: Most of it (3/4ths is "most" for you math majors).

The main crux of the article was the MOTIVATION of Gundy (in benching Reid).

me: "You think I'm a wussy!"
you: "That is an inaccurate statment."
me: "You have attacked my credibility! I demand a point-by-point rebuttal!"
you: "Whassat?"

See where this is going?

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You'd make a good lawyer

You're doing a really nice job framing the issue to make your point. But I still don't think you're on target.

This is NOT about Jenni Carlson. I know people want it to be. It's just not. This is about Gundy. As head football coach of a major football program. Getting paid a lot of money.

His tirade may have made you, and a chunk of the populace, nod with approval. But it made far too many people wonder what kind of response that is to a column the man didn't like.

I'm left with a terrible impression of Gundy, and not because I'm a softy pussy who wants everyone to slap hands and get along. Gundy doesn't "owe" the paper jack shit. But he doesn't get to "demand" jack shit of the paper, either. I'm a little confused why you think that he gets that right.

All he ended up accomplishing was looking like a prima donna with a big head, a short temper, and poor judgment.

Forget the newspaper for a second. How the hell can that be a good thing for Gundy to do?

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Sep 26, 2007 8:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me elaborate on that, too

I don't want Gundy to be Cal Ripken about this, either.

I hate that coaches are so soft and secretive with the media. I'd prefer they talk like Mike Leach does.

The issue, though, is not about whether coaches should fall in line for the media (who piss me off constantly). It's about whether it made any sense at all for Gundy to erupt like he did.

I can't see that his tirade met my standard of wanting interesting, but not out of control. He just went bonkers.

Entertaining? Certainly. Am I glad it wasn't my coach? No question. He mishandled it.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Sep 26, 2007 9:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ditto that

on "glad he ain't my coach."

Easy for me to opine about that as a Texas alum. I would probably not be as rah-rah if this were our coach.

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're the budding attorney here

And I'm the one left with the favorable impression of Gundy.

His tirade DID make me nod. And laugh. And clap (along with others in the room, I might add. That is the seminal moment in that clip if you ask me). For the record I DO hope and pray that, were I in that situation (almost ridiculously inane to even contemplate) I would NOT have reacted that way. AT ALL.

So I certainly don't wish I was "more like Mike Gundy."

BUT, as an observer/fan I certainly do not think less of Gundy for it. This is likely a function of my reaction to the various pundits that have irked me over the years (I don't imagine said columnists irked me by penning articles about OSU, either).

They can print what they like, retractions are few, far between, and in fine print, they behave like jerks, opine about what they know not (I know, I do that too, but...), and then whine up a storm when a half-wit coach blasts them in public.

Dishing it? Eat it.

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And that needs to be noted

I absolutely loathe certain members of the media. So I know where you're coming from.

I think - woo dialogue! (Cyrus would be happy) - we've reached a nice convergence here:

*Carlson wrote a crappy column.
*Gundy was right to stick up for his guy.
*We can be glad it wasn't our coach, because he totally went bonkers.

Look at that. High fives and shots of bourbon. Everyone wins.

--PB--

by PB @ BON on Sep 26, 2007 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shots of Bourbon?

Agreed. With everything, but definitely glad our coach isn't going bonkers on YouTube.

Maker's Mark all around (when it is my turn we will drink Tequila. Soy de la frontera)!

by MBAHick on Sep 26, 2007 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Johnson

sounds like a bad ass coach from the above quote. I hate Gundy for beating Texas Tech; his tirade bothers me not though certainly didn't impress me either.

by Red Blooded on Sep 26, 2007 8:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

you should hate Leach

for not caring about defense in his tenure at Tech.

People can spin his firing of Sentenich all they want (btw, I do hope his wife is doing well, I read about her condition and take my hat off to him for trying to take care of her AND coach at the same time), but the fact is, defense is an afterthought for Leach.

Leach's comments in the Avalance-Journal after the game prove how little he knows about defense.

by Beergut on Sep 27, 2007 2:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I should hate Leach?

31-27. 56-17. 59-28. 48-47. 12-0.

I know why you hate Leach. You haven't convinced me I need to, though.

by Red Blooded on Sep 27, 2007 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't hate people for beating down Fran

There isn't enough hate in the world to do that.

As for me convincing you to hate Leach, I don't excpect you to. You're a Tech fan. You don't expect to win championships or compete for conference titles every year. You're happy to just pull an upset every year, and call it a season.
Leach usually provides with you with that one upset every year, so of course you love him.

by Beergut on Sep 27, 2007 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs