I commend the coach for sticking up for his player, but I think he went a little overboard.

 

Glad to see someone agrees with me.

Wow, I literally just watched the video on youtube of this. And I totally agree with the OK coach. Although, it could have been done it a more mature fashon.

 

Don't criticize him for being soft because you saw him with his mom after a game. Don't say "if you believe the rumors and the rumblings...." Dont' say "Reid considered transferring because he had to compete for the spot." Don't say "there's something to be said for not being a malcontent" and then insinuate that he's soft because he's not a malcontent. Lastly, don't insinuate that the kid's own coaching staff is doubting his toughness . If you don't have the guts to quote a coach, don't allude to it. Period.

 

 

Don't we say these kinds of things about players in here on a daily basis?

I'm not necessarily defending the column ... I'm defending her right to write it, provided it's accurate.

 

But there is a difference between the right to write the column, and the "right" thing to do. And I disagree wholeheartedly about the public figure notion. These KIDS are not just athletes, they are student-athletes. Whatever happened to journalistic integrity? Is it now a reporters job to write on every rumor and rumbling associated with a 19 year old student athlete? I cannot ever possibly understand how taking unsubstantiated pot shots at a college student can ever be in the same breath as good journalism.

Don't we say these kinds of things about players in here on a daily basis?

 

Maybe, but we're on here talking amongst ourselves. We're not being published in a newspaper. If it is your profession to write news articles then you have to prove what you are writing. On here it is all about opinion, if you're a reporter it's a different story. Let me ask everyone on here this: If your kid was considering playing for Coach Gundy wouldn't you view this as a positive? Hey--I know Coach Gundy will have my kid's back when it comes down to it......I don't think this does anything but help him.

And I'm sure the thoughts of getting on here just to argue with everyone else on this board never even entered your mind?:argue:

 

I'm simply expressing my opinion ... that is what we do here, right?

Lastly, don't insinuate that the kid's own coaching staff is doubting his toughness . If you don't have the guts to quote a coach, don't allude to it. Period.

Or maybe the coaches "don't have the guts" to go on the record with it, instead talking about it to the reporter privately.

 

The writer strings together some events that she thinks points to a pattern of him being soft. Is she right? Heck if I know. But she's around the program and talks to people close to it, so maybe she does know.

Kudos to the OSU coach. Having the right to write what you want to write does not immunize a sportswriter from criticism.

 

Based on the widespread rush by other sports "journalists" to the defense of a vicious sports gossip, the profession is much more thin skinned than the athletes and coaches that they cover. I am glad to see the coach expose the herd mentality and thin hides of these reporters. The herd needs to be thinned. Maybe Bobby Knight has something right after all.:lol:

 

If I was a highly sought recruit and OSU was on my list, it just jumped to the top. If OSU wasn't on my list it before would be now. That is probably not the result that OU fans and Ms. Carlson were after. I hope she felt six inches tall during Gundy's tirade.

Or maybe the coaches "don't have the guts" to go on the record with it, instead talking about it to the reporter privately.

 

The writer strings together some events that she thinks points to a pattern of him being soft. Is she right? Heck if I know. But she's around the program and talks to people close to it, so maybe she does know.

The writer used a public forum to humiliate a young player. It was perfectly appropriate for the coach to defend the same player in a public forum.

The writer used a public forum to humiliate a young player. It was perfectly appropriate for the coach to defend the same player in a public forum.

Not disputing that point, either.

Finally got a chance to read the article in question, and then the columnist's follow-up.

 

First: I agree that painting him up as a momma's boy — whether he is or not — by using the whole chicken dinner episode is a cheap shot. I know why she used it — it supported whatever she's been told off the record by OKST sources and gave her an eye-grabbing lede for the column.

 

But obscured by the whole outrage over her choice of anecdotes is why was the column necessary in the first place? To try to figure out why a high-profile player has been benched. It's a question her readers were invariably wondering about, so it was a necessary column. She could've handled it better, as could the coach.

 

What bothers me is this: How is it that some student-athlete can perform on Saturdays in front of tens of thousands of people at a stadium and millions more on nationwide TV, get all the adulation and star worship and fame that accompanies such a status, yet is immune from criticism? That they are somehow a child? I'm not saying college athletes are necessarily fair game for the type of harsh words I've used in describing clowns like Jake Plummer, but by the same token I'm not going to treat them as gingerly as I would a high school kid. This guy at OKST was a high-profile high school player touted as one of the top recruits ever to go to Stillwater. He went to OKST already having experienced a great deal of public scrutiny, and knew there would be even more during his college career. Let's not act as though he's some innocent little babe in the woods with a psyche made of china.

 

Also, I agree with the columnist in her follow-up that the coach does owe some kind of explanation as to what exactly was wrong in the column — the one he alleges is "three-fourths fiction." Bottom line is he attacked her character and credibility, and she's got a certain obligation to defend herself, and I applaud her paper for supporting her. If he's that fired up about it, he should detail what is actually incorrect about the article so that both sides can come to an agreement and avoid future flare-ups.

 

As it is with most controversy, the real truth of this matter and how it should have been handled lies in the middle of both extremes we're seeing unfold.

Here are my thoughts.....

1. As a member of the media, (On a much smaller scale) the number one thing is being correct with details and being able to back that up. That means NOT saying, "Rumours are that........." or "It is thought that........." or even relying on sources that are not trustworthy.

 

2. If you are going to be in the media you better be ready for someone to be critical of your work. Either very heated or very cordial you are going to receive greif for a piece of your work.

 

3. She brought personal matters into her work that did not belong there. Saying that the player did not play when he was hurt and would not gut it out was out of line. Does she have a medical degree or is she a trainer and know how bad he is actually hurt? Making refrenece to him being a Moma's boy was WAAAAAYYYYYY out of line. Criticize him for his play on the field or for being in trouble with the law, but not for the things that she did.

Here are my thoughts.....

1. As a member of the media, (On a much smaller scale) the number one thing is being correct with details and being able to back that up. That means NOT saying, "Rumours are that........." or "It is thought that........." or even relying on sources that are not trustworthy.

 

I agree with your other two observations, but I kind of have to part with you on this one. Accuracy is the key, I will agree. But given the nature of high-profile college athletics, which thrives on rumors and innuendo — or have we forgotten all the ridiculous swirl around our recent search for a UK hoops coach? — sometimes to get information and answer questions readers have, you have to use some off-the-record stuff.

 

And football coaches are some of the most paranoid people in the world. Some of them act as though revealing who might be banged up this week is on par with giving away the nuclear launch codes to China.

 

The writer in question tried to get a straightforward answer as to why Reid got benched. The head coach obviously would provide none. Columnists and beat writers get to be pretty familiar with the teams they cover, so they're hearing all kinds of information about things going on out of the public eye, and they have a pretty good idea who's feeding them crap and who's feeding them juicy stuff.

 

So, armed with information off-the-record from assistant coaches — and perhaps even from the head coach, which would explain his over-reaction — and with a story that fans/readers are dying to hear more about, the columnist did what political and sports writers and columnists do every day, which is write a piece based on informed speculation. Sure, it's speculation, but it's not like she went out on a willow tree branch here. She used information culled from trusted sources she works with on a daily basis, while not outing those sources.

Finally got a chance to read the article in question, and then the columnist's follow-up.

 

First: I agree that painting him up as a momma's boy — whether he is or not — by using the whole chicken dinner episode is a cheap shot. I know why she used it — it supported whatever she's been told off the record by OKST sources and gave her an eye-grabbing lede for the column.

 

But obscured by the whole outrage over her choice of anecdotes is why was the column necessary in the first place? To try to figure out why a high-profile player has been benched. It's a question her readers were invariably wondering about, so it was a necessary column. She could've handled it better, as could the coach.

 

What bothers me is this: How is it that some student-athlete can perform on Saturdays in front of tens of thousands of people at a stadium and millions more on nationwide TV, get all the adulation and star worship and fame that accompanies such a status, yet is immune from criticism? That they are somehow a child? I'm not saying college athletes are necessarily fair game for the type of harsh words I've used in describing clowns like Jake Plummer, but by the same token I'm not going to treat them as gingerly as I would a high school kid. This guy at OKST was a high-profile high school player touted as one of the top recruits ever to go to Stillwater. He went to OKST already having experienced a great deal of public scrutiny, and knew there would be even more during his college career. Let's not act as though he's some innocent little babe in the woods with a psyche made of china.

 

Also, I agree with the columnist in her follow-up that the coach does owe some kind of explanation as to what exactly was wrong in the column — the one he alleges is "three-fourths fiction." Bottom line is he attacked her character and credibility, and she's got a certain obligation to defend herself, and I applaud her paper for supporting her. If he's that fired up about it, he should detail what is actually incorrect about the article so that both sides can come to an agreement and avoid future flare-ups.

 

As it is with most controversy, the real truth of this matter and how it should have been handled lies in the middle of both extremes we're seeing unfold.

 

So he owes her an explanation for attacking her character because he took up for his player who had his character and toughness attacked by her? Yeah I disagree.

Finally got a chance to read the article in question, and then the columnist's follow-up.

 

First: I agree that painting him up as a momma's boy — whether he is or not — by using the whole chicken dinner episode is a cheap shot. I know why she used it — it supported whatever she's been told off the record by OKST sources and gave her an eye-grabbing lede for the column.

 

But obscured by the whole outrage over her choice of anecdotes is why was the column necessary in the first place? To try to figure out why a high-profile player has been benched. It's a question her readers were invariably wondering about, so it was a necessary column. She could've handled it better, as could the coach.

 

What bothers me is this: How is it that some student-athlete can perform on Saturdays in front of tens of thousands of people at a stadium and millions more on nationwide TV, get all the adulation and star worship and fame that accompanies such a status, yet is immune from criticism? That they are somehow a child? I'm not saying college athletes are necessarily fair game for the type of harsh words I've used in describing clowns like Jake Plummer, but by the same token I'm not going to treat them as gingerly as I would a high school kid. This guy at OKST was a high-profile high school player touted as one of the top recruits ever to go to Stillwater. He went to OKST already having experienced a great deal of public scrutiny, and knew there would be even more during his college career. Let's not act as though he's some innocent little babe in the woods with a psyche made of china.

 

Also, I agree with the columnist in her follow-up that the coach does owe some kind of explanation as to what exactly was wrong in the column — the one he alleges is "three-fourths fiction." Bottom line is he attacked her character and credibility, and she's got a certain obligation to defend herself, and I applaud her paper for supporting her. If he's that fired up about it, he should detail what is actually incorrect about the article so that both sides can come to an agreement and avoid future flare-ups.

 

As it is with most controversy, the real truth of this matter and how it should have been handled lies in the middle of both extremes we're seeing unfold.

Very nice commentary on the "other" side of Coach Gundy's tirade.

 

I agree with you, "JimShue" that these highly recruited college athletes are in the public's eye and bask in the glory of star worshipping, yet their coach paints a picture of them being this highly sensitive individual who has a difficult time even facing the public.

 

I do have mixed emotions about this issue, but you raise some great points.

While reading her story I kept thinking, geez, what'd he do? Stand you up on a date? It just seemed beyond reporting and very personal to me.