You're entitled to your opinion. Bottom line, though ... you're calling Story names because you disagree with him.

 

Sorry, you have to come with a little more ammunition than that.

 

Story, like all of us, is entitled to his opinion. He may be right and he may be wrong, but at least he gives you an explanation of why he feels a certain way. I don't agree with him all the time, either, but he usually can make a pretty good case.

 

And I don't start calling him childish names, either.

 

Absolutely bringing up violations that happened 28 years ago certainly is relevant here today. He failed to mention that UK has checked into Calipari's past and found nothing of concern.

 

The names I would like to call him are forbidden on BGP so I will have to stick with the childish ones for now.

I agree that they should not be cheerleaders, but do they have to be the watch dogs?

 

Go to Knoxville and read the New Sentinel they are defenders and leave the detractors to the morons. I like the way they defend the Vols, which makes me even madder when I read the Lex Her......

 

Yes. That's the media's job.

He said Brooks had some NCAA violations in his past, and he did. Whether or not Brooks committed them personally, they happened on his staff and on his watch.

That's fine ... I have no reason not to accept your premise.

 

But Barnhart erred on not relaying the information to Todd, especially given Kentucky's brushes with the NCAA in the past.

 

Story said they didn't research it, when in fact Mitch already knew about it. I agree that he should have told Todd 110%, but that is incorrect information. He also stated that Brooks had a 'history of NCAA violations' which I stated is a bit of a stretch and implies more than it was, but I guess it makes for interesting reading. The problem is that the public does not research this information to learn the real truth and I guess they are hoping for too much from a reporter like Story.

 

Implying more than is actually there is bordering on lying, don't you think? I have no problem with asking the question if they vetted enough on Calipari, ... I think it is a fair question. But he stretched the facts to make his case, and for that, I find it shady, to say the least.

Gotta agree with you, Clyde.

 

 

 

(What's this world coming to??! )

 

Now you've gone and done it.

 

I'm sure there is a cure for this plague.

Absolutely bringing up violations that happened 28 years ago certainly is relevant here today. He failed to mention that UK has checked into Calipari's past and found nothing of concern.

 

The names I would like to call him are forbidden on BGP so I will have to stick with the childish ones for now.

Story is bringing up the same issues I was stating earlier. Coach Cal has a (deserved or not) questionable reputation, if this turns out to bite them, they can't claim ignorance.

Because many people on this board haven't the first clue as to the role of the media in society. It's not their job to play cheerleader for the hometown team. They have to also shed light on the bad side of things. They do that by asking questions, much like what Mark Story has done in this piece.

 

Jim, I agree with you on the media's role 100%. In this type of situation, he actually asks a very legitimate question. However, can I also assume the fact that he stretched the truth and bordered on lying in this article to make his point strikes a nerve with you as well? It is hard for some to take him seriously, even when he asks a legit and serious question, if he cannot tell the whole truth in doing so isn't it?

So are people upset because the story was about Calipari or because it was right?

 

Let's see his cohort reports that UK has looked into Calipari's past and the NCAA says that he is clean and then Story writes and article asking if UK has looked into his past.

 

Plus, I think most every coach that has been around a while has had a player get into some kind of legal trouble. Rich Brooks has, Tubby Smith has and the list goes on and on.

 

But hey instead of giving the guy a chance lets try and find as much negative as possible before the guy even takes the job.

Speaking of butt whoppings. I have a friend that used to e-mail Story all the time about columns he had wrote about Brooks. This same guy walked right past Story at a football game, and didn't have the guts to say a thing to him. He had his chance right then and there to really let him have it, but he wimped out. He decided he would just hide behind his computer I guess. :lol:

 

Maybe he was afraid to mess with a watchdog.

Let's see his cohort reports that UK has looked into Calipari's past and the NCAA says that he is clean and then Story writes and article asking if UK has looked into his past.

 

Plus, I think most every coach that has been around a while has had a player get into some kind of legal trouble. Rich Brooks has, Tubby Smith has and the list goes on and on.

 

But hey instead of giving the guy a chance lets try and find as much negative as possible before the guy even takes the job.

 

Don't forget Pitino, Sutton, Curci, Hall, Rupp, etc.

 

However, my only issue with Story in this article is that he was intellectually dishonest in some of his comments. His question is absolutely legitimate, ... no need for stretching the truth to make a point.

Don't forget Pitino, Sutton, Curci, Hall, Rupp, etc.

 

However, my only issue with Story in this article is that he was intellectually dishonest in some of his comments. His question is absolutely legitimate, ... no need for stretching the truth to make a point.

 

How about if he ask Barnhart and Todd if they have looked into these issue before writting and open letter? If they have not the feel free to blast them. Of course he knows they have because Clay already reported that they had.

Are you saying that all (or at least, most) of the media should be skeptical of the hometown team? Shouldn't there be any "positive" media pieces.

 

"Skeptical" might be too harsh a word, but I suppose it's close. What they need to be able to do is ask questions -- tough ones and softballs. And report those findings honestly, and without bias. Does the media, as a whole, always do this? Not even close. You do see less of it in sports than in politics, obviously. If most of the people on this board had it their way, the H-L would have been shut down in the '80s for not being a big enough cheerleader and glossing over the cheating scandal.

Jim, I agree with you on the media's role 100%. In this type of situation, he actually asks a very legitimate question. However, can I also assume the fact that he stretched the truth and bordered on lying in this article to make his point strikes a nerve with you as well? It is hard for some to take him seriously, even when he asks a legit and serious question, if he cannot tell the whole truth in doing so isn't it?

 

Don't forget Pitino, Sutton, Curci, Hall, Rupp, etc.

 

However, my only issue with Story in this article is that he was intellectually dishonest in some of his comments. His question is absolutely legitimate, ... no need for stretching the truth to make a point.

 

How about if he ask Barnhart and Todd if they have looked into these issue before writting and open letter? If they have not the feel free to blast them. Of course he knows they have because Clay already reported that they had.

 

Maybe he did try to ask them? Something tells me they've been too busy to return reporters' calls. I don't know. Where is it on record that Barnhart or Todd actually said they asked about Calipari's potential NCAA issues? (I thought I heard there was a C-J piece with this in it, but I don't know.)

 

As far as Brooks goes, either he's got a history or he doesn't. Kind of like being "almost pregnant." Just because it was once, and not necessarily his fault, doesn't mean it wasn't on his watch.

Edited March 31, 200917 yr by Jim Schue

I'm not mad at Mark Story at all. I like the earlier post about how people dislike members of the media when they don't agree with them and I find that to be true 99.9% of the time. I can't stand Rick Reilly, for instance. If members of the media actually reported everything they knew, people wouldn't believe them anyways. If Mark Story is going to call the column and "open letter" then obviously he isn't the only one who has these questions, he's just the spokesman. I see Mark Story as a man who loves Lexington and UK and doesn't want to relive the Emery envelope scandal after having to live with Billy G for the last 2 years. He's just doing his job. And doing a great job also.

Maybe he did try to ask them? Something tells me they've been too busy to return reporters' calls. I don't know. Where is it on record that Barnhart or Todd actually said they asked about Calipari's potential NCAA issues? (I thought I heard there was a C-J piece with this in it, but I don't know.)

 

As far as Brooks goes, either he's got a history or he doesn't. Kind of like being "almost pregnant." Just because it was once, and not necessarily his fault, doesn't mean it wasn't on his watch.

 

If I tell you in these exact words 'He has a history of NCAA violations', ... what pops into your mind? Are you thinking at all along the lines of what actually happened 21 years ago or are you thinking dirty cheating coach? Be honest Jim, ... the 2nd reaction is exactly what Story was going for and I think it takes away from his intial question, which is legit.

Story is a Travis Ford fan, what else did you expect?