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

You know that for a fact?

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.

Just because the NCAA has nothing on Calipari and Wesley doesn't mean the issue won't come up in the future. I suspect that's the point Story was trying to make, regardless of whether or not the NCAA has anything on them at this time.

 

I'm not making an inference about them, either. I'm actually a Calipari fan ... I have been since his tremendous job building the UMass program in the mid-90s.

Everytime I read Story's stuff, I envision a little kid that throws out pot shots because he's not in with the in-crowd.

 

I agree with Koun Dog, he's a pot stirrer.

 

His style of writing in this article (and almost every article he writes) makes it sound like UK knows nothing and he knows everything.

 

How dare they not go too him for advice.

Yes. That's the media's job.

 

I disagree, to a certain extent. They are there to report, the Lex Her, has for the most part always tried to exert the opinions of their staff writers on the readers. Not only that they ALWAYS take an adversariel postion when it comes to University of Kentucy athletics.

 

Mark Story is trying to bring smoke where there is no fire.

 

As far as being a watch dog, UK has Sandy Bell and the NCAA for that postion. Be newpaper or be an extended arm of the NCAA, don't try and do both.

 

Although I guess it goes back to the old addage, "if it bleeds it leads" and it appears that the only way that the Lex Her can sell papers in this day and age of the world wide web is to try deride the University of Kentucky athletic department.

Just because the NCAA has nothing on Calipari and Wesley doesn't mean the issue won't come up in the future. I suspect that's the point Story was trying to make, regardless of whether or not the NCAA has anything on them at this time.

 

I'm not making an inference about them, either. I'm actually a Calipari fan ... I have been since his tremendous job building the UMass program in the mid-90s.

 

 

You could say that about any coach at any level. You cannot quantify what has not happened.

Did Story write anything that wasn't true? He raises some questions that some UK fans have been raising about Calipari on this board, possibly by some of the same posters that are now embracing his apparent hire.

 

Here's an "open letter" to UK fans ... the Lexington Herald-Leader is not your enemy, nor is it the enemy of the UK basketball program. Mark Story, John Clay and Jerry Tipton don't have the destruction of the Wildcats in mind when they're writing stories about what's going in within and around the team and program.

 

They are simply doing their job.

 

It's not a matter if what he wrote is true or not, it's that he didn't give a full picture in my opinion. Did he address whether or not any player under Izzo, Miller or Ford has ever had any legal infractions? I don't know whether they have or have not, but if he is going to call Calipari out for his players having some run ins with the law, shouldn't he at least address whether those coaches he is supporting have ever had any similar problems? Or whether fans of opponents have ever held up similar signs? Etc, etc. Seems like sloppy journalism to me. Actually, it doesn't seem like journalism at all. Just an op ed piece by a sports writer. Heck, countless people on this site could have written such a piece and not expected to have been paid for it.

 

And perhaps Story knows and I don't, but just how does he know the level and degree of due diligence that the UK admin completed before they hired Brooks and Gillespie? Has UK admitted that they didn't know about Brooks' and Gillespie's past problems before they were hired? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Barnhart knew about the incident at Oregon, but at least to me it seems that Brooks had zero involvement so it wasn't an issue. But Story seems to want to portray it as something more than it was. I don't call that being a watch dog, I call that biased.

 

Heck, using Brooks as an example, even if he did have problems with the NCAA prior to coming to UK, isn't the way he's ran the football program at UK a testament to the fact that just because a guy had problems in the past, it's not a valid indicator how he's going to act at UK? When I think of Brooks as UK's football coach, I think of a coach that has not tolerated bad actors and as a coach that has ran the program the way I want it ran. First class all the way.

 

If we are going to go with the "he's done it in the past, he'll definitely do it in the future" thinking, then I'd submit that the Herald Leader should fire Story as a journalist because in my opinion he's been a sloppy journalist in the past. Same thinking would apply to Cutler in spite of his apology.

Edited March 31, 200917 yr by leatherneck

Why is every article written nicely about UK a "great article" but when someone raises legitimate questions they are a clown?

Writing what we don't want to hear is something that a good journalist has to do. He makes several good points, some I hope that UK looked into before they even made contact.

Did Story write anything that wasn't true? He raises some questions that some UK fans have been raising about Calipari on this board, possibly by some of the same posters that are now embracing his apparent hire.

 

 

They are simply doing their job.

 

 

You are both right and wrong. They are doing their job, which is to create interest and sell papers or drive readership to their website.

 

However you are wrong in suggesting that he was writing 100% the truth. Story has suggested before that UK didn't do their "homework" in hires. With Rich Brooks, there was little that Barnhardt didn't know about the man - since he had worked with him before. In addition, Brooks has done nothing in his tenure here to diminish the hire or the process. To use Brooks as a negative example is laughable.

 

As for Gillespie, Story takes a large leap in saying the Barnhardt didn't do his "homework". As much as Story would like it, he's not privy (nor should he be) to all of UK's AD's conversations. He doesn't have (nor should he) all of the background that went into the Gillespie search.

 

I would ask Story this? How many people has he hired? How many employer interviews has he done? I would suggest none (Now I'm doing what Story does, which is make statements or assumptions without all the facts).

 

Barhardt has a great history of hires. Brooks, DeMoss, Baseball twice.... Did he get it wrong last time in basketball, yes. Did he make the best decision at the time? We'll never know because we will never have all the facts.

 

Is Calapari the right guy? Who knows. But NCAA infractions shouldn't be a consideration. He's been at Memphis for 9 years without any hint of problems. The Marcus Camby incident at UMass was because Camby had contact with an agent, not something that Calapari could have controlled.

 

Story is just doing his job. But I would suggest he's doing it badly. Maybe somebody should have vetted Story a bit better before they hired him. They would have found he's a constant complainer who only sees (or possibly looks for) the negative side of things.

The Lexington Herald Leader is a huge problem in terms of support of Kentucky athletics...I do not care to read anything some of those clowns have to say (or make up) The LHL kills the University of Kentucky.

It's not a matter if what he wrote is true or not, it's that he didn't give a full picture in my opinion. Did he address whether or not any player under Izzo, Miller or Ford has ever had any legal infractions? I don't know whether they have or have not, but if he is going to call Calipari out for his players having some run ins with the law, shouldn't he at least address whether those coaches he is supporting have ever had any similar problems? Or whether fans of opponents have ever held up similar signs? Etc, etc. Seems like sloppy journalism to me. Actually, it doesn't seem like journalism at all. Just an op ed piece by a sports writer. Heck, countless people on this site could have written such a piece and not expected to have been paid for it.

 

And perhaps Story knows and I don't, but just how does he know the level and degree of due diligence that the UK admin completed before they hired Brooks and Gillespie? Has UK admitted that they didn't know about Brooks' and Gillespie's past problems before they were hired? I honestly don't know the answer to that question. Barnhart knew about the incident at Oregon, but at least to me it seems that Brooks had zero involvement so it wasn't an issue. But Story seems to want to portray it as something more than it was. I don't call that being a watch dog, I call that biased.

 

Heck, using Brooks as an example, even if he did have problems with the NCAA prior to coming to UK, isn't the way he's ran the football program at UK a testament to the fact that just because a guy had problems in the past, it's not a valid indicator how he's going to act at UK? When I think of Brooks as UK's football coach, I think of a coach that has not tolerated bad actors and as a coach that has ran the program the way I want it ran. First class all the way.

 

If we are going to go with the "he's done it in the past, he'll definitely do it in the future" thinking, then I'd submit that the Herald Leader should fire Story as a journalist because in my opinion he's been a sloppy journalist in the past. Same thinking would apply to Cutler in spite of his apology.

Agree or disagree, I always love your posts. Excellent points. :thumb: :thumb:

So posters can write anything they want, without regard for accuracy, and this guy can't write an article, asking legitimate questions?

 

I can't see what in this article causes someone to call him names? I don't read the leader so I do not know the history, but I thought it was right on point.

 

Blind Love cost UK in the last hire. Please do not tell me about how this person or that person never liked the BCG hire. I remember when he was hired how excited every cat fan that I encountered was. You could not say anything negative about BCG 2 years ago because blind love was rampant.

 

If you want to call someone names because you don't agree with them, then I am a CLOWN or worse.

 

It is what it is, It will be what it will be, Nothing more, nothing less!

I disagree, to a certain extent. They are there to report, the Lex Her, has for the most part always tried to exert the opinions of their staff writers on the readers. Not only that they ALWAYS take an adversariel postion when it comes to University of Kentucy athletics.

 

Mark Story is trying to bring smoke where there is no fire.

 

As far as being a watch dog, UK has Sandy Bell and the NCAA for that postion. Be newpaper or be an extended arm of the NCAA, don't try and do both.

 

Although I guess it goes back to the old addage, "if it bleeds it leads" and it appears that the only way that the Lex Her can sell papers in this day and age of the world wide web is to try deride the University of Kentucky athletic department.

 

You can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong. It's taught in the first week of Newswriting 101 that the role of the newspaper is to be a watchdog for the common people.

 

As far as your contention that they ALWAYS take an adversarial position, I'm going to have to call you out. You've got some research to do. Don't skip over the 8-9 articles out of 10 that are either neutral or attaboys.

 

UK is a government institution interested in only putting its best face forward, to the point they will hide the things that reflect poorly upon them. The newspaper is there to tell the whole story, warts and all.

Why is every article written nicely about UK a "great article" but when someone raises legitimate questions they are a clown?

 

No. Every homer article written about UK that doesn't fairly address the problems and every attack article about UK that unfairly makes the problems seem worse than they are is equally a poor piece of journalism.

You can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong. It's taught in the first week of Newswriting 101 that the role of the newspaper is to be a watchdog for the common people.

 

As far as your contention that they ALWAYS take an adversarial position, I'm going to have to call you out. You've got some research to do. Don't skip over the 8-9 articles out of 10 that are either neutral or attaboys.

 

UK is a government institution interested in only putting its best face forward, to the point they will hide the things that reflect poorly upon them. The newspaper is there to tell the whole story, warts and all.

 

I agree with you and feel the newspapers have a mission as a watchdog. It's their primary role in my opinion. I have no problem with them telling the whole story.

 

Did Mr. Story tell us whether the coaches he seemed to be advocating ever had any players during their coaching careers that ever had a run in with the law? He made a big pointing out that Calipari did, but there was zero, nada, zilch mention about Ford's, Izzo's and Miller's current or past players. Such information would have been part of the whole story, would it not?

 

Furthermore, I'd like to know if the percentage of Calipari's players with run ins was below, at or above average for D-1 schools. That would have also been informative and would have helped paint the whole picture. If he'd have pointed out that while Brooks may have had some association with a past NCAA violation prior to coming to UK but there had not been a sniff of a violation since his arrival, that would have been part of the whole picture too, don't you think?