Having an opinion of the writers is fine and to be expected and encouraged. But fans need to get the idea out of their heads that the writers in the local paper should be the leaders of the fanboy choir. They're not paid to be fans; they're paid to ask the questions fans want to ask, or should be asking.

 

Then why do UK fans get chastized for it, if it's not the same opinion that non-UK fans want to hear?

Then why do UK fans get chastized for it, if it's not the same opinion that non-UK fans want to hear?

 

They get chastised for it because they're expecting the sports writer to be something he can't: A fan. They can have the opinion that the sports writer should be a fan and only promote the positive stuff, but it would be wrong and unreasonable.

They get chastised for it because they're expecting the sports writer to be something he can't: A fan. They can have the opinion that the sports writer should be a fan and only promote the positive stuff, but it would be wrong and unreasonable.[/QUOTE]

 

Well that's like...you're opinion..man.

They get chastised for it because they're expecting the sports writer to be something he can't: A fan. They can have the opinion that the sports writer should be a fan and only promote the positive stuff, but it would be wrong and unreasonable.

 

Well that's like...you're opinion..man.

 

Actually, I'm telling you (and the others) a fact, and you just don't want to listen.

Well that's like...you're opinion..man.

He's in the business, and he's telling you that's what the business is like.

Having an opinion of the writers is fine and to be expected and encouraged. But fans need to get the idea out of their heads that the writers in the local paper should be the leaders of the fanboy choir. They're not paid to be fans; they're paid to ask the questions fans want to ask, or should be asking.

 

What I find comical, especially when it comes to Mark Story, Pat Forde, and John Clay some of the time is when UK has a bad game or there is a little controversy, like with Calipari these guys call for their heads. When UK fans do the same thing UK fans are called irrational. Now, what is the difference? I believe these guys act like a irrational fans a lot of the time. Also I think with Forde and what Tipton has done lately is beat the :deadhorse: Their opinion is fine. But Forde has written atleast 5 or 6 negative Calipari articles since he has been hired.

What I find comical, especially when it comes to Mark Story, Pat Forde, and John Clay some of the time is when UK has a bad game or there is a little controversy, like with Calipari these guys call for their heads. When UK fans do the same thing UK fans are called irrational. Now, what is the difference? I believe these guys act like a irrational fans a lot of the time. Also I think with Forde and what Tipton has done lately is beat the :deadhorse: Their opinion is fine. But Forde has written atleast 5 or 6 negative Calipari articles since he has been hired.

 

See below:

 

Having an opinion of the writers is fine and to be expected and encouraged. But fans need to get the idea out of their heads that the writers in the local paper should be the leaders of the fanboy choir. They're not paid to be fans; they're paid to ask the questions fans want to ask, or should be asking.

 

The most important part is the last little bit — the questions Wildcat fans should be asking. Wildcat fans are so starved for a title they're willing to bed down with a shady character just to get it, and close their ears to anything contrary to what they so desperately want to believe. What those writers are doing is cautioning fans what can/might/will happen when you make a deal with the devil.

Are the articles negative or are the facts negative?

He's in the business, and he's telling you that's what the business is like.

 

Thank you for that....:idunno:

As long as they stick to facts I have no problem with the negative UK articles. The only one I have small issue with is Forde because he ignores some major news and refuses to write/report them.

I've got no qualms w/ Tipton covering this story. Those who are criticizing him for doing so, I believe, are being unfair.

 

Having said that, I do get the sense that Tipton looks more for the negative stories. I could be wrong, but I don't believe he has mentioned the story regarding Patrick Patterson's relationship with the sick girl (Heather Durham is her name...Jason King at Yahoo wrote a great article about this).

 

That story involves facts that are far from negative. Yet, to my knowledge, Tipton has not written about it.

See below:

 

 

 

The most important part is the last little bit — the questions Wildcat fans should be asking. Wildcat fans are so starved for a title they're willing to bed down with a shady character just to get it, and close their ears to anything contrary to what they so desperately want to believe. What those writers are doing is cautioning fans what can/might/will happen when you make a deal with the devil.

 

So your saying we should be trying to fire our coaches at every turn like these guys suggest. As for Calipari, show me where hes done something wrong to the point where he personally has been in trouble. Until you do your comment about him being a shady character that we are bedding down with simply has no validity.

So your saying we should be trying to fire our coaches at every turn like these guys suggest. As for Calipari, show me where hes done something wrong to the point where he personally has been in trouble. Until you do your comment about him being a shady character that we are bedding down with simply has no validity.

 

All I'm saying is they're asking questions that perhaps you should be. I don't recall any of them out-and-out saying Calipari should be fired.

 

Don't you find it the least bit ironic that Wildcat fans are perfectly willing to cast away John Wooden's accomplishments at UCLA under a cloud of suspicion, yet don't acknowledge anything but sunshine and blue skies on Calipari's past performance sheet? I'm just sayin' ...

All I'm saying is they're asking questions that perhaps you should be. I don't recall any of them out-and-out saying Calipari should be fired.

 

Don't you find it the least bit ironic that Wildcat fans are perfectly willing to cast away John Wooden's accomplishments at UCLA under a cloud of suspicion, yet don't acknowledge anything but sunshine and blue skies on Calipari's past performance sheet? I'm just stirin' ...

 

Here I fixed it for you.

All I'm saying is they're asking questions that perhaps you should be. I don't recall any of them out-and-out saying Calipari should be fired.

 

Don't you find it the least bit ironic that Wildcat fans are perfectly willing to cast away John Wooden's accomplishments at UCLA under a cloud of suspicion, yet don't acknowledge anything but sunshine and blue skies on Calipari's past performance sheet? I'm just sayin' ...

 

If any UK fan is trying to cast away John Wooden's accomplishments then they are dead wrong! Wooden is an amazing coach and an amazing man. I have said several times on here that I am a little concerned about Calipari and how successful hes been getting so many great players, but I see no evidence of anything hes done that is wrong. Until there is reason to believe he has done wrong then I will continue to take up for him.