Is it okay for any network analysts to call a college player "worthless"?

[Vizzini]

Kirk Herbstreit, former Ohio St. quarterback and current ESPN College Gameday analyst hosts a radio show in Columbus Ohio, and during a recent airing, stated the following about Steve Breaston, a wide reciever and kick returner for the University of Michigan football team:




On Michigan not being able to score enough points to beat OSU: "The way they look right now, I don't think anybody can see that.

"(Receiver) Mario Manningham coming back, one guy doesn't make a big difference in most cases, but the reason it does in Michigan's case is because it's like a domino effect.

"If Manningham's able to come back and be the player that he was before the injury, (receiver Adrian) Arrington can go back to doing what he does, instead of being the go-to guy.

"(Receiver Steve) Breaston can go back to whatever he's doing these days, if they could ever find a way to actually apply him in the offense. He's worthless in my mind, outside of returning a few punts. I'll say that, and he'll end up winning the game for them on Nov. 18. But he hasn't done anything since his freshman year."

http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061101/SPORTS0201/611010338/1004/SPORTS

The rest of the article states Herbie's case as to why he thinks if Michigan and Ohio St. played right now, why Ohio St. would handily beat Michigan, which to me is fine, if he wants to say how he thinks the teams match up, but to go as far as to call a college player "worthless in my mind" is a bit too much. He is making it very hard for himself to be looked at as unbiased in his analysis of the impending matchup between the two schools. He sounded like a buckeye slappy instead of the impartial analyst ESPN would have us believe. Now, he can go and say, "well I said he was now going to win the game for Michigan", but I guess I just have a problem with the term "worthless" for a college player. It may just be an argument of semantics, but no analyst should ever call a player worthless no matter how bad he is playing or how "worthless" they might be.

[Brutalis]

Well I can see his point although me myself wouldn't say something like that.

[Vizzini]

Well I can see his point although me myself wouldn't say something like that.

I get what he is talking about,(don't necessarily agree) but my beef is with the word "worthless", when he could've used "disapointing, not living up to expectations, needs to play better" or any number of descriptions that he would never in a million years utter on the Gameday set. He said what he said b/c he was on a radio station in Columbus and not ESPN.

[johngateswhiteley]

what the hell ever happened to freedom of speech? what is the world coming to these days?

[FromWayDowntown]

It's the part of college sports that I've come to hate so much. I love the idea of intercollegiate sports -- having participated in intercollegiate sports outside of the big school/big conference realm, I can say that I appreciate those places where the idea remains very close to the reality. What drives me crazy is that we now treat big-time collegiate sports as very little different than professional sports. The lives of collegiate athletes are subject to the same scrutiny as the lives of professionals -- sometimes, by virtue of the explosion of electronic media and the more-initmate access that other students have to collegiate athletes than others might have to professional athletes, we know more about certain college kids. They're asked to strike the remarkably difficult balance among the competing interests in performing well academically, performing well athletically, and enjoying the collegiate experience. In return, they receive a free education, but open themselves up to critics on and off campus -- usually people who can't begin to fathom the pressures that these kids face. Sure, they're not curing cancer or teaching children to add and subtract, but there are decidedly far more people who are interested in whether, for example, Steve Breaston catches footballs than are worried about whether an education major is teaching effectively.

My point is that collegiate athletes are treated now little differently than pros, despite the fact that they don't have the salaries that pros have and certainly can't have the single-minded focus that pros have.

It's shameful, I think, to judge Steve Breaston or any other college player based on whether or not he's an effective collegiate football player, and to express that judgment in such negative terms. If he plays in the NFL, it's a different story. But while he's in college, being negative like that smacks of very misplaced priorities.

[Vizzini]

what the hell ever happened to freedom of speech? what is the world coming to these days?


It was never about "freedom of speech" and not having the right to say what he did, it was the phrasing and the attitude from someone who is supposed to be an "unbaised" analyst calling a player from his alma mater's most hated rival "worthless" and still being able to be looked at and viewed as impartial. Plus, he is a kid in college, not a professional, and that IMO is very important as well.

[Bob Lanier]

Herbstreit is clearly biased - although his point about Breaston is fairly close to the mark - but why shouldn't a commentator be allowed to offer an opinion about a semiprofessional athlete?

[Vizzini]

Herbstreit is clearly biased - although his point about Breaston is fairly close to the mark - but why shouldn't a commentator be allowed to offer an opinion about a semiprofessional athlete?


It isn't that he shouldn't be allowed, it was his choice of words to describe a college player. His position is very high profile, and he is expected to offer insight into teams, matchups and strategies. Listen, I have no problem if you want to criticize a college player for his on the field play, but he should've used a little more tact, a little more deftness than to just come out and call a college kid worthless.

[johngateswhiteley]

It's the part of college sports that I've come to hate so much. I love the idea of intercollegiate sports -- having participated in intercollegiate sports outside of the big school/big conference realm, I can say that I appreciate those places where the idea remains very close to the reality. What drives me crazy is that we now treat big-time collegiate sports as very little different than professional sports. The lives of collegiate athletes are subject to the same scrutiny as the lives of professionals -- sometimes, by virtue of the explosion of electronic media and the more-initmate access that other students have to collegiate athletes than others might have to professional athletes, we know more about certain college kids. They're asked to strike the remarkably difficult balance among the competing interests in performing well academically, performing well athletically, and enjoying the collegiate experience. In return, they receive a free education, but open themselves up to critics on and off campus -- usually people who can't begin to fathom the pressures that these kids face. Sure, they're not curing cancer or teaching children to add and subtract, but there are decidedly far more people who are interested in whether, for example, Steve Breaston catches footballs than are worried about whether an education major is teaching effectively.

My point is that collegiate athletes are treated now little differently than pros, despite the fact that they don't have the salaries that pros have and certainly can't have the single-minded focus that pros have.

It's shameful, I think, to judge Steve Breaston or any other college player based on whether or not he's an effective collegiate football player, and to express that judgment in such negative terms. If he plays in the NFL, it's a different story. But while he's in college, being negative like that smacks of very misplaced priorities.


i understad your view, and i think its intelligent. but my above statements were meant to cover a more broad issue. and that is, announcers and analysts have become mainly trained puppy dogs = only allowed to say and do what won't get them into trouble. i think this is refreshing, i am tired of all these people with thin skin that lambaste people for having their own opinion. much worse is said at Texas High School football games, whether it comes from the stands or not.

furthermore, if i am the player that got a little picked on by Kirk...i think, "who gives a shit." if you cannot deal with criticism...its going to be a long life my friend...

[BeerIsGood!]

i understad your view, and i think its intelligent. but my above statements were meant to cover a more broad issue. and that is, announcers and analysts have become mainly trained puppy dogs = only allowed to say and do what won't get them into trouble. i think this is refreshing, i am tired of all these people with thin skin that lambaste people for having their own opinion. much worse is said at Texas High School football games, whether it comes from the stands or not.

furthermore, if i am the player that got a little picked on by Kirk...i think, "who gives a shit." if you cannot deal with criticism...its going to be a long life my friend...

well said, well said. People are far too concerned with what someone says about them these days. I understand the responsiblity of not speaking or writing in a libelous or slanderous nature, but this is really, really stretching it. What he said wasn't that bad. Just like I don't think Steve Lyons should have been fired for basically nothing as well.

[samikeyp]

I think the term "worthless" is unneccessary, but I see what he is saying and that is part of what Herbsteit is hired to do, although I think Breaston is better than he thinks he is. You know, though, if Breaston was a Buckeye....it would have been different. :)

[willie]

this thread is worthless. college football players deserve exposure that rivals that of other pro athletes but they can't receive any criticism? also, enough with the purity of amateur athletics bullshit. ncaa football players are about as pure as a tri-delt junior.