Reply With Quote
Who was that article about? Damn was he pissed about that one
nice presser
wow...
Who was that article about? Damn was he pissed about that one
September 22, 2007
By Jenni Carlson
The Oklahoman
STILLWATER — Bobby Reid stood near the team charters last
Friday night, using his cell phone, eating his boxed meal
It would've been normal post-game activity but for one
thing.
His mother was feeding him chicken.
Which brings us to the quarterback switch-a-roo at Oklahoma
State.
Don't see the connection?
Let me explain. Cowboy coaches have gone full-speed ahead
with the Zac Attack, opting to start Robinson over Reid a
week ago, then sticking with him against Texas Tech today
even after an embarrassing loss at Troy. Weren't we being
told just last week that Reid was still the guy? All the
weight with which Cowboy coaches were backing Reid has
totally shifted to Robinson.
The change seems sudden.
Thing is, it may not be as abrupt as it looks. If you
believe the rumors and the rumblings, Reid has been
pushing coaches that way for quite some time.
Tile up the back stories told on the sly over the past few
years, and you see a pattern that hasn't always been
pretty.
Word is that Reid has considered transferring a couple
different times, the first as early as 2005. Reid, then a
redshirt freshman, was facing compe ion from returner
Donovan Woods, and apparently, Reid considered leaving OSU
just because he had to compete for the spot.
Reid's nerves have also been an issue. Earlier this year,
he told our Andrea Cohen about his game-day emotions.
"I get sweaty palms. I get the butterflies in my stomach. I
sweat lot,” he said then. "I've been playing this game for
15 years. And I can honestly say every game I've played
in, I've been nervous. It's not so much me being scared; I
just get to a point where I start worrying about a lot of
things I can't control.”
A lot of guys get nervous, some even puke before games. How
you handle the nerves is important, though, and Reid
hasn't always managed them well. He has gotten off to some
extremely slow starts, putting the Cowboys in some holes.
Some, they dug out of, with Reid often wielding the
biggest shovel, and some, they couldn't.
Then, there have been the injuries. No doubt some of Reid's
ailments have been severe, including an injured shoulder
that required surgery and forced him to redshirt. Other
times, though, Reid has been nicked in games and sat it
out instead of gutting it out.
Injuries are tricky, of course. You don't want a guy to put
himself in harm's way if he's really hurt, and yet,
football is one of those sports in which everyone plays
hurt. Aches and pains, bumps and bruises are part of the
gig.
Reid's injury against Florida Atlantic — whatever it was —
appeared minor but just might have been the thing that
pushed Cowboy coaches over the edge. Even though Mike
Gundy said last week that Robinson got the nod because he
had the better week of practice, insiders say that the
coaches decided to bench Reid early in the week. The
bottom line: The switch is less about Robinson's play and
more about Reid's at ude.
"The coaches made a decision,” Reid told our Mike Baldwin
after the Troy game. "I just have to go with it, get
better and get back on the field.”
There's something to be said for not being a malcontent,
but you can almost see Reid shrugging his shoulders as he
says those words. Does he have the fire in his belly?
Or does he want to be coddled, babied, perhaps even fed
chicken?
That scene in the parking lot last week had no bearing on
the Cowboys changing quarterbacks, and yet, it said so
much about Reid. A 21-year-old letting his mother feed him
in public? Most college kids, much less college football
players, would just as soon be seen running naked across
campus.
And what of the scene television cameras captured earlier
that evening of Reid on the sidelines laughing with
assistant strength coach Trumain Carroll? The same cameras
showed him throwing his cap in disgust after a missed play
earlier, but to be laughing in the final minutes of an
embarrassing loss is bad form.
Reid is the most talented quarterback in Payne County, but
he hasn't proven that he's the toughest. If you listen to
the rumblings and the rumors, Cowboy coaches simply grew
weary of it.
Who knows? There might come a day when they grow tired of
something Robinson does, but for now, they appear willing
to sacrifice a bit of talent for a lot of grit.
This article was given to me by a mother... of children.
(As if the article could be given to him by a mother of kittens.)
That was in pretty poor taste dogging the kid about his mother giving him chicken for dinner. That has nothing to do with what the kid does on the field, but I'm still kind of surprised Gundy blew up quite that big about the issue. It's common knowledge that most press people don't know jack or about the sports and write just to make a splash with readers, and IMO that really seems prevalent with the female writers. Jen Engle here in Dallas does that type of all the time and it's really comical. Best just to ignore it.
I do agree with his premise that amateur athletes should not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as professionals. However, blow-ups like that aren't likely to deflect attention away from the situation.
I've been reading a thread about this incident over at SportsJournalists and somebody brought up an interesting point.
While the players aren't directly being paid, they're also not paying for that education, room and board, etc. They're getting indirectly paid.
Granted, I'm in the camp that the pressure level increases as you march through the ranks. Things you'd write about a college kid's play you wouldn't write about for a preps athlete.
Also, you don't go play football at a Big 12 school and not expect a media presence.
And as far as the press not knowing about what they're writing about, I suppose the only people that do know about the sports they watch are fans?
I'm not naive - obviously these kids are going to subject to some criticism, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. Especially when you're attacking their character and not necessarily something that happens directly on the field.
As for the scholarships - once you take into account the amount of work that goes into being a college athlete - it's less than minimum wage (and I am NOT advocating paying players on top of their scholarships).
It's telling to me that at least some of the media (or someone else) in that room gave Gundy applause as he left the podium.
As for Gundy -- I think he's in the right here. He's responsible for protecting the young men who play for him and part of that, to me, entails defending them against unwarranted attacks by the media. It's one thing for a writer to question Reid's ability or even his desire; it's something else altogether, IMO, to report ridicule a collegiate athlete for something that happens in a private moment that may or may not have had some additional context.
I know nothing about the incident other than what I've read and seen in the Gundy presser, but I just think that there are (or at least should be) limits on reporting things like that.
The piece on Reid went beyond being evaluative -- it's borderline personal in the choice to make a big deal about something completely innocent (or even potentially embarassing) that happened off the field. Reporters must have independence, but I also think they should have some discretion -- and I don't see this as a particularly judicious exercise of discretion.
I think Gundy did the right thing to defend his player.
True, but a lot of college students work extra-curricular activities that bring them below minimum wage work.
I'm not saying he's not right or even duty-bound to defend his players and the piece wasn't even that strong in the first place, but it's just telling when his actions come out like that.
And word is, those cheering were OKST staff.
Those kids' peccadilloes aren't subjected to media scrutiny.
I'm not sure what difference a scholarship makes in this question, frankly. What if the player in question had been a non-scholarship player? (for instance, Ricky Williams wasn't on scholarship at UT in his last year there, IIRC, because of his baseball contract -- and even if I'm wrong, it's not unprecedented for a non-scholarship player to have a high enough profile to get media attention). Should the writer have a different notion of editorial discretion depending on the financial aid status of the player?
No, it should be the same editorial discretion all-around.
It's not a column I'd put in my portfolio because she tried really hard to make a connection that wasn't there. In my work, the saying goes, "If you have to explain the metaphor, don't use it."
That one needs a lot of explanation.
He's angry because one of his players was embarrassed in the media in a piece that went further than it had to in order to make the writer's point. Holding a press pass doesn't insulate your choices from criticism by others. Gundy obviously felt that his player had been wronged -- perhaps even maliciously so -- and defended him by subjecting the writer to an attack. I don't see what's telling about that, other than that he will protect his players from what he deems unfair reporting. If he doesn't do that in a public setting like that, his message is never communicated.
I'm almost disappointed if only the coaching staff were applauding Gundy.
So, doesn't the reference then become more of a gratuitous shot at the player? Shouldn't that subject the writer to some form of public ridicule?
And if the discretion is the same all the way around, then what difference does it make that the player may or may not be on scholarship? You've just said that it doesn't matter -- so, the point about him being quasi-paid for his efforts is really irrelevant, I think.
He was also angry because he said the facts were wrong, but he failed to mention which ones and why. What's telling about it is the reaction would have had a lot stronger point to it had he reacted better and held himself to a higher standard the columnist did.
Nobody's saying we should be insulated. I don't know a lot of journos who think that way, either. I'd rather a coach tell me I got something wrong and why. I've been subjected to public outbursts from people I've covered (not in sports, though... one was political, the other was from two different sides of a police brutality issue). Sometimes they've had points that I was willing to talk things out with them after and get settled and others have simply looked foolish by not addressing the facts they perceived were wrong, but they refused to refute what others had claimed and confirmed.
I'm not willing to call it a gratuitous shot without knowing what was in her mind. Can it be perceived that way? Sure. Is it necessarily true? Maybe not.
And while I said it was an interesting point brought up, I've said my thoughts are that it's the same all the way around and that the level of coverage increases as the level of play does.
Take my thought about it for what it was -- a random thought process being mentioned.
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/for...c,47359.0.html
You're going to see a lot of differing opinions at that thread, but most seem to be in the corner or "Poor column, poor reaction..."
I'll agree that parts of what Gundy said were unfortunate. I also think, though, that he has to draw a line with the media somewhere and he has to do that in at least a somewhat public way in order to make that point known.
I suspect that had the piece merely suggested that Reid lacked the for ude to play QB at a big-time school, that's not beyond the pale. By trying to make the point by reference to a scene with no context, the writer went beyond making that point by insinuating that Reid is, at the very least, a momma's boy and at worst, a baby. That's well beyond saying he shouldn't play QB.
Gundy is also talking to more than one cons uency here. He's supporting his players and he's making his point to the media as well. But he's also talking to the kids he'll recruit later on and their parents, and he's telling them that the Oklahoma State staff will have the backs of its players and won't stand for unfair attacks on their character.
I don't think this is just an "I'm angry, so I'll allege that you got the facts wrong" situation. Gundy did specifically mention the anecode about the Donovan Woods situation and said expressly that what had been reported was incorrect. Now, I'll admit that I don't know one damned thing about any of this beyond what I've read this afternoon, but identifying a specific inaccuracy in the story and saying that the facts were wrong is substantially different than a random allegation that the facts are incorrect.
And, for the record, I wasn't suggesting that it was your argument -- I was merely wondering aloud why his scholarship status would have any bearing on the propriety of the story. I would have a quarrel with anyone who would argue that it does, but then again, I don't think the fact that he's on scholarship should subject a player to this sort of ridicule.
I'll admit, I missed the Donovan Woods reference the first time I saw the video.
It's going to be interesting to see if somebody goes on-the-record now about what they whispered in Carlson's ear regarding the threat to transfer and the other things reported.
One last thing since I just finished the video again, I can't imagine any other media members doing that clapping... if so, there's going to be a personal war.
From Gundy's perspective, it wouldn't be the end of the world if the media starting fighting with each other. It also wouldn't be terrible if one writer went after him while others went after that writer. In the end, it seems to me that Gundy stands a pretty good chance to come out a winner.
His team just won its conference opener against one of the better teams in the league (which doesn't say much for the conference, admittedly). They showed some cohesiveness that was probably enhanced by the fact that Gundy was so adamant in defending his guys -- it's a legitimate circle the wagons moment for a football team and tehy got it at a point when they could really use it.
And I'd hope that if the other members of the media thought that the piece in question was unwarranted, they'd appreciate the defense of a player, even if it meant dissing one of their own. It's like a little internal policing -- a media Code Red.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
