Letters to the Editor
-
Notre Dame, Willingham and Weis
Sagcat:
I was trying to be a bit clever in my first post on this matter and so I'll clarify what I meant with respect to Ty Willingham and Charlie Weis.
Do I think Ty Willingham was fired because he was black? No. Do I think that Notre Dame is applying a double standard to Willingham and Weis? Yes. Is race a factor? I doubt it, but it sure looks bad.
The reality is that Notre Dame felt they made a mistake in hiring Willingham and fired him with a couple of years left on his contract. I would have no problem with this if it weren't for the fact that they hold themselves out to be such a "fiercely ethical" place where contracts are, you know, honored. They did it for Faust despite limping along for years. Hell, they've done it for every coach they've ever had except one ... who also happens to be the only black coach they've ever had. I'm not saying that his race was a factor. I'm saying that you can't act in a "fiercely ethical" manner for every coach except for the only black coach in your history and then act offended when people point out the incongruity. Because Notre dame isn't a "special" program any more - they're just like any other school. Which is why they got played into signing Weis to a 10 year extension that ties them to each other for better or for worse, even though he's looking as bad as the guy they just dumped. (And not very beloved by other college coaches - just ask Joe Paterno.)
As for the immediate future of Notre Dame football, I would also be shocked if the Irish went to Ann Arbor this weekend thinking that they've lost before the game even started. But this has more to do with the relative strength of their opponents than anything else. It's going to be a long year for the Irish...
-
Quit with the Ty v. Charlie Comparison
As bad as thing look for ND right now (and they look AWFUL), at least ND has the #1 recruiting class coming to South Bend next year (assuming the recruits don't bail after a few more embarassments).
Ty got fired because his team's play AND his recruiting (#27 and #40 in his last two years) were going downhill, fast--with no sign of a turnaround. Just because ND had a history of holding on to losers like Bob Davie and Gerry Faust doesn't mean they should have continued the same mistake with Ty. Sure, on the surface it looks bad, like race may have played a part. But your job is to scratch beneath the surface.
Ty: 10-3, 5-7, 6-5
Charlie: 10-3, 9-3, ?-? (0-2)
Although I have my doubts about Charlie after these first two blowouts, Charlie still has earned a fourth season cushion.
-
World vs. Pats
Boy oh boy is this cheesy. Yes, the pats have been caught cheating but now it is time to
come to their defense a little bit.
1.) This videotaping business was rampant in the NFL. Goodell finally issued a warning against it last year because it had become so common. The pats simply did not get out of
the business and that was stupid.
2.) Good teams ASSUME their signals are being stolen with video or simply by sight and then take measures to trick the opponents such as substituting a whole new set in the
second half after the opposing team has stolen and learned the first half signs.
3.) In terms of the Jets game, the confiscation took place early in the first quarter so it seems that it played little effect in the overall ass-whoopin'. Ellis Hobbs didn't run
108 yards because of stolen signs--poor tackling was all he needed.
4.) Most teams would not be caught with tape as it could be evidence. This was probably due as much to Belichick's penchant for cataloguing and being thorough as it was for an
advantage.
5.) The Jets coaches who cut their teeth with the Pats benefited from the tactic and seemingly would do anything to get back at Billy boy. Their success comes just as much
from this cheating and their real talent or lack thereof will be proven forthwith. Goodell, incidentally, also warned against bringing in free agents that one had no
intention of signing (Reche Caldwell) in order to get information from them.
So, I chalk this up to a seriously over-the-top rivalry that has turned particularly nasty.
The sad thing is that it does vitiate the pats legacy in the eyes of many. People are already talking about putting an asterisk next to their three superbowl victories. It's a
damn shame that they take the fall for a rampant problem in the NFL for over 25 years. Now if the pats just plain kick the snot out of their competition, then it will be some
consolation that this underhanded shit played a minimal role.
GO PATS GO CHEATERS!
-
Goodell
Um, rasmus, many reputable news sources are reporting that Goodell has found their behavior in the wrong:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3014677
Granted, its "league sources" but basically they tend to be right on the money. The Pats were caught red handed after a stern warning.
If not, why issue the "apology?"
It's all academic other than the fact that if the Pats felt the need to do this with an inferior opponent, they surely did it against equal and superior ones.
-
108 yards
OK, blueturtle and others keep bringing up that one play. Sure, call stealing didn't affect that one. So take away the offensive drives where it might have made a difference and now you have a 14-7 Jets win.
People also keep saying "I don't understand why Bellichek did this against the Jets when he'd have beaten them anyway."
You have no way of knowing that. Maybe without the cheating the Pats are no better than the Browns. Maybe they're the equal to the Jets and it'd have been a very close game. The truth is you don't know what kind of an advantage it brought the Pats. You also don't know if this kind of thing was rampant in the league or if the commissioner specified they'd be enforcing this because so many teams complained about the Pats doing it. You're engaging in wild speculation just as much as those who claim the Superbowls are tainted.