[Husker] Of liars, cheats and other major college coaches

[Nick Chevance]

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I get the feeling the author spent almost as much time researching and writing that article that I spent reading it.  A very cynical half-summarization of the entire situation filled with gross inaccuracies.  (Lawrence Phillips was the "star" of the Fiesta Bowl???)
>
> Articles like that feed outrage amongst people who don't know anything more (like probably most readers of the "Chicago Reader"), but are easily dismissed by people more familiar with the situation.  (Wow, he got that wrong, and that wrong, and boy, that's wrong too.  Jeesh, this guy has no idea what he's talking about...)
>
> Mike Jaixen

This type of thing just bothers me. This is just sloppy.  I'm not sure
about how much research went into this piece (he alludes to things I
didn't know and hadn't seen anywhere in print), but I did notice how
easily negative quotes and attributions skipped from person to person
like a stone across still water.  While discussing Cook's arraignment,
he mentions that Tom Osborne attended.  He doesn't say what Osborne
said, but does throw in a statement by Cook's attorney from two years
earlier who had another player as a client.  What exactly do the two
have in common?  If he's implying that this lawyer only does Nebraska
athlete cases, then its likely this is the poorest lawyer in Lincoln.
Is he implying that Cook didn't deserve to have a lawyer?  I just
don't get what his point is here.

Later in the column, he asserts that its not a good idea to get
between Tom Osborne and his coaches (which is again an assertion not
backed by any facts), then drags up Pelini's dissatisfaction with the
questions following the Wisconsin game.  Now, Pelini's handling of the
media aside, what exactly does that have to do with Cook?  Did
reporters ask John Cook difficult questions, or did Osborne prevent
either Cook from speaking with the press?  Again, I'm somewhat
confused as to the point of this.  Yeah, Pelini can be an ass, but
they didn't ask Pelini about Cook, did they?

I guess I'm wondering where the indictment of the legal system that
allowed a young lady to go into a diversion program rather than spend
hard time, if that's his problem with what happened with Cook.  Tom
Osborne or John Cook didn't pass sentence on her, the court system
did.  The court seemed fine with the diversion, despite the other
things the author brings up in the article as supposedly factors
overlooked by the court.  And really, the basis for contending that
everyone but the local media just couldn't understand what happened
here is based on a commenter to an article, Ricky from River City?
And this "In the classroom, the university's journalism students
marveled at the ethical ironies, but the morning papers didn't touch
them."  Do I read this correctly that he attended a journalism class
at Nebraska recently?  I'm really confused.

Look, there's plenty wrong with how we treat athletes, coaches and
sports programs.  We elevate them to almost impossible heights and
then seem surprised when they turn out to be human, or less than.  And
there's no doubt that each and every one of them is no more than
human, just as those who write articles for papers and blogs and the
like.  I think all we ask of either is to be honest with us.  This
piece seems less than honest.

This article is like making soup with rotten vegetables.  Is it the
soup's fault that it tastes bad, or the cook?  Seems to me that the
cook that prepared this piece ONLY looked for the bad vegetables.  It
left a bad taste in my mouth, and I'll think twice before coming to
his kitchen again.

Nick (sorry for the food metaphor, it must be close to lunch).
-- 
“You can lead a horse to prune juice, but you can't make him drink it.
Nor would you want to.”
Space Ghost