[UPDATE 5/14/08, 6:45 pm: Here’s my appearance on today’s “The Writer’s Block” with Justin Myers and Rob Moseley. During this segment (the show’s second), we talk about the possibility of a Spygate-like episode occurring in college football. You can listen to it here. For the last segment of the show, Justin and Rob carry on the discussion. And you can find that here.]
Jay, here.
Over the weekend, I was playing Madden NFL 08 with my nephew on a Wii. Up until a week ago, I had never played anything on a Wii. When it comes to video games, I’m old school. I’m talking Atari 2600 old school (When playing Asteroids, don’t move, and stay in the middle. Just a hint.). So, I was getting new schooled by an eight year old on Madden. But I was never any good at the sports games, anyway. All I ever wanted to do was shoot stuff and blow things up. That’s it.
Plays? I never needed no stinking plays on the video games I enjoyed playing. But you do on Madden. Although, it seemed a little unfair that my nephew could watch me pick my offensive, or defensive, play and make adjustments accordingly. It also seemed kind of unfair that he always threw deep and blitzed me every single time and there was nothing I could do about it.
Well, I guess I now know how some of the New England Patriots’ opponents felt.
Yesterday morning, I stumbled upon ESPN’s coverage of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s meeting with Matt Walsh concerning the video he shot of opposing teams while a video assistant for the Patriots. And the discussion Trey Wingo, Mark Schlereth, and Chris Carter had was pretty revealing. While watching the footage, they explained the reasons why Walsh shot what he did and the in-game advantage it could have given the Patriots.
Here’s how it worked:
- Walsh was positioned in the end zone. Visually, that’s the ideal field view coaches would want to see.
- He started off by shooting the scoreboard. This would give you time, down, and distance information.
- Next, he shot the coaches sending in the hand signals for the plays.
Real quickly, let me emphasize this point. This is the critical piece of information they were trying to obtain. That’s it. Sure, they could learn coaching tendencies from this video. But, really, they could figure that out from their legal game footage and broadcast recordings. In baseball terms, they were trying to steal signals. They wanted to know what the other team was going to throw at them. And, then, they wanted to adjust to it, most likely at half-time. On the ESPN broadcast, Schlereth made a good point: if these tapes didn’t give them some type of in-game advantage, why were they wasting their time? For the next time they faced that team? Maybe. But doubtful. They wanted that info for that game.
- Finally, he shot the play. Repeat.
Right now, college football and basketball news is a little slow. Other than some news about Track & Field and Softball, there’s not a lot of news coming out of the University of Oregon. So, I’m trying to think of ways how big national stories might be relevant to Duck sports news.
Here’s how the lessons learned from Spygate might be relevant to the University of Oregon and college football:
Could Spygate happen in college football?
I don’t think so.
I mean we’ve all heard stories about schools trying to gain a competitive advantage through the use of technology. An overzealous fan records a rival schools practice and sends it to the coach. Coaches send too many text messages to recruits. Locker rooms are bugged. And spy satellites are retasked over practice fields.
Have college football programs tried to spy on other programs?
Undoubtedly. But as was noted on the ESPN set, only one other NFL team had attempted to do what the Patriots had done. And they gave up because it was too tough.
So, here are five reasons why Spygate will never happen in the college football.
5. It’s against the rules.
I know. It’s kind of weak. However, early this year, the NCAA formally banned that this kind of surveillance. Just because something is prohibited, does that mean people won’t do it? No. But following the Patriots’ scandal, that kind of violation would garner way more attention. People are looking for it now.
Also, have you ever tried to take a video camera into a college football stadium? When my sister was going to Auburn University, I tried taking a video camera into an Auburn-LSU game at Jordan-Hare Stadium. And I was immediately told that video cameras were not allowed in the stadium. My reward? I got to walk a very long way back to the car to put it away. Most venues prohibit spectators from having video cameras. Cameras are OK. And even though digital cameras and cell phones are permitted, the optics on those are not ideal. Plus, someone is going to notice if you’re holding up your point-and-shoot for the entire first half.
I know the Patriots were shooting this stuff in an official capacity. But those folks are under a lot of scrutiny, too. Just try to lug a news camera to a practice one day. At some point during the practice, you will be told to turn off your camera.
4. It’s too hard.
Ryan and I are very well-versed in the technology that would be required to pull something like this off. However, what we don’t understand is the timing, particularly considering the equipment six to seven years ago. You shoot in real-time. You digitize in real-time. And you’ve got fifteen minutes at half to parse this information and get something to the players. That’s tough for in-game adjustments. For that big rivalry game next year? Maybe. But this year? Logistically, that’s difficult. And that’s assuming you can keep everyone involved quiet.
3. The stakes are not high enough in college football.
Sure, the stakes are high in college football. And they are growing every year. But college football programs are not paying staff and assistant coaches enough for them to assume that risk. Plus, there are more college football programs than NFL teams. Yeah, if someone tells you do something, you probably do it. But, if you don’t want to use the Nuremberg defense, you tell them “no” and get ready to find a new job. Walsh wanted to be a coach. So, he was probably going to do whatever the “genius” wanted him to do. And I’m sure there was a bit of justification going on there, too.
2. NCAA coaches don’t need to do it.
NFL players are way better than NCAA players. Why does that matter? Because the gap between the best player and the worst player in the NFL is lot smaller than that same gap in college football. So, when all of the players are basically the same, then information becomes a lot more important. In college football, the more talented team usually wins. Would that information be of use to college coaches? Sure. But is that advantage worth the risk and effort? Probably not considering the amount of video date they already have at their disposal.
1. The Death Penalty.
The biggest difference in a Spygate scandal between the Patriots and a college football team is the NCAA. The Patriots are a franchise of the NFL. You can fine them. You can take away Draft picks. You can fine the coach. But the NCAA can kill your program. And that’s something that will never happen in the NFL. On the other hand, the NCAA has SMU. I don’t think that will ever happen again. But it always looms out there as a deterrent.
So, those are the “Top 5 Reasons Why Spygate Will Never Happen In College Football”? Are you buying them? Well, I don’t buy all of them, either.
Here are five reasons why a college football Spygate is inevitable.
5. College football coaches stay on the job longer.
Admittedly, I don’t have numbers to back me up on this one. Just call it a hunch. But it seems to me that college football coaches stick around just a little bit longer than NFL coaches. Not much longer. But enough that it could matter. So, that means the information gleaned from spying would have a longer shelf life.
4. Players are getting better.
As the players get better, the need for a competitive advantage in another areas grows. If the talent is equal across teams, then it becomes a game of execution and coaching. And if you knew what was coming up for just one play in each series or every other series, that might be all the advantage a coach would need.
3. The stakes in college football are getting higher.
College football coaches are getting paid more now than ever before. $1 million a year is on the low end. Try $4 million on the high end. If you can win with some consistency at the college level, you can have a job forever. That just won’t happen in the NFL. So as the stakes grow, the willingness to do anything to win grow, as well.
2. It’s only data.
Those songs you illegally downloaded? It’s only information. Hey, everyone can see what they’re doing, right? So, what’s the big deal? Increasingly, information gathering no longer has a moral component. It’s only video, right? Technology has removed the ethical boundary surrounding a lot of different types of behavior because it’s been shrouded under the veil of “technology”. What would make recording signs, recording, audio, intercepting wifi or radio signals any different? It doesn’t. And that’s the problem. The typical response now is that if it were that important, someone should do a better job of protecting it.
1. Technology is getting better and smaller.
So, you can’t take that ever-shrinking DV cam into the stadium with you, right? Right. And digital point-and-shoot cameras are improving, but a little obvious, right? Right. That kind of makes it tough to record something, doesn’t it? Nope.
If you want to spy on the opposing team (either during the game or in their game before meeting your team), here’s how you do it. First, you have to be looking for something. Going through all of that football within a short period of time would be difficult. Not impossible. But tough. You’re looking for a sign or a specific tendency. Second, your spy has to be in the end zone and dressed like most fans, school colors or whatever. Finally, that mole needs the right equipment. What could you use to watch a game in which no one would notice? How about a pair of video recording binoculars? You remember those really cool binoculars Luke Skywalker had in Star Wars? Well, you can get a pair of those now that record video. Pretty frakin’ cool. Also, instead of digitizing the footage in real-time, all you have to do is drag-and-drop the video files to your computer.
And this is just one area in which technology has improved. This does not even begin to scratch the surface of technological improvements in other areas to come.
And that’s why I’m choosing to go backwards. All I know is that if I ever get to play my nephew in Defender, I will own him.
A big “Happy Mother’s Day” to all the moms out there.
And for all you reading this now, you should probably be on the phone calling your mom wishing her the same (and don’t forget grandmas, wives, moms-to-be, etc.) We know you have the time - football doesn’t start until August.
The New York Post just did a story on Phil Knight a few days ago and his cashing in his stocks for Nike and making 1.05 billion dollars in little over a month.
The 70-year-old Nike founder has done hundreds of separate stock sales since mid-April, collecting $1.05 billion - well ahead of his $780 million cash-out of shares in 2007. That’s the year he placed 14th in Vanity Fair’s ranking of windfalls made by the rich from selling stock or family empires.
With that new cash flow going to Knight’s bank accounts will Oregon see even more money come their way?
What will the critics of the University taking the money say about this?
Times are going to sure get interesting in the future with all the building going on on campus. Knight has made mention multiple times he would like the UO to have an indoor track and field facility and he would do everything in his power to get one. Well I am sure 1 Billion can go a long ways to getting that built.
Theres lots of options for Knight to donate to when it comes to sports but I am sure the UO will also see a nice spike in money donated to the academic side as well. Dorms are needed to be refurbished and even rebuilt along with more updating on some of the older school buildings.
Well what is new? The Oregonian has once again come out with a story or “piece” that is clearly written to slam the University of Oregon and its sports teams. Did they run out of stories or news and had to fill in the open space with something and just decided to slam the UO again?
No.
The Oregonian is a business, and like any business their goal is to make money and as much money as they can possible. So to make money the Oregonian needs to come up with stories that “strike up the band” you could say or cause a ruckus from the community that gets the newspaper being mentioned in the “cooler talk” around the offices in Oregon.
With the latest story the Oregonian has accomplished once again their goal, which is to sell papers and bring attention to their newspaper.
Like many of you readers I have decided a long time ago to stop reading the Oregonian’s John Canzano and his stories that come out every other day or so. No way is that going to stop the Oregonian from publishing his stories because one reader stopped reading a certain part of the paper.
Now you could write a letter to the editor every day for the next year on how you dislike what is being published. You could call the office every day to let them hear your complaints. Go ahead and leave the endless comments on Conzano’s blog. But will this stop the Oregonian?
No.
All it is doing is adding more fuel to the fire and building even more interest in the paper and their stories. If you really want to put a stop to what is going on with the Oregonian and the UO readers need to just drop your interest and stop reading. Readers need to stop talking about it. Stop posting your thoughts on the Oregonian on message boards.
Like my Dad has told me numerous times regarding the Oregonian and Canzano, ” If your talking about them, than you are accomplishing their goal. ”
I am with Jay on this one. It’s not because I am a Duck fan and I don’t like the way they report on the UO. Its because the UO is the only school in this state that gets this treatment.
I have no problem whatsoever with the Oregonian doing stories that shed light on possible problems within the UO and their athletic department. The public needs to know what goes on there because its a state run school and our tax dollars go there to help fund it.
What the state doesn’t need though is a constant attack on one school and an attempt to fire shot after shot when anything comes up in the news headlines.
Heck, even Wednesday’s story from Canzano about the UO basketball team and their APR ranking which was in the top 10% in the nation had a slight slam on the UO. Was it needed in the story? Absolutely not! Why was it there? Because the Oregonian can.
Does Canzano and the Oregonian cover the state’s other schools like this? I don’t think so.
A few months back I was curious to see what Canzano’s radio show was like up there in the Portland area so I decided to log onto the Internet and listen in. For that day’s show Canzano talked about how Portland basketball fans should be ashamed for not coming out and watching a good basketball team win their conference tournament in the Portland State Vikings.
Canzano raved about how nice the team was on a personal level and even more so how talented they were. He praised the team and was on full force to jumping onto the bandwagon for that team.
Than a few days later when Portland State was destroyed by Kansas in the NCAA Tournament and we later find out two players from the PSU basketball team were in jail in Mexico and under arrests for suspicion of battery.
Where was the Oregonian and Canzano when that story came out? He was no where. Nothing slamming PSU and their basketball team on how they were a big let down to kids in the community or to the University.
Instead he did a piece on the Portland Trailblazers and their solid season they were having.
It doesn’t matter if these players were innocent or guilty. Its the fact they put themselves in that situation to be arrested and be a target for the media.
Had this been a UO basketball player or two I would be willing to bet a lot on the fact that Canzano would be salivating to get a chance to cover this story.
Where was the fair and balanced Journalism? Why is it only Oregon that gets this treatment? Why does Oregon hardly ever get any pro-Oregon press?
Canzano and the Oregonian attack the UO in my eyes simply because the UO has the largest fan base in the state and when you stir up the fan base and create commotion people are going to buy your paper, talk about your paper, and visit your online site to read your paper. Thus bringing in the cash.
[UPDATE, 5/5/2008, 10:00 pm: If you’d like to hear John Canzano, Rachel Bachman, and Brent Hunsberger talk about this series, just click here. You’ll need to go about halfway through the MP3 to hear this segment. Is it worth it? Yeah, it’s worth it. And it’s worth it alone to hear Canzano explain why he thinks academics has suffered because of Phil Knight’s donations to Oregon athletics. Do I need to explain why that’s preposterous? Well, OK. It’s preposterous because while academics is suffering, athletics would be suffering just as much without Phil Knight’s donations. And that seems to be John Canzano’s idea of a “healthy relationship”. Also, see if you can catch the swipe at The Register-Guard. And if you want to listen to the second hour, just click here.]
Jay, here.
On a cool Saturday evening, a rather curious news item came across our desks here at Duck Sports News: an interview The Register-Guard had conducted with Phil Knight intended for publication on Sunday.
As the first line in the story states, Phil Knight wanted to talk.
But I asked myself, “Why?”
Why would Phil Knight want to talk? Why The Register-Guard? Why now?
After reading the article, the interview struck me as a public relations move. That’s not a bad thing. It just seemed like Mr. Knight was trying to get out ahead of something. He was feeling the heat. But what had happened?
Well, we found out what that something was Sunday in The Oregonian. Why would Phil Knight want to talk to Ron Bellamy and The Register-Guard? Because he wasn’t talking to anyone at The Oregonian.
And, honestly, I can’t blame him.
In case you missed it, here’s a brief recap of The Oregonian’s stories on Phil Knight, Nike, and the University of Oregon.
Recap: The band uniforms designed five years ago by Nike through a gift from the Knights were ill-suited for a marching band.
Bottom-line: If this story had been a television show on Spike or on the old FOX, it might have been called, “When Good Donations Go Bad”. OK. We get it. The uniforms were terrible. And they still are. I’m not even sure what Oregon has now is a uniform in any traditional sense. We all know that. But the story starts off, “Five year ago…”. In terms of relevance, that might as well have been, “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.”
Recap: As Oregon’s top donor, Phil Knight enjoys rare access to University of Oregon athletics.
Bottom-line: Duh. Reading like a laundry list of the privileges Phil Knight enjoys at the University of Oregon, the tone of the story makes you think he’s done something wrong. When in fact, he hasn’t. While this article notes that NCAA rules restrict booster contact with recruits, the writers paint a picture that Phil Knight is exploiting the gray area of boosters’ access to players or coaches.
Recap: Phil Knight’s financial influence has transformed University of Oregon athletics.
Bottom-line: When printed out, this story is seven pages long. So, I’m not going to get into a point-by-point critique of the article. I’ll leave that up to the message boards. But as many have already stated on those very same boards, “What’s new here?’. As far as I can tell, not a whole lot.
Recap: John Canzano opines that the problem with the Phil Knight-Oregon dynamic is not Phil Knight’s fault, but a failure on the part of the University of Oregon’s administration.
Bottom-line: Canzano’s take is that Phil Knight has acted like a petulant child at times and should have been told “no” on several occasions.
Truthfully, it would be great to have the time, and the resources, to analyze all of these pieces. But I’m not really inclined to do that. And I think you would be completely disinterested in reading anything close to that. Plus, what would be point?
And that’s the bottom-line for all of these stories: what’s the point? More specifically, what’s the problem The Oregonian is investigating? There’s got to be a problem they’re trying to address, right? If there is, I’m not sure The Oregonian could easily summarize the singular problem they are investigating.
Before I go any further, I want to explain why I’m referring to The Oregonian as a monolithic entity. Even though my friends in the print media deny a groupthink mentality exists in the newsrooms of large newspapers, I’ve been around enough broadcast newsrooms to know that it does exist in the media. And maybe the term “groupthink” is too evocative of a mob, or even zombie-like, mentality. Perhaps, a more appropriate word would be “culture”.
I think there is a decidedly anti-University of Oregon, anti-Phil Knight, anti-Nike “culture” that exists at The Oregonian. Just as I think there is a pro-University of Oregon culture that exists at The Register-Guard. I also think that FOX News is more conservative and CNN is more liberal. To deny the existence of “cultures” within any of these entities is to deny the obvious, and the very human.
In the comments, Wheaton4prez makes a simple request:
Please, somebody be specific and state what they think the loss or crime is here. It’s starting to sound like a spooky, fire-side story meant to scare children.
As he does on occasion, Canzano responds:
Thanks for the post. If you’re a Ducks’ fan you may love what Knight has done for the university, but it’s risky business because the university has given up control and sacrificed academics for athletics. Employees are in tough positions… nobody in green can criticize Knight… a donor has influence over personnel matters… and Knight’s building are being approved outside a university planning process. This is all problematic. Just take the guy’s donations, and keep your autonomy, and if he can’t live with that, don’t take it.
Again, I could go through this tidy summation of Canzano’s beef with the Phil Knight-Oregon alliance and address each one of his points. But I’m not going to do that either. However, Insominduck did a nice job of addressing at least one of Canzano’s points in another comment:
Since Phil has been involved as a high level donor the following have occurred (most due to his generosity)
New Law School
New Library
New Business School
$15 million to create endowed chairs and professorships
New Practice Facility
New Training Facility
New Student Center for Athletes
Remodeled Autzen
New Basketball Arena coming
not to mention other donations he’s made that aren’t public
What I want to address is Canzano’s very last line:
Just take the guy’s donations, and keep your autonomy, and if he can’t live with that, don’t take it.
Where would Oregon be without Phil Knight’s donations? Just look to one of The Oregonian’s articles:
“I’d hate to see where that school would be without his support and without the growth that they have demonstrated over the last decade,” said David Carter, a USC sports business professor and consultant. “They’re certainly among the elite nationally. Without that input, they would conceivably be an also-ran.
As Canzano notes, where have all of the Knights’ donations gotten the U of O? Not very far. Actually, on par with Oregon State. So, again, where would Oregon be without those donations?
Wherever Oregon would be, I think John Canzano would prefer Oregon was there with their autonomy intact, without the donations.
That’s great, John. Where would that leave Oregonians, the University of Oregon, Ducks fans, students, and the athletes? Better or worse off? Without a doubt, they all would be worse off. But they would have their autonomy. And that’s worth it, John? Really? And is that really the solution to the perceived problem of Phil Knight and Oregon? Don’t take the money?
If Phil Knight’s influence is a problem, what’s the alternative? I think it’s pretty clear. The alternative is that the University denies Phil Knight’s requests and he denies Oregon his donations.
While I think Phil Knight could live with an autonomous Oregon, I don’t think Oregon could survive being autonomous from Phil Knight. Then, I ask, who would have the heat on them?
And that, Duck fans, would be truly problematic.
If you would like to look at The Oregonian’s Cold War lead-up to this past weekend’s Hot War against Phil Knight, take a look at these stories. However, this is not an exhaustive list. This does not include all of John Canzano or Steve Duin’s columns and blogs.
Well its that day of the week for you recruiting junkies! Update Friday!
The Ducks have a four new offers dished out as reported on Scout.com and Rivals.com since the last update last Friday.
The new guys are:
1. Adam Hall
4* WR from Tucson, AZ( Palo Verde Magnet High School).
Hall is 6′4 195 pounds and runs a 4.56 forty-yard dash. Hall has offers from Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Colorado State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, and Washington State.
2. Boseko Lokombo
1* LB/RB/WR from Eugene, Oregon (South Eugene High School)
Lokombo is 6′3 220 pounds and is being recruited as an athlete you could say. He plays all over the place at South Eugene high school. Originally from Congo before moving to Canada and then to Eugene.
3. Jeremiah Masoli
1* QB from San Francisco, CA ( CC of San Francisco)
Masoli( 6′ 205 pounds) is the top QB in the Junior College ranks for the class of 2009. Masoli is in such a big hurry to get to Oregon that he decided to forgo his Sophomore season and transfer to Oregon now. He has signed a Financial Aid Agreement with the UO and will report to camp in June and count as a 2008 recruit. Masoli threw for 3600 yards and over 30 touchdowns as a freshman while also adding 400 yards and 11 more touchdowns via the running game while playing in a spread offense in JC football.
Masoli committed to Oregon Thursday(5/1) morning.
4. Kerry Lewis
1* DB from Lancaster, TX (Lancaster High School)
Lewis, a 5′9 176 pound hard hitting defensive back got his second offer of the year this week from Oregon and now holds two offers with the other being Iowa.
When I was doing this I was really interested in how many offers the coaching staff has extended out to kids who are playing their prep football within the state of Oregon.
I can’t recall a time when Oregon has offered four recruits this early in the recruiting process and yet there’s still a few more players in the state that could land an offer if Oregon miss on a top target.
In the past 15 years or so the Oregon football team has always had a player here or a few there that starred for the Ducks and were from Oregon as well. It brought a sense of connection to many fans as they saw or knew these kids grow up.
Now, I as a fan I want the best players Oregon can nab as possible and I don’t care where they came from. However, when Oregon does offer someone from the state I am really excited about him maybe staying in Oregon and play his college football.
Also, check out how many kids Oregon is recruiting from the state of Texas. We hit Texas pretty hard last season considering we had no real history in that area before than. Now we are building on that momentum from last season. Four offers this early in the game already, and if I had to use my terrible recruiting skills, I would bet we will end up with a number not even close to four by the time recruiting is all said and done.
We are still hitting Southern Cal as usual but like I mentioned in last week’s update, Oregon is moving east at a steady pace and becoming that National program everyone wants Oregon to morph into.
Matt
Matt is a special contributor to Duck Sports News and Editor of Ducks Attack.
With Dennis Dixon using up all his eligibility as an Oregon Duck, the coaching staff headed into Spring trying to find a new quarterback, in what might be the most interesting battle for the starting quarterback spot ever in the history of Oregon football.
That task just got even tougher now as the Ducks added another addition to the race in JC transfer Jeremiah Mosali, who will have 3 years to play when he arrives to Eugene this summer. Mosali brings experience in the spread option and Madden-like stats from his freshman season at CC of San Francisco, where he threw for 3600 yards, ran for another 400, and a combined for 41 touchdowns through the air and rushing.
So who starts?
How about the QB’s do the Truffle Shuffle like in Goonies to see who starts?
Is it Costa, the player the coaching staff said would have slided right in at QB when Dixon went down with his injury and kept the offense flowing?
Or Roper, the season saving QB who lead the Ducks to a Sun Bowl win in a blowout fashion?
What about one of the two freshman QBs in Harper or Thomas? Both bring athleticism to the QB spot and look to be the future QBs of college football. Big. Quick. Athletic.
Don’t forget Cooper. Remember, he was a top JC QB two years ago and the starting BYU QB last summer before an injury.
There is also the home grown Oregon boy in Kempt, who started the last two games of the regular season, as well.
Now you can add in the most recent addition in Mosali who is the Spread King it appears from his JC stats as a FRESHMAN!
Is it a problem to have 7 (Yes, 7!) quarterbacks on the roster? I think it is, and it is starting to sound like the coaching staff does, too.
We now have two different instances where Bellotti has indirectly made it sound like two guys will need to find a different position on this team.
The first came last Saturday during the Spring game when Joe Giansante asked him about the depth at QB and Belloti said they will trim the roster down to five spots. Which means two players will need to move.
Today on 1320 AM “The Score”, Bellotti was on “Sports Talk with Steve Tannen” and reiterated the fact that the staff would like five players on the depth chart and there are currently seven players listed at quarterback.
So who moves? Thoughts?
Matt
Matt is a special contributor to Duck Sports News and Editor of Ducks Attack.
Well, I don’t know if he hates us, specifically. But the other night on HBO’s “Costas Now”, it was pretty clear the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Friday Night Lights” author hates online types, in general. Bloggers. New media. Web 2.0 types. Online columnists. Whatever you want to call what I’m doing right now. On that particular night a few days ago, it just happened to be Deadspin’s Editor Will Leitch.
Just as there are coaching family trees, I guess some version of that exists for the online world. And if it does, Duck Sports News teeters on the branches sprung forth by Deadspin and The Drudge Report. Although, I think in Mr. Bissinger’s eyes, we’re more of a stump, weed, or worse.
So, should we “sock it to him”? No. I don’t think so. While we love Buzz as a brother, we don’t have to like him.
And on “Costas Now” he was thoroughly unlikable.
As you will see, Buzz’s problem with blogs is that he considers them glib, quick, and profane.
But be warned: Buzz is glib, quick, and extremely profane here. But so is Bob Costas. Quelle surprise!
At the same time, here at Duck Sports News we’re committed to providing a quality service and commentary about the things you and other Duck fans are probably talking about.
We still love you, Buzz.
So, on this National Day of Prayer, we’re going to say a little prayer for Buzz. Seriously. Just like all of us, I think a little prayer for Buzz might do him some good right about now.
Over the weekend, I was playing Madden NFL 08 with my nephew on a Wii. Up until a week ago, I had never played anything on a Wii. When it comes to video games, I’m old school. I’m talking Atari 2600 old school (When playing Asteroids, don’t move, and stay in the middle. Just a hint.). So, I was getting new schooled by an eight year old on Madden. But I was never any good at the sports games, anyway. All I ever wanted to do was shoot stuff and blow things up. That’s it.
Yesterday morning, I stumbled upon ESPN’s coverage of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s meeting with Matt Walsh concerning the video he shot of opposing teams while a video assistant for the Patriots. And the discussion Trey Wingo, Mark Schlereth, and Chris Carter had was pretty revealing. While watching the footage, they explained the reasons why Walsh shot what he did and the in-game advantage it could have given the Patriots.
1. Technology is getting better and smaller.
Well, we found out what that something was Sunday in The Oregonian. Why would Phil Knight want to talk to Ron Bellamy and The Register-Guard? Because he wasn’t talking to anyone at The Oregonian.
Buzz Bissinger