Attention anyone who has emailed a writer or broadcaster:

I've seen a lot of emails on the sending side. What I would like to see is any responses that have been given by said journalist or commentator.

If anyone has received responses, please inform us what was said to "defend" their views.

 

none here

 

I have received no response from the one writer that I emailed. But it's only been a few hours. Any response I receive will be posted here, post haste!

 

"This was to the guy M. Breton of the SAC. Bee that wrote that article about the graduation rates at OU and LSU mostly.

You sir should do a lot more research before writing such an inflammatory piece degrading these players and institutions. If you had the decency to investigate the real story you would have found out what Nick Saban and Bob Stoops have done since being hired by these colleges and what the chancellors have given them in order to be successful. Building new academic centers designed to improve all athletes performance in school so as to better their lives after playing sports. Every one of the football players at LSU that has not transferred out is on pace to get a degree, 100% of them. Not one LSU football player has been ruled out of the bowl game for academics. People like you get on their high horse without really investigating, just taking an article off of the Internet and using that one piece as evidence of academic fraud. You should have gone to LSU and Oklahoma to investigate the academic records of the men that you are accusing of not deserving to be in this game, of not knowing the name of our vice president. You are throwing darts in a public forum at these fine young men without interviewing them, their academic counselors and professors, their coaches, advisors and administrators. You would have found out about the players studying to be doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. You would have found out about the academic All-Americans on the team. You would have found out about the great character of these players that you are bashing.

If I were to perform my job, which requires much research, as inadequate as you my clients would not even think about using my services ever again. I demand that you do this research and then run another article on what you find out or write a retraction in your paper that states that you shouldn't have written an article as you had not performed the proper research and investigation."

Sincerely,

David Giardina


This was his reply to meof course he never really answered any of my points)

"Happy New Year and thanks for writing. The thing is, David, I did do my research. I didn't get these figures from the internet. I got them from the NCAA. Here is the link to LSU's graduation rates from the NCAA's website: http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2003/d1/RPT00365.html

If you check them out for yourself you will see that LSU's graduation rate for football - based on averages of the last four graduation classes -- is only 40 percent.

And if you look at the last class that graduated - the 1996-97 freshman class - the graduation rate for football players is even worse at 29 percent.

If kids are doing as well as you say, those numbers will get better. But until they do, the numbers are the numbers and I'm sure you would agree that they are nothing to be happy about. I don't take offense at some of the other things you said in your note because I know your frustration comes from a good place - you obviously feel pride in these schools.

No offense taken and Happy New Year

Marcos Breton

ps - I would check out that NCAA site. The grad rate numbers are very educational. MB"


So this was my second reply to him:

"I have and I do realize that college sports programs were sorely lacking, including those at LSU. Also, I know that all of those numbers are skewed as they do not count transfers either but the main point of what I was saying is that you painted the picture as if the kids who are in school and playing for those teams at the present are dumb jocks, insinuating that it is them that aren't going to graduate, pas, etc. When you wrote that piece you even suggested such. And that is not fair in the least bit. If you were going to talk about them then use their grades, progress towards a degree, etc. Not those of players from the past. It would be like someone grading your progress as a journalist based on what your predecessor has done."

 

My response fro Skip Bayless (surprised he wrote back)

I got an email reply from Skip Bayless (although it's not much of one, but I'll take it), for an article he wrote for the San Jose Mercury news touting why he thinks LSU is better than USC. I think it's a little different than what you're looking for because i was agreeing with and commending him for what he wrote. I like it because he is a sportswriter for a California newspaper and he's basing his opinion on what he's seen for all teams involved and also what NFL scouts who have covered each of the 3 teams say. His reply is only a few sentences, but it's a reply nonetheless. Below is my original email, his response, and the link to the article he wrote. The link is still working as of this post.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick T [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 12:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Thank You for an Unbiased Article


Hi Skip,
I've listened to you before when you've hosted Jim Rome's radio show and, to me, you are an enigma. I have never heard someone with takes that I can agree with on so many levels and other takes that I disagree with on so many more. However, your article HERE in the San Jose Mercury News was bit refreshing considering not many in the mainstream national media - especially on the West Coast - are giving LSU ANY respect whatsoever. I appreciated the RESEARCH you conducted with NFL scouts and the like to get a true measure of where these teams rank and not conform to what other biased West Coast writers think based on being USC homers and what the national media has done just because they hate the current BCS system. One think about you Skip - you don't pull any punches and are not afraid to stir the pot and that's why I like you - for the most part .

War diet Mountain Dew. War you guest hosting in the Jungle. I'm out.

Patrick in New Orleans.

From : Bayless, Skip <[email protected]>
Sent : Wednesday, January 7, 2004 11:44 PM
To : "'Patrick T'" <[email protected]>
Subject : RE: Thank You for an Unbiased Article

I speak the truth as I see it, without fear of fallout. Maybe I'm right. Maybe you're right. Maybe we're right. Thanks.

 

I'm having an exchange with Ivan Maisel of espn.com right now; he's responded to me twice, and I'm expecting a third soon.

I think I'm way ahead on the logic points, but once we're through, I'll post the exchange and let you guys decide.

BBD

 

Re: My response fro Skip Bayless (surprised he wrote back)

Skip use to be in Dallas and I listen to him every morning. I enjoyed his shows.

 

I got a reply from Jim Litke after I blasted him for his column. Her it is:

All:

Thanks for writing and apologies in advance for responding with a form
letter, but too many e-mails arrived to answer each individually.

First of all, some of you should put away the crayons. Go f--- yourself is
not a response, it's a poor reflection on whoever raised you. I'm sure they
did what they could to provide you with an education, so for their sake try
and make better use of the few tools you have.

To the rest who responded thoughtfully, or at least in a civil manner, let
me start by clearing up a few points.

1.) AP writers do not vote in the AP poll, for the All-America team, Heisman
or even for postgame MVPs. The AP voters are 65 writers and broadcasters
scattered around the country, each of whom concentrates on college football
The idea is to have all areas of the nation represented. AP writers have no
vested interest in the poll, other than to make sure the votes are counted
properly. The AP ballot of every voter is available to anyone who wants
them.

2.) The BCS, ABC, the six major conferences and all the people who are
making millions off what is a psuedo-scientific scheme to dampen real
competition _ a playoff _ do not have a monopoly on the national
championship. Nobody agreed to anything, except for the coaches' poll, which
was sold to the BCS. That's why they couldn't vote their conscience,
whatever it was (even though three of them cast protest votes). Let's say
the championship games were equally unimpressive; you mean to tell me the 37
coaches _ a clear majority _ who put USC at the top of their poll a week
earlier withered to three? Please.

3.) The BCS computers are no smarter nor more objective than the people who
program them. The old maxim _ garbage in, garbage out _ applies. Most of the
programmers freely admit they never actually watch a game, and six of the
seven won't even publish their formulas. They don't however, weight losses
according to when they take place, don't consider margin of victory, don't
discriminate between home and away wins, and they don't account for
injuries, suspensions, etc. So if half the LSU defense had been sidelined
because of a car crash the week before the Georgia game, the computers
wouldn't have taken that into account. Anybody who believes a team in
September at home is the same team on the road in November is free to
believe the BCS computers.

4.) The "back-to-back" comment was hyperbole, not an insult. Anybody who
took it literally, my apologies. But common sense should tell you how it was
intended.

5.) Believe what you want, but the AP's reputation is built on objective
news reporting. I, on the other hand, am the AP's sports columnist and am
paid to express an opinion, but it's just that _ mine _ and everybody has
one. Since so many of you made a point of asking, I played a year of
football _ badly _ in high schoo and busted up an elbow. I went to the
University of Missouri and I live in Chicago, and the only bias I have is in
favor of cold-weather teams. How fair is it that teams that have to win
games in November on frozen fields always have to play for the championship
in warm climes? You need fat linemen and big defenders to do that in the
cold, and then you go play teams with little wideouts and fast, light
linebackers that get to play wide-open all season because they never have to
deal with the elements. It's not coincidence that the Green Bay Packers are
35-1 at home in the playoffs, but the college system is what is (just as the
Super Bowl is always held in the warm or played indoors). I'd love to see
the SEC teams play at Michigan, Notre Dame and Oregon on a cold, rainy night
in November, but it ain't going to happen. Nobody said life is fair, but
some of us cry a lot more about it than others, apparently .

6.) Since no major teams play more than a few games outside their
conference, the postseason is the truest measure vis a vis one another. I
put those numbers in so readers could make of them what they wanted to. They
clearly proved LSU and USC played a tougher schedule than Oklahoma. I've
never been a big fan of Pac-10 football and I didn't believe USC was that
good until I saw them _ in person _ at the Rose Bowl. Their defense recorded
nine sacks against Michigan, which always has one of the best offensive
lines in the country and only gave up 15 sacks all season. USC scored on
drives of 27 seconds, then 55, 1:02 and 2:30 _ against the No. 6 defense in
the nation. They could have scored at least twice more. Like all those award
winners on Oklahoma, Matt Leinart may have put up numbers against inferior
competition, but he did the same thing in a big game against Michigan (which
would beat Oklahoma in a heartbeat. The Wolverines also manhandled Ohio
State, which beat Kansas State, and Iowa, which pounded the snot out of your
beloved SEC giants, Florida, which as I recall was an 8-5 team that beat
LSU).

7.) I was at the Sugar Bowl and I'd venture to say I've seen more college
and pro grames than anybody who wrote in _ different teams in all the major
conferences _ and I talk to NFL scouts and general managers on a regular
basis. If you think they're dying for Jason White or Matt Mauck to come out,
I've got a bridge for sale.

8.) LSU has one of the best defenses out there, maybe the best. I said as
much. But USC is not far behind and comparing the Southern Cal offense to
LSU's is like comparing a Ferrari to a station wagon. Leinart broke (No. 1
NFL draft choice) Carson Palmer's single-season record in his first season
at quarterback. Eli Manning is good, but he's not in Leinart's class,
either.

9.) Because of scheduling problems beyond its control, LSU registered wins
over Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Tech and Western Illinois. So quit puffing
your chest out about what a tough schedule they played. Florida was hardly
better than Cal, and Georgia is quality opposition? They barely held off
Purdue. Michigan, on the other hand, played four Top 10 teams before USC,
beat them all, and still got whomped. Oklahoma's quality win was over Texas
and the always overmatched Mack Brown, Enough said.

The reason we'll never settle the argument is that college football doesn't
have a playoff. And if all those sheep who believe the BCS is objective and
always right continue to believe that, we'll never get one. But at least
check out what BCS chief Mike Tranghese said over the weekend about all the
mistakes they made.

Thanks again for writing. Happy New Year to all, even those of you who had
trouble spelling "moron."

Best,

Jim

 

Litke just blew what little credibility he had with me by saying that
Georgia was not "quality competition". He may have seen more
games than anyone else as he claims...but it sure doesn't mean
that he knows what he's talking about.

 

Sports Illustrated

Has anyone else read the articles in this weeks SI about USC and LSU? Basically just another lovefest for USC by three diferrent writers. I don't really expect a response but this is an e-mail I just sent:

When I received my copy of Sports Illustrated today (LSU's the 1, January 12, 2004), I was more than pleased to see LSU on the cover as the BCS national champions. However, after reading the articles about both USC and LSU, I was a bit disappointed to see that SI has taken the same position as most major sporting news magazines by basically dismissing LSU's championship and taking the position that USC is "the people's champion."
No question that USC has a good team and had a good year. But neither their coach nor any of their players are as capable of a flawless performance as so many seem to believe including Austin Murphy, Phil Taylor, and Kelley King. Murphy's article speaks of how easy the USC offense makes it look to score touchdown after touchdown. Taylor's hypothetical match between USC and LSU has USC as the winner after an above-average offensive performance and an "efficient" performance from LSU. And, my personal favorite, King's picks for the 2004 Top 10. In this, a superb example of exactly how the biased the media can really be, USC is picked as number 1. I won't bother to take issue that pick, but how on Earth is Florida, a team that went 8-5 this season and has only 9 retuning starters projected to be better than LSU, the only team in the nation this season that went 13-1 and has 14 returning starters???
I believe that both LSU and USC have strong programs, both deserving of respect and admiration. But LSU did not have to proclaim itself as a national champion, people's champion, etc., ad nauseum. That championship was won within the system agreed upon by all BCS conferences. And that is what makes LSU the legitimate national champions.


:lsug: