Started By
Message
re: A&M's Chancellor John Sharp called out ESPN today.
Posted on 8/22/13 at 12:36 am to cyde
Posted on 8/22/13 at 12:36 am to cyde
quote:
The only thing I'd be concerned with is the chancellor's tone. He went pretty quickly to the ad hominem, attacking journalistic integrity, criminal records and deflecting without actually addressing the matter at hand... which is fine if you're a fan or are TexAgs.
I wouldn't personally be ready to throw him under the bus, but I'd definitely be scratching my head and wondering if this guy's supposed to be the chancellor of a major university or a TexAgs redass superfan.
Either way, I'm happy to have someone who cares about the university as Chancellor as opposed to someone who doesn't give a frick


quote:
Maybe the TexAggy tail wags the aggy dog.
Very possible

Posted on 8/22/13 at 12:38 am to fooz
I actually like the fact the Chancellor showed he had the programs back. #respect
Posted on 8/22/13 at 12:40 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Either way, I'm happy to have someone who cares about the university as Chancellor as opposed to someone who doesn't give a frick
I can't fault you there, but you have to concede that his tone was rather unprofessional, given his position as the voice of the university.
quote:
About time someone (semi) official spoke frankly about this (although I'm sure A&M's legal team was all over that before it was disseminated
Don't get me wrong, it needed to be addressed. My concern would be the way he went about doing it. A university official should be above going full-blown Bammer (or redass) in an official release.
People who do that usually seem to go the way of Gordon Gee.

ETA: Not quite like this, though.

"GEE GONE!"
This post was edited on 8/22/13 at 12:42 am
Posted on 8/22/13 at 12:42 am to cyde
You make very valid points, and after thinking about it you may be right. However, there is a part of me that likes it a lot.
Posted on 8/22/13 at 12:42 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
You make very valid points, and after thinking about it you may be right. However, there is a part of me that likes it a lot.
Yeah, it would tickle my pickle as a fan on one hand, but really deeply concern me as someone who realizes that his university is under a microscope, and is being judged in the court of public opinion. This would be a time when I want my university officials to be really buttoned down and stolid, yet support the university's case with ineluctable logic.
This post was edited on 8/22/13 at 12:45 am
Posted on 8/22/13 at 12:50 am to Gladius Veritas
quote:
I don't give one single frick
Is it because you don't care about Johnny, who damn near hung 60 on you? Or because the entrance exam to your university is a coloring book?
Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:04 am to cyde
Yes, the tone was very "in your face". He could have been more stoic, I agree. But he basically repeated what we have all knownI to be true about Rovell.
Let's talk about who really IS being unprofessional. Rovell. Either Rovell doesn't know the first thing about journalistic integrity, or he doesn't care. There really isn't another logical explanation for the severe lack of objectivity and obvious personal bias given some twitter comments we have seen.
Let's talk about who really IS being unprofessional. Rovell. Either Rovell doesn't know the first thing about journalistic integrity, or he doesn't care. There really isn't another logical explanation for the severe lack of objectivity and obvious personal bias given some twitter comments we have seen.
This post was edited on 8/22/13 at 1:06 am
Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:08 am to cyde
quote:
I can't fault you there, but you have to concede that his tone was rather unprofessional, given his position as the voice of the university.
The only reason we've gotten to this point is others outside the university being "unprofessional" (i.e., smear reporting). Like I said, I'm happy with his tone. Could he have been more stoic/stuffy? Sure. But I'm glad he wasn't.
Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:09 am to Spirit Of Aggieland
quote:
es, the tone was very "in your face". He could have been more stoic, I agree. But he basically repeated what we have all knownI to be true about Rovell.
He said what the core of his constituency wants to hear, yes. He sort of jumped out of his role in the way he did it, though, and I'm not convinced that's going to be a good thing, regardless of what happens to Johnny.
quote:
Let's talk about who really IS being unprofessional. Rovell. Either Rovell doesn't know the first thing about journalistic integrity, or he doesn't care.
Perhaps he doesn't, and perhaps it's something which needs to be addressed. I just don't think it was the chancellor's place to go there about it.
Bringing up the dealer's criminal background, in my opinion, was folly, though.
Number one, the fact that the guy sold dope doesn't preclude him from buying autographs.
Number two, the fact that he sold dope doesn't hold water as an effective defense for Johnny if it turns out that someone, somewhere can prove that he did.
That, in my opinion, was a Bad Move which could come back to bite him someday. He went way too personal.

This post was edited on 8/22/13 at 1:10 am
Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:12 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
The only reason we've gotten to this point is others outside the university being "unprofessional" (i.e., smear reporting).
I'm not saying you're wrong to agree with or like how it was handled. Your mileage may vary.

That said, people may flame the shite out of my posts, call me a piece of shite Bammer, tell me my team sucks, cheats, runs the SEC office, has a shitty schedule and that we're going to get curbstomped in x game.
That doesn't mean I have to follow them down to that level. Does it mean that I don't do it? I try not to, but no one's perfect.
I do consciously try to be better than that... and I'm not a representative of anyone but my own dumb arse on the Internet.

This post was edited on 8/22/13 at 1:14 am
Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:23 am to cyde
quote:
I'm not saying you're wrong to agree with or like how it was handled. Your mileage may vary.
Oh I know we'll disagree. Not trying to change your mind or anything

But really, I don't see the point of throwing out another lame, CYA, stuffy soundbite/text that adds nothing of substance to the discussion. Might as well throw the gauntlet down or STFU. Nah, it's not by the book or necessarily cogent to his role, but enough is enough, IMO.
quote:
people may flame the shite out of my posts, call me a piece of shite Bammer, tell me my team sucks, cheats, runs the SEC office, has a shitty schedule and that we're going to get curbstomped in x game.
That doesn't mean I have to follow them down to that level. Does it mean that I don't do it? I try not to, but no one's perfect.
I do consciously try to be better than that... and I'm not a representative of anyone but my own dumb arse on the Internet.
You know, I try to stay above that too...........but sometimes I just can't resist the urge to act a damn fool


Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:33 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
But really, I don't see the point of throwing out another lame, CYA, stuffy soundbite/text that adds nothing of substance to the discussion. Might as well throw the gauntlet down or STFU. Nah, it's not by the book or necessarily cogent to his role, but enough is enough, IMO.
Oh, we actually agree there. He shouldn't have given "just another soundbite," I just think it was inartfully worded and seemed too personal for his position.
No, he needed a master speechwriter behind it. Someone who could dissect the issues subtly and with infallible logic.
He also needed to address the actual investigations, if only to say, "Nothing we've seen so far blahblahblah," that way it didn't seem quite so much like a deflection. No, it actually felt more like he was sowing the seeds for an appeal to public outrage should the shite hit the fan, but I'll admit that's just a hunch and my hunches are far from dead on a lot of the times. It's why I don't ban bet or talk a lot of shite.

ETA- FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm watching Trailer Park Boys between each of my increasingly pious-sounding posts, so take that for what it's worth.

This post was edited on 8/22/13 at 1:41 am
Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:40 am to cyde
quote:
He also needed to address the actual investigations, if only to say, "Nothing we've seen so far blahblahblah," that way it didn't seem quite so much like a deflection. No, it actually felt more like he was sowing the seeds for an appeal to public outrage should the shite hit the fan
Yeah, it felt that way to me, too. Not a bad move, actually. With JFF and his family fricking up the public image of the university either purposefully or not, A&M will absolutely need to be backed by the court of public opinion if/when shite hits the fan again. The Chancellor's tenor was rather, ahem, "folksy," but leaned in that direction, IMO.
quote:
I'll admit that's just a hunch and my hunches are far from dead on a lot of the times. It's why I don't ban bet or talk a lot of shite.
I never ban bet, either


Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:41 am to cyde
quote:
ETA- FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm watching Trailer Park Boys between each of my increasingly pious-sounding posts, so take that for what it's worth.


Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:45 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Not a bad move, actually.
As a means of damage control should the situation go nuclear, it could end up being more of a gambit than a tactic, because it could easily blow up in the university's face. If it works, though, it works and I'm nothing if not result-oriented.

That will depend a lot on how the pending lawsuits with the NCAA go. If they come out smelling like roses, I doubt A&M will attack them.
They might go after ESPN one way or the other, though.
quote:
And usually only talk shite to get a laugh more than anything
Yeah, basically, and to blow off steam when the flames come a bit too hot and heavy.

This post was edited on 8/22/13 at 1:47 am
Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:50 am to cyde
quote:
As a means of damage control should the situation go nuclear, it could end up being more of a gambit than a tactic, because it could easily blow up in the university's face. If it works, though, it works and I'm nothing if not result-oriented.
That will depend a lot on how the pending lawsuits with the NCAA go. If they come out smelling like roses, I doubt A&M will attack them.
They might go after ESPN one way or the other, though.
Agreed.
quote:
Yeah, basically, and to blow off steam when the flames come a bit too hot and heavy.
Folks take shite way to personally on here sometimes

Posted on 8/22/13 at 1:57 am to TbirdSpur2010
What I have to wonder, though, is if shite DOES hit the fan -- like if it's determined that Manziel lied to the A&M compliance office, how could they play it to distance TAMU -- as an institution -- from Manziel's actions?
It sure seems like they've married themselves to his defense. Maybe they could play the victim card. State that they took him at his word and that he lied. The university went all in for him and they're just as harmed by the whole situation as anyone. Aggie code of honor.
I... that seems like a long shot. I can't say that they think they know everything the NCAA knows, because I only know what the public knows, and all of us are sitting around, trying to read the tea leaves.
We don't know shite!
It sure seems like they've married themselves to his defense. Maybe they could play the victim card. State that they took him at his word and that he lied. The university went all in for him and they're just as harmed by the whole situation as anyone. Aggie code of honor.
I... that seems like a long shot. I can't say that they think they know everything the NCAA knows, because I only know what the public knows, and all of us are sitting around, trying to read the tea leaves.

We don't know shite!
This post was edited on 8/22/13 at 1:59 am
Posted on 8/22/13 at 2:08 am to cyde
quote:
if it's determined that Manziel lied to the A&M compliance office, how could they play it to distance TAMU -- as an institution -- from Manziel's actions?
It sure seems like they've married themselves to his defense. Maybe they could play the victim card. State that they took him at his word and that he lied. The university went all in for him and they're just as harmed by the whole situation as anyone. Aggie code of honor.
Sounds like a plan. Maybe. Hopefully. Idk


quote:
I can't say that they think they know everything the NCAA knows, because I only know what the public knows, and all of us are sitting around, trying to read the tea leaves.
We don't know shite!
That's why I've given up worrying about it

Posted on 8/22/13 at 2:18 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
That's why I've given up worrying about it
Save you a lot of undue stress... but by the same token, this is a fascinating case and it's happening at a pivotal time in college football history.
It just sucks when it has to be your school at the middle of it all.
Posted on 8/22/13 at 2:25 am to cyde
quote:
Save you a lot of undue stress... but by the same token, this is a fascinating case and it's happening at a pivotal time in college football history.
It IS fascinating. Hopefully looking back at it it turns out ok for A&M and some good comes out of this whole mess. Probably wishful thinking on my part, though.
quote:
It just sucks when it has to be your school at the middle of it all.
Exactly. It's funny, I vividly remember wondering what it'd be like to have another Heisman winner at A&M when I saw the Nissan Heisman House display set up on campus my senior year one time. Never thought it'd be like this, obviously

This post was edited on 8/22/13 at 2:26 am
Popular
Back to top
