Journalists aren't always good analysts...

#1
General Jack

General Jack

Vorschlaghammer
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
13,394
Likes
5,240
#1
This story came out a week ago and I hadn't seen it discussed around here. My favorite excerpt:

"Lane Kiffin replaces Phil Fulmer; Gene Chizik subs in for Tommy Tuberville. Only in the SEC do you run two coaches off who were a combined 145 games over .500, but Fulmer hadn't won a national title since 1998 and Tuberville hadn't gone 13-0 since 2004."

Measuring the new college football coaches -- latimes.com

Basically says that Tennessee was stupid to fire fulmer by questioning why we did it...?

Wow, great question... just why did we fire fulmer...?? I'm not even going there... but...

If you don't like Tennessee firing fulmer or hiring Kiffin, fine. But if you're one of these hacks who gets PAID to write for a living, and don't know Tennessee football as this SoCal'er obviously doesn't (and even then apparently didn't watch one of the crown jewels of fulmer's late legacy - the UT-UCLA game last year), could you maybe strain yourself and actually do a couple google searches or flip through a media guide before dumbing down your readership with such trite material? If you have such little respect for your audience, go write for US Weekly.

The info is out there... highlighting the steady and undeniable downward progression in ALL aspects of the Tennessee Volunteer football program under fulmer's watch. Suggesting that we were stupid to can fulmer because... it had been "10 years since a national title..." or despite the fact he was 100 games over .500 is just flat out lame.

When I see things written with such ignorance, it makes me wonder how much research the average professional journalist does before figuratively vomiting through his keyboard. I understand and expect crappy writing from bloggers... but not a staffer from the LA Times.
 
#3
#3
you seriously expect sports journalist to know something about sports? Please. Most are simply journalism majors posing.
 
#5
#5
BigPapaVol said:
you seriously expect sports journalist to know something about sports? Please. Most are simply journalism majors posing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I still subscribe to the notion that people should earn what they achieve. I'm a relative fossil in our entitlement society.
 
#6
#6
That is the national perception, although oddly enough the idea that Phil Fulmer was a completely average coach was also the national perception.

I honestly don't care, because that perception will change depending upon what happens on the field.
 
#7
#7
Phillip Fulmer was in over his head in the new SEC. The last ten years backs that up. Just another hack journalist that doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
#8
#8
Some of the worst business people I know have degrees in business. Common sense is not something everyone has.
 
#11
#11
While I disagree with the writers premise think about it. If Fulmer doesn't make a lousy hire of Dave Clawson he is STILL here. We had a championship level defense last year and a lame offense. Obviously Fulmer had other issues, a declining ability to recruit against the "new blood" of Meyer and Saban and his lack of enforcing discipline. Eventually those things were going to get him fired anyway, but a few more years down the road. The writer of the article was looking at the program from 50,000 feet instead of dissecting it like we do every week. Hamilton probably made the right call, but to an outsider they think WTF?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top