OK, so you get to ask an asinine question and then dictate how it's to be answered? Well,I'll give you the 1 word reply you want (and will probably decide I lied about anyway): Hilary... no phuckin' way. Donald? No phuckin' way. I'm a fiscal conservative who's party abandoned him because they stupidly decided to allow the religious right to overrun and control the party. It was a conundrum and one I'll face again in a few months, but I essentially cast a protest vote for the Libertarian Gary Johnson. How's that fit your case?
History: Knight scarred Frieder
- Thread starter Boilerpointe81
- Start date
OK, so you get to ask an asinine question and then dictate how it's to be answered? Well,I'll give you the 1 word reply you want (and will probably decide I lied about anyway): Hilary... no phuckin' way. Donald? No phuckin' way. I'm a fiscal conservative who's party abandoned him because they stupidly decided to allow the religious right to overrun and control the party. It was a conundrum and one I'll face again in a few months, but I essentially cast a protest vote for the Libertarian Gary Johnson. How's that fit your case?
Yep, reading and comprehension are hard work... much easier to decide the facts on your own. You've obviously had enough practice!
I’m not going to wade into the other unrelated crap in this thread but you’re completely full of shit on the issue of RMK and the media. Time and time again they would ignore and omit facts that didn’t support their campaign of outrage against RMK and this article is just one example of many. Take the Connie Chung interview. Anyone who saw the interview in context knew that he was not excusing rape or even referring to real rape. The media beclowned themselves over that. Of course, Chung subsequently claimed to be offended and she must be telling the truth because we all know she’s a paragon of integrity.
I think something about journalism attracts sociopaths. The degenerates in the sports media, locally like Bill Benner, who harbored a long time grudge against RMK because he’d long ago told the Star to go **** themselves, and nationally like Rick Reilly, a pussy who never got over Knight conducting an interview with him in a towel after getting out of the shower, were all too happy take out the long knives whenever the opportunity presented itself. Their bias was borne out of clear personal animus, and yet you want to excuse it. This is why you’re full of shit. You admit RMK got unfair coverage, but insinuate that it was justified because those poor, noble souls in the media were attacked and demeaned. My heart just goes out to them...
Last edited:
So this is true of all sports journalists then ? Because that means all those reporters exposing the cheating at OSU and UK, or the sexual assault scandals at places like MSU or Penn State, or academic fraud at UNC, must all be "sociopaths" set out to ruin good and honorable coaches. That must mean the fans of those programs are correct in saying that all the journalists that have exposed or written about those programs are liars and frauds. That their iconic coaching heroes have been smeared and libeled by the dishonest media who have axes to grind.
Or maybe it's that some are so blinded by their loyal fandom that they can't be objective about the fallibility of their heroes. I've heard fans of all of those programs rip the media for being unfair in their coverage of those programs and coaches. I've heard fans of athletes and programs defend their heroes and teams against all manner of accusations of misbehavior - all the while eagerly buying in to those same accusations against other programs, coaches, and players.
Bob Knight was a brilliant basketball coach and he has done many noble things in his lifetime. He's also a flawed human being (as are all of us) who has been prone to boorish behavior and failing to hold himself to the very same standards of self-discipline he so strongly preached to others. Painting him as a victim of the media is as indicative of a lack of objectivity as painting him as a constant bully.
What a complete crock of crapola. I am not excusing writers who don't report factually on RMK or anyone, and "the media" didn't railroad RMK with Connie Chung... that's on her. All I said, was that he often brought it on himself, and I acknowledged that he'd often been treated unfairly. There's no point in arguing with the "RMK is God/Does no wrong" crowd, but go back and watch his interview with Fran Frischilla over his relationship with Steve Alford. A totally benign question and one that any reporter worth his salt has to ask, and RMK explodes... on a question asked to Steve. Oh and btw, it was pretty well-known their relationship had cooled. So easy to deal with, and no reason to get so animated. Are there media folks who have their own vendettas and agendas? Sure. But RMK didn't have to represent himself and those programs so poorly by labeling all media members the way he often did. Most are just trying to do their job.
Knowledgable insight obviously threatens you. As such, you don’t belong here. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and leave. We’ll all be better off, including you. Thanks.
First, the point of my post, that it’s bullshit to claim that media bias is understandable or justified because of hurt feelings, clearly sailed right over your head. Or you just chose to ignore it. My money’s on the latter...
Secondly, how naive are you? You really think the media did hard-hitting journalism on Izzo, Calipari, Ol’ Roy, etc.? LMAO They haven’t gotten 1/10 of the flack from the hacks that you’re defending that RMK did for throwing a chair.
By acknowledging unfair treatment and then saying “he brought it on himself”, you are tacitly excusing it/justifying it. Your words, not mine. Can’t weasel out of it, sorry.
Knight was far more protected than demonized by the press.
as are Izzo and the others mentioned, because access is a must to beat writers, and the coaches control access.
now tell us how unfair half the press is on Trump.
we know you can barely contain yourself.
Your statement of “you suck” is what I found to be so inspiring. Did you steal that two-word combination from someone else’s tired Tom Crean post or come up with that burst of literary brilliance under your own volition?
no I'm not justifying it, I'm saying I understand it, because I understand human nature. If you constantly berate and insult an entire group of people, some of them are going to have an agenda and not report fairly. Watch this and tell me his response was reasonable. And, 1) the question was reasonable (and factual, it was well-known their relationship had been rocky), 2) it was directed to Steve, and 3) it was asked by that jaded sports journalist Fran Fraschilla.... oh, wait, he was a basketball coach!
You’re lost again. Wherever you’re headed, you don’t belong here, and there’s not one legitimate reason why you should ever comment on anyone else’s intelligence. This is especially accurate if the subject is IU basketball. Please,leave.
If the needed help relates to IU basketball, no one would ever consult you. Please quit stalking and run away. You look foolish.
well said. That's the unfortunate part: Knight did the right things and it would have been so easy for him to "win" the PR battle as well. You pick out the writers of the ilk that Gator mentions and shun them, but there was no reason to make your life harder by trashing and alienating the ones who were just trying to do their job.
I guarantee you that it was decreed on high from Bristol that Fraschila ask that question and kudos to RMK for not playing into their narrative about something that isn’t any of their business to begin with. Was it “reasonable”? I don’t care. I was pleased when I saw it back then and I feel the same way now.
Blaming Knight’s boorish behavior on others is the ultimate in feeble excuse-making.
Ok. So, the press who engaged in a jihad against RMK to get him ousted from IU were, on balance, actually more protective of him. Got it.
Saw an unfortunate story the other day about a little old lady who died on I-70 when she flipped her car over into a ditch. Apparently, they couldn’t get to her in time because they were otherwise engaged with the jaws of life over at your place trying to extricate your head from your a$$.
They failed...
Blaming? That implies I think he did something wrong in that interview. I don’t.
Last edited:
It's not any of "their" business because RMK decreed it so. Relationships and feuds between coaches have always been reported on. Look no farther than RMK and Frieder that started this thread, or RMK and Henson, RMK and Wooden, RMK and K, Calipari and Thompson, etc... Of course it's of interest to fans, and even moreso if RMK makes an issue of it. And, why is he answering for Steve, who was the HC at Iowa at the time, and perfectly capable of speaking for himself? Their relationship was rocky for a period, probably due to the Recker situation, but it was a perfectly valid question based on history. If RMK really wanted to put it to bed, say "this guy? one of my favorite players of all-time and someone I'm rooting for whenever he steps on the court, unless I'm on it too!" Next question.
This is why you can’t be taken seriously. He behaved poorly by any reasonable standard, and it was so unnecessary and petty.
I defended RMK, and his actions, for the better part of 2 decades deep inside enemy territory.
That said, RMK's greatest fault was lacking the very discipline he demanded from his own players. And that behavior flaw went well beyond his relationship with the press.
He was a genius when it came to X's and O's. But when it came to professional relationships, as soon as he felt the balance of power slip out of his hands, he became aggressive-towards-hostile, sometimes passively but most times openly. It's sad that at this point in his life, the general public outside the 812/317 area codes remembers him for his outbursts more than his teams and the students they were and the men they became.
That said, RMK's greatest fault was lacking the very discipline he demanded from his own players. And that behavior flaw went well beyond his relationship with the press.
He was a genius when it came to X's and O's. But when it came to professional relationships, as soon as he felt the balance of power slip out of his hands, he became aggressive-towards-hostile, sometimes passively but most times openly. It's sad that at this point in his life, the general public outside the 812/317 area codes remembers him for his outbursts more than his teams and the students they were and the men they became.
Last edited:
regarding RMK and Steve, I always had a sense that 'loyalty' was such a big thing for Knight that he may have felt some minor betrayal when any former player-even Steve- came back to coach in the B1G and compete with RMK for recruits and B1G wins. As intelligent as RMK was, he had a knack for holding grudges, and at times, being rather petty about it.
I have several friends who were deep insiders with the Keady staff who claimed that RMK was very friendly to Gene, even playing golf together over the summer...until Keady started beating IU and RMK and winning some recruiting battles. Then the golf and friendliness ended. Lou Henson from IL had warned Keady that this would happen with RMK. I've seen this mentioned in an article or two over the years.
Back to the original topic- I will agree with Birnk (surprise?) on one point- Frieder was absolutely a 'worm'. And the program, during the Tarpley/Jobert years, was suspected of being pretty dirty.
Latest posts
-
If Woodson does fail next year and I hope, he doesn't...
- Latest: CriticArisen
-
-
-