Kentucky Wildcat, or "Not Exactly"?

by Truzenzuzex on May 16, 2007 8:31 AM EDT in Media Comment 24 comments

The big day we have all been talking about for the better part of a year has finally arrived, and the big question on the mind of the Big Blue Nation today is, "Will Patterson be a Wildcat, or 'Not Exactly'?"

Alex Legion has intimated to Big Blue fans via his coach Steve Smith that he has done his part to try to convince Patterson to roll with us. It hasn't been reported in the media, but I have no doubt that AJ Stewart has also checked in -- he and Patterson have famously had some text conversations over the last year that have been reported around the blogosphere.

All the pieces are in place, and Patrick says he has made up his mind. All that is left to do is wait, watch, and hope. As I said yesterday, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

Lest we forget the other schools that are involved in Patterson's recruitment, Duke and "Not Exactly", we have heard a few things about them as well. Legion suggests to us that Duke was a distant third after a conversation he had with Patterson on Monday, but Patterson described the process he used to come to his decision, and I don't think I am ready to rule Duke out.

Even if it is every Kentucky fan's God-given right to loathe Duke, the truth is, they are a great program with a great coach. In this writer's humble opinion, from a basketball standpoint Duke is very much better in almost every respect to the third school on Patterson's list -- you know, the one with the ugly combination of blue and orange (and who shall remain nameless for this post).

Around the web, Mike Fields has this new post that looks at the Patterson slow-dance from a really great historical perspective. He compares Patterson to 1970 UK recruit Tom McMillen. I was a Wildcat fan by 1970, but wasn't into them enough to follow recruiting, and of course, the Internet was only a twinkle in Al Gore's eye back in those days. Let's just hope Patterson's recruitment turns out better than McMillan's.

Eric Crawford is fast becoming one of my favorite doofus writers. Only a Courier-Journal reporter could take a relatively good premise, i.e. that the regular season for sports is being overshadowed by a "bottom line" mentality among sports fans, and utterly mangle, mutilate, fold and staple it into a muddle worthy of little more than scorn and derision. Take this for example:

Let me interrupt here to say that unlike much of the state of Kentucky today, I won't be distracted by the news conference of a certain high school basketball prospect in West Virginia. The whole point of this discussion is that we're becoming focused on everything but the games. And is that really right?

Pretty harmless, right? We think we are about to be treated to a discussion of just what he purports to want to talk about. But then, a mere three paragraphs later:

Florida, incidentally, is another suitor for the aforementioned hoops prospect, Patrick Patterson of Huntington, who has created a frenzy by waiting until the last possible day to sign a national letter of intent.

Ah. First he tells us he is going to forget Patterson, then he remembers him. And then again, yet a few words later. Then, Crawford parodies whatever credibility he may have once had as an actual sports enthusiast with this beauty:

Oh, Patterson is good. No question. But not as good as all this. Not good enough to keep thousands in Kentucky and hundreds in Florida glued to the recruiting sites all month. If he'd signed in November, we'd be talking about something important right now. Like football recruiting. It's the value of being last. You get a big splash. Though if his plan is to commit to the Gators, Patterson could have made a bigger splash and saved a lot of time by one simple maneuver: moving to linebacker.

Yeah, Eric, "Not Exactly" would no doubt like to have a 6'8" 230lb. linebacker. I mean, they are the national champs, right? Why not go against the grain? Even I, a notoriously soft football fan, cannot picture such a creature in my mind's eye. At tight end, or wide out? Sure. Punter? Why not. Even place kicker, for God's sake. But linebacker?

Listen to me carefully, Eric. Makers Mark should not be consumed in quantity just prior to authoring a column. Trust me on this one.

The Courier also has this snippet, which declares the Wildcats a loser and Donovan a winner, saying he "swooped in" and took Lucas away from Gillispie. I know it's hard to believe, but these folks actually take home a paycheck for vapid claptrap like this. And if you think you could do better, well, you are (hopefully) right.

And then, there is this article:

Smith has been a busy man since he was all but shoved out of town by Kentucky's demanding fan base in March, only to arrive to a hero's welcome in Minneapolis. [emphasis mine]

Why? Just why?

Well, that's it for now, but oh yes, there will be more ...

Travis Hubbard of the Huntington Herald-Dispatch has a new blog post out.

Mike DeCourcy also has a new blog post out at TSN, definitely worth a read, but nothing really Earth-shattering there.

Jody Demling at the Courier-Journal has a new blog post out , and he is suddenly very confident that Patterson will matriculate to UK a school with blue as one of their colors. I am not so sure it will be UK, but hope springs in the Bluegrass ...

Here is a Blue Devil's take.

0 recs | Comment 24 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Eric Crawford's a tool

Everything he writes is pure dreck. I hesitate to even give him a negative review because a comment of any nature indicates that he's worth reading. He's defintiely on the JV squad at the CJ.

I used to hate Rick Bozich, but more and more I've come to like his stuff. I think he's dropped his anti-UK edge and started writing usually fair assessments of UK, UL, and IU. Bozich is the only sportswriter at the CJ worth a read.

Let's get PP today!!! I've got a good feeling after reading some of the latest stuff, but I won't panic if he goes to one of the other two schools. Billy Clyde will land some straight-up players in the years to come when he's had a full recruiting period to work his magic!

by BigBlueFan025 on May 16, 2007 10:29 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm hopeful ...

but I'm mentally prepared for anything. Recruiting is a dicey business, but Cat fans never lose hope.

Go Cats!

by Truzenzuzex on May 16, 2007 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Got a weird feeling...

That PPat might pick UK today.

Take it for what it's worth.

Orange & Blue Hue http://www.orangeandbluehue.com

by Gatorpilot on May 16, 2007 11:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

you're

just not wanting to jinx yourself. With that said he will be wearing blue next season. We just dont know whose blue.

by tiger85 on May 16, 2007 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, feeling better about PP than JL

I'm not gonna go too far with it, but I do feel better about PP.

by blueblood on May 16, 2007 12:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I just have to say it...

that comment about how Donovan stole Lucas out from under Billy G's nose is a low blow and totally unfounded. Billy G's was competing at a severe disadvantage, but still managed to hold his own. I don't think there was any foundation to that comment. I have lost all respect for the author.

by blueblood on May 16, 2007 12:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, if you can figure out who ...

the actual author is, let me know. There is no byline to that story I could find.

Probably a U of L fan. It is the Louisville Courier-Journal, after all. :-)

by Truzenzuzex on May 16, 2007 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's in velocity

it's not a sports creation. it wasnt written by sports people. you guys are pretty quick to jump all over just about anything in the courier without putting it into context.

by boobs on May 16, 2007 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know I do ...

because I enjoy mocking them very much. :-)

The Courier-Journal is my hometown newspaper, and since I delivered hundreds of thousands of copies of the paper in my youth, and the fact that I take their Sunday edition, I reserve the right to scoff at them at my convenience.

Not only that, their sports coverage is baised (understandably) toward the home-town team. But I am not forgiving of understandable bias when it comes to the Cats.

This marks the second time I can remember when you have stood up to me for the C-J, boobs. Is there something I should know, or are you just rebuking my unfairness in general toward them?

by Truzenzuzex on May 16, 2007 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, there is

in fairness of full disclosure, i work at the c-j, although im not anybody you know. so i see things from a slightly different perspective than everyone else. i dont really take the shots at the c-j personally, because i know the reason people say they hate things about a newspaper is just because they read it. but if i have a chance to offer some perspective on why something was said a certain way or covered in a certain way or whatever, i feel obligated to stand up for the c-j.

i will have you know that there is no bias toward u of l with the columnists (bozich is an IU grad, and though crawford used to be the U of L beat reporter, its his job to maintain his objectivity.) Also, try to remember that there's a lot more to the sports section than just the columnists.

listen to me... i sound like an apologist. oh well. i certainly dont want anyone here to tread lightly knowing i might be around, just wanted to be completely honest, since you asked.

by boobs on May 16, 2007 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your opinions are respected here....

as much as everyone else. I put no blame on you for your opinions whether I agree with them or not. Insight is always helpful.

by blueblood on May 16, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ahh. Thought so.

For what it is worth, I have no problem at all with a person standing up for their employer, I have done so before and under far more duress than I care to expound upon.

As far as bias is concerned, you have to take my perception with a grain of salt -- I am not in any way objective. I understand that I am a UK partisan, and I am not trying to hide that part of me. It's what ignites my passion. Intellectually, I attempt to restrain it and look at both sides, but I inevitably fail, as everyone must. Objectivity is an abject myth, and doesn't exist in nature. Anyone who tells me they can be objective is selling something.

But with respect to Bozich, he has been doing a fairly reasonable job lately, and has earned some of the respect back I lost for him some years ago when Forde was at the Courier. Interestingly enough, Forde has done the opposite, losing my respect by going out of his way to criticize Kentucky at ESPN due to his previous connections. By the way, being an IU grad is ... well, let's just say that IU hates Kentucky no less than Louisville fans, and you know what they say about the enemy of my enemy.

Still, props to Bozich lately. I will not lighten up my scrutiny, but he has done a lot better since Forde left. With respect to Crawford, I am so very fatigued with being told it is journalist's job to "maintain their objectivity". Such a concept is an intuitive oxymoron, and violates the very fabric of human nature. Cognitive dissonance is unavoidable, and no amount of professionalism, real or imagined, can change that fact. If we would just all face reality instead of lying to ourselves about how well we can overcome our biases and prejudice, we might even achieve world peace. Living with them without letting them rule us is so much more natural than self-deception.

And you don't sound like an apologist, you are trying to be fair to your employer, and I totally respect that. And never fear about me treading lightly -- it won't happen. When it comes to criticizing the media, fairly or unfairly, I am not shy. Feel free to call me to account anytime, and have no fear -- I won't hold it against you whatsoever.

Oh, and one more thing. I don't hate the C-J or anyone who works there. For all I know, they are all fine, upstanding people. But when they, or any of us, write stuff in public, we'd better have thick skin.

:-)

by Truzenzuzex on May 16, 2007 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

re:maintaining objectivity

you're absolutely right about that. i didnt mean at all that eric is 100 percent objective.

when a journalist says that he or she strives to be objective or tries to maintain objectivity, it's just that. it's trying to put your biases aside to form a more objective opinion. of course it's impossible to obtain pure objectivity. and there is a lot of debate in the journalism world as to whether we should even try or just get all the cards out on the table so everyone knows where everyone's coming from. but i think it's a good thing to try to be objective.

i liken it to any other profession striving for perfection. it's impossible, but does that mean we shouldn't try our best anyway?

by boobs on May 16, 2007 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree ...

but I love disclaimers more. Just because somebody tells me that they might have a hidden bias doesn't lessen my respect for them at all. In fact, honesty always raises respect.

I agree in principle that journalists should try to be objective, but just as important is the realization of it's impossibility, which I'm not at all sure that many journalists actually believe. In fact, I think a good many feel like they can be perfectly objective if they put their mind to it.

And another thing - who says perfect objectivity is the pinnacle of journalism? Better, I think, to get reasonably objective takes with people having different biases. It helps formulate a more robust overall impression, and doesn't try to force journalists into the ethical quandary of trying to convince a skeptical public of his/her ability to subjugate human nature by sheer strength of will.

And as much as journalists are to blame, so are we consumers. We expect more from journalists than we do from ourselves, and by doing so place an unfair burden on them -- they must do all the work while we expect not to engage a single neuron in the contemplation of their reports, so we point a finger and say, "Biased! Told you so!".

Of course they are biased. So do the work, Joe Sixpack, and actually research the issue. Or at least, take reports from several sources and knock them together.

Well, I could go on and on. But I think we actually agree more than we disagree on this.

by Truzenzuzex on May 16, 2007 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I must disagree....

Honesty does not always gather respect. I find that most often people don't really want the truth, they want to hear what they expect to hear. Or they want to hear what makes them feel warm and fuzzy. They don't want to hear the truth if it might make them feel not so warm and fuzzy.

For the record, this doesn't make any sense to me. I would much much rather hear the truth than some made up, politically correct, nonsense that doesn't offend anyone.

by blueblood on May 16, 2007 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough ...

but men and women of good will always respect honesty, especially in journalism. Hearing what one wants to hear is cognitive dissonance on the consumer side, and it is always there.

But the burden cannot solely be on the reporter, it must be on the consumer as well. If the consumer will not accept the truth because it doesn't comport to his world-view, well, he is living in his own little world. Honesty doesn't matter to the intellectually dishonest.

by Truzenzuzex on May 16, 2007 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There you go again...

putting a bunch of words in a blender and spitting out something entirely confusing. I think maybe we are talking about two different scenarios. Probably because I jumped into a conversation without taking the time to understand exactly what was being discussed.

by blueblood on May 16, 2007 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heh ...

Well, it is far from the beaten path anyway. I probably should have let it die 2 comments ago. :-)

by Truzenzuzex on May 16, 2007 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

context?

It doesn't take a sports person to understand that a guy has only been on a job for a month at best. Besides, if you don't know sports then why write sports.... you wouldn't see me on a law blog, cause the only laws I know well are the ones that I have broken.(which isn't a whole lot, btw)

by blueblood on May 16, 2007 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree

i tend to think velocity should stay away from sports. but they're a finger-on-the-pulse-of-the-public type publication, and sports is one thing the public thinks about.

by boobs on May 16, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Off the subject...

Am I the only one who is ready to hear something from our fearless leader? I am sure that he is very very busy, but I'm really anxious for some words of wisdom from BCG.

by blueblood on May 16, 2007 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

CJ vs HL

Overall, I think the CJ is the best newspaper in the state, but it's defintiely not becuase of the columnists. I stil stand behind my statements that Bozich is the only one worth reading, and I actually think he's pretty good...maybe the best sportswriter in Kentucky. As a whole though, one of the few areas I think the HL has an advantage on the CJ is their sports columnists. I think John Clay, Mark Story, and Chip Cosby are much better than guys like Crawford and Brett Dawson and Brian Bennett. Just my two cents.

Onlu one hour til PP's decision.....then we can all finally exhale. But what Billy Clyde do with the one or two(if PP doesn't sign w/ us scholarships left to dole out? JUCOs?

by BigBlueFan025 on May 16, 2007 2:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

this is where i can come in handy!

bennett and dawson arent columnists. they have blogs, but they're just beat writers. it's not their jobs to opine.

im freaking out about this.. it feels like waiting for christmas. im gonna tune in at 3:30 i guess. is there anything going on on the radio right now?

by boobs on May 16, 2007 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs