What a clown!!!

The difference is a matter of the power dynamic. If Kill was openly criticized by another head coach, he's totally within his rights to stand up for himself, because they are equals within the same profession. But being criticized by the media comes with the job. It's their job to provide commentary on whatever it is they cover, and so long as it's not deeply personal, it's always best for the coach to stay out of it.

Some of my students say things that I don't think are fair or particularly nice on my teacher evaluations (thankfully, most people are fair and nice). It would be incredibly small and petty of me to argue with them about it. Average voters say nasty things about President Obama and Governor Romney; if they argued with them in public, they would equally look foolish and small. It's expected, however, that they will defend themselves against attacks that the other candidates make against them.

The point is that when you put yourself down on that level, you lose either way.
 

Reasonable minds could easily differ on the North Carolina situation. The facts and circumstances were known and the situation lent itself to debate. In the case of the Souhan article, Souhan had little to no understanding of all the dynamics leading to Nelson's rise to becoming the starting quarterback. Souhan should've asked many more questions before coming to his very unreasonable conclusion, or just kept his mouth shut. On the other hand, perhaps Kill's willingness to essentially agree with Souhan indicates that Coach Kill deep down wishes he should've pulled the trigger on Nelson earlier.
 


The difference is a matter of the power dynamic. If Kill was openly criticized by another head coach, he's totally within his rights to stand up for himself, because they are equals within the same profession. But being criticized by the media comes with the job. It's their job to provide commentary on whatever it is they cover, and so long as it's not deeply personal, it's always best for the coach to stay out of it.

Some of my students say things that I don't think are fair or particularly nice on my teacher evaluations (thankfully, most people are fair and nice). It would be incredibly small and petty of me to argue with them about it. Average voters say nasty things about President Obama and Governor Romney; if they argued with them in public, they would equally look foolish and small. It's expected, however, that they will defend themselves against attacks that the other candidates make against them.

The point is that when you put yourself down on that level, you lose either way.




I understand everything you're saying and realize it's a very, very common way of thinking amongst intelligent folks and considered a strong show of character. However, I sort of disagree with it. The notion that it brings you "down to their level" has become sort of a cliche to me. It seems like an elitist, aloof and passive aggressive strategy to me. There is another way of thinking that says if someone is trying to abuse you, you smack 'em back twice as hard and make them think twice before trying it again. I'll admit, I'm not sure when one approach is more suitable than another. Your students seem somewhat powerless to me regarding the overall determination of your success. But it seems to me a highly visible writer can significantly influence what the community thinks of you including alumni, donors and other influencers of the football program.
 

There is another way of thinking that says if someone is trying to abuse you, you smack 'em back twice as hard and make them think twice before trying it again.
I don't think anything would ensure a worse relationship with the media than publicly attacking one of them. It would also give a bigger spotlight for Souhan and almost ensure future attacks.

Kill doesn't need to stand up for himself or encourage donations by arguing with the media. He needs to win. That's what he can control, and that's what takes care of everything. If he wins, everyone will love him. If he loses, it doesn't matter if the media was fair with him or not.
 


I don't think anything would ensure a worse relationship with the media than publicly attacking one of them. It would also give a bigger spotlight for Souhan and almost ensure future attacks.

Kill doesn't need to stand up for himself or encourage donations by arguing with the media. He needs to win. That's what he can control, and that's what takes care of everything. If he wins, everyone will love him. If he loses, it doesn't matter if the media was fair with him or not.


Can't argue with that.

Now you see why I've had difficulty with interpersonal relationships. And, why I like guys who stand up to assholes regardless of how it affects them!! Hey, we all can't be mature grown ups.
 

The article was bad because Souhan did not even consider the possibility that Nelson was simply not ready to start from the beginning of the season. He could have been terrible in practice to start the season. Too inconsistent, whatever the case may be. He improved to the point where Kill finally had to pull the trigger and he did. The conclusion that Kill is bad at judging ability because he did not start him right away is ridiculous. Nobody would be able to logically make that conclusion unless they had seen every practice.

It's a very common thing for a frosh and you'd think a "professional sports writer" would know this. Even an average sports fan could come to this conclusion.
 

I don't think anything would ensure a worse relationship with the media than publicly attacking one of them. It would also give a bigger spotlight for Souhan and almost ensure future attacks.

Kill doesn't need to stand up for himself or encourage donations by arguing with the media. He needs to win. That's what he can control, and that's what takes care of everything. If he wins, everyone will love him. If he loses, it doesn't matter if the media was fair with him or not.

+1

We're off to a good start with the thumping of Purdue.
 




I'm going the route I did when Chip Scoggins wrote a bit of a hatchet piece on Ralph Sampson III right at the end of his lackluster Gopher senior year. I fired off a reasoned, but angry email, and implored for a response. Chip had the guts to call me in person and talk it out with me, and even admit that the article was a bit unfair. We had a productive discussion and both came away with a sense of respect and understanding.

I'll post what I send off to Mr. Souhan tomorrow. I suspect he won't be nearly as willing to contact me as Chip was though. Hope I'm wrong.
 

Email I fired off to Souhan this AM:

Mr. Souhan,

I’ll be completely honest with you, in the hopes you’ll return the favor. I’ve held your columns in fairly low standing for several years now, particularly when they cover anything related to University of Minnesota football or basketball. I typically find them to be full of throwaway statements and weak on research. They also seem to take a strange level of glee when criticizing Gopher coaches, administrators, and fans. I’m uncertain as to where this sadism comes from, but I suspect you’ll tell me that this is simply my perception and not reality. But maybe I’m being unfair. Perhaps I’m simply too naïve to expect even a modicum of positive or at least even-handed coverage of the U.

Your latest column, titled ‘Nelson’s Quarterbacking Tools Didn’t Merit a Long Shelf Life’ backhandedly compliments Jerry Kill’s improved recruiting stature for landing Nelson. Only to immediately thereafter toss him under the bus for not having the foresight to have started true Freshman QB Philip Nelson from day 1. Exploring any rationale for Kill to have initially redshirting Nelson is absent. Instead you describe how he failed as an assessor of talent of his own squad. Assessment the very same talent he deemed worthy of recruiting hard for, less than a year earlier. Had your post-supposition come, say after Week 1 or 2 of the season, you might have looked the part of football expert and would have every right to throw out an article with this level of criticism now. Heck, I’d be reconsidering my opinion of you right now. But unfortunately, you had no deeper insight to share on the Gopher football depth chart then, than you do right now.

Of course, it’s very easy to second guess Kill’s assessment to have not started the season off with Nelson under center, you fail to make any legitimate explanation as to why Kill might just have thought it initially best to keep Nelson under wraps for a season. Perhaps it was intended to protect Nelson from having to play behind an offensive line that has been dinged up since Week 1 and is not particularly deep or experienced. Perhaps Gray and Shortell simply knew the offense better at the time camp broke. Perhaps it was a chance for a young man to get his feet under him as he started college for the first time, before throwing him to the wolves (Big Ten defenders and hack journalists alike). Perhaps the Senior Gray simply had a significant edge in leadership, and Shortell had more collegiate experience. Situations change. Injuries happen. Needs evolve. All factors you lazily ignored and which make this article just another exhibit of your lack of any real insight into the workings of Jerry Kill regime at the University of Minnesota.

To close your column, state that with Nelson at QB and Gray at WR gives the Gophers their best possible lineup and you “…wonder why it wasn’t easy to say 2 months ago.” I think you know the answer to this even while writing it, but decided it was simply easier to attack Kill than explore the nuances of this situation. If true, that’s just flat out disingenuous. And if you really didn’t know, then why not explore rather than attack. So which is it? Slanted writing, or simple lack of effort.

Would love to hear your response on this. Feel free to contact me with any format you feel comfortable using. I’m an educated and reasonable person, who happens to be a Gopher football fan and athletic booster (yes, we exist and we are passionate about our team). I’m not looking for a fight, but rather a reasoned explanation and perhaps a better understanding of where you are coming from when writing about the Gophers. And I’ll admit it, I’m one of the folks who wasn’t exactly pleased when I learned the morning of October 20 that Nelson’s redshirt was going to be burned. I wanted to swallow more bile for a season, in the hopes that the program would be better off long term with him waiting in the wings and getting a year of education under Kill’s system before being put on the field. I’m not an instant gratification kind of guy.

When I took issue with an article Chip Scoggins wrote earlier this year, he had the decency to call me in person and discuss his position. We had a brief and productive conversation and he was even willing to admit he was probably being unfair and the timing of the article poor. And while I don’t expect the same level of courtesy from you, I’m hoping you’ll surprise me. Perhaps my perception is all out of whack, and I’m simply another of many overly sensitive Gopher alums who want desperately for his alma mater to succeed.

Thanks for your time,
Jon Tortomasi
 

I would love to hear if he contacts you! However, that would take a little bit of effort ;)
 

I would imagine these guys don't get many carefully constructed responses to their articles. The majority of it is probably one-line hate mail, so I wouldn't be shocked if he actually took you seriously and maybe we can finally get some insight into why these writers hate the Gopher Football program with so much passion.
 






Top Bottom