Oklahoma State coach Gundy blasts Oklahoman columnist

With someone who has been doing it as long as Carlson has, I doubt she just pulled that out of her behind. Do you people know that she'd be writing her journalism epitaph if she just made up that crap?

It may not have been presented well, but I'm not gonna sit here for a second and presume that a high-profile columnist would be stupid enough to fabricate/bullshit a column that she knew would be on the sports front.

 

I wish she'd written a column I could get behind. I wish she'd sourced it and not made it sound like it was meant as a message board post.

I think idiot fans don't get it and I think they're too stupid to see why Gundy is such an idiot. But Carlson didn't give us much to fight back with.

 

I don't think she bullshitted it either. But she still has to show me, and she didn't. She didn't even try.

 

If you appear on SportsCenter, you are a public figure.

 

And that's fair.

 

What's fascinating about this thread is that, last night's chili-dog buffet aside, practically every single poster agrees that (a) the column sucked and (b) Gundy acted like a moron. But once you start breaking down the nuances, the disagreements appear.

I couldn't care less about OSU football or The Oklahoman, but I find the whole question of big-time college athletes' status of entitlement a very good question, to me, the most interesting angle in a psuedo-controversy that's otherwise getting pretty tiresome.

In many cases, college sports are the wholesome, All-American pastime they claim to be. Then there's D1 football and men's basketball. I agree with wicked that these "kids" are pros in all but name. I don't think that means that they should be treated with unfairness or knee-jerk aggression. But as to what constitutes unfairness or knee-jerk aggression, that's a good area of debate.

On one hand, you have alumni and other fans who have a ridiculous and in many cases freakish and maniacal dedication to these athletes. Then on the other hand, you have some pretty jaded journalists and other observers who are weary of how psycho the athletic department/fanboy crowd become when their heroes are menaced. How a journalist (or even a mindful observer) negotiates this minefield of presumptions and agendas is a great question.

Carry on...

 

I think you've shown a clear bias with the above statement. It smacks of jealousy, and it's another false conclusion. Playing collegiate sports doesn't in and of itself make you less worthy of a job. And I'd like to see some proof to support your claim that the majority of college athletes land high-paying jobs. It's been my experience that a great many of these athletes come from modest means and struggle even after college to make it in life. Sure there are a few players on every team who are worshiped, but there are more than two guys on a football team.

 

I agree completely. But we're not talking about legal action. We're just talking about ethics and whether an apology is in order.

 

That's a fair statement. I think if she'd used "sources close to the situation" instead of that line about rumors, it would have been much clearer.

As I said, the column needed some strong editing.

 

And the last sentence is the crux of the debate. I don't think she treated him unfairly overall. A player's toughness should be questioned, especially when you have someone such as Gundy trying to come off as macho man.

 

Bottom line, there's absolutely no way the Oklahoman or Carlson SHOULD apologize to Gundy after his little rant, as well as no way they will apologize.

I think "unethical" is a little strong as a description of the column, but I think you can easily make an argument for "irresponsible." And definitely "lousy."

 

I don't see where ethics come into it. There's nothing unethical in intimating that Bobby Reid is ill-equipped to be a Big 12 quarterback.