TheBootleg.com®
Posts of the Week
Each week, we will
highlight a few entertaining and/or informative posts from the
previous week. Please keep in mind that it is hard to keep
track/prioritize all posts so we would welcome input from all
Booties. You can make a "Bootie Selection" post as a
response to any post that you deem worthy or you can email a link
(to the nominated post) to me at lars@thebootleg.com.
Below are the posts that
made this week's list:
Poster: TLV
Subject: Live by the sword, die by the sword
Date: 01/06/02
Willingham made his reputation as a stand-up guy who said what
he meant and meant what he said. And when he wasn't saying
anything, he was always given the benefit of the doubt
because...well, because he was a standup guy. A few major
shortcomings were overlooked because of this overall character
evaluation.
Criticism of TW now comes in two basic flavors:
1)The Conspiracy Theory--what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it
timeline kind of stuff. The mysterious Notre Dame jet in Seattle
before the Seattle Bowl. Did one of the new, improved Notre Dame
regime immediately turn around and contact a kid who previously
was "perfect for Stanford" and try to convince him that
he was "perfect for Notre Dame"? During the official
no-contact period as well? That kind of stuff. It's mostly
circumstantial, but circumstantial evidence has put more than a
few people behind bars.
2)Conduct Unbecoming a Guy Who Received Blessings-- One could
argue that Ty is so good he was inevitable. If not at Stanford
than somewhere else. But history is on Stanford's side. We DID
give him the opportunity to become, singlehandedly, 25% of all
the afro american college coaches in the U.S. And when he put
together some stinker seasons Stanford stood behind him...because
he was a standup guy. But when time came to cut and run TW forgot
the manners his momma taught him. He didn't say thank you.
Seriously. Coaches who leave for better jobs do it all the time.
They thank the institution and people who gave them the
opportunity and they do it because they have an appreciation of
how much the breaks in life dictate the outcome of affairs. TW,
apparently, has no such appreciation although a football coach,
of all people, certainly should. He could have put in ONE
sentence. One simple sentence in his ND press conference that
wouldn't have detracted one bit from Notre Dame's glory. He
didn't. Nor has he ever. And finally, he treated his players like
pawns in his career game. Disingenuousness face-to-face with a
few of them and, afterwards-- total disregard for guys sold out
for him and his program. He may yet communicate with them, but
it's all damage control. We have seen what he is.
And it's probably wise for domers not to treat this as Stanford's
little hissy-fit, something that has nothing to do with you. From
now on, win-or-lose, you will never know what is going behind
that stony, impassive face, those information-lite answers. Is he
thinking of jumping to the Vikings or Tennessee Titans? The
stand-up-guy won't give you a clue. And when he does talk we all
know already what his public pronouncements are worth. Worse, ND
fans have made it clear that buy-in to tradition, reverence and
appreciation of ND as an institution are essential for any ND
coach to succeed. Now you have graphic evidence that TW doesn't
really think like that, no matter what his lips are saying. He's
all about his own iron agenda, and that doesn't involve getting
warm and fuzzy about Touchdown Jesus. Good luck. This former TW
supporter doesn't hate him, but I see his conduct with clear
eyes...and hope we get to play a large part in his reversal of
fortune.
Poster: Roble Hall
Subject: Cal fan behavior and the culture of
resentment
Date: 01/07/02
From reading all of the accounts of last night's post-game
fracas, it's clear that some Cal fan (or fans) whacked Julius
Barnes in the head. In addition, Barnes and Chris Hernandez got
pushed, shoved and/or punched, and they had people grabbing their
uniforms.
In 1999, Cal fans attacked police at the Big Game, throwing
bottles and other stuff at them.
In 1998, Cal fans tried to break through the double line of
security guards that was shielding the Stanford fans at one end
of the field after the Big Game. Punches were thrown, security
guards were knocked down.
In 1997, Cal fans rushed the field and tore down the goalposts --
which was notable because Cal LOST, and the game was on
Stanford's field. So it wasn't celebration, it was just
destruction.
In 1996, a mob of Cal students (incited by the "mic
man") rushed the field after the Big Game and ripped the
Tree costume to shreds, roughing up the guy who wore the costume.
In 1993, Cal students rushed the field at Stanford after the Big
Game and ripped up the turf.
In 1992, a group of Cal students attacked Stanford's flag runner
at the end of the Big Game.
Many times over the last few years, Cal students have harrassed
Stanford fans in the area of Memorial Stadium, threatening them
and throwing stuff at them.
On several occasions, Cal fans have run on the field to attack
the Stanford Band and/or the Tree.
* * * *
So we have a long history of violence and destruction by Cal
students. I do not buy the idea that "both sides are at
fault." Stanford fans/students have been guilty of taunting
and crude behavior, but they have not been guilty of violence and
destruction. I do not recall instances in which Stanford students
attacked Cal's players, mascot, flag-runner, or band. I'm sure
there have been fights involving Stanford fans, but I have not
seen the kind of concerted violence and destruction by Stanford
fans that we have seen from Cal fans.
How can Cal fans continue to defend this?
Cal fans take the attitude that it was just one or two bad
apples. But why does Cal have these bad apples while other
schools don't? Neither Stanford nor any of our other opponents
has had fans/students who attacked the opposing school's players,
mascot, band, etc. Neither Stanford nor any of our other
opponents has deliberately trashed an opponent's field.
And let's not hear the typical weak answers about how Stanford
asked for it, or should have got out of the way, or was taunting.
There's a difference between taunting on the one hand, and
violence/destruction on the other hand.
The real problem is that Cal fans have fostered a culture of
resentment and even hatred. They resent Stanford's success, and
they hate us for being more successful than they are, year after
year. Because of these feelings of resentment and hatred, Cal
fans have somehow crossed a bridge in their mind which allows
them to justify violence and destruction.
I had hoped that the violence was fueled by their frustration at
losing, and that once they won, they would replace the violence
with celebration. But no. They finally win, and the first thing
they do is rough up our players, whacking one of them in the
head. And you know what? I don't think things will change,
because Cal fans don't think there's a problem. They just keep
making excuses for the behavior of their students. It's very sad.
Poster: Treetop
Subject: Mark Madsen
Date: 01/09/02
Mark is Mark. I saw him play for the first time this season
tonight. He came in as a reserve as the Lakers were laying a big
hurt on the Pistons. Mark, of course, didn't let that faze him
and he went full tilt. On offense, he skies for a pass comes down
off balancearound the free throw line, starts an awkward dribble,
decides to go up with I guess, a hook, the shot goes in almost on
aline drive. He hurries back on defense and is all over the
court, not only picking up his man, but seemingly every Piston on
the court. Eventually, he loses his man off multiple picks (while
he was chasing every Piston down in sight) and his man gets a
pass right near the basket - his man misses the cripple, and
guess who comes flying in to sanre the rebound - you guessed it.
Mark grabs the rebound and somehow gets a nasty hit in the eye
from a Piston. He stops his movement temporarily to put a hand up
to his eye and apparently his eyes are closed. Then he realizes
that play is continuing, so he starts swinging his elbows wildly
several times, like you do to clear space after a rebound - only
problem everybody and I mean everybody had already conceded the
rebound and started to head down court - so Mark is just standing
there swinging away by himself. I just about died laughing. Then
he decides he really is in no shape to dribble so he has to wait
for someone to pass to and finally he does. The Lakers run it up
the court and their guard immediately puts up a 3 and makes it.
The camera switches to Mark and he is still on the other side of
the court with his eyes barely open, wincing, and holding one eye
- you can tell the poor guy is in pain - and he's saying to the
bench "I'm ok, I can play" - yeah right. He palys
defense, then goes on offense. Laker guard throws a lob pass over
his much taller defender, Mark skies again, makes a spin move
dribbles once or twice and slams it home. The announcers,
including John Thompson, go nuts! They're calling him Mad Dog,
talking all about his intensity, how he beats up on his opponents
and Shaq in practice, and what a positive influence he is on the
Lakers. They said he made a Shaq-like move on his dunk. Never
mind that the Lakers are up by 30, Mark was still boxing out in
picture perfect form and of course grabbed the next defensive
rebound after his slam dunk score. Finished with 6 bds and 6 rebs
in 13 minutes. Didn't see the last 6 minutes or so because they
switched to another game, but you got the feeling Phil Jackson
might have told Mad Dog to go a little easier on the Pistons so
he didn't get them ticked for their next match.
It's still fun to watch the Mad Dog!!!!!
Poster: Hulk01
Subject: Starting to think that:
Date: 01/10/02
1. Ted Leland was as critical of Ty as the most severe critics
on this board.
2. Ted's major criticism, shared by even more posters, was with
the conservativeness on both sides of the ball, though the
offense may've been the worse offender.
3. His second strong criticism was with recruiting, and the
relative effort put into it. (I'll have to say that I am
surprised by how often I hear, "we're really not into our
recruiting season yet," a sharp contrast to the note in one
Northwestern coach's office which reads, "Recruiting is like
shaving. If you don't do it every day you start to look
ragged."
4. Ted was almost certainly troubled--as virtually every poster
is--by the total absence of outreach and the apparent belief that
marketing was beneath the program's dignity and emphatically not
part of the job description.
5. He wanted more obvious spirit and enthusiasm--if he could find
it.
6. He respected Ty's strengths but became convinced his
weaknesses were beyond fixing. (Someone viewing Ty's apparent
rigidity might reach the same conclusion. May be merit to this.)
7. Ted believed he had a broad view of the program and its needs
that Ty could not see, or could no longer see--a pretty typical
result of getting to close to the trees (apt metaphor) and
missing the forest. Very common problem among executives after
the first few years, and part of what makes consulting so
lucrative a business.
8. The money issue was a convenience for Ted to move on. Ted had
reached the stage many of us had: We finished the regular season
9-2, and we're happy, never mind elated--which we would have been
just two years before. Why not 10-1, minimum? What's the problem?
Suddenly, the last three year's 8-3, 5-6, 9-4 looks, well, like
22-13--the worst record of any Stanford team except field hockey
(they dumped that coach yet, by the way, I keep asking!)
Everyone assumes Ted might have been aiming low here. What
possibility he's aiming even higher than we are?
9. If Ted thought Ty could get us to 10-1, he'd have written the
bigger check while they spoke. Could be wrong, but maybe he's
more ambitious than we thought, just smart enough not to make it
too transparent to some administrators, lest they start worrying
Ted would transform us into Miami.
Just some thoughts, none convictions beyond all doubt--but these
pieces fit together with everything I've seen, read and heard.