[rudruff]

I like his willingness to enrage some fan base each year so they go to his site and call him a Stanford homer.

[rudruff]

I like his willingness to enrage some fan base each year so they go to his site and call him a Stanford homer.

[CowboyIndian]

Wilner is my favorite reporter for college footbal.  I like that he expresses his own opinion freely and doesn't worry about detractors.  I like how his rankings ignore the hoopla, and he focuses (as best as he can) strictly on the merits and resumes of the relevant teams.  Most importantly, he seems to be the most knowledgeable football reporter when it comes to Stanford football.

Did you lose a bet with Garvin?

[CowboyIndian]

Wilner is my favorite reporter for college footbal.  I like that he expresses his own opinion freely and doesn't worry about detractors.  I like how his rankings ignore the hoopla, and he focuses (as best as he can) strictly on the merits and resumes of the relevant teams.  Most importantly, he seems to be the most knowledgeable football reporter when it comes to Stanford football.

Did you lose a bet with Garvin?

[Kathy]

Wilner is my favorite reporter for college footbal.  I like that he expresses his own opinion freely and doesn't worry about detractors.

My impression is he expresses his opinion freely and doesn't worry about the facts.

[Kathy]

Wilner is my favorite reporter for college footbal.  I like that he expresses his own opinion freely and doesn't worry about detractors.

My impression is he expresses his opinion freely and doesn't worry about the facts.

[washingtonismoney]

My impression is he expresses his opinion freely and doesn't worry about the facts.

Wilner's fine when reporting but terrible when analyzing.

[washingtonismoney]

My impression is he expresses his opinion freely and doesn't worry about the facts.

Wilner's fine when reporting but terrible when analyzing.

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=7280.msg78427#msg78427 date=1387209705]
My impression is he expresses his opinion freely and doesn't worry about the facts.

Wilner's fine when reporting but terrible when analyzing.
[/quote]

But, but, his opinions are fair and unbiased. You have to admit that it is perfectly reasonable for Stanford to pay $600K a year to maintain the San Jose State tradition.

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=7280.msg78427#msg78427 date=1387209705]
My impression is he expresses his opinion freely and doesn't worry about the facts.

Wilner's fine when reporting but terrible when analyzing.
[/quote]

But, but, his opinions are fair and unbiased. You have to admit that it is perfectly reasonable for Stanford to pay $600K a year to maintain the San Jose State tradition.

[stupac2]

But, but, his opinions are fair and unbiased. You have to admit that it is perfectly reasonable for Stanford to pay $600K a year to maintain the San Jose State tradition.

I don't think I've ever seen him say this.

I really don't get the Wilner hate. I've never seen anything particularly offensive from him, and he seems to be a pretty consistently excellent reporter in terms of getting Stanford news. But I've only been following him for a few years, was he worse in the past?

He's also pretty willing to point out times when he was wrong, which I admire greatly.

[stupac2]

But, but, his opinions are fair and unbiased. You have to admit that it is perfectly reasonable for Stanford to pay $600K a year to maintain the San Jose State tradition.

I don't think I've ever seen him say this.

I really don't get the Wilner hate. I've never seen anything particularly offensive from him, and he seems to be a pretty consistently excellent reporter in terms of getting Stanford news. But I've only been following him for a few years, was he worse in the past?

He's also pretty willing to point out times when he was wrong, which I admire greatly.

[FarmBoy]

But I've only been following him for a few years, was he worse in the past?

My only problem with Wilner is (a) his snarkiness in discussing all things Stanford (or I should say, all things Bay Area college football) and (b) his clear bias towards the SEC. I think he generally gives a fair view of the "facts" when putting together his top 25 lists (outside of his love for the SEC) and he does stay on top of the news. But the tone of his blog makes me think he's really excited to deliver the bad news to Stanford (and Ca'l and SJSU) fans. The comment section of the Hotline used to be a (relatively) good place to go to discuss all things college football and basketball with Bay Area fans, but it's devolved into a troll-fest, in part, because of his snarky, snide style. I used to enjoy going there and mixing it up with the Ca'l and other Pac12 fans who would frequent, but all the best elements there left years ago.

[FarmBoy]

But I've only been following him for a few years, was he worse in the past?

My only problem with Wilner is (a) his snarkiness in discussing all things Stanford (or I should say, all things Bay Area college football) and (b) his clear bias towards the SEC. I think he generally gives a fair view of the "facts" when putting together his top 25 lists (outside of his love for the SEC) and he does stay on top of the news. But the tone of his blog makes me think he's really excited to deliver the bad news to Stanford (and Ca'l and SJSU) fans. The comment section of the Hotline used to be a (relatively) good place to go to discuss all things college football and basketball with Bay Area fans, but it's devolved into a troll-fest, in part, because of his snarky, snide style. I used to enjoy going there and mixing it up with the Ca'l and other Pac12 fans who would frequent, but all the best elements there left years ago.

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=7280.msg78464#msg78464 date=1387220472]But, but, his opinions are fair and unbiased. You have to admit that it is perfectly reasonable for Stanford to pay $600K a year to maintain the San Jose State tradition.

I don't think I've ever seen him say this.

[/quote]

Wilner did this early in the season. Blamed the breakdown in negotiations on Stanford. Didn't mention that San Jose broke the previous contract for body bag games, forcing Stanford to play UC Davis and Sac State. Didn't mention that Stanford has better options. What he essentially said is that Stanford has the money, San Jose doesn't, it is Stanford's obligation to keep this great tradition alive, and a fair price is $600K a year. What I haven't seen is anything from Stanford or San Jose fans expressing regret that there won't be a game in 2014, 2016, and 2017.

If the AD's don't come to an agreement to play in 2015, then the soonest there could be a San Jose State game is in 2018.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/pac-10/s...rdinal.php

[Extra Point]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=7280.msg78464#msg78464 date=1387220472]But, but, his opinions are fair and unbiased. You have to admit that it is perfectly reasonable for Stanford to pay $600K a year to maintain the San Jose State tradition.

I don't think I've ever seen him say this.

[/quote]

Wilner did this early in the season. Blamed the breakdown in negotiations on Stanford. Didn't mention that San Jose broke the previous contract for body bag games, forcing Stanford to play UC Davis and Sac State. Didn't mention that Stanford has better options. What he essentially said is that Stanford has the money, San Jose doesn't, it is Stanford's obligation to keep this great tradition alive, and a fair price is $600K a year. What I haven't seen is anything from Stanford or San Jose fans expressing regret that there won't be a game in 2014, 2016, and 2017.

If the AD's don't come to an agreement to play in 2015, then the soonest there could be a San Jose State game is in 2018.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/pac-10/s...rdinal.php

[stupac2]

Wilner did this early in the season. Blamed the breakdown in negotiations on Stanford. Didn't mention that San Jose broke the previous contract for body bag games, forcing Stanford to play The school that shall not be mentioned and Sac State. Didn't mention that Stanford has better options. What he essentially said is that Stanford has the money, San Jose doesn't, it is Stanford's obligation to keep this great tradition alive, and a fair price is $600K a year. What I haven't seen is anything from Stanford or San Jose fans expressing regret that there won't be a game in 2014, 2016, and 2017.

If the AD's don't come to an agreement to play in 2015, then the soonest there could be a San Jose State game is in 2018.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/pac-10/s...rdinal.php

I really don't remember him saying that it was Stanford's fault. My recollection was that he said it was mutual, repeatedly said that, in fact. SJSC wanted more money, we didn't want to pay it, so we parted ways. I really don't remember him saying anything else.

[stupac2]

Wilner did this early in the season. Blamed the breakdown in negotiations on Stanford. Didn't mention that San Jose broke the previous contract for body bag games, forcing Stanford to play The school that shall not be mentioned and Sac State. Didn't mention that Stanford has better options. What he essentially said is that Stanford has the money, San Jose doesn't, it is Stanford's obligation to keep this great tradition alive, and a fair price is $600K a year. What I haven't seen is anything from Stanford or San Jose fans expressing regret that there won't be a game in 2014, 2016, and 2017.

If the AD's don't come to an agreement to play in 2015, then the soonest there could be a San Jose State game is in 2018.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/pac-10/s...rdinal.php

I really don't remember him saying that it was Stanford's fault. My recollection was that he said it was mutual, repeatedly said that, in fact. SJSC wanted more money, we didn't want to pay it, so we parted ways. I really don't remember him saying anything else.

[FarmBoy]

Now this could get interesting: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/101471...peculation

Kelly is a confident guy, so I'm sure he doesn't think he will be successful longterm in the NFL, but I can see why CK to the Horns would make a lot of sense.

[FarmBoy]

Now this could get interesting: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/101471...peculation

Kelly is a confident guy, so I'm sure he doesn't think he will be successful longterm in the NFL, but I can see why CK to the Horns would make a lot of sense.

[washingtonismoney]

Kelly's got a show-cause penalty. Won't be leaving the Eagles this year.

Besides, it's a mite too early to be declaring the Philadelphia Chip experiment to be a failure. The offense is much improved and they're in first in the NFC East, so in some respects you could say it's a success.

EDIT: Chip also reportedly hated interacting with the Oregon big money folks, with one whining on the record that Kelly wouldn't play enough golf with them. Texas would probably be about the worst job in that respect.

[washingtonismoney]

Kelly's got a show-cause penalty. Won't be leaving the Eagles this year.

Besides, it's a mite too early to be declaring the Philadelphia Chip experiment to be a failure. The offense is much improved and they're in first in the NFC East, so in some respects you could say it's a success.

EDIT: Chip also reportedly hated interacting with the Oregon big money folks, with one whining on the record that Kelly wouldn't play enough golf with them. Texas would probably be about the worst job in that respect.

[stupac2]

Kelly's got a show-cause penalty. Won't be leaving the Eagles this year.

Besides, it's a mite too early to be declaring the Philadelphia Chip experiment to be a failure. The offense is much improved and they're in first in the NFC East, so in some respects you could say it's a success.

EDIT: Chip also reportedly hated interacting with the Oregon big money folks, with one whining on the record that Kelly wouldn't play enough golf with them. Texas would probably be about the worst job in that respect.

Yeah, there are a whole host of reasons that Kelly makes no sense. Sometimes I wonder if people even think about these things before they start spewing this nonsense.

[stupac2]

Kelly's got a show-cause penalty. Won't be leaving the Eagles this year.

Besides, it's a mite too early to be declaring the Philadelphia Chip experiment to be a failure. The offense is much improved and they're in first in the NFC East, so in some respects you could say it's a success.

EDIT: Chip also reportedly hated interacting with the Oregon big money folks, with one whining on the record that Kelly wouldn't play enough golf with them. Texas would probably be about the worst job in that respect.

Yeah, there are a whole host of reasons that Kelly makes no sense. Sometimes I wonder if people even think about these things before they start spewing this nonsense.

[yvonne]

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...t-for-now/

[yvonne]

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...t-for-now/

[stupac2]

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...t-for-now/

Ah, I hadn't seen this one, and now I realize why, it came while I was traveling abroad. Definitely had better things to do than read about the BWLG while I'm in Stockholm.

[stupac2]

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...t-for-now/

Ah, I hadn't seen this one, and now I realize why, it came while I was traveling abroad. Definitely had better things to do than read about the BWLG while I'm in Stockholm.

[FarmBoy]

From Wilner's article:

The responsibility for the BWLG series ending falls almost entirely on Stanford. San Jose State wants to continue the series 1) preferably on a home-and-home basis or 2) at the very least, with a larger guarantee (i.e., paycheck) for playing in Stanford Stadium year after year.

Couldn't you also say "The responsibility for the BWLG series ending falls almost entirely on San Jose. Stanford wants to continue the series 1) as a home series like most AQ conference team schedule with non-AQ schools and 2) maintain fiscal responsibility by not paying exorbitant rates for body bag games." One could also point out that SJSU is the one who operated in bad faith by backing out of an agreed game to make some short term cash, leaving Stanford scrambling to fill its schedule.

I get SJSU's position: it wants to maximize the value of it's non-conference schedule by improving its fan experience (playing at home) or bringing in much needed cash (via high priced body bag games like it played against 'Bama a few years back.) But Stanford isn't running a charity, nor should it sacrifice its fan experience. Both parties are doing what needs to be done.

[FarmBoy]

From Wilner's article:

The responsibility for the BWLG series ending falls almost entirely on Stanford. San Jose State wants to continue the series 1) preferably on a home-and-home basis or 2) at the very least, with a larger guarantee (i.e., paycheck) for playing in Stanford Stadium year after year.

Couldn't you also say "The responsibility for the BWLG series ending falls almost entirely on San Jose. Stanford wants to continue the series 1) as a home series like most AQ conference team schedule with non-AQ schools and 2) maintain fiscal responsibility by not paying exorbitant rates for body bag games." One could also point out that SJSU is the one who operated in bad faith by backing out of an agreed game to make some short term cash, leaving Stanford scrambling to fill its schedule.

I get SJSU's position: it wants to maximize the value of it's non-conference schedule by improving its fan experience (playing at home) or bringing in much needed cash (via high priced body bag games like it played against 'Bama a few years back.) But Stanford isn't running a charity, nor should it sacrifice its fan experience. Both parties are doing what needs to be done.

[stupac2]

From Wilner's article:

Couldn't you also say "The responsibility for the BWLG series ending falls almost entirely on San Jose. Stanford wants to continue the series 1) as a home series like most AQ conference team schedule with non-AQ schools and 2) maintain fiscal responsibility by not paying exorbitant rates for body bag games." One could also point out that SJSU is the one who operated in bad faith by backing out of an agreed game to make some short term cash, leaving Stanford scrambling to fill its schedule.

I get SJSU's position: it wants to maximize the value of it's non-conference schedule by improving its fan experience (playing at home) or bringing in much needed cash (via high priced body bag games like it played against 'Bama a few years back.) But Stanford isn't running a charity, nor should it sacrifice its fan experience. Both parties are doing what needs to be done.

Shrug. Who cares what he thinks about how this series is ending? It's not like his opinion is baseless or anything. "I disagree with his intelligently reasoned and argued opinions" doesn't make a reporter bad. I still don't get the Wilner hate.

[stupac2]

From Wilner's article:

Couldn't you also say "The responsibility for the BWLG series ending falls almost entirely on San Jose. Stanford wants to continue the series 1) as a home series like most AQ conference team schedule with non-AQ schools and 2) maintain fiscal responsibility by not paying exorbitant rates for body bag games." One could also point out that SJSU is the one who operated in bad faith by backing out of an agreed game to make some short term cash, leaving Stanford scrambling to fill its schedule.

I get SJSU's position: it wants to maximize the value of it's non-conference schedule by improving its fan experience (playing at home) or bringing in much needed cash (via high priced body bag games like it played against 'Bama a few years back.) But Stanford isn't running a charity, nor should it sacrifice its fan experience. Both parties are doing what needs to be done.

Shrug. Who cares what he thinks about how this series is ending? It's not like his opinion is baseless or anything. "I disagree with his intelligently reasoned and argued opinions" doesn't make a reporter bad. I still don't get the Wilner hate.

[Mick]

Kelly's got a show-cause penalty. Won't be leaving the Eagles this year.

Besides, it's a mite too early to be declaring the Philadelphia Chip experiment to be a failure. The offense is much improved and they're in first in the NFC East, so in some respects you could say it's a success.

EDIT: Chip also reportedly hated interacting with the Oregon big money folks, with one whining on the record that Kelly wouldn't play enough golf with them. Texas would probably be about the worst job in that respect.

I figure that over my lifetime, I've coached 20 youth sports teams.  I admired my older son's little league coach (for a lot of reasons), and I coached the next year.  I asked him for advice about selecting players, and he said something that's always stuck with me, to wit "Don't draft for the kids, draft for the parents."  Truer words never spoken.  There is a certain kind of parent that just makes a coach, their kid and the team miserable.

I imagine it must be like that x100 when it comes to certain boosters who feel then can steamroller a coach, demand certain plays, demand playing time for A vs. B, demand a coach get fired, demand  golf foursomes, etc....ugh.  Talk about a life of misery.

[Mick]

Kelly's got a show-cause penalty. Won't be leaving the Eagles this year.

Besides, it's a mite too early to be declaring the Philadelphia Chip experiment to be a failure. The offense is much improved and they're in first in the NFC East, so in some respects you could say it's a success.

EDIT: Chip also reportedly hated interacting with the Oregon big money folks, with one whining on the record that Kelly wouldn't play enough golf with them. Texas would probably be about the worst job in that respect.

I figure that over my lifetime, I've coached 20 youth sports teams.  I admired my older son's little league coach (for a lot of reasons), and I coached the next year.  I asked him for advice about selecting players, and he said something that's always stuck with me, to wit "Don't draft for the kids, draft for the parents."  Truer words never spoken.  There is a certain kind of parent that just makes a coach, their kid and the team miserable.

I imagine it must be like that x100 when it comes to certain boosters who feel then can steamroller a coach, demand certain plays, demand playing time for A vs. B, demand a coach get fired, demand  golf foursomes, etc....ugh.  Talk about a life of misery.