Author: Anthony Stalter (Page 410 of 1503)

Childress: Brett can do whatever he wants, but AP needs to follow the rules

Brad Childress has made it clear that he’s upset with Adrian Peterson for not showing up at the Vikings’ most recent minicamp. Of course Brett Favre isn’t there, but if Brett wanted to walk around the team complex in his underwear and punch babies in his free time, then Childress has no problem with that. Brett can do whatever he damn well pleases.

From ESPN.com:

Childress opened his post-practice media session by noting this is a “mandatory minicamp.” He provided terse answers about Peterson’s absence, suggested that discipline will be discussed and mocked the significance of “the fourth annual Adrian Peterson day” in Palestine, Texas.

Does it annoy you that he’s not here?

BC: I just know that there’s a bunch of guys here. This has a term “mandatory” for a reason. The work is here. Period. You can say whatever you want. This is the fourth annual Adrian Peterson day. I don’t know if it’s going to be every year. But we’re going to have this, too. …

When did he inform you he wouldn’t be here?

BC: In my office on Thursday. Maybe Wednesday.

Was that a surprise or did you know it was a possibility?

BC: I think somebody showed me something on a website. I had an inkling. Let’s put it that way. I didn’t know if he was going to come out here and practice this afternoon, and then catch a late flight. I didn’t know how he would.

Are you worried that players will start to question the standard you have set for Favre and want to skip camps?

BC: First of all, that’s a special circumstance. I don’t think Adrian is batting around retirement in his mind. It’s a special set of circumstances. Is it special? Is everything equal? Obviously it’s not. That’s just the way it is. It’s a matter of fact. I think everyone understands that from our side.

Sorry, but that’s horseshit. If Childress is going to have a rule that all players must show up to mandatory workouts, then Favre shouldn’t be exempt from that. I realize Brett has a Super Bowl ring on his shelf and Peterson doesn’t, but this is exactly why people shouldn’t respect Childress. This is the second year that he’s bent over and taken it square up the pooper from Favre and if it weren’t so sad, I’d find it humorous that he goes along with whatever Lord Brett wants.

Do I think Peterson should be at camp instead of at a parade? Yeah. But so should Favre. I don’t care how old he is or what injury he’s milking – if he wants to be a part of the Vikings, then he should be in mandatory camps just like everyone else. And don’t tell me that just because Brett knows the offense like the back of his hand that he doesn’t need to be in camp with his teammates. Last time I checked, the Vikings didn’t win the Super Bowl last year.

Brad Childress…what a joke.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

Lou Piniella needs a reality check

It’s hard to blame Lou Piniella for being frustrated these days. His Cubs are currently 7.5 games back in the NL Central behind the Reds (the Reds!), his No. 3 and No. 4 hitters couldn’t hit a beach ball if one were lobbed in their direction and he probably gets the sense that his time is almost up in Chicago.

But if you’re Lou, why pick on little ol’ Steve Stone?

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Stone’s work, he’s a former broadcaster for the Cubs and now a current broadcaster for the White Sox. Earlier this week, he criticized Piniella on Comcast SportsNet for not playing rookie outfielder Tyler Colvin more.

This is exactly what Stone said (via ESPN Chicago):

“I think that means that Lou doesn’t have a great grasp on what to do with young players,” Stone said in the interview. “Because with Tyler Colvin, if you take a look at what he has accomplished in a short period of time, with limited play, you realize that he very well could be the one thing the Cubs have been looking for for six years. That’s a left-handed run producer. Colvin could be that one guy. But he can’t do it on the bench, so you make a decision that you play the guy.”

What Stone said was hardly venomous and the guy does have a right to share his opinion. (He is a broadcaster after all.) But apparently Piniella took exception to the criticism and before the Cubs got their ass kicked by the Sox yesterday, Lou went off.

 

Continue reading »

Pete Carroll “shocked” about USC ban

Former Trojans head coach Pete Carroll says he’s “absolutely shocked” about the sanctions that were recently levied by the NCAA against USC’s football program, which include a two-year postseason ban and the loss of 30 scholarships over the next three years.

Here’s the video:

Like most kids growing up, I used to hide things from my parents. Progress reports, poor test grades, and of course, the occasional Playboy or two. (Stop it – you know you hid them, too.)

Granted, I was often successful in hiding these items from my folks. But hiding a crumbled up Playboy is a little easier than sneaking free hotel stays, rent-free homes, suits and limousines past my parents.

In other words: How the hell didn’t Carroll and USC know that Reggie Bush was getting free crap? How did they not know that several of his family members were staying in rent-free homes, or that he rode in a limousine wearing a brand new suit when he accepted the Heisman in New York in December of 2005?

You can sneak a lot of things by unsuspecting people, but not on a college campus and not when the program’s most recognizable player is involved.

Even if Pistol Pete didn’t know, someone had to. Someone had to have seen what was going on. Are you telling me that a jealous player didn’t see everything Bush was getting and not tell other people? Come on – word travels fast, I don’t care what the situation is.

I refuse to believe that USC was completely oblivious to what was going on when Bush was there. And as so many people have pointed out over the last couple of days, it’s hardly a coincidence that Carroll agreed to head back to the NFL during the same year that USC was punished.

Boise State’s move to the Mountain West breeds better competition

Boise-State TCU every year? Sign me up.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been vocal about how expansion could ruin tradition and rivalry in college football. If Texas and Texas A&M split when the Big 12 eventually falls apart, that’s not good for the sport. To think a rivalry so enriched in tradition would evaporate because conferences want to increase revenue should make most fans sick. (Although it’s rumored that both programs will join the Pac-10 now that Nebraska has accepted its invitation to join the Big Ten.)

But count me in as someone who loves the Mountain West’s announcement that Boise State will be joining their conference in 2011. Assuming Boise, TCU, Utah and BYU continue to stay relevant, the Broncos’ move promotes competition without ruining any traditions in the process.

WAC fans certainly have come to enjoy their annual Boise-Fresno State matchups, but it’s safe to say that outrage isn’t about to ensue because the Broncos are heading to the MWC. At least, not like there should be outrage if Texas and Texas A&M leave the Big 12 for separate conferences. For as good as the Boise-Fresno games have been over the years, obviously that rivalry pales in comparison to UT-Oklahoma, Michigan-Ohio State, Alabama-Auburn and yes, UT-A&M.

The good news is that even though Boise is moving on, it can still schedule Fresno State on an annual basis if it wants. In fact, the Broncos need to schedule as many tough non-conference opponents as they can in order to have a remote shot at one day playing for a national title. For years they’ve been criticized for having a weak slate of games, but in moving to a better conference, that argument can be disputed. Let’s see what happens if they run the table playing the likes of TCU, Utah, BYU and Fresno in order to force the BCS to make a decision about whether or not they’re worthy to play in a title game. The BCS has always had a built-in excuse for keeping Boise out of the national championship when the program was playing in the WAC, but starting in 2011, it won’t be quite as easy to put down the Broncos’ schedule.

This is one of the rare cases where I think expansion makes sense.


Photo from fOTOGLIF

Nebraska heading to the Big Ten – are four more Big 12 teams on the move?

The downfall of the Big 12 is about to be underway, as ESPN.com is reporting that Nebraska has officially accepted an invitation to join the Big Ten.

Nebraska departs the Big 12 to become the 12th member of the Big Ten. Earlier this week, a source told ESPN.com that no other schools are imminent to accompany the Cornhuskers into the Big Ten.

The future of the Big 12 is in jeopardy after Colorado agreed Thursday to jump to the Pac-10. The Pac-10 is also reportedly interested in inviting Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech to form a 16-team league.

University of Texas regents will meet next week to decide whether the Longhorns will remain in the Big 12 or switch to another conference.

The regents announced Friday that they will hold a meeting by telephone Tuesday for “discussion and appropriate action regarding athletic conference membership.”

Rumor had it that if Nebraska left the Big 12, then the rest of the conference would dissolve. It appears as though the Pac-10 is on its way to being a 16-team conference, although as I wrote yesterday, that doesn’t mean that it’ll implement a championship game. (Which is just a ridiculous notion when you think about it.)

Joining the Big Ten makes a lot of sense for Nebraska, most notably from a revenue standpoint. Big Ten schools bring in $22 million each year thanks in large part to the Big Ten Network, which can now extend its reach once Nebraska comes aboard. The Huskers now have more security in the Big Ten than they did in the Big 12, which was apparently held together by cheese and crackers.

Nebraska and Michigan will finally get to settle the 1997 debate. Too bad nothing will be left of the UM program after Rich Rodriguez gets done burning everything in Ann Arbor to the ground.

« Older posts Newer posts »