Clark Kellogg Undermines Own Argument in Under 10 seconds
I just finished watching a very good basketball game where North Carolina defeated Clemson for the ACC Championship. The game ends, and I flip over to CBS in time to hear one of the more ridiculous statements I have ever heard from a studio analyst.
Clark Kellogg and Seth Davis are arguing over who should be the National Coach of the Year. Kellogg thinks it should be Bo Ryan of Wisconsin. Davis on the other hand, thinks it should be Drake’s Keno Davis.
This causes Kellogg to loose his mind. He interrupts Davis to ask, “What do you base it on, how do you choose coach of the year?” After joking that he chose Keno Davis based on his last name, Seth Davis says, “They were picked to finish ninth in the Missouri Valley Conference.”
Kellogg doesn’t like that criteria for coach of the year, saying, “Expectations don’t indicate the deal.” I don’t really know what “the deal” is that Kellogg is talking about. I will have to assume he means expectations are not really a relevant measuring stick.
But that can’t be, because a few seconds later, after Davis points out that Kellogg’s argument for Bo Ryan is also based on exceeding expectations, Kellogg says, “They were not picked to win the Big Ten,” and then points at Davis as if to show he has won the argument and he repeats in a slower deliberate manner, “Wisconsin was not picked to win the Big Ten.”
Davis doesn’t miss this ridiculous flip-flop in a matter of seconds from Kellogg, when he responds almost in amazement to Kellogg, “I thought expectations had nothing to do with it, come on.”
Just to recap, Clark Kellogg thinks Bo Ryan should be coach of the year. He then does not agree with Seth Davis choosing Drake’s Keno Davis based on the criteria that Drake exceeded expectations, winning the Missouri Valley Conference after being chosen to finish ninth prior to the season. Kellogg then supports his pick of Bo Ryan because no one picked Wisconsin to win the Big Ten.
It is nothing new for an analysts to say ridiculous things that completely contradict something else they said. But this is the fastest flip-flop I have ever seen. Kellogg didn’t even wait until after a commercial break to completely contradict and undermine his previous argument. One sentence - exceeding expectations should not be the criteria for choosing coach of the year. Next sentence – I am choosing the coach of the year because his team exceeded everyone’s expectations.
This all made my head hurt.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?