The silence is deafening.
Some revelations from the Spygate fallout have caused some eyebrows to be raised at a school that has rarely had its image questioned. Until now.
Head Coach Charlie Weis' silence regarding Spygate is somewhat understandable. Ignore it, and it may go away. But there comes a time when you have to address the masses and reassure them that you are playing by all the rules. They're waiting, Charlie.
According to the Chicago Tribune, former offensive coordinator Weis allegedly benefited from the Patriots' illegal taping of defensive signals. In interviews conducted by both the NY Times and HBO, team assistant Matt Walsh claims that Weis used signals stolen from an exhibition game with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' to help prepare for the Patriots' regular season date with the Bucs.
"I asked one of our quarterbacks if the information that I provided was beneficial in any way," Walsh told the Times. "He said, 'Actually, probably about 75 percent of the time, Tampa Bay ran the defense we thought they were going to run. If not more.' "
The Patriots ended up losing that game, but the point is not lost. The Patriots quarterback learned the signals from the tape, and then relayed them to Weis on the day of the game, according to the HBO interview with Walsh.
To be fair, Walsh's statements cannot be verified, as the quarterback who learned the stolen signals is so far, un-named. Plus, Walsh could be just lying, although so far, his story has rung true. But one can't help but wanting closure over this gaping wound, and instead, the blood seems to be spreading from the NFL down to the hallowed halls in South Bend. If Walsh is lying, where is the outrage from Weis? Either call him out or own up, Charlie.
Notre Dame has always rested on its laurels when it comes to being "above it all." Except for a serious violation in 1999 in which they lost scholarships due to booster interference and an aide writing a paper for a student-athlete, they have been fairly consistent in taking the higher ground. But what if their head coach cheated while under the employment of the New England Patriots? The team's cheating has been documented, and the fact that the team and head coach received fines and lost a draft pick proves the transgression was serious, and proven. The Pats cheated while Weis was their offensive coordinator. That's a fact.
Notre Dame has taken the position that "It's just not a Notre Dame matter," according to AD Kevin White. Oh really? How can it not be? If you hire a coach based on his success as an offensive coordinator, and then find out his team cheated while he was in that position, doesn't that take a little lustre off of his qualifications as a prospective head coach for a school whose values are based on Catholicism? Do the words, "Thous Shalt Not Steal" ring a bell?
Weis, remember, spoke to a Gettysburgh Notre Dame Club recently and told the attendees that, "I could get hoodlums and thugs and win tomorrow. I won't do it that way." Don't hoodlums steal? Now, no one is calling Weis a hoodlum, but if the allegations by Walsh are true, and Weis
Matt Walsh Claims Notre Dame's Charlie Weis Was Spygate Participant
Today's Must Reads
Track this Article on My B/R
Share This Article
About the Author Lisa Horne (senior writer)
- 135 articles written
- 3812 comments posted
- 372 fans
Want to write for Bleacher Report
We are a community of fans who write about sports. And we're growing.
23 comments Last one added 10 months ago — Leave a Comment
Stew Winkel about 1 year ago
Oh, well at least the allegation that Weis benefited from "Spygate" is based on credible evidence and is not another baseless allegation tossed around, and then treated like fact. Does anyone stop for a second to think about how absurd the notion is of a video assistant having any idea what the offensive coordinator knows and doesn't know? How many examples of Matt Walsh's complete lack of credibility does there have to be before people finally stop using him as a source for anything? This story you cite is beyond ridiculous - Walsh asked "a quarterback"? But he doesn't know who that QB is? You've got to be absolutely kidding me.
I am just amazed at the legs this story has when you stop to consider 1) everything the Patriots did, we knew about in September and there has been no evidence that the Patriots were anything but 100% truthful in telling the NFL what it is they did and for how long (you can debate they weren't truthful about their interpretation of the rule, but that is it), and 2) the story has dragged on based primarily on allegations printed in the Boston Herald which had to publicly print an apology, attacks from Arlen Specter whose largest campaign contributor Comcast is feuding with the NFL, and Matt Walsh, who the Patriots fired for illegally taping conversations, who lied about doing that, who lied about having a confidentiality agreement, and who allowed a false story to linger for months when he knew the truth to be otherwise.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne about 1 year ago
Stew...I didn't say "he doesn't know" who the quarterback is. I stated he was "so far, un-named." There's a big difference in those two meanings and you as a writer ought to know better than to put words in my mouth. Shame on you. I stand by my "ridiculous" writing and your childish criticisms are noted.
Secondly, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you are either a Patriots fan or an Irish fan. Either way, you both are myopic in analyzing your team without bias.
Thirdly, the Herald apologized for saying that there was a videotape of a walk-through of the St Louis Rams. Your statement of "the story has dragged on based primarily on allegations printed in the Boston Herald which had to publicly print an apology" is all smoke and mirrors. The investigation is based on the NFL anti-trust exemption, and that's the reason for the continued interest. Whether they taped the Rams or not is not a big deal. We all know they cheated. And they have violated numerous rules. According to one former player, they had players on IR practice. Are you going to say he's a liar too?
Edit Comment Cancel
Stew Winkel about 1 year ago
the point is this, and i may have gone off on a tangent - before we start demanding answers from anyone, shouldn't we want the source of our information to be someone more credible than Matt Walsh?
Edit Comment Cancel
Uncle Rico Touchdown Mountain about 1 year ago
Lisa,
This is simply a rehash of a poorly thought out article in the Chicago Trib. Both you and Hamilton (I think was the hack's name) didn't stop to think for a moment before you hit the POST button.
The theory that you and the originator of this storyline (and all other copycats hereon) use, was destroyed by an articles in the NY Times, the Washington Post, and by comments from players like former NY Giant Phill Sims who said, "In the Super Bowl, we knew every play they (opponent) were going to run before the snap and that didn't help us. The bottom line is that you have to execute!".
We all know that since the beginning of time, teams have done whatever they could to steal the other teams sign. Bellichick agrees that he made a mistake in his interpretation of the rules but what he did wasn't cheating. He was simply stealing signs. The fact that he used technology puts him ahead of the curve much in the same manner that the first microphone in a player's helmet was ahead of it's time.
Technology advances. The Pats allegedly made use of the technology. No story here.
The quote in which you try to tie Charlie Weis to this is laughable. You could take that same quote back 50 years ago and it would still fit those times. It's nothing more than a well-prepared scouting report. Who knows, maybe the scouting report had the advantage of knowing the other team's signs. If so, shame on the other team for not changing their signs from game to game.
If you ever want credibility, you'll have to do WAY better than this! This wasn't successful when the original scribe penned it and you didn't do anything that polished it up. Do better!
Edit Comment Cancel
Ed Garrity about 1 year ago
And Lisa is a Notre Dame hater.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne about 1 year ago
ED-
I love the school. What I don't like is a coach getting on his sanctimonious pedestal ripping other schools for having "thugs and hoodlums" on their teams, and then he tells Michigan to go to hell and may have participated in a cheating scandal. He also grew the stadium's grass long to gain a competitive edge over a fast team, which resulted in one player blowing out his knee. The school is wonderful, and a shining example on how to be competitive w/o lowering their standards of admissions.
Their coach, on the other hand, spent last summer doing a book tour and suing doctors for negligence in his gastric bypass surgery- a surgery which he knew was risky. I feel sorry for him and the consequences of his botched surgery. I also feel sorry for the Irish fans who have been mis-led by his coaching prowess.
I find it amusing that some ND fans don't address the blog's content, and instead attack the writer. My grandfather helped build Notre Dame's stadium, and my dad went there on an athletic scholarship. I have the utmost respect for ND. You know not of what you speak.
Edit Comment Cancel
Sebastian about 1 year ago
1) Author wrote: and then he tells Michigan to go to hell
First, Weis said to Hell with Michigan at a brunch on the weekend of the Blue-Gold game, in front of players, students, alumni, and fans--- a setting which amounts to a pep rally with food. I don't understand the shock this statement has created-- what other tone would a coach take in front of eager ears? I hope we hang with Michigan?
Second, look back a few years to Bo Schembechler and a few choice words he had about Notre Dame:
Bo Schembechler, August 2006:
From the novel Natural Enemies, by John Kryk:
...[Bo] said if he were still Michigan's athletic director, he wouldn't schedule them even "if they got down on their hands and knees and begged. To Hell with Notre Dame."
"We don't need Notre Dame. They need us more than we need them. Hell, we're playing all these Big Ten teams. When Penn State came into the league, then we should do everything we can to get this Notre Dame series over with. Now that's the way I feel.
"I would rather have an intersectional game than a Midwest game. Play Southern Cal. I don't care. Play Texas ... somebody like that. But not Notre Dame."
So I suppose what Weis did was basically turn a quote on its head. But that's not as sexy a headline and won't grab the same amount of attention.
-----
2) Author wrote: Notre Dame has taken the position that "It's just not a Notre Dame matter," according to AD Kevin White. Oh really? How can it not be? If you hire a coach based on his success as an offensive coordinator, and then find out his team cheated while he was in that position, doesn't that take a little lustre [sic] off of his qualifications as a prospective head coach for a school whose values are based on Catholicism? Do the words, "Thous [sic] Shalt Not Steal" ring a bell?
Are you suggesting that Notre Dame fire Weis? Or what, exactly? Suspension? Fine? So long as Belichick, the supposed ringleader, is allowed to run around virtually unscathed and unpunished for the years of cheating (one draft pick and $500,000), firing Weis would be a rash and purely reactionary move, instead of rational and thought out. If Weis ran the ship, I think the situation is entirely different. However, this isn't the case we have right now.
Additionally, I believe the 2009 season, and not this coming season, will be the show-me season. After last year's surprise, a fair expectation for 2008 would be .500. If Weis cannot deliver with a team comprised of his own highly-rated kids in 2009, in what would be his fifth season, I think the new coaching search begins.
-----
3) Author wrote: He also grew the stadium's grass long to gain a competitive edge over a fast team, which resulted in one player blowing out his knee.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but both teams have to play on the same grass, right?
-----
4) Author wrote: What I don't like is a coach getting on his sanctimonious pedestal ripping other schools for having "thugs and hoodlums" on their teams
"Some things never change at Notre Dame. One is Notre Dame's commitment to excellence. The other is criticism for having the 'arrogance' to strive for it." - Fr. Hesburgh
"I don't want thugs and hoodlums on the team," Parcells said of the types of players he'll try to acquire. "I really don't. I don't want bad-character guys. I don't want problem children." - Bill Parcells
Why should Notre Dame apologize for wanting good-character individuals who can also play football? I think everyone wants it, but it's a lot harder to win with those standards, so most schools opt for the gifted athlete with a questionable record-- the quick-fix. Urban Meyer could win sooner at Florida than Notre Dame. It's a choice.
A meatier response to that point is provided at the following link, and it's a recommended read:
http://therockreport.blogspot.com/2008/04/enough_30.html
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne about 1 year ago
Sebastian-
1- To hell with Michigan means Michigan go to hell. It means the same thing.
2- You never responded with the graph's premise, you merely asked me a question as to what ND should do with Weis. I don't know, but I do know what is acceptable at ND, and losing to two service academies and having 3 wins in one season is not acceptable. If you're Ok with it, well, great. 2009? That's giving him 5 years. Why wasn't Willingham given that same time line? Is it possible that ND BLEW it with that contract extension and now has to eat that huge contract buy-out? Does guilt make you defend such an outrageous contract extension that was given because he ALMOST beat USC? You have to defend his contract. If you don't, it's anti-Notre Dame. I get that. But I don't have to buy that.
3-Yes, both teams had to play on the long grass.....which means that he was willing to risk his own players getting hurt in order to stop the speed of USC. What does that say about his integrity?
4- Hoodlums steal, don't they? Furthermore, ND has played for over 100 years w/o recruiting thugs and hoodlums, and NOW he uses that excuse as to why they haven't fared well. You said, "I think everyone wants it, but it's a lot harder to win with those standards, so most schools opt for the gifted athlete with a questionable record" Funny, the previous teams never had a problem playing outstanding student-athletes. How many Heismans and NC's does ND have?
Edit Comment Cancel
Sebastian about 1 year ago
Lisa---
1) I think you're missing my point. Yes, Weis said to Hell with Michigan. But it was a play on what Schembechler said 2 years ago (to Hell with Notre Dame), but that point didn't get the same attention as Weis' statement.
2) If you were at ND or were following the team close enough, there was a different vibe & different ceiling for potential after X years with Weis than X years with Willingham. It's possible ND got too excited with the contract, but I also think they saw a different team and different potential with Weis, one that needed to be locked down, lest hungry NFL teams started a money bidding war.
4) Instead of seeing it as an excuse, I saw it as Weis patting the program on the back as he was making the rounds to alumni associations. No, the previous teams didn't have a problem playing against rosters of hoodlums and thugs. But if you're already thinking X, but keep it to yourself, does it really make a world of difference if you come out and say X, aloud in public? You're still thinking X both times.
And to answer your question, ND has 11 claimed titles and 7 Heisman trophies.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Sheaffer about 1 year ago
The NFL's videotaping rules can be found here on the pages numbered A105-A106: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20080511_NFL_DOCUMENTS.pdf
Could you or Roger Goodell or the media kindly point out anything in there which bans teams from videotaping coaches' signals?
Bill Belichick said he based his interpretation on Article IX of THE NFL CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS. Article IX appears to clearly ban any use of any electronic information gathering and communications equipment except poloroids and field phones which might aid a team during a game. And yet, every team in the league films games and then uses the game film to study. This is because the league interprets Article IX to mean that teams can film during games, but they can't watch the film or use it to help them until after the game. Belichick applied the Article IX interpretation to all the videotaping rules from Sections A - E. Goodell's ruling esentially applies the interpretation to sections B,C,E, and most of D, but not to Section A and the first guideline in D. What makes Goodell's interpretation any more logical than Belichick's?
Scott
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne about 1 year ago
Scott-
I think you have to be logical here. Could a coach put a microphone in a locker room and listen in to the opposing team's game plan? Better yet, bug their bench so he can hear their plays being called? The Article 9 is somewhat vague, but I think a smart man like Belichick KNEW he was doing something that crossed the line and was hoping he could plead ignorance and hide under a vague article. He briefly argued his point, and lost.
If Belichick thought it was legal, why didn't he have Walsh just stand on the field with a mike and camera and get real close to the other team's signal caller? More food for thought: the interpretation of the rule goes hand-in-hand with team having the right to boot any person they deem working for the other team from their sidelines. The reason is clear- that person could affect the outcome of the game and no longer are the fans witnessing an honest competition. Isn't that the same thing as stealing a team's playbook?
While I am not sure if there is a policy prohibiting another team from stealing a team's playbook, the teams know it's a no-no. Videotaping signals is the same thing as stealing a playbook- it's recorded information to study. It's like counting cards in Vegas....a lot of people try to do it, and if your mind can hold that much information, well, Vegas could lose some money when you come to the table. But they can prohibit you from having devices such as card counters or cameras at their tables. Same thing with the NFL. It destroys the integrity of the game and violates the anti-trust exemption the NFL currently has. It's corporate fraud and corporate espionage, and the taxpayers.
Do I think everybody tries to see if they can decipher play calls? Of course, hence the reason why signal callers put laminated play sheets over their mouths or have a huddle of players around them when they call in a play. But videotaping the signals, and then having the opportunity to study those calls is crossing the line.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne about 1 year ago
One more thing Scott. The actual article is clear. It states: “Use at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which a club is a participant, of communication or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic device that might aid a team during the playing of a game.” Clearly, videotaping machines are prohibited. Now to answer your question as to how it's legal for teams to videotape their own team....
The N.F.L.’s game operations manual states under videotaping policies: “No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches’ booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game. All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.”
The Patriots were filming the Jets from the sidelines. The logic is clear. If you are enclosed with a roof over your head, your expectation of privacy is legitimate. You can control outside videotaping through security at entrances, and moreover, you can check IDs of all bystanders to make sure they don't have any recording devices. You can't do that in an open field. it's uncontrolled.
Edit Comment Cancel
Steve Frith about 1 year ago
I think you've missed a bit here Lisa. The rule "Use at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which a club is a participant, of communication or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic device that might aid a team during the playing of a game." is in place to keep teams from using those films in the same game (also to keep from bugging locker rooms/telephones etc.)-it states it in the last part of the rule itself "...might aid a team during the playing of a game.” Therefore, if you tape signals, coaches, staff members, cheerleaders and/or the towel boys, it's ok just so long as you don't use it during the same game that you're playing in. Basically, you can't use taped signals you got in the first quarter in the thrid quarter. The Pats didn't do this, they took the tapes back to their offices and got info from them (more than just signals).
Now, to split even more hairs, the rulebook states (as you said): "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches’ booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game. All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.” The rule book also states that "The field is 360 feet long and 160 feet wide" (http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/field). Therefore, the sidelines are not "on the field" by the rules. This is how Belichick got his interpretation of the rule. As you might say, the logic is clear: the rules definition of the field do not include the sidelines, therefore, taping from the sidelines is clearly not taping from the field and is ok. Ok, so you might not say that...but it was the only way I could work in the "the logic is clear"! :)
Edit Comment Cancel
Weis Man about 1 year ago
lisa - where did you graduate from? BC or SMC?
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne about 1 year ago
Neither, coach.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne about 1 year ago
Nicely done Steve. :p You split a lot of hairs. I do believe the bottom line is that Belichick knows you can't tape signals. You also can't take another person's playbook w/o their permission. But do the rules specifically say that? Probably not.
It's like the text message rule in college football. Sometimes it takes a while for the institutions to catch up with technology advancements. Needless to say, I think all coaches understand that the integrity of the game is first priority, as the NFL is a monopoly exempt from the Sherman Trust Act. If they want to keep that exemption, then they had better come down hard on cheaters, or the NFL will lose that precious status.
PS...I always say, If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'...even though it's wrong. I think there's a difference between the playing field and the field, by the way. Beleichick didn't put up much of a fight...he knew he was wrong and admitted as such.
Edit Comment Cancel
Steve Frith about 1 year ago
Thanks Lisa-I'm pretty good at splitting hairs....and I've really had to as a Pats fan :(
I can't say that I disagree with your statements, specially what you said in the "PS" part. Also, you're right about the NFL wanting to keep that exemption-which is (I think anyways) part of the reason why the commish came down so hard on Belichick and the Pats. I'd like to say lesson learned, example made, and leave it at that......of course, there are those who can't drop it (I saw more stuff about spygate on the news at the gym tonight......grrrrrr).
On a side note, thanks for being polite-it says a lot when someone doesn't fly off the handle at the drop of the pin (which is usually the case when dealing with anything spygate).
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne about 1 year ago
Steve-
No worries, and I am a Celtics fan (let's not talk about last night). I honestly believe they all cheat, so can't understand the outrage. The Pats have been made the scapegoat. Someone has to be. Personally, I don't care. They get caught, others have not been caught. For anyone to scream cheater at another team is laughable. Oh well. My team probably cheats too. (USC) If I need to commiserate with someone, I'll give you a call.
Edit Comment Cancel
Steve Frith about 1 year ago
I couldn't agree more!
Good article and good discussions...I look forward to reading more of your stuff (and the phone calls!!!) :P
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Sheaffer about 1 year ago
Lisa,
I'm not asking about bugging and stealing playbooks though. I'm asking about the videotaping rules in spygate. I see where someone could accuse the Patriots of a camera location technicality. (Even that's arguable as Steve points out because while Ray Anderson's memo says sidelines, the rule actually says "the field.") So again, where do the rules say teams can't record signals?
If someone thinks recording signals should be prohibited, that's all well and good. Get it put into the rules and enforce it against teams who do it after the rule goes into effect.
Yes, Article IX looks very clear, except there's one problem. There's the league wide interpretation that it doesn't ban filming, it only bars teams from watching the film or using it to help them until after the game is over. It's that interpretation which allows teams to make game film and which makes Article IX compatable with the videotaping rules in Volume II of THE POLICY MANUAL FOR MEMBER CLUBS. Other than that, the league would have contradictory rules on videotaping. One rule would ban it, and five other ones would allow it. The difference between Belichick and Goodell's interpretations is that Belichick applied the Article IX interpretation to all five game operations rules, while Goodell applies it to the second, third, fifth, and most of the fourth rule, but not to the first rule or the first guideline in the fourth rule. So I don't think the question has been answered. What makes Goodell's interpretation any more logical than Belichick's?
Also, in response to your point about booths, teams aren't filming only their own players when they make game film. The booth is there "to ensure the protection of the equipment and employees of the teams' video departments." The cameramen film both teams. Here are a few ESPN articles with some background on the game film process.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview07/news/story?id=2982416
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview07/news/story?id=2977735
On another point, Steve's absolutely right when he thanked you. There aren't too many intelligent conversations out there when it comes to spygate. Most people do fly off the handle.
Scott
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Sheaffer about 1 year ago
“No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches’ booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game. All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.”
Scott
Edit Comment Cancel
TJ Mendenhall about 1 year ago
Lisa, great smart article on Spygate... What is being missed the most in this diatribe about Belichick's alleged misinterpretation of the Rule, is that he was warned twice, the last one being a league wide Memo 3 weeks before the infamous Jets game when NFL security caught him. Belichick's camera man was also kicked out of the Detroit stadium and the Green Bay stadium in 06 (more warnings for Belichick). Interesting that in those incidents, Belichick never protested since he knew exactly what the Rule was and they were guilty.
Lisa, a great Interview coup that you should obtain is with Matt Estrella, the Pats employee who has been the "Matt Walsh" for the last 6 years and the "camera man" referenced above in the Detroit, GB and Jets incidents according to news reports.
Edit Comment Cancel
Raj Kamruddin 10 months ago
Lisa,
Poor article today and not because you chose to say some negative things about my team, but because your facts are wrong, your misleading and you did very little research. As people have replied the "to hell with Michigan statement" is a play on what the former Michigan coach said in years past. Most Michigan fans understand this. ITs the outsiders who dont get it.
The statement about how he could win if he recruited thugs. Did you hear the entire speech? What most people dont know about that statement was how he was talking about ND winning awards for the football team having high grades. He wasnt making a speech full of excuses. He was talking about the importance of education, having pride in his team being tops in the nation for academics semester after semester. Recruting students who place academics before football. Kids who think about life after football, their chosen majors, not just going to play football. Those who took off running with a small sound bit, are irresponsible journalists.
As for "Spygate". I never cared before CW's name came up and I still dont care. I played basketball growing up. We practiced defending our opponents offense. Heck we even knew the name of the plays because we scouted over the years. we still had to stop them. (We didnt by the way). In football, they scout so much, they know the plays, most teams even use the same terminology. Heck, with free agency, players leave, go to rival teams, share info. All this doesnt matter much, since you still have to stop them.
Why should Charile comment? This is an NFL matter. The patriots are the ones that need to take responsiblity for whatever may or maynot have happened. The head coach of that team needs to speak. If my former employer gets in trouble for something, I wont speak out unless I have too. Regardless of what I know. Its not my business, and if I am forced, then fine, otherwise, I have things to do.
You also make irresponsible comments about if ND doesnt make a bowl game ND could hit the jackpot and fire CW. I thought you were a professional journalist. I guess Im wrong. What research have you done to conclude that the university may fire him if they dont get to a bowl game? Has someone in administratin said the coach is on the hot seat? Three years as head coach, 2 BCS games, 1 coach of year award. Do you really think they will fire him? How many coaches out there have made 2 BCS games in 2 out of 3 years, tell me 2 out of 4 years? How many coaches have ever been to 2 BCS games? You dont just fire a coach because he may have stolen signals. This happens in sports all the time. Lets not comare this to a crime. What you dont report on is how involved the coach is with the university, community, charities, going with some other coaches to middle east, etc.
In the past I have enjoyed many of your articles. I dont hate this one because its a negative ND story, I hate it because it lacks research, is very amatuer writing. You need to learn more about the university, the story behind the quotes you run away with before writing articles such as this.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.