Why Is Lew Perkins Airing This Dirty Laundry Now?
Yesterday, current Kansas football players met with Kansas athletic director Lew Perkins to discuss concerns about Mark Mangino’s treatment of players. The breaking of this news has led to rampant speculation in different media outlets that Mark Mangino's job may be in jeopardy. Mangino has had to fend off charges that he has "lost" the team after this news and a five game slide.
All of these developments should beg the question about why this information was made public by Lew Perkins. Kansas has to play Texas on Saturday and despite players' and coachs' claims that this news is not a distraction, it is a distraction. Rumors are also circulating that Perkins may meet with former players' parents to hear their complaints about Mangino. If this is so then it is hard to comprehend why this matter was not dealt with earlier when the Jayhawks were winning or could not be dealt with later during the offseason.
For my part, I hope that the public revelation of this meeting by Perkins is justified. Right now the jury is still out. The Orange Bowl winning coach Mark Mangino has earned the benefit of the doubt at Kansas and he should be treated with the utmost respect. Mangino is not today and has never been a casual laid back Pete Carroll-type player's coach, and that is fine. Mangino's chewing out of players who hot dog it and his tirades against officials are breaths of fresh air to the majority of Jayhawk and college football fans.
The way things stand now these recent events certainly give the appearance of an athletic director piling on a coach who is suffering through a difficult season. The Jayhawks were expected to be better this year, but the example of the Oklahoma Sooners should remind us all that regardless of your talent at skill positions without a formidable offensive line and defense a hopeful football season can quickly unravel. That certainly appears to be the situation in Lawrence this week.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?