Stolen from Walton's Beard on RealGM The ending of the interview was classic. Kelly: If I got arrested as a kid my parents would not have punished me until they knew all the facts. Canzano: My parents would have grounded me. Kelly: Maybe your parents didn't believe in you. Canzano: Goodbye, Chip. Interview over. Game set match.
Can't agree with you there, VG. Edit: MSP will be replaying this interview in 9 separate chunks over the course of the next 3 hours, "scoring" the interview as a 9 round fight. If I hear, I'll try to provide updates on their "analysis".
Round 1 Key quotes: Canzano: "What's the harm in suspending him from the team pending a decision?" Kelly: "Do you think I'm going to symbolically make decisions just to please John Canzano?" Scores: Gavin 10-10, Chad 10-9 JC, Dwight 10-9 JC Round 2 Key quotes: Kelly: "What do you want me to suspend him from? He's not with the team right now." Canzano: "Are you saying that LaMichael James was falsely accused?" Kelly: "No, I'm saying that we don't have all the facts yet." Canzano: "Here's what I think you're missing. The message you're sending is, if you make negative comments on facebook, you get kicked off the team, but if you get arrested…" Kelly: "Do me a favor--before you make accusations, get your facts straight." (undefined) Scores: Gavin 10-9 JC, Chad 10-10, Dwight 10-10 Cumulative score: 20-19 JC on all three judges' cards. More to come in the next hour...
really? I think I am pretty decent at not being a homer.. but Kelly pretty much threw everything back in Canzano's face.
Round 3 Kelly: "Do you think that the players in my program are getting in trouble because I didn't suspend LaMichael James?" Canzano: "I think your players are confused about discipline." Canzano: "I covered Tark, and your program has the same problems his did." Scores: Gavin 10-10, Chad 10-9 CK, Dwight 10-9 CK Round 4 Kelly: "You think my program has no discipline, but three players have been suspended from my team. (Canzano: "Actually, it's four.") You skip over those, because it's convenient to your argument." Canzano: "You've sent a pretty clear message that 'if you can help our football team, we're going to do whatever we can to get you back on the field.' " Gavin 10-9 JC, Chad 10-9 JC, Dwight 10-9 JC Round 5 Kelly: "When any of our players get in trouble, I wonder what message I'm sending." Kelly: "If you think that our players get in trouble because Lagarette Blount was reinstated, then you're making excuses for them. They know the difference between right and wrong." Gavin 10-9 JC, Chad 10-9 JC, Dwight 10-9 JC (which is interesting, because Canzano said virtually nothing during this "round". Their reasoning here was that Kelly was still "reeling" from Canzano's previous questions, and he was grasping at straws rather than making cogent arguments. First real indicator of potential judging fix...) Cumulative "scores": Gavin 50-47 JC, Chad 49-47 JC, Dwight 49-47 JC 4 "rounds" to go...
Three radio hacks- one a punch drunken idiot, one a Tattler wannabe and one who has a bit of potential. And we're all supposed to take their view? BS. Kelly is doing a pretty good job and Crapzano is as usual, crap. Seriously, is there a bigger ass in the world that Crapzano?
Round 8 Canzano: "We don't have all the facts? Forget the police, forget the DA, Chip Kelly doesn't have enough information so he's OK? Kelly: "I don't have all the facts, and once we do, you will see what punishment is given; and as always, the punishment will fit the crime." Gavin 10-9 JC, Chad 10-9 JC, Dwight 10-9 JC Round 9 (as quoted in quote 12) Kelly: If I got arrested as a kid my parents would not have punished me until they knew all the facts. Canzano: My parents would have grounded me. Kelly: Maybe your parents didn't believe in you. Canzano: Goodbye, Chip. Scores: Gavin 10-8 CK, Chad 10-9 CK, Dwight 10-10 ("showy final shot, but meant nothing") Overall--their cumulative opinion was that Canzano controlled the fight throughout and won relatively easily. Whatever.
basically here is how I see it... I dont get why people are bitching about one player not getting suspended and not the other. They werent there with CK when he met with James, or even Alonzo. One was accused of Assualt, and the other cited with a DUI. One plead NOT GUILTY, and honestly none of us were there when Alonzo was pulled over. How does ANYONE know that Alonzo didnt just say to coach "Yeah I did coach, I screwed up, but its true and it happened", if that happened, that is fact enough for CK to suspend him. But if he or someone else said "no coach these accusations are completely untrue!" then I can see waiting things out. I'm not saying this happened mind you. But Canzano does make a valid point... "what is the problem with suspending someone pending investigation?" Even CK said that was a valid point. Maybe Coach would have had there actually been football activities going on right now, I'm not sure. But saying there is a double standard doesnt actually make sense, unless you were there when CK and the player had their talk.
Exactly Wheels... and I bet that is what happened. With James you can also bet that what Chip was told and what he was charged with do not match. As the point about suspending pending an investigation... Chips comment on that was, what would he be suspended from? They are not doing anything related for football right now... if he did that Canzano would just come back with 'oh come on coach... what are you suspending him from? You are not doing anything right now! That isn't a punishment!' =( I was Journalism major at one time in college... and I do understand the constraints college coaches (and teacher’s administrators etc...) are under in regards to discipline. It is not like they are professional athletes. One slip and they are in big trouble. They basically can say what happened or what the discipline was... though obviously you do see info about getting suspended or kicked off teams. John knows that... but he keeps asking like the rules will change. Once I did an article on school discipline... hard when you know you can't get direct answers... so for the article I asked what the punishments would be in a serious of hypothetical situations. They had no idea what I was looking for so they answered all my questions. When I switched to questions about a specific incident I already had enough information to put together a decent article… even though it was about a subject the school couldn’t and wouldn’t comment on directly. I won an ONPA award for the article. Anyway… I didn’t pursue journalism because I hated where I saw it was heading… in my opinion it was starting to lose its respectability, and more and more reporters where only trying to write articles to validate their person opinions instead of trying to paint an acurate picture so the reader can decide. I am glad I went another direction with my career because this is very widespread now... in print and TV news. What I believe you will see happen now is that you will see the Oregonian try to focus on everything negative about the Ducks. (Sound familiar… remembers when that was happening with the Blazers?) Time to cancel my Oregonian subscription again.
This is saying, "player, you're proven guilty until innocent. We have no trust in you. Now, you can't practice with the team or be involved with the team until you clear your case". I prefer the innocent until proven guilty stance. Seems more fair to the player. But then, some of us feel the need to bend over for the media.
