It's hard to find many established media folks presenting their opinions in the wake of the HBO revelations of alleged cash handshakes, sexual favors and academic improprieties at Auburn.
In this situation, you certainly don't envy people who are supposed to give firm takes on an issue that's this murky.
Auburn could've been cheating its butt off. Or the players leveling these accusations could be completely full of it.
Put yourself in the shoes of a sports columnist in, say, Birmingham. Your editor tells you he wants you to watch the HBO show at 9 p.m., and he wants an opinion column from you in his inbox at 11.
If you condemn Auburn for yet more shadiness that will result in major NCAA infractions, you risk looking like a fool if these four dudes are exposed as frauds. If you take the "nothing to see here!" tact, you risk looking like a fool if the allegations have real legs.
It's a tough assigment, no doubt. Here's how this guy wrote it last night.
It's not hard for fans to take one side or the other. The wonders of the Internet have intensified the consumption of fans who now know a lot more than they used to, and who are able to bicker with other fans in a lot more ways than they used to.
The division of opinion on this Auburn matter is quite predictable: Auburn fans think it's hogwash and believe people are trying to bring down their program in its moment of glory. Fans from elsewhere believe every bit of the allegations and think it's yet another representation of a dirty program.
It was the same deal with the Cam Newton story that consumed the college football world last fall. It was a galvanizing event for Auburn people, who didn't believe a word of it. Just about everyone else was convinced the pay-for-play thing was true.
Frankly, I'm not sure what to think about these latest revelations. When you first hear of them, it's hard to not believe they're true. But the more you read about it, and the more you see former players (including teammates) completely blasting the whistle-blowers, you really start to wonder.
Predictably, Gene Chizik called the allegations "pure garbage." He also took issue with HBO for refusing to run interviews with players who said they were not paid a dime.
As much as I respect Andrea Kremer for her decades' worth of excellent reporting, I'm kind of with Chizik on this one. The evidence indicates that HBO was only pursuing subjects who had dirt on Auburn, and those who did not were basically ignored. That makes me uncomfortable.
You have to at least make an attempt to tell both sides of a story. If you've spoken with a number of players who say they got nothing, then the refusal to report those accounts chips away at the credibility of the story you're pursuing.
As bad as these allegations sound, nothing will happen without proof. And the bet here is that there will be none, or at best very little.
The oldest rule in the book for cheaters is plausible deniabilty; head coaches distance themselves from the cheating as much as possible by telling underlings that they don't want to be apprised of any of the details. And the second-oldest rule is "Don't leave a paper trail." Hence the "hundred-dollar handshakes" with mysterious men who appear, then disappear.
On the other hand, put yourself in the shoes of a head coach who abhors cheating and does everything the right way. How do you control the rogue boosters who are covertly giving cash to recruits or current players?
No easy answers here. Good luck to the NCAA in figuring this thing out.
LW
No comments:
Post a Comment