Jump to content
Kyyle23

Sports Media discussion

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:27 AM)
Alford's problem wasn't that "he believed his story," jesus christ.

 

"Unfortunately for Alford"

Yeah, that wasn't the biggest problem. This wasn't someone giving benefit of the doubt (IIRC he pleaded guilty anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:27 AM)
Alford's problem wasn't that "he believed his story," jesus christ.

Yes it was. If he thought he was guilty, he would have thrown him off the team, and none of this crap would have ever happened, and which he did when the second incident occurred which wasn't as serious, and Pierce told him he was innocent again.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:25 AM)
Do you think UCLA had the info when hiring him? Why should a radio station in Chicago care who UCLA hires as a basketball coach? There are scumbags being hired left and right in the NCAA, professional sports, etc. His own station hired Dan McNeil who has had several problems over the years. Did he go on a rant about him? I don't want to minimilze what Pierre Pierce did. Alford's problem was he believed his story. If it were someone you were close to and believed his story and realized what a false accusation could do to his life, isn't it at least possible what Alford did wouldn't seem so outlandish? False claims are made every day, especially college aged women. Unfortunately for Alford, this wasn't a false claim.

Why should a radio station in Chicago care about it? LOL. Because it's a sports radio station? Are they limited to Chicago talk only?

 

Again, big story because he went to UCLA now. People are learning a lot more now than when he was at Iowa or New Mexico. I guarantee a ton of people had no clue about a lot of it when they announced the hire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:28 AM)
Yeah, that wasn't the biggest problem. This wasn't someone giving benefit of the doubt (IIRC he pleaded guilty anyway).

He pled down to a misdemeanor avoiding any chance at jail time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:29 AM)
Yes it was.

 

Nah, his problem was attempting to pressure the victim into dropping the issue so it could be swept under the rug. Poor, poor Alford, unfortunately the girl he tried to pressure really was assaulted! What a tough break for Alford. Poor guy.

 

If he had believed him and said in a press conference "I think he's innocent," fine, whatever. But he didn't stop there, he attempted to intimidate the girl. That is what his problem was.

 

If he thought he was guilty, he would have thrown him off the team, and none of this crap would have ever happened, and which he did when the second incident occurred which wasn't as serious, and Pierce told him he was innocent again.

 

Yeah, because coaches never, ever cover up for the misdeeds of their players. It's unheard of. You can't point to a second incident with the same guy who's already exposed Alford to a bunch of flak for his s***ty actions as evidence of his upstanding moral character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:29 AM)
Yes it was. If he thought he was guilty, he would have thrown him off the team, and none of this crap would have ever happened, and which he did when the second incident occurred which wasn't as serious, and Pierce told him he was innocent again.

Except he didn't throw him off the team when he pleaded guilty.

 

Oh, and in the meantime he told the victim to shut the f*** up to try to protect the program. THAT'S the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:31 AM)
Why should a radio station in Chicago care about it? LOL. Because it's a sports radio station? Are they limited to Chicago talk only?

 

Again, big story because he went to UCLA now. People are learning a lot more now than when he was at Iowa or New Mexico. I guarantee a ton of people had no clue about a lot of it when they announced the hire.

Unless someone has a personal agenda against Alford, his hiring at UCLA is about as much of a non story in Chicago as it was when he was hired at New Mexico and even less of a story as it was when said incident occurred when he was at Iowa and the player involved was from suburban Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:33 AM)
Except he didn't throw him off the team when he pleaded guilty.

 

Oh, and in the meantime he told the victim to shut the f*** up to try to protect the program. THAT'S the problem.

No he didn't. He believed Pierce to be innocent, because that is what he was told. Maybe it was naive, and probably if you asked Alford, after what occurred later, he would regret he believed him.

 

People plead down all the time to avoid possible jail and expensive trials, sometimes they were guilty sometimes not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:37 AM)
Bernstein appears to have a personal agenda against Alford. So what?

Opening day, the final four, the Blackhawks, the Bulls, Collins to NU and Bernstein talks in Chicago about Steve Alford going to UCLA, probably in the back of his egotistical mind thinking he can derail Alfords new job by rehashing 8 year old stories. No wonder sports radio is horrible.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:43 AM)
No he didn't. He believed Pierce to be innocent, because that is what he was told. Maybe it was naive, and probably if you asked Alford,

 

An adult who automatically believed everything he was told? I don't think the word for that is naive.

 

after what occurred later, he would regret he believed him.

 

Yes, I'm quite sure that he now regrets his s***ty actions that were exposed. That doesn't really excuse those s***ty actions, it just means he's not a sociopath.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:45 AM)
Opening day, the final four, the Blackhawks, the Bulls, Collins to NU and Bernstein talks in Chicago about Steve Alford going to UCLA, probably in the back of his egotistical mind thinking he can derail Alfords new job by rehashing 8 year old stories. No wonder sports radio is horrible.

 

Ok, so what? It's Bernstein's show. If it goes to s***, he'll pay for it. That doesn't mean Alford is off-limits for him to talk about or that the legitimacy of the charges against Alford is lessened because Bernstein really doesn't like the guy.

 

edit: I didn't listen to the show, but he also has, what, 5 hours to fill every day? There's lots of air time for all of these topics. If it means less calls from listeners, the quality is improved automatically!

Edited by StrangeSox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 08:48 AM)
1. Bernstein is an asshole.

 

2. Alford is an asshole for attempting to cover up a sexual assault.

 

3. Bernstein advising new media guys that may or may not know of Alford's assholery past is not an asshole move.

 

/end debate.

 

I call BS here. Who involved in college basketball doesn't know about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:38 AM)
This is similar to arguing with Penn St fans.

 

It sure is... One side of the issue only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:56 AM)
What other side do you think should be represented? The pro-coverup side?

'

Bernstein's thing is completely different from Alford's. Answering any questioning of Bernstein with what Alford doing is just excusing what Berstein is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't hate on someone for fighting against sexual assualt, but I do find it a bit weird the way Bernstein keeps going on & on about Alford & the PSU stuff. But hey, he's the one getting paid six figures to talk on the radio for 5 hours, so he can do what he wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernstein is dragging Alford's name through the mud because Alford did a pretty s***ty thing in the past. Bernstein doesn't think that thing should just be forgotten. It fits right in with the rest of his common views, concerns and actions, and maybe coming right on the heels of the Stuebenville case, provides that much more relevance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:59 AM)
can't hate on someone for fighting against sexual assualt, but I do find it a bit weird the way Bernstein keeps going on & on about Alford & the PSU stuff. But hey, he's the one getting paid six figures to talk on the radio for 5 hours, so he can do what he wants.

 

Except he isn't really fighting sexual assault. He is trying to make money off of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 09:59 AM)
can't hate on someone for fighting against sexual assualt, but I do find it a bit weird the way Bernstein keeps going on & on about Alford & the PSU stuff. But hey, he's the one getting paid six figures to talk on the radio for 5 hours, so he can do what he wants.

 

Bernstein gets on his high-horse whenever this side of sports (abuse, sexual or otherwise, that gets covered up) rears its head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 10:01 AM)
Except he isn't really fighting sexual assault. He is trying to make money off of it.

 

As is every media outlet that ever reports on anything ever.

 

Which is it, is Bernstein ranting for hours about some dumb topic largely irrelevant to the Chicago media base he serves, or is he making $$$ off of bringing this issue up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 10:03 AM)
As is every media outlet that ever reports on anything ever.

 

Which is it, is Bernstein ranting for hours about some dumb topic largely irrelevant to the Chicago media base he serves, or is he making $$$ off of bringing this issue up?

I think he's doing both. He's trying to appeal to the rest of the country and gain notoriety or whatever, with his moral stance on an 8 year old story, 2 Steve Alford hires ago, at the expense of his local listeners, who would rather be discussing or listening to other things.

Edited by Dick Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 10:01 AM)
Except he isn't really fighting sexual assault. He is trying to make money off of it.

LMAO. Yes, let's try to make that ridiculous connection, he's trying to make money off sexual assault. He's actually trying to fight it if you listen to him, which you claim you don't, but probably do.

 

Doubt he makes any money off of talking about Alford directly. He's been at the Score what, 15 years? He's a salaried employee, probably pretty consistent with that as well. I highly doubt the ratings spike due to talking about Alford for a few days, and enough to have someone walk into the office with a giant bag of money.

 

It's not about money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×