| |
|
|
Reputation:98
Level:Superstar
Since:Sep 22, 2006
|
|
Doyel, I can't believe you would write a biased one-sided article about how Memphis' flaws could spell their doom and then write this classic about how UCLA never had a chance against the Tigers. Maybe you should check your personality disorder in at the local mental health facility.
Can't wait for your next article about how Memphis will be expected to lose against the Jayhawks.
LOSER!!
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Dec 25, 2006
|
|
As I wrote in that story, that was not a prediction of a UCLA victory. And I wasn't saying Memphis sucked. I was merely saying that IF Memphis lost, here were going to be two likely reasons. Those reasons didn't come to pass, and Memphis didn't lose.
Go back and read the first story. For a "biased, one-sided article" it was awfully complimentary to Memphis. You knucklehead.
|
|
|
Reputation:97
Level:Superstar
Since:Aug 21, 2006
|
|
I like the fact that you and Gary get on the boards and defend your views in your posts. I think its cool.
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:Mar 18, 2008
|
i just want to know where the UCLA tool shed fan is that made the topic called MEMPHIS SUCKS!
how does it feel to look like the stupidest person in america!
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Dec 25, 2006
|
|
Thanks Niner. Just trying to educate readers, one person at a time. Also I like to have the last word.
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 16, 2007
|
|
YOU MR DOYEL NEED TO go read the "doyell is a coward" thread ....you played both sides of the fence mr doyell......if the tigers lose then your previous article makes you look good......if the tigers win....then you merely answer that with a "I SAID IF THIS HAPPENS".......BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE DOYELL....BE A MAN AND TAKE A SIDE
|
|
|
Reputation:95
Level:Superstar
Since:Oct 16, 2007
|
|
I dont know whats been exposed more in the last 2 weeks. CBS sportsline writers or ACC basketball.
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:Mar 28, 2007
|
|
Memphis was the much better team tonight. Congratulations, Tigers fans.
It really saddens me, however, to see this writer bag so hard on the Bruins' effort, calling them soft, etc. It reminds me of my overweight, insecure uncle who drinks too much at Christmas and starts not only attacking political positions, but the people who hold those positions. To call Love and Collison soft, or to say that Collison fouled out intentionally? Did these guys stiff you in the press room? Give you a slow burn by not massaging your delicate ego in an interview? Below the belt, my friend. Below the belt.
And what is the point, anyway, in bringing up some unproveable, indefensible argument such as "only Westbrook could start for Memphis." Wow, thanks for enligtening us with such a cogent, relevant statement. Oh, and thanks as well for repeating it in the next paragraph just in case us obtuse troglodytes didn't catch your sharp-edged journalistic theory the first time.
And yes, I do agree with the Memphis fans who make the accurate point that you completely flip-flopped on who you thought might win. You screwed up, you busted your bracket, just like I did. Just like a lot of people did.
Greg, your vitriole is showing. And it's not attractive. Neither is it excellent journalism.
|
|
|
Reputation:94
Level:All-Star
Since:Dec 20, 2006
|
I've read most of the responses so far to Doyel's article about the Tigers-Bruins game, and I have to say my reaction is very different from everyone else's. Most of the reactions seem to interpret this article as praise of Memphis and criticism of UCLA (and okay, it is critical of UCLA when it calls them soft), but to me this article seems to be more of a slam on Memphis.
The link to this article from the main CBS Sportsline page says, "Nasty wins." Doyel describes Calipari and the Tigers in terms one would use to describe vicious, nearly rabid, attack dogs. He doesn't praise their speed, fast hands, hard work, intelligent play, or any of that. Ben Howland and UCLA are held up as shining beacons of the old way, the true way, the noble path of honor and glory-- brought low by callous, cruel, nasty, despicable, almost-unsportsmanlike play by the bullies of Memphis. Doyel does everything but actually call them a dirty team-- though the implication seems indisputable to me.
They must have been dirty. How else could such a team have beaten the great, glowing beacon of classy sportsmanship that is UCLA (that glowing beacon of honor in sports that only got as far as it did by paying off the refs in a few key games).
Okay, that last remark was a bit of hyperbole-- but you get my point.
Howland's teams, whether at Pitt or at UCLA, have always been physical, aggressive bullies-- You can't spin that around now and complain that they got bullied by a faster, better team. Why can't Doyel just say that Memphis played a better game and had better athletes?
|
|
|
Level:Amateur
Since:Apr 6, 2008
|
<table width="800" class="mcct_container">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="mcct_author" valign="top" rowspan="4">
Since:Apr 6, 2008
</td>
</tr>
<tr class="mcct_header">
<td>
April 6, 2008 10:11 am
Score: 30
</td>
</tr>
<tr class="mcct_body" valign="top">
<td> To the "EXPERT" that suggested there were 3 blue bloods in the NCAA Tour. and then the " Clampetts"...you forgot something...the Clampetts moved to Beverly Hills...Mr. Drysdale... </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
|
|
