... but maybe it is. As a football fan, I've heard everything that has been media-fied on the OklahomaState/Jenni Carlson story at this time.
Why is this possibly about movies? Because movies are about being perceived as something you're not, and making other people want to be like what you really aren't. Coaches and journalists have movies made about them all the time. When reality isn't what it appears to be on screen, I'm intrigued.
I've played football (with mediocre results even in not small but mini-college) and coached it (with about the same results) at the high school level before taking this job. When I wasn't coaching in 16 years of public school I was teaching students who play, not only football but other sports. I'm not an expert at the game but I know the emotion and expectation that comes with it. I can imagine what magnification the NCAA status adds to that.
I've reported for the Times -- with no explanation needed for its journalistic integrity -- as a stringing sports writer for as many years as a full-time film critic , 30 years total. I'd say just about the same way I played and coached football but the folks who pay me are kinder.
What Jenni Carlson wrote about OSU's now-backup quarterback wasn't right. Maybe accurate, but not right. I don't follow the team but I read, not only the column in question but her front page follow-up.
What OSU head coach Mike Gundy did at his press conference wasn't right, for himself and his team and most of all to the object of all this attention, QB Bobby Reid. Maybe as much to Reid's former backup, now replacement, Zac Robinson. I don't coach anymore but I see the clips on YouTube and ESPN.
I can imagine a TV movie-of-the-week now, but I don't know what the plot, or who the villain, should be.
But I will say that Carlson's column was out-of-bounds. If she had such inside information that Reid is too soft to be a starting quarterback on a so-so team she should have written it earlier. Doing it when the kid is benched -- and bringing his mother feeding him chicken after a game into it -- wasn't necessary.
Hell, I wish my Mom had chicken waiting for me after games, and I hadn't worked up much of a sweat.
Then again, I wouldn't. No football player wants to be seen as a mama's boy. And they don't want the sight of laughing off a bad play described as weakness. Players are told to forget the last play and move on. Sometimes, as in the movies, that involves laughter.
That's where Gundy's 3 1/2-minute tirade comes in, and why it was wrong.
The only person, besides his or her mother, who a player doesn't want to take up for him or her in public is his or her coach. But as a former coach I can understand the bond, even affection, that coaches build with any player, even the last sub, especially when you've made them one.
What concerns me is that, in this media age when impressions are made in a single sound byte and they stick, both Gundy and Carlson are going to set back their professions a few years.
Gundy has the least to worry about, though. People will soon understand the heat of the moment, the game, the team loyalty, yadda, yadda, yadda, and call him fiery. A few hours ago, folks called him crazy. I heard the transition on ESPN and Fox sports radio, then even on Inside Edition.
But some people will use that as an example of how coaches are out of control with their self-deified authority.
Carlson's transitioning image will be stickier. I remember when women first gained access to press boxes and locker rooms for male sports; the snide jokes (I told some) and expectations of failure. Almost to a woman, they succeeded. I'm not saying Carlson was showboating to make her bones when previous women did it the tough way but other, less enlightened people will. And it will cast suspicion upon female sports reporters to come, however misguided that is.
That will come in the next wave of knee-jerk responses.
The answer? An apology from both sides, no matter what kind of bristle-back legacy they're trying to emulate. And a common understanding that both sides of the public/media dynamic should think about the results of their expressions of their individual truths.
When Gundy said 3/4 of Carlson's column was inaccurate, he was desperately exaggerating to save face, for himself and a player who failed by starter standards. Carlson vehemently calling him on that fraction, in person and in print, seems like a desperate attempt to save face for a lapse of common decency.
Which is worse?
Recent Comments