Bill Cower

[EastStreet]

37 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

So what? Like football has changed since 2013? 

 

 

Not really. Probably just the addition of sensitivity training... 

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

 

This is demonstrably false. The criticisms of Lynch being hired by the 49ers basically hit the same notes as the criticism of the Saturday hire: skipped the line, got hired because he was friends with Kyle Shanahan, made a joke of the Rooney Rule, etc. Except Lynch was not the first former player with no front office experience to be hired as GM, that was Matt Millen, who most certainly was not one of the best GMs in football.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18582431/john-lynch-new-job-san-francisco-49ers-general-manager-head-scratcher-some

I don't remember anyone on CBS or FOX saying the hiring of Lynch was a disgrace or disrespectful going on rants. So no, my post was not false. There were people that questioned the hiring but you Like many are missing the whole point. The point is, when Jeff got hired some went on rants that they had no business doing so. Disagreeing with the hire is one thing but for some to go on a soap box about it and say it is a disgrace is bit over the top.

[superrep1967]

18 hours ago, Nickster said:

The difference is it’s common in basketball.  It’s been happening for over 40 years.  

Well it was about time in football. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

There is an article on CBS sports, I can't get the link to post for some reason but it is on google.  Jeff responds to Bill Cowher and Joe Thomas. The way Jeff responded was truly professional and the way adults should act. He wasn't mad at all and even added he has never drink with Irsay in his life like Thomas said.

[groundnpound]

On 11/15/2022 at 5:39 PM, jvan1973 said:

I posted this in another thread,  but do you think Bill would have said anything negative if Peyton was named the HC?

 

 

Can't imagine Peyton taking the high road in regards to comments like that. I feel a calculated cutting response would follow. Jeff showed a lot of class in the face of the peanut gallery. Media speak is just media speak.

[2006Coltsbestever]

2 hours ago, groundnpound said:

 

 

Can't imagine Peyton taking the high road in regards to comments like that. I feel a calculated cutting response would follow. Jeff showed a lot of class in the face of the peanut gallery. Media speak is just media speak.

Those guys would not have the balls to say the things they said about Saturday toward Peyton. 

[crazycolt1]

Think about this whole thing. The media, especially ESPN has had a long standing issue with Irsay. It started with Michael Wilbon on Pardon the Interpretation years ago. Anything that could be twisted and manipulated into a negative dig aimed at Irsay has always been a target of quite a few so called commentators.  

[Superman]

10 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I don't remember anyone on CBS or FOX saying the hiring of Lynch was a disgrace or disrespectful going on rants. So no, my post was not false. There were people that questioned the hiring but you Like many are missing the whole point. The point is, when Jeff got hired some went on rants that they had no business doing so. Disagreeing with the hire is one thing but for some to go on a soap box about it and say it is a disgrace is bit over the top.

 

Your post was false. You obviously will never admit it, but it's clear. The media and NFL insiders were critical of John Lynch's hire. You said "not 1 person was bothered by him getting hired as GM" and that's simply not true. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

19 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Your post was false. You obviously will never admit it, but it's clear. The media and NFL insiders were critical of John Lynch's hire. You said "not 1 person was bothered by him getting hired as GM" and that's simply not true. 

Bothered as in going on a huge rant about it, saying it was a disgrace or disrespectful. I figured you would understand what I meant. Sure there were plenty that questioned it and were critical of it so I admit that but not to the extent of what Jeff went through last week. My point was, Jeff and Irsay got criticized to the point where it was way overboard to the point it was really disrespectful toward our organization. - that is the problem I had with it.

[2006Coltsbestever]

31 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Your post was false. You obviously will never admit it, but it's clear. The media and NFL insiders were critical of John Lynch's hire. You said "not 1 person was bothered by him getting hired as GM" and that's simply not true. 

What shocks me about you, you seem to have no problem with the media saying it was a disgrace hire and it was disrespectful to the league or Joe Thomas saying that Jeff was drinking buddies with Irsay which Jeff said was completely false. You are probably the best poster in here so your take on this has me doing this 

[Superman]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Bothered as in going on a huge rant about it, saying it was a disgrace or disrespectful. I figured you would understand what I meant. Sure there were plenty that questioned it and were critical of it so I admit that but not to the extent of what Jeff went through last week. My point was, Jeff and Irsay got criticized to the point where it was way overboard to the point it was really disrespectful toward our organization. - that is the problem I had with it.

 

Let's set aside whether or not the criticism was disrespectful. I think we can agree that's a matter of opinion, right?

 

I'm personally not bothered by the so-called disrespect. I understand that others are. I've been surprised by how quick people are to reject and deride the criticism, all of it, as if it's completely unfounded, unreasonable, and unfair. I guess I'm not surprised, some people absolutely hate when their team is criticized, but there's some real mental gymnastics happening, and a lot of denial of basic information. 

[AKB]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Let's set aside whether or not the criticism was disrespectful. I think we can agree that's a matter of opinion, right?

 

I'm personally not bothered by the so-called disrespect. I understand that others are. I've been surprised by how quick people are to reject and deride the criticism, all of it, as if it's completely unfounded, unreasonable, and unfair. I guess I'm not surprised, some people absolutely hate when their team is criticized, but there's some real mental gymnastics happening, and a lot of denial of basic information. 

you are in the minority of people who think it wasn't disrespectful. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Let's set aside whether or not the criticism was disrespectful. I think we can agree that's a matter of opinion, right?

 

I'm personally not bothered by the so-called disrespect. I understand that others are. I've been surprised by how quick people are to reject and deride the criticism, all of it, as if it's completely unfounded, unreasonable, and unfair. I guess I'm not surprised, some people absolutely hate when their team is criticized, but there's some real mental gymnastics happening, and a lot of denial of basic information. 

Had Bill Cowher came on and said, look I don't agree with the Jeff hire, someone with NFL coaching experience deserved it more, I would have been fine with it. Joe Thomas saying Jeff and Irsay were drinking buddies was out of line. I guess I could come on here and say, newcoltsfan and I have been drinking buddies for years and he doesn't even drink. It is what it is I guess. 

[AKB]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Had Bill Cowher came on and said, look I don't agree with the Jeff hire, someone with NFL coaching experience deserved it more, I would have been fine with it. Joe Thomas saying Jeff and Irsay were drinking buddies was out of line. I guess I could come on here and say, newcoltsfan and I have been drinking buddies for years and he doesn't even drink. It is what it is I guess. 

"everything comes down to opinion"

 

hes gonna split every straw before admitting it was disrespectful, it is what it is. 

 

I definitely think it was disrespectful on multiple levels. 

[Superman]

4 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

What shocks me about you, you seem to have no problem with the media saying it was a disgrace hire and it was disrespectful to the league or Joe Thomas saying that Jeff was drinking buddies with Irsay which Jeff said was completely false. You are probably the best poster in here so your take on this has me doing this 

 

I seriously don't care about Joe Thomas' opinion. People have been taking shots at Irsay for years. I generally file their opinion away in the garbage bin. Mike Wilbon, Mike Florio, etc., a bunch of people who find any angle to dog Irsay (and the Colts), with no respect for truth and decency. I'm entirely unvexed by them.

 

And I've said this several times, but will say it again: I'm not co-signing Bill Cowher's opinion. You will remember that when the La Canfora and Howe articles came out last week, you and others basically argued that the reporting was unreliable, the sources might be fake, people around the league shouldn't care, etc. Then Bill Cowher -- a reputable, connected person in the media -- speaks openly about his feelings on the matter, whether we agree or not, and his opinion sounds a lot like all those so-called unreliable, fake sources that La Canfora and Howe offered in their reporting. So maybe people in and around the league, and even on the team, were bothered by the way the whole thing went down? And maybe being completely dismissive of negative reporting without regard for the substance of the reports is a fanatical response?

[Dingus McGirt]

16 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

With Cower (and even Vrabel to an extent) they were at least recently around the game of football recently enough. Saturday hadn’t been in a lockeroom or the NFL since 2013. 

And?

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

you are in the minority of people who think it wasn't disrespectful. 

 

How is that relevant? 

 

(By the way, I don't think Bill Cowher's comments were disrespectful. I don't care to listen to Joe Thomas' comments, but the way they've been described sounds like they were disrespectful, especially the "drinking buddy" comment. So does that matter?)

[Superman]

10 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Had Bill Cowher came on and said, look I don't agree with the Jeff hire, someone with NFL coaching experience deserved it more, I would have been fine with it. Joe Thomas saying Jeff and Irsay were drinking buddies was out of line. I guess I could come on here and say, newcoltsfan and I have been drinking buddies for years and he doesn't even drink. It is what it is I guess. 

 

Whether I agree with Cowher or not, I don't think he was disrespectful. 

 

I also don't think it matters. The question was initially 'are there really people in and around the league who are bothered by this situation?' I think Cowher's response makes it clear that there is a thought-out, nuanced response to the way Saturday was hired, and there are some reputable people who clearly have a problem with it. Again, whether we agree with it or not. 

[AKB]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How is that relevant? 

 

(By the way, I don't think Bill Cowher's comments were disrespectful. I don't care to listen to Joe Thomas' comments, but the way they've been described sounds like they were disrespectful, especially the "drinking buddy" comment. So does that matter?)

its relevant because you'll make the argument he "didn't skip the line to TV analyst, because former coaches/players aren't the same as aspring young TV analsysts/journalist" while in the same breath saying that the experience saturday has as a player isn't enough, and that the over the top criticsm is warranted.

 

obviously you stand where you stand, im just letting you know most people are seeing it as over the top. 

 

If cowher wasn't disrespectful, he was at the very least hypocritical. 

 

Pat McAfee explains it better than I ever will in this clip.

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

Just now, AustinnKaine said:

its relevant because you'll make the argument he "didn't skip the line to TV analyst, because former coaches/players aren't the same as aspring young TV analsysts/journalist" while in the same breath saying that the experience saturday has as a player isn't enough, and that the over the top criticsm is warranted.

 

obviously you stand where you stand, im just letting you know most people are seeing it as over the top. 

 

I never said the experience Jeff Saturday has as a player isn't enough. Especially not in a dismissive, 'he doesn't deserve to be a HC' way. In fact, the discourse around his hiring has me seriously considering my previously held thinking about how HCs are hired in the NFL. I said in other threads, no one has a secret formula to hiring good HCs.

 

As for Cowher, the bolded is absolutely true. I don't care if people won't simply admit it, but it's established fact. This is a weak rationalization to undermine Cowher's perspective so you can defend your favorite team, and nothing more. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

Just now, Superman said:

 

Whether I agree with Cowher or not, I don't think he was disrespectful. 

 

I also don't think it matters. The question was initially 'are there really people in and around the league who are bothered by this situation?' I think Cowher's response makes it clear that there is a thought-out, nuanced response to the way Saturday was hired, and there are some reputable people who clearly have a problem with it. Again, whether we agree with it or not. 

In life I have always look at how people word things and act. If I was doing a job at work and someone was critical of it and said you need to better, I would be ok with it. Imagine being at work and a manager said you are a disgrace and you know nothing. I would walk out and get another job and say bye, find someone better. I am just using an example here so you get my point, it has nothing to do with Jeff's situation but I am showing you how bad that would be.

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I never said the experience Jeff Saturday has as a player isn't enough. Especially not in a dismissive, 'he doesn't deserve to be a HC' way. In fact, the discourse around his hiring has me seriously considering my previously held thinking about how HCs are hired in the NFL. I said in other threads, no one has a secret formula to hiring good HCs.

 

As for Cowher, the bolded is absolutely true. I don't care if people won't simply admit it, but it's established fact. This is a weak rationalization to undermine Cowher's perspective so you can defend your favorite team, and nothing more. 

oh its a perfect rationalization

 

TV analyst skips the line due to former experience (in related field)

 

HC skips the line due to former experience (inrelated field)

 

If you can't find the parallel you're in denial. 

[Superman]

 

Just now, AustinnKaine said:

TV analyst skips the line due to former experience (in related field)

 

The bolded is demonstrably false. 

 

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

In life I have always look at how people word things and act. If I was doing a job at work and someone was critical of it and said you need to better, I would be ok with it. Imagine being at work and a manager said you are a disgrace and you know nothing. I would walk out and get another job and say bye, find someone better. I am just using an example here so you get my point, it has nothing to do with Jeff's situation but I am showing you how bad that would be.

 

Like I said, it's a matter of opinion. I personally don't find Cowher's comments to be disrespectful. Strongly worded, sure. I'm fine with disagreeing on that. 

[AKB]

Just now, Superman said:

 

 

The bolded is demonstrably false. 

 

ok explain how it is false. 

 

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

ok explain how it is false. 

 

Again? 

 

 

 

 

 

[AKB]

10 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Again? 

 

 

 

 

 

Your argument is so flawed.

 

It relies on the premise that the only population of people that Cower skipped are students, or recently graduated students. It also relies on the secondary premise that the position is "specifically for insiders" this again, is not true. 

 

postsecondary degree in journalism, communication, broadcasting, or a related field. If you plan to specialize in statistical sports analysis, you must have a background in math, statistics, or a related subject.

 

As for the student portion, that is false, there are specific degrees that specialize in sports broadcasting, and it has always existed. You dont need to be a former player, or coach to be informative and analytical pertaining to sports. Also, to completely ignore the various populations of people like beat writters, sports podcasts, former players turned journalist, there are many reporters and journalistic populations of people that did not coach, or play, that would be qualified to speak about sports. Nor is there any declaration anywhere that states you must be a former player or coach, and that there are no other populations of people in competition for those jobs.

 

 

edit: "The "analyst" role is almost entirely populated by former players and coaches, not people who studied journalism." - Superman

 

this very statement by you shows that they are skipping the line. and just be cause the current demographics are dominated by those who skipped over the students, and other aspiring journalist does not justify or disprove, that they also got some form of priviledge of being a former player or coach. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

Your argument is so flawed.

 

It relies on the premise that the only population of people that Cower skipped are students, or recently graduated students. It also relies on the secondary premise that the position is "specifically for insiders" this again, is not true. 

 

postsecondary degree in journalism, communication, broadcasting, or a related field. If you plan to specialize in statistical sports analysis, you must have a background in math, statistics, or a related subject.

 

As for the student portion, that is false, there are specific degrees that specialize in sports broadcasting, and it has always existed. You dont need to be a former player, or coach to be informative and analytical pertaining to sports. Also, to completely ignore the various populations of people like beat writters, sports podcasts, former players turned journalist, there are many reporters and journalistic populations of people that did not coach, or play, that would be qualified to speak about sports. Nor is there any declaration anywhere that states you must be a former player or coach, and that there are no other populations of people in competition for those jobs.

 

 

edit: "The "analyst" role is almost entirely populated by former players and coaches, not people who studied journalism." - Superman

 

this very statement by you shows that they are skipping the line. and just be cause the current demographics are dominated by those who skipped over the students, and other aspiring journalist does not justify or disprove, that they also got some form of priviledge of being a former player or coach. 

 

Okay. You just refuse to acknowledge it, and instead are twisting and turning to avoid the obvious truth. It's important to you that Cowher gets discredited somehow, because you didn't like what he said about the Colts.

 

[AKB]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Okay. You just refuse to acknowledge it, and instead are twisting and turning to avoid the obvious truth. It's important to you that Cowher gets discredited somehow, because you didn't like what he said about the Colts.

 

so are you gonna respond to any actual points? Or just make subtle remarks that suggest i'm being ignorant. .

 

I responded to each point, explained why I thought your argument was flawed, and you respond with... its important for me to discredit someone? 

 

Again, don't put words in my mouth. It's completely acceptable for someone to disagree, provide you with a breakdown of your incorrect premises without them being ignorant or intent on discrediting someone. 

 

 

your argument is flawed, that's not my fault, or Cower's. 

[Superman]

35 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

so are you gonna respond to any actual points? Or just make subtle remarks that suggest i'm being ignorant. .

 

I responded to each point, explained why I thought your argument was flawed, and you respond with... its important for me to discredit someone? 

 

Again, don't put words in my mouth. It's completely acceptable for someone to disagree, provide you with a breakdown of your incorrect premises without them being ignorant or intent on discrediting someone. 

 

 

your argument is flawed, that's not my fault, or Cowher's. 

 

What good does it do to repeat the same basic facts that I've already stated several times? Your response was, IMO, completely off base. I didn't suggest you're being ignorant, I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

 

But fine. I'll say it again.

 

Networks have covered sports in a very specific way for nearly 40 years. All the back to the days of Ahmad Rashad and OJ Simpson, former players who brought value to their pre- and post-game coverage. That value was not just analysis, it was also personality. Since then, every sports network has the same offering: a panel that includes a host, and several "analysts" that are almost entirely former players and coaches. Most of the time, those analysts have little to no experience or training as broadcasters. Some networks will at times include another personality -- Dennis Miller, Steven A. Smith, etc. -- on these panels, but the value added by those personalities is mostly either access or entertainment.

 

This is a well-established norm that's clearly demonstrated by looking at any pre- or post-game panel, on any network, in any sport. The same basic formula is used during games in the broadcast booth: one play-by-play person who is a career broadcaster, joined by one or more former players or coaches.

 

(The Olympics and other international sports don't use this model as rigidly, but they have different logistical considerations; however, in recent years as coverage has expanded, they've made more room for former athletes and coaches on their panels.)

 

In other words, the role that Bill Cowher has is a specific carve-out for a person with his background. This is an established norm in the industry, and that has been the case for decades.

 

In contrast, the established norm in the coaching profession for head coaches, especially the NFL, is to hire people with NFL coaching experience, or college coaching experience. And really, hiring college coaches with no NFL coaching experience to be HC is pretty rare, and only happens when the person has a really high profile, like Urban Meyer. Even Bobby Petrino had some NFL experience. Kliff Kingsbury didn't have NFL coaching experience, but had a decade of college experience, and was briefly an NFL player; his coaching experience isn't comparable with Saturday's. Not saying it's better or worse, but clearly different. So hiring someone to be HC when they have no college or NFL coaching experience is a drastic departure from the established norm, is it not?

 

Another established norm is that when your HC is fired during the season, the interim HC is someone who was already on the staff. Is there any exception to this? Has there ever been an NFL HC fired during the season, then replaced by someone who was not already on the coaching staff? 

 

So in two obvious ways, hiring Jeff Saturday was a break from established norms. I'm not arguing whether that's good or bad, right or wrong. But it's a fact, right?

 

On the other hand, Bill Cowher joining CBS as a panel analyst is right in line with long established norms, isn't it?

 

So making Cowher out to be a hypocrite because of his CBS role entirely misses the mark. It's substantively inaccurate, which is clearly demonstrated by the facts. 

 

This argument is a combination of logical fallacies. It's a strawman: Cowher didn't say Saturday isn't capable or knowledgeable, or that his experience as a player is meaningless. It's an appeal to emotion: "He's being disrespectful! Everyone is hating on our team and our owner!" Matter of opinion, but he gave a thought-out, nuanced response. It's ad hominem: "He's a hypocrite." No, actually, there's nothing hypocritical about his response. It's ambiguous: "No one cared when John Lynch was hired." Again, false, as demonstrated previously. It's personal incredulity: "No one would have cared if it was Peyton Manning!" We don't know that, and it's immaterial. It's a bandwagon argument: "Everyone thinks this was disrespectful." That doesn't mean everyone is right. I could go on and on.

 

Is that response sufficient?

[AKB]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

What good does it do to repeat the same basic facts that I've already stated several times? Your response was, IMO, completely off base. I didn't suggest you're being ignorant, I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

 

But fine. I'll say it again.

 

Networks have covered sports in a very specific way for nearly 40 years. All the back to the days of Ahmad Rashad and OJ Simpson, former players who brought value to their pre- and post-game coverage. That value was not just analysis, it was also personality. Since then, every sports network has the same offering: a panel that includes a host, and several "analysts" that are almost entirely former players and coaches. Most of the time, those analysts have little to no experience or training as broadcasters. Some networks will at times include another personality -- Dennis Miller, Steven A. Smith, etc. -- on these panels, but the value added by those personalities is mostly either access or entertainment.

 

This is a well-established norm that's clearly demonstrated by looking at any pre- or post-game panel, on any network, in any sport. The same basic formula is used during games in the broadcast booth: one play-by-play person who is a career broadcaster, joined by one or more former players or coaches.

 

(The Olympics and other international sports don't use this model as rigidly, but they have different logistical considerations; however, in recent years as coverage has expanded, they've made more room for former athletes and coaches on their panels.)

 

In other words, the role that Bill Cowher has is a specific carve-out for a person with his background. This is an established norm in the industry, and that has been the case for decades.

 

In contrast, the established norm in the coaching profession for head coaches, especially the NFL, is to hire people with NFL coaching experience, or college coaching experience. And really, hiring college coaches with no NFL coaching experience to be HC is pretty rare, and only happens when the person has a really high profile, like Urban Meyer. Even Bobby Petrino had some NFL experience. Kliff Kingsbury didn't have NFL coaching experience, but had a decade of college experience, and was briefly an NFL player; his coaching experience isn't comparable with Saturday's. Not saying it's better or worse, but clearly different. So hiring someone to be HC when they have no college or NFL coaching experience is a drastic departure from the established norm, is it not?

 

Another established norm is that when your HC is fired during the season, the interim HC is someone who was already on the staff. Is there any exception to this? Has there ever been an NFL HC fired during the season, then replaced by someone who was not already on the coaching staff? 

 

So in two obvious ways, hiring Jeff Saturday was a break from established norms. I'm not arguing whether that's good or bad, right or wrong. But it's a fact, right?

 

On the other hand, Bill Cowher joining CBS as a panel analyst is right in line with long established norms, isn't it?

 

So making Cowher out to be a hypocrite because of his CBS role entirely misses the mark. It's substantively inaccurate, which is clearly demonstrated by the facts. 

 

This argument is a combination of logical fallacies. It's a strawman: Cowher didn't say Saturday isn't capable or knowledgeable, or that his experience as a player is meaningless. It's an appeal to emotion: "He's being disrespectful! Everyone is hating on our team and our owner!" Matter of opinion, but he gave a thought-out, nuanced response. It's ad hominem: "He's a hypocrite." No, actually, there's nothing hypocritical about his response. It's ambiguous: "No one cared when John Lynch was hired." Again, false, as demonstrated previously. It's personal incredulity: "No one would have cared if it was Peyton Manning!" We don't know that, and it's immaterial. It's a bandwagon argument: "Everyone thinks this was disrespectful." That doesn't mean everyone is right. I could go on and on.

 

Is that response sufficient?

yes it sufficiently explains your point. i'm not really disagreeing with the fact that the norm is for there to be anaylsts with "related experience"...

 

im saying that that regardless of that fact, regardless of that reality, they are still receiving a priveledge of having related experience. It does not matter Superman if that is the current demographic, prior demographic, or prior standard. 

 

There are many standards that are inherently biased and priveldged to a certain extent. And that very bias I am mentioning, is present in sports analytical personalites. Due to the fact there are qualified persons who are not former coaches and players. 

 

The fact that those other qualified persons are overlooked, and the fact that it is considered "normal" does not nullify my valid point that they are receiving privilige.

 

It may be the case that we just disagree, but i appreciate a detailed response when I give one. I also do not discredit people for the sake of my own benefit in argument. I only respond to the conversation at hand. So please afford me the same respect I afford you in my responses. 

 

and to be clear, the only point im arguing is that Cower is hypocritical. and that is due to his own position being heavily influenced by former HC/player privi. 

 

and to be clear: my accusation of hypocricy has nothing to do with the colts, or my bias. I am basing it solely on the fact that he is using privilige, while blasting someone else for using privi. This is not a colts, or sports analytical issue, this is an issue with many people. There is no fallacy involved here, especially not based on emotional response from fandom. I believe he is complaining against the very thing that gives him the platform to speak. Privilige. 

 

and lastly, if your argument falls on what is normal... that doesn't justify that specific norm. it would just be a case of someone exploiting a "normalized" privilige. Just because players and coaches are constantly given the fast track over other qualified journalists doesn't mean that it's any less wrong than a former player being fast tracked over other qualified coaches. you are justifying one because its normal, and blasting the other one because its not the norm. 

 

 

[Superman]

31 minutes ago, AustinnKaine said:

The fact that those other qualified persons are overlooked, and the fact that it is considered "normal" does not nullify my valid point that they are receiving privilige.

 

It may be the case that we just disagree, but i appreciate a detailed response when I give one. I also do not discredit people for the sake of my own benefit in argument. I only respond to the conversation at hand. So please afford me the same respect I afford you in my responses. 

 

Let me just key in on these two points.

 

First, to the bolded, I'm not discrediting you. We obviously won't disagree, but it seems pretty obvious that there's an agenda here when it comes to Bill Cowher. Just read these comments about him in this thread. Lost of ad hominem, almost no substance. It's important that anyone who spoke out against the Colts be made to look bad, and I think there's a strong bias -- admitted or not -- driving these responses. Feel free to defend yourself, but it's so clear that the 'Cowher skipped the line' argument is a weak, flawed rationalization, and even after it's pointed out, people continue to double down on it. So yeah, I don't mean this disrespectfully, but anyone who keeps pushing this angle is being intellectually dishonest. IMO.

 

As for the first paragraph, no, I disagree. Networks have been hiring former players and coaches for decades because it helps their broadcasts. Name recognition, popularity, insider perspective, personality, etc., all these things have a clear impact on their ratings and viewership. It's not hard to see the merit in factors, whether you acknowledge them or not, and those factors are part of the qualifications that are considered for these positions. This lane was specifically opened up to take advantage of the perceived value that former players and coaches can bring to the broadcast. That value is entirely different from whatever value might be brought by someone with a different background. It's not privilege. Those people are added to the broadcast specifically because they are perceived to bring value to the broadcast.

[AKB]

9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Let me just key in on these two points.

 

First, to the bolded, I'm not discrediting you. We obviously won't disagree, but it seems pretty obvious that there's an agenda here when it comes to Bill Cowher. Just read these comments about him in this thread. Lost of ad hominem, almost no substance. It's important that anyone who spoke out against the Colts be made to look bad, and I think there's a strong bias -- admitted or not -- driving these responses. Feel free to defend yourself, but it's so clear that the 'Cowher skipped the line' argument is a weak, flawed rationalization, and even after it's pointed out, people continue to double down on it. So yeah, I don't mean this disrespectfully, but anyone who keeps pushing this angle is being intellectually dishonest. IMO.

 

As for the first paragraph, no, I disagree. Networks have been hiring former players and coaches for decades because it helps their broadcasts. Name recognition, popularity, insider perspective, personality, etc., all these things have a clear impact on their ratings and viewership. It's not hard to see the merit in factors, whether you acknowledge them or not, and those factors are part of the qualifications that are considered for these positions. This lane was specifically opened up to take advantage of the perceived value that former players and coaches can bring to the broadcast. That value is entirely different from whatever value might be brought by someone with a different background. It's not privilege. Those people are added to the broadcast specifically because they are perceived to bring value to the broadcast.

i have nothing against bill cowher, im literally just looking at it as someone who is using his own privilige to complain about someone else getting to use theirs. thats what it boils down to for me. i understand you disagree with the privi point due to established norms, and i disagree with that because i believe privi can still be exploited even when it falls within cultural norms or majority. 

 

that doesn't mean im being intellecutally dishonest, we just disagree on certain things. in reality, we agree on more regarding this topic than we disagree on. but that doesn't mean i have an agenda versus anyone. also the posts of others are no indication of my motives, i just respond to a premise that i find to be flawed from my set of perspectives. 

 

and ill respond to the players/coaches adding value. sure they add value, because of the relation to the job. the relation of job experience albeit not direct... the same scenario with saturday can be argued, not just from a lockeroom culture standpoint, but from a ticket sales standpoint. If Irsay is hiring based on tickets and locker room cohesion, saturday is more qualified that a coach with experience to do those kinds of things, just like your exmaple given for the analysts. 

 

that still doesn't nullify the fact that other qualified peoples are being looked over. it doesn't matter if it benefits the company, or not. privlige is still privilge. and that's why i feel he is being hypocritical, not because the message is wrong, but because he has used that same privlige. 

[sb41champs]

Everyone has a right to their opinion.

 

HOWEVER - it was Jim Irsay who offered the position to Jeff Saturday - NOT the other way around.

 

I took real exception to the media pundits bashing Jeff Saturday for deciding to take the job and the $$$ that come with it.

 

IF they want to * about someone - * about Jim Irsay.

 

On second thought - stop making your *y opinions "personal" !!

[crazycolt1]

After thinking about this for a few days I have backed off the Cower issue taking the job as a commentator.  But his rant about Irsay hiring Jeff was way out of line. If I'm not wrong I think Jeff was still on the field at the same age that Cower became a head coach.  Looking back on Cower's playing days he was a special teams player. He wasn't in the trenches like Jeff was. Jeff's playing  career towers Cower's.  Cower didn't go through what he describes as a long time in waiting to get a head coaches job so I find his comments ignorant.  

[GoColts8818]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Your post was false. You obviously will never admit it, but it's clear. The media and NFL insiders were critical of John Lynch's hire. You said "not 1 person was bothered by him getting hired as GM" and that's simply not true. 

Not asking to be argumentative. Legit asking because I don’t remember.  What was the reaction to Elway getting that gig in Denver?  If I recall Elway didn’t have a front office background either.

[Happy2BeHere]

I think if a network hired analysts who are educated in the respective field of broadcasting but not educated on “the field” of football these broadcasts would be very boring.

 

I see the argument on both sides…but don’t care to agree with either because in my opinion Irsay owns the team, he adhered to league rules (as much as we know them), and therefore I don’t think anything else is relevant. But these people (media crackerjacks) and us alike we can all express our opinion on the matter. Right or wrong? Well, that’s the definitive indefinite. 

[Happy2BeHere]

4 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Not asking to be argumentative. Legit asking because I don’t remember.  What was the reaction to Elway getting that gig in Denver?  If I recall Elway didn’t have a front office background either.

I do not believe that he had any official title before GM. Doesn’t mean he didn’t do something exactly like Saturday has done in consulting over the years. This may be a pretty valid comparison from the situational standpoint albeit different positions. 

[GoColts8818]

1 minute ago, Happy2BeHere said:

I do not believe that he had any official title before GM. Doesn’t mean he didn’t do something exactly like Saturday has done in consulting over the years. This may be a pretty valid comparison from the situational standpoint albeit different positions. 

Yeah that’s why I was bringing it up.  I honestly don’t remember how people reacted to him getting hired.

[Happy2BeHere]

Just now, GoColts8818 said:

Yeah that’s why I was bringing it up.  I honestly don’t remember how people reacted to him getting hired.

Broncos fans were farting rainbows they was so happy. 

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, Happy2BeHere said:

Broncos fans were farting rainbows they was so happy.