Kirk Wessler editorial 3/31

[real fan]

I have no problem with most of his articles, but why publish this rumor based article that he says is a rumor not a fact, there has to be an agenda in order to publish this garbage.

[SFP]

I have no problem with most of his articles, but why publish this rumor based article that he says is a rumor not a fact, there has to be an agenda in order to publish this garbage.

I agree! KW has an agenda and right now he knows that this rumor was so outlandish that he is trying to separate himself from the unprofessional ranks.
If I was a betting man I'd have to say that KW has no love lost for JL for some reason. It may be just some type of personality conflict or ego driven from both sides that will not let it die. Even if you do not like JL and believe he should go there are plenty of positive things he has done for BU and the program. I just wish once KW could write about one of those things. One thing JL's program does excel in is that his player graduate and not just with barely passing grades but with excellent grades. If maybe he did not let his ego get in the way I'd probably read his articles. I love sarcasm but it also needs to not be always at the expense of one person and program. A purly dogmatic approach to writing rarely convinces me in either direction.

[Buesch N Chips]

It may be just some type of personality conflict or ego driven from both sides that will not let it die.

Yes. It has existed since JL became coach, and came to a head during the Daniel Ruffin injury controversy.

[Bravesfan]

I agree! KW has an agenda and right now he knows that this rumor was so outlandish that he is trying to separate himself from the unprofessional ranks.
If I was a betting man I'd have to say that KW has no love lost for JL for some reason. It may be just some type of personality conflict or ego driven from both sides that will not let it die. Even if you do not like JL and believe he should go there are plenty of positive things he has done for BU and the program. I just wish once KW could write about one of those things. One thing JL's program does excel in is that his player graduate and not just with barely passing grades but with excellent grades. If maybe he did not let his ego get in the way I'd probably read his articles. I love sarcasm but it also needs to not be always at the expense of one person and program. A purly dogmatic approach to writing rarely convinces me in either direction.

KW has disliked JL from the get go and his columns show this. Why, I still have no clue, but for whatever reason, it's blanatantly obvious. That's why when he wrote Bradley off earlier this year I got so disgusted with this. We all know that many teams in the history of sports, be it pro, college or high school, have turned on a dime after subpar starts. And in many of those cases the coaches had poor or average career records coming into these seasons (just ask Cornell before last season). So you can never write off a season until the season is over with.

If KW backed up that particular column with some reasoning why, maybe it would have made for a more fairer read. But he basically dismissed BU for the sole reason that JL had a mediocre record through 7 1/2 seasons, which is not entirely true anyway since his career record is solidly above .500.

If I wrote that column and made that statement, I would have also offered some hope. I would have said that while it may not be likely that BU would turn things around, the possibility still existed based on their 2006 turnaround, the 2007 and 2008 better than expected seasons, and a solid core that was in the process of maturing. In other words, other than KW and a few outspoken JL haters, most core BU fans did see the potential for a strong finish. And while it wasn't nearly as strong as we would have liked to see, beating a ranked UNI team and a strong WSU team at home certainly showed some potential for a great season next year, along with a return of their homecourt advantage.

So if I were KW, I would maybe do a little more homework the next time before settling on yet another hit and run JL piece!

[Da Coach]

Or here is another trick that newspaper columnists do. They heap praise on other coaches, ignore their faults, and write about our own coach only when there are negative things to expound on.

On Friday March 5, the very day when Bradley played Creighton in St. Louis in the big first round 4-5 game (Bradley beat Creighton convincingly), this is the column that KW wrote for that day in the PJ Star-

http://www.pjstar.com/sports/wessler/x927810440/Wessler-Creighton-s-success-proves-all-inclusive

Instead of giving us a column about Bradley, or about the BU players looking for respect against a tough Creighton team in the tournament, it was a fawning, puff piece about the Wonders of Dana Altman, how he runs such a great program, and how wonderful Creighton is. It wasn't even accurate, since it glossed over and ignored a number of serious discipline probalems Creighton has had, yet he dwells on minor discipline issues that happen at Bradley.
Maybe it wouldn't have been so bad, except we had this same kind of Dana Altman love affair column from KW before.

OK, we get it. KW loves Dana Altman, and Jim Les isn't worthy to sniff his jock.
Why not just give us something Bradley fans care about?

[KillerB]

Whether you like Altman or not.. his record at Creighton speaks for itself. Over the last decade the Jays have been superior to Bradley year-in-year out. Compare overall records.. head-to-head.. Valley championships.. number of NCAA appearances.. you name it. Even in what many considered a down year for Creighton, the Jays beat us twice in Valley play.

The fact that you didn't like his choice of topics does not make KW a bad guy.. or a bad columnist. He did a piece on a program that has given Bradley fits.

I've said it before. I don't know why so many posters here waste time worrying about KW and what he writes. For the most part you don't like him.. so why give him the time of day. When you do.. you are just feeding the monster. But if you want to take him on.. take him on on his website where you know he'll see it.

[SFP]

I'm personally not going to head to his blog so he can get a few more hits on it. As I said, personally speaking, I'll read the bad with the good but if it comes from a newspaper it needs to be fair and balanced otherwise it is as good as any other blog out there.

[KillerB]

I'm personally not going to head to his blog so he can get a few more hits on it. As I said, personally speaking, I'll read the bad with the good but if it comes from a newspaper it needs to be fair and balanced otherwise it is as good as any other blog out there.

It's a column.. it is not supposed to be fair and balanced. It is an opinion.. an editorial! Yes it is the forerunner of blogs.

[SFP]

It's a column.. it is not supposed to be fair and balanced. It is an opinion.. an editorial! Yes it is the forerunner of blogs.

He works for the paper so I still stand by fair and balance should be the rule, if not why bother? Opinion is one thing but continuous dogmatic approach is completely another. There is another poster that completely writes his opinion from the other side and is not a columnist that others rip. What gives?

[Da Coach]

I never suggested Dana Altman isn't great guy, and a good coach. I am sorry if you don't get the point of my post.

There are ways columnists play games to take their digs at people they do not like or want to embarrass. That is what that Dana-worshipping article on March 5 was all about.

[KillerB]

He works for the paper so I still stand by fair and balance should be the rule, if not why bother? Opinion is one thing but continuous dogmatic approach is completely another. There is another poster that completely writes his opinion from the other side and is not a columnist that others rip. What gives?

Fair and balanced applies only to news reports.. NOT EDITORIALS (columns). Take it from me.. I went to the "World's Greatest Journalism School". Editorials are supposed to take a viewpoint (i.e. ONE SIDE or the other). How can you take one side and be fair and balanced? They are supposed to provoke thought.. make you take action.. argue the issue.. make comment.

And based on this website's response to nearly everything KW writes his bosses probably think he's doing a pretty good job.

[KillerB]

I never suggested Dana Altman isn't great guy, and a good coach. I am sorry if you don't get the point of my post.

There are ways columnists play games to take their digs at people they do not like or want to embarrass. That is what that Dana-worshipping article on March 5 was all about.

I got your point completely.
So you are a mind reader? You know for a fact that was KW's only purpose in writing that column was to slam Jim Les? I'm not saying your wrong DC. That is your take..your opinion of what KW was doing. And just like KW you are entitled to your opinion and to express it.

Heck you maybe right about his motives. I don't know the guy.. never met him or corresponded with him. Maybe.. just maybe.. he wants BU to reach the consistent level of play CU has shown over the last 10+ years and was holding it up as an example for us to aspire to. It was a piece about the team BU was about to play in the tourney. Not all stories and columns should be PR pieces about the home team. How boring would that be?

I'm not saying I liked his piece. But I don't think (my opinion) it was as out of bounds as many posters here seem to think.

[SFP]

Again that maybe the problem with papers now days that they have become too much of editorial dogmatic approach and not enough facts and substance. The Wall Street Journal is becoming an editorial paper and with it its demise as a premier paper. If KW would just occasionally for s and giggles editorialize on the other side then just maybe we would take his pieces a little bit more serious. The way he has drawn the line in the sand makes me not take what he has to say seriously. In the day you use to take an editorial piece vey serious.

[shaunguth]

Is sarcasm really that foreign of a concept to you? Try reading up on it somewhere, you might enjoy it.

No....it isn't. It's just that most people manage to include a smilie or two in order to convey sarcasm. For some reason I thought you were taking a shot at those of us who really believe our best returning three-point shooter would have helped us this season. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

[Bravesfan]

I got your point completely.
So you are a mind reader? You know for a fact that was KW's only purpose in writing that column was to slam Jim Les? I'm not saying your wrong DC. That is your take..your opinion of what KW was doing. And just like KW you are entitled to your opinion and to express it.

Heck you maybe right about his motives. I don't know the guy.. never met him or corresponded with him. Maybe.. just maybe.. he wants BU to reach the consistent level of play CU has shown over the last 10+ years and was holding it up as an example for us to aspire to. It was a piece about the team BU was about to play in the tourney. Not all stories and columns should be PR pieces about the home team. How boring would that be?

I'm not saying I liked his piece. But I don't think (my opinion) it was as out of bounds as many posters here seem to think.

I think what DC and others are trying to say is that the timing of the column was suspicious. No one denies that Altman is a great coach and has won numerous championships there, and that is where Bradley needs to be. But this is a column that should be written during the offseason, or during a lull in the season. And no credit was given to Les by KW after their win over CU in the conference tournament. Granted we were two and done again this year, but BU played one heck of a game against CU and did not get any compliements by KW.