Skip to main content

Dan Graziano won't be inviting Chip Kelly over to dinner anytime soon (and vice versa after the article Graziano wrote about Kelly)

The Oregon Ducks football team, who was coached by Philadelphia Eagles head coach Chip Kelly before this coming season, was hit with a light sanction for a recruiting violation under then coach Kelly. This wasn't a very harsh penalty. This was to the death penalty (in college football) what a paper-cut is to a gun homicide. Sure, it might sting for a little bit, but it doesn't completely end a person's life, or a program in this scenario - not by a long shot.

Dan Graziano of ESPN.com then wrote an article about the matter today and I was scratching my head while reading the "piece" in its entirety, before I scrolled to the top of the website to make sure it didn't say The Onion.

Graziano's article is titled, "NCAA labels Chip Kelly a cheater."

Yes, things only got worse from there...

Graziano started the article by saying this:

"I know that the vast majority of Philadelphia Eagles fans won't care. I know that all you care about with regard to Chip Kelly is what kind of head coach he's going to be in the NFL, and that whatever he did while coaching the University of Oregon matters as little to you as whether he cheated on a sixth-grade math test. I get it. But Kelly's in the news today, and I'm writing about him because call me old-fashioned but I think adults who don't care about right versus wrong should be called out for it when possible."

Graziano sounds like he's in a bad mood. Hungover maybe? Rejected by a woman? Hungover after getting rejected by a woman, which prompted him to do seven shots of tequila?

The ESPN blogger later said this:

"So yeah, I know you probably don't care if you're an Eagles fan. And if Kelly hits it big in the NFL, no one will have reason to remember this. But don't come at me insisting he didn't have embarrassing personal reasons to leave Oregon, because he obviously did. And if you're making grand, optimistic assumptions about his level of commitment to his new job and whether you can trust what he says, that's your right, but consider yourself warned."

Maybe Graziano was about to come out of the closet, was overjoyed by the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling yesterday, asked Chip Kelly if he'd go out with him sometime, got rejected, and the before-mentioned seven shots of tequila and the inevitable hangover ensued.

Graziano then closed his lovely article in this manner:

"And if you happen to be the kind of fan who cares what kind of people operate and represent your team... well, now you have a little more information on which you base your opinion about this one, don't you?"

Yeah, bartender, I think it's about time you cut him off. ESPN, I think it's about time you do likewise. It sounds as if Mr. Graziano holds some kind of a personal grudge against Chip Kelly and wound up writing a very immature, unprofessional article which came across like a 9th grade student writing a column in the school paper about how he hates the quarterback of the football team because he didn't invite him to that party that one time. In the future, every Graziano article should carry with it some fine print that says, "If you read this article all the way through, you may wind up thoroughly regretting it. 'Consider yourself warned!'"

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/52389/ncaa-labels-chip-kelly-a-cheater

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"