Spotlight Question
Here's another question regarding John David Booty and the Stanford game.
Q: Scott, concerning the Booty vs. Sanchez in the Stanford game, you wrote, in part:
"A: I have not seen this interview but if what you say is true, it is interesting because Carroll finally admitted to you fans what he told me during the season: That he would not put Sanchez in the game. During the season, Carroll said repeatedly that he made a mistake leaving Booty in the game. But he told me that was really spin to take the heat off Booty."
Here is my question: Did you previously report that discrepancy? (I don't recall it, that's for sure.) If not, why did you keep such information to yourself? Did he tell you to keep off the record? Any other reason to keep that info private? Any insight as to your thought process (if it wasn't reported) is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the forum.
A: I've repeatedly written that Carroll's public answer was designed to take the heat off Booty and he did not feel he made a mistake.
For example, on Jan. 2, I wrote about this post-game quote at the Rose Bowl from Carroll.
````I've told you 1,000 times I blew it and screwed it up,'' Carroll said. ``I made a horrendous error in judgment.
``This remains perplexing, because Carroll said when he first made this statement it was spin intended to take the heat off criticism of Booty.''
This is why I found his answer interesting last week on the video.
One thing I have always admired about Coach is that in his mind his players come first. Just ask Petros, when Coach lit into him for putting down Leinart on his radio show.
Right or wrong, Carroll is going to stand up for his boys. He is like a surrogate father to them. And if this means fudging on the truth once in a while, then he will do it.
Finally, is this the final final word on the SC-Stanford game? Is it now safe to move on with our lives?
Speaking of which, did you notice that SC is a 2 1/2 to 1 favorite to win the national championship in 2008? Ohio State is 4 to 1. ucla is 75 to 1.
2 1/2 to 1 is great, but it means Troy has a 29% chance of winning; and a 71% chance of not winning the title. Not a sure thing, so don't be disappointed in 2008.
Or perhaps it just means that SC fans are more willing to wager our team than are the fans of other teams.
Remember that betting lines are not a reflection of some statistician's analysis of the likelihood of something happening, but rather are designed to get as many people betting FOR something happening as betting AGAINST the same thing happening.
Good point.
Still, a betting line is usually established that is reasonable and rational. And if not, the market will bring it into a more proper alignment, albeit not always perfect. That is, heavy SC wagering may have somehwhat skewed the odds, but it is safe to say that the range is somewhere between 2:1 and 4:1.
USCMIKE...I have a question for you. Do you accept SW's answer to your questions? I know there is a one-question limit, but yours, basically led to just one answer. I think it was a typical SW tap dance. A good query, in response to a person stirring "the pot of crap". My sources say... Pete Carroll will be the head coach for the '08 season.
Hey BcS:
Scott notes that he wrote on JANAUARY 2ND that "This remains perplexing, because Carroll said when he first made this statement it was spin intended to take the heat off criticism of Booty."
The crux of my question was WHEN did Scott first know that Carroll was saying one thing publicly (e.g., "I screwed up") and saying another thing privately ("I was protecting Booty's feelings.").
If Scott was aware of Carroll's private thoughts in close proximity to the Stanford game, why wasn't it reported then? (I certainly don't recall it, but others might).
I'll borrow an old saying from Watergate: What did he know and when did he know it?
If Scott first wrote about it on JANUARY 2ND, but knew about it after the Stanford game, I wanted to know why he sat on that information. We didn't get an answer to that.
Scott does like to stir the pot. On this issue, though, I am curious whether he initially was protecting Pete or maybe Pete's private thoughts were off-the-record.
oops ... January