Answer Tuesday (SG Forum, Part 2)

Q: Everyone has an image of cheerleaders being wholesome and All-American and in an ideal world, that is what they will be. But as we've seen with the USC Song Girls of the 2000s, they have been quite sleazy without any notion of morals or values. So could it just be the girls who have tried out for the squad this decade have not had any values and this is all we have had to work with. Could it be the girls who ended up as Song Girls were not interested in being wholesome and simply wanted to be Song Girls for personal gain, whatever that gain may have been?

A: I wouldn't use the adjectives you did. I would merely say the Internet allows things to become public knowledge that would never be found out in the 1970's or 80's.

Q: When the Song Girls coach's daughter was on the squad in 2005 and 2006, the Song Girls website had, literally, hundreds of pictures posted each season. But if you click on the 2007 season, there is a grand total of FIVE pictures! Five pictures for the entire year, encompassing basketball, football and all their other activities. The 2008 squad has about 20 pictures. So we went from hundreds of pictures a year, which were updated immediately following each event, to between 5-20 pictures when the coach's daughter was gone? Coincidence?

A: This is the type of observation that makes the athletic dept. tell me the readers comments should be deleted.

Q: Considering how both the advisor and coach of the song girls are now quite clearly claiming they have nothing to do with the selection committee (yeah, right...) and barely have anything to do with the song girls as it is, then why are they even still involved with the song girls? They claim they are peripheral players at best so why not set step aside and let some other people who actually want to do something positive take over the job?

A: Again, an observation that will cause the athletic dept. to ban reader comments!