« Sonny Vaccaro goes Ivy League | Main | New Money Players book cover design »

September 23, 2007


Mark Bledsoe

Criticizing a players playing ability is one thing, criticizing the player for who he is, which Carlson did, is another. Also, don't print rumors in the newspaper, unless you say "rumor is"


There was no reason whatsoever for you or anyone else to bring up the Oklahoman columnist's gender. It should be irrelevant.

Also lost here is the content of that column, which was pretty over the line, amateur or otherwise.


Van, there is a reason her Jenni Carlson's gender was brought up. If you go to the OSU message boards and read what they are saying about her, you would be very upset as well. If it was a male reporter, chances are likely that Gundy would have not pulled off that stunt Saturday.

In Gundy's eyes, he had a problem with what she wrote, and that she was a female. By berating her in public, he thought that he would shamed her for writing it. Jim Calhoun and Geno Auriemma have done this to female reporters in the past, and nothing was said.

Of course her gender is irrelevant, but it is statement of fact and part of the story. You try to tell that to a bunch of over-reacting individuals acting childishly when they are questioned about their handling of a situation.


The argument that college athletes are kids is absurd. 19, 20 year olds can vote, go to war, even play professional sports. Insulating these "kids" from criticism is not only unrealistic, but it's also counterproductive. IMO, the article is really not that bad. Toughness is absolutely a prerequisite for playing football. In Carlson's opinion Reid has been codled and is not mentally tough -- and these characteristics may explain why he has not played up to his abilities. I could have lived without the anecdote of Reid's mother feeding him chicken, but I don't think it was nearly as bad as Gundy described. Of course, he didn't read the article.


Turn around is fair play in the case of Jenni Carlson.

Those of you that are writing that the fact Carlson is a female should not be mentioned are making the same point that Coach Gundy was making.
What you objectors are saying is that it is okay to use personal information against a college football player but personal information should not be used against a paid professional female writer. This is nothing more than a double standard and that political correctness is the rule of the day.
I am sick and tired of women getting a pass when they venture into the male arena of competition and say something that they have no clue about. Writing personal opinions about the player is a statement that Jenni Carlson came up short in her ability to write about football. She should not be protected and is fair game because SHE MADE IT PERSONAL.
If women want to play with the big boys and be "equal", then do not complain when you take a hit.


I think what the coach did was appropriate. The coach was merely sticking up for his players. If it is appropriate for the journalist to criticize the player then it is completely appropriate for the coach to criticize the journalist. Don't let his emotion could your judgment for the contnent that he was trying to convey. The author of that article has a medium for conveying her message (i.e. the newspaper), whereas the athlete has no such medium, thus the Coach used his post game press conference to speak on behalf of his player. I applaud the coach.


I disagree, Steve. She, at no time in her column, made it personal towards the player or Coach Gundy. At no time. Point to where she took a veiled shot at him.

And I'll say it again, Steve, no one is using her gender as an excuse. My point is that historically, women reporters who cover sports have been treated poorly by coaches and players, simply because of their gender. That's not an opinion, that is a statement of fact.

Gundy has a right to defend his players. It was how he handled it is the problem. Brandon, it does matter how his emotions were at that time. If he wanted to discuss it, he should have cooled off, addressed in private with her. That is all he had to do.

Mike Gundy is the head football coach of Oklahoma State University. He is held to a higher standard, for he is a state employee and one of the highest paid. That spotlight is on him, not on Jenni Carlson. She did her job: research the facts and report on it. It was not a smear job. Fans wanted to know why Bobby Reid was not starting and Zac Robinson is. Gundy didn't provide full disclosure and going on the information she had from sources and research, she reported what she knew.

This was no damn "gotcha" tactic. She did her job, and he replied. At least she was in the room when he lost his temper.

To add, she CALMLY asked him on the teleconference what errors in the story that he had issues with, and he refused to say it.

Face it, the facts are this: Gundy has not coached up to his ability at OSU. The pressure is on for him to have this team in the top half of the Big 12 South. With all of the new renovations at OSU, with T. Boone Pickens bankrolling nearly everything, Gundy's decisions, not including the Reid/Robinson switch, has been suspect. Case in point: the Troy game. The Cowboys were lethargic and didn't play with urgency. Reid was on the sidelines laughing as OSU was being blown out.

Gundy looked helpless and lost. Why this team show up to play Tech and not against Georgia and Troy?

You may not like how reporters are cocky and arrogant, but a good number of them are not in that category. Carlson is the latter. Coaches are not jerks and pompous, and I'm sure Gundy is a nice guy, but you can't act that like in a childish manner, regardless what his intentions were.

He took away the attention of his team's big win. Those kids are not getting the attention they deserved as a result of this.


After finally watching the tirade, I don't think that Gundy went after Carlson because she is a woman, but because he didn't agree with what she wrote, and he's under a lot of pressure and needs someone to take it out on and the media is always an easy target. However, I don't think he would have attacked a male columnist in the same fashion, just as I don't think Skip Kenney would have called up a male reporter and told him not to cover the NCAA Swim Championships because his reporting was too negative.


The reaction you get is the meaning of your communication!
If you desire a different outcome, clarify by refining the information and print it again.
How could Carlson possibly link the player's mother to the game of football.
Sorry R.H in putting your "spin" on defending Carlson you are about effective as putting lipstick on a pig to make a pig not look like a pig.
Poor Carlson, maybe we should offer her some sugar for the next time she wants to put her foot in her mouth.
And poor, poor Debbie ..... nice try at spinning and attempting to redefine a public response to a published opinion by Carlson as an attack! It did not work!
This is a long used ruse by women in response to being called on their actions.
Hell hath no fury like the woman who PERCEIVES she has been scorned!

Marc Isenberg

You wrote, "The reaction you get is the meaning of your communication!" This is nonsensical. Ever hear of the concept of disagreement? Or are you just telling us the meaning of Gundy's rant??

Gundy admitted he didn't read the article, so he wasn't even reacting to what Carlson wrote, which derails your argument above.

Re fact that Carlson is female...Gundy made a completely unprofessional attack leveled at her, a relevant point because a) the sports media is male-dominated and b) attacking a female meant it was less likely it would escalate to a more heated two-way confrontation. Please tell me many times has Gundy stood up to male reporters...at tape-recorded press conferences?

I don't have kids (yet) so maybe I just can't really comprehend your comments. But I am married to someone who has worked as a sports journalist...the person you referred to as "poor, poor Debbie." She certainly doesn't need my help defending her points.


Marc! Marc! Marc! You made this response to easy for me!

Carlson (female) makes comments, Gundy (male) responds, and Carlson (female) is there to take the heat for what she wrote. Good for Carlson.

Debbie (female) makes comments on a public forum takes a position.
Debbie (female) is responded to because she ventured into the arena of discussion and stated her opinion. Game on!

Debbie responds, oh no, wait! Husband responds, Debbie keeps quiet.

My point is that if women are to grow as individuals, then they need to take responsibilty for what they say and do. As much as I understand why you responded, you did not do your wife any favor.

Let her and every other female who takes a challenging stance stand tall and take responsibility for themselves.

Marc, the term the reaction you get is the meaning of the communication is one used by Neuro Linguistic Programming practioners. It means that what any person says may not have the same meaning when the comment is taken in by another person. Only then can we understand what our words mean to others instead of what we think they mean.

Wikipedia is one of the best models around for proving intent in meaning does not make a statement true. If you post on Wikipedia, you know in advance that somewhere, somehow someone is going to challange.
A PHD candidate knows full well of what they face in the near future when they sit down and start writing.
Even Bill Clinton knows what I am talking about, remember "Depends on what your definition of is, is!"

tom in PA

I applaud Gundy proudly.

Jenni Carlson and her editors should NOT publish a piece that slams and rips into the personality of a kid. Reid is not a paid professional. He is a young person trying to do well.

We can not slam 100% of the kids who aren't Heisman trophy winners. Reid is simply a kid that was given the chance to make the team because he was one of the best available --- not because he is the next Joe Montana or Tom Brady. He wasn't given millions of dollars.

Carlson's editors should resign for letting that piece be published.

If they want to start an "Equirer" for sports, then great --- but I think they should focus on professional athletes, not unpaid kids who have been invited to play QB because they stood out while the college was recruiting.

I would be proud for my kids to have a coach like Gundy.

Does McNabbs Mom Feed Chunky to the Eagles

Where is Jenni's article about McNabb's mom feeding Chunky soup to the team?

Where is her article about Peyton Manning, Joe Montana and Brett Farve being "momma's boys"?

Marc Isenberg

From your posts I see you like to make convenient generalizations about women. Definitely doesn't apply to Deb -- and pretty much all her friends and business colleagues. I ended my post saying that I don't need to defend what she wrote; she can certainly do it herself, which I am sure she'll do if she has the time (and the interest).


Marc -
Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference)


Well Marc, the author will let you have the last word because my reply to you was censored and not posted.
Freedom of speech in this forum is not possible, par for the course in today's press rooms.

Marc Isenberg

No I did not censor...first, I didn't think it made any sense...second, I didn't think you wrote it.

Why should I post something you didn't write or even attribute???


You've reached a point where your comments don't really support the purpose of why I created this blog.


I'm new here, just wanted to say hello and introduce myself.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Money Players: The book