Sports writers are an interesting bunch, aren't they? I read many every day. As a USC Trojans football fan living in New Jersey, I'm online everyday reading the LA Times and the LA Daily News. I've come to the conclusion in recent weeks, the LA Times writers simply hate Pete Carroll and do not like the Trojans program. I base this on a season's worth of coverage including consistent dooms day predictions of the Trojans season. The LA Daily News, I believe has been far more objective. They too have pointed out negatives, as they should about USC this season, including putting up warning flags about the Oregon State game before it was played. But they have given credit where credit is due.
Today, Sunday 12/7/08, two columnists, one from each paper illustrate how everything you read may not be true and how everyone has their own agenda, and own lense.
The LA Times's Bill Plaschke writes a column today regarding USC/UCLA, yesterday's game and UCLA's future. Here it is. Read it:
The LA Daily News's Steve Dilbeck also writes a column regarding the same subject matter, the future of UCLA. Read it:
After reading both, and after watching the game on ABC yesterday (with a TV crew who so obviously and so badly wanted a UCLA upset to keep viewership interest), I tend to agree completely with Dilbeck and wonder what hell Plaschke is talking about (though it is predictable he or Chris Dufrense would write such things).
Let me make my own biases and views of yesterday's game clear here: I love USC. I don't hate UCLA at all, but do think Rick Neuheisel is a snake, and the wrong man to be at UCLA (DeWayne Walker should be the head coach). UCLA was a little too emotional yesterday and therefore a tad classless. USC's future concerns me. UCLA's future makes me chuckle and assures me at the very least the Trojans will always have that "monolopy" as the ad published by the LA Times by the way now has made this an issue.
So go ahead USC and UCLA fans, and those who see how columnists angle the same thing in different ways. Enjoy two different views of the same thing. Tell us what you think.