Van pelt "has serious reservations" | Syracusefan.com

Van pelt "has serious reservations"

690West

Moneyline Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
11,473
Like
20,768
He's gonna talk about it. I think he's about to have the most pro Syracuse take nationally
 
Doesn't mean a thing... he has the same info we all do.

True. But he is a sports media professional who might have insight about how this was reported, a perspective on whether Schwartz's presentation of the material was sensationalist versus appropriate, how he might have handled the sources / accusers differently, etc.

It will be interesting to see what he has to say.
 
Who is this referring to--Scott Van Pelt of ESPN?
 
Doesn't mean a thing... he has the same info we all do.

Right now it does mean something. It means you have people that have a voice that are saying positive things and discounting the negative things. This helps in the area of public perception. If everyone on ESPN is saying BURN SU and FINE is a monster then that is what america is going to believe. But if you have ESPN divided then american is also going to be divided. This will also help us when/if this turns out to be false.
 
SVP says there was a lot of "push back" at ESPN whether or not to go forward with this story since it's not a grand jury report, but only allegations.
 
It just seems like, as with Penn State, there would be some hint of impropriety that people connected to the program would have picked up on. AND, if there is a hint of such things, who in their right mind would come out vehemently in support of Fine. You have a lot people coming forward immediately with this - on the Penn State scandal, not a word really that I recall in support of Sandusky.
 
Van Pelt says there are people within ESPN that had serious reservations about this story. States that its OTL and they have a very respectable investigative unit, but there's a lot of questions not answered.
 
Doesn't mean a thing... he has the same info we all do.

Yeah. Dude, I'm not saying he has new info. Someone who has a MILLION people listening can help with PR
 
They are asking a lot of the same questions we are, re: how is this possible at age 27, where was Lang in 03 and 05, etc.
 
It just seems like, as with Penn State, there would be some hint of impropriety that people connected to the program would have picked up on. AND, if there is a hint of such things, who in their right mind would come out vehemently in support of Fine. You have a lot people coming forward immediately with this - on the Penn State scandal, not a word really that I recall in support of Sandusky.

That's an interesting point.

I imagine if JB thought that there might be some validity to the accusations, his tact might have been equally strong, but more focused on defending himself against the perception that he could / should have known, etc.
 
I'm pleasantly surprised the Van Pelt would have the onions to question the reporting of a colleague and his own network's decision to run with the allegations.
 
I'm pleasantly surprised the Van Pelt would have the onions to question the reporting of a colleague and his own network's decision to run with the allegations.

To be fair, he's not outright calling out Schwarz. He's just saying that there were a lot of people saying, we didn't report this then; why would we report it now? The answers around the table were the second accuser, Lang. The next obvious question is well, why is he coming out now? And that's where he left it.
 
I'm pleasantly surprised the Van Pelt would have the onions to question the reporting of a colleague and his own network's decision to run with the allegations.

Yeah. SVP seems like a great guy. Ruccilo too
 
Very good excerpt from SVP, very objective and asking many of the same questions we all have. You could tell he was skating on very thin ice when talking about the decision to run the story, and you could tell he doesn't necessarily agree with the decision to run it with what they have now. Can't wait to hear Tirico on the subject in 15 minutes.
 
Watching...SVP says one difference is how bold JB has been to make a denial and call accuser a liar...that is black and white with no gray area...he is doubtful about the whole incident...but just the same...no rush for acquital or sentencing...got to let it play out
 
Very good excerpt from SVP, very objective and asking many of the same questions we all have. You could tell he was skating on very thin ice when talking about the decision to run the story, and you could tell he doesn't necessarily agree with the decision to run it with what they have now. Can't wait to hear Tirico on the subject in 15 minutes.

Mike T.'s words, if pro-BF or anti-Davis, might be taken with a grain, given his alma mater...now if it's cautionary to ESPN running with it at this point, that would be different.
 
I wonder what Gottlieb will have to say on his show afterwards...ugh..

I'd expect Doug to spend very little time on the story, he'll cover the deaths of the Oklahoma State coaches, effect in Stillwater, his memories from ten years ago, etc. Which I have no problem with; that's what his air time should be focused on today since he's "inside" that story.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,421
Messages
4,702,938
Members
5,908
Latest member
AlCuse

Online statistics

Members online
34
Guests online
1,482
Total visitors
1,516


Top Bottom