Dale blindside's JJ

by **jimhagle** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:28 am

Knowing Hansen he probably told JJ he wouldn't bring up the Tyler situation and then did anyway just to try to unravel him. He is what he is- a comic bookish, poorly informed sports reporter.

by **OR-See-Nee** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:47 am

I agree with other posters that I wish JJ was wearing some SMU merchandise.

I liked how giddy JJ was when he was mentioning speed!

I would have liked for JJ to have had a better prepared response to the Tyler situation. That's a softball question.

Hansen can't deliver a question worth a you-know-what. He was reading from cards, looked unprepared, and did not interview well.

All in all, the interview wasn't the best in the world, but it didn't hurt us, either.

Which leads one to ask the question: how much more important is substance over style? Had that interview been with a new SMU coach other than JJ, would we be taking a different take on it? The fact that JJ has some skins on the wall allows him to have an "okay" interview.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:00 am

When you go on TV for an interview and there has been an article about your team in the last week in a major publication, you cannot be "blindsided" by a question about the subject of that article. If Jones didn't have a good answer (and he didn't), it his own darn fault.

Sorry, but 'tis the truth.

by **couch 'em** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:14 am

I don't think JJ has ever been accused of being a great interview personality. He gave a rambling response that didn't make SMU look bad and didn't give [deleted] much fodder to nail him with anything about it. The average person would have no idea what either of them were talking about. The interview was fine. Just get JJ something with a pony on it.

by **Stallion** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:27 am

what's more fascinating is that some seem to think an interview is of vital importance to the program. Whup Whup! No it didn't hurt us whup! whup!

by **Dutch** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:30 am

true.

Heck. we're probably the only people that turned the channel or tivo'd it. If anyone else saw it, it's 'cuz they were already tuned in just for general sports - which there wasn't much sport going on yesterday other than the buick open

by **George S. Patton** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:33 am

Stallion wrote:what's more fascinating is that some seem to think an interview is of vital importance to the program. Whup Whup! No it didn't hurt us whup! whup!

Chat boards have their own beautiful way of making mountains out of mole hills.

Anyone think Mark Turgeon went off the deep end last week after the Aggies lost to Baylor in 5 OTs? Then after they won in Stillwater, the hype on it died.

This interview with Jones appealed to a very finite audience -- US and those who were halfway interested in SMU.

We're the ones breaking this down to the nth degree. We have some recruiting to do.

by **SMUer** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:21 am

I have a PR question: Why not simply say Dews wasn't the right fit for our new offense? Isn't that what it boils down to?

A) He didn't fulfill is conditioning regiment
B) June Jones looks at him and simply thinks he's not that good (KP)
C) He isn't a guy that Jones invisions as a fit for his line.

Do him the favor (if it's his fault) and say C) because it doesn't make anyone look back-stabbing, everyone is expecting a shift in SMU's program anyway and so naturally some players that were courted by PB will not longer fit in the new offense. We did give all the players notice about the transition so why is that next logical response to why guys are getting cut so hard?

by **ponyboy** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:23 am

Dutch wrote:there wasn't much sport going on yesterday other than the buick open

Golf isn't a sport.

by **Junior** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:31 am

SMUer wrote:I have a PR question: Why not simply say Dews wasn't the right fit for our new offense? Isn't that what it boils down to?

A) He didn't fulfill is conditioning regiment
B) June Jones looks at him and simply thinks he's not that good (KP)
C) He isn't a guy that Jones invisions as a fit for his line.

Do him the favor (if it's his fault) and say C) because it doesn't make anyone look back-stabbing, everyone is expecting a shift in SMU's program anyway and so naturally some players that were courted by PB will not longer fit in the new offense. We did give all the players notice about the transition so why is that next logical response to why guys are getting cut so hard?

Because he is a defensive lineman.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:32 am

Jones talking points should have been:

1) It is an unfortunate situation. It could have been handled better. Stems from a lack of communication.

2) My understanding was that kids were told that the new coach would have the final say about scholarship offers that were made and he interpreted that statement one way. I interpreted it another way.

3) We have had two weeks on the job; we have a real time crunch. If we had been on the job since December, we would have had time to explain the situation to the kids better than we did.

4) This is an unfortunate thing and is part of the college landscape these days when coaches only have a limited number of scholarships to give each year. If the kid had decided on his own to decommit from one school and go to another school like so many others do every year, no one would have thought a thing about it.

by **SMUer** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:33 am

Junior wrote:Because he is a defensive lineman.

Apologies. ESPN lists him as a center lineman, and the 22nd best center at that. They also list him as going to North Shore HS so maybe their system is way out of date. I've obviously been bamboozled.

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncf/recruiti ... son%3d2008

by **Diamond Girl** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:39 am

I was surprised Dale waited until halfway through the interview to mention 'death penalty.' I also got the impression Dale wasn't all that interested in talking to JJ in the first place, that he was doing it because there wasn't anything better to cover during the time he's allotted to cover the 'Boys at the Super Bowl. Dale was completed bored, and JJ looked ill at ease knowing that Dale wasn't that into the interview.

by **Mexmustang** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:59 am

I agree, JJ did not have a good answer. I know he really can't talk too much about a recruit...can't talk about who you plan on signing any more than those you've written off. But to say SMU handled it properly and that he never meet or had contact with the kid is really not a good way to handle it. The good news is that the kid got a scholarship at another school, with his friends and this whole affair will be over in two weeks.

Maybe there is a better way for the system to operate, but I don't have any workable ideas to suggest to the NCAA.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:29 pm

Bottom line: It doesn't matter.

Dale is just somebody you have to put up with in this market. He still has a bigger audience than everyone else. He still has an ego the size of Nebraska; you don't want to get on his bad side. If you are offered the chance to be in-studio with him on Sunday night, you have to do it.

I thought the Channel 5 piece was excellent.

Dale blindside's JJ

Who is online