The local backlash against this story was immediate. Nobody likes a publication that was once the authority for sports in America to take a cheap shot at a state school.
But what if it wasn’t a cheap shot? What if it is entirely accurate?
On the other had, what if it was really a cheap shot based on some shoddy reporting and tainted journalism?
What if it is a mixed bag?
The counsel of those ancient proverbs is most appropriate in this modern context.
The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.
So the wisdom of the ages tells us to just wait and see?
Today, we would say that there are two sides to every story. Actually, two is the minimum. There are normally many faucets and perspectives to every story. That’s why a 60 minute football game is accompanied by 60 hours worth of pre and post game commentary.
I doubt that there is a major college football program in this country that is squeaky clean, especially when it comes to boosters and other fanatical fans that are not directly under the control of university officials. That said, I doubt that there is a single major university that would throw caution to the wind and embark on a win at all costs mentality.
Too many coaches care too much about developing character in young men to then engage in the hypocrisy of winning at all costs.
But the biblical wisdom says, let the investigation or investigations that follow run their course. The first to speak has the initial advantage, can make the first impression, and absent a sound cross-examination might even prevail.
The initial follow up to the SI articles looks like there might be yellow flags all over the journalism field. This one might just be coming back to the original line of scrimmage.
Now is the time for cross examination and to consider all factors. We don’t need to strain any mental muscles by jumping to conclusions.