In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1030
Online now 668 Record: 6507 (2/14/2012)
The place for Irish fans to engage in hardcore discussion about Notre Dame athletics
Talk with Irish fans from around the globe about college football's most storied program
The spot for anything on your mind outside of Notre Dame athletics
The place for Notre Dame fans to trade and exchange tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
"Allen Pinkett’s suggestion that Notre Dame needs more 'bad guys' on its football team is nonsense. Of course, Allen does not speak for the University, but we could not disagree more with this observation."
Allen really came across bad, the hosts tried to help him out and clearify but he really meant what he was saying.
For Fighting Irish radio analyst and former NFL Allen Pinkett, hes not concerned with off-the-field issues - as long as the person involved is a good enough football player. Chicago News, Sports, Weather, Traffic, and the Best of Chicago - CBS 2 TV | WBBM Newsradio 780 | 670 The Score
As I asked in another thread- What is it w/our radio color guys putting their foot in their mouth when it comes to telling the media what kinds of players ND needs in order to win big? First Hornung, now Pinkett.
My luck w/the Irish 20-6...GO IRISH!!!
What he said was not politically correct but so accurate! Didn't Stonebreaker get a nice DUI?
Do you think Allen's comments were meant to be more like Lou's comments about "needing at least 4-5 kids without a mailbox." If I understand what Pinkett was trying to say I agree to an extent but criminals was a poor choice of words. He was saying every team needs some kids with swagger and a little edge to them much like Aaron Lynch brought to the team(although it was disruptive to the team).
I can understand what Pinkett is trying to get across or his meaning. But he just worded it badly and it came across really ugly.
Attended: Michigan @ ND 2010 Southern Cal @ ND 2011 Stanford @ ND 2012 BCS National Title Game vs. Alabama-Jan 7, 2013 ND @ Air Force 2013
I agree brenner, that is what i think also.
Two time Poster of The Week, 2011 and 2013.
This issue goes to the heart of the self-contradictory nature of college football. A game I love like no other. I mention this because one might question if I like football at all given the following remarks. I assure you, though, that I do and am not just an old cynic.
Without directly opining on what Pinkett said, I would just like to clarify that college football is a nasty, brutal game, as is all football. CFB is not as vicious as pro football, but it's only a difference of quantity, not quality.
The tougher your team, the more violent and less socialized your players, the better you are likely to do. Sure, you need smart players, too, but just because a guy is a potential bouncer, boxer or felon does not mean he is stupid. Look at guys like Ditka or Mike Tyson. A little crazy? Yes. But not stupid.
Among many fans, there remains this notion that you can play -- particularly at ND -- a kind of chivalric football, using Marquiss of Queensbury rules and relying on a cast of Jack Armstrong types, intent on good clean fun.
I think that's how we often wish to see it. In truth, we are watching a game that is intentionally violent and, whether you get blindsided by a so-called tough guy like Aarron Lynch or by someone less overtly warlike, the result will be the same.
Nasty is nasty, and there is no more sought after quality on a football team than that. Football is combat, and you want guys who can -- pardon the expression -- knock the snot out of one another. Guys who will block, tackle, throw their heads in there, sacrifice their bodies and not worry about inflicting permanent damage on their brain tissue.
Given that CFB is sponsored by, of all things, universities, the violence aspect of the game must be continually massaged with rallies, new uniforms, TV coverage, new stadiums, media puff pieces, human interest stories, crisp fall weather, marching bands, female reporters, polished coaches, seer-like AD's, QB camps, and the whole pomp and circumstance that is the CFB BUSINESS.
Yes, CFB is in the VIOLENCE BUSINESS for the entertainment and purchasing power of millions upon millions. Whereupon, every now and then, someone -- somewhere within this system that is forever stroking and kidding itself -- unwittingly channels its collective unconscious, releasing, in the process, some taboo.
Let me repeat, I love the game and, for that sin, who knows what I'm in for, but I have no illusions about what is going on here, nor, would I expect, do many of the rest of you. We are complex creatures capable of enjoying what, at other times, we might deplore. We pick our battles and beliefs.
Watching this game is a lot easier than playing it, and those of you who did play, who cannot help but know this, can't tell me that you're not aware of what a lie it can look like from this, the safe side of the TV, as opposed to the mashing that actually takes place.
It is a violent game, and the tougher your players, the better you will do. How colleges sort that out versus their higher purpose is the stuff of fantasy, complicity and All-American PR. Their goal is to santize the violence in football, even as they serve it up. Guys with microphones sometimes forget this. Lose the script. Or just don't care.
I'm not interpreting what actually happened, but merely what sometimes can. Given the nature of football. Given what it actually is.
Pinkett is correct (though could have articulated it better for prime time) and Risksorter is right on.
You're absolutely right, Risk. It's a form of gladiatorial combat, which we've loved for centuries. Nasty is a prerequisite. Criminal is not. They are not synonyms. On the football field, Alan Page was a badass. Off the field, he put criminals in jail. Give me twenty-two Alan Page's and I'll like my chances against twenty-two criminals.
I may not be pretty, but I'm fast.....
POTW 1/31/11 - 2/6/11
Can't argue with that, Ham.
Although against 22 criminals, you would probably need 22 Alan Pages. Though I don't think you would lose much with a few Kevin Hardy's or Pete Duranko's thrown in.
Having watched the game (the mountain), then played it (no mountain), then watched it again (the mountain), football has taken on a kind of zen transcendence, which has allowed me to combine both its fantasy and violence elements into a kind of tatsty reality sandwich.
And, for me, this is okay, as long as the ability to criticize even that which I am dearly fond of remains operative.
I once worked in organizations that could have easily earned RICO indictments. Corporate names of the highest distinction. I still cashed my check every week. I'm not talking moral relativism here, but the problem is often harder than knowing just where to draw the line. Sometimes you must supply the line.
College footbal and the wider world. Where's that line? TBD, I would imagine.
In the meantime, friends, Romans, LET THE GAMES BEGIN.
If we're to take Pinkett at his word, then ND needs more Tommy Rees'.
If that's not what he meant, then he needs to figure out how to say it differently. "Nasty" doesn't get arrested. "Dumbass" gets arrested.
As does most of his color commentary on radio broadcasts of Notre Dame Football! Please notice I said "most".
One time POTW winner.
That is too funny! and true.
+1 from me, Ham.
"Having the right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it." -- Chief Justice Warren Burger
I don't disagree with Mr. Pinkett's sentiment, but I do disagree with the wording.
I guess for the last number of years, I couldn't see the ND team getting into a pre-game brawl in the tunnel. And I do think that mentallity (not the action) is necessary for us to make our opponents nervous when they come to ND stadium... and it comes from the coach to his staff to the captains and on down.
Member of the Gringo Mafia - chief infiltrator of the federales --- If life hands you lemons, throw them at an UofM fan
I jaywalk on a daily basis, refuse to recycle and never rinse and repeat..........put me in the game coach.
These are the times where I think your posts should be "premium." Great job.
Thanks very much, Lou.
That's high praise coming from a professional such as yourself, whose honesty and commitment to what you do I've always admired.
I'm humbled and just glad to be a part of this board. You guys have done a great job in turning it into nothing less than a good-faith community.
And, of course, it's always fun sparring with you on the endlessly debatable topic of a coach's third year!
I'm going to take a crack at helping Pinkett out here and be very presumptious in saying what I THINK he means:
If we could have a starting lineup made up entire of Alan Pages, Andy Hecks and Brady Quinns (i.e. All-American football players AND All-American human beings), then clearly that would be nirvana. It is also a fantasy.
These types of people are fantastic, but they are not the norm. The norm are everyday guys who are generally good people, but are also knuckleheads. I saw guys like Mike Stonebreaker, Wes Pritchett, Stan Smagala, Ned Bolcar and a whole host of other guys from the mid/late 80's. Some of these guys were knuckleheads/goofballs extraordinaire! Really good guys, but certainly not whitewashed manequins like many people have been conditined to expect today.
I don't think Pinkett really meant "criminals" in the 1980's Miami Hurricane's sense of the word. I think he meant that we need guys with some edge, some gusto, some spunk, some personality, some energy -- we need some guys that don't ask "mother may I" everytime they go to the bathroom.
My commentary still isn't really hitting the mark, but I THINK I know what Pinkett was trying to say, but did so in a way that just opened the door wide open for people to hammer him.
Football is a mean, nasty, violent game. The top teams in the country have some mean, nasty, edgy dudes. A team full of choir boys is going to have a hard time competing. We don't need criminals, but having guys with a fire in the belly, some edge and a little bit of a wild streak helps.
This post was edited by Mohawk 20 months ago
IMHO, we definitely don't need criminal, but I don't even think we need nasty. What we do need is twenty-two "warriors" with a single-minded focus and commitment to winning, so much so that it absolutely rips their guts out when they lose. Also need talent, but that's a given. To me, that was always symbolized by the look in Mike Singletary's eyes.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports