FOOTBALL

Sunday Buzz: The Backlash Continues

Did Matt Leinart feel some backlash to his weak response to the cancellation of the USC-Notre Dame game? Below is an updated response he gave to his initial comments.

I don’t understand the last line. “Understand the decision to suspend given the situation we were put into.”

What situation was that? Did someone force USC into the Big Ten? Did someone force USC to whine about its travel schedule? Did someone force USC to think it cannot play Notre Dame in November? If something happened, USC did it to itself.

He’s doing an awful lot of explaining, which means he is losing.

  • USC defensive line coach Shaun Nua is a “name to watch” for the BYU defensive coordinator’s job according to Bruce Feldman. This seems a bit of a stretch considering Nua’s never been a coordinator and BYU just won 11 games.

But it’s coaching, so anything is possible.

  • USC was given Whataburger today at the Alamo Bowl. Talk about a poor bowl experience. Some people in Texas like to claim it’s better than In-N-Out Burger, so I tried it once. Completely overrated.

12 thoughts on “Sunday Buzz: The Backlash Continues”

  2. Is Wolfe a closet ND fan? For someone who claims to talk to people (doubtful), he’s missed the national uproar of ND’s deal with the playoff committee. Wolfe is the one who seems to be squawking the most.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. The Big Ten conference office and schools confirmed to that all 18 schools received the full language of the CFP MOU, which was unanimously supported by all current and incoming members in March 2024.

      Stop lying.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. KAM: Based on what’s shown in the thread, Brain dead Vile antisemitic and racist Board Pest Board Cancer Cowardly Gabby aka Sparrow Calypso aka TebowObama aka Charlie Bucket the UCLA Fan aka The Guy who posts as Buddhakarma & So Cal’s Wife & Michael Guarino & Trojan RJJ & LawyerJohn & Pudly & Plow Horse and TrojanFan 1-3 & steveg49 & DOJ & Scott Wolf and Frank Young and KATHY and Foreskin Thoughts and SCOTTLOVESTHEROOOOOTTÞ and Manureman and eric  and Smacky and Board Moderator and scrumptious and lincoln could come across as nicer (and be better received) by changing how she engages, not just what she believes. Some practical ways:

      1. Drop the insults and name-calling
      Personal attacks, imitating posters, making obscene slurs, violent threats, doxxing posters, naming their home address and using another posters wife’s name in vile mocking language instantly shut down any chance of goodwill. Even people who might agree with her points will tune out once it turns hostile and psychotic.

      2. Respond to ideas, not people
      Instead of threating posters and the blog host (“meet me in Barstow,” etc.), focus on the argument itself.

      3. Stop re-litigating old posts
      Repeating her 25 year-old comments about fighting the blog host and oher posters in Barstow  to shame others keeps conflict alive. Letting old arguments stay in the past makes interactions feel less vindictive.

      4. Tone down repetition and spamming
      Posting the same accusations or threats of violence, doxxing and stalking posters, threatening to show up at their place of residence  or using hundreds of aliases over and over the last 25 years reads as harassment, not debate. Disappearing would go a long way.

      5. Change your tone

      A neutral or friendly tone matters more than “winning.” Even disagreeing politely (“We’ll have to agree to disagree” without threatening to attack them in Barstow ) changes how people perceive you.

      6. Model the behavior you want back
      If  Cowardly Gabby wants respect, she has to show it to Scott Wolf first. That means ending her 25 year streak of trying to destroy this site and flood it with her full mooner political opinions and obscene rants. She must go.

      Bottom line:
      Cowardly Gabby needs to change her sociopathic Democrat Party opinions to be nicer- she needs psychiatric evalauation in an institutional setting and deprogramming. Less hostility, less entitlement, more restraint, less animal d e f e ca t i o n videos, less criminal doxxing and stalking and insulting the wives of posters here  and a focus on discussion instead of creepy antisocial behavior would make her far more sane.

      Like

      Reply

      1. This comment is highly charged with inflammatory language and personal attacks, aimed at discrediting and vilifying the individual (Gabby) mentioned. It includes a combination of accusations, insults, and threats, which could be seen as an attempt to undermine her credibility and reputation in an online forum or discussion.

        Here’s a breakdown of some of the major elements and concerns:

        1. Name-Calling and Insults: The comment begins by listing several derogatory terms and aliases associated with the individual in question. The use of terms like “brain dead,” “vile,” “antisemitic,” “racist,” “cowardly,” and “Board Cancer” shows a clear intention to belittle and degrade Gabby. These labels are not based on any reasoned argument but are instead attempts to create a personal attack that dehumanizes the individual.
        2. Suggestions for ‘Improvement’: The commenter offers a list of suggestions about how Gabby could engage more “productively” or be “better received.” These suggestions may be framed as constructive, but they are undercut by the hostile language surrounding them. The points themselves, such as “drop the insults” and “respond to ideas, not people,” could have merit in the context of civil discourse, but they are presented in a tone that seems more about shaming rather than genuinely encouraging positive change.
        3. Personal Attacks and Doxxing: The comment accuses Gabby of engaging in severe behavior like “doxxing” (sharing personal information without consent), making threats, and using violent or obscene language. Whether or not these accusations are true, the focus on these behaviors rather than addressing any specific ideas or arguments makes the comment feel more like a personal vendetta.
        4. Tone of Aggression: The comment itself is filled with aggressive, provocative language aimed at provoking a reaction. Calling someone “sociopathic” or suggesting they need “psychiatric evaluation” and “deprogramming” is not only insulting but also highly unproductive in terms of any meaningful dialogue. This kind of language is likely to escalate conflict rather than foster understanding or resolution.
        5. Hyperbolic and Disrespectful Language: The comment’s exaggeration of Gabby’s actions (“25-year streak,” “flood it with her full mooner political opinions,” etc.) serves to magnify perceived faults in a way that borders on hyperbole. The use of extreme language like “animal defecation videos” is also an attempt to sensationalize and vilify without providing concrete evidence or examples that support the claim.
        6. Divisiveness: There’s a strong political and ideological undercurrent throughout the comment, particularly the mention of “sociopathic Democrat Party opinions.” This comment seems to frame political disagreements as personal attacks, reinforcing a divide rather than seeking to address the actual issues or ideas Gabby may be advocating for. This kind of divisiveness can derail conversations and deepen rifts between people with different views.

        Key Issues:

        • Ad Hominem Attacks: The primary approach of this comment is attacking the character and personal traits of Gabby rather than focusing on her arguments or actions in a reasonable way.
        • No Constructive Dialogue: The suggestions for improvement are buried under layers of hostility, making them seem more like insults than advice.
        • Escalation, Not Resolution: Rather than encouraging respectful discussion or resolution of conflict, the comment seeks to escalate the situation by framing Gabby as a villain in a highly exaggerated manner.
        • Personal and Political Bias: The comment includes politically charged language that may alienate readers rather than promote productive discussion.

        Conclusion:

        This comment is an example of highly aggressive online discourse that prioritizes personal attacks over constructive dialogue. While some of the suggestions could have been made in a more respectful and neutral tone, the overall approach is inflammatory and divisive. It reflects the challenges of engaging in online communities where emotions can run high and individuals resort to hostile language when disagreements arise. For healthy discourse, it’s important to focus on ideas, maintain a respectful tone, and avoid dehumanizing language.

        Like

  4. Hopefully, D’Anton Lynn leaves and takes Rob Ryan with him. And if Shuan Nua leaves we are at least 1/2 way there to a well coached defensive unit. Bring in  Pete Kwiatkowski from Texas and Jimmy Lake from the Rams. It may cost us in some recruiting battles but if you develop the guys and win that is the biggest recruiting advantage outside of a competitive NIL package.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  5. Sounds like Scott and Petros Papadakis are both ‘in tandem’ in their shiving USC. Not this week but at 5:00 am Wednesday on the 7th January tune in 570 KLAC and listen to Papadakis kiss Brady Quinn’s back end as he mocks USC’s prudent decision to have ‘the princess’ go get some other squad to burnish their record.
    The real intriguing annoying fool is Petey ‘the green elf’ Bevacqua….

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a reply to Gabby Cancel reply