Whether it's USA Today or the fine folks on mavpuck.com, it's time to rehash the Lawrence Phillips saga again. What the heck, it's the 10 year anniversary. And whether it's Bernard Goldberg or some 2-bit hack (wait a minute, Bernard Goldberg IS a 2-bit hack), they usually don't let the facts get in the way of their argument.
I must admit that when Tom Osborne reinstated LP, I was disappointed and felt it was the wrong thing to do. But I also understood Osborne's motivation at the time, and while I disagreed with it, I knew it wasn't to win football games. Let's face it, if anyone believes that Nebraska needed LP in 1995, go watch that Fiesta Bowl video tape again. (Dave Letterman joked a few days later that "uh oh, Nebraska just scored again.) How many pro-bowls has that other running back been too again? Nebraska and T.O. "needed" Phillips in 1995? Puh-leaze. Give me a break.
Revisiting L.P. is a non-issue, and anything he has done in his personal life since leaving is by his own choice. Everyone who knows college football knows that actions of L.P. were in no way were discounted of by T.O.
ReplyDeleteT.O. and the staff did a tremendous job changing boys into productive men. (Not stating that there have not been failures along the way.)
I'm not concerned with people who think that T.O. HAD to have L.P. play to win another championship, or that the Nebraska program was full of head cases like L.P., because it proves how limited their knowledge of college football truely is.
(If an idiot wants to be an idiot, nothing you do will make them anything other than an idiot.)